Apologetics for the Masses #501 - What the Heck is Papal Indefectibility?

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Papal Indefectibility? Can a Pope Be a Heretic? Can he ever teach/believe error...in any capacity?

General Comments

In last week's newsletter, I quoted someone who said that since he was divorced, and didn't have an annulment, he couldn't receive Communion. I had a couple of people email and ask if they were not allowed to receive Communion in the Church because they were divorced, even though they were not remarried. In my answer in the newsletter, I mentioned that the guy who asked the question was in a second marriage, which is why he could not receive Communion - since he had no annulment of the 1st marriage. Apparently some folks didn't pick up on that.

So, let me state clearly, that simply being divorced is not an impediment to receiving Communion in the Catholic Church. If, however, you are divorced and remarried, with no annulment, and living as husband and wife (i.e., engaging in the marital act), then you should not be receiving Communion as you are, essentially, living in a state of adultery.

Introduction

Back in January and February, I did a 4-part series in this newsletter on Pope Francis, Bishop Strickland, Papal Indefectibility, Fiducia Supplicans - Pope Francis' letter on the supposed "blessing" of same-sex couples - and Dave Armstrong. It was "inspired" by a Facebook posting of Dave Armstrong where he slammed Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke (see Issues #466-469). In particular, his post compared Bishop Strickland to Martin Luther vis-a-vis Martin Luther's rejection of Papal authority, except that he said Martin Luther was more honest about it than Bishop Strickland was.

Anyway, in Issue #469, I focused on the topic of "papal indefectibility" - Apologetics for the Masses #469 - because that was one of the big issues that Armstrong had with Strickland and Burke - that they were "quite arguably" rejecting the "doctrine of papal indefectibility" that Armstrong says was "proclaimed at Vatican Council I".

Well, on my "John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society" Facebook page, I recently had someone post the following: "There are certain apologists online accusing certain bishops and cardinals of being heretics for not holding to papal indefectibility. But in my understanding there is no such thing, only the limits of papal infallibility?" (Huh...ya think she might be referring to Dave Armstrong?) Anyway, basically, this person is saying that, as she understands it, there is no such thing as a doctrine of papal indefectibility. So, I thought I would re-visit this doctrine of "papal indefectibility" that Armstrong claims was proclaimed at Vatican Council I and see if it really is a "thing". I'll start below with part of what I said in Issue #469 and go from there...

{Note: Before I get into this I want to say, as I have before, that I am not a theologian and have never claimed to be. So, even though I am fairly well versed in Catholic teaching, and have a number of Catholic resources available to me that I regularly consult, I do not claim that I know all there is to know about the Catholic Faith. So, if I say something below that is somehow found to be contrary to any teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the topic being discussed, then I renounce what I say and defer to the teaching of the Church. You'll understand why I'm saying that as you get into the newsletter.}

Challenge/Response/Strategy

First, A Little Background
What got this whole ball rolling with Dave Armstrong - was a couple of posts on Dave's Facebook page. One of them said the following:

"What is the difference between Bishop Strickland and Martin Luther? The first claims to acknowledge papal authority but then rejects it at his convenience; the second is honest and not conflicted about rejecting papal authority."

In another one he said this, referring to an article about Bp. Strickland that he had written:

"Bishop Strickland: The Writing Was on the Wall
I quickly found three more outrageous examples of damnable lies on Bp. Strickland's Twitter page.
Follow the link in the previous Facebook post.
These are but three examples of Bp. Strickland's alarming errors..."

What was one of those 3 "damnable lies" of Bp. Strickland? Well, it was sending out a tweet agreeing with a tweet from Cdl. Burke. Cdl. Burke's tweet said this: "If your bishop, or the supreme pastor of the Church, is affirming things not in accord with Sacred Tradition/the deposit of the faith, that can’t command your obedience. You can’t command obedience to do something against faith & morals."

Dave said in his article that Bp. Strickland's tweet, "Quite arguably is a rejection -- or very close to it -- of the doctrine of papal indefectibility, which was proclaimed at Vatican I (One) in 1870."

So What's The Problem?
Okay, Armstrong claimed that Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke were, "quite arguably," rejecting the doctrine of papal indefectibility. In essence, he was, "quite arguably," inferring that they are heretics. When I first started to get into this topic in Issue #466, I wrote this: "This phrase, 'papal indefectibility,' that Armstrong uses, is not something I've seen commonly used. I've always seen the word 'indefectibility' used in regard to the Church as a whole. The indefectibility of the Church has, essentially, a twofold meaning: 1) That the Church will be here until the end of time, and 2) That the teachings of the Church will never change. So, I'm assuming that by the phrase 'papal indefectibility', Armstrong means, in this context, that the papacy will never fail and that the teachings by and/or about the papacy will never change."

In other words, I just took Armstrong at face value in regard to the whole "papal indefectibility" thing and I basically assumed what that phrase meant as, again, I had never really seen it before. However, when I got that post on my Facebook page - the one that I mentioned above in the "Introduction" section - I started digging a little deeper into "papal indefectibility". And guess what? I couldn't find that phrase used anywhere. I couln't find it in the Catechism. I couldn't find it on Catholic Answers website - catholic.com. I couldn't find it in the Code of Canon Law. I couldn't find it in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - which, as I understand it, was a standard textbook in the seminaries for decades. I couldn't find it in Denzinger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma. I couldn't find it in the 1918 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia that is on newadvent.org. I couldn't find it in the Documents of Vatican II. I couldn't find it in Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Dictionary, edited by Fr. Peter Stravinskas. I couldn't find it in any of the 3 volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers. And, I couldn't find it in Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, edited by Russell Shaw. I couldn't find it anywhere. If "papal indefectibility" is indeed a "thing," it is one that seems to be rarely mentioned, outside of the discussions of a few theologians...and Dave Armstrong.

I did, however, find papal "infallibility" mentioned in all of those places, and I found the indefectibility of the Church mentioned in several of those sources, but not once did I see anything on the "indefectibility" of the pope. So, I went back and read over what Armstrong had written. And, essentially, he is saying, as best as I can discern - since he wouldn't answer my questions in that initial Facebook conversation we had - that this "doctrine of papal indefectibility" means the Pope cannot teach error in the areas of faith and morals, even if he is not speaking from the Chair of Peter to the entire Church - i.e., even if he is not speaking infallibly. He cannot teach, or even believe, any error in the realm of faith and morals, even as a private theologian or just as a private person.

Armstrong is basing his belief on a passage from Vatican Council I, which states: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that ***this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error***, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Vatican Council I, Session IV, Chapter 4)

I, however, have always understood that the Pope could indeed believe and teach error in faith or morals, just not from the Chair of Peter, to the entire Church, as a matter of binding belief upon the faithful - the Holy Spirit would prevent him from doing that (thus, the dogma of infallibility). So, here are my issues with Armstrong's contention that "papal indefectibility" prevents the Pope from teaching error in faith and morals, even in a private capacity, or even believing in error in either of those areas:

1) The passage Armstrong cites above, from Vatican I, that the "See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error," in context, appears to be referring to the office of the Pope, not necessarily to the Pope as a private individual. I say that because this passage mentions that "all the venerable Fathers" have believed that the "See of Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error". Yet, the "venerable Fathers" of the ecumenical Council of Constantinople III (680-681 A.D.) condemned Pope Honorius I as a heretic. Even though it has since been argued that Honorius wasn't actually a heretic, the fact of the matter is that the 3rd Council of Constantinople obviously didn't believe that the Pope, as an individual, couldn't believe in error. So, whether he actually was, or was not, a heretic, is not the point. The point is, an ecumenical council of the Church thought he was a heretic. Which means the verbiage from Vatican I, in context, appears to me to be referring to the Pope in his official capacity of Universal Pastor when teaching the entire Church in the area of faith and morals, and not simply in a private capacity.

2) Chapter 4, of Session IV, of Vatican Council I, from which that passage was quoted, is, again, in context, talking about papal infallibility, not papal indefectibility. The title of Chapter 4, in the documents, is: "On the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff".

3) In the passage quoted by Armstrong from Vatican I, it says: "...this See of Saint Peter..." and then in the very next paragraph in the document it says: "So this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer this high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error..." Again, in context, it appears to be referring to the Pope in his capacity as universal pastor to the "entire flock of Christ".

4) Then, in the next two paragraphs, the dogma of papal infallibility is defined. At the beginning of the definition of the dogma, Vatican Council I says this: "We deem it most necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the Only-begotten Son of God deigned to enjoin with the highest pastoral office." So, going back to the statement regarding the "See of Saint Peter" remaining free from "all blemish of error," it appears, once again, in context, to be referring to the Pope when acting in his official capacity as the holder of the office...as universal pastor of the Church...when teaching the entire Church. It does not appear to be saying that the Pope cannot, in a lesser capacity, hold and/or teach error in faith or morals.

5) Why make a dogmatic definition in regard to the Pope teaching infallibly under certain strict conditions - 1) When teaching from the Chair of Peter, 2) To the entire Church, 3) On a binding matter pertaining to faith and morals - if you have just affirmed that the Pope can never teach, or even believe, error in faith or morals? If you've already taught that the Pope can't teach, or even believe in, error, then doesn't that make the dogma of infallibility redundant...superfluous...even unnecessary? If you've already said that the Pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals in any capacity, then why do you need a dogmatic definition saying that he teaches infallibly - without any error whatsoever - only under these certain conditions? What does that add to what you just taught two paragraphs ago? Doesn't make sense to me.

6) In one of the most famous episodes of the New Testament, and one which is oft quoted by Protestants to try and throw cold water on the dogma of papal infallibility, Paul confronted Peter over Peter's withdrawal from interacting with Gentiles. We see this in Galatians 2:11-16. Peter pulled back from the Gentiles because of the Judaizers - Jewish Christians who were promulgating the belief that the Gentile Christians had to maintain the practice of circumcision and keep the Mosaic Law in order to be fully Christian. So, this was a doctrinal matter - a doctrinal matter which eventually resulted in the Council of Jerusalem being called. Furthermore, Peter's decision caused the rest of the Jewish Christians who had been interacting with Gentiles to follow his example. They, too, pulled back from the Gentile Christians. Paul says in Galatians, verse 14, "But when I saw that they {Peter and the other Jews} were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all...," and he called out Peter for his bad behavior.

So, Peter was not, in this instance, according to Paul, being straightforward about "the truth of the gospel". And, Peter's decision affected the behavior, and possibly the beliefs, of other Christians. This was not merely a matter of discipline, but also a matter of doctrine - did the Gentile Christians have to obey and follow the precepts of the Mosaic Law and the practice of circumcision...yes or no? By his actions, Peter seems to be implying that the anwer to that question is, "Yes, they do." In other words, we have an instance, in Scripture, of our 1st Pope, possibly committing error in regard to a matter of faith. He was not being "straightforward about the truth of the gospel," as Paul put it. Now, Peter didn't teach, nor try to bind, doctrinal error on this matter to the entire Church as head of the Church, so the dogma of infallibility does not apply here. But it seems to me that this doctrine of papal indefectibility, as Armstrong defines it, might be applicable here - in a way that runs contrary to Armstrong's understanding of it. Peter seems to have, at least by his actions, taught that the Gentile Christians had to follow the Mosaic Law, whether he actually believed that or not.

It seems then, that when Vatican I quotes from Luke 22:31-32, about Jesus praying for Peter that his "faith may not fail" and for him to "confirm his brethren," that it cannot be interpreted to mean that the Pope will never personally err in a matter of faith and morals, because this instance of Peter drawing back from the Gentiles, is an example of him failing to "confirm his brethren". And not only did he not "confirm" his brethren, but he led them astray. So, if you're using that Scripture passage to argue that the Pope can never err in a matter of faith and morals...that he can never err in "confirm[ing] his brethren"...then you've got some 'splaining to do in regard to Galatians 2:11-16. Which means that Luke 22:31-32 appears to be referring to Peter in his role as head of the Church when teaching the entire Church.

Now, I have always believed that Peter simply fell prey to the human error of bowing to the pressure of those loudly clamoring for what was wrong. He made a bad judgment. Plus, this particular matter had not been definitively decided at that time. Nevertheless, others were affected by what Peter did. Others were given a wrong impression - i.e., taught incorrectly - by Peter's example. Again, we have no record of Peter ever saying to the Judaizers, "You know, by golly, you're right. The Gentiles do need to be circumcised and they do need to eat kosher and they do need to follow the rest of the Mosaic Law". So, we don't know that Peter did indeed believe the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and such. Plus, Peter was the one, at the Council of Jerusalem, who eventually decided the matter in favor of the Gentiles not having to keep the Mosaic Law and not having to be circumcised. But, we do have on record, that he did indeed withdraw, for a while, from keeping company with the Gentile Christians over these issues. Does that possibly throw shade on Armstrong's view of papal indefectibility?

7) Fiducia Supplicans - the papal letter on the "blessing" of same-sex "couples" - was rejected by any number of individual bishops, as well as bishops' conferences, around the world. It was rejected by entire rites of the Catholic Church. Would that not argue against Armstrong's definition of "papal indefectibility", as it seems the Pope has taught something in that document - although not infallibly and not in a binding manner - that others have rejected as error? Or does he argue that all of those who rejected the Pope's teaching on this particular matter are rejecting the doctrine of papal indefectibility? Or what? How does one reconcile the large scale rejection of Fiducia Supplicans by bishops, bishops' conferences, and entire rites of the Church with Armstrong's understanding of papal indefectibility?

Okay, having said all of that, this is where my statement above about not being a theologian and not knowing all there is to know about the Catholic Faith comes into play. Could there be some theological nuances to the dogma of infallibility and this "doctrine of papal indefectibility" that I am not aware of or that I don't properly understand? Maybe a teaching being "free from error" and being "infallible" don't mean exactly the same thing? Maybe non-infallible isn't the same as fallible? Could Vatican I have indeed been teaching that the Pope could not teach/believe error even outside of his official capacity as the Universal Pastor of the Church? Or...who knows what else I could be missing or misunderstanding?! Absolutely!

Which is why I say that if anything I have said here turns out to be contrary to the teachings of the Church, then I disavow what I have said and yield to the Church's teachings. The problem is, I can't find any "official" teaching on "papal indefectibility". And I've looked. I can find articles from non-magisterial sources - with the opinions of theologians - on the matter, but no official magisterial teachings that define for me exactly what "papal indefectibility" is and what I am to believe in that regard.

The thing is, though, while others have argued that this current Pope is a heretic and that he is teaching heresy, I have never said that. In my opinion, there is evidence that he may possibly believe a thing or two contrary to Church teaching - for example, allowing the statue of a pagan goddess to be paraded around the Vatican, issuing a letter which supposedly allows for the "blessing" of same-sex "couples," the whole Synod on Synodality disaster in regard to the nature of authority within the Church, allowing admittedly same-sex attracted men to be considered for the priesthood, saying that we can imagine there is no one in Hell - but he has never, to my knowledge, said or written anything that I would say is out-and-out heretical. He's never gone over the edge. And, since I cannot get inside the man's head, nor can I judge his heart, then I will not join the "he's a heretic" crowd.

All of which is to say, that whether or not the Church teaches "papal indefectibility," as it is promulgated by Dave Armstrong and others - that the Pope cannot teach, much less even believe, anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, even outside of his official capacity as Universal Pastor of the Church and outside of the teaching on papal infallibility - is pretty much a moot point for me. I have seen no definitive proof for the assertion that the current Pope is a heretic, therefore, I give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. And, if the Church teaches that under no circumstances this Pope, or any Pope, could be a heretic...I believe it. If the Church doesn't teach it...I don't believe it.

This is a teaching, unlike papal infallibility, that doesn't really impact my faith journey one way or the other. As I said, I had never even heard the phrase "papal indefectibility" until I got involved in that discussion with Armstrong. So, whether the Church teaches the Pope can or cannot believe in and teach error in matters of faith and morals, even privately, is not something I am going to lose any sleep over. Again, if the Church teaches it...I believe it. If the Church doesn't teach it...I don't believe it.

Folks, don't get caught up in all of this back and forth about whether or not the Pope is a heretic. It's a waste of time. Just know, that according to the dogma of papal infallibility, the Pope can never teach error as the head of the Church, to the entire Church, on a matter of faith and morals. 'Nuff said...

Closing Comments

I hope you've enjoyed this newsletter. And, I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter