Talk:Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] translation
I removed this line from the article: "The word facultatem is more accurately translated as power or ability.)". I removed it because it is false. In classical Latin facultas does generally mean "ability", but in ecclesiastical latin (which is the language of the document), its primary definition is authority. (see Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, ed. Leo Stelten (1995, Hendrickson Publishers) p99.)
[edit] Original research
This article seems to be descending into the realm of original research. Dictionary definitions of "definitive" have no place here. What matters is what published Catholic theologians have to say on the issue. -- Cat Whisperer 02:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be some sources for these "misconceptions". -- Cat Whisperer 03:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote [1] regarding OS: "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." It would therefore seem that any claim that OS is ex cathedra properly belongs in a section entitled "Dissenting Position". -- Cat Whisperer 04:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the majority of the article concerns a dissenting position on the Church's teaching. -- Cat Whisperer 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Lesson in Logic
The following is a faulty syllogism:
- Ex cathedra teachings confirm the brethren and remove all doubt
- Ordinatio Sacerdotalis confirmed the brethren and removed all doubt
- Therefore, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ex cathedra.
Bad logic such as this has no place in an encyclopedia.
Furthermore, the presence of such incorrect logic, coupled with the lack of sources, makes me believe that this is (bad) original research, rather than the work of dissenting, but knowledgeable, Catholic theologians. -- Cat Whisperer 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
That is not the logic proposed. The logic proposed is that it is evidence that OS is ex cathedra. Furthermore, it seems more than a coincidence that a Vatican document, one year before OS, ascribed certain specific characteristics to ex cathedra teaching and OS contained these characteristics. Also the Responsum referred to the teaching as belonging to the deposit of faith which was one of these characteristics. Granted, the Responsum did indicate that assent was required for the OM infallibility of the teaching and not because it was ex cathedra.
[edit] Discussion
Because of the language used in OS, I am not yet convinced that it is not an ex cathedra teaching. I think it is possible there could be a misunderstanding in these follow-up documents. I obey the Church, so I accept that it is not ex cathedra if that is the case. I am open to proper understanding but not convinced of what it is. The Catechism states that ex cathedra is a definitive act. I don't see how a pope can say that all doubt is removed if it is not a definitive act. Evidence (a requirement?) of an ex cathedra teaching is that it is stated to be divinely revealed. This is not explicit in OS. However, I think that if a papal teaching act can remove all doubt then it must be ex cathedra. He didn't say "I assure you", he said "all doubt may be removed". I see that as ex cathedra language because I don't see that you can remove all doubt with an act that itself can be called into question. And since some say it is not ex cathedra infallible, some people are apparently still claiming that the teaching could change. I have seen a web site of dissent whereby they show the status of OS as "Fallible".
If a teaching that is not ex-cathedra has the power to remove all doubt, then why would an ex cathedra teaching ever be needed?
Have you considered making a more friendly quip?
It is also clear that you are very intelligent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.10.129 (talk • contribs)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the compliment, and also for the feedback about my quip. It was a takeoff from the movie Princess Bride, but I will work on making it more friendly.
You ask some good questions, and I will try to address them below. My hope is that this article could serve to help all those who come asking these questions. However, I do not feel that Wikipedia readers are best served by being led to believe that the ex cathedra status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is somehow up for debate. I look forward to working with you to continue improving this article. -- Cat Whisperer 02:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
_____
How about this: the Church can't and wouldn't make an ex cathedra statement accidentally. You say you "are not yet convinced that OS is not infallible." But that's the very point. If one has to ponder whether or not a statement is made infallibly, it wasn't. When the Church acts definitively, it definitively acts, and if the document itself didn't say, "This is an infallible statement," then JP II or Benedict XVI have had 12 years to say, "Yeah, that document OS over there was meant to be taken infallibly." But they haven't, and have left theologians dangling and wondering. Therefore, OS was not meant to be taken itself as an ex cathedra statement.
Infallibility and ex cathedra status is meant to be narrowly construed -- see all of thge principles of canon law and critical reading of conciliar documents. The principle is not, it's infallible unless otherwise indicated, but just the reverse. yes, no specific forumla of words are necessary (as you would have with a sacrament), but a specific intent clearly expressed is: there are many ways to phrase, "I hereby declare ex cathedra, with all that that means," but no matter how it's phrased, it must explicitly be there, not hinted at between the lines.HarvardOxon 20:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
> If one has to ponder whether or not a statement is made infallibly, it wasn't.
> When the Church acts definitively, it definitively acts,...
You are saying that the teaching act of OS was not a definitive act. A non-definitve act can remove all doubt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.10.129 (talk • contribs)
The question of how a non-infallible act can remove all doubt is a very good one. So good, in fact, that it is the main subject of Archbishop Bertone's article Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent, which is addressed primarily at those who mistakenly believe that the issue of women priests is still up for debate. And even if you don't agree with Archbishop Bertone that a non-infallible act can remove all doubt, it is abundantly clear that the Church's magisterium certainly believes that it can, so statements by the Pope that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has removed all doubt must be understood in this context.
As both you and HarvardOxon point out, an ex cathedra proclamation must contain a definitive teaching. So if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis truly is ex cathedra, why doesn't the Pope and the Vatican curia just come out and (definitively) say so, instead of coming out and saying the exact opposite. You can argue that Pope John Paul II was teaching infallibly despite his direct intention not to, and you can argue that Cardinal Ratzinger, et al., are theologically ignorant for not being able to see that the Pope "accidentally" satisfied the Vatican I criteria, but there is really no basis for claiming that their statements are being misunderstood in any significant way.
One thing to understand regarding the strong wording of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is the criteria for infallibility by the ordinary, universal Magisterium (from Lumen Gentium 25):
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
This is the level of "definitive-ness" that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis rises to, which is less than the level required for ex cathedra. -- Cat Whisperer 02:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
From Archbishop Bertone's article:
...the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as <definitive> either by a <defining act> or by a <non-defining act.> First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive...through a solemn <ex cathedra> pronouncement...
Therefore a <defining act> is an ex cathedra act and a <non-defining act.> is not.
> And even if you don't agree...that a non-infallible act can remove all doubt...
It's not a matter of agreement. I seek to understand. Can you explain how a non-defining act can remove all doubt?
The Successor of Peter Teaches Infallibly (1993):
" The reason for ex cathedra definitions is almost always...and to exclude all doubt..."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.10.129 (talk • contribs)
Cardinal Ratzinger's explanation of how Ordinatio Sacerdotalis removed all doubt is fairly simple: Even though Ordinatio Sacerdotalis itself was not ex cathedra, the teaching that it contained on women priests is infallible by the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and this infallibility removes all doubt. Archbishop Bertone's explanation goes deeper, and shows how the incessant demands for infallible teachings, coupled with the ever-present disagreement from all non-infallible teachings, actually serves to undermine the authority of the Pope. Papal infallibility has been used a handful of times in 2000 years, but papal authority is used every single day. The idea that only papal infallibility can remove all doubt is actually one of the most insidious attacks ever perpetrated on the Church's magisterium. Especially pernicious is that this mistaken idea has tricked Catholics on both sides, conservative and liberal. Archbishop Bertone's article can be seen as a "call to arms" in this regard, trying to bring the Church back to the days, actually not too long ago, when Catholics were happy with whatever level of authority the Church's magisterium chose to teach at, without demanding that every teaching be infallible, and without feeling free to ignore every teaching that wasn't.
Note that "removing all doubt" is not the same as "removing all possibility of dissent". There will always be dissent. There are even a few Catholics that don't believe in the resurrection, which is at the core of our faith. Thus, had Pope John Paul II used the formula "I define, declare, and pronounce" in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and held a press conference that day to say that Ordinatio Sacertoalis was ex cathedra, your dissenting web site would probably list the status as "fallibly declared (at a press conference) to be infallible". You just can't win against persistent dissent. But the Church's magisterium can certainly "remove all doubt" as far as faithful Catholics are concerned, which is what the non-ex cathedra Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in fact did. -- Cat Whisperer 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You can sign your contributions to the Talk page by adding ~~~~ to the end of your edit. -- Cat Whisperer 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
> ...the teaching...is infallible by the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and this infallibility removes all doubt.
That contradicts what the pope said in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
"...in order that all doubt may be removed...I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women..."
The pope clearly did not say that he was removing doubt by pointing to the ordinary Magisterium - he clearly said that it was his declaration by the authority of his ministry that was removing all doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.10.129 (talk • contribs)
If you read between the lines of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, or if you are familiar with Pope John Paul II's views on dissenting theologians, you can tell that he was quite annoyed that Inter Insigniores, which in his view should have removed all doubt, did not have the effect of ending the theological discussion of the possibility of ordaining women as priests. (In particular, notice how he points out that it was approved and ordered to be published by Pope Paul VI.) As I've already said, Pope John Paul II was completely convinced that his papal authority, even when not ex cathedra, was sufficient to remove all doubt. Whether you believe that or not doesn't matter - it was Pope John Paul II who wrote Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and his belief in his papal authority explains his words. -- Cat Whisperer 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1.
The Pope in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
"Although the teaching...has been...firmly taught by the Magisterium....it is nonetheless considered still open to debate,"
The only papal authority that is above the Magisterium is the extraordinary Magisterium.
[edit] 2.
From Archbishop Bertone's article:
...the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as <definitive> either by a <defining act> or by a <non-defining act.> First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive...through a solemn <ex cathedra> pronouncement...
Therefore a <defining act> is an ex cathedra act and a <non-defining act.> is not.
Coder1024 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
(I have a user name now)
-
- I've been thinking about this for a while, but I don't feel I have anything more to add beyond what I've already said. Thanks, Cat Whisperer 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that there is to be no doubt about the teaching of the ordinary magisterium, however, the Pope himself clearly stated that in this case there was doubt and that his declaration was to end that doubt. I have shown why I think that the Pope's teaching is ex cathedra based on the criteria of extraordinary infallibility.
Thank you for discussing with me. Coder1024 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Given the three magisterial clarifications/explanations of the doctrinal status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it's clear that this is a difficult subject. I wish you good luck in your future study of this issue. One web page you might find interesting is [2]. -- Cat Whisperer 04:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I just found out from the above web page that Pope John Paul II himself gave an explanation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in [3]:
It is not possible, however, to overlook one of the decisive aspects that lies at the base of the malaise and uneasiness in certain parts of the ecclesiastical world: it is a question of the way authority is conceived. In the case of the Magisterium, authority is not exercised only when the charism of infallibility is involved; its exercise has a wider field, which is required by the appropriate defense of the revealed deposit.
and
However, this does not entitle one to hold that the pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for irrevocable assent only when it states them in a solemn judgment or definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one need only consider the arguments or reasons employed.
In the Encyclicals *Veritatis splendor* and *Evangelium vitae*, as well as in the Apostolic Letter *Ordinatio sacerdotalis*, I wished once again to set forth the constant doctrine of the Church's faith with an act confirming truths which are clearly witnessed to by Scripture, the apostolic Tradition and the unanimous teaching of the Pastors. These declarations, by virtue of the authority handed down to the Successor of Peter to "confirm the brethren" (Lk 22:32), thus express the common certitude present in the life and teaching of the Church.
It therefore seems urgently necessary to recover the authentic concept of authority, not only from the formal juridical standpoint, but more profoundly, as a means of guaranteeing, safeguarding and guiding the Christian community in fidelity to and continuity with Tradition, to make it possible for believers to be in contact with the preaching of the Apostles and with the source of the Christian reality itself.
[edit] I have rarely seen such a POV article
The section on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ex cathedra or not is extremely POV. The writer explicitly calls the arguments against "misconceptions".
Personally, if Cardinal Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict -- says it isn't, and Pope John Paul II didn't see fit to correct him, then it obviously isn't.
Something should be written about it, but from a more neutral POV. Jhobson1 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed that whole section, because it's been complained about on this talk page for over a year with no improvements, presents an original-research argument, and had no citations. I agree something more neutral, and well-cited, could be written instead. --Delirium 04:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
