The Possibility that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is Ex Cathedra Infallible

[Coder]

This was being discussed in another thread (and was not its main topic). I found the discussion so interesting that I created a separate thread.

Vatican I infallibly defined papal ex cathedra infallibility:

Quote:
“Faithfully adhering, therefore, to the tradition inherited from the beginning of the Christian Faith, we, with the approbation of the sacred council, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, teach and define, as a Divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, decides that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be held by the entire Church, he possesses, in consequence of the Divine aid promised him in St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Saviour wished to have His Church furnished for the definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church’s consent, irreformable.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

According to that definition which itself is the infallible teaching of papal infallibility, the pope most apparently has spoken ex cathedra in OS because a.) the pope clearly exercised his office and b.) decided a doctrine concerning faith and morals. The language of OS that meets a. and b. seem quite strong and clear.

All of these articles assert/indicate that it is ex cathedra infallible:
catholicculture.org/docs/…cfm?recnum=835
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PILSORD.TXT

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This was being discussed in another thread (and was not its main topic). I found the dsicussion so interesting that I created a separate thread.

Vatican I infallibly defined papal ex cathedra infallibility:

Quote:
“Faithfully adhering, therefore, to the tradition inherited from the beginning of the Christian Faith, we, with the approbation of the sacred council, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, teach and define, as a Divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, decides that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be held by the entire Church, he possesses, in consequence of the Divine aid promised him in St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Saviour wished to have His Church furnished for the definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church’s consent, irreformable.”
newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

According to that definition which itself is the infallible teaching of papal infallibility, the pope most apparently has spoken ex cathedra in OS because a.) the pope clearly exercised his office and b.) decided a doctrine concerning faith and morals. The language of OS that meets a. and b. seem quite strong and clear.

All of these articles assert/indicate that it is ex cathedra infallible:
catholicculture.org/docs/…cfm?recnum=835
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PILSORD.TXT

This is what I thought, too, BUT…Cardinal Ratzinger, while HH Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, was still alive, stated that it was a part of (I think) the ordinary magisterium that had always been taught (and so was infallible anyway). I think that’s how he put it, but I don’t remember exactly.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

Read toward the end of article:
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PILSORD.TXT

Note also that the teaching of papal infallibility states that such (papal) definitions are of themselves, and do not require the Church’s consent. This means that a statement by any non-infallible (by Church definition) authority does not necessarily mean that a teaching is not ex cathedra infallible. The Cardinal’s (now the pope whom I love) teaching should be respected. Perhaps we are misunderstanding what the Cardinal has stated. Did the Cardinal actually explicitly state that OS was not “ex cathedra”? Nonetheles, in a doubt I think we must also respect the appearance of an ex cathedra infallible statement of a pope based on the infallible definition of papal infallibility put forth by Vatican I.

newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm
Third paragraph from last.

 

[Aureole]

This is what I thought, too, BUT…Cardinal Ratzinger, while HH Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, was still alive, stated that it was a part of (I think) the ordinary magisterium that had always been taught (and so was infallible anyway). I think that’s how he put it, but I don’t remember exactly.

I can recall something of this sort as well and it seems to be the case: Cardinal Ratzinger’s Responsum Ad Dubium.

 

[Coder]

Hi Aureole. Thank you for entering the discussion.

I think Responsum Ad Dubium may not explicitly declare that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (OS) is not ex cathedra infallible.

This also refers to OS:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Note that this indicates their thinking that it is not a dogmatic definition. However, this may not mean or intend to mean that the Pope’s statement was not ex cathedra infallible. No where in the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility do I see the words “dogmatic definition” used although it may be possible to infer “dogmatic definition”. However, by the definition of ex cathedra infallibility, it appears that the pope has put forth an ex cathedra infallible teaching.

Some may say (as I think I have seen) that because the teaching was already infallible according the ordinary magisterium that the pope’s teaching was not ex cathedra infallible. However, then why would the CDF say this regarding OS?:

…the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

That would indicate that the content of OS could be declared infallible so the claim that it was infallible before OS as a reason why the pope could not be teaching it ex cathedra infallibly is incorrect. This also shows that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement in Responsum Ad Dubium, about the content of OS already being held infallibly, could not mean that pope could not be teaching this ex cathedra infallibly. So this lends to an interpretation of Responsum Ad Dubium that allows for OS to be ex cathedra infallible.

Also see the links in first post that indicate that OS is ex cathedra infallible.

 

[Coder]

**Definitions:**OM: Ordinary Magisterium

EM: Extraordinary Magisterium**

**OS: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

**the teaching: **the content of OS regarding the priesthood and not OS itself.

**RAD: **Responsum As Dubium

DC: Doctrinal Commentary by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). This commentary was not about OS but referred to it.

That would indicate that the content of OS could be declared infallible so the claim that it was infallible before OS as a reason why the pope could not be teaching it ex cathedra infallibly is incorrect.

To clarify, I cannot say that the reasoning that OS is not ex cathedra infallible because of previous infallibility as taught by the OM is “incorrect”. The DC seems to indicate that a teaching that is infallibly taught by the OM can later be defined by the EM, including ex cathedra. So therefore the infalliblity of OS cannot be disproven based on the indication in RAD that the teaching was already taught infallibly by the OM.

 

[Coder]

So what I am proposing is this:

The fact that OS was already taught by the OM does not mean that OS is not taught ex cathedra.

I have yet to be convinced that OS is not ex cathedra nor am I convinced that any church document has definitively settled (or intended to settle) the question whether OS was put forth ex cathedra.

I think OS is clearly an ex cathedra infallible teaching i.e. from the Chair of Peter and decided a doctrine to be definitively to be held by all Christians.

Simply consider the First Vatican Council definition of ex cathedra and look at the language used by Pope John Paul II in OS.

 

[Coder]

I have also seen the reasoning that pope did not “define” or say “I define”.

OS: “…this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Definitions from dictionaries:
definitive:

1. conclusive and final
2. most authoritative
3. serving to define
4. fully…developed

By the above, one can understand why I think there may be no need for a another teaching that “defines” nor a need for a teaching using the word “define”.

I think that a teaching can only be “definitively held” if it is also “defined”. Seems clear.

 

[manualman]

Benedict (then Ratzinger) merely was observing an important distinction. It is not prudent to allow the specific infallibility of the pope to erode the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium means the consistent teaching of the bishops in union with the pope throughout the centuries. If every time a bunch of grumpies get together and push for a ‘reinterpretation’ of a historic belief of the church, the Vatican uses an ex cathedra statement to suppress it, this behavior tends to imply that an ex cathedra statement is somehow stronger or more reliable than an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Bad idea.

In other words, he said “There is no need for an ex cathedra statement, so this isn’t one. The ordinary magisterium has already decided the matter and there is no higher authority than that.”

Ex cathedra statements are reserved for issues that never really have been defined or decided in a consistant manner through the ages. That’s why there are so few of them.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

Ex cathedra statements are reserved for issues that never really have been defined or decided in a consistant manner through the ages.

I think that’s another common misconception about infallible teaching.

From DC referring to OS:
…the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men…the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Catholic Encyclopedia:

V. WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE?
…These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#I

 

[Aureole]

Hi Coder, thanks for the informative reply. I hadn’t thought of it in that light. I still doubt that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was defined ex cathedra for two reasons: first, the language used by John Paul was vastly different than the language used in Munificentissimus Deus; second, the Responsum Ad Dubium’s language seems to indicate that John Paul was confirming the ordinary Magisterium and adding his formal declaration as Supreme Pontiff, but lacking ex cathedra authority.

Also, is there another example of a dogma from the ordinary Magisterium being “backed” by the papal infallibility?This isn’t an argument against what you’re saying, just me being curious.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Not again. I think this is the 4th time I have posted this (A couple have been erase due to the crash).

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explicitly prohibits the ordination of females into the priesthood. And, despite what others will say, it has been infallibly defined. Here is a section from Women and the Priesthood (This Rock: November 2003) on the subject:

In 1994, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter that pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that 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. Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

PF

 

[Coder]

Hello, thank you for “Wandering” by.

Not again. I think this is the 4th time I have posted this

The proposal of the thread is that it is taught ex cathedra. I am aware of the thought that it was already taught in the OM. (see previous posts in this thread).
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=835

 

[Coder]

Hi Aureole,

(see above for abbreviations)

…the language used by John Paul was vastly different than the language used in Munificentissimus Deus;

This may be another common misconception - that there is some “formula”. Look at the First Vatican Council’s definition of papal infallibility. That itself is authoritative because that itself is the EM infallible definition of papal infallibility. It does not focus on exact form. It makes it clear that when the pope speaks in the name of his office (the Chair of Peter), and decides that a doctrine is to be held by the entire Church, then the pope possesses infallibility. That’s what the teaching says. We seem to be overly-complicating it - there’s a hymn at mass “if we were but more simple…”.

First Vatican Council: “decides that a doctrine…is to be held by the entire Church,…”
OS: “this judgement is to be definitively held by the all the Church’s faithful.”

(See previous post for the definition of “definitive”.)

second, the Responsum Ad Dubium’s language seems to indicate that John Paul was confirming the ordinary Magisterium and adding his formal declaration as Supreme Pontiff, but lacking ex cathedra authority.

Consider further the purpose of Responsum Ad Dubium:

The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter’s teaching…

The answer was “affirmative”. It apparently was not the main purpose to discuss whether the teaching was ex cathedra, rather that the teaching was to be given assent for at least the reason that it was taught in the OM. Is it unreasonable that the Cardinal was being careful not to conclude what he himself may not have fully considered/realized? Rather he stayed with what was required for the response (i.e. “not mixing apples and oranges”.)? Remember this was approximately 1.5 years after OS, to recognize something as ex cathedra may need some reflection. (It’s been 12 years since OS and my proposal is that many still may not realize it - I think that’s partly why I find it fascinating/exciting!)

Also, is there another example of a dogma from the ordinary Magisterium being “backed” by the papal infallibility?This isn’t an argument against what you’re saying, just me being curious.

Consider the Immaculate Conception. Apparently it was considered by the Church for centuries before the EM defined it:
"Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary…This feast in the ***course of centuries ***became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength. **Even after the dogma had been universally accepted … the old term remained,…"
…
“Clement XI decreed on 6 Dec., 1708, that the feast should be a holiday of obligation throughout the entire Church.”
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Was that not taught or held by the OM? That papal decree itself was approximately 150 years before the EM defined it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I still have my suspicions that it certainly SOUNDS like an inffallible pronouncment, BUT…Cardinal Ratzinger’s response to the dubium SHOULD be a sufficient clarification because it has to be seen to express the mind of the Pope in whose name it was issued. Anything coming from the Holy See has to be seen as coming from the Holy Father unless he qualifies or disputes or denies that the given document DOES express his mind. And if the Holy Father intended to define OS as an ex cathedra, dogmatic statement, I rather imagine he would have been quite clear about it. So if the Holy See says that it ain’t, I think we have to accept that it ain’t (I don’t think a defined dogma can be made accidentally, as it were). It’s still infallible teaching.

 

[Aureole]

WanderAimlessly, I think you misunderstood. We weren’t debating whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible or not, just whether it was written with papal infallibility or not. The ordinary Magisterium has always taught that women can not be ordained to the ministerial priesthood and none here are disputing that.

Coder, thanks again for the response. You have a good deal of knowledge in this area, I take it this is something you have studied for awhile. I have another question though: since the ordinary and universal Magisterium already declared women could not be ordained, what is the benefit of the extraordinary Magisterium declaring it in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? An infallible teaching can’t become more infallible, after all. Is this just my missing something obvious?

 

[Coder]

Hi,

And if the Holy Father intended to define OS as an ex cathedra, dogmatic statement, I rather imagine he would have been quite clear about it.

He was very clear:
“…all doubt may be removed…great importance,
…pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself…
…in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren…
…this judgment is to be definitively held…
…by all the Church’s faithful.”

When is the time to be clear about it? The time is in the infallible statement itself. “my sheep know my voice”.

So if the Holy See says that it [isn’t], I think we have to accept that it [isn’t]

I don’t see that RAD said it isn’t and I think the DC (commentary) discussion said the Pope did not “define” it and therefore implied strongly that it is not ex cathedra.

However:
a.) The pope said “definitively”. See the dictionary definition of definitive above. I think the DC missed that you cannot decide something definitively unless it also defined. They used OS as an example but were not directly addressing whether OS is ex cathedra per se. I think they simply chose the wrong example to make their point. The choice of OS as an example for their general about infallibility was possibly based on the same assumption that I think others made about RAD.

and

b.) The teaching itself is ex cathedra and therefore carries the authority. Why is it that in order to recognize an infallible teaching we need a non-infallible confirmation? Think about it. “my sheep know my voice”.

Personally, if you look at Vatican I and OS - it’s rock solid. Those are the infallible teachings. What do you give more weight to - EM infallible teachings or commentaries? What good is an EM infallible teaching if it itself has to be stated to be infallible? Is that how we operate? A teaching is only accepted as EM infallible if the OM says it is? OS served to stregnthen an OM teaching (and I propose by the EM) so now that needs to be backed by the OM again? Isn’t one of the wonderful things about EM infallibility that the back and forth stops there? “definitively”

Also this is part of the Vatican I EM infallible defintion of infallibility:
…such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church’s consent, irreformable."

 

[Coder]

Hi Aureole,

An infallible teaching can’t become more infallible, after all. Is this just my missing something obvious?

It’s clear from Church history that OM teachings are definitively decided upon in the EM. So this line of reasoning cannot be used to disprove that OS is ex cathedra. Consider the doctrine of papal infallibility itself. Was this not held in the OM before the EM defined it?

Why did the EM define papal infallibility? Perhaps because of Protestantism and doubt about the pope’s authority?

Why did the pope definitively teach the content of OS? Well, look at the beginning of RAD - beacuse people were acting as though the OM teaching was open to be changed (often in disrespectful disregard of the OM it seems).

So that should show you that OS is not an exception in this regard. However, I’m not going to sneak out like that. I do see that your question as a general question of theology is interesting. How can an OM infallible teaching be taught infallibly by the EM? What did Jesus tell Peter: “…strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22:32 The EM “strengthens” the teachings of the OM.

OS: “…in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren…”
Glory to God! Allelulia! Alleluia!

 

[Coder]

“Through the context provided by Pastor aeternus of Vatican I, the Report of the Deputation on Faith for Pastor aeternus, LG 25, and the practice of the Church attested to by an event during the Council of Trent and by Pius XI, it is manifest that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis contains an ex cathedra definition.”
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=835

 

[Aureole]

Thanks for the explanation and link Coder. The article was interesting. I think I can see the reason why the extraordinary Magisterium would reinforce an already infallible ordinary and universal Magisterium teaching. It seems as if I’m shifting back to my original opinion that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an ex cathedra pronouncement.