A question about ecumenical councils

[garysibio]

I am not looking to question the authority of ecumenical councils but I have a question about how they work. The bishops are being led by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations. Why then, when they vote on a given matter, are they not unanimous? What am I missing?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I am not looking to question the authority of ecumenical councils but I have a question about how they work. The bishops are being led by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations. Why then, when they vote on a given matter, are they not unanimous? What am I missing?

First of all, I should point out that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council are not automatically classified as infallible. A Council MAY exercise the charism of infallibility, but that does not mean that everything (or anything) that a particular Council decrees actually exercises this charism. It is the same as the charism of infallibility of a Pope - not everything a Pope teaches is taught infallibility (and, in fact, most of Papal teaching is not regarded as infallible).

Insofar as any Council intends to teach infallibly, the Church only teaches that the Council teaches infallibly - not that each individual Bishop exercises this charism. Thus, there is no need for unanimous consent (which would imply infallibility of each Bishop), only for a majority consensus (which implies infallibility of the Council).

I should also note that nobody knows for sure if any particular teaching of the Church (whether promulgated by Pope or Council) rises to the level of infallibility unless the Church actually tells us so. Furthermore, it may be determined that only a small part of any particular Council’s decrees is regarded as infallible.

Thus, the large majority of Council decrees may not be said for sure to be infallible. This would include even many decrees of Trent.

 

[garysibio]

First of all, I should point out that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council are not automatically classified as infallible. A Council MAY exercise the charism of infallibility, but that does not mean that everything (or anything) that a particular Council decrees actually exercises this charism. It is the same as the charism of infallibility of a Pope - not everything a Pope teaches is taught infallibility (and, in fact, most of Papal teaching is not regarded as infallible).

Insofar as any Council intends to teach infallibly, the Church only teaches that the Council teaches infallibly - not that each individual Bishop exercises this charism. Thus, there is no need for unanimous consent (which would imply infallibility of each Bishop), only for a majority consensus (which implies infallibility of the Council).

I should also note that nobody knows for sure if any particular teaching of the Church (whether promulgated by Pope or Council) rises to the level of infallibility unless the Church actually tells us so. Furthermore, it may be determined that only a small part of any particular Council’s decrees is regarded as infallible.

Thus, the large majority of Council decrees may not be said for sure to be infallible. This would include even many decrees of Trent.

K. I understand that individual bishops are not infallible and that not everyrthing an ecumenical council is infallible but let’s look at something that is, Trent’s definition of the biblical canon. If the Holy Spirit was leading the bishops on this issue, why was there not unanimity? Yet some of the bishops held out for the Hebrew canon and the majority, as I understand it, did not want to anathematize those who held to the shorter canon.

The issue is similar to the argument used on Protestants with their doctrinal differences. We believe that Jesus’ statement about the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth applies to the magisterium. It seems absurd that Spirit-led bishops would not be in complete agreement.

I’m just trying to make sense of it all.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Individually, a bishop does not exercise infallibility. But as a corporate voice, infallibility does rise to the surface in the decision that the council makes. You saw in Acts 15, not everyone at the council was in agreement, yet the collective voice in union with Peter (as DavidFilmer eluded) prevailed. In this we have the confidence because it was Peter for whom Christ prayed that his “faith not fail” (among other reasons).

 

[cspb56]

We also have to remember that only matters of faith and morals are areas of papal and councilar infallability. Things of a disciple nature (how mass is celebrated, celibacy, ect.for example) are not. It certainly is alway a hot topic.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

I am not looking to question the authority of ecumenical councils but I have a question about how they work. The bishops are being led by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations. Why then, when they vote on a given matter, are they not unanimous? What am I missing?

I believe the infallibility of the ecumenical councils is derivative on the Pope’s authority. Sometimes the Pope doesn’t approve all of the council’s canons. Whatever canons the Pope approves, and if they relate to faith and morals for all to follow (the limited scope of papal infallibility), then those particular canons are infallible. I.e., it’s the Pope’s infallibility here.

Without papal approval to the specific canons, I don’t see how a council would be considered infallible.

 

[garysibio]

Individually, a bishop does not exercise infallibility. But as a corporate voice, infallibility does rise to the surface in the decision that the council makes. You saw in Acts 15, not everyone at the council was in agreement, yet the collective voice in union with Peter (as DavidFilmer eluded) prevailed. In this we have the confidence because it was Peter for whom Christ prayed that his “faith not fail” (among other reasons).

It seems to me that, if the bishops spoke with a corporate voice, it would be unanimous. How can they speak corporately and say two different and opposite things?

Again, I am not speaking against the belief; I only want to understand it better.

 

[garysibio]

We also have to remember that only matters of faith and morals are areas of papal and councilar infallability. Things of a disciple nature (how mass is celebrated, celibacy, ect.for example) are not. It certainly is alway a hot topic.

But even in issues of faith and morals, their opinion is divided. Not all of the bishops at Vatican I voted for making papal infallibility a dogma. If they are being led by the Holy Spirit, it seems to me that there should be unanimous agreement.

 

[garysibio]

I believe the infallibility of the ecumenical councils is derivative on the Pope’s authority. Sometimes the Pope doesn’t approve all of the council’s canons. Whatever canons the Pope approves, and if they relate to faith and morals for all to follow (the limited scope of papal infallibility), then those particular canons are infallible. I.e., it’s the Pope’s infallibility here.

Without papal approval to the specific canons, I don’t see how a council would be considered infallible.

You’re ducking the point. It doesn’t matter that they are not always speaking infallibly. I am talking only about those times when they are.

Papal infallibility has only given us two doctrines: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Every other dogma of the church came from an ecumenical council.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It seems to me that, if the bishops spoke with a corporate voice, it would be unanimous. How can they speak corporately and say two different and opposite things?

Again, I am not speaking against the belief; I only want to understand it better.

Ok, I see. But think of it like this - if every bishop spoke infallibly and there was 100% of a “vote” then there would be no need of a council to discern the voice of the Spirit. The council’s discernment is separate from the individual’s. So while the council will be infallibly guided (on faith and morals) when making a pronouncement that is ratified by the Pope, any individual voicing their theological understanding during the discernment period of that council is not necessarily the voice of the council’s infallible pronouncement. Again, Acts 15 where there were a number of those who offered a different view than the final ruling. Yet we have our faith in the pronouncement of the ruling as guided by the Spirit, as even the text of that event tells us (Acts 15:28).

 

[garysibio]

Ok, I see. But think of it like this - if every bishop spoke infallibly and there was 100% of a “vote” then there would be no need of a council to discern the voice of the Spirit. The council’s discernment is separate from the individual’s. So while the council will be infallibly guided (on faith and morals) when making a pronouncement that is ratified by the Pope, any individual voicing their theological understanding during the discernment period of that council is not necessarily the voice of the council’s infallible pronouncement. Again, Acts 15 where there were a number of those who offered a different view than the final ruling. Yet we have our faith in the pronouncement of the ruling as guided by the Spirit, as even the text of that event tells us (Acts 15:28).

Acts 15 is a bad example. Although there were differences of opinion, they didn’t vote. Once Peter spoke the issue was settled.

I’m not sure that episcopal unanimity would make a council unnecessary. As had been pointed out several times, not everything a council does deals with the establishment of dogma. In addition, your reasoning makes the council an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Acts 15 is a bad example. Although there were differences of opinion, they didn’t vote. Once Peter spoke the issue was settled.

I’m not sure that episcopal unanimity would make a council unnecessary. As had been pointed out several times, not everything a council does deals with the establishment of dogma. In addition, your reasoning makes the council an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

Yes, but in Acts 15, there were indeed those present that had a differing opinion than the final decision. Though the vote wasn’t “formal,” those alternate views were presented all the same.

I’m not following what you mean by the ends and means. Did I not stress that the council is “discernment” which is a means?

 

[DCNBILL]

I am not looking to question the authority of ecumenical councils but I have a question about how they work. The bishops are being led by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations. Why then, when they vote on a given matter, are they not unanimous? What am I missing?

Free will.

Just because we hold to the belief that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church and the Council does not mean that all individuals will open themselves to the prompting of the Spirit. The type of unanimous decision that you propose is even contrary to scripture because even in the Church hierarchy there will still be weeds growing with the wheat.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

You’re ducking the point. It doesn’t matter that they are not always speaking infallibly. I am talking only about those times when they are.

Papal infallibility has only given us two doctrines: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Every other dogma of the church came from an ecumenical council.

But those ecumenical councils were approved by Popes, correct? I just recall how some ecumenical councils had particular canons that weren’t approved by the Pope while the others are. That tells me the Pope has the final say, not an ecumenical council. If an ecumenical council such as Nicea (I don’t know if a Pope or his legates were there)…passed something…I’d say a Pope can overturn that today. But if a Pope approved something in an ecumenical council, and it related to faith and morals for all to follow, then I’d say that’s “infallible” and can’t be changed. Did that answer your question? I don’t believe an ecumenical council, by itself without approved canons by a Pope, has the same “infallible” authority a Pope has. Any “infallibility” of a council comes because a Pope gave the final “sign-off” on the canon(s). So it’s really the Pope who is infallible…with the limited scope of faith and morals for all to follow (e.g., an article of faith).

 

[Sirach2]

DavidFilmer:

I should also note that nobody knows for sure if any particular teaching of the Church (whether promulgated by Pope or Council) rises to the level of infallibility unless the Church actually tells us so. Furthermore, it may be determined that only a small part of any particular Council’s decrees is regarded as infallible.

Your statement is not in agreement with either Canon Law or the CCC, David.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

Canon 750 §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

See also Lumen Gentium #25, which is a “constitution” decreed by “authentic magisterium,” and CCC’s 890-891.

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

 

[yablabo]

I am not looking to question the authority of ecumenical councils but I have a question about how they work. The bishops are being led by the Holy Spirit in their deliberations. Why then, when they vote on a given matter, are they not unanimous? What am I missing?

It seems that you’re tending toward the same error on “collegial” infallibility that plagues those called “eastern orthodox.”

The ecumenical council (just as local synod or other councils can be) is a device used by the Roman Pontiff in making solemn judgments. If the Roman Pontiff (and/or his successors) confirms the decrees, definitions, declarations, condemnations and canons of an Ecumenical Council in a way that fits the definition of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff (i.e., ex Cathedra), then they are infallible. The voting is a prudential judgment device on the “when” and “how” aspects of dogmatic definition, not whether some article is or is not dogma. The deposit of faith being closed, nothing which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith can be changed or added when a definition is made, merely the articles are re-taught or illumined in such a way that we cannot have any good cause to doubt them. Articles of Catholic faith, however, such as Pope Leo XIII’s definition of the lacking of priestly orders in the anglican communion, can be somewhat subject to time in that once they were not bound because the issue did not exist, but now they are bound and bound by the Pope’s charism of infallibility.

Good reading on the infallibility which His Divine Majesty wished the Church to enjoy is found in the last chapter of the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (First Vatican Council).

– Nicole

 

[garysibio]

Yes, but in Acts 15, there were indeed those present that had a differing opinion than the final decision. Though the vote wasn’t “formal,” those alternate views were presented all the same.

I’m not following what you mean by the ends and means. Did I not stress that the council is “discernment” which is a means?

Acts 15:22 makes it clear that, at least when the decision was made, there was unanimous agreement.

 

[garysibio]

But those ecumenical councils were approved by Popes, correct? I just recall how some ecumenical councils had particular canons that weren’t approved by the Pope while the others are. That tells me the Pope has the final say, not an ecumenical council. If an ecumenical council such as Nicea (I don’t know if a Pope or his legates were there)…passed something…I’d say a Pope can overturn that today. But if a Pope approved something in an ecumenical council, and it related to faith and morals for all to follow, then I’d say that’s “infallible” and can’t be changed. Did that answer your question? I don’t believe an ecumenical council, by itself without approved canons by a Pope, has the same “infallible” authority a Pope has. Any “infallibility” of a council comes because a Pope gave the final “sign-off” on the canon(s). So it’s really the Pope who is infallible…with the limited scope of faith and morals for all to follow (e.g., an article of faith).

You are answering a question I’m not asking. I’m not challenging the decisions. I want to know why, if the Holy Siprit is guiding the bishops, why isn’t their unanimity among them?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Acts 15:22 makes it clear that, at least when the decision was made, there was unanimous agreement.

Acts 15:22 says they were all in agreement on which particular persons would be commissioned to go out. But that is irrelevant to the point I was making.