Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

[Catholic2003]

Matt16_18:

What do the words written in OS reveal about the Pope’s intent?

Here is a long and rambling answer to this question.

Point 1: Not every papal teaching on a matter of faith or morals is infallible. There is a certain level of intent, or solemnity, or definitiveness, or whatever the applicable attribute is, that is required before a teaching exercises papal infallibility.

For example, not all of Munificentissimus Deus is infallible; only the statement, “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” is infallible. That this statement has the appropriate level of teaching to qualify for papal infallibility is indicated by the words leading up to that statement:
Munificentissimus Deus:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

Call the level of teaching required for papal infallibility to be “Level A”.

Point 2: Not every teaching of the universal magisterium on a matter of faith or morals is infallible. There is a certain level of intent, or solemnity, or definitiveness, or whatever the applicable attribute is, that is required before a teaching exercises the infallibility of the universal magisterium. This level is required for both the ordinary and the extraordinary universal magisterium. By way of comparison with point 1, call the level of teaching required for the infallibility of the universal magisterium to be “Level B”.

For example, not every word of every Vatican II document is infallible. Paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium describes the criteria for a teaching to reach level B:
Lumen Gentium:

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.

Answer: It is my speculation that Pope John Paul II was teaching at Level B in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as indicated by the underlined words:
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

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.

Thus, given that all the bishops of the Church have taught and continue to teach that it is impossible to ordain women as priests at Level B, then the teaching is infallible by the universal magisterium of the Church.

Of course, this is just my speculation; I am not aware of any magisterial statements, either by Cardinal Ratzinger or any other bishop, that my speculation is correct.

 

[theMutant]

PLEASE NOTE: I have not read any posts in this thread since my last one. I composed this entry off-line and posted it immediately. I am still considering some of the other arguments against my position and will “catch up” with any later posts after I have done this. Thank you.

One of the claims against my position is that, since Vatican I defined papal infallibility, a pope must have the intention to declare something infallibly. Those making this claim also state that this was not a requirement prior to Vatican I. I have two problems with this assertion.

1: It constitutes an actual change in doctrine and that is impossible.

Vatican I made a dogmatic declaration about an existing doctrine, and doctrine is, by definition, unchangeable. The doctrine of papal infallibility has existed since the foundation of the Church and Vatican I merely formally defined the existing doctrine. The doctrine, as defined by Vatican I, is not merely that the pope enjoys the protection of infallibility, but also the precise conditions in which the Holy Spirit provides that protection. However, according to the claim, those conditions, which are part of the doctrine, changed with the declaration of Vatican by the inclusion of a NEW condition and that, by dogmatically declaring the doctrine, Vatican I actually ceated that new requirement; thereby, changing the doctrine.

2: It means that the actual requirements for pope’s infallibility are more than what was explicitly given in the dogmatic declaration at Vatican I.

I quoted directly from Vatican I in my original post on this thread and listed all of the requirements given by Vatican I’s definition of what constitutes “ex cathedra” papal teaching. These requirements include teaching on a matter of faith or morals and permanently binding all of the Church to that teaching by his authority as pope. Nothing is mentioned about specifically intending to teach under the protection of infallibility. Therefore, if, in fact, that is a requirement, then I must conclude that Vatican I got the definition wrong. Especially since this intention must have been a requirement prior to Vatican I for the reasons I stated in number 1 above.

If this is true, then it means that Vatican I’s dogmatic delcaration was, in fact, wrong because it did not list all of the requirements for “ex cathedra” proclamations even though that was the specific intention of that part of the declaration. Vatican I was an ecumenical council of the Chuch and, by definition, its dogmatic declarations are infallible, irreformable, and unchangeable.

There are other issues that you have raised which I am still considering.

 

[theMutant]

PLEASE NOTE: I still have not read the other posts and will try to get to them as soon as I can.

During this discussion, I have maintained that I do not need to accept the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by the pope, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an act of the ordinary papal magisterium. I believed that I could do so in good faith because of my belief that Ratzinger’s statement is obviously not infallible and my belief that the pope can make an infallible declaration without realizing that he has done so. It is permissible for Catholics to disagree with the magisterium, and even the pope, in matters that have not been dogmatically defined. However, it was suggested that such disagreements are permissible only in matters of discipline and does not extend to matters of faith. Clearly, the issue of whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible is not a merely disciplinary issue and so the suggestion struck me to the core. I had to ask myself, “Did my disagreement with the statement constitute an obstinate refusal to submit to the Church’s magisterium?” Believe me, this is an issue I take most seriously and so I needed time to completely assess the claim in light of other studies I have done.

To begin with, I affirm that all Catholics must give their complete assent to all dogmatically defined truths of the Catholic faith. This requirement is absolute and there is no room for dissent on these matters “in good conscience.” The question is whether or not a Catholic can, in good conscience, disagree with the magisterium, even with the pope himself, on a matter of religion that has not been dogmatically defined. I had always understood that the answer is a very qualified yes. The qualification is most serious. A Catholic cannot just disagree for arbitrary reasons, but only after the most serious reflection; because the authority of the Church to teach is given by God himself. Addtionally, any Catholic who presumes to disagree with the opinions of the magisterium must be willing to abandon his position should the magisterium make a dogmatic declaration that is contrary to his own opinion. He must also be willing to forgo expressing his opinion if ordered to do so by the magisterium. Provided that these requirements are met, a Catholic is permitted to disagree on certain issues, even issues of faith, that have not been dogmatically defined.

For example, St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Imaculate Conception. Both he and St. Augustine believed that abortion might be acceptable before a certain point in pregnancy (this was due to the lack of accurate information on human gestation). Both of these are issues of faith in which these great saints, both of them doctors of the Church, disagreed – in good conscience – with doctrines that had not been dogmatically defined. Now, I’m certainly no Aquinas or Agustine, but the same principle applies for I do not arbitrarily disagree with Ratzinger’s statement which was approved by the pope. I have examined this issue very minutely and continue to do so.

Religious assent is required of Catholics. In the case of dogmatically defined teachings, this obligation is absolute. In other cases, this is a moral obligation that cannot be lightly put aside. Therefore, while this is a very serious matter, I respectfully maintain my disagreement on this issue. I continue to believe that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, specifically the declaration made in section 4 of that document, was made under the protection of infallibility even if the pope was not conscious of this fact when he made it and even if he doesn’t realize it to this day. I will, however, humbly submit to any evidence which shows that the declaration did not meet the criteria necessary for papal infallibility as dogmatically defined by Vatican I.

(continued)

 

[theMutant]

(continued from post #63)

Having said this, I do not want to ignore the issue that Matt16_18 has raised. IF Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible declaration, then it failed to accomplish its stated purpose; “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.” Matt16_18 is absolutely correct in stating that the subject remains open for discussion because, just as Aquinas and Agustine could hold views contrary to true doctrine in good conscience because those doctrines had not yet been dogmatically defined, Catholics can continue to hold that women can be ordained provided that they can somehow do so in good conscience. (Although I cannot fathom how they could meet this criteria!) The assertions of the magisterium that the topic of womens ordination is closed become no more than disciplinary decrees that can be reversed in the future. This does not mean that the truth of the doctrine is in danger, but it does mean that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis fails to remove all doubt because, without the charism of infallibility, there is no absolute assurance on its teaching. There is a moral assurance, but not an absolute one. Even for those of us who, like myself, believe this doctrine completely.

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

For example, not every word of every Vatican II document is infallible. Paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium describes the criteria for a teaching to reach level B:
Lumen Gentium:

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.

Answer: It is my speculation that Pope John Paul II was teaching at Level B in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as indicated by the underlined words:
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

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.

The problem I find with your conclusion is that the quote from Lumen Gentium is including all of the bishops whereas the definition of “ex cathedra” given in Vatican I only applies to the pope. Therefore, it does not follow that the use of the word “definitively” by the pope in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis implies that the teaching is of the level you describe. Vatican I did not declare any particular formuli or phrases that had to be used. There is a substantial difference between the bishops collectively declaring that a teaching is definitively to be held and the pope doing so invoking his authority as the successor of Peter.

 

[Matt16_18]

the Mutant

Thank you for your posts #62- #65.

The question is whether or not a Catholic can, in good conscience, disagree with the magisterium, even with the pope himself, on a matter of religion that has not been dogmatically defined. I had always understood that the answer is a very qualified yes.

Ahh… now we are at the real heart of the matter. Take the reasoning that you just developed, and apply it to Humanae Vitae. The problem is obvious. If the pope did not teach infallibly in OS, then the same thing can be said about HV. Let us apply Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote to HV: “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.”

A Father Burns type can argue that Pope Paul IV was only giving the church his fallible opinion that it is a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium that practicing artificial contraception is grave sin. Since the Pope did not speak infallibly in HV, the question of whether artificial contraception could someday be an acceptable practice for Catholics is a still open for debate. A Catholic should follow the teaching of Pope Paul IV, of course, but if “after the most serious reflection”, a Catholic should disagree with the Pope, well, since this is a question in which the Church has not definitively spoken …

I think that you get the picture, a Catholic “in good conscience” can disagree with Humanae Vitae. The same argument can used to justify dissent with the Church’s teaching about homosexual acts being gravely sinful, etc., etc.

 

[Catholic2003]

1: It constitutes an actual change in doctrine and that is impossible.

2: It means that the actual requirements for pope’s infallibility are more than what was explicitly given in the dogmatic declaration at Vatican I.

I don’t mean to be claiming either of these.

I always get into trouble with my analogies, but I can’t think of any other way to describe what I’m trying to say, so here goes. A gun always works according to the “doctrine” that pulling the trigger fires the gun. But if someone from 1000 years ago (who was not aware how guns work) had a gun, that person could conceivably pull the trigger without intending to fire the gun. However, for a modern person, who has a knowledge of how guns work, it is impossible for that person to intend to pull the trigger without also intending to fire the gun.

So my claim is not that Vatican I changed the doctrine of papal infalliblity, or that it left out a condition. My claim is only that once the precise conditions of papal infallibility became documented, that knowledge made it impossible for a pope to intend to teach at the level of solemnity documented in Vatican I without thereby also intending to teach infallibly.

Specifically, Pope John Paul II knows the conditions for papal infallibility as documented in Vatican I. Thus, given that he did not intend to teach infallibly in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, then it must be the case that he did not intend to teach at the level of solemnity specified by Vatican I.

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic2003:

My claim is only that once the precise conditions of papal infallibility became documented, that knowledge made it impossible for a pope to intend to teach at the level of solemnity documented in Vatican I without thereby also intending to teach infallibly.

I don’t think we would be having this discussion if there existed a set of precise conditions to determine what constitutes an ex cathedra statement.

All orthodox Catholics believe that the pope can speak infallibly ex cathedra, but just ask how a Catholic is supposed to know if the Pope has spoken ex cathedra. There is no consensus on how to answer that question among the orthodox Catholics.

 

[Matt16_18]

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?
[/quote]

Say what?

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

I don’t mean to be claiming either of these.

I always get into trouble with my analogies, but I can’t think of any other way to describe what I’m trying to say, so here goes. A gun always works according to the “doctrine” that pulling the trigger fires the gun. But if someone from 1000 years ago (who was not aware how guns work) had a gun, that person could conceivably pull the trigger without intending to fire the gun. However, for a modern person, who has a knowledge of how guns work, it is impossible for that person to intend to pull the trigger without also intending to fire the gun.

So my claim is not that Vatican I changed the doctrine of papal infalliblity, or that it left out a condition. My claim is only that once the precise conditions of papal infallibility became documented, that knowledge made it impossible for a pope to intend to teach at the level of solemnity documented in Vatican I without thereby also intending to teach infallibly.

Specifically, Pope John Paul II knows the conditions for papal infallibility as documented in Vatican I. Thus, given that he did not intend to teach infallibly in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, then it must be the case that he did not intend to teach at the level of solemnity specified by Vatican I.

I disagree that popes prior to Vatican I didn’t know how papal infallibility worked simply because it had not been formally defined. It has always been known that when a pope formally defines a doctrine in a dogmatic formula that it is irreformable and to be considered an unchangeable part of the faith. The old addage was that “Rome has spoken,” which meant that the matter was permanently settled and absolutely had to be accepted. Popes prior to Vatican I knew this and, so, by your own logic, they must have known when they formulated their dogmatic statements that they were doing just that; even if the word “infallible” never intered their mind.

However, I still maintain that it is not absolutely necessary for a pope to have this intention in order to make such a statement. Maybe John Paul II didn’t intentionally set out to meet all of the requirements defined in Vatican I, but he did meet all of those requirements and, therefore, the declaration was infallible whether he “intended” it or not.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Originally Posted by Dan-Man916
*:banghead: *

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?
**

Pardon my bluntness, but this is ridiculous. The Church is astonishingly clear in its teaching of the faithful. If you doubt this, you have not read *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. *

What is being discussed is a matter of dogmatic theology as to what constitutes and *ex cathedra *declaration. There’s one way to clear this question up, and that is to ask the Pope. It’s been asked and answered. I agree that the Pope’s answer may not make sense to me and my meager understanding, but we are not a *Sola Scriptura *Church, nor are we a *Sola Traditio *Church. Instead, we have a living Magisterium that *always *teaches authoritatively while not alway teaching infallibly.

Furthermore, Cardinal Ratzinger’s answer as to whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an exercise of ex cathedra teaching is clear. I do not doubt that it is an authoritative response of he who is vested with ordinary magisterial authority. As such, I trust it. I cannot abide in the same probabilism as dissenting Catholics practice, where they assert anything non-infallible can be dissented with and disregarded as though it did not come from Divinely established, magisterial authority.

In other words, in the words of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman,
**

**
I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore **the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. **

[John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html]

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is a commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger that may shed some light on this (italics in original, bold added):

1. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an “ex cathedra” pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

Regarding the first sentence above, I think that “believed as divinely revealed” is my Level A, and “held definitively” is my Level B.

 

[theMutant]

I am not accusing anyone of saying that doctrine has changed, that is merely the conclusion I came to from considering the arguments against my position. If you are going to argue that intention is now required then it is a requirement that wasn’t required before.

Regarding the gun analogy, it is entirely possible for someone to accidentally fire a gun even if they know how one works. I know lots of people who have done this and I nearly got shot one of those times.

It has been said that, since Vatican I, it is illogical for a pope to declare something infallilby without intending to do so. However, people do act illogically sometimes and I have never heard of a devine grace protecting any pope from being illogical. I am not accusing John Paul II of being illogical, I am merely illustrating the fact that the argument that it is illogical doesn’t resolve the issue.

I will try another way of explaining my own position. My position is basically this.

I do not claim that John Paul II intended to teach infallibly, only that he did so whether or not he intended it, whether or not he realized it at the time, and whether or not he ever realizes it. The pope is not the guarantor of infallible teaching. That guarantee comes from the Holy Spirit. According to the teaching of Vatican I, infallibility is granted automatically by God himself whenever the pope presents the teaching on a matter of faith or morals to the entire Church as the successor of St. Peter and binds the entire Church to that teaching.

The humility of John Paul II is such that he would probably not presume to assert his own infallibility. However, In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he presented a teaching on a matter of faith, he stated that he was doing so as part of his ministry as the successor of St. Peter, and he bound the entire Church to that teaching. When subsequently asked if it was his intention that the entire Church should consider that teaching as part of the deposit of the faith, the John Paul II answered in the affirmative.

Clearly, whether or not he intended to be acting in a specifically infallible manner, the pope did intend to definitively establish a doctrinal teaching and to bind the entire Church to that teaching by his authority as pope. That is all that is required for the Holy Spirit to guarantee that the teaching is infallible and that is why I believe that the declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was made infallibly under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Cardinal Ratzinger did not answer a question on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible teaching. The dubium was Ratzinger asking the pope if the teaching was part of the deposit of the faith. Ratzinger’s statement that it was part of the ordinary papal magisterium was, contextually speaking, an additional comment in an explanation of the implications of the teaching itself in light of the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis itself and the pope’s response to the dubium that its teaching is part of the deposit of the faith.

(continued)

 

[theMutant]

(continued from post #73)

In the Catholic Church, there is no room for dissent in matters of faith but there is a great deal of room for differing opinions on how that faith is applied in our daily lives. Recent examples of this include the pope’s statements regarding eliminating the death penalty and his opinion on whether the United State’s war with Iraq fits the requirements of a just war. Both of these are dealing with matters of interpreting the teaching of the Catholic faith, but we are not bound to accept those particular statements.

As Catholics, we are to give due regard to the office from which those statements eminate and should give very serious reflection on the reasons behind those statements before choosing to disagree. If we choose to disagree, we are not violating the teachings of our faith, we are not violating the requirement to accept the authority of the Church’s magisterium, and we are certainly not, in any way, equivalent to Protestants. The reason for this is that we are not disagreeing with any doctrine or dogma of the Church.

If you choose to conform you own opinion to what Ratzinger has said, that’s fine for you and I applaud you for it for your intentions are good. But please do not impugn others for holding a opinion contrary to what is, according to the Catholic faith, nothing other than the private opinion of a very notable theologian.

If Ordinatio Sacerdotalis had not included all of the requirements set forth by Vatican I, for example if John Paul II had not invoked his ministry of confirming the bretheren and thereby invoked his authority as the successor of St. Peter, then I would agree that the letter would be a non-infallible, authoritative affirmation of infallible doctrine.

Lastly, I don’t know that the pope has ever been directly asked if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an infallible declaration. He was asked if its teaching was to be regarded as part of the deposit of the faith and he said yes. He approved a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger to explain the implications of that doctrinal teaching and there was a statement in that letter asserting that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an act of the ordinary papal magisterium and not infallible. However, I don’t view John Paul II as one who would correct such a statement. He would let the teaching stand and not assert his own infallibility just as he rarely asserts his rightful authority.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here is a commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger that may shed some light on this (italics in original, bold added):

… Regarding the first sentence above, I think that “believed as divinely revealed” is my Level A, and “held definitively” is my Level B.

I don’t disagree. However, unless the Church goes on record as stating that it is declaring *de fide definita, *there will always be those such as Fr. Burns in the article linked to above that disagree that the doctrine taught in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *“belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed.”

We are debating whether it belongs to Level A *de fide *dogma or Level B *de fide *dogma. The debate is academic, because, in our view, it is most definitely an infallible part of the deposit of faith. Rome has spoken, the matter is finished. Yet, many approach their faith in such a way as to think they can, without risk of sin, disagree with what the Church authentically, formally, and authoritatively teaches.

I believe their problem is an incorrect understanding of obsequium religiosum.

Professor of theology, William May explains:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-5-6/article2.html

It is interesting to note that the term “dissent” did not appear in theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. … the obsequium religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly proposed … recognized that a theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of “withholding assent” and raising questions, but this is a far cry from “dissent.”

… **The **Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one’s own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium.

 

[Matt16_18]

Cardinal Ratzinger as quoted by Catholic 2003:

“The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.”

The question is not whether the Pope gave a new dogmatic definition in OS or Humanae Vitae, it is whether the pope was speaking infallibly when he gave his “formal attestation” to an infallible truth of the deposit of faith. If the Pope, in his “formal attestation”, is merely giving us his fallible opinion, then who can claim that Fr. Burns does not have the right to theologiacally debate the pope’s opinion on the matter?

I agree with theMutant, that the pope’s “formal attestation” in OS meets all the requirements of an infallible ex cathedra teaching as defined by Vatican I. Whether or not this is a NEW dogmatic definition is irrelevant, as Vatican I never imposed that criterion as necessary for the pope to be teaching ex cathedra.

If the pope cannot speak infallibly when defending a matter of the faith that has been universally taught by the Magisterium, then when, exactly, can he speak infallibly? Surely the church possesses the charism of infallibility when she defends herself against heresy. And certainly the pope possesses this charism when he formally addresses **the whole church ** in a matter of faith, and then binds the whole church to a teaching regarding a matter of faith.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

“The Church, to my knowledge, does not declare documents to be infallible.”

I am pretty sure that all Papal Bulls are infallible… (as well, of course, as ecumenical councils that teach faith or morals)

 

[Catholic2003]

theMutant:

Recent examples of this include the pope’s statements regarding eliminating the death penalty and his opinion on whether the United State’s war with Iraq fits the requirements of a just war.

I don’t want to derail the discussion of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but according to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the documents Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Evangelium Vitae (where the Pope promulgated the death penalty teaching) are both infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium:

It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae and in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.

I agree that the Pope’s teaching on the Iraqi war is not infallible.

 

[Catholic2003]

Matt16_18:

If the Pope, in his “formal attestation”, is merely giving us his fallible opinion, then who can claim that Fr. Burns does not have the right to theologiacally debate the pope’s opinion on the matter?

Canon law, as updated in Ad Tuendam Fidem, makes it clear that no more debate on these matters (i.e., priestly ordination of women) is permissible:

Canon 750 §2 Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[theMutant]

Professio fidei (9): “The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an “ex cathedra” pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.” (italics in the original)

First question: What does it mean to "define?"
In order for something to be held definitively (indicated in the first sentence), it must be defined. However, in the second sentence, an act by the Roman Pontiff which defines a teaching (as opposed to merely confirming or reaffirming it) in a way that conforms to the definition of “ex cathedra” is infallible. What is the deference between saying “I define X” and “I declare that X is to be definitively held?” Do not both of those statements define the teaching?

(continued)