Doh, I thought you were speaking ex cathedra.

gherkin only speaks ex salad shooter.

Was Ludwig Ott's book written before or after the second Vatican Council?

If before, did he update it to include any changes?

Before, and I believe he died before he had time to update it. In terms of doctrinal statements, you will find those who argue that Vatican II made none. I am not sure I agree, but I would say that all it might have done would be to move things among categories a bit.

Can you give an example, please?

Lumen Gentium makes it clear that ordination to the Episcopate really is a grade of Holy Orders and not just a matter of jurisdiction. Ott listed it as sent. certa; there are those who will say that, were his book to be revised, it should be listed as de fide. There are also those who disagree (not with the doctrine, but with the idea that LG defined it).

I get it. What I don't get is "ordination to the Episcopate really is a grade of Holy Orders". What else could ordination to the Episcopate be?

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/m ... sacr-o.htm

The Roman Catechism lists 7 orders- porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon and priest.

Read that again. Note no bishop. Bishop is treated under priest, which is stated to be a single order, but with different dignities.

St. Thomas' position is more nuanced than saying that it is merely a difference in jurisdiction to be fair. And there are those who still advocate St. Thomas's position, and not just screwballs like myself, but at least one member of the ITC does that I know of. We would also point out that Ott may be over-confident in giving it the theological grade sent. certa. After all, he bases this on Trent. But the very Catechism that came in the name of that council teaches otherwise, and Ott's argument assumes too much. That the words said at the consecration of a bishop are not in vain. Okay. No one said they were, and Aquinas's position (as seen in his scripture commentaries) accounts for the words excellently.

The stronger argument comes from Sacramentum Ordinis. In fact, I would argue that this document is a far greater support for declaring the episcopate a distinct order than Lumen Gentium.

1. The word Order is used in two different senses. Aquinas, for instance, will call the episcopate an Order, but he will also distinguish it as well. So the merely calling it an order doesn't prove too much.

2. Lumen gentium is certainly not defining new doctrine, as the nota praevisa makes clear. Only that is taught as binding which is explicitly stated as such. While it gives weight, it is not a dogmatic definition

3. Sacramentum Ordinis specifically deals with the sacramental validity of the consecration of a bishop. Which presumes it is a sacrament, I would think. Since the context is precisely the sacramental actions involve, I think it gives a stronger argument. However, such an argument could be used to argue for the minor orders and subdiaconate being true sacramental orders, as their form and matter and validity has been taken up by the Church before as well., though it is clear that the consensus view is against that

I think it far better to say that the authentic teaching of the magisterium in light of Lumen gentium and Sacramentum ordinis is that the episcopate is a true holy order, but I don't see that as reaching even the rank of sent certa.

mmmmmm.....with salad dressing?????????
Its probably French dressing......

Bite your tongue!!!!!!!!!1 French indeed.

Gherkin prefers a good ol' Amerrcun dressing like Thousand Island, Ranch, or Creamy Italian.

I am still reading the thread (on page one) but wanted to chime in and agree with Father Horton that people often make too big a deal of infallibility by turning the issue on its head. All teachings of the Church should be regarded as important by the laity. Where infallibility becomes important is when a teaching has an arguable point, possibly created by a new problem of theology or society. For instance, the early councils thought they had exhausted all questions of Christology until Nestorianism or Monophysitism arrived on the scene. All of sudden it became important to go back and see what parts of previous statements were under the charism of infallibility in a way that wasn't so important before.

So, there really isn't a need to have a list of uniquely infallible or ex cathedra statements (though the latter is easier to do, I suppose) because that isn't a good approach to theology. Imagine if kids treated their parents that way by dividing their instructions into two categories... those they HAVE to obey, and those they don't. That is essentially what you are getting at. And it is insulting to the authority that Christ established in his Church.

If the Church has taught something that causes a debate or an unforeseen theological issue, that is the time that such a question becomes more important, and it has happened throughout history. Otherwise, it isn't the sort of way a person should approach their faith.

FJ

Sorry, I want to add something.

In addition to the question implying a sort of childish "what I need to follow and what I don't" approach to theology, it also hinges on a misunderstanding of how a Catholic lives his faith.

Average Catholics will be dealing much more with their local pastor or Bishop than the Pope. The Pope's role in our lives is pretty remote on a daily basis, and even the issues that the Pope would need to be infallible about would not affect all Catholics. Usually it would be regarding controversial topics. Maybe he would need to give a ruling on birth control or the use of weapons of mass destruction. Even in the early Church when he was called up on the Christological heresies, the average Catholic was probably not embroiled in it at all. They probably believed that Jesus was God, and didn't need any further explanation. The fact that the councils defined that he was one divine person with two natures probably didn't affect too many in the pews directly in any apparent way.

Rather, it is the local pastor and bishop that has more of an immediate effect. Now yes, these local pastors and bishops are the ones who work in concert with the Pope, but it is really more on THEIR level where the debate over infallibility and authority becomes important. I just think that sometimes protestants think that Catholics aren't sure what to do until they turn on EWTN and get their weekly marching orders from the Pope's Wednesday address. This is never how Catholicism has worked. It is a misconception.

FJ

Women lectors really are ordained to the Episcopate?

you know better

The white-face Lydian judge
Won't you give your little one, two, three
Him down on the corner singing 'Little Jack horner'
But you gotta let the gravy be

A whole loaf is better than a kick in the head
If you tell me what you mean, I'll tell you what I said
I sent you for jelly, you come back with jam
Who exactly do you think I am?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shgQ3-OGmu4

Well, then, that throws that whole argument out the window, now, doesn't it. Unless, of course, women lectors aren't really lectors, and women acolytes aren;t really acolytes. Which makes me wonder why we let the charade go on.

Don't you ever get tired of hijacking threads with your own personal issues?

No. Not at all. You?