Author Topic: Are ecuмenical councils completely infallible? (Read 990 times)

Mercyandjustice · « **on:** November 02, 2016, 07:44:55 PM »

Forgive me if this question has been asked already, but I would like to know if the Church teaches that Ecuмenical councils are infallible in all aspects. According to Tradition in Action, councils in the past have erred:

Quote

We believe your presupposition that no ecuмenical council can err is way too simplistic. The Ecuмenical Council of Constance (1415), for example, taught the heresy of Conciliarism along with many things that were very good. Such errors of the Council of Constance were disavowed by Pope Martin V and annulled by Pope Sixtus IV... The errors of Constance were reaffirmed and reinforced by the Ecuмenical Council of Basel (1431-1437). This council - at first considered legitimate - would later be declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV.

Anyone with some historical background can see that your simplistic idea that everything a council teaches is true and infallible does not fit with the reality.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B332_InfallibleVII.html

And wikipedia says this:

Quote

The doctrine of the infallibility of ecuмenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecuмenical councils, approved by the pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as 'Canons' and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecuмenical council is infallible.

So is it possible that Ecuмenical councils can err in certain aspects?

Thank You.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2016, 08:42:29 PM »

Quote from: Mercyandjustice

Forgive me if this question has been asked already, but I would like to know if the Church teaches that Ecuмenical councils are infallible in all aspects. According to Tradition in Action, councils in the past have erred:

Quote
We believe your presupposition that no ecuмenical council can err is way too simplistic. The Ecuмenical Council of Constance (1415), for example, taught the heresy of Conciliarism along with many things that were very good. Such errors of the Council of Constance were disavowed by Pope Martin V and annulled by Pope Sixtus IV... The errors of Constance were reaffirmed and reinforced by the Ecuмenical Council of Basel (1431-1437). This council - at first considered legitimate - would later be declared schismatic and condemned by Pope Eugene IV.

Anyone with some historical background can see that your simplistic idea that everything a council teaches is true and infallible does not fit with the reality.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B332_InfallibleVII.html

And wikipedia says this:

Quote
The doctrine of the infallibility of ecuмenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecuмenical councils, approved by the pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as 'Canons' and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecuмenical council is infallible.

So is it possible that Ecuмenical councils can err in certain aspects?

Thank You.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

I think that the quote from TIA and the quote from Wikipedia are both true. The solemn definitions of a council approved by the pope are infallible. No solemn definitions were made at Vatican II. I'd imagine that in the cases of errors being taught at other councils, that such councils were either not approved by the pope, or the errors were not defined in a solemn manner.

An example of a solemn definition made at an ecuмenical council approved by the pope and with an anathema attached to it, is Vatican I's definition that blessed Peter will have perpetual successors:

Quote

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

I personally think that God revealed this to us so that we can know that sedevacantism is false.

Fr. Gruner did an admirable job of explaining how we can know what doctrines are infallible in his book Crucial Truths to Save your Soul.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2016, 09:30:11 PM »

Are ecuмenical councils completely infallible? No.

Quote

The solemn definitions of a council approved by the pope are infallible.

Yes.

Ecuмenical councils are USUALLY good because they are USUALLY part of the universal magisterium, since the purpose of councils is to clarify, re-teach, and educate catholics on those topics which are under attack through error or heresy. When all the bishops, in union with the pope, teach on faith and morals, such teachings are infallible with a lowercase 'i', as part of the magisterium, because the bishops are teaching 'what has always been taught'.

Vatican 2 didn't teach anything dogmatically, or define anything new (unfortunately, there were some good Cardinals who wanted to do so, but they were outvoted). Vatican 2's evil genius was in concentrating on the "pastoral" aspects of the Faith, which means it attempted to subvert Church teachings by altering how the Faith is "applied" at a church level.

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2016, 10:37:52 PM »

Only by virtue of a reigning legitimate Pope. Without his mediation and approval, there is no infallibility granted to the bishops alone, even in the setting of an ecuмenical council. Curiously, the Council of Constance mentioned in the OP which contained the error (of Conciliarism) was convoked by an anti-Pope, John XXIII.