Orthodoxy, Lutheranism ... and schism?

[Peter_J]

Coucils we (Catholics) consider infallible all follow these objective criteria.

Could you specify here? We already discussed that, according to the Roman Catholic Church, acceptance by the Pope is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council; but what do you see as being sufficient conditions?

 

[Peter_J]

Not sure.

I think that what I mean by “bait-and-switch” might become clearer with “Unam Sanctum” as an illustration. On the surface it seems like a very useful and practical criterion: in order to go to heaven, one has to “be subject” to the Pope. Aha, TriuneUnity is going to hell, unless he repents and starts “being subject” to the Pope, case closed, bang the gavel.

“Not so fast” say Catholics: we still affirm Unam Sanctum, but maybe TriuneUnity is subject to the Pope authority, so maybe TU could go to heaven even if he died today without having “repented”. There’s the rub, or if you will, the “switch”.

For a different example, please read this post from the Eastern Catholicism section. (I think it would be bad form to quote myself.)

 

[buffgbob]

Could you specify here? We already discussed that, according to the Roman Catholic Church, acceptance by the Pope is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council; but what do you see as being sufficient conditions?

In the same article:

the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.

As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.

Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2

That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I know it’s “too easy” to just sit and quote newadvent, but it is very clear in this manner.

 

[Peter_J]

I know it’s “too easy” to just sit and quote newadvent, but it is very clear in this manner.

Oh that’s alright. You answered my question by quoting the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. (If you had been even lazier and just said “I agree with the position of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia”, even that would have given me a pretty good idea of where you stand.)

That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority.

A couple of interesting things to note about this statement. One is that there’s no footnote – the writers of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia didn’t back up their statement with a quote from e.g. a council. Don’t you have to wonder why?

Second, the statement doesn’t explicitly say “a council is ecumenical if it satisfies these conditions” but rather "an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions … ". So it seems that even the writers of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia wanted to, if you will, hedge their bets somewhat on this claim – that is to say, speak as though any council which satisfies these conditions is an ecumenical council, but without explicitly committing themselves to that position.

 

[buffgbob]

Hrmm… I see what you are saying there. However, I don’t think the word “which” leaves room open to say that any council which satisfies those conditions is not ecumenical. I mean, you use the word “which” to explicity state it. ;D

However, the wording “That an ecumenical council…” might lead itself into some ambiguity, since they presuppose it is ecumenical in stating that it is infallible given those conditions above. Then it begs the question, which councils are ecumenical? I guess the primary criterion would be whether a suggested “ecunemical” council follows the above criterion; which I assume is the explicit aim of the authors. Even making this criticism of the text is a stretch honestly. As I said earlier, I felt they were very clear.

If you continue to read the article, they actually argue against other views of what an ecumenical council must have (such as worldwide acceptance of all churches.) Now clearly they don’t give specific references to councils etc in defining what makes a council ecumenical. This is because it is impossible; no council has made that decree. They make their arguments based off what is consistant with what we know (and what is accepted as ecunemical now) and what is not consistant (the alternatives.) Their argument works equally well against the Orthodox position (as that against the High Anglicans.)

 

[Peter_J]

Hrmm… I see what you are saying there. However, I don’t think the word “which” leaves room open to say that any council which satisfies those conditions is not ecumenical. I mean, you use the word “which” to explicity state it. ;D

Perhaps. To be honest, I don’t want to get into a big argument about it. What the authors of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia believed or didn’t believe is of very little importance to me.

Now clearly they don’t give specific references to councils etc in defining what makes a council ecumenical. This is because it is impossible; no council has made that decree.

Bingo!

One council (Florence, I believe) did say that acceptance by the Pope is a necessary condition, but that’s about all that was said.