Confused about Ex Cathedra

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by real2all

So to say that the Pope is without error is a true statement? What about before he was "Pope" was he still without "errors"? .

Neither.

The pope, and the magisterium as a whole, are protected from teaching anything which would be a detriment to the faith when acting collegially, or when the pope "speaks" ex-cathedra. (In this context, "speaks" generally should be read as writes.)

(Ex cathedra literally means "from the chair"... more figuratively, it means the official actions by the person with the title in the course of holding that title.)

No pope has ensconced heresy in the formal teachings. The holy spirit protects the church from such, even tho' a couple popes themselves apparently held heresies themselves, per their private correspondence. No plenary council of the church has taught heresy, tho several have made suboptimal disciplinary decisions... (1st plenary Baltimore comes to mind there).

[Tradycja]

For a correct understanding of "ex cathedra" and Papal Infallibility read
the text of the First Vatican Council:


http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6


For clarification on different levels of Catholic teaching please see these documents:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei,” 4, L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English, 15 July, 1998, http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

And you want to look at AD TUENDAM FIDEM Pope John Paul II

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2adtu.htm

[Tradycja]

Let me add also that:

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching (I think unwisely....)

The CCC, simply speaking, is not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. It is only infallible, where it reiterates defined doctrine.

Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but only in the same qualified sense. The Jesuits, for example, refused to abide by the Trent Catechism on the question of efficacious grace and the freedom of the will. The Catechism favored the Thomistic view, which emphasized the movement of the free will by grace. The Jesuits emphasized the free will's cooperation with the grace. Both opinions are free to be held, so long as the two extremes of Jansenism, on the one side, and Pelagianism on the other are avoided.

As long as one upholds both the freedom of the will and the necessity of grace, either emphasis is acceptable. Therefore, to answer the question "Is the CCC part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church?" No, not without qualification. If the CCC teaches a novel doctrine, then that cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium must measure with the solemn magisterium, it is not a parallel magisterium. Basically the famous principle laid down by St, Vincent of Lerins defines what came to be known as the "ordinary magisterium." That is of Catholic Faith which has been believed "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus." (always, everywhere, and by all.)

The Roman Catechism however does enjoy a higher authority than any other catechism.
But if you read all those documents on my above post all this will be clarified for you.

[1way]

Originally Posted by Tradycja

Let me add also that:

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many years but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching (I think unwisely....)

The CCC, simply speaking, is not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. It is only infallible, where it reiterates defined doctrine.

Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but only in the same qualified sense. The Jesuits, for example, refused to abide by the Trent Catechism on the question of efficacious grace and the freedom of the will. The Catechism favored the Thomistic view, which emphasized the movement of the free will by grace. The Jesuits emphasized the free will's cooperation with the grace. Both opinions are free to be held, so long as the two extremes of Jansenism, on the one side, and Pelagianism on the other are avoided.

As long as one upholds both the freedom of the will and the necessity of grace, either emphasis is acceptable. Therefore, to answer the question "Is the CCC part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church?" No, not without qualification. If the CCC teaches a novel doctrine, then that cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium must measure with the solemn magisterium, it is not a parallel magisterium. Basically the famous principle laid down by St, Vincent of Lerins defines what came to be known as the "ordinary magisterium." That is of Catholic Faith which has been believed "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus." (always, everywhere, and by all.)

The Roman Catechism however does enjoy a higher authority than any other catechism.
But if you read all those documents on my above post all this will be clarified for you.

Thank you!
I feel like Im one more step toward Magisterium Laborinthium Clarificationem ...

[brigid12]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Yes he is the Vicar of Christ. No he is not the Savior or higher than the Savior. But to him were given the keys of the Kingdom. To him was given the authority bind and unbind. To him was given the command to lead Christ's flock. In doing so, Christ shares with him the title "Good Shepherd". To him Christ promises that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against him. He told Peter that he had prayed for him, individually, not for the others.

Therefore, reason tells us that the Vicar of Christ is the man whom the Father has chosen through which his son speaks and what he says concerning faith and morals is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

So when the Vicar of Christ says "I believe that Allah is God," he is free of error, because such a statement is a public expression of faith. He did now say, "I think".

When the Church says that she believes that the Muslim people are part of the plan in Salvation History, she's not making a statement of discipline open for debate or a referendum. She is making a statement of faith. She is expressing what she believes about Salvation History.

Reason tells us that the Church can never make statements of faith and morals that are contrary to truth. Therefore, we obey, even if we do not understand or as Lisa said, we are asked to climb a steep hill, because this has never been said before.

There is no new dogma here. There is simply a statement that has never been made. Nothing new has been said about God or the nature of God.

No one is saying that we must accept the Muslim understanding of God. Only that we must accept that our God has been trying to communicate with the Muslims under the name of Allah, which is really an Arabic word for YHWH. The Arabic speaking Eastern Rite uses the name Allah in the liturgy all the time. So do some of the Spanish speaking Latin Catholics who lived under Arab rule in southern Spain for 800 years. They still refer to Allah instead of Dios.

Obedience is not blind. Obedience is a loving choice. We choose to obey all that comes from God and the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF