I think the following was spoken Ex Cathedra: > “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches > that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only > pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share > in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was > prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are > joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this > ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can > profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone > can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, > their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian > soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, > even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, > unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic > Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate > Domino, 1441.) So as far as 600 years ago, this was considered an infallible statement by Catholics, correct? Here is another one from 700 years ago: > “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, > holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and > simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor > remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim > to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation > are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam > Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302) Why then today do Catholics seem to change their mind about it? There is indeed confusion about what Pope Francis meant about atheists . This answer on Stack Exchange states that there are other ways outside of the sacraments and union with the Catholic Church to get to heaven . To be fair, it does contradict paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catholic Catechism. So how does the Catholic Church regard these Ex Cathedra pronouncements which were clearly aimed at people trying to break away? Now that we have Protestantism, they seem to have mellowed a bit. But I would like to get a more in depth answer that explains 1. How *Ex Cathedra* statements seem to be disregarded 2. How Catholics actually squared these statements in the first place with the teachings in the Cathechism that seem to teach the exact opposite

Most people think that Papal Apostolic Constitutions (which have higher level of authority than most other types of papal documents) are infallible, but in fact only Papal *ex cathedra* statements having 4 characteristics are infallible (see the *Necessary Conditions* section [here](https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-229/)) : 1. Exercising role as the supreme teacher, not simply as private theologian 1. On a matter of faith or morals, not on practical or disciplinary matters 1. Makes an explicit declaration of his intention to define a doctrine Catholics are obligated to assent 1. Makes clear that ALL Catholics, including in all future ages are bound in conscience to this teaching and there have been only [2 instances of this faculty being used](https://uscatholic.org/articles/201105/is-there-a-list-of-infallible-teachings/) , namely for the dogmas of the: 1. Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854, [*Ineffabilis Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm) by Pope Bl. Pius IX) 1. Assumption of Mary (1950, [*Munificentissimus Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12munif.htm) by Pope Pius XII) which were defined and taught through an *ex cathedra* [Apostolic Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution) . **Why the two Popes found it expedient to declare the 2 dogmas of Mary using the rare facility of infallible pronouncements (i.e. *ex cathedra*)?** I'm primarily interested in the **historical situations** which must have contributed to the (first?) use of this facility for a Pope to *personally* teach infallibly. Why wouldn't the two Popes use a less authoritative vehicle (such as a *regular* Apostolic Constitution or through a canon of an ecumenical council)? Was there an urgent "heresy" to be dealt with, as it was during the early days of the Protestant Reformation by the Council of Trent? Even if it was urgent, surely a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement wouldn't be less dogmatic for Catholics? Also, given debate in previous centuries regarding the Immaculate Conception, wouldn't a council be a more appropriate venue for the dogma to be clarified by the whole Church? ----- #### P.S. Impact on ecumenism Now that Vatican II is almost 60 years behind us, the issue of the infallibility of the Pope and these 2 infallible Marian dogmas remained the top reasons why Protestants are hesitant to convert because they would like to see that all that are **necessary** to be believed need to have an *explicit* Biblical basis like every proposition in the Apostle's Creed, for instance. (Just to clarify, *sola scriptura* does NOT say Tradition does NOT have a role, only that Scripture has to NORM Tradition. So as a Protestant who is *not* a Biblicist / proponent of "naked scripture" I can also say that although the 2 dogmas don't have *explicit* support, they are not inherently condemned by Scripture either. For example, even Elijah had his assumption to heaven, and Jesus was immaculately conceived. So I acknowledge that the reasons that most Protestants adduced are largely irrelevant to Catholic way of constructing dogmas, which look to both Scripture and Tradition, with her own hermeneutical principle to interpret Scripture. But STILL, I agree with the Protestant principle that doctrines that do *not* have explicit support should be **optional**, such as baptismal regeneration or the nature of the Eucharist, which Protestants regard as *less* essential than the Trinity, which has become the basis for ecumenism among Protestants.) But history has shown in the past 150 years or so, that both Papal infallibility and Marian dogmas has remained THE single most persistent barrier of entry for **MOST** Protestants to "come back" to the Catholic fold (now *more* than justification by faith alone, for a hint see [2017 Pew Research Survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/08/31/u-s-protestants-are-not-defined-by-reformation-era-controversies-500-years-later/) , 7% and 9% respectively). Because Catholicism elevates them to the status of "**required**" *on the same level of the Trinity*! So it seems **less prudent** (ecumenically) in the age of ecumenism especially since Vatican II that embrace adherents of other religions with its inclusive language regarding the fate of non-Catholic adherents (*cf* *Lumen Gentium*) and designate Protestants as "ecclesial communities" rather than heretics who are anathema, to clarify the 2 Marian teachings as two infallible dogmas using the *ex cathedra* personal pronouncements by the two Popes. To Protestants, it's a **"double whammy"**. Surely both Popes realized this? Why incur the unnecessary ecumenical cost when a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement PLUS a council document would have sufficed to clarify the matters for Catholics? Yes, the historical **time** is opportune to clarify the Marian dogmas (as Ken Graham pointed out in his answer), but what historical **situation** made it expedient to clarify the dogmas *using* the *ex-cathedra* facility? It's not as though there was an intra-controversy within the Catholic church that risk rupturing the church like the Arian / Donatist controversies, for instance. Or the situation leading to Council of Ephesus declaring that Mary is *theotokos* which Protestants **DO** affirm and consider it as an important support (against heresies) for proper understanding of the Incarnation (see [Gavin Ortlund's arguing for it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgHGsODNDw)) . Was it necessary for Catholics to have the matters clarified *ex cathedra*?

The Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, but only in limited circumstances. The Pope is a human being like the rest of us, and capable of sinning. However, when the Pope speaks *ex cathedra* , i.e. with papal authority, he is infallible. How do Catholics know when the Pope speaks *ex cathedra?*

Say for example a Pope infallibly declares that Mary was not a virgin, and is currently rotting in Hell. This obviously contradicts established Catholic Dogma. What would happen in this case? Would the cardinals get together and kick the Pope out of his office? Is a heretical ex cathedra definition cause for an automatic loss of the Papal position which would lead to a sedevacantism situation?

In 1075, Pope Gregory the Seventh decreed the [*Dictatus Papae*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae) , also called the Papal Dictats. One part of the document makes the claim that: > 22. The Roman Church has never erred. Nor will it err, to all eternity--Scripture being witness. It also says: > 23. The Roman Pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter, St. Ennodius Bishop of Pavia bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As it is contained in the decrees of Pope St. Symmachus. (The second statement claims that all dully ordained Popes become a saint) Were these two claims made [*Ex Cathedra*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2133/when-does-the-pope-speak-ex-cathedra) ? If so, isn't that incompatible with infallibility as the Church has admitted it has erred in the past (in its actions, not doctrine), and there have been horrible Popes who couldn't possibly be saints (Pope John XII as an example)?

After reading https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2133/when-does-the-pope-speak-ex-cathedra I became curious and searched for a list of statements, but couldn't find one. Does such list exist and if not, why is this the case?

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible, because what he says in such instances is divinely protected from error. There are a lot of questions that the Church considers open, e.g. the question of whether infants who die without being baptized are saved. It seems like it would be a great idea for the Pope to *attempt* to assert ex cathedra that they are saved. Either the pronouncement would succeed, in which case we would know with certainty that it is true, or else something would prevent the pronouncement from going through, in which case we would have a hint that it is false. I assume that I am misunderstanding something about papal infallibility and there is a catch somewhere. **What's the catch?** Naturally, I'm interested in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Here are a couple of possible answers: - Technically, the Pope *could* "exploit" infallibility in this way, but it would be immoral. - If the Pope decided to try this sort of thing, he would be divinely prevented from making the ex cathedra pronouncement regardless of whether the doctrine in question was true or false, so we wouldn't actually learn anything from the exercise. In either case, I'm left wondering: What exactly differentiates "legitimate" ex cathedra pronouncements, like the pronouncement of the immaculate conception in Ineffabilis Deus, from the sort of "illegitimate" ex cathedra pronouncement that I suggested?

> Can the Pope speak ex cathedra about the return of Christ? Specifically, if someone approached the Vatican, met with the Pope, and convinced him that he was the second coming of Christ, could the Pope then "certify" this person as Christ while speaking ex cathedra?

I've often heard it alleged that 'the Immaculate Conception wasn't a dogma until Pius IX defined it in 1854.' However, I can't reconcile this with what the dogmatic Council of Trent already declared 300 years prior. Namely, >1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam [lost original righeousness] ... ... let him be anathema. >2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity ... ... let him be anathema. >3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own,— is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ ... ... let him be anathema. >4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam ... ... let him be anathema. >5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted ... ... let him be anathema. >This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, **that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary,** the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews. >—Council of Trent, Session V, First Decree, *On Original Sin.* --- >... >CANON 23 — If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; *or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, **to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,*** **—except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin;** let him be anathema. >... >—Council of Trent, Session VI, *On Justification.* Question -- If this was already dogma per Trent's decree, why did Pope Pius IX define it with an extra-ordinary definition?

As described in [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2952/16688) to a question about infallible papal statements, there are two teachings that were clearly given *ex cathedra*: the Immaculate Conception (that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born sinless) and the Assumption of Mary (that Mary at the end of her life went body and soul into heaven). Moreover, all Catholics are required to believe in it and not believing it means you are separated from the church. From my Protestant perspective, I'm struggling to understand why these two dogmas are such a big deal that all Catholics *must* believe in them. I mean, I get that the Church has taken a stance on it and that they would like everyone to believe in it. But there are other statements of faith that the Church holds as true yet doubt or disbelief doesn't expel you from the Church. I'm not seeing why these matters are so important to warrant that. It seems to me that how Mary's life began and ended is between her and God and I'm not understanding how that is relevant to me and my salvation. Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that the popes, by speaking *ex cathedra*, require all Catholics to believe in them?

For example, the empty Hell theory is a relatively recent theological theory that states that Hell is real, but it is empty and will always be empty. There is nothing in this doctrine that conflicts with established church dogma (As far as I know). Nevertheless it is a minority opinion and as I understand it, it faces much opposition. I'm wondering, is it within the Popes power to take such an obscure and contested opinion and ex cathedra declare it to be a dogma? Or does the Pope first have to consult all the bishops? I ask this question because I've been thinking about the Arian crisis, which was a situation where the majority of the church denied the trinity and the divinity of Christ (including some Popes and lots of bishops!). In that case it was an ecumenical council which authoritatively declared Trinitarian Orthodoxy, and this was binding, even though at the time almost no one in the church agreed with it and it was a minority view. It took some time for the authoritative decision to permeate the consciousness of the Church and now we have the situation today where the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are considered cornerstone, foundational doctrines of the faith. So, similar to the Arian situation, would it be possible for a Pope to elevate a *non-heretical yet minority position* to dogmatic status, even if the majority of the church disagrees? Again, for a concrete example, think of the Empty Hell theory: It's not heretical, but also isn't accepted by the majority of the Church.

**Gen 1:1-5 1 In the beginning God *c r e a t e d * the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” *And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.* (note: the morning and evening marked the 'day', just like our today)** The Pope has recently made comments about evolution and the big bang theory that reveal his opinion may differ with the book of Genesis account of creation, especially the six days time period described in the book, with the length of days also described as 6 24 hour periods, ie. day and night equaling one day. (the Pope did this by calling the big bang and evolution theories 'real'-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html If God planned to use the Big Bang or if He had wanted to use a process like evolution, He could have told us about it in the Bible, as He did all the other important things to our lives. Instead Genesis 1 gives us an entirely different picture than either the Big Bang or Evolution. Since Genesis 1 describes the length of the days mentioned, ie. one day equals morning and evening, and then light and darkness, we already have our biblical account of how Creation occurred, with even the time frame spelled out in black and white. The creation days are the same as all of the other days on earth, containing light and darkness from morning to evening. God would have the ability to just as easily inspire and inform us if He created things, one out of the next, using a process of evolution. He could have also described the Big Bang to us, just as easily, in the words of the beginning of Genesis. Is Genesis 1 now thought to be a poetic story by the Pope and the RCC? I believe well intentioned believers in God have been taken advantage of by theories of scientists. Hasn't science always proved the Bible to be true, in the past? Yes, it has. Please see [Understanding Creation - Copeland & Baugh (1) | YouTube] (Dr. Carl Baugh for evidence that supports the Genesis Creation Account and how the actual established laws of physics themselves contradict the big bang theory and evolution. They also explain how carbon dating is being used to guess at the age of things they use it to date, and how unreliable carbon dating is, listing all the errors it has produced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnP4f9oHp0 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZeDai1mPDM]

I find it difficult to fathom the amount of power the Pope can potentially wield. According to book 2, part 2, section 1, chapter 1, article 1 of the Code of Canon Law the Pope basically has ultimate, irrefutable, supreme power for life. Nothing and no one can remove him from office except for himself *if* he were to decide to resign. > "The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office **he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.**." (canon 331, Code of Canon Law) . > > "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone." > (canon 332 §2) . > You obviously don't make it to the position of Pope without being a good guy, but I think any rational individual would agree that there are still serious risks attached to electing one man into a position of supreme power for life. Literally, he can say or do *anything* without recourse. > "**No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff**" (canon 333 §3) . It doesn't even matter what state of health the Pope is in, and I assume that also means state of mental health, the Pope maintains supreme power. > "**When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be > altered in the governance of the universal Church;** the special laws > issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed." (canon 335) There is no way to remove him from office, or question anything he does, no impeachment process, no appeals, no nothing. If the Pope speaks *ex cathedrâ*, then it's written in stone. There have been occasions where a Pope has spoken heresy (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30812/papal-infallibility-and-teaching-heresy) . The church later repudiated the heretical positions under the claim that they were not spoken *ex cathedra.* This repudiation would have happened *after* the death of the Pope. It seems to be commonly agreed that the Pope would never lead the Church astray, and I don't want a series of answers that go into detail about how unlikely it would be for a wayward Pope to abuse his power. From a secular perspective, the potential exists for one man to take advantage of the amount of power that is given to the Pope. Here is my question: If the Pope were to start declaring things *ex cathedrâ* like, the creeds were null and void, and that all Catholics were required to wear a colander on their heads at all times and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what would happen? Would every Catholic be required to comply? Would it be binding and irreformable teaching forever? Could the next Pope undo his decree ex cathedrâ? Or could something be done to remove that Pope from power besides pressuring him into resigning? **Other than relying on God or the Spirit to prevent the Pope from abusing his power, what can be done to prevent the Pope from exercising unrighteous dominion?**

We're all familiar with the concept of the papal infallibility and how the pope is considered infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, which creates a lot of wiggle room since there is really no clear criteria for determining when he's speaking ex cathedra (my opinion, but see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30319/can-we-tell-when-the-roman-pontiff-is-speaking-ex-cathedra and its many duplicates), and that he's sitting down apparently doesn't mean anything even though that's the literal translation (from a chair). This ex cathedra thing creates a sort of "Nope, he didn't say Simon says, so that doesn't count" effect. Anyway my question is not at all about that. My question is are there any other Christian groups, sects, denominations, that use a similar tactic to prevent their leader from the appearance of having taught false doctrine? For example: Might Mormons use the same kind of argument to prevent the appearance that their prophets contradict each other infallibly?