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)
- 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)
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.
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.
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 . . .
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]
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.