Scott Hahn And Number Of Infallibe Statements?

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1396809' date='Oct 2 2007, 06:15 PM']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.[/quote]

a well-articulated contribution. many good points.

i don't know that i've personally experienced Catholics losing sight of controversy in the Church, though i think i know what you mean. if there was never disagreement, there would never need to be Councils. and likewise, how would Jesus's teaching in Matthew about disputes carry any weight if it was never going to happen in the Church? our fallen humanity will always guarantee a certain element of discord, but never enough for the gates of hell to prevail over Christ's Bride.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='prose' post='1396797' date='Oct 2 2007, 06:59 PM']wrong.

Priests who are unmarried when they become priests can not be married afterwards.[/quote]

I have oftern wondered this... Because what about laicized Priests?

I would think that the actual topic would be why the Church does not have the power to ordain women (there is no traditional basis for it from Christ & the Apostles, ect...). Just my 2cents.

Edited October 3, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Anomaly]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1396892' date='Oct 2 2007, 11:43 PM']I have oftern wondered this... Because what about laicized Priests?

I would think that the actual topic would be why the Church does not have the power to ordain women (there is no traditional basis for it from Christ & the Apostles, ect...). Just my 2cents.[/quote]That's what I thought of at first, Pope JP-II regarding women priests and the debate whether that was an infallible statement or not. But JP didn't use the words 'infallible' or 'define', just pointed out there is/was no Tradition providing for ordained women and Infalible Definitions require Tradition for their foundation.

Again, I say that priests marrying is a Discipline and can be changed at the desire of the Church, it is not something that falls under the realm of Infallible definition. Since there are some preists that are married, it's obvious in Tradition that one can answer a call to Priesthood and Husband simultaneously. Seperating the two is currently a matter of Discipline. I don't think the Church has felt the need to have to Infallibly Define to limit the sequence of answering the calls to priesthood and marriage since it has Traditionally addressed in via Discipline.

The point I'm making is the same that Aikin is making. Catholics often mis-apply where Infalliblity begins, ends, and is even neccessary.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Anomaly

[chelsea]

To get back to the original question...


[url="http://www.scotthahn.com/"]http://www.scotthahn.com/[/url]


in the very bottom left corner it says "contact info"

[Brother Adam]

Hi Thess,

I'm like a bad penny (or perhaps a good one), I always turn up. I have his personal email address, but I've only used it once and I'm not allowed to give it out. What I can do is put you in touch with another Phatmasser who has a lot more access to him than I do since he used to work in Dr. Hahn's home office. I don't believe Dr. Hahn ever intended to say that the Church has only ever made two infallible statements. Actually to use a verbal statement on a tape as definitive proof seems a bit of a cheap shot by this pastor. He would have more credibility to write the CDF for an answer.

Email me (webmaster@catecheticsonline.com) and I'll send you the contact information

[thessalonian]

Thx Chelsa,
I tried the email at the bottom of the page.

Br. Adam, check you inbox. Thanks.

[thessalonian]

Does anyone have the tape set so I can get the exact quote and context? As I said I heard it when I borrowed the tape set but that was a long time ago.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='prose' post='1396797' date='Oct 2 2007, 08:59 PM']wrong.

Priests who are unmarried when they become priests can not be married afterwards.[/quote]

He's not wrong.

Non-married priests cannot marry, but tomorrow the Vatican can come out and say "Men who are married may become priests". There are other rites that have married priests and they are loyal to the Pope.

The Catholic Church wants their priests to be dedicated to pleasing the Lord by serving the Church... when a man is married he also has his wife to worried about. The Church may change this at any time.

The Church also teaches that we should remain as we are when we are called. Therefore if someone is married and feels a calling then they could become priests (if the Vatican said it was OK). Likewise if someone becomes a deacon before they are married, they should not marry.... even though deacons can be married.


As far as what the Pope has said, it would be good to know what language he said it in, and who translated it. There could have been a mistake by the translator.

Edited October 5, 2007 by ironmonk

[Dismas]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1396892' date='Oct 2 2007, 10:43 PM']I have oftern wondered this... Because what about laicized Priests?[/quote]

Degradation: A canonical penalty by which an ecclesiastic is entirely and perpetually deprived of all office, benefice, dignity, and power conferred on him by ordination; and by a special ceremony is reduced to the state of a layman, losing the privileges of the clerical state and being given over to the secular arm. Degradation, however, cannot deprive an ecclesiastic of the character conferred in ordination, nor does it dispense him from the law of celibacy and the recitation of the Breviary.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04677c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04677c.htm[/url]

That means, a defrocked priest is still a priest, he is just forbidden from doing anything and isn't entitled to anything beyond that of a layman.

[IgnatiusAntioch]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1396519' date='Oct 2 2007, 11:28 AM']Here is what I am refuting
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:[/quote]

That is a difficulty, yes, but it is a resolvable one

First, anything which is approved by a dogmatic council is infallible (whether it is sent by prince or pauper). This has never been in doubt. Second, it becomes very difficult to say that a Pope desired to make an infallible pronouncement if there is no standard to judge by. Basically, because he did not say that he was infallible in making that pronouncement, there is necessary doubt and, as in all cases where there is necessary doubt, it cannot definitively be stated that the Pope desired infallibility.

Further, there are statements in the text of Unam Sanctam which do not coincide with a modern understanding of our relationship with the East and, more importantly, do not relate to infallibility at all. There are several portions which speak of temporal justice -- something which does not lie within the Church's ability (or right) to administer.

[Aloysius]

about whether a priest (who is in the canonical state of priest, ie not laicized) can marry, the question is up for grabs as to whether it is doctrinally impossible to permit it. I hold that it is doctrinally impossible, that once one is put in the canonical status of priest he becomes the spiritual father to the people, thus making any dating or marriage between him and one of his spiritual children like incest. but if he is married when he becomes the priest and the father of the congregation, then his wife was never his spiritual daughter.

I am unsure whether priest-husbands traditionally administer sacraments like confession to their spouses... in any case, though, the relationship between the priest-husband and his wife is never a father-daughter relationship, he doesn't deal with her in the same pastoral way he would deal with the rest of the congregation.

make no mistake, this is a real incest, a priest is a real spiritaul father and any romantic relationship he attempts to have with anyone who is his real spiritual child is a species of incest.

there is no basis in either the tradition of the East or the West of allowing priests to marry post-ordination. I really believe that many teachings on the nature of the priesthood as a spiritual fatherhood make this an establishable doctrine, that one in the canonical status of priest is incapable of marrying; canonically, priesthood is an impediment to marriage; I see that as an extension of the doctrinal necessity that after ordination there can be no new marriage.

my position is, then, that the Vatican could say "we will ordain married men" but could never say "ordained men may now marry". the former would be well established historically and is the current practice of the Eastern Churches, the latter would be completely without historical foundation or precedent and is not now, nor has it ever been, the practice of the Eastern or Western Churches.

[dairygirl4u2c]

didn't priests use to marry?
i know peter was married, but i guess as far as that goes, it'd be like a married prot becomeing a priest.
but i was under the impression they did.
and hte reason marriage was eventually banned was because some kings wanted their priests, who are subject to them, to be totally devoted to them. eventualy, it extended to the priesthood for spirital father reasons, and has a formidable history. but, as far as i understand, that's it.

[thessalonian]

Preists, Deacons, etc. have not ever been allowed to marry to my understanding.

They have been allowed to [b]be[/b] married, i.e. married before ordination. Prose I believe makes this distintion.

Dairy,

Celibacy was always a part of the preisthood and from my study I believe that throughout history the majority of preists have been celibate. There may have been some politics involved in making it mandatory for all but your words obsure the reality that celibacy has been the main state of preists throughout Church history and this has doctrinal implications with regard to the preists relationship to Chirst and the Church and abstinance for the Kingdom in Matt 19.

There are married priests in the roman rite who primiarily have come over from anglican and lutheran churches. eastern rite priest are also allowed TO BE married (though not to marry). We don't know if Peter was married at the time Jesus called him. It seems unlikely in my veiw since in Mark 1 they find Peter's Mother in Law sick at the Home of Peter AND ANDREW. No mention of Peter's wife and family. It is speculated I believe inthe ECF that his wife had died.

Edited October 8, 2007 by thessalonian

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399337' date='Oct 8 2007, 12:15 PM']didn't priests use to marry?
i know peter was married, but i guess as far as that goes, it'd be like a married prot becomeing a priest.
but i was under the impression they did.
and hte reason marriage was eventually banned was because some kings wanted their priests, who are subject to them, to be totally devoted to them. eventualy, it extended to the priesthood for spirital father reasons, and has a formidable history. but, as far as i understand, that's it.[/quote]
married men used to be ordained.
ordained men never married (licitly or validly).

it's an important distinction.
married men can still be ordained in Eastern Churches; ordained men do not marry anywhere in the world (unless they have been laicized). ordination is considered an impediment to marriage, any ordained man who attempts to marry, ie goes through the ceremony and everything with a woman, will not be validly married.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1399529' date='Oct 8 2007, 08:31 PM']Preists, Deacons, etc. have not ever been allowed to marry to my understanding.

They have been allowed to [b]be[/b] married, i.e. married before ordination. Prose I believe makes this distintion.

Dairy,

Celibacy was always a part of the preisthood and from my study I believe that throughout history the majority of preists have been celibate. There may have been some politics involved in making it mandatory for all but your words obsure the reality that celibacy has been the main state of preists throughout Church history and this has doctrinal implications with regard to the preists relationship to Chirst and the Church and abstinance for the Kingdom in Matt 19.

There are married priests in the roman rite who primiarily have come over from anglican and lutheran churches. eastern rite priest are also allowed TO BE married (though not to marry). We don't know if Peter was married at the time Jesus called him. It seems unlikely in my veiw since in Mark 1 they find Peter's Mother in Law sick at the Home of Peter AND ANDREW. No mention of Peter's wife and family. It is speculated I believe inthe ECF that his wife had died.[/quote]
there is also the tradition, considering that Jesus called His apostles to leave EVERYTHING, that the married men who became Apostles did, in fact, adopt a life of celibacy from that moment on. The Church took care of a group of women, at that time, known as the "holy widows"; there is speculation that they were considered "widowed" by their husband becoming a priest/apostle.

though I am sure there were probably ordained ministers who remained married in the first century as well, I tend to believe this about the Apostolic priests/evangelists/missionaries of the first century... they certainly did not travel with a wife and family, so in practical effect they left that behind and began the sacrifice of a life of celibacy by becoming missionaries/apostles... the Church took care of these women and families (through collections) who were "widowed" when their husbands were sent off on their missions. the office of "holy widow" really found its way into an evolution into consecrated virgins and nuns, they were the seed of that. I believe 1 Timothy speaks of the office of Church widows who are to be supported by the Church, I'm pretty sure there are other references as well in the scriptures and ECFs.