Understanding Ex Cathedra

[Coder]

Is the gift given to Peter to “confirm the brethren”, meant to strengthen the Bishops against dissent etc. among the laity, theologians, and religious or is it meant to clarify and certify teachings that debated among the Bishops themselves? Is it both?

Which source of debate calls for ex cathedra? I.e. is ex cathedra only for the purpose of certifying to laity, theologians, and religious?

Is ex cathedra for the purpose of certifying to the Bishops themselves?

Is ex cathedra for both purposes?

I seek authoritative answers , please.

Thank You

 

[Coder]

Also, I seek to understand if infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium can subsequently be taught ex cathedra. I have seen document(s) that indicate this is possible.

However, another document indicates that if a papal doctrinal teaching states that the doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium, then the papal teaching is evidently not ex cathedra.

I can provide the names and links to these documents as needed.

 

[mosher]

The use of the Extraordinary Magesterium of the Church in this manner is for all and the whole Church. A quick read of the controlling document of Vatican I (quite simple and understandable) will clear up any question you may have.

On your second post the point is irrelevant. Once a dogma is declared it is redundant for the Pope to speak “ex cathedra” on the issue because it is already declared. Thus it would serve no purpose if he were to do so. Look at the firmly known uses of this charisma namely in the declaration of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception and recently in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis speaking on the inability of the Church to confer the Priesthood on women.

 

[Coder]

Hi Mosher and Thank You,

The use of the Extraordinary Magesterium of the Church in this manner is for all and the whole Church.

I have read Pastor Aeternus. However, is ex cathedra papal infallibility used only/primarily when there is questioning/disagreement among the bishops themselves?

This statement below implies this:
The ordinary, universal Magisterium … It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops … give a common witness. … As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Once a dogma is declared it is redundant for the Pope to speak “ex cathedra” on the issue because it is already declared.

If by “declared” you mean taught by the extraordinary Magisterium then I understand. However, apparently, ex cathedra is used to certify teachings that are taught by the ordinary Magisterium.
The reason for ex cathedra definitions is almost always to give this certification to the truths that are to be believed as belonging to the “deposit of faith”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html
(If something is to be believed as belonging to the deposit of faith then I would think it unusual (if ever) that it was not first taught by the ordinary Magisterium before it was taught ex cathedra.

Look at the firmly known uses of this charisma namely in the declaration of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception…

The Immaculate Conception was well known:
Even after the dogma had been universally accepted in the Latin Church, and had gained authoritative support through diocesan decrees and papal decisions,…
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The Assumption was taught in the odrinary Magisterium before ex cathedra definition:
In the Bull Munificentissimus…among the arguments in favor…: “The universal consent of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium provides a certain, solid argument to prove that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven…is a truth revealed by God”.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html

…and recently in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

!!! You think OS is ex cathedra. I am excited to learn more about why. It seemed to be ex cathedra to me and I still seek to determine this. However I have been pointed to documents such as one the above (link repeated here):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Thank You Mosher

 

[mosher]

Hi Mosher and Thank You,

I have read Pastor Aeternus. However, is ex cathedra papal infallibility used only/primarily when there is questioning/disagreement among the bishops themselves?

This statement below implies this:
The ordinary, universal Magisterium … It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops … give a common witness. … As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

No, for instance, to give an anecdote. When the Holy Father decided to define the Assumption there was no disagreement among the Bishops. Rather he wrote a letter asking if they and their clergy would accept the Dogma. Receiving a favorable response he declared it. This bit in practice gives insight to the way in which it is able to be used.

If by “declared” you mean taught by the extraordinary Magisterium then I understand. However, apparently, ex cathedra is used to certify teachings that are taught by the ordinary Magisterium.
The reason for ex cathedra definitions is almost always to give this certification to the truths that are to be believed as belonging to the “deposit of faith”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html
(If something is to be believed as belonging to the deposit of faith then I would think it unusual (if ever) that it was not first taught by the ordinary Magisterium before it was taught ex cathedra.

Thank you for the correction in charity. You are correct that it is to confirm the Ordinary Magesterium. I find myself often citing one when I mean the other when talking on this subject. Pardon my constant error. So, then, this being so then this teaching would have already received the favor of ascending the hierarchy of truths beyond any opinion and thus again it seems that it would generally only be used to confirm and not to affirm.

!!! You think OS is ex cathedra. I am excited to learn more about why. It seemed to be ex cathedra to me and I still seek to determine this. However I have been pointed to documents such as one the above (link repeated here):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

I am certain that it is. Not only is the formulation of the Holy Father’s statement from a position of Authority but the dubium given the CDF on the nature of the statement came back in the affirmative that it was to be understood as an infallible teaching. In this case it was used to quell disunity on the issue was was then affirmative.

From these two particular examples we can see that it can serve to affirm a truth or to confirm a truth at the will of the Holy Father.

 

[robo]

This is why OS is an ex-cathedra teaching—

With the Apostolic Letter , dated May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, the Supreme Pontiff Pope John Paul II expressly intends to fulfill his office as Successor of Peter, confirming by virtue of his apostolic ministry the teaching according to which the Church does not have the authority to confer priestly ordination on women, and declaring that this teaching is to be definitively held by all the faithful.

 

[Coder]

Hi mosher and robo,

I certainly agree that the Pope’s teaching appears to possibly have the ex cathedra form. I also am pursuing the line of reasoning that it is ex Cathedra. However, how are we to understand these statements by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. ?:

“It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals and and in the Apostolic Letter , the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.”
(Notice how he says “not in a solemn way”.)

“…when the of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the doctrine taught in the Apostolic Letter mentions the infallible character of this doctrine…it simply meant to recall that the doctrine is not infallibly proposed only on the basis of this pontifical document, but that it confirms what has been held everywhere, …”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

 

[robo]

My understanding as a layman of “ex cathedra” is as follows.

Whoever occupies the chair (cathedra) of Peter possess the charism of “infallibility”. This means that whenever the Vicar of Chirst, the Holy Father, indicates that as the Vicar of Christ, proclaims or teaches on matters of faith or morals, he does so from the chair–“ex cathedra”. This then declares the teaching to be “infallible”.

What makes the “ex cathedra” SOLEMN". Again, my understanding is that the manner in which the infallible declaration is made. That is, the Holy Father makes it solemn by appearing publicly standing in front of, or sitting in the "chair of Peter in his full regalia.

When done thru an encylical, which is the ordinary manner of doing so, the declaration is no less infallible or “ex cathedra”.

Another aspect—The Holy Father, as Vicar of Christ, therefore as protector and teacher of the deposit of Faith, is always occupying the chair (cathedra) of Peter. Therefore whatever he does to protect or teach the deposit of Faith as regards dogma and morals, he does so from the chair—“ex cathedra”.

Respectfully, Robo

 

[Ron_Conte]

The term ex cathedra is used differently by Vatican I than by Vatican II.
In the first Council, ex cathedra was used with a broad meaning, including several sub-criteria, so that the total number of criteria was 5, but the four were grouped under the term ex cathedra.

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

criteria 2-5 are all grouped under the term ex cathedra.

But in the second Council, the term ex cathedra was used narrowly, so that not all the sub-criteria were placed under the one term.

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”

So now the criteria are the same, but ex cathedra is used more narrowly, so that it does not include the criteria in 3 - 5.

Lacking any of the five criteria, a papal teaching is not infallible under papal infallibility.

Most papal teachings in papal documents fall under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.

Ron

 

[robo]

Ron,
You posted-----“Most papal teachings in papal documents fall under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.”

I’m a bit confused. Kindly explain this in further detail.
Thank You.

 

[Coder]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (bold added):
“…the teaching…has been…firmly taught by the Magisterium…it is nonetheless considered still open to debate…”

So how can another act of the ordinary Magisterium “remove all doubt.”?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Most papal teachings in papal documents fall under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.

I. Infallible teachings of the Magisterium

A. papal infalliblity (teachings must meet all 5 criteria)

B. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils and similar gatherings of the body of Bishop with the Pope

C. the ordinary universal Magisterium (when the body of Bishop dispersed throughout the world, and the Pope, are in agreement on one doctrinal position definitively to be held)

II Non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium

All other teachings of Popes, Ecumenical Councils, and the Bishops, in groups and individually, fall under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.

When a teaching has been taught under the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium for a length of time, so widely by the Bishops in the world and the Pope that it becomes a univeral teaching of the Magisterium, then that teaching moves from the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium to the ordinary universal Magisterium, which is then infallible.

Ron

 

[mosher]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (bold added):
“…the teaching…has been…firmly taught by the Magisterium…it is nonetheless considered still open to debate…”

So how can another act of the ordinary Magisterium “remove all doubt.”?

Hi mosher and robo,

I certainly agree that the Pope’s teaching appears to possibly have the ex cathedra form. I also am pursuing the line of reasoning that it is ex Cathedra. However, how are we to understand these statements by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. ?:

“It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals and and in the Apostolic Letter , the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.”
(Notice how he says “not in a solemn way”.)

“…when the of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the doctrine taught in the Apostolic Letter mentions the infallible character of this doctrine…it simply meant to recall that the doctrine is not infallibly proposed only on the basis of this pontifical document, but that it confirms what has been held everywhere, …”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

I don’t think that his statement reflects the intent nor the purpose of the document. The formulation that John Paul II used in OS follows the form of that type of statement containing all five of the criterion that were above given. Further, the Dubium asked was about the nature of the statement - if it were to be held as an infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff. The response was in the affirmative with the full and immediate approval of the Holy Father. Thus it seems that Archbishop Bertone was not in sync with John Paul II and then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Further, the statement that the issue is no longer a matter of discussion ordered in OS by John Paul II also lends to the weight of the declaration.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In my opinion, the doctrinal statement in OS meets all 5 criteria for papal infallibility, but the CDF subsequent to the release of that document stated that it is infallible for other reasons. However, the Pope and the CDF have not, to my knowledge, specifically stated that it does not fall under papal infallibility, they just emphasize that it is infallible under the universal Magisterium.

Ron

 

[robo]

CODER,

Whenever the Holy Father explicitly invokes his office as supreme teacher in matters of faith and morals those issues take on the charism of “infalibility”. This means that the matter is clearly now to be believed by all the faithful and that all debate now ceases.

The two most recent ones are—1-In the encyclical Humanae Vitae, the teaching on the issue of birth control is an ex cathedra teaching and the debate is closed
–2- The teaching on the question of women ordination is an ex cathedra statement and there is no longer open for debate.

 

[robo]

Ron,

To my knowledge, the dogma of “infalibity” was defined in Vatican I and in Vatican II the dogma was no different. The Second Vatican Councel clarified in more detail the charism of “infalibilty”.

I have never heard it treated as being something that has to meet 5 criteria.

Vatican II has made it clear that, as always, the charism of “infalibilty” belongs solely to the office of the Vicar of Christ. It is shared by the Teaching Magisterium, i.e. the bishops convened at a council when this body defines or teaches in a matter of faith or morals in union with the Vicar of Christ.

 

[Ron_Conte]

To my knowledge, the dogma of “infalibity” was defined in Vatican I and in Vatican II the dogma was no different. The Second Vatican Councel clarified in more detail the charism of “infalibilty”.

I have never heard it treated as being something that has to meet 5 criteria.

Vatican II has made it clear that, as always, the charism of “infalibilty” belongs solely to the office of the Vicar of Christ. It is shared by the Teaching Magisterium, i.e. the bishops convened at a council when this body defines or teaches in a matter of faith or morals in union with the Vicar of Christ.

Yes, the teaching of Vatican 1 and of Vatican 2 on this subject is the same. The differences in wording help to clarify the dogma.

Yes, theologians generally use a numbered set of criteria; they often combine 1 and 2 (in the post above) into one criterium.

The Pope does not teach infallibly in every case merely by speaking in his official capacity as Roman Pontiff (ex cathedra in the narrower sense). The pope’s teaching is generally under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium, unless it falls into one of the three types of infallibility in the post above.

The following quoted statement is not true:
Whenever the Holy Father explicitly invokes his office as supreme teacher in matters of faith and morals those issues take on the charism of "infalibility"

It is not a correct statement because all of the criteria for papal infallibililty as taught by the Council must be met, whereas the quoted statement above lacks the ‘he defines’ criteria, and it lacks the criteria that the teaching be binding on the whole Church. Also, the phrasing ‘explicitly invokes’ is somewhat confusing and is not the way that either Council worded it.

Ron

 

[robo]

Ron, the following words are that of John Paull II— he invokes his supreme teaching authority to make clear the matter of women ordination.

Is this not now an “infallible” teaching in the Church?

“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.”

 

[robo]

P.S.

Ron, you are correct in listing what you termed the criteria—infact that is the definition of —infalibility— and so, when the Holy Father invokes his authority as chief teacher in regards to matters of doctrine and morals, all the criteria are fulfilled, not so?

 

[Ron_Conte]

In my opinion, the following papal statement meets all of the criteria for papal infallibility:

“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.”

But that opinion is a matter of some dispute; some say that it is infallible, but for other reasons.

Five criteria are required, but your sentence only had three:

1. when the Holy Father
2. invokes his authority as chief teacher
3. in regards to matters of doctrine and morals…

1. should be “by a definitive act, he proclaims” or in other words “he defines”
   and
2. should be that the doctrine “must be held by the whole Church”

So the statement from OS does meet all 5 criteria, but not every papal teaching meets all 5 criteria. If the Pope is just teaching by virtue of his authority as Pope, that constitutes the first two criteria, and often the fourth criteria will be met, if it is on faith and morals (or any teaching from Divine Revelation, i.e. Tradition and Scripture).

But the third and fifth criteria are the ones most often absent.
Papal teachings are not usually definitions of doctrine (“he defines”), and they often do not bind the universal Church. The Pope often teaches without saying to the faithful, in efffect, ‘you must believe each and every sentence of what I am saying.’

So papal teachings do not usually fall under papal infallibility.

Ron