Ultimate Authority: Council or Pope

[SyroMalankara]

I have a doctrinal and canon law question:
I realize the Catholic Church says the Pope is the final authority even over the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox say the opposite.
Now my questions: Why did VCI have to ratify that the Pope has infallible and ordinary universal authority, if the Pope is over the Council? Why did the Pope not make an ex cathedra pronouncement, instead of VCI ratifying this?
Why was there debate if this authority was always recognized?
How does one answer the Orthodox position that:
if the Pope is over the Council, then the Council will simply be the Pope’s own committee, just agreeing to his pronouncements, and if the Council disagrees he can just declare that decision null and void?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Jesus said those in authority should not lord it over others. (Luke 22:24-26) I think the Popes have tried to do this by allowing most controversies to be settled by councils.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Michael_Thoma:

I have a doctrinal and canon law question:
I realize the Catholic Church says the Pope is the final authority even over the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox say the opposite.
Now my questions: Why did VCI have to ratify that the Pope has infallible and ordinary universal authority, if the Pope is over the Council? Why did the Pope not make an ex cathedra pronouncement, instead of VCI ratifying this?
Why was there debate if this authority was always recognized?
How does one answer the Orthodox position that:
if the Pope is over the Council, then the Council will simply be the Pope’s own committee, just agreeing to his pronouncements, and if the Council disagrees he can just declare that decision null and void?

As usual with many of the Councils the issues addressed may have been universally accepted but never specifically declared. The Church addresses them when there is a serious challenge affecting the belief. Without looking I would guess that the result of the Protestant Reformation during the 17 and 1800’s prompted the Church to see the need to decree this.

 

[rwoehmke]

At the time that VC I took place, the National Italian state was being formed. Much of what had been the Papal States were being absorbed into this new nation. Because this put the Pope in a position of having very little land and few men for an army I believe that the Council members took this step as a way to point out that despite these reverses the Pope still held the prime position of authority over the universal Church. The history of the papacy goes back to at least Clement. Although Peter was never called " Pope" it seems obvious that he was the first to hold that office. The position of the Council as a leadership part of the Church was not discussed at VC I because it had to be dismissed early because war broke out and I believe the French were invading Italy.

 

[ChasG]

I believe that there have been may instances where a council has officially ratified a position that the Church has historically held. Usually the need arose because the issue was was being challenged. I don’t know if this was the case in this situation. But one could extend your question even further and ask why councils are needed at all when the Pope can make the final decissions. The answer is, I beleive, that Popes take their responsibility to teach the truth very seriously. And, while they are prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy, their teachings also greatly benefit from the collective wisdom of the council.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The usual Orthodox response:
If the Pope’s authority were recognized from the beginning, why were there bishops (Utrecht, Germany, Scandanavia) who debated the otherside?
Also, if the Pope’s role is considered a matter of doctrine, why are the Orthodox considered schismatics, but not heretics?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael_Thoma:

I have a doctrinal and canon law question:
I realize the Catholic Church says the Pope is the final authority even over the Ecumenical Councils. The Orthodox say the opposite.
Now my questions: Why did VCI have to ratify that the Pope has infallible and ordinary universal authority, if the Pope is over the Council? Why did the Pope not make an ex cathedra pronouncement, instead of VCI ratifying this?
Why was there debate if this authority was always recognized?
How does one answer the Orthodox position that:
if the Pope is over the Council, then the Council will simply be the Pope’s own committee, just agreeing to his pronouncements, and if the Council disagrees he can just declare that decision null and void?

A possible reply, up to a point, would be, that Ecumenical Councils are an exercise of the Papal Magisterium. I don’t find this convincing.​

The whole question is bound up with that of sovereignty in the Church. IOW - who has the final say in the Church, and on what grounds ?

Christ is Head of the Church - but, the headship of Christ is “put into commission” by human beings, and sin-prone human beings at that; hence the problem.

There may be a solution, if we think of this Papal headship as being quasi-sacramental, rather than as a matter of law and rights and duties. IOW, use a different set of ideas to look at the question. That may help in breaking the deadlock.

Perhaps the whole question has not been sufficiently Christ-centred - Christ tends to turn familiar concepts upside-down, so as to make us see them in a very different way from the usual. St.Paulwas accused of exactly this in Acts; of “turning the world upside down” with his preaching. Just like His Master.

An example:The authority is exercised through - of all things - service, and His throne is: the Cross. The Christian’s Lord, is a crucified felon - humanly speaking: but we know that He is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”. In a similar way, St. Paul talks about grace, not rights. Maybe this sort of mind and thinking is what we need. ##

 

[SojournerOf78]

I know this will get me in trouble but I have said it before…

I was very confused about the Papacy in times past and still dont fully understand it. I love the RCC but also see the Orthodox point of view as being valid in many ways, I guess you could stay Im still having a hard time with the issue. Jesus said he would lead the church into all truth, he never said the church would never make mistakes…

 

[Todd_Easton]

SojournerOf78:

I know this will get me in trouble but I have said it before…

I was very confused about the Papacy in times past and still dont fully understand it. I love the RCC but also see the Orthodox point of view as being valid in many ways, I guess you could stay Im still having a hard time with the issue. Jesus said he would lead the church into all truth, he never said the church would never make mistakes…

Perhaps this true story will help you to understand the papacy a little better:
When I was in the third grade, my parents took a well-deserved vacation away from their five kids for a few days and they left my oldest brother, a teenager in high school at the time, in charge of the rest of us kids. He was supposed to make sure we ate and went to bed at the appointed times, etc. Well, I remember one dinner he made. It wasn’t one of my favorite dishes and I did something I never would have done had my parents been present. I refused to eat the meal. My brother asked me to eat it but since he was only my brother and not my parent, I refused to comply and ended up going to bed hungry that night. Do you think my parents were happy with me when they returned and learned about my defiant behavior?

Like a good parent, Jesus left our elder brother (the pope) in charge, to take care of the family of God, while he is away.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Thoma,

The reason that there is “another side” to the issue is because there are Christians who look at the papacy not as something positive for the doctrinal and moral life of the Church, but as an office that would seek to deprive its bishops of their rightful prerogatives.

Of course, that is NOT what the papacy is or is suppose to do, though there are examples of Popes who certainly transgressed moral and canonical norms. Then again, Orthodox Patriarchs have also been guilty of the same things.

The Orthodox position is not a position borne of faith, but a position borne of fear. There is some good reason for it based on actions of the Catholics (not necessarily Popes) many hundreds of years ago, but there are no reasons for it based on any recent events within over a century. But as someone has said, it took several hundred years for he schism to take effect. Naturally, we can’t expect it to be healed within one hundred years.

The reason the Orthodox are not regarded as heretical, but rather schismatical, is for two reasons.

First, the Orthodox position against the Catholic Church is not based so much on the fact that the Orthodox are ACTUALLY heterodox, but merely because they PERCEIVE the Catholic Church to be heterodox. Many Orthodox refuse to accept the possibility that East and West have the same faith, but only expressed differently. Other Orthodox accept that and have come into communion with Rome. Consequently, you will find that the Catholic Church is more willing to work for unity than most Orthodox. The Catholic Church has always perceived that the Orthodox are merely being ignorant of Catholicism, not that they actually teach heresy. So we as Catholics cannot in good conscience call them heretics

Second, as far as the issue of the papacy is concerned, it is historically percieved that a disagreement between Churches based on leadership (and not doctrine) is regarded a schism, and not heresy. This ties in to the first reason. We as Catholics believe that the Orthodox do not so much reject the papacy for its Truth, but because of what they (falsely) perceive it to be. If you listen to Orthodox polemics against the papacy, you can definitely sense that it is based many instances on irrational fear, not on the actual teaching of the Church on the matter. Invincible ignorance is a mitigating factor here. So in this second instance, we can likewise NOT call them heretics per se, but only schismatics.

God bless,
Greg