Papal Infallibility - Specifics

[Matt16_18]

Example of the never ending dissent caused by the lack of clarity in the definition of an ex cathedra teaching …

Women’s Ordination and Infallibility
By Hans Küng

… Catholic theologians, even the more progressive among them, who since my own licence to teach was withdrawn on 18 December 1979 no longer dared question and analyse infallibility, for fear that their licence be withdrawn also, had a convenient loophole to enable them to avoid “definitive assent” to papal teaching demanded of them: it was, thank God, not an infallible doctrine. The Pope himself had not used the term “infallible”. So we could happily go on debating the question . . .

 

[Matt16_18]

A fine example of Jesuit style weaseling on the infallibility of women’s ordination:

The Ordination of Women: Infallibly Taught?
**by Peter Burns, S.J. **

So what we have is:

1. No ex cathedra infallible papal teaching about women’s ordination;

1. No infallibly defined dogma of an ecumenical council concerning women’s ordination;
2. A fallible opinion to the effect that the ban on women’s ordination has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.

Now just because an opinion is fallible doesn’t mean that it’s false. The CDF spoke fallibly, but did it speak nonetheless truly?

My opinion is that it made a mistake. …​

 

[Vincent]

Matt16_18:

Good questions.

Fr Harrison remarked that the controversies that we’ve been examining have to do with,

…the longstanding confusion (even amongst orthodox theologians) regarding the precise point which the 1870 definition left undecided, and the resulting widespread (though clearly false) impression that it guarantees infallibility only for *de fide * definitions of revealed truth.

In a footnote, he adds,

Also contributing to the common error is the fact that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c.1323.3) said, “Nothing is to be understood as dogmatically (dogmatice) declared or defined unless it is manifestly the case.” The Code did not state or imply that dogmatic definitions - which seemed to mean definitions of strictly revealed truth - are the only kind of infallible definitions there are. But simply by omitting all mention of any other type, it tended to leave that impression. And *Humanae Vitae * is not in fact a definition of dogma. The 1983 Code of Canon Law has corrected the apparent ambiguity by substituting *infallibiliter * (“infallibly”) for dogmatice (cf. c. 749.3).

Similarly, in a previous article, Fr. Harrison wrote,

Whence, then, comes the prevalent idea that dogmatic definitions, such as those of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, are the only possible exercise of papal infallibility? Fr. Lio maintains that, to a large extent, this has come about because of the wording of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1323: 3 of the old Code affirmed that “Nothing is to be understood as dogmatically (dogmatice) declared or defined unless this is manifestly the case.” This has tended to create the impression - although it certainly does not teach or necessarily imply - that dogmatic definitions are the only kind of infallible definitions there are: there is no mention of any other kind. In the new Code of 1983, however, the words “dogmatically declared or defined” have been replaced by “infallibly defined” (canon 749:3). Fr. Lio maintains that this revision clarifies the situation: it brings the Church’s law more unambiguously into line with her doctrine by removing any occasion for equating “infallible” with “dogmatic” - an equation which unduly limits the occasions on which Popes teach (or are understood to teach) infallibly.

 

[Vincent]

Matt16_18:

Well, you get the idea.

The ambiguity that Fr. Harrison (and Fr. Lio) referred to may have developed such that by the late 60’s theologians erroneously placed the accent on infallibility, rather than on authority (or as you’ve suggested, on whether a doctrine is infallible, rather than whether a doctrine is true). Thus, the logic went, “if it’s not ex cathedra, then it’s not infallible; and if it’s not infallible, then I don’t have to obey it”.

Shawn McElhinney further observes that the 1917 Code “probably a major reason for the mistaken notion that infallibility was contingent on solemnity.” That’s apparent enough when we read of theologians who erroneously conclude that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis isn’t infallible because it wasn’t solemnly defined.

Interestingly, the CDF presents “defining” acts (ex cathedra) as being contingent on solemnity. Note that the CDF *isn’t * saying that infallibility is contingent on solemnity, but *ex cathedra * is contingent on solemnity.

What should be obvious to even non-Catholic theologians is that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has a unique weight of papal authority behind it. In other words, it’s as authoritative as you can get (setting aside its debated ex cathedra status). That enough should draw theologians to the conclusion that our response to it must be obedience. At the very least, it should be obvious that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (and Humane Vitae, before it), should be adhered to with the “religious submission of will and intellect” (c.f. Lumen Gentium 25).

So, if a theologian wants to dissent from *OS * and *HV * by being unfaithful to a dogmatic constitution of an Ecumenical Council, then he’s opened up more than just a can of worms, but a Pandora’s box.

 

[Matt16_18]

Vincent

The big problem that I see, is the very strange idea that the pope is limited in the use of the supreme authority of his teaching office in defending the church against heresy.

If the heresy involves a teaching of a doctrine that is taught by the ordinary universal Magisterium, the Pope cannot speak “from the chair” about that heresy. Why? Because he can only speak about matters of faith and morals that have never been taught as infallible by either the extraordinary Magisterium or ordinary universal Magisterium. Ex Cathedra statements are reserved for instances where the Church needs to settle once and for all a doctrinal or moral question that has never been addressed through the exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium or the ordinary universal Magisterium.

In *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *, Pope John Paul II addressed a false teaching that was spreading like gangrene in the church, i.e. that the male only priesthood was a matter of discipline, not doctrine. Was Pope John Paul II speaking “from the chair” when he declared to the whole church that it is an irrevocable doctrine and that the Sacrament of Ordination can be given only to males? No. Why not? Because the pope wasn’t teaching a new doctrine!

 

[Matt16_18]

Vincent

Back to this point that you made about the CDF:

“Ex cathedra”, from Cardinal Ratzinger’s perspective, seems to exclude papal pronouncements that explicitly confirm certain teachings as belonging to the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Dr. Ludwig Ott’s, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma seem to be even more restrictive than Cardinal Ratzinger’s perspective concerning the material about which an *ex cathedra * statement can be made.

From what I can glean from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book, Pope John Paul II’s teaching in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis * didn’t meet the criteria for being either an infallible papal teaching, or an ex cathedra teaching. Why? Because the pope was not finally settling a question involving doctrine that had been under dispute in the Church - he was merely affirming an existing doctrine long taught by the ordinary universal Magisterium:

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra

… The condition of the Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required:

a) The he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority; if he speaks as a private theologian or as a bishop of his Diocese, he is not infallible;

b) That he have the intention of finally deciding a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation, or by the circumstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the doctrinal expressions made by Popes in their Encyclicals are not decisions ex cathedra.

[from the introduction to Ott’s book:]

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 which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Dr. Ott does not recognize that infallible teachings can be received by the church through the ordinary universal Magisterium. He only recognizes that bishops are speaking infallibly when their teachings emanate from General Councils.

I can usually depend on Dr. Ott’s book to be reliable, but this seems to be way off …

 

[Chris_C]

Calvin:

I’ve gone back to 1054 and can’t make up my mind to cross the Rubicon or swim the Bosphorus. This is one of my “hinge” issues so any comments would be appreciated.

With all respect,

-C

Don’t you mean the Tiber? And if you’ve seen the Tiber, you know that you can probably wade across it (though it doesn’t look that clean!). I wouldn’t try to swim the Bosphorus!
HAHA

Chris C.

Oh, btw, the correct answer is Tiber…

 

[Vincent]

Matt16_18:

I think you’re right about Ott. The 1917 Code seem to have affected his view on the matter as well.

I wonder if the key to sorting this out is found in number 9 of the “Doctrinal Commentary”. I hope I’m not repeating myself here, but I’m beginning to think that even doctrines taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium *can * be promulgated by the Pope ex cathedra. My reading of the CDF’s position doesn’t rule that out.

To address your previous statements, yes, the Pope can speak “from the chair” to condemn heresies against teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisteriuim. Yes, the Pope could’ve made Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* a “defining” act.

So what happened?

If the CDF’s right, then it looks like the Pope chose to limit himself to making a “non-defining” act by “declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium…as a truth of Catholic doctrine” (emphasis added). Even though the teaching that priestly ordination cannot be conferred on women belongs to the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Pope could’ve promulgated OS * ex cathedra by appealing to his own authority as the Successor of Peter without appealing to the ordinary and universal magisterium. As long as the Pope declares* that a doctrine belongs to the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as he did with OS, then he prevents himself from making a “defining” act.

So it raises the question: why did he choose to limit himself?

To be continued…

• I’m not referring to every thing in the document but only the doctrinal statement in question, (i.e. “. . . . the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. . . .”

** I don’t think a specific formula is necessary. He doesn’t have to state the words “ordinary and universal magisterium”.

 

[Vincent]

Matt16_18:

Here’s my theory:

The Pope was concerned that if he had promulgated it ex cathedra, then he may have given the impression that only ex cathedra pronouncements are to be believed or held definitively. In other words, if *OS * was a “defining act” then Catholics may be tempted to suspend assent to other doctrines unless the Pope gave his ex cathedra stamp of approval on them. It’s the problem of the 1917 code compounded.

This error would of course weaken the authority of the ordinary and universal Magisterium and, in the faithful’s eyes, strip it of the gift of infallibility. My general impression is that a number of theologians were already in this frame of mind even before OS.

An imperfect analogy is the jurisdiction of the Pope. As Pastor Aeternus declares,“this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.” Guess what may happen if the Pope were to exercise his direct and immediate power over individual dioceses all of the time: this micromanagement may, in the view of the faithful, effectively reduce the Bishops to being “Vicars of the Pope” rather than preserving their vocation as the "Vicars of Christ they really are. For this reason Vatican I was careful to emphasize that “[t]his power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction.” Yet, pastorally, the Pope has to be careful not to give the false impression that his immediate power detracts from the power of the Bishops. He does this by letting the Bishops rule their dioceses without his direct intervention unless a severe crisis calls for such a drastic last-resort measure. Subsidiarity, in other words.

Preserving the teaching subsidiarity might be what the Pope had intended when he promulgated OS: “The authority of the ordinary and univeral magisterium is weakened, and we have a problem on our hands with the priestly ordination of women. But if I deal with the latter problem with an *ex cathedra * act, I may further weaken the authority of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Therefore, I’ll restrain my authority and confirm the authority of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. But, in the future, if it turns out that this confirmation has proven to be insufficient, then I will not appeal to the ordinary and universal Magisterium as I did in *OS * and instead I will make an *ex cathedra * act, promulgating this teaching solely as the Successor of Peter.”

Anyways, that’s my sympathetic reading of the CDF’s position.

 

[Matt16_18]

Vincent

Thanks for bearing with me in this thread and helping me to think my way through the problem of ex cathedra pronouncements. To a large degree, the only way that I can discuss these issues is to do it on the Internet. I just don’t know anyone personally that has grappled with the points that are being raised on this thread. Think of what you are doing on the Internet as a work of mercy – instructing the ignorant - me.

• We both know that Cardinal Ratzinger is a very profound theologian, and when push comes to shove, I’d rather be wrong with him than be right with me. At the same time, I find that his explanation on the “explicitly-confirm-as-belonging-to-the-ordinary-and-universal-Magisterium” exception clause requires further clarification.*

I have always had the highest regard for Cardinal Ratzinger. I guess that is why it bothers me to find myself disagreeing with what he is saying. My inclination is to keep think that the problem is simply not understanding what Cardinal Ratzinger is saying. But the more I look at what he is saying, the less sense it makes to me.

It is a kind of a relief to be able to say that Dr. Ludwig Ott made mistakes in his book. The reasons that you gave for that seem reasonable enough. Dr. Ott is definitely wrong that the infallible teachings of the Church come only through the extraordinary Magisterium. But Ott’s book is pre Vatican II, so it is no surprise that his book doesn’t reflect the teachings of Lumen Gentium or the latest Code of Canon Law. For an übertraditionalist, that might give Ott’s book more weight, not less - but I am not one of those Catholics that think that Vatican II was not a valid Ecumenical Council.

more …

 

[Matt16_18]

continued …

• This error would of course weaken the authority of the ordinary and universal Magisterium and, in the faithful’s eyes, strip it of the gift of infallibility. … *

I have thought this too. You already mentioned this faulty way of thinking: “if it’s not ex cathedra, then it’s not infallible; and if it’s not infallible, then I don’t have to obey it”. This kind of thinking is certainly a plague in the church today. There are many Catholics that will say that unless a particular teaching was defined solemnly in either an Ecumenical Council, or by one of the allegedly extremely rare papal ex cathedra teachings, then that particular teaching on faith and morals cannot be said to be infallible – and one is free to decide for himself whether to accept it or not. The teaching that the sin of artificial contraception involves grave matter is constantly undermined in this way. I think that the pope is well aware that the dissenters are trying to back him into a corner where he has to teach everything as solemnly defined doctrine, and he doesn’t want to play that game. How many times has the Church ever solemnly defined a teaching on morals? The vast majority of the infallible moral teachings of the Church have been taught by the ordinary universal Magisterium.

You have posted a lot to think about, and I still see some problems that are bugging me. I am looking forward to continuing this dialogue.

If anyone else wants to comment on what has been said so far, please feel free to join in!