Popes and Ex Catheda

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
Sorry if I misspelled. But, how many times has a there been a Pope make a Ex Catheda statement? I know that Pope Pius made one on The assumption of Mary in 1954 (I think) but, I couldn’t think of another one for anything.
 
Montie Claunch:
Sorry if I misspelled. But, how many times has a there been a Pope make a Ex Catheda statement? I know that Pope Pius made one on The assumption of Mary in 1954 (I think) but, I couldn’t think of another one for anything.
Click to expand...
As Banjo noted in another thread on Ex Cathedra statements:

“The only two ex cathedra pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).”

Catholicism for Dummies; Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD, Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD; Wiley Publishing Inc.; Indianapolis, Indiana; 2003​

However, I’d also recommend this article by Jimmy Akin:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

And for a great resource on infallibly-defined Catholic teachings in general, you may want to check out Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

And in case you haven’t already seen it:
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
 
I’m going to have to agree with DeFide on this. I don’t think that there’s been any Ex Cathedra teachings other than the two he mentioned.
 
40.png
Aureole:
I’m going to have to agree with DeFide on this. I don’t think that there’s been any Ex Cathedra teachings other than the two he mentioned.
Click to expand...
This begs the question: If papal infallibility was always assumed why wasnt the “dogmas” of the I.C. and Assumption declared centuries maybe a millenium ago? Why so late in Christian history?
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
This begs the question: If papal infallibility was always assumed why wasnt the “dogmas” of the I.C. and Assumption declared centuries maybe a millenium ago? Why so late in Christian history?
Click to expand...
Well, If I am not mistaken, there were a few coucils talking about the nature of Jesus (Human and devine) and declared in the 300s. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t biblical or not beleived by the aposltes and ECF. And there might not have been a reason to do so till then. So lets not jump to conclusions.
 
Peace be with you!

I thought that Pope John Paul II made an ex cathedra pronouncement on women’s ordination:

“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.”
  • *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *May 22, 1994
In Christ,
Rand
 
St. Mark, why put dogma in “” quotes?

The statements were made, not because they had just been “thought up” (the scriptural basis and the teachings on both DO go back for millennia), but because they were being questioned and denied by Christians, and thus the Holy Spirit guided the Pope, in those cases, to make the ex cathedra statements. The traditions of the Assumption/ Dormition certainly go back to the 4th or 5th centuries. Statements about the “sinless vessel” (the Immaculate Conception) likewise exist with the early Church fathers and were taught throughout the early Christian era into the Middle Ages and through until today.

Not to point fingers at our separated brethren, but why do you think that (in an INDUSTRIAL society, with a more LITERATE populace, in areas where Catholicism had been replaced by Protestantism) there had to be formal reaffirmation of unchanging DOGMA when said brethren were (in the 19th and 20th centuries) most bent on challenging those two dogmas?
 
Tantum ergo:
St. Mark, why put dogma in “” quotes?
Click to expand...
Peace be with you!

He’s Orthodox, so they don’t have those dogmas. Although, as far as I know, the Orthodox believe in the Assumption, or something close to it. StMarkEofE, correct me if I’m wrong.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand, thank you.

St. Mark, no need to answer me then since Rand explained. God bless.
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
This begs the question: If papal infallibility was always assumed why wasnt the “dogmas” of the I.C. and Assumption declared centuries maybe a millenium ago? Why so late in Christian history?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think that people extremely over analyze things in terms of papal infallibility. In other words, they read things very juridically in the way that they identify statements. If a statement is not using perfect language, they disqualify it. However, there is a Magisterial document which specifically teaches that this is an improper way to look at statements. It is my understanding that whenever a Pope makes a statement as the teacher of all Christians in which he makes it known that a particular belief is to be definitively held, that is infallible. I forget which document states this, however…
 
Vatican ! states

“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]

thus there are, clearly, four tests of infallibility:

The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these four are missing the Pope is teaching infallibly.

This has been done thousands of times by the Popes.
 
40.png
dcdurel:
Vatican ! states

“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]

thus there are, clearly, four tests of infallibility:

The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these four are missing the Pope is teaching infallibly.

This has been done thousands of times by the Popes.
Click to expand...
That’s what I mean… and I think there is an encyclical to more or less back this up; I will dig for it.
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Peace be with you!

I thought that Pope John Paul II made an ex cathedra pronouncement on women’s ordination:

“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.”
  • *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *May 22, 1994
In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Anyone know if this was an ex cathedra statement? It sounds like it was.
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Anyone know if this was an ex cathedra statement? It sounds like it was.
Click to expand...
That’s what I have been talking about in the past few posts. There is a huge debate over whether this is infallible or not. Many, like Jimmy Akin, strongly insist it is not. Many others assert that it does.

For me personally, I can see Akin’s point, but I have a hard time believing it is not infallible given the words because there is a Magisterial statement that says that we aren’t supposed to be overly juridical reading the words in determining infallibility. I am looking for it now.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Honestly, I think that people extremely over analyze things in terms of papal infallibility. In other words, they read things very juridically in the way that they identify statements. If a statement is not using perfect language, they disqualify it. However, there is a Magisterial document which specifically teaches that this is an improper way to look at statements. It is my understanding that whenever a Pope makes a statement as the teacher of all Christians in which he makes it known that a particular belief is to be definitively held, that is infallible. I forget which document states this, however…
Click to expand...
Father Peter Joseph is a priest of the Diocese of Wagga Wagga, Australia, with a licentiate in theology from the Pontifical Urban University and a doctorate in dogmatic theology from the Gregorian University in Rome.
mafg.home.isp-direct.com/magist02.htm
"People often demand extra conditions of ex cathedra statements, by which they often unconsciously limit the pope’s Magisterium and add their own doctrines to the defined doctrine of Vatican I.

For instance, do we not hear people say that a special formula is required for a definition? They demand the words, “we declare, pronounce and define” or some such phrase – which a pope may use, but is not required to use. Nor is it necessary to attach an anathema; nor does the pope have to say – just as no pope ever has – that he is speaking infallibly. If, for example, it were required that the pope say that he is speaking infallibly, then this would become condition number five, as it were. In other words, it would not be enough for him to fulfill the four conditions, but he would have to fulfill a fifth condition – namely, make a statement that he has fulfilled the four conditions. Pope Pius XII, when defining the Assumption, did not say that he was speaking infallibly. Nor has any Pope spoken in such a self-referential way. If he did so, then this would only give rise to the question: Was he speaking infallibly when he declared himself to have spoken infallibly? In other words, such conditions destroy papal infallibility, by setting up a series of endless self-referential questions, a regressus ad infinitum.

Pax

Brian
 
Rand Al'Thor:
Anyone know if this was an ex cathedra statement? It sounds like it was.
Click to expand...
Then Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was the prefect of the CDF, said it is not ex cathedra, but that it is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium:
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.
Click to expand...
The “ordinary” in “ordinary Papal Magisterium” means not ex cathedra.
 
There have been many more than just the Assumption and the IC definitions.

Benedict XIV describing the Beatific Vision in Benedictus Deus
Boniface VIII on papal authority in Unam Sanctam
The Tome of Leo the Great
Eugene IV on salvation in Cantate Domino
 
Unless one of these four conditions are missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.

The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

Thus Humanae Vitae and the encyclical on the ordination of women are both infallible, since all four requirements are easily met.
All Church teachings are also infallible, for the Church can never be in error.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Then Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was the prefect of the CDF, said it is not ex cathedra, but that it is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium:

The “ordinary” in “ordinary Papal Magisterium” means not ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I was going to mention this but you put it more eloquently than I could have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top