Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

[theMutant]

(continued from post #80)

Second question: How do we know when a teaching is merely being confirmed or reaffirmed as opposed to being defined?
Professio fidei states that doctrines can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly makes this declaration in the paragraph immediately preceding the the John Paul II’s declaration of the doctrine to be difinitively held. However, Munificentissiumus Deus also declares that the teaching of the Assumption was already taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. For that matter, Ineffabilis Deus declares the same regading the teaching of the Imaculate Conception. So what’s the difference? All three confirm that the doctrine they address was already part of the teaching of the Church and all three reaffirm the teaching they address. All three contain declaratory statements that define the belief to be held and bind the entire Church to their teaching.

Is the issue that John Paul II did not explicitly say “I define?” As I pointed out, Vatican I did not specifiy a specific formula for the declaration to be infallible. It defined “ex cathedra” as follows:
"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,

o in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
o in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
o he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

To argue that John Paul II did not give a definition of the teaching to which he bound us when he stated that we are to “definitively” hold ourselves to that teaching is to split hairs on symantics that were not addressed by Vatican I and which Professio fidei does nothing to clear up. It may be true that John Paul II did not use the phrase “I define,” but he also did not use the phrase “I confirm” or “I reaffirm” the existing teaching. Yes, he did refer to the fact that what he was declaring was already part of the teaching of the Church, but the same is true of Munificentissiumus Deus and Ineffabilis Deus. In the case of Ineffabilis Deus, this was already taught by the Council of Trent which explicitly excluded the Blessed Virgin from its teaching on the condition of original sin.

In fact, in paragraph 11 of Professio fidei, it describes the history that lead up to the declaration of papal infallibility. It says that the primacy of Successor of Peter was always believed but that the idea of a personal infallibility “reamined open” to discussion. It goes on to say that, prior to Vatican I, the pope’s infallibility was to be definitively held but that only after did everyone have to accept it as a devinely revealed truth. It then goes on to say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis only asserts the teaching based on the previous teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. It is almost as if John Paul II never wrote the words “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.”

(continued)

 

[theMutant]

(continued from post #81)

It would have been much more helpful if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was compared to an acknowledged act of papal infallibility such as Munificentissimus Deus or Ineffabilis Deus so that we poor Catholics in the pews could learn what the distinction is. If he had written that he was confirming or reaffirming the existing teaching, I would not have an issue with the opinion. However, what he wrote was that he was declaring the teaching. Like Munificentissimus Dues and Ineffabilis Deus, he was making a declaration regarding a teaching that was already held and taught by the Church.

In my opinion, much to much emphasis is being placed on the phrase “definitively held” with people asserting declarations of beliefs to be “definitively held” are not, by definition, infallible. However, Professio fidei states that teachings that are to be “definitively held” fall into two categories; acts which are “defining” or “non-defining.” “Non-defining acts” are those that merely confirm or reaffirm existing teaching but in a “defining act” the teaching to be held is taught in an infallible manner. Both “defining” (infallible) and “non-defining” (non-infallible) acts present truths which are to be “definitively held.” Therefore the use of that phrase by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis doesn’t indicate that it must be a “non-defining” act.

Returning to the issue of the Responsum ad Dubium between Cardinal Ratzinger, I get even more confused.

“Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.”

Maybe we have an issue of translation here, but in English usage, the sentence doesn’t seem to help resolve the issue. What is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith? According to the structure of the sentence, the answer to that question is “the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” The dubium submitted to the pope does not directly ask anything about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. It only mentions it as a place where the teaching in question has been presented. It does not ask whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be understood as merely confirming or reaffirming an existing teaching (a non-defining act) or as defining the teaching which is to be definitively held.

 

[theMutant]

Evangelium Vitae (where the Pope promulgated the death penalty teaching) are both infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium

In regard to the pope’s teaching on the death penalty. It is true that the teaching on the death penalty is infallible, however, the pope’s assertion that there is no more need for the death penalty in today’s world is not.

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic 2003

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible that emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See … The so called “silentium obsequiosum,” (that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on error.”

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Introduction, section 8, Theological Grades of Certainty.

If the pope has not spoken ex cathedra in OS, why cannot Fr. Burns claim the “exception clause” noted above? That is, the pope has only given us a fallible opinion that rests on error, and that further theological debate by “competent experts” will show that this is so.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“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)

I discount the claim that all Papal Bulls are infallible. It seems more like some kind of myth that is passed around within Catholic circles. To my knowledge, there’s no such assertion found within magisterial text.

For an article on Papal Bulls and other briefs, see Catholic Encyclopedia artical here:
newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm

According to Canon 749 §3 “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” I presume this includes Papal Bulls and anything promulgated by Ecumenical Councils.

 

[deogratias]

This merely confirms what is already Church doctrine.

See also a previous document from 1976 Inter Signories

newadvent.org/docs/df76ii.htm

 

[Matt16_18]

theMutant

To argue that John Paul II did not give a definition of the teaching to which he bound us when he stated that we are to “definitively” hold ourselves to that teaching is to split hairs on symantics that were not addressed by Vatican I and which Professio fidei does nothing to clear up. … In my opinion, much to much emphasis is being placed on the phrase “definitively held” with people asserting declarations of beliefs to be “definitively held” are not, by definition, infallible.

I agree. In OS, the Pope invoked his authority to confirm the brethren in a matter of faith, and specifically quoted Lk 22:32 when he invoked that authority:

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.
Lk 22:32 is a scripture that has always been used by the Church to defend the doctrine of Papal infalliblity. Certainly the pope was aware of that when he wrote this sentence. He might as well shout out, “I am teaching infallibly, not just giving you my fallible theological opinion”.

Professio fidei states that doctrines can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clearly makes this declaration in the paragraph immediately preceding the the John Paul II’s declaration of the doctrine to be difinitively held. However, Munificentissiumus Deus also declares that the teaching of the Assumption was already taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. For that matter, Ineffabilis Deus declares the same regading the teaching of the Imaculate Conception. **So what’s the difference? ** All three confirm that the doctrine they address was already part of the teaching of the Church and all three reaffirm the teaching they address. All three contain declaratory statements that define the belief to be held and bind the entire Church to their teaching.

Excellent point, what is the difference? The pope cannot add anything to the deposit of faith by speaking ex cathedra. At best, all the Pope can do is make explicit what is implicit in the deposit of faith. In OS, the pope has explicitly confirmed that it is a matter of faith, and not just a matter of church discipline that women cannot receive the sacrament of Ordination. Cardinal Ratzinger’s distinctions between “defining or non-defining” acts seem to be theological hair splitting that is not at all justified by the meaning of “define” as it used in Vatican I:
Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,

o in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
o in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
o he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church
It seems obvious to me that the Pope met all the Vatican I criteria for teaching ex cathedra statement when he issued OS.

 

[theMutant]

deogratias:

This merely confirms what is already Church doctrine.

See also a previous document from 1976 Inter Signories

newadvent.org/docs/df76ii.htm

But Inter Signories did not include any statement which fit the definition of ex cathedra set forth by Vatican I. That is precisely my point. Inter Signories clearly does nothing but confirm and reassert existing teaching with great care to explain the foundational reasons. However, Paul VI did not include any declaration invoking his authority as the Successor of St. Peter. John Paul II did in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

As I already said, if John Paul II had not bound the whole Church to definitively hold what he was teaching by his authority as the Successor of St. Peter, I wouldn’t have any disagreement with those who say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible declaration. We wouldn’t be having this discussion because I would not have started the thread.

 

[deogratias]

There is a section from an article by Christopher Y Wong that I saved from EWTN Library which states it quite well, i thought. - emphasis is mine

The Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility is very clear:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of this office, when, as supreme pastor and
teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith -
he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or
morals( The Catechism of the Catholic Church 891, citing LG 25 c.f. DS 3074.)

The four tests we can discern from the above are that the Pope:

1. intends to teach (“teacher of all the faithful”)

1. by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (“supreme pastor”)

1. a matter of faith or morals (“pertaining to faith or morals”)

1. to be held by the universal church. (“of all the faithful”)

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.

Is the Pope’s Apostolic Letter an exercise in infallibility? Let us
apply the four criterion. From 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 (c.f. 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.”

1. Is it at all doubtful that the Pope intends to teach? In fact, he
   seeks to do so that** “all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance.”
   **
2. He is clearly operating as supreme pastor. Note the correspondence between his words (“in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren”) and LG 25 (“supreme pastor . . . who confirms his brethren in the faith”). His intention to issue an infallible teaching is undeniable.

1. This is clearly a matter pertaining to faith. Rather than “merely
   disciplinary force,” the doctrine is a** “matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself.”
   **
2. That this is binding on the universal church can be seen by his
   insistence that the doctrine **“is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
   **
   Keep in mind that it is the Pope - not the documents - that practices infallibility. His intention to do so is clear, and amplified all the more by the CDF Responsum. Insistence on particular wordings and phrases and other linguistic games looks silly in view of this. This should give pause to those “adroit theologians” who insist on creative private interpretation of Church documents.

Conclusion​

Pope’s recent Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” is an
exercise in infallibility. The response from the CDF merely emphasizes this to those who heroically attempt to misunderstand the Pope’s intention. .

 

[theMutant]

Catholic2003:

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.

I understand the distinction that you are making but I still don’t agree with your conclusion. In a previous response, I brought up the fact that I know of people who are aware of how guns work but accidentally fired them. I realize that I need to clarify, using your own analogy, why I think this fails the test.

It is actually possible for a person to purposely pull the trigger without intending to fire the gun; if he believes that the gun is not loaded. (Police statistics show that this happens quite a lot.) If the gun is actually loaded, then he will unintentionally fire the gun although he intentionally pulled the trigger.

This, in my opinion, is a good analogy if John Paul II did not actually intend to teach infallibly. He clearly intended to teach and to do so authoritatively. It may be possible that he did not intend to do so infallibly but, in the formulation of his declaration, he conformed to all of the requirements for infallible teaching. In effect, he loaded the gun without realizing it. If this is true, it is likely because he didn’t even contemplate issuing an infallible statement and, consequently never looked at it in that light. Once his declaration fit the criteria for infallible teaching as defined in Vatican I, the Holy Spirit automatically protected him with the grace of infallibility. To go back to the gun analogy, once the trigger was pulled, the gun automatically fired even though he never intended to fire the gun.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

Of course not, but it contains an Infallible teaching!

 

[otm]

I’ve had to skip over about the last 1/3 of responses, so I hope this doesn’t go entirely astray.

I’ve always been taught that in the entire history of the Church, the Pope(s) have only spoken twice ex cathedra. If that is in fact the case, then what is the fuss? It seems clear that the Pope, in the ordinary exercise of the Magestrial authority given him, can speak difinitivley without having to do so Ex cathedra; otherwise we would have a whole string of dogmatic teachings stretching 20 centuries. We don’t.

Whether Vatican 1 sets out a specifc language, or set of terms, or words and/or phrases, seems to be beside the point, and the language quoted: 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: seems to pretty well set out that this is an example of an ex cathedra statment. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis doesn’t contain that language.

And it seems we have a red herring being drug through the discussion: we are going round and round about a fallible statement about an infallible doctrine. It seems to me the issue isn’t whether it is a fallible statement, but whether it is a doctrine of the Church. Kung, and anyone else disagreeing with it, are trying to hold that there are only two ways something can be held infallible; a council statement made with the pope present and assenting, or subsequently ratifying, the statement, and a specific ex cathedra statement. In my humble opinion, we are getting sucked into the same whirl pool.

Some people want everything to be defined ex cathedra, but from what I have seen, it just doesn’t work that way.

 

[Matt16_18]

Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible declaration?

Of course not, but it contains an Infallible teaching!

There are some theologians in the church that have been teaching that the ordinary universal magisterium has NOT taught that women can never be ordained, because this restriction on women is only a matter of church discipline, and not a matter of the faith.

Obviously, the pope disagrees with those who assert this position.

“… at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.”

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
The pope has issued a formal teaching that he insists is binding upon the whole church, and in that teaching, he asserts that women cannot be ordained, and that this is a matter of faith, and not “a merely disciplinary force.”

The question is this: Did the pope merely give us his fallible opinion that the ordinary universal magisterium teaches that women can never be ordained, or did the pope do more than offer the church his fallible opinion? Did the pope, in fact, teach ex cathedra, “in order that ALL doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance”?

 

[Matt16_18]

otm:

Kung, and anyone else disagreeing with it, are trying to hold that there are only two ways something can be held infallible; a council statement made with the pope present and assenting, or subsequently ratifying, the statement, and a specific ex cathedra statement.

Hans Kung is well aware that Vatican II teaches that that infallible doctrines are received by the church by means other than exercises of the extraordinary Magistierium:

But how and why should this doctrine [women cannot receive ordination] be infallible? Are there not certain formal steps laid down that have to be taken? Is it not only when the Pope has solemnly declared it to be so ex cathedra that a teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible? Most Catholics continue to believe this. They have not yet realised that since Vatican II’s constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (§ 25), two kinds of magisterial infallibility have been officially recognised.

First, there is the infallibility of the extraordinary teaching office (magisterium extraordinarium) when the pope as supreme teacher of the Church speaks ex cathedra or an ecumenical council makes a solemn definition.

Secondly, however, there is also the infallibility of the ordinary teaching office (magisterium ordinarium), i.e. that exercised everywhere and all the time, when the pope and bishops are quite obviously in agreement on a certain doctrine of faith or morals which is to be held definitively. In these cases too the Church’s teaching authority is incapable of error thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

It is precisely this second kind of infallibility, according to the view of the Pope and the doctrinal congregation, that is involved in the question of the ordination of women: the infallibility of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”.

Women’s Ordination and Infallibility
By Hans Küng

 

[Matt16_18]

deogratias:

There is a section from an article by Christopher Y Wong that I saved from EWTN Library which states it quite well, i thought. - emphasis is mine

That is a strong argument for saying that the pope has taught ex cathedra in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

What then, do you make of this sentence by Cardinal Ratzinger?

October 28, 1995
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Letter: Concerning the CDF Reply
Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

… 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.

 

[Catholic2003]

Matt16_18:

If the pope has not spoken ex cathedra in OS, why cannot Fr. Burns claim the “exception clause” noted above? That is, the pope has only given us a fallible opinion that rests on error, and that further theological debate by “competent experts” will show that this is so.

This is just my personal opinion, but it seems to me that Ott’s exception clause was abrogated by the 1998 change in canon law brought about by Ad Tuendam Fidem.

 

[Catholic2003]

Matt16_18:

That is a strong argument for saying that the pope has taught ex cathedra in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

What then, do you make of this sentence by Cardinal Ratzinger?

October 28, 1995
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Letter: Concerning the CDF Reply
Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

… 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.

It seems clear to me that Christopher Wong classifies Cardinal Ratzinger as an adroit theologian who is heroically attempting to misunderstand the Pope’s intention. Obviously, I disagree with Wong on this viewpoint.

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic2003:

This is just my personal opinion, but it seems to me that Ott’s exception clause was abrogated by the 1998 change in canon law brought about by Ad Tuendam Fidem.

I have no doubt that Fr. Burns would disagree with your opinion.

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic2003:

It seems clear to me that Christopher Wong classifies Cardinal Ratzinger as an adroit theologian who is heroically attempting to misunderstand the Pope’s intention. Obviously, I disagree with Wong on this viewpoint.

Did the pope intend to offer the brethren his fallible personal opinion about a matter of faith, or did he intend to infallibly confirm the brethren in a matter of faith?

 

[theMutant]

otm:

Whether Vatican 1 sets out a specifc language, or set of terms, or words and/or phrases, seems to be beside the point, and the language quoted: 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: seems to pretty well set out that this is an example of an ex cathedra statment. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis doesn’t contain that language.

Funny, first you say that language is beside the point and then you try to make a point by comparing the difference of language between the two documents. The difference of language can be explained by the 100 years of time between the two documents.

otm:

And it seems we have a red herring being drug through the discussion: we are going round and round about a fallible statement about an infallible doctrine. It seems to me the issue isn’t whether it is a fallible statement, but whether it is a doctrine of the Church.

From this, I have to conclude that you not only didn’t read the last 1/3 of the posts as you admitted, but that you didn’t pay much attention to the first 2/3 you supposedly read. The issue of this thread is whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an infallible declaration. We have not been debating whether or not what it taught is part of the infallible teaching of the Church; that is presumed and hasn’t been contested by anyone who has been participating up to now. You say that “we are going round and round about a fallible statement about an infallible doctrine.” In making this statement you are completely ignoring the topic at hand; was that statement fallible or not.

otm:

Kung, and anyone else disagreeing with it, are trying to hold that there are only two ways something can be held infallible; a council statement made with the pope present and assenting, or subsequently ratifying, the statement, and a specific ex cathedra statement. In my humble opinion, we are getting sucked into the same whirl pool.

Kung and the like are beyond the topic of this thread. With all due respect to Matt16_18, he has only brought them up as an example of the implication if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does not contain an infallible declaration.

otm:

Some people want everything to be defined ex cathedra, but from what I have seen, it just doesn’t work that way.

I don’t know who those “some people” are but I haven’t noticed any of them participating in this thread. My topic was not raised because I “want everything to be defined ex cathedra” but because, according to what was defined by Vatican I, I believe that the pope acted infallibly when declaring a teaching about part of the deposit of the faith in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

If you disagree with those of us who hold my opinion on this matter, then please explain the failure in our reasoning. Others have been attempting to do this and I feel that the conversation has been proceeding quite amicably and respectfully. Both sides have tried to give detailed and thoughtful explanations of their positions and have cited official Church documents to support their positions. I can respect those who disagree with me on an issue and take the time to explain their reasons for the disagreement.