Understanding Ex Cathedra

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
robo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify. I would be very happy to be sure that OS is ex cathedra. Rest assured, I am not seeking to find ways around Church teachings - I seek to respect and obey all that is taught by the Magisterium whether ordinary or extraordinary.
 
Ron_Conte said:
In my opinion, the following papal statement meets all of the criteria for papal infallibility:…
So papal teachings do not usually fall under papal infallibility.
Ron
Click to expand...
I think that’s an excellent overview.
 
Further, to add to what has here been said we have to look at the reason why the “5” points must be met. If we were to take the above example of robo and place that into formal practice that would cause a lot of problems for reconciling many of the teachings of many of the popes. The Church does not give as broad of a definition because it understands that precision and limitation of such an authority is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Sacra Doctrina.

Further, such things that are taught outside of those 5 points do fall into the levels of theological certitude when formally taught. However, we must be careful to not push something up to the level of Dogma before the Church has had sufficient time to reflect on an issue.
 
My understanding of “infallibility” or Ex Cathedra .

Infallibility is a grace that Jesus gave to Peter and his successsors. It was given when Jesus said to Peter—“He who hears you, hears Me. And he who denies you, denies Me.”

Vatican I and II did not create a new dogma, for as you know, at no time does the Teaching Magisterium do that. It only clarifies that which already exists in Revelation, Scripture and Tradition and what has been consistantly accepted or taught in the Church for centuries.

So, for me, when the counsels clarified “infallibility” by giving us its definition, it did so by telling the faithful what is “inherent” in the charism of infallibility. Hence, when the Successor of Peter expressly invokes his Petrine authority in matters of faith and morals, in doing so all that is contained in the definition is present.

Defining is present, since he is expressly limiting, putting boundries, or finalizing the issue at hand as regards a question of faith or morals.
 
robo said:
My understanding of “infallibility” or Ex Cathedra .

Infallibility is a grace that Jesus gave to Peter and his successsors. It was given when Jesus said to Peter—“He who hears you, hears Me. And he who denies you, denies Me.”

Vatican I and II did not create a new dogma, for as you know, at no time does the Teaching Magisterium do that. It only clarifies that which already exists in Revelation, Scripture and Tradition and what has been consistantly accepted or taught in the Church for centuries.

So, for me, when the counsels clarified “infallibility” by giving us its definition, it did so by telling the faithful what is “inherent” in the charism of infallibility. Hence, when the Successor of Peter expressly invokes his Petrine authority in matters of faith and morals, in doing so all that is contained in the definition is present.

Defining is present, since he is expressly limiting, putting boundries, or finalizing the issue at hand as regards a question of faith or morals.
Click to expand...
Yes but to be more precise one must consider the level of doctrinal assent that the pope is communicating. For instance there are times when the Holy Father desires to only give relative certitued and some times de Fide. This is why the particulars that have been expressed are necessary for a statement to be de fide.
 
mosher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi Mosher,
How are we to understand this co-authored by then Cardinal Ratzinger?:
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,…in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
 
Hi Mosher,

Apparently this was well after the Response to a Dubium.
Response to a Dubium, 1995
Doctrinal Commentary regarding Proferssio Fidei, 1998
 
Ron_Conte said:
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…
  4. should be “by a definitive act, he proclaims” or in other words “he defines”
    and
  5. 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
Click to expand...
All Church teachings by definition are true and must be believed.
The Popes wouldn’t be spending so much of their time writing encyclicals and other papal documents that included teachings if they were not part of the faith and required for belief. They write them to clarify all of the errors that theologians and scripture scholars are constantly coming up with.

Theologians and scripture scholars not in union with the pope are the most dangerous people on earth as almost every major heresy was begun by them. That is why Jesus gave us the popes, to teach us truth.

Joe
 
I would think there must be operating principles that we can understand in determining whether a teaching is ex cathedra. I seek to understand if an ex cathedra teaching can be recognized based on its definition (Pastor Aeternus) regardless of commentary or other documents. Pastor Aeternus seems to state that a plethora of non-papal-infallible documents could be written and it would not change the reality of an ex cathedra teaching:

“…such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church’s consent, irreformable.”

Therefore I ask this. How does the Church operate in this regard? Do we operate such that a.) we await and or refer to non-papal-infallible statements/documents to determine whether a teaching is ex cathedra or b.) do we recognize it based on its definition (Pastor Aeternus) alone?

If the answer is a.) then how does one explain this?:
“…such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church’s consent, irreformable.”
 
If the purpose of the charism of infallibility is to provide clear and dependable teaching to the Church (as I’ve heard stated many times) doesn’t it somewhat defeat the purpose of the charism if it’s difficult to determine what is and is not an infallible teaching?

A related question: if Pope Benedict is aware (as he must be) that some are questioning whether OS and HV were infallible statements, why doesn’t he take 5 minutes and reiterate them with clear, unmistakeable language of infallibility, such as accompanied the proclamations of the IC and Assumption? Why did Paul VI and JPII not do so to begin with? Joe
 
Mosher, are you no longer going to discuss this? If so, please inform me.
 
Coder said:
Mosher, are you no longer going to discuss this? If so, please inform me.
Click to expand...
Sorry I just had not seen the reply.
Coder said:
Hi Mosher,

Apparently this was well after the Response to a Dubium.
Response to a Dubium, 1995
Doctrinal Commentary regarding Proferssio Fidei, 1998
Click to expand...
This is difficult and I don’t know how to interpret it. I am sure that there is a nuance that we are not seeing in this case.

I would argue that the commentary is not fully correct in that it seems to ascribe a canonical view of the Papal Charism. In canon law we were taught that we were to be restrictive in positive canons and liberal in the application of negative canons. What I mean by this is that if there is a penalty for something you look hard to see if there is a way out of the penalty based on circumstance or some other aspect. However, in canons that grant authority one should take a rigorous view.

It seems to me that the commentary leans to being too restrictive of the Papal Charism. In effect holding to the view that there is a particular formula that must be used for an infallible statement. I don’t think that this is an accurate view of the role of the Pope in these circumstances. However, on the same note it would seem that if one were to not be a rigorous in this aspect it would leave open a great question to some other definitive statements made by other Popes. It seams that there is an instinctual guarding against making it too broad.

In short I don’t know. I would like to hear further reasoned discussion about this point before I can draw any firm conclusion.
 
Hi Mosher,

Thank you. Perhaps thinking about my question(s) in post #33 could help. I am interested in your thoughts about those question(s).
 
Coder said:
Hi Mosher,

Thank you. Perhaps thinking about my question(s) in post #33 could help. I am interested in your thoughts about those question(s).
Click to expand...
I think that to this Ron Conte in his posts in particular #9 give a sufficient explanation in so far was we understand the dogma today. And perhaps the statement in OS is only under the area of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. It is very confusing and in no small part that confusion can be attributed to the language of personalism that John Paul II was fond of using in his documents. The lack of precision in that style of philosophical language lends to these types of confusions as we also find in the Documents of Vatican II which also adopted the language of personalism to some extent. Here then we have to speak of the issue of intention of the Holy Father. In reality he can declare something in a form that was seem infallible but if his intention was not to bind as such then the language lacks efficacy. However, then, this brings in the next problem which is the meaning of words and declarative statements in Church Documents - and this opens up an even broader can of worms. But perhaps it is that can of worms that must be discussed because it seems that based on the article by the CDF it was a matter of intention and not formulation.
 
mosher said:
…it seems that based on the article by the CDF it was a matter of intention and not formulation.
Click to expand...
The intention to remove all doubt seems quite clear. Consider this logic:
  1. I think we can find those who claim that it was not ex cathedra and therefore the idea of the ordination of women is still an open possibility.
  2. Therefore people won’t accept that all doubt is removed until it is a teaching of the extraordinary magisterium.
  3. The Pope is intelligent and knew this.
  4. Therefore his clear intention to remove all doubt is also a clear intention to teach extraordinarily.
Otherwise, since there are still those who promote the ordination of women, the Pope has failed to “remove all doubt”. Yet, I wonder if this result is not due to the Pope but rather to the subsequent documents that have seemed to “downgrade” the status of the teaching.

I think that since the Pope intended to remove all doubt then the question should not be left open - yet it is to many. Therefore, I think there may be error in the interpretation that it is not a teaching of the extraordinary magisterium.

I seek an explanation about:

a.) So many saw this as ex cathedra yet now we are taught that it is not
and
b.) Some people see the question of ordination of women as still open yet the Pope said his intention was to remove all doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top