Scott Hahn And Number Of Infallibe Statements?

[thessalonian]

Currently I am refuting a paper that will be posted on the internet soon by a protestant pastor who I debated at a local college several years ago. It is on Papal infallibility. In this paper he says that Scott Hahn said that there were only two papal infallible statements in history, that of the Immmaculate Conception and the Assumption. Now I heard the tape that this came from. It was one one the Immaculate Conception, but I think I borrowed it from someone. I do remember hearing the statement and scratching my head a little but I think it was ambiguous as to whether there were papal statements that were infallible before Vatican I. Does anyone have any further information on what Mr. Hahn would say about the number of infallible statements regarding the papacy? Another book?

Anyone have access to him at Stubenville? A class or something? Brother Adam, you out there? Do you have his email address so you could ask him. I am sure he would be much more clear on the matter today. As far as lists of infallible statements, I think Denzinger and Ott are the main sources, but of course this Pastor does not mention either of them

By the way if anyone wants to debate the issue of lists of infallible statements on this thread feel free.

[thessalonian]

Here is what I am refuting

How many infallible statements?
Catholic scholars do not agree as to how many papal statements are infallible. At this point I will quote at length from Timothy F. Kauffman’s excellent article that shows the range of Catholic opinion concerning ex cathedra statements:
“How many times has the pope taught ex cathedra, or ‘from the chair’ of Peter? How many ex cathedra papal statements have there been, and what are they? . . . Different Roman Catholic apologists have asserted very divergent numbers of infallible papal statements. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary were taught infallibly by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII in 1854 and 1950, respectively. Both popes taught that these doctrines were divinely revealed and were therefore part of Christian revelation and to be believed. But are these two the only infallible ex cathedra papal statements ever made? . . . It depends on which apologist you ask. Roman apologist Scott Hahn says yes. In his talk on Pope Pius IX's proclamation in 1854, Hahn stated that 1950 was the only other time an ex cathedra statement that had ever been made by a pope:
Now, we have to realize that the Holy Father has only stated dogmatically and infallibly a definition of a doctrine one other time: in 1950, with the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, both her body and soul.’
Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more. In his audio tape series, ‘All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,’ he berates those who state that popes have only spoken infallibly on two occasions. Staples mentions the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII's statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo's letter to Flavian which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:

Edited October 2, 2007 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[prose]

I would be interested in this as well.

I wish the Church would explain more explicitly when it makes an infallible statement (if one has been made), as this is confusing.

The Code of Canon Law provides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" (CIC 749 § 3). But then the Church, in my opinion, hasn't "clearly established" anything. Or at least if you are a normal, layperson and not a theologist.

Edited October 2, 2007 by prose

[CatholicCid]

I would think that one could say that there have been two 'formal' infallible statements by the Popes, being made Ex Cathedra after the matter of Infallibility and 'Ex Cathedra' were themselves clarified. However, as the Church cannot invent new things, instead continue to reveal her true herself* (Ie - The further clarification of Papal Infallibity), I'm sure there have been past papal statements that do fit the necessities of infallibility.

[i]*I do not know how in-line with Catholic teaching such a statement is[/i]

[prose]

i FOUND THIS INTERESTING:

[quote]Two Instances Of Papal Infallibility?

(Jimmy Akin)

I don't normally read political sites and blogs, but this weekend I was surfing around the Web and ran across an exchange between several folks (Stephan Kinsella, Scott P. Richert, Thomas Storck, Thomas Fleming, and Thomas Woods) regarding different economic theories and the extent to which they correspond with authentic Catholic social teaching.

In the course of the discussion, one of the participants (Stephan Kinsella) claimed that the others believed papal encyclicals on economics are infallible. This provoked and objection and a subsequent retraction of the claim. So far so good. They're not infallible. In fact, the subject matter of such encyclicals is only indirectly related to the deposit of faith, and thus they have less relative weight compared to encyclicals whose contents are directly related to the deposit of faith.

Unfortunately, in the course of the discussion one one of the participants (Scott P. Richert) said the following:

Papal infallibility is widely misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950. That's it: Leo XIII, in Rerum novarum, and Pius XI, in Quadragesimo anno, did not invoke it [source].

It is certainly true that papal infallibility is widely misunderstood, but I regret to say that this statement falls into a common misunderstanding of it: namely, the idea that it has only been exercised twice. This claim is commonly made by dissident Catholics who wish to minimize the practical impact of the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the claim has been so commonly made that even many orthodox Catholics have absorbed it and repeat it in good conscience.

But it isn't true.

Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times. In fact, it had been used many times prior to 1870, when it was defined by the First Vatican Council. This was the clear understanding of the council, as shown--for example--by reading the later Archbishop Gasser's relatio to the council fathers. This was a briefing given to the bishops at Vatican I to ensure a common understanding of the proposals regarding papal infallibility they were voting on. It is reprinted in the excellent book The Gift of Infallibility (which is the best book on the subject), and in the course of the relatio, Gasser alludes to the numerous times papal infallibility had been used before the Council.

Papal infallibility continues to be widely used. In fact, the current pontiff has used it more than any of his predecessors. The reason is that papal canonizations of saints are infallible. In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states "we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint" (example). This triggers the Church's gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches "the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals" (source). Consequently, the verb "define" has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say "we define" or "I define," it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church's gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption thus are not the only two exercises of papal infallibilty in history. They are arguably the only two dogmatic definitions (i.e., definitions of dogmas; saint canonizations being definitions of what are known as dogmatic facts rather than dogmas per se) in the last hundred and fifty years, but they are far from the only two in history.[/quote]
[url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/06/two_instances_o.html"]http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fide...nstances_o.html[/url]

[prose]

I know in One of his writings (I will have to look it up when I get home) that Pope Bene also referred to something being infallible because it had been passed down through Tradition. He specifically says "infallible"... I believe (I am not sure, I will check tonight), that it was the fact that priests can not be married...Either that or why priests must be men.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='prose' post='1396749' date='Oct 2 2007, 07:50 PM']I know in One of his writings (I will have to look it up when I get home) that Pope Bene also referred to something being infallible because it had been passed down through Tradition. He specifically says "infallible"... I believe (I am not sure, I will check tonight), that it was the fact that priests can not be married...Either that or why priests must be men.[/quote]And that, my friends, shows just how misunderstood and misapplied, the concept of Infallibility is bandied about by Catholics.

prose,
Priests CAN and ARE married in the Catholic Church, including, the Roman Catholic Rite.
oops.

[prose]

I am aware of that, but thank you, the capitals really helped me understand.

What I was saying had really little to do with that. I can't remember what he was talking about when he said the thing about Tradition.

And for the record, not a single priest has ever been married after becoming a priest, only have they been married before.

[PapaHilarious]

I've heard this topic discussed on Catholic Answers radio before, though I can't remember which podcast or I would recommend it. Here's some thoughts to consider...

Many Protestants get very caught up in this idea of looking for the "list" or infallible statements. I know I used to think like that, and I reasoned "if I could only get a bullet point document that shows all the infallible teachings, then surely I could examine them one by one and see if I agree or not."

Catholic teaching doesn't work like that, though, as we can see from the Bible itself. Do Paul or any of the New Testament writers take time out to clarify which of their teachings are infallible and which are not really issues of faith or morals or - even more - just their opinions? Some will quote 2 Tim 3:

[quote][16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.[/quote]

Well, the problem with that: Paul is talking about the Old Testament. This is obvious since not all of the New Testament (not even all the Gospels) was completed yet. And further, as the next few centuries would show, there was not an official declaration as to what the Jewish canon even was at the time of Paul, which further dilutes any argument trying to use this verse as a "catch-all" that says, as I have heard some Protestants claim, that the Bible is infallible in itself, with no need for complicated interpretation.

If you'd ask Mormons, JWs, or even preachers like Dr. Gene Scott, though, you'd see very quickly that there is a DEFINITE need for interpretation and the authority to do so.

So if we can see from the example of biblical writers that the early Church did not feel the need to redundantly announce its teachings as authoritative, why should we expect that kind of attitude throughout history? Statements of infallibility are only necessary to put to rest dogmatic disputes or prevent them. And this is really only a modern way of thinking in response to a legalistic attack on the Church, mainly from Protestants and non-Christian sources. We see evidence of this in the Reformation when Luther decides he cannot accept the doctrine contained in Maccabees and then says

[quote]"Aha! Your councils never double-pinky swore that the Canon was closed, so I can still cut out some books!"[/quote]

(Small liberty taken with this quote.) Nevermind the fact that every Church-authorized copy of the Bible since the 4th century had the same 73 books.

The concept of infallibility is simply as a tool to be used at the Church's discretion, as it was to avoid confusion and further debate about Marian dogma. If you open up the Catechism, you're not going to find an infallible declaration that Jesus never had a wife. Though it is a teaching of the Church and could be announced [i]ex cathedra,[/i] there is no need for it. Nor would there be need to make a statement that Jesus was not an alien, even though we believe that too.

So if you look for it, yes, you will find certain Marian dogmas to be "infallible." And you could find other statements that one could make a very good argument for the same, but the fact that there is disagreement amongst some as to whether some statement are [i]ex cathedra[/i] or not is really irrelevant. Because, the teachings are [u]still[/u] authoritative, even if they haven't been stamped with the special Popey stamp.

At the heart of this discussion is an old and tired attempt to discredit the Church and her authority. But let's consider Matthew:

[quote][15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/quote]

As author and apologist Steve Ray likes to say, "The Church has always had an address." When one replaces the physical foundation of Truth with an invisible concept of a "church" that is simply the shared belief of denominations in Jesus, then there is no one with the authority of Christ to settle disputes as our Lord promised.

Notice that Jesus does not say to immediately take everything to the Church. This would be the legalistic attitude of defining hundreds of thousands of infallible statements to make everyone super-super sure that the Church was serious. No, Christ established that the Church is there as the [u]final[/u] appeal. So it has power, through Peter, through Christ. And it can, when needed, define things with the mark of infallibility.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='prose' post='1396772' date='Oct 2 2007, 08:21 PM']I am aware of that, but thank you, the capitals really helped me understand.

What I was saying had really little to do with that. I can't remember what he was talking about when he said the thing about Tradition.

And for the record, not a single priest has ever been married after becoming a priest, only have they been married before.[/quote]
wrong (note I used small letters)

Priests marrying is a Discipline, not a Doctrine or Dogma. It's an option

[prose]

wrong.

Priests who are unmarried when they become priests can not be married afterwards.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1396761' date='Oct 2 2007, 05:04 PM']And that, my friends, shows just how misunderstood and misapplied, the concept of Infallibility is bandied about by Catholics.

prose,
Priests CAN and ARE married in the Catholic Church, including, the Roman Catholic Rite.
oops.[/quote]


well if we're gonna pick on each other, then one could note that you said "Roman Catholic Rite" when you meant to say "Latin Rite." no worries.

anyway...back to thessalonian's topic...

[prose]

Eastern, Latin, Greek, whatever rite. No priest can become married after becoming a priest. A married man, however, may become a priest (in some cases).

Edited October 3, 2007 by prose

[Aloysius]

for the non-theologian, the simple rule of thumb is this: if a teaching is bound upon the Universal Church, it is infallible. Councils can do this and Popes can do this (and have before and after the definition at Vatican I)... simply look around, it's not hard to see: is something bound to be believed by all Catholics in the Universal Church?

Married men being ordained? Eastern Churches do it, clearly not something infallible because it's not bound upon the Universal Church; nor is it even bound as a matter of beleif on the Roman Church

Ordained men getting married? debateable as to whether it's bound by the universal ordinary magisterium as a matter of beleif that a man excercising the priesthood cannot marry. I think that it likely is. regardless of whether it is or not, it makes no difference. there can be merit to learning of the nature of the [b][i]real[/i][/b] spiritual fatherhood of a priest who is excercising his ministry and how any relationship between an excercising priest and any member of his faithful, who are thus his [b][i]real[/i][/b] spiritual children, is thus [b][i]real[/i][/b] incest (as real as relations with an adopted child is incest, the Church made clear in the Council of Trent that spiritual fatherhood was every bit as real as physical fatherhood)

basically any other question can be simply answered by this rule of thumb. sure, there will be controversial points of contention, that is to be expected. it doesn't mean we're not still all united by the infallibility, for if there were no points of contention as to whether this or that thing was really infallible, then we wouldn't be united by that. Yes, we're united even in the controversy. Like any two Christians are united in a controversy over the applicable meaning of a particular verse, they're united by a belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture. We have even more unity than that, united in a beleif also in the infallibility of the Church; when it comes to points of controversy, notice how much closer together we are in those points of controversy (excluding modernist heretics, material or formal, who try to twist things at every turn) than someone who did not have a common frame of reference. we have common authorities to quote, and common beleif in the Holy Spirit's guideance of those authorities.

all too often Catholic Apologists, in their zeal to prove to protestants just how necessary the Church is, lose sight of the fact that there can and should be controversies within the Church; not in spite of the Church's teachings on infallibility, but becasue of them.