T
tablecorner
Guest
Has the seat of Peter been used only twice since the early church til now?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tablecorner
Guest
thank you (name removed by moderator), i want to explore this topic of Ex Cathedra more because i know little. How about our non contraceptive stance, did this teaching also come from a pope?
V
Vico
Guest
Excerpts from the Vatican I Relatio of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser on July 11th, 1870 (translation taken from “The Gift of Infallibility” by Rev. James T. O’Connor)Has the seat of Peter been used only twice since the early church til now?
Thus, the sentence ‘The Roman Pontiff is infallible’ should not be treated as false, since Christ promised that infallibility to the person of Peter and his successors, but it is incomplete since the Pope is only infallible when, by a solemn judgment, he defines a matter of faith and morals for the Church universal
…
For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See ; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
S
stpurl
Guest
Too many seem to believe that we only have to accept ‘ex cathedra’ and that all other teachings are more or less up for grabs as to whether we ‘have to’ accept them or not.
The difference between, for example, Humanae Vitae and Laudatio Si, both being papal encyclicals and therefore containing teachings from a Pope, the first Pope St Paul VI and the second Pope Francis, relates not so much to them being “Papal encyclicals” as opposed to Papal bulls or Papal letters or Papal Sunday sermon at St. Peter’s or papal words on an airplane, but to what the teaching is about.
With Pope St. Paul VI, the teachings regarding contraception and abortion are already part of the ordinary magisterium, and the Pope is reiterating them and clarifying, in a time of societal upheaval, that yes, despite ‘the world’ saying ‘these things are OK”, these things are NOT OK. The Pope is thus, as popes do, reinforcing the teachings that we have been given as Catholics to ‘pass down’.
With Pope Francis in Laudatio Si there is, of course, a reinforcing on the need to be good stewards of the earth; a teaching that has been in place. So far as that’s concerned, again it is a case of the pope reinforcing teachings. However, in other parts where the Pope goes into specifics about HOW to steward, i.e. ‘give up your A/C”, that part is of course to be given the same time of respect that we give to any person’s opinion (and most of us, even if we disagree with a person, especially a person with a sacred office, don’t scream invective. One can disagree with the Dalai Lama, or Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Church of England, regarding statements that they make about say indoor plumbing, US baseball, or even how to handle air pollution, with respect for their office and full acknowledgment of their caring, and still dissent from their view.). Likewise we can love and respect Pope Francis as our Pope but still disagree with what amounts to his opinion as a non expert in the field about a particular statement (say, A/C) without in any way dissenting from him as Pope or being disrespectful, so long as we do not dissent from the truth of our needing to be stewards of the earth. We cannot do that, however, with Humanae Vitae because in the case of that particular encyclical the entire document did not give personal opinions but rather restated Church teaching and reinforced it, or so I see it.
The difference between, for example, Humanae Vitae and Laudatio Si, both being papal encyclicals and therefore containing teachings from a Pope, the first Pope St Paul VI and the second Pope Francis, relates not so much to them being “Papal encyclicals” as opposed to Papal bulls or Papal letters or Papal Sunday sermon at St. Peter’s or papal words on an airplane, but to what the teaching is about.
With Pope St. Paul VI, the teachings regarding contraception and abortion are already part of the ordinary magisterium, and the Pope is reiterating them and clarifying, in a time of societal upheaval, that yes, despite ‘the world’ saying ‘these things are OK”, these things are NOT OK. The Pope is thus, as popes do, reinforcing the teachings that we have been given as Catholics to ‘pass down’.
With Pope Francis in Laudatio Si there is, of course, a reinforcing on the need to be good stewards of the earth; a teaching that has been in place. So far as that’s concerned, again it is a case of the pope reinforcing teachings. However, in other parts where the Pope goes into specifics about HOW to steward, i.e. ‘give up your A/C”, that part is of course to be given the same time of respect that we give to any person’s opinion (and most of us, even if we disagree with a person, especially a person with a sacred office, don’t scream invective. One can disagree with the Dalai Lama, or Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Church of England, regarding statements that they make about say indoor plumbing, US baseball, or even how to handle air pollution, with respect for their office and full acknowledgment of their caring, and still dissent from their view.). Likewise we can love and respect Pope Francis as our Pope but still disagree with what amounts to his opinion as a non expert in the field about a particular statement (say, A/C) without in any way dissenting from him as Pope or being disrespectful, so long as we do not dissent from the truth of our needing to be stewards of the earth. We cannot do that, however, with Humanae Vitae because in the case of that particular encyclical the entire document did not give personal opinions but rather restated Church teaching and reinforced it, or so I see it.
C
commenter
Guest
I believe St Pope JP2 reaffirmed the perennial teaching on (only) male priesthood as infallible.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Nope. This is a weird myth that has become popular for some odd reason, probably because the two famous Marian definitions (one was before Vatican I) had so much fanfare.Has the seat of Peter been used only twice since the early church til now?
At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure or using some formula, the relator for the Commissio de fide (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the Council Fathers) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:
The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop ... - Vinzenz Gasser - Google BooksBut, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been more than two. I assume where a document contains a long list of definitively judged propositions, each one is considered a single judgment (e.g. e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, etc.). Also included would be definitive judgments the Pope makes in his own name in the context of a partial or even ecumenical synod.
In fact, the First Vatican Council itself notes the variety of ways such definitions have come about (this statement makes zero sense if there was only one example at the time):
I think some imagine papal infallibility as the Pope autocratically defining doctrine. Rather, as the Council noted, it is often a result of a synod or even general Council when the Pope at then end issues the decisions in his own name. Even in the two famous Marian examples, the Pope first received the opinions of all the bishops of the world and their overwhelming agreement.The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
Last edited:
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
While ex cathedra statements are rare, they are not the only Infallible statements which the Pope can make. Most people are unaware that the Pope actually has two positions with Ordinary Magisterial Authority in which Infallibility may be expressed. Foremost, the Pope is the Vicar of Peter. It is within this office which ex cathedra statements are professed. They have a very narrow scope, being solemn definitions of doctrine. The solemnity must be explicitly stated within the declaration, not simply implied. Of these statements, there are potentially only three: the definition of Papal Infallibility, the declaration of the Immaculate Conception and the declaration of the Assumption.
The other Infallible statements which have been made over the years are under the Pope’s second office of Ordinary Magisterial Authority. This is his position as the head of the College of Bishops. It is in this capacity, speaking on behalf of the full college of bishops and the Universal Church, that the Pope has professed principles of faith and morals in the past. These do not need to necessarily be a solemn definition, only a declaration on behalf of the College concerning faith and morals. These statements are somewhat more difficult to discern, but they have cropped up more often than ex cathedra statements.
Thus, if a statement is not explicitly a solemn definition personally promulgated by the Pope and it is not explicitly professed on behalf of the College of Bishops, then it does not have the Ordinary Magisterial quality of Infallibility. This does not mean that the statement is not preserved from err with regard to faith and morals. On the contrary, Papal infallibility (note the little ‘i’) preserves all teachings of the Pope from error with regard to faith and morals. The lack of the aforementioned requirements simply means that the infallibility invoked by the Pope, while true, is not Magisterially binding as the two other Infallible (note the capital ‘I’) scenarios.
In short, something taught personally by the Pope can be infallible (little ‘i’) but not be Magisterially Infallible. It can be correct without being binding.
As a fun fact, the Pope’s position as head of the College of Bishops can be delegated by the Pope to another bishop. If this happens, technically that bishop can also make Infallible statements. In the event of a Pope’s death, this position is automatically delegated to the Dean of the College of Cardinals until the election of a new Pope.
The only time in recent history that a Dean exercised duties associated with the head of the College of Bishops was Cardinal Eugene Tisserant who was Dean when Pope St. John XXIII died. He assumed the authority as Head of the College with regard to Vatican II during the time between John XXIII’s death and the election of Paul VI. Thankfully, the Council was not in session at the time and his only duties were administrative.
The other Infallible statements which have been made over the years are under the Pope’s second office of Ordinary Magisterial Authority. This is his position as the head of the College of Bishops. It is in this capacity, speaking on behalf of the full college of bishops and the Universal Church, that the Pope has professed principles of faith and morals in the past. These do not need to necessarily be a solemn definition, only a declaration on behalf of the College concerning faith and morals. These statements are somewhat more difficult to discern, but they have cropped up more often than ex cathedra statements.
Thus, if a statement is not explicitly a solemn definition personally promulgated by the Pope and it is not explicitly professed on behalf of the College of Bishops, then it does not have the Ordinary Magisterial quality of Infallibility. This does not mean that the statement is not preserved from err with regard to faith and morals. On the contrary, Papal infallibility (note the little ‘i’) preserves all teachings of the Pope from error with regard to faith and morals. The lack of the aforementioned requirements simply means that the infallibility invoked by the Pope, while true, is not Magisterially binding as the two other Infallible (note the capital ‘I’) scenarios.
In short, something taught personally by the Pope can be infallible (little ‘i’) but not be Magisterially Infallible. It can be correct without being binding.
As a fun fact, the Pope’s position as head of the College of Bishops can be delegated by the Pope to another bishop. If this happens, technically that bishop can also make Infallible statements. In the event of a Pope’s death, this position is automatically delegated to the Dean of the College of Cardinals until the election of a new Pope.
The only time in recent history that a Dean exercised duties associated with the head of the College of Bishops was Cardinal Eugene Tisserant who was Dean when Pope St. John XXIII died. He assumed the authority as Head of the College with regard to Vatican II during the time between John XXIII’s death and the election of Paul VI. Thankfully, the Council was not in session at the time and his only duties were administrative.
Last edited:
T
tablecorner
Guest
Thank you for your very in depth reply. Did i read correctly that infallibility comes with the Pope’s discussion with the College of Bishops?tatement is not explicitly a solemn definition personally promulgated by the Pope and it is not explicitly professed on behalf of the College of Bishops, then it does not have the Ordinary Magisterial quality of Infallibility. This does not mean that the statement is not preserved from err with regard to faith and morals. On the contrary, Papal infallibility (note the little ‘i’) preserves all teachings of the Pope from error with regard to faith and morals. The lack of the aforementioned requirements simply means that the infallibility invoked by the Pope, while true, is not Magisterially binding as the two other Infallible (note the capital ‘I’) scenarios.
In short, something taught personally by the Pope can be infallible
T
tablecorner
Guest
Why did the church need to have a dogma of Papal Infallibility? Thank you very much for your reply, i too like Gen 3:15 a lot.
T
tablecorner
Guest
thank you Stpurl, your reply did teach me manners and how to be socially aware when interacting with other faiths.
T
tablecorner
Guest
thank you (name removed by moderator),
i discovered a video by a “lizziesAnswers” on youtube about the early church’s stance against contraception and was quite shocked. I never knew it was already practiced before rubber technology.
If i brought the Greek Orthodox church , it gets conflicting with some saying their priests allow non abortificent methods whereas there is evidence from the church fathers that it is evil.
i discovered a video by a “lizziesAnswers” on youtube about the early church’s stance against contraception and was quite shocked. I never knew it was already practiced before rubber technology.
If i brought the Greek Orthodox church , it gets conflicting with some saying their priests allow non abortificent methods whereas there is evidence from the church fathers that it is evil.
G
Genesis315
Guest
In the late 18th and 19th century, the Rationalists opposed the concept of faith, subjecting everything to reason alone. The Church, on the other hand, teaches revealed truth must be believed by faith. This only makes sense if what we are believing with faith cannot be subject to error (something subject to error, should not be given absolute faith).Why did the church need to have a dogma of Papal Infallibility?
Therefore the Church needed to reiterate its infallibility, and which of its judgments were infallible, in relation to its defense of the virtue of faith.
The First Vatican Council had planned to have more documents on the rest of the episcopate and Church, which would have talked more about their infallibility (this was later done by Vatican II). It just happened to start with the dogmatic constitutions on faith (Dei Flilius) and on the Pope (Pastor Aeternus), and then didn’t get to finish the rest because Rome was invaded and taken over. Papal infallibility was kind of left out of its greater context because of that.
Last edited:
T
tablecorner
Guest
Could we make a parallel analogy just as transubstantiation is a dogma of an already existing practice just as Papal Infallibility is a dogma of an already existing practice?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Certainly, although there was development over time so you won’t see it explicitly early on as written by Vatican I (the earliest I have seen the “ex cathedra” terminology is the 16th century). But you will see the truths that make it logically necessary–these necessary implications were drawn out over time (which is what true doctrinal development is as described by St. Vincent de Lerins in the 5th century)
The infallibility and indefectibility of the Church in general had always been the common teaching of the Church. The Pope’s infallibility is simply a function of that and his relationship to the rest of the Church. The Church always received the Pope’s irreformable judgments as irreformable and final and his agreement was needed for concilliar judgments to have universal effect.
The Pope’s infallibility was implied in the fact that he is, in the words of the Council of Florence, “the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” It is also tied to the fact that the Roman Church–the Apostolic See–of which he is head cannot defect from the faith and Church, as then the Church would lose the constituent element of the primacy.
As Pope St. Agatho I put it in the 7th century:
The infallibility and indefectibility of the Church in general had always been the common teaching of the Church. The Pope’s infallibility is simply a function of that and his relationship to the rest of the Church. The Church always received the Pope’s irreformable judgments as irreformable and final and his agreement was needed for concilliar judgments to have universal effect.
The Pope’s infallibility was implied in the fact that he is, in the words of the Council of Florence, “the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” It is also tied to the fact that the Roman Church–the Apostolic See–of which he is head cannot defect from the faith and Church, as then the Church would lose the constituent element of the primacy.
As Pope St. Agatho I put it in the 7th century:
Therefore, the Pope must be infallible in those case where, if he erred, either the whole Church would defect or the primatial See would defect from the Church, and both are impossible. Clearly not everything a Pope says or does has such an effect, but only those universal and definitive judgments he makes as supreme teacher as to what is necessary to maintain communion in the one faith. Thus, the distinctions in the definition of Vatican I.…from the beginning [the Roman See] has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm
Last edited:
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
With regards to the second aspect of his Ordinary Magisterial authority, yes. His Infallibility as head of the College of Bishops does derive from the collective authority of the College of Bishops. There is not a democratic vote, per se, but the declaration is made after weighing the major theological positions of the bishops and proceeding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The statement of Infallibility never comes strictly from the Pope alone but on behalf of the collective authority of the Bishops.
This is, however, distinct from the Pope’s personal infallibility which falls to him through this position as the Vicar of Peter. It preserves the public teachings of the Popes from error with regards to Faith and morals. While he may not be wrong, the Pope’s personal declarations only become binding if made ex cathedra, following a statement of solemn declaration.
This is, however, distinct from the Pope’s personal infallibility which falls to him through this position as the Vicar of Peter. It preserves the public teachings of the Popes from error with regards to Faith and morals. While he may not be wrong, the Pope’s personal declarations only become binding if made ex cathedra, following a statement of solemn declaration.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.