used, sometimes from the circumstances, and sometimes from the definition itself, as though each one of these marks was of itself sufficient to establish the fact.
On our part, we find that it is the view of Catholic theologians that there are two marks of an ex cathedrâ utterance, and, moreover, that these two marks must both be found together—viz. that (1) the objectum or subject-matter of the decision must be doctrine of faith or morals; and (2) the Pope must express his intention, by virtue of his supreme teaching power, to declare this particular doctrine on faith and morals to be a component part of the truth necessary to salvation revealed by God, and as such to be held by the whole Catholic Church, he must publish it, and so give a formal definition in the matter (definire). These two marks must be found together. Any mere circumstances do not suffice to enable a person to recognise what a Pope says as an utterance ex cathedrâ, or, in other words, as a de fide definition. It is only when the two other marks just mentioned are acknowledged to be present that the circumstances of the case serve to support and strengthen the proof of the Pope's intention; and this intention will be made known by his own words.
Should, however, these marks not give us a certainty absolutely free from all doubt as to whether, in a certain case, there is a Papal utterance ex cathedrâ, then will the subordinate teaching authority of the Church have recourse to the highest Authority himself, to ask him what his intention was in such an utterance,[1] or to ask whether a formal Papal utterance on
- ↑ Such an appeal to the Pope is not, then, so absurd as Dr.
