Tag Archives: Infallbility

On Ex Cathedra Statements

When Our Lord promised to Peter the power of “binding and loosing” (Mt 16:19), he was giving to Peter and his successors, the protection of infallibility.  This prooftext is well-known by Catholics.  What appears to be not as well known is exactly how often this charism has been invoked by the Popes.  There is a widely-held belief that it has only been twice—Pope Pius IX in 1854 (Immaculate Conception) and Pope Pius XII in 1950 (Assumption of Mary).  Given our great need for certainty in this age of ambiguity, it is fortunate that it has been wielded far more often than that.

What is Infallibility and How Is It Exercised?

Although the First Vatican Council was interrupted when Rome came under occupation, the Fathers of the Council did declare among other dogmas the infallibility of the Pope (Pastor Aeternus, 4):

“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”

Notice that the solemn declaration not only formally recognizes infallibility as being divinely revealed dogma, but also outlines the conditions for its exercise.  First, the Pope must be acting “in discharge of his office as Pastor and Teach of all Christians.”  Second, he must be teaching specifically “regarding faith and morals.”  Finally, he must be defining the doctrine to be “irreformable” or as Vatican II puts it, “by a definitive act” (LG 25).

Two other things are worth mentioning because they often cause confusion.  First, it should be noted that nowhere does it say he must intend to speak ex cathedra.  All that is necessary is that he intends to speak definitively about a particular subject.  Second, there are no infallible documents.  There are only infallible statements contained in certain documents.  The question as to whether a document like Humanae Vitae is infallible is the wrong way to look at it.  The question would be whether specific statements within it are infallible.

With these three conditions in mind, it is clear that there are far more ex cathedra statements than the two previously mentioned.  As an example, we do not need to look too long after the Council to find a clear case of an ex cathedra statement in Pope Leo XIII’s 1893 Encyclical on sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus (#20).

“To Our Venerable Brethren, All Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World, in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See… But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”

The Holy Father is exercising his role as universal teacher, is teaching on faith and morals and defines it to be “absolutely wrong and forbidden” (a definitive statement).  Therefore, he is infallibly declaring that the doctrine of limited inerrancy of Scripture is wrong.  Given how often Catholics subscribe to limited inerrancy, it is clear that few know this to be an infallible declaration.

A Controversial Example

A second example, which has already been mentioned, is found in Pope St. Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae(#14). In it, the Pope says:

“Therefore, We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.”

Again we find the three conditions fulfilled.  The Pope is clearly exercising his office as universal pastor and teacher and is proclaiming “a teaching which is based on natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine revelation.”  He directly declares that any contraceptive act or temporary or permanent sterilization as “absolutely excluded as lawful.  This is a definitive statement that admits of no exception.  Therefore the Pope is exercising his power to teach ex cathedra.

Once we learn how to apply the three criteria for ex cathedra statements, we readily find that there are far more than the two Marian dogmas and the two examples I mentioned.  Naturally we might want a complete list of them.  Setting aside whether it would be even be possible for the Church to publish a complete list, there is a list of examples found in a CDF commentary on the Oath of Fidelity, Professio Fidei (#11).  In addition to the two Marian dogmas everyone knows and the inerrancy of Scripture listed above, it also lists three other examples:  Benedictus Deus (1336) on the immortality of the spiritual soul and its immediate recompense after death; IApostolicae Curae (1896) on the invalidity of Anglican orders; and Evangelium Vitae (1995) on the grave immorality of murder.

These are meant to be, according to the document, just examples and by no means should be interpreted as exhaustive.  In any regard, it is clear that there are far more than two cases in which the Pope has spoken ex cathedra.

On Church Authority

The Holy Spirit gives to the Church exactly what she needs just when she needs it.  No one could have predicted just how vital it was that among the few items that the Fathers of the first Vatican Council were able to finish was to secure a definition of Papal infallibility.  So important was it that He also guided the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council to take up the issue again so that clarity with relation to the Church’s Magisterium as a whole would emerge.  The eyes of divine Providence of course saw the coming of the information age and with it a mingling of the Chair of Peter and the soapbox through an unprecedented access to the Vicar of Christ on Earth via papal plane parleys, book long interviews and regular addresses to various groups, Catholic and not.  In this day and age clarity as to what constitutes a Magisterial act and what does not has become absolutely necessary for every Catholic in order to avoid stumbling into confusion and error.

To begin, it merits a brief mention what we mean when we use the term Magisterium.  Whatever image is evoked by that term, it should begin by seeing it as an organ of the Mystical Body of Christ; an organ that is living and whose object is the promulgation and preservation of the rule of faith.  Keeping with the image of an organ, it is in essence the mind of the Church.  When Christ issued the pedagogical mandate that the Apostles were to “teach all nations” (Mt 28:19), He likewise offered them divine guidance and protection to do so.  As successors to the Apostles, the Bishops under the headship of the successor of St. Peter, the Pope exercise the power to make the mind of the Church known.

The Mind of the Church

On the part of the Faithful, they must “put on the mind of Christ” by putting on the mind of the Church.  Each man is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ only insofar as he conforms his own mind to the thinking of the Church.  From this notion theologians have come up with the term assent.  Assent is an intellectual judgment that a particular proposition is true.  But there are two kinds of assent, notional and religious.  The former is more of an admission that a particular proposition is true, without it actually making any practical difference in the person’s will.  Meanwhile, religious assent, that is “submission of mind and will,” (Lumen Gentium, 25) not only judges that a particular proposition is true, but also leads to correspondence with the person’s actions.  Religious assent is the only possible response to authentic magisterial teaching.

Now we begin to see the scope of the problem—obedience is required of the Faithful to authentic magisterial teaching.  This of course assumes that we will recognize authentic magisterial teaching when we hear it.  But, as we said in the introduction, the validity of this assumption is highly questionable in our age, and unless we take the time to understand what constitutes an authentic magisterial act and what does not then we will likely end up lost.  Many books, as well as a magisterial document Donum Veritatis have been written on the subject, but for the sake of developing a “layman’s” understanding I will avoid getting too bogged down in the details.

First, there are the statements themselves which carry differing weights.  Avery Cardinal Dulles succinctly defines four categories of magisterial acts in his book Craft of Theology (Chapter 8 :The Magisterium and Theological Dissent”).

  1. Statements definitively set forth that all Catholics are to accept as divinely revealed, that is contained (at least implicitly) in Scripture and Tradition. We typically call these dogmas of which there are many but a few examples would be papal infallibility itself, the four Marian dogmas and the like.
  2. Definitive Declarations of non-revealed truth closely connected to revelation and the Christian life. Examples of this include those teachings of the Church “which concerns the natural law” (Donum Veritatis, 16).
  3. Non-definitive but still obligatory teaching of doctrine that contributes to a right understanding of revelation. Examples of this type of teaching would include encyclicals.—encyclicals falls under this heading and has a real, though not unconditional assent on all the faithful
  4. Finally there are prudential admonitions or applications in a particular time and place which would include things like Apostolic Exhortations.

Our Mind and Will

The response to the first three is real or religious assent, although for the third the assent is not unconditional.  In speaking of the fourth, Dulles says we are required to have “external conformity in behavior but do not demand internal assent” because “interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission” (DV 24).  Any withholding of internal assent must be based not upon one’s personal opinion but instead based upon the rule of faith as found in Scripture and Tradition.  In other words, any disagreement one might have must be based upon the mind of the Church and not one’s own mind.

 

Prudential judgment in the application of moral principles to the temporal realm are not included in this grouping.  We should respectfully consider the opinion of the Pope and Bishops on the application of Catholic Social Teaching to specific political questions and things like the Death Penalty, but we owe them no further assent. That is because these do not constitute true magisterial acts in the sense we are defining it.  These are, as Cardinal Ratzinger put it, issues for which “there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion.”  It is when the “magisterial” statements don’t fall into one of these five categories (the four above plus the application category) that the voice of the magisterium becomes muffled.  With papal interviews, book-length interviews,

daily homilies and addresses to specific groups all figuring prominently in the last three pontificates there seems to be a six category.  While the Pope may have a specific audience in mind, mass communication makes everything he says in a way universal.  The Vatican insists that such statements are “non-magisterial” but there is some question as to whether magisterial-ness can be turned on or off.  It would seem that the path forward for right now is to check those things against the rule of faith.  If they contradict the rule of faith, then they can make no claim on our assent.  If they are in agreement with the rule of faith then they should be viewed as an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium.  If they do not contradict the rule of faith (this is different than saying they are in agreement) then we do owe a certain level of assent which would depend upon their novelty, that is, how frequently they have been repeated by the Popes and Magisterium of the past.

As is clear by this last paragraph, the Holy Spirit is not yet done bringing clarity to this issue.  In the meantime the best way to part the clouds of obscurity is to learn the content of our faith—“to hold firm to the traditions that you were taught” (2 Thes 2:15).