Papal Infallibility: Reply to Lutheran Jordan Cooper

Including Documentation of Popes’ Massive Consultation with Bishops and Others Before Declaring Dogmas, and Particulars of the Voting at Vatican I

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 18th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page. Thus far, he hasn’t responded to any of my critiques, for reasons that he explained on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024:

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my material. I also appreciate not being called “anti-Catholic,” as I am not. Unfortunately, it is just a matter of time that I am unable to interact with the many lengthy pieces you have put together. With teaching, writing, running a publishing house, podcasting, working at a seminary, and doing campus ministry, I have to prioritize, which often means not doing things that would be very much worthwhile simply for lack of time.

I appreciate the explanation and nevertheless sincerely hope that Dr. Cooper does have more time and desire to dialogue with me in the future. I think we could have some good and constructive — and civil – discussions. In the meantime, I will continue to try to write what he regards as “thoughtful” and “worthwhile” responses.

***

I am replying to Jordan’s video, “Papal Infallibility at Vatican I” (8-3-24). See my Facebook post on his introductory remarks regarding Catholic converts.

2:04 I would like to do something that is a little bit more in depth on the issue of of the papacy.

Good!

5:19  Rome really I think does stand or fall with this issue.

It’s certainly central, I agree, just as Protestantism stands or falls on sola Scriptura and sola fide (Bible Alone and Faith Alone): its two “pillars.”

5:32  if we’re really wrestling with Rome and the claims that Rome makes . . . if the pope really is the Vicar of Christ; if Jesus really did set him up as the head of the church then I’ll submit to him; I should, right? And and you should as well.

I couldn’t agree more!

6:44  I’ve looked at a number of sources . . . that I’m working my way through . . . some of them are those that are defenses of papal infallibility, others are critiques of papal infallibility and the critiques come from both Protestants as well as some of those within Rome or who left Rome to form the Old Catholic Church, so I’m trying to get a wide range of texts that are dealing with these questions.

I did exactly the same in 1990 (because this was my biggest objection to Rome; I despised infallibility), examining the excommunicated Dollinger’s objection to papal infallibility, George Salmon’s critiques, and Hans Kung’s, among others. Then I read St. Cardinal Newman on the other side and some other related materials. Perhaps Dr. Cooper will be willing to read some of my many articles devoted to the issue as well.

7:27 what I’m really trying to hone in on for this particular series is what were the actual claims that were being made at Vatican 1 and what were the arguments that were being produced at that time, because something that I have found within a lot of Roman Catholic apologetics is that the arguments made by apologists today seem to be significantly different in some areas than the arguments that were actually being made when certain things were declared Dogma.

There is more than one approach to anything. I concentrate on biblical proofs for infallibility (including massive corroboration from Protestant Bible scholars in various ways). But I’ve also gone into great depth regarding the historical arguments pro and con.

30:04 [Pope Pius IX] releases this document and this document is really essential for the dogma of papal infallibility, and that is Ineffabilis Deus in 1854. It is here that Pius IXth declares that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother is a dogma . . . Pius IX is really using the dogma of infallibility in his action here, even before that particular dogma has yet been ratified at any council at all.  You don’t really find anything like Ineffabilis Deus prior to this time. Popes certainly condemn people and condemn ideas but you don’t have such a direct declaration of a single pope outside of a council making such a clear dogmatic decree.

I don’t know how he can make that claim, when Protestants themselves are quite fond of bringing up Unam Sanctam: a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII from November 18, 1302. He starts by writing:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].

And it ends like this:

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is almost precisely exactly what Jordan claimed no pope had stated before 1854, but here it is, 552 years earlier; 28 years after the previous council (2nd Lyons) and nine years before the next one (Vienne). Protestant apologists who critique our doctrine of “no salvation outside of the Church” — which is massively misunderstood, by the way — cite this document all the time. Jordan himself is certainly familiar with it. I again addressed these arguments six months ago, in replies to Jordan’s friend and fellow YouTube apologist, the Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund:

Catholicism & Non-Catholic Salvation (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views [2-9-24]

But Jordan also does well, I think, and is fair-minded in acknowledging that Pope Blessed Pius IX didn’t act alone at all; that in fact he massively consulted the world’s bishops before issuing his declaration (it was simply done informally, outside of an ecumenical council):

29:34 he writes Ubi Primum in 1849 where he is requesting responses from a a variety of bishops regarding certain some of these debated questions about about Mary . . . he’s relying on those bishops who are experts within theological fields, to get some input from them about this. and then he releases this document and this document is really essential for the dogma of papal infallibility. . . . to be clear he does come to this conclusion through the consultation of a variety of bishops, so he’s not just bringing this up out of nowhere.

Exactly! Protestant critics (I speak generally and more broadly now) can’t have it both ways: on the one hand claim that the pope is an autocrat who acts absolutely alone, like some sort of Christian dictator, and complain loudly about that, but then turn around and note (or be informed of) the actual fact that he always works in these sublime doctrinal matters with the bishops: particularly but not exclusively in ecumenical councils. And so we see this in Ubi Primum:

3. Moreover, Venerable Brethren, many of you have sent letters to Our Predecessor and to Us begging, with repeated insistence and redoubled enthusiasm, that We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.

Nor do we lack today eminent theologians — men of intellectual brilliance, of virtue, of holiness and sound doctrine — who have so effectively explained this doctrine and so impressively expounded this proposition that many persons are now wondering why this honor has not already been accorded to the Blessed Virgin by the Church and the Apostolic See — an honor which the widespread piety of the Christian people so fervently desires to have accorded to the Most Holy Virgin by a solemn decree and by the authority of the Church and the Holy See.

4. Welcome indeed have such requests been to Us. They have filled Us with joy.. . .

5. . . . Accordingly, We have appointed certain priests of recognized piety and theological learning, as well as several cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are renowned because of their ability, piety, wisdom, prudence, and knowledge of the things of God; and We have directed them to make, carefully and thoroughly, a most diligent examination into this most important matter and then provide Us with a complete report. Through such a procedure, We feel that We are following in the clearly marked footsteps of Our Predecessors and that We are emulating their example.

6. Wherefore, Venerable Brethren, We sent you this communication that We may effectively encourage your admirable devotion and your pastoral zeal and thus bring it about that each of you, in such manner as you will see fit, will arrange to have public prayers offered in your diocese for this intention: that the most merciful Father of all knowledge will deign to enlighten Us with the heavenly light of His Holy Spirit, so that in a matter of such moment We may proceed to do what will redound to the greater glory of His Holy Name, to the honor of the most Blessed Virgin, and to the profit of the Church Militant.

We eagerly desire, furthermore, that, as soon as possible, you apprise Us concerning the devotion which animates your clergy and your people regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and how ardently glows the desire that this doctrine be defined by the Apostolic See. And especially, Venerable Brethren, We wish to know what you yourselves, in your wise judgment, think and desire on this matter.

That’s Catholic ecclesiology (and a wonderfully balanced and practical thing it is): the pope is leader and head, but it doesn’t follow that he lords it over everyone. He works closely with the community: bishops, priests, and laypeople, just as Jesus said that the greatest would be the servant, and called His disciples His “friends.” Likewise, Peter, though the leader of the early Church (as established on many biblical grounds), referred to himself as “a fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1). Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (8 December 1854), in which he defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, again highlighted this sought-after (overwhelming) consensus of the bishops:

[O]n February 2, 1849, we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. . . .

We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.

After consulting theologians Blessed Pope Pius IX consulted 603 bishops and 546 (91%) had responded affirmatively. Four or five thought it couldn’t be defined, 24 were “inopportunists” (i.e., believed that the time was not right, independently of the truth of the doctrine), and ten wanted a more indirect definition. That leaves only approximately eighteen (or 3%) who — I am assuming — opposed it altogether. So in fact he was acting quite collegially and not “autocratically” 16 years before the conciliar dogmatic definition of papal infallibility,

Ven. Pope Pius XII — following the lead of earlier popes — acted in precisely the same way when he dogmatically defined the Assumption at the highest level in 1950. According to Alan Schreck (Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1984, 180):

In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching.

That’s no “top-down dictatorship.” It’s anything but. It’s as “democratic” and “collegial” as anything to be found in Protestantism. So where’s the beef?

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

31:50 nothing has been quite so pointed in precisely this way and so he is using his own authority directly and singularly to simply say this is true and you are all bound to submit to it now.

In other words, just as Boniface VIII had done in 1302 . . . But the pope acts in harmony with prior tradition, theological speculation, and the massive consultation of bishops and others. That assuredly wasn’t the case with Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. If one wants to see how he proclaimed his truths and bound people to them on pain of hell if they refused, I would highly recommend this excerpt:

I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, . . . Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; except from pp. 248-249; see much more along these lines)

This is what I have called, semi-sarcastically, Luther’s “de facto infallibility” or his (absurdly) self-assumed status as a “super-duper pope.” Real popes, almost needless to add, don’t speak in this ultra-dogmatic, “my way or the highway” manner at all, as the above excerpts from Blessed Pope Pius IX abundantly prove. Later, I’m happy to add, his rhetoric cooled quite a bit, after the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525, and he made quite a few “traditional” statements that Catholics could wholly agree with. I compiled an entire book of those (see the Introduction).

32:18 he is exercising this pointed authority that moves beyond the way that popes have spoken in the past . . . he says “we declare, pronounce, and define”; this is unique; you don’t see this kind of language elsewhere.

No? I again remind Jordan of Unam Sanctam (cited above), where a pope wrote in 1302: “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This isn’t even as strong as what the Jerusalem Council, led by Pope Peter, declared: “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church . . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit . . .” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).

No less than St. Paul, with Timothy, then went all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). That’s binding Church authority, led by a pope, in consultation with both bishops and priests (or pastors, if one prefers: “elder” or presbuteros in Greek), right in the Bible.

33:05 his is a dogmatic declaration which usually would be something that would arise out of of the council.

Usually, but not always. The pope always had authority to act on his own. He is not obliged to always consult others, but in fact, popes usually choose to do that, too, because the community and the tradition are intrinsically intertwined with any papal decision.

Jordan starts discussing the notion of (from our perspective, heretical) conciliarism: the idea that ecumenical councils were more authoritative than popes. This has never been Catholic teaching, or practice on any magisterial level. I have written about it several times. The following three articles from twenty years ago were in response to a very zealous Presbyterian apologist named Tim Enloe (no longer active online) who was very “big” on conciliarism as a supposed disproof of Catholic ecclesiology:

Pius intervened decisively to alter the procedure of the council on February 20, 1870, and again on April 29. The outcome was to postpone all deliberation except that upon infallibility. The decisive vote came on July 13 when 451 voted for it, 88 against it, and 62 in favour of some amendment. . . . the final definition was carried on July 18 by 533 votes to 2. Infallibility was confined to those occasions upon which the pope made pronouncements ex cathedra.

51:48  so the the criticism at the time is that essentially the pope stacked the deck with all the people that are going to agree with him and so he already made this decision. Infallibility is going to become a dogma of the church and in order to do that he basically decides that he needs to appoint those Bishops to make this decision who are going to affirm the decision that he has already made.

As shown, the overwhelming nature of the vote shows this to be a most inaccurate and cynical point of view. It just doesn’t fly. Virtually no one disagreed with the theological rationale. At least 60 who voted against it did so thinking it was not the right time (as opposed to it being a false doctrine). That’s a completely legitimate discussion to have, but it’s not theological or doctrinal. It’s about prudence and when to do what in the Church.

55:34 you have John Henry Newman who’s at least privately very skeptical of this dogma and does not want it to be declared dogma . . . 

The latter is true but the former is absolutely not true, as I have meticulously documented from his own words. He believed in the doctrine even before he became a Catholic:

In June and July 1839, near four years ago, I read the Monophysite Controversy, and it made a deep impression on me, which I was not able to shake off, that the Pope had a certain gift of infallibility, and that communion with the See of Rome was the divinely intended means of grace and illumination. . . . Since that, all history, particularly that of Arianism, has appeared to me in a new light; confirmatory of the same doctrine. (Letter to John Keble, 4 May 1843; referring to his views in July 1839)

As to the Infallibility of the Pope, I see nothing against it, or to dread in it,. . . (Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 17 November 1865)

*

As to writing a volume on the Pope’s infallibility, it never so much as entered into my thoughts. . . . And I should have nothing to say about it. I have ever thought it likely to be true, never thought it certain. I think too, its definition inexpedient and unlikely; but I should have no difficulty accepting it, were it made. And I don’t think my reason will ever go forward or backward in the matter. (Letter to William G. Ward, 18 February 1866)

*

Applying this principle to the Pope’s Infallibility, . . . I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers in its favour. On the whole then I hold it; . . . (Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 23 March 1867)

*

I hold the Pope’s Infallibility, not as a dogma, but as a theological opinion; that is, not as a certainty, but as a probability. . . . To my mind the balance of probabilities is still in favour of it. There are vast difficulties, taking facts as they are, in the way of denying it. . . . Anyhow the doctrine of Papal Infallibility must be fenced round and limited by conditions. (Letter to Peter le Page Renouf, 21 June 1868)

I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875; Letter to Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, 24 July 1870)