Many contemporary Catholic commentators claim that there have been only two ex cathedra statements in history—Ineffabilis Deus (1854, on the Immaculate Conception) and Munificentissimus Deus (1950, on the Assumption). Yet the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I (1870)—the official interpretive document for Pastor Aeternus—insists that papal infallibility had already been exercised “thousands and thousands of times.” This document was appended to the council’s acts and cited again at Vatican II. If the magisterial tradition acknowledges repeated infallible teachings, why does the notion of “only two ex cathedra statements” persist? Where does this restricted interpretation originate? Requested excerpts from the Relatio: > (30). But some will persist and say: "[...] let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment." It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, **this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?**" > (90). In this definition we treat: (01) the subject of infallibility, namely the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff, i.e., **as a public person in relation to the Universal Church.** (02) There is contained in the definition the act, or the quality and condition of the act of an infallible pontifical definition, i.e., the Pontiff is said to be infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra." This formula is received in the schools, and the meaning of this formula as it is found in the very body of the definition is as follows: when the supreme Pontiff speaks "ex cathedra," **not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.** Secondly, not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, **there is required the manifest intention of defining doctrine, either of putting an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine or of defining a thing, giving a definitive judgment and proposing that doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church.** ... Some common examples of statements that clearly passs the "Gasser test" for infalliblity. > **Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject [both spiritually and temporally; see prev. paragraphs] to the Roman Pontiff.** > > — Unam Sanctam, *Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302* Included in _Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Denzinger'_, see 468 and 469 1. In discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull. 2. Defines a doctrine: "we declare, we proclaim, we **define**…" 3. Regarding faith or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation. 4. To be held by the universal Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church. > The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches [...] that no one existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life, but will go into _the eternal fire_ _prepared for the devil and his angels_, unless they are gathered to it before the end of life, and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only those who remain in it benefit from the ecclesiastical sacraments and fasting, almsgiving and other offices of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards, and that no one, no matter how much alms he gives and if he sheds blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. > > — Cantate Domino, *Bull of Pope Eugene IV, February 4, 1442, Council of Florence* Included in _Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Denzinger'_, see 703 to 715 1. In discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull. 2. Defines a doctrine: The necessity of submission to the Roman Church for salvation. 3. Regarding faith or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation. 4. To be held by the universal Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church. Additionally, Wikipedia lists five others: 1. *Tome to Flavian*, by Pope Leo I (449), on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon. 2. Letter of Pope Agatho (680), on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople. 3. *Benedictus Deus*, by Pope Benedict XII (1336), on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to the final judgment. 4. *Cum occasione*, by Pope Innocent X (1653), condemning five propositions of Cornelius Jansen as heretical. 5. *Auctorem fidei*, by Pope Pius VI (1794), condemning several Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical.

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says > The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop? Also, are there any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?

I have been discussing Matthew 16:18 for years now with both Catholics and non-Catholics. This verse is obviously a very important verse concerning the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff. The non-Catholic argument that I come up against time and time again is the "play on words" interpretation summed up pretty well here . I understand that, according to this interpretation, Jesus calls himself "big rock," and calls Peter "small rock." > Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two > types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the > same. > > Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone > (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. > > Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock” The accepted answer goes on to say... > This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is > built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he > was the **archetype**, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have > received this personal revelation from God. I've also heard other interpretations that place the "Rock-ness," if you will, on Peter's faith. The answer above labels Peter as an "archetype" for those *individuals* with faith, or those *individuals* who receive infallible revelations. I think this reads to much into it when considering the context of scripture, and is perhaps a presupposition. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ, by changing Simon's name to Peter, established a foundational office of headship upon which the "Keys to the Kingdom of God" rests until his return. Catholics believe that *that* change signified a newly established office, and is *why* Christ changed Simon the fisherman to Peter the fisher of men to begin with. > "The keys of the kingdom" > > 551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, > twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 > He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to > preach the kingdom of God and to heal."They remain associated for > ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church: > >> As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that >> you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones >> judging the twelve tribes of Israel. > > 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; > Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the > Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the > living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on > this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not > prevail against it."Christ, the "living Stone",thus assures > his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. > Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable > rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every > lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. > > 553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you > the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth > shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be > loosed in heaven."The "power of the keys" designates authority to > govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good > Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my > sheep."The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to > absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make > disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority > to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in > particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he > specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (*CCC 551-553*) My question is, from a non-Catholic point of view, why did Jesus choose "Rock" as a name for Peter in the first place? Answering whether or not Peter is called big rock or little rock doesn't answer why Jesus called him a rock - of any size. I'm wanting to know *why* exactly non-Catholics believe Christ changed Peter's name (rock...big or small), and what does it signify in comparison to what the Catholic Church teaches .

The Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG)1 contains "the norms which, when the Roman See becomes vacant, are to be strictly followed by the Cardinals whose right and duty it is to elect the Successor of Peter". On the one hand, the number of Cardinals who have the right to elect the new Pope, who are all those Cardinals who had not "reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death" [UDG 33], is 1352. On the other hand, there are the following 3 UDG paragraphs: >33. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. **The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty.** The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded. > >34. If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the celebration of an Ecumenical Council or of a Synod of Bishops being held in Rome or in any other place in the world, the election of the new Pope is to be carried out solely and exclusively by the Cardinal electors indicated in No. 33, and not by the Council or the Synod of Bishops. For this reason **I declare null and void acts which would in any way temerariously presume to modify the regulations concerning the election or the college of electors.** [...] > > > >76. **Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.** In view of the above, I have two questions. A. Why would the forthcoming papal election still be valid if more than 120 Cardinals vote in it? B. Expressing the answer to A as: "The election will still be valid because of X", is X in your view strong enough to compel all Catholics to hold that the election will still be valid? Or rather, does it leave room for any Catholic to hold in good conscience that the election will not be valid? Reference and note 1 [Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis on the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) 2 The number 135 is confirmed after Cardinal Becciu's announcement on April 29 that he will not participate in the conclave.

Consider, for example, the prayer to one's Guardian Angel with specified indulgences (extracted from p. 269 of the 1909 book, [*Mary, Help of Christians*](https://ia801604.us.archive.org/20/items/MaryHelpOfChristians/MaryHelpOfChristians_text.pdf) : I know that presently, the Church does not specify partial indulgences anymore in terms of days; nevertheless, I would like to know: QUESTION: If when one sees promulgated a particular partial or plenary indulgence by a Pope, is it still valid [unless specified otherwise (*i.e,* intended to be of short duration) or revoked by a later Pope?] Remark: I believe that in the case of the above prayer to one's Guardian Angel, the indulgence is still in effect for I recall having seen it in the most recent (1994 or so) *Enchiridion Indulgentiarum* although with a different formula for the prayer. Nevertheless, there have been other indulgences granted by Popes in the past (*e.g.,* Prayer to St. Joseph the Worker by Pope St. Pius X with a 500 indulgence attached to it)---that I do not recall having seen in the Enchiridion. Thank you.

The story of Pope Joan—a woman who allegedly disguised herself as a man and became pope in the Middle Ages—has circulated in various forms for centuries. However, I understand that the Catholic Church considers this story to be a legend rather than a historical event. What specific reasons do Catholic historians, theologians, or official Church sources give for rejecting the claim that a female pope ever existed? Are there particular historical inconsistencies, lack of documentation, or theological arguments that lead them to conclude the account is fabricated? I'm particularly interested in answers that reflect the Catholic perspective, supported by historical or doctrinal sources.

Where can I find a list of Popes & Cardinals who are ethnically Jewish or converted from Judaism? I got a list, but maybe someone already made one? I'll put my list in an answer. - ( Preview of next questions: Orthodox - ecumenical patriarchs of Constantinople besides St. Andrew? Anglicanism - Archbishop of Canterbury besides Justin Welby, if e even counts? Then Lutheran. Oriental Orthodox. Idk. ) - Update https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105402/list-of-jewish-ecumenical-patriarchs-of-constantinople

During a conclave, the participants (cardinals) come from all over the world. Is there a *lingua franca* which they are all expected to master at least at a conversational level? (I am guessing that this would be Italian, or English, or (probably not) Latin). Or are they expected to somehow manage between themselves, though overlapping language capacities? (A speaks Italian, B speaks Italian and French, C speaks French - so after some gymnastics A, B and C can be more or less synchronized). I do not believe they have translation services for confidentiality reasons.

I am looking for a recording of the "Habemus Papam" proclamation for Pope Leo XIV. I found this video from CNN , but it has added audio in English. Where can I find a recording of this proclamation in Latin only?

Cardinal Robert Prevost was made Pope Leo XIV today. He is the first Augustinian to become Pope as Pope Francis was the first Jesuit. It would seem that someone who accepted the order even prior to ordination would be very formed in some ethos and I don't know a whole lot about Augustinians other than I doubt the order was founded by St. Augustine and that Martin Luther was one. So what are the qualities might a young Robert Prevost have found in the Augustinian order that drew him to it which he might carry into his papacy?

What are the requirements according to Vaticanologists to be considered papabile? If in fact such requirements actually exist. [Papabile](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papabile) is an unofficial term, first coined by Vaticanologists for someone is thought to be a possible candidate to be elected pope. I do not limit this question to Vaticanologists alone, but to all other Church officials or theologians who take into account the possibility of naming someone papabile seriously and gives reasons for doing so, especially now that the Holy See is in a moment of ***Sede Vacante***.

How is the Catholic Church officially reacting to Donald Trump's AI image of him dressed up like a pope? After all he is claiming that Catholics "loved" his fake AI image of him as pope. [Trump says Catholics ‘loved’ fake AI image of him as pope](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-catholics-loved-fake-ai-image-of-him-as-pope) Has the Catholic Church come out with an official statement about this? The Vatican may not issue a statement as Pope Francis is dead, the Church is in mourning and Cardinals are in the mist of preparing for the next conclave. Have any Episcopal Conferences issued any statements or rebukes by this act of religious indiscretion?

According to Wikipedia the longest papal election in the history of the Catholic Church was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271. How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope so that we can say that the succession was broken? If there is defined no length of time, then if simply we don't need a pope for three hundred years, we can wait that long to elect one and papal succession would remain unbroken.

I know at various periods of history cardinals were split submitting to multiple competing popes. However as they die, eventually only one Pope is considered the 'real' infallible Pope, and the others labelled as 'anti Popes'. My question is aside from the view of each Popes view, that the others are not 'real', who finally determines the 'real' one and by what authority? I mean does a certain group decide? Do you just wait until there is only one Pope and then he determines how to label the other Popes because now only his word stands? Who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria? Does the moral behavior of the candidates have any relevance in the criteria?

Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the [*New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/world/asia/china-catholics-vatican.html) reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual. This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per [Canon 1382](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P52.HTM)) . It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found [Canon 378](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1C.HTM) , which says that suitable candidates "must": > 1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question; > > 2° be held in good esteem; > > 3° be at least 35 years old; > > 4° be a priest ordained for at least five years; > > 5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law... On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication. However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2: > The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See. My question, then, is – **does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?** That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion? Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2? I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.

Some Eastern Patriarchs in the Catholic Church are also Cardinals. Given that they are otherwise eligible, they can participate in the Conclave to elect the pope. However, they specifically *cannot* elect the [Dean of the College of Cardinals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_of_the_College_of_Cardinals) . I was not aware that their voting rights were abridged in this manner. This led me to ask... What other positions in the College of Cardinals can the Eastern Patriarch Cardinals *not* vote for?

[Pope Francis announced the consistory for the creation of new cardinals](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-07/pope-announces-consistory-for-creation-of-new-cardinals.html) today. The consistory will be held on 30th September, i.e. there is 3 month period during much can happen. **My question**: are the persons nominated to be created cardinals eligible to participate in the conclave? Of course, they are not formally created cardinals, but maybe there are some rules for the election of the next pontiff that specify more details of this and make such exceptions. I am looking pretty much on the prefect-elect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, [Víctor Manuel Fernández](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Manuel_Fern%C3%A1ndez) who may be elected pope in the next conclave if only he is properly made cardinal before that conclave. I am guessing that he can take name John XXIV.

**My context** : I am totally ignorant. LOL. Michael L Brown said > Just as most Christians are almost totally ignorant of what real Muslims believe, so also most Jews are almost totally ignorant of what real followers of Jesus believe. So Orthodoxen are ignorant of what Catholics believe, Catholics are ignorant of what Orthodoxen believe, etc. Please ELI5, don't judge me, etc. In Catholic schools I went to, I learned about Catholic vs Protestant stuff like sola scriptura, sola fide, etc and even about Eastern Catholic , but I'm fairly certainly our teachers didn't teach us about the existence of the Orthodox Church. Idk. I didn't even know about filioque. --- Based on 2:32 or 4:55 in Why Christianity Is So Divided - January 11, 2025 by Versedyoutube (channel ID ) and on my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105402/list-of-jewish-ecumenical-patriarchs-of-constantinople (Perhaps my question is wrong because I don't even understand the 2 seemingly conflicting answers) : I notice the East-West split was and still is just Catholic (Rome) vs Eastern Orthodox (Constantinople) and not anything else for Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria. Why'd Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria break away from Rome but then the 4 of them united under Constantinople and are still united even to today instead of like a separate 3rd 4th & 5th things for Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria? The ff is afaiu : 1. The 4 Eastern bishops didn't mind Rome to rule over them as long as Rome ruled in a 'primus inter pares' way, not a primacy way. 2. The 4 Eastern bishops just then picked Constantinople to replace Rome. 3. Since then Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria have no beef whatsoever with the 'primus inter pares' way that Constantinople rules over them.

In the history of the Catholic Church, I know there's been extra days of fasting and prayer called for by the Pope and Bishops, but other than prior to the Battle of Lepanto and today (March 19th 2020, The Solemnity of St. Joseph) at 9:00 PM Rome Time . Has the Pope ever asked all Catholics to pray the Rosary in unity (or as simultaneously as possible prior to mass communication and computerized synchronization)?

Re https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105244/list-of-jewish-popes-cardinals and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105402/list-of-jewish-ecumenical-patriarchs-of-constantinople **What's the equivalent of 'cardinals' in eastern orthodox?** Like who votes for the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople? Or what's below this patriarch in hierarchy? My intention is actually to ask next about Jewish 'cardinals' of Orthodoxy, but well of course I can't ask about what I don't understand. Maybe since the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople is 'primus inter pares', the cardinals would be like the other bishops ... namely of Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria ? Idk.