• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Looking for an official list of Ex Cathedra statements...

Status
Not open for further replies.

StPaul

Resistance is futile,... you will be assimilated.
Mar 31, 2004
780
49
40
Texas
Visit site
✟1,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I was taking a theology-type class that the church was offering for free. I do not have my notes in front of me, but there are different ways of Defining dogmatic statements (infallible). The rarest of which is Ex-Cathedra, which has declared the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption. The more popular is the ecumunical counsile, of which the Pope would still be head, but more of an overseer (I.E. Vatican, Vatican II, Trent, etc.). I think there are two other ways,... but I am not for sure,... let me go look up my notes real quick.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Rising_Suns

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'
Jul 14, 2002
10,836
793
45
Saint Louis, MO
✟31,835.00
Faith
Catholic
I suppose I am not making myself clear enough; I am speaking of just those statements by which the Pope was speaking Ex Cathedra. From what I have gathered in my reading though, is that there seems to be some debate over what these statements are exactly.


Read this artilce below; this is what we should be able to answer...








An Elusive Canon

Different Roman Catholic apologists have asserted very divergent numbers of infallible papal statements. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary were taught infallibly by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII in 1854 and 1950, respectively. Both popes taught that these doctrines were divinely revealed and were therefore part of Christian revelation and to be believed. But are these two the only infallible ex cathedra papal statements ever made? Perhaps they are. It depends on which apologist you ask. Roman apologist Scott Hahn says yes. In his talk on Pope Pius IX's proclamation in 1854, Hahn stated that 1950 was the only other time an ex cathedra statement had ever been made by a pope:




"Now, we have to realize that the Holy Father has only stated dogmatically and infallibly a definition of a doctrine one other time: in 1950, with the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, both her body and soul."[1]







Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more. In his audio tape series, "All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed," he berates those who state that popes have only spoken infallibly on two occasions. Staples mentions the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII's statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo's letter to Flavian[2] which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:







"We have infallible statements from popes all the way back. Pope Boniface VIII made an infallible statement in the 13th century concerning papal authority or papal primacy. In the year 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo I made an infallible declaration that was recognized as such by council Fathers concerning the hypostatic union of Christ."[3]







The Roman Catholic may not initially be concerned over the inability of his apologists or his religion to define an infallible list of ex cathedra statements, as long as there exists the fallible certainty that it may be limited to these four, or three, or two. But that fleeting disinterest spells disaster for the concept of a unified Roman Catholic religion with a defined canon of revelation. The Roman Catholic cannot simultaneously insist that the Protestant produce an infallible listing of the canon of God's Word and ignore the fact that his own Church is unable to do the same with something as simple as a list of ex cathedra statements.
 
Upvote 0

StPaul

Resistance is futile,... you will be assimilated.
Mar 31, 2004
780
49
40
Texas
Visit site
✟1,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Rising_Suns said:
I suppose I am not making myself clear enough; I am speaking of just those statements by which the Pope was speaking Ex Cathedra. From what I have gathered in my reading though, is that there seems to be some debate over what these statements are exactly.


Read this article below; this is what we should be able to answer...








An Elusive Canon

Different Roman Catholic apologists have asserted very divergent numbers of infallible papal statements. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary were taught infallibly by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII in 1854 and 1950, respectively. Both popes taught that these doctrines were divinely revealed and were therefore part of Christian revelation and to be believed. But are these two the only infallible ex cathedra papal statements ever made? Perhaps they are. It depends on which apologist you ask. Roman apologist Scott Hahn says yes. In his talk on Pope Pius IX's proclamation in 1854, Hahn stated that 1950 was the only other time an ex cathedra statement had ever been made by a pope:




"Now, we have to realize that the Holy Father has only stated dogmatically and infallibly a definition of a doctrine one other time: in 1950, with the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, both her body and soul."[1]







Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more. In his audio tape series, "All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed," he berates those who state that popes have only spoken infallibly on two occasions. Staples mentions the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII's statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo's letter to Flavian[2] which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:







"We have infallible statements from popes all the way back. Pope Boniface VIII made an infallible statement in the 13th century concerning papal authority or papal primacy. In the year 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo I made an infallible declaration that was recognized as such by council Fathers concerning the hypostatic union of Christ."[3]







The Roman Catholic may not initially be concerned over the inability of his apologists or his religion to define an infallible list of ex cathedra statements, as long as there exists the fallible certainty that it may be limited to these four, or three, or two. But that fleeting disinterest spells disaster for the concept of a unified Roman Catholic religion with a defined canon of revelation. The Roman Catholic cannot simultaneously insist that the Protestant produce an infallible listing of the canon of God's Word and ignore the fact that his own Church is unable to do the same with something as simple as a list of ex cathedra statements.


What the article failed to realize is when they stated:

Staples mentions the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII's statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo's letter to Flavian[2] which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:

The key part is that it was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. I.E. Ecumenal Council. As I said, a council is able to produce infallible teaching. But in order for a Council to be Ecumenical, one of the stipulations is that the Bishop of Rome must be present. This is different than an Ex-Cathedra statement. Ex-Cathedra is where the Pope can address the flock with-out a council,... it is a formal declaration as was the Assumption and the IC.

Now, that said, it is possible for a Pope to address something that happens to turn out (at a later date through a Council or Ex-Cathedra statement) to be Infallible, as with St. Leo.

The other two ways for an Infallible teaching to be declared, or adhered to is through Sacred Tradition, and (through Sacred Tradition) Sacred Scripture. Though, I may be wrong,... I am still looking through my notes.

Where did you find this article?... It almost sounds as if it is trying to "prove" how Catholicism is wrong.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Rising_Suns

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'
Jul 14, 2002
10,836
793
45
Saint Louis, MO
✟31,835.00
Faith
Catholic
The key part is that it was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. I.E. Ecumenal Council. As I said, a council is able to produce infallible teaching. But in order for a Council to be Ecumenical, one of the stipulations is that the Bishop of Rome must be present. This is different than an Ex-Cathedra statement.
I think I understand; so Scott Hahn is correct in that there have only been 2 official "Ex Cathedra" statements in the history of Catholicism?



Where did you find this article?... It almost sounds as if it is trying to "prove" how Catholicism is wrong.

It is.

http://www.sxws.com/charis/pope-10.htm
 
Upvote 0

StPaul

Resistance is futile,... you will be assimilated.
Mar 31, 2004
780
49
40
Texas
Visit site
✟1,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Rising_Suns said:

I think I understand; so Scott Hahn is correct in that there have only been 2 official "Ex Cathedra" statements in the history of Catholicism?





It is.

http://www.sxws.com/charis/pope-10.htm


Yes, there have been 2 Ex-Cathedra statements. Where I think the confusion in this article comes is where they would hear or use a term that they do not know what means. They may associate "Ex-Cathedra" to mean anything Dogmatic, just like some may associate "Infallible" to mean something immaculate. One thing that helps in apologetics is to know what terms mean, not only to Catholicism, but to others as well. This will help communication, and help getting ideas accross.

Thank you for the link, I will be reading it shortly.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

StPaul

Resistance is futile,... you will be assimilated.
Mar 31, 2004
780
49
40
Texas
Visit site
✟1,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I was correct in my suspicion. I have skim-read that article and this article, unlike most, actually does a good job at providing sources for their material. But the tactics are still the same. The style that the author uses is very similar to most Fundamentalists that I have come accross, and it is that they will present a "partial truth"... they will site a valid source, quote correctly (if you are lucky), but left out of context would change the meaning. This type of style is obvious in a Jack T. Chick tract, but very subtle in this article.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Rising_Suns

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'
Jul 14, 2002
10,836
793
45
Saint Louis, MO
✟31,835.00
Faith
Catholic
here's another insteresting side coming from an non-Catholic, something I think is worth discussing, even if just propaganda....


A Test of Papal Infallibility?

The interesting thing about this list of qualifications for infallibility is that it is a most fallible list! No Pope has declared, ex cathedra, that "here is an infallible list of qualifications that will prove Papal statements to be infallible." Not all Catholics agree on the above list, or whether or not all its requirements were fulfilled in any particular Papal pronouncements. Kind of make you wonder.


When a Pope makes a pronouncement regarding, say, the subject of faith, and it turns out to be an heretical statement, Catholic apologists are quick to declare that this particular pope was not speaking ex cathedra, or infallibly. It has happened! For example, Pope Honorius I (625-638 A.D.) taught the Monothelite heresy (regarding the nature of Jesus Christ) to the church. Later, the Sixth General Council condemned Pope Honorius I for heresy. That condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II (682-683 A.D.). Thus was an infallible pope anathematized (cursed, damned to Hell) for his teaching on a matter of faith. If the Pope, teaching on faith or morals, is infallible, if he cannot mislead the people with his doctrines, how is it that Pope Honorius I's doctrine turned out to be heresy? Easy. Just rearrange the "requirements" for papal infallibility, then declare that a particular pope was not speaking infallibly. So if a Pope's doctrinal teaching on a matter of faith goes unchallenged, that Pope must have spoken ex cathdera, or infallibly. But let his doctrine be challenged and proven wrong, then he was not speaking ex cathedra, or infallibly. Thus can the Catholic Church have it both ways, depending upon how the tide turns. This is possible because, as noted above, the list of qualifications for an infallible pronouncement is a fallible list, which can be applied as loosely as desired to retain the illusion of Papal infallibility. In practice, there is no infallible test of Papal infallibility! Lacking an infallible test, one can easily declare a particular Pope's pronouncements infallible, or not infallible, and who's to tell the difference? Cute; very cute.
 
Upvote 0

Skripper

Legend
Jul 22, 2003
9,472
545
64
Michigan
Visit site
✟38,201.00
Faith
Catholic
StPaul said:
The other two ways for an Infallible teaching to be declared, or adhered to is through Sacred Tradition, and (through Sacred Tradition) Sacred Scripture. Though, I may be wrong,... I am still looking through my notes.
This won't help the OP, but I believe what you may be referring to are infallible teachings by virtue of the "ordinary" and "extraordinary" magisterium.

Ordinary being the constant teachings of the Church that have not necessarily been explicitly defined in ecumenical council or by ex-cathedra papal declaration but rather something that has always been taught by the Church as having been handed down by Christ and the Apostles, and thus deemed an infallible article of faith. Some would argue that the all-male priesthood is an example of this, although others would argue that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis qualifies as an ex-cathedra papal pronouncement on this issue.

Extra ordinary being exactly that: not normal. And there are two subsets of this: (1) ecumenical councils and (2) ex-cathedra papal pronouncements. I would speculate that the three of these, combined, make up the three methods you are searching for in your notes.
 
Upvote 0

StPaul

Resistance is futile,... you will be assimilated.
Mar 31, 2004
780
49
40
Texas
Visit site
✟1,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Skripper said:
This won't help the OP, but I believe what you may be referring to are infallible teachings by virtue of the "ordinary" and "extraordinary" magisterium.

Ordinary being the constant teachings of the Church that have not necessarily been explicitly defined in ecumenical council or by ex-cathedra papal declaration but rather something that has always been taught by the Church as having been handed down by Christ and the Apostles, and thus deemed an infallible article of faith. Some would argue that the all-male priesthood is an example of this, although others would argue that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis qualifies as an ex-cathedra papal pronouncement on this issue.

Extra ordinary being exactly that: not normal. And there are two subsets of this: (1) ecumenical councils and (2) ex-cathedra papal pronouncements. I would speculate that the three of these, combined, make up the three methods you are searching for in your notes.


YES!!! Thank you!!

God Bless!

P.S.: The preliminary search that I did yielded these:

The first Paragraph here tells you the name of the document that announces the Immaculate Conception.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

And:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
 
Upvote 0

Skripper

Legend
Jul 22, 2003
9,472
545
64
Michigan
Visit site
✟38,201.00
Faith
Catholic
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
21
CA
Visit site
✟36,328.00
Faith
Catholic
Rising_Suns said:
here's another insteresting side coming from an non-Catholic, something I think is worth discussing, even if just propaganda....


A Test of Papal Infallibility?

The interesting thing about this list of qualifications for infallibility is that it is a most fallible list! No Pope has declared, ex cathedra, that "here is an infallible list of qualifications that will prove Papal statements to be infallible." Not all Catholics agree on the above list, or whether or not all its requirements were fulfilled in any particular Papal pronouncements. Kind of make you wonder.


When a Pope makes a pronouncement regarding, say, the subject of faith, and it turns out to be an heretical statement, Catholic apologists are quick to declare that this particular pope was not speaking ex cathedra, or infallibly. It has happened! For example, Pope Honorius I (625-638 A.D.) taught the Monothelite heresy (regarding the nature of Jesus Christ) to the church. Later, the Sixth General Council condemned Pope Honorius I for heresy. That condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II (682-683 A.D.). Thus was an infallible pope anathematized (cursed, damned to Hell) for his teaching on a matter of faith. If the Pope, teaching on faith or morals, is infallible, if he cannot mislead the people with his doctrines, how is it that Pope Honorius I's doctrine turned out to be heresy? Easy. Just rearrange the "requirements" for papal infallibility, then declare that a particular pope was not speaking infallibly. So if a Pope's doctrinal teaching on a matter of faith goes unchallenged, that Pope must have spoken ex cathdera, or infallibly. But let his doctrine be challenged and proven wrong, then he was not speaking ex cathedra, or infallibly. Thus can the Catholic Church have it both ways, depending upon how the tide turns. This is possible because, as noted above, the list of qualifications for an infallible pronouncement is a fallible list, which can be applied as loosely as desired to retain the illusion of Papal infallibility. In practice, there is no infallible test of Papal infallibility! Lacking an infallible test, one can easily declare a particular Pope's pronouncements infallible, or not infallible, and who's to tell the difference? Cute; very cute.

The author forgets about councils.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.