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

[DeFide]

“In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”

You’re quoting a mere commentary again! This is just one cardinal. This is not a pronouncement of the Church. But let’s deal with it.

If it’s a decent translation, the cardinal could have meant:

1. The infallibility of the teaching did not originally arise from the 1994 document. In other words it is not to be considered as the only source, but that it does meet the critiera for an infallible statement.
2. Not every teaching is infallible, but this one does meet the criteria.

Lastly, he could have thought that the '94 statement didn’t meet the criteria for infallibility and is just himself wrong. It is just a personal commentary, and he might have just quickly typed something up, and glossed over the nature of the statement. Or, maybe he expressed himself inelegantly.

The bottom line is that there was never an Ad Dubium response from the Church on the particular question you have in mind, so you cannot say that people were wrong to think the '94 statement was infallible.

And it also reads:

“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”
.

No problem here. The original infallible teaching has no bearing on the nature of subsequent infallible reiterations of a teaching.

“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).

Lets check with The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, n. 25) to see if we have the critiera met:

“the Roman Pontiff”
CHECK

“in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
CHECK

“by a definitive act, he proclaims”
CHECK

“a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
CHECK

 

[DeFide]

So, the ONLY TWO times that the pope has spoken infallibly using Papal infallibility confirmed by the requirements set forth by Vatican I that we know for SURE,

.

I don’t know where you get this.

Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times. In fact, it had been used many times prior to 1870, when it was defined by the First Vatican Council. This was the clear understanding of the council, as shown–for example–by reading the later Archbishop Gasser’s relatio to the council fathers. This was a briefing given to the bishops at Vatican I to ensure a common understanding of the proposals regarding papal infallibility they were voting on. It is reprinted in the excellent book The Gift of Infallibility (which is the best book on the subject), and in the course of the relatio, Gasser alludes to the numerous times papal infallibility had been used before the Council.

Papal infallibility continues to be widely used. In fact, [John Paul II] has used it more than any of his predecessors. The reason is that papal canonizations of saints are infallible. In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption thus are not the only two exercises of papal infallibilty in history. They are arguably the only two *dogmatic *definitions (i.e., definitions of dogmas; saint canonizations being definitions of what are known as dogmatic facts rather than dogmas per se) in the last hundred and fifty years, but they are far from the only two in history.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread pruned of off topic posts.