Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis infallible?

[catholicworker1922]

It appears that way to me, but I understand some people do not see it that way. However, even in the case that it was not infallible, would we all not still be obliged to provide our full assent to it?

Also, if it were not an infallible declaration, couldn’t any statement, even those with anathemas attached, be equivocated about in a similar way? If the Pope saying, “We 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” is not binding, then what possibly could be?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Yes, next question.

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, I don’t really get the idea that it was not a definitive and universal judgment of the Roman Pontiff (and therefore infallible). The Pope even uses the language from Vatican II on papal infallibility.

Some say it is because he refers to it being taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium–but the Church can and does teach infallibly in many ways. In fact, since the Pope is not to give new doctrines, papal definitions should be based on what the Church has handed on.

Some say it was not defined as a strictly revealed dogma to be believed with divine faith. This is true, but those are not the only truths the Church teaches infallibly, but also those necessarily connected to divine revelation “to be definitively held.” The First Vatican Council specifically intended to include these truths as well (explicitly using the “to be held” language). This was confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its famous commentary on the Profesio Fidei, specifically using the Pope’s judgment in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as an example.

I think some want to say it is not infallible because they don’t like the answer, but also there are those who find papal infallibility a stumbling block for ecumenism and therefore want to minimize its presence. With better intentions are those who want to minimize it so that a kind of papal positivism is avoided, whereas only those things defined ex cathedra by the Pope are considered binding, everything else being fair game.

 

[porthos11]

It appears that way to me, but I understand some people do not see it that way. However, even in the case that it was not infallible, would we all not still be obliged to provide our full assent to it?

Also, if it were not an infallible declaration, couldn’t any statement, even those with anathemas attached, be equivocated about in a similar way? If the Pope saying, “We 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” is not binding, then what possibly could be?

Its final pronouncement is an ex cathedra teaching, yes, and meets the criteria for Papal infallibility.

The teaching itself has already been infallibly taught as part of the ordinary Magisterium. But this document, despite a lot of attempted spin to the contrary, does meet all criteria for a pronouncement under the extraordinary Papal magisterium. A careful examination shows that all criteria are met.

 

[twf]

The CDF disagreed with you. I’ll go with the CDF.
That said, it is an infallible teaching by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium, and Pope St JP’s clarification is binding regardless.

The vast majority of “infallible” teaching has not been dogmatically defined by Popes.

 

[porthos11]

The CDF disagreed with you. I’ll go with the CDF.
That said, it is an infallible teaching by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium, and Pope St JP’s clarification is binding regardless.

The vast majority of “infallible” teaching has not been dogmatically defined by Popes.

Sure. And yes, it is infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium.

But I disagree with them, and that’s quite the horn I toot.

OS meets all the requirements for an infallible Papal teaching. I don’t know why the CDF would say otherwise, but it’s right there, clear as day. It’s really an easy breakdown, and this is sufficient reason to take the CDF’s opinion with a large grain of salt.

The criteria and breakdown:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance,

FAITH AND MORALS - regarding a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,
EX CATHEDRA - in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)
TEACHING - I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and
TO BE HELD BY THE WHOLE CHURCH - that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

 

[Genesis315]

The CDF disagreed with you. I’ll go with the CDF.

They did in one sentence in a commentary (that doesn’t note any approvals or authority) on a commentary, after both commentaries laid out the reasoning as to whyit was indeed such a definitive papal declaration. It was an odd answer to be sure.

Not to put you on the spot (ok, I am putting you on the spot, sorry!), since the CDF provided no explanation as to why it was not (again, they instead laid out the reasonings as to why it was, and then asserted the contrary conclusion), why do you think they came to this conclusion? Which of the criteria are missing (porthos11 listed them above).

And just to add, the Pope even said the point of his declaration was to “remove all doubt.” This is the whole point of papal infallibility. The Pope can only give this absolute certainty if his judgment is infallible.

 

[porthos11]

twf:

The CDF disagreed with you. I’ll go with the CDF.

They did in one sentence in a commentary (that doesn’t note any approvals or authority) on a commentary, after both commentaries laid out the reasoning as to whyit was indeed such a definitive papal declaration. It was an odd answer to be sure.

Not to put you on the spot (ok, I am putting you on the spot!), since the CDF provided no explanation as to why it was not (again, they instead laid out the reasonings as to why it was, and then asserted the contrary conclusion), why do you think they came to this conclusion? Which of the criteria are missing (porthos11 listed them above).

That is the dubium I was looking for!

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, the dubium supports the fact that it was an infallible judgment. It is only the commentary on the dubium that says otherwise, even though it lays out the whole argument for why it is! It’s weird. It seems the commentary is trying not to waterdown the force and infallibility of the universal magisterium, but by doing so misses the point of papal infallibity, which is not give a new doctrine, but to confirm what the Church has always taught (which is the very thing the commentary says the Pope was doing!). The two always go hand in hand.

 

[porthos11]

Yeah, the dubium supports the fact that it was an infallible judgment. It is only the commentary on the dubium that says otherwise, even though it lays out the whole argument for why it is! It’s weird. It seems the commentary is trying not to waterdown the force and infallibility of the universal magisterium, but by doing so misses the point of papal infallibity, which is not give a new doctrine, but to confirm what the Church has always taught (which is the very thing the commentary says the Pope was doing!). The two always go hand in hand.

And notably, that second commentary bears no one’s name or signature, unlike the dubium, which bears Cardinal Ratzinger’s authority. And I would stake my life on that man’s pronouncements.

 

[twf]

Yes, but the Dubium says it is infallible by virtue of it being contained in the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium…the Dubium does not confirm that it was an exercise of the infallible extraordinary magisterium of the papacy. The commentary further clarifies that it was not…

 

[twf]

Not to put you on the spot (ok, I am putting you on the spot, sorry!), since the CDF provided no explanation as to why it was not (again, they instead laid out the reasonings as to why it was, and then asserted the contrary conclusion), why do you think they came to this conclusion? Which of the criteria are missing (porthos11 listed them above).

I don’t think we will see the extraordinary papal magisterium used in that way again…at least not in the foreseeable future. I think it wasn’t because the Pope didn’t intend it to be…Cardinal Ratzinger surely knew the Pope’s intent better than we do. I think the Church wanted to highlight that the universal and ordinary magisterium is ALREADY infallible.

Catholics (and non-Catholics when debating Catholics) are sometimes obsessed with papal infallibility. The reality is that most of the binding doctrines we believe have NOT been infallibly defined in this manner. It is not the historical norm. Even if we look at defined dogmas, all but two were infallibly defined by the extraordinary magisterium of councils, not the Pope by himself.

The Pope is always involved, but he typically works with the bishop as a whole, either in a solemn manner (at a council) or less formally through the unified witness of their collective teaching.

 

[porthos11]

No one is pitting the Ordinary Magisterium against the extraordinary, and neither is anyone denying that the teaching is not infallibly laid down by the ordinary Magisterium. Even without OS, the teaching was already infallibly taught.

I’m just saying that in this case, it is very clear that the extraordinary Magisterium has bolstered the Ordinary, and that Pope was infallible when he promulgated OS itself (that is, the Papal pronouncement, not the underlying teaching).

I don’t know what the author of that commentary had in mind, but I believe I have broken it down clearly enough to prove that all the criteria for an infallible Papal pronouncement were met. Yes, I agree that not everything the Pope says is infallibly protected, but this one in particular, was. In fact, OS is the only other document I know of that meets the criteria after 1950.

There is nothing that forces us to believe that an infallibly taught doctrine via the Ordinary Magisterium cannot be backed up by an infallible Papal declaration.