Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  columba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:43 pm



I'm being challenged on this point of dogma over on CCF. This is the debate about the fate of unbaptised infants you and I where involved in

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:
“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
”[Denzinger 1800]

Is the above definitely excathedre?

http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?38924-Fate-of-unbaptized-aborted-infants



avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  Guest on Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:19 pm

I'm not duckbill, but while the above statement is not ex cathedra (i.e., "from the chair"), it IS binding on the faithful. The First Vatican Council was an Ecumenical Council.

(btw, I'm "AnneElliot" (not my real name, so I'm not violating forum rules!) over there...)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  columba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:01 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:I'm not duckbill, but while the above statement is not ex cathedra (i.e., "from the chair"), it IS binding on the faithful. The First Vatican Council was an Ecumenical Council.

(btw, I'm "AnneElliot" (not my real name, so I'm not violating forum rules!) over there...)

Thanks for the info. I''ll get back over there later. Very Happy
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  MRyan on Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:20 pm

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:

“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
”[Denzinger 1800]

Is the above definitely excathedre?

I’m not Duckbill either, but if I might add; yes, it’s ex cathedra (from the Chair) and infallible in the “cannot contain error” sense, but it is not a dogmatic or solemn definition on a binding matter of revealed truth; and neither is it a solemn proposal (doctrine) that must be “definitively held”. I suppose one could call it a supreme ecclesiastical approbation. It is a solemn precept telling us that we are to retain and understand dogmas as they are “once declared”.

Note; however, that VCI does NOT say that sacred dogmas cannot have a “deeper understanding”; but only that the “deeper understanding” cannot be a recession from its original meaning. Neither is it a suggestion that the Supreme Teaching Office can be guilty of such a crime.

And neither is it a license for certain “trads” to determine themselves what the “once declared” meaning is - when the Church declares otherwise.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  Guest on Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:59 pm

I have only ever come across ex cathedra predicated of the Pope himself... The documents of the Ecumenical Council are infallible, yes, but I don't see how they can be said to be ex cathedra?

From my Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon, SJ)
EX CATHEDRA. The term commonly applied to the special and explicit exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)

From New Advent:
Ex Cathedra
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor 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 in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  MRyan on Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:56 am

MarianLibrarian wrote:I have only ever come across ex cathedra predicated of the Pope himself... The documents of the Ecumenical Council are infallible, yes, but I don't see how they can be said to be ex cathedra?
I have no problem with the “common” understanding of ex cathedra, which we can summarize as: “He teaches ex cathedra when serving in the capacity of pastor and Doctor (shepherd and teacher) of all the faithful, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine with regard to faith and morals that must be held by the whole Church."

As we shall see, Pope Pius IX intended to exercise his extraordinary (ex cathedra) solemn teaching office in the two dogmatic constitutions of the Church we refer to collectively as “VCI”.

We’ll begin here:

FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)

Introduction

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

The purpose of the council was, besides the condemnation of contemporary errors, to define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. In fact, in the three following sessions, there was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: Dogmatic Constitution On The Catholic Faith and First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome.
The purpose of the First Vatican Council was to “define” the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. Its two dogmatic constitutions are Session 3, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith; and Session 4, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ.

Strictly speaking, only the Canons of Session 3, and the dogmatic definition (papal infallibility) in Session 4 are solemn ex cathedra pronouncements. However, because both Sessions “define” the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ and they each contain solemn ex cathedra pronouncements, the two dogmatic constitutions can be considered “ex cathedra”.

However, if you look at the citation presented in the original post, it is not actually from Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, it’s from Sess. 3, Chapter 4. On faith and reason:

Session 3: 24 April 1870
Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

Chapter 4. On faith and reason


14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. (cf Canon 3)

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668).].
The citation makes a reference to Canon 3, which reads:

Canons

4. On faith and reason


3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Theologians have always understood solemn canonical condemnations with their signature “anathema sit” to enjoy the same infallibility as solemn papal definitions.

I hope that helps to clear things up.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Duckbill Is this ex cathedre

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum