theoretical Ex Cathedra

[Uphill Battle]

There are many, many testimonies to uncorrupt bodies with fragrant myrh flowing from them from the first centuries of Christianity to today. I have smelled the bones of one saint, and it was beautiful! It most certainly has been verified, Uphill Battle. Many Christians have witnessed the miracles you doubt! Do not be like Thomas. Miracles are still present with His Church. I am saddened that you choose to believe they do not exist.

now whoever said that I disbelieve that miracles occur? I am just very careful in looking at every thing and saying Miracle! Miracle! You call me doubting Thomas, fine... but then Should I beleive the "miracles" of statues of Ganesh that drink milk? All the crying statues, Mary appearing in a taco in Guadarlacava.... The list is endless. You smelled the bones of a saint, but you don't even wonder whether or not it is manufactured... because your church says so, it's a miracle! I neither need nor seek miracles to bolster my faith.

As for posting a picture of someone who is Holy . . . it is a pearl to me. Perhaps if I believed your heart was opened to seeing him for what he is and not making a mockery of it with your questioning unbelief, I would post it.

Love,
Christina

Where do you get the notion that questioning is a BAD thing? For instance, the claims of Christ. I questioned them over an over... they still hold water despite every criticism and barb thrown at him. A great deal of "miracles" do not. Stigmatisms, Holy Relics, appearances of saints, etc.... there have been fraudulent examples of all of them. Other religions claim miracles as well.

I hold very fast to the words of Christ, that states "even if they see signs and wonders, they still won't believe." That being said... do you think he would then turn around and peform sign after sign? Makes little sense. God does the miraculous. I will hold a reverent Agnosticism on the matter for most claimed miracles, and most likely, never need to see one manifested in such a manner. I can find no promise, or reason, that God would preserve the corpses of "saints" on this earth. What is sown persishable will rise imperishable, but not NOW. That is what I see in the bible.

As for the Holy man, I wonder strongly if the description of this Man is as you say, where he is... he must be strongly cloistered to avoid any press for his appearance! With eyes brighter than the sun, that would turn some heads, I have no doubt. I respect that you don't want to cast that pearl before who you consider a doubter, fine. It's just that if the Orthodox church was very much about the signs, and wonders, such as the holy relics, I would think that someone of such an appearance would serve well to evangelize Christ, instead of being so far removed that nobody knows he exists. Just my opinion.

 

[BigNorsk]

then exactly how do they decide what is, and what isn't?

If it's decided apart from the pope, then it isn't papal infallibility at all!

Makes me wonder at the worth of claiming infallibility of the pope in the first place.

Largely Catholic politics. If the Pope says something that a bunch of Catholics want they start campaigning in support of it and they run with it and after awhile it is therefor recognized, often by a following Pope that it was spoken ex cathedra.

And the politics are instrumental actually in getting a Pope in place that will support your position so that he can speak "infallibally" on it and so you can push support for it and make it a sin not to believe what you believe.

Of course Catholic explanations for how it works probably wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Marv

 

[Uphill Battle]

Largely Catholic politics. If the Pope says something that a bunch of Catholics want they start campaigning in support of it and they run with it and after awhile it is therefor recognized, often by a following Pope that it was spoken ex cathedra.

And the politics are instrumental actually in getting a Pope in place that will support your position so that he can speak "infallibally" on it and so you can push support for it and make it a sin not to believe what you believe.

Of course Catholic explanations for how it works probably wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Marv

probably not.

 

[ScottBot]

Of course Catholic explanations for how it works probably wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Marv

You're right about that one.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You're right about that one.

so then, tell us all how it REALLY works.

 

[Uphill Battle]

well? how does it really all go down?

 

[ScottBot]

well? how does it really all go down?

Ask the Holy Spirit......

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ask the Holy Spirit......

no, what I mean is... if something is not considered Ex Cathedra when it is first spoken, how does it BECOME ex Cathedra?

 

[ScottBot]

no, what I mean is... if something is not considered Ex Cathedra when it is first spoken, how does it BECOME ex Cathedra?

Well, if that's what you wanted to know, you should have asked....

A great modern example of this is John Paul II's encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, a treatise regarding the ordination of women into the priesthood. It is being regarded by many as a modern example of an ex cathedra dogmatic announcement. I've included the english translation if the document rom the vatican website so you can see it for yourself.

Notice how he opens the letter up, "Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches."

He appeals to the constant teaching (tradition) of ALL of the Apostolic churches (Catholic and Orthodox)" the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents." He is basically saying, "Hey, I am not making this stuff up. This is what the church has believed and taught from the very begining."

Then, he goes on to expound WHY this issue requires papal intervention, "But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. ....at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force." The Pope is issuing this document because the constant teaching of the church, specifically that ordination to the ministerial priesthood is reserved to men alone, is being called into question.

Finally, he appeals to Christ, the head of the Church, as the one who has established this doctrine. "The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way........In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner."

And finally, what makes this letter subject to ex cathedra, is in the closing remarks. "
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

So, I hope that helps. So, as a review, ex cathedra declarations usually have 3 conditions:

1. The are founded on the constant teaching of the Church based on the work of Christ.
2. There is a pressing need to promulgate the doctrine, i.e. is it being debated and called into question.
3. It is decided that it is an article that is closed for debate, or in the words of St. Augustine, "jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est " (for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.) or, the more succinct paraphrase, Rome has spoken, case closed.

Hope that helps. I know that you have issues with the fundamental authority of the Bishop of Rome, but I hope that you can see that I, as a loyal Catholic, don't need to run around refuting this matter. It has been believed and discussed for thousands of years. What right do I have to question its validity but out of mere human pride.

 

[ScottBot]

bump, for UBs edification.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I read it scott, thanks.