Please, read this text from Catholic Encyclopedia > C > General Councils (
newadvent.org/cathen/…/cathen/04423f.htm):
I read it. I found the following statement:
Further, on the same supposition, the college of judges is subject to the rule obtaining in all assemblies constituted for framing a judicial sentence or a common resolution, due regard being paid to the special relations, in the present instance, between the head and the members of the college: the co-operative verdict embodies the opinion of the majority, including the head, and in law stands for the verdict of the whole assembly, it is communi sensu constitutum (established by common consent). A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation. The verdict of a majority, therefore, not endorsed by the pope, has no binding force on either the dissentient members present or the absent members, nor is the pope bound in any way to endorse it. Its only value is that it justifies the pope, in case he approves it, to say that he confirms the decision of a council, or gives his own decision sacro approbante concilio (with the consent of the council). This he could not say if he annulled a decision taken by a majority including his legates, or if he gave a casting vote between two equal parties. A unanimous conciliary decision, as distinct from a simple majority decision, may under certain circumstances, be, in a way, binding on the pope and compel his approbation — by the compelling power, not of a superior authority, but of the Catholic truth shining forth in the witnessing of the whole Church. To exert such power the council’s decision must be clearly and unmistakably the reflex of the faith of all the absent bishops and of the faithful.
The Councils of Constance
This Council dealt with the “three Pope” problem, when it was not clear which of the three claimants to the Chair of Peter was the legitimate Pope. The Council determined that
in this one instance, a Council of Bishops was superior to a
supposed Pope. The Council never claimed that a Council was generally superior to an acknowledged Pope.
What the heck is the Council of Basle? Here’s where
citing stuff is a good idea. There is no Ecumenical Council by that name.
affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to the pope
Could you please specifically
cite that “great emphasis?” Because, when I read Constance, I find a great deal of restraint, not emphasis.
Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance
Wrong. Pope Martin-5 never approved the session you refer to, since it was held without Papal approval (since there was no acknowledged Pope at the time). The session you refer to was held in 1415, but Martin was not elected until 1417. This session is not considered to be part of the Council, because it was held outside of Catholic law. Martin approved only those sessions that were held under his jurisdiction (because those are the only sessions that he could lawfully approve).
If Martin-5 had favored any of the Council’s declarations that were held outside of Papal oversight, he could have used his authority as Pope to teach them
ex Cathedra. But he did not do so.
If you want to accuse Constance of illegally deposing a (presumed, but not readily identified) Pope under false pretenses, then nobody could argue. It had happened before, and would happen since (even though it’s supposed to be impossible). But if you want to claim that this teaching (about deposing Popes under
any circumstances) is part of Church Doctrine (much less infallible Doctrine) then you fall far short.
and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecumenical synod over the pope
What the heck is the Council of Basle?
So we have such argument:
Wrong. The Pope CAN be infallible, but often is not.
2.Two Popes approved two counclis’ affirming the superiority of an Ecumenical council over the pope.
Wrong. Constance never said anything of the kind. What the heck is the Council of Basle?
3.Ecumenical council over the pope(From: 1,2)
Wrong. An Ecumenical Council must be convened by a Pope. An Ecumenical Council ceases to exist upon the death of a Pope, but may be reconstituted upon the election and approval of his acknowledged successor (this happened twice with Trent, which spanned the reigns of three Popes). An Ecumenical Council must be ratified by the Pope. A Pope may convene an Ecumenical Council, preside over it, but decline to ratify its teaching, in which case the Council is nothing (as the Catholic Encyclopedia article that you cited says).
4.An fallible can’t be over infallible.
That’s not an English-language sentence. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
So: Ecumenical council must be infallible.
Based on three false suppositions and one unintelligible supposition, I would claim that your conclusion has no basis.
An Ecumenical Council (when convened by, and presided over (directly or by legates), and confirmed by a Pope) MAY teach infallibly (just as a Pope MAY teach infallibly).
