www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ex Cathedra

edit

I would say many believe this myth. I think there are more than two. Unam Sanctam is a third and there are more.

Yes. By far Trent is the best of em all.

It does not, because one element is missing. In that statement the Pope does not meant to teach as the supreme shepards. He's just repeating the infallible ordinary magisterium statement.

Unam Sanctam is infallible? Now there's an amusing idea!

Incognitus

Let's see how it is framed in the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"
#1. In virture of my ministry of confirming the brethern (Supreme Shephard and Teacher of the Faith)
#2. I declare.
#3. This judgement is to be held definitively by all the faithful.

Sounds like an infallible statement to me.
Given those facts and the fact that it concerns the very divine constitution of the Church itself, whether ex cathedra or not, it is still infallible and binding on the Church. it is an irreformable teaching and not open to debate.
Stephanos I

well it is.

Some people don't like it to be infallible and think that it isn't.

I guess you missed this [cin.org]


It's infallibly in virtue of the ordinary magisterium (ie: the constant teaching of the Church). But it's not ex catedhra (ie: extrordinary magisterium)

beng:

Just a quick claraification. Unam sanctam is a Papal Bull which is a disciplinary document. The pope's statement at the end of it is a summary of the discipline then found in the Western Church. Submission to the Pope was a requirement in his role as Patriarch of the West for those Catholics who are in the West.

If it were to be considered infallible (by the third form of infalliblity: that is, the extraordinary magisterium of the pope) it would mean that the second form of infallibility, an ecumenical council, was wrong. It would also mean that Pope Pius IX was wrong when he wrote about invincible ignorance.

Nope, not infallible, simply the discipline then in vogue in the Latin Church.

BTW, I'm also not going to allow us to dialog too much on this topic as it has nothing to do with the Byzantine forum in which we currently find ourselves.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

You are more than correct!

Even the two infallible statements on the Most Holy Theotokos that were issued have really NO meaning for the Eastern Churches since they have always believed that the Mother of God was sanctified from her Conception (and instituted the feast of the Conception of St Anne at Byzantium) and always believed in her bodily Assumption into heaven.

If the Roman Catholic Church ever dropped its Augustinian theological predilections, and return to the same Patristic sources as the East, then even these two infallible pronouncements would become either redundant or unnecessary (or both).

The Pope certainly does exercise the charism of infallibility/indefectibility each time he canonizes a new saint (as opposed to a Blessed).

Alex

Oxford philosopher Peter Geach tells the story of an English Roman prelate who expressed a wish that an infallible papal document might arrive for him to believe every morning before breakfast with "The Times". The same prelate is alleged to have said that, if the pope came out with a new decree approving artificial contraception, that he himself would pass from his present certainty that this practice is wrong to an equal certainty that it is not wrong.

Regardless of the authenticity of this story--Prof. Geach often enjoyed "pulling the legs" of his colleagues--it certainly illustrates the mistaken idea about papal infallibility common in our modern secular/Protestant society.

I believe that it is true that the Vatican Council Fathers intended to say that the pope is infallible in his person. I also hold that they intended this as perfectly consistent with the teaching and practice of the church from apostolic times. Basically, as has already been said, any bishop is infallible in his person, for it is the person who holds the office of the apostle. As has also already been said, the charism of infallibility has been given to the whole church by Christ. Thus, each one of us is infallible when we speak Christ. And, of course, all this must be understood as a matter of ontological participation in Christ's authority.

Yet none of this means that anyone, including the pope, is personally infallible. No one's whim is infallible, no one's authority is arbitrary. If the man who holds the office as pope were to utter heresy whether sitting in cathedra or not, he does not speak as the pope, but simply as a man who can, of course, be wrong. (Our Holy Father John of Damascus nicely illustrates the logical point, borrowed from Aristotle, by noting that the physician heals as physician, but drinks wine as a man who is accidently a physician. Just so, the heretical pope would be speaking as pope only accidently.)

If one looks at the matter in this light, then one can see that the Vatican Fathers are being perfectly consistent with the notion that the ordinary venue of doctrinal definition is the Ecumenical Council. Moreover, this is clearly the understanding that is behind Pope John Paul II's "Ut unum sint."

Dr. Michael Tkacz

Dear Dr. Alex:

Yes, but I don't see the Latin Church doing that. Of course, the fact of the matter is that all infallible defintions are redundant since, by definition, they must already be a part of the Deposit of Faith and, therefore, infallible before they were ever proclaimed to be such.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Wow, I am glad I signed up here. This thread alone has given me a good education, and I look forward to reading more!

Dear Fr. Deacon Edward,

You don't see the Latin Church doing what?

Alex

What you said! That is, dropping Augustinian (or Thomistic) theology/philosophy.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Fr. Deacon Edward.

Oh!

But some Orthodox theologians have been very encouraged by a greater emphasis on Patristics among RC theologians.

It seems the Orthodox guys believe this may possibly lead to more consensus on issues that have proven divisive in the past.

And I'm not talking about pectoral Crosses either!

Have I recently mentioned what a great man you are?

Well, you are!

Alex