Council of Constance

2,730 Views | 32 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Zobel
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been digging back, fairly superficially thus far, through church history and trying to find more around the defining moments that changed doctrine, the episcopacy, etc. Pulling on that thread led me to the Council of Basel/Constance that advanced settlement of the Western Schism.

I found the article below very interesting with the implications of authoritativeness of councils and Papal supremacy. It's an issue I think I have seen alluded to here, but had not seen discussed in any depth. I imagine the Eastern Orthodox churches saying something along the lines of, "welcome to the 11th century, chimp, pull up a chair we have a few opinions on such things".


Quote:

In all of this, along with a degree of casual institutional forgetfulness, we see the working of an active institutional politics of oblivion. "He who controls the past controls the future," George Orwell wrote in 1984, and "he who controls the present controls the past." And the past certainly has been controlled in the case of Constancesucked, as it were, into an Orwellian memory hole. To rescue that ecclesiological past from the long, coercive shadow cast backward by Vatican I, is to discover that the conciliarist constitutionalism expressed in Haec Sancta in fact enjoyed a good deal of life during the centuries following Constance.

If there is an honest rebuttal to be made to this article, I'd love to read it too. A cursory search finds some polemics not at all addressing the thrust of the article.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/authoritative-ignored
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Papal infallibility is a novel theology and completely unsupportable in the ecumenical councils of the church. Anyone who tells you otherwise has not done the homework for themselves. Most of the defenses of papal infallibility are actual defenses of first among equals or simply misquoted, misapplied, or misunderstood quotes from the early church.

#changemymind
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interesting read, but I just don't understand the point you're trying to make. I'm not Catholic so maybe I'm not the target audience. Is the Pope in the RCC more powerful than any council of clergy? Certainly. Were there times in history when this was not so? Also certainly. This is what always happens when one person has more power than anyone else, even by just a little. At some point down the road only one vote matters.

I also think the idea of "first among equals" is an oxymoron. Either people are equal or they are not. The very act of differentiating a "first" destroys the supposed equality by definition
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Papal infallibility is a novel theology and completely unsupportable in the ecumenical councils of the church. Anyone who tells you otherwise has not done the homework for themselves. Most of the defenses of papal infallibility are actual defenses of first among equals or simply misquoted, misapplied, or misunderstood quotes from the early church.

#changemymind
I am kind of there with you. The historian in the link walks through the "have it both ways" approach and convenience of having the council resolve the schism and appoint a new Pope only to have that Pope's successor nullify the part of that council he found inconvenient.

Raising the issue at Vatican I, apparently a few of the less Papacy-centric Cardinals were greeted with "shut up!" and "Heresy".
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

Interesting read, but I just don't understand the point you're trying to make. I'm not Catholic so maybe I'm not the target audience. Is the Pope in the RCC more powerful than any council of clergy? Certainly. Were there times in history when this was not so? Also certainly. This is what always happens when one person has more power than anyone else, even by just a little. At some point down the road only one vote matters.

I also think the idea of "first among equals" is an oxymoron. Either people are equal or they are not. The very act of differentiating a "first" destroys the supposed equality by definition
I don't know that I'm making a point personally, but this was the first time I ran across a description of a documented inflection point where the authority of councils was overtaken by that of the Pope officially. Clearly not everyone was on board with that, but I guess no one wanted another schism enough to press it.

Agree with the oxymoronic idea of "first among equals", that's not going to be sustainable.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It isn't an oxymoron. It's two different things, not a direct comparison. For example if we say mercury is first among equals we know it's not somehow more planet-y than others. They're all plants. But it's first in a way, that is, closest to the sun.

First - in preeminence, in honor because of the relative importance of the See in the Empire - among equals - because all bishops are equal and the Church in fullness is each bishop with his flock.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think this view of conciliar authority vs papal is sort of a strange way to look at things. Popes don't establish anything with respect the theology. Neither do councils. All they do is declare what is already received. What's authoritative is what's true, not vice versa.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, there's a reason that the latin word princeps starting out meaning first, and ended up meaning chief. Or the reason that countries are all run by prime (first) ministers. The doctrine of papal supremecy is even called papal primacy. All these words just mean first, but the implications are so much more. Once you assign greater value to one position it's no longer equal.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Except it's not the prime minister of equals. He's not the first bishop. There's an important ecclesiastical point being made with that phrase. It doesn't make anymore sense to ignore the second half than it does to ignore the first.

And again, it's not greater value. It has to do with the value and age of the see. Who would say that Mercury has more value than Earth because it's the first planet? It's silly.
Post removed:
by user
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Protestantism is a centuries long argument between the west and itself.
Post removed:
by user
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Except that the Bishop of Rome wasn't historically the first bishop. At least not chronologically. Jerusalem, Greece, and Asia Minor all had churches (and therefore bishops) before Rome. Calling the Pope the first can only mean in importance based on Peter being the lead apostle and handing down that leadership to his successors. If the Pope was the chronologically first bishop, then I'd agree with your Mercury comparison.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Closest to the sun analogy -> relative position within the Empire. If you read the canons or later councils the fathers very clearly assign the importance as the prominence of the city that the See is in, not some kind of importance of theological authority.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

Now that sounds very condescending, and not Christ-like at all.
?? Why?

If you were arguing with someone else is it condescending g to say it doesn't have anything to do with me?

The Reformation happened between Rome and the rest of the West. No one was in communion with the East at the time. The Lutherans who reached out to the East told the East they were wrong too. None of the Protestants have the same creed as Orthodoxy; they all use western creeds and the Filioque. Almost all of the doctrinal points that are pivotal to the Reformation are about western views. It's not really related to orthdoxy other than that we find ourselves agreeing with one side, then the other, then neither, depending on the issue.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyway it really doesn't matter. Regardless if you think the first among equals phrase is good or not, no one ever had any kind of papal primacy the way they claim it today in history. It's a novelty and it's gotten totally out of control.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very interesting article with some rather serious implications.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The whole enterprise is un-Christ-like. The naked ambition, and desire and exercise of financial, political and even military power is pretty much the exact opposite of the example set by Christ and His Apostles. That's without even getting into the theological and spiritual dimensions
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Papal primacy? Well, I mean.. yeah.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Always interesting to read what non-Catholics think about the Roman Catholic Church.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_031.htm

"Council of Constance. The highpoint of conflict between papal and conciliar authority was reached at the Council of Constance (sixteenth ecumenical) which put an end to the Western Schism by electing Martin V (1418). Among its published decrees were two that contradicted papal supremacy and personal infallibility. Speaking of itself, the council declared that "it holds authority immediately from Christ, and all persons of whatever dignity, even the pope himself, are bound to obey the council in all that regards the faith, the healing of the schism and the reformation of the Church of God in her head and members." Moreover, "all persons of whatever dignity, even the pope himself, who shall obstinately refuse to obey the decrees, statutes and ordinances of the holy council, or any other general council canonically assembled, shall, unless they repent, suffer the punishment they have deserved, and if need be, recourse shall be had to other means of law." [22]

Since the Council of Constance was genuinely ecumenical, and approved as such by Martin V, how are these propositions to be taken? They are clearly subversive of papal supremacy, including infallibility, and opponents of Rome to this day quote them as evidence against the papacy.

In the first place, they did not represent the majority mind of the Council, having been drawn up privately by the minority delegation from England, France and Germany. The Italian bishops, by far the most numerous, rejected them and protested against their publication. At the famous fifth session of the Council, when the decrees were published, the majority of cardinals, including the conciliarist d'Ailly, purposely absented themselves, and the few who attended did so under protest, and, as they said, "to avoid scandal," but they refused to vote or to publish the anti-papal legislation.

How did Martin V react to the decrees? While formally approving the Council, especially in its condemnation of Wyclif and Hus, he deliberately excluded from approbation whatever was derogatory to papal supremacy. In their forty-fifth and last session, the bishops reported to the Council that, in answer to the request for his approval, "Our Holy Father said that he wished to be kept and observed inviolably each and every declaration which the Council had determined, concluded and decreed in matters of faith as a council should (conciliariter). He therefore approved and ratified the decrees that were made as a council should, but none other and in no other way." [23] It was common knowledge that the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions were not decided "as a council should," if for no other reason than because the majority disapproved. However, to remove any vestige of doubt stands the palpable fact that the Council of Constance requested papal confirmation and considered itself (and its decisions) infallible only after, and in so far as, the pope ratified its proceedings.

Councils of Basle and Florence. Shortly before his death in 1431, Martin V convoked a reform Council at Basle, which his successor, Eugene IV, "dissolved" on the valid suspicion of its conciliarist tendencies. Refusing to adjourn, the Council renewed the anti-papal decrees of Constance, stating that its authority was above the pope's. Eugenius countered by summoning a new Council, first at Ferrara, then at Florence (seventeenth ecumenical), where a temporary union of the Latin and Greek Churches was effected and the Roman primacy was solemnly proclaimed. "We define," the Council declared, "that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have the primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all the Christians; and that to him, in the person of St. Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the whole Church, as is also contained in the proceedings of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons." [24] The reference to "ecumenical councils" was meant to cover the implied teaching of all conciliar legislation, and exclude the illegitimate decrees of the Council of Constance. Also, without using the term "infallibility," the concept was implicit in the supreme papal authority as "teacher of all the Christians," and "the full power" received from Jesus Christ (not from any council) to "feed and rule the whole Church," which is impossible without infallible guidance."
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All that shows is that the argument about whether or not Rome is infallible goes back a long way, and at one time or another every single part of the greater Christian church has said nah.

And for what it's worth that is very similar to how the papal infallibility item was passed at Vatican I. A great many bishops abstained from voting in order to avoid being seen as voting against the pope to his face. :/
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

All that shows is that the argument about whether or not Rome is infallible goes back a long way, and at one time or another every single part of the greater Christian church has said nah.

And for what it's worth that is very similar to how the papal infallibility item was passed at Vatican I. A great many bishops abstained from voting in order to avoid being seen as voting against the pope to his face. :/


I am not looking to persuade anyone to believe in papal infallibility. I am only offering an explanation of why Constance might not be the disruptive event the OP's article suggests it is.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok, I get that. But, my question is then about the papal authority. I mean, popes are elected right? Does he get his authority / seat / infallibility like a charism at the moment of becoming pope? In which case - where is it derived from? The selection process? So, if the council had authority to select a pope - ending a schism between two popes - the backwards ratification of the councils authority seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog right? If their authority is suspect in some conciliar acts (statements on papal authority), wouldn't it be suspect in others (selecting pope)?

I'm just curious how the justification of the mechanics plays out here. That defense seems pretty convoluted to me.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This seems like the best thread for this. Cracked me up
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Funny from an outsider's perspective< I will give you that.

But seriously.. why do non-Catholics care so much about the RCC? And in particular, Papal infallibility? It is biblical, not to mention that right answer when asked "by whose authority!??"

Let's put this in football speak, maybe a certain OL and HC can relate to: bear with me...

Hocker said, "There will be an upset." Clearly, he had no way of knowing the future. Coach Fisher said it more accurately, that those kind of things don't need to be said. It was good that the team "believed in themselves" but you have to go out and do it. But, the question remains, how should OL Hocker have responded to the question he was asked? - Jesus had a better response when he was accused of blasphemy.

This is about the time when Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic that had been lowered through the roof of a house in Caperneum (where he was staying, believed to be that of Simon Peter, hmmm.) Jesus, upon seeing the effort the man's friends had made to get him in front of Jesus for a physical healing - amazed at their faith - did not heal the man, but instead said, "Son, your sins are forgiven." BOOM!

The scribes who had been taking all this in, mumbled among themselves and accused Jesus of blasphemy. Nice - they missed it completely. So, Jesus, being Jesus, knew their hearts and doubled down by saying (I am paraphrasing, I have copied the part of scripture below), "What is easier to say? 'Your sins are forgiven' or 'Stand up, take your mat - and walk'?" The next few verses are critical to understanding the authority Jesus has and the authority he gave to the apostles - "10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"he said to the paralytic 11 "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home."

The take away, and basis for magisterial authority, is that Jesus did indeed establish a church before he ascended into heaven. He appointed bishops and gave the keys to Peter.

The answer to the question about forgiving sin and by whose authority is clear. It can be answered in no uncertain terms. It was Peter who stood up and answered the question Jesus put before the 12.. "Who do you say that I am?".... Peter declared, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."

Not saying Jared Hocker is Saint Peter, but they both believed in their heart something so profound. However, in Peter's case, it was informed by God and was the beginning of the Church.

+Pablo


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scriptural Reference: Mk 2

Jesus Heals a Paralytic

2 When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 Then some people[a] came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up and take your mat and walk'? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"he said to the paralytic 11 "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home." 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Peter's Declaration about Jesus

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[a] and on this rock[b] I will build my church, and the powers of death[c] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.


swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That Twitter account is a Coptic orthodox gal.

Edit to mean: she has a strong authority/bishop/apostolic faith concern

And I have a lot of love and respect for her.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

That Twitter account is a Coptic orthodox gal.

Edit to mean: she has a strong authority/bishop/apostolic faith concern

And I have a lot of love and respect for her.

It's a very long duration argument regarding the authority/bishop/apostolic succession concept and centrality of authority under the Bishop of Rome. Pablo's scriptural reference is well known by many who do not agree (and never have) with Rome's interpretation, and to me, a (poorly Roman) Roman Catholic, seems rather beside the point given all that followed and flourished after the quoted discussion with St. Peter both in the Gospel and the history of early church. The RCC is a valid steward of the sacraments and Apostolic faith, but the "it just naturally follows that you need one guy in charge of the whole shooting match" argument isn't all that compelling.

The point on succession/primacy and the Council of Constance has to do with the resolution of a schism under authority of the council to identify a valid successor to Peter in Rome, but not any following deference of the reunited Papal office to the council that reunited it. It doesn't change my mind about my faith either way, just an interesting bit about how we got to where we are. People will interpret things as is convenient to them, I am sure, I hope that God helps me see what I ought to from it all.
Athanasius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was therehe that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:3234]" (ibid., 17:27).

-Cyril of Jerusalem
Patentmike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Always interesting to read what non-Catholics think about the Roman Catholic Church.
You mean the Roman Catholic Denomination?

PatentMike, J.D.
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology


Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think anyone disputes that St Peter was the leader of the Twelve. But where does it follow that this is a passed-on office? Or that it is passed on to the bishop of Rome in particular (several churches were started by St Peter).

That's the problem with nearly all of the Roman arguments for papal infallibility. They're more or less arguing a point about St Peter that in no way supports their claims about the pope.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd argue otherwise. It's clear Peter was the lead Apostle at Pentecost, but it is equally clear that James was the leader of the Church at the Council of Jerusalem. So I'd definitely take issue with the idea that Peter was always in charge of everyone. Your point about handing down "lead Apostle" is a good one though. We know for a fact that John survived Peter. Are we to say that Peter's successor and his successor's successor are now prime over the surviving Apostles like John?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with you. Just because St Peter was the leader of the Twelve (and honestly, I don't think that is arguable based on the gospels and the accounts of acts) doesn't mean he was in charge of the Church in some universal sense. And even if he was there still has to be shown that this position, if it ever existed, is heritable; and if it is heritable, by what means; and that those means are in fact exclusive to the episcopate of Rome.

We should always remember, while there are many prophets and all Christians are called to be prophets we have one Prophet. There are many shepherds but we have one Chief Shepherd. There are many teachers but we have one Teacher. There are many kings, but one King. Many priests but one High Priest. Anyone who should desire to be the universal pastor, bishop, "papa," universal anything for the Church is setting themselves up as anti-Christ in the true sense of the word - an alternative, opposite, as opposed to. This is why the title was rejected so strongly by St Gregory the Great, for example (even if it was when someone else was laying claim to it).
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.