For almost 1,000 years, men have sought to heal the wounds of separation that currently divide the Body of Christ, and there is probably no greater obstacle to that healing than the rejection by some of the modern papacy. Opponents of Rome argue that in the ancient Church, the role of the Pope was nothing like the autocracy that has developed in recent times, and while they acknowledge the Bishop of Rome’s “primacy” in the early Church, they opine that the early papacy was constitutional or conciliar in nature and that the modern papacy is a novelty or worse.
One suggestion frequently heard is to return to the Church of the ecumenical councils – to the time when Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants can all agree on the scope of the Pope’s authority. By agreeing to such a compromise, Catholics will be able to maintain their papacy, albeit reduced to its primitive limits, and the great obstacle to the reunion of Christendom will be removed. The Church will be healed of its wound, the scandal of schism will cease, and the seamless garment of Christ will be restored. This argument has been put forward by Orthodox, Anglicans and even modern Evangelicals who call this theological movement “
Paleo-Orthodoxy”.
Proponents hold that the ancient Church still lives in the documents of the Councils and the voices of the Church Fathers; it is a living authority, just as much as the Bible. Obey what the primitive Church would have instructed under like circumstances, what you think it would command today, if it had not disappeared under the exaggerations of a later age, and you have your authority for the Church – at least as good an authority as that of the Protestant who obeys what the Bible Alone commands in similar circumstances.
Such a proposal is riddled with problems. First, as Dave Armstrong points out, returning to a conciliar model is no compromise; it
is simply Orthodoxy. As such, it ignores the development of the papacy which is just as natural as that which has occurred for any number of doctrines that are held by all Christendom and cannot be compromised.
Second, Catholics believe in a Church that exists and lives all days, even to the end of the world, built by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit, infallible in faith and morals. We have the same confidence in the Church today as we do in the Church of AD 325 or AD 451. To be obliged to look back to some former time would be the end of any living authority in the Church. The idea of a dead past in which the Church was united, and a present in which it is not, really means that the original Church founded by Christ no longer exists. A society that has become three or more separate societies no longer exists. If the original Church no longer exists, then hell has prevailed. This is to be rejected. That some have left the Church and set up rival churches is tragic, but it is nothing new. From Arianism, Nestoriansim, and Monophysitism in the earliest days down to the heresies of the Albigensians and the Reformation more recently, there have always been those who cut themselves off from the Church. However, none of that affects the unity of the original Church. Nothing can destroy her because her Founder is almighty and promised that she would last until the end of time.
Third, if we are to be required to judge for ourselves what the documents of that earlier period imply, we are in worse shape than the Protestant who judges for himself what the Scriptures mean. It is one degree of difficulty to discern what 66 or 73 inspired books might mean; it is far more difficult to manage the vast writings of hundreds of Church Fathers and the Councils. Thus, while one person might support his theological view with the writings of one Father, a second person, with greater knowledge of Patrology or the ancient languages, would justify his contrary view with passages from a second Father – or even from other passages from that one Father! And, of course, the Fathers were not authoring inspired or infallible texts. With such obvious difficulties, we shall go on arguing about the meaning of the Fathers far more hopelessly than we have argued for the meaning of Matthew 16:18. The only possible standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment that can answer our difficulties, reject a false theory as it arises, and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents.
Finally, while each of the points just made is sufficient for silencing the proponents of the conciliar papacy model, it must be pointed out that Catholics contend that the Church Fathers and indeed the Scriptures themselves offer proof of a papacy that is far stronger the conciliarists care to admit.
If by “conciliar model” you mean the idea that the Ecum Council is above the Pope, I agree. On the other hand, the idea that the Pope is above an Ecum Council is also a no-go, and is not Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.
conciliarism. V-1 explicitly condemned conciliarism. V-II further defined. The college of Bishops forms with it an organic unity, in particular when in General Council. I don’t see the issue with Primacy in perspective. Council of Basel, 1431, reaffirmed Sacrosancta.