This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
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.
The teaching IS infallible as mentinoned AND the teaching is directed at Holy Orders.The Pope was reiterating the teaching that the church has always taught. He did not need to make an “ex cathedra” proclamation so he did not . Some goofy people take this to mean that the teaching is not infallible but it is.
A step in the direction of defining the issue of women in the diaconate: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDIACO.HTMWhen the church says HOLY ORDERS they mean HOLY ORDERS. SInce deacons recieve HOLY ORDERS then the door is closed on that issure too. If the magisterium would go to the length of defining the issue they would have clarified any questions regarding the diaconate.
The fact is that theologians and canonists disagree on whether this teaching was taught infallibly.With reference to the supposed ‘official Church committee’, I will say that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a response to a question addressed to them over whether the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively as infallible. They said that it most definitely IS. See the response here (signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, who was at the time Prefect of the CDF) - key sentence ‘it [Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] has been set forth infallibly’ - and a more detailed explanation of the response here (again signed by Cardinal Ratzinger).
Theologians’ and canonists’ opinions are of course not binding (unless they are part of the Magisterium) but that does not mean they are not informative.Some theologians might disagree; after all, Hans Kung is a theologian. Not that he has particularly disagreed on the matter; but the fact that some theologians and/or canonists might disagree is neither binding nor particularly informative. Theologians are not part of the Magisterium. The Pope, on the other hand, was part of the Magisterium.
That fact also has nothing to do with whether it was infallible or not. John Paul II spoke infallibly, or he did not. Opinions do not sway reality. There are those that also argue that papal infallibility was never infallibly defined. They are called the Old Catholic Church and remain in schism despite their opinions. Dissident opinions will always exist from what the Church teaches as factions whose agendas are at odds with the Church seek are swayed by what they want and not at what is.The fact is that theologians and canonists disagree on whether this teaching was taught infallibly.
That fact has nothing to do with whether the teaching is true or authoritative. It’s clearly authoritative and binding.
You might want to review your second paragraph and source; perhaps a quote might make it clearer.Theologians’ and canonists’ opinions are of course not binding (unless they are part of the Magisterium) but that does not mean they are not informative.
Canon Law requires that no teaching can be taught infallibly unless it is manifestly evident that such teaching is taught infallibly. Some would suggest that this criterion was not met in this instance.
I was not questioning whether the answer is definitively answered. I never suggested otherwise. In fact, I clearly noted that I was not questioning the teaching itself. I was just noting the fact that there are differences of opinion on whether or not this particular teaching was taught infallibly.Y
For those who follow the Magisterium, the answer is definitvely answered, and we all can go on to a new question. For those who do not follow the Magisterium, or are so poorly catechized that they have no concept of doctrinal formation and definition, the one sided debate (which I am sure you recognize is an oxymoron) will continue.
I wondered where you werre going; having read other comments in other threads by you, it wasn’t really making sense.I was not questioning whether the answer is definitively answered. I never suggested otherwise. In fact, I clearly noted that I was not questioning the teaching itself. I was just noting the fact that there are differences of opinion on whether or not this particular teaching was taught infallibly.
And, perhaps more importantly, the fact that such-and-such a teaching is definitive does not remove the responsibility of teaching it, and allowing those who question or don’t understand it to faithfully raise questions and engage in dialogue to further their understanding. I’m concerned that too many people react with slamming the door when people who have questions about this (or any) teaching raise questions. It seems many are too ready to jump to condemnation rather than engage in dialogue.