Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Separated in the divine plan, not on an ontological level. We are dealing with the plan of God. He could just have easily switched roles if he wanted to (with Adam and Eve, that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:08 AM']As Pope Benedict XVI notes, even Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not infallible, in itself. And it certainly goes above and beyond the language of HG. But, as I said, that's neither here nor there. HG does not set out a comprehensive treatise on the matter. [right][snapback]618027[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible confirmation of a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Read Cardinal Bertone's essay from L'osservatore Romano entitled [u]Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent[/u]. The Pope, even in his Ordinary Magisterium as head of the Episcopal College can teach infallibly. This isn't a new doctrine either, because it is found in the old manuals issued prior to Vatican II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote]It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church. --Pope Benedict XVI[/quote] OS was not infallible in itself, although the doctrine it dealt with is. Man, we've come a long way from why Original Sin is not in the plural form. Sorry for the hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:11 AM']Separated in the divine plan, not on an ontological level. We are dealing with the plan of God. He could just have easily switched roles if he wanted to (with Adam and Eve, that is). [right][snapback]618032[/snapback][/right] [/quote] We're talking at the ontological level. The Divine Plan isn't some ephemeral thing, it's ontological, just as man's divinization by grace is ontological, and not merely virtual. Because sin is a hypostatic act, it has ontological effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Here is some [u]Douay-Rheims[/u] Scripture I dug up: [quote]Wherefore as [u]by one man sin entered into this world[/u], and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [b]Romans 5:12[/b][/quote] [quote]Therefore, as [u]by the offence of one[/u], unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the [u]disobedience of one man[/u], many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. [b]Romans 5:18-19[/b][/quote] [quote]For by [u]a man[/u] came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. [b]1 Corinthians 15:21[/b][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 thedude, Sirach uses the same language, but for Eve: [quote]In woman was sin's beginning, and because of her we all die.[/quote] Just because Sirach uses the same language for Eve doesn't necessarily mean anything, just as just because Romans uses the same language for Adam means anything. It all depends on the doctrinal status of this theological point. Relatively minor as it is, I think the evidence is lacking on an ecclesiastical judgement, aside from general principles. But, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:16 AM']OS was not infallible in itself, although the doctrine it dealt with is. Man, we've come a long way from why Original Sin is not in the plural form. Sorry for the hijack. [right][snapback]618037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] But it is an interesting discussion. Go to my website on [url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/magisterium"][u]the Church's Magisterium[/u][/url], because I've given a large number of sources there that show that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff can teach infallibly, and that [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u], [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u], and [u]Veritatis Splendor[/u] are all infallible acts of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium confirming teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Don John, considering, Sirach 25:24 In woman was sin's beginning, and because of her we all die, note, In woman (literally) was salvation's beginning, and because of her (fiat)we all live. At least it all kinda balanced out, hmmm? Carry on, you all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Evangelium Vitae, and Veritatis Splendor are all infallible acts of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium confirming [/quote] I trust Benedict XVI's understanding of OS vis a vis infallibility over yours. That's no knock on you. It's just that he's been around the block a few times. And them some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Part of the problem in the present discussion may be based on the modern discomfort with the theology of headship. Man is the head of woman, and not the other way around. It is Adam who causes the fall, because he alone is the head of the human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:16 PM']OS was not infallible in itself, although the doctrine it dealt with is. Man, we've come a long way from why Original Sin is not in the plural form. Sorry for the hijack. [right][snapback]618037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Do you have a link to His Holiness' statements concerning the fallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? I was under the impression that not only was that teaching infallible on account of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but also through the Extraordinary Magisterium of John Paul II (ex cathedra). 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]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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I have no problem with the concept of headship (corruption of said concept excluded). And I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Adam's sin alone affected humanity. But there is a difference between a probable theological principle, and Church doctrine. So far as I can tell, within and without this thread, the Church has not dealt with this question specifically. She has simply expounded on the propagation of original sin, without formally adjudicating questions on the nature of the test given by God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Oops. Sorry for not giving the link. [url="http://www.cin.org/ord_rat.html"]http://www.cin.org/ord_rat.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:26 AM']I trust Benedict XVI's understanding of OS vis a vis infallibility over yours. That's no knock on you. It's just that he's been around the block a few times. And them some. [right][snapback]618062[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's a fallacy, he wasn't Pope Benedict when he wrote that. I suggest you at least read Cardinal Bertone's essay, and Pope John Paul II's speech before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled [u]The Magisterium Exercises Authority in Christ's Name[/u] before making a judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Ok. I trust the theologian Josef Ratzinger's understanding over yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now