How many infallible ex cathedra pronouncements?

[Charks]

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.

I find it interesting that you answered my question about sola scriptura NOT by saying “Because Pope so-n-so declared it to be so,” but rather by appealing to scripture. “We deny sola scriptura because scripture does.” I guess this is really the point I’m trying to make – it seems like at the foundational level, everything comes back to the objectivity (relative though it may be… heh-heh) of scripture, even for the Catholic.

Am I wrong about this? Are there examples of apostolic succession yielding counter-biblical declarations?

 

[El_camino]

Blessing Charks.

To answer some of the comments you posed:

Charks:

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?

Rather the teeth of apostolic succession is the infallible knowledge that the militant church (the present magisterium) today does have a uninterrupted succession of teacher that comes all the way from the apostles. Thus, their teaching and their realms come from them.

Can this magisterium make mistakes? CERTAINLY, in the same MANNER as the first magisterium (i.e., the apostles) made those mistakes. Look at Peter, for instance, denied Christ 3 times and then he was rebuked by Paul for Judaizing, yet, no Christian would doubt that the TWO epistles he wrote are INFALLIBLE. (Not infallible because they were “ex-cathedra” statements by Peter, but because the Magisterium of the Church as a whole regarded infallibly that these two letters were indeed written by Peter, and thus were infallible)

The very same Spirit, acting in the very same way, lives on in THe Magisterium of the Church. The Spirit might be in others as well, but does not act in the same way because of the lack of this apostolic succession.

Charks:

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.

NOT just the pope. I remind you that MANY infallible pronouncement have not come from the POPE alone, but from the Magisterium as a whole, as it has occurred in many Ecumenical Councils. To remind you that NOT just the pope has apostolic succession.

Charks:

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.

NO Charks, the opposition is when it is outside of Sacred TRADITION. I can take the Bible, read and interpret it as long as I do so in light of Sacred Tradition. If I don’t, if I take it and interpret it without it, I would be interpreting it as a untaught person, and look what happens when an untaught person interprets the bible:

“16 as also in all his epistles [Paul], speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16).

What is sacred Tradition? THe teaching of the Church that has the Apostolic Succession. IT was in the light of Sacred Tradition that the Canon was chosen and closed. That is why TODAY we know that INFALLIBLY we have 27 books in the New Testament, not one more, not one less. (If I did not believe that the Church that closed the CANON was infallible I would have not way of knowing that infallibly we have the correct number of books and thus, the bible itself would not be infallible as you could not have an infallible way to be sure that you have too few or too many books)

Charks:

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.

NOT SO!! there are MANY (hundreds of them) ! Sarks only ASKED for those that have been infallibly define by the POPE ALONE! Those do not include those defined by Councils, for instance.

Example: The fact that Christians did not need to abide by Mosaic law was not infallibly defined UNTIL the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), the trinity was not infallibly defined until the Council of Nicaea and so on and so forth.

CONTINUES

 

[El_camino]

Charks:

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?

Differ in the fact that the interpretations of those protestant bishops/elder/pastors are not done in the light of Sacred Tradition, but instead either they interpret it in the light of their own tradition (started by Luther or some other), or try to interpret the bible with a CLEAN SLATE (like Luther tried to do by rejecting all Christian Teaching), which you cannot do, because if you did you would be interpreting it as an untaught person and you know what happens when an untaught person tries to interpret the bible on his own (2 Peter 3:16).

Charks:

Furthermore, considering the remarkably small number of Catholic declarations requiring assent (infallible or otherwise),

Again the small number is of ex-cathedra statement by the POPE (i.e., the pope alone declaring something infallible). THere are hundreds of other infallible pronouncement done by Councils. It is in NO WAY small!. There are so many that we would have to approach topic by topic to see what is infallible and what isn’t. I would be hard to just name them all.

Charks:

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?

I think what I already said above clarifies this.

Charks:

And finally, if the only infallible statements to come from Catholicism can arguably be verified in scripture anyway,

Wrong! they cannot necessarily be verified by Scripture, as even though they might have their support in Scripture, they are not sufficiently CLEAR from Scripture alone to understand them as such.

e.g., In Rev 12:14, it says:

14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.

You read it alone, and you cannot UNDERSTAND what it means. In fact, among protestants there are hundreds of interpretations with respect to this. If you, on the other hand, read it in the light of Sacred tradition, then you understand that is talking about the Assumption of Mary.

What you must undestant is that Sacred Tradition cannot contradict scripture (and it does NOT), but Sacred Tradition is often NEEDED to give the correct meaning to Scripture, otherwise you will “distort scripture to your own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

Charks:

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?

THere are many instances where the CHurch has NOT defined things where theologians (both lay and religious) and others can give their opinion, but that is what it is, simply their humble opinion and nothing else.

If these things which are now a matter of opinion become reason for controversy, division, and may put the souls of many in jeopardy rest assure the Church will infallibly define it and then the faithful will not be able to simply give their opinion.

Examples of this, is the TRINITY. Many could have had their opinion regarding the Trinity, but when the Church infallibly defined it in Nicaea that was the end of it. Those who KNOWINGLY opposed the trinity were considered heretics, not so before the definition.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

How do we distinguish the fallible from the infallible?

1. THe Magisterium clearly establishes that the Pope has spoken infallibly.

Example. It is clearly established by the Magisterium that the Pope spoke infallibly when the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed.

1. The Magisterium has clearly established that the pronouncements of certain council are infallible.

Example. THe Canons of the council of Nicaea on the beliefs regardind the Trinity.

1. The magisterium clearly establishes that something is infallible.

Example. The establishment of the Canons of Scripture.

And there are many other ways, it really comes down to the Magisterium clearly establishing that something is infallible. Now, the magisterium does so

But, also, it is important to understand that even if no one has explicitly DECLARED it to be infallible, it very well may be!. and such declaration might come about if it is necessary due to controversy, division, etc.

TRINITY, which before Nicaea might not have been declared as an infallible doctrine, but IT in fact was! as Nicaea clearly defined.

This situation makes you see that even though something might not be infallibly defined yet, because the Church maintains it, and the Holy Spirit governs the Church, we are CALLED by Scripture and Sacred Tradition to follow and obey the Church.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

Charks:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasCatholic
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.

I find it interesting that you answered my question about sola scriptura NOT by saying “Because Pope so-n-so declared it to be so,” but rather by appealing to scripture. “We deny sola scriptura because scripture does.” I guess this is really the point I’m trying to make – it seems like at the foundational level, everything comes back to the objectivity (relative though it may be… heh-heh) of scripture, even for the Catholic.

Actually Sola Scripture was INFALLIBLY rejected by the Council of Trent!!.

Charks, the problem with Sola Scriptura is that it is a tradition that is man-made because the Magisterium has repeatedly showed that it contradicts both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. THe Church NEVER held it before Luther and the reformers invented it.

DallasCatholic just pointed out that he himself has searched and searched and nothing in scripture actually claims Sola Scriptura, thus it contradicts itself, as YOU NEED extra-biblical info or extra-biblical traditions to interpret the bible in the light of (which it is not necessarily wrong if they are the correct Traditions - Capital T) and be able to come out with Sola Scriptura. But this in itself, as I said, would contradicts the very meaning of Sola Scriptura, as Sola Scriptura says that the Bible is sufficiently perspicace that it interprets itself (This being one of the many definitions given to Sola Scriptura by protestants).

If Sola Scriptura was TRUE, then ALL those who believe in it, would maintain the very same interpretations of Scriptures.

So you see, Sola Scriptura does not need any infallible pronouncement (even though there is one) to realize that by itself isn’t true, as there is enough proof (i.e., thousands of protestant denominations) to show that.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[LSK]

I found this list at Wikpedia:

• “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; and
• Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
  This is the list accepted by the majority of Catholic Theologians.

 

[El_camino]

I found this list at Wikpedia:

• “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; and
• Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
  This is the list accepted by the majority of Catholic Theologians.

Some words of Caution about this:

1. These are supposed to be only the infallible ex-cathedra pronouncements by popes. THey do not include the infallible pronouncements by Councils.
2. Some of them, mentioned here, such as Pope Leo’s Tome of Flavian pronouncement, is INFALLIBLE, but it was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement. IT is infallible because the Council of Chalcedon declared it so.
3. Even though some of those have been CLEARLY established by the Magisterium to be infallible (i.e., the magisterium must officially recognize that the requisites for infallibility are met), some have NOT been recognized as such!. IT is possible that in the future, if they are a matter of controversy, such statements might be officially recognized as such.
4. There might be others statements by the pope that might be infallible and that are not in this list, but only the magisterium can recognize them as such.

Example of something like this happening are the TWO epistles of PETER, recognized when the canon of Scripture was closed and the Tome of Flavian by Leo, recognized by the council of Chalcedon.

I think the ONLY two EX-CATHEDRA (from the Chair) INFALLIBLE STATEMENTS clearly recognized by the magisterium and that NO theologian might dare to deny as being ex-cathedra, are these two:

Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary

I repeat, some of the ones in that list, might be infallible because they have been declared so by a Council, (Like the Tome of Flavian by pope Leo), but they are not EX-CATHEDRA (from the Chair) statements.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[DallasCatholic]

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…

…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,
I have never heard a Presbyterian claim sola scriptura (I’m not saying they don’t…only I have never heard that from any of my Presbyterian friends). Sola Scriptura, as I am sure you are aware, means scripture alone and that was the definition that I was going by. To put it plainly, Sacred Tradition does not contradict scripture…ever. Based on your secondary definition I don’t think you would find any Catholic who would disagree. I would argue that the first definition is by far the more common and is the one most Catholics are used to hearing from our Protestant brethren. So, it doesn’t appear as if you have any disagreement with the Catholic position?

I will close by saying that many people confuse “Sacred Tradition” with tradition…the two are not the same.

Peace in Christ.
Doug

 

[El_camino]

Charks:

…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.

THe answer is NO, on the contrary they brought CLARITY to what Scripture said. THe meaning differs, from your definition of Sola Scriptura, in the fact that, you must interpret scripture in the LIGHT of these Traditions, otherwise, you will end up interpreting Scriptures as an untaught and “thus distorting it to your own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). So in a sense, Scripture witnesses to the fact that Scriptures can be an instrument of destruction, in places where Scripture is difficult to understand, if you interpret them without these necessary Traditions.

What you have to understand is that EVERYONE, and don’t try to cover the sun with your finger, MOST OF THE TIME interprets the bible in the light of some tradition. Something that will let you channel your interpretation to one or another meaning. Thus a baptist will interpret the bible following his/her baptist tradition, and so on and so forth. So, when you take and say, this and that tradition by St. Augustine is right or wrong, what you are actually saying is that it is right or wrong because it contradicts the interpretations you arrive at based on the tradition you have chosen to follow. The question here is what tradition you should follow in interpreting the bible?

If on the other hand, you say that you interpret with a CLEAN SLATE, without basing your interpretation in any tradition, then you better stop as you are interpreting as an untaught person, and you know what untaught person do to scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Now, going back to the traditions to follow, I think it would be better to follow those Traditions that have been maintained by an unbroken succession of teachers from Christ and the Apostles until today, than to follow the man-made traditions that showed up from the fallible interpretations of men, who wanted to have a clean slate (2 Peter 3:16), men now know as the Reformers.

Something interesting, is that Russell, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, is a Reformer in itself, as he too, took the scriptures and said he was going to interpret them with a clean slate, and thus the Jehovah Witness or watchtower society tradition was born.

But let me clarify something to you. Nothing that has been infallibly defined had been INVENTED at the moment that was infallibly defined… absolutely not… The teaching was there from the beginning, but the Church only unambiguously defines it so that it is very clear and no one would dare to twist it or distort it.

Example. THe Trinity… Do you think that the Apostles or the Christians before Nicaea did not believe in it… Of course they did, but the Church only unambiguously and infallibly defined it so that no one would dare to say that there is no such thing as the Trinity.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

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

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!

The definition of and proclamation of ex cathedra did not come about until 1870, so most Catholic Theologians refuse to try to put a list together.

But this does not mean that the Church was not infallible prior to 1870. There were many many councils prior to 1870, one of them proclaimed and defined the Trinity which all main stream christians today accept, this does not mean prior to this the trinity was not accepted but there were heretics claiming that Jesus was not divine, this particular council dove in deeper to define this God, jesus, Holy spirit relationship, some theoligians will claim this is an ex cathedra statement other will not. But this statement has been tested throughout the history of the Church as truth and because of this it is an infallible teaching, not an ex cathedra statement.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Camino has recommended the revival df this thead so as not to clutter another with off topic discussion.

El_camino:

Thus, all of them AGREE that all the cases named by all are infallible papal pronouncements, they just were separating them by the way they were recognized as such (e.g., by the pope immediately clarifying so, by the church in general, by a council)

My questions are:

1. How does “the Church in general” make ex cathedra statements? Examples would be very appreciated.
2. How do Councils make ex cathedra statements?

 

[El_camino]

Camino has recommended the revival df this thead so as not to clutter another with off topic discussion.

My questions are:

1. How does “the Church in general” make ex cathedra statements? Examples would be very appreciated.
2. How do Councils make ex cathedra statements?

There is plenty of reading about that… Start here:
catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

and here

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Linuse]

One of the problems with this whole thread is that there is no definite listing of ex-cathedra or of infallible doctrines. Some lists are very short (my own personal list, depending on how I state the items, is less than 20 such items.) Some are extremely long including some thousands of items.
The one thing I find is that many Catholics are quick to include items that do not and never did belong in the list. The best example of this is the recent clarification and debate about “limbo.”
One factor that tends to make short lists much more accurate is the principle of doubt, viz. that whenever there is honest and sincere doubt, either way can be acted on correctly. The fact that there are so many listings would demand that only those items that are basically in all lists can be considered as truly part of the dogmas of faith. All else has varying levels of doubt.

 

[tdgesq]

Camino has recommended the revival df this thead so as not to clutter another with off topic discussion.

My questions are:

1. How does “the Church in general” make ex cathedra statements? Examples would be very appreciated.
2. How do Councils make ex cathedra statements?

The current RC definition of ex cathedra (from the chair) applies only to the Roman Pontiff, not to infallible statements made by an ecumenical council. Although it is true that statements made ex cathedra by the Pope and statements made by an ecumenical council are both infallible. Infallibility is defined:

in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA

Thus, both ex cathedra statements by the Bishop of Rome (without the approval of an ecumenical council) and the definitive dogmatic statements made by ecumenical councils are not subject to error.

The Pope makes a statement ex cathedra when it meets the Papal infallibility criterion of Vatican I, Ch.4, Para. 9:

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 . . . .

In the RCC, by definition an ecumenical council only exists allowing its decrees to attain infallible status when the Pope ratifies those decrees.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA. So it is the case that all infallible pronouncements of the Church (at least those that can be definitively known as such) must involve the approval of the Bishop of Rome.