Female priests infallibly defined?

[MilesJesu]

cont…

The all-male hierarchy, by definition and demographics, can live up to only half its potential. Consider all the feminine wisdom, judgment, expertise and talent that goes untapped, the gifts that languish unopened. Think of the legions of remarkable women who have left the church to become ordained ministers in other Christian denominations.

Here is another clue. “The all-male hierarchy…” implies the common complaint that it is a “good 'ol boy” system, left over from the 'ol days of supressing women. The impication that a hierarchy built of only male priests can only reach half its potential is an insult to Jesus Christ who only chose male disciples to be His twelve. Does the writer imply that they only met half of their potential?

As for the “legions of remarkable women” who leave the Church may be remarkable in terms of intellectual and compassionate blessings from God, they certainly would not be cooperating with the “obedience of faith.” (Rm 16:26)

"The time has come for a few good bishops to question that lack of authority, or at least to get the ball of conversation rolling."

*This is the most telling part of the article. The writer reveals his/her true motive and problem with the Church- Authority. Does the writer really intend to assert that the Church, who has NEVER allowed the ordination of women (Ordinary Magesterium), along with Pope John Paul II who declared ordanation of women as incompatible with the constitution of the Church, and supported by the CDF as lacking authority? *

If we here in the Church Militant are to practice the “obedience of faith” can we do so and not respond to such a publication? I think it is allowed to be published because it does not go unchallenged. If you live in that Diocese, you shoudl first pray for the writer, the editor, and the Bishop. Then, send a letter requesting clarification of the paper’s position in light of what Pope John Paul II said and the CDF via the Dubium with a copy to the Bishop. IF you continue to get the response that women are restrained by a “stained glass ceiling” send it, along with the paper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for clarification.

I am a little fired up right now, I am sure it is coming through my post, but stuff like this gets published repeatedly because “good” Catholics say and do nothing. The hierachy of the Church is HUMAN, and they could use the support from other humans.

Peace,

MilesJesu

 

[Catholic2003]

InnocentIII:

I do not know the situation in the US but here in Ozland the reflections at the Communion Service must be read from an authorised document. The giving of reflections prepared by the -non-ordained leader of the service is strictly forbidden.

I think both the Episcopal Conference and the individual bishops can determine rules for giving the reflection. From the Archdiocese of Dubuque, Iowa:

The secondary way in which this rite differs from Mass is that there is no homily, unless a deacon is the leader. If a lay person has been properly trained and has received permission from the bishop, he or she may give a reflection following the reading of the Gospel.

 

[Roman_Army]

stanley123:

Since it is an infallibly defined teaching that women cannot be priests, could you kindly explain why the Catholic authorities in charge of a Catholic diocesan newspaper are allowing editorials supporting the ordination of women as priests?

See the June 23, 2005 edition of the Saint Cloud Visitor, the Catholic newspaper of the Diocese of St. Cloud, MN.:

“The church should begin seriously discussing the possibility of ordaining women as priests.”

See:
stcdio.org/Visitor/newassets/new_editorial.htm

**Unfortunately, there are liberals who claim to be “Catholic” when they aren’t. I would like to see a cleansing of the Church and remove those who don’t want to be in it in the first place. **

 

[DavidFilmer]

Catholic2003:

Only Popes and ecumenical councils can define dogma, not prefects of the CDF. So unless you are talking about an ex cathedra statement of Pope Benedict XVI, it is you who are mistaken.

No, sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken.

Papal ex Cathedra statements and Ecumenical Councils represent the *extrodinary *Magesterium of the Church, which is infallable. But the *ordinary *Magesterium of the Church is ALSO infallable.

(then) Cardnal Ratzinger was kind enough to cite the Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium 25, 2), which makes this very clear. This is recommended reading for anyone who doesn’t realize that the ordinary Magesterium is infallable.

 

[Catholic2003]

DavidFilmer:

No, sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken.

Papal ex Cathedra statements and Ecumenical Councils represent the extrodinary Magesterium of the Church, which is infallable. But the ordinary Magesterium of the Church is ALSO infallable.

(then) Cardnal Ratzinger was kind enough to cite the Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium 25, 2), which makes this very clear. This is recommended reading for anyone who doesn’t realize that the ordinary Magesterium is infallable.

I suggest you reread my post #26. I never said that the ordinary and universal magisterium was not infallible. In fact, I said the very opposite, that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible. Thus, your above “correction” doesn’t apply to anything that I have written.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Catholic2003:

I suggest you reread my post #26. I never said that the ordinary and universal magisterium was not infallible. In fact, I said the very opposite, that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible. Thus, your above “correction” doesn’t apply to anything that I have written.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Prehaps, though, you would be kind enough to help clear up my confusion by reconciling your statement,

Only Popes and ecumenical councils can define dogma

with your statement,

the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.

I’m afraid the nuances of the difference escape me. Thanks!

 

[Catholic2003]

DavidFilmer:

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Prehaps, though, you would be kind enough to help clear up my confusion by reconciling your statement,

Only Popes and ecumenical councils can define

dogma
with your statement,

the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.

I’m afraid the nuances of the difference escape me. Thanks!

The nuance is in the word “define”. The infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium is manifested in the teachings of all the bishops spread throughout the world. As a result, there is no one single infallible statement that gives a definition of a dogma that is infallible in this manner. (In particular, because Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not ex cathedra, the statement given there is not an infallible definition of the dogma that women can’t be ordained as priests. It couldn’t be, because that particular dogma was already infallible prior to the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.)

Because of this, dogma that is infallible via the ordinary and universal magisterium is often referred to as non-defined dogma.

Again, I tried to explain this in my post #26. Here is a CDF statement that clarifies that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did not contain a dogmatic definition:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Catholic2003:

… the reply to my question …

Ah, thank you . Sorry. I can be a bit of a thickie sometimes, but I get it now. You are correct, and I appreciate your taking the time to make this clear.

 

[Catholic2003]

DavidFilmer:

Ah, thank you . Sorry. I can be a bit of a thickie sometimes, but I get it now. You are correct, and I appreciate your taking the time to make this clear.

No problem at all. You are very welcome.

 

[MilesJesu]

Catholic2003,

Thanks indeed for getting into the nuance of this process. I as well as many others appreciate you sharing your gifts in this manner.

To borrow a line from before about being a “thickie” I am still not 100% clear.

So if I understand correctly: the teaching is infallible, but not formally defined as a dogma. From the CDF statement:

"**Such doctrines **can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.14 "

A doctrine could be defined by being taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.

"In the case of a non-defining act,** a doctrine is taught infallibly** by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.**17 " **

It could be either one of these right? In reference to the Dubium:

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. Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren, 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 last line of the Dubium response seems to imply that it will never change as it belongs to the deposit of the faith. Does a dogma being “defined” pertain more as to whether it is divinely revealed?

Thanks, and Peace,

MilesJesu

 

[Catholic2003]

MilesJesu:

So if I understand correctly: the teaching is infallible, but not formally defined as a dogma.

I would say the teaching is an infallible dogma, but one that hasn’t been formally defined.

Here is my parse of the CDF statement:

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council,
or
they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.

Either side of the non-indented “or” is infallible dogma, but only the first part is “defined” dogma.

MilesJesu:

… Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). …

It could be either one of these right?

Yes, it could be either. This either-or (primary vs. secondary object of infallibility) is completely different from and independent of the defined vs. non-defined distinction that we’ve be discussing.

MilesJesu:

The last line of the Dubium response seems to imply that it will never change as it belongs to the deposit of the faith. Does a dogma being “defined” pertain more as to whether it is divinely revealed?

No. Let me try to summarize. There are two distinct concepts here (or two orthogonal axes as mathematicians like to say). The first relates to the mode by which the truth was determined to be infallible:

• papal infallibility = ex cathedra = defined dogma
• conciliar infallibility = also defined dogma
• infalliblity of the ordinary and universal magisterium = non-defined dogma

The second relates to the nature of the truth itself:

• primary object of infallibility = divine revelation = deposit of faith = must be believed with divine and Catholic faith
• secondary object of infallibility = truth proximate to the faith = must be definitively held and firmly accepted

 

[MilesJesu]

Catholic2003,

Thanks again for taking the time to clearly articulate this issue as you understand it. You have really helped me gain a deeper understanding of the issue.

Either side of the non-indented “or” is infallible dogma, but only the first part is “defined” dogma.

This actually clears it up quite a bit. I was lumping them together as “defined” dogma. I see your point more clearly now.

As for when I mentioned “it will not change,” I meant to ask do you think it will change such that someone would declare that women can be priests? The CDF document seems to imply that it may change at a later date and be “defined” but I do not take this as meaning it will change in substance. What are your thoughts?

Peace,

MilesJesu

 

[Catholic2003]

MilesJesu:

As for when I mentioned “it will not change,” I meant to ask do you think it will change such that someone would declare that women can be priests?

No, I don’t see how it can change.

MilesJesu:

The CDF document seems to imply that it may change at a later date and be “defined” but I do not take this as meaning it will change in substance. What are your thoughts?

I think this was referring to the possiblity of a future ex cathedra statement on the issue. This wouldn’t change the teaching, but just make it “more infallible”. (Sorry, I can’t come up with a better choice of words than “more infallible”.)