The main forms in which ex cathedra decisions
are given, especially according to the newer style, are as follows:
{508} 1. The most solemn and most
prominent form consists of the so-called Dogmatic Constitutions or
Bulls, which lay down and promulgate judgments expressly in the form of general
ecclesiastical laws [canons] that are sanctioned with strict
punishments, e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem
fidei against the Jansenists, and Ineffabilis Deus about the Immaculate
Conception. With these, since the text is usually very clear by itself, it
makes no difference whether they are addressed in the inscription to the whole
Church (like the Bull Unigenitus) or not (like the Bulls Unam sanctam
and Ineffabilis Deus).
{509} 2. After the Constitutions
come the Encyclical Letters addressed to the Universal Church, provided
that they are of a dogmatic nature, i.e. in categorical terms
make it the bishops’ duty to propose and assert or to suppress and uproot
certain doctrines, and to command the faithful to hold or to reject those
doctrines [as the case may be]. They resemble the Constitutions in their
direct, general intention and differ from them as a rule only by their lack of
punitive sanctions. They themselves in turn are subdivided into those which
(with the exception of the punitive sanctions) otherwise, as far as the
formulation of the doctrine in question and the emphasis on authority is
concerned, are worded in strict juridical forms (like the Encyclical Quanta
cura, which at first had also been prepared as a formal Constitution), and
those which inculcate Catholic doctrines or reject anti-Catholic teachings in a
freer, more rhetorical, yet peremptory form (like the well-known Encyclical
of Gregory XVI Mirari vos from 1832, about which the same pope declared
in the Encyclical Singulari Nos dated July 10, 1833: “We declared [denuntiavimus;
in another passage: definivimus] in it the only sound doctrine to be
followed concerning the main points in the fulfillment of the duties of Our
office for the whole Catholic
flock”). In the latter case it can nevertheless easily
happen that the ex cathedra pronouncement is discernible merely with
moral certitude or that the act in question has only approximately the same
force as one.
{510} 3. Other Apostolic
Letters, which are not issued with the solemnity of the Constitutions but
merely in a brief form or are not addressed directly to the entire Church, are
to be regarded as ex cathedra pronouncements if they either a) resemble
the Constitutions in that they impose general theological and punitive
censures on the denial of particular doctrines, or b) like dogmatic
Encyclicals, define or condemn a doctrine in strict juridical terms or
else declare and inculcate in the equivalent freer expressions that it is a
duty of every Catholic to hold a particular doctrine—however
here, often even more than in the Encyclicals, the strictly dogmatic character
of the Letter is obviously to be distinguished from its admonitory or
disciplinary character. When in the edict itself the general and definitive
intention is clear, the fact that the Letter may be addressed to a special
group has no restrictive influence (just as Benedict XIV too, for example,
declared in the Brief Ad eradicandum that some had rashly denied that
the condemnation expressed in the Apostolic Letter Suprema, dated July
7, 1745, of the practice of inquiring about the accomplice in the confessional
has the force and authority of a general definition and law). The somewhat less
conspicuous lack of a general intention or of definitive forms is often
counterbalanced, however, by the fact that such letters are also promulgated
specially at the pope’s command or made into an Encyclical (as happened, e.g.,
with the Dogmatic Letter of Leo I to Flavianum and in very recent times with
excerpts from the earlier manifold acts of Pius IX in the Syllabus,
after the Encyclical that was issued simultaneously had said: “By several
Encyclicals promulgated among the common people, Allocutions held in the
Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, We have condemned errors . . . and
admonished all the children of the Catholic Church again and again”).
The fact that here the Allocutions are mentioned between the Encyclicals
and the Apostolic Letters, or rather are put on a par with the
Encyclicals, indicates that they likewise can be employed as a means of
instructing the whole Church and hence under certain circumstances can be
used to promulgate or execute an ex cathedra pronouncement, because they
are plainly not to be regarded as mere sermons or lectures for the cardinals,
but rather as addresses to the whole Catholic world.
{511} 4. Finally the pope can
speak ex cathedra through the confirmation of the judgments of other
tribunals: a) especially of the judgments of General Councils, whereby
the confirmation is naturally always and under all circumstances intended with
its full efficacy; b) of the judgments of particular councils; here however the
confirmation must be expressed as a positive, solemn, and full one (solemnis
et plenissima); but in reality that is most often not so, since it is
usually exercised only as an act of superintendence; c) of the judgments of the
Roman Congregations; here however the confirmation must in any case be
combined with the formal order to promulgate those judgments, so that the
judgments are not merely approved by the pope in their intrinsic value but are
also made his own and are presented as proceeding from him to the Church. (Matthias Scheeben, Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics,
Book 1, Part 1 [trans. Michael J. Miler; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic,
2019], §32 nos. 508-11)
To Support this Blog:
Amazon
Wishlist (US)
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
