Women's Ordination

[mosher]

jbuck919:

Pope John Paul II attempted to transfer this from a matter of church discipline to a matter of doctrine. Either that, depending on how you look at it, or he clarified a doctrine that has always been there. Roma locuta, causa (per tempore?) finita.

I completely disagree with this statement because it imples that the non-ordination of women was not in the Sacra Doctrina and was only a matter of discipline. Further the movement of something from discipline to doctrine is not a possible move. Doctrine must be of an Apostolic nature and could never have simply been a matter of discipline.

However I do agree with the Augustinian phrase.

 

[otm]

arieh0310:

If the charism of infallibility is only used twice in 130 years then what is the point of having an infallible pope at all? (the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were not controversial subjects for Catholics at the time either). These types of issues could easily have been hammered out at an Ecumenical Council.

Just a musing on your question: We currently have a very specific view of the papacy, one that the Eastern Churches seem to view a bit differently, and (obviously0 the Orthodox view a good bit differently. It would seem, from a review of 2000 years of history or thereabouts, that the pope was largely seen as the “court of last resort”, or the “final arbiter” over a large part of the history of the Church’ it is not that his charism of infallibility was questioned so much as that a lot of issues got hammered out without necessarily involving him, or necessarily involving him to a great degree. For example, there were several councils, at least, in which he did not attend, and they became “official” due to his later ratification. the current view seems to often see the pope as the head and leader of the church, with everyone else essentially doing his bidding. There have been discussions of papal infallibility which seem to count something like 20 or 30 instances of “ex cathedra” statements, but the consensus of most theologians limits those to two instances.

Thus it would seem that the question “what is the point of having infallibility at all” is one that sees infallibility resting primarily on the pope, as opposed to the Church through both it’s continued Magisterial teaching, and councils, and, finally, with the pope as necessitated when the other two for whatever reason don’t answer the issue. It might be remembered that the Church survived 1800+ years without defining his charism; he had the last say, but wasn’t the first to speak, as it were.

Or perhaps another way of saying it would be to look to the Orthodox, who often speak of the pope as the “first among equals”; while I don’t suggest that is the final answer, that may have a way of bringing some additional perspective to the issue.

 

[mosher]

otm:

Just a musing on your question: We currently have a very specific view of the papacy, one that the Eastern Churches seem to view a bit differently, and (obviously0 the Orthodox view a good bit differently. It would seem, from a review of 2000 years of history or thereabouts, that the pope was largely seen as the “court of last resort”, or the “final arbiter” over a large part of the history of the Church’ it is not that his charism of infallibility was questioned so much as that a lot of issues got hammered out without necessarily involving him, or necessarily involving him to a great degree. For example, there were several councils, at least, in which he did not attend, and they became “official” due to his later ratification. the current view seems to often see the pope as the head and leader of the church, with everyone else essentially doing his bidding. There have been discussions of papal infallibility which seem to count something like 20 or 30 instances of “ex cathedra” statements, but the consensus of most theologians limits those to two instances.

Thus it would seem that the question “what is the point of having infallibility at all” is one that sees infallibility resting primarily on the pope, as opposed to the Church through both it’s continued Magisterial teaching, and councils, and, finally, with the pope as necessitated when the other two for whatever reason don’t answer the issue. It might be remembered that the Church survived 1800+ years without defining his charism; he had the last say, but wasn’t the first to speak, as it were.

Or perhaps another way of saying it would be to look to the Orthodox, who often speak of the pope as the “first among equals”; while I don’t suggest that is the final answer, that may have a way of bringing some additional perspective to the issue.

to build on the rumination I would have to add that it really is not a point of importance of what the general consensus of Theologians are on the topic. Theologians are not an check or a branch of the magesterium. It is true that they do discuss issues sometimes ad nausium but their opinion on the charisma is irrlavent. Why do I say this? It seems that a good many modern theologians do not like the idea of Papal Infallibility because it is another way that the Church can close debate on a particular topic that the Theologians would like to continue to discuss.

Assuming that we view the charisma as you stated we would have to affirm and deny some central things. First we would have to affirm the immediate and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (which is a good thing) but also we would have to deny that the Roman Pontiff has the right to speak in opposition to a majority of the Bishops. However, this would lead to a quasi-conciliarism which we also know is incorrect. So, when all is said and done we must ask the Church if particular things should be considered “ex cathedra” and then accept the approved declarations of the CDF on the matter as an arm of the magesterium.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I don’t believe you are missing anything in the statements; but that is not an ex cathedra statement, according to Rome, but rather a teaching on a universally held doctrine. That is, it is part of the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is the third part of infallibility of the Church; the other two being an ex cathedra statement, and defining statments made by councils with the pope present, or later ratified by him

The statement itself doesn’t have to be infallible because it is clarifying a constant teaching of the church and just saying that ‘it’s business as usual for 2000 years’… so no formal declaration or defined defintion of a non-issue was required.

Assent is required of by all Catholics to this teaching because it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium. The Pope is simply saying case closed and he doesn’t need an ex-cathedra statement to do that.

 

[kangnamdragon]

Why is that? I think it might have to do with a misunderstanding of when the Holy Father is infallible and when he is not…?

SouthernSister

sorry, I think it is an example of a priest pushing his own agenda

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Just a musing on your question: We currently have a very specific view of the papacy, one that the Eastern Churches seem to view a bit differently, and (obviously0 the Orthodox view a good bit differently. It would seem, from a review of 2000 years of history or thereabouts, that the pope was largely seen as the “court of last resort”, or the “final arbiter” over a large part of the history of the Church’ it is not that his charism of infallibility was questioned so much as that a lot of issues got hammered out without necessarily involving him, or necessarily involving him to a great degree. For example, there were several councils, at least, in which he did not attend, and they became “official” due to his later ratification. the current view seems to often see the pope as the head and leader of the church, with everyone else essentially doing his bidding. There have been discussions of papal infallibility which seem to count something like 20 or 30 instances of “ex cathedra” statements, but the consensus of most theologians limits those to two instances.

Thus it would seem that the question “what is the point of having infallibility at all” is one that sees infallibility resting primarily on the pope, as opposed to the Church through both it’s continued Magisterial teaching, and councils, and, finally, with the pope as necessitated when the other two for whatever reason don’t answer the issue. It might be remembered that the Church survived 1800+ years without defining his charism; he had the last say, but wasn’t the first to speak, as it were.

Or perhaps another way of saying it would be to look to the Orthodox, who often speak of the pope as the “first among equals”; while I don’t suggest that is the final answer, that may have a way of bringing some additional perspective to the issue.

i completely agree with this statement and i think that rome is starting to shift this misapplication of the papacy back to the local churches and councils such as usccb etc. we all have to remain in communion with the Holy Father but we have made him sort of a doctrine maker (when this was never the case) and when local synods usually only turned to him when there was an absolute need to such as a widespread heresy throughout many ecclesiastical provinces throughout a country/region.

the pope’s main roll is the archbishop of rome and leader of the roman church, with all true catholic churches (particular churches headed by bishops) remaining in communion with him as the visible sign of unity and the vicar of Christ on Earth.