Negative Protection/Ex Cathedra

[anrmenchaca74]

I’ve been reading Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” And I came across the topic of papal infallability and he mentions negative protection and ex cathedra. Can some one explain what negative protection is and what ex cathedra is in a simpler form. Thanks.

 

[Leegal]

I’ve been reading Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” And I came across the topic of papal infallability and he mentions negative protection and ex cathedra. Can some one explain what negative protection is and what ex cathedra is in a simpler form. Thanks.

The answer is here:

turrisfortis.com/infalibility.html

When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra he is speaking infallibly.

Also: "Infallibility does not mean that the pope knows more about the Catholic religion and the Bible than anyone else. Historian Adrian Fortescue wrote: “A pope might be quite ignorant and a very poor theologian. He may make a mistake as private theologian; only God will take care that he does not commit the whole Church to it. Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all. It does not mean that the pope will always give the wisest or best decision, or that what he says will always be well-advised or opportune. He may not speak at all; he may preserve a regrettable silence, just when it would be greatly to the good of the Church if he did speak. But if he does speak, and if he speaks in such a way as to commit the Church, then what he says will not be false” (“The Early Papacy”).

stjohn17v20-21.com/magist02.htm

 

[MarcoPolo]

Infallible means he is protected from teaching error. It’s not a guarantee of truth, it is protection from error. The Latin etymology of the word is rooted in “not fail/err.” Ex Cathedra means “from the chair.” So when he exercises infallibility, we can be assured that what he says does not contain error - in a sense, that means it’s true, but in another sense, one should not believe the wording was perfect or that the doctrine he teaches can’t develop or some such. Just that it does not contain untruth.

Regarding “ex cathedra.” In order for the Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must be speaking as a function of the Chair of Peter. In other words, the charism is not attached to just any day-to-day words he might utter, even as a clergyman or bishop. But he must be clear that he is exercising his Petrine roots as shepherd of all Christians, along with a few other criteria (detailed at Vatican 1, session 4, chapter 4, paragraph 9).

 

[thistle]

Infallible means he is protected from teaching error. It’s not a guarantee of truth, it is protection from error. The Latin etymology of the word is rooted in “not fail/err.” Ex Cathedra means “from the chair.” So when he exercises infallibility, we can be assured that what he says does not contain error - in a sense, that means it’s true, but in another sense, one should not believe the wording was perfect or that the doctrine he teaches can’t develop or some such. Just that it does not contain untruth.

Regarding “ex cathedra.” In order for the Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must be speaking as a function of the Chair of Peter. In other words, the charism is not attached to just any day-to-day words he might utter, even as a clergyman or bishop. But he must be clear that he is exercising his Petrine roots as shepherd of all Christians, along with a few other criteria (detailed at Vatican 1, session 4, chapter 4, paragraph 9).

That seems contradictory. The Church can only teach the truth in matters of faith and morals so a protection from error by definition must mean a guarantee of truth. Developing and clearer way of explaining the truth does not mean the truth has changed. Truth is truth.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

That seems contradictory. The Church can only teach the truth in matters of faith and morals so a protection from error by definition must mean a guarantee of truth. Developing and clearer way of explaining the truth does not mean the truth has changed. Truth is truth.

So then basically the pope cannot err on faith and morals because he is protected from making such errors by the holy Spirit. Wouldn’ t Ex Cathedra be applied to faith and morals as well? My understanding about Ex Cathedra is that he is the authoritative decision maker on truths regarding our beliefs and proper forms of worship. Please let me know if I’m off on this.

 

[thistle]

So then basically the pope cannot err on faith and morals because he is protected from making such errors by the holy Spirit. Wouldn’ t Ex Cathedra be applied to faith and morals as well? My understanding about Ex Cathedra is that he is the authoritative decision maker on truths regarding our beliefs and proper forms of worship. Please let me know if I’m off on this.

Sorry but I’m not sure what you mean. What are “proper forms of worship”?

 

[anrmenchaca47]

Sorry but I’m not sure what you mean. What are “proper forms of worship”?

I guess what I was trying to say was the former not the latter. Proper forms of worship was a wrong thought on my part. I just thought that ex cathedra pretty much meant that the pope speaks without error on anything is what I was trying to find out. Sorry that was an idiotic moment for me.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I just thought that ex cathedra pretty much meant that the pope speaks without error on anything is what I was trying to find out. Sorry that was an idiotic moment for me.

It is just faith and morals as Vatican I states.Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 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.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That seems contradictory. The Church can only teach the truth in matters of faith and morals so a protection from error by definition must mean a guarantee of truth. Developing and clearer way of explaining the truth does not mean the truth has changed. Truth is truth.

I’m sorry that was poorly worded. I was trying to describe a breakdown of the term “infallible.”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it means that his teaching is the truth and nothing but the truth, but may not be the whole truth. Note the doctrine of the Assumption is true, and contains nothing false. However, it does not provide the truth on whether Mary died before being assumed into Heaven. That is left undefined.

 

[thistle]

I think it means that his teaching is the truth and nothing but the truth, but may not be the whole truth. Note the doctrine of the Assumption is true, and contains nothing false. However, it does not provide the truth on whether Mary died before being assumed into Heaven. That is left undefined.

That is because Munificentissimus Deus is about the dogmatic declaration of Mary’s Assumption and not about her death. Whether she died or did not die is not relevant to her Assumption and its dogmatic declaration.