Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theMutant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theMutant

The reasoning of Christopher Wong that was quoted in deogratia’s post #89 is just about identical to your reasoning in post #1.

Christopher Wong quotes Father Sullivan about the meaning of the word “definitive”, and this definition is germane to your thread:
A word on the phrase “definitive.” The root word for “define” here is “finis,” meaning “end” or “limit.” Defining a doctrine "puts an end to freedom of opinion on the matter, and sets limits to the communion of faith."c.f. Sullivan, Magisterium p. 60.
It is clear that in OS that Pope John Paul II intended to stop a debate that was confusing the brethren concerning a matter of faith. It was the Pope’s intention in writing OS for the dissenting theologians to cease raising the argument that the restriction on women’s ordination is merely a disciplinary matter. It was the pope’s intention that the faithful accept the teaching that women can never be ordained.

Father Sullivan’s understanding of the meaning of “define” includes what the Fathers of Vatican I intended when they spoke about the Pope defining a doctrine, i.e. “the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, … he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.”

In Father Sullivan’s sense of “define”, Pope John Paul II defined this dogma in OS: “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”.
When Pope John Paul II defined this dogma, he was not just giving us his fallible opinion on this matter, he was teaching infallibly that this is a dogma of the Church. It is true that this dogma has been infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. It is also true that the pope infalliby confirmed that this is a dogma of the faith.
 
CORRECTION

Please note that in my previous posts I indicated that I was quoting from Professio fidei. In fact, I was quoting from the “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI” that Catholic2003 linked to in post #72.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
 
Mutant: if there wasomething I said that seemed impertinent, or worse, I apologize. I was, and am very limited in the amount of time I can devote, and I find the htread fascinating.

I quoted a prior pope, in that there seems to be no question that he was saying in no uncertain terms “define it to be divinely revealed dogma.” I am wellaware of language changes, but don’t consider language to have changed that much; that statement is black and white.

Oops. Gotta go. More later.
 
Catholic2003 in post #72:
Regarding the first sentence above, I think that “believed as divinely revealed” is my Level A, and “held definitively” is my Level B.
Click to expand...
Regarding what you in this post and how it relates to what you wrote in post #61.

In post 61, you state that Level A is required for a pope to teach infallibly but that is not what the document actually says. What you are describing as different levels of teaching (Levels A and B) are not so described in the document you cite. The document is describing different levels of truths (divinely revealed vs. those to be definitively held).

According to section 5 of that document, divinely revealed truths “are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

According to section 6 of that document, truths to be definitively held “can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.”

Divinely revealed truths are those which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed (section 5). Truths which are to be difinitively held are all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed (section 6).

However, both can be infallibly taught by a pope and “With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).” (section 8)

Munificentissimus Deus deals with a divinely revealed truth. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis deals with a truth to be definitively held. However, both levels of truth can be infallibly taught as well as taught through the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
 
A comment on truths that are “divinely revealed vs. those to be definitively held”.

The Magisterium of the Church can teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Some truths of the faith can only be known because God has divinely revealed those truths, e.g. the Trinitarian nature of God. Other truths of the faith that are the object of infallible teaching can be known by man through the natural law - no divine revelation is necessary to know those truths, e.g. murder is a sin. A third object of infallible teachings of the Church are the truths of reason:

Truths of Reason, which have not been formally revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with a revealed truth, e.g., those philosophic truths which are presuppositions of the acts of Faith (knowledge of the supersensual, possibility of proofs of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of the will), or philosophic concepts, in terms of which dogma is promulgated (person, substance, transubstantiation, etc.) The Church has the right and the duty, for the protection of the heritage of the Faith, of proscribing philosophic teachings which directly or indirectly endanger dogma.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Introduction, section 6, “Catholic Truths”.

Since the Magisterium can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, the object of infallible teachings extends to both that which is divinely revealed, moral truths that are known by the natural law, and the truths of reason. This paragraph quoted by theMutant sums up my above comments:

Divinely revealed truths are those which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed (section 5). Truths which are to be definitively held are all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed (section 6).
40.png
theMutant:
… both levels of truth can be infallibly taught as well as taught through the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Click to expand...
👍
 
**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2035** The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. [77]

77 Cf. LG 25; CDF, declaration, Mysterium Ecclesiae 3.
 
Mutant: Sorry this is disjointed. I was saying that the language I quoted made it clear that the pope intended to define docrine ex cathedra. I do not see the same or similar language indicating an intent to excercise papal infallibility. As I read the language, What I see is very emphatic language that this is a doctrine of the Church, always held, and the equivalent of “enough is enough”. As smart as JP2 is, and as astute as he has been over his papacy, he is eminently capable of letting the world know if he is speaking ex cathedra. I don’t see language indicating that, nor do the subsequent communications indicate that. Therefore I am well satisfied that he has stated, in his teaching authority, a continually held doctrine of the church without using the charism of infallibility.

I commented about the red herring; I was intending more towards what I see as the dissenting theologians apparent desire for black and white statments. I say apparent, because I don’t think they want him to speak ex cathedra on the matter because it would be the line in the sand for them. And I think that they get everyone off track by focusing on the issue that the Pope’s statement was a fallible opinion; they are making a straw man. the purpose of the straw man is to effectively deny the third issue of infallibility; that of the constant teaching of the Church. The Pope is not stating a fallible opinion. He is stating a fact. And facts are not fallible or infallible; they are facts. If the only way we can get to what has been constantly held by the Church is to have the Pope define it ex cathedra, then the third form of infallibility has ben effectivley done away with and the staement of Vatican 2 is meaningless.

The Pope has the authority to censure those who are denying doctrine. I see this more as a lead-in to censure than as an ifallible statement.

I think the discussion has been fascinating. It is a very relevant question in terms of the authority of the document. But I don’t see it as an infallible statement.
 
40.png
otm:
I was saying that the language I quoted made it clear that the pope intended to define docrine ex cathedra. I do not see the same or similar language indicating an intent to excercise papal infallibility. As I read the language, What I see is very emphatic language that this is a doctrine of the Church, always held, and the equivalent of “enough is enough”. As smart as JP2 is, and as astute as he has been over his papacy, he is eminently capable of letting the world know if he is speaking ex cathedra. I don’t see language indicating that, nor do the subsequent communications indicate that. Therefore I am well satisfied that he has stated, in his teaching authority, a continually held doctrine of the church without using the charism of infallibility.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, would the Pope have to do differently in OS to teach ex cathedra?

Where are Catholics supposed to find the “official rules” that let us know that the Pope didn’t speak ex cathedra in OS?

Orthodox Catholics want to know the answers to these questions!
40.png
otm:
The Pope is not stating a fallible opinion. He is stating a fact. And facts are not fallible or infallible; they are facts.
Click to expand...
The pope formally addressed the whole church in a matter of faith. Either the pope gave the church his fallible opinion about a matter of faith in OS, or he gave the church an infallible teaching about a matter of faith. I don’t see how there can be some sort of in between position where the pope is merely stating “facts” about a matter of faith.
 
NO. The poll results so far do not surprise me. I have the feeling that most of the users of this forum consider all or at least most of what the Pope says to be infallible. I do not, and I think any careful student of the subject would agree with me.
Probably the only infallible statements pronounced in recent times are those on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I have no problem with the doctrine of papal infallibility but I think it was unfortunate that it was formally declared because it has opened the field to all kinds of minsunderstandings within and without the Church.
This is not to deny that the Magisterium does not have teaching authority. It most certainly does. I think its rulings are binding on all Catholics.
As to whether the canonizations of saints are infallible or not seems to me to be irrelevant. Whether a particular individual is in heaven is not a matter of faith in the sense that the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Assumption and similar teachings of the Catholic faith are. The Church says they are saints; I have no problem with that.
In the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II is issuing a teaching document which is completely within his authority to issue. But it is not on a level with the central tenets of the Catholic faith and is not, like them, irreformable of itself. It could theoretically be changed by a subsequent Pope.
As for my strictly personal opinion, I see no difficulties in ordaining women as priests. The only real argument against it is that it has never been done. There was a time in Church history when there were no deacons; but this was not a reason not to establish the diaconate.
I very much support the idea of clerical celibacy. It is a special gift to the Church, and has powerful backing from Scripture.
I certainly do not suppose that if women were ordained that the vocation crisis would be solved. The biggest problem faced by the Church (at least in the developed world) is materialistic secularism and the placing of greater value upon things than upon people.
 
Matt 16 18: An opinion is defined, among other things as a) a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty; and b) the expression of a formal or professional judgement. I do not consider the Pope’s statement to be a) above. The second definition goes to testimony in court; witnesses are not allowed to express an opinion, but only to state facts, unless there has been a showing of expertise on which to make a judgement.

You say that the Pope’s statement is an either/or; either he made an infallible statement, or he stated a fallible opinion. The Pope didn’t say “in my opinion” . He stated a fact: the Church has unfailingly held that women cannot be ordained, “(it)has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents”. That is a statement of fact. It is not an opinion; there are sufficient grounds to produce certainty.

He uses language “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare”. That is not language of a solemn definition. It is language of “I am going to officially teach”. Take another look at the previous pope’s language; it is much more solemn, and crystal clear that he is definig a doctrine.

Again, I believe that the use of the terms “fallible opinion” get us right back to the underlying premise: we can’t know that something is infallibly held by the Church as set out in Vatican2, as the constant and universal Tradition of the Church, and taught by the Magisterium unless the Pope infallibly says it is so. And I don’t agree with that premise.

Either we accept that there is a third way that something is infallibly held by the Church; a council, an ex cathedra statment of the pope, and the constantly held Tradition and Magisterial teaching of the Church, or we don’t.

What he would have to do to speak ex cathedra, is state that he is doing it. After 2000 years, how many popes, and only 2 ex cathedra statements, I have every reason to believe that if and when the pope makes such a statement, we won’t be having this discussion; it will be crystal clear.

The “rules”, if you will, are 2000 years of no recognized ex cathedra statements except for the Annunciation and the Immaculate Conception. Orthodox Catholics need to listen to the teaching authority of the Church, through the bishops and the pope. When he is speaking, he is teaching (except for twice in two thousand years). Many, if not most teachings are not as solemn as this one (e.g. his teaching on just war as it applied to the war in Iraq), and there are teachings less solemn than that (Iraq). But the fact that he teaches as opposed to defines does not make the teaching less binding; one must look to the subject matter. In this document, he was teaching about an infallibly held matter of faith (the substance of a sacrament, as opposed to the form of the sacrament), and nothing more.
 
PilgrimJWT
  • I have the feeling that most of the users of this forum consider all or at least most of what the Pope says to be infallible.*
Your basis for saying that is what?

I have no problem with the doctrine of papal infallibility but I think it was unfortunate that it was formally declared because it has opened the field to all kinds of minsunderstandings within and without the Church.

Please enlighten us uneducated laymen as to why Vatican I was “unfortunate”.

In the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II is issuing a teaching document which is completely within his authority to issue. But it is not on a level with the central tenets of the Catholic faith and is not, like them, irreformable of itself.

Pope John Paul II said in OS that the issue of whether women could be ordained is, “a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself.” That said, neither the Pope, nor anyone on this thread, has even hinted that the doctrine that teaches that ordination is reserved for men only is on the par of the doctrine of the Trinity or the hypostatic union.

It could theoretically be changed by a subsequent Pope.

That is a rather extreme position to take. You don’t even agree that this doctrine is an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. What, pray tell, is the basis of your belief that this doctrine is NOT an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium?
 
otm
  • You say that the Pope’s statement is an either/or; either he made an infallible statement, or he stated a fallible opinion. The Pope didn’t say “in my opinion” . He stated a fact: the Church has unfailingly held that women cannot be ordained, “(it)has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents”. That is a statement of fact. It is not an opinion; there are sufficient grounds to produce certainty.*
It is also a fact that there are theologians that disagree with the Pope that this is a capital “T” Tradition. The Pope argues that this teaching is a matter of faith, and not just a matter of small “t” tradition (changeable church discipline). Other theologians disagree with the Pope on this matter. Now we have two facts, the fact that the Pope is saying one thing, and the fact that some theologians are saying the opposite. The fundamental question still remains, is the Pope only offering the church his opinion that he has the facts correct, or is he teaching infallibly that he has his facts correct?
  • He uses language “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare”. That is not language of a solemn definition.*
And why is this not the language of a solemn definition? It is not by accident that the Pope is quoting Lk 22:32, a verse of scripture that has always been used by the church to defend the doctrine of papal infallibility.
  • It is language of “I am going to officially teach”.*
And how am I supposed to know that this is true? What Magisterial sources can you quote that would back up this assertion? The pope said in OS that his intention for writing OS was “in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance”. There is only one way that a Pope can remove ALL doubt about a matter of faith, and that is by teaching infallibly.
  • Either we accept that there is a third way that something is infallibly held by the Church; a council, an ex cathedra statment of the pope, and the constantly held Tradition and Magisterial teaching of the Church, or we don’t.*
I, for one, believe that infallible teachings are received by the faithful through exercises of both the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium. I continue to fail to see whatever point you are trying to make by raising this point.
  • What he would have to do to speak ex cathedra, is state that he is doing it.*
No pope has ever explicitly stated that he is speaking ex cathedra, and there is no requirement that a pope must do such a thing in order to speak ex cathedra.
  • After 2000 years, how many popes, and only 2 ex cathedra statements …*
I often see the claim made that there are only two ex cathedra papal teachings, but I have never seen anyone able to back up this claim by quoting a document of the Magisterium. As far as I am concerned, until someone can back up this claim by quoting a document of the Magisterium, I will regard it as a Catholic “urban legend”.

I get frustrated when trying to have an intelligent debate about papal infallibility when people begin offering their unsubstantiated opinions as truths. The arguments offered by Christopher Wong and theMutant on this thread are far more than that. Both have gone to the source documents of the Magisterium that pertain to ex cathedra papal teachings, and they have developed their arguments from those documents. This is the only proper way to discuss this issue, and needless to say, I find their arguments much more compelling than any argument that is based someone’s feelings about how things should be seen.
 
John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
Wherefore, 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.
Click to expand...
I still have not heard any convincing argument demonstrating that the above does not meet the requirements defined by Vatican I. The only argument that has been brought forth is that the language doesn’t meet the test, but no explanation as to how that is. John Paul declared a teaching on a matter of faith and bound all of the faithful to definitively hold that teaching by virture of his authority as pope. There is no requirement that he use any special form of language other than that which binds the consciences of the faithful by virtue of his papal authority. Just because past popes used more wordy or more forceful formuli in making their infallible pronouncements does not negate the fact that John Paul II bound the consciences of the faithful in the above quoted statement. When the authority of the pope is involved, simple language is just as binding as the most elaborate expressions.
 
40.png
theMutant:
I still have not heard any convincing argument demonstrating that the above does not meet the requirements defined by Vatican I.
Click to expand...
Have you come to the conclusion that Cardinal Ratzinger is wrong when he writes this: “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.”
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Have you come to the conclusion that Cardinal Ratzinger is wrong when he writes this: “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.”
Click to expand...
I believe I answered this in post #22. I MAY BE WRONG but, if I am, then it is because Ordinatio Sacerdotalis somehow does not meet the requirements of an ex cathedra declaration. Vatican I defined what “ex cathedra” means (see post #1). I’ve compared the declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis with that definition and with other papal declarations acknowledged as being “ex cathedra.” I see no significant difference. That is why I keep asking the question:

“In what way does the declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not meet the definition of an ex cathedra declaration given by Vatican I?”

So far, there have only been two reasons that have any ground.

1: The difference of language between Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and other acknowledged ex cathedra declarations such as that in Munificentissimus Deus. However, I have not heard a convincing argument on how the language in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not, by itself, meet the definition given by Vatican I.

2: Cardinal Ratzinger issued a letter of explanation along with the Responsum ad Dubium and, in that explanation, he stated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an act of the ordinary papal magisterium and was not, in itself, infallible. There are other documents from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which say the same thing about Oridnatio Sacerdotalis. However, I have not heard one convincing explanation of how this conclusion can be reached in light of the definition of ex cathedra given by Vatican I. Without such an explanation, I am left to conclude that his statement contradicts Vatican I.
 
the Mutant

I agree with your conclusion. Cardinal Ratzinger does not possess the charism of infallibility, and hence he is not speaking infallibly when he asserts that issuance of OS is “an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible”.

otm raises the point that an “opinion is defined, among other things as a) a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty; and b) the expression of a formal or professional judgement.”

Expert opinions are offered all the time. For example, in a trial, the jury is instructed that a guilty conviction must be reached beyond a reasonable doubt, and juries are often presented with expert opinions to help them reach their verdicts. We also listen to expert opinions when deciding on legal matters, medical advise, whether a structure can withstand the stresses from wind loads, etc. etc. We are quite used to listening to expert opinion and making decisions based on those expert opinions.

Now Pope John Paul II is a brilliant theologian among other things, and he is certainly qualified to offer expert opinion on a matter pertaining to faith. It would be a mark of wisdom accept the theological opinions of Pope John Paul II, no question about that. But it seems to me that Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement implies that the Pope was only giving the Church, at best, the Pope’s expert theological opinion on a matter of faith. How can this be true? Pope John Paul II stated in OS that the reason that he was writing OS was to remove all doubt regarding a matter of great importance. If the Pope is saying that his intention is to remove ALL doubt, how can it be claimed that it was not the Pope’s intention to speak infallibly? If the Pope is not speaking infallibly and only proffering expert theological opionion, one might assert that the pope has removed reasonable doubt about a matter of faith, but certainly not that the Pope has removed all doubt about a matter of the faith.
 
I was questioned for my temerity in saying that Vatican I was “unfortunate”. What I said was that the declaration of the definition of infallibility put forth by that council was unfortunate. I have some famous cardinals at the time in my corner on that one. My feeling (and theirs) was that such a formal declaration would cause confusion. Just read the posts to this thread; I rest my case.
 
40.png
PilgrimJWT:
I was questioned for my temerity in saying that Vatican I was “unfortunate”. What I said was that the declaration of the definition of infallibility put forth by that council was unfortunate. I have some famous cardinals at the time in my corner on that one. My feeling (and theirs) was that such a formal declaration would cause confusion. Just read the posts to this thread; I rest my case.
Click to expand...
I disagree that defining what constitutes an infallible statement has caused the confusion evident in this thread. The definition put forth by the Council is clear and precise. What has caused confusion is the statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger that the declaration made in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible without any explanation of how it fails to meet the definition of infallibility defined by the Council.

You are free to believe that providing the definition was a bad idea. However, if you are going to participate in an online debate you should be prepared to have your positions questioned without feeling like you are being attacked.
 
As a relatively new Catholic who was in an RCIA class taught by some in favor of women’s ordination–I’ve been searching for an answer to the question, basically, “What must we do to be saved?” Back when I almost became a Baptist, this was an easy question to answer! This past year or so has been a constant struggle with despair. I read a lot–too much, really–but the amount of information out there is just endless. I believe in my faith, absolutely, but there have been times in the last year that I almost fell into despair except for the Blessed Sacrament. How on earth do I explain my faith to my non-Catholic friends? I was formed by a Lutheran world view, and granted, it’s too late and I’m too tired now to really study this thread, but my Protestant friends and family, with their horror of legalism…I have to ask, is this what Jesus really wants us to do? Understand, I’m not doubting the authority of the magisterium–I love the Pope and the Church and just want to know and understand. But all I run into, it seems is a lot of intellectual arrogance and obfuscation. What in the heck are we supposed to believe as Catholics??? Really, I’ve about given up finding an answer to this question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top