Ex Cathedra and Conference Talks

[mdfxdb]

Ex Cathedra is the Latin phrase which means "from the chair".  It refers to the binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world.  

 

How is this fundamentally different from when our prophets speak at conference?  Is it different?  Do we regard the words of the apostles/prophets to be "ex cathedra"?  

 

There are some who regard the conference talks as scripture.  I'm not so sure.  We have scriptures.  Bible, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants.

 

When new scripture is promulgated, it is added to our cannon.  

 

Thoughts?

[omegaseamaster75]

"whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1:38)

[Just_A_Guy]

Conference talks aren't per se infallible; however, the rigorous correlation process and the relative ease with which incorrect doctrine can be corrected in that setting makes the more recent ones "pretty darned reliable" (doesn't quite have that Latin poeticism of "ex cathedra", does it? Hmm . , ,).

"Scripture", broadly speaking, is defined in D&C 68:4:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

So that can include Conference talks; but it can also include the testimony my eight-year-old daughter bore last month.

D&C 1:38 isn't terribly informative to me, in this context--it's basically tautological. "If God speaks something by the mouth of the prophet, then the thing spoken is from God".

Edited October 21, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

It is far from the same in any capacity.

 

Ex cathedra is dogma.  The main reason why there is no such thing in the LDS faith is because the LDS do not believe in a closed canon.  Ex cathedra, in a closed canon, is very very tricky - because, this is NEW doctrine added to a closed canon that does not change.  Ever.  This is not possible in the LDS Church because in its article of faith, it is clearly stated that there are revelations that we are currently receiving and revelations still to be received pertaining to the kingdom... both of which can possibly change the church's interpretation/application of current dogma.

 

And it is a very rare occurrence that a Pope speaks ex cathedra besides the canonization of saints.  No, the teaching on limbo is not ex cathedra, and no, the teaching on birth control is not ex cathedra, etc. etc. etc.  You might hear many other teachings that people think are made ex cathedra but they are not... Vatican Council I in 1870 declared and clarified how Catholics can tell what teachings are ex cathedra and made a formal structure for it... and since then, there has been a total of... ONE ex cathedra statement until today not including the canonization of certain saints.  Add to that, there has been a total of.... ONE ex cathedra statement made before Vatican I except canonization.  That brings you to a total of TWO ex cathedra statements in 2014 years of the Catholic Church - and interestingly, they both pertain to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

 

Now, of course, the Magesterium of the Catholic Church teaches day in and day out - all through "revelation".  This is not the same as how LDS sees revelation, though.  This is simply revelation pertaining to the proper application of a closed canon in the modern time...  I would see this more in line with General Conference.

Edited October 21, 2014 by anatess

[pam]

I just noticed something really interesting.  mdfxdb and omegaseamaster75 are using the exact same IP address.

Do you guys live together?

[omegaseamaster75]

We work together

[Blackmarch]

Ex Cathedra is the Latin phrase which means "from the chair".  It refers to the binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world.  

 

How is this fundamentally different from when our prophets speak at conference?  Is it different?  Do we regard the words of the apostles/prophets to be "ex cathedra"?  

 

There are some who regard the conference talks as scripture.  I'm not so sure.  We have scriptures.  Bible, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants.

 

When new scripture is promulgated, it is added to our cannon.  

 

Thoughts?

I think we often can fall into that way of thinking.

the prophets are as a man who is set upon a tower and who sees the enemy move from afar off and can prepare us to meet the enemy.

Generally god leaves it to their disgression on how to accomplish in getting us to prepare. Ignore them at your peril.

Ex cathedra tends to come with the assumption that what comes from the chair will be exactly right or exactly perfect. We should give the prophets a bit more leeway.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Blackmarch

[The Folk Prophet]

Based on what anatess is saying (I trust her Catholic knowledge, as I have none myself) it seems more akin to official declarations and the like. So when the first presidency signs something (like...the Proclamation to the Family...???) then perhaps it is more like Ex Cathedra.

[Guest]

Based on what anatess is saying (I trust her Catholic knowledge, as I have none myself) it seems more akin to official declarations and the like. So when the first presidency signs something (like...the Proclamation to the Family...???) then perhaps it is more like Ex Cathedra.

 

Yes.

 

Except for the one little caveat of the open canon so that even the Proclamation to the Family can possibly change (although it seems unlikely) as new revelation is brought to pass... that's why even the Proclamation is technically not the same as ex cathedra.  Make sense?

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes.

 

Except for the one little caveat of the open canon so that even the Proclamation to the Family can possibly change (although it seems unlikely) as new revelation is brought to pass... that's why even the Proclamation is technically not the same as ex cathedra.  Make sense?

 

But could not one ex cathedra change another, in theory?

 

And, FYI, I disagree that established LDS doctrine as core as the Proclamation to the Family can change. In point of fact, nothing in the Proclamation to the Family was new (which is why, I think, it was not canonized or added to the 2013 scriptures).

 

But your point remains in general. New revelation can, indeed, change certain things, clarify understanding, etc. Perhaps with ex cathedra that is not so...???

[Guest]

But could not one ex cathedra change another, in theory?

 

And, FYI, I disagree that established LDS doctrine as core as the Proclamation to the Family can change. In point of fact, nothing in the Proclamation to the Family was new (which is why, I think, it was not canonized or added to the 2013 scriptures).

 

But your point remains in general. New revelation can, indeed, change certain things, clarify understanding, etc. Perhaps with ex cathedra that is not so...???

 

The ex cathedra teaching cannot change.  It is infallible.  It is as infallible as Jesus is the Son of God.  Now, the magesterium's interpretation regarding the ex cathedra statement may possibly change as the world turns... 

[The Folk Prophet]

The ex cathedra teaching cannot change.  It is infallible.  It is as infallible as Jesus is the Son of God.  Now, the magesterium's interpretation regarding the ex cathedra statement may possibly change as the world turns... 

 

So as unchangable as the idea that the family is the central unit of the gospel, that parents are divinely mandated to raise their children in righteousness, etc., etc...?

[mdfxdb]

I was very aware of the ex cathedra concept existing, but also of it not being used by the popes.  Several popes are quoted as saying they will never invoke/use ex cathedra.  but doctrinally speaking, if we apply the concept of those moved upon by the spirit as speaking scripture, then what is our cannon to include?

 

Our official cannon of scripture is pretty tight, and doesn't get changed very often, although I think they did a revision just this last year.  As previously mentioned we do not add to it (proclamation on families).  

 

of course our scripture is relatively old, except D&C.  The people in the book of Mormon times were warned by the prophets, just as we are today.  Somehow their warnings made it to scripture (canonized), and the warnings we are hearing today do not make it into D&C.....

 

Is this a problem that time will solve?  Will the warnings of past prophets be told historically though scripture to our descendants?

[Guest]

So as unchangable as the idea that the family is the central unit of the gospel, that parents are divinely mandated to raise their children in righteousness, etc., etc...?

 

Yes.  As it would seem.

 

But... let's say tomorrow the Presidency with the Quorum of the 12 sends a new Proclamation stating that marriage is now open to same sex couples.  Yes, it would shake our foundation, but, it wouldn't prove once and for all that the Mormon Church is the spawn of Satan...