Is indissolubility of marriage an infallible teaching?

[otjm]

When the Church teaches two different things there is a bit of a controversy. If you believe that the pope can settle a controversy by virtue of the fact that he has the final word (and I do) then why would you wish to leave the pope out of it?

1. I am not leaving the pope out of it. 2) It (indissolubility) is De Fide - it doesn’t need the pope to settle anything, a s there is no controversy. It may be that you feel that there is controversy, but the Church has not e3ver said to the contrary about indissolubility, which was defined by Christ.

Perhaps you are unwilling to accept the teaching authority of the pope.

If you have read my posts, that should not evn be a question - it is obvious I do accept it.

It is the authority of the pope that led me to the Roman Catholic Church after being Eastern Orthodox for 25 years.

Excellent, and welcome!

Are you at home here in the Roman Catholic Church or do you feel the Lord is calling you elsewhere?

the only other place I might get called is to supper.

The Pope, as the successor to St. Peter, has the authority to speak for the whole Church. Yes, it is the ‘Church’ that is infallible, but to hear what the Church says you need to listen to the Pope.

God bless!

And I do, which is why I accept that a) John Paul 2 did not make an ex-cathedra definition about priesthood and b) why I accept that he spoke infallibly about the matter. Although it is a side issue to the point at hand (marriage) , I consider that issue closed and that it is time for those who are still “kicking the traces” about it to move on to a new topic. So, yes, I get the issue about authority.

Seriously, I am not trying to jerk your chain. It is just that the Church accepts certain matters as doctrine based on De Fide - coming from either Scripture (marriage indissolubility) or Tradition (inability to ordain women - although indirectly alluded to throughout Scripture). The Church accepts it as it has accepted it from the inception of the Church, and while popes may have spoken on the matter, it is not their speaking which makes it doctrine, but the Faith which does.

And I ahve yet to see any pope who has spoken to the contrary.

 

[stormy99]

That is a question that is most likely beyond the knowledge base of most people in these forae.

As to the original question, the issue of the permanence of marriage is infallible, as it goes to Christ’s teaching in the Gospels. Note also, whatever references there may be in the epistles as to any related issues (Pauline and Petrine Privilege).

A Decree of Nullity, which is what a tribunal issues, states that there was never a sacrament confected at the wedding. The Catholic Church does not divorce people, as it cannot - it has no authority to do so, per Christ. However, it does have the authority to determine what constitutes a sacrament, and can state where an essential element was missing, indicating that no sacrament occurred. That is what a Decree of Nullity is.

It (the Decree) is often called an “annulment” but that is not the proper term, and implies that the Church “annulled” something, which would be a positive act. It doesn’t “annul” the marriage, it decrees there was never one to begin with. Slightly different, and many people do not understand the distinction.

**Entirely true…my marriage was declared invalid as if it didn’t exist because of the circumstances. Civially it was annulled…but not by a Tribunal, they had to examine it from all angles before giving me permission to marry in the Catholic church…

stormy**

 

[JohnVIII]

…Seriously, I am not trying to jerk your chain. It is just that the Church accepts certain matters as doctrine based on De Fide - coming from either Scripture (marriage indissolubility) or Tradition (inability to ordain women - although indirectly alluded to throughout Scripture). The Church accepts it as it has accepted it from the inception of the Church, and while popes may have spoken on the matter, it is not their speaking which makes it doctrine, but the Faith which does.

And I ahve yet to see any pope who has spoken to the contrary.

I’m sorry if I got a little edgie bother. But based on the principle you have set forth then 2nd 3rd marriages are ‘infallible’. Economia in all the sacraments has always been the practice of the Church. So maybe I should conclude that the Pope is just exercising strictness, instead of the norm of economia with regard to marriage for some ‘local’ reason, particular to the Latin Church only.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut!

Peace!

 

[diggerdomer]

Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote the book; it is a text for a basic course in Dogmatic Theology - and given that it was written in 1952, not subject to the craziness after Vatican 2. If you want more information, I would suggest purchasing a copy as it is interesting - but a bit dense.

I’ve read it before, yes I’m familiar with it. You didn’t answer my question.

There have been two ex-cathedra statements made in Church history (at least, according to those who are within the Magisterium, such as then Cardinal Ratzinger): the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. .

Exactly my understanding, and point, too. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, it is not. Then Cardinal Ratzinger settled that issue. The Church, through Cardinal Ratzinger in his official capacity, and under the direction of John Paul 2, settled the issue.

The problem is…for some theologians and canonists…is that who may teach infallibly is clearly taught by the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF, whom you refer to, do not possess the charism of teaching infallibly according to Catholic teaching (including Canon Law). So, there are in fact still diverse opinions on whether John Paul II’s teaching was taught infallibly. John Paul II did not make it clear (or, clear enough, apparently).

Vatican Congregations do not possess the charism of teaching infallibly. That’s simply Church teaching. So…in this specific instance…some would opine that a statement from the CDF that claims Pope John Paul II intended to teach infallibly may in fact not be completely true and binding on the faithful.

Please note, I am not saying that such teaching should not be followed. All Catholics should follow all teachings of the Magisterium. My point is simply limited to the issue of infallibility.

 

[otjm]

**Entirely true…my marriage was declared invalid as if it didn’t exist because of the circumstances. Civially it was annulled…but not by a Tribunal, they had to examine it from all angles before giving me permission to marry in the Catholic church…

stormy**

Civil annulments are very infrequent, but the law does exist under Which a civil court might grant one.

 

[otjm]

I’m sorry if I got a little edgie bother. But based on the principle you have set forth then 2nd 3rd marriages are ‘infallible’. Economia in all the sacraments has always been the practice of the Church. So maybe I should conclude that the Pope is just exercising strictness, instead of the norm of economia with regard to marriage for some ‘local’ reason, particular to the Latin Church only.

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut!

Peace!

Well, the answer is “maybe”. Understand, if a first relationshio is given a decree of nullity (no sacrament), there are time where the tribunal will require one (or both) parties to obtain counseling, or may put other strictures to a second marriage. If those conditions are not met, or the underlying issue is still in place (or for that matter, if the new spouse also does not have the requisite intent), a second marriage may also be subject to annulment. Each marriage is subject to its own scrutiny if it ends up in a divorce case and is subsequently presented to a tribunal.

But the church presumes (until proof otherwise) that a marriage is a sacrament, so a second marriage would be presumed valid.

 

[otjm]

The problem is…for some theologians and canonists…is that who may teach infallibly is clearly taught by the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF, whom you refer to, do not possess the charism of teaching infallibly according to Catholic teaching (including Canon Law). So, there are in fact still diverse opinions on whether John Paul II’s teaching was taught infallibly. John Paul II did not make it clear (or, clear enough, apparently).

Vatican Congregations do not possess the charism of teaching infallibly. That’s simply Church teaching. So…in this specific instance…some would opine that a statement from the CDF that claims Pope John Paul II intended to teach infallibly may in fact not be completely true and binding on the faithful.

Please note, I am not saying that such teaching should not be followed. All Catholics should follow all teachings of the Magisterium. My point is simply limited to the issue of infallibility.

Cardinal Ratzinger may or may not share in the charism of infallibility as a bishop of the Church, teaching what the Magisterium propounds. In any event, he answered the question not in a vacuum or a s a matter of his own “poking his nose into the Pope’s business”, but at the behest of the Pope. And I do not know of any theologian who is true to the Magisterium who questions in the least the Cardinal’s answer. It was clear from the Pope’s statement that he was saying that the issue was infallible. Ratzinger simply clarified that it was infallible for De Fide, not for ex-cathedra.

The Cardinal does not have to have the charism of infallibility anyway, because he is not making an infallible statement - that was made by the Pope. He is simply clarifying that it is infallible due to the constantly held doctrine by the Church from its inception - coming from Tradition (and as I noted, implied in scripture, both New and Old Testament.

Identifying that a statement is infallible is a teaching act, not a defining act, and does not require infallibility to make a correct statement.

You are correct that there are theologians who are still trying to say the issue was not infallible. They have an agenda, to teach something other than what the Church teaches. their concern is not with the Faith, or with the Pope’s infallibility, but rather with shaping the Church into something new, with a different set of "doctrines’. They come (as much as I dislike the word) under the heading of Modernists.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Cardinal does not have to have the charism of infallibility anyway, because he is not making an infallible statement - that was made by the Pope. .

If the Pope made an infallible statement, why would clarification be necessary? No such clarification was needed for the Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

 

[otjm]

If the Pope made an infallible statement, why would clarification be necessary? No such clarification was needed for the Papal teachings on the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

The question was not whether he made an infallible statement of not, but rather, was the infallible statement which he made, an ex-cathedra statement.

That was the question which Cardinal Ratzinger was answering; and his answer was, no it was not ex-cathedra, and yes, it was infallible.

There are some who wish to beat the issue about the head and shoulders; primarily they reject that the answer was infallible.

And Cardinal Ratzinger does not need the charism of infallibility to answer it; the issue of the infallibility of the statement comes from De Fide, the long held teaching of the Church.

And as to the other two issues you have noted, it is held by theologians who follow the Magisterium that both were an exercise of papal infallibility in declaring a doctrine ex cathedra, and that neither of the issues was taught exclusively and infallibly by the Church either from Tradition or from Scripture.

I am sorry, it appears we are going over previously plowed ground, and I am not able to help you. There tends to be a good deal of misunderstanding among the faithful as to exactly what the charism of infallibility consists of, what are the sources of infallible statements within the Church, and how they are made manifest. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not get into it very much at all. If you still have questions, and the materials I ahve provided are not answering your questions, you may want to ask one of the apologists in a different area herein.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m sure you know that all that comes down to us from the apostles is not contained only in the Holy Bible but also in Holy Tradition. Since it is a fact that a second marriage has been granted commonly in the Church from very early days without any such thing as an annulment of the first marriage and that this practice is even referred to in the 1st Ecumenical Council wherein it says that Novations (who did not believe that there can be more than one valid marriage) are instructed that they must agree to commune with those who are “twice married” if they are to be allowed into Catholic unity. So either this is a valid practice handed down from the apostles of it is wrong and the pope should have by now said one way or the other to the whole Church if it be an acceptable Catholic practice morally and done so infallibly to end this long held controversy.

we don’t know if by “twice married” it means remarriage after the death of a spouse, or after divorce. Or did the Council specify?

**Originally Posted by JohnVIII **
Maybe that could even be a way that a Church court could annul a marriage if they could not find anything wrong with the marriage itself they could turn to the baptisms of the bride and groom and see if they could fine anything wrong with either of them. And if they did find some minor issue with one of the couples baptism they could declare that baptism annulled and then by virtue of this discovery that he/she is not a Christian they then can declare the marriage annulled!

Baptism and marriage are conferred in different ways…

the only way to make a baptism invalid is if water isn’t used, nor the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. It’s very difficult to baptize someone incorrectly if you know the right way to baptize.

With marriage, the spouses confer the Sacrament onto each other… so their intention matters… and it’s more complex.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

And teaching infallibly is…where in this statement?

John Paul II did not say he was making an ex cathedra statement in that teaching.

Ever since Vatican I Catholics have had this hang-up about infallibility. It used to be that people knew the faith of the Church - those things always held by all everywhere - to be irreformable. They didn’t need someone to write it out nice and neat. After Vatican I (and, more realistically, probably more like after Vatican II), people started saying, “Show me the specific infallible definition that made that irreformable.” But there has never been a need for an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium (whether of pope or council) for a tenet to be taught infallibly. That can also occur through what we call the “universal magisterium,” which essentially boils down to St. Vincent’s 3 criteria of belief by all, everywhere, always. Now, the Jesuits used to claim that one couldn’t be styled a heretic for doubting or opposing an infallible dogma that had not yet been defined, but the modern canonical definitions make no such tertium quid. They point only to contumacious doubt or denial of truths to be held de fide, and we know from (most recently) Vatican II that:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)” (LG 25). Note that the infallibility of the first statement is explicitly distinguished from that of an ecumenical council in the second statement.

The long and short of all that is that one can’t challenge the infallibility of a proposition simply by saying “show me an extraordinary definition.” Rather, if the universal teaching and acceptance of a teaching is generally presumed (as it is with the indissolubility of marriage), one can only challenge its infallibility on the basis of weighty authorities that would seem to disrupt the universal teaching and acceptance of the same.

I’m sure you know that all that comes down to us from the apostles is not contained only in the Holy Bible but also in Holy Tradition. Since it is a fact that a second marriage has been granted commonly in the Church from very early days without any such thing as an annulment of the first marriage and that this practice is even referred to in the 1st Ecumenical Council wherein it says that Novations (who did not believe that there can be more than one valid marriage) are instructed that they must agree to commune with those who are “twice married” if they are to be allowed into Catholic unity. So either this is a valid practice handed down from the apostles of it is wrong and the pope should have by now said one way or the other to the whole Church if it be an acceptable Catholic practice morally and done so infallibly to end this long held controversy.

I’ve noticed a trend throughout your posts referring to multiple (i.e. second and third, etc.) marriages, but this was the first that outright confirmed you might be confused in how you read your patristic sources. The issue with the Novatians was not divorce and remarriage but remarriage after death. The gist of the belief is that marriage is a concession to youthful libido in the first place. Once you’ve been married and gotten it out of your system, it’s downright shameful to seek such fleshliness again. The Church, on the other hand, while many may have agreed with the overall sentiment, has always taught that the marriage bond lasts only for the life of the spouses, and that once one spouse dies the other is free - sacramentally capable - to marry again. The Easterners were much more uneasy about this proposition than were the Westerners, however, which is why we often find the Eastern Fathers - such as St. Basil - having to defend the validity of second and even third marriages.

CANON VlI.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

Although otjm has long been fighting the battle against a need for a specific definition, the Council of Trent does indeed provide one here concerning the indissolubility of marriage. Here the Church infallibly defines that marriage cannot be dissolved, even for the exception of porneia - most commonly read as adultery or fornication - included in (and only in) Matthew’s Gospel. The definition is thus meant to cover all cases of divorce and remarriage, because Christ is so unequivocal in his teaching that this specific exception is the only one that could possibly be in line with Scripture. Having ruled out that one case, the fathers of Trent ruled out all others with it.

 

[JohnVIII]

My ‘homework’ is done, I’m ready to finish this matter in regards to a 2nd marriage after the dissolving of a valid 1st marriage.

JohnVIII, is it a fact that the church has granted second marriage commonly outside of the Petrine and Pauline priviledges? References please. I had thought that canon 8 of the Nicea Council (not the first ecumenical council, was it?) referred to these circumstances. I coould be wrong but would have to be shown.

Can you cite an early example of a marriage being dissolved and then a second marriage being permitted? I had not heard of this before.

Does “twice married” definitely mean “married again after a divorce,” while the first spouse is alive, or could it mean “married again after the death of the first spouse”?

Usagi

As it has been pointed out by [user]tafan[/user] Rome does not fully accept The Council of Trullo (691 AD) for reasons that I still have need to understand. In the books that I have to go by it is also referred to as “The 6th Ecumenical Council”, and I was under the understanding that Rome recognized all of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as true and valid. Nevertheless, the practices referred to in The Council of Trullo go back to earlier times. A good portion of it came from the canons of St. Basil (4th Century).

St. Basil calls a second marriage “digamy” and a 3rd marriage is called “trigamy”. In Canon 4 of St Basil he says that those married twice can commune after one year. Canon 12 does not permit digamists to become priests.

Canon 18 of St Basil: “…it is true that our Fathers, naively and meekly making allowances for the weaknesses of the lapsable, laid down a law thst they [monks who left and married] are to be admissible after a year, having treated the matter in the same vein as that of digamists. St Basil stopped this practice with monastics, but the words do help make clear what the Church’s practice is regarding digamy.

St Basil used the term polygamy to refer to 3 or more marriages (not 2) because the were Church laws regarding first and second marriages, but none for 3 or more. Canon 50 says, “There is no law as to third marriages, so that a third marriage is not subject to any law… but we do not bring them to public trials, on the ground that they are preferable to lax fornication.”

And canon 87 explains that “The Second marriage is meant to relieve people form the necessity of fornication, not to serve as a passport to lechery”. And then St Basil quotes 1st Corintians 7:9 “If they cannot restrain their passions, let them marry”.

This should be enough to show that, at least in the east, there were laws that allowed for the possibility for a man to have two valid marriages. I think it was also clear that much of these matters were regulated different in the east then they were in Rome. As it says in Canon 3 of The Council of Trullo “…seeing that the most holy Church of the Romans is disposed to observe the Canon of strict conformity; while on the other hand, we under the throne of this God-guarded and imperial capital city, have neither carried meekness to excess nor have left an acrid impression of austerity…”.

I have to conclude that although the popes never seemed to like the idea of permitting two valid marriages they never imposed a law over the whole Catholic Church in this regard, only in the West. And, of course, unless the pope is speaking for the whole Church we cannot for sure conclude that he speaks infallibly.

 

[otjm]

St. Basil calls a second marriage “digamy” and a 3rd marriage is called “trigamy”. In Canon 4 of St Basil he says that those married twice can commune after one year. Canon 12 does not permit digamists to become priests.

That is (in a certain sense) consistent with the current practice of the Eastern Catholic churches, and with the Roman rite in reference to the few priests who are married (convert ministers for Protestant practices, primarily Anglican/Episcopalian) and the permanent deacons. None of them (with extremely few exceptions) are allowed to remarry. While it is not exactly the same, it certainly runs parallel (as your note goes to ordaining a man in his second marriage).

 

[Usagi]

St. Basil calls a second marriage “digamy” and a 3rd marriage is called “trigamy”. In Canon 4 of St Basil he says that those married twice can commune after one year. Canon 12 does not permit digamists to become priests.

Okay, that’s good information.

The question remains, though – do we know that these digamists and trigamists were married again after divorce, or were they married again after the deaths of their first or second spouses? The latter remains a way to have two sequential valid marriages even in the West.

An earlier poster suggests that your citations from Nicea regarding the Novatians in fact refer to remarriage after one is widowed, not after divorce. Is it possible that St. Basil is also referring to that situation?

(I admit, the reference to the policy being stricter under Rome does suggest we are talking about divorce rather than widowhood, but obviously we need to be sure if we are going to settle this question.)

Usagi

 

[JohnVIII]

Okay, that’s good information.

The question remains, though – do we know that these digamists and trigamists were married again after divorce, or were they married again after the deaths of their first or second spouses? The latter remains a way to have two sequential valid marriages even in the West.

An earlier poster suggests that your citations from Nicea regarding the Novatians in fact refer to remarriage after one is widowed, not after divorce. Is it possible that St. Basil is also referring to that situation?

(I admit, the reference to the policy being stricter under Rome does suggest we are talking about divorce rather than widowhood, but obviously we need to be sure if we are going to settle this question.)

Usagi

I honestly don’t have enough information to answer this question. But everything that I ever read or experienced by tradition points in the direction that it is both while the spouses were alive as well as when one passed away. For example, the rule set down that a priest my not be married twice it spells out that this is true even if one of his wives has passed away, and further more even if he was married only once and his wife was married before (whether or not her former husband is alive or not) then he may not be made a priest.

After I re-read these canons I forgot that a second marriage was even called “Digamy”. And I hate to bring this aspect of it up but I think it may have even been possible that there were cases where a man may have had two wives at the same time without a divorce. I myself very nearly got married a second time before my Church divorce was finalized. Everyone involved in this matter wanted to go through with it, only I objected because I did not think that it would be proper to marry until after the divorce. Had I accepted the proposal there would have been a time period that I would have been married to two women at the same time up until the divorce of the first was finalized.

I don’t have records at my disposal of actual marriages that have occurred centuries ago, but I’m not willing to assume that the customs currently in place in the Eastern Orthodox Church are alterations of the customs passed down from much earlier times. As far as the issues of ‘divorce’ or the dissolving of a valid marriage. There are cases where this has happened. For example, a married priest may be made a bishop if (by mutual consent) he and his wife are divorced first. It is also required that both become monastics as well. (See canon 48 of The Council of Trullo). In the footnotes of the book I am using to read of these canons is says that ‘Leo the wise’ in ‘Novel 20’ said the same thing. But, of course, this is a case were there is no interest in marrying again. The canons do not encourage a second marriage, they only permit it under certain circumstances. So, in the case where a man has lost his wife through no fault of his who wishes to marry again (though his first wife is still alive) believing that he cannot contain himself (1st Corintians 7:9) my do so, but with the understanding that it is a penitential marriage and the couple may not commune for one year for becoming digamists. But after one year they commune in the Church.

I brought this whole thread up because I can’t help but wonder if after the re-union of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Churches whether or not Rome would require the Eastern Churches make changes to their practices with regard to these issues of marriage and divorce, or perhaps the pope may have already spoken about this and perhaps has made it clear that changes would be required of the East prior to re-union.

I think it would be interesting to note that at the 2nd Vatican Council there were some bishops there from the Melkite Church that made a proposal there (that was rejected) about this issue that has come to be know commonly today as “the Zoghby Initiative”. Here’s a quote of the proposal, “We know how much the Fathers of the Eastern Church tried to dissuade widowers and widows from a second marriage, thus following the Apostle’s advice, but they have never wished to deprive the innocent spouse who has been unjustly abandoned of the right to remarry. This tradition, preserved in the East, and which was never reproved during the ten centuries of union, could be accepted again and adopted by Catholics. Progress in patristic studies has indeed brought to the fore the doctrine of the Eastern Fathers who were no less qualified exegetes or moralists than the Western ones”. Note that the claim of the bishops who made this proposal said that “…was never reproved during the ten centuries of union…”.

I do very much wish to thank all of you who have had (name removed by moderator)ut on this matter. I do have personal reasons why this issue is important to me and I do want to remain in agreement with Rome on all essential issues. Thanks!

 

[otjm]

I brought this whole thread up because I can’t help but wonder if after the re-union of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Churches whether or not Rome would require the Eastern Churches make changes to their practices with regard to these issues of marriage and divorce, or perhaps the pope may have already spoken about this and perhaps has made it clear that changes would be required of the East prior to re-union.

I suspect that this issue might be better handled in the forum of Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Churches by and large (with the exception of the Maronite, and those others which had broken off prior to 1054) most likely would have had this issue to be resolved when they reunited, or at some time subsequently. I know the Eastern Churches have their own Code(s?) of Canon law, so it may be that the answer is there (in the Code), or in the history of getting to that point.

Not trying to derail the discussion, but that forum is more likely to be a source of information about this issue than Liturgy and Sacraments. Can it be transferred? The question is interesting since it is a matter(for you) of coming from the Orthodox tradition rather than one of the reunited Eastern Churches.

 

[SimonDodd]

I was also interested in reading your first link wherein it says that Rome only recognized 50 of the 85 Apostolic Canons! Wow! I wonder which 50 those are! You know the 85 canons of the Holy Apostles were first put together and edited by St. Clement, Bishop of Rome. I wonder why Rome, because of St. Clement, would not recognize all 85?

False premise. The attribution of the canons to the Apostles and Clement was received uncritically in earlier times, but has been discredited for more than a century.

 

[diggerdomer]

Civil annulments are very infrequent, but the law does exist under Which a civil court might grant one.

I’m not aware of any “civil annulments”…my understanding is that “annulment” is a specifically Catholic term. Not civil. Civil authorities may grant divorces, or separations, or similar…but annulments? Please clarify. thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Cardinal Ratzinger may or may not share in the charism of infallibility as a bishop of the Church, teaching what the Magisterium propounds.

NO, it’s quite clear according to Catholic teaching, as prefect of the CDF he does not teach infallibly.

Ratzinger simply clarified that it was infallible for De Fide, not for ex-cathedra.

I have no idea what you mean, relevant to Church teaching and Canon Law, with that statement. Can you please clarify? Thanks.

The Cardinal does not have to have the charism of infallibility anyway, because he is not making an infallible statement - that was made by the Pope.

If it was made by the Pope, then why did the CDF have to come out later and say the same thing? Why was clarification necessary? Nothing similar was necessary following Pius IX’s declaration of the Immaculate Conception, nor Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumtion. So what’s the difference?

You are correct that there are theologians who are still trying to say the issue was not infallible. They have an agenda, to teach something other than what the Church teaches. their concern is not with the Faith, or with the Pope’s infallibility, but rather with shaping the Church into something new, with a different set of "doctrines’. They come (as much as I dislike the word) under the heading of Modernists.

Your and my disagreeing with certain theologians does not make them wrong