Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gytis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gytis

Guest
I have read that some teachings of the Pope that are not Ex Cathedra are also infallible. However, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott I have been surprised to read that “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.” (1957 edition, page 10, chapter “The Theological Grades of Certainty”) Is this simply an unusual position of the author or is there some other explanation?

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
 
Gytis said:
I have read that some teachings of the Pope that are not Ex Cathedra are also infallible. However, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott I have been surprised to read that “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.” (1957 edition, page 10, chapter “The Theological Grades of Certainty”) Is this simply an unusual position of the author or is there some other explanation?

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
Click to expand...
I believe Ott is correct here. The Pope is just a man, by virtue of his office he is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit.

So this charism certainly applies to ex cathedra statements, but also other statements that the faithful will use to practice the faith such as encyclicals.

The Holy Spirit will ensure that the church as a whole will maintain course. So it seems like one could probably pick sentences out of different papal documents and show they aren’t perfectly sound. And that’s ok…what is important is what is defined as dogma and doctrine.

I know that answer is vague and plenty of ink has been spilled on this subject.

Ultimately the Holy Spirit protects the church including the pope from teaching formally heresy.
 
A Pope alone is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. His other teachings (encyclicals and other issued documents) are still binding and authoritative on all the faithful, but not infallible.

The Magisterium has three levels: the Extraordinary Infallible, the Ordinary Infallible, and the Ordinary Fallible. The Extraordinary Infallible is comprised of ex cathedra papal declarations and the teachings of ecumenical councils. The Ordinary Infallible is comprised of documents and teachings issued by the Pope in conjunction with the College of Bishops (this is mostly social teaching, like that Marxism is evil, abortion is wrong, etc.). The Ordinary Fallible is made up of encyclicals and other papally issued documents and teachings.
 
Gytis said:
I have read that some teachings of the Pope that are not Ex Cathedra are also infallible. However, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott I have been surprised to read that “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.” (1957 edition, page 10, chapter “The Theological Grades of Certainty”) Is this simply an unusual position of the author or is there some other explanation?

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
Click to expand...
From my understanding - when the Pope is exercising his office as Bishop, he is not always proclaiming teachings infallibly. However, he is teaching infallibly (by way of the ordinary magisterium) when he teaches that which is held by the entire College of Bishops.

For example, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, JPII was not invoking the extraordinary magisterium to make a solemn statement forbidding the ordination of women - but, the contents of the document are indeed infallible because what JPII presents is what the College of Bishops has always and universally held regarding this issue. So, I think this could be an example of the pope not speaking ex cathedra, but still teaching infallibly.
 
Gytis said:
I have read that some teachings of the Pope that are not Ex Cathedra are also infallible. However, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott I have been surprised to read that “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.” (1957 edition, page 10, chapter “The Theological Grades of Certainty”) Is this simply an unusual position of the author or is there some other explanation?

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
Click to expand...
I’m not a theologian but is there such a thing as “ordinary infallible papal magisterium”?

Other than that, I would say that some statements of Popes that are not ex cathedra can recount infallible truth but such truths are infallible not because the pope said it but because it is already part of the deposit of faith. For example, the Pope gives a formal address about the Trinity. He’s not exercising his charism of infallibility but he is, nonetheless, speaking of infallible truth. Ott, on the other hand, is apparently speaking of times when a pope addresses a topic that is not already part of the deposit of faith and is not intending to define something infallibly.
 
Yes, the Pope as an individual only exercises the Church’s infallibility when defining dogma ex cathedra. His ordinary magisterial teachings may be infallible, but only because they are part of the Ordinary Magisterium - that which the popes AND bishops down through the centuries have consistently taught. If the Pope is simply reiterating the constant teaching of the Church (popes and bishops in all times and places), he is teaching infallibly, but not because he is issuing a new infallible dogma, but because he is repeating that which is already infallible. This was the case when Blessed John Paul clarified the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination as the previous poster noted. The Pope simply restated what all of the bishops of the Church, going back to the Apostles and Fathers, have always taught.
 
Gytis said:
I have read that some teachings of the Pope that are not Ex Cathedra are also infallible. However, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott I have been surprised to read that “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.” (1957 edition, page 10, chapter “The Theological Grades of Certainty”) Is this simply an unusual position of the author or is there some other explanation?

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
Click to expand...
“Conscience in Conflict” Keneth R. Overberg S.J.

“Two modern councils ,Vatican I and Vatican II specified the conditions necessary for an expression of an infallible doctrinal pronouncement. 1/It must be a collegial act dealing with a revealed truth concerning faith and morals, 2/there must be an explicit call for absolute assent,3/the pronouncement must be the unanimous teaching of all the bishops. Thus, infallibility means that the Holy Spirit so assists the magisterium that it solemnly obliges the faithful to believe only what it contains in the Word of God”.

Also: Constitution on Divine Revelation (Vat II)
 
djames99 said:
“Conscience in Conflict” Keneth R. Overberg S.J.

“Two modern councils ,Vatican I and Vatican II specified the conditions necessary for an expression of an infallible doctrinal pronouncement. 1/It must be a collegial act dealing with a revealed truth concerning faith and morals, 2/there must be an explicit call for absolute assent,3/the pronouncement must be the unanimous teaching of all the bishops. Thus, infallibility means that the Holy Spirit so assists the magisterium that it solemnly obliges the faithful to believe only what it contains in the Word of God”.

Also: Constitution on Divine Revelation (Vat II)
Click to expand...
That statement would seem to exclude the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I, which says that the Pope has the power to speak infallibly independent of the College of Bishops via ex cathedra proclamations.
 
Thank you for the explanations. So, it seems that L. Ott for some reasons did not mention that the pope can teach something infallibly in his ordinary magisterium by stating something that is already part of the deposit of faith. After mentioning Ex Cathedra teachings, L. Ott goes straight to non-infallible teachings as if there was nothing between those two: “Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.”

Also, I have read that “Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique” talks about “infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium”, and that “Sacrae Theologiae Summa” by Salaverri talks about “Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium”. Unfortunately, I do not have these books to check by myself, but they cast doubt on Ott’s classification.

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
 
Gytis said:
I have read that some teachings of the Pope that are not Ex Cathedra are also infallible. However, in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott I have been surprised to read that “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.” (1957 edition, page 10, chapter “The Theological Grades of Certainty”) Is this simply an unusual position of the author or is there some other explanation?

In Christ,

Gytis Karciauskas
Click to expand...
The dogmatic declaration of Vatican I required consultation of the bishops, and specific ex-cathedra promulgation, and only applies to statements on Faith and Morals.

No pope has taught heresy as pope, tho’ at least two were heretics; one was even tried posthumously for same…
 
JamesTheJust said:
That statement would seem to exclude the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I, which says that the Pope has the power to speak infallibly independent of the College of Bishops via ex cathedra proclamations.
Click to expand...
V I requires that he consult with the bishops, not that he put it to a vote of the bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top