Can Catholics easily know what has and has not been infallibly defined by the pope?

[El_camino]

I have a question that I could not answer myself when I tried to do my own research.

I recently came across an article by Timothy F. Kauffman:

sxws.com/charis/pope-10.htm

The main purpose of this article is to prove that “Sola Scriptura” is valid. Like many other protestant apologists, Kauffman takes the strategy of trying to INVALIDATE Sacred Tradition in order to show that Sola Scriptura is valid. Obviously, such strategy is moot, as Sola Scriptura is INVALID regardless on whether Sacred Tradition is valid or not. Sola Scriptura, as its name says, it must be proven SOLA, alone, by itself. Invalidating something else (whatever it is) does not prove Sola Scriptura. Saying, “see Catholics, Sola Scriptura is right because Sacred Tradition is wrong”, just does not CUT IT. So I have no problem in that area.

Then moving on to Sacred Tradition, Kauffman claims that Catholics should be able to provide then an infallible canon of its revelation (i.e., Sacred Tradition). Such point is also MOOT, as such point derives in itself from Sola Scriptura, in the sense that the protestant wants TO FORCE everything that is revealed by God to be included in a NEATLY BOUND BOOK; thus, it is asking for MORE Scriptures or for OTHER Scriptures to keep believing in Sola Scriptura. Sacred Oral Tradition is NOT Scriptures. Scriptures are what they are, a gift of God to his Church, who left us His Written Word, you cannot add to it nor take away from it. Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, are the Oral teachings passed down from the apostles that are maintained by the Church. If you want to know Sacred Tradition, just see what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. So asking for a well-defined Canon FOR ALL REVELATION, as if this was a REQUISITE, is in itself a moot point. What you end up doing is asking for MORE Scriptures!, which makes NO sense. SO I have no problem in this area either.

I also know that many things councils have pronounced have been infalible, and I know of things popes have taught, which are infallible, and there is CLEAR consensus on those by all Catholics. Example: NO Catholic would dare to say that the Canons of Nicea regarding the Trinity are not infallible, or the papal pronouncement regarding the Immaculate conception or the Asumption of Mary, as well. However, what really puzzled me, which is the center of my question, is that, as Kauffman showed, regarding MANY pronouncements made by popes, THERE REALLY isn’t a consensus among Catholics regarding their infallibility. You may read in that article how he shows what would seem chaos among Catholics who claim that some pronouncement is infallible whereas others deny it (Ex. John Paul II pronouncement regarding women ordination). He shows, for instance that Scott Hahn believes that there have been only 2 ex-cathedra pronouncements by popes which are infallible, Tim Staples believes that there are 4, Adam S. Miller 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble 18, and so on and so forth.

I did notice, however, that Kauffman distorted what Karl Keating said to make it seem as if Keating was contradicting Scott Hahn, by saying that Karl K. had said that “the pope normally only exercises the charism of infallibility when a controversial matter must be settled”, but Karl K. did not say “ONLY”, he said “USUALLY”.

Moreover, Kauffman also appeals to the fact that there seem NOT to be any consensus regarding what are the requisites for a pronouncement from the pope to be infallible among the different Catholic apologists. Obviously, this is not a problem for me, as Vatican I clearly defined those requisites, so who cares what other people say.

However, searching the web, I have found several sites that claim that the pronouncement of JP II regarding women ordination is infallible and have arguments showing that the necessary requisites for a Pope pronouncement to be infallible ( The Roman Pontiff 1) Speaking Ex-cathedra as the supreme pastor of the church 2) Defines 3) that a doctrine concerning faith and morals 4) must be maintained by the whole Church) are fulfilled in this pronouncement, while others deny it.

How can we then know what pronouncement is infalible and which isn’t, when it would seem that even determining whether those requisites for infallibility are fulfilled or not is a matter of interpretation? (which could be the reason why there isn’t a consensus as to how many papal infallible pronouncement are there in history)

Kauffman concludes, then, that Catholics, therefore, cannot KNOW what is infallible truth and what isn’t. This, although IRRELEVANT to Sola Scriptura, which is the main subject of this article, is still very ground shaking!.

Can someone please shed some light on this?

Thank you,

Many blessing in Christ,

E.C.

 

[DeFide]

How can we then know what pronouncement is infalible and which isn’t, when it would seem that even determining whether those requisites for infallibility are fulfilled or not is a matter of interpretation? (which could be the reason why there isn’t a consensus as to how many papal infallible pronouncement are there in history)

Kauffman concludes, then, that Catholics, therefore, cannot KNOW what is infallible truth and what isn’t. This, although IRRELEVANT to Sola Scriptura, which is the main subject of this article, is still very ground shaking!.

.

Recommended Reading:

Identifying Infallible Statements

Also, Catholics have the ultimate option of taking individual disputes directly to the Church per Matt 18:15ff to get a decision when your opponent won’t listen.

 

[VociMike]

Serious question: why does it matter? What difference does it make if A is taught by the Church infallibly, and B is simply taught by the Church?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Serious question: why does it matter? What difference does it make if A is taught by the Church infallibly, and B is simply taught by the Church?

Teacher says you must write numbers neatly in colums and then add from the right, working left.
Teacher also says you must divide the page into two to save paper.

The two rules are quite different, and though you can function for a time if you treat them as identical, you won’t go far in that school unless you appreciate that they have an entirely different status.

 

[VociMike]

Teacher says you must write numbers neatly in colums and then add from the right, working left.
Teacher also says you must divide the page into two to save paper.

The two rules are quite different, and though you can function for a time if you treat them as identical, you won’t go far in that school unless you appreciate that they have an entirely different status.

Give me examples of teachings of the Church that have this kind of entirely different status. It should be obvious that we are not talking about disciplines here, since it is quite clear what is a discipline and what is a doctrine. So give me examples of Church doctrines that have not more status than folding one’s paper into two.

 

[mardukm]

However, searching the web, I have found several sites that claim that the pronouncement of JP II regarding women ordination is infallible and have arguments showing that the necessary requisites for a Pope pronouncement to be infallible ( The Roman Pontiff 1) Speaking Ex-cathedra as the supreme pastor of the church 2) Defines 3) that a doctrine concerning faith and morals 4) must be maintained by the whole Church) are fulfilled in this pronouncement, while others deny it.

You have mentioned one party is pro, the other is con. Have you determined whose side is ACTUALLY applying the criteria of Vatican I? Or can you please give a link to that website?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[El_camino]

Recommended Reading:

Identifying Infallible Statements

DeFide, thanks for the link, but I think that confused me even more. The writing in that link, by James Akin, cites the following:

On July 16, 1870, Vincent Gasser, the relator for Pastor Aeternus 4, gave a relatio that explained “the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff” (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).

The situation is that the lack of consensus among the different Catholic apologists as to how many Infallible pronouncements Popes have promulgated (Scott Hahn says 2, Tim Staples says 4, Adam S. Miller 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble 18) would seem that “each of the faithful” cannot be certain…

Fr. Rumble even adds caveats to some of the pronouncements that he believes are infallible. Next to items 12 and 13, he added this clarification:

“There are some Catholic theologians who hold that, although these two decrees of Pope Leo XIII are of the utmost authority, they still fall short of technical requirements for infallible ‘ex cathedra’ utterances.” [5]

And next to items 16 and 17, he added this:

“[These] Two utterances very probably comply with the requirements of an ‘ex cathedra’ decision…” [6]

He says that as for 12 and 13 “some theologians” do not agree that those are infallible statements and regarding 16 and 17, “very probably” comply with the requirements for ex-cathedra but HE is not SURE!???

So it seems that the being CERTAIN, mentioned in the link you sent me, is really abstract and subject to interpretation as some of the most renowned apologists are not sure, not to speak of the un-trained laity.

DeFide:

Also, Catholics have the ultimate option of taking individual disputes directly to the Church per Matt 18:15ff to get a decision when your opponent won’t listen.

True, but in the mean time, you cannot be sure what is infallible and what not by simply reading what the Pope has said and how he’s said it??

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

You have mentioned one party is pro, the other is con. Have you determined whose side is ACTUALLY applying the criteria of Vatican I? Or can you please give a link to that website?

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm, now I know that the pronouncement by JPII on women ordination in the letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was NOT infallible in itself, but later the Magisterium pronounced it as infallible. The reason I know this was because Pope Benedict (at the time Cardinal Ratzinger in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) issued in 1995 a clarification explaining that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, though “itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church… This doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.”[8] Instead, it was “founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium,” and for these reasons it “requires definitive assent.”

So you see, I know now that it was not an infallible pronouncement in itself made by JPII, but before that, I COULD NOT know (which goes again to my question whether we can definitely know immediately after the Pope’s pronouncement), as many people were pro and some were con and both had very good arguments pro and con respectively. Just search the web and you will find many examples.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Sixtus]

Can Catholics easily know what has and has not been infallibly defined by the pope?

Yes!

A lot of the time, in fact most of it, what the Pope says is his opinion, it is more often than not a very inspired opinion but ‘his’ thoughts none-the-less.

When he speaks infallibly he speaks ‘ex-cathedra’! Then we know that what he says is what the Blessed Lord spoke of.

If you want a biblical reference for the Pope speaking ex-cathedra see Jn 16:12-13 and Mt16:19

 

[Sixtus]

Can Catholics easily know what has and has not been infallibly defined by the pope?

Yes!

A lot of the time, in fact most of it, what the Pope says is his opinion, it is more often than not a very inspired opinion but ‘his’ thoughts none-the-less.

When he speaks infallibly he speaks ‘ex-cathedra’! Then we know that what he says is what is 'taught to him by the Holy Spirit what the Blessed Lord spoke of as ‘guiding in all truth’.

If you want a biblical reference for the Pope speaking ex-cathedra see Jn 16:12-13 and Mt16:19.

The Pope speaking ‘ex-cathedra’, do you know how many times Popes have done so in the last 100-years?

ONCE!!!

 

[DeFide]

True, but in the mean time, you cannot be sure what is infallible and what not by simply reading what the Pope has said and how he’s said it??

Blessings,

E.C.

Let’s look at the issue you had in mind:

Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. 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. Luke 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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

source: catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Knowing what you know now, do you have any doubt of the mind of the Apostolic See on this issue such that you need to approach the Magisterium directly?

 

[El_camino]

Yes!

A lot of the time, in fact most of it, what the Pope says is his opinion, it is more often than not a very inspired opinion but ‘his’ thoughts none-the-less.

When he speaks infallibly he speaks ‘ex-cathedra’! Then we know that what he says is what is 'taught to him by the Holy Spirit what the Blessed Lord spoke of as ‘guiding in all truth’.

If you want a biblical reference for the Pope speaking ex-cathedra see Jn 16:12-13 and Mt16:19.

The Pope speaking ‘ex-cathedra’, do you know how many times Popes have done so in the last 100-years?

ONCE!!!

Sixtus, I think if you have read my whole writing instead of just answering that, you would have realize that it is not as easy as you put it, to the point that there is no consensus even among Catholic apologists as to how many ex-cathedra infallible pronouncements have Popes along the centuries promulgated (i.e., Scott Hahn says 2, Tim Staples 4, Adam S. Miller 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble says 18. And in fact, Fr. Leslie says that he is NOT sure about 4 of them)!

The clear example for this is the pronouncement by JPII on Women ordenation in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis, if it wasn’t because the COngregation for the doctrine of faith (CFDF) issued a clarification in 1995 (almost 1 year after JPII gave the pronouncement), many faithful would not know whether that was in fact an infallible pronouncement or not.

The answer from CFDF was that the pronouncement by JPII was NOT infallible in itself, but that the doctrine was infallible.

Here’s an example of someone who thought, in a writing before the statement made by CFDF, that the statement by JPII in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis was infallible:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

Others that did not agree with that were giving arguments such as the fact that *Ordenatio Sacerdotalis *w as an APostolic Letter rather than an Apostolic constitution (i.e., Bull). Nowhere in Vatican I, when infallibility was defined, said anything about whether the infallible pronouncement had to come in a Bull or any other specific document. At the end, as I said, CFDF recognized that JPII had not taught infallibly ALTHOUGH the doctrine itself was.

Anyway, this just emphasizes how confusing it is for the faithful to easily and immediately recognize that the Pope has taught something infallibly and that he hasn’t.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

Let’s look at the issue you had in mind:

Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. 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. Luke 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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

source: catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Knowing what you know now, do you have any doubt of the mind of the Apostolic See on this issue such that you need to approach the Magisterium directly?

But the question is whether the statement or pronouncement by JPII was infallible or not… In 1994, many thought that it was and other counterargued that it wasn’t… It was not until 1995 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said, in fact, that that pronouncement by JPII was NOT infallible, although the doctrine itself is.

Here is an example of someone who thought it was INFALLIBLE:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

They even published his writing in EWTN, and read how he BERATES all who thought that it wasn’t infallible.

It was not until almost a year later that this was clarified.

So it would seem that you need the Pope to give you the infallible statement and then you need the CHurch in general (e.g., the Congregation for the Doctrine of faith) to recognize whether it was an infallible statement before you treat it as such, so it is not as EASY to recognize them as it would seem.

I don’t mean to argue on this much, as I submit to the Catholic Church as I know she and she alone is the Church Christ founded. I guess I am just trying to play devil’s advocate to try to tighten these seemingly loose ends in my mind.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[DeFide]

It was not until 1995 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said, in fact, that that pronouncement by JPII was NOT infallible, although the doctrine itself is.
E.C.

That’s not what it said. That would imply that the pronoucement was fallible. Here is what it actually said:

October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

 

[milimac]

Well from the responses I’ve seen so far, it looks like the answer is “no”. At least not easily. I’ve also seen responses anywhere from 2 (Immaculate Conception and Infallibility) to the entire catechism.

I haven’t read these yet, but if someone gets to it first, please feel free to extract information that would help us to more easily determine what are infallible statements.

Dogma: newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
Ex Cathedra: newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
Infallibility: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I would however like to reiterate what another poster said. For Catholics it’s not that important. We should not be taking a minimalist approach. Infallible or not, teachings from the Pope or Magesterium in communion with the Pope are authoritative teachings that we could not go wrong in obeying.

 

[milimac]

That’s not what it said. That would imply that the pronoucement was fallible. Here is what it actually said:

October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

This also agrees with the Catholic Encyclopedia explanation on the conditions of Papal Infallibility (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm):

The original statement by the pope sure seems to meet the requirements:
He is teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians ("…in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren…"), a doctrine of faith or morals ("…a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself…"), teaching with fullness and finality ("…in order that all doubt may be removed…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…"), intending to bind the whole Church ("…and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.")

 

[Libertas]

Yea the Pope declares it.
When speaking ex cathedra on morals or faith, or when in a council of Cardinals they also speak infallibly on those matters.
It’s really not hard to discern what is said infallibly or what is not…as it is declared.
(Edited by Moderator)

 

[Sixtus]

The clear example for this is the pronouncement by JPII on Women ordenation in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis, if it wasn’t because the COngregation for the doctrine of faith (CFDF) issued a clarification in 1995 (almost 1 year after JPII gave the pronouncement), many faithful would not know whether that was in fact an infallible pronouncement or not.

The answer from CFDF was that the pronouncement by JPII was NOT infallible in itself, but that the doctrine was infallible. ,

The doctrine is infallible because it is from Sacred Scripture. It is not a case the Pope speaks ex cathedra, rather that he recognises his fallibility in being powerless to change the law and the scripture on which it is based.

whether the infallible pronouncement had to come in a Bull or any other specific document. At the end, as I said, CFDF recognized that JPII had not taught infallibly ALTHOUGH the doctrine itself was. .

We have no doubt as it is given to us as doctrine

Anyway, this just emphasizes how confusing it is for the faithful to easily and immediately recognize that the Pope has taught something infallibly and that he hasn’t

Don’t see what you are getting at or the point of what you are trying to say. I am now totally lost…

 

[El_camino]

That’s not what it said. That would imply that the pronoucement was fallible. Here is what it actually said:

October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

DeFide, the complete statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CFDF) can be found here. You just posted part of it.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

You are missing the key points in this letter, which regard to the topic in question:

The clarification explains that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, though “itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church… This doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.”

So the declaration by the pope was NOT infallible (although the doctrine in itself is), and even though the CFDF said it was not infallible, some people thought that it was.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

Notice that this writing was published in 1994 in EWTN, and berates those who did not believe that the pronouncement by JPII was not infallible.

In conclusion, it is not as easy as you think, even for trained apologists (not too mention untrained laity), to recognize when the pope has spoken infallibly and when he hasn’t. In my case, it was not until the clarification came out that I realize that the pronouncement promulgated by JPII was not infallible.

Many Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

This also agrees with the Catholic Encyclopedia explanation on the conditions of Papal Infallibility (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm):

The original statement by the pope sure seems to meet the requirements:
He is teaching in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians ("…in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren…"), a doctrine of faith or morals ("…a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself…"), teaching with fullness and finality ("…in order that all doubt may be removed…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…"), intending to bind the whole Church ("…and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.")

Milimac, it sure seems, and some people thought like you, but according to the clarification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, it doesn’t!

Here’s the complete letter:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

Here’s the key statement regarding the topic on question:

“[The statement by JPII in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis, though] itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church… This doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.”

SO the prouncement promulgated by the JPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis WAS NOT infallible, according to this clarification, even though some people thought it was!

Blessings,

E.C.