Papal Infallibility - Specifics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Br. Rich sfo

I am glad that we agree that the pope is teaching infallibly in OS that we must accept the infallible doctrine that there can be no women priests! I can at least understand that statement. 🙂

No, the Immaculate Conception even though it was held to and believed in the Church was not De Fide until 1854 when Pius IX defined it as such.

Are we talking semantics here? I understand that the solemn declaration of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was done by the pope speaking ex cathedra, and that this was dogma was declared de fide definita by an exercise of the extraordinary papal Magisterium. But all infallible means is “without error”, therefore, because it has always been true that Mary was immaculately conceived, those who proclaimed that Mary was immaculately conceived were speaking about an infallible doctrine that was drawn from the single deposit of Faith.

*Matt: The pope doesn’t add infallible teachings to the deposit of faith by making ex cathedra statements.

Br. Rich: In a sense yes he does. He does not invent new doctrines but he does solemnly declare a belief as revealed by God and defines it as De Fide.*

CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

I agree that a pope has the authority to declare that a doctrine under dispute is Infallible®™ by the exercise of the extraordinary papal Magisterium. By doing this, he is guarding the deposit of faith, which is why he was given the charism of infallibility in the first place. But the doctrine that the pope declares to be infallible had to be drawn from the single deposit of the faith, not added to it.
  • I don’t agree with that. Every Infallible teaching of the Church that is to be held as a matter of Faith has been defined in one way or another by the magisterium of the Church.*
I think you misunderstood me. A solemn definition is always a formal definition that was received by the whole Church through an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium (de fide definita). We both agree that not every infallible teaching of the Catholic Church has been solemly defined by an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.
  • The Pope is exercising the extraordinary papal magisterium when he teaches ex cathedra.*
Agreed. But is he only speaking ex cathedra when he is exercising the extraordinary papal Magisterium? The sources posted by Vincent would refute that notion.
 
I post this for those who might be reading this thread and who are confused by the distinction between the ordinary Magisterium, the ordinary universal Magisterium, and the extraordinary Magisterium.

MAGESTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magesterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

MAGESTERIUM, ORDINARY The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magesterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S. J.
 
per Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PHD, ThD (Priest, Pastor, EWTN co-host, of Council of Faith, and President of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergh,

And,

Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD Priest, Pastor, EWTN co-host, and Managing Editor of Sapienta Magazine…

The only two ex cathedra pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). They’re examples of the Extraordinary Magisterium and an exercise in papal infallibility. 👍
 
Vincent

I thought these points were well taken in the link that you posted:

It is almost as if Catholic apologists are so eager to play the “pope is not impeccable” card or the “it is not ex cathedra” card when in reality these cause as many problems as they solve. For the approach defacto makes infallibility the criterion of obedience and seriously sullies the integrity of the ordinary magisterium as a reliable norm for understanding the truth.

If one reads the commentaries of writers - even some who have an Imprimatur on their work - the standard approach is to make some kind of legal formula as a prerequisite. I have seen this almost every time I have read a source on this subject. This is despite the primary architect (and the relator) of the schema which was to become the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus specifically stating that there was no prescribed form for “instant ex cathedra” judgments.

The relator also stated to the voting Fathers that the word defines was not to be understood in a juridical sense and yet the apologists who continue to explain it in that manner to varying degrees are legion. ….

Another problem is the issue of reading into statements words which are not only not there but which are not even inferred. Statements such as “the pope is *only * infallible when he speaks ex cathedra” come to mind here. This is patently false and Vatican I does not say or even allude to this.

I think that the “Calvin” that has posted to this thread would agree with this:

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen an apologist pull the “it is not an error” and then (if they cannot answer the argument or even if they concede an error - whether one is real or not) they say “well it does not fulfill ex cathedra conditions”. There is a reason anti-Catholics accuse us of trying to “out-Jesuit” them and it is because of this kind of apparent shiftiness. 😛
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
I think that the “Calvin” that has posted to this thread would agree with this:

I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen an apologist pull the “it is not an error” and then (if they cannot answer the argument or even if they concede an error - whether one is real or not) they say “well it does not fulfill ex cathedra conditions”. There is a reason anti-Catholics accuse us of trying to “out-Jesuit” them and it is because of this kind of apparent shiftiness.😛
Click to expand...
Every one does it.

I heard a Protestant apologist a few weeks ago talking about the historical reliability of the Gospels say: “we have more evidence that Jesus existed then Kennedy existed.”

I immediately jumped on him and pointed out that we had video footage of Kennedy, thousands of photographs, foreign news reports, eyewitnesses who were still alive, etc. and he called me a “skeptic”?!

His retort? “Millions of Christians know that Jesus existed because they experience Him in their hearts.”

(True story.)

… if liberals call me “conservative” and conservatives call me “liberal,” I know I must be doing something right.

-C
 
Matt16_18:

Like Fr. Pilsner, Fr. Harrison and McElhinney, Fr. Brian Mullady, OP would agree that,

The question of papal infallibility is both a long-standing and a timely one which seems to be open to great debate and great misinterpretation. The best way to approach it is to treat just what the Fathers at Vatican I were trying to define in Pastor Aeternus and how this definition is both applied and advanced by Vatican II in* Lumen Gentium*. In treating of Vatican I, the best source for interpretation is the *Relatio * (Report) given by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser on July 11, 1870 to the Council and adopted by the Council as the authentic interpretation of their decree. “It [Gasser’s *Relatio] is the key to proper interpretation of chapter four of *Pastor Aeternus * as it was finally approved”. . . .

To the objection that there should be a specific formula for ex cathedra definitions, Gasser says that this would militate against former infallible pronouncements. “[W]e are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See.” There are those who say even today that there are so few infallible pronouncements that it is a useless prerogative. Gasser is clear that there have been many thousands of definitive teachings on the part of the Pope. . . .

But Fr. Mullady would agree with Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF:

Since the Pope is the head and he decides how the college will act, one could without contradiction maintain that encyclicals which meant to resolve moral questions definitively, like Humanae Vitae, and letters which meant to resolve sacramental questions about Christ’s institution of the priesthood, like Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, would not be examples of the Pope’s *ex cathedra * magisterium as defined in Vatican I. Still, they would be infallible teaching from the Episcopal Magisterium with the Pope teaching collegially as the head of the college.

What’s unexpected is that at first Fr. Mullady appears to be setting up an argument for the* ex cathedra * status of *HV * and *OS * by appealing ot Bishop Gasser’s explanation that there is no "specific formula for ex cathedra * definitions". But, Fr. Mullady then shows that when Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II promulgated HV * and OS, respectively, they confirmed that the doctrines contained therein are taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Therefore what was promulgated is infallible, but not ex cathedra. This seems to be in conformity with the CDF’s opinion that *OS * is an example of a “non-defining” act that is to be “held definitively”.

So, here we have another argument that implies that *OS * and *HV * would’ve been ex cathedra— a “defining act” that is to be “held definitively”— if Popes Paul VI and John Paul II hadn’t confirmed them as teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The weakness of Fr. Mullady’s argument is that the quotation from Bishop Gasser implies not that there have been “thousands and thousands” of infallible pronouncements, but there have been “thousands and thousands” of ex cathedra pronouncements. After all, Bishop Gasser was answering the “objection that there should be a specific formula for *ex cathedra * definitions”. *Ex cathedra * in particular is the issue, not infallible pronouncements, in general.

Dontcha just love theology? 😛
 
40.png
Vincent:
The weakness of Fr. Mullady’s argument is that the quotation from Bishop Gasser implies not that there have been “thousands and thousands” of infallible pronouncements, but there have been “thousands and thousands” of ex cathedra pronouncements. After all, Bishop Gasser was answering the “objection that there should be a specific formula for ex cathedra definitions”. *Ex cathedra * in particular is the issue, not infallible pronouncements, in general.
Click to expand...
Well…

After thinking about it, I realize that I may have jumped to conclusions in the above paragraph. I need to do a study of The Gift of Infallibility : The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I, by Fr. James T. O’Connor.

The good news is that I found out that my local Catholic university library has a copy of it. It seems to be out of print.
 
Vincent
  • But, Fr. Mullady then shows that when Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II promulgated HV and OS, respectively, they confirmed that the doctrines contained therein are taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Therefore what was promulgated is infallible, but not ex cathedra. This seems to be in conformity with the CDF’s opinion that OS is an example of a “non-defining” act that is to be “held definitively”.*
I can see that in both OS and HV that the pope is infallibly teaching that we must believe what is infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. To say that in OS and HV that the pope is teaching fallibly that we must accept infallible doctrine is a logical absurdity. And I can see that in neither of these encyclicals is there a new dogma being solemnly defined by the pope, since both these encyclicals only reaffirmed what was already infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. But that would only mean that the infallible teachings contained in OS and HV have do not have the theological status of de fide definita. It seems to me that a future Ecumenical Council could solemnly define that it is a dogma that only males may receive the Sacrament of Ordination. If that happened, the doctrine would no longer be just an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium, it would be an infallible teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium, and if that happened, the doctrine would possess the highest degree of theological certainty that it could ever possess (de fide definita).

That said, I don’t think that it follows that it is necessarily the CDF’s opinion that the pope did not speak ex cathedra in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. After all, the pope writes that he is exercising his “ministry of confirming the brethren”, and that his “judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Pope John Paul II is invoking the authority of his “ministry to confirm the brethern”, a phrase that is obviously an allusion to, “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren”. This scripture has always been seen by the Church as attesting to the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Furthermore, the pope teaches that “all the faithful” must accept his judgement, and that the doctrine that he is reaffirming must be “definitively” held, which is certainly germane to the question of ex cathedra papal statements.

The CDF says that in promulgating OS that the pope has engaged in a “non-defining act” that must be “definitively held”. But what does the CDF mean by a “non-defining act”? Is the CDF merely saying that the Pope has not made a solemn definition of a doctrine by exercising the extraordinary Papal Magisterium?

The exact wording of Cardinal Ratzinger is this:

“…the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

Letter Concerning the CDF Reply (Joseph Ratzinger, 1996)

Can anyone translate for me the following?

“quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens
 
The following is where Vatican I declared the infallibility of moral teaching when the pope speaks ex cathedra:

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. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapt. 4 (Vatican I).

It sure seems to me that Humanae Vitae meets the requirements defined in Vatican I for a pope to be speaking ex cathedra when he is defining for the faithful moral doctrine.

The conclusions at which the commission arrived could not, nevertheless, be considered by us as definitive, nor dispense us from a personal examination of this serious question; and this also because, within the commission itself, no full concordance of judgments concerning the moral norms to be proposed had been reached, and above all because certain criteria of solutions had emerged which departed from the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the teaching authority of the Church.

Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions.
Humanae Vitae 6
 
Help! I am still trying to figure out what Cardinal Ratzinger is saying. Can anyone translate the following?

quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens
 
Matt16_18:

quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens

Cardinal Ratzinger’s paraphrasing St. Vincent of Lerins:

“’…hold that…which has been believed everywhere, always, by all’ in asmuch as it pertains to the deposit of faith”

I apologize for my rusty latin.
 
Vincent

If I put your translation into Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter, it reads thus:

In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all’ in asmuch as it pertains to the deposit of faith. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

It is only the last sentence of the above makes no sense to me. ( An act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium that fallibly witnesses to the infallibility a doctrine ?) :confused:

Cardinal Ratzinger has said in this letter the following things about the doctrine that the Sacrament of Ordination can be given only to men:

1). “this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church”

2). This doctrine has been “set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium”.

3). This infallible doctrine that has been “confirmed” by the Roman Pontiff by a “formal declaration”.

4). The pope confirmed this infallible doctrine in a “precise act of the Magisterium” that is “explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church”.

5). The whole Church must give “irrevokable” assent to this infallible doctrine.

Did Pope John Paul II speak ex cathedra in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *? Vatican I teaches that the criteria for the pope speaking ex cathedra is this:

… the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra … 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 …

Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, ch. 4

It seems clear enough to me that in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *, that the Pope spoke ex cathedra … if one accepts the meaning of “defines” in Pastor aeternus in the sense that it was meant by the Fathers of Vatican I.

Do you agree with my conclusion?
 
trucatholic

The article you referenced by Father Peter Joseph says this:

The doctrine on papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870 may be briefly stated as follows: The pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when, as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church. Hence, there are four conditions for the exercise of papal infallibility, which we may summarize under the headings of (1) office, or subject of infallibility; (2) mode, or act of speaking infallibly; (3) content, or object of infallibility; and (4) recipient.

(1) Office: The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra – that is, from his position as supreme or universal pastor, not simply as a private theologian, or bishop of the Diocese of Rome, or sovereign of Vatican City State, or archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman Province, or primate of Italy, or patriarch of the West.

(2) Mode: He must be defining a doctrine, not merely explaining, commenting, observing, exhorting or discussing, etc. In defining, he conclusively pronounces a doctrine with precision and certainty, enunciating it as a final and definitive judgment of truth, to the exclusion of alternatives, and the elimination of doubt.

(3) Content: The doctrine must concern faith or morals. It need not be a revealed doctrine; it may be something already known by human reason – for example, a point of the natural law such as the evil of murder, theft, etc.

(4) Recipient: It must be addressed to all the Church, not merely one segment of her.

Authors quoted by Vincent agree with all of the above points about ex cathedra papal teachings - except the point made by Father Peter Joseph in “Mode”. Father Peter Joseph is basically asserting that the word “define”, as it is used in Pastor aeternus, cannot apply to a case where the Pope is using the authority of his teaching office to condemn a heresy spreading among the faithful. That hardly makes sense to me, since it is for precisely this reason that the pope possesses the charism of infallibility. In the *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *, Pope John Paul II explicitly addressed a false teaching that has been rapidly spreading in the church. The false teaching concerns the doctrine that the Sacrament of Ordination is reserved to men only. False teachers were asserting that this is merely a matter of church discipline, and not church doctrine, and that women can some day be ordained. (See *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *, 4). By issuing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the pope was “confirming the brethren” in the correct doctrine of the church to stop the dissent from the false teachers that were spreading confusion among the faithful. The pope explicitly addressed the whole church by a definitive act, and he declared that this is a matter of infallible doctrine that is part of the deposit of faith, and not a matter of mere discipline. The pope taught that this is is an infallible doctrine must be held with irrevokable assent by all the brethren.

And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Luke 22:31-32 Douay-Rheims

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Pope John Paul II, *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *, 4
 
Matt16_18:

I find your conclusion to be reasonable.

“Ex cathedra”, from Cardinal Ratzinger’s perspective, seems to exclude papal pronouncements that explicitly confirm certain teachings as belonging to the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Why this is so, I don’t know.

I wonder if this view of “ex cathedra” is a recent doctrinal development. We both know that Cardinal Ratzinger is a very profound theologian, and when push comes to shove, I’d rather be wrong with him than be right with me. At the same time, I find that his explanation on the “explicitly-confirm-as-belonging-to-the-ordinary-and-universal-Magisterium” exception clause requires further clarification.

Until I get a hold of Fr. O’Connor’s book, I won’t know if this was explained by Bishop Gasser to the Fathers of Vatican I before they voted on the schema that became Pastor Aeternus.

Here’s another article that may either help or muddle the discussion:

“Infallibility in the Context of Three Contemporary Developments,” by Dr. Mark Lowery.

Happy reading!
 
The biggest and most important thing to take note of is that “papal infallibility” is distinct from the “infallibility of the Church”. They are not the same thing. Most people today are confused about this and think that the only time the Church teaches infallibly is when there is a papal ex cathedra pronouncement. This error has caused a lot of mischief and harm. The truth is, even if the pope **never **made an ex cathedra prounouncement, and there were **never **a General Council, the Church would always teach Her children infallibly. That is because the universal & ordinary magisterium is infallible. The details of exactly how the Holy Ghost works this is not defined; it is a mystery of our Faith. The pope is obviously the most involved, but the Holy Ghost works through lesser authorities and even uses the laity to help the clergy in doing what they do. Here is a quote from the Vatican Council in 1870:

“…all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”

And the Church is obviously also infallible in Her approved liturgies, laws and disciplines. For instance, here is a notion condemned by Pope Pius VI: “the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful” (Auctorem Fidei, 1794)
 
jlc
  • The biggest and most important thing to take note of is that “papal infallibility” is distinct from the “infallibility of the Church”.*
Hmm… I am not so sure about that. Lumen Gentium says this:

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: [teachings of the ordinary universal Magisterium and the extraordinary Magisterium]

This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful–who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)–he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.

Lumen Gentium, 25

LG 25 doesn’t say that papal infallibility is distinct from the Church’s charism of infallibility, it says that the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a “singular way” in the Roman Pontiff, when “as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful …he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
 
Vincent

“Ex cathedra”, from Cardinal Ratzinger’s perspective, seems to exclude papal pronouncements that explicitly confirm certain teachings as belonging to the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It does seem that way. Which would mean that the pope could never speak ex cathedra in condemning a heresy that was opposing a doctrine already taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Then just what IS the subject matter on which the pope can use the supreme authority of his office to speak ex cathedra? Apparently, not much.

I typed “ex cathedra” into the Catholic Answers search engine to see what the party line at Catholic Answers was. Nothing turned up that explicitly explained how a Catholic can know when a pope is speaking ex cathedra. (Interesting too is the fact that the words “ex cathedra” don’t appear in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church * as far as I can determine.)

I did find this sentence in the Catholic Answers article Papal Infallibility :

… the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.

That is true, but a solemn definition is a formal definition that has been received by the Church through the extraordinary Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the ordinary universal Magisterium are not solemn definitions. The Papal Infallibility article did note that the ordinary magisterium can also teach infallibly:

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined by an official papal statement. There are, in fact, few topics on which it would be possible for a pope to make an infallible decision without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

more …
 
Continued …

OK. So if the pope cannot speak ex cathedra when he is condemning a heresy that contradicts an infallible doctrine already taught by the ordinary universal magisterium … and the pope cannot solemnly define a teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium to be infallible because that teaching is already a teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium … then how can we know when the pope is speaking infallibly when he claims that a particular doctrine is infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium? How do we know that the Pope isn’t merely giving us his private opinion as a theologian that the teaching is infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, and that he is not actually mistaken about this matter?

This is no trivial matter. The Catholic dissenters that are refusing to accept *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis * are arguing exactly along these lines, i.e. that the Pope only gave us his pious opinion as a theologian that it is the infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium that the priesthood is reserved to males only. The pope could be wrong, because OS is not an ex cathedra teaching, it is merely that teaching of the ordinary papal magisterium, and as such not infallible. … blah, blah, blah …

And the same thing goes for Humanae Vitae … another pious opinion of a pope that has never been solemnly defined - a teaching that can be overtuned by a more liberal pope in the future …. meanwhile just follow your conscience about artificial contraception until things get cleared up , etc., etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top