Does this refute Papal Infallibility?

[Dovekin]

That document is mostly correct, except for where it states it’s merely an exercise of the ordinary non-infallible Papal magisterium. There are no grounds for such an opinion. My opinion is more strongly supported by the OS itself, Vatican I, and Vatican II. And yes, I realize that this is Cardinal Ratzinger himself I’m disagreeing with, and I don’t take that fact lightly. But I must insist. OS meets all the requirements of Vatican I, and there is no way to demonstrate otherwise.

I cited the comments on the dubia not because it was correct, but only as evidence that the use of papal infallibility in OS is not “manifest.” If the CDF is not convinced it was infallible, I cannot see any way to think it was “manifest” that it was.

I think the Catholic position must be that Vatican I does not provide a reliable way of KNOWING when a Pope speaks infallibly. Instead a faithful Catholic must allow “Securus judicat orbis terrarium” (the “Secure Judgement of the World.” A phrase from St. Augustine and used powerfully by Cardinal Newman) to over time determine what was infallibly declared and what was only ordinarily declared.

Porthos probably agrees with this, and sees his current judgment of infallibility as part of that process of “judging over time.” At least, that would be my guess.

That does not seem adequate to me. In general, we know the authority of papal statements by:

His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The character of the documents should be known from the CDF, if the document itself does not reveal it. If the CDF does not think it infallible, it isn’t. They are the first judges of that sort of thing, moreso under JP2 than under Francis.

There was little problem with the definition of the Assumption. It was manifest that it was infallible. A few years before, PIus XII asked the bishops of the world if he should define the Assumption as a dogma, responses came in, and so on. When he did it, everybody knew what he had done! Clarity is possible on these things; the lack of it settles whether it was meant to be infallible.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I think the Catholic position must be that Vatican I does not provide a reliable way of KNOWING when a Pope speaks infallibly. Instead a faithful Catholic must allow … “Secure Judgement of the World” …to over time determine what was infallibly …

Porthos probably agrees with this, and sees his current judgment of infallibility as part of process of “judging over time.” At least, that would be my guess.
That does not seem adequate to me. In general, we know the authority of papal statements by:

His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
The character of the documents should be known from the CDF, if the document itself does not reveal it. If the CDF does not think it infallible, it isn’t.

I will wait to see if Porthos thinks he is offering “Secure Judgement of the World.” That is certainly not how I read his words.
I think you are saying that it is the collegial position of the Bishops that render solid judgments concerning what is and is not an Infallible position. I presume that you also see the CDF as a group/quorum where initial judgements in these matters are formed allowing the rest of the bishops to align with them.

I think either:

1. The “Secure Judgement of the World” over time including the clergy and the faithful or only including the Bishops.
   OR
2. The “frequent repetition of the same doctrine” over time, or “his manner of speaking” judged over time by the CDF.

Significantly empties the clarity INITIALLY conceived when one says that the Catholic Church is lead by an Infallible Pope.
For Catholics without firm opinions for or against female ordination, I think the MOST reasonable position to take for 17mnths concerning O.S. was that it was an exercise of Papal Infallibility. After the CDF spoke, I think the most reasonable position was that it was not an exercise of Papal Infallibility.
Having an infallible leader to clarify doctrine is powerful IMO. That being said, when I look at things like the Immaculate Conception, The Assumption of Mary, and Female Ordination; I do not see Papal Infallibility clarifying things. I see the “Secure Judgement of the World” being confirmed by Papal statements that later came to be viewed as infallible or to not be infallible AND the CDF being a big part of this “Secure Judgement of the World.”
I should note (because I think this does not align with your position) that Newman used St. Augustine’s words to include the LAITY too. Newman argues in Arians of the 4th Century (which does not include Augustine’s statement, but illustrates the point) that it was the LAITY that saved the world from Arianism. Newman’s position was that almost all Bishops had embraced Arian confessions but the body of the church would not tolerate such a thing. To the extent that the laity are involved in this, I think that is a development of Catholic thought from where it was for more than 1000yrs (though it might be a re-enthronement of previous positions).
Charity, TOm

 

[porthos11]

Your stubborn! {grin}.
A handful of folks on this thread and I have said that the first linked Dubium claimed that OS was not an exercise of Papal Infallibility. You seem to have disagreed with this reading of the Dubium and insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger WAS NOT rejecting the Papal infallibility status for OS.

Correct. The response to the dubium did NOT say what you claimed it said, i.e. that OS was not an exercise of the infallible Papal Magisterium.

Now having been shown the Commento Dubium, you say you are “disagreeing with Cardinal Ratzhinger himself.”

Correct also. The commentary on the dubium DID say what you claimed it did, that OS effectively NOT an exercise of the infallible Papal Magisterium.

I agree that you are in tough position, but unless you believe the Dubium (date of publish 1995 Oct 28) and the Commento Dubium (date of publish ALSO 1995 Oct 28) represent a CHANGE of mind for Cardinal Ratzinger (over the course of a single day) then you misunderstood the Dubium when you argued it didn’t mean what we claim it meant.
Does that make sense?
Charity, TOm

Nope, I do not have to draw the conclusion that there was a change of mind on Cardinal Ratzinger’s part. All I simply refute were claims that this or that document said this or that. I did NOT misunderstand the response to the Dubium because the words are right there at face value. It did NOT say what you said it did, and I proved it.

The Commentary DID say in support of your claim, but based on that I do not have to admit Ratzinger changed his mind. What this most likely tells us that Cardinal Ratzinger’s mind was constant: he shared the opinion you are espousing, not mine.

And on this matter, based on my demonstrations, I strongly disagree with him, Pope Benedict XVI notwithstanding. He is incorrect on that particular point. And yes, I realize how puffed up that may look, a mere Internet poster daring to disagree with this giant of a man. But I must stand my ground. I do not know why Ratzinger said what he said in the Commentary, but OS passes the Vatican I duck test.

 

[TOmNossor]

The character of the documents should be known from the CDF, if the document itself does not reveal it. If the CDF does not think it infallible, it isn’t. They are the first judges of that sort of thing, moreso under JP2 than under Francis.

I wrote a lengthy and off topic post in response to this comment. Pope JPII, the CDF under Pope JPII (which was headed by the future Pope Benedict), Pope Benedict, the CDF under Pope Benedict, and the CDF (headed by Cardinal Mueller) under Pope Francis believed what Catholic Answers taught me was Catholicism. Pope Francis does not believe about Catholicism what Catholic Answers believed about Catholicism 10 years ago.

I do not know what to do with this, but it is clear to me.

I do not know how this effects Papal Infallibility.

Based on this change, I consider settled things like the all-male priesthood to be much less settled. Just like things that previously seemed settled (by undeviating Tradition, Papal and Conciliar statements, and …) seem to be in flux now.

Charity, TOm

 

[Dovekin]

I think the MOST reasonable position to take for 17mnths concerning O.S. was that it was an exercise of Papal Infallibility. After the CDF spoke, I think the most reasonable position was that it was not an exercise of Papal Infallibility.

I disagree here. The most reasonable position on OS was always that it was not an act of Papal Infallibility. Infallible acts of the Pope are clearly labeled as such, and OS was not. If people ask questions, like the dubia, then OS was not covered by papal infallibility.

Everything else from the Pope is covered by the criteria I gave, ie the character or frquency of the teaching, etc. Infallible statements are irreformable and not subject to reception by bishops, priests or laity. They will receive these statements, as LG 25 says.

I am trying to present Ratzinger’s position, based on his lifetime interest and involvement in the issue. I mostly agree with it, with a few parts left out as not so important right now or parts I do not understand.

Pope Francis has his own perspective, where this whole discussion is probably pointless. His issue is ‘what is the role of women?’ rather than ‘can women be ordained?” For him imo the penniless single mother gleaning corn from a relative’s fields, or the mother of the plaza seeking her disappeared children, acts in persona Christi capiti. The clerical stuff is a distraction.

 

[JanetF]

• Pope John XII, in the “Liber Pontificalis,” the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that “He spent his entire life in adultery.”
• Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility.
• Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.
• Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid.
• Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint.
• Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini “a man sent by God.” However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini.
• The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler.

No because these are things are are infallibly taught. There have only been a handful of infallible teachings throughout the entire history of the Church.

Papal infallible doesn’t mean that every single thing the pope says is infallible. It means, the things the he teaches on faith/morals under the sign ex cathedra, are infallible teachings. Example: The assumption of Mary; the trinity.

You might take a look at this article from Catholic Answers. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

 

[MichaelP3]

Actually I am not sure what you are saying here.

But my opinion. Papal Infallibility has not been used much since it was “officially” established. So what was the point? Currently it seems to create a lot more "disagreement " than what I hope its purpose was.

So yes the criteria is there… okay. But now I am reading through a thread where posters interpret “process” and see if it met the criteria? How does that make anything easier? Rather if a Pope feels he has an infallible teaching he needs to share, state it like that. Then no contradictions. That declaration of Papal Infallibility has done more bad in so many ways especially for those hoping for healing the schism.