Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

[theMutant]

John Higgins in posts #10 and #12:

If it HAD been “manifestly demonstrated” then no “Responsum ad Dubium” would have been required.

Was it easily understood? Was it obvious? Was it evident? Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t seem to think so, otherwise he wouldn’t have kept writing.

I disagree with your conclusion. To begin with the requirement of the Responsium ad Dubium was not brought about because the teaching was not manifestly demonstrated, it was brought about because people refused to accept what was being taught and called it into question. You seem to be assuming that, if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an infallible declaration, everyone would have responded positively to its teaching. That is incorrect. The teaching was already part of the infallible and irreformable teaching of the Church and it was being challenged; that is the very reason that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was promulgated.

 

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

Catholic2003 and Matt 16_18,

Thanks for the link to Ratzinger’s letter. This helps fill in the blanks a bit.

However, 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.

However, I admit that Cardinal Ratzinger is abundantly more knowledgeable on dogmatic theology than I am, so at take him at his word when he states: “In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium Ordinatio Sacerdotalis], in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”

Oh yeah … my vote should be considered changed from yes to no. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

Like you, I still don’t see the distinction between the two papal documents. Additionally, while I have a great respect for Cardinal Ratzinger and his knowledge, I think that his statement flies in the face of the clear facts in this case (he CAN be wrong just as I can be).

The infallibility of a papal declaration does not rest on the affirmative assertion of the pope or the curia that it was, in fact, infallible. It is not even necessary that the pope intended to teach infallibly for infallibility is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Father. Just as Caiphas prophesied without knowing that he was doing so (John 11:45-53), it is possible that John Paul II was acting infallibly without realizing it.

The infallibility of papal teaching (as defined by Vatican I) rests on the nature of the declaration and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly meets the criteria defined by Vatican I. Both Ratzinger and the Pope assert that it definitively teaches an article of faith, that it was taught by the authority of the pope as the successor of Peter, and that, through it, the pope formally bound the entire Church to its teaching. Therefore, with all due respect to Cardinal Ratzinger and His Holiness, I disagree and maintain my vote that it was an infallible declaration.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I disagree with you on this.

Somehow what your saying makes it seem like that before this was declared that it wasn’t infallible, that the pope had to declare this to make it so.

You say…

Both Ratzinger and the Pope assert that it definitively teaches an article of faith, that it was taught by the authority of the pope as the successor of Peter, and that, through it, the pope formally bound the entire Church to its teaching.

I think your wrong here, the Holy Father says, as I posted before, "the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium " This is what makes it infallible, that the Church has always taught it. That the Magisterium has taught this from the beginning. I do not think your comment about the authority of the pope even falls into this as this is what the Magisterium is.

This document by the Holy Father was just a reiteration of a truth of the Faith.

I do not even understand why you are trying to make this distinction.

 

[theMutant]

ByzCath:

I disagree with you on this.

Somehow what your saying makes it seem like that before this was declared that it wasn’t infallible, that the pope had to declare this to make it so.

No, I am simply saying that the declaration infallibly declared what was already infalible teaching. This is the case for all instances of popes making infallible declarations. This was the case with Munificentissimus Deus and I believe it to be the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

ByzCath:

I think your wrong here, the Holy Father says, as I posted before, "the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium " This is what makes it infallible, that the Church has always taught it. That the Magisterium has taught this from the beginning. I do not think your comment about the authority of the pope even falls into this as this is what the Magisterium is.

Quite true, the fact that the teaching has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium affirms the infallible nature of that teaching. (Note, it doesn’t make it infallible) However, the same is true regarding the Dogma of the Assumption. It, too, had been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium. To use your logic, Munificentissimus Deus would also not be an infallible teaching because of this fact. After all, it merely presented what was already an infallible teaching of the Church as did Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

ByzCath:

This document by the Holy Father was just a reiteration of a truth of the Faith.

As was Munificentissimus Deus! And, just like Munificentissius Deus did regarding the Assumption, it definitively bound us to that teaching by the authority of the Successor of Peter.

 

[Dan-Man916]

:banghead:
you know,

i find discussions like this frustrating because, as one who is not very informed on this particular subject, i see so much variation of opinion here.

If the purpose of the Church is to teach the faithful, then shouldn’t it be easier for the faithful to clearly be able to understand this?

and this is a constant argument i see made by non-Catholics when we argue against their own private interpretation of Scripture.

It seems that it can almost be said that we are doing our own interpretation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
and that is why i get frustrated with these debates sometimes.

Matt, you and I have been over this before. i still haven’t gotten an answer that makes sense to me.

 

[theMutant]

Dan-Man916:

i find discussions like this frustrating because, as one who is not very informed on this particular subject, i see so much variation of opinion here.

I’m sorry that it frustrates you. I have always looked on these types of discussions as valuable tools for becoming more informed. It is precisely in arguments put forth in these types of discussions that the “solidness” of various positions is revealed.

Dan-Man916:

If the purpose of the Church is to teach the faithful, then shouldn’t it be easier for the faithful to clearly be able to understand this?

Yes, if we were not so obstinate and proud (and I DO include myself in this statement) we would have a much easier time in understanding the teaching of the Church. However, the Church exists in the fallen world so her clear teaching isn’t always received as it should be.

Dan-Man916:

and this is a constant argument i see made by non-Catholics when we argue against their own private interpretation of Scripture.

The difference here is that we are not debating an article of faith. No one here is debating if the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is true of even if the pope is capable of teaching infallibly. This is the essential difference between the disagreements between faithful Catholics (as is being demonstrated in this thread) and the various Protestants.

Dan-Man916:

It seems that it can almost be said that we are doing our own interpretation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
and that is why i get frustrated with these debates sometimes.

We are not “interpreting” Ordinatio Sacerdotalis because we all agree on what it teaches: “the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.” We are simply considering the question of whether or not that declaration of an existing, infallible, irreformable teaching was made in an infallible manner, specifically through the extraordinary papal magisterium, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

I am not saying that you have to agree with my personal opinion on this matter to be a good Catholic. You only have to agree with what was taught.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

theMutant:

We are simply considering the question of whether or not that declaration of an existing, infallible, irreformable teaching was made in an infallible manner, specifically through the extraordinary papal magisterium, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

I think the frustration of many, mayself included, comes from this…

What does it matter?

 

[Catholic2003]

theMutant:

I have always looked on these types of discussions as valuable tools for becoming more informed. It is precisely in arguments put forth in these types of discussions that the “solidness” of various positions is revealed.

I’m finding this discussion valuable as well.

I’ve always just kind of assumed that it wouldn’t be possible (in the post-Vatican I timeframe) for a pope to exercise papal infalliblity without intending to do so. Now I have to go back and figure out why I believe that to be true.

 

[theMutant]

ByzCath:

theMutant:

We are simply considering the question of whether or not that declaration of an existing, infallible, irreformable teaching was made in an infallible manner, specifically through the extraordinary papal magisterium, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

I think the frustration of many, mayself included, comes from this…

What does it matter?

So… It doesn’t matter whether or not Munificentissimus Deus was an infallible declaration? I think it matters because, as Catholics, we should understand the teachings of our faith and the faith teaches that popes can make declarations in an infallible manner. If Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an example of infallible papal teaching, then the definition of such teaching presented in Vatican I makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Dan-Man916]

HI mutant,

yes, you are right in that we all agree that this is infallible teaching. it is just in the “mechanics” of it that we disagree.

as an example of what i mean, on another forum we went through many many discussions of the doctrineof “Outside the CHurch there is no salvation”, and there were basically 3 positions that were argued from the most open to the most closed interpretation.
All sides were conviced that the other was wrongly interpreting the Church’s teachings.
It’s that kind of thing that frustrates me because there appeared to be a cornicopia of interpretations and opposite sides appeared to be directly contradictory to each other while all sides claimed to be orthodox in belief.

Sorry cause i didn’t mean for my interjection to pull us off topic here.

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

I’m afraid you have this completely wrong. The reference to paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium is there because that is where the ordinary and universal magisterium is described and declared to be infallible.

Lumen Gentium itself is an example of the extraordinary universal magisterium, that is, the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council.

Point conceded! Major blunder by me! Good clarification by you!

 

[theMutant]

Dan-Man916:

Sorry cause i didn’t mean for my interjection to pull us off topic here.

No problem! I participated in a few debates on the “No salvation outside of the Church” topic myself.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

theMutant:

So… It doesn’t matter whether or not Munificentissimus Deus was an infallible declaration? I think it matters because, as Catholics, we should understand the teachings of our faith and the faith teaches that popes can make declarations in an infallible manner. If Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an example of infallible papal teaching, then the definition of such teaching presented in Vatican I makes absolutely no sense to me.

Well, this topic isn’t about Munificentissimus Deus.

Munificentissimus Deus was released in a manner different from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Ordinatio Sacredotalis is an example of an infallible teaching, period.

The Holy Father did not see a need to make an ex cathedra statement on this issue as Pope Pius XII did on the Assumption.

Different times, different issues, different reasons for the release of a statement.

And again, I do not see what the issue is, it is an infallible teaching.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

theMutant,

Additionally, while I have a great respect for Cardinal Ratzinger and his knowledge, I think that his statement flies in the face of the clear facts in this case (he CAN be wrong just as I can be).

Yes, but Cardinal Ratzinger is not confined to merely judging the facts based upon an exegesis of papal documents. Cardinal Ratzinger no doubt has some greater insight by virture of his education in Catholic dogma, but most especially by virture of his discussions with the Pope on the matter. We can speculate about the the Pope meant. I think it’s likely Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t speculating, but conveying what the Pope himself said he meant.

 

[theMutant]

ByzCath:

Well, this topic isn’t about Munificentissimus Deus.

Excuse me but, as the originator of this thread and the poll, I think that I know what I intended the topic to be. Go back and read post #1 in which I fully describe the topic and you will see that part of the issue at hand is the comparisson of Munificentissimus Deus with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Naturally, I could not include all of that in the title.

 

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

Cardinal Ratzinger is not confined to merely judging the facts based upon an exegesis of papal documents. Cardinal Ratzinger no doubt has some greater insight by virture of his education in Catholic dogma, but most especially by virture of his discussions with the Pope on the matter. We can speculate about the the Pope meant. I think it’s likely Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t speculating, but conveying what the Pope himself said he meant.

I have no doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger has greater insight than me in many areas including what the pope intended (after all, he talks to the pope personally on a regular basis). However, as I stated in post #22, the pope does not need to “intend” to teach infallibly in order to do so. According to Vatican I, a pope teaches infallibly when certain conditions are met and “intention to teach infallibly” is not listed among those conditions. In my opinion, all of the conditions set forth by Vatican I are clearly met by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and no one has presented any example of how they are not met.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

theMutant:

Excuse me but, as the originator of this thread and the poll, I think that I know what I intended the topic to be. Go back and read post #1 in which I fully describe the topic and you will see that part of the issue at hand is the comparisson of Munificentissimus Deus with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Naturally, I could not include all of that in the title.

This is part of the confusion… You, for some reason, want to compare apples to oranges.

They are not the same thing, one is, as I said, an ex cathedra statement, the other isn’t.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

theMutant,

According to Vatican I, a pope teaches infallibly when certain conditions are met and “intention to teach infallibly” is not listed among those conditions.

I agree.

In my opinion, all of the conditions set forth by Vatican I are clearly met by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and no one has presented any example of how they are not met.

I agree based upon the content of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

However, the Pope who wrote it seems to be disagreeing with me. (how dare he!!!)

He 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.

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

I’m finding this discussion valuable as well.

I’ve always just kind of assumed that it wouldn’t be possible (in the post-Vatican I timeframe) for a pope to exercise papal infalliblity without intending to do so. Now I have to go back and figure out why I believe that to be true.

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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I understand theMutants quest … he is merely attempting to understand what an ex cathedra teaching looks like. Does it appear to meet Vatican I’s criteria for *ex cathedra *declarations? It seems to. The only reason this is debateable is that the Pope who made the declaration said it wasn’t *ex cathedra. *Perplexing, isn’t it.

Yet, I don’t find this kind of investigation to be a waste of time, as it is precisely this process that must be undertaken by dogmatic theologians to come to a more precise understanding of what is *de fide *dogma and why. For this particular issue, it’s not a big deal, since it is clearly de fide based upon ordinary universal teachings. Yet, without *de fide definita, *ipso facto heretics such as Hans Kung will always find a way to insert doubt in the minds of the faithful.

I think it’s an important point for theologians to consider what indeed constitutes *de fide definita. *Is it an academic question? Purely. Yet, considering academic questions help us to better understand future questions that may not be so academic.

My thinking is that what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have done is created another category of dogmatic theology. That is, a category of *de fide definita *that has never before existed: a non-infallible papal declaration which declares a certain teaching to be infallible (???). Perhaps we can call it de fide almost definita.