Can someone be Catholic without believing that there have been any ex cathedra statements?
Well, they would still be Catholic.
However, it would be gravely sinful to reject the ex cathedra statements of the Church.
It would be delusinal to believe ther have not been any (since at least 2 are specifically defined as such). That would be like saying you do not believe there has ever been a declaration of independence.
I second the motion.
Precisely. To deny the existence of any statements made ex cathedra is like denying any other historical fact: it’s delusional.
Hi Corki and dshix. I take it you are pretty knowledgeable about ex cathedra statements … how many of them have there been?
The raising to the level of dogma the teachings on Mary’s Immaculate Conception (in 1858) and Mary’s Assumption (in 1950) are two unmistakable instances of a pope speaking ex cathedra.
Which isn’t to say that we only believe the Pope has ever been infallible on two occasions. The Christian faith would be pretty lackluster if those were the only two teachings we were sure about.
Also keep in mind that an Ecumenical Council can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, if they want to (for instance, Vatican II did not issue any infallible statements).
They would be Catholics, however according to Canon Law(Can. 751) and the Catechism(CCC 2089), they would also be heretics.(Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith)
It is generally recognised that there have been two ex cathedra pronouncements since Vatican I:
Ineffabilis Deus(1854) On the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
Munificentissimus Deus(1950) On the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
It is worth pointing out that these are considered extraordinary Infallible acts of the Papal Magisterium. There is also the Ordinary, Universal Magisterium of the Church which is also infallible.
As a cradle Catholic, I am not too sure about this question and what it wants. Probably this type of question is directed to an enquirer of a Catholic faith or by those who wants to examine the faith. I think most Catholic would not know what an ex cathedra statements are other than knowing what Catholic teachings are which are to be believed. When a Catholic starts questioning the teaching of the Church, perhaps that shows something within the person. If a Catholic does not believe in some teachings of the Church despite much explanation, then there must be a question that needs to be asked whether it makes sense to be still with the Church or not. Logically it does not make sense to be in something that one does not believe in.
Actually it was 1854.
True, you didn’t say that there are only two. Although I notice that you also haven’t named more than two – nor has anyone else thus far.
Small clarification, Ineffabilis Deus was before Vatican I, not after. I imagine that at Vatican I the bishops had this document specifically in mind as they defined Papal Infallibility, and that this influenced their language. I suppose this may be part of why it is more difficult and controversial to identify still earlier infallible Papal teachings, though since the idea of Papal infallibility is much older I can only guess there have been many earlier instances.
Unam Sanctam’s (1302) declaration about no salvation outside the Church is the only other that I’ve seen repeatedly claimed as being ex cathedra. Well, that and Bl. John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that women cannot be ordained priests, but as I recall the CDF clarified that while the teaching was infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium the new reiteration of it was not ex cathedra.
Of course here you get into the complex distinctions between infallible and ex cathedra. A tragic side-effect of Vatican I’s teaching is the popular impression that, as I’ve heard repeatedly “there’s only two infallible Church teachings. The rest could be wrong.”
You are changing the subject of this thread. You asked if a Catholic can believe that there has not ever been a statement made ex cathedra, and we answered. Conversation completed.
Consider the following 4 statements:
[list]*]1. Mary was born without original sin.
*]2. Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.
*]3. Ineffabilis Deus was ex cathedra.
*]4. Munificentissimus Deus was ex cathedra.[/list]
Statements 1 and 2 are dogma, and must be believed by Catholics. Statements 3 and 4, although true, are not dogma, and can be disbelieved by Catholics, much as Catholics are not required to believe that 1 + 1 = 2.
Unless you become a Catholic you wont know what we mean, but saying that you could look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and indeed this Forum to know what us Catholics are talking about what we are addressing.
Catholicism is pre denominational
We are the Originals.
How can one know if a statement is ex cathedra unless an ex cathedra statement declares it to be ex cathedra?
Around here we call that ori (short for original).
Good point there, Jon. That’s what I was trying to say. Not to mention that this kind of talk is not very Catholic except maybe academically.
Ex cathedra, more often than not, is spoken together with infallibility. Infallibility on the other hands is never defined as such. Thus the Church does not say that such a such statement is spoken ex cathedra or is infallible even though it is. Very often infallible statement could be found in a papal document though not all the content may be infallible. The Catholic Church operates that way and Catholics defer to the Church teaching as gift from God, His revelation through the authority of the Popes of His Church in binding and loosing.
You’re right. I should have made a mention of the number of ex cathedra statement, in the thread title and/or the OP.
when the Pope (Pope Leo I believe) stated Anglicans orders were null and void-was the Pope speaking in the infallible tense-?