Women in the Priesthood

[tonyrey]

History records that Jesus commissioned and sent forth men alone.

The initial preaching of the Good News is not related to ordination nor does it imply that the disciples who stayed at home and spread His teaching were all men. History records that Jesus treated women as equals and willed a woman to be the first witness of His Resurrection.

 

[slyboots]

If women were supposed to be priests wouldn’t His Blessed Mother have been one?

 

[Ender]

I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. (Fr. Sullivan)

There is a point in most discussions when further debate is useless. The comment above is nothing more than a statement from Fr. Sullivan that he will not accept Church teaching on this subject; he has his opinion and that suffices for him. His point has been raised and answered and according to the Church this topic is off the table. It is disturbing when lay Catholics disregard Church teaching; I’m not sure what to call it when priests join them.

Ender

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Let’s look at the last one that it is no longer considered morally wrong to kill innocents.
Has there been a change on that or not?

No there hasn’t. It would not be possible for that to change either because of the nature of Truth.

Well, I have argued that it was morally wrong to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In my personal opinion it was wrong because it involved the killing of innocent children. Civlians were needlessly killed and there were other ways of ending the war. However, on this very forum, Catholic Answers Forum, I was subject to a massive barrage of personal attacks, saying that my reasoning was faulty and the dropping of the A-Bomb on Japan was justified because it saved thousands of American lives.

I don’t want to get into this but I would agree with you.

To me, this sounds like a clear case of the end justifying the means. I see that you have also begun the ad hominem argument as others before you have. You now call me a heretic. Of course, we read that according to St. Thomas Aquinas, heretics deserve to be exterminated. Fortunately, the Church has changed its position on that one, or else I would be in serious trouble, especially if you were in charge.

"roy5:

(At least you’re not like PaulAndrew82 who said he would have burned Calvin, Luther, etc. He sounds like a ‘real true follower of Christ’ - kidding - who told us to beware of judging and even to love our enemies. It’s that attitude which once fed anti-Catholicism here and elsewhere.)

Luther and Calvin could have been St Martin Luther and St John Calvin like unto St Charles Borromeo and St Pius V, instead they did the devils work and spread error and destroyed the unity of Christian Europe. Without hesitation I would have burned them.
Heresy and schisms are an evil and people need to start seeing it that way.

The devil would surely not have wanted his servants to have been burned before they had done their work of spreading error.

Generally what I have noticed, is that people will resort to an ad hominem argument when they realise that their case is hopeless. They have run out of arguments to support their position, so instead of focussing in on the question at hand, they will attack the integrity, personality or character of their opponent.

My statement that what you are saying is substantially modernism was not an ad hominem.

Modernism is a view that “truth” can actually change rather than humanity’s understanding of the “truth” getting better.

You got to consider the principle of non-contradiction here. On this topic we have the Church teaching for 2000 years that a woman cannot receive Holy Orders. Despite some people’s opinions to the contrary, we have an infallible declaration that the Church itself has not got the authority to actually do so either.

It would not be development if the Church was to turn around and say that it did. This would mean that the Church is currently “wrong” which is not possible.

As for your examples of “change” the fact that you think its change means you do not understand the concept of truth or development. It also means that you think that “truth” can change which is modernist.

With reference to heresy, let me ask a simple question:
Is it heretical to believe that a person can be saved without being subject to the Roman Pontiff?
It looks to me like the reasonable answer to thsi question is as follows:
At one point in time it was considered heretical, but at the present point in time it is not.

You woudn’t be asking this question had you followed my advice and read some of Father Mosts articles on salvation. Seriously go do that.

Paul

 

[bobzills]

There is a point in most discussions when further debate is useless. The comment above is nothing more than a statement from Fr. Sullivan that he will not accept Church teaching on this subject; he has his opinion and that suffices for him. His point has been raised and answered and according to the Church this topic is off the table. It is disturbing when lay Catholics disregard Church teaching; I’m not sure what to call it when priests join them.

Ender

You have misstated what Father Sullivan has said. I think that he
simply has said that the declaration of the Pope does not meet the criteria for infallibility. Father Sullivan has been the dean of the Pontifical Gregorian University and I don;t think you can dismiss his views lightly.

 

[PJM]

On June 6 1997 at a general assembly of the Catholic Theological Society of America 216 out of 248 members voted “yes" to the resolution that “There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching (namely, the teaching that the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women to the priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught and requires the definitive assent of the faithful) and its grounds in Tradition.There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians but also within the larger community of the Church.”

Francis A. Sullivan SJ, emeritus professor at the Gregorian University, Rome, the leading theological authority on the magisterium, has expressed strong disagreement against the claim of infallibility made by the Congregation for Doctrine. His main reasons were that the conditions for such an infallible teaching have not been met since there has been neither consultation with all the bishops nor with the Catholic faithful.
“The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be ‘manifestly established’ (Canon 749 §3). Not only the Pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, must be proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way.”
Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.

Elizabeth A. Johnson, professor of theology at Fordham University analyzes three reasons given by those who oppose women’s ordination:

1.The example of Jesus.
But Jesus did not ordain twelve men." Such an interpretation is an anachronism projected backward onto the Gospels in the light of later development."
Even if we suppose Jesus did ordain men it does not follow that women are to be excluded forever.The Spirit guides the Church to do many things that Jesus did not do.

1. Tradition.
   Pope Benedict himself has stated “Not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition. Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically”. A tradition appropriate in the past is often no longer appropriate in a new cultural context. It may be based on cultural attitudes rather than divine revelation. Antiquity is not the sole criterion of an authoritative tradition.
   “At one time it was official church teaching that it was unlawful for married couples to take pleasure in the marital act; that killing infidels was a way to salvation; that taking interest on a loan was forbidden; that slavery was permissible; that discrimination against Jewish people was legitimate; that biblical scholars could not use historical critical methods on Scripture texts.”

Studies of the tradition of a male priesthood reveal that it was based on the conviction that women are unsuitable because of the inferiority of their sex and their state of subjection in the social order, e.g. Apostolic Constitutions (Bk III, c 6)
St John Chrysostom argues from “the greatness of the tasks a bishop must perform” that women are unsuitable.

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” (*1 Timothy *2,13-14). This was often used as the scriptural basis for the belief that women are inferior to men, more easily led astray and therefore unsuitable for ordination. It is now rejected by the Church.

1. The need for iconic resemblance.

This is the weakest argument because “women are icons of Christ, imago Christi, in every essential way. There is a natural resemblance between women and Jesus Christ in terms of a common humanity and participation in divine grace. To teach otherwise is a pernicious error that vitiates the power of baptism.The naive physicalism that reduces resembling Christ to being male is so deviant from Scripture and so theologically distorted as to be dangerous to the faith itself.”
*Disputed questions: authority, priesthood, women *by Elizabeth A. Johnson, Commonweal, vol…123, January 26 1996, pp. 8-10.

**Yep!

Look up schism, and while you’re at it you might want to brush up on what “OBEDIENCE” actaully means, and the churches Teachings on hell. Which by the way, is someting you may wish to know more about.

One final point. Onstienance does not leseen cupability.**

Love and prayer’s friend. Its got to be a great comfort knowing you’ll have all those friends with you for all eternity If you believe in such a thing? Then again, you really don’t have to believe it for it to be true right?

 

[bobzills]

Go read some more.

Well, let us read then what Father Sullivan has to say on this. As you know, the current Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, William Levada, received his doctorate under Sullivan in 1971. From 1956 until 1992, Sullivan was professor of ecclesiology at the Gregorian University, serving as dean from 1964 to 1970. Let us look a bit at what a leading and well respected theological authority has written on this. It turns out that his line of reasoning is pretty cloae to what I have given here. He does not think that the declaration of the Pope has met the criteria for infallibility and that there is a possibility of change in the future.
“The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be ‘manifestly established’ (Canon 749 §3). What must be ‘manifestly established’ when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the Pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact.”
"It seems to me that this statement does not sufficiently attend to the possibility, which has actually been verified on a number of issues, that a doctrine on which there was a consensus in the past, no longer enjoys such a consensus. In other words, what was at first a dissenting opinion, has sometimes become the more common, and even the official, doctrine. One obvious example is the consensus that existed until the 15th century about the absolute necessity of explicit Christian faith for salvation. In the light of the discoveries made in the 15th and 16th centuries about vast populations that had had no possibility of coming to Christian faith before the missionaries arrived, theologians began to reconsider the question, and the Church gradually came around to what is now the teaching of Vatican II on the possibility of salvation for those who, without fault on their part, lack Christian faith. Hence it can happen, and it has happened, that what was at first dissent from common teaching, has subsequently been accepted as the doctrine of the Church. One could name several other issues, such as the Church’s judgment on the morality of owning and using human persons as slaves, on the taking of interest on loans, on religious liberty, and on non-Christian religions, where what was at first a dissenting opinion has become the doctrine of the Church. An interesting example of this can be found even in the encyclical Evangelium vitae. It would not be difficult to show that for many centuries popes and bishops, following the teaching of Pope Innocent III that “the punishment of original sin is the lack of the vision of God,”(FN19) were agreed in teaching that infants who died without baptism would not enjoy the beatific vision. Even as recently as 1954, William A. Van Roo published a scholarly article, demonstrating the strength of the sensus ecclesiae on this question.(FN20) And yet, in Evangelium vitae, addressing himself to women who have had an abortion, Pope John Paul II says, “The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the sacrament of reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.”(FN21)

The history of Catholic doctrine suggests the need of great caution in claiming that something has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, if there is reason to judge that a position on which there was a consensus in the past no longer enjoys such a consensus. In such a case, it would be wise to put off any peremptory declaration until it becomes clear whether a question has been raised that obliges the Church to look at an old problem in a new light and perhaps come up with a better answer to it."
‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.
"THE CHANGES IN CHURCH DOCTRINE that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all. There is no denying the fact that many of the reasons given in the past to justify the exclusion of women from the priesthood are such as one would be embarrassed to offer today. No doubt, better reasons than those have been presented in the recent documents of the Holy See.

The question that remains in my mind is whether it is a clearly established fact that the bishops of the Catholic Church are as convinced by those reasons as Pope John Paul evidently is, and that, in exercising their proper role as judges and teachers of the faith, they have been unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth to which all Catholics are obliged to give a definitive assent of faith. Unless this is manifestly the case, I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. "
‘Guideposts from Catholic tradition. Infallibility doctrine invoked in statement against ordination by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, by Francis A. Sullivan, The Tablet 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646
.

 

[PJM]

You may be interested in the following recent lecture Gary Macy (a professor of theology at a Jesuit university, Santa Clara University) gave at Vanderbilt. The link is to the podcast.

Here is the abstract of the lecture:

I do not wish to endorse his ideas, which seem different than what I understand of Catholic history; but he does hold a named chair in Theology at a Jesuit University and presumably his arguments cannot simply be ignored.

***And the UCCB can’t figure out why:

only 23% of professed Catholics regullary go to Mass,
10% or less go to Confession even once a year
The second largest christian [small “c”] is fallen away catholics.
Fewer Catholics understand and accept the Real Prsence than don’t

273 “catholic thelogians” desent fro the Churchs position on womens ordination

How amy bishops, priest, theologians and laity IGNORE Humane Vitae?

Could their be any greater certaintly of God’s presence in His church than the fact that their still remains a remanent Catholic Chirch in America.

Look up “schism” and if the shoe fits, Oh well !***

 

[budgie2]

I’ve got my own theology on women in the priesthood. The Church is a family. Men and women do not play the same roles in a family, a father cannot be a mother and a mother cannot be a father. If we look at fatherhood and motherhood they are naturally different. A father can potentially be a father to a far greater number than a woman. The father’s role is provider and the woman’s role is nurturer. A woman has a closer relationship with each child than the father. A father has far more sperm in his semen than the number of eggs that a woman releases. So the role of women is to have a more intimate one-to-one relationship with each child. A woman could not cope with the stress of looking after a large parish and would become more emotionally involved as she normally has a more intimate relationship with each child than a man.

Although I’m prepared to accept a male priesthood my major problem is that should I rely on the word “Father” as Christ also said not to call yourself father as you only have one father which is in heaven. So if somebody will explain to me why priests are called father which seems to be in total contradiction with Christ’s teaching let me know. We probably wouldn’t be having this debate if contraception hadn’t changed social roles although I know that the Church currently approves of NFP.

I suppose it also makes celibacy easier to have separate lines of work for men and women in the Church and is in accordance with God’s will.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

"THE CHANGES IN CHURCH DOCTRINE
.

I am not telling you again. Go read the essay on development. Until you do you will be flailing about in the Dark.

Paul

 

[CarlaOLS]

Budgie - Here’s a start:

cegguam.org/CallingPriestsFather

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm

That ought to hold you.
Peace

 

[bobzills]

I am not telling you again. Go read the essay on development. Until you do you will be flailing about in the Dark.

Paul

Of course, this is really no answer to what Father Sullivan has been talking about. Just an ad hominem argument about me flailing about in the Dark. Rather than discuss the points raised by Father Sullivan, who by the way is one of the top theologians in the Vatican as he guided Cardinal Willian Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in the Roman Curia, William Cardinal Levada, in his doctorate under Father Sullivan in 1971. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada is the principal defender of all the moral and theological doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. And instead of reading and responding to what Father Sullivan has said, you have instead launched a personal ad hominem attack against me saying that I am flailing about in the Dark. What I have noticed is that generally, when a person is losing an argument, he will resort to attacking the personality or the character of his opponent rather than respond to the various points raised.
Do you disagree with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Levada who is the principal defender of all the moral and theological doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church? Why don;t you read something of what he has written on some of the issues that I have mentioned already, such as for example, on the changes in the Church’s teaching on slavery:
“There is a long tradition in the church of accepting the institution of slavery, but in the light of the repeated teachings of modern popes and the Second Vatican Council on the dignity of the human person, church teaching has evolved from acceptance of slavery as part of the human condition to its eventual condemnation.”

Do you agree or disagree with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
Have you read and studied the articles by Father Sullivan?

 

[PJM]

=foundthelight;5237849]An assertion has been made about female priests in the early church. I would like to see the proof of such. What are your references for such a statement?

**The Pope has spoken authoritatively, binding all, especially those in informed disobedience.

It is not that the Church “will not”

**It is because the Church cannot!

What is so difficult to understand here?**

I too would like out of curiosity to see this evidence, but the point is settled by

Physiology

Sacrament

Tradition

And definitive Papal declaration.

The early church was a church of growth and transition.

There is no debate here, simply obstinate and deliberately disobedient folks pretending to be catholic.

By hey, God is Good, he’ll understand.

What? What’s that you say, God has to also be just and fair!
**

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Of course, this is really no answer to what Father Sullivan has been talking about. Just an ad hominem argument about me flailing about in the Dark.

Until you read that particular book on development you do not have the tools to discuss the concept of development of doctrine.

Until you come back with a correct notion of development and think about the fact that Truth does not change its a waste of time talking to you.

If you continue to think that Truth changes then there is little hope for you to understand anything theologically.

Paul

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Ok well I can see this discussion going nowhere.

There are two important things.

1. We have the Popes statement in the encyclical. This is infallible, but the other side [as it must] disputes this.
2. Development of Doctrine. Bobzills from what I can see from your post there is no distinction in your eyes between change and legitimate development.

So I have two suggestions.

1. The dispute about the Popes statement be continued in this thread.
2. A discussion on development of doctrine, what it is and what it isn’t in a new thread.

I do not want people thinking that we need to resort to ad hominems to win the argument. I don’t know whether those suggestions would benefit you but at least other people less well informed will not be led to believe that women priests might be possible.

Paul

p.s when I say that you are being heretical or that your thinking is substantially modernists these are not ad hominems, that is being backed up by the content of your own posts.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I am not going to post any more after this, unless Bob goes and actually reads Newmans essay on the development of Christian Doctrine.

Development of Doctrine.

I want to show that people cannot use this concept to support certain liberal viewpoints. The reason some liberals think these things is inevitably to be found in a lack of understanding of the very nature of Truth.

Before we can even go into the concept of development it needs to be clear about what it means when something is a Truth.

Let us pick a very easy truth to comprehend.

1+1=2

Now since this is a truth, it means that it cannot change. Tomorrow we will not be able to change the sum of 1+1 and discover it equal to 3.

So by example we have shown that Truth is unchangeable.

So then what is development of doctrine.

Firstly it is clear that it is not the development of truth, only that the understanding of the truth is getting deeper.

So what is a true development?

Well, it does not change what had gone before because this would be a “Corruption”. It is in harmony with what has gone before.

So it is clear that development of doctrine as a concept just cannot be used to justify a beliefe that women Priests would be allowed. This is because such an idea would represent a change rather than a development.

Infallibility

From Vatican 1 we have a definition of papal infallibility.

I have listed the conditions that the definition say let us know that the Pope is speaking EX Cathedra. This would be what would make us manifestly aware that a teaching is infallible. [Yes I also have a copy of the code of canon law 1983.]

me:

That quote does actually fulfill the conditions of papal infallibility.
He states that he is speaking as Pope, and then says that the judgment is binding upon all Christians. This is what makes statements infallible.

Father Sullivan can beat around the Bush all he wants, but vatican 1 is clear on what makes a papal declaration infallible and Ordinatio sacerdotalis declaration very obviously fulfills those conditions.

The idea that the Popes declaration would then have to be declared again by the Bishops is wrong and has no basis in theology. Either the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra or he isn’t. Since he is infallible then there is no further declaration on anyone’s part to pass judgment on a statement being infallible. If the Popes statement is coming from his authority as Pope and binding upon the Faithful thats pretty much it.
Vatican 1:

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

• that is, when,

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

Pope John Paul 2nd:

1 AND 2 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 3 that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

It is a shame that Father Sullivan dissents from the Pope and Vatican 1.

Paul

 

[bobzills]

Before we can even go into the concept of development it needs to be clear about what it means when something is a Truth.

Let us pick a very easy truth to comprehend.

1+1=2

Now since this is a truth, it means that it cannot change. Tomorrow we will not be able to change the sum of 1+1 and discover it equal to 3.

So by example we have shown that Truth is unchangeable.

Actually, it is not always true that 1+1=2 because this supposed inviolate truth has changed in modern times due to the culture of computers which has been recently introduced. For example, circuit boards are not based on the base 10 number system, but they work on the binary number system which is reflective of the on - off nature of an electrical circuit. That is why for a circuit board, 1+1 = 10.

 

[bobzills]

We have the Popes statement in the encyclical. This is infallible, but the other side [as it must] disputes this. .

A whole lot, lots and lots and lots, of Catholic theologians say that the statement is not infallible. For example,

Fr. David Knight is the author of several Catholic popular and practical books, among them:

• His Way (1981, 1997)
• Cloud by Day/ Fire by Night (1985)
• Confession Can Change Your Life (1985)
• His Word, Letting it Take Root and Bear Fruit in our Lives (1986, 1998)
• Best True Ghost Stories of the 20th Century (1986)
• Lift Up Your Eyes to the Mountains. A Guide to the Spiritual Life (1988)
• Make Me a Sabbath of Your Heart (1988)
• Mary in an Adult Church: from Devotion to Response (1988)
• Blessed are They: Call to Conversion (1988)
• Chastity Who Lives It? The Baptized Christian’s Call to Conversion (1990)
• Good News About Sex (1991)
• Armchair Retreat (1994)
• Reaching Jesus: Five Steps to a Fuller Life (1997)
• I Can Read about Alligators and Crocodiles (1999)
• Living God’s Word (1999)
  According to Father Knight: “There is error in excessive affirmation as well as in denial. It is as much an error to say there are four divine Persons in the Blessed Trinity as to say there are only two. And it is as wrong to make the pope more infallible as it is to make him less. On the practical plane, to give the impression, intentionally or not, that something is being taught infallibly when it is not is pastorally irresponsible and dangerous.
  Children who cry “Wolf!” just to get attention make the ears of the village deaf to their cries. And teachers who cry “Infallible!” just to get acceptance for their opinions destroy the credibility of the church’s teaching authority. That is precisely what we need to be concerned about.”
  Further Father says:”I cannot go as far as Pilla asks and positively say that this teaching is definitive. It has not been declared definitive infallibly, and no convincing reasons have been offered to prove that this ever has been, in fact, a doctrine taught in the church as a revealed truth of faith.”

 

[Just_Lurking]

You have misstated what Father Sullivan has said. I think that he simply has said that the declaration of the Pope does not meet the criteria for infallibility. Father Sullivan has been the dean of the Pontifical Gregorian University and I don;t think you can dismiss his views lightly.

Just to clarify the theological landscape here:

As regards Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Vatican (including the man who is the current pope) has repeatedly stated that it is not ex cathedra. All, or perhaps just nearly all, of the Catholic theologians having an ecclesiastical degree with a canonical mission to teach theology are in complete agreement with the Vatican on this point. There is no “massive debate” on the subject. The only people who think that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ex cathedra are random people from the Internet.

What Fr. Sullivan is writing on and on about is the ability of the CDF and/or the Pope to declare that a teaching is infallible by the ordinary magisterium, thereby raising the canon law penalty for dissent, without conducting an actual historical investigation into the matter. Interestingly enough, prior to the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis controversy, Fr. Sullivan authored a paper whereby he supports the infallibility by the ordinary magisterium of the teachings from Evangelium Vitae, even though he also has problems with the infallibility of moral teachings applied to particular situations, which is Cardinal Levada wrote his dissertation on yet flip-flopped once he joined the CDF.

 

[CarlaOLS]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Ratzinger at the time, produced a responsum ad dubium of whether the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be considered as part of the Deposit of Faith. In other words, if that teaching has always and everywhere been taught by the Church. The answer, not surprisingly, was yes. This was an exercise of the Church’s infallibility in its ordinary and universal magisterium, as taught in VII’s Lumen Gentium, not papal infallibility, though it all results in the same end. This is also why the Church’s teaching prohibiting the use of artificial contraception is also an infallible statement.

In any event, it’s hard to get around the Holy Father’s statement that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

There are two kinds of infallible statements: dogma and definitive statements. Dogmatic statements are infallible statements that are Divinely revealed. Definitive statements are related to Divine revelation but not in themselves divine revelation.

While one could make a case for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not being a dogmatic statement, it would be difficult to justify it not being a definitive statement, especially given that the words “to be definitively held” is used in the very wording of the declaration.

Following canon 750 §2, there’s really no two ways about it.

“The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.”

It might not be dogma, but it’s infallible.
(Random comments from a blog.)