I was watching the Jon Stewart show a couple of weeks ago, and he said, âGod - wouldnât it be just awful, if [Richard] Cheney [by creating legislation that the President doesnât have to follow Congress] has just made Hilary Clinton to be the most powerful president in the history of the United States?âA few of the men here seem to be getting their shorts in a twist. Must be the thought that soon Hilliary will be presidentâŚThatâs a **** buster I would expectâŚ:bigyikes:
Sorry, it was just too good to pass upâŚIâll behave nowâŚ
Well, Iâm not Spirit Meadow, but I would say that these documents say what no one has denied, that the Churchâs stand today is that women cannot be ordained. It says nothing about what the Church may say tomorrow.
Check out Fr. Heinrich Denzingerâs Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum ( The Sources of Catholic Dogma, or commonly just called Denzinger.)OK, infallibility is a whole nother topic, but, if someone can point me to an authoritative list of the infallible doctrines of the Church I would much appreciate it. I have never seen one. Seems that if we have a list of things we know are infallibly true, we would tack it up somewhere.
There is, check above, or check any Catechism of your choice that is promulgated by Rome (ie: not Catechisms approved by a local Council or Bishopâs Conference). A Catechism itself is not infallible, but it contains references to where pretty much all Infallible Dogmas are contained (ie: Documents by Councils, or Extraordinary Magisterial statements) and teachings held by the Ordinary Magisterium which are also infallible.
It is an infallible teaching due to Tradition and the Ordinary Magisterium. Pope Benedict XVI argued that John Paul IIâs statement itself was not infallible, but that the topic of womenâs ordination was closed due to the 2000 year infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. However, many also argue that his statement was in fact infallible. Whether it is or not, it doesnât matter, as nowhere in the 2000 year history of the Church has there ever been ordained women (the women Deacons of old were not ordained and the sole reason of their existance was to prep women who were being baptized.) Because of this Tradition, the teaching on womenâs ordination is infallible due to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Gosh couldnât ya even submit the modern one ya know the one in 1995 or 6 instead of going all the way back to 1976? I donât think anybody at all is arguing that the last 2 popes have made their position clear.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM
What is your take on this Spirit Meadow?
Seems like there is more than one document that says it plain as day.
Peace to you
LOLâŚMy husband and I saw it tooâŚwe never miss a show of either him or the Colbert Report. Best news on TV these daysâŚlolâŚI was watching the Jon Stewart show a couple of weeks ago, and he said, âGod - wouldnât it be just awful, if [Richard] Cheney [by creating legislation that the President doesnât have to follow Congress] has just made Hilary Clinton to be the most powerful president in the history of the United States?â
ummmm, arenât you violating what indeed you propose? Youâre NOT supposed to talk about itâŚShould you even be here?
What in the world are you talking about? You most certaintly are supposed to talk about it, but only in the negative when it relates to womenâs ordination.
OK, I have said here and elsewhere that I am no expert on infallibility. I can read and interpret what people say, though. So my understanding is that Pope John Paul II said, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that he believed that the ordination of women was outside the authority of the Church, and that this teaching âhas been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium.â The Congregation of the Faithful, at the time headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, said that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not in itself infallible, but that the male only priesthood was infallible, because it was a constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Well, it does matter if the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible, because both it and the subsequent opinion by the of Congregation of the Faithful express opinions, very important opinions but still opinions, on whether this teaching qualifies as an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium.
The case can be made that John Paul IIâs statement was infallible as it meets ALL of the requirements of an infallible declaration. His comments are not infallible statements in and of themselves however because this was an already defined Dogma, due to the constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. His comments didnât need to be labeled an infallible statement (even though they could be), because the teaching was an already infallible teaching.
This is the part where he is saying that this particular teaching is an infallible teaching.
Yep!They can, but they will inevitably come to the same conclusions - the data set isnât going to change at all, between now and then.
Seems to me that the most important âdata setâ is the decision maker. Whether any other relevant data will change is impossible to predict, but that most important datum is certain to change at some point. The last two Popes have avoided doing anything that will tie their successors hands. I think that was wise. So we move into the future and we will see.
This is where you are wrong. Dogma does âtie the hands of succeeding Pontiffs.â That is what Dogma does. It is unchanging. If the Church changes in this regard, then the Church has contradicted itself and has fallen into error, in which case Jesusâ promises to St. Peter were in vain.
I donât think I disagree, I just disagree over whether this particular teaching can be considered dogma. As someone else commented, I think the Church reacts to these things much like a Court. It decides issues on the narrowest grounds available. This makes sense for both bodies. By avoiding deciding what need not be decided, errors are avoided and flexibility is maintained.
In the document above it is stated as part of the deposit of faith (De fide) and that it is required for belief. This is what Dogma is. To reject this is to put oneâs soul in peril. This is not a Church practice, it is Dogma. If you donât believe that the Ordinary Magisterium has defined it so, than the comments by John Paul II can be used as they meet all the requirements of a Dogmatic prouncement, so either way itâs Dogma
Well, they could be used to say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an ex cathedra statement, but the Congregatoin of the Faith clarified that it was not. There are two operanat statements:
The teaching is infallible due to the Ordinary Magisterium, not the statements made by John Paul II. I was just merely stating that if you did not believe that, then his statements could be used in light of an ex cathedra statement, as they meet all of the requirements. Either way, it is a Dogma of the Church and is infallible. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has clearly and explicately said this. There is no denying this fact if you read the link I provided. You canât argue that it is not an infallible Dogma. To think otherwise is to have an agenda (ie: trying to change something that is an unchangeable Dogma simply because you donât like it, or think it is unfair.) Just like all Dogmas of the faith (De fide), you are required to believe it on pain of mortal sin, therefore your soul could be in danger. There is an authority for a reason, and they have continously spoken on this for the last 2000 years. I donât know how much more of an infallible statement you want.
This is really a silly argument. I am not denying that the Church gets to decide if women can be priests, or that it has decided that they cannot. I couldnât break that rule if I wanted to because I am not involved in the ordination of priests. So the technical infallibility doesnât really matter to me. I still think my analysis is correct, but I agree my analsyis doesnât matter one bit. (Nor does yours, for that matter.) Regardless of which of us is correct, I donât believe that the state of my soul is implicated no matter what I believe about the ordination of women. I thought disagreeing but obeying was OK, and since this is a doctrine it is impossible for me to disobey, seems like Iâm in the clear.
Once again, you need to read the article I linked to by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It said it is an infallible Dogma, a Dogma where dissent of opinion is explicately not allowed. The Church has tought many times in its history that dissent on an infallibly defined Dogma can bring about mortal sin. Take that for what you want. Your right about one thing though, my opinion on this subject doesnât matter. In fact I never even stated an opinion. I basically just reiterated what the CDF document stated.
Itâs never gonna be a closed subject. Witness this thread. You guys actually came in and made it an issue. It was from the start a fairly innocuous gentle discussion of Junia. Now its a full blown argument about womenâs ordination. Some people look for arguments.âGosh couldnât ya even submit the modern one ya know the one in 1995 or 6 instead of going all the way back to 1976? I donât think anybody at all is arguing that the last 2 popes have made their position clear.â
Spirit Meadow, I already did that, and you did not like that document either.
You mocked me by saying that you bet I wished it was a closed door. Maybe you forgot that already.