Original Sin, or actually Original Sins?

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:02 PM']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.
[right][snapback]618136[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even if the doctrine itself were not definitive, they would still owe submission of intellect and will. But it is.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:02 AM']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).
[right][snapback]618137[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I suggest you read Bishop Gasser's [u]Official Relatio[/u] which he delivered as head of the Deputation de Fide on [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u] to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, because what you've just said about the meaning of the word "define" is in error.

Moreover, the Pope does not have to use any standardized verbal or written formula when issuing a definitive teaching, either solemnly or with his Ordinary Magisterium.

[Guest JeffCR07]

So the above statement of the Holy Father's is not definitive because he did not use the word "define" ? If the answer is yes, that is fine by me, but seeing as that is a bit hard to swallow, I'd like to hear it definitively ( ) from either you or Apotheon

[Guest JeffCR07]

Alright, so Appy, why do [i]you[/i] think that the above quoted statement of John Paul II's is not an act of his extraordinary Papal Magisterium?

[Guest Eremite]

The doctrine itself is definitive, as John Paul II makes clear. The particular weight of OS, in itself, however, is another matter.

I don't see what the big deal is. No matter what, people owe submission of intellect of will. And in this case, they owe something beyond that.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Eremite, don't get me wrong, I am all about religious submission of mind and will. I'm also all about faith seeking understanding (my sig, lol), so I genuinely enjoy learning about this kind of thing.

It seems to me that if the specific teaching IS definitive, then that singular teaching (rather than the document as a whole) would indeed be [i]ex cathedra[/i], while [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] itself, as a complete document, would be an act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium


Am I still wrong?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:07 AM']The doctrine itself is definitive, as John Paul II makes clear. The particular weight of OS, in itself, however, is another matter.
[right][snapback]618145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Apostolic Letter [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] is itself infallible because it was issued by the Pope as the head of the Episcopal College, in order to confirm his brethren, and so it participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:07 AM']I don't see what the big deal is. No matter what, people owe submission of intellect of will. And in this case, they owe something beyond that.
[right][snapback]618145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. The faithful owe more than a submission of intellect and will to the teaching contained in [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u]; they owe an act of faith, because the teaching that men alone can be ordained is an infallible doctrine [i]de fide tenenda[/i].

The teaching contained in [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] does not fall under the third category of the additional propositions of the [i]Professio Fidei[/i]; rather, it falls under the second category of truths that are infallibly taught, and which are related to divine revelation by either an historical or logical connection.

[scardella]

Hey, thread effectively hijacked!

Anyway, the comments made so far have done a lot to further my understanding of why it's not Original Sins... your explanations are a bit more informed than peeps I was talking with. It reminds me hanging out in Steubie when a theological convo started up and I was only on the threshold of being able to understand it.

So, did the devil have to use Eve as bait, so that Adam would have to choose between Eve and God? It says in Timothy(?) that Adam was not decieved. Does that have anything to do w/ why Adam's sin is Original Sin and not Eve's?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:11 AM'][. . .]
It seems to me that if the specific teaching IS definitive, then that singular teaching (rather than the document as a whole) would indeed be [i]ex cathedra[/i], while [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] itself, as a complete document, would be an act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium
Am I still wrong?
[right][snapback]618158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Basically you've got it, but I wouldn't call [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] an [i]ex cathedra[/i] teaching, because it isn't a solemn act of the Papal Magisterium; instead, it is an infallible act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium confirming a definitive teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere member, but as the head.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:15 AM']Hey, thread effectively hijacked!

Anyway, the comments made so far have done a lot to further my understanding of why it's not Original Sins...  your explanations are a bit more informed than peeps I was talking with.  It reminds me hanging out in Steubie when a theological convo started up and I was only on the threshold of being able to understand it.

So, did the devil have to use Eve as bait, so that Adam would have to choose between Eve and God?  It says in Timothy(?) that Adam was not decieved.  Does that have anything to do w/ why Adam's sin is Original Sin and not Eve's?
[right][snapback]618175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course Adam was tempted to sin, but he sinned of his own free will; in other words, he was under no internal or external compulsion.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:22 PM']Basically you've got it, but I wouldn't call Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an [i]ex cathedra[/i] teaching, because it isn't a solemn act of the Papal Magisterium; instead, it is an infallible act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium confirming a definitive teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which includes the Pope not as a mere member, but as the head.
[right][snapback]618193[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I just need a little bit of further clarification.

It is clear to me that [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i], as a document, is a part of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium.

But why is the definitive teaching which I have quoted above not a specific act of the extraordinary papal magisterium? It seems to fit all of the requirements that exist in order for a thing to be [i]ex cathedra[/i].

Basically, my question is this: what is it that the above quoted, specific teaching, lacks that would otherwise make it a solemn act of the Papal Magisterium?

Thanks,

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 01:29 PM']I just need a little bit of further clarification.

It is clear to me that [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i], as a document, is a part of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium.

But why is the definitive teaching which I have quoted above not a specific act of the extraordinary papal magisterium? It seems to fit all of the requirements that exist in order for a thing to be [i]ex cathedra[/i].

Basically, my question is this: what is it that the above quoted, specific teaching, lacks that would otherwise make it a solemn act of the Papal Magisterium?

Thanks,

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]618210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Declaration as such.

[quote name='Ordinatio Sacerdotalis #4']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 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]

[quote name='Ubi Primum #1']No sooner had We been elevated to the sublime Chair of the Prince of the Apostles and undertook the government of the universal Church (not, indeed, because of Our own worthiness but by the hidden designs of Divine Providence) than We had the great consolation, Venerable Brethren, in recalling that, during the pontificate of Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor of happy memory, there was in the entire Catholic world a most ardent and wondrous revival of the desire that the most holy Mother of God -- the beloved Mother of us all, the immaculate Virgin Mary -- be finally declared by a solemn definition of the Church to have been conceived without the stain of original sin.[/quote]

Notice the difference in language. It is said to be of solemn declaration in Ubi Primum.....Ordinatio Sacerdotalis makes no such declaration. One is also an admission, the other a condemnation. The condemnation is not a means of definiton.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:29 AM']I just need a little bit of further clarification.

It is clear to me that [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i], as a document, is a part of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium.

But why is the definitive teaching which I have quoted above not a specific act of the extraordinary papal magisterium? It seems to fit all of the requirements that exist in order for a thing to be [i]ex cathedra[/i].

Basically, my question is this: what is it that the above quoted, specific teaching, lacks that would otherwise make it a solemn act of the Papal Magisterium?

Thanks,

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]618210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Because the Pope issued it as a part of his Ordinary Magisterium. That is why there was some confusion after the Pope's letter was made public, and Ratzinger's comments were misinterpreted in the press, and by some "liberal" theologians as well. In a similar vein the comments of Pope Paul VI after the close of the Second Vatican Council were also misunderstood. Both men had said that the documents issued by the Church's Magisterium, in the case of Ratzinger the Pope's letter reserving ordination to men alone, and in the case of Pope Paul VI some of the documents of Vatican II, were not infallible. Some people took this to mean that the teachings in question were not definitive, but that isn't what either man meant, both men were indicating that a solemn judgment had not been given, but neither man was denying the fact that a definitive and infallible judgment of the Ordinary Magisterium had been made.

For more information I recommend reading Cardinal Bertone's essay from L'Osservatore Romano, because in that essay he explains the nature of the Papal teaching contained in [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] in a way that is both concise and easy to understand.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Cam, while I greatly appreciate the comparison between the two, my question remains unanswered:

What is it that makes one solemn and the other not?

In all honesty, the statement in question in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] appears to be at least as solemn and definitive as that of [i]Ubi Primum[/i].

The only difference between the two is that the one reads "be finally declared by a solemn definition of the Church..." while the other reads "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..."

What is it that causes a thing to be considered a solemn act of the extraordinary magisterium?

Thanks again in advance!

-Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 11:55 AM']Cam, while I greatly appreciate the comparison between the two, my question remains unanswered:

What is it that makes one solemn and the other not?

In all honesty, the statement in question in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] appears to be at least as solemn and definitive as that of [i]Ubi Primum[/i].

The only difference between the two is that the one reads "be finally declared by a solemn definition of the Church..." while the other reads "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..."

What is it that causes a thing to be considered a solemn act of the extraordinary magisterium?

Thanks again in advance!

-Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]618260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ultimately what makes a definition solemn is the intention of the Pope; in other words, is it his intention to solemnly define a truth of the faith. In the case of [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] there is no evidence that Pope John Paul II intended the document as an extraordinary act of his Magisterium. Thus, it is an infallible act (in that it participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium) of his Ordinary Magisterium.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I know I'm late to the table, but another interesting thought about the sin of Adam is that God's command not to eat of the tree in the center of the garden was issued before Eve was created. Perhaps only the sin of Adam applies not because there is anything to suggest that Eve wasn't held by the same command, but because Adam was the one from the whole human race came.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 21 2005, 02:00 PM']Ultimately what makes a definition solemn is the intention of the Pope; in other words, is it his intention to solemnly define a truth of the faith.  In the case of [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] there is no evidence that Pope John Paul II intended the document as an extraordinary act of his Magisterium.  Thus, it is an infallible act (in that it participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium) of his Ordinary Magisterium.
[right][snapback]618268[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

First, I agree that the [i]document as a whole[/i] is issued from the ordinary papal magisterium, but does that necessarily exclude [i]specific teachings[/i] contained within that document from being issued via his extraordinary papal magisterium?
- It seems the answer is "no" for if, for example, the Pope was giving a speech, and in the speech he declared a teaching [i]ex cathedra[/i], we would properly say the specific [i]teaching[/i] is infallible, while the speech itself, considered as a whole would be an exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium.

Now if this assumption is correct, isn't there [i]prima facie[/i] evidence that he intended the specific statement to be an act of his extraordinary papal magisterium, given the extreme length he goes to in order to express the importance of the teaching?

If not, could you tell me why?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:13 PM']First, I agree that the [i]document as a whole[/i] is issued from the ordinary papal magisterium, but does that necessarily exclude [i]specific teachings[/i] contained within that document from being issued via his extraordinary papal magisterium?
    - It seems the answer is "no" for if, for example, the Pope was giving a speech, and in the speech he declared a teaching [i]ex cathedra[/i], we would properly say the specific [i]teaching[/i] is infallible, while the speech itself, considered as a whole would be an exercise of the ordinary papal magisterium.

Now if this assumption is correct, isn't there [i]prima facie[/i] evidence that he intended the specific statement to be an act of his extraordinary papal magisterium, given the extreme length he goes to in order to express the importance of the teaching?

If not, could you tell me why?
[right][snapback]618282[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again it is the Pope's intention that determines the solemn or ordinary character of a teaching. In the case of [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] we have the [u]Responsum ad Dubium[/u] which was issued about a year after the Apostolic Letter itself was made public, and in the [u]Responsum[/u] it was indicated that the teaching was founded upon the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and not upon an act of the Extraordinary [i]ex Cathedra[/i] Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. This [u]Responsum[/u] was issued under the authority of the Pope himself, as the [u]Responsum ad Dubium[/u] clearly indicates when it says: "The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published." This clearly shows that Pope John Paul II did not intend [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] to be an act of his Extraordinary Magisterium; consequently, it is an act of his infallible Ordinary Magisterium.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Perhaps only the sin of Adam applies not because there is anything to suggest that Eve wasn't held by the same command, but because Adam was the one from the whole human race came.[/quote]

Interesting point. I didn't even think of it like that. Eve was taken from Adam as well, whereas Adam was taken from the earth.