Which Councils Contradict other Councils?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gwillym
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was never any question that The Supreme Vicar of Christ was given His full authority over the whole of His Church.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.”
 
I have learned two things about people who say this. First, if you ask them for specifics it is rare someone can provide those specifics. Second, they are shocked when confronted with the fact if the councils were so bad, perhaps they should rethink their Sola Scriptura idea since scripture was canonized through the same process. At least, that is what my Protestant Old Test. history book from bible college says.
 
Ok. So Poking around the interwebs. I’ve only been able to find 4 councils that are “contradictory”. Which I have to admit was a tad disappointing. Here they are and my thoughts on them.
  1. Vatican II - Purposely declared nothing Dogmatic so it hardly counts.
  2. Vatican I - The line about the papacy which has been discussed above. This may be
    problematic for those who don’t except the primacy of Rome but I don’t see
    an actually contradiction between this council and previous councils. At least
    not that anyone has bothered to point out to me (I haven’t exactly read the
    content all 20 some odd councils)
  3. Quintesext - Now here’s a gem for anyone who wants to argue the claim
    of historic unity in the church on matters of faith and doctrine! However,
    it predates the east/west schism and Rome (or any other western bishop)
    was not represented at the council. Thus making it a more of a synod than council and certainly not ecumenical.
  4. Second Ephasus - Ye Ole robber council. This thing was a mess and although its a
    tempting target for those who want to deny the concept of
    Counciliar Authority, the fact that its legitimacy was questioned
    before it was ended, several bishops who’s opinions were relevant
    to the matters at hand were denied a vote and the opinions of Rome
    and the west were refused even to be heard, all call into serious
    question its claim as an ecumenical council and thus any infallible authority.
I can’t find anything else. Though like I said I havn’t read up on every council. The line that “council’s have not only erred but contradict one another” comes from Luther. Maybe I should do a wikitrip on it but could it be that Luther was in fact referring to the concilliar debate of the late middle ages and not the Ecumenical councils per say?

Gwill
 
Gwillym #23
  1. Vatican II - Purposely declared nothing Dogmatic so it hardly counts.
Click to expand...
False. The Church teaches through Dogma, AND Doctrine which can develop.

In reality Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church #8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes this as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].
 
Well, my point was not that Vatican II can be ignored. My point was simply that any contradiction between Vatican II and previous councils cannot be used as an argument against the infallibility of ecumenical councils because the councils only claim to be infallible when establishing dogma. Am I mistaken in this?

It seems to me if one suggests that the church or council can never err in a doctrinal statement or policy then one has a problem. Who’s idea was it to sell indulgences in the late middle ages and who’s idea was it to say they may not be sold later? How can both decisions be correct?

Submission to Church authority does not mean mindless acquiescence to every word spoken by her, be it from the pope or a council. Otherwise how could the church ever be reformed and if the copy of the CCC for Adults that I have on my shelf is to be believed the church claims she is in constant need of reform in every age, and that reform is often spurred on by the humble obedience of saints to God, often in opposition to the church.

Gwill
 
what may appear a contradiction is in fact not it is called development of doctrine.

I think one of the greatest examples of development of doctrine is a devlopment from Vatican I to Vatican II

Vat I said to stay away from the Modern Culture it is dangerous and we shouldn’t be involved in it

Vatican II had a document called the Church and the Modern World.

a seeming contradiction but rather it is a development of doctrine.
 
Gwillym said:
Well, my point was not that Vatican II can be ignored. My point was simply that any contradiction between Vatican II and previous councils cannot be used as an argument against the infallibility of ecumenical councils because the councils only claim to be infallible when establishing dogma. Am I mistaken in this?

It seems to me if one suggests that the church or council can never err in a doctrinal statement or policy then one has a problem. Who’s idea was it to sell indulgences in the late middle ages and who’s idea was it to say they may not be sold later? How can both decisions be correct?

Submission to Church authority does not mean mindless acquiescence to every word spoken by her, be it from the pope or a council. Otherwise how could the church ever be reformed and if the copy of the CCC for Adults that I have on my shelf is to be believed the church claims she is in constant need of reform in every age, and that reform is often spurred on by the humble obedience of saints to God, often in opposition to the church.

Gwill
Click to expand...
Simple question for you when the apostles after the time of Jesus made doctrinal statements did they speak with authority?

if they have authority what authority do they have and where does it come from?

if the Bishops of the Catholic Church are in fact the descendants of the apostles wouldn’t they have the same authority that the apostles have?

does a CEO have the same authority as the founder after the founder passed away?
 
Gwillym #26
the councils only claim to be infallible when establishing dogma. Am I mistaken in this?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Popes and the Ecumenical Councils approved by a Pope can teach infallibly. From Vatican I (*Pastor Aeternus), *for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.
Who’s idea was it to sell indulgences in the late middle ages and who’s idea was it to say they may not be sold later? How can both decisions be correct?
Click to expand...
“Abuses very easily creep in for such things, and the granting of Indulgences in return for an alms became in many cases a traffic in Indulgences for cash considerations. The Council of Trent, therefore, condemned all persons guilty of such an abuse, forbade it absolutely, and required strict supervision on the part of bishops to see that Indulgences were treated, not as a means of gain, but as an incentive to godliness.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Indulgences&db=3
the church claims she is in constant need of reform in every age, and that reform is often spurred on by the humble obedience of saints to God, often in opposition to the church.
Click to expand...
The reform required is that of individual Catholics.

“In First Things (November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that ‘the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.’ Thus the Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top