/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>689402

Ex cathedra means when a pope pronounces and teaches something solemnly that bind all the faithful in his virtue as the heir of st. Peter and his Apostolic authority.

here's an example from the Assumption being declared dogma;

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church;

>by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

That's ex cathedra. When a pope says 'help refugees' that's ordinary magisterium.

I meant CCC (Cathechism of the Catholic Church) sorry.

>>689405

So if I understand well, for something to be infaillible the pope must say that "it must be believe by all the church" (or that it's a dogma) ?

Does all the church must believe what is written in the CCC (so is the pope infaillible through the CCC ? Does all the church must believe an encyclical (were the pope speak for all christians) ?

>>689416

For something to be infallible, the pope has to say something like this:

>by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that *insert dogma*

Dogmas are by definition required to be believed in by all.

CCC and encyclicals are ordinary magisterium and are not infallible.

Ordinary magisterium is when Pope does not declare in solemn manner as above, he does not speak in an infallible manner but he still binds us to obedience.

>>689421

Ok thanks, it seems clear.

>>689421

You can't disagree with the CCC or encyclicals ?

>>689402

>So what is exactly the meaning of "ex cathedra" ?

It's up to each catholic's personal interpretation.

>>689429

You can, but if you do you're disobedient to the pope. Mind you, that doesn't mean you're a heretic or excommunicated, but you should listen to the pope.

So theoretically, if the pope declared ex cathedra that Sodomy is not a sin, abortion is not a sin, Jesus didn’t physically resurrect etc etc, would you be obliged to believe in the Pope and follow what he said?

>>689440

No, because those are the dogmas of the faith. He would be declared heretic. Look, here's what popes have the authority to do, this is in the document where the dogma of papal infalliblity is defined:

>6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

>>689437

I should in general ? I don't sin If I legitimately disagree.

>>689444

I don't think sodomy or abortion are part of the 255 dogmas for example.

>>689463

>>689466

Some things are not dogmas, true, but when a pope in an encyclical says that contraception is a mortal sin, it is a mortal sin. When a pope teaches about morals, the pope is right, not you. In things such as teaching on climate change or even the death penalty, you can disagree, you're not necessarily sinning, but you're disobedient. The important thing is that the Church is not a democracy. Now, in recent times things have been controversial because the popes after 1958 started saying things contrary to what the Church has been saying before when it comes to ordinary magisterium.

>>689474

>When a pope teaches about morals, the pope is right, not you.

Why? I mean is there a Catholic dogma saying that when a pope teaches about morals, the pope is right?

>>689444

>He would be declared heretic.

Who has the authority do declare him a heretic so that another Pope can be installed?

>>689486

>Why? I mean is there a Catholic dogma saying that when a pope teaches about morals, the pope is right?

It's not a dogma, but the pope is the successor of st. Peter and the head of the Church instituted by Christ. If you want to disagree with him about what is a mortal sin, you can do so at your own peril and if you reject a teaching that regards faith or morals you put yourself out of the Church.

>Who has the authority do declare him a heretic so that another Pope can be installed?

He becomes a heretic ipso facto, ie by the very act of uttering formal heresy, no one even has to declare him a heretic. However, cardinals and the bishops do have the right to call him a heretic. There were heretic popes in the past, like John 22, and the college of cardinals made him renounce the heresy he promulgated.

>>689402

>ex cathedra

Literally "from (the) chair".

It's an ex cathedra statement if he is sits in the episcopal throne of st. peter and says that he's making an ex cathedra statement.

If he's not in the cathedra of peter, then it isn't an ex cathedra statement by definition.

>The CCC

The catechism is just a summary of catholic teachings intended to be used for instruction. It isn't intended to introduce doctrine.

>>689491

>If you want to disagree with him about what is a mortal sin, you can do so at your own peril

Well, either the pope in infallible about such matters (in which case I have to listen to him), or he is not, in which case I have to decide if he was right about any particular decision. Which one of these two?

>He becomes a heretic ipso facto

Then really don't understand what the real meaning of the papal infallibility is. On one hand you made the following statement:

- when the pope pronounces a heretical dogma, then he is heretic and not infallible

Ok, but this statement logically implies the following one:

- The pope can be infallible only if he doesn't pronounce a heretical dogma.

Bit if a dogma, pronounced by the pope is not heretical, then obviously this dogma has to be a true dogma (because a dogma is either heretical or true, there is no third option). And all this means that we can make the following conclusion about the meaning of the papal infallibility:

- When the pope declares a true dogma, then he is infallible.

But this is a logical tautology, such a statement is obvious and says nothing. I suppose I am wrong somewhere. Where?

>>689524

Usually, infallibile pronouncements are made when defining dogma. As for teaching about morality, infallibility is presumed, even if it wasn't formally invoked, because moral teaching has been the same ever since the Church has existed since it cannot be changed.

>When the pope declares a true dogma, then he is infallible.

Yeah, exactly, a dogma that would go against other dogmas of the Church or the teaching of the Church can't be infallible because it's heresy and heresy can't be infallible. Again, you have to take into account what I said earlier:

>6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

So, a pope cannot be infallible when pronouncing something contrary to the deposit of faith.

>>689474

So I'm disobediant against the pope if I disagree on climate change for example ? So the pope is a political force. I find it hard to embrasse such a "political unity" which seems to me to be a parody of a spiritual one.

I'm OP btw

Have you the reference of the denzinger to give me the passage talking about the fact we must obey every statement of the ordinary magisterium ?

>>689539

Technically you are, even though I'm not sure how binding it is since it doesn't concern Christian doctrine per se. We know for a fact that you can disagree on, for example, the death penalty because the Holy Office said so.

Denzinger 2313

[From the Encyclical, "Humani generis", August 12, 1950]

>It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.

I suggest you read the whole encyclical.

>>689532

>As for teaching about morality, infallibility is presumed, even if it wasn't formally invoked

What you are saying here surprises me. Please, confirm that you mean it!

>because moral teaching has been the same ever since the Church has existed since it cannot be changed.

But the social conditions change and the application of the moral teaching to specific matters is far from obvious in some cases. On the other hand, the changed social conditions have no effect on the dogmas.

>Again, you have to take into account what I said earlier: For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Ok, I can see that this says something. Will I be correct if I say that the dogma about the papal infallibility means nothing more and nothing less than the following (the text in braces is a variant):

- The popes are given divine assistance so that they can faithfully expound the faith transmitted by the apostles. Whether or not a pope will make use of this divine assistance depends on whether he freely choses to do so [and whether the sinful dispositions he has (as a human being) allow him to make use of this divine assistance].

>>689542

Ok thanks. That's interesting. I don't like all this centralization of the thought :/

>>689545

>The popes are given divine assistance so that they can faithfully expound the faith transmitted by the apostles. Whether or not a pope will make use of this divine assistance depends on whether he freely choses to do so

Dogmas always stem from something the Church has always believed to be true. The Assumption of our Lady has always been believed to be true, but it was made a dogma in the mid 20th century by Pius XII who expounded it, clarified it and solemnly defined it.

>But the social conditions change and the application of the moral teaching to specific matters is far from obvious in some cases.

This statement has been condemned by many popes. Change in social teaching is possible for those reasons, but not the moral teaching. For example, the Church has changed the stance on religious liberty and ecumenism, but not on abortion and contraception.

>What you are saying here surprises me. Please, confirm that you mean it!

It's presumed that when a pope proclaims contraception a mortal sin in an encyclical, and that proclamation is in the spirit of tradition and what the Church has always taught, he does not err because that would mean the Church has erred.

>>689430

its up to the church not a individual

The pope is infallible; but only when I agree with him

>>689466

Sodomy is part of the dogma of fornication and adultery and abortion is one of the commandments. They are dogmas.

>>689545

On your last point yeah kinda.

The central point is: declared dogmas aren't new doctrine. The Pope can't make up new doctrine because the doctrine of the Church was the same all along. The dogma of papal infallibily, the dogma of trinity, the assumption of Mary were always believed by every good Catholic.

Popes declare dogmas in order to tell us what is really truth and what we must believe unhesitatingly as catholics.

As a Catholic I can never say I don't believe Mary assumpted to heaven because the pope now explicitly said that that doctrine we all profess before is 100% correct and there's no room for personal opinions.

>>689548

>changed the stance on religious liberty

Actually early Christians were in for religious liberty since they actually needed that freedom to be catholics.

And although the recent document about it is pretty soft it still says that those that not hear to the Church will go to hell like those people that didn't hear to Peter and Paul.

>>689545

One more thing I'd like to clarify

Imagine one day the Pope wakes up and Declares "infallibily" that being a faggot is mandatory. Assuming that he wouldn't have an instant heart attack, he wouldn't be able to declare it since the Pope doesn't have the power to declare new doctrines, since general revalation ended with the death of St. John the last Apostle.