Ex cathedra

  • Thread starter Thread starter coco2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coco2

Guest
How many times in history has a Pope made a teaching or statement Ex Cathedra? How do you know for certain he is speaking “Ex Cathedra” unless he specifically states this? I remember hearing theologian, Scott Hahn, once says that he believes it has only been done TWICE throughout history, and both of those times had to do with Mary, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.

Does the Vatican have an actual list of Ex Cathedra teachings?
 
I think I’ve heard somewhere that it’s only happened twice too, in those same two instances.
 
I think I’ve heard somewhere that it’s only happened twice too, in those same two instances.
That’s what most RC theologians agree on. But there are other documents and bulls that meet the requirements set at Vatican I for a document to be Infallible.
 
That’s what most RC theologians agree on. But there are other documents and bulls that meet the requirements set at Vatican I for a document to be Infallible.
Do you have a list?
 

  1. *]“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
    *]Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
    *]Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
    *]Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
    *]Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
    *]Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
    *]Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

    Blessings to all
 
There are many lists but no definite one. Not even the Roman Church can produce one.
A very puzzling state of affairs, given that the Latins are so often accused of overanalyzing, over-defining, and over-dogmatizing everything. 😛
Of all the possible infallible statements my favourite is Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X.
Do you hold a special grudge against Martin Luther? 😛 Or do you find something in the document particularly problematic? (I have a hunch what this could be, but I’ll allow you to explain.)
 

  1. *]“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
    *]Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
    *]Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
    *]Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
    *]Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
    *]Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
    *]Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

    Blessings to all

  1. Where do Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical against women ordination fall? People never count them along with the IC and Assumption declarations. But in practical terms, they are taken by Catholics to have effectively ended any debate whatever with regard to contraception and the possibility of women ordination.
 
Where do Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical against women ordination fall? People never count them along with the IC and Assumption declarations. But in practical terms, they are taken by Catholics to have effectively ended any debate whatever with regard to contraception and the possibility of women ordination.
Humanae Vite was not an infallible statement only an infallible teaching. The Press secretary of Paul VI after the publication made that clear, which caused a lot of confusion. The teaching was always held and Pope Paul VI was just saying that this teaching was always held. Being always held as a teaching is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium-- believed always and everywhere. Same goes for JPII, he referenced to the Universal Ordinary Magesterium.
Infallible statements make it clear as such, what MUST be believed, like “We define…”… “We proclaim…”. "We teach absolutely… " “anyone who believes ( such and such error)…let him be anathema”

Unfortunately at times the pope has used the word “declare” for a Church discipline and has caused confusion. So the clear statement must be a categorical statement x=x or x does not equal x.

Pius the XI used first the Universal Ordinary Magesrtium and then gave an infallible statement on birth control.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’56), Dec. 31, 1930:
56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition (eg.Universal Ordinary Magesteriusm) some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, **raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims **anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

What is condemned in Ecumenical council is always considered infallible. So If someone wants a list of infallible teachings go to the Ecumenical councils. Vatican II was different in that Pope John XXIII and Paul VI made it clear it wasn’t using the Ex Cathedra charism only saying that Vat II must be understood as a pastoral council and seen in light of the continuity of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magesterium.

Another statement that is considered infallible but didn’t make the list above

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and **we firmly believe and simply confess **this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, **we declare, say, define, and proclaim **to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

This one is tricky because it wasn’t written to the whole Church, which is the norm for a infallible teaching, but subsequent council and popes have said it is infallible:

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council 1512-17, session # 11:
“Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ’s faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers,(Universal Ordinary Magesterium) and **as is declared **by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution,.”( Ex Cathedra, Peter has spoken thru council–infallible).
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum18.htm

So when there is a doubt about a document being infallible a subsequent statement teaching it clearly as such as to what must be believed can be made.

Pius XII also taught the same that Unam Sanctam was a solemn teaching but used only the Universal Ordinary Magesrtium, by refering to it always being taught:“his successors have never ceased to repeat the same”
**
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical, MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI, June 29, 1943, par #40-41:**
“After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM
 
A very puzzling state of affairs, given that the Latins are so often accused of overanalyzing, over-defining, and over-dogmatizing everything. 😛

Do you hold a special grudge against Martin Luther? 😛 Or do you find something in the document particularly problematic? (I have a hunch what this could be, but I’ll allow you to explain.)
No lol, I’m relatively cool with Luther.
And yes, it’s curious because it meets all the requirements set at Vatican I to be infallible yet it contains some errors here and there.
 
That’s what most RC theologians agree on. But there are other documents and bulls that meet the requirements set at Vatican I for a document to be Infallible.
What exactly are the “requirements”?
 
What exactly are the “requirements”?
From the Vatican I Council …
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal infallibility defined

So a papal pronouncement is only ex cathedra when “spoken from the chair,” dealing with faith or morals and intended to be binding on the whole Church.
 
Where do Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical against women ordination fall? People never count them along with the IC and Assumption declarations. But in practical terms, they are taken by Catholics to have effectively ended any debate whatever with regard to contraception and the possibility of women ordination.
Here is what Vatican II (an Infallible document) says about Papal Infallibility:

"…And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith…" - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium*

Now in Pope John Paul II’s infallible statement Ordinatio Sacerdotalis for why women can’t be priests, the following excerpt is the part in the document makes it an infallible statement:

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” - Ordinatio Sacerdotolis, Pope John Paul II

**Requirements for Infallible Papal Statement Checklist

Matter of faith and/or Morals - Yes

Pope makes it clear he is acting in his role as the successor to Peter (ex cathedra) - Yes

Judgment is to be definitively held for the whole universal Church - Yes**

The Pope also says in the same document that it was already an infallible teaching of the Church and that other infallible statements were recently made saying that women can’t be priests:

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.” - Ordinatio Sacerdotolis, Pope John Paul II

See how the Pope is using the same key words as are used in Vatican II’s teaching on Papal Infallibility, and keep in mind that Vatican II itself is an infallible document. Here is a side by side comparison of each:
*
“…And this is the infallibility…in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith…” - Lumen Gentium
“in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)” - Ordinatio Sacerdotolis*
*
“…And this is the infallibility…when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful…by a definitive act…” - Lumen Gentium
“this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” - Ordinatio Sacerdotolis*
*
“…And this is the infallibility…he proclaims a doctrine of faith…” - Lumen Gentium
“a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself” - Ordinatio Sacerdotolis*
*
“…And this is the infallibility…For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith…” - Lumen Gentium*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top