List of ex cathedra statements

[mkamoski]

All–

Please help.

The following question to the “Ask An Apologist” forum; but, it was not addressed.

Therefore, it is being posted here.

Where can one find a list of ex cathedra statements?

Please advise.

Yours in Christ,

–Mark

 

[Catholic2003]

mkamoski:

Where can one find a list of ex cathedra statements?

As long as you’re not picky, here is a list.

If you don’t like that list, I can find you a different one. Just let me know if you want fewer or more ex cathedra statements.

 

[EA_Man]

Catholic2003:

As long as you’re not picky, here is a list.

If you don’t like that list, I can find you a different one. Just let me know if you want fewer or more ex cathedra statements.

Is there an official list - approved by the Vatican?

Thanks

 

[thessalonian]

Ludwig Ott’s dogma of Catholicism is about the most official source I know of for infallible dogma by councils and Popes. I don’t have my copy at home. There are around 300 councilar declaratoins and about 20 by popes.

 

[Catholic2003]

EA_Man:

Is there an official list - approved by the Vatican?

No.

 

[mkamoski]

Catholic2003:

…I can find you a different one. Just let me know if you want fewer or more ex cathedra statements.

Catholic2003–

I appreciate the link.

However, if possible I would like a list of “more”, in the sense of ALL; so, if you do have a more comprehensive list, please pass it along.

Thank you.

–Mark

 

[Catholic2003]

Other threads where this was discussed:

Infallible Statements

Infallible Papal Statements

Here is a link to an offsite discussion where different candidate lists are presented and debated.

 

[mkamoski]

thessalonian:

Ludwig Ott’s dogma of Catholicism is about the most official source I know of for infallible dogma by councils and Popes…

Thessalonia–

I appreciate your reply.

Is “Ludwig Ott’s dogma of Catholicism” a book?

Does it have an Imprimatur?

Can you expand on this a bit?

Please advise.

Thank you.

Yours in Christ,

–Mark

 

[EA_Man]

Catholic2003:

No.

Wait just a second.

There isn’t an official list of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

How do you know which teachings are infallilble?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I’ve heard the “only 2 or 3 in the past 500 years” line numerous times and the link above seems to confirm that

It seems very odd that there is no “official” listing though

With so few instances you would think that would be an important list

 

[Catholic2003]

mkamoski:

However, if possible I would like a list of “more”, in the sense of ALL;

ALL isn’t really possible. For example, there are those who hold that Humanae Vitae was ex cathedra.

mkamoski:

so, if you do have a more comprehensive list, please pass it along.

See the offsite link in my previous post.

 

[EA_Man]

Steve Andersen:

I’ve heard the “only 2 or 3 in the past 500 years” line numerous times and the link above seems to confirm that

It seems very odd that there is no “official” listing though

With so few instances you would think that would be an important list

I agree.

 

[Fidelis]

EA_Man:

Wait just a second.

There isn’t an official list of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

How do you know which teachings are infallilble?

He didn’t say there wasn’t a list of infallible teachings. The question was “is there a list of ex-cathedra” pronouncements. There’s no reason to keep a list of either. If know what the definition of an infallible teaching is and what an ex-cathedra pronouncement is, you can see for yourself what they are. I suggest you read the links that were offered.

 

[EA_Man]

Fidelis:

He didn’t say there wasn’t a list of infallible teachings. The question was “is there a list of ex-cathedra” pronouncements. There’s no reason to keep a list of either. If know what the definition of an infallible teaching is and what an ex-cathedra pronouncement is, you can see for yourself what they are. I suggest you read the links that were offered.

What do you mean there’s no reason to keep a list of either?

Considering that all of the faithful are required to adhere to infallible teachings, I would think that it would be of vital importance to have a definitive list.

There are also those that hold that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible teaching as well.

catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

 

[Fidelis]

EA_Man:

What do you mean there’s no reason to keep a list of either?

Just what I said and for the reason I explained in my post.

This “list of infallible teachings” is a typical and tired anti-Catholic line of questioning, so you’re not fooling anyone here. This is borne out by your posts on other threads. Suffice to say no answer anyone will give here will be considered in good faith by those who are pursuing this kind of agenda. Farewell.

 

[Joan_M]

mkamoski:

Thessalonia–

I appreciate your reply.

Is “Ludwig Ott’s dogma of Catholicism” a book?

Does it have an Imprimatur?

Can you expand on this a bit?

Please advise.

Thank you.

Yours in Christ,

–Mark

The actual name of the book is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. It is a “One-volume Encyclopedia of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, showing their sources in Scripture and Tradition and their definitions by Popes and Councils.”

It was originally written in German and published in 1952. It was translated into English and first published in that language in May 1955 by The Mercier Press, Ireland. The edition that I have and am currently reading, was edited in 1960 and published in 1974 in the US by Tan Books.

The book has a Nihil Obstat from Jeremiah J. O;Sullivan D.D., Censor Deputatus and an Imprimatur from Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis. dated 7 October 1954.

This book is not an easy read. It is, however, excellent. You will learn exactly what statements are *“De fide” *and such others as “Sent. certa.”

It gives details of the heresies that were taught, who taught them, and when, and by whom, the dogma was defined. You can’t go wrong with this book, and you will learn so much.

 

[thessalonian]

Joan M:

The actual name of the book is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. It is a “One-volume Encyclopedia of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, showing their sources in Scripture and Tradition and their definitions by Popes and Councils.”

It was originally written in German and published in 1952. It was translated into English and first published in that language in May 1955 by The Mercier Press, Ireland. The edition that I have and am currently reading, was edited in 1960 and published in 1974 in the US by Tan Books.

The book has a Nihil Obstat from Jeremiah J. O;Sullivan D.D., Censor Deputatus and an Imprimatur from Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis. dated 7 October 1954.

This book is not an easy read. It is, however, excellent. You will learn exactly what statements are *“De fide” *and such others as “Sent. certa.”

It gives details of the heresies that were taught, who taught them, and when, and by whom, the dogma was defined. You can’t go wrong with this book, and you will learn so much.

Thx. That’s it.

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Wait just a second.

There isn’t an official list of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

How do you know which teachings are infallilble?

Well you can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and it pretty much details what we need to believe so there is a pretty official explanation of the teachings and dogma of the faith. That there would be a bulleted list after that is pointless. By the way that book was put out by the Vatican so it’s about as official as you get.

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

Wait just a second.

There isn’t an official list of the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?

How do you know which teachings are infallilble?

You obviously are not Catholic. We do not go about looking for what is infallible and what is not as if it is a method of picking beliefs from a smorgasboard. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Church teaching and that is what you need to submit to. Further, that something isn’t infallibly proclaimed does not make it fallible or not neccessary to believe. Your thinking on this is not one of submission to the bride of Christ, the Church, which is the pillar and support of the truth.

Blessings

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

You obviously are not Catholic. We do not go about looking for what is infallible and what is not as if it is a method of picking beliefs from a smorgasboard. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Church teaching and that is what you need to submit to. Further, that something isn’t infallibly proclaimed does not make it fallible or not neccessary to believe. Your thinking on this is not one of submission to the bride of Christ, the Church, which is the pillar and support of the truth.

Blessings

I wasn’t speaking about ‘picking and choosing’.

If we must submit to all church teaching, then of what distinction is an infallible teaching or an ex cathedra statement since I’m required to believe all church teaching regardless of infallibility?

In other words if I’m required to believe every teaching, why even bother with the distinctions?