What does this mean?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]388. The Sacrament of Order can be validly received by a baptised person of the male sex only. (Sent. certa.) CIC 968, Par. 1.[/quote]
What is "Sent. certa. CIC 968"? Where can I find the actual text?

[Benedict]

CIC is Codex Iuris Canonici, also known as the Code of Canon Law.

While I do not recall the full words of Sent. certa., it describes a doctrine which is theologically certain but without a final pronouncement from the Authority of the Church.

[Benedict]

From Ott:

Sent. certa = "A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically
certain ([b]sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa[/b]) is a
doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet
finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions)." (Ott p.9,10)

[phatcatholic]

Ott's reference is from the 1917 Code of Canon Law ([url="http://www.intratext.com/X/LAT0813.HTM"][b]here[/b][/url]). CIC 968 reads as follows:

[b]968 § 1.[/b] Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus; licite autem, qui ad normam sacrorum canonum debitis qualitatibus, iudicio proprii Ordinarii, praeditus sit, neque ulla detineatur irregularitate aliove impedimento.

[b]§ 2.[/b] Qui irregularitate aliove impedimento detinentur, licet post ordinationem etiam sine propria culpa exorto, prohibentur receptos ordines exercere.

you're on ur own from there

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Then can Sent. certa. really be considered dogma?

[Benedict]

I was never very good at the subtleties of distinction between doctrine and dogma.

Just looking at the definitions of sent. certa. and dogma, I guess not.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thedude' date='Feb 10 2005, 08:14 PM'] Then can Sent. certa. really be considered dogma? [/quote]
it is my understanding that those things to be held sent certa make up the ordinary/universal magisterium, which means they make up the consistent teaching of the popes, and the bishops in communion with him. as such, they are infallible beliefs. they have not been "finally pronounced" in the sense that they are not infallible via an authoritative, ex cathedra statement.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='thedude' date='Feb 10 2005, 06:14 PM'] Then can Sent. certa. really be considered dogma? [/quote]
As Cardinal Ratzinger has written in the official doctrinal commentary on the [i]Professio Fidei[/i]: "The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either [i]defining[/i] or [i]non-defining[/i]. In the case of a [i]defining act[/i], a truth is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a [i]non-defining act[/i], a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the [i]depositum fidei[/i], is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church." [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 9]

Thus, a dogma or a doctrine that is [i]sententia certa[/i] has been infallibly taught through a non-defining act of the Ordinary and Unversal Magisterium, and as such it is irreformable.

God bless,
Todd

[Benedict]

Now, I thought that a doctrine was dogma because it was solemnly defined.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:42 AM'] Now, I thought that a doctrine was dogma because it was solemnly defined. [/quote]
All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. A dogma is something that the Church's Magisterium has declared, through either a solemn defining act or a non-defining act, to be divinely revealed.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Thank you.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Feb 10 2005, 03:53 AM'] Ott's reference is from the 1917 Code of Canon Law ([url="http://www.intratext.com/X/LAT0813.HTM"][b]here[/b][/url]). CIC 968 reads as follows:

[b]968 § 1.[/b] Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus; licite autem, qui ad normam sacrorum canonum debitis qualitatibus, iudicio proprii Ordinarii, praeditus sit, neque ulla detineatur irregularitate aliove impedimento.

[b]§ 2.[/b] Qui irregularitate aliove impedimento detinentur, licet post ordinationem etiam sine propria culpa exorto, prohibentur receptos ordines exercere.

you're on ur own from there [/quote]
raphael....................can you translate that for us?