Apologetics for the Masses #502 - What the Heck is Papal Indefectibility? (Dave's Response)

Bible Christian Society

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

Dave Armstrong's response to my last newsletter on "papal indefectibility". 

General Comments

Hey folks,

Two things:

1) One more plug for Kondracki Investments, that I mentioned a few months back, for any of you looking for help with your investment portfolios, retirement plans, etc.  Kondracki is run by a couple of solid Catholic guys. Their investment strategy is one of long term growth with lower volatility and they do not invest in anything that is morally objectionable. They've just signed up with a diocese to do a faith-based financial planning and investments presentation for all the priests of that diocese. They also have a presentation called "Faith, Family, and Finance" that could be presented at a parish.  So, if you're a parish priest, you might want to think about bringing them in to make a presentation.  I moved my retirement account over to them and, so far so good. 

Just always trying to promote good Catholic businesses and to give Catholics solid Catholic alternatives for living their lives - both from the spiritual and the material sides of things.

2) I just found out last week that you can get my Blue Collar Apologetics television series that I did for EWTN a few years back, without having to purchase the DVDs.  The twelve 30-minute episodes are all available, for free, online at the link below.  These episodes are, essentially, video presentations of several of the chapters in my first book.  The easy online access allows you to use them as the basis for apologetics discussion groups at a parish, for Bible studies, for youth groups, for RCIA/OCIA, etc.  If you want to introduce folks to apologetics, or help people better understand Catholic teaching on topics such as the Rapture, the Eucharist, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Mary, the Pope, etc., tell them to check out these videos.  Or, if you get into discussions on these topics with Protestants on Facebook, YouTube, via email, and so on...send them links to the specific videos. 

Here's the link:

https://ondemand-origin.futuresoft.com/Home/Series/catalog/video/en/blue-collar-apologetics

Given that these are now online, I'll soon no longer be offering the DVDs on my website.

Introduction

In last week's newsletter I revisited the topic of "papal indefectibility" that I had talked about in another newsletter several months back.  And, as I did the first time, I used a Facebook post of Dave Armstrong's as a jumping off point for my discussion.  Well, ol' Dave didn't like that much and his response came fast and furious. ("Fast and furious" - sounds like a good name for a movie.)  Anyway, so Dave wrote an article accusing me of misrepresenting him and also that I was leading people astray with false teachings (arguably calling me a heretic), and so on.   

Given that, I thought I would respond to the essence of what he said by making a few observations.  Here's the link to his article below if you want to read the whole thing: 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2025/01/john-martignoni-what-the-heck-is-papal-indefectibility.html   

Challenge/Response/Strategy

My Observations Regarding Dave Armstrong's (aka Doctrinal Dave) Article Responding to Newsletter #501
1) Dave claimed I misrepresented what he believes in regard to papal indefectibility.  Guess what? He is correct on that one.  It turns out, Dave actually believes what I believe - that the Pope can 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.  So, in his article, apparently unbeknownst to him, Dave was saying that I was right.  Dave was agreeing that "papal indefectibility" does not teach that the Pope cannot, in a lesser capacity (outside of the Chair of Peter), hold and/or teach error in faith or morals.  I appreciate him agreeing with me.

Although, I think it bears mentioning, that if Dave had simply answered my questions on this particular topic when I first engaged with him on Facebook last year, then I would not have been given - by him - a false impression of what exactly he believes in regard to "papal indefectibility".  Plus, it may have spared my having to spend hours upon hours with my therapist to get over all the mean, uncharitable, slanderous, and - dare I say - calumnious things he and his "friends" on Facebook said about me after he blocked me from his account (I am, after all, a very sensitive guy). 

2) Dave claimed I was leading my readers astray.  Yet, he never said exactly how I was doing that.  Long on generalities, short on specifics.  Plus, since he agrees with what I was saying, exactly how was it I was leading my readers "astray"?

3) In his article, Armstrong claims that the teaching on papal indefectibility was "dogmatized" at Vatican Council I.  This was apparently done in
Chapter 4, of Session IV, of Vatican Council I.  However, Chapter 4 of Session IV is titled: "On the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff", not: "On the Indefectible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff".  So, he believes "papal indefectibility" was dogmatized in Vatican Council I's writings in the chapter on "papal infallibility"?  Sorry, but I have to disagree with him on that.  I don't see any definitive language in that chapter regarding "papal indefectibility" - or any language at all regarding "papal indefectibility" or the "indefectibility of the Pope" or any such thing.  I mean, look at the language below defining the dogma of papal infallibility from Chapter 4 of Session IV, and then look at the language that Armstrong claims defined the dogma of papal indefectibility from that same chapter:

Dogma of Papal Infallibility: "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”  (Vatican Council I, Session IV, Chapter 4)

Supposed Dogma of Papal Indefectibility:
"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)

Notice any difference in the language?  Oh yeah!  There is no definition of a dogma of papal indefectibility here.  Not even a mention of the word "indefectible".  Plus, as I stated in my previous newsletter, this supposed dogmatic language which Armstrong believes to supposedly be referring to "papal indefectibility", seems to me, in context, to instead be referring to the dogma of papal infallibility. 

Also, one of the theologians that Armstrong refers to, and defers to, quite often on this subject of "papal indefectibility," has stated that he does not believe Vatican I "defined" papal indefectibility.  So, if Vatican I didn't "define" it, then Vatican I didn't dogmatize it, so there is a conflict between Armstrong and one of his "good friends" on this particular point.  Which leads to my 4th Observation below...

4) Other than one or two sentences from Chapter 4, of Session IV, of Vatican Council I (as given above), Armstrong offers nothing in his article from any magisterial source on this supposed "dogma" of "papal indefectibility".  And, as I've pointed out above, as well as in my last newsletter, that passage cited from Vatican I is not close to being a definitive Church teaching in regard to "papal indefectibility." Yet, he claims in his article to be giving authoritative Church teaching on the subject.  He states: "I will be documenting the fact that this doctrine is indeed taught by the Church."  But he does nothing of the sort.  He offers his opinions, and the opinions of one Emmett O'Regan, who, it turns out, is a PhD candidate.  Nothing personal against Emmett O'Regan, but, as I'm sure he himself would agree, his opinions cannot be classified as "Church teaching". And neither can Armstrong's. 

Armstrong does quote St. Robert Bellarmine - one of my personal favorites - but the particular quote he cites gives no definitive teaching on "papal indefectibility".  And, even if he had numerous quotes from Bellarmine on the topic, the fact is, that St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching, even though he is a Doctor of the Church, does not, in and of itself, qualify as the teaching of the Church. 

So, again, Armstrong documented not a single magisterial teaching, or "fact," regarding "papal indefectibility".  Doctrinal Dave is, essentially, giving his fallible opinion in this matter - not the definitive teaching of the Church - and trying to claim that his opinion is indeed what the Church teaches.  And, you know what?  It just might be, but he offered no magisterial evidence to back up his claim.

5) Where Armstrong's article was indeed useful, though, was that some of the people he quoted provided a clearer picture of what he, and the theologians he references, mean by "papal indefectibility".  It's not that the Pope can't believe or teach error in matters of faith and morals in any capacity, it's that, according to them, the Pope can't teach error in matters of faith and morals whenever he is teaching from the Chair of Peter to the entire Church, even if that teaching is not infallibly proclaimed.  He can't do so, according to this view, because the Pope's "ordinary" magisterium is binding on the faithful, even if not taught infallibly.  So, for instance, the Pope's letter on the "blessing" of same-sex couples - Fiducia Supplicans - since it comes from the Pope and was promulgated to the entire Church, it is, therefore, protected from containing any error in regard to faith and morals per the "dogma" of papal indefectibility, and it is indeed binding on the faithful...even though it was not infallibly proclaimed.  

This, if I am understanding things correctly, is the demarcation point between those who defend the current Pope against charges of promoting heresy and false teaching and such, and those who make such charges.  Everyone on both sides agrees that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra, cannot teach error in the areas of faith and morals.  Everyone agrees that the Pope cannot "bind" the faithful to believe in error.  However, can the Pope, even when speaking in his official function as the head of the Church, teach error in his non-ex cathedra statements - papal letters, press conferences, and such?  Yes or no?  And, are non-ex cathedra doctrinal or moral teachings from the Pope, acting in his official capacity, automatically binding on the faithful? Those who are charging the current Pope with teaching error say, "Yes, he can" and "No, they aren't".  Those, such as Doctrinal Dave, who are all about "papal indefectibility," say, "No, he can't" and "Yes, they are". 

Can he or can't he?  Does "papal indefectibility" preclude the Pope from teaching error...any error...in faith or morals, in his official capacity as Universal Pastor of the Church, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra?  Well, what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?  It doesn't.  As I stated in my last newsletter, the Catechism doesn't mention "papal indefectibility".  Neither do the documents of Vatican II.  Neither does the Catholic Encyclopedia.  Neither does Denzinger's, Sources of Catholic Dogma.  Neither does Ludwig Ott's, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  Neither does Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Dictionary or Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine.  Neither does Catholic Answers' website.  Neither do any of several other places I looked. I can't find the phrase "papal indefectibility" in any magisterial teaching.  Of course, I haven't searched every single document that has come out from the Magisterium, so it might be there somewhere, but I can't find it.

So, if Vatican Council I did indeed "dogmatize" a teaching on "papal indefectibility," along the lines of what Armstrong believes, folks sure are keeping it a closely guarded secret.

Now, the fact that I can't find a magisterial document that gives clear direction in regard to the supposed "dogma" of "papal indefectibility", doesn't mean that the Church doesn't teach exactly what Armstrong and others claim it teaches on this topic.  It just might.  All I'm saying is that one shouldn't take others to task - claiming that they are "arguably" heretics or that they are leading people "astray" or teaching "damnable lies" - for not accepting as "dogma" a teaching that one cannot verify - using magisterial documents or other authoritative sources - is indeed a dogma. I mean, if you have to use the opinions of a doctoral candidate in Theology - no matter how brilliant he or she may be - as evidence for your claims in regard to magisterial teaching, then what does that say about your claims?

6) So, basically, as I see it, this whole thing on "papal indefectibility" comes down to 3 questions:

a) Can the Pope teach error in faith or morals when he is teaching as head of the Church, even when it is not an ex cathedra (aka infallible) teaching?  Yes or no?  (Or, another way of considering it, is the Pope's teaching as head of the Church - his ordinary magisterium - automatically binding on the faithful even if it isn't taught infallibly?)

A specific question to consider, in this regard, is this: When Peter withdrew from contact with the Gentile Christians because of pressure from the Jewish Christians known as the Judaizers, as mentioned in Scripture (Galatians 2:11-16), was Peter teaching error - by deed if not also by word - as the head of the Church?  By his actions, if not also possibly his words, Peter was, essentially, teaching that the Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised and to keep the Mosaic Law, and his actions negatively influenced other Jewish Christians in his company and were probably devastating to the Gentile Christians thus impacted.  Paul says that Peter stood "condemned" (v. 11) and that he was not "straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (v. 14).  And, Peter obviously did not "strengthen [his] brethren" in accord with Jesus' prayer for him at the Last Supper (Luke 22:31-32).  So, does standing "condemned" and not being "straightforward about the truth of the gospel" and the fact that he did not "strengthen [his] brethren" in that instance, go against the supposed dogma of "papal indefectibility"?  If not, why not?

b) Has this Pope definitively taught error in faith or morals in his teachings from the Chair of Peter?  Yes or no?

Two specific questions to consider in this regard:

1) Did Pope Francis teach error as head of the Church when he caused the Catechism to be re-worded in regard to the death penalty?  The Church had always taught that the death penalty was a moral punishment that the state could impose in response to certain serious crimes.  However, in the revision of the Catechism by Francis, the Catechism now states that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" (Paragarph #2267).  Well, if the death penalty is indeed "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" today, then it would follow that it has always been so.  Which means, if the death penalty is wrong, or immoral, today, then it has always been immoral. Yet, under Pope John Paul II, the Catechism said, "...the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty..."  So, is Francis' teaching in #2267 of the Catechism contradicting the teaching of John Paull II?  Is it contradicting the "traditional teaching" of the Church in this regard?  If not, why not?  If it is, does that not contradict the "dogma" of "papal indefectibility"?  If not, why not?

2) Did Francis teach error when he published Fiducia Supplicans in regard to the "pastoral" blessings of same-sex "couples"?  Any number of bishops, bishops' conferences, and even entire Eastern Rites of the Church rejected Fiducia Supplicans.  Do these rejections indicate error on the part of the Pope's teaching on this subject?  If not, why not?  Do these rejections demonstrate that the Pope's ordinary magisterium - his non-infallible teachings - is not binding on the faithful?  If not, why not?  And, if not, do they indicate that these bishops, bishops' conferences, and Eastern Rite churches have rejected the "dogma" of "papal indefectibility"?  If not, why not?

c) If the "dogma" of "papal indefectibility" was indeed proclaimed in Chapter 4, Session IV, of Vatican Council I; and the "dogma" of "papal indefectibility" teaches that the Pope cannot teach binding error in faith and morals in his role as head of the Church, even if he is not teaching infallibily (ex cathedra), then why - after supposedly defining this "dogma" of "papal indefectibility" - did the Fathers of Vatican I define the dogma of papal infallibility in the next couple of paragraphs?  Why do you need papal infallibility (extraordinary magisterium) - the Pope cannot teach binding error, as head of the Church, to the entire Church, in matters of faith and morals - if you have papal indefectibility - the Pope cannot teach binding error, as head of the Church, to the entire Church, in matters of faith and morals, even if he isn't teaching infallibly (ordinary magisterium)?  Isn't the teaching on papal infallibility rendered redundant by the supposed "dogma" of "papal indefectibility"?  If not, why not?

There are a few other questions along these lines that could be asked, but these suffice for my purposes here.

7) Now, lest anyone accuse me of denying the "dogma" of "papal indefectibility," and arguably calling me a heretic, or a "reactionary" or some other useless and derogatory remark, let me state for the record that my mind is open on the question of "papal indefectibility" and on all of the questions that I just asked in #6 above.  The thing is, though, I'm not looking for anyone's opinions on what "papal indefectibility" is and whether or not it is a dogma and what the correct answers to the above questions are.  I am looking for the teaching of the Church as found in magisterial documents.  If you can't give me magisterial documents that teach and explain the "dogma" of "papal indefectibility"...guess what?  Don't wanna hear from ya. 

Okay, I think that's enough on papal indefectibility for now, even if Armstrong replies to this newsletter...which I have no doubt that he will.  So, next newsletter I plan to turn to the question: Is baptism necessary for salvation?  This will be in response to some arguments found on a Facebook page called, "Advanced Apologetics". 

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!  Please pray for the Bible Christian Society...we continually pray for you!

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







 

Apologetics for the Masses