Apologetics for the Masses #469 - Pope Francis, Bp. Strickland, Papal Indefectibility, and...Dave Armstrong (Part 4)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

Talking about Papal Indefectibility and Papal Infallibility this week, and why I believe Dave Armstrong was wrong about Bishop Strickland.

General Comments

Hey folks,

I am going to have to break a 20+ year tradition here at the Bible Christian Society, and I hope you will understand the reason why. First of all, though, my apologies for the delay between this newsletter and the last. There has been some upheaval in my life in the last couple of weeks that led to that delay. And that upheaval is the same reason I am breaking that 20+ year tradition.

You see, the Diocese of Birmingham let it be known, just over two weeks ago, that it was, essentially, closing most of its ministry offices. The offices closed include the following: Evangelization, Pro-Life, Family Life, Lay Ministry, Young Adult Ministry, Youth Ministry, and Religious Education. Also closed was the Office of Sacred Music and, apparently, the Office of Youth Protection. All-in-all, 8 persons lost their jobs, including yours truly. So, as of this past Friday, I am no longer the Director of the Evangelization, Pro-Life, and Family Life offices for the Diocese of Birmingham.

Which is why I find it necessary to break the tradition I have had of only asking for donations twice per year. I am going to have to make an exception here by simply saying, that if you have ever considered giving to the Bible Christian Society, now would be a really good time to do so. It is my sincere hope and desire to be able to raise enough funds to go full-time with the Bible Christian Society and be able to make up for at least some of the lost revenue from my job at the diocese, in addition to finally putting some of the evangelization ideas I've had for a while now, into action. So, if you have a list of charities that you donate to, please think and pray about adding the Bible Christian Society to that list.

And, I would also ask that you please pray for my family and me. On the one hand, I feel a tremendous sense of freedom - working at the Chancery day in and day out was, to say the least, a fairly exasperating (and, occasionally, fairly miserable) experience in regard to the treatment I, and others, received from the upper echelon of management - both clergy and laity. On the other hand, I do have to provide food, clothing, shelter, health insurance, etc. for my family, so I'm scrambling to try and figure out exactly how to do that. So, again, a prayer or two sent our way would be greatly appreciated!

Alright, enough with breaking tradition, let's get back to the action...

Introduction

This newsletter will discuss Papal Indefectibility/Infallibility and why I believe a number of folks, Dave Armstrong among them, are not quite understanding these concepts correctly. In fact, I am going to use something Dave Armstrong said about Bp. Strickland and Cdl. Burke as a jumping off point for this discussion.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

The background for this discussion - what got this whole ball rolling with Dave Armstrong - is 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, Dave is, essentially, accusing Bp. Strickland and Cdl. Burke of heresy...of rejecting Papal Indefectibility. As I have stated in a previous newsletter, the 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.

Okay, so why am I saying that Armstrong appears to be misunderstanding the Church's teaching on Papal Indefectibility (and/or Papal Infallibility) based on his FB posts that I've quoted above? It's because he is disagreeing with Cdl. Burke's tweet. Again, Cdl. Burke said the following: "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." Armstrong disagrees with that. In fact, he disagrees with that so strongly that he is, for all intents and purposes, saying anyone who agrees with that statement is rejecting the Church's dogmatic teaching on the Pope. I.e., that person is a heretic.

When I first read his post, I couldn't believe what I was reading. His conclusion seemed to me to be way out of line with what Cdl. Burke actually said. Which is why I started asking him a couple of questions. Here's how the conversation went:

Martignoni
1) In what way is what Cardinal Burke or Bp. Strickland said a "rejection of the doctrine of papal indefectibility"?

2) Do you believe that if a bishop, even if he is the Pope, affirms something contrary to the Catholic Faith, that we do have to agree with the bishop on that particular affirmation?

Armstrong
1) Because he included the pope in it, it violates Vatican I:

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

2) The pope CANNOT bind the faithful to things contrary to the faith, per the above. This is the whole point, and why this garbage smacks of a disbelief in indefectibility.

Martignoni
1) I disagree that Bp. Strickland violated Vatican I. Are you asserting that the part of that quote from Vatican I [which you cited] - "this See of Saint Peter remains free from all blemish of error" - means that the Pope cannot commit any error, whatsoever? If so, then it seems to me your quote is lacking some rather crucial context.

2) It also seems to me that you are acting in a rather Protestant manner here. You're disagreeing with what you interpret both Cardinal Burke and Bp. Strickland to be saying, not with what they actually said. Sort of like a Protestant reading the words of the Hail Mary and saying, "See, you Catholics worship Mary." You're putting into their mouths your interpretation of what they said and then condemning them for what you say they said. I would say that Bp. Strickland, as well as Cardinal Burke, agree with you 100% that the Pope cannot bind the faithful to error. I see nothing in what they said that would indicate the contrary. Again, I think you've interpreted what they said in a manner that fits your predetermined narrative.

Let's look at a hypothetical: Let's say the Pope, in a wide-ranging and free-flowing interview with the press aboard the papal airplane, said, "I believe that same-sex 'marriage' is morally valid."

Is it your assertion that: A) Catholic dogma on indefectibility would prevent him from ever saying such a thing in that circumstance; or B) If he did say such a thing, in such a manner, then we, as Catholics, would be bound to believe likewise?

My Comments
In his next 3 posts he referred me to 4 or 5 different articles written by 3 or 4 different people and told me I need to go read these articles. To which I responded as follows:

Martignoni
Sorry, but can you not just answer a direct question with a direct answer? No, I'm not going to go off and read this article and that article and the other article. I'm focusing on what you have said in your posts here and in the article of yours that I referenced above.

And, no, these are not "legal-type" arguments that I am going to "go have" with anyone else. I'm simply asking you to explain and defend what you've said. You've made specific accusations, based on specific comments of others, and I am inquiring as to further elaboration on those accusations and comments.

So, here are the questions again:

1) Are you asserting that the part of that quote from Vatican I - "this See of Saint Peter remains free from all blemish of error" - means that the Pope cannot commit any error, whatsoever? Yes or no?

2) Let's look at a hypothetical: Let's say the Pope, in a wide-ranging and free-flowing interview with the press aboard the papal airplane, said, "I believe that same-sex 'marriage' is morally valid."

Is it your assertion that: A) Catholic dogma on indefectibility would prevent him from ever saying such a thing in that circumstance; or B) If he did say such a thing, in such a manner, then we, as Catholics, would be bound to believe likewise?"

My Comments
After that he started to throw a bit of a hissy fit. He really didn't like the fact that I wasn't going to go and waste my time by reading several articles from various folks that may or may not have absolutely anything to do with what I was specifically asking him. He started to classify my comments as showing me to be stubborn, angry, ignorant, nasty, etc. And, continually refused to answer my questions, saying they were quite complex, that they were canon law questions, that they were questions that he wasn't all that qualified to deal with, and so on. |

Okay, that's the background. So, why do I say Dave is wrong in what he says about Bp. Strickland's and Cdl. Burke's comments and that he apparently misunderstands the teaching on Papal Indefectibility, based on his comments on FB? First of all, because he's trying to pull a bait and switch here. Look at what Cdl. Burke actually says in his statement. He said if a bishop...any bishop...even the Pope, is affirming things not in accord with Sacred Tradition/the deposit of the faith, then you are under no obligation to also affirm those things. What Armstrong is trying to twist Cdl. Burke's statement to mean is that if the Pope solemnly binds you, as a matter of Catholic faith, to believe something that is not in accord with Sacred Tradition/the deposit of the faith, then you are under no obligation to believe what the Pope is trying to make you believe.

But that's not what Burke said. In no statement I have read from Burke, or from Strickland, have I seen any hint of them saying that the Pope has solemnly declared that he is binding the faithful to believe error, or that he ever would. What I have seen them say is that the Pope is seemingly affirming error. In other words, according to them, it looks like the Pope may be believing in error, and that he may even be trying to bring that error into the Church through various means, but nowhere have I seen anyone say that Pope has made, or could make, a solemn declaration from the Chair of Peter that error is to be definitively believed by the faithful as a part of the Catholic Faith. Nowhere! There is a huge difference between personally affirming error and solemnly binding all the faithful to believe in error.

In other words, Dave interpreted what Cdl. Burke said, and which Bp. Strickland affirmed, in a way that suits Dave Armstrong's narrative as opposed to going with what Cdl. Burke actually said. Armstrong is inserting meaning into Cdl. Burke's words that simply is not there. Which is why I asked him this question: "2) Do you believe that if a bishop, even if he is the Pope, affirms something contrary to the Catholic Faith, that we do have to agree with the bishop on that particular affirmation?" I specifically used the Cardinal's word - "affirm" - to emphasize to Armstrong what Burke was, and was not, saying.

Also, as I said to him, he was leaving some crucial context out of his quote from Vatican I on Papal Indefectibility. His quote from Vatican I, begins with, "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..." And goes on to say, "...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..."

Well, going by just that quote, it looks like Vatican I was saying that the Pope cannot commit any error, whatsoever, in regards to doctrine. And that is, apparently, what Dave believes to be the case - the Pope cannot personally believe and affirm any error at all when it comes to matters of doctrine. The problem is, though, that Dave, as I said, left out some crucial context for that quote from Vatican I. Just a couple of paragraphs down from the quote Dave cited, Vatican I has this to say:

"So We [the members of the Council]...teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals..."

So, Vatican I was not saying that the Pope cannot commit or cannot affirm any error whatsoever when it comes to doctrinal matters. It was not saying that he cannot personally believe in doctrinal error. In context, Vatican I was saying that when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" - from the Chair (of Peter) - as the head of the Church, to the entire Church, defining matters of faith and morals that are to be held by all the faithful, that he cannot teach, or bind, error.

That is why I asked Dave that hypothetical question: "Let's say the Pope, in a wide-ranging and free-flowing interview with the press aboard the papal airplane, said, "I believe that same-sex 'marriage' is morally valid. Is it your assertion that: A) Catholic dogma on indefectibility would prevent him from ever saying such a thing in that circumstance; or B) If he did say such a thing, in such a manner, then we, as Catholics, would be bound to believe likewise?"

That's where he started begging off about the questions being too complex, and matters of canon law, and that he defers to others who are more qualified in such matters. Well, if you aren't qualified enough to answer these questions, then how can you be qualified enough to essentially deem Bp. Strickland and Cdl. Burke to be heretics who deny Papal Indefectibility and the authority of the Pope?!

Here's the thing - let's say the Pope is in a parish in Rome one day, and, after the Mass, he goes to the parish hall to teach the adult education class. While he's teaching that class, let's say he tells the folks that same sex "marriage" is morally valid. Let's go even further and say that the Pope didn't just say that same sex "marriage" is morally valid, but that he also told the people in that adult education class that they, as Catholics, must believe, as a matter of faith, what he was teaching them. Would that scenario contradict the Church's teaching on Papal Indefectibility and/or Papal Infallibility? Dave Armstrong apparently believes it would. But, no, it wouldn't. Why not? Because the Pope, in that instance, was not speaking ex cathedra. He was not speaking as the head of the Church to the entire Church and he was not defining, nor was he binding all the faithful in the Church to believe, doctrinal error. Which means, the folks in the adult education class would have been under no obligation to accept and believe what the Pope was teaching them in that circumstance.

All of which is why I hold that Cdl. Burke's tweet, and Bp. Strickland's subsequent approval of it, rise nowhere near the level of denying Papal Indefectibility or even "arguably" denying Papal Indefectibility, and why I contend that Armstrong's FB post (the first one cited above), wherein he speaks of the difference between Martin Luther and Bp. Strickland, and states quite emphatically, with no qualification whatsoever, that Bp. Strickland denies papal authority "at his convenience," is wrongheaded, uncharitable, and based on an apparent misunderstanding of Papal Indefectibility/Infallibility.

Now watch, Dave will come back and say that I was misunderstanding what he said. If he does, then my response will be, "Well, sorry, but I asked for clarification and it was refused, so you have no grounds for your complaint."

Okay, we are done and done here. Time to move on to the next topic. Hopefully, I'll get the next newsletter out this Friday.

[Don't forget to look over the "Articles of Interest" section below. There are some really interesting ones in there (at least, I think so) - particularly the one about JFK's "other" assassination and the one about the connection between the Miraculous Medal and the apparitions at Lourdes. I found those two absolutely fascinating and very enlightening.

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week, and that your Lenten observances are drawing you in closer and closer to Christ. We'll be praying for all of 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:

http://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!

Articles of Interest

JFK's Other Assasination

Transgender Child Custody Case Filed With the Supreme Court

Will Machines Make Humans Obsolete?

Studies Find Believers Have More Hope, Less Suffering, and Volunteer More

European Farmers Revolting Against Global Warming Edicts

Letter to Bishops Protesting Fiducia Supplicans

Pope Francis offers some clarification on Fiducia Supplicans

Newt Gingrich - There's Plenty of Precedence for Presidential Law-Breaking

The Connection Between the Miraculous Medal and the Apparitions at Lourdes

The Strange Disconnect Between Ukraine and Israel

The Left and Chaos

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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