How many infallible ex cathedra pronouncements?

[sarks]

I ran across the claim somewhere recently that there have only been 2 or 3 times a pope has exercised the infallibility thing (sorry, I don’t know a technically correct term) and spoken ex cathedra to bind a doctrine on all Catholics. Now I can’t find that information. Can someone enlighten me? How often has this happened? What were the doctrines? I think there’s a difference between a binding doctrine and a discipline. Right? Help! I’m trying to figure out what Catholicism really is before making a final judgment about it.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

Ok 1st off their in not an official list of ex cathedra statements made. But all Catholic theoligians would agree on three.

1. Dogmatic definition of 1870 - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor Aeternus, solemnly promulgated by Pope Pius IX
2. Definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary - Pope Pius IX’s 1854 , and
3. Definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary - Pope Pius XII’s 1950

Now there are some that will put a list together prior to 1870 statements claiming ex cathedra, but since it was not defined until 1870 most Catholic Theolgians would not compile a list prior.

 

[sarks]

Thank you, Texan in DC.

 

[sarks]

More background info: my husband and I are investigating this together. His response to the info posted above was this:

Do I understand correctly that “ex-cathedra” was not defined until
1870? That seems to ring a bell. I could be wrong about this, but it
seems mighty suspicious that ex-Cathedra wasn’t defined until 1870. I
mean, an argument can be made (and probably has been) that everything
coming out of the Pope’s mouth was declared to be authoratative until
protestants started pointing out all the inherent contradictions
within the papacy, to which the Catholics responded, “Oh, well
actually, only Papal Bulls ex-cathedra are really infallible. And
there are only 3 of those, and none of them come from the period of
history during which we really need to defend the influence of the
pope on Christian history. Everything else can be explained in terms
of papal human fallibility, which OF COURSE we have ALWAYS believed in
– haven’t you been paying attention?” This might not be how it
happened, but I’d sure like to hear what the Roman Catholics have said
about the fallibility of the pope throughout history, particularly
prior to 1870. And if it turns out that it did happen more or less
the way I just described, it begs the question: what’s the pope there
for then?

Well, I think he has a point. Are there any quotes about papal infallibility prior to 1870? Is there any other relevant information we need?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m trying to figure out what Catholicism really is before making a final judgment about it.

I think you’re looking in the wrong place. The number of infallible pronouncements, and what they are, won’t tell you much about Catholicism. Catholics are bound to believe EVERYTHING the Church teaches, not just the infallible pronouncements. They quickly trot out the verses about the church being the pillar and bulwark of the truth and the gates of Hades not standing, etc.

But you may make a mistake of looking at Catholicism only through a narrow lens of what authority is in Catholicism, which is just one aspect of the thing. You may find that what it really is is beyond human comprehension and you may never really understand it, never be able to make a final judgement about it while on earth, but find your investigation of it deeply profitable in ways you cannot imagine.

Pray, study, ask questions. Trust the Lord to lead you.

 

[sarks]

But you may make a mistake of looking at Catholicism only through a narrow lens of what authority is in Catholicism, which is just one aspect of the thing.

Thanks, Truthstalker. You are right - there is much more to look at than infallibility. It’s just one of several issues we’re investigating. This isn’t the first question I’ve asked here and I doubt it will be the last.

 

[sarks]

DH said to apologize if what he wrote is too strong. He didn’t know I was going to post it here.

 

[Gamera]

DH said to apologize if what he wrote is too strong. He didn’t know I was going to post it here.

No reason to apologize. The question was entirely proper and not at all disrespectful. Anybody exploring any faith naturally would have questions about it.

 

[sarks]

DH said to apologize if what he wrote is too strong. He didn’t know I was going to post it here.

 

[sarks]

Bleh! Sorry for the double posting.

 

[Mary_Henley]

Denzinger The Sources of Catholic Dogma
CREEDS: The Creed “Quicumque”

THE CREED “QUICUMQUE”
[Which is called “Athanasian”] *

39 Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.-But the Catholic faith is this, that we venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, (and) another of the Holy Spirit; but the divine nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty is co-eternal. Of such a nature as the Father is, so is the Son, so (also) is the Holy Spirit; the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, (and) the Holy Spirit is uncreated; the Father is immense, the Son is immense, (and) the Holy Spirit is immense; the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, (and) the Holy Spirit is eternal: and nevertheless there are not three eternals, but one eternal; just as there are not three uncreated beings, nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated, and one infinite; similarly the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, (and) the Holy Spirit is omnipotent: and yet there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent; thus the Father is God, the Son is God, (and) the Holy Spirit is God; and nevertheless there are not three gods, but there is one God; so the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, (and) the Holy Spirit is Lord: and yet there are not three lords, but there is one Lord; because just as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess singly each one person as God and [and also] Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there are three gods or lords. The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. There is therefore one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits; and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are co-eternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be venerated. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

40 But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly it is the right faith, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time: perfect God, perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and a human body, equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to humanity. Although he is God and man, yet he is not two, but he is one Christ; one, however, not by the conversion of the Divinity into a human body, but by the assumption of humanity in the Godhead; one absolutely not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For just as the rational soul and body are one man, so God and man are one Christ. He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, on the third day arose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead; .at his coming all men have to arise again with their bodies and will render an account of their own deeds: and those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire.-This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

(C)

A good point to remember is that every council held or dogma pronounced was in direct response to challenges against matters of faith or morals.
The above creed was written at the time of the Arian heresy.
Does this mean we do not have to hold the Doctrine of the Eucharist?
Absolutely not.
We hold to be true …and absolute…all that the Church holds and teaches…because of Him who established her.
He is her Head and His spokesperson is Peter…and Peter’s successors.

 

[sarks]

Mary Henley,

Are you saying that whenever the church pronouncement includes the statement that the particular doctrine in question MUST be believed, then the church/church leaders were speaking infallibly? Or claiming to?

 

[Mary_Henley]

“He who hears you, hears Me and Him who sent Me.”
I we would, for one moment, believe these words of Our Lord and trust that His Church is guided by His Spirit…we would not have such a hard time accepting what He says…or is it that we do not believe the above statement?

Did Our Lord ever say…anywhere in Scripture…that it had to be an infallible statement to be believed and followed?
Did **He **ever make an infallible statement?
If so, what made it infallible?
If His statements are infallible because He is God…than how is it we mistrust the promises He made?

Folks…!!!
Where is the beef?

 

[DallasCatholic]

No. In order for something to be an infallible teaching it must be declared dogma, or the Pope, with the Bishops in council, speaking on a matter of faith and morals can declare an Ex Cathedra teaching.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Since the Magisterium consists of teachings that have been revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit, it is possible that the Holy Spirit has not revealed the entire truth on a particular subject. That is part of the reason why the Church so rarely declares something to be dogma and why the Pope so rarely speaks Ex Cathedra.

Probably the greatest misconception regarding the Catholic Church is that all Catholics must be in lock-step with the Pope on every issue. This is not true, as evidenced by stories that can be read in the newspaper virtually everyday in the United States. Whenever the Vatican comes out with a statement the press is always quick to trot out a Priest, Bishop or even a Cardinal who will express disagreement with that statement. Yet the dissenter is not excommunicated…they are still Catholics. How can this be? The answer lies in the fact that, as adult Christians, we are expected to have a fully formed conscience and we are expected to follow our conscience above all things. This is not license to disagree with Church teachings. I would posit that if you disagree with any dogmatic teaching of the Church then, possibly, your conscience is not fully formed. Regardless, if you have a fully formed conscience and you have prayed and sought God’s guidance then you should follow your conscience…even if the Church Hierarchy says otherwise. Now the Church may excommunicate you, but your true judgement will come at the hand of God. Sorry for rambling but I sensed something behind your questions and I hope that I have addressed it.

 

[Mary_Henley]

Regardless, if you have a fully formed conscience and you have prayed and sought God’s guidance then you should follow your conscience…even if the Church Hierarchy says otherwise. Now the Church may excommunicate you, but your true judgement will come at the hand of God. Sorry for rambling but I sensed something behind your questions and I hope that I have addressed it.

Living a Christian Life Chapter 1: Faith, Religious Assent, and Reverence for God
Question I: Should One Assent to Teachings
Which Are Not of Faith?
2. Not All Papal and Episcopal Statements Call for Religious Assent

1. Not All Papal and Episcopal Statements Call for Religious Assent
   The responsibility to give religious assent has limits. Understanding the responsibility requires carefully distinguishing cases which fall within the limits from those which fall outside them.
   a) Religious assent is called for only under certain conditions. **One’s responsibility to give religious assent comes into play only if the pope or one’s bishop acts in his official capacity, proposes a teaching bearing on a matter of faith or morals, and calls for its acceptance as certain. Dealing with religious assent to papal teaching, Vatican II alludes to this last condition by saying such teaching must be sincerely adhered to according to the pope’s “manifest mind and will, which he expresses chiefly either by the type of document, or by the frequent proposal of the same teaching, or by his manner of speaking” (LG 25).*96 **
   Thus, there are five kinds of cases in which one has no responsibility to give religious assent: (i) when popes and bishops express opinions on matters outside faith and morals, (ii) when they speak or write on matters of faith and morals but as individual believers or private theologians rather than in their official capacity, (iii) when they teach officially but only tentatively, (iv) when they put forward observations and arguments, without calling for their acceptance in themselves, but as incidental to a truth of faith or a teaching which calls for religious assent, or (v) when they give merely disciplinary directives, for example, that certain opinions should not be taught while certain others may be. In all these cases, one’s responsibility is not to assent, but to listen respectfully, try to understand what the pastors are saying, and obey any disciplinary directives.*97
   
   b) One sometimes owes assent to collective episcopal statements. The teaching proposed in collective episcopal statements calls for religious assent if (as is often the case) it repeats teaching which otherwise calls for such assent, or if the statement is endorsed by the pope and/or by one’s own bishop and its teaching meets the other conditions under which religious assent is required. Sometimes, when something contained in a collective episcopal statement troubles faithful Catholics, what troubles them is not proposed as certain, but only as a probable judgment. Such a judgment calls for respectful consideration but not for religious assent. If a collective statement–for example, a statement by a national conference of bishops–which is not endorsed by the pope should propose as certain a teaching on a matter of faith and morals which is compatible with but not included in other magisterial teaching, any Catholic troubled by the teaching should ask his or her own bishop what he intends to teach in a way that calls for religious assent.

(C)

Religious assent is much more important than the question is it infallible or not…

 

[Charks]

Hello, all. I am Sarks’ husband.

Religious assent is much more important than the question is it infallible or not…

It seems that infalibility and religious assent are inseperable though, at least in the context of a discussion on apostolic succession. Isn’t infallibility the teeth of apostolic succession?

Ya’ll help me with this: If I understand correctly, a Catholic position against protestants (generally) is that protestants try to take on the role of interpreting and explaining the bible themselves, which (the argument goes) they are neither qualified nor authorized to do. If this is so, someone is bound to ask “how would one be so qualified?” To which (IIUC), the Catholic would reply “this is answered by the doctrine of apostolic succession.”

Someone is also bound to ask “how would one be so authorized?” To which the Catholic would reply: “the church has the authority”
“And who acts as ‘the church’ in this context?”
“The pope.”
And we’re back to apostolic succession.

Now I say all that to say this: Catholics are indignantly opposed to protestants’ efforts to interpret scripture outside of the realm of Catholic apostolic succession. But, as far as I have been able to determine, there have been only very few interpretations of scripture/proclamations of doctrine that have enjoyed the benifits of apostolic succession. Which begs the question (and this is where the rubber meets the road): how does every other Catholic proclamation (made by priests, bishops, even popes unofficially, etc.) differ from the opinions rendered by a protestent bishop/elder/pastor? Furthermore, considering the remarkably small number of Catholic declarations requiring assent (infallible or otherwise), how is the Catholic church’s position as a whole substantially superior to many of the high-church protestant denoms in terms of doctrinal purity?

And finally, if the only infallible statements to come from Catholicism can arguably be verified in scripture anyway, and all other clerical utterances are essentially subordinated to the lay-individual’s fully formed conscience (being itself formed by scripture), tell me again why/how Cathiolics are opposed to sola scriptura?

 

[ArchRemmy]

Infallibility is not limited to ex cathedra statements. Christ bestowed upon the church the sacred deposit of faith and whatever is in that deposit is infallible. Someone can probably expound on this…lunch break is over :crying:

 

[DallasCatholic]

And finally, if the only infallible statements to come from Catholicism can arguably be verified in scripture anyway, and all other clerical utterances are essentially subordinated to the lay-individual’s fully formed conscience (being itself formed by scripture), tell me again why/how Cathiolics are opposed to sola scriptura?

Charks,
A fully formed conscience is not formed by scripture alone but also by the traditions handed down by the Apostles and by the teachings of the Magisterium.

In general Catholics are opposed to sola scriptura because nowhere in scripture is it stated that scripture alone (sola scriptura) is all that is needed. The fact of the matter is that the NT only exists because the traditions that were held by the Catholic Church designated these works as inspired.

While Paul does say that:
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

Paul was referring to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Torah that he and Christ both read and quoted from as scripture. Indeed, a man as humble as Paul probably never dreamed that his simple letters would one day be regarded as “God Breathed”.

This is just a start, but I hope that I answered your question.

 

[Charks]

Just to be clear on the sola scriptura thing, let me say this: there are two ways to mean sola scriptura. One way is to say (like the protestant denom, the Church of Christ, does) that nothing that ever came out of the mouths of anyone other than the bible writers is worth reading. Augustine, Shmaugustine, they would say. But a second way of meaning sola scriptura (the way I mean it, and the way most others would as well) is to say that while there exists a rich history of Christian tradition, wisdom and doctrine for us to learn from, ultimately we must recognize those things as fallible, so that when they appear to be in conflict with scripture, scripture “wins out” by default. Many of the more conservative Presbyterian types will proclaim sola scriptura, while also appealing to many councils, creeds and writings of the church fathers, based upon this view.

Now, bringing this back to our topic…

A fully formed conscience is not formed by scripture alone but also by the traditions handed down by the Apostles and by the teachings of the Magisterium.

…do these traditions and teachings ever change anything that was once declared in scripture? If you were to answer “yes,” then I’d ask for a list of such. If you were to answer “no,” then I’d ask how your position differed from the second meaning of sola scriptura I mentioned above.

 

[Charks]

Infallibility is not limited to ex cathedra statements. Christ bestowed upon the church the sacred deposit of faith and whatever is in that deposit is infallible. Someone can probably expound on this…lunch break is over :crying:

How do we distinguish the fallible from the infallible?