Original Sin, or actually Original Sins?

[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).

[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.