Ex-Cathedra?

[mrmccormo]

In a discussion with a Catholic friend of mine (full disclosure: I am not Catholic), he mentioned the term Ex-Cathedra. I had asked him what the role of the Pope was and asked why the Pope had infallible authority over canon, the interpretation of scriptures, etc.

In reply, he said that the "infallible" part only applies to the Pope when he is sitting Ex-Cathedra, which has only happened a few times in history and only concerns a few select doctrines.

I'd be grateful for the help of any Catholics who are able and willing to shed light on this concept. THANKS!

 

[bill5]

That pretty much sums it up, although I would say "speaking" ex-cathedra, not "sitting" - meaning it's about him saying or take a stand on something which is considered indisputable as he is literally and directly speaking for God.

Generally, while the Pope is God's "top" representative as far as Catholics are concerned, he still is a man and therefore of course not infallible; this is one of but many mistaken ideas people often have about Catholics.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Ex cathedra literally means "from the chair." In this context, it means "from the chair of St. Peter." That is, the papal throne. That is, the Pope. An ex cathedra statement is an infallible statement by the Pope on matters of faith and/or morals (nothing else), carrying the same weight as the infallible declaration of an Ecumenical Council.

The dogma was officially proclaimed in 1871 at Vatican I, but uses of it have been identified in history. It has been used a few times since its proclamation, such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is an exercise of papal supremacy. Catholics believe the Pope is the universal pastor: he has authority over the entire Church and all the bishops, by virtue of being the bishop of Rome. He is the visible unifying figure for the Church, the Vicar of Christ.

Ex Cathedra statements are rare. Generally the normal procedure is to convene an Ecumenical Council and promulgate it. Magisterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will give you an overview of the different levels (yes, levels) of infallibility in Catholic thought.

 

[mrmccormo]

Ex cathedra literally means "from the chair." In this context, it means "from the chair of St. Peter." That is, the papal throne. That is, the Pope. An ex cathedra statement is an infallible statement by the Pope on matters of faith and/or morals (nothing else), carrying the same weight as the infallible declaration of an Ecumenical Council.

The dogma was officially proclaimed in 1871 at Vatican I, but uses of it have been identified in history. It has been used a few times since its proclamation, such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is an exercise of papal supremacy. Catholics believe the Pope is the universal pastor: he has authority over the entire Church and all the bishops, by virtue of being the bishop of Rome. He is the visible unifying figure for the Church, the Vicar of Christ.

Ex Cathedra statements are rare. Generally the normal procedure is to convene an Ecumenical Council and promulgate it. will give you an overview of the different levels (yes, levels) of infallibility in Catholic thought.

Thank you for the information.

Yes, I do understand that Ex Cathedra statements are rare, but I suppose that I still do not grasp the difference between Ex Cathedra statements and "normal" statements. We can agree that Pope have disagreed with past Popes' decrees, yes? So, what is stopping a Pope from declaring something Ex Cathedra and then another Pope from refuting it with a new Ex Cathedra? I suppose it is a matter of faith?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thank you for the information.

Yes, I do understand that Ex Cathedra statements are rare, but I suppose that I still do not grasp the difference between Ex Cathedra statements and "normal" statements. We can agree that Pope have disagreed with past Popes' decrees, yes? So, what is stopping a Pope from declaring something Ex Cathedra and then another Pope from refuting it with a new Ex Cathedra? I suppose it is a matter of faith?

The same thing that has stopped new doctrines from superseding old ones. It simply cannot be done. Orthodox Christian theology does not permit it. A very poor analogy is that Catholic theology is like a legal system where laws (doctrine) cannot be overridden. The laws can be expounded upon, but never added to or removed from.

Now, the actual explanation.

There are basically three levels of important in Catholic thought: discipline, doctrine, and dogma. Discipline is the lowest level, and can change at any time. Things like when Saints' feasts are celebrated, fasting requirements, standing vs kneeling, clerical celibacy are all disciplines. They are rules that are theoretically designed to help the people of God become closer to Christ.

Doctrine is the next level up, and is generally taught as truth, but does not necessarily have the same level of certitude as a dogma or taught as divinely revealed. They cannot really change, but there may be some debate on the exact nature of the doctrine allowed within the boundaries of Catholic theology. A good example might be soteriology. Catholicism has two prevailing modes of thought about soteriology: Thomism (which is almost kinda-sorta-not-really like Calvinism) and Molinism.

Dogma is the highest level of certitude and there is no room for any debate on the matter. It is taught as divinely revealed.

Both doctrines and dogma require "religious submission" in varying levels. Obsequium religiosum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a bit of information on this. This thread on CAF might also help, although there is some conflicting information. If you read that thread, I'd recommend reading all the way through.

The Magisterium article I originally linked is also relevant. It shows the levels I talked about above, defined more clearly.

 

[mrmccormo]

The same thing that has stopped new doctrines from superseding old ones. It simply cannot be done. Orthodox Christian theology does not permit it. A very poor analogy is that Catholic theology is like a legal system where laws (doctrine) cannot be overridden. The laws can be expounded upon, but never added to or removed from.

Now, the actual explanation.

There are basically three levels of important in Catholic thought: discipline, doctrine, and dogma. Discipline is the lowest level, and can change at any time. Things like when Saints' feasts are celebrated, fasting requirements, standing vs kneeling, clerical celibacy are all disciplines. They are rules that are theoretically designed to help the people of God become closer to Christ.

Doctrine is the next level up, and is generally taught as truth, but does not necessarily have the same level of certitude as a dogma or taught as divinely revealed. They cannot really change, but there may be some debate on the exact nature of the doctrine allowed within the boundaries of Catholic theology. A good example might be soteriology. Catholicism has two prevailing modes of thought about soteriology: Thomism (which is almost kinda-sorta-not-really like Calvinism) and Molinism.

Dogma is the highest level of certitude and there is no room for any debate on the matter. It is taught as divinely revealed.

Both doctrines and dogma require "religious submission" in varying levels. has a bit of information on this. on CAF might also help, although there is some conflicting information. If you read that thread, I'd recommend reading all the way through.

The Magisterium article I originally linked is also relevant. It shows the levels I talked about above, defined more clearly.

Thank you again for this information. I am always grateful for when people are willing to answer questions without being defensive. I really appreciate it!

 

[Foundthelight]

Thank you again for this information. I am always grateful for when people are willing to answer questions without being defensive. I really appreciate it!

And we love it when people ask real questions such as yours. Thank you!

 

[Davidnic]

Someone recently also asked what the Pope does. So my answer from there may help with your part of the question on why he has authority.

There is a very good book called: Why Catholics Do That by Kevin Orlin Johnson.

Chapter 14 is called: The Pope what he does and why it matters

He starts that chapter with the phrase:

"Where you're dealing with a revealed religion like Christianity, you have to be sure that you've got it right."
​

The short of it is that is the Pope's job, led by the Holy Spirit. We believe that there are times when a Teaching needs clarified and the official interpretation of something needs to be done. While it is true the Holy Spirit works in each believer we have no guarantee that our views are protected from being our personal view in error.

But we do have the promise of that in Scripture for Peter and we believe that is given to his successors as well as the Church in Council in union. The Pope is the first among equals and head of the Bishops of the world. Christ gave the Authority to the 12 and to those who followed them. So Peter's successor inherits his authority. In fact the Pope does not follow or succeed from the Pope before him, we believe each one essentially follows Peter directly so to speak.

In 100AD the Bishop of Antioch (a bishops seat also created by Peter) even wrote in his letters that is the Bishop of Rome who presides over all Christian communities. At the time of course everyone was still unified and Christian meant one thing.

Now, the Pope exercises this power only when speaking "Ex Cathedra" from the Chair of Peter. Which is not common. And he can never introduce new things...he can only clarify what is already in the Tradition passed down by the Apostles or in Scripture. He can not invent.

His job, theologically, is to protect the Deposit of Faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when questions arise.

Now, like I said before...we've had bad Popes and none of them have used this authority to change things that could not be changed.

Popes may have disagreed on things, but not on things that are of the unchangeable level.

Ideally the Pope should also be an example of charity, love, virtue, strength and piety. And some have. Some have not.

 

[mrmccormo]

Thanks Davidnic for the info. Yes, I know that Popes have sometimes said bad things, but that is how it goes. Raised evangelically (God is correcting me and drawing away from my upbringing), I was taught that it is silly and wrong to trust the word of a Pope. Of course, it was not silly at all to follow the words of many different men who all disagreed with one another and who each formed their own denominations, right? Haha! I suppose logic often gives way to passion, and we all fall away from the truth in our own special way.

One thing I am curious about is if the Pope has anyone he answers to (other than God, of course). Like, if a Pope says something that is patently false, can another branch within Catholicism counteract his declarations? Or on the flip side, if the Pope says something truthful, but a different branch within Catholicism doesn't like it, can they be jerks and "veto" it? Just curious.

 

[Dark_Lite]

One thing I am curious about is if the Pope has anyone he answers to (other than God, of course). Like, if a Pope says something that is patently false, can another branch within Catholicism counteract his declarations?

It's almost certain that a statement claiming to be ex cathedra would be carefully examined by canon lawyers all over the world. There is a process to the whole thing. Church documents take months or maybe even years to be ready for publication. Theological accuracy is one aspect of that preparation.

Or on the flip side, if the Pope says something truthful, but a different branch within Catholicism doesn't like it, can they be jerks and "veto" it? Just curious.

Are you talking about an ex cathedra statement? If so, no. Not without putting themselves in schism.

 

[mrmccormo]

It's almost certain that a statement claiming to be ex cathedra would be carefully examined by canon lawyers all over the world. There is a process to the whole thing. Church documents take months or maybe even years to be ready for publication. Theological accuracy is one aspect of that preparation.

Are you talking about an ex cathedra statement? If so, no. Not without putting themselves in schism.

That is what I am wondering about. What is the balance between canon lawyers examining the issue of an upcoming church document and those same canon lawyers saying "no, no, this is not valid". Would they then be in schism?

Again, I am just curious because I am not Catholic and I do not understand these processes (we evangelicals just "wing it", and it's easy to see where that has landed us).

 

[Dark_Lite]

That is what I am wondering about. What is the balance between canon lawyers examining the issue of an upcoming church document and those same canon lawyers saying "no, no, this is not valid". Would they then be in schism?

Again, I am just curious because I am not Catholic and I do not understand these processes (we evangelicals just "wing it", and it's easy to see where that has landed us).

Positing hypothetical situations only gets so far before they enter the realm of the unknowable. The more variables are added, the more difficult the question becomes. Eventually it becomes unanswerable because there's just no way to collect all information required for an answer.

The Church is not a monolithic entity where theological idea the Pope says goes without challenge. This is why Councils exist. Catholic theologians also exist and analyze the theological state of affairs.

I don't really know what else to tell you, because such a situation has never really happened and probably never will happen. I suppose there have been some analogues in history. When Vatican I proclaimed papal infallibility, some of the Eastern leaders left the Council and refused to sign the document. You can look to how that situation was handled if you want more information. I believe the Pope sent dignitaries to those opposing it in order to secure their signatures. I don't remember what happened after that part.

 

[Davidnic]

Some Popes have made mistakes as private theologians but none have ever disagreed with the Bishops on matters of Dogma.

My guess is that if the Pope wanted to issue something ex cathedra there would be a long discussion; as there always is. And it would involve many experts. If there was a divide it would all be discussed. In the end, if the Pope felt that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit such a proclamation was necessary even if some disagreed, he would do it. But my guess is the Holy Spirit would aid in informing the hearts of the Bishops and canon lawyers if they disagreed and the Pope was right. And I believe the Holy Spirit would indeed enlighten the heart of the Pope if he was wrong. That is the nature of the protection.

Sometimes discussions take decades and multiple Popes if a part of the deposit of faith is going to be specifically clarified via the Pope.

 

[Colin]

My guess is that if the Pope wanted to issue something ex cathedra there would be a long discussion; as there always is. And it would involve many experts.
Sometimes discussions take decades and multiple Popes if a part of the deposit of faith is going to be specifically clarified via the Pope.

This occurred in relation to the definition of the Immaculate Conception .

The Pope consulted all the bishops of the Church , seeking their thoughts on the matter .

 

[benedictaoo]

To sum it up, ex-cathedra is when the pope has to formally say, look, this thing we have been debating is true and he will formally define it.

Take Peter in the bible, when they were debating whether or not to circumcise the non Jews coming into the Church, Peter stood up and spook and the matter was settled.

Its basically a matter of something that Jesus never taught the apostles and if it was not handed down to us from them as a matter of "T" radition its speculation, or small "t" tradition, something we are free to believe or not as long as we assent to what ever the Church does say about it when and if the time comes for the pope to elevate it formally to a dogma of the Church... or condemn it.

Something he alone has the authority to proclaim and when he does, we are all bound to it, we have to assent to it being true.

This is why its only been done a hand full of times.

 

[Incariol]

Isn't the seat of the Bishop of Rome, and thus his cathedra, actually St. John Lateran?

 

[benedictaoo]

Its where ever he wants it to be ... the seat is the office and not really the location.

 

[Davidnic]

St. Johns is the Ecclesiastical seat of Rome. The Chair of Peter can refer to the actual physical chair or the authority of the Pope. kind of a multi-faceted term. He speaks "from the chair" when he invokes the Papal authority. Since at least 311ad (documented) there has been the feast of "The Chair of Peter" the Papal throne was placed in St. John's and it declared the seat of the Diocese in 324 AD. So the feast of the chair predates that. So really it is wherever he exercises the authority.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Subscribing

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The statements that the Pope says ex cathedra are infallible.. that is when he is speaking as the successor of St Peter on faith and morals. However it's important to note that he doesn't make them infallible.. they already are Church teaching, and already true, and already part of Tradition. They are already believed by the Church. However, sometimes it happens that a Church teaching is being opposed by some people and there needs to be clarification, so the Pope clarifies the Church teaching by making it into a dogma. This happened in the early Church with the Ecumenical Councils (with the Pope) and still happened today.

God bless