It isn’t your choice of words that worries me, but that you appear to disapprove of the Church’s dogma. And I was not thinking you had a problem with the virginity of our Blessed Mother. You don’t need to care about what I think: I don’t know your mind or heart, but we can know without ambiguity what the Church thinks.
I can understand if you don’t like the use of the word “superior” and the impression it gives, but perhaps try to get the sense of what it actually means and focus on that, which is what my various quotes have addressed. It isn’t uncommon to mistake straightforward statements as arrogant: for example: “
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ,” (1 Cor 11:1), which would seem arrogant coming from almost anyone else.
You state this teaching is an infallible doctrine of the church. I need to know where it was proclaimed “from the Chair of Peter.”
Ex cathedra statements are not the only infallible statements.
Trent was the nineteenth ecumenical council. Ecumenical councils are infallible in virtue of the Pope’s authority. Disciplinary and pastoral statements are not necessarily infallible, but a dogma is indicated by the formula, “If anyone says . . . let him be anathema” (which is a “Canon” as in Canon X of Trent, which we have been discussing).
An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church,
it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and cooperation of its head. . . .
That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. . . .
(
Infallibility | Catholic Answers)
The “anathema” formula distinguishes an infallible statement of dogma from a disciplinary statement:
Anathema | Catholic Answers
Pius was 80 or so years ago, Trent was 16th century. At those times, it was held that the celibate life was superior to the married state. Arrogant, yes, but the thinking of the times.
Why is this relevant when we’re talking about dogma?
How confident are you of that? And based on what?
Also, as I said, I don’t know whether or not Matthew 19 is even relevant. Whether it is that or another verse, the Church has reached the conclusion she did at Trent, and if our judgment contradicts it, we trust her’s instead.
And Canon X did not emphasize. It is extremely unambiguous and straightforward. Do you have any thoughts on how it might be interpreted to allow for the possibility that celibacy and marriage are equal after all? (Again, this is not talking about the equality of the persons themselves.)
