John Martignoni: “What the Heck is Papal Indefectibility?”

John Martignoni: “What the Heck is Papal Indefectibility?” January 28, 2025
Catholic Apologist John Martignoni strongly critiques me in his “Apologetics for the Masses #501” and — as one can see from my title, which cites his own article title: states that he has never heard of papal indefectibility. I can understand that, at least to some extent, because I didn’t think or write all that much about it, either, until my good friend, the theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi, editor of the latest (43rd edition of) Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum and 2018 revised version of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, highlighted it in 2020. Live and learn. I love to learn more and more about the Catholic faith. It encourages and edifies me.
*
But I had essentially addressed the topic in a broad way as far back as my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which was actually finished in May 1996 (later published “officially” in 2003), and included a Foreword and glowing endorsement from Servant of God John A. Hardon, SJ, who was arguably the leading catechist in the United States in the 1990s, when the Catholic Catechism was published. One time, in person (I attended many of his Ignatian Catechist classes and he received me into the Church), he described my writing in that book as “very Catholic”: which humbles me, and which I consider the greatest compliment that I have ever received about my apologetics — and my orthodoxy. In my chapter on the papacy, I cited one of the well-known prooftexts and then St. Francis de Sales’ interpretation of it:

Luke 22:31-32 [RSV] Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. . . .

Our Lord . . ., having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, prayed for the head and the root, in order that the water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head the faith might always be preserved in the Church. (pp. 228-229; citing The Catholic Controversy, Henry B. Mackey, translator, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989 [originally 1596], 258-259)

Moreover, in my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (originally 2002), in my chapter 3 on “The Indefectibility of the Church” I wrote:
*
  1. If the council and popes are positively promulgating “grave” heretical error, then surely the Satanic conspiracy to overthrow the Church is complete, and the “gates of hell” have prevailed against the Church, contrary to our Lord’s promises (Matthew 16:18). This would, of course, raise further thorny difficulties for orthodox Christology. (p. 34)
Note that I didn’t use the term, “papal indefectibility” in either instance; but the idea is there, just as words like Trinity or transubstantiation are not in the Bible, yet we believe that the concepts are taught there. Apart from such fleeting treatments, however, I didn’t write or think much about it, until recently. I assumed that the pope could not promulgate as binding on all Catholics, doctrines that were untrue, as a function of his charism of infallibility. Martignoni (words in blue henceforth) repeatedly insinuates in his latest polemic, that I am supposedly some sort of loose cannon, foolishly seeking to foist unfounded notions upon my readers:
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”. . . . [this charge is a rank falsehood, that I thoroughly debunked almost a year ago — obviously to no avail! — in my article, I Never Regarded Bp. Strickland Or Cdl. Burke As “Heretics”: Contra John Martignoni’s Repeated Claims to the Contrary ]
*
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. . . . 
I started digging a little deeper into “papal indefectibility”.  And guess what?  I couldn’t find that phrase used anywhere.  I couldn’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. . . . 
*
I had never even heard the phrase “papal indefectibility” until I got involved in that discussion with Armstrong. 
I will be documenting the fact that this doctrine is indeed taught by the Church. Here are the key passages from Vatican I, from the First Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus on the Church of Christ: Session 4: July 18, 1870: the same magisterial proclamation that declared papal infallibility to be a dogma on the highest level (my bolding):

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.” [Denzinger: “this See of Peter always remains untainted by any error . . .”: p. 615: #3070]

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.

But first — before delving more deeply into the background of all that — I want to dispose of a specific serious misrepresentation of my views that Martignoni frequently asserts:
Essentially, he is saying, as best as I can discern . . . 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’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:
*
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. . . . 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. . . . 
*
. . . “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 . . . 
My actual view — in contrast to the above gross caricature and distortion — is well-expressed by Emmet O’Regan, in his article, The Heretical Pope Fallacy: The Official Relatio of Vatican I on the Dogmatization of St. Bellarmine’s “Fourth Opinion” (La Stampa, 12-11-17):
St. Bellarmine noted that it was generally agreed in Catholic theology that a pope could hold to material heresy in a private capacity (such as possibly the case with Pope John XXII and Pope Honorius I). [footnote: “…the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers”. St. Robert Bellarmine De Controversiis, Book 4, Chap II.] But there was no real consensus reached among Catholic theologians as to whether or not a pope could actually fall into formal heresy (and thus lose his office via an automatic excommunication), or actively teach heresy through his authentic Magisterium (thus binding the entire Church to heresy). Both Bellarmine and Suárez speculated about the possibility of an heretical pope, but ultimately concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy, because of the Divine assistance offered towards the Successors of St. Peter, which is given in answer to Christ’s prayer for the never failing faith of Peter in Luke 22:31-32 . . .
*
With regard to the theoretical possibility of a heretical Pope, Suárez believed that even if a Pope, as a private person, might fall into error out of ignorance, God, in His divine Providence, would graciously insure that this heretical Pope would not harm the Church. (De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, no. 10 . . .) . . . Suárez is absolutely clear that the Roman Pontiff, when assuming the posture of the teacher of the universal Church, can never err or depart from the faith. . . .
*

St. Bellarmine did not mean that a Roman Pontiff could not hold to material heresy in his capacity as a private teacher through ignorance (since we have noted that this reality was widely accepted), but he was rather arguing that God would never allow the Successors of St. Peter to fall into formal heresy or bind the Church to such heretical teaching in the papal Magisterium, in accordance with Christ’s prayer for Peter’s never failing faith. This can be summarized by Bellarmine’s maxim: “it is gathered correctly that the Pope by his own nature can fall into heresy, but not when we posit the singular assistance of God which Christ asked for him by his prayer”. [footnote: De Controversiis, Book 4, Chap VII] . . .

St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth opinion”, which the Relatio states was formally dogmatized in the First Vatican Council, thus automatically precludes the idea of an heretical pope who would bind the entirety of the Faithful to error in matters related to faith or morals in the authentic papal Magisterium. [my italics and bolding]

In other words, my view in this regard is exactly that of Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, which the Relatio on Infallibility by Bishop Vincent Gasser holds to be precisely the position adopted by Vatican I in Pastor aeternus. As always, I follow whatever the Church teaches — as best I can determine that. I’m not promulgating my own self-produced “weird’ views. I am simply accepting, proclaiming, and defending the magisterial teaching of Vatican I, which is what every self-respecting Catholic apologist worth his salt ought to do. Even Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers and a key figure in the modern revival of Catholic apologetics, bore witness to that:
Dave has produced a lot of good work over the years. He’s one of the better U.S. apologists, and I don’t recall him ever being accused, legitimately, of theological error. He always has been conscientious in his work, trying to dig a bit deeper than most other apologists. And he always has made an effort to be kind, even to those who might not seem to deserve much kindness. (3-23-18)
Catholic apologist Tim Staples, also with Catholic Answers, wrote similarly, and very kindly, about me:
Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.
Emmett O’Regan, by the way, is a PhD candidate at the Loyola Institute, Trinity College Dublin. The title of his doctoral thesis is “The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: The Nature and Scope of Divine Assistance for the Non-Definitive Exercise of the Authentic Magisterium.” When one writes a dissertation, he or she is expected to at least as much about the topic as anyone else. That being the case, we can safely conclude that O’Regan is an expert concerning papal indefectibility, and can be trusted to accurately convey orthodox Catholic thinking.
*
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
All Catholics and the heretics agree on two things. Firstly, that the Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can err in particular controversies of fact, even together with a general Council, because these depend especially on the testimonies of men. Secondly, the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers. (On the Roman Pontiff [De Controversiis], translated by Ryan Grant, Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2016, 152)
O’Regan further clarifies, in his article, The Indefectibility of the Church: A Response to the Defenders of the Filial Correction (La Stampa, 11-4-17):
The protection from error in faith and morals offered towards the ordinary Magisterium through the Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit does not stem from the gift of infallibility, but is instead an essential corollary of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. A necessary ancillary means through which the perpetuity of the successors of St. Peter is nourished and maintained, which is independent of, albeit related to, the dogma of papal infallibility. This means that the pope cannot impose error on matters of faith and morals not only because of papal infallibility but also because of the Divine assistance implicit in the gift of indefectibility.
Moreover, in his article, The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council? (Theological Studies, Volume 84, Issue 4, December 2023, 634-656), Emmet O’Regan distinguishes papal indefectibility from papal infallibility:
The term “indefectibility” is more applicable for Bellarmine’s position on the public teaching office of the pope, since he allows for the existence of certain deficiencies in this capacity while rejecting the possibility that a pope could publicly defect from the faith in the non-definitive exercise of the papal magisterium. Derived from the Latin indefectibilis (unfailing), this word indicates the inability of the church to fail or defect from the faith, which is used in a more passive and loose sense. This allows some scope for the reversal of certain contingent magisterial teachings that have not been set forth as irrevocable, while simultaneously maintaining that this non-definitive exercise of the Magisterium is still protected against doctrinal corruption through the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is to be distinguished from the use of the Latin word infallibilis—used to describe the inerrancy of the church in a more active and strict sense—that is usually confined to the definition of irreformable dogmas.
Papal indefectibility has historically been derived primarily from Luke 22:31-32:

Bellarmine identifies two particular privileges that were won for the successors of Peter through the efficacy of Christ’s prayer in Luke 22:31–32:

One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. (Grant, On the Roman Pontiff, 156; Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chap. III, col. 713.
O’Regan also distinguishes Bellarmine’s view (again, also my own) with the “rather idiosyncratic” position of Pighius:
Albert Pighius . . . believed that “the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy.” . . . the key distinction is that Pighius held that the pope could not be a heretic “in any way” (non posse ullo modo esse haereticu), while Bellarmine allowed for the possibility that the pope could teach heresy as a private doctor (doctor privatus) but not in his capacity qua Roman pontiff.
Papal indefectibility is nothing new. It has developed, like all other doctrines. So, for example, in his Letter Apostolicae Sedis Primatus, dated 12 November 1199, Pope Innocent III stated:
The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather, they would recall others and also strengthen the hesitant . . .” [translation from Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, 43rd edition, Ignatius Press, 2012, p. 255, #775]
Pope St. John Paul II taught it as well, in a General Audience on 24 March 1993:
The Supreme Pontiffs can exercise this form of magisterium. And this has in fact happened. Many Popes, however, have not exercised it. But it should be noted that in the conciliar texts that we are illustrating, the “ordinary” magisterium is distinguished from the “extraordinary” one, underlining the importance of the former, which is of a permanent and continuous nature; while that which is expressed in the definitions can be said to be exceptional. Alongside this infallibility of the ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit, granted to Peter and his successors so that they do not err in matters of faith and morals and instead give good enlightenment to the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases, but embraces in varying degrees the entire exercise of the magisterium.” [I used Google Translate in order to render the Italian into English]
He also possibly alluded to papal indefectibility in an address to the mayor of Rome: “In this same City there has now arrived a new Successor of Peter, also marked by so many human limitations, but trustful in the indefectible help of grace, . . .” (12 November 1978).
*
Martignoni wrote:
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. . . . 
*
 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. . . . 
*
Again, if the Church teaches it…I believe it.  If the Church doesn’t teach it…I don’t believe it. 
I have provided the resources and documentation so that he can do exactly what he wants to do: submit to the teaching of the Church (once properly understood). Once he comes to grasp exactly what papal indefectibility means, according to Vatican I, essentially following the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine, I trust that he will do exactly that, and modify his article, for the sake of his readers, so that they won’t be led astray.
*
And it would be nice, too, as an extra bonus, if he would stop misrepresenting what I believe about papal indefectibility and about who is a heretic. They say that repetition is a great teacher, so here goes:

My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.

My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
Rinse, repeat, and if you still don’t get it, I am willing to clarify further. Not sure what else I can add, but I’ll give it the old college try . . .
*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: anonymous portrait of St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), c. 1622 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Catholic apologist John Martignoni publicly took me to task over my writings regarding papal indefectibility, and also misrepresented what I believe about it. I correct his errors.

"Try using Google Advanced Search. Just type your search words on the first field and ..."

Joy in Purgatory: St. Catherine of ..."
"Yeah, I noticed that, too. I'm gonna write to someone at Patheos."

Joy in Purgatory: St. Catherine of ..."
"Greetings Dave,I think your search bar for your blog is not functioning properly. Every time ..."

Joy in Purgatory: St. Catherine of ..."

Browse Our Archives