Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Trent
Message-ID: 
Date: 29 Sep 89 07:33:46 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: U of M Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Lines: 70
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu


>[I have often seen the claim that only the Immaculate Conception and
>the Assumption are infallible.  What makes something ex cathedra? --clh]

There are three criteria for the attribute of infallibility, of which
one is a statement being "ex cathedra."  The other two criteria is
that the statement relates to faith and morals, and that it is
proposed as the belief of the entire Church.

First, for a papal statement, encyclical, constitution, or bull to be
infallible, it must concern faith and morals.  Whenever the Pope
speaks on art, science, or politics, he cannot speak with the
absolute authority of infallibility, but with relative authority
as a learned person.  Some issues, like communism for example, involve
both faith and politics, so the Pope can (and did) speak on that issue
infallibly.

The second criterion for infallibility is that a statment must be 
"ex cathedra" or "from the chair" of St. Peter.  In other words, the
Pope must make the statment not as a private theologian or even as
a bishop of the Church, but as the official head of the Church.  He
must intend to exercise his authority as the Pope.

That a statement is "ex cathedra" is normally shown by the word 
choice and the style of the statement.  It is revealed by words like
"we proclaim" or "we define."  The literary style of ex cathedra 
pronouncements is also distinct.  I've also been told that these 
pronouncements are written in the past tense in Latin, to show that
they are not new ideas, but old and everlasting ideas.  Furthermore, 
they often explicitly say that they are "spoken from the chair of Peter."
Some pronouncements written in the proper style do not directly say 
this, and so there may be some argument over their status.

The important point about the ex cathedra style of writing is that 
it emphasizes that the statement is not a change and not a new
doctrine, but is something that was "true from the very beginning"
and now publicly defined in order to make the dogma clearer to all.
People (Catholics, at least) believed the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin long before 1950, since it was a Holy Day of Obligation for 
centuries.  Pronouncements with the attribute of infallibility are
unchangeable for this reason; they are not new revelation, but clear
explanations of the original deposit of Faith.

The third criterion is that the statement must be binding on the 
entire universal Church, not a particular rite or locality.  There could
never be an infallible pronouncement that celibacy is required of
all Latin Rite priests because of this.

The words "infallible" and "ex cathedra" are often used as synonymns.
The essential criterion for infallibility is the statement being
ex cathedra, because no statement failing the other two requirements
would ever be stated in ex cathdra style anyway.

The idea of infallible pronouncements is somewhat related to the idea
that the Church, as a whole, can never err in what it teaches or 
believes.  On some ideas the Church comes to a consensus on its own,
like the Assumption, and the doctrine is then defined as the common
belief of the Church.  On other pronouncements where there is disagreement, 
the Church is in a sense "defined" by the pronouncement.  "He who does 
not believe X, let him be anathema."  Those that do not accept the 
statement are defined out of the Church, making the pronouncement 
a method of "purification" for the Church.


     |       Paul J. Kominsky
   --+--     paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu
     |       
  |\ | /|    The more noble a thing is,
 ---\---|-   the more reprehensible is its abuse.
  |  V  |    -Aloysius Biskupek, S.V.D.