Ex Cathedra (and other matters)

It seems that if you study history of the popes they were more nefarious than most.

 

"The Book of Romans was written by Paul to the believers in Rome in 58 A.D. If we take your date of Peter's death at 67 A.D., that hardly leaves enough room for him to be the bishop or hold any kind of so-called "petrine office" for "decades" at Rome. Paul mentioned in his greetings many people at Rome, but he never mentioned Peter. Surely, if Peter had been there he would have sent him greetings, just as he sent his greetings to Aquilla and Priscilla. Was he not just as important as they? The fact is that Peter was not in Rome. He may have been in Rome for his death, but even that can not be proven dogmatically. If it was the place of his death, he no doubt was hunted down by the Roman authorities and brought there as a criminal to die. There is no proof that was his place of residence, and no proof that he ever pastored a church there, much less was the Bishop. That is all a Catholic dream, a tradition with no historical basis in fact."

I will disagree with you and as proof offer these quotes from some guys you might have heard from.

Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).


Tertullian

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Lactantius

"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Jerome

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

 

First of all, the Apostles were teaching the same things which are found in scripture. Secondly, just because the didn't have a nice leather bound bible does not change the fact that Paul's letters were being read in the churches. Thirdly, the believers in Christ are the Church, not the Roman Catholic church.

 

They were also reading other letters such as "The Shepherd" and even letters from the Apostles which aren't in our Bible today. Who determined what was inspired even though many different churches during this time used different letters and writings and believed they were inspired?

About the Petro/Petras issue, we know Jesus used an Aramaic version of Peter's name (Kepa or Kephas) because in many places in the Gospel is has been preserved for us as "Cephas." What does Cephas mean in Aramaic? Rock. The word for "pebble" in Aramaic is "evan".

I would also point out that recent scholarship has suggested that Matthew was originally composed in Aramiac. This new theory has been gaining more and more acceptance recently. I would point out, however, that no matter what language any of the Gospels was originally written in, it would have no bearing on their divine inspiration or the teaching of the Church.

Those who use the Greek argument against the traditional interpretation of Matthew 16:18 seem to dismiss the fact that in the Greek of the day, there was no signifigant difference in meaning between "petros" and "petra" -- the distinction here between a large rock and a small pebble is one that was archaic by the time of Christ.

It appears to me that one must already have a pre-held opinion that Peter is not the Rock to not see the straight forward meaning in the phrase, "I tell you, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church." How could he have the name "Cephas" in Aramaic and people say he's not the "rock"??

[ August 21, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

 

2 different words are used in proximity to each other. Had the author meant that they be the same they would have been the same. We have Matthew in Greek, that is what has been preserved and so there is not reason to speculate on what an aramaic version would say if it existed.

Here are some other things to consider:

"[1 Sam 2:2] For who is God, besides the LORD? [2 Sam 22:2] And who is a rock, besides our God? - 2 Samuel 22:32 NASB

"The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be [2 Sam 22:3; Ps 89:26] God, the rock of my salvation, - 2 Samuel 22:47 NASB

For [Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:2; Ps 86:8-10; Is 45:5] who is God, but the LORD? And who is a [Deut 32:31; Ps 18:2; 62:2] rock, except our God, - Psalm 18:31 NASB

He only is my [Ps 89:26] rock and my salvation, My [Ps 59:17; 62:6] stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken. - Psalm 62:2 NASB

'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; [Is 42:9; 48:5] Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And [Is 43:10] you are My witnesses. Is there any God [Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Sam 2:2; Is 45:5; Joel 2:27] besides Me, Or is there any other [Is 17:10; 26:4; 30:29] Rock? I know of none.'" - Isaiah 44:8 NASB

 

"Ex Cathedra" simply means "out of the chair". In regards to Papal infallibility, it does not mean that the Pope is without error whenever he speaks. The RCC accepts papal infallibility when he makes a statement "ex cathedra". When he does so, the ex cathedra statement becomes a matter of church doctrine.

Ex cathedra statemtents are rare, not sure how many there have been... maybe only a few times per century. I'm not sure how often Pope Juhn Paul II has spoken ex cathedra, if at all.

[ August 21, 2002, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

John,

The Pope (John Paul) has not made any declared ex-cathedra statements. There is one statement that some consider could be declared ex-cathedra at a later time but for now it's not.

There have been 2 or 3 ex-Cathedra statements in the entire history of the Church (2000 years now).

LaRae

 

And how is it decided whether the statement is ex-cathedra or not? Isn't the whole point of this to eliminate confusion, not cause it?

 

Because elsewhere in the Gospels Peter is called "Cephas" which is simply Aramaic for "rock." He is never once called "Little Cephas."

And, also again, in Jesus's time, the distinction between petros/petra, little rock/big rock, was gone. This is an archiac distinction that one finds only in older, classical Greek. By the first century AD, both petra and petros simply meant "rock." Even Protestant Bible scholars recognize this. See D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

And while we are examining the Greek, no one who uses the Greek argument as a means of denying that Peter is the rock ever points out that the Greek word for "this" (upon this rock), is touto, which means "this very." So an even more literal translation would be, "you are Rock and upon this very rock I will build my Church."

If we look at the Greek text in the meaning that it had at the time, and look at the entire text, not just petros/petra, the meaning is clear. We have no need to appeal to a theoretical Aramaic version -- but pointing out how Jesus would have spoken Aramaic only provides further proof of what we already know to be true.

 

The word means "this" not "this very", not even Catholic translations of Matt. 16:18 say "this very".

It still remains that the author could easily have used the same word twice if he was refering to the same rock.

 

Dual,

Regarding ex cathedra statements:

1) The pope intends, as pope, to make a defining, infallible, doctrinal statement, AND

2) He makes it in a form which leaves no doubt of his intention to do just that, AND

3) The matter concerns faith or morals.

LaRae

 

So doesn't the statement that you mentioned before fail the test simply because there is no certainty about it?

 

Which statement are you referring to?

LaRae

 

The Pope is still living and could still declare a statement infallible.

LaRae

 

This is the commentary for Matt 16:18 from the NAB (translated by Protestants and Catholics):

 

Dual,

I have posted this before to explain infallible statements:

Yes, Ex Cathedra pronouncements ARE infallible (of which they've been but two)

Yet, Ex Cathedra pronouncements are NOT the ONLY infallible statements..

Some Catholics wrongly believe that ONLY "ex cathedra" Papal Statements are
infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds
very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that ONLY the
Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned
this notion. Ergo, propositions like the one you mention, that the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is NOT infallible, are ridiculous. If in doubt, the
BEST resource is Denziger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott's
monumental work, "The Fundamentals of Dogma." There, one can find the
theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (DE FIDE) and
those which are only theologically certain.

DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE
statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God
which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be
known only through Revelation.

2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the
human race came from one set of parents.

3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition &
proscription of artificial contraception.

4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin
Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium
#25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will
of the faithful. While not requiring the ASSENT OF FAITH, they CANNOT be
disputed nor rejected publicly and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the
one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a
dual magisteria, i.e., the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional
grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, the body of
believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that
SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on
matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides
solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him

 

What does that have to do with a statement that has already been made? He made the statement but people can't agree on whether or not it is infallible. You seem to be suggesting that maybe later on he will decide that the statement that he already made in the past (without declaring any infallible intent) is all of a sudden infallible even though he wasn't sure back when he actually made the statement.

 

Dual,

Do not misquote me. I never said a statement had been made that people could not agree on.

It's my understanding the Pope can still determine a statement he previously made regarding faith and morals to be ex cathedra.

LaRae

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I've already dealt with this, the 2 different words are used in close proximity, and thus could have easily been made the same word had that been the intent.

That commentary says that the words had slightly different meanings and it ignores the alternative of using a masculine word in both places instead of a feminine word. It should also be noted that the gender of the word need not mean anything since in Hebrew the word for spirit is feminine and there is no problem for the Holy Spirit. The commentary does not seem to view Peter as anything more than an Apostle, one who is sent out to preach the Gospel of Christ. He preaches the Gospel and others believe because in it, in that sense, his preaching of the Gospel is the foundation apon which those who hear believe on. Either way, there is nothing to suggest that Peter was pope nor that he wore a big fancy hat.