Gerard's view on disciplinary safety

[Kreuzritter]

Xavier, yes, I agree with what Pope St Pius X wrote.  But the Church, and valid popes, are needed to know the correct meaning in every age.  The Church gives us certainty as to how to interpret the data of revelation.  I am surprised you, or any Catholic, would contest this.

Thank you friend.

I don't need a pope to teach me the true meaning of what has aleady been defined. If I need that, who, then, will teach me the true meaning of that pope's explanatory teaching? That's a logical circle from which there is no escape.

[Kreuzritter]

The last time such a "solemn judgement" was made in the Church was when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of Our Lady's Assumption in 1950. The Church has not made any solemn judgments that Catholics are bound to believe with "divine and Catholic faith" since then and this is why it is not necessary to adopt a sedevacantist position.

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 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, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis May 22, 1994

This is actually the last - and only ex cathedra pronouncement made by any of the conciliar popes.

This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Instead JPII is confirming here that the teaching on the non-ordination of women is infallible because it has been taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

The OUM - the Pope teaching in union with the Bishops of the world - is infallible too.

The non - ordination of women is infallible because it has been taught by the OUM, not because it has been so defined ex cathedra.

Stop. Just stop.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he (2) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be (3) held by the whole Church

Now let's look at JPII's words again, shall we:

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, (1) in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare (2) that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively (3) held by all the Church's faithful.

How clearer does one need to be?

He (1) exercises his teaching office, explicitly invoking it with reference to the very words of Luke 22:33 ("I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren") cited by Vatican I and to its "virtue", again citing Vatican I, and he (2) defines ("to be definitively held") a doctrine concerning faith (the Church's authority to ordain women, implicitly pertaining to the inability of the Church to alter the substance of a sacrament) (3) to held by the whole Church ("held by all the Church's faithful"). It's clearly paraphrasing Pastor Aeternus, sometimes almost verbatim. It's as ex cathedra as one can get short of saying "What I am about to teach is ex cathedra".

I don't care about the opinions of modern theologians on this, so spare me the appeals to authority. If you want to deny this is ex cathedra, then please demonstrate how one of the conditions set down in Vatican I for an infallible teaching was not met in this case ( I won't be waiting up for it).

[St.Justin]

The last time such a "solemn judgement" was made in the Church was when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of Our Lady's Assumption in 1950. The Church has not made any solemn judgments that Catholics are bound to believe with "divine and Catholic faith" since then and this is why it is not necessary to adopt a sedevacantist position.

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 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, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis May 22, 1994

This is actually the last - and only ex cathedra pronouncement made by any of the conciliar popes.

This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Instead JPII is confirming here that the teaching on the non-ordination of women is infallible because it has been taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

The OUM - the Pope teaching in union with the Bishops of the world - is infallible too.

The non - ordination of women is infallible because it has been taught by the OUM, not because it has been so defined ex cathedra.

Stop. Just stop.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he (2) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be (3) held by the whole Church

Now let's look at JPII's words again, shall we:

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, (1) in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare (2) that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively (3) held by all the Church's faithful.

How clearer does one need to be?

He (1) exercises his teaching office, explicitly invoking it with reference to the very words of Luke 22:33 ("I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren") cited by Vatican I and to its "virtue", again citing Vatican I, and he (2) defines ("to be definitively held") a doctrine concerning faith (the Church's authority to ordain women, implicitly pertaining to the inability of the Church to alter the substance of a sacrament) (3) to held by the whole Church ("held by all the Church's faithful"). It's clearly paraphrasing Pastor Aeternus, sometimes almost verbatim. It's as ex cathedra as one can get short of saying "What I am about to teach is ex cathedra".

I don't care about the opinions of modern theologians on this, so spare me the appeals to authority. If you want to deny this is ex cathedra, then please demonstrate how one of the conditions set down in Vatican I for an infallible teaching was not met in this case ( I won't be waiting up for it).

JP was not a valid Pope so it doesn't matter what he said or how he said it.

[Gerard]

JP was not a valid Pope so it doesn't matter what he said or how he said it.

I think Van Noort and one other theologian are universally in agreement that a Pope's vestments are considered as being "likely infallible" which means definitely infallible. So, it's not what he said or how he said it, it's how he looked as he said it.  The post conciliar "papal" vestments are manifest proof of the vacancy of the chair of Peter. 

You can find it all laid out clearly in Fr. Cekada's new book.  It's a thoroughly researched argument taking up 1,400 pages.  The title is, "Material Heresy: How the post-conciliar vestments prove sedevacantism"

[Larry]

Okay, that's funny.

[Maximilian]

The opinions of Popes on dogmatic facts are not infallible.  A fact is a fact is a fact.  A pope can get a fact wrong (Galileo?, Laudato Si?), which can be tolerable, provided no spiritual harm to souls ensues.

This is not the official teaching of the Church. In the 17th century, the Jansenists in France were suppressed on the basis of precisely this question. The Vatican claimed infallibility on facts as well as on dogmatic teachings. The Jansenists resisted this. The French Army was sent in to suppress them.

http://libraries.cua.edu/rarebooks/jansenism.cfm

The Problem of Law versus Fact
While many theologians and clergy agreed that the Five Propositions were heretical, not everyone agreed that they could be found in Jansen's work. When required by the Pope or the King of France to sign the Formulary (a sworn statement endorsing the condemnation of the Five Propositions in Augustinus) some Catholics resisted, especially the nuns of Port-Royal, who invoked a policy of "respectful silence" on the issue of whether Jansen had maintained these propositions.

http://www.worldspirituality.org/jansenism.html

To justify this position they introduced the celebrated distinction between law and fact; that is to say, while admitting the authority of the Church to issue definite and binding decisions on doctrinal matters, they denied that she was infallible in regard to questions of fact, as for example, whether a certain proposition was contained in a certain book or what might be the meaning which the author intended to convey. On matters of fact such as these the Church might err, and the most that could be demanded of the faithful in case of such decisions was respectful silence.

In the same year Alexander VII. issued the Bull, Ad Sanctam Petri Sedem, by which he condemned the distinction drawn between law and fact, and declared that the five propositions were to be found in Augustinus and were condemned in the sense in which they were understood by the Jansenists.

They were strengthened in their refusal by the fact that four of the French bishops set them a bad example by approving publicly in their pastorals the Jansenist distinction between law and fact. The Council of State promptly suppressed these pastorals (1665), and at the request of Louis XIV. Alexander VII. appointed a commission for the trial of the disobedient bishops.

[Maximilian]

I don't need a pope to teach me the true meaning of what has aleady been defined. If I need that, who, then, will teach me the true meaning of that pope's explanatory teaching? That's a logical circle from which there is no escape.

Yes. And the unfortunate reality is that virtually all of the countless millions of Catholics are caught precisely in this "logical circle from which there is no escape."

This is deconstructionist philosophy in action. Words no longer have any meaning. They have lost their connection to reality, and so we too have become untethered from any connection to reality.

Catholics believe in the philosophy of reality. Our senses allow us to perceive reality the way that it really is. We are not sceptics like Bishop Berkeley. In the same way that our eyes allow us to perceive the reality of trees and sky around us, words allow us to perceive the reality of the spiritual world.

But now we are told that we lack the capacity to understand the words taught by the Tradition of the Church, and we can only understand the explanations of the explanations provided by various competing schools of "hermeneutics" i.e. "the hermeneutic of continuity."

The reality, of course, is exactly the opposite. Men have the capacity to perceive the reality represented by real words connected to real meaning, such as the words of Scripture and Tradition.

In contrast, the psychobabble gobbledygook provided by the explanations of the explanations is not able to be comprehended because those words don't correspond to any actual reality.

And so we are told that obedience requires us to ignore the real words with real meanings, and we must submit ourselves to the new teachings of phenomenological discourse.

[awkwardcustomer]

The last time such a "solemn judgement" was made in the Church was when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of Our Lady's Assumption in 1950. The Church has not made any solemn judgments that Catholics are bound to believe with "divine and Catholic faith" since then and this is why it is not necessary to adopt a sedevacantist position.

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 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, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis May 22, 1994

This is actually the last - and only ex cathedra pronouncement made by any of the conciliar popes.

This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Instead JPII is confirming here that the teaching on the non-ordination of women is infallible because it has been taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

The OUM - the Pope teaching in union with the Bishops of the world - is infallible too.

The non - ordination of women is infallible because it has been taught by the OUM, not because it has been so defined ex cathedra.

Stop. Just stop.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he (2) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be (3) held by the whole Church

Now let's look at JPII's words again, shall we:

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, (1) in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare (2) that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively (3) held by all the Church's faithful.

How clearer does one need to be?

He (1) exercises his teaching office, explicitly invoking it with reference to the very words of Luke 22:33 ("I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren") cited by Vatican I and to its "virtue", again citing Vatican I, and he (2) defines ("to be definitively held") a doctrine concerning faith (the Church's authority to ordain women, implicitly pertaining to the inability of the Church to alter the substance of a sacrament) (3) to held by the whole Church ("held by all the Church's faithful"). It's clearly paraphrasing Pastor Aeternus, sometimes almost verbatim. It's as ex cathedra as one can get short of saying "What I am about to teach is ex cathedra".

I don't care about the opinions of modern theologians on this, so spare me the appeals to authority. If you want to deny this is ex cathedra, then please demonstrate how one of the conditions set down in Vatican I for an infallible teaching was not met in this case ( I won't be waiting up for it).

Okay, fair enough. The explanations I read, together with the text, but not clearly enough, pointed to JPII acknowledging the infallibility of the OUM regarding the matter but not defining this ex cathedra.

So the prohibition on the priestly ordination of women is infallible whether or not JPII was Pope.

[St. Columba]

I don't need a pope to teach me the true meaning of what has aleady been defined. If I need that, who, then, will teach me the true meaning of that pope's explanatory teaching? That's a logical circle from which there is no escape.

What I mean is:

(a) you need a valid pope in order to know what was defined in the first place;
(b) any precisions in doctrine or praxis that will need to be addressed, as the centuries go by, require a valid pope, in order to know that these teachings or disciplines truly eminate from the Church and are God-protected (to the appropriate degree depending on the circumstances)..eg, the Assumption.

Protestants are the ones who claim that the Bible is clear.  It is Catholics who understand the reality that the data of revelation is not always clear, even on foundational points.  That is why we need creeds, and councils, and a congregation for the doctrine of the faith!  And for all of these, we need valid Popes in order to know that these creeds, councils, and universal disciplines, are safe to follow.

Thank you Kreuzritter for your incisive commentary!