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

[El_camino]

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.

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

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

Sixtus, the problem, as I had already expressed it, was that MANY people thought that the pronouncement promulgated by JPII in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis WAS infallible, to the point that some apologists published articles where they try to show that it meets the requirements and they berated those who did not consider that pronouncement infallible, BUT, as the declaration by the CFDF explained, the pronouncement, itself is NOT Infallible.

Again, this would seem to show that it is NOT easy to recognize when a Pope has spoken ex-cathedra, which can account for the lack of consensus among catholic apologists as to the times the popes have given infallible pronouncements (i.e., Scott Hahn says 2, Tim Staple says 4, Adam S. Miller says 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble says 18, although he is not sure about 4 of them).

The point is that when a Pope promulgates something, we have to really wait for the Magisterium to clarify it before we can really know whether it is or it isn’t infallible (as with the case with the pronouncement by JPII in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis).

Many Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

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.

If it is not hard to discern, then explain why there is no consensus among Catholic apologists as to how many times Popes along the centuries have promulgated infallible pronouncements.

Scott Hahn says 2 ( Hahn, Scott, “A Biblical Understanding of Mary,” tape 3 of 4, side 1), Tim Staples says 4 (Staples, Tim, “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” tape 2 of 6, side 1), Adam S. Miller says 11 (Miller, Adam S., The Final Word, (Gaithersburg, MD: Tower of David Publications, ©1997), pg. 28), **Fr. Leslie Rumble says 18, but he is NOT SURE (I repeat, He is not SURE) about 4 ** (Rumble, et al, That Catholic Church: A Radio Analysis, (St. Paul, MN, Radio Replies Press, ©1954), pg. 81).

And finally, some apologists thought that the pronouncement by JPII in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis WAS in itself INFALIBLE and were convinced of such to the point that they berated those that thought that it wasn’t (source). But the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith confirmed that the pronouncement was NOT infallible (although the doctrine in itself was).

It seems to me, that we need further clarification from the Magisterium to tell us with certitude whether the pronouncement was or was not infallible.

(Edited by Moderator)

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Speaking Ex-cathedra as the supreme pastor of the church

Is it from an encyclical? Or is it from a Pontifical Academy?

1. Defines

Contraception has been defined as intrinsically evil. The death penalty has been defined as possibly appropriate in some circumstances, inappropriate in others. One is pretty clearly defined, the other is a bit more ambiguous.

1. that a doctrine concerning faith and morals

JPII was careful about making comments on Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” because he knew he wasn’t in the position to critique the movie. If the pope thought it was a good movie, and you thought it was awful, you could still go to communion. But rest assured there would be those people who would have raised the arguement.

1. must be maintained by the whole Church)

The pope’s condemnation of the war in Iraq was directed at the U.S. and our allies, not the whole Church. And by “whole church” that means future generations. Such a declaration would give Iraq some sort of divine immunity of ever being stopped which would have been rediculous.

 

[Subrosa]

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

Yes!

The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady’s Assumption are infallably defined.

Pope John Paul II also applied this to the male priesthood, but what happened is that it strengthened the resolve of people
espousing a female priesthood. It only broadened the debate. Let’s say “it ain’t over till it’s over.”

Everything else is a matter of the infallability of church’s Ordinary Magesterium, not the Pope’s.

Subrosa

 

[DeFide]

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

Wrong. That is a only a commentary on the Responsum ad Dubium. I posted the entirety of the original.

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.”

No, the WHOLE of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallibile, but that wasn’t the question!

I stand fully by my previous statements.

 

[Libertas]

I am not sure, but I really thought that insulting a fellow forum member was against the rules. Maybe I am mistaken. I am already Catholic and I might have to deal with such insult, but if I was a non-Catholic considering conversion, this would hurt the testimony of all Catholics in general as it shows how little compassion and how little godliness some people that call themselves Catholic have.

No no I wasn’t insulting you, I was insulting that Timothy whatever guy. The guy who wrote the article you linked us too.
Sorry for the confusion.

 

[milimac]

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.

The argument here is not whether the specific doctrine (not being able to ordain woman as priests) is infallible or not. I think we all agree it is infallible and no one is trying to find some wiggle room to get around that doctrine. However, El Camino’s point is that the clarification by CFDF (I believe this is normally abbreviated CDF) states that this was already an infallible doctrine. So the question is, could we have known that this was an infallible doctrine before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Correct EC?

Perhaps tracing back through the footnotes of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis we might be able to find a clearer pronounciation of infallibility. I suspect, rather, that this is infallible because it has become accepted doctrine in the deposit of faith, at no clear, distinct, point in time. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at least clarifies the infallibility on this point of doctrine. I’m not sure, but perhaps there is also a difference between what people mean when they say “infallible” (formally declared infallible - by the Pope or by the Magisterium in communion with the Pope, through an ecumencial council, etc.) – thus the differing numbers in the responses.

So again, I think the answer to your question is obvious – no, at least not easily. Another good reason not to take a minimalist attitude when accepting the teachings of the Church.

 

[El_camino]

Wrong. That is a only a commentary on the Responsum ad Dubium. I posted the entirety of the original.

Ohh, so was it a clarification of the clarification? Because this document:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

Has Joseph Ratzinger are the undersigner.

DeFide:

No, the WHOLE of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallibile, but that wasn’t the question!

I stand fully by my previous statements.

DeFide, according to the document above (see link), no pronouncement included in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible, even though the doctrine that Ordination Sacerdotalis was refering to is infallible in itself.

My point was that before these clarifications came out, many people believed that the following pronouncement by JPII from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, was infallible:

“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.”

The clarifications by CFDF and Joseph Ratzinger say that this pronouncement IS NOT INFALLIBLE (i.e., it does not meet the requirements prescribed in Vatican II for papal infallibility) even though the doctrine in question is.

I showed you the following link, where some apologist claims that IT was infallible and berates all those who think otherwise.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

This fact, and the fact that, as I mentioned, there is no CONSENSUS among apologists as to how many times Popes have promulgated infallible pronouncements (Scott Hahn says 2, Tim Staples 4, Adam S. Miller 11, Fr. Leslie Rumble 18, but he is not sure about 4 of them), leads me to believe that we CANNOT know immediately and easily if the pope has actually given or promulgated and infallible pronouncement. You have to wait for clarification from the Holy See confirming that YES, the pronouncement was infallible.

Can you tell me all the infallible pronouncements that Popes have promulgated along the years by their own authority (i.e., not through a Council, but just like the assumption of Mary was promulgated as infallible). Who is right? Scott Hahn? Tim Staple? Miller? Fr. Rumble, who is not even sure about 4 of them?

So again, because even trained apologists cannot be sure, I think we untrained laity cannot be sure either, and it is NOT easy to know. Is this important? the answer is NO, becuase if those pronouncements become part of controversy at some point, the militant Church will make sure that it is clarified whether they were or they were not infallible pronouncements, as it happen with the pronouncement in *Ordenatio Sacerdotalis *

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

No no I wasn’t insulting you, I was insulting that Timothy whatever guy. The guy who wrote the article you linked us too.
Sorry for the confusion.

Oh ok… sorry for the confusion too… but this Timothy whatever guy does make some good points… so I would not call him an idiot.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

The argument here is not whether the specific doctrine (not being able to ordain woman as priests) is infallible or not. I think we all agree it is infallible and no one is trying to find some wiggle room to get around that doctrine.

EXACTLY!!!.

milimac:

However, El Camino’s point is that the clarification by CFDF (I believe this is normally abbreviated CDF) states that this was already an infallible doctrine. So the question is, could we have known that this was an infallible doctrine before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Correct EC?

Not quite… my point is that the clarification by the CDF not only said that the doctrine was infallible from before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but it also said that NO pronouncement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible as per Vatican I’s papal infallibility, that is, that JPII did not infallibly defined anything, but MERELY referred to a doctrine which was already INFALLIBLE from before. Nonetheless, many apologists before these clarifications were claiming that JPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did promulgated an infallible truth, which DID meet the requirement of papal infallibility as per Vatican I. I cited an example:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

This apologist in this writing even berates those who believe that the pronouncement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis DID NOT meet the requirements for papal infallibility promulgated in Vatican I. But, now we know that HE WAS WRONG!

This leads me to believe that for the faithful is **not very easy **to recognize whether one pronouncement or another from the Pope meets the requirements for papal infallibility laid out in Vatican I, because even that is subject to interpretation. This position is reinforced by the FACT that there is REALLY no consensus among apologists as to how many times Popes have promulgated infallible truths. As I mentioned, Scott Hahn says twice, Tim Staple says 4, Adam S. Miller says 11, Fr. Leslie rumble says 18, but he is NOT SURE about 4 of them.

Milimac:

Perhaps tracing back through the footnotes of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis we might be able to find a clearer pronounciation of infallibility.

See… you need some clarification to know whether Papal infallibility has been applied… You cannot just take the pronouncement and easily see whether it meets the requirements laid out by Vatican I.

milimac:

I suspect, rather, that this is infallible because it has become accepted doctrine in the deposit of faith, at no clear, distinct, point in time. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at least clarifies the infallibility on this point of doctrine.

That is what the clarification by the CFD says!.. SO this is correct. However, some before the clarification were saying that it was JPII who declared this as infallible, not so!.

milimac:

I’m not sure, but perhaps there is also a difference between what people mean when they say “infallible” (formally declared infallible - by the Pope or by the Magisterium in communion with the Pope, through an ecumencial council, etc.) – thus the differing numbers in the responses.

Milimac, what you said just brings even more CONFUSION, because now even the definition of INFALLIBLE is in question…

milimac:

So again, I think the answer to your question is obvious – no, at least not easily. Another good reason not to take a minimalist attitude when accepting the teachings of the Church.

After discussion, prayer, research and meditation, I have arrived to the very same answer that you have… NO, it is not EASY.

Now the question, would be, Is this important? I think the answer IS NO!.. the reason, as I mentioned, is because even though a Pope or another might have declared something infallible and some people believe that it is while other believe that it isn’t, if this ever becomes reason for a divisive controversy, the militant church will make sure to clarify things (as it has happened so many times in the past, starting with the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and also happened with Ordenatio Sacerdotalis), and we will always be sure of the mind of the Holy See.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

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

Yes!

The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady’s Assumption are infallably defined.

Have only these two doctrines have been infallibly defined by the Pope alone? Scott Hahn agrees with you, but Tim Staple, Adam S. MIller and Fr. Leslie Rumble DO NOT.

Subrosa:

Pope John Paul II also applied this to the male priesthood, but what happened is that it strengthened the resolve of people
espousing a female priesthood. It only broadened the debate. Let’s say “it ain’t over till it’s over.”

ACcording to the clarification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, JPII did not apply papal infallibility to that, even though the doctrine in itself was infallible from before…

You see, you thought that papal infallibility was applied there, and so did many other people, but it is NOT correct. This just shows that IT IS NOT easy to recognize what has been infallibly defined by the pope and what hasn’t because applying Vatican I’s prerequisites could be a matter of interpretation.

Many Blessings,

E.C.

 

[DeFide]

DeFide, according to the document above (see link), no pronouncement included in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible, even though the doctrine that Ordination Sacerdotalis was refering to is infallible in itself.

.

No, that’s not what it said. Find in the document where it says, “no pronouncement included in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible”.

 

[milimac]

Milimac, what you said just brings even more CONFUSION, because now even the definition of INFALLIBLE is in question…

Sorry to muddy the waters, however the question in your post asked if Catholics could know what has and has not been infallibly defined by the pope. My limited understanding is that there is more that is infallible than just what has been given a formal pronouncement of infallibility by the pope.

I’m also interested in any clarifications as this came up in a study group I belong to.

 

[El_camino]

No, that’s not what it said. Find in the document where it says, “no pronouncement included in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible”.

Ok let us clarify this once in for all. The doctrine about women’s ordination IS infallible, but not because JPII infallibly defined it in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but because, as the CFD said, it was already infallible before that. JPII simply referred to it. This is what it says in this clarification by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI):

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

In other words, the pronouncement by JPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis DID NOT meet the criteria or requirements set forth by Vatican I.

However, many PEOPLE thought and argued that the pronouncement in itself (apart from the fact that the doctrine itself is infallible) was INFALLIBLE, and berated those who did not thought so, as shown in this writing:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

So those people were wrong, confirming that it is NOT too easy to know what is an infallible pronouncement and what isn’t.

Blessing,

E.C.

 

[DeFide]

So those people were wrong, .

Based on what? You keep evading this question. Nowhere can you find the quote you’re looking for.

 

[milimac]

More generally, considering not just Papal Infallibility but infallible teaching in general, are all the teachings in the Catechism considered to be infallible? What about encyclicals? I believe it’s much better to assume they are than they aren’t, but just in case it ever comes up on Catholic Jeopardy or something.

 

[El_camino]

Based on what?

They were wrong based on the fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the spokesman clearly said that JPII in Ordenatio Sacerdotalis had not spoken infallibly (apart from the fact that DOCTRINE itself was ALREADY infallible). THose people were argueing and trying to show that JPII had spoken infallibly and were trying to APPLY Vatican I’s requisites for papal infallibility to Ordenatio Sacerdotalis, but THEY DO NOT APPLY.

Defide:

You keep evading this question. Nowhere can you find the quote you’re looking for.

I have not evaded any question. And YES it can be found in the clarification by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

It reads:

“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.”

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”

So again, CLEARLY it says that JPII did not promulgated any infallible pronouncement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, even when the doctrine to which JPII was referring to was in itself infallible.

THIS shows that all those who tried to show that the pronouncement by JPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis MET the requirements for papal infallibility set forth by Vatican I WERE wrong… It does not meet the requirements!.

DeFide, I already SAID all this, why are you making me repeat myself?

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[John_Higgins]

Can 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

With all this discussion among well meaning Catholics and theologians, obviously the infallible definition of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not manifestly demonstrated.

And, to the point of the thread, “Can Catholics easily know…”, obviously not.

John

 

[El_camino]

More generally, considering not just Papal Infallibility but infallible teaching in general, are all the teachings in the Catechism considered to be infallible? What about encyclicals? I believe it’s much better to assume they are than they aren’t, but just in case it ever comes up on Catholic Jeopardy or something.

The answer IS NO. NOt all that is taught in the catechism is considered INFALLIBLE. Most of the time, although not always, the Magisterium defines a doctrine infallibly (e.g., the trinity in Nicaea), or confirms that a DOCTRINE had been TAUGHT or HELD infallibly in the past (e.g., women’s ordination by JPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) when there is a divisive controversy that arises, and as always there are dissenters and schismatics that will not accept the doctrine even when they are told it is infallible. We, as Catholics, are called to obey the militant Magisterium even when their pronouncements are not infallible.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

Quote:
Can 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

With all this discussion among well meaning Catholics and theologians, obviously the infallible definition of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not manifestly demonstrated.

And, to the point of the thread, “Can Catholics easily know…”, obviously not.

John

John, thanks for that quote of Canon 749§3, that really clarifies a lot of things.

Basically it means that you need the Magisterium to MANIFESTLY demonstrate that the POPE has spoken infallibly before you CAN KNOW that He has!. Sometimes the Magisterium does not manifestly demonstrate such, thus, this explains the lack of consensus among apologists on some of the papal pronouncements regarding their infallibility.

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, as the Magisterium has confirmed this many times, is the Assumption of Mary and the Inmaculate Conception. Other times, the Pope might have spoken infallibly but the MAGISTERIUM has not so confirmed YET.

Now, for instance, when Pope Leo spoke regarding Jesus’ nature of being fully Human and fully divine, that was not papal infallibility, but what happened was that his pronouncement were CONFIRMED infallibly by the Council of Chalcedon, thus they are now considered to be infallible now.

How about Unam Sanctum?

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”

IT would seem that it meets papal infallibility requirements as per Vatican I, at first glance, nonetheless, I don’t think the Magisterium has ever MANIFESTLY DEMONSTRATED that it is infallible. Now, I am not saying that it is NOT infallible, I am just saying that I AM NOT SURE, that I DO NOT KNOW. Maybe in the future, the Magisterium will manifestly demonstrate and clarify that it is infallible or that it isn’t, until then, we must simply say that we DO NOT know.

Nonetheless, as I said before, we are to obey the Magisterium, even when it has not spoken infallibly.

Blessings,

E.C.