In the Spirit of Congar's True and False Reform, this banger from Ratzinger's CDF "Donum Veritatis"; if you read between the lines, it contains multitudes.
"The freedom proper to theological research is exercised within the Church's faith. Thus while the theologian might often feel the urge to be daring in his work, this will not bear fruit or "edify" unless it is accompanied by that patience which permits maturation to occur. New proposals advanced for understanding the faith "are but an offering made to the whole Church. Many corrections and broadening of perspectives within the context of fraternal dialogue may be needed before the moment comes when the whole Church can accept them" . Consequently, "this very disinterested service to the community of the faithful", which theology is, "entails in essence an objective discussion, a fraternal dialogue, an openness and willingness to modify one's own opinions"
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…
"The freedom proper to theological research is exercised within the Church's faith. Thus while the theologian might often feel the urge to be daring in his work, this will not bear fruit or "edify" unless it is accompanied by that patience which permits maturation to occur. New proposals advanced for understanding the faith "are but an offering made to the whole Church. Many corrections and broadening of perspectives within the context of fraternal dialogue may be needed before the moment comes when the whole Church can accept them" . Consequently, "this very disinterested service to the community of the faithful", which theology is, "entails in essence an objective discussion, a fraternal dialogue, an openness and willingness to modify one's own opinions"
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…
0
0
0
42
If the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not strictly necessary, per Thomism and other theologies, but rather, was chosen by God because it was deemed fitting for some reason, then it would seem to me that God condescended to human religious ideas about needing to offer sacrifice to placate God, ordered those things in symbolic ways theroughout the OT to point in prophetic direction, and then came here Himself to show us that He placates Himself, and offers everything to us and for us, on His own, out of His own goodness, rather than needing or demanding anything from us. And instituting the Mass as a sacrifice would then be a way for Him to continually rebuke us and remind us, for all of Church history, that we don't offer anything to Him, rather, He offers Himself to us, and Himself to Himself, on our behalf, giving us everything, rather than demanding anything from us.
2
0
8
456
What I meant here was that if the Cross wasn't strictly necessary, but something God chose because He condescended to our culture and worked within our religious ideas, then it would seem that the whole notion of religious sacrifice was misguided, and that God choosing to save us through the Cross was not so much an endorsement of sacrifice, but rather, His showing us that we had got it all wrong: God does not need or want us to offer Him anything: He wants us to realize our need to receive everything from Him. He does for us, not the other way around.
0
0
0
17
Republicans deserve to lose, and I won't be upset when they do, but people voting on the basis of affordability are going to be sorely disapppointed no matter the outcome, because neither of these parties have the courage or the genius to do anything meaningful to bring down prices.
1
0
8
341
I wrote up this article detailing the extent and authority of the prior tradition with regard religious coercion, on account of a failure on the part of many to be honest and transparent about the weight of the problem. This is especially for anyone who wants to diminish the history here as merely local variations of practice, rather than a teaching and belief that rose to the level of genuine authority.
academia.edu/179792916/Reli…
academia.edu/179792916/Reli…
1
0
4
238
Everyone knows I don’t care much for the old Latin Mass and that I am fond of defending and promoting the Novus Ordo, but that being said, I think the approach of the Church to the TLM crowd is inconsistent with our broader ecumenical theology, inconsistent with our embrace of liturgical diversity and our even permitting theological diversity, inconsistent with the existence of the Anglican Ordinariate, and with our offers to re-unite with the Orthodox without requiring them to accept Vatican 1, etc.
If I were Pope I would spend a lot of time showing the deficiencies in the old Latin Mass and the superiority and treasures of the Novus Ordo, but I don’t think I would prohibit parishes which have a majority of lay people asking for the TLM from celebrating it. Perhaps I would require that priests make sure that the congregation understands Latin, or something like that. But an outright prohibition, I can’t really square with everything else.
This is where the need to fully implement Vatican II comes in. Paradoxically perhaps, the full implementation involves an ecumenism and a synodality and a liberty that allows even for more traditional forms of faith and worship, so long as those forms aren’t hostile to the Church.
If I were Pope I would spend a lot of time showing the deficiencies in the old Latin Mass and the superiority and treasures of the Novus Ordo, but I don’t think I would prohibit parishes which have a majority of lay people asking for the TLM from celebrating it. Perhaps I would require that priests make sure that the congregation understands Latin, or something like that. But an outright prohibition, I can’t really square with everything else.
This is where the need to fully implement Vatican II comes in. Paradoxically perhaps, the full implementation involves an ecumenism and a synodality and a liberty that allows even for more traditional forms of faith and worship, so long as those forms aren’t hostile to the Church.
0
0
1
250
Jimmy Akin on some super interesting ideas about polygenism and original sin in the thought of Ratzinger and others.
I’ve been leaning more sympathetic to a symbolic understanding of the fall, as something representative of human behavior in general, something God knew ahead of time, and created the world with “defects” ahead of time, on account of.
youtu.be/GVk9C4B5zhk?is…
I’ve been leaning more sympathetic to a symbolic understanding of the fall, as something representative of human behavior in general, something God knew ahead of time, and created the world with “defects” ahead of time, on account of.
youtu.be/GVk9C4B5zhk?is…
2
0
5
1,773
If we could pretend that the current effort to "save western civlzation" wasn't fraught with racism and prejudice and malice, and that it really was just the holy and wholesome virtue of patriotism and honoring your parents and Ordo amoris,
we would still just have the very traditional teaching that good works without faith are dead and cannot save you
this is very standard stuff, and conservatives have always been very keen about critiquing liberals for turning religion into social work and charity work
its not like we don't have a large amount of "patriots" paying lip service to religion while really worshipping pragmatic civil power, in the name of "saving America" , thinking that their efforts have moral value, when they are devoid of real faith and religion
we would still just have the very traditional teaching that good works without faith are dead and cannot save you
this is very standard stuff, and conservatives have always been very keen about critiquing liberals for turning religion into social work and charity work
its not like we don't have a large amount of "patriots" paying lip service to religion while really worshipping pragmatic civil power, in the name of "saving America" , thinking that their efforts have moral value, when they are devoid of real faith and religion
0
0
5
217
In the past accusations were made, that the Church in the Inquisition killed "millions." Good scholarship has shown this to be an extreme exaggeration made by our critics. But no one exaggerated these crimes more than one of our greatest "defenders" - Robert Bellarmine. In his arguments against Luther, defending the practice of burning heretics, he amounts the number to be not just millions, but "nearly infinite."
From the 22nd chapter of his work on the civil government:
_______________________________
"It remains to resolve the arguments of Luther and other heretics. The first argument is from the experience of the whole Church: “The Church,” says Luther, “from its beginning up to now burned no heretic.” Therefore, it does not seem to be the will of the Spirit that they be burned.
This argument proves not the opinion but the ignorance of Luther; for, since nearly an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put death, Luther is either ignorant of this fact and is therefore uninformed, or he knew of it and shows he is boldly lying; that heretics have often been burned by the Church can be shown, if we give a few examples of the many. The heresiarch Priscillian, along with his associates, were put to death by Maximus, the Christian Emperor, as St. Jerome, in a book on illustrious men testifies, and Optatus recalls the Donatists that were put to death, in Book III, “Contra Parmenianus.”
A certain Basil the Magician (Spiritualist), and therefore a heretic (for there are scarcely any magicians (spiritualists), was put to death by a Christian, and Catholic, people, as St. Gregory testifies, in Book I, of the Dialogues, Chapter 4.
Again, another Basil, the author of the Heresy of the Bogomilori was publicly burned by the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, as Zonaras writes in the Life of Alexis.
At the time of St. Bernard, that heretics were given the ultimate punishment, he himself testifies, in Sermon 66, on the Canticles. In the times of Innocent the Third, there were, on one occasion, 180 Albigensian heretics burned at the same time, after St. Dominic had previously convinced and converted many of their companions. St. Anthony writes about the whole occasion in Part III, Title 19, Chapter I, paragraph 4, of his History.
And, that I may pass over an infinite number of other instances, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, at the time of the Council of Constance were burned by the Emperor Sigismund."
From the 22nd chapter of his work on the civil government:
_______________________________
"It remains to resolve the arguments of Luther and other heretics. The first argument is from the experience of the whole Church: “The Church,” says Luther, “from its beginning up to now burned no heretic.” Therefore, it does not seem to be the will of the Spirit that they be burned.
This argument proves not the opinion but the ignorance of Luther; for, since nearly an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put death, Luther is either ignorant of this fact and is therefore uninformed, or he knew of it and shows he is boldly lying; that heretics have often been burned by the Church can be shown, if we give a few examples of the many. The heresiarch Priscillian, along with his associates, were put to death by Maximus, the Christian Emperor, as St. Jerome, in a book on illustrious men testifies, and Optatus recalls the Donatists that were put to death, in Book III, “Contra Parmenianus.”
A certain Basil the Magician (Spiritualist), and therefore a heretic (for there are scarcely any magicians (spiritualists), was put to death by a Christian, and Catholic, people, as St. Gregory testifies, in Book I, of the Dialogues, Chapter 4.
Again, another Basil, the author of the Heresy of the Bogomilori was publicly burned by the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, as Zonaras writes in the Life of Alexis.
At the time of St. Bernard, that heretics were given the ultimate punishment, he himself testifies, in Sermon 66, on the Canticles. In the times of Innocent the Third, there were, on one occasion, 180 Albigensian heretics burned at the same time, after St. Dominic had previously convinced and converted many of their companions. St. Anthony writes about the whole occasion in Part III, Title 19, Chapter I, paragraph 4, of his History.
And, that I may pass over an infinite number of other instances, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, at the time of the Council of Constance were burned by the Emperor Sigismund."
11
0
7
1,723
On the relationship of hierarchical authority to communal participation/consultation in the discernment process of synodality.
_________________________
91. Those in authority are, in several instances, obligated by current law to conduct a consultation before taking a decision. Those with pastoral authority are obliged to listen to those who participate in the consultation and may not act as if the consultation had not taken place. Therefore, those in authority will not depart from the fruits of consultation that produce an agreement without a compelling reason (cf. CIC, can. 127, § 2, 2°; CCEO can. 934, § 2, 3°) which must be appropriately explained. As in any community that lives according to justice, the exercise of authority in the Church does not consist in an arbitrary imposition of will. Rather, authority should always be exercised in service of communion and the reception of Christ, who is the truth towards whom the Holy Spirit guides us in different moments and contexts (cf. Jn 14:16).
92. In a synodal Church, the authority of the Bishop, of the Episcopal College and of the Bishop of Rome in regard to decision-taking is inviolable as it is grounded in the hierarchical structure of the Church established by Christ; it both serves unity and legitimate diversity (cf. LG 13). Such an exercise of authority, however, is not without limits: it may not ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative process, especially if this is done by participatory bodies. It is not appropriate to set the consultative and deliberative elements involved in reaching a decision in opposition to each other: in the Church, the deliberative element is undertaken with the help of all and never without those whose pastoral governance allows them to take a decision by virtue of their office. For this reason, the recurring formula in the Code of Canon Law, “merely consultative” vote (tantum consultivum) should be reviewed to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective, clarifying the distinction and relation between consultation and deliberation and shedding light on the responsibilities of those who play different roles in the decision-making process.
93. It is of fundamental importance, if the processes of decision-making envisaged here are to bear fruit, that they be conducted in an orderly manner and that the people involved assume their own responsibilities:
a) in particular, it is up to the relevant authority to: clearly define the object of the consultation and deliberation, as well as clarify with whom ultimate responsibility for taking the decision resides. They need to identify those who ought to be consulted, including those who have a specific competency or are affected by the matter under consideration. They also need to ensure that everyone involved has access to relevant data so that they may make an informed contribution to the process;
b) those who are consulted, whether individually or as members of a collegial body, assume the responsibility of: offering their input honestly, sincerely, with an informed conscience and acting in good conscience, respecting the confidentiality of the information received, offering clearly formulated thoughts that identify their main points. This will enable the pastoral authority to explain how they have taken the consultation into account should the decision differ from the opinions offered;
c) finally, when the competent authority has formulated the decision, having respected the consultation process and clearly expressed the reasons for it, by reason of the bond of communion that unites them, all the Baptised should respect and implement the decision. They should do this even if it differs from their own opinion, but they should also be free to participate honestly in the evaluative phase. There is always a possibility of making an appeal to the higher authority according to the provision of the law.
94. Implementing the processes of decision-making correctly and resolutely, and in a synodal style, will further the progress of the People of God in a participatory way, especially by utilising the institutional means provided for in Canon Law, in particular participatory bodies. Without concrete changes in the short term, the vision of a synodal Church will not be credible, and this will alienate those members of the People of God who have drawn strength and hope from the synodal journey. Local Churches need to find ways to implement these changes.
synod.va/content/dam/sy…
_________________________
91. Those in authority are, in several instances, obligated by current law to conduct a consultation before taking a decision. Those with pastoral authority are obliged to listen to those who participate in the consultation and may not act as if the consultation had not taken place. Therefore, those in authority will not depart from the fruits of consultation that produce an agreement without a compelling reason (cf. CIC, can. 127, § 2, 2°; CCEO can. 934, § 2, 3°) which must be appropriately explained. As in any community that lives according to justice, the exercise of authority in the Church does not consist in an arbitrary imposition of will. Rather, authority should always be exercised in service of communion and the reception of Christ, who is the truth towards whom the Holy Spirit guides us in different moments and contexts (cf. Jn 14:16).
92. In a synodal Church, the authority of the Bishop, of the Episcopal College and of the Bishop of Rome in regard to decision-taking is inviolable as it is grounded in the hierarchical structure of the Church established by Christ; it both serves unity and legitimate diversity (cf. LG 13). Such an exercise of authority, however, is not without limits: it may not ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative process, especially if this is done by participatory bodies. It is not appropriate to set the consultative and deliberative elements involved in reaching a decision in opposition to each other: in the Church, the deliberative element is undertaken with the help of all and never without those whose pastoral governance allows them to take a decision by virtue of their office. For this reason, the recurring formula in the Code of Canon Law, “merely consultative” vote (tantum consultivum) should be reviewed to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective, clarifying the distinction and relation between consultation and deliberation and shedding light on the responsibilities of those who play different roles in the decision-making process.
93. It is of fundamental importance, if the processes of decision-making envisaged here are to bear fruit, that they be conducted in an orderly manner and that the people involved assume their own responsibilities:
a) in particular, it is up to the relevant authority to: clearly define the object of the consultation and deliberation, as well as clarify with whom ultimate responsibility for taking the decision resides. They need to identify those who ought to be consulted, including those who have a specific competency or are affected by the matter under consideration. They also need to ensure that everyone involved has access to relevant data so that they may make an informed contribution to the process;
b) those who are consulted, whether individually or as members of a collegial body, assume the responsibility of: offering their input honestly, sincerely, with an informed conscience and acting in good conscience, respecting the confidentiality of the information received, offering clearly formulated thoughts that identify their main points. This will enable the pastoral authority to explain how they have taken the consultation into account should the decision differ from the opinions offered;
c) finally, when the competent authority has formulated the decision, having respected the consultation process and clearly expressed the reasons for it, by reason of the bond of communion that unites them, all the Baptised should respect and implement the decision. They should do this even if it differs from their own opinion, but they should also be free to participate honestly in the evaluative phase. There is always a possibility of making an appeal to the higher authority according to the provision of the law.
94. Implementing the processes of decision-making correctly and resolutely, and in a synodal style, will further the progress of the People of God in a participatory way, especially by utilising the institutional means provided for in Canon Law, in particular participatory bodies. Without concrete changes in the short term, the vision of a synodal Church will not be credible, and this will alienate those members of the People of God who have drawn strength and hope from the synodal journey. Local Churches need to find ways to implement these changes.
synod.va/content/dam/sy…
0
0
0
140
"All Christians participate in the sensus fidei through Baptism. Therefore, as well as constituting the basis of synodality, Baptism is also the foundation of ecumenism."
^^ this is official ordinary papal Magisterium, from the final document of the synod. All baptized Christians, including Orthodox and Protestants, participate in and help form the sensus fidelium.
^^ this is official ordinary papal Magisterium, from the final document of the synod. All baptized Christians, including Orthodox and Protestants, participate in and help form the sensus fidelium.
0
1
1
162
Today they told me it’s now “hopefully” expected due out by the end of November 🤷♂️
Just finished a zoom call with someone as high up in the Vatican as you can get, re: the synod on synodality and ecumenism, save only the Pope. The final report on synod group 10 should be released next week. Very encouraging stuff - everything I have been reading and studying, is everything they were reading and studying.
Funny - every time I mentioned a scholar and their work and the fact I have been in contact with them, they smile and say yes, we are good friends and have been working very closely together on this topic, I just spent all week with them, we cite them in the report, etc.
The point of the meeting was to get help focusing in my dissertation topic, and the take-away was the unique ecumenical context in the USA, especially with regard religious conservativism, apologetics, and ecclesial anxiety. Elsewhere in the global Church the topic of ecumenism and sacramental hospitality has very much to do with family and domestic dynamics - inter-Church marriages, making a home in a region where the only minister is Catholic, etc. But here in the states we have this particular context, with its own motivations and concerns, and that seems to be something we need more research on.
One interesting/exciting thing I learned is that actually, official sacramental sharing (with the official approval of both Churches) is already occurring in some places between Catholics and Orthodox that as of yet is not widely known or reported on, even in the ecumenical scholarship.
1
0
4
250
Not a Latin Mass guy, but every few months I get the Latin Mass experience by attending a Spanish Mass. Sure, I can’t understand what’s being said. But it’s still beautiful. And most importantly, it’s the Mass.
9
1
27
2,984
The negative sentiments towards women with promiscuous pasts always comes from people whose own sexual history is incredibly inexperienced, and usually not in a holy virginal way, but in a more self-frustrated and envious way.
The reality is a person (male or female) with a promiscuous past, who experiences a genuine conversion towards faithfulness, can very easily be satisfied and happy and faithful, if they meet a partner with a similar sex drive (and even if they do not).
And I know this from experience, given my own past was incredibly promiscuous, and I have had no trouble being completely faithful and monogamous.
The reality is a person (male or female) with a promiscuous past, who experiences a genuine conversion towards faithfulness, can very easily be satisfied and happy and faithful, if they meet a partner with a similar sex drive (and even if they do not).
And I know this from experience, given my own past was incredibly promiscuous, and I have had no trouble being completely faithful and monogamous.
i saw this post today and this is another reason why men should always avoid marrying promiscuous women. they will never be able to fully appreciate their husbands or feel a connection with them since they have already been used by so many men
0
0
4
317
Francis Sullivan on the Council correcting prior papal teaching:
"In this respect, it is more fruitful to consider what the Second Vatican Council did than what it said. While in its treatment of the ordinary papal magisterium it spoke only of its obligatory force and said nothing about the possibility of its needing to be corrected, on several important issues the council clearly departed from previous papal teaching. One has only to compare the Decree on Ecumenism with such an encyclical as Mortalium animos of Pope Pius XI, or the Declaration on Religious Freedom with the teaching of Leo XIII and other popes on the obligation binding on the Catholic rulers of Catholic nations to suppress Protestant evangelism, to see with what freedom the Second Vatican Council reformed papal teaching. I think it would be true to say that the deepest divisions at Vatican II were between those bishops who saw the council as bound to affirm what had already been taught by the popes, and those who recognised the need for the Council to improve upon, and in some cases, to correct such teaching."
From "Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Church" page 157.
"In this respect, it is more fruitful to consider what the Second Vatican Council did than what it said. While in its treatment of the ordinary papal magisterium it spoke only of its obligatory force and said nothing about the possibility of its needing to be corrected, on several important issues the council clearly departed from previous papal teaching. One has only to compare the Decree on Ecumenism with such an encyclical as Mortalium animos of Pope Pius XI, or the Declaration on Religious Freedom with the teaching of Leo XIII and other popes on the obligation binding on the Catholic rulers of Catholic nations to suppress Protestant evangelism, to see with what freedom the Second Vatican Council reformed papal teaching. I think it would be true to say that the deepest divisions at Vatican II were between those bishops who saw the council as bound to affirm what had already been taught by the popes, and those who recognised the need for the Council to improve upon, and in some cases, to correct such teaching."
From "Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Church" page 157.
0
0
2
156
This is an eye opening passage from Francis Sullivan, in which he wrestles to train to maintain his faith in the infallibility of the Pope, while he believes also that the Pope has possibly erred in a definitive teaching. He cites the young Ratzinger for a solution, and if the quote is accurate, than the young Ratzinger would have been materially dissenting to Vatican 1:
"I have now explained why, on the one hand, I came to the conclusion that John Paul II expressed his intention to speak definitively when he declared not only that the church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, but that this teaching is to be definitively held by all the church’s faithful. On the other hand, I have also explained why I could not agree that the grounds on which John Paul II based his judgment provide the certainty that a doctrine must have for a pope to declare it infallibly. At that point I had to admit that in agreeing that John Paul II intended to speak definitively, and in disagreeing with Benedict XVI’s judgment that his predecessor had settled the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood infallibly, I have put myself into an awkward position for a Catholic theologian.
So I asked myself whether in my reading of the works of other Catholic theologians I had ever run across a solution to the problem I was facing. Incredible as this may seem, it was none other than Joseph Ratzinger who provided the solution—in something he wrote when he was a young theologian, and which I had quoted 30 years ago in my book Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church.22 In an essay that Ratzinger included in a collection of his essays published in 1969, he spoke of the possibility that a seemingly definitive papal pronouncement could be criticized if it lacked the grounds on which a definitive doctrinal statement would have to be based:
"Criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary to the degree that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church. When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor is clear evidence from the sources available, a definitive decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, while conditions for such an act were lacking, the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy."
theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/upl…
"I have now explained why, on the one hand, I came to the conclusion that John Paul II expressed his intention to speak definitively when he declared not only that the church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, but that this teaching is to be definitively held by all the church’s faithful. On the other hand, I have also explained why I could not agree that the grounds on which John Paul II based his judgment provide the certainty that a doctrine must have for a pope to declare it infallibly. At that point I had to admit that in agreeing that John Paul II intended to speak definitively, and in disagreeing with Benedict XVI’s judgment that his predecessor had settled the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood infallibly, I have put myself into an awkward position for a Catholic theologian.
So I asked myself whether in my reading of the works of other Catholic theologians I had ever run across a solution to the problem I was facing. Incredible as this may seem, it was none other than Joseph Ratzinger who provided the solution—in something he wrote when he was a young theologian, and which I had quoted 30 years ago in my book Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church.22 In an essay that Ratzinger included in a collection of his essays published in 1969, he spoke of the possibility that a seemingly definitive papal pronouncement could be criticized if it lacked the grounds on which a definitive doctrinal statement would have to be based:
"Criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary to the degree that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church. When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor is clear evidence from the sources available, a definitive decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, while conditions for such an act were lacking, the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy."
theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/upl…
1
0
3
341
I was trying to find Ratzinger's original article where he explained why he did not think Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra, and I came across this interesting passage from Francis Sullivan. Apparently there may be some reason to think that Benedict changed his mind on this question after becoming Pope:
"In light of those two replies, I venture to suggest that it was by asking him about women’s ordination that Francis came to know and accept Benedict XVI’s present judgment that John Paul II had declared definitively that the church could not ordain women to the priesthood. If that is the case, it would confirm the reports mentioned above, indicating that while Benedict XVI was still in office as pope, he made such a statement in his letter to Bishop Morris.
It is surely remarkable that during the two decades after the publication of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Joseph Ratzinger, first as cardinal and then as pope, gave three different answers to the question whether Pope John Paul II was teaching definitively when he declared that the church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women to the priesthood, and that this doctrine is to be held definitively by all the faithful. To my knowledge Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has not published any reason for moving from one answer to the next, but I will suggest reasons why he might have abandoned the first and second answers.
His first answer was that this was an exercise of the pope’s ordinary magisterium. This is authoritative but not definitive, and as such would not require that the faithful give it their definitive assent. His second answer was that it must be held definitively because it was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. But the infallibility of that teaching would have depended on the agreement of all the Catholic bishops with the pope in teaching that doctrine even before he declared his judgment about it in Ordinatio sacerdotalis. His answer as Pope Benedict XVI is that the doctrine was taught definitively and infallibly by his predecessor. To my knowledge he has not explained the grounds on which he based this judgment."
theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/upl…
"In light of those two replies, I venture to suggest that it was by asking him about women’s ordination that Francis came to know and accept Benedict XVI’s present judgment that John Paul II had declared definitively that the church could not ordain women to the priesthood. If that is the case, it would confirm the reports mentioned above, indicating that while Benedict XVI was still in office as pope, he made such a statement in his letter to Bishop Morris.
It is surely remarkable that during the two decades after the publication of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Joseph Ratzinger, first as cardinal and then as pope, gave three different answers to the question whether Pope John Paul II was teaching definitively when he declared that the church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women to the priesthood, and that this doctrine is to be held definitively by all the faithful. To my knowledge Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has not published any reason for moving from one answer to the next, but I will suggest reasons why he might have abandoned the first and second answers.
His first answer was that this was an exercise of the pope’s ordinary magisterium. This is authoritative but not definitive, and as such would not require that the faithful give it their definitive assent. His second answer was that it must be held definitively because it was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. But the infallibility of that teaching would have depended on the agreement of all the Catholic bishops with the pope in teaching that doctrine even before he declared his judgment about it in Ordinatio sacerdotalis. His answer as Pope Benedict XVI is that the doctrine was taught definitively and infallibly by his predecessor. To my knowledge he has not explained the grounds on which he based this judgment."
theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/upl…
@ClassicalTheismentary on this is, with all due respect to the man, retarded German autism because he has this bizarre idea that if a doctrine has already been infallibly proclaimed in some other way, in this case through the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church at all times, then it can't be infallibly proclaimed again by a Pope.
0
0
3
262
When you hear that an act is done solely for the glory of God and not for the medicinal benefit of man, ask yourself. “Can the infinite God be added to? Subtracted from?” So then, if nothing can change the already infinitely infinite glory of God, then in what way can something be *for* His glory? The purpose cannot be to change something within the Creator, but must be for the purpose of changing something in creation. And if it’s a change that occurs in creatures, as it relates to the glory of God, then certainly it has to do with our apprehension of and appreciation of the glory of God. But is this not for the benefit of man?
0
0
0
109
“But there has to be a kind of stability in our legal system, a kind of predictability, and a precedent system is basically also a system of humility. It's a way of saying, you know, even if I right now today think that they got it wrong, I have to be really super convinced before I'll change it, because I believe deep in my soul in something that might be called the wisdom of the ages, you know that there's a wisdom that comes from tradition and history and long practices.”
youtu.be/EHyOy9ZDm-k?is…
youtu.be/EHyOy9ZDm-k?is…
0
0
0
159