Can someone please provide me a list of statements that have been made ex cathedra over the years?

I can provide you with a list of doctrines that have been defined: http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologe ... ic-church/

That list was drawn up by an individual (albeit a very well-educated one), Dr. Ludwig Ott, so it is not itself an official statement. He tried to be exhaustive, but there may be things that are omitted, and it is possible that he occasionally misstated something.

That could be almost anything. From Gedsunheit to an opinion on Harry Potter, I think. You're going to have to be more specific. A better question would be its opposite.

It's a debateable point, the count of what would and would not 'count' is a complicated one, but I think that according to even the most conservative estimates there have been at least a dozen such statements over the last 2,000 years....for example, when a Pope ratifies the sessions of an ecumenical council, is that ex cathedra or not? It is a complicated question....however....since the definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870 there has been only one unambiguous, universally accepted exampe the defintion of the Assumption of Mary in 1950....

But looking at ex cathedra statements is not really the point, because unambiguous ex cathedra statements tend to be very rare and are reserved only for the most important things.....the normal method of Papal instruction is through exortions, explanations, condemnations and whatnot, and there are at least several thousands of those....

From what I understand as a former catholic, when a pope speaks "ex cathedra" or "from the chair of Peter", he is speaking infallibly. Can someone give me an official list of when a pope has done this?




This is a fairly major thing---speaking for God infallibly. There isn't an official list of such that we can objectively look at?

Actually, specifying 'ex cathedra' statements places a very severe limitation, and it eliminates at least 98% of stuff Popes have said from consideration...

I realize that. From what I understand a pope is considered infallible in issues of faith and morals. I would like to specifically look at the ex cathedra statements though.

That info has already been provided for you by Fr H.

SV

No, there isn't, not a definitive one anyway....

The closest thing that I am aware of is Ludwig Ott's 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma', which is not comprehensive, dates from the mid 1950's, so that means that it is out of date and doesn't include a lot of stuff, and really the book offers little more than Ott's personal opinion, albeit it is a very informed opinion and if someone was to dispute Ott's conclusions he would reallly need to be very well informed indeed.

As I said, people don't agree on what qualifies as 'ex cathedra', truthfully I don't think the distinction is that significant because the ex cathedra statements do not differ from non ex cathedra in anything except level of authority, the actual content of statements is the same....anything that has been said ex cathedra has been said at least 10 times in a statement with a lesser degree of authority...


In other words, if you wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches, it is necessary to observe the distinction between ex cathedra and not, because the content is the same regardless.....and according to the Second Vatican Council, the teachings of the Pope are to be given 'religious assent' even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

Which is the source of the list I provided.

The Pope speaks ex cathedra in approving the acts of ecumenical councils, and the Pope is generally believed to speak ex cathedra when he canonizes saints.

Sometimes Catholics and especially Catholic apologists can give the impression that the Church is like a Magic 8-Ball: Ask a question, get an answer. There are definitive answers (for the record, I am not aware of anything that Ott marks as de fide about which there is any question), and there are partial answers, and there are permitted answers, and within those parameters there's a lot of room for free belief.

So bottom line is that a core doctrine of the catholic church (ex cathedra) cannot be objectively analyzed, as there is no agreement on what statements can actually be applied to it?

I've seen some references to certain popes in various times...but no official ex cathedra statements?

I recall I believe Jimmy Akin (I'm sorry if it was someone else) several years ago stating that depending on the apologist it could be anywhere from 3 to 23 statements that have been made. I find it curious that no one can actually give a definitive list on such an important thing.

It's not as important a thing as you're making it out to be. I gave you a long list of things that the Church teaches. That's what's important.

So papal infallibility is a non-issue?

It is an issue, but far too much is made of it. The Church teaches, and papal infallibility is one of the many means by which She teaches, and it's not always possible to separate the teachings into nice distinct compartments by means of delivery. It's the teachings that are important; the means by which they are taught, not so much.

Forgive me for butting in. What you're saying makes sense to me, Obi. I do have a question, though. Is Doom correct that the doctrine of Papal infallibility was defined in 1870 and that there has only been one incontrovertible example of such a statement sense then (i.e., the Assumption)?

There was a pretty clear example in an encyclical of JPII's on abortion, where he very deliberately hit on each of the marks of infallibility before saying that procured abortion is always gravely immoral.

Truthfully, Papal infallibility is one of those issues that it seems non-Catholics care a lot more about than Catholics, in point of fact, it is of little practical interest to the practicing Catholic whether or not a particular doctrine would be classified as 'infallible' or whatnot...

I didn't read your earlier posts in this thread very carefully (hey, it's not Lent yet!), so I don't know if you've already said something like this. But I kind of half think that the whole papal infallibility thing is often nothing more than a diversion. Catholics who want to avoid the need to accept something that the Church clearly teaches will sometimes play the "hey, the Pope hasn't infallibly defined it" card in order to pretend they're OK in their dissent. But as you point out, if the ordinary magisterium teaches it, it's still binding, regardless of whether the Pope has ever weighed in personally.

I suppose it may be said, as it has with the declaration on women priests, that the teaching was already infallible. The pope is unambiguously, here, saying that this teaching is infallibly by the "ordinary and universal magisterium." I suppose nothing prevents a declaration that a teaching is infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium from being its an act of the extraordinary magisterium, here ex cathedra