T
Tx3bro
Guest
Where is the line that dictates what is the popes personal decision and when the holy spirit at work?
- Status
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
Statements by a pope which exercise papal infallibility are referred to as “solemn papal definitions” or ex cathedra teachings. Also considered infallible are the teachings of the whole body of bishops of the Church, especially but not only in an ecumenical council
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:
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”
If all these ingredients are followed…it is an infallible statement.
It’s only happend a few times in history.
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:
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”
If all these ingredients are followed…it is an infallible statement.
It’s only happend a few times in history.
R
Regina_Love
Guest
The Pope works for the Holy Spirit! 
C
CMatt25
Guest
Are you saying only a few teachings or doctrines are infallible? What are they?
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
No. I’m saying that the pope only had to use the charism of infalliblity to bring about dogma: Immaculate conception, and the assumption are the two.
It is used as well for cannonizations where the pope follows the rubrics for proclaiming blesseds/saints : " we define/declare that (blank) is a saint" (these instances don’t set dogma…but dogmatic facts …not really teachings).
It is used as well for cannonizations where the pope follows the rubrics for proclaiming blesseds/saints : " we define/declare that (blank) is a saint" (these instances don’t set dogma…but dogmatic facts …not really teachings).
T
thistle
Guest
An example of when he not talking infallibly, i.e. not an exercise of the Magesterium, is when he writes books. In the foreword to his book Jesus of Nazareth he states what he has written is not an exercise of the Magesterium and anyone is free to disagree with his views.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I
Ignatius
Guest
No, most of the Doctrines of The Church are from the ordinary magisterium, councils and synods, etc.
G
Genesis315
Guest
St. Francis de Sales gave a good way of thinking about. The Pope, in his role as head of the Church, is infallible when he is essentially laying down the law of belief for the whole Church: judging definitively (this is what “define” means in this context) what we all must unconditionally hold or believe.
To say Popes have ever done this a few times in history is relatively recent idea which I don’t think is correct. I’m not sure where it comes from other than from those who want to minimize what they are bound to (I’m not saying those who repeat this idea have that intention, just where its origin lies). In fact, at the First Vatican Council, some bishops wanted to make the Pope follow a particular procedure or use a particular formula when proclaiming something infallibly and the official relator (whose job is to give an official explanation and interpretation of a document to be voted on), Bishop Gasser, explained to them that this was impossible as “thousands and thousands” of such proclamations had already been issued (he was speaking somewhat hyperbolically, but the point is valid). (Here is the official relatio of Bishop Gasser; the part I cite is on page 51, but the whole thing is a good read on papal infallibility).
I think a main point of confusion is that Popes have defintively proclaimed the truths of the of faith not just through positive formulations of doctrine, but also more commonly through the definitive condemnation of heresy and error (as the Councils have also done more commonly) .
So where’s a list, one might ask? Denzinger is a good source, although it is neither exhaustive nor restricted to only such things. But, really, to ask for a list goes against the Church’s praxis. Books and copies of papal decrees may be lost and destroyed, etc., etc. We rely on the ordinary and universal Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions–the Pope’s ability to define the faith is called an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium for this reason.
When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt and disputed (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith, so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.
To say Popes have ever done this a few times in history is relatively recent idea which I don’t think is correct. I’m not sure where it comes from other than from those who want to minimize what they are bound to (I’m not saying those who repeat this idea have that intention, just where its origin lies). In fact, at the First Vatican Council, some bishops wanted to make the Pope follow a particular procedure or use a particular formula when proclaiming something infallibly and the official relator (whose job is to give an official explanation and interpretation of a document to be voted on), Bishop Gasser, explained to them that this was impossible as “thousands and thousands” of such proclamations had already been issued (he was speaking somewhat hyperbolically, but the point is valid). (Here is the official relatio of Bishop Gasser; the part I cite is on page 51, but the whole thing is a good read on papal infallibility).
I think a main point of confusion is that Popes have defintively proclaimed the truths of the of faith not just through positive formulations of doctrine, but also more commonly through the definitive condemnation of heresy and error (as the Councils have also done more commonly) .
So where’s a list, one might ask? Denzinger is a good source, although it is neither exhaustive nor restricted to only such things. But, really, to ask for a list goes against the Church’s praxis. Books and copies of papal decrees may be lost and destroyed, etc., etc. We rely on the ordinary and universal Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions–the Pope’s ability to define the faith is called an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium for this reason.
When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt and disputed (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith, so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.
- Status