Sysop's Notepad, June 2, 1994 (revised June 3, 1994)

* ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS: AN EXERCISE OF INFALLIBILITY
 (available for download as ORDIN.TXT)


=============================================================================
 ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS: AN EXERCISE OF INFALLIBILITY (revised June 3, 1994)
=============================================================================

I have been astonished over the past few days at how many commentators,
including Catholics widely known for their orthodoxy, have hastened to
state that the Pope's recent Apostolic Letter, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", is
not infallible. In fact, it is a textbook case of infallibility in action.

The operative paragraph in this short document is the final substantive
paragraph, immediately preceding the Apostolic Blessing:

    "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."

Let us compare this with Vatican I's definition concerning the exercise of
papal infallibility:

    ". . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
     when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
     Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
     authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
     the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance
     promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility
     with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed
     in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such
     definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
     because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
     the Church." [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]


THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILIY

There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1)
intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a
matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest
that the Pope deliberately phrased the teaching to ensure that this would
be obvious.

With respect to point 1: The pope clearly intends to teach something; in
fact, he intends to do so in such a way that "all doubt may be removed
regarding a matter of great importance".

Point 2: The pope is teaching by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority;
he specifically alludes to that authority, "in virtue of my ministry of
confirming the brethren"--a reference to the precise passage which forms
the chief Scriptural basis of infallibility (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed
for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered,
you in your turn must strengthen your brothers." This passage has no
meaning apart from the exercise of supreme authority, since it is only in
the exercise of this authority that the promise of Our Lord to Peter
applies.

Point 3: The subject in question is a matter of Faith; the Pope
deliberately states that it is not a matter of discipline, but rather "a
matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself." The
divine constitution of the Church, of course, is the central mystery in the
continuation of Christ's work on earth as well as the means through and by
which God brings men to salvation. What the Pope has "defined" as part of
the Catholic Faith is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain
women.

Point 4: The pope intends the teaching to bind the whole Church; this is
manifest when he says that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all
the Church's faithful."


NO LINGUISTIC FORMULA FOR INFALLIBILITY

I have heard a number of reasons alleged against the infallibility of
"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", and none are persuasive. Some have said that the
statement never mentions "supreme authority" or "infallibility", or that
there is no doctrine "positively defined", or that "this is not a matter of
dogma and so not covered by infallibility." Such assertions show an
inadequate understanding of the nature of infallibility, and of the process
by which doctrine becomes dogma. Four clarifications need to be made.

First, it is important to use the terminology of infallibility correctly.
It is not strictly correct to refer to a Church document as infallible. The
Pope, under certain conditions, is infallible; what he teaches under those
conditions is "irreformable"--that is, unchangeable because certainly true.

This distinction is significant because it leads directly to a second
clarification. Once we understand that it is the Pope and not the document
that is infallible, a subtle shift in our perception occurs. Instead of
looking for a particular linguistic formula in the text, and fearing that
something may not be infallible if the "proper" formula is absent, we look
in the text for language which indicates the Pope's intention. Does the
language clearly indicate, by whatever words, that the Pope intends to
teach by virtue of his supreme authority on a matter of faith or morals in
such a way that binds the whole Church? If so, the Pope is exercising his
prerogative of infallibility, and what he teaches is irreformable.

Third, dogma is not limited to a prescribed body of information
already defined. Rather, any point in the general body of Christian
doctrine may become dogma by being irreformably defined. The process by
which a doctrine is stated so precisely and authoritatively that it becomes
irreformable is the process by which a doctrine develops into a dogma; the
clearest culmination of this process is a formal dogmatic definition.

Fourth and finally, the definition of infallibility at Vatican I does not
limit infallibility to those extraordinary cases in which the Holy Father
states he is formally defining a new dogma. Whether or not he would
call Ordinatio Sacerdotalis a dogmatic definition, the Pope has stated
infallibly a doctrine that has always been known, taught and believed by
the great body of Catholic faithful--namely that the Church has no
authority to ordain women. He has, in other words, irreformably formulated
a proper understanding of a limitation on the authority of the Church.

The "Presentation" by the Vatican Press Office which accompanied the
Apostolic Letter makes all of this abundantly clear (see ORDPRESS.TXT in
the News and Current Issues Forum file library). The consequence of
this limitation on the Church's divinely-given authority to ordain is
that women cannot be priests.


RESPONDING TO DISSENT WITH A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF INFALLIBILITY

I think that what we are witnessing in the denial of "infallibility" to
"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" results from the long struggle of orthodoxy with
modernism over the past generation. Faithful Catholics are enormously
frustrated and what they really want is a document that will, frankly, shut
the dissidents up and make them go away. When the dissidents respond to a
document by pointing out a number of reasons why it really isn't the last
word, faithful Catholics tend to think that they must be right; otherwise
the question would really be settled.

But this credits the dissidents with far too much intellectual honesty. The
fact is that no document can close a question for someone who is in
rebellion against legitimate authority. The claim about many questions that
they are really open because there had been no ex cathedra statement on
them has been intellectually dishonest all along. I don't mean that there
aren't many open questions in Catholic life. But a great many questions
have been settled without ex cathedra pronouncements, and only willful
obscurantism prevents the admission of this fact.

What is needed to make the dissidents go away, of course, is discipline,
and you don't get discipline from a document (though it can be a good
starting point). And even if the Pope were inclined to greater discipline
(which, apparently, John Paul II is not), there is no guarantee that his
disciplinary measures would be effective in all quarters.

Without discipline, the best we can do is understand infallibility properly
and live by it ourselves. Papal infallibility rests on three basic
arguments: from Tradition (or history); from Scripture; and from
ecclesiology (the logic of the Church's situation). (I should mention here,
perhaps, that my doctoral dissertation at Princeton University was on the
subject of papal authority.)

The argument from Tradition or history is simply that, from the earliest
times, Catholics have credited the successors of Peter with the authority
to settle disputes and teach the Faith without error. This is manifest in
the works of the Fathers, for example.

The argument from Scripture is based upon those passages which bear upon
the authority of Peter: his name as Rock; the conferral of the keys to the
Kingdom; the power of binding and loosing; and, as the Pope pointed out,
the guarantee of Christ that Peter would not fail in Faith and must confirm
his brethren. To take into account the Petrine succession, we add the
logical argument that these powers were essential to the Church, that
Christ knew He would not come again before Peter died, and that it would be
tantamount to a new dispensation if Christ had not intended (as Tradition
makes clear) that these powers would also be exercised by Peter's
successors--all vicars of Christ--until He comes.

The argument from ecclesiology is based upon the logical necessity of
having a supreme power of this type at work in the Church if Christ's
promise to be with the Church forever is to have any real meaning. By
Scripture and Tradition we know that the popes can bind the faithful to
believe something as Divinely revealed. Clearly Christ's promise would be
violated if a Pope ever bound the faithful to believe something false in a
matter relating to their salvation. Hence, it must be impossible for a Pope
to do this. He simply MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit when teaching
about a matter of faith or morals, by virtue of his supreme authority, with
the intention of compelling the assent of the entire Church.


CONCLUSION

Those who love Truth and love the Church will have little trouble grasping
these elementary points. Those who don't, will raise a thousand objections
at every turn. But consider: If the Pope were to state that his teaching
was infallible, would this settle the question? What if he wasn't speaking
infallibly when he said his teaching was infallible? There is no end to
such questions, except the end provided by Faith and common sense.

For our part, we rejoice in the liberating clarity of "Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis", and we do not fear to proclaim that John Paul II was
exercising his prerogative of infallibility when he issued it. He has
indeed given us an irreformable teaching, a teaching from which may arise
in time a new and more profound understanding--not only of the Church--but
of man and woman as well.
                                                         -- JAM

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.