Not "Ex Cathedra"

Something the debate over Dignitas Infinita has so far oddly neglected to call much attention to is that it seems that it has now been conclusively demonstrated that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra. For the new DDF document (issued with the pope’s approval)…

— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) April 9, 2024

A Review of Rist's Book on the Papacy

Here’s the first review I’ve seen of John Rist’s Infallibility, Integrity and Obedience, which I’m currently reading. Whatever one thinks of Rist’s own conclusions, he’s gotten started a conversation that is unavoidable and perhaps overdue: https://t.co/5B3L99HQRm

— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) September 6, 2023

Bonagura Defends the Latin Doctrine on Infallibility

Infallibility: An Antidote to Intellectual Madness | David G. Bonagura, Jr.: The gift of infallibility illuminates the Church when she teaches what God has clearly revealed to her. https://t.co/Qyleqm2XyJ pic.twitter.com/e4LMtFiieA

— The Catholic Thing (@catholicthing) June 26, 2022

A Latin Defense of the Infallibility of Canonizations

Good recent book from Arouca Press. I have a piece in it arguing for a 'minimal-infallibilist position', i.e. canonisation guarantees that the canonised person is among the blessed but not necessarily that he exercised heroic virtue on earth. https://t.co/vZaezYDGCe

— Fr Thomas Crean OP (@crean_fr) September 7, 2021

A Latin Apology for Roman Claims

Pope Peter defends the papacy while explaining its role and limits by Casey Chalk Joe Heschmeyer offers many of the standard Catholic arguments but also presents fresh material in his welcome and well-timed book.

Pope Peter: Defending the Church’s Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis by Joe Heschmeyer

A product of (Roman) Catholic Answers, so I expect no nuance or discussion of non-Latin ecclesiology or views regarding primacy.

Yet, as Heschmeyer rightly notes, popes can be both wrong or sinful, even egregiously so, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impeccability. Nor does it mean everything the pope says or writes must be obeyed unquestionably. When the pope or the bishops exercise the powers of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium, we are right to obey. The rest of the time, as Heschmeyer rightly notes, we retain the right to ignore, or, given certain extraordinary circumstances, criticize what our Holy Father says or does.

This begs the question: When is the pope not exercising the powers of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium when he is putting forth his opinions regarding faith and morals?

Limiting Papal Infallibility to Save It

Latin apologists for the papacy and papal infallibility may think it warranted in the text of Vatican I, but is it?

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council,

---

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

---

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The Latin text. 

The Catholic Thing: Infallibility: The Unopened Gift by Russell Shaw

Shaw summarizes one view:

Despite the hopes and fears at the moment, however, only rarely has papal infallibility been specifically invoked in modern times. In 1854 Pius IX made it clear he spoke infallibly in defining the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Pius XII did the same in 1950 in defining the dogma of her bodily assumption. Otherwise, like an unopened gift, papal infallibility has remained on the shelf.

Shaw examines whether infallibility applies to the ordinary magisterium of a bishop, but what about the ordinary magisterium of the Roman pope? It's a bait-and-switch. (In his 1995 article for OSV, Shaw repeats much the same material, but does not talk about the papal ordinary magisterium there either.)

Lumen Gentium 25:  

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Latin traditionalist takes on infallibility in relation to papal authority: 

SSPX: Clear ideas on the pope's infallible magisterium

The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium by  Robert J. Siscoe 

 

My thoughts:

There is a sort of scholastic analysis present in the writings like this, with the claim there must be a certain form[ula] to make this intention manifest but is there any instance when the bishop of Rome doesn't think he is teaching the Church Universal? (Even when those outside his patriarchate are not paying attention?) Hence this formula is what makes something "ex cathedra" while any other pronouncement which is just an affirmation of what is Tradition is infallible, being an act of the infallible ordinary magisterium (of the pope, in this case). I don't think the Orthodox would disagree with some version of this infallibility of any bishop who affirms something that is of Tradition.

It does not seem to me that a certain formula is necessary to make it ex cathedra -- again, when does the bishop of Rome not intend for his teaching to be applicable to the Church Universal? What has the thought ever crossed his mind that what he says about faith and morals applies only to Roman Catholics of the patriarchate of Rome, and not to Catholics of other ecclesial jursidictions? Does this regular or ordinary intention alone not sufficient to make a teaching of the pope of Rome on faith or morals ex cathedra? 

So if Pope Francis (or his representative) says something about capital punishment being "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" and changes the Catechism of the Catholic Church to reflect this, how is that not meant to be an ex cathedra pronouncement?

Latin apologists who disagree with this teaching of Pope Francis (or any other touching upon faith or morals that contradicts Tradition) have no choice to say that it is not "infallible" because it is lacking the proper form and is therefore not ex cathedra. But I don't see how this claim about form is warranted by the decree of Vatican I. Maybe the pope or one of his ecumenical councils can finesse the Roman teaching on papal infallibility in this way to save it, but would that sort of "development of doctrine" be regarded as anything than institution-saving by non-Latins?

 

Related: essay on infallibility at Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist

The Theotokos Is a Florentine Latin Traditionalist?

Who would have known?

Crisis Magazine: Our Lady of Good Success Speaks To Us Today by Jonathan B. Coe

On December 8, 1634, the archangels, Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael appeared to Mariana with the Queen of Heaven, and Gabriel was carrying a Ciborium filled with hosts. Our Lady then predicted events over two hundred years into the future for the reign of Pius IX:

His pontifical infallibility will be declared a dogma of the Faith by the same Pope chosen to proclaim the dogma of the Mystery of My Immaculate Conception. He will be imprisoned in the Vatican by the unjust usurpation of the Pontifical States through the iniquity, envy and avarice of an earthly monarchy.

Now do the original writings say this, or have there been some edits/interpolations made by the editor (who is associated with TFP)? Or is this merely a statement of fact, without implying approval of such? (And one can maintain that the appropriation of the papal states was an unjust act without sanctioning the acquisition or maintenance of dominion over those states in the first place.)

The Pope as Language Scholar

The prophet is not guaranteed to be an oracle or a prophet, in the sense that every utterance is directly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Even in the first millenium, there were misunderstandings about Greek, which arguably was the lingua franca of the early Church. Now, when the bishop of Rome no longer speaks Greek fluently, and many of the apostolic Churches do not use it? At least they have been able to avoid misunderstandings so far in the joint statements that have been released.

Why should we understand the successor of St. Peter as having a special competence as to determining the orthodoxy of some definition of faith or statement in Greek or any other language not his own?
What special competence has he received to ensure that his statements are translated properly into the languages used by the other apostolic Churches for communication? He must rely and trust what scholars and representatives of those churches tell him.

Even when everyone was using Greek, Chalcedon would have not been such a big problem if charity was being exercised in all things, with a prayer for a strong dose of patience with one's brothers, and bishops humbly asked for clarification when in doubt. Now when the representatives of the Apostolic Churches speak other languages (I don't think English is a lingua franca for them but I could be wrong)? This is even more true.

Instead of determining that only one formulation is orthodox, might it be that the bishop of Rome is merely expressing a preference for one statement rather than another, which must be coupled with the fixing of terms and their definitions at that time , or at least including some sort of terminological appendix to any statement so that readers in the future know what the word means? And thus the bishop of Rome plays a role as the final arbiter?

In a Church in which many languages can be used, can any statement of faith be free from problems of translation?

"Clericalism" and "Abuse of Power"

Sandro Magister: Sexual Abuse Through Too Much Power, Says Francis. But Meanwhile He Is Losing Power and “Accountability”

Does Francis know that infallibility does not cover such generalizations?

John Rao on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility

The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility

John Lamont on Infallibility, Again

the original article, linked at this blog here

Rorate Caeli: Follow-up Article - Paul VI: The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful

The question of what role in which the bishop of Rome acts when he solemnly canonizes someone is not addressed. I don't think it was addressed in the previous installment either. He rather presumes the "traditional" Latin opinion in his article, when he speaks of the Church Universal (in relation to the bishop of Rome), rather than the patriarchate of Rome.

Canonisation, as they addressed it, took two forms; equipollent canonisation, and formal canonisation. Equipollent canonisation happens when a Pope decrees the universal veneration of a person to whom devotion has existed since time immemorial, and whose holiness and miracles are recorded by historians who are worthy of belief. Formal canonisation happens when a Pope decrees the universal veneration of a person whose heroic virtue and miracles have been established by a juridical process undertaken by the Holy See.

And so does he presume a Vatican I definition of papal infallibility? It would seem so:

This argument fails to grasp the nature of an infallible definition. In order for a papal teaching to be infallible, it is not enough for it to say that it is infallible; it has to actually satisfy the conditions for an infallible statement. Such statements must be exercises of the teaching authority of the Apostolic See, and they must definitively and finally bind all the faithful to assent to the assertions that they are making. In the case of an infallible truth that is divinely revealed, the faithful are required to believe (credere) the truth that is being taught. In the case of an infallible truth that belongs to the secondary object of the infallible magisterium, the faithful are required to hold (tenere) the truth that is being taught. The term ‘belief’ is used for divinely revealed truths, not because truths belonging to the secondary object of the magisterium do not also need to be believed to be true, but to underline that divinely revealed truths must be believed with an act of the theological virtue of faith.

Are Acts of Canonizations by the Bishop of Rome Infallible?

One Latin traditionalist perspective --

Rorate Caeli: "The authority of canonisations": Do all canonisations need to be accepted as infallible? -- a special guest article The authority of canonisations by Dr. John R. T. Lamont

First Among Equals? Or the Final Arbiter?

One more thing from Ed Peters's essay on the change in the CCC:

But that’s where confusion sets in: while popes can, in a singleextraordinary act, assert something with infallible certitude sufficient to bind the faithful in belief or morals (Canon 749 § 1), no pope can, by a single ordinary act, assert something with anything like the equivalent force for Christian consciences.

If infallibility seems to be logically required for the Pope to arbitrate two disputing claims regarding dogma (and even that may be more of a practical, linguistic preference rather than a question about the reality being signified), or for the pope with a council to teach definitively (if infallibility is necessarily guaranteed only with respect to the act of teaching, and not also with the act of reception by the Christian faithful), then does it entail that the pope is infallible when he speaks alone, even if he has supposedly "consulted" the bishops of the world? If the Pope has no divinely sanctioned role as a "universal" teacher, and his role with respect to the Church Universal is limited to his cooperative role with respect to other bishops, speaking collectively as a body, then how can it be claimed that his "extraordinary" acts as a "universal" teacher (even if "taught" by Vatican I) are infallible? Where is the justification in the historical exercise of the office of the bishop of Rome in the first millenium for this?

Ed Peters on the Recent Change to the CCC

The death penalty debate and the Church’s magisterium by Edward N. Peters
I regard the liceity of the death penalty as having been established with infallible certitude by the Church’s ordinary magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium, one must see, takes a long, long time, to develop; it requires repetition and consistency over many generations, this, not simply on the part of popes but also by the bishops around the world, and even incorporates, to some extent, the lived acceptance of teachings by Catholic pastors, academics, and rank-and-file faithful through time.

This however applies to the theologoumena of the Latins as well.

Canonization and Papal Infallibility

Fr. Hunwicke

Again the question needs to be asked as to whether the bishop of Rome canonizes as the first bishop of the Universal Church or as the patriarch of Rome. Was his authority to canonize on behalf of the Universal Church ever been recognized in the first millenium? I would think the answer is no.

Given that our Lord and His Apostles and Evangelists transmitted very little about political life and political arrangements (beyond the importance of obedience), would it be erroneous to conclude that political life is not important? Yes. It would also be erroneous to think that Catholic Social Teaching is not subject to change or correction, as its moral theology is only as good as the one doing it.

The Current Occupant of the See of Rome Needs a Primer on Papal Authority

CWR Dispatch: Liturgy, papal infallibility, and terminology by Edward N. Peters

In what way can a pope declare that “liturgical reform” is “irreversible”?

(original)

Fr. Aidan Nichols on Amoris Laetitia

The Catholic Herald (via Fr. Z)

Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ

Fr. Z. CRUX: An exercise in contrasts concerning ‘Amoris laetitia’



Rorate Caeli: Article: "Considerations on the dubia of the four cardinals" by John R. T. Lamont, DPhil

Eastern Christian Books: Papal Infallibility and Authority (Updated)

Eastern Christian Books: Papal Infallibility and Authority (Updated)