The Ex Cathedra statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

[JJMG2001]

So there was a thread earlier talking about instances of papal infallibility earlier but my attempts to find it have proven fruitless. Anyway Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was mentioned and it was said that John Paul was speaking as the head of the ordinary and universal Magisterium and thus it was infallible but not an Ex Cathedra statement. But I looked into this and The congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm"]Responsum ad Dubium[/url]. Which essentially says it was infallible because it is found in scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Now however to remove confusion "the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration" In Lumen Gentium the only time the Pope is said to confirm the brethren is when he is speaking Ex Cathedra not as the head of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Also the statement itself says the Pope is acting in the role of confirming the brethren. So isn't it necessary to conclude that "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," is an Ex Cathedra Statement?

[Era Might]

In "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", John Paul didn't define anything, he "declared", meaning he was not engaging the Church's infallibility for that particular document, but rather, he was restating a teaching that was already infallible. Here's a commentary from then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm[/url]

[quote]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. [b]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[/b].[/quote]

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1025983' date='Jul 17 2006, 12:00 PM']
In "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", John Paul didn't define anything, he "declared", meaning he was not engaging the Church's infallibility for that particular document, but rather, he was restating a teaching that was already infallible. Here's a commentary from then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm[/url]
[/quote]


He declared what something was which is the act of defining he needn't say I define he merely has to define. And he declared it to be definitive that is he declared it defined. So although I'll look over the letter and thank you for showing me it I don't think that he said I declare is entirely relevant. Also is this saying that the Pope cannot make and Ex Cathedra Statement if something is already infallible?

Edited July 17, 2006 by JJMG2001

[Era Might]

It's very relevant that he didn't define, because infallible acts are acts of defining. John Paul knew that the language used to exercise the Church's dogmatic authority was that of definition. He did not intend OS as an infallible definition of his own, but rather a declaration about the definitive nature of the doctrine. Cardinal Ratzinger, of all people, knew the Holy Father's intentions in issuing the document, as well as the rules of theology that govern its interpretation.

By not issuing a definition of his own, he avoids having to inject his own definition into the patrimony of Catholic doctrine. Rather, he chose to reaffirm an already infallible doctrine, so that there would be no doubt about its nature.

He could have issued a formal, infallible definition of his own, but he chose not to; as I said, because Popes are loathe to exercise that solemn authority except on rare occasion. It is sufficient that the doctrine is infallible, without the document being infallible. And of course, the document is still binding and authoritative, even if it's not infallible. We don't obey something because it's infallible, but because the Church teaches it.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Era Might

[Jaime]

I believe there are also issues of form on this other than what Era has (rightfully) listed. If I remember correctly, this was a lower level letter. It was sent out to a particular group of bishops. (again this is from memory) And if a pontiff wanted to solemnly declare something ex cathedra, it would be addressed to the entire Magisterium.

[Aloysius]

it was not an extra-ordinary use of his magisterium. it was the ordinary papal magisterium, which can infallibly say what things are already infallible... putting a stamp on them to which to point to definitively prove the teaching without having to attempt to prove a universal consensus of the magisterium through all time et cetera.

ex cathedra is extra-ordinary use of the papal magisterium and is an infallible definition of dogma, an infallible truth of faith or morals which is essential to the message of the gospel.

but the pope's statement in ordinatio sacerdolis confirms that there has always been in place an infallible teaching against female ordination. this confirmation is irreformable, binding and true, and thus infallibly declares what is already infallible; the Holy Spirit would not allow him to err in saying that it was already infallible.

this is basically ordinary papal infallibility-- infallible by virtue of confirming to the faithful what is already infallible.

[jswranch]

My favorite part of the [u]Responsum ad Dubium[/u] is where the CDF uses Vatican II to disprove "a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people."

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1026212' date='Jul 17 2006, 03:59 PM'] it was not an extra-ordinary use of his magisterium. it was the ordinary papal magisterium, which can infallibly say what things are already infallible... putting a stamp on them to which to point to definitively prove the teaching without having to attempt to prove a universal consensus of the magisterium through all time et cetera.

ex cathedra is extra-ordinary use of the papal magisterium and is an infallible definition of dogma, an infallible truth of faith or morals which is essential to the message of the gospel.

but the pope's statement in ordinatio sacerdolis confirms that there has always been in place an infallible teaching against female ordination. this confirmation is irreformable, binding and true, and thus infallibly declares what is already infallible; the Holy Spirit would not allow him to err in saying that it was already infallible.

this is basically ordinary papal infallibility-- infallible by virtue of confirming to the faithful what is already infallible.[/quote]Besides you, I've never heard of any connection between Papal infallibility and anything other than Ex Cathedra statements...I think that it was by authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium that it was infallible.

[pyranima]

This is an infallibal Def. he is echoing the ages, and it is an infallibal statement even though it is not directed the whole church it does contain infallibal doctrine. also what is important to look at is wording, that helps to determin if something is infallibal


"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,..."

the wording makes it very clear he is making a Statement of infallibal magnitude.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I did quote from the CDF statement regarding ordinatio sacerdotalis in that other thread discussing humanae vitae, and I did do this in an implicit comparison between these two documents and their status. But my point was not to suggest that the Pope exercises infallibility by speaking as head of the ordinary magisterium or something of this sort. Where I was coming from was more that both of these documents are examples of the Pope confirming and reiterating an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
Since teachings of the ordinary magisterium often don't have one document or definition that you can turn to like formally proclaimed dogmas do, it is often possible to question the definitive status of such a teaching. My point was that in light of such strong affirmations by the magisterium it is not possible to even question the definitiveness of said doctrines.
Well, it is of course possible, just not very Catholic. This is why such people are often called dissenters (a friendly way of saying a heretic).

[Aloysius]

could the pope have been wrong in saying it was already an infallible teaching? no. then the pope was infallible.

it is impossible for a pope to teach that something is an infallible teaching if it is not.

that is what I believe is meant by Lumen Gentium when it says that the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is not infallible in and of itself, but by virtue of the already infallible teaching being presented.

of course I've been known to get things mixed up sometimes...

[qfnol31]

It also works for any Bishop, I believe. I think that he just made sure the matter was known, rather than promulgate a teaching thereby making it infallibly taught.

In other words, while it is infallibly taught, that's so because all the Bishops, including the Pope, teach it.

[Aloysius]

I don't believe it works the same way for any bishop. This is something special to the ordinary papal magisterium- it infallibly confirms what is already infallibly taught.

[qfnol31]

I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing though.

As currently defined by the councils, the Pope only declares something infallibly when speaking specifically [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] and defining a doctrine.

[Aloysius]

I'm not exactly sure how I developed this idea in my head... somwhere along some line of conversations I became convinced of it though... but absent minded as I am I have no idea what things I was looking at that convinced me of this point of view...

so I merely ask this: is it possible, in theory, for the pope to be wrong in making a statement such as this? is it possible for the magisterium to confirm that a previous teaching was infallible, but be wrong about that? if not, then that confirmation of the previous teaching by their ordinary magisterium is in itself infallible. if it is fallible, then where is the certitude offered by infallibility? we can put as many criteria as we want on infallibility, if there is no infallible judge of what is infallible and what is not, it would never stick.