Scott Hahn on Papal Infallibility

[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? 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

 

[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: 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:

 

[Genesis315]

I have studied this issue very deeply for a long time. Very few people understand when papal infallibilty applies, for a couple reasons: they are ashamed of the dogma and therefore try to limit it as much as possible, they want to deny papal judgments on other issues, or they are simply ignorant–plus the definition from Vatican I was a bot of a compromise document with some ambiguity and therefore can be difficult to understand on its face.

Papal infallibility applies when the Pope definitively says some doctrine on faith or morals must be either believed (credenda) or held (tenenda) by the whole Church. As Cardinal Newman explains in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk, it is also “engaged in the condemnation of particular and given errors.”

Therefore whenever the Pope solemnly condemns errors as definitely heretical or erroneous or when he solemnly definies dogmas/credenda that must be believed with faith or when he definitively proclaims a truth that must only be held (tenenda) such a proclamation is protected from error. An example of a credenda definied by a Pope is the Assumption of Mary. An example of a tenenda (not a definition of dogma, but a definitve and infallible judgment nontheless) would be John Paul II’s definitive judgments on the all-male priesthood and the grave immorality of abortion from Evangelium Vitae.

To say the First Vatican Council made this definition concerning only one instance is absurd. The relator from the Council, Bishop Gasser had to explain this:

In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the Pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the Council’s definition, Gasser replied:

“But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?”

Obviously he was speaking in a bit of hyperbole, but the point remains–there have been a ton. There’s no list because there have been so many (if you can get Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, there’s a bunch in there). Every time a Pope definitely rules on some truth binding the whole Church, it is infallible.

This makes perfect sense when you sit down and think it through, if you believe God has the power and will to preserve His word/revelation for all men of all times and places.

Since the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter has the ministry of feeding the sheep (and the sheep are fed with the word of God) and strengthening the brethren in the faith, as well as being the key-bearer and mouth piece of the Church, he speaks for the whole Church and has the definitive and binding final say when it comes to questions of doctrine that continually arise.

But since he has the final say, if he bound the whole church to a falsehood, the meaning of God’s revelation could be corrupted and could potentially be lost to men of future generations. But, He has promised that the Holy Spirit will not allow His revelation to be corrupted like this. Therefore, whenever the Pope makes a definitive proclamation concerning the revelation or law of God binding on the entire Church, the Holy Spirit must assure its truth.

 

[mercygate]

One point of confusion is in where infallibility applies. Papal infallibility is a sub-section of the indefectibility of the Church. So while only twice has the Pope come out with a specifically dogmatic declaration (dogma = a teaching not specifically laid out in Scripture, but following the logical progression of other doctrinal positions): once for the Immaculate Conception and again for the Assumption of Our Lady, much of what the Pope writes is “infallible” by virtue of its consistency with the ordinary Magisterium.

So, for a hot button issue, take contraception. Humanae vitae does not meet the criteria for an infallible pronouncement according to the terms of the dogma of papal infallibility, but it IS an infallible teaching, since it is the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

 

[VociMike]

I think the whole question of “how many?” is not beneficial. Can any Protestant answer how many infallible truths the bible teaches? Of course they can’t, and if they tried, no two would agree on the number. Does that mean the bible doesn’t teach any truths? Of course it doesn’t.

I think the Orthodox have a more balanced approach to the whole question. As I have been told, they don’t talk about infallible teachings, but rather about what the faith teaches to be true. That would apply to Catholicism (what the Catholic Church teaches to be true) and also to Protestantism (what the bible teaches to be true). It is the proper answer to most questions that most people have, and considerations of infalliblity are more theoretical than practical, IMO. Unless one is trying to find out the absolute minimum one must believe to be Catholic (or Christian), which must be a sure recipe for a dead faith.

 

[Genesis315]

It is also important to understand why the Council made the definition in the first place.

Vatican I is concerned primarily with the errors of Liberalism/Rationalism/Naturalism which sought to place supernatural truths, which we receive with faith, on the level of natural truths, which we receive through reason. Thus, the Liberals of the time taught that the teachings of the Church were simply natural truths which man could judge with his reason and decide whether or not they were true.

So the Council first taught about what revelation is, what faith is, and the relationship between faith and reason. It’s next task was to explain how the truth is handed down without error–due to the Franco Prussian war it was cut short and they only definied the Pope’s role (the Second Vatican Council would finish explaining this).

The point of the definition of papal infallibility was to fight the error that the judgments of the Pope were on the level of human opinion, which people could rationally disagree with in good conscience. The Council, however, condemned this idea, by asserting the dogma of papal infallibility, that is, that the judgments of the Pope are confirmations of the revelation and/or law of God, and not human opinion.

 

[Genesis315]

One point of confusion is in where infallibility applies. Papal infallibility is a sub-section of the indefectibility of the Church. So while only twice has the Pope come out with a specifically dogmatic declaration (dogma = a teaching not specifically laid out in Scripture, but following the logical progression of other doctrinal positions): once for the Immaculate Conception and again for the Assumption of Our Lady, much of what the Pope writes is “infallible” by virtue of its consistency with the ordinary Magisterium.

This is not true. I wish Catholics would please, please stop saying there are only two instances apart from his general teaching as part of the ordinary magisterium. Please read what I wrote in the two posts above–the First Vatican Council was not inventing something new or basing its definition on ONLY ONE example. Here is another dogmatic definition, for example:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B12BDEUS.HTM

There are many more.

Also note above that it is not just limited to positive dogmatic definitions, but also definitive condemnations of error and definition proclamations of tenenda.

So, for a hot button issue, take contraception. Humanae vitae does not meet the criteria for an infallible pronouncement according to the terms of the dogma of papal infallibility, but it IS an infallible teaching, since it is the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

Yes it does. It is not a dogmatic definition, but it is an definitive and binding statement concerning a doctrine of morals that must be held (tenenda) and therefore infallible.

Read this article by Fr. Brian Harrison, OP:

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

 

[lukewarm]

You can ask until you’re blue in the face and no one will ever be able to tell you how many infallible statements the Pope or the Church for that matter has made. When it is used to defend doctrine they will quote from Papal Bulls and pronouncements for evidence, but when something sticky like Limbo or the torture of heretics comes up then they will say “that wasn’t infallbily declared”. It makes no sense, how can you have infallibility but really no one can tell you what has been infallibly declared and what hasn’t been?

 

[Genesis315]

You can ask until you’re blue in the face and no one will ever be able to tell you how many infallible statements the Pope or the Church for that matter has made. When it is used to defend doctrine they will quote from Papal Bulls and pronouncements for evidence, but when something sticky like Limbo or the torture of heretics comes up then they will say “that wasn’t infallbily declared”. It makes no sense, how can you have infallibility but really no one can tell you what has been infallibly declared and what hasn’t been?

I can, it’s quite simple. If they are definitively proclaiming a timeless truth to be held or believed by the whole Church, it is infallible.

Concerning Limbo, there are dogmatic judgments by Popes and Councils that say the punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision and that grace is required for the beatific vision, but there is no definitive judgment as to whether or not God grants that grace apart from Baptism to infants.

As for the torture of heretics, those are part of civil or ecclesiastical law, or statements binding only some parts of the Church (certain nations, etc.).

 

[mercygate]

This is not true. I wish Catholics would please, please stop saying there are only two instances apart from his general teaching as part of the ordinary magisterium. Please read what I wrote in the two posts above–the First Vatican Council was inventing something new or basing its defiinition on ONLY ONE example. Here is another dogmatic definition, for example:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B12BDEUS.HTM

There are many more.

Also note above that it is not just limited to positive dogmatic definitions, but also definitive condemnations of error and definition proclamations of tenenda.

Yes it does. It is not a dogmatic definition, but it is an definitive and binding statement concerning a doctrine of morals that must be held (tenenda) and therefore infallible.

Read this article:

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

OK. I checked the article, which states that the author is refuting the majority postion that the document Hv is not infallible although the teaching IS infallible. It seems to me that the article is trying to bolster the authority of Hv by showing that it is an *ex *Cathedra statement in order to quell the objections of those who want to wiggle around the fact that the teaching of Humanae vitae IS an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. As you know, there is a climate in the Church that if something isn’t ex Cathedra, then you can ignore it. This, of course, is not true.

 

[quasimodo]

documents are not infallible, teachings are.

there have perhaps been only two infallible teachings (i.e. new ones) since the doctrine of PI was defined.

how many are there? … well start with the divinity of Jesus, and keep counting … impossible task really

 

[misslollipops]

Is there a phone number to call or an official website to determine the infallible statements?

I would say that everything in Canon law and the Catechism and all papal bulls are infallible. But what do I know?

 

[mercygate]

Is there a phone number to call or an official website to determine the infallible statements?

I would say that everything in Canon law and the Catechism and all papal bulls are infallible. But what do I know?

I think if you look up thread, you will see that this is a larger concept than “what is infallible” – it pertains to the entire fabric of the faith, and as Genesis315 has shown, the specific teaching on Papal infallibility has a specific historical context and addressed a specific climate in the Church at the time.

In fact, the very same issues that prompted the promulgation of papal infallibility sparked the publication (around 1912, if memory serves) of The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith: the ‘constitution’ of Fundamentalist Christianity that asserts the truth of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection. Ascension and Second Coming.

 

[thessalonian]

I think there is too much emphasis on Papal Infallibility and there should be more on Papal Primacy which is what should be applied to most papal statements.

 

[mercygate]

I think there is too much emphasis on Papal Infallibility and there should be more on Papal Primacy which is what should be applied to most papal statements.

Papal infallibility is less about Papal anything – especially primacy – than it is about the indefectibility of the Church.

 

[lukewarm]

I can, it’s quite simple. If they are definitively proclaiming a timeless truth to be held or believed by the whole Church, it is infallible.

You write that like there isn’t a million and one different ideas as to what the “timeless truths to be held and believed by the whole Church” are… I mean isn’t that what infallibility is for, to determine what the “timeless truths” are? So that takes us full circle, what is infallible in the Catholic Church and what isn’t?

 

[thessalonian]

Papal infallibility is less about Papal anything – especially primacy – than it is about the indefectibility of the Church.

I didn’t say Papal Infallibility was about Papal Primacy or vice versa. My point is that most papal statements fall under papal primacy rather than infallibility and are therefore still quite authoritative.

 

[dcdurel]

Is there a phone number to call or an official website to determine the infallible statements?

I would say that everything in Canon law and the Catechism and all papal bulls are infallible. But what do I know?

Anything the Church teaches is infallible. For the Church can never be in error in her teachings, since Jesus is with the Church always, and sent the Spirit of truth to be always with the Church.

How do we know what the Church teaches?
Church teaching is most easily determined by what the Popes teach for all Christians, on faith or morals, when they teach as Pope and not as private theologians.
Thus, the teachings in encyclicals, Papal bulls, etc. are infallible teachings, but not the encyclical itself, or the Papal bull itself.

Church teachings are also what the Popes authorize, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catechism. Thus the Church teachings in these Catechisms are without error.
Canonl law is not specifically a teaching, it is more a matter of discipline. But, since the discipline is based more or less on teachings, we could say that the overall direction is the result of infallible teachings.

All these teachings were originally handed down in Tradition, as the teachng of the apostles, who learned from Jesus. Since they came from Jesus, they are infallible. At first, there was no need for the Popes to formally define teachings, since everyone learned from the apostles and were in agreement. But, as time went on, Catholics rebelled against the various teachings for various reasons of pride, and the Popes have had to define and put in writing the true teachings handed down in Tradition. This Tradition the apostles handed down was simply the Catholic faith, centered on the Good News that Jesus came to liberate us from everything that oppresses us, especially from sin. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have been trying over and over to focus on this aspect of salvation, that Jesus came to liberate us from our strong inclination to sin. Everything the Church teaches and does, from the sacraments, to the commandments, to prayer, to worship are centered on freeing us from the slavery to sin.