From a Moral standpoint

[Iowa_Mike]

You didn’t read the article, obviously. The fact that the Catechism says certain things regarding the tradition of the Church and infallibility does not negate the fact that Popes and Bishops have been going back and forth for decades on exactly what the scope of that infallibility is or exactly what has been taught infallibly. I will respond to your Catechism quotes if you wish once you have responded to the article I cited, which offers some very clear facts as to the ambiguity of Magisterial infallibility.

Nice try:

1. I sent you the citations first and you ignored them in your responses.
2. I am quoting from the CCC, Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Constant teachings of the ordinary and universal Magesterium while you refer to a theologian whose views conflict with those of the Church.
3. You give zero…zero…details about the Popes and Bishops that have been going back and forth for decades debating infallibility.
4. You fail to explain why the teaching of the Church regarding infalliblity remains unchanged over the centuries.
5. A point in fact is that your theologian is just one of hundreds that attack one or another of Catholic doctrines based upon his own views and research. He carries zero weight within the Church and is no different than any of the other people who dissent from rock solid Catholic doctrine.
6. I believe the reason that you evade is because you cannot respond to the requests in my earlier posts.

The teachings in the CCC are the approved teachings of the Catholic Church…you want me to read your theologian’s version of the truth… please explain why is he an authority? What teachings of the Church do you…not your theologian…refute, and on what basis???

You’ve got to bring more to the discussion than rhetoric. Give me some specifics…give me your best shot…and, in the process, tell me where the Church as gone wrong.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Nice try:

1. I sent you the citations first and you ignored them in your responses.
2. I am quoting from the CCC, Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Constant teachings of the ordinary and universal Magesterium while you refer to a theologian whose views conflict with those of the Church.
3. You give zero…zero…details about the Popes and Bishops that have been going back and forth for decades debating infallibility.
4. You fail to explain why the teaching of the Church regarding infalliblity remains unchanged over the centuries.
5. A point in fact is that your theologian is just one of hundreds that attack one or another of Catholic doctrines based upon his own views and research. He carries zero weight within the Church and is no different than any of the other people who dissent from rock solid Catholic doctrine.
6. I believe the reason that you evade is because you cannot respond to the requests in my earlier posts.

The teachings in the CCC are the approved teachings of the Catholic Church…you want me to read your theologian’s version of the truth… please explain why is he an authority? What teachings of the Church do you…not your theologian…refute, and on what basis???

You’ve got to bring more to the discussion than rhetoric. Give me some specifics…give me your best shot…and, in the process, tell me where the Church as gone wrong.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Dude, for the last time, ALL of the answers to your questions are in the article I cited. It is not my theologian’s version of the truth. It is a well-researched article with beaucoup de documentation backing up everything I have put forward here. I am not going to go through it line by line and spoon feed you the answers. Read it, don’t read it, but don’t try to get me to do the homework for you. It’s as simple as clicking on the link and reading the article.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Dude, for the last time, ALL of the answers to your questions are in the article I cited. It is not my theologian’s version of the truth. It is a well-researched article with beaucoup de documentation backing up everything I have put forward here. I am not going to go through it line by line and spoon feed you the answers. Read it, don’t read it, but don’t try to get me to do the homework for you. It’s as simple as clicking on the link and reading the article.

Dude! You evade.

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Dude! You evade.

Iowa Mike

Here is a BRIEF summation of what I am talking about:

This article discusses (among other things) various writings of Popes Pius IX, Paul VI, John Paul II, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger (including but not limited to Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae). In these writings, e3ach Pope has quite a different understanding of the scope of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, usually in regards to the second object of infallibility.

This is actually why it is important for you to read the article, as now I have to explain to you what that is just in case you are not already aware.

The scope of infallibility has 2 objects (both of which must concern either faith or morals), the first being anything that the Church considers to be divinely revealed Truth. Not much debate arises regarding this object, as it is pretty clear-cut. The second object of infallibility is where there is quite a bit of ambiguity.

Initially, after Vatican I the second object of infallibility was defined rather narrowly as “those facts necessary to defend divine revelation”. Lumen gentium states that the exercise of infallibility “extends just as far as the deposit of divine revelation that is to be guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded" It is this narrow interpretation that, in substance, finds its way into the new clause that John Paul II had inserted into the Code of Canon Laws as canon 750§2: “… each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith must be firmly embraced and maintained.”

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings, he broadens the scope of the second object of infallibility considerable to anything "connected to divine revelation by “logical” or “historical necessity.”, which, in all honesty, could be made to include almost anything.

So as you can see, we have a stark contrast in the way Pope John Paul II viewed the scope of the secondary object of infallibility and the way Pope Benedict views it.

Next, I will get to the problem of how to even determine whether or not something has actually already been taught infalliby by the UOM.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Canon 749§3 is crucial: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such (Infallibiliter definita nulla intellegitur doctrina nisi id manifeste consti-terit).”

Now, the problem with this Canon is that it refers ONLY to DEFINED doctrines which must be held by all Catholics with the assent of FAITH (not just religious submission of the will and intellect). Unfortunately, most of the teachings of the UOM are what we call NON-DEFINED doctrines, so how are we to know definitively if a teaching has been infallibly defined?

In Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, the pope affirmed that an act of faith was due to those teachings proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium and “therefore are held by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.” So Pope Pius IX seems to be saying that in order to determine that something HAS in fact been taught infallibly by the UOM, it must be held universally by theologians. As I’m sure you can see, this poses a problem for teachings such as that on contraception with regards to infallibility, although many maintain that it HAS been infallibly taught.

Lumen gentium holds that the bishops must be in agreement that “a particular teaching is to be held definitively (tamquam definitive tenendam}”. Unfortunately, many bishops are prevented from voicing any dissension from certain teachings whatsoever by papal directives, so how can we ever know when the bishops are in true agreement with such restrictions placed upon them.

Keep in mind that the above restrictions were NOT placed on bishops in the early years of Christianity and free debate and discussion was welcomed when establishing doctrine at synods and ecumenical councils (such as Trent).

Canon 750 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law refers to those teachings that are to be believed by “divine and catholic faith,” whether proposed by a solemn definition or taught by the ordinary universal magisterium “which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium.” In this clause, an addition to canon 1323§1 of the previous Code of Canon Law, one finds a rare reference to the ecclesio-logical notion of “reception of church teaching” by the faithful. In other words, the teaching should also be ACCEPTED by at least the majority of Catholics to be considered as having been taught infallibly.

As you can see from the above information, it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a non-defined doctrine has been defined infallibly without a definitive pronouncement from the UOM that it has in fact been taught infallibly, but the UOM consistently remains silent on these matters, leaving the Catholic faithful to sit and wonder.

It is no surprise then that Catholics find the infallibility of the UOM to be a difficult teaching when:
1.) The scope of infallibility cannot be agreed upon even by the Popes themselves
2.) It is nearly impossible to ascertain what non-defined dogmas have been infallibly taught by the UOM since the UOM itself remains silent on these issues and there is no formal process for declaring these teachings as such.

So there you have it: numerous canon laws, several different Papal opinions, encyclicals, etc. ALL affirming the total ambiguity of the infallibility of the teachings of the UOM. I will say it again: If the Church itself does not have a clear understanding of the infallibility of the UOM, how are we Catholics supposed to put our confidence in it?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Keep in mind that the above is an EXTREMELY truncated summary of the actual article, which really should be read in its entirety to get the full weight and implications of this issue. But who am I kidding? You won’t bother

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Here is a BRIEF summation of what I am talking about:

This article discusses (among other things) various writings of Popes Pius IX, Paul VI, John Paul II, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger (including but not limited to Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae). In these writings, e3ach Pope has quite a different understanding of the scope of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, usually in regards to the second object of infallibility.

This is actually why it is important for you to read the article, as now I have to explain to you what that is just in case you are not already aware.

The scope of infallibility has 2 objects (both of which must concern either faith or morals), the first being anything that the Church considers to be divinely revealed Truth. Not much debate arises regarding this object, as it is pretty clear-cut. The second object of infallibility is where there is quite a bit of ambiguity.

Initially, after Vatican I the second object of infallibility was defined rather narrowly as “those facts necessary to defend divine revelation”. Lumen gentium states that the exercise of infallibility “extends just as far as the deposit of divine revelation that is to be guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded" It is this narrow interpretation that, in substance, finds its way into the new clause that John Paul II had inserted into the Code of Canon Laws as canon 750§2: “… each and every proposition required for the sacred preservation and faithful explanation of the same deposit of faith must be firmly embraced and maintained.”

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings, he broadens the scope of the second object of infallibility considerable to anything "connected to divine revelation by “logical” or “historical necessity.”, which, in all honesty, could be made to include almost anything.

So as you can see, we have a stark contrast in the way Pope John Paul II viewed the scope of the secondary object of infallibility and the way Pope Benedict views it.

Next, I will get to the problem of how to even determine whether or not something has actually already been taught infalliby by the UOM.

I read you reference article and it is just as I suspected. It is the opinion of Richard R Gaillardetz and no more. Below I lifted one example:

In his case (and that of Gramick) the consequences were quite serious — his failure to sign the prescribed Professio fidei has resulted in severe restrictions being placed on his pastoral and theological activity. It is my contention that not only is Sullivan justified in expanding the scope of canon 749§3 beyond defined dogmas to non-defined dogmas; its scope ought also to include definitive doctrine. Any claim to infallibility in formal church teaching, whether it is a matter of dogma or definitive doctrine, must be “clearly established” in order to avoid unwarranted and potentially harmful assertions of heresy or serious error and the canonical penalties that could follow.

The point is he can contend all he wants but his article does not rise above that of an opinion held by himself and those that he chooses to cite. This means absolutely nothing in the contex of approved Church teachings. What I have given you in my citations is what the Church teaches today and what the Church teaches today is binding based upon Vatican I, Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8. All Gaillardetz in this article is trying to undermine the teaching by stating that it is not clear enough, it is too vague. He cites post VII controversies and challenges…now that’s a surprise!

Pope Benedict XVI is said to be preparing a document that will speak to the liturgical deformations and other misinterpretations that came out from VII. The fact that the Church has been under attack by those that want to liberalize Church teachings is nothing new.

In an earlier post I said that I thought you confused discussion with teaching. They are not the same; Gaillardetz’s article is his opinion and has not moved the Church in any way.

Finally we can find theologians that will support our arguments and quote them all day long but… it means nothing. We both must read them in the context of what the Church teaches not what you want the Church to teach. We have no obligation to believe any theologian no matter their opinion but we are obligated top believe all that the Church teaches.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[mark_a]

Should seperated, those who abandend the Faith, those who practice ONLY what they agree with…

Should they continie to call themselves “Catholic?” To identify themselves with the CC?

Why or Why not?

They should align themselves with a non-Catholic congregation that believes as they do. And there are plenty to choose from. They may then refer to themselves a lower case “c” catholics.

We get lots of reverts from folks who thought they knew better. And the reverts and converts become some of the best capital “C” Catholics.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Mike,

As to your specific post about PJP speaking ex-cathedra about the ordination of women, I am afraid you are incorrect:

The phrase “to be definitively held” is found in Lumen gentium (no. 25) referring to the infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium of bishops. Thus, while the word “infallible” was not found in the apostolic letter, the use of that phrase raised questions, for the pope was proposing a teaching “to be definitively held” in what appeared to be an exercise, not of the ordinary universal magisterium of the whole college of bishops, but of the ordinary papal magisterium. This assumption was confirmed in the subsequent commentary of Cardinal Ratzinger published in L’Osservatore Romano:

In view of a magisterial text of the weight of the present Apostolic Letter, inevitably another question is raised: how binding is this document? It is explicitly stated that what is affirmed here must be definitively held in the Church, and that this question is no longer open to the interplay of differing opinions. Is this therefore an act of dogmatizing? Here one must answer that the Pope is not proposing any new dogmatic formula, but is confirming a certainty which has been constantly lived and held firm in the Church. In the technical language one should say: here we have an act of the ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, an act therefore which is not a solemn definition ex cathedra, even though in terms of content a doctrine is presented which is to be considered definitive. In other words, a certainty already existing in the Church, but now questioned by some, is confirmed by the Pope’s apostolic authority. It has been given a concrete expression, which also puts in a binding form what has always been lived.

As to your citation of the CCC, I am not debating Papal or Ecumenical infallibility here, only the ambiguity of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Here is what you cited:

When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420** This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 **

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Thank you for helping me to prove my point. As you can see here, the primary object of infallibility is what I bolded first. It refers only to divine revelation itself and does not extend beyond that. The SECONDARY object of infallibility (or what we have been told to believe is a secondary object of infallibility) only refers to “those facts necessary to defend divine revelation”. Now, as you can see by the second part that I bolded, the CCC doesn’t even consider there to BE a secondary object of infallibility, and actually states that “a teaching that leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals” (basically a rewording of “those facts necessary to defend divine revelation”) is an example of a NON-INFALLIBLE teaching to be adhered to with religious assent, not divine and Catholic faith.

So in effect, the Catechism actually further NARROWS the scope of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. As I said, there is ZERO consensus on this matter between Popes, between their encyclicals, and now apparently, the Catechism itself.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

So there you have it: numerous canon laws, several different Papal opinions, encyclicals, etc. ALL affirming the total ambiguity of the infallibility of the teachings of the UOM. I will say it again: If the Church itself does not have a clear understanding of the infallibility of the UOM, how are we Catholics supposed to put our confidence in it?

No, it’s not difficult to determine what weight a Church teaching carries…what teaching are you talking about or do we through them all under the bus because Gaillardetz says so?

Let’s get to specifics…

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis…Infallible, upheld by Pope Benedict. Yet the dissidents in the Church continue push for female ordination. Why is that?

Abortion…infallible or can the Church now accept Abortion if it wants? Where does teaching eminate from and why does it carry such weight today?

Celibacy is a small t tradition. Why does the Church cling to this tradition in the face of so many who want to relax this requirement?

Homosexuality…The CCC says:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Some on this forum post that homosexual love is perfectly acceptable. They argue that those (like me) who condemn homosexual relationships need to get with the times, we are judgmental, uncharitable etc. Not so…I but uphold the teaching of the Church. You want scripture:

GN 1:27, Ps 127:3-5, Gal 6:7, MT 21:19, MK 11:14, Lv 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9 and there are many many more.

Divorce…infallible? Here’s what the CCC says:

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

Are these not the hot social buttons of the day? All Gaillardetz is doing is trying to raise doubts about the force of Catholic teachings.

Did you ever read the Rhine Flows Into the Tiber? If not I suggest you get a copy and read it. It is a book written by a Catholic priest who had the inside track during Vatican II. He takes no sides but reports in a cold hard way what happened. During VII there were many who wanted to change the very essense of the Church. The was a move to strip the Chair of Peter from the Pope and submit it to a converence of bishops. My point here is that it is not surprising to see someone like Gaillardetz undermine infalliblity in an effort to advance a different agenda. For if you can eliminate the binding authority of the Magesterium then you pretty much do whatever you like can’t you? Too bad that the ultimate authority is the teaching of the Church and the Church does not embrace Gaillardetz.

Church infallibility:

Jn 16:13, Lk 10:16, Jn 14:26, 1 Tim 3:15, Acts 15:28…St. Irenaeus “For where the Church is, thre is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth”. Against Heresies 3, 24, 1

You can follow your theologians and I’ll follow the Church and pray that the scales will fall from your eyes.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

No, it’s not difficult to determine what weight a Church teaching carries…what teaching are you talking about or do we through them all under the bus because Gaillardetz says so?

Let’s get to specifics…

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis…Infallible, upheld by Pope Benedict. Yet the dissidents in the Church continue push for female ordination. Why is that?

Abortion…infallible or can the Church now accept Abortion if it wants? Where does teaching eminate from and why does it carry such weight today?

Celibacy is a small t tradition. Why does the Church cling to this tradition in the face of so many who want to relax this requirement?

Homosexuality…The CCC says:

Some on this forum post that homosexual love is perfectly acceptable. They argue that those (like me) who condemn homosexual relationships need to get with the times, we are judgmental, uncharitable etc. Not so…I but uphold the teaching of the Church. You want scripture:

GN 1:27, Ps 127:3-5, Gal 6:7, MT 21:19, MK 11:14, Lv 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9 and there are many many more.

Divorce…infallible? Here’s what the CCC says:

Are these not the hot social buttons of the day? All Gaillardetz is doing is trying to raise doubts about the force of Catholic teachings.

Did you ever read the Rhine Flows Into the Tiber? If not I suggest you get a copy and read it. It is a book written by a Catholic priest who had the inside track during Vatican II. He takes no sides but reports in a cold hard way what happened. During VII there were many who wanted to change the very essense of the Church. The was a move to strip the Chair of Peter from the Pope and submit it to a converence of bishops. My point here is that it is not surprising to see someone like Gaillardetz undermine infalliblity in an effort to advance a different agenda. For if you can eliminate the binding authority of the Magesterium then you pretty much do whatever you like can’t you? Too bad that the ultimate authority is the teaching of the Church and the Church does not embrace Gaillardetz.

Church infallibility:

Jn 16:13, Lk 10:16, Jn 14:26, 1 Tim 3:15, Acts 15:28…St. Irenaeus “For where the Church is, thre is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth”. Against Heresies 3, 24, 1

You can follow your theologians and I’ll follow the Church and pray that the scales will fall from your eyes.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

You are completely wrong about the intent of the article. The intent is NOT to undermine the infallibility of UOM. The intent is to attempt to persuade the Church to CLARIFY it. Here is why: When something is a doctrine that is to be upheld with divine and Catholic faith, the canonical penalty for a failure to do this is to be branded a heretic, be out of communion with the Church, and if one is a priest or bishop, to have one’s pastoral abilities severely limited if not removed. With the UOM, none of these “doctrines” are defined as such, and yet the penalties for not believing them with divine and Catholic faith are the SAME. The UOM needs to strictly define these doctrines for the Catholic faithful in order to avoid confusion.

Why is this so difficult for them to do? If the teaching on contraception is indeed infallible, and given the ENORMOUS number of Catholics who dissent from this teaching, why doesn’t the UOM simply come out and make an infallible pronouncement regarding the issue? NOTHING could be easier, but they remain silent. A 2 paragraph press release and the issue could be cleared up FOREVER until the second coming. I wonder why they won’t just come out and say it?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Mike,

As to your specific post about PJP speaking ex-cathedra about the ordination of women, I am afraid you are incorrect:

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis…I’ll need to post this in two posts due to its length. It is instructive and well worth the read to understand the infallible nature of its teaching.

On the Ordination of Women
A Commentary on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
The publication of the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the reason for which the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be considered definitive tenenda seems the appropriate moment to offer certain reflections.

The ecclesiological significance of this Apostolic Letter was underscored even by its date of publication, for it was on that day, 22 May 1994, that the Church celebrated the Solemnity of Pentecost. Its importance, however, could be discovered above all in the concluding words of the Letter: “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” (n. 4).

The Pope’s intervention was necessary not simply to reiterate the validity of a discipline observed in the Church from the beginning, but to confirm a doctrine “preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents”, which "pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself (n. 4). In this way, the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved solely to men could not be considered “open to debate” and neither could one attribute to the decision of the Church “a merely disciplinary force” (ibid.).

The fruits of this Letter have been evident since its publication. Many consciences which in good faith had been disturbed, more by doubt than by uncertainty, found serenity once again thanks to the teaching of the Holy Father. However, some perplexity continued, not only among those who, distant from the Catholic faith, do not accept the existence of a doctrinal authority within the Church-that is, a Magisterium sacramentally invested with the authority of Christ (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 21)-but also among some of the faithful to whom it continued to seem that the exclusion of women from the priestly ministry represents a form of injustice or discrimination against them. Some objected that it is not evident from Revelation that such an exclusion was the will of Christ for his Church, and others had questions concerning the assent owed to-the Letter.

Certainly, the understanding of the reasons for which the Church does not have the power to confer priestly ordination on women can be deepened further. Such reasons, for example, have been set out already in the Declaration Inter insigniores (15 October 1976), issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope Paul VI, and in a number of the documents of John Paul II (for example, Christifideles laici, n. 51; Mulieris dignitatem, n. 26; as well as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1577). But in any case it cannot be forgotten that the Church teaches, as an absolutely fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal personal dignity of men and women, and the necessity of overcoming and doing away with “every type of discrimination regarding fundamental rights” (Gaudium et spes, n. 29). It is in the light of this truth that one can seek to understand better the teaching that women cannot receive priestly ordination. A correct theology can prescind neither from one nor from the other of these doctrines, but must hold the two together; only thus will it be able to deepen our comprehension of God’s plan regarding woman and regarding the priesthood-and hence, regarding the mission of woman in the Church. If however, perhaps by allowing oneself to be conditioned too much by the ways and spirit of the age, one should assert that a contradiction exists between these two truths, the way of progress in the intelligence of the faith would be lost.

In the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis the Pope focuses attention on the figure of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and Mother of the Church. The fact that she “received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them” (n. 3). Diversity of mission in no way compromises equality of personal dignity.

Furthermore, to understand that this teaching implies no injustice or discrimination against women, one has to consider the nature of the ministerial priesthood itself, which is a service and not a position of privilege or human power over others. Whoever, man or woman, conceives of the priesthood in terms of personal affirmation, as a goal or point of departure in a career of human success, is profoundly mistaken, for the true meaning of Christian priesthood, whether it be the common priesthood of the faithful or, in a most special way, the ministerial priesthood, can only be found in the sacrifice of one’s own being in union with Christ, in service of the brethren. Priestly ministry constitutes neither the universal ideal nor even less, the goal of Christian life. In this connection, it is helpful to recall once again that “the only higher gift, which can and must be desired, is charity” (cf. 1 Cor 12-13; Inter insigniores, VI).

More to follow:

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

On the Ordination of Women
A Commentary on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - CONTINUED…

With respect to its foundation in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, John Paul II directs his attention to the fact that the Lord Jesus, as is witnessed by the new Testament, called only men, and not women, to the ordained ministry, and that the Apostles “did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry” (n. 2; cf. 1 Tm 3:1ff.; 2 Tm 1:6; Ti 1:5). There are sound arguments supporting the fact that Christ’s way of acting was not determined by cultural motives (cf. n. 2), as there are also sufficient grounds to state that Tradition has interpreted the choice made by the Lord as binding for the Church of all times.

Here, however, we find ourselves before the essential interdependence of Holy Scripture and Tradition, an interdependence which makes of these two forms of the transmission of the Gospel an unbreakable unity with the Magisterium, which is an integral part of Tradition and is entrusted with the authentic interpretation of the Word of God, written and handed down (Dei Verbum, nn. 9 and 10). In the specific case of priestly ordination, the successors of the Apostles have always observed the norm of conferring it only on men, and the Magisterium, assisted by the Holy Spirit, teaches us that this did not occur by change, habitual repetition, subjection to sociological conditioning, or even less because of some imaginary inferiority of women; but rather because “the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church” (n. 2).

As is well known, there are reasons ex convenientia by which theology has sought and seeks to understand the reasonableness of the will of the Lord. Such reasons, expounded for example in the Declaration Inter insigniores, have their undoubted values, and yet they are not conceived or employed as if they were strictly logical proofs derived from absolute principles. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind, as these reasons help us to comprehend, that the human will of Christ not only is not arbitrary, but that it is intimately united with the divine will of the eternal Son, on which the ontological and anthropological truth of the creation of the two sexes depends.

In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature. of this assent: it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that 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. 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, quad 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.

Finally, there have been some commentaries on the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which have suggested that the document constitutes an additional and inopportune obstacle on the already difficult path of ecumenism. In this regard it should not be forgotten that according to both the letter and the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 11), the authentic ecumenical task, to which the Catholic Church is unequivocally and permanently committed, requires complete sincerity and clarity in the presentation of one’s own faith. Furthermore, it should be noted that the doctrine reaffirmed by the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis cannot but further the pursuit of full communion with the Orthodox Churches which, in fidelity to Tradition, have maintained and continue to maintain the same teaching.

The singular originality of the Church and of the priestly ministry within the Church requires a precise clarity of criteria. Concretely, one must never lose sight of the fact that the Church does not find the source of her faith and her constitutive structure in the principles of the social order of any historical period. While attentive to the world in which she lives and for whose salvation she labours, the Church is conscious of being the bearer of a higher fidelity to which she is bound. It is a question of a radical faithfulness to the Word of God which she has received from Christ who established her to last until the end of the ages. This Word of God, in proclaiming the essential value and eternal destiny of every person, reveals the ultimate foundation of the dignity of every being, of every woman and of every man.

The Pope in Ordination Sacerdotolis was simply affirming an existing infallible teaching of the Magesterium on this matter and making clear that it must be held by the faithful.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone;7552262:

Mike,

I’ll respond to you mistaken notion that Ordinatio Sacerdotilis was not infallible in a subsequent post but first…your claim that there is zero concensus ‘within the Church’ regarding infallibility whether it be papal or the ordinary and universal Magesterium is completely unsupported. Oh, I get that you don’t accept it and I agree your theologian doesn’t accept it but where in the Church is there such discord…there ain’t because the Church’s position on infallibility is written down for all to see. It is only those who disagree who run around writing dissenting opinions but he Church’s teaching remains unchanged. An it is a good thing that it is so otherwise we’d be giving a huge ‘relative moralism’ party where everyone can believe what they like because the Church as no moral authority.

The Catechism does no such thing as narrow the definition of infallibility. Infallibility is quite clearly spelled out:

Vatican I, Chapter 3, On Faith, paragraph 8:

What don’t you get about this? The above Chapter is On Faith…and it calls us to accept and follow those matters the Church proposes as divinely revealed…or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. You are called, in faithful obedience, to accept and believe the teachings of the Magesterium. All you are doing with your arguments is nibbling at the fringe trying to find a hole. The noted comedian W.C. Fields was near death and a visitor came to him and found him reading the bible. The visitor was shocked because W.C. was a confirmed atheist. The visitor said, W.C. what are your reading the bible for? W.C. responded, “I’m looking for loopholes”. That, my friend, is what you are about.

With respect to Papal infallibility:

Vatican I decreed:

The pope doesn’t need to wear a certain hat or sit in a specific chair etc. There is nothing unclear about the above and when these conditions are met…infallible, immutable, unchangeable.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

So Benedict was wrong when he stated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible? O.K…So if Benedict says it wasn’t infallible, and your other sources say it is, how is there no discord in the Church as you claim?..

Show me WHERE in the CCC does it address the SECOND OBJECT of the infallibility of the UOM, since that is what we are debating. As I have ALREADY said, the first object of infallibility (those things pertaining to faith and morals which are divinely revealed) is not in question. The debate arises regarding the second object of infallibility: namely, its scope (which cannot be agreed upon by the last several popes as I have ALREADY shown, and which is not even MENTIONED in the CCC…curious…).

Once again, why do you kep bringing up Papal infallibility? I never once argued against it.

I am not looking for loopholes, I am looking for certainty. I am looking for the Church to step up and have the courage of her convictions to say once and for all that a teaching is infallible or it isn’t. But she won’t do it. It is the CHURCH that is looking for loopholes, Mike. It is the Church and the canon lawyers who do not want to paint themselves into a corner. How easy it is to say “You MUST believe this because we teach it.”, but fall just short of declaring it infallible so that they always have an out should circumstances change. What a horrible position to put us Catholics in.

Edit: So Pope Benedict is saying that it was NOT an Ex Cathedra statement, but an already infallibly taught teaching. O.K. This is not really his domain to say (unless he is making an ex cathedra statement of course), but that of the Magisterium, but o.k.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;7552391:

So Benedict was wrong when he stated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible? O.K…So if Benedict says it wasn’t infallible, and your other sources say it is, how is there no discord in the Church as you claim?..

Show me WHERE in the CCC does it address the SECOND OBJECT of the infallibility of the UOM, since that is what we are debating. As I have ALREADY said, the first object of infallibility (those things pertaining to faith and morals which are divinely revealed) is not in question. The debate arises regarding the second object of infallibility: namely, its scope (which cannot be agreed upon by the last several popes as I have ALREADY shown, and which is not even MENTIONED in the CCC…curious…).

Once again, why do you kep bringing up Papal infallibility? I never once argued against it.

I am not looking for loopholes, I am looking for certainty. I am looking for the Church to step up and have the courage of her convictions to say once and for all that a teaching is infallible or it isn’t.

But she won’t do it. It is the CHURCH that is looking for loopholes, Mike. It is the Church and the canon lawyers who do not want to paint themselves into a corner. How easy it is to say “You MUST believe this because we teach it.”, but fall just short of declaring it infallible so that they always have an out should circumstances change. What a horrible position to put us Catholics in.

Edit: So Pope Benedict is saying that it was NOT an Ex Cathedra statement, but an already infallibly taught teaching. O.K. This is not really his domain to say (unless he is making an ex cathedra statement of course), but that of the Magisterium, but o.k.

I’m surprised at your lack of understanding. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II said in his letter…“In order to remove all doubt”. He was confirming and already infallible teaching of the Church via Apostolic Tradition and the constant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal The exact citation is:

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, quad 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.

Do you not know what a formal declaration is? To explain Pope John Paul II’s letter in itself is not infallible precisely because he is affirming and existing infallible teaching. His letter affirms an already existing infallible teaching an so is an exclamation point. However, had this issue previously not been infallible this declaration would have made it so. It’s amusing that you want to say that the Pope’s teaching isn’t infallible when he is afirming an already infallible teaching by formal declaration. So your assertion that His Holiness Pope Benedict is not in agreement is simply due to your own lack of understanding.

This narrative clearly supports Pope John Paul’s declaration. The below citation adds clarity:

The Pope’s intervention was necessary not simply to reiterate the validity of a discipline observed in the Church from the beginning, but to confirm a doctrine “preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents”, which "pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself (n. 4). In this way, the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved solely to men could not be considered “open to debate” and neither could one attribute to the decision of the Church “a merely disciplinary force” (ibid.).

Now to the matter of why I bring up Papal infallibility. I do so because it is linked to Apostolic Tradition (the 1st basis for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) and to the constant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (the 2nd basis for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). Pope Benedict completely supported the teaching and Pope John Paul’s letter.

With regard to you other questions on infallibilty…your the one making assertions regarding scope. I have no idea what you are talking about…what teachings is the Church failing to confirm…be explicit.

That’s the real story.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

This is simply not true.  the term is insulting because it's MEANT to be.

Well, I can sure accept your personal witness on that. You feel insulted when you are called a cafeteria catholic. I will take this into advisement.

I really don’t know where it came from, or if it was intended to be insulting. I would certainly feel insulted by it now, but at one time, the description fit me quite well.

Ahh Guanophore, but this site is not called "Catholic Debate", it is called "Catholic Answers".  So yes, I absolutely WOULD come to a place like this if I were seeking information concerning the Catholic religion.

That is not what you said, though. Information is one thing, and fellowship is another. CAF is an apologetic community, and although I am sure there are some of us that feel very nurtured here, I think that most people feel confronted, and don’t experience the warm fuzzies you are seeking.

They are more likely to be found in parish life, community service, and prayer groups.

I would also probably end up in the Moral Theology section if I had any specific questions and guess what? That is where 90% of the nastiness on this site takes place.

If you think that disagreement with Catholics who pick and choose which doctrines they will accept and which ones they reject is “nasty”, then I can certainly see your point.

No I didn’t. The site is called “Catholic Answers”…I had some “Catholic Questions”.

I am not so sure about that, T-one. When you came here, you had more assertions than questions. You had dispute, disagreement, and quite a few insults of your own.

By the way, did you ever get a chance to peruse the article I quoted? It made it VERY clear that the scope and breadth of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is a subject of much controversy, even amongst different Popes.

Ok T-One. if it suites you to use this to avoid the Teachings of the Church, I will respect that you have the perogative to do so.

It also makes it clear that even the margisterium itself is unsure as to what it has and has not taught infallibly.

No, T-One. All that article makes clear is that the author thinks this is the case

I can say that the sky is orange, and defend my point, but that does not make it so.

And we lay-Catholics are not supposed to have any problems or doubts whatsoever about infallibility? Please! One of the great ironies is also that the idea that the UOM is infallible is not itself an infallible statement…o.k…

Your disputes, T-one, have nothing to do with infallible proclamations of the Church. On the contrary, your dissent regards pastoral instruction, for the most part, and doctrine related to the right conduct of human relationships in the sight of our Creator.

Your throwing out the issue of infallibility is just a strawman. You seem very committed to finding anything to avoid accepting the Teachings of the Church in these areas.

 

[guanophore]

A point on which we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see that attaching a label to a person based upon their clear actions or words is uncharitable and I believe it brings clarity to on-lookers.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

The problem is that we are not qualified to “attach” that label. That is the purview only of the pastoral authority over the person, or an official council or tribunal of the Church.

We do not have the perogative to do it because we cannot know the depth of a person’s heart, and we do not have the investigative tools needed to establish that they meet the criteria of heretics.

The Church teaches that not all who embrace heresies can, or should, be called heretics, so it is important for us to exercise prudence in this area. It is sufficient to state that they have embraced doctrines contrary to the faith, or that they appear to have departed from the Teachings of the Apostles

 

[guanophore]

If you read the entire article (see the link), you will see that the scope of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary magisterium has not been explicitly defined, and has in fact changed over the years.

That is is the author’s perception, at least. You seem to be reading his opinion as though it was an infallible document in itself!

Some popes have believed that the scope should be rather narrowly defined, while others feel that the scope should be very broadly defined.

The Truth is not determined by the opinions of individuals, or even by a majority vote.

Depending on the Pope, the interpretation of the scope of infallibility varies greatly. I am not talking here about “theologians” only, but popes, bishops, etc. writing about what may or may not be included under the umbrella of infallibility. There is no consensus.

The doctrine of the faith is not reached by “consensus” either.

Many bishops are well trained theologians. Some are not. Either way, the doctrine of the faith is not determined by individual theologians, however skilled.

On top of that, the magisterium, the Pope, the bishops, etc. cannot even tell us which teachings of the magisterium have ALREADY been taught infallibly.

T-One, I think you are just using this tactic to avoid accepting what you have been told about the Teaching of the Church.

Your problems have nothing to do with infallibility. They have to do with not wanting to acccept authority.

If you ask several bishops for example, if such and such a teaching has been taught infallibly by the UOM, you are likely to get several different answers.

Which is the main reason that the Truth is not a matter of “majority vote”.

These are facts, not arguments to refute.

It is certainly a fact that there are as many opinions as there are belly buttons.

 

[guanophore]

Uhhhh WOW…

Some of the stuff I see around this “Christian” forum never ceases to amaze me…

Originally Posted by guanophore
What good does it do anyone to call themselves “Catholic” if they are on the road to hell?

I would really like an answer to my question.

If a person is on their way over a cliff - permanently- is it unloving to sit by and watch? Not say anything?