12 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KThere isn't the slightest reasoned doubt that Humanae Vitae was meant has an ex cathedra pronouncement. For you to claim otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.
It is ambiguous as to whether this teaching constitutes an ex cathedra. Paul VI left a huge inconsistency when he allowed the papal commission to continue review of the teaching after he had proclaimed it. I would think that if he taught it to be infallible he would cease discussion over it.
12 Mar 07
Question: Just how does one tell, ex post facto, that a statement was made ex cathedra—absent the Pope’s explicit statement to that effect at the time? Can a statement that most people thought was ex cathedra later be determined not to have been?
The reason I ask is that I read a protestant polemic some time back that basically claimed there is sufficient “wiggle room” in the criteria (or they are sufficiently broadly stated) for the church to later declare something that everyone thought was an ex cathedra statement, to in fact not have been. The polemic was so harsh that I didn’t give much credence to the author.
Am not so interested in a simple statement of—or citation to—the criteria (which I could find), as much as an analysis of the same, with regard to this question...
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat is your issue with female ordination. While the church per se may have a delineation between genders, I think you would be hard pressed to say Jesus would exclude women in such a way. If the Catholic church is so sure that this is an issue of such grave importance to the church, why do they not speak out against a variety of other denominations ranging from Episcoplalians to Baptists to even Pentecostals who allow leadership by women. And of course you don't see the exclusion of women as a problem as you are NOT a woman.
To me, I don't see the exclusion of women as a problem. I see the priesthhood not as a higher role in the church but a different one. Since Vatican II the role of lay people has risen enormously. I think that people would cease to have issue with the Church if more women were represented in the leadership of the church. So while the priest performs the mass ...[text shortened]... genders and I think that to have a unisex priesthood would degrade what the priesthood means.
If the Catholic church were to change this policy and that of celibacy for priests and nuns, you would see such a ground swell of renewed interest in the church that it would be astonishing. They could not buy such positive publicity.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThen why have a papal commission investigating the truth of the teaching? (that did eventually reject the teaching)
There isn't the slightest reasoned doubt that Humanae Vitae was meant has an ex cathedra pronouncement. For you to claim otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.
Also in November 2003, cardinal Barragan of the Pontifical Council for Health Care said:
"The doctrine of the Catholic Church is very clear. To defend one's life against an aggressor, one can even kill. So a wife, whose husband is infected with AIDS and who insists on marrital relations with her, and might pass on the virus which would kill her, can defend her life by using a condom." (Vatican Looking at Collaboration with Global Fund, Zenit news, 6th of November 2003)
This would seem to suggest that the stance on contraception has not been universally accepted as an infallible teaching, even among prominent clergy.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by kirksey957If the Catholic church is so sure that this is an issue of such grave importance to the church, why do they not speak out against a variety of other denominations ranging from Episcoplalians to Baptists to even Pentecostals who allow leadership by women.
What is your issue with female ordination. While the church per se may have a delineation between genders, I think you would be hard pressed to say Jesus would exclude women in such a way. If the Catholic church is so sure that this is an issue of such grave importance to the church, why do they not speak out against a variety of other denominations ran ...[text shortened]... rest in the church that it would be astonishing. They could not buy such positive publicity.
I think here demonstrates the difference between us. You have essentially equated the position of the priest to that of religious leadership. In my last post this is what I tried to contend against. I am not against women being religious leaders - in my last posts I have espoused support for a theology which allows women to be admitted into the position of the bishop. And while I believe that the role of the celebration of the Eucharist and the administration of penance should be restricted to males, I would support women giving sermons (in fact, last year a nun did deliver a sermon at mass).
And of course you don't see the exclusion of women as a problem as you are NOT a woman.
But this is besides the point. What Catholics are concerned for, is if a women could possibly perform the sacraments of Eucharist and penance. Not, whether it would make women feel good since that is a subordinate issue.
If the Catholic church were to change this policy and that of celibacy for priests and nuns, you would see such a ground swell of renewed interest in the church that it would be astonishing. They could not buy such positive publicity.
As I stated in my first post, not all Catholic priests are celibate. Churches of married priests do not have larger gatherings. And while celibacy can be abloshed, it is dubious whether the teaching on female ordination can be. It could potentially lead to a schism.
12 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou may pretend that Humanae Vitae is some off hand comment by the Pope if you want. The "papal commission" you are referring to made a majority report prior to Humanae Vitae suggesting the Church's stance on contraception be changed. The Pope rejected that view completely in Humanae Vitae.
Then why have a papal commission investigating the truth of the teaching? (that did eventually reject the teaching)
Also in November 2003, cardinal Barragan of the Pontifical Council for Health Care said:
"The doctrine of the Catholic Church is very clear. To defend one's life against an aggressor, one can even kill. So a wife, whose husband is infe ion has not been universally accepted as an infallible teaching, even among prominent clergy.
Your position remains ill-informed or dishonest.
12 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kconrau: What Catholics are concerned for, is if a women could possibly perform the sacraments of Eucharist and penance.
[b]If the Catholic church is so sure that this is an issue of such grave importance to the church, why do they not speak out against a variety of other denominations ranging from Episcoplalians to Baptists to even Pentecostals who allow leadership by women.
I think here demonstrates the difference between us. You have essentially equated the position ubious whether the teaching on female ordination can be. It could potentially lead to a schism.[/b]
You can't be serious. What kind of a Catholic would refuse the Eucharist or penance because a woman was performing them? Few if the Church itself didn't support such an exclusion.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderHere are sites from the first page called up on google when I typed in "Humanae Vitae infallible" and which rejected the assertion that Humanae Vitae was an infallible declaration.
You may pretend that Humanae Vitae is some off hand comment by the Pope if you want. The "papal commission" you are referring to made a majority report prior to Humanae Vitae suggesting the Church's stance on contraception be changed. The Pope rejected that view completely in Humanae Vitae.
Your position remains ill-informed or dishonest.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/1/1.html - this one even claims that John Paul did not believe Humanae Vitae to be infallible but merely an authoritative declaration.
http://members.aol.com/revising/change.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM - this one is a little credible as it is written by a Dominican.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1988/jul1988p3_563.html
There seems to be confusion amongst the rest. Catholics are expected to refrain from the use of contraception, and the teaching is one taught by the Church, but this does not make it infallible. It would seem Cardinal Barragan also subscribes to this argument - but I guess according to you he would be "ill-informed or dishonest".
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou misunderstand. What I was saying is that the concern in Catholic theology is over whether a woman ordained by a bishop and who recites the text of the Eucharist would still transform the bread and wine into body and blood. What I was attempting to convey was that the question is not whether women should be ordained, but whether they can be validly ordained and exercise the same office consistent with Catholic faith.
conrau: What Catholics are concerned for, is if a women could possibly perform the sacraments of Eucharist and penance.
You can't be serious. What kind of a Catholic would refuse the Eucharist or penance because a woman was performing them? Few if the Church itself didn't support such an exclusion.
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KThat a handful of others have attempted to make the argument that Humanae Vitae isn't ex cathedra to escape from its practical results is unimportant. Yes, they are being dishonest or perhaps self-deluding. The idea that the Pope made an encyclical on a subject which explicitly reiterates centuries old teachings but that that encyclical wasn't meant to be an infallible pronouncement is ludicrous.
Here are sites from the first page called up on google when I typed in "Humanae Vitae infallible" and which rejected the assertion that Humanae Vitae was an infallible declaration.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/11-96/1/1.html - this one even claims that John Paul did not believe Humanae Vitae to ...[text shortened]... bes to this argument - but I guess according to you he would be "ill-informed or dishonest".
12 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderA papal encyclical is not viewed as a formal "ex-cathedra" pronouncement. It is certainly not seen this way by the Magisterium of the Church.
There isn't the slightest reasoned doubt that Humanae Vitae was meant has an ex cathedra pronouncement. For you to claim otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy don't you prove your claim ?
That a handful of others have attempted to make the argument that Humanae Vitae isn't ex cathedra to escape from its practical results is unimportant. Yes, they are being dishonest or perhaps self-deluding. The idea that the Pope made an encyclical on a subject which explicitly reiterates centuries old teachings but that that encyclical wasn't meant to be an infallible pronouncement is ludicrous.
12 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat is true as a general rule. However, it seems clear that Humanae Vitae was simply reiterating the infallibility of the ban on contraception in the face of the Majority report suggesting that said ban could and should be changed.
A papal encyclical is not viewed as a formal "ex-cathedra" pronouncement. It is certainly not seen this way by the Magisterium of the Church.
Do you believe that the teaching on contraception is not an infallible doctrine?