You do know what the term ex cathedra means, don't you?  Before it became turned into a "short-hand" for meeting the notes of papal infallibility, it was actually just ONE of the notes of an infallible pronouncement, and it simply means "from the chair", i.e. teaching as Pope vs. as a private person.  He could teach something "from the chair" that does not meet the other notes of infallibility.

I'm still waiting for you to produce any teaching, from Pope, Doctor, or Catholic theologian (Old Catholics don't count) holding that the Pope can corrupt the Magisterium, the Mass, and the catalog of saints, so badly that Catholics have to break communion with him to remain Catholic.

You're a blasphemer against Holy Mother Church, and not merely a heretic.  You'd be much better off for the sake of your faith to simply go back to the Conciliar Church, into some Motu type situation, like FSSP, and try the old "hermeneutics of continuity" with the post-V2 Magisterium that to become a schismatic and adopt Old Catholic heresies, denying the very foundations of Catholicism.  At least those guys are mostly in material error, whereas you're in formal by rejecting the teaching authority of the Church and gutting the very foundations of Catholicism.

Hey Lad.
I'm drowning, so many posts, I can't reply to everything that needs an answer at the moment.

THE MEANING OF 'THE POPE AS A PRIVATE PERSON'
You raise an interesting point here. The phrase "the pope as a private person".
It is unclear to me precisely what is meant by this term.
It often seems to be opposed to the Pope invoking his full authority.
Do you have any authoritative clarification?

THE MEANING OF EX CATHEDRA
You are suggesting in this post that the First Vatican Council, in its solemn definition of Papal Infallibility, employs the term 'ex cathedra' in an entirely novel way, quite differently from how St Robert Bellarmine employed the term, and all the ancient authorities he cites, in spite of the fact that the Council very clearly states that it is 'following the tradition received'. Are you certain about that? It just does not make sense to me, to be honest. But even if that is so, how can you now contradict a solemn definition of the Church? By the way, any authoritative proof of your claim that ex cathedra did not refer to the extraordinary magisterium in ancient times?

YOU'RE A BLASPHEMER AGAINST HOLY MOTHER CHURCH, AND NOT MERELY A HERETIC... GO BACK TO THE CONCILIAR CHURCH... YOU'RE IN FORMAL ERROR...
Ouch!!! I'm out of rotten eggs, I used the last one on Centro.

Hank, what a terrible thing to say about the sons of St Ignatius. Do you not realise it is the Freemasons who have infiltrated the Jesuits that is the problem, and not the glorious order founded by this great saint? It is like saying the Catholic Church should never have been founded because of crisis that is currently afflicting Her. If the Jesuits were not there, the enemy would have used other means, which of course it has. The corruption of the best is the worst, therein lies part of the answer.

The days of St. Ignatius, St. Robert Bellarmine and Matteo Ricci are long gone when it comes to great Jesuits. I thought even you would've realize this. There must have been a very good reason why the Jesuit order was abolished in the 18th century. And what have the Jesuits given us in the past 100 years? Just a bunch of Teilhard de Chardins, Karl Rahners and Jorge Bergoglios. It was a clever attempt by you to try and argue that I was lumping all of the Jesuits together from the inception of their Order. Nice try but it's just not so. 

Thanks, Lad, I was thinking of its more ancient usage, like when St Robert Bellarmine and Cajetan talk about the Pope as a private person and seem to oppose to that when he is acting in a solemn capacity. I agree with you about its modern usage... perhaps that has always been the meaning, just curious to know if the subject has ever been treated of anywhere.

It may have been, but I don't know.  I have generally seen explanations of papal infallibility and a list of the notes of infallibility, but don't recall any explanation for the term ex cathedra.  I think that in common parlance the term has become common shorthand for an "infallible" pronouncement, but my reading of Vatican I (and looking at the etymology), it's just one of the notes.  He has to be teaching not only from the chair (in his official teaching capacity, as later known by the appearance of something in Acta Apostolicae Sedis), but also has to be defining a matter of faith and morals that must be held by all the faithful.

Where it becomes tricky is that there are many times that the Pope seems to be defining a matter of faith and morals and insisting that the faithful accept the teaching, but without the solemn language.  So, for instance, if you believe that Wojtyla was the pope, his teaching that only men could be ordained to the priesthood really does meet the notes of infallibility, even though it didn't appear in some formal dogmatic proclamation.

Here's Wojtyla from an "Apostolic Letter" Ordinatio Sacerdotalis addressed to all the bishops:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

1) "a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution" = matter of faith and morals
2) "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren" = Pope acting as Pope, from Vatican I, ex cathedra, that is as the teacher of all Christians
3) "I declare" = synonymous with define
4) "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" = something to be held by all the faithful.

This meets all the notes of infallibility, since he was using nearly all the language of Vatican I.

Problem comes with the pre-Vatican I papal teaching, where they did not necessarily use the explicit language and one might have to INFER from the context whether he intended to teach as Pope and to definitively bind the faithful.

It may have been, but I don't know.  I have generally seen explanations of papal infallibility and a list of the notes of infallibility, but don't recall any explanation for the term ex cathedra.  I think that in common parlance the term has become common shorthand for an "infallible" pronouncement, but my reading of Vatican I (and looking at the etymology), it's just one of the notes.  He has to be teaching not only from the chair (in his official teaching capacity, as later known by the appearance of something in Acta Apostolicae Sedis), but also has to be defining a matter of faith and morals that must be held by all the faithful.

Where it becomes tricky is that there are many times that the Pope seems to be defining a matter of faith and morals and insisting that the faithful accept the teaching, but without the solemn language.  So, for instance, if you believe that Wojtyla was the pope, his teaching that only men could be ordained to the priesthood really does meet the notes of infallibility, even though it didn't appear in some formal dogmatic proclamation.

Here's Wojtyla from an "Apostolic Letter" Ordinatio Sacerdotalis addressed to all the bishops:
1) "a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution" = matter of faith and morals
2) "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren" = Pope acting as Pope, from Vatican I, ex cathedra, that is as the teacher of all Christians
3) "I declare" = synonymous with define
4) "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" = something to be held by all the faithful.

This meets all the notes of infallibility, since he was using nearly all the language of Vatican I.

Problem comes with the pre-Vatican I papal teaching, where they did not necessarily use the explicit language and one might have to INFER from the context whether he intended to teach as Pope and to definitively bind the faithful.

Thanks, I agree.