Original Sin, or actually Original Sins?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:58 PM']Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I [i]didn't[/i] read his links. On whose authority did my case rest? None other than Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, who was acting in his formal capacity as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith; and whose theological aptitude has been confirmed in his elevation to the Bishopric of Rome.

Now, sure, I can claim to know more about these matters than Josef Ratzinger. But I don't. He has forgotten more theology than I"ll ever hope to learn.

If Apotheoun feels he has a case against the argument of the CDF, more power to him.

I don't.
[right][snapback]618353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
which is what you kept saying...
yet Apo was citing other cardinals, and Pope John Paul II, et cetera... which led me to believe you hadn't read anything he had put up for you

you just kept snipping back "ratzinger's better than apotheoun"... you never even proved ratzinger as being against apotheoun

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]the teaching was an infallible teaching of the Pope's ordinary magisterium, which is not, of itself, necessarily infallible, but can teach infallibly when it teaches what is already upheld and believed by the universal magisterium. [/quote]

The [i]doctrine[/i] is infallible, yes (namely, women cannot be ordained to the priesthood). John Paul II's mode of communication, however, was not, and never intended to be. So I'll close by casting my lot once more with Benedict XVI:

[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, quad ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens." [b]In this case, an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium, [i]in itself not infallible[/i], witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.[/b][/quote]

[Guest Eremite]

Aloysius,

What do you want me to do? Spend the whole day responding to every last point Apotheoun makes? I don't have time. I tried to stick to the heart of the matter. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. So be it.

[Aloysius]

[quote]the teaching was an infallible teaching of the Pope's ordinary magisterium, which is not, of itself, necessarily infallible, but can teach infallibly when it teaches what is already upheld and believed by the universal magisterium.[/quote]

in so many words, EXACTLY what Apotheoun said. to the t. Appy said that John Paul II excercised his universal ordinary magisterium infallibly by teaching what is already upheld and believed by the universal magisterium.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]in so many words, EXACTLY what Apotheoun said. to the t. Appy said that John Paul II excercised his universal ordinary magisterium infallibly by teaching what is already upheld and believed by the universal magisterium. [/quote]

No, Cardinal Ratzinger [i]specifically denies[/i] that this papal act of the ordinary magisterium was infallible:

[quote]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.[/quote]

"this...act of the ordinary papal magisterium [was] in itself not infallible", but it witnesses to an infallible doctrine.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Eremite, I believe you are misinterpreting what Cardinal Ratzinger meant by the statement which you have bolded:

When he says that an act of the ordinary papal magisterium is "it itself not infallible" he means to say that infallibility is not an intrinsic or essential aspect of any act of the ordinary papal magisterium.

Another way to say this is that an act of the ordinary papal magisterium, though it can be infallible, may not be.

An instance in which an act of the ordinary papal magisterium [i]is[/i] infallible would be just as the Cardinal says, namely, when it "witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church."

A teaching which does nothing more than reiterate already infallible teaching is necessarily infallible. Therefore, the teaching of John Paul II in OS, which is an act of his ordinary magisterium, is indeed infallible by virtue of the fact that it restates an already infallible belief.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest Eremite]

Jeff,

But he is not speaking in the abstract. He specifically refers to "this case", that is, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

I don't even know why we are arguing this. We all agree it is an infallible doctrine that women cannot be ordained. That's all that matters.

[Aloysius]

well actually, all that matters is that we can figure out whether Humanari Genararis is infallible... keep your eyes peeled on the topic at hand... that is the entire reason we are talking about infallibility in the first place, in order to show as definitive tenada fide all that stuff that y'all were talkin about in the discussion of Adam.

sheesh, I wasn't even involved in the discussion but I'm more on track of its purpose than you!

[Apotheoun]

Eremite,

No where have I said that [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] by itself, that is, taken in isolation, is infallible. What I have said is that this act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is infallible because it is an official confirmation of a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and as an act of the head of the Episcopal College it participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the whole body of Bishops, and this is understood not merely in a synchronic fashion, but diachronically. As Cardinal Archbishop Bertone, who at the time was the secretary of the CDF, said, “In the light of these considerations, it seems a pseudo-problem to wonder whether this papal act of confirming a teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium is infallible or not. In fact, although it is not [i]per se[/i] a dogmatic definition (like the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon or the Marian dogmas), [i]a papal pronouncement of confirmation [b]enjoys the same infallibility as the teaching of the ordinary, universal Magisterium[/b], which includes the Pope not as a mere Bishop but as the Head of the Episcopal College[/i].” [Cardinal Bertone, [u]Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent[/u], part 1, no. 2] In other words, the Pope's Ordinary Magisterium is also a universal Magisterium (just as his primacy of jurisdiction is universal); and this idea is not new, in fact it was pointed out by Msgr. Fenton and Dom Paul Nau, along with the various theological manuals, more than fifty years ago. All of this follows from the fact that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, and as such he is the head of the Episcopal College, and so his actions activate the College by definition. Thus, when the Pope acts as the head of the College, in order to confirm his brothers in the faith, his definitions, even in his Ordinary Magisterium, participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

[Aloysius]

and in relation to the thread, let me remind you is Humanari Generaris.... or something like that because I've completely mangled the spelling I'm sure

[Guest Eremite]

Apotheoun,

Canon 749 §3 reads:

[quote]No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.[/quote]

The Church has certain elements which she employs to invoke her infallible authority. When "defining infallibly", she specifically uses the word "define". This is consistently evident in canonizations as well as dogmatic definitions of Popes and ecumenical councils (eg, Unam Sanctum, Vatican I, etc). To judge something of this character, these "manifest" characertistics must be noted. Though they are not absolutely necessary elements, they are the practically proven marks of manifest infallibility, and so they are the normative rule.

The Church rarely invokes this charism on a conscious level. Rather, she chooses to speak through her ordinary Magisterium.

A specific pronouncement of the ordinary Magisterium is not infallible in itself, ever. Rather, the weight of a doctrine of the ordinary magisterium is in the whole, as we see in Lumen Gentium:

[quote]This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.[/quote]

When a doctrine is taught by the ordinary Magisterium, confirmed repeatedly, and framed with gravity, it becomes an infallible teaching. None of those individual repetitions, however, are infallible in themselves. The doctrine is infallible because of its continued validation and repetition. Thus, the ordinary Magisterium does speak infallibly, but in a collective manner, rather than individually.

We see this concept in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. As Josef Ratzinger notes, the papal intervention, in itself, is not infallible. Neither were any of the other papal interventions before it (eg, Paul VI in "Inter Insigniores"). This doctrine, however, has been firmly affirmed and repeated. It is infallible because of its collective repetition, not for any single repetition. Should the Church decide to define this doctrine with manifest infallibility, she will do so; consequently, that definition [i]in itself[/i] will be infallible, apart from the firm repetition of the ordinary Magisterium.

The First Vatican Council specifically limited the infallible character of individual definitions to ex cathedra pronouncements. This avoids the extreme of holding every papal declaration as infallible, while at the same time not limiting the infallibility of the Church to ex cathedra pronouncements (a concept further developed at Vatican II).

A pronouncement of the ordinary papal magisterium could theoretically be wrong; and it falls on theologians to object in such cases. However, such a case is rare, as after 2000 years, the ordinary Magisterium has pretty much established the infallible status of its general body of doctrine by firm repetition.

Just to sum up, the key point here is that an act of the ordinary magisterium is never infallible, in itself. Rather, a teaching of the ordinary magisterium is infallible by virtue of collective and firm repetition.

I think our only disagreement is in the nature of individual pronouncements of the ordinary Magisterium. I maintain (and I believe the Church maintains) that the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are not taught infallibly by any one single act of the ordinary magisterium, but by the collective repetition of a teaching. You maintain (if I understand correctly) that an individual act of the ordinary magisterium can be infallible, and not just the collective repetition of non-infallible teachings.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:07 PM']Apotheoun,

Canon 749 §3 reads:
The Church has certain elements which she employs to invoke her infallible authority. When "defining infallibly", she specifically uses the word "define". This is consistently evident in canonizations as well as dogmatic definitions of Popes and ecumenical councils (eg, Unam Sanctum, Vatican I, etc). To judge something of this character, these "manifest" characertistics must be noted. Though they are not absolutely necessary elements, they are the practically proven marks of manifest infallibility, and so they are the normative rule.
[right][snapback]618493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Eremite,

Rather than following in the footsteps of a misguided theologian, I suggest you read the articles by Fr. Lawrence Welch, Germain Grisez, and Fr. John Ford [e.g., Fr. Lawrence Welch, [u]Questio Disputata Reply to Richard Gaillardetz on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and to Francis Sullivan[/u] (Journal of Theological Studies, Sept. 2003), and [u]The Nature and Exercise of Authority in the Church[/u] (Irish Theological Quarterly, Spring 2003), and [u]The Infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium: A Critique of Some Recent Observations[/u] (Heythrop Journal, Jan. 1998); Germain Grisez, [u]Infallibility and Contraception: A Reply to Garth Hallet[/u] (Journal of Theological Studies, March 1986); and Germain Grisez and Fr. John Ford, [u]Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium[/u] (Journal of Theological Studies, June 1978)], because you are simply rehashing the same errors that Fr. Sullivan made by misapplying canon 749, and in exactly the same way that he did it, since the teaching of [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u] is definitive through a non-definng act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. Thus, canon 749 does not apply, and if you try to apply it to the present case, as the eminent theologians I've mentioned above have shown, you will end up denying the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium (in all of its different modes of operation).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:07 PM']A pronouncement of the ordinary papal magisterium could theoretically be wrong; and it falls on theologians to object in such cases. However, such a case is rare, as after 2000 years, the ordinary Magisterium has pretty much established the infallible status of its general body of doctrine by firm repetition.
[right][snapback]618493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is true, unless of course the Pope intends, through his Ordinary Magisterium, to definitively settle a doctrinal question, as Pope Pius XII stated in [u]Humani Generis[/u] (no. 20). In such a case, a non-defining act of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium infallibly and irrevocably binds the Church to a particular doctrine.

By the way, the infallible Ordinary and Extraordinary Papal Magisterium has been used more often than most members of the laity believe, because as Bishop Gasser pointed out at the First Vatican Council, "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See." [Bishop Vincent Gasser, [u]Official Relatio[/u] on the Dogmatic Constitution [u]Pastor Aeternus[/u], delivered to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council on 11 July 1870]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:07 PM']I think our only disagreement is in the nature of individual pronouncements of the ordinary Magisterium. I maintain (and I believe the Church maintains) that the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are not taught infallibly by any one single act of the ordinary magisterium, but by the collective repetition of a teaching. You maintain (if I understand correctly) that an individual act of the ordinary magisterium can be infallible, and not just the collective repetition of non-infallible teachings.
[right][snapback]618493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You continue to misunderstand the infallible nature of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, because it is never understood to be exercised in isolation from the Universal Magisterium; rather, it is a particular expression of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium by the head of the Episcopal College, and as a particular non-defining act of confirmation or reaffirmation it participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as is clear from what Cardinal Archbishop Bertone indicated in the quotation I've given above.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:07 PM']Just to sum up, the key point here is that an act of the ordinary magisterium is never infallible, in itself. Rather, a teaching of the ordinary magisterium is infallible by virtue of collective and firm repetition.
[right][snapback]618493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is an open denial of Papal prerogatives, because the Pope as head of the Episcopal College can confirm or reaffirm that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Moreover, a Papal act of confirmation or reaffirmation itself participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, because the Pope acts not as a mere member of the College of Bishops, but as its head.