Papal infallibility and ex cathedra.

javi2541997

Pope Benedict XVI has died yesterday. I wanted to read some information about him and I found out an interesting debate on Papal infallibility. This is a theological theory by Hans Küng. It is a dogma which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error. It is another theory which comes from Papal supremacy: the Pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, the visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful, and as pastor of the entire Catholic Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Another concept to keep in mind: Ex cathedra. The doctrine of papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair"), was proclaimed by Pius IX in 1870 as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows: The Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops) speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

This theory suffered from objections and oppositions by Catholics. The obedience towards Pope was not always being accepted. Some examples: Mesenguy, who wrote a catechism denying the infallibility of the pope and Felix Blau who, as professor at the University of Mainz, criticized infallibility without a clearer mandate in Scripture.

I am not so involved with Vatican and Catholic dogmas, but this debate between theologians It has made me wonder: How much power and authority should the Pope have?

Hanover

↪javi2541997

It's like asking how much power a CEO should have. It's dependent upon the needs of the organization.

It seems Catholics want some sense of divinity to emanate from their leader, so democratizing his powers, setting checks and balances, and having strict oversight aren't what they want because that might overly humanize him.

To the extent I could impose my views, I'd want someone who exercises transparently, is fully accountable, and must answer to those he affects. Those modern views likely won't prevail upon that ancient organization though.

javi2541997

It seems Catholics want some sense of divinity to emanate from their leader, so democratizing his powers, setting checks and balances, and having strict oversight aren't what they want because that might overly humanize him. — Hanover

I see it as you do. But this premise could end up in an argument where the Pope is above God. Catholics don't want to humanize the Pope but I understand that, at the same time, no one is divine as much as God.
So, they will always have this debate. Are the faculties of the Pope object of criticism? If we critize him, are we arguing against God's mercy?

T Clark

I see it as you do. But this premise could end up in an argument where the Pope is above God. Catholics don't want to humanize the Pope but I understand that, at the same time, no one is divine as much as God.
So, they will always have this debate. Are the faculties of the Pope object of criticism? If we critize him, are we arguing against God's mercy? — javi2541997

The kinds of questions you are asking only make sense from within Catholic Christianity. From outside where we stand, the questions can only be sociological or anthropological.

javi2541997

↪T Clark

It is true that the only way to understand the role of the Pope is from a Catholic perspective because his institution is based on canons and faith. Even is a religious debate I think it is interesting how his power can be more or less estimated.
A Pope doesn't have any influence on me but there are millions of believers and I understand that the Pope is important to them. But how important? Do they see him as the image of God or even supreme?

I think this issue makes me wonder a lot of questions because my failure is see the Pope as someone different from God but probably a Catholic sees him as the pure representation of the idea of God.

T Clark

I think this issue makes me wonder a lot of questions because my failure is see the Pope as someone different from God but probably a Catholic sees him as the pure representation of the idea of God. — javi2541997

I think there are a lot of differences among Catholics about many issues of doctrine, especially here in the US. My wife is Catholic and I don't think she cares about papal infallibility at all.

javi2541997

↪T Clark

Yes, there are a lot of differences among all Catholics. I see it interesting because I wasn't aware about the "importance" of papal authority until today.
I always see him as a prophet not as a "Leviathan" or someone with a lot of power in his hands.

Tom Storm

I am not so involved with Vatican and Catholic dogmas, but this debate between theologians It has made me wonder: How much power and authority should the Pope have? — javi2541997

I am close to some Catholics, including a few priests and nuns and some of the hierarchy in my country. My understanding it that many Catholics thought of this particular pope as a conservative zealot who was trying to drag the church back to pre Vatican Two days. For others he was hero of the counterrevolution.

It's important to understand that the Catholic church (like elsewhere) has been engaged in a bitter internal culture war about what constitutes its core beliefs and how it positions itself in relation to contemporary culture. And, on top of this, it can no longer compete in poor countries with Evangelical forms of Christianity which have an easier, minimalistic theology, with a focus almost entirely on emotions.

BC

I think this issue makes me wonder a lot of questions because my failure is see the Pope as someone different from God but probably a Catholic sees him as the pure representation of the idea of God. — javi2541997

I'm not Catholic, but I deeply and most sincerely hope that the Pope is entirely different from God. As I understand it (several times removed from a catechism class) is that the Pope is, at most, the on-site human representative of Jesus -- the vicar,

The meaning of "vicar" is "a representative"; think "vicarious". (In different denominations "vicar" has different meanings.)

There are old fashioned Catholics who reverence the Pope and look to him for ultimate earthly guidance. Many Catholics would say hello to the Pope if it was entirely convenient, and there are new-fangled Catholics who don't give a rat's ass about the Pope.

Whether one is a Catholic, a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Moslem, Hindu, or Zoroastrian, animist or atheist, in the end the individual has to personally decide what to do. That's why some Catholics have abortions, why some Methodists and Moslems are alcoholics, why some Buddhists strain their water through a sieve to avoid eating a possibly sentient being, why some Jews like pork, and why any individual might take out a knife and stab you in the heart.

javi2541997

↪Tom Storm

I see. Pope Francis is a very controversial figure in both inside and outside of the Church and Vatican. I am aware that he receives some criticism due to his actions but as much as the other Popes. They always have had some controversies in their backs.
Your testimony is interesting because it shows that priests and nuns are "free" to critique the Pope. I always thought that they were forced to venerated him whatever the circumstances...

javi2541997

I'm not Catholic, but I deeply and most sincerely hope that the Pope is entirely different from God. As I understand it (several times removed from a catechism class) is that the Pope is, at most, the on-site human representative of Jesus -- the vicar, — Bitter Crank

Yes, you are right Crank. Nevertheless, there are some doctrines and dogmas who see the Pope "above" of Jesus. I mean, as a pure representation of God. This theory was established by Pius IX: There was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius) and the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor aeternus), the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome [...] Another main goal of the council was to definitively define the powers and role of the pope.

Whether one is a Catholic, a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Moslem, Hindu, or Zoroastrian, animist or atheist, in the end the individual has to personally decide what to do. — Bitter Crank

I guess it could be difficult to them... we have to keep in mind that those Catholics or Protestants follow a dogma and a hierarchical group. Being individual/independent can be seen as an act of criticism against the dogmas.

Tom Storm

Your testimony is interesting because it shows that priests and nuns are "free" to critique the Pope. I always thought that they were forced to venerated him whatever the circumstances... — javi2541997

It's how they speak with each other. I doubt that they would say this in church or as an official position. I was referring to their dislike of Ratzinger.

Pope Francis, however they feel a lot more warmly towards as he is more progressive and in keeping with the notion of Jesus as a social reformer.

javi2541997

. I was referring to their dislike of Ratzinger. — Tom Storm

I am aware that Ratzinger was disliked by a lot of Catholics. His views in the world were not welcomed by the rest of the persons. He was a very controversial figure inside the Vatican.
That's why I started this post. I wanted to know if the priests were "free" to argue against a Pope. I am seeing that they can do it individually. It is something new I learned these days.

Pope Francis — Tom Storm

Despite Pope Francis is more warmly than Ratzinger he receives hard criticism from the conservative wing too.

Tom Storm

Despite Pope Francis is more warmly than Ratzinger he receives hard criticism from the conservative wing too. — javi2541997

Of course, which is seen as robust evidence that Francis is a good guy, One must have the right enemies. Or in F's case, enemies in the Right. :wink:

javi2541997

One must have the right enemies. Or in F's case, enemies in the Right. :wink: — Tom Storm

:up: :100:

god must be atheist

The doctrine of papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair"), was proclaimed by Pius IX in 1870 as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." — javi2541997

in 1568 or 1620, I can't remember which, the then-current pope ex cathedra declared that the Earth was flat and anyone opposing that is an heretic to be burnt at the stakes.

So much for papal infallibility.

BC

Yes, you are right Crank. Nevertheless, there are some doctrines and dogmas who see the Pope "above" of Jesus. I mean, as a pure representation of God. — javi2541997

Maybe some popes were hoping to be the Fourth Person of the Trinity, Father, Pope, Son, Holy Ghost, an elected incarnation.

The Protestants have plenty of problems, but at least they don't have a pope.

javi2541997

↪god must be atheist

Good example of Papal ex cathedra dogma. It is true that the Vatican always had influence on education. Nowadays this power has being vanished to ashes. Church educational system is no longer powerful as much as old era/days because modern society tend to be more critical.
In the other hand, I was looking for some answers related to the conclave. For me, catholic church seems to be a very complex organisation.

javi2541997

The Protestants have plenty of problems, but at least they don't have a pope. — Bitter Crank

It was a historical change in Europe when Northern European countries broke their relationship with the Vatican, indeed. As I see, it seems that religion always had issues among their believers and priests.

Art48

To me, the ideas of papal infallibility and ex cathedra.demonstrate the nonsense that is often religion, the utter disregard of reality. Any rational organization would first ask itself if past popes had ever spoken ex cathedra but nonetheless been wrong. If it found even one, it would know papal infallibility and ex cathedra.are false.

universeness

All popes are given the title pontiff maximus. The exact same title given to Roman emperors!
Popes are the remnants of what it meant to be an emperor of Rome.

Gregory

↪javi2541997

I've studied catholic dogmatics extensively. There are very few collegial or papal decrees that are certainly infallible. Church leaders have used ambiguous statements so often with regard to doctrine that the only things binding of Catholics are when a Council or Pope says something is now defined as a matter of faith and uses language that cannot be misinterpreted. Even abortion hasn't been infallibly defined as a sin

javi2541997

↪Gregory

Interesting. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in this matter with us.
I have two questions (if you do not mind):

I. Can you give me an example of papal decrees that are certainly infallible? It sounds interesting because I want to know an example of a statement that Catholics respect and comply without doubting.

II.

Even abortion hasn't been infallibly defined as a sin — Gregory

This was a surprise, indeed. Do you think that abortion was never been infallibly defined as a sin because is a controversial topic? I am not familiar with all Catholic dogmas but I always thought that abortion was condemned by most of them.

javi2541997

Any rational organization would first ask itself if past popes had ever spoken ex cathedra but nonetheless been wrong. — Art48

That can rings a bell... I think only a few priests are brave enough to doubt on Pope's decisions or dogmas. As I said previously, I always thought that Pope is seen as the closer person to God (they even believe that the Pope is elected due to God's mercy)
So this brings Catholics to a dilemma: if they question Pope they are also doubting God's decisions and will?

Gregory

↪javi2541997

Abortion has been condemned repeatedly by Popes but they were never said basically "I defined this as a matter of faith" Pius IX defined that Mary was born without original sin and Pius XII defined that she rose to heaven at the end of her life. If you read these decrees, towards the end of them the Pope says he defines the dogma and that it is a matter of faith. When less solemnity is used, it is not sure whether infallibility is used and if it's not clear then how can it be part of dogma? There are all kinds of Catholics.

javi2541997

When less solemnity is used, it is not sure whether infallibility is used and if it's not clear then how can it be part of dogma? There are all kinds of Catholics. — Gregory

I see... it is a complex topic.

Ciceronianus

How much power and authority should the Pope have? — javi2541997

My personal belief is that the doctrine has its basis in the papal assumption of the title of Pontifex Maximus ("Highest Priest") held by Roman Emperors. As Highest Priest the Emperors had the authority to make final and binding decisions regarding the state religion. Before the Principate, the pontifex maximus had a diminished role. Gratian was the first Roman Emperor to reject the title in deference to the Church, in the late 4th century C.E.

Who but a believing Catholic would be interested in this question, though?

javi2541997

↪Ciceronianus

Thanks for your analysis and point of view.

Who but a believing Catholic would be interested in this question, though? — Ciceronianus

I am not a believing Catholic and that's why I started this topic. I want to see it in an impartial/objective view but it is difficult because I am aware that the role of the Pope has different perspectives among the Catholics. I am interested in the nature of the power of the Pope and why the believers trust on him.
Nevertheless, as @Gregory explained yesterday, the opinion among all Catholics is not the same and there are discrepancies.

You explained that you see the Pope as the main interpretation of a Roman Emperor. But I guess it is more complex.
In the other hand, it is interesting that Catholics always have debated about Pope's power. Is it a political or religious issue? Because I see him more than just a priest...

It is even difficult to describe the role of the Vatican.

Ciceronianus

↪javi2541997

Well, the question you asked was "How much power and authorityshould the Pope have?" (Emphasis added). I was raised Catholic, but haven't been a practising one for many years. I'm inclined to say he should have none. Clearly, though, he does have power and authority. What authority and power he should have may be something very different from what authority and power he actually has. They're two different considerations.

javi2541997

↪Ciceronianus

I see and agree with your point of view. Even, I also think a faithful figure should not have such proportion of authority and power. His persona ends up as a political lobby/machine rather than a moral cursor.
Nevertheless, though, I guess such authority and power is needed (in a believing and practical Catholic perspective). We are debating about a person whose sermons have influence around the world. How can you reach that without authority?
Well, I guess, that was one of the main strategies of the church in the past.

Papal infallibility and ex cathedra.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories