It is common for many Roman Catholic apologists to claim that there have only been a handful (maybe two or so) ex cathedra statements. Compare and contrast this with Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on the First Vatican Council, Mansi 52:1215:
Definimus enim: iudicia dogmatica Romani pontificis sunt infallibilia. Ergo
definiamus etiam formam in tali iudicio a pontifice servandam. Haec, ut mihi
videtur, erat mens quorumdam reverendissimorum patrum, quos ex hoc ambone
loquentes audivi. At,
eminentissimi et reverendissimi patres, hoc fieri nullo modo potest; nam non
agitur de re nova. Iam
millena et millena iudicia dogmatica a sede apostolica emanaverunt; ubi vero
est canon qui formam in eiusmodi iudicio servandam praecripserit?
Dicat forsan aliquis: si non habemus canonem, faciamus canonem. Ast absit
hoc a nobis, ne impingatur in canonem illum damnatam, quod concilium sit supra
papam. Insuper ad quid valeret eiusmodi canon? Annon prorsus inutilis esset,
cum numquam possit verificari a fidelibus et episcopis in orbe dispersis; immo
re esset valde periculosus, cum innumeris cavillationibus et anxietatibus ansam
praeberet. Ergo fingat Petrus semetipsum juxta verbum Domini nostri Iesu
Christi, cum Petro senescente mundo non senescat, sed sicut aquila renovetur
virtus eius.
Sed adhuc instant et dicunt: quidquid sit de illis mediis humanis, auxilium
ecclesiae, assensus ecclesiae, id est, testimonium et consilium episcoporum non
solummodo non potest excludi a definitione infallibilitatis, sed debet inter
conditiones quae sunt de fide in ipsa definitione poni. Ergo haec conditio
dicitur esse de fide, et quomodo hoc probatur? An continetur in promissione
Christi? Mihi videtur quod in illa non solummodo non contineatur, sed quod in
illa contrarium potius contineatur. Nam negari quidem non potest, quod in
relatione Petri ad ecclesiam, cui Christus voluit infallibilitatem Petri
adnexan, continetur specialis relatio Petri ad apostolos et proinde etiam ad
episcopos, cum Christus ad Petrum dixerit: Ego rogavi pro te ut non deficiat
fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Haec est ergo
relatio pontificis ad episcopos, quae inest promissioni Christi; ex his vero
verbis Christi necessitate cogente, ut mihi videtur, debet concludi quod
fratres quidem, id est, episcopi, ut sint firmi in fide, indigent auxilio et
consilio Petri et successorum eius, non autem vicissim. Unde fit quod huius
sententiae patroni non tam provocent ad loca sacrae Scripturae quam ad certa
quaedam axiomata quae ipsis prorsus concludentia videntur. Quaenam sunt haec
axiomata?
Primum axioma: membra debent esse coniuncta capiti et caput membris. Ex hoc
axiomate deducunt necessitatem pro papa, ut in definiendis fidei dogmatibus
nihil agat sine consilio et concursu fratrum suorum. Inquiam ad hanc
objectionem respondeam.
Negandum itaque est agi hic in sententia adversariorum de stricta et
absoluta necessitate consilii et auxilii episcoporum in ipso infallibili
iudicio dogmatico Romani pontificis, ita ut in ipsa definitione nostrae
dogmaticae constitutionis nullum locum occupare debeat. In hac stricta et
absoluta necessitate consistit tota differentia quae inter nos versatur, et non
in opportunitate aut aliqua relativa necessitate, quae iudicio Romani
pontificis rerum circumstantias ponderantis prorsus remittenda est. Haec
proinde in definitione constitutionis dogmaticae locum habere non potest.
For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman
pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be observed by
the pontiff in such a judgment. This, as it seems to me, was the mind of
certain most reverend fathers whom I heard speaking from this pulpit. But, most
eminent and most reverend fathers, this can in no way be done; for the matter
is not a new one. Already countless [literally thousands and thousands]
dogmatic judgments have issued from the Apostolic See; and where is the canon
that prescribed the form to be observed in such a judgment?
Perhaps someone will say: if we do not have a canon,
let us make a canon. But let that be far from us, lest that condemned canon be
forced upon us, namely, that a council is above the pope. Moreover, of what use
would such a canon be? Would it not be utterly useless, since it could never be
verified by the faithful and bishops scattered throughout the world? Indeed, it
would be very dangerous, since it would give rise to innumerable quibbles and
anxieties. Therefore let Peter gird himself, according to the word of our Lord
Jesus Christ; when the world grows old, let not Peter grow old, but let his
strength be renewed like the eagle’s.
But they still insist and say: whatever may be the case
with those human means, the help of the Church, the assent of the Church, that
is, the testimony and counsel of the bishops, cannot simply be excluded from
the definition of infallibility; rather, it must be placed among the conditions
that belong to the faith in the very definition itself. Therefore this
condition is said to be a matter of faith; and how is that proved? Is it
contained in Christ’s promise? It seems to me that not only is it not contained
there, but the contrary is rather contained there. For it cannot be denied
that, in the relation of Peter to the Church, to which Christ wished Peter’s
infallibility to be attached, there is contained a special relation of Peter to
the apostles and therefore also to the bishops, since Christ said to Peter: “I
have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned
again, strengthen your brothers.” This, then, is the relation of the pontiff to
the bishops, which is found in Christ’s promise; and from these very words of
Christ it must, as it seems to me, be concluded by necessity that the brothers,
that is, the bishops, need the help and counsel of Peter and his successors in
order to be firm in the faith, but not vice versa. Hence it happens that the
supporters of this view appeal not so much to passages of Holy Scripture as to
certain axioms which they regard as absolutely conclusive. What are these
axioms?
The first axiom: the members must be joined to the
head, and the head to the members. From this axiom they deduce the necessity,
for the pope, of doing nothing in defining the dogmas of faith without the
counsel and concurrence of his brethren. I reply to this objection as follows.
It must therefore be denied that the point at issue
here, in the view of the opponents, is a strict and absolute necessity of the
counsel and help of the bishops in the very infallible dogmatic judgment of the
Roman pontiff, so that in the actual definition of our dogmatic constitution no
place would remain for it. In this strict and absolute necessity lies the whole
difference between us, and not in a mere expediency or some relative necessity,
which must be entirely left to the judgment of the Roman pontiff weighing the
circumstances of the case. Therefore it cannot have a place in the definition
of the dogmatic constitution.
