The last two days I had a couple of posts responding to reader queries regarding non-infallible papal teachings and, in particular the fact that Ordinatio sacerdotalis is a non-infallible confirmation of what is, in fact, an infallible doctrine proclaimed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.
The response has been so voluminous that I simply cannot continue these discussions at present, and so–congruent to Rule 2–I am closing these discussions for now. As I mention in Rule 2, though, I am sure the topic will come up again in the future.
We all come to places in our lives where we simply do not have the resources to continue a particular matter, and I am at one of those places presently. I spend a great deal of time, energy, and resources attempting to make this blog an interesting and informative place for those who visit it. Frankly, I spend more time on it than I should. But I simply do not have the resources at present to continue that discussion.
I have closed the comboxes on those two posts because I deem that it would be irresponsible of me to simply retire from the discussion and allow contary arguments to pile up without responding to them. Folks visiting those two posts in the future would see the contrary arguments without responses and conclude–wrongly–that there are no answers to the claims being made.
In fact, there are rejoinders, I simply do not have the resources at present to conduct the kind of thorogoing review of basic principles that would be needed.
Allow me to therefore make a concluding basic summary even though I know that I am not able at present to conduct the kind of detailed response that would be required to address individually all the points folks might wish.
- There is today a standard way for popes to make dogmatic defintions and thus engage their infallibility. This way involves the use of the verb "I define."
- This method has not always existed in Church history and there are other ways in which a papal definition can be done. This is why I expressly alluded to the pope using other language that would make it "manifestly evident" that *he* was defining something even though he didn’t use the verb "I define."
- The pope did not use such equivalent language. While he did use very strong language, he deliberately backed off rom the language that he himself–John Paul II–typically used in making both prior and subsequent definitions (i.e., his canonization of saints).
- It is simply not accurate to portray the verb "I declare" as a substitute for "I define." The fact that they both begin with the letters D and E do not make the verbs equivalent in meaning or in force. "I declare" is a much weaker verb that simply does not indicate the presence of a papal definition.
- I’m regret it if some individuals are disappointed, confused, or incredulous regarding this, but such papal utterances are very carefully worded, and their wording presupposes a basic (and, indeed, a technical) knowledge of the way in which ecclesiastical vocabulary is used. One cannot read one’s own preferences into these things. One has to honor the meanings and usages that have been adopted for these terms, and the fact is that "I declare" simply does not carry the same meaning or force as "I define." If one wishes to dispute this, one is simply in error.
- John Paul II did indeed use very strong language in this and simlar utterances (i.e., the ones found in Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae). In these instances he ran right up to the edge of a papal definition–and then stopped. He put all of the elements one would typically expect in a definition on the table–except for "I define."
- His purpose in doing this, apparently, was to affirm the truths in question in the most solemn manner possible short of making a definition.
- He presumably did this because each time a pope makes a dogmatic definition (a definition of a dogma, as opposed to the canonization of a saint), it results in a convulsion for the Church, and in the present fractious environment, he wanted to try to send the strongest signal he could to kill the relevant debates without putting the Church through the agony of six or seven dogmatic definitions in the span of a few years. You can imagine the danger that this could have posed of open schism and mass defections from the faith.
- In short, the by using the solemn language he did, the pope was trying to sail the bark of Peter between the Scylla of schism and the Charybdis of error. If he had used stronger language (i.e., if he had made new dogmatic definitions) he would have risked many members of the Church sliding into the former. If he had used weaker language, he would have risked further members of the Church sliding into the latter.
- He also may well have been sending the message: "If y’all don’t knock it off on these subjects, the next step will be a definition."
- The fact remains, though, that he did stop short of issuing definitions. If you take an utterance that sounds exactly like a definition except for the fact that you snip out "I define," you make it clear that you are running right up to the brink of a definition and then stopping just short of it.
- This is clear from the established usages of language in these matters.
- If you don’t want to take that from me, take it from the current pope, who repeatedly commented on ths fact–in one case in a Responsum approved by John Paul II himself.
Now, to clear up one additional item of confusion that seems to have troubled some:
- I believe that the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men is a doctrine that has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church, just as JPII indicated.
- An infallible statement is one that cannot be wrong, it can only be right. A fallible statement is one that could be right or could be wrong.
- If I take a geometry test and get every question correct, that doesn’t stop my answers from being fallible in that I (not being gifted with infallibility in geometry) could have been wrong on them. I just wasn’t.
- JPII’s statement in OS, however, was not an ex cathedra statement.
It thus was not a definition. It thus was not infallible. Since this
statement was not protected by the charism of infallibility, it was
therefore a fallible statement.
- Because it was a fallible statement, it could have been wrong, hypothetically speaking. It simply wasn’t.
- Popes have indeed said erroneous things when not engaging their gift of infallibility, as when Pope Zachary condemned the idea that there were people living at the antipodes "with their feet turned toward ours." (Heads up: We today in North and South America are people living at the antipodes, as are the folks in Australia and the Pacific islands–all lands that were inhabited in Zachary’s day.)
- The mere fact that, in this case, the pope was confirming a fact already infallibly proposed by the Magisterium does not make his confirmation of it a new exercise in infallibility.
- For example: If you went up to the pope and you say, "Is Jesus Christ God?" and he says "Sure," that is not a new exercise in infallibility. It doesn’t matter if he adds, " . . . that was defined by the First Council of Nicaea" or "that was defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church" or even "I most solemnly assure and declare to you . . ."
- Unless he adds "I define" or other language making it "manifestly evident" that he himself is issuing a new definition then he isn’t doing so.
I hope that is of assistance.
