Are the Eastern Orthodox conciliarists?

[Wandile]

Conciliarism was a reform movement in the 14th-, 15th- and 16th-century Catholic Church. It was a heresy that once strangled the Catholic Church but was finally defeated at Vatican I with the formal proclamation, as dogma, of the Pontifical Infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop.

Conciliarism held that supreme authority in the Church resided with an Ecumenical council, apart from, or even against, the pope.

I’ve seen the Eastern Orthodox say something similar to this on various platforms. Are they conciliarists?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Conciliarism was a reform movement in the 14th-, 15th- and 16th-century Catholic Church. It was a heresy that once strangled the Catholic Church but was finally defeated at Vatican I with the formal proclamation, as dogma, of the Pontifical Infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop.

Conciliarism held that supreme authority in the Church resided with an Ecumenical council, apart from, or even against, the pope.

I’ve seen the Eastern Orthodox say something similar to this on various platforms. Are they conciliarists?

Well, considering they believe that papal supremacy is a heresy, it’s fair to assume they believe authority resides in the Church as a whole. They prefer collegiality over and against papal monarchy. Honestly, Google should be good enough to answe this question.

 

[phil19034]

I just you can argue that yes, they are conciliarists. If I’m not mistaken, they believe the Ecumenical council is the highest power on Earth.

 

[truthseeker32]

Conciliarism held that supreme authority in the Church resided with an Ecumenical council, apart from, or even against, the pope.

I’ve seen the Eastern Orthodox say something similar to this on various platforms. Are they conciliarists?

Supreme authority in the Church resides with God. A church council is authoritative when it rightly declares God’s truth. We know for certain that what is declared by a council is binding when it is subsequently ratified by a later church council. In Orthodox Christianity, identifying all authoritative councils as “ecumenical” is anachronistic, from our point of view, because the “ecumenical” in ecumenical council referred to the fact that it was a council held at the imperial, universal level, not that it was a “correct” council.

 

[twf]

I just you can argue that yes, they are conciliarists. If I’m not mistaken, they believe the Ecumenical council is the highest power on Earth.

An ecumenical council is the highest authority in the Catholic Church as well… except Catholics would stipulate that the pope must ratify an ecumenical council. The supreme authority in the Catholic Church, as taught by Vatican II, is the pope AND the bishops in union with him.

 

[twf]

Well, considering they believe that papal supremacy is a heresy, it’s fair to assume they believe authority resides in the Church as a whole. They prefer collegiality over and against papal monarchy. Honestly, Google should be good enough to answe this question.

Catholicism is also collegial as Vatican II definitively clarified. The Pope should act with his brother bishops, and not apart from them, but he reserves the power to act alone (but ALWAYS in conformance with Tradition) if necessary for the good of the Church. Even if the Pope appears to act against the will of the majority of the bishops in a particular time and place (which would be an extraordinarily unusual situation), he is a servant of Tradition and thus in conformance with the majority bishops in every place and time. The Church teaches that the ordinary magisterium (the consistent teaching of the popes and bishops in every time and place) is infallible…thus by definition the Pope cannot act against the ordinary magisterium. If a large number of bishops fall into heresy (as has happened), the Pope, by opposing them, remains loyal to the witness of the great majority of bishops in every time and place.

 

[Abu]

They have chosen to be.

The reality is that Christ placed Peter not only in a Primacy of honour, but gave him a Primacy of jurisdiction – the supreme authority to teach and govern the whole Church, which the first Vatican Council 1870 actually defined in response to the Gallicanism which had persisted. Christ Himself promised the protection of the Holy Spirit “to guide you into all truth”(Jn 16:13). All truth is no error. As St Augustine of Hippo affirmed: “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” (Sermones, 131,10).
[See *Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988, p 217].

"Gallicanism:
A cluster of doctrines, favoured by the French Church, that tended to limit the authority of the Pope in relation to the bishops, and to subordinate the rights of the Church to the power of the State.

“The Church only declared infallibility when Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.”
catholicculture.org/cult…x.cfm?id=33692

To explain the real issue we have the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
'CONCILIARISM. The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council’s superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation.

‘In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).’ Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)’

‘In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes.’ (*Modern Catholic Dictionary *by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[truthseeker32]

Good grief, Abu, you need to read history that has been peer reviewed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Conciliarism was a reform movement in the 14th-, 15th- and 16th-century Catholic Church. It was a heresy that once strangled the Catholic Church but was finally defeated at Vatican I with the formal proclamation, as dogma, of the Pontifical Infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop.

Conciliarism held that supreme authority in the Church resided with an Ecumenical council, apart from, or even against, the pope.

I’ve seen the Eastern Orthodox say something similar to this on various platforms. Are they conciliarists?

The premise is flawed. It would be like asking if the Vatican’s teachings on justification, atonement, and grace are Remonstrantist, or if Plato was a Confucianist.

 

[Wandile]

The premise is flawed. It would be like asking if the Vatican’s teachings on justification, atonement, and grace are Remonstrantist, or if Plato was a Confucianist.

Hardly. Conciliarism objectively can apply to any Christian denomination. Simply put, do the EO believe that an ecumenical council has more authority than the bishop of Rome (head primate of the Church) and can act against him or without him?

 

[Rohzek]

Considering the fact that Orthodox and Catholics both have entirely different notions as to what an ecumenical council is, it is not a question that can be answered without a lot of unpacking. truthseeker’s post alludes to these essential conceptual differences, although not in full detail.

 

[twf]

Considering the fact that Orthodox and Catholics both have entirely different notions as to what an ecumenical council is, it is not a question that can be answered without a lot of unpacking. truthseeker’s post alludes to these essential conceptual differences, although not in full detail.

“Entirely different” might be a little strong. We did, after all, celebrate 7 such councils together. Buddhists and Christians have “entirely different” notions of the afterlife. I don’t think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are “entirely different” on any issue. I find that in the online world at least, Catholics have a tendency to over emphasize our similarities while Orthodox go to extremes to emphasize that we are completely and utterly different on every conceivable topic . Thankfully the Orthodox I know in real life are much more likely to focus on our common ground. As I’ve discussed with an Orthodox priest, once we get past the theological baggage, we both bow down in adoration and awe before the infinite mystery of the Eucharistic Lord present in our temples.

We both agree that the highest authority of the Church on earth is the college of bishops. We both agree that this authority is most solemnly exercised in a general council of the world’s bishops. That by itself is immense common ground.

 

[Abu]

Jon Mallory #2
Well, considering they believe that papal supremacy is a heresy, it’s fair to assume they believe authority resides in the Church as a whole.

1. That denies Christ Himself who mandated St Peter as His Papal Supremacist:
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”

1. Further to the reality of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., pointing out that Gallicanism was countered at Vatican I, Philip Trower in Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius, 2003, p 85-6, that Vatican I “was the culmination of a long struggle between conflicting views of how Christ intended His Church to be governed at the highest level…that the pope is not subject to the body of bishops…It was this that the First Vatican Council at last put beyond doubt.”

“Given the long tradition of Conciliarism and Gallicanism in Europe, time was needed for the teaching on papal primacy and infallibility to sink in.”

1. From Vatican II’s *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution of the Church):
   The following explanatory note prefixed to the modi of chapter three of the schema The Church is given to the Fathers, and it is according to the mind and sense of this note that the teaching contained in chapter three is to be explained and understood.

PRELIMINARY EXPLANATORY NOTE
Extract:
‘A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification to be attached to the teaching put forward in the schema The Church, on which a vote is to be taken.

‘The doctrinal commission has replied to this query in appraising the modi proposed to the third chapter of the schema The Church:

‘3. There is no such thing as the college without its head: it is “The subject of supreme and entire power over the whole Church.” This much must be acknowledged lest the fullness of the Pope’s power be jeopardized. The idea of college necessarily and at all times involves a head and in the college the head preserves intact his function as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church. In other words it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops. The Pope alone, in fact, being head of the college, is qualified to perform certain actions in which the bishops have no competence whatsoever, for example, the convocation and direction of the college, approval of the norms of its activity, and so on (cf. modus 18). It is for the Pope, to whom the care of the whole flock of Christ has been entrusted, to decide the best manner of implementing this care, either personal or collegiate, in order to meet the changing needs of the Church in the course of time. The Roman Pontiff undertakes the regulation, encouragement, and approval of the exercise of collegiality as he sees fit.

‘4. The Pope, as supreme pastor of the Church, may exercise his power at any time, as he sees fit, by reason of the demands of his office. But as the Church’s tradition attests, the college, although it is always in existence, is not for that reason continually engaged in strictly collegiate activity. In other words it is not always “in full activity” (in actu pleno); in fact it is only occasionally that it engages in strictly collegiate activity and that only with the consent of the head (nonnisi consentiente capite). The phrase with the consent of the head is used in order to exclude the impression of dependence on something eternal: but the word “consent” entails communion between head and members and calls for this action which is exclusive to the head. The point is expressly stated in art. 22, par. 2 and it is explained at the end of the same article. The negative formulation “only with” (nonnisi) covers all cases: consequently it is evident that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed (cf. modus 84).

‘Clearly it is the connection of bishops with their head that is in question throughout and not the activity of bishops independently of the Pope. In a case like that, in default of the Pope’s action, the bishops cannot act as a college, for this is obvious from the idea of “college” itself. This hierarchical communion of all bishops with the Pope is unmistakably hallowed by tradition.’[My emphasis].

 

[mattp0625]

Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians:

Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion.

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.

 

[Rohzek]

“Entirely different” might be a little strong. We did, after all, celebrate 7 such councils together. Buddhists and Christians have “entirely different” notions of the afterlife. I don’t think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are “entirely different” on any issue. I find that in the online world at least, Catholics have a tendency to over emphasize our similarities while Orthodox go to extremes to emphasize that we are completely and utterly different on every conceivable topic . Thankfully the Orthodox I know in real life are much more likely to focus on our common ground. As I’ve discussed with an Orthodox priest, once we get past the theological baggage, we both bow down in adoration and awe before the infinite mystery of the Eucharistic Lord present in our temples.

We both agree that the highest authority of the Church on earth is the college of bishops. We both agree that this authority is most solemnly exercised in a general council of the world’s bishops. That by itself is immense common ground.

Just because we had 7 councils together, it does not therefore mean that we think of those 7 councils in the same way today. Our conceptions of what an ecumenical council is are quite different. There is nothing too strong about my phrasing whatsoever. Within Orthodoxy itself, what entails an ecumenical council is somewhat debated. Many, such as myself, hold the term to be merely honorific for widely attended councils that taught correctly. Meanwhile, in Catholicism today, papal approval makes a widely attended council ecumenical which is inextricably tied up with the concept of infallibility. In Orthodoxy, infallibility as a result of process is an entirely unknown concept. If it were an Orthodox concept, then we would have accepted Hieria, even without papal approval, all these years later. When it comes to matters of dogma, a council is only considered valid by virtue of its correct teaching, not its process. In Catholicism the two are tied together in a strange tautology. So the answer to the OP is no, we are neither conciliarists or papal supremacists.

As for Orthodox stressing differences, etc. too much, I don’t consider myself one those Orthodox. However, on this particular issue it is undeniable, we are entirely different. It’s one of the major hurdles for any Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, as it was in my case.

 

[twf]

Just because we had 7 councils together, it does not therefore mean that we think of those 7 councils in the same way today. Our conceptions of what an ecumenical council is are quite different. There is nothing too strong about my phrasing whatsoever. Within Orthodoxy itself, what entails an ecumenical council is somewhat debated. Many, such as myself, hold the term to be merely honorific for widely attended councils that taught correctly. Meanwhile, in Catholicism today, papal approval makes a widely attended council ecumenical which is inextricably tied up with the concept of infallibility. In Orthodoxy, infallibility as a result of process is an entirely unknown concept. If it were an Orthodox concept, then we would have accepted Hieria, even without papal approval, all these years later. When it comes to matters of dogma, a council is only considered valid by virtue of its correct teaching, not its process. In Catholicism the two are tied together in a strange tautology. So the answer to the OP is no, we are neither conciliarists or papal supremacists.

As for Orthodox stressing differences, etc. too much, I don’t consider myself one those Orthodox. However, on this particular issue it is undeniable, we are entirely different. It’s one of the major hurdles for any Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, as it was in my case.

I don’t think all Orthodox agree with that understanding of ecumenical councils. I don’t mean any disrespect, but how is it not the very definition of circular reasoning. If councils have no authority in and of themselves, apart from teaching the truth, how are we laity to determine the truth? Councils were called to definitely settle disputes. The Fathers condemned those who challenged the decisions of Councils. The Church, in a mystical sense, knows Her faith, of course- but in a temporal sense when there is confusion who has the authority to teach, to bind and to loose?

 

[Rohzek]

I don’t think all Orthodox agree with that understanding of ecumenical councils. I don’t mean any disrespect, but how is it not the very definition of circular reasoning. If councils have no authority in and of themselves, apart from teaching the truth, how are we laity to determine the truth? Councils were called to definitely settle disputes. The Fathers condemned those who challenged the decisions of Councils. The Church, in a mystical sense, knows Her faith, of course- but in a temporal sense when there is confusion who has the authority to teach, to bind and to loose?

According to Orthodoxy, all of the bishops and arguably the laity as well hole the power to bind and loose. As for the Fathers, they condemned those who challenged the councils unless they felt those councils were wrong.

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

 

[josie_L]

Well, considering they believe that papal supremacy is a heresy, it’s fair to assume they believe authority resides in the Church as a whole. They prefer collegiality over and against papal monarchy. Honestly, Google should be good enough to answe this question.

Papal Monarchy??? The Catholic Church believes the magisterium acting in tandem with the pope (who holds the primacy) is how the Church should govern itself, however, no council can be considered ecumenical without his approval.

Conciliarism pretty much denies the primacy/surpremacy of the Pope.

 

[josie_L]

According to Orthodoxy, all of the bishops and arguably the laity as well hole the power to bind and loose. As for the Fathers, they condemned those who challenged the councils unless they felt those councils were wrong.

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

Has there ever been a council wherein all Church fathers/bishops (not to mention laity) were in agreement with said council? History does not bear witness to this. In fact, even amongst the Orthodox (and theologians) there are differences on what should be considered or is ecumenical (Trullo, the 8th ecumenical council. . . etc.).

 

[josie_L]

Catholicism is also collegial as Vatican II definitively clarified. The Pope should act with his brother bishops, and not apart from them, but he reserves the power to act alone (but ALWAYS in conformance with Tradition) if necessary for the good of the Church. Even if the Pope appears to act against the will of the majority of the bishops in a particular time and place (which would be an extraordinarily unusual situation), he is a servant of Tradition and thus in conformance with the majority bishops in every place and time. The Church teaches that the ordinary magisterium (the consistent teaching of the popes and bishops in every time and place) is infallible…thus by definition the Pope cannot act against the ordinary magisterium. If a large number of bishops fall into heresy (as has happened), the Pope, by opposing them, remains loyal to the witness of the great majority of bishops in every time and place.