Diversity of thought

[Ignatius]

I didn’t have the evidence at hand that I knew about on John Paul II’s decree on female priests. But I do now:

“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. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. 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.”
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

However, John Paul II used these words: “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”

Wait, are you seriously trying to contend that the Churches teaching that contraception that has always and every been taught by The Catholic Church is wrong?

You may want to read this: catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

In point of fact, prior to 1930, all Christians, including the Protestant denominations, knew that the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful was the constant Catholic Teaching. Something that was True from the inception of Christianity cannot be changed to suit secular opinion. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

 

[thinkandmull]

I am just saying that there is no evidence that the teaching on contraception is infallible. Pius XI said it was “handed down from the past”, but this doesn’t prove that it was universally believed by all bishops with the Pope and shown to all by all of them that they intended it to be infallible. Abu has the opinion that whenever a Pope speaks on a moral issue it is infallible. He has **no way **of distinguishing between a case where the Pope speaks on a moral issue with fallible authority and an ex cathedra statement. If the issue is controversial, and the Pope speaks on it, he thinks that makes it infallible. But that is doubtful. What if the Pope has reservations?

Likewise, a Pope once taught through the Holy Office that geocentrism was Biblical, but Abu doesn’t want to accept that, and instead dogmatizes private opinions (like that canonizations are infallible)

Cardinal Ratzinger from the Holy Office worked with John Paul II almost everyday, and in his mind, officially stated, he did not think the Pope spoke infallible by himself on the issue of women priests. However, JPII’s language was even more direct then statements on contraception, so this puts the intention of Popes on this issue in question.

This was an issue in the past. The Popes use to condemn propositions and at the end list what they were condemned for or as (“impious” “heretical” “offensive” “leaning towards error” ect). Now these are not clearly infallible because the Pope didn’t make clear if he is saying he now condemns them as heretical which were previously “offensive” or whether they are simply condemned as “offensive”, which is milder than heretical. Fr. Brian Harrison, who Abu quotes, says that those (Leo X’s specifically) are not infallible decrees

So what about other decrees that simply said “condemned” to various propositions? How are they different than what Pius XI said about contraception? They are not, and yet it is not stated in what sense those propositions are condemned. As heretical? The Pope doesn’t say.

So that is sufficient refutation

 

[Ignatius]

I am just saying that there is no evidence that the teaching on contraception is infallible.

thinkandmull, what has been always and everywhere taught by The Catholic Church is infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium. It doesn’t have to be declared by a pope because it has been handed down from the time of Christ.

 

[Abu]

thinkandmull #61
I am just saying that there is no evidence that the teaching on contraception is infallible.

False. As the evidence is overwhelming, you have fitted yourself well to the astuteness of the iconoclast William James who realised that “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Every real Catholic knows that Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

on the issue of women priests. However, JPII’s language was even more direct then statements on contraception, so this puts the intention of Popes on this issue in question.

No real Catholic has any doubt as it is absolutely clear in CCC 2370:
‘Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.’ [Refer to *Humanae Vitae 14].

Ignatius (post #62) has also supported the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception, based on Pius XI in Casti Connubii, as he refers to the “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

And real Catholics know that it is infallible because of the “universality of the present” — because Vatican II declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching also.

The error by the one rearranging his prejudices is further magnified and confirmed by St John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter* Ad Tuendam Fidem*, 1998, that even non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25) [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

So thinkandmull is wrong in everything and has not a leg to stand on – is tilting at windmills.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Cardinal Ratzinger from the Holy Office worked with John Paul II almost everyday, and in his mind, officially stated, he did not think the Pope spoke infallible by himself on the issue of women priests. However, JPII’s language was even more direct then statements on contraception, so this puts the intention of Popes on this issue in question.

This is a well observed factette I was not aware of TAM, can you source it for us?
People will fight to the death that the doctrine on Women Priests is infallibly defined (negatively) and will not allow any debate whatsoever.

I have never been convinced this was actually the case and it is interesting news to hear I am in the company of Cardinal Ratzinger.

Not that I have any obsessive determination either way on this point - though I do believe sincere Catholics should still be able to debate it as an still open issue.

 

[Ignatius]

Not that I have any obsessive determination either way on this point - though I do believe sincere Catholics should still be able to debate it as an still open issue.

Whatever has been always and everywhere taught by The Catholic Church is infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium.

It doesn’t have to be declared by a pope because it has been handed down from the time of Christ.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…
It doesn’t have to be declared by a pope because it has been handed down from the time of Christ.

I suppose the hard part is determining whether alleged “tradition” ever felt the need to seriously debate the question and all that time merely rode an assumed culturally bound “horse” whose teeth have never actually been counted (cf Aristotle). Excuse the mixed metaphor.

Like the immorality of soldiering or charging “interest” which prob enjoyed a similar assumption of “tradition” by the pious faithful up until the time it was seriously debated by investigating theologians due to changes in economic organisation…and eventually overturned as a previously unquestioned discipline rather than a doctrine.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;13020308:

Whatever has been always and everywhere taught by The Catholic Church is infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium. It doesn’t have to be declared by a pope because it has been handed down from the time of Christ.

I suppose the hard part is determining whether alleged “tradition”

No, it is quite clear, it is what has always and everywhere been taught by The Catholic Church. It only takes a sincere desire to understand Authentic Catholic teaching and a minimal effort. Start with the Catechism of The Catholic Church (amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-U-S/dp/0385479670), read through it a couple of times. Then read the writings of the Early Church. One Great resource is the Faith of the Early Fathers three-volume set by William Jurgens.

A much easier way is to listen to mp3’s. Dr. David Anders has a number of audio mp3’s ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp

Like I said, the information is readily available. The only real requirement is a sincere desire to know, the rest is simply reading or listening.

 

[thinkandmull]

It can hardly be **proven **that something is universally held, nor is Casti Connubii’s statement that this is a “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” clearly infallible. Its just an assertion about history. The Holy Offices statement that the decree of John Paul II on women was not infallible is given in the link I provided earlier. If that wasn’t infallible, how much less is the teaching on contraception, which does use as forceful language. Abu, you completely ignored what I said about, for example, EXSURGE DOMINE by Leo X. Is that infallible? Not clearly. But that in turn put other decrees which simple say “condemned” in doubt, and Humana Vitae along with it. There is doubt about the infallibility of most papal teachings. Perhaps we are in the early stage of the Church and things will get better in the future.

 

[thinkandmull]

Reasonable submission is given “in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not defining in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his **manifest **mind and intention” (LG §25).

So far no Pope has manifestly said that he was teaching infallible on contraception. Canon Law says nothing is to be considered infallible unless it is manifestly so. Pius XI may have considered it a infallible Tradition,** but he did not infallibly say it was so**

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, it is quite clear, it is what has always and everywhere been taught by The Catholic Church. It only takes a sincere desire to understand Authentic Catholic teaching and a minimal effort. Start with the Catechism of The Catholic Church (amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-U-S/dp/0385479670), read through it a couple of times. Then read the writings of the Early Church. One Great resource is the Faith of the Early Fathers three-volume set by William Jurgens.

A much easier way is to listen to mp3’s. Dr. David Anders has a number of audio mp3’s ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp

Like I said, the information is readily available. The only real requirement is a sincere desire to know, the rest is simply reading or listening.

Sometimes what we think is absolutely true and certain in the real world is really, at heart, but a rational tautology, a faulty circular reasoning that bedazzles the mind (like those pictures of stairs forever climbing end to end).

If I ask myself, “can this immoveable object be dislodged from its position by any known force in the universe” I hardly need gaze upon the real world to know with certainty that no such force will ever be found.
Yet who, with certainty, can say any given object I trip over is truly “immovable?”

Its a similar bedazzlement of circular reasoning to say “tradition has always taught…therefore…” as TAM appears to rightly observe in this case.

Of course anyone who disagrees with your personal view isn’t Catholic.
That way your allegedly “Catholic” statements can never be falsified…just as an immovable object can never be dislodged.

 

[Abu]

thinkandmull #69
So far no Pope has manifestly said that he was teaching infallible on contraception.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church
Second Edition
“CCC 88: The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm

The teaching against both contraception and women priests is definitive, and thus infallible.

Thus you are wrong and learn nothing from CCC, or the Popes, as you repeat the same falsehoods.

I hope that you will purchase and appreciate the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(CCC) which St John Paul II has declared in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum:
“I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith…a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine…offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (Cf. 1Pet 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes….while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.”

Canon Law says nothing is to be considered infallible unless it is manifestly so.

That is precisely why Can. 749 §1 rules that “By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.” [My emphasis].
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM

So far no Pope has manifestly said that he was teaching infallible on contraception……Pius XI may have considered it a infallible Tradition, but he did not infallibly say it was so

Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii declared definitively that the teaching against contraception was “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption”, and infallibly condemned contraception (#56)** “as any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”**
Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes, 51, footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching also.

As you now know, shown many times, and from the revered Mother Angelica’s
**EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that **the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility **not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), **and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.” [My emphasis].

 

[thinkandmull]

You are just repeating yourself. There isn’t any proof that Pius XI meant that definitely for all time. There isn’t any proof. You can take any doctrinal line whatsoever from a Pope and say “see, he took a stand, DEFINITE”. Its not enough that it cannot be called into clear doubt. Simple as that

And David Gregson is wrong that canonizations are for sure infallible. The Church hasn’t said

 

[thinkandmull]

“So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching also.”

Its not clear that Vatican II taught infallibly. “Pastoral” could have meant “non-infallible” for all its teaching. I’ve read both sides. Can’t say

 

[Ignatius]

There isn’t any proof that Pius XI meant that definitely for all time. There isn’t any proof. You can take any doctrinal line whatsoever from a Pope and say “see, he took a stand, DEFINITE”. Its not enough that it cannot be called into clear doubt. Simple as that

Very few Church Dogmas have been declared by a Pope. Virtually all De fide Catholic Teachings are from the Ordinary Magisterium. Sorry to have to say it again, but it is what has always and everywhere been taught by The Church.

If you are going to just try to find loopholes to get around Catholic teachings, you can certainly do that. The obligation of a Catholic is to sincerely seek out what Authentic Catholic Teaching is, not find spurious arguments to to deny them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Cardinal Ratzinger from the Holy Office worked with John Paul II almost everyday, and in his mind, officially stated, he did not think the Pope spoke infallible by himself on the issue of women priests.

TAM are you able to source this interesting tidbit?

 

[Abu]

On Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
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 [Epistle] 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.”
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm
[My emphases].

 

[thinkandmull]

Cardinal Ratzinger, Holly Office:

“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. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. 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.”
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

Pope John Paul II used these words: “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”

Yet Ratzinger assures us that the Pope didn’t intend to use his infallibly, but instead confirmed a universal teaching of the bishops, thus making it a collegial act instead of a sole Papal act.

But how do we know Pius XI or Paul VI didn’t have reservations about what they said about contraception? The didn’t make it clear that they were teaching infallibly. Something being believed everywhere can hardly be measured, so you can not really know for sure when it has happened.

Something could be infallible if all the bishops make clear that they are teaching a certain doctrine definitely. But that can only get out into the public by statements from them all.

 

[Abu]

thinkandmullin #77 on “women priests” quotes Cardinal Ratzinger that “the ordinary Papal Magisterium….witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church."
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm

But in #61 he claims that
on the issue of women priests… However, JPII’s language was even more direct then statements on contraception, so this puts the intention of Popes on this issue in question.

So although he has quoted Cardinal Ratzinger that the doctrine is infallible as “the ordinary Papal Magisterium…. “witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church", (EDITED)

For, as Cardinal Ratzinger’s Dubium also emphasises clearly, **“it is to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.” **He doesn’t even know that anything taught as “belonging to the deposit of faith” and “to be held definitively” is infallible!
(EDITED)

But how do we know Pius XI or Paul VI didn’t have reservations about what they said about contraception? The didn’t make it clear that they were teaching infallibly.

On the objectively “grave sin” of contraception he fools around with his fantasy of papal “reservations” when it is crystal clear that Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii declared definitively that the teaching against contraception was “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption”, and infallibly condemned contraception (#56) “as any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

This condemnation was repeated very clearly in Humanae Vitae, after the “Pill” has been produced and its effects examined, as a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
(EDITED)

All faithful Catholics know that for an infallible papal teaching all that is required is that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

 

[thinkandmull]

If you have a case Abu, why are you relying on repetitive attacks?

Ratzinger claimed the issue of female priests was universally held by all bishops, but that is contested by many. There has to be PROOF that there is universal, binding belief in something.

If a Pope said in passing that a previous Pope had taught infallibly Sola Scriptura, would the first Pope be teaching infallibly? As Canon Law says, no, unles he makes it clear. Pius XI thought it was universally held, but didn’t clearly bind anything infallibly on anyway