The Ex Cathedra statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

[Era Might]

[quote]Not if Authoritative is a synonym for definitive.[/quote]
No, it's not. The Church is always authoritative, whether her teaching is definitive or not.

[quote]I assumed as much but doesn't that shed any light on the meaning of definitive which is what is important in my post and which you didn't really address? My point was that an ex cathedra statement must be a defining act. So this means one thing that if the pope proclaims something by a definitive act he is defining it, which leads one to believe either that a definitive act is a defining act or that if one proclaims that something in a definitive way he is defining it. So if the first is the correct answer then John Paul must be saying some one else already defined it. If the second is true then why is he not speaking definitively?[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're trying to get across. "Definitive" and "define" are not synonomous in Catholic theology. They're not even synonomous in language.

In language, something can be "defined" but not "definitive"; a temporary definition, for example. This is not the case in Catholic theology, however. If something is defined, it is always definitive, although if something is definitive, it is not necessarily defined. "Defined" in Catholic theology has a specific meaning; it refers to an extraordinary act of the Magisterium.

[quote]Definitive and infallible are not synonyms. One just always follows the other. The best way to understand what the Pope is doing is to understand what the word definitive means. So here is a link to 3 dictionaries one of them is Latin to English. Which denotation of definitive is being used in these two statements and if it is two different ones why would one assume that?[/quote]
A doctrine that is definitive is also infallible. It may not be defined, but it is definitive, and thus infallible, because it cannot change. Its infallibility flows from the ordinary Magisterium.

[quote]No but I quoted the Catechism quoting Lumen Gentium which is infallible so I'm pretty sure both statements are of equal authority am I off on this?[/quote]
Lumen Gentium is not infallible in itself, although that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, just a tangent.

The Catechism is simply summarizing the Church's doctrine. To gather all the finer points, it's necessary to look elsewhere (the First Vatican Council, most importantly). When Cardinal Ratzinger noted that "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" was not infallible in itself, he was doing so because he knew the rules of theology. It was not an extraordinary definition, and it did not try to be.

Your argument seems to be, if I understand correctly, that because "define" and "definitive" share a common root ("defin"), that they have to be synonomous. They are not. "Define" refers to an act. "Definitive" refers to a permanent state of being. In Catholic theology, "define" is a specific act of the extraordinary magisterium. John Paul did not carry out that act, and he had no intention of doing so.

It can be said, in a loose way, that the doctrine is "defined" (that is, taught) by the ordinary Magisterium, but that only introduces confusion, because "define", in its proper sense, refers to an act of the extraordinary Magisterium. However, because the ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly, its infallible teaching is also definitive (that is, permanent).

In Catholic theology, "define" is a personal and extraordinary act, either of a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. It formally defines an already definitive doctrine, but does so personally, so that the infallibility of the doctrine is based on a personal, specific act, rather than on the collective witness of the ordinary Magisterium.

Honestly, I don't know what more can be said. We seem to be going in circles.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Era Might

[pyranima]

WOAH!!!! Hold on here, there seems to be a limiting on Doctrine development. Vatican I gave an instance as someone said above, it did not limit. It is just like when it was said "There is no Salvation outside of the Church" some hawks didn't know how to read so they said "If your not Catholic then you cant be saved" what they didn't take into account was the full meaning or implication of the statement. you have the visible Church and then you have the invisible Church, its one Church manifested 2 ways. one is Visible bounds "I see it goes this far" and Invisible bounds "I see it goes this far but i know it reaches farther". Vatican I defined only 1 way in which infallible teachings are defined by the Pope, as time goes on and the question is studied further more things will come to light.

its a lot like how science develops, take newtons law for example its been around for 400 years, however there was an unexplained event that occured in galixies. the closer a planet is to its star the faster it should go, the further away it is the slower it should go. the problem that was discovered was that after a while scientists discoverd that objects speeds stopped decreasing. they came up with "Dark matter" to solve the problem. recently however Newtons original formula was Modified and it works better than the dark matter theory at explaining things, the scientific doctrine of newtons law has been further defined as neede. the modified law is not an invetion but it is instead a further definition. religious doctrine works the same way. the bible does not address things like stemcell research, thus we need a living teaching body to apply the teachings of Christ to the new situations that have come up sinse Christ died.

[Era Might]

Until the Church teaches that the Pope can invoke his infallibility outside of the limits defined by the First Vatican Council, then that is the only time a Pope is personally infallible.

That is different, of course, from saying a doctrine is infallible, which is not limited to the personal act of a Pope.

But the definition of Vatican I has been confirmed repeatedly, at Vatican II and also in the Catechism. That is why the Catechism references the points of that definition.

Vatican I limits the infallibility of the Pope to extraordinary acts, but not the infallibility of the Church, which can be infallible in an ordinary and an extraordinary manner. That's an important distinction.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Era Might

[JJMG2001]

Era Might this will get too complicated if I try and reply to your comments so I'm just going to attempt to address everything here. I never said that definitive had the same meaning as define. I said that one denotation of definitive is "involving definition" words.exe or "Precisely defined or explicit" The American Heritage Dictionary or "serving to define or specify precisely" Miriam Webster. Thus in both the Latin and English language it is possible that when Lumen Gentium says "a definitive act” it could mean "an act involving definition." If this was the case (and it would make sense that it was because we know that to speak ex cathedra the pope must define) then it seems likely that in order for John Paul to say it is definitively held he is saying it must be held as defined. This you say is not the case so we’ll move on.

I also suggested that definitive can mean "Authoritative and complete" The American Heritage Dictionary "of recognized authority or excellence;" WordNet or "authoritative and apparently exhaustive" Miriam Webster If such were the case "a definitive act" would be "an act that is Authoritative and complete" or maybe simply "an act which is of recognized authoritative." This you say again is not the case. Ok so we move on

I really just wanted to know how to define definitive. Until your last post to me you hadn't defined it but you were equating it with infallible which is not what it means it just so happens that the Church can't be definitive without being infallible and vice versa. However in your last post to me you finally defined it so we can get out of the circle we got into. You said it was a "permanent state of being" or irrevocable as I now see Ratzinger defines it in his “Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” Ok thank you now that you have finally defined it we can determine that "a definitive act" is "a permanent or irrevocable act" (Which isn't actually one of the definitions in any of the dictionaries I sourced although some are close) Now the second part of what I was trying to get across was whatever the meaning of definitive how is it that John Paul is not making a definitive act if in his statement he is saying the doctrine he is declaring is to “be definitively held?” In the case where definitive means irrevocable John Paul’s statement in order to not be speaking ex cathedra must be revocable because Lumen Gentium seems to say that he is defining something when he proclaims something in an irrevocable act. But how is this possible if he said that it must "be definitively (irrevocably) held?"

Does what I was saying make sense now?

Everything after this is new to a certain extent

This is the context of the statement from Lumen Gentium:
“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to [b]be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals,[/b] extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) [b]by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals[/b].(42*) [b]And therefore his definitions, o[/b]f themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is [b]not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, [/b]in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.” (emphasis added)

The part in bold could be taken two ways I think. 1. The act of proclaiming by a definitive act is defining 2. The context implies the proclamation by a definitive act is within a definition. Could I assume you agree with #2? If so could you elaborate as to why?

Also I’m curious is this letter an act of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith approved by the pope demanding “religious submission of mind and will” or a personal act of Ratzinger who happened to be the prefect of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith?

Finally regarding the infallibility of Lumen Gentium how should we understand it in regard to this: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." Declaration of March 6, 1964? The exercise of the supreme magisterium is infallible and thus shouldn’t everything that council set forth be infallible? Yet if that is the case what is the point of the pronouncement?

Edited July 23, 2006 by JJMG2001

[qfnol31]

It is a reference back to Vatican I and so therefore we should again look back at the quote from Vatican I itself.

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1030694' date='Jul 25 2006, 07:45 PM']
It is a reference back to Vatican I and so therefore we should again look back at the quote from Vatican I itself.
[/quote]
I don't doubt that the documents of Vatican I are relevant but isn't it possible for Lumen Gentium to give insight into the text of Vatican I not only the other way around. And if it is infallible, which I guess it isn't in and of itself, it should be able to hold up as true without the assitance of Vatican I.