Your comment: Could you explain this statement pleas: " it IS about doctrine,you know, the deposit of faith...and the LCWR leadership's lack of acceptance of Church Doctrine and teaching.."
EXACTLY which doctrines of the church are the LCWR not accepting? Please be specific (and do not refer me to reading past articles in NCR.) Pick ONE doctrine you see them denying and give proof.
My reply:
Yes, I can explain. Remember what Pope Francis said about women's ordination on his first airplane interview?
Pope Francis’ words concerning women’s ordination were,
“And, with reference to the ordination of women
the Church has spoken
and she said : “No.”
John Paul II said it,
but with a definitive formulation.
That is closed, that door is closed.”
I had to go research this for myself to try to understand what Pope Francis meant. Everybody was thinking that Pope Francis had said no to the question but he did not. John Paul II did. And he purposely did it speaking ex cathedra in order to make this statement an infallible teaching binding on all the faithful to believe.
Pope John Paul II made an infallible declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis using a 'definitive formula'(as Pope Francis put it), that the priesthood is reserved for men and the Church cannot ever ordain women.
As stated in Vatican I , speaking ex cathedra means that
◾it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra,
◾he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,
◾and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the pope's infallible statement speaking ex cathedra is:
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.”
Pope John Paul II announced “in a definitive mode” that the Catholic priesthood is reserved to men,
and therefore the Church cannot ever ordain women.
By making this announcement in these unquestionable terms, the Pope made it clear that his successors would be bound by the same restriction, since the all-male priesthood was established not by human rules by divine command.
And that is the explanation of Pope Francis cryptic answer in the question of womens ordination . It is also the doctrine and explanation of proof that you had asked for. You can look the whole document up for yourself if you want to . I just took the pertinent lines from it...Anyway,Pope Francis didn't do it. His hands are tied...Phew!
You are missing a piece of what is required when a pope speaks"ex catedra".A pope cannot declare something "ex cathedra alone, by himself.
What???. There is only one who sits in the chair of Peter. ex cathedra means speaking from the chair. Only the pope, by definition, can speak ex cathedra.The pope does not need anyone else for speaking ex cathedra. Where do you get that idea that the pope cannot speak ex cathedra a;one????? ....There are other ways to have an infallible teaching besides ex cathedra. Is that what you are referring to?
The college of cardinal speaking IN UNION with the pope can speak infallibly. The college of cardinals by itself cannot- only, when they are speaking in union with the pope, The pope does not need anyone to be in union with him in order to speak from the chair of Peter . Speaking excathdra has a specific definition but it does not include anyone but the pope. It would be helpful if you could show me where you get this idea from.
Of course, the pope is the only one who can speak ex-catedra, that is infallibly. But the pope is mandated to speak as such only after wide consultation including the college of cardinals. He is also charged with assessing the "sense of the people" before a declaration of infallibility.Google infallibility and you will read about his need for consultation.
Google is not my authority for Church teaching. And I am sorry but you are mistaken . The pope does not need anyones collaboration to make an infallible declaration. As stated in the catechism, he can make one because he is pope-BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE .The pope does not have to be in union with anyone to make an infallible declaration. The College of bishops on the other hand MUST be in union with the pope ! They have no authority on their own without the pope. They only have authority in union with the pope!
FROM THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
(-inside {} are my comments)
890...Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
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. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{In other words all the pope needs is the virtue of his office to be able to make an infallible declaration. The college of bishops MUST be in union with the pope to make an infallible declaration. The pope does not have to be in union with anyone to make the infallible declaration}
882...."For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 {unhindered and by virtue of his office means that he needs no one else's permission or corroboration!}
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404 { the college of bishops , on the other had has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff. The Bishops MUST be in union with the Roman Pontiff to have authority but the Pope does not have to be in union with anyone because his authority comes from the office he holds.}
Are you referring to an article someone wrote or an actual Church Document in your google search? I saw an article recently saying that but the author had his explanation backwards. I could not comment because I had to register and when I tried the popup wanted me to give permission for them to post as me....so naturally , I did not register
Can you show me where this requirement for speaking ' ex cathedra' that you are speaking of can be found? Speaking 'ex cathedra' means speaking from the chair and only one sits in the chair of Peter, the pope.
Ursula, there is no way that any competent theologian (someone with a doctoral degree in theology) would agree with you that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible statement. There was at the time a story to the effect that JP2 wanted to make the declaration ex cathedra, but was dissuaded from doing so. The result was the language you quote ("to be definitively held"). The language was adopted as a way for JP2 to say he was really, really sure about this, without actually invoking infallibility.
The notion that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible derives NOT from the internal evidence you point to, but rather from that fact the Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the CDF before he become pope, in another document (name escapes me at the moment) declared that our inability to ordain women was infallible. Some people leaped to the conclusion that he was asserting Ordinatio Sacerdoatalis was infallible, and thus some, apparently including you, began confidently asserting it was infallible.
Again no competent theologian agrees with that interpretation.
What Ratzinger said was that our inability to ordain women was infallible by virtue of the "ordinary magisterium." Now this is a technical term with a precise meaning for theologians. It means that something that has "always and everywhere" being taught by the Church, even if it has never ever been defined as dogma, is infallible by virtue of having always and everywhere been taught.
Ratzinger's argument is solid, and it would be correct, if only it were true that the exclusive male nature of the priesthood has "always and everywhere been taught."
This is contradicted by asking Why did JP2 write Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? and Why did Ratzinger as head of the CDF issue his statement? The answer in both cases is they declared we could not ordain women precisely because many theologians and some bishops were saying that indeed we could, and we should, and we must.
Do you see the irony? Precisely because at that time and in many places it was being stated that women could be ordained, Ratzinger said the opposite. Factually, therefore, it was not true that "always and everywhere" the Church has taught women can't be ordained. Then and there, theologians were saying the opposite.
Finally, back to what Francis meant. He meant that JP2 has declared definitively we can't ordain women, and he accepts that. He did not say he was accepting it because it was infallible. That he agrees with JP2 is important, but multiple popes saying the same thing does not convert a very strong opinion into an infallible pronouncement.
MY notion that this statement WITHIN JP II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallible declaration, IS from the internal evidence. As I am not using the ordinary magisterium in my explanation, a theologian's expertise is not required simply to read and understand Vatican I's stated definition of infallibility. I believe that the ordinary magisterium is a valid point and a valid discussion up to the point that there is an infallible declaration by the pope. At that time, it seems to be that it would become a moot point. The teaching's validity now comes from the Pope's infallible statement. For the record, I think the point about the ordinary magisterium may have been about the teaching being held always and everywhere for the time UNTIL this disagreement - the 1900+ years that came before...
Competent theologians are the subject of a different conversation. I do need to note, however, that theologians, regardless of their competence, doctoral degrees, faithfulness or even mandatums are not a part of the teaching authority of the Church. .they are in service to the Church and can help the Church grow and learn but final decisions inevitably fall to the teaching magisterium of the Church as does the interpretation of doctrine already defined and/or held by the Church.
On the definition of speaking ex cathedra, do you think that JPII's statement that follows fulfills Vatican I's definition for speaking ex cathedra?
Or has some part of this definition not been fulfilled?
"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.”
What part, if any, of the definition does this statement not fulfill?
You said that JPII wanted to make an infallible statement on this issue but that he was dissuaded form it. Would you happen to know where I might find evidence of this or the story about this?
Judging from the definitions that I read from Vatican I, as far as I can tell, it does not look to me like he was dissuaded from making an infallible statement. It looks to me like he did it anyway...Have theologians addressed this from this internal evidence?
Also I think that Pope Francis statement means that he understands this 'definitive statement' to be an infallible statement and as a matter of faith to be believed. It does not sound to me like he simply agrees with the statement .(in fact , he just might not agree with it)
Pope Francis said 'The Church has spoken and she said no'....THE Church has spoken- as in a teaching....He also said , John Paul II said it, vut with a definitive formulation. That door is closed." ...In other words, JPII didn't just say it, he did it with a definitive formulation. That the door is closed because this definitive formulation,by virtue of his office as pope, . That makes it an infallible statement that closed that door. ... That is how I understand what Pope Francis said,,,, Pope Francis does not close doors , he is much more known for opening doors and welcoming...He is not known for closing doors...I do not believe that he said that because he agrees...he said it because John Paul II closed that door with his definitive statement,,,because John Paul II, by virtue of his office as pope and to ensure that there could be no doubt , DECLARED that the church had no authority to ordain women and that it is a matter of faith to be believed by all the faithful....He also said that this was matter pertaining to the Divine constitution of the Church. It seems pretty clear to me ....It is just that people don't like it but John Paul II DID purposely speak ex cathedra when he made that statement concerning women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. However, the way I see it does not really matter because I am not part of the magisterium of the Church, either...
No comments:
Post a Comment