www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Heresy of conciliarism

In reviewing the EWTN Q&A section today I came across the following item. It struck me as being not quite right, at least from my unlearned perspective, and would like comments from others. Thanks

Tee hee hee...this'll be good!

Logos Teen

A most astounding revelation! I feel I am stepping into a minefield here.

I for one, was not aware that the EWTN organization or the author of that opinion has been gifted with infallible interpretation. I could not find the entry on their site and I would like to see the citations that would back it up.

For a church more active in the persuit of "true" ecumanism than perhaps any other church body, and seeking to find a formula for the exercise of the Petrine ministry which might be acceptable to the Orthodox, this may be a classic "shoot oneself in the foot" position. Sure to dash any hopes of reconciliation between the churches.

But perhaps that is the whole point...

I shudder at the heretical risks of caesaro-papism, but of conciliarism... ?

Long live sobornost!!!

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

It seems this is only some wishful thinking to make Lumen Gentium and other documents of Vatican II advocating greater conciliar/synodal governance of the Church go away.

This has never been defined as a heresy by any Council of the Church. In fact this Pope has spoken quite a bit about the need for greater conciliar/synodal structure and a hard look at the Papacy.

AMIN!

I agree with Coalesco, we need to see the whole comment in context with the question that was asked that generated this answer.

I did a search at the EWTN Q&A site and found it, here it is.

GIRM
Question from anon on 10-06-2003:
Is it true that standing for the consecration was mandated by the Council of Nicea? I have heard that being used as a 'historical' argument; that the church (the western church anyways) has not always knelt for the consecration and that it is not an essential element.
I also heard that the Canadian Bishops are recommending standing for the consecration (again!).

Also do you know if consecrating the Precious Blood in the cruet on the corporal (without the adding of water) is licit? I attended a mass once where this happened. The celebrant poured some of the wine from the cruet into the chalice in the normal way but then left it on the corporal and consecrated it also.

answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 10-21-2003:
While it might be nice for a historical study to trace the development of kneeling versus standing, it is irrelevant to our current obligations in the Roman Rite. A Council, whether Nicea or Vatican II, is not superior to the Pope, who has decreed a certain discipline for us today. That would be the heresy of conciliarism. Sadly, it is a popular heresy today, especially by those who practice the "spirit of Vatican II" while rejecting what the Vicar of Christ legislates in favor of some mythic Vatican II renewal. That would likewise be the intellectual error behind asserting some primacy of Nicea in order to not kneel at the Consecration. Yes, its history, but ultimately we are always guided by the decisions of the living Magisterium, who alone interprets doctrine and decides disciplinary matters.
As anyone who has ever dropped a cruet knows, it will break easily. I don't see how it's use as a sacred vessel could comply with the GIRM. Once the wine is consecrated it would be an illicit vessel.


328. Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.

329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate.

As you can see, the main question is about kneeling and what the sacred vessels are made of.

I wonder why Lawrence felt the need to post only a portion of the answer, from the middle of it, without the question.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear Friends,

This really is a minefield, isn't it?

Whether Lawrence included all or part of the quote, I don't see how it changes the "pith and substance" of the response given.

The problem is, and it is a problem for the Latin Church, that the Seven Ecumenical Councils were approved by the Pope of Rome as well as indefectible (or infallible) and binding for the entire Church, nomatter which direction it happens to be in.

Can a Pope overturn the infallible doctrine of the Assumption? No, he cannot.

May a Pope overturn what was affirmed at the Seven Ecumenical Councils, affirmed as infallible by other Popes, together with other Patriarchs and Bishops?

I would hope that the answer would be, "no" as well.

The only time an Ecumenical Council ever went against a Pope was to excommunicate Pope Honorius - something also ratified by that Pope's successors and affirmed until the twelfth century.

Otherwise, the fellow with the "STL" doesn't really know what he is talking about.

When a Pope affirms an Ecumenical Council, as the Seven Councils were, that is also an expression of "papal infallibility."

Alex

Alex,

You are not distinguishing at all between Doctrine and disciplinary practices. Regarding the latter, the Pope of Rome is the Supreme Legislator in the Latin Church.

Pope Honorius was never excommunicated during his lifetime by any synod that was recognized as authoritative. He was posthumously condemned for failure to supress heresy.

LatinTrad

Yes, I will agree that it is a minefield.

I think that one should err on the side of posting too much when one is quoteing someone or something because context does matter.

In this case, while I can see how the comment on the "heresy of conciliarism" can be a problem.

The whole of the question and answer is dealing with a discipline which can not be binding upon the pope. He can change the disciplines when he wants to.

Thats all my point is.

I understand the argument of the "heresy of conciliarism". I just am not sure of it.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Well Brethren!
There is a truth to "conciliarism" being heretical.
And here's how.
The Church does act collegial and in a conciliar form. The heresy was that 1. They denied that the Pope was the head of a Council. 2. They were superior to the Pope in the governance of the Church and in theological matters.

Soooooo Yes and No.
Stephanos I

I have never heard "Conciliarism" actually categorized as a heresy, but it certainly had that potential. Holding that the supreme authority rested in a council, rather than the Pope, it became a major factor in the Great Western Schism, allowing as it did for Popes to be deposed by councils.

The doctrine has been effectively denied validity in the texts of Lumen Gentium and Christus Dominus, both of which recite clearly that the collegial authority of councils rests on their relationship with and acceptance of papal authority.

"... the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power” (Lumen Gentium 24).

“The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head” (Lumen Gentium 24).

The Second Vatican Council's Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of the Bishops, “Together with the Supreme Pontiff and under his authority, [bishops] are sent to continue throughout the ages the work of Christ, the Eternal Pastor. … Bishops, sharing in the solicitude for all the churches, exercise this Episcopal office of theirs, which they have received through Episcopal consecration, in communion with and under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff” (Christus Dominus, 2 and 3).

Some traditionalists argue that conciliarism is rampant in the post-Vatican II church and that it is papal kow-towing to conciliarism that caused Vatican II changes to be enacted. That pope(s) have failed to assert themselves in the rightful exercise of their authority thereby justifies finding those popes to be heretical and/or in schism, thus a declaration of sedevacantism is justified. Those who haven't gone so far as to subscribe to sedevacantism (e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Richard Williamson, the SSPX) still argue that papal indifference/acquiesence to conciliarism is what allowed implementation of Vatican II decrees and justifies disobedience to same.

Many years,

Neil

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am of two minds on this whole matter, but there are easily more ways than that to look at it.

Some people will call anything a heresy.

What bothers me is that the Great Western schism was started by the College of Cardinals, right in the Papal household in other words, and finally closed by a Council. The Pontiffs were totally unable to heal the schism through their own efforts. In this case, the Council was supreme! A charge of heresy against the Council of Constance could have undone it's unifying work.

This has bothered me for the longest time. I think conciliarism is less dangerous to the church than ultramontanism, and what the church really needs is a balance, the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of the world working in concert, as collaborators.

Pax
Michael

These are good points. On a bit of a tangent I would posit that the position of the sedevacantists, while erroneous in my opinion, is nonetheless more reasonable as they believe the See is vacant, hence the basis for their dissent. The SSPX has no such reasonable basis. They say there is a Pope but do not and seem to have no intention of following him.

The question has still not been answered with regard to the "heresy" of conciliarism. I find the term itself confusing as it could mean simply being an advocate for a conciliar/synodal form of ecclesiastical governance (which did in fact exist in the Church for well over its first century) all the way to the extreme viewpoint that no primacy is neccesary with truly conciliar, "democratic" governance.

I maintain no such thing has been defined as heresy by an Ecumenical Council. I have not seen an official definition of the term as a heresy in any Catholic catechism, and most significantly it is absent from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

And with all this talk of the primacy it is perhaps opportune to remind that the Papacy was divided for a time in the Church and there are canonized saints who supported both "popes" and "anti-popes". I find it a bit ironic that it was a synodal council (Constance) that was able to depose anti-popes and eventually straighten the whole mess out. Individually claimed primacy by up to three individuals certainly wasn't going anywhere.

Please don't get me wrong. Primacy of the Petrine Ministry certainly has a most definite and necessary place in the Catholic Church.
But after all, the Pope has to be elected by conciliar/synodal means. He can't appoint himself. So ultimately the College of Cardinals, is responsible for electing, in a conciliar fashion, the successor of Peter.

I am 1000% in agreement with you on that, Michael. Well said. An umpire needs to make the call in very crucial times, but he doesn't control every aspect of the game as the team still has to play the game.

Mention "conciliarism" and somebody is bound to bring up the Council of Constance. It should be loads of fun watching the Ultramontane folks jumping through theological hoops trying to explain Constance away! Incognitus

How are you today, Incognitus?

Actually, there is no need to "explain away" Constance.

Constance was able to heal the breach only because the legitimate and reigning Pontiff gave it the authority to do so.

Moreover, not all of the canons of Constance were ratified by the Holy See--those that were rejected included conciliarist canons stating that the Pope was below the college of bishops, etc.

The several canons that were not ratified by the Holy See were never considered binding in any way.

Kind of like that canon from Chalcedon about extending the same "privileges" to the Constantinople patriarch that had been graciously "given" to the Roman patriarch . . . :rolleyes: