The "ex-cathedra" Quandry

[Donna]

Dear Circle and Bruce,

Cmom hit it on the head re: a list. She said to read Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

The most "official list" I know of, is the Denzinger: Sources of Catholic Dogma.

Now, both these works are set out in either chronological or topical form; and they are like an encyclopedia of dogmas. It depends on what you want. In Ott's book, each teaching is explained, followed by proofs from Sacred Tradition and/or Scripture; sometimes objections answered. The Denzinger is mostly quotes verbatim from Councils, Papal bulls, letters, etc;

This is how I understand things:

Doctrine =that which is taught.. As in, a teaching or belief of the Catholic Church.

Dogma= Defined Doctrine. As in, a teaching or belief of the Catholic Church being defined.

Example:

Christ is true God and true Man = a doctrine

Christ is true God and true Man via the hypostatic union (ONE Divine Person with TWO NATURES) = defined doctrine (dogma).

Sacred Tradition is the touchstone of orthodoxy; the longer and more frequent something has been held by the Church, either reiterated, developed, defined or any combo of the three (re: faith or morals), these teachings have the characteristic of a dogma.

These all originate from somewhere; that is, from Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

You will find in the Denzinger, for example, in Systematic Index III f "The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff", citations much earlier than Bl. Pius IX, John XXII, and so on.

And, I believe you will find Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos) and others, decades earlier than Bl Pius IX (ora pro nobis, Pio Nono!) teaching condemned errors which show up in Pius' Syllabus.

As far as the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra, we need to remember that infallibility means "it cannot fail". So, when Pius XII solemnly defined the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven body and soul, it is this definition which cannot fail. And it is a safeguard, for the Deposit of the Faith and for the faithful, that this "can't fail definition" can never be contradicted, overridden, superceded. And should anyone, clergy, lay or an angel from heaven attempt to do so, the faithful would know they are being told a falsehood.

[socalscout]

I did a little research on ecumenical councils. I found one thing interesting, the council you often refer to (Council of Carthage), the one where you say you got your canon, well, it isn't ecumenical, but rather a local synod. If it isn't ecumenical, and isn't ex-cathedra, and isn't infallible according to any of your clauses in your summary of fallibility/infallibility, then shouldn't you hold this to be a bit less dogma, and a bit more interpretative like many of the Church fathers views?

as for JasJis, reconcile the two statements to show how they are both true. To brush through it, they do seem contradictory.

Circle,

I am still young in my apologetics but it is obvious you are only addressing one criteria for infalliblity.You are only adhering the Council of Carthage to Extraordinary Magisterium without any regard for Ordinary Magisterium. Here it is again.

<The Church speaks infallibly in two ways, through the Ordinary Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium.

The church teaches through the Ordinary Magisterium when Bishops (teaching in communion with the Holy Father), especially the Bishop of Rome, teach in ways that lead to a better understanding of faith and morals. The faithful are to adhere to these teachings with "religious assent" (Catechism of the Catholic Church § 892).

[Circle_Master]

And what defines "a better understanding of faith and morals." It is very open ended definition. One that works only when the authority needs it to. Of course if one says something the current leadership disagrees with it would be a worse understanding. And of course if it helps your cause it is "a better understanding".

[socalscout]

And what defines "a better understanding of faith and morals." It is very open ended definition. One that works only when the authority needs it to. Of course if one says something the current leadership disagrees with it would be a worse understanding. And of course if it helps your cause it is "a better understanding".

Give ma an example of a "cause". Explain to me what benefits who? If you read what everyone has been saying it is a solemn definition of faith that is considered infallible not an opinion. If John Paul tells Barbara Walters that hem lines are too short because God likes them long then he is stating an opinion. Fallible to say the least.

[[jas]]

If Trent says the ball is RED and the Catechism says the ball is RED and BLUE, does that make Trent's statement false.  Does that make it double speak?

No.  A bit of intelligence and logic would lead one to see the ball can be RED and BLUE at the same time.

What about when Trent says the ball is RED and anyone who says it's BLUE is anathema (or whatever the word is, and whatever it means...)

[jasJis]

' date='Dec 30 2003, 03:43 AM'] What about when Trent says the ball is RED and anyone who says it's BLUE is anathema (or whatever the word is, and whatever it means...)

Very good point. I was hoping for something like that from Circle or Ben.

You showed that you are not a superficial thinker. One would have to research to see if the Trent did or did not say also that the ball is not BLUE. Does it say it, or is it assumed it says that. Very big difference. You just proved the point that context and the completeness of statements is critical to correct understanding. I think IronMonk and Winchester both love to say "Context, Context, Context".

To discuss the Catholic Church's teaching of "ex-cathedra" one has to look at ALL what it says about it. "Ex-Cathedra" means in the context of working with Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, and the present grace of the Holy Spirit. It's not one over the other, it ALL working in conjuction. It's not saying Scripture is more important than Jesus' teachings that were verbally given to the Apostles. It's not saying the Grace ofthe Holy Spirit supercedes the Word of God. It's saying that God's grace works in all these things and they have to work together. Catholic Doctrine never contradicts Scripture, because Scripture is the Perfect Word of God. God's Word is perfect, but our understanding of it isn't. You may disagree with the Catholic Church's understanding, but in all honesty, neither one of us are really saying God's Word can ever be contradicted.

If Scripture is the entire source and summit of God's relationship with us, then it must be letter perfect in every way and different translations and versions have just corrupted and defeated that Perfection. All Christians would agree that isn't the case. We have the Holy Spirit that leads us. The Holy Spirit does not lead us just individually, though He does. The Holy Spirit also leads leaders in the Church. Christ established a physical institution of the Church. There were 12 Apostles, not all were Apostles. They asked God's grace in selecting Judas' replacement. They had hierachal authority. The Authority Christ gave them wasn't to rule us, but to serve us. God is perfect Mercy and Justice, and is God of Order, not chaos. If we are all members of one Body, we work together as individuals, not completely independently and regardless of the Body as individuals.

The Unity of God is made obvious to us in the Trinity and the eternal nature of all three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but one entity of God, one Will, one Purpose, one Love.