In his work "The Orthodox Eastern Churches", Fr. Adrian Forescue (+1923) examines the relationship between the Holy Father, the Pope of Rome, and Ecumenical Councils. In the context of the book, he is discussing the Pope's universal jurisdiction over the Church by showing that the Holy Father, even in the first seven ecumenical councils, exercised the prerogatives particular to his office as universal Pontiff (as opposed to simply Patriarch of the West).
Fr. Fortescue (who also wrote a book called "The Roman Rite", which is the pinnacle of liturgical history of the Roman Rite, "the most venerable in all Christendom" [NB: He was talking about the Tridentine Mass]) shows that all Catholics (both East and West) have believed from the very beginning that the Pope alone has the right to (1) summon a general council, (2) preside at the council when summoned, and (3) confirm or reject the council's decrees. Moreover, he points out, by citation to the history of the first councils of the Church, that the Holy Father need not have actually called the council or presided at the council if he later ascents to the council's teaching (the Pope's confirmation heals whatever irregularities may have been present in the calling of the council).
Note that the second and fifth council's were not called by the Pope, but their decrees later confirmed. Note also that particular decrees of the first seven councils were rejected by the Pope, despite being approved by hundreds of bishops. Finally, note that the number of bishops participating in the council has no effect regarding its status as ecumenical. In fact, the Eastern Church, in the time leading to the mutual excommunications in the early 11th Century, held councils where hundreds of bishops were present and decrees were issued. These councils were not ecumenical for the reasons set forth above regarding the Pope's prerogative. (The fact that the bishops in attendance were all from the East also makes no difference as the bishops of the East were predominant at most, if not all, of the early Church councils -- many of the great heresies of the early Church arose in the East, therefore, the bishops of the East met to counter their own).
The history of the early Church councils is fascinating, particularly in light of current events in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It is important to note that there is no one council of predominance in the Church. Two councils sought to analyze essentially all the teachings of the Church: the Council of Trent, which stated the teaching and ordered the issuance of a catechism, and the Second Vatican Council.
But, what exactly did the Second Vatican Council do? In light of the above regarding the prerogative of the Holy Father in the context of ecumenical councils, let's review what Pope Paul VI, who was pope when the council closed, has to say about Vatican II:
"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."
I will leave my conclusions about this to myself, particularly as I am continuing to study the Second Vatican Council in light of the other councils of the Church. This is a task that I have not seen anyone else undertake (although I am sure someone has done so). I ask that if anyone reading knows of a book on this subject, please leave the name in the comments as I would really like to read someone else's findings on this subject.
Fr. Fortescue (who also wrote a book called "The Roman Rite", which is the pinnacle of liturgical history of the Roman Rite, "the most venerable in all Christendom" [NB: He was talking about the Tridentine Mass]) shows that all Catholics (both East and West) have believed from the very beginning that the Pope alone has the right to (1) summon a general council, (2) preside at the council when summoned, and (3) confirm or reject the council's decrees. Moreover, he points out, by citation to the history of the first councils of the Church, that the Holy Father need not have actually called the council or presided at the council if he later ascents to the council's teaching (the Pope's confirmation heals whatever irregularities may have been present in the calling of the council).
Note that the second and fifth council's were not called by the Pope, but their decrees later confirmed. Note also that particular decrees of the first seven councils were rejected by the Pope, despite being approved by hundreds of bishops. Finally, note that the number of bishops participating in the council has no effect regarding its status as ecumenical. In fact, the Eastern Church, in the time leading to the mutual excommunications in the early 11th Century, held councils where hundreds of bishops were present and decrees were issued. These councils were not ecumenical for the reasons set forth above regarding the Pope's prerogative. (The fact that the bishops in attendance were all from the East also makes no difference as the bishops of the East were predominant at most, if not all, of the early Church councils -- many of the great heresies of the early Church arose in the East, therefore, the bishops of the East met to counter their own).
The history of the early Church councils is fascinating, particularly in light of current events in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It is important to note that there is no one council of predominance in the Church. Two councils sought to analyze essentially all the teachings of the Church: the Council of Trent, which stated the teaching and ordered the issuance of a catechism, and the Second Vatican Council.
But, what exactly did the Second Vatican Council do? In light of the above regarding the prerogative of the Holy Father in the context of ecumenical councils, let's review what Pope Paul VI, who was pope when the council closed, has to say about Vatican II:
"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."
I will leave my conclusions about this to myself, particularly as I am continuing to study the Second Vatican Council in light of the other councils of the Church. This is a task that I have not seen anyone else undertake (although I am sure someone has done so). I ask that if anyone reading knows of a book on this subject, please leave the name in the comments as I would really like to read someone else's findings on this subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment