Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theMutant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
theMutant:
I’m glad you are getting value from this discussion. I am as well. My personal opinion regarding John Paul II is that he is too humble to ever intend to make an infallible declaration.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about Pope John Paul II.

Here is an article on papal infallibility from EWTN that makes the pope’s intentions a key factor in whether a teaching is being promulgated infallibly:
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.
Click to expand...
Now EWTN isn’t the magisterium, but at least I’m closing in on why I’ve always thought the pope’s intentions mattered.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I think the frustration of many, mayself included, comes from this… What does it matter?
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal! Did you read the links in my post # 9 to the articles written by Hans Küng and Peter Burns, S.J.?

Cardinal Ratzinger has shot himself in the foot by saying by saying , “… an act of he ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”

Look at the argument that Father Burns is making:

Ordinatio sacerdotalis was declared by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be a teaching act that was, and I quote, “not itself infallible.” It was made explicit by the Congregation at the press conference held to publicize its Responsio ad dubium (relating to the Apostolic Letter) that ordinatio sacerdotalis was NOT an exercise of the pope’s extraordinary infallible magisterium.

So what we have is:
  1. No ex cathedra infallible papal teaching about women’s ordination;
  2. No infallibly defined dogma of an ecumenical council concerning women’s ordination;
  3. A fallible opinion to the effect that the ban on women’s ordination has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.
The Ordination of Women: Infallibly Taught?

Father Burns is arguing that in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that Pope John Paul II has merely given us his fallible pious opinion that women cannot be ordained. The Pope might be right, and the Pope might be wrong. Hans Küng is basically making the same argument; the Pope has merely given us his fallible pious opinion, and nothing was settled by the Pope promulgating Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. This type of arguement totally undermines the teaching authority of the Pope, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger that opened the door for continuing dissent on this matter.

Cardinal Ratzinger said that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is “an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible”, but Cardinal Ratzinger did not posses the charism of infallibility when he made that statement. In this case, I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger has blundered, and is, in fact, wrong.

I believe that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis meets all the criteria for being an infallible teaching by a Pope as taught by Vatican I:

… the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra… when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church …

Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, ch. 4
Cardinal Ratzinger’s whole argument hinges on the meaning of “defines” in the sentence quoted above. Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that the Pope’s teaching of OS was NOT done by a “definitive act”. There are other orthodox theologians that argue quite forcefully that the teaching of OS meets the criteria of a definitive act by a Pope.

The question of whether OS meets the requirements of an infallible papal teaching has been discussed on this thread: Papal Infallibility - Specifics

Vincent has posted some links to orthodox theologians that argue against the stance that Cardinal Ratzinger has taken.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
He [John Paul II] seems to be saying that he did not exercise his ex cathedra authority when he promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. It seems to me he did, through my rather non-authenic interpretation of the text, yet HE seems to be telling us the authentic interpretation should be understood otherwise. And since only the Magisterium is vested with authentically interpreting magisterial documents of the past, it seems their opinion trumps any contrary opinion. When I find myself disagreeing with the Pope, I find it most prudent to change my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that he intended to exercise his authority ex cathedra. It is indeed prudent to conform to the teaching authority of the Church; however, that does not mean that you have to agree with every statement because not every statement is an authoritative teaching. To digress to another topic on which we debated, I don’t have to agree with the pope’s assertions that the changes to the liturgy of the mass have been a wonderful thing for the Church. I have to accept that the pope has the authority to make such changes and that they did not invalidate the mass in any way, but not that they were, ultimately a good thing.

Jumping back on topic now, I have to agree with the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis but I don’t have to agree that it was not infallible because he did not intend it to be. To assert that I must (not that you actually asserted it) goes beyond the requirements of the faith and beyond the definition infallibly set forth by Vatican I. It is true that only the Magisterium has the authentic authority to interpret the teachings of the magisterium, but the Church has always held that the faithful can, in good conscience, disagree with the magisterium on matters that have not been infallibly defined. While the criteria of what constitutes infallible papal teaching has been infallibly defined, the question of whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis meets that criteria has not.

I concede that, due to the divine authority of the magisterium, a Catholic should only disagree with the magisterium after very serious consideration of all of the facts and, I hope, that I have done this. In fact, this thread is a further opportunity for me to consider the facts. Remember that infallibly defined dogmas cannot be reformed even by the magisterium. Vatican I infallibly defined the dogma of what constitutes papal infallibility and did so in a very clear an unambiguous way.

The magisterium has stated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium but it has not given any explanation of how it failed to meet the infallible criteria set forth by Vatican I. THAT is what I am looking for. In what way does Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not meet that criteria. The authoritative magisterium has proclaimed mistakes in the past (of course, these proclamations did not meet the criteria of infalibility). Pope Xozimus (spelling?) is a favorite example of the Protestants. At one point, he declared that Pelagius was not a heritic. He reversed that decision because the bishops and the faithful disagreed with his judgment in the matter and convinced him.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
It matters a great deal! Did you read the links in my post # 9 to the articles written by Hans Küng and Peter Burns, S.J.?

Cardinal Ratzinger has shot himself in the foot by saying by saying , “… an act of he ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”
…
Father Burns is arguing that in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that Pope John Paul II has merely given us his fallible pious opinion that women cannot be ordained. The Pope might be right, and the Pope might be wrong. Hans Küng is basically making the same argument; the Pope has merely given us his fallible pious opinion, and nothing was settled by the Pope promulgating Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. This type of arguement totally undermines the teaching authority of the Pope, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger that opened the door for continuing dissent on this matter.
Click to expand...
I don’t care what Hans Küng and Peter Burns, S.J. have to say on the matter. Even if I’m wrong and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an example of infallible teaching, the other conclusions, that argue the teaching regarding the Church not having the authority to ordain women is not infallible and is still open for debate, simply don’t follow. This teaching was part of the infallible deposit of the faith before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis just as was the dogma of the Assumption before Munificentissimus Deus.

There will always be those who dissent from the teaching authority of the Church and, even if the pope had written “by virtue of my ministry of confiming the bretheren I infallibly declare…,” there would be dissenters arguing against the statement and its infallible nature.
 
Matt16_18: “Here are two articles that show how the dissenters are having a field day with the wishy-washy postion that Cardinal Ratzinger is trying to stake out (i.e. the Pope didn’t speak infallibly in declaring that it is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that women cannot receive the Sacrament of Ordination).”

Catholic 2003: “I don’t think it is fair to blame Cardinal Ratzinger for this. It was the Holy Father himself who chose not to exercise papal infallibility in issuing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; Cardinal Ratzinger is merely doing the best he can given this circumstance.”

How do Catholics know that Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t just giving us his own mistaken opinion? Cardinal Ratzinger doesn’t possess the charism of infallibility when he teaches.

I have the highest regard for Cardinal Ratzinger as a theologian. I must admit that I am quite uncomfortable in saying that I think Cardinal Ratzinger made a theological mistake, but that is what I truly believe.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Catholic 2003: “I don’t think it is fair to blame Cardinal Ratzinger for this. It was the Holy Father himself who chose not to exercise papal infallibility in issuing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis; Cardinal Ratzinger is merely doing the best he can given this circumstance.”

How do Catholics know that Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t just giving us his own mistaken opinion? Cardinal Ratzinger doesn’t possess the charism of infallibility when he teaches.
Click to expand...
We know that Ratzinger’s opinion is shared by the pope because the pope approved the response that Ratzinger gave. This was not merely the opinion of a Cardinal and theologian but an official document of the Roman Curia which is an official office of the papacy and which, I believe, only issues such statements with the approval of the pope.

I don’t think that anyone is arguing that the explanations given regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis are infallible; especially those who are arguing that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible to begin with.
 
the Mutant
  • I don’t care what Hans Küng and Peter Burns, S.J. have to say on the matter.*
You should care, because you need to be able to answer the arguments that Küng and Burns are making.
  • Even if I’m wrong and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an example of infallible teaching, the other conclusions, that argue the teaching regarding the Church not having the authority to ordain women is not infallible and is still open for debate, simply don’t follow. This teaching was part of the infallible deposit of the faith before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis just as was the dogma of the Assumption before Munificentissimus Deus.*
If you would read the articles by Hans Küng and Peter Burns, S.J., you would see why the argument that you have just given falls apart.

It is quite true that the teaching that Mary was immaculately conceived was part of the deposit of the faith before that particular dogma was explicitly declared by a papal ex cathedra teaching. Neither papal ex cathedra statements, nor ecumenical councils, can add anything to the deposit of the faith; at most, they can only make explicit what is implicit in the deposit of the faith. But the question of whether Mary was immaculately conceived was a matter of legitimate theological debate within the Church for many hundreds of years before that question was definitively settled.

Küng and Burns are arguing that the question of whether women can be ordained has still not been definitively settled, and they are using a quotes by Cardinal Ratzinger to back up their claims. The particular question that is being debated is this: Is the restriction that women cannot be ordained a matter of faith, or a matter of discipline?

I think that the pope has definitively settled this issue for all time by issuing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. I think that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an example of the Pope exercising his papal Magisterium in a matter of faith, and that he has taught infallibly that women cannot be ordained.
 
the Mutant

I don’t have to agree with the pope’s assertions that the changes to the liturgy of the mass have been a wonderful thing for the Church. I have to accept that the pope has the authority to make such changes and that they did not invalidate the mass in any way, but not that they were, ultimately a good thing.

Bad analogy. The changes to the Mass that you are speaking about are matters of discipline, not doctrine. The next pope would be free to reverse all these changes, because infallibility does not apply to matters of discipline.

Pope John Paul II has addressed the whole church and declared that women cannot be ordained, and that this is a matter of faith, not discipline. No future pope can ever reverse this decision. Rome has spoken.
  • I concede that, due to the divine authority of the magisterium, a Catholic should only disagree with the magisterium after very serious consideration of all of the facts …*
In matters of faith, no Catholic can disagree with what the Magisterium has taught.

The magisterium has stated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium …

The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger is NOT the Magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinions should be respected because he is the Prefect of the CDF, but his theological opinions are not infallible teachings of the Magesterium.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
… when Cardinal Ratzinger states: "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," isn’t that equally true of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary prior to *Munificentissimus Deus? Or any other defined dogma? De fide *dogmas don’t “arise with the publication” of such as *Munificentissimus Deus, *but are always *fides divina *and/or *fides catholica *prior to becoming *de fide definita. *I guess I still don’t see the distinction between the two papal pronouncements.
Click to expand...
Good points! 👍

I also cannot see the distinction between Munificentissimus Deus and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. :confused:
 
40.png
theMutant:
Ah, but the Pope DID intend to teach by virtue of his authority and he said so in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The document doesn’t say that he must intend to teach infallibly
Click to expand...
For popes prior to Vatican I, this was a big difference, as it would be very unlikely for a pope to intend to teach infallibly before the doctrine of papal infallibly had been explicitly defined.

However, since Vatican I, I find it hard to believe than any pope could be so ignorant of the conditions of papal infallibility that he could intend to meet each of the listed conditions yet somehow not intend to be teaching infallibly. Thus my position is that when Pope John Paul II, through Cardinal Ratzinger, asserts that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible act of the extraordinary papal magisterium, it is because of his personal knowledge of his own intentions, as opposed any kind of theological analysis of the text of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
For popes prior to Vatican I, this was a big difference, as it would be very unlikely for a pope to intend to teach infallibly before the doctrine of papal infallibly had been explicitly defined.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… No one seems to doubt that Pope Pius IX’s constitution *Ineffabilis Deus * was the infallible ex cathedra teaching that promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Ineffabilis Deus was written before Vatican I.
40.png
Catholic2003:
However, since Vatican I, I find it hard to believe than any pope could be so ignorant of the conditions of papal infallibility that he could intend to meet each of the listed conditions yet somehow not intend to be teaching infallibly. Thus my position is that when Pope John Paul II, through Cardinal Ratzinger, asserts that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible act of the extraordinary papal magisterium, it is because of his personal knowledge of his own intentions, as opposed any kind of theological analysis of the text of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
Click to expand...
How can a Catholic know if the Pope actually agrees with what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?

There is a big difference between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter, Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and say, Dominus Iesus that was also issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF. Dominus Iesus is signed by the Pope, whereas Ratzinger’s letter, Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not signed by the Pope.

Shouldn’t the criteria of whether a papal encyclical contains an infallible teaching be determined by the contents of the encyclical, and not by letters written by men that do not possess the charism of infallibility?
 
theMutant,
Pope DID intend to teach by virtue of his authority and he said so in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
Click to expand...
Have you considered that the authority he intended was not that of a “solemn” authority? He wears many hats. He can exercise magisterial authority in an ordinary way, or he can exercise magisterial authority in an extraordinary way. Notice that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the resondsums regarding it from the CDF do not ever speak of “solemn” authority being exercised.

I think that may be the difference. The pope can speak as the pope without exercising an extraordinary (solemn) magisterial authority, but simply an ordinary magisterial authority. It would be then similar to my Bishop, the voice of the ordinary magisterium within my diocese, writing a letter stating the same teaching as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, speaking from his sacerdotal chair, but in an ordinary magisterial role.

As I review the difference in language between Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Munificentissimus Deus, I find that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis nowhere states that it is a solemn proclamation or definition, whereas Munificentissimus Deus clearly does.

So, It may not be merely “intent” that Cardinal Ratzinger is considering, but the content of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the authentic interpretation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as judged by the Ordinary Magisterium, to which Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope are vested.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
For popes prior to Vatican I, this was a big difference, as it would be very unlikely for a pope to intend to teach infallibly before the doctrine of papal infallibly had been explicitly defined.
Click to expand...
I cannot agree with your conclusion because the doctrine of papal infallibility was already a doctrine of the Church before it was dogmatically defined. Even if the previous poes did not think “I’m going to infallibly teach something” to themselves, they clearly intended to do so every time they authoritatively taught on a matter of faith or morals and bound all Catholics everywhere and for all time to that teaching. To say that it is unlikely that they intended to teach infallibly when making such a declaration doesn’t make much sense. I admit that it is possible to do so without that intention, but to say that no pope could have doesn’t add up for me.

HAVING SAID THAT …

I must admit that you have all presented some very good points and I will have to sit back and reflect on them for a while. Please feel free to carry on the discussion until I return to it (as if I could stop anyone! :rotfl: )

Thanks! 🙂
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
theMutant,
Have you considered that the authority he intended was not that of a “solemn” authority? He wears many hats. He can exercise magisterial authority in an ordinary way, or he can exercise magisterial authority in an extraordinary way. Notice that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the resondsums regarding it from the CDF do not ever speak of “solemn” authority being exercised.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that works. There is no formula that a pope must invoke in his writings to alert the brethren that he is intending to teach ex cathedra.

Pope John Paul II was formally addressing the whole church in a matter faith that was under dispute. From my understanding of what constitutes a solemn pronouncement by a pope, OS meets all the requirements for an ex cathedra teaching.

If a pope cannot speak infallibly when combating errors regarding mattes of faith, when can he speak infallibly?
 
40.png
theMutant:
I must admit that you have all presented some very good points and I will have to sit back and reflect on them for a while. Please feel free to carry on the discussion until I return to it (as if I could stop anyone! :rotfl: )

Thanks! 🙂
Click to expand...
You started this thread with an argument that OS is actually an infallible teaching by a pope.

I seem to be arguing with you a lot on this thread, but actually, I agree with you that OS contains an infallible ex cathedra teaching by Pope John Paul II. 🙂 The infallible teaching by the Pope is that women cannot be ordained, because this is a matter of faith, and not merely a restriction of changable Church discipline. The pope explicitly addressed this issue of the discipline vs. faith controversy, and it is clear that the Pope’s intent was to settle this controversy for the whole church.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a sentence in his letter, Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that would seem to indicate that OS is a fallible exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium. My point is that I don’t necessarily have to accept THAT statement by Cardinal Ratzinger as an infallible pronouncement.

If Pope John Paul II has only given us his fallible pious opinion that women cannot be ordained, then who is to say that a Catholic cannot accept the arguments of Father Burns that the pope has made a mistake? Neither Father Burns nor Cardinal Ratzinger possesses the charism of infallibility.

One may choose to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger is correct, but what is the basis for believing that he has not made an error? What is the basis for rejecting Father Burns’ arguement if Cardinal Ratzinger is correct?
 
40.png
theMutant:
I cannot agree with your conclusion because the doctrine of papal infallibility was already a doctrine of the Church before it was dogmatically defined.
Click to expand...
Historically, I don’t know of any infallible papal declaration made prior to Vatican I that was recognized at the time as being infallible. I believe that this is why the Vatican I council did not make “intending to make an infallible declaration” an explicit condition for the exercise of papal infallibility, even though it would be a logical necessity for any post-Vatican I papal declarations.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
As I review the difference in language between Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Munificentissimus Deus, I find that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis nowhere states that it is a solemn proclamation or definition, whereas Munificentissimus Deus clearly does.
Click to expand...
There are minor differences in language between Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Munificentissimus Deus, but the only unmistakable, definitive difference between the two lies in the papal intent, which is why I keep on focusing on that as the key factor.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
So, It may not be merely “intent” that Cardinal Ratzinger is considering, but the content of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the authentic interpretation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as judged by the Ordinary Magisterium, to which Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope are vested.
Click to expand...
I admit that this is also a possibility. I would still be interested in any theological discussion of whether it is possible for a post-Vatican I papal declaration to be infallible against the intent of its author, independent of the specific language of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
40.png
Matt16_18:
Shouldn’t the criteria of whether a papal encyclical contains an infallible teaching be determined by the contents of the encyclical, and not by letters written by men that do not possess the charism of infallibility?
Click to expand...
The validity of many of the sacraments depends on the intent of the ministers of those sacraments. For example, a Baptist and a Mormon can each perform a baptism, using the same words and the same matter (i.e., water), yet because of the differences in their intent, one is valid while the other is invalid. Two Catholic couples can marry using the same priest, the same ceremony, the same vows, etc., yet one could be valid and the other invalid if the intent of the one of the parties is defective. The intent of the priest is key in confecting the Eucharist.

So while the intent of the pope in proclaiming a teaching may be completely irrelevant in determining whether that teaching is an exercise of papal infallibility, I see no a priori to assume that that is the case.
 
Catholic 2003

So what was the Pope’s intent in writing OS? Did he intend to merely give us his own personal and fallible opinion that women can’t be ordained? Is the teaching in OS a pious opinion that we should respect because it has come from a learned man, with the implicit understanding that the issue of women’s ordination is still open for debate among theologians? Is it remotely possible that the restriction against women receiving the Sacrament of Ordination really is nothing more than a discipline of the church?

Or did the Pope intend to exercise the teaching authority vested in his office to settle a disputed point about a matter of faith?

What do the words written in OS reveal about the Pope’s intent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top