Can "Ex Cathedra" Be Changed?


#1

If a pope decrees something in “ex cathedra”, can a subsequent pope change it?


#2

No. If something is spoken ex cathedra than it is a truth of the Church and truth does not change. Do you have something in mind?


#3

My husband says that some Popes in the past did speak “ex Cathedra” and say wrong things…

I haven’t been able to prove/disprove this. Comments?


#4

It should be on him to prove this, and then youcan refute- after all, if it does not exsist, how can you find it?


#5

Be prepared. Anti-papists have 3 cases they will always bring up where Popes have allegedly erred. (Variation on the theme of ex-cathedra infallibility.) There are links on the Catholic Answers home page. Go get 'em!


#6

[quote=Christian4life]My husband says that some Popes in the past did speak “ex Cathedra” and say wrong things…

I haven’t been able to prove/disprove this. Comments?
[/quote]

Did he give examples?


#7

[quote=makin503]If a pope decrees something in “ex cathedra”, can a subsequent pope change it?
[/quote]

A subsequent pope cannot oppose or negate an infallible teaching of a prior pope. For instance since it is defined as Dogma that Mary was Immaculately Conceived without Original Sin. A later Pope cannot teach that she was conceived with Original sin and sanctified with the words of the Angel. However a later pope could develop the Dogma further without changing the core teaching.


#8

Thank you all for your comments. I have always been taught that Pope St. Pius V spoke “ex cathedra” that the Latin Tridentine Mass was to be said “in perpetuity.” If that is true, how then can Vatican II change that with the Novus Ordo Mass? Please comment.


#9

[quote=Makin503]Thank you all for your comments. I have always been taught that Pope St. Pius V spoke “ex cathedra” that the Latin Tridentine Mass was to be said “in perpetuity.” If that is true, how then can Vatican II change that with the Novus Ordo Mass? Please comment.
[/quote]

If you read the Bull you are referring to - Quo Primum, it does appear to be an ex-Cathedra statement.

"Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal * may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law

Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

In the 80’s, the Pope commission 9 Cardinals to study whether or not the Old Mass had been abrogated. They agreed that the Old Mass was never abrogated and can still be said legally by any Priest without the need of an “Indult”. One of the Cardinals in the commission (maybe Cardinal Stickler) later publically admitted it.

I think when the currect crisis in the Church is over and done with many interesting things will come out. One such thing may be that the prophecy from the book of Daniel took place during the days of the New Mass: “they shall defile the sanctuary… and shall take away the continual sacrifice (the Mass), and they shall place there the abomination of desolation. And such as deal wickedly against the covenant shall deceitfully dissemble” (Daniel 11:31-32).

Are we in those days? I think we are!*


#10

[quote=makin503]Thank you all for your comments. I have always been taught that Pope St. Pius V spoke “ex cathedra” that the Latin Tridentine Mass was to be said “in perpetuity.” If that is true, how then can Vatican II change that with the Novus Ordo Mass? Please comment.
[/quote]

Internal evidence of Quo Primum tells us that it is a disciplinary document. One of the requirements for an Ex cathedra teaching is that it must present a matter of faith or morals – look at the teachings on the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary to see the difference.

No. Quo Priumum is not, and never was intended to be, an infallible teaching of the pope.

Deacon Ed


#11

Deacon Ed, thanks for explaining, but could you go a step further and tell me what you mean by internal evidence? What was the context of this document when it was issued, and why is not still binding? I’m not sure I understand.


#12

[quote=Cherub]Deacon Ed, thanks for explaining, but could you go a step further and tell me what you mean by internal evidence? What was the context of this document when it was issued, and why is not still binding? I’m not sure I understand.
[/quote]

Here’s one article on the matter:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM


#13

Oh, puhllleeeeze.

No Pope has any right to bind his future successor on matters disciplinary or liturgical.

If this were the case, every revision of the Missal from 1570 to 1962 would be heretical.

Consider also this paragraph from Saint Pius V’s Bull:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by the Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases we in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

Wow. D’you catch that? Pius V refers to the Tridentine Mass as a “new rite”.

:eek:


#14

[quote=bear06]Here’s one article on the matter:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
"The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic."
[/quote]

If we must “bow to that living authority” then should that “living authority” contradict past authority we would have to contradict it too. This is a recipe for having a single heretical pope lead the Church into perdition. Not even the pope has the authority to override prior Church teachings and practices.

What if a Pope were to say we are to baptize in the name of God and the Child and the Dove, would you “bow to that living authority”? Or would you recognize him as the heretic he is? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic


#15

If we must “bow to that living authority” then should that “living authority” contradict past authority we would have to contradict it too.

Except there’s no “contradiction” here. A Pope may develop the litiurgy as he sees fit, or he may abolish a particular ritual altogether. The liturgical rites are not articles of faith, not until the matter and the form of a sacrament are dealt with.

(Yes, it’s possible that the Pope can alter the liturgy imprudently, but that’s between him and God. God is pleased only that we, the laypeople, obey.)

Not even the pope has the authority to override prior Church . . . practices.

Um . . . yes he does.

What if a Pope were to say we are to baptize in the name of God and the Child and the Dove, would you “bow to that living authority”? Or would you recognize him as the heretic he is?

Although a Pope can personally be a heretic, his charism of infallibility protects him from imposing on the Church a form of worship which is displeasing to God or, worse, invalid.


#16

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Except there’s no “contradiction” here. A Pope may develop the litiurgy as he sees fit, or he may abolish a particular ritual altogether. The liturgical rites are not articles of faith, not until the matter and the form of a sacrament are dealt with.

[/quote]

Eh…?
Isn’t the Liturgy also part of the received tradition? In the Pope’s coronation vow, he declares he will not alter the received tradition, what then actually constitutes a change?

CORONATION OATH OF THE POPE
**I VOW to change nothing of the received tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter [change], or to permit any innovation therein; **

To the contrary; with glowing affection as Her truly faithful student and successor, to reverently safeguard the passed on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction with canonical order that may surface;
To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as Divine Ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine tribunal over all that I confess.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone-----be it our self or be it another-----who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or [who] would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or [who] would concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture.
[Liber Duirnus Romanorum Pontificum, P. L105, S. 54.]


#17

[quote=RomanRiteTeen]Eh…?
Isn’t the Liturgy also part of the received tradition? In the Pope’s coronation vow, he declares he will not alter the received tradition, what then actually constitutes a change?
[/quote]

It is said that the current Pope hasn’t taken this vow.


#18

The current Pope was never crowned with the tiara, so he has never taken this vow. However, he has not violated its contents.

The vow you quote refers to the Holy Tradition of the Church, not the various Church-institutions that have been added through the centuries.

Don’t be naive or ignorant. If such were the case, every Pope who modified the liturgy, from 1570 to 1962, would be guilty of heresy.

Ditto for any Pope who altered ecclesiastical law.

The Papal Coronation ceremony is itself a late Medieval invention. Very late.

On a side note, I understand that this ceremony was never actually formally done away with or reformed. The current Pope has just chosen not to employ it. The next Pope could be crowned as Paul VI and his predecessors were. (I hope so, too!)


#19

[quote=RomanRiteTeen]Eh…?
Isn’t the Liturgy also part of the received tradition? In the Pope’s coronation vow, he declares he will not alter the received tradition, what then actually constitutes a change?
[/quote]

There is a big difference from Tradition and tradition. The liturgy is not Tradition. The Pope cannot depart from Tradition.

Please read these two articles:
ttp://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4748

Also, a must read for this is Paster Aeternus. It is a Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution for those who would say it was Vatican II propaganda. cin.org/docs/pastorae.html4


#20

[quote=albert cipriani]If we must “bow to that living authority” then should that “living authority” contradict past authority we would have to contradict it too. This is a recipe for having a single heretical pope lead the Church into perdition. Not even the pope has the authority to override prior Church teachings and practices.

What if a Pope were to say we are to baptize in the name of God and the Child and the Dove, would you “bow to that living authority”? Or would you recognize him as the heretic he is? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
[/quote]

An apple will never be an orange, Cipriani. If you are going to use this argument then any Pope whoever changed the liturgy would be a heretic. We’d sure have a list of heretical Popes to contend with! Your baptismal ceremony argument is based on Tradition not tradition. The liturgy is based on tradition.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.