Original Sin, or actually Original Sins?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Eremite,
Doesn't the link you posted to the CDF document argue that it [i]was[/i] infallible? Then again, I haven't read the whole thing...

Edited June 21, 2005 by thedude

[Apotheoun]

“In the light of these considerations, it seems a pseudo-problem to wonder whether this papal act of confirming a teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium is infallible or not. In fact, although it is not per se a dogmatic definition (like the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon or the Marian dogmas), a papal pronouncement of confirmation [i]enjoys the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere Bishop but as the Head of the Episcopal College[/i].” [Cardinal Bertone, [u]Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent[/u], part 1, no. 2]

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]If that statement in OS was NOT ex cathedra, could you please explain why, given that it fulfills all of the requirements of the First Vatican Council concerning the matter[/quote]

Jimmy Akin discusses this matter [url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/saddle_up.html"]here[/url]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible, in itself. The truth is discusses is, however. The theological weight of a particular document is really not important, because more often than not, it is simply reiterating something which must be assented to.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:31 AM']Ok. I trust the theologian Josef Ratzinger's understanding over yours. 
[right][snapback]618079[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's great, I'll trust Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Bertone.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

REFLECTIONS ON "ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS"
Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith
[quote]The Pope's intervention was necessary not simply to reiterate the validity of a discipline observed in the Church from the beginning, but to confirm a doctrine "preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents", which "pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself (n. 4). [b]In this way, the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved solely to men could not be considered "open to debate" and neither could one attribute to the decision of the Church "a merely disciplinary force."[/b]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFREPLY.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFREPLY.HTM[/url][/quote]
I thought he was argueing that it [i]was[/i] infallible.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Doesn't the link you posted to the CDF document argue that it was infallible? Then again, I haven't read the whole thing...[/quote]

It says that OS, as a document of John Paul II, is not infallible, but the point in question (female ordination) is an infallible truth which requires assent. This is a subtle distinction that really has no relevance to anyone but theologians, who like to wrangle over these kinds of things. All ordinary Catholics need to know is women can't be ordained. Period.

The reason it's important, however, is because Ordinatio Sacerdotalis must be understood in light of the previous teaching of the Church, since it is not an infallible declaration in itself. And so the weight of the doctrine is judged on what came before it.

The same is true of Humani Generis. It is not necessarily, in itself, infallible, and so just because it says something doesn't make it dogma. Its commentary must be understood on the previous teaching of the Church. If something is to be interepreted, it must be interpreted inclusively or exclusively, and only by understanding the nature of the document, and the nature of the doctrine in previous Magisterial interventions, can you figure that out.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I have read both the CDF's reply and then-Cardinal-Ratzinger's reflections concerning it, however, it is still unclear to me why the teachings set forth in OS are of the Pope's ordinary, and not extraordinary magisterial authority - it fulfills all of the requirements set forth by the First Vatican Council.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:39 AM']It says that OS, as a document of John Paul II, is not infallible, but the point in question (female ordination) is an infallible truth which requires assent. This is a subtle distinction that really has no relevance to anyone but theologians, who like to wrangle over these kinds of things. All ordinary Catholics need to know is women can't be ordained. Period.

The reason it's important, however, is because Ordinatio Sacerdotalis must be understood in light of the previous teaching of the Church, since it is not an infallible declaration in itself. And so the weight of the doctrine is judged on what came before it.
[right][snapback]618093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree it is not infallible through a solemn extraordinary act of the Papal Magisterium; instead, it is infallible as an act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Todd, if you or Eremite could explain [i]why[/i] it is not a solemn extraordinary act of the Papal Magisterium, that would be great.

[Apotheoun]

Eremite,

You appear to have a desire to separate the Ordinary Magisterium of the Head of the Episcopal College from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the whole body of Bishops. I suggest you read Bertone's essay.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Did John Paul II define the doctrine concerning women's ordination in OS 4? No, he didn't. He did say that the doctrine "is to be definitively held" but this phrase fails to specify why it is to be definitively held. It could be because he himself is defining it or because a prior pope defined it or because an ecumenical council defined it orbecause the ordinary and universal Magisterium has defined it. The basis on which the teaching is definitive is thus not locked in by the mere appearance of the word "definitive" in a papal text. It doesn't mean that this pope is defining it this time.

The phrase that he would be expected to use to signal that he is making a definitive act would be the verb "I define." We would expect him to say "I declare and define," but he doesn't say that. He simply says "I declare." Those aren't the same thing.

Despite the desire some may have to equate them, they simply do not mean the same thing in ecclesiastical usage. Nor can "I declare" be construed as merely an "updating" of "I define." John Paul II said "I declare and define" more throughout his career--both before and after OS--than any other pope in history, because this is the formula used in canonizing saints. If JPII then avoided the verb "define" it wasn't because he was shy of using it or wanted it updated to a new verb. It was because he didn't intend to make his act a definition.

In fact, unless the pope accompanies a phrase like "is to be definitively held" by the phrase "I define" (as in "I define . . . therefore it is to be held definitively") then it would suggest that the basis for the definitive holding is something other than what he has just said.

Thus, despite conditions 1-2 and 4-5 being fulfilled, condition 3 simply is not. The pope avoided using the expected phrasing form making a definition, nor did he substitute new phrasing that made it "manifestly evident" that he did so.

Therefore, while the teaching on women's ordination is infallible and definitively to be held, it wasn't because John Paul II engaged his infallibilit in OS. The Church's infallibility had already been engaged on this point, and he did not engage his own here.

--Jimmy Akin, linked above[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

"It is asked further, whether the the Supreme Pontiff exercises his infallibility also in an ordinary way or not. To this question we should respond affirmatively." [Fr. Joachim Salaverri, [u]Sacrae Theologiae Summa[/u], (Madrid, B.A.C., 5th edition, 1962), vol. 1, nos. 645-647]

[Apotheoun]

My dear friend Eremite, if something is [i]definitive tenenda[/i] it is infallibly taught. It is an infallible doctrine, but not an infallible dogma.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:46 AM']Therefore, while the teaching on women's ordination is infallible and definitively to be held, it wasn't because John Paul II engaged his infallibilit in OS. The Church's infallibility had already been engaged on this point, and he did not engage his own here.

--Jimmy Akin
[right][snapback]618107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Correct the Church's infallibility had already been engaged through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and it was engaged again in the teaching of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium when the Pope issued [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] (see the quotation provided above from Cardinal Archbishop Bertone).

[Guest Eremite]

No, it was not engaged again, as Jimmy Akin and Josef Ratzinger lay out.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:00 PM']How come nobody ever argues about and discusses my post...they just fade away in the silence that surrounds them...



[right][snapback]618013[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


because your post almost always make sense and are generally agreed with.

[Guest JeffCR07]

The documents of the First Vatican Council which I have cited above do not at any point say that the Pope must use the exact words "I define" - only that he must be defining an article of faith.

Here is Vatican 1:

[quote]We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable (see Denziger §1839).
-- Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, chapter iv[/quote]

Here is the Holy Father:

[quote]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 that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[/quote]


So if this is NOT a declaration of the extraordinary Papal Magisterium, could someone give an argument as to why the above quote of the Holy Father does not "define" an article of faith?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:57 AM']No, it was not engaged again, as Jimmy Akin and Josef Ratzinger lay out. 
[right][snapback]618127[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not going to deny the infallible authority of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, you may do that if you wish, but you should at least read the sources I've cited on my website before making a hasty judgment.

[Apotheoun]

Someone needs to tell the editors of America magazine that the Pope is not teaching things infallibly ([u]Ordinatio Sacredotalis[/u], [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u], and [u]Vertatis Splendor[/u]) with his Ordinary Magisterium, because they're all up in arms over it.

[Guest Eremite]

Jeff,

Vatican I does not exist in a vacuum. The Church has [i]consistently[/i] used the word "define" when engaging its infallibility in a formal manner. As Jimmy Akin notes, this is seen in canonizations as well as definitions.

John Paul II purposely did not use the word "define", because he was simply affirming what had already been infallibly taught elsewhere.

Papal documents are not magical formulas. They are understood according to the rules of ecclesiastical usage, and the particular intent of the author. Cardinal Ratzinger understands these probably more than anyone (particularly the intent of JPII, as CDF and his right hand man).