Talk:Ordinatio sacerdotalis

message: I removed this line from the article: "The word facultatem is more accurately translated as power or ability.)".  I removed it because it is false.  In classical Latin facultas does generally mean "ability", but in ecclesiastical latin (which is the language of the document), its primary definition is authority.  (see Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, ed. Leo Stelten (1995, Hendrickson Publishers) p99.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation 

message: This article seems to be descending into the realm of original research.  Dictionary definitions of "definitive" have no place here.  What matters is what published Catholic theologians have to say on the issue. -- Cat Whisperer 02:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The following is a faulty syllogism:
* Ex cathedra teachings confirm the brethren and remove all doubt
* Ordinatio Sacerdotalis confirmed the brethren and removed all doubt
* Therefore, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ex cathedra.
Bad logic such as this has no place in an encyclopedia.
Furthermore, the presence of such incorrect logic, coupled with the lack of sources, makes me believe that this is (bad) original research, rather than the work of dissenting, but knowledgeable, Catholic theologians.  -- Cat Whisperer 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Lesson in Logic 

message: The Pope in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:  
"Although the teaching...has been...firmly taught by the Magisterium....it is nonetheless considered still open to debate,"
The only papal authority that is above the Magisterium is the extraordinary Magisterium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coder1024 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.

message: This is a completely false, and out of context quote, and in no way can be used to argue the opposite side.  Here, from the Vatican's official on-line version is the entire quote of the last section, labeled as Paragraph 4:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
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.
To summarize the late Holy Father in an even more understandable tone, for those of us who are unlearned to writings of a higher degree of fibre, is the following:
The Church has, always through the universal Tradition of the Church, and as recently taught by the Magisterium, that only men can receive priestly ordination. Even with this clear teaching of Tradition (universal & Magisterium), in some areas it is thought to be still open to (theological) debate.  It may also be falsely held (in such places), that the Church only ordains Men, to discipline or "keep down" Women from their rightful place.
In the next paragraph, with the use of simple cumulative rhetoric the Holy Father affirms the position that is held securely in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.  The Holy Father in the first paragraph outlines the problems, or current dissent to teachings, and then in the second, clearly and absolutely states what the Catholic Church believes.  As the Holy Father, and a component of the Magisterium, it is his rightful place to teach the faithful.  This is clearly seen in his last statement, when he "binds" the believe to be held definitively by all the Church's faithful.
I cannot see, from my lowly and humble opinion, as to why an Ex Cathedra statement would be necessary in this situation, while still many faithful continue to disbelieve in the Church's teaching, when it has so clearly been bound to the faithful.  Interestingly, the Holy Father thought the same.  When something in question like men-only-ordination, which has (as the Pope points out the first paragraph) been so attested to by Tradition and Scripture, there is no reason to declare it Ex Cathedra.  For an example that is lacking only in my poor ability to explain it, would be of the Ex Cathedra teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  The Immaculate Conception's evidence is not explicitly found Scripture, but it is clearly seen in Tradition.  Therefore in that case, an Ex Cathedra teaching would be rightfully required.
The Pope doesn't need to make an Ex Cathedra statement to tell the world that Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel.
CodisJ1286 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.1

message: From Archbishop Bertone's article:
...the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as <definitive> either by a <defining act> or by a <non-defining act.> First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive...through a solemn <ex cathedra> pronouncement...
Therefore a <defining act> is an ex cathedra act and a <non-defining act.> is not.
Coder1024 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about this for a while, but I don't feel I have anything more to add beyond what I've already said.  Thanks, Cat Whisperer 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the three magisterial clarifications/explanations of the doctrinal status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it's clear that this is a difficult subject.  I wish you good luck in your future study of this issue.  One web page you might find interesting is . -- Cat Whisperer 04:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2.

message: The section on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is ex cathedra or not is extremely POV.  The writer explicitly calls the arguments against "misconceptions".
Personally, if Cardinal Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict -- says it isn't, and Pope John Paul II didn't see fit to correct him, then it obviously isn't.
Something should be written about it, but from a more neutral POV. Jhobson1 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that whole section, because it's been complained about on this talk page for over a year with no improvements, presents an original-research argument, and had no citations. I agree something more neutral, and well-cited, could be written instead. --Delirium 04:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have rarely seen such a POV article 

message: I am concerned with the style of the writing in this piece.  After doing some research and scouring other Church documents that are described here on Wikipedia, I have not found one that uses the term "Roman Catholic", they instead use the title the "Catholic Church".
Plainly, the main non-redirecting article on Wikipedia is "Catholic Church", Roman Catholic redirects to Catholic Church.  Catholic, by nature of the term is specific enough to remove confusion.  My concern lies in the mid-late 20th Century use of "Roman Catholic" to overemphasize the Romanicity of the Church, to point toward any number of prejudicial items.  It's plainly unnecessary, and not in keeping with the standards employed in this body of work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.132.245 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'Roman Catholic' 

message: There should perhaps be an article on the document Inter Insigniores, which gave similar doctrinal instructions concerning the ordination of women in the year 1976.  ADM (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inter Insigniores