The Ex Cathedra statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

[Era Might]

In theory, yes, it's possible. That's why we have a Magisterium, so that we don't have to wrangle about what's infallible and what isn't. She has made her mind manifest, that she holds this doctrine as definitive, and that is enough for our obedience and trust. Direct infallibility is a positive gift, something the Church has recourse to in special circumstances for the good of Divine revelation. It shouldn't be the delineation for belief and obedience.

Just because the Church does not engage her infallibility in a particular instance doesn't mean the object of her judgement is not an infallible doctrine. It just means that there is no reason for a Pope to risk long-term confusion by contributing a personal dogmatic statement to the corpus of Catholic doctrine. It is much safer to formally recognize that a doctrine is definitive, while limiting your own statement to your ordinary Magisterium.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

but if there is nothing about john paul's statement that is infallible, then in theory it is possible for him to be wrong in saying this is already an infallible doctrine. this is pretty shifty sand.

the ordinary papal magisterium is infallible based upon the merits of the doctrine it is expressing. that doctrine already being infallible, then the ordinary papal magisterium makes that infallible doctrine manifest, and it cannot be wrong in manifesting it as already infallible.

[Era Might]

The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible in any particular instance (such as "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"). Rather, the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible in its collective witness to a particular doctrine.

Yes, in theory, it's possible for John Paul to be wrong, because he did not choose to engage the Church's charism of infallibility for his document. I don't understand how that's shifty sand. There have been numerous doctrines which were believed fine for centuries without an extraordinary judgement from Church.

The personal charism of infallibility has, unfortunately, become a litmus test for how little we can believe without going over the edge, rather than a gift which is available if necessary. A future Pope may find it necessary to exercise his charism of infallibility in defining this doctrine. Pope John Paul didn't, because he knew the Church's teaching is clear, definitive, and is no danger or serious dispute. He made his mind clear that this doctrine is to be held as definitive, and all Catholics are to obey his judgement. There was no need to exercise his charism of infallibility for "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis".

Edited July 19, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

Al,

Just remember in all of this that there is a difference between infallible and inerrant.

I can say something infallible, but it isn't infallible just because I said it. I'm not speaking infallibly, but rather repeating something already known as infallible.

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1027305' date='Jul 19 2006, 05:53 PM']
The personal charism of infallibility has, unfortunately, become a litmus test for how little we can believe without going over the edge, rather than a gift which is available if necessary. A future Pope may find it necessary to exercise his charism of infallibility in defining this doctrine. Pope John Paul didn't, because he knew the Church's teaching is clear, definitive, and is no danger or serious dispute. He made his mind clear that this doctrine is to be held as definitive, and all Catholics are to obey his judgement. There was no need to exercise his charism of infallibility for "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis".
[/quote]
In order for something to be [b]defin[/b]itive mustn't it have already been defined. So if John Paul didn't define it who did?

Edited July 22, 2006 by JJMG2001

[Era Might]

No, it doesn't have to be defined. A doctrine is infallible when it is consistently, firmly, and repeatedly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium. There is no particular act of the Ordinary Magisterium that makes the doctrine infallible. Rather, it is the collective witness. This is the case with the Church's teaching against female ordination. She has not chosen to invoke her infallibility and define the doctrine. Rather, she has confirmed that the doctrine is already infallible, and that all Catholics are to hold it as such.

When the Church wants to define something, she acts according to her Extraordinary Magisterium, and invokes the charism of infallibility for a particular act (such as the definition of the Assumption).

The Canons of an Ecumenical Council are also dogmatic definitions. Outside of an Ecumenical Council, a Pope rarely invokes the charism of infallibility for a personal act, as I explained before, to avoid inserting himself needlessly into such an important matter as a doctrinal definition.

The reason why a doctrine doesn't have to be defined is because that is not how Catholic ecclesiology works. The faith is a living reality. Catholics accept the teaching of the Church in every age because God has entrusted the Church with that perpetual and living preservation of the truth. Scholastic technicalities have their place for theologians who must study the faith, but for the Church in general, we trust the ancient maxim that where Peter is, there is the Church.

We trust and obey because our "Mater et Magistra" teaches us, not because of technical concepts like "infallibility" and "ex cathedra".

By the way, I should point out another point, that the Church distinguishes between the "assent of faith" and a "firm act of the mind and will". The former is reserved for defined and revealed doctrines, while the latter is reserved for doctrines and teachings which may or may not be infallible, but which are proposed by the Church for belief. I mention this only because it relates somewhat to the issue at hand. Some people are worried about having "absolute certainty" about a doctrine, but the Church asks different forms of assent. The assent of faith is absolutely sure and without hesitation, while the assent of the will is trusting and believing, but stops short of the absolute certainty. And of course, we don't need absolute certainty to believe something.

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1028783' date='Jul 22 2006, 12:47 PM']
No, it doesn't have to be defined. A doctrine is infallible when it is consistently, firmly, and repeatedly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium. There is no particular act of the Ordinary Magisterium that makes the doctrine infallible. Rather, it is the collective witness. This is the case with the Church's teaching against female ordination. She has not chosen to invoke her infallibility and define the doctrine. Rather, she has confirmed that the doctrine is already infallible, and that all Catholics are to hold it as such.

When the Church wants to define something, she acts according to her Extraordinary Magisterium, and invokes the charism of infallibility for a particular act (such as the definition of the Assumption).

The Canons of an Ecumenical Council are also dogmatic definitions. Outside of an Ecumenical Council, a Pope rarely invokes the charism of infallibility for a personal act, as I explained before, to avoid inserting himself needlessly into such an important matter as a doctrinal definition.

[/quote]



Yes, it can be infaillible but can it be definitive without being defined? I know that definitive can mean authoritative not nessecarily having the trait of being defined but when I look in the catechism I don't see it being used that way.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1028783' date='Jul 22 2006, 12:47 PM']
The reason why a doctrine doesn't have to be defined is because that is not how Catholic ecclesiology works. The faith is a living reality. Catholics accept the teaching of the Church in every age because God has entrusted the Church with that perpetual and living preservation of the truth. Scholastic technicalities have their place for theologians who must study the faith, but for the Church in general, we trust the ancient maxim that where Peter is, there is the Church.

We trust and obey because our "Mater et Magistra" teaches us, not because of technical concepts like "infallibility" and "ex cathedra".

By the way, I should point out another point, that the Church distinguishes between the "assent of faith" and a "firm act of the mind and will". The former is reserved for defined and revealed doctrines, while the latter is reserved for doctrines and teachings which may or may not be infallible, but which are proposed by the Church for belief. I mention this only because it relates somewhat to the issue at hand. Some people are worried about having "absolute certainty" about a doctrine, but the Church asks different forms of assent. The assent of faith is absolutely sure and without hesitation, while the assent of the will is trusting and believing, but stops short of the absolute certainty. And of course, we don't need absolute certainty to believe something.
[/quote]

That would probably help me alot

[qfnol31]

A definitive statement is just a certain statement, not necessarily one that actually defines.

[Era Might]

[quote name='JJMG2001' post='1028823' date='Jul 22 2006, 02:37 PM']Yes, it can be infaillible but can it be definitive without being defined? I know that definitive can mean authoritative not nessecarily having the trait of being defined but when I look in the catechism I don't see it being used that way.[/quote]
Yes, definitive and defined are different concepts in Catholic theology. "Definitive" means that the doctrine is infallible and is to be held as such. "Defined" means a doctrine is formally proposed by the Extraordinary Magisterium. A doctrine can be infallible, but not defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium.

From the CDF commentary on the Professio Fidei:

[quote]The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda". Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.[/quote]
Note that there is a distinction made between doctrines "defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff", and doctrines "taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium". Both are infallible, but only the former has been "defined".

"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" is an example of the latter, as Benedict explained in the previous letter I posted. The doctrine that was dealt with in OS is infallible, but the document was not a "solemn definition" of the Roman Pontiff, and hence, the document was not infallible IN ITSELF.

Interestingly, notice what Ratzinger says of infallible truths, whether they have been defined or not:

[quote]Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.[/quote]
This would include the Church's teaching against female ordination. Whoever obstinately denies that teaching "would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church".

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1028839' date='Jul 22 2006, 02:12 PM']
Yes, definitive and defined are different concepts in Catholic theology. "Definitive" means that the doctrine is infallible and is to be held as such. "Defined" means a doctrine is formally proposed by the Extraordinary Magisterium. A doctrine can be infallible, but not defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium.

From the CDF commentary on the Professio Fidei:
Note that there is a distinction made between doctrines "defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff", and doctrines "taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium". Both are infallible, but only the former has been "defined".

"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" is an example of the latter, as Benedict explained in the previous letter I posted. The doctrine that was dealt with in OS is infallible, but the document was not a "solemn definition" of the Roman Pontiff, and hence, the document was not infallible IN ITSELF.

Interestingly, notice what Ratzinger says of infallible truths, whether they have been defined or not:
This would include the Church's teaching against female ordination. Whoever obstinately denies that teaching "would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church".
[/quote]

then why does thae catechism say
"891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals....'"

[Era Might]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

The Catechism is simply summarizing the principles of ecclesiastical infallibility, which was expounded on a little more by the CDF:

[quote]Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda".[/quote]
A doctrine can be infallible (or "definitive") in two ways: ordinary and extraordinary. In the former case, it is not infallible because of any specific instance of teaching, but because it is a consistent teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. In the latter case, it is infallible because of a specific instance of teaching.

An example of the former is "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". An example of the latter is "Ineffabilis Deus".

When you look at "Ineffabilis Deus", the intention to define is very clear. Not only is there a title before the definition that points out that this is where "the definition" begins, but Pope Pius IX says, "I define", and later, that the doctrine "has been defined by us".

John Paul consciously avoids defining anything, because he was not invoking his charism of infallibility. He was exercising the supreme authority of his ordinary magisterium, but stopped short of exercising his extraordinary Magisterium. Thus, he makes clear the mind of the Church that this doctrine is held as infallible, but he does not issue an infallible definition of his own. It suffices that the doctrine itself is held as infallible.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Era Might

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1028900' date='Jul 22 2006, 04:51 PM']
I'm not sure what you're asking.

The Catechism is simply summarizing the principles of ecclesiastical infallibility, which was expounded on a little more by the CDF:
A doctrine can be infallible (or "definitive") in two ways: ordinary and extraordinary. In the former case, it is not infallible because of any specific instance of teaching, but because it is a consistent teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. In the latter case, it is infallible because of a specific instance of teaching.

An example of the former is "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". An example of the latter is "Ineffabilis Deus".

When you look at "Ineffabilis Deus", the intention to define is very clear. Not only is there a title before the definition that points out that this is where "the definition" begins, but Pope Pius IX says, "I define", and later, that the doctrine has "has been defined by us".

John Paul consciously avoids defining anything, because he was not invoking his charism of infallibility. He was exercising the supreme authority of his ordinary magisterium, but stopped short of exercising his extraordinary Magisterium.
[/quote]

Well if the only time a pope speaking by himself infallibly is when he is speaking ex cathedra. And the catechism (quoting LG) says the pope is speaking infallible whenever "as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." So if that is the case whenever he "proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” he is speaking infalliblly and thus ex cathedra. Now I would say that declaring and proclaiming are pretty much the same thing and if definitive here is being used to mean authoritative (well it could mean infallible but the LG would be saying the pope is infallible whenever he makes an infallible act which is sort of ridiculous) Then why when the pope makes, as he did in OS, an authoritative proclamation is it not ex cathedra? Especially when he said he was acting in his office to confirm his brethren. Unless LG is using definitive to mean a defining act, and if that is the case, then why would I assume that JP is using it any different? And if the answer to that is you wouldn’t, then if JP isn’t defining, in order to say it is definitive he must be saying someone else defined it.

Edited July 22, 2006 by JJMG2001

[Era Might]

The Catechism is referring to the definition of the First Vatican Council, which defined the specific instance when a Pope can invoke his charism of infallibility.

The definition of "Pastor Aeternus" limits the infallibility of the Pope to extraordinary definitions.

[quote]Then why when the pope makes, as he did in OS, an authoritative proclamation is it not ex cathedra?[/quote]
Because in Catholic theology, something can be "authoritative" without being extraordinary, or even infallible.

[quote]Unless LG is using definitive to mean a defining act, and if that is the case, then why would I assume that JP is using it any different?[/quote]
The "definitive" act spoken of by Lumen Gentium is the same spoken of at the First Vatican Council, commonly known as "ex cathedra".

[quote]And if the answer to that is you wouldn’t, then if JP isn’t defining, in order to say it is definitive he must be saying someone else defined it.[/quote]
No, he doesn't have to be saying that at all. Again, a doctrine is infallible (or "definitive") when it is a consistent and firm teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. It doesn't have to have its own personal dogmatic definition to be definitive. It is definitive because the Church continuously teaches it, not because any particular Pope has chosen to issue a personal definition.

John Paul didn't define that women can't become Priests, and he didn't define that this doctrine is infallible. Rather, he confirmed through his ordinary Magisterium that this doctrine is already infallible, and the ordinary Magisterium holds it as such. Hence, all Catholics must hold it as such.

[qfnol31]

Vatican I says he must define it.

I looked up the Latin of the Catechism, the official language, and it too says he must proclaim it. However, Vatican I is very explicit:

[quote]9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.[/quote]

I think part of the Vatican I quote used in the Catechism was left out, the crucial point that shows it must be a definition.

Also, just to help clear up confusion here, the Catechism is repeating a statement and is not the infallible source, so if they contradicted (which I don't think they do, just the Catechism isn't quite as clear, perhaps), then we must go with Vatican I which is completely infallible.

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1028916' date='Jul 22 2006, 05:54 PM']
The Catechism is referring to the definition of the First Vatican Council, which defined the specific instance when a Pope can invoke his charism of infallibility.
The definition of "Pastor Aeternus" limits the infallibility of the Pope to extraordinary definitions.
[/quote]
I don't agree that "Pastor Aeternus" limited it to that but I agree that Lumen Gentium is referring to that but that is part of my point which you didn't address and which I will get to later.
[quote name='Era Might' post='1028916' date='Jul 22 2006, 05:54 PM']
Because in Catholic theology, something can be "authoritative" without being extraordinary, or even infallible.[/quote]
Not if Authoritative is a synonym for definitive.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1028916' date='Jul 22 2006, 05:54 PM']
The "definitive" act spoken of by Lumen Gentium is the same spoken of at the First Vatican Council, commonly known as "ex cathedra".[/quote]
I assumed as much but doesn't that shed any light on the meaning of definitive which is what is important in my post and which you didn't really address? My point was that an ex cathedra statement must be a defining act. So this means one thing that if the pope proclaims something by a definitive act he is defining it, which leads one to believe either that a definitive act is a defining act or that if one proclaims that something in a definitive way he is defining it. So if the first is the correct answer then John Paul must be saying some one else already defined it. If the second is true then why is he not speaking definitively?
[quote name='Era Might' post='1028916' date='Jul 22 2006, 05:54 PM']
No, he doesn't have to be saying that at all. Again, a doctrine is infallible (or "definitive") when it is a consistent and firm teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. It doesn't have to have its own personal dogmatic definition to be definitive. It is definitive because the Church continuously teaches it, not because any particular Pope has chosen to issue a personal definition.
John Paul didn't define that women can't become Priests, and he didn't define that this doctrine is infallible. Rather, he confirmed through his ordinary Magisterium that this doctrine is already infallible, and the ordinary Magisterium holds it as such. Hence, all Catholics must hold it as such.
[/quote]

Definitive and infallible are not synonyms. One just always follows the other. The best way to understand what the Pope is doing is to understand what the word definitive means. So here is a link to 3 dictionaries one of them is Latin to English. Which denotation of definitive is being used in these two statements and if it is two different ones why would one assume that?

[url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/definitive"]http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/definitive[/url]
[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitive"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitive[/url]
[url="http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?definitivus+definitive"]http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words...ivus+definitive[/url]


[quote name='qfnol31' post='1029389' date='Jul 23 2006, 12:52 AM']
Vatican I says he must define it.

I looked up the Latin of the Catechism, the official language, and it too says he must proclaim it. However, Vatican I is very explicit:
I think part of the Vatican I quote used in the Catechism was left out, the crucial point that shows it must be a definition.

Also, just to help clear up confusion here, the Catechism is repeating a statement and is not the infallible source, so if they contradicted (which I don't think they do, just the Catechism isn't quite as clear, perhaps), then we must go with Vatican I which is completely infallible.
[/quote]

No but I quoted the Catechism quoting Lumen Gentium which is infallible so I'm pretty sure both statements are of equal authority am I off on this?

Edited July 23, 2006 by JJMG2001