Contrary to the claims of Roman Catholic dogma, Ecumenical Councils can and have erred. This article will seek to provide a few major examples of this.
Trent vs. Pope Gregory I
In the Roman Catholic ‘Counter-Reformation’ Council of Trent (a Roman Catholic ecumenical council), in session 4, the council said in part:
“It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council. They are the following: of the Old Testament…Tobias, Judith…Ecclesiasticus…with Baruch…two books of Machabees, the first and second…If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts…let him be anathema.”
-Council of Trent, Session 4
The Council of Trent officially canonized what Protestants would call the Apocryphal books (i.e. non-inspired books). The point here is not to argue whether it was incorrect or not to canonize these books (see the article on the Canon). Rather, I wish to point out that this contradicts an official work of a pope, Pope Gregory the Great. In his Morals on the Book of Job, Gregory states:
"With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46).
-Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.
In this work, Gregory the Great officially denied the canonicity of 1 Maccabees, and as many scholars have pointed out, he denied the canonicity of the entire Apocrypha. This is a direct contradiction with later Roman Catholic dogma. Thus, the official writings of an early pope contradict the dogmatic teachings of an ecumenical council, and so, one of these two authorities of the church that Rome claims to be infallible must be in error.
There are two objections that Roman Catholic apologists use to get out of this. The first objection they use is to say that Gregory never wrote the Morals on the Book of Job while he was pope, and thus, his statement would not be official and dogmatic. However, according to William Jurgens, one of Roman apologists’ favorite patristic experts, Gregory was still writing his book for the first five years of his pontificate (590-604 A.D.):
“Gregory’s response was Moralia or Moralium libri or Exposito in librum Iob, at which he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D.”
-William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume III, p.313.
So, while Gregory was still writing and reviewing his work, Gregory had been pontiff for five years before he finished his work.
The second objection that Roman apologists make is that Gregory was speaking as a private theologian, and thus, it would not be an official church document. William Webster answers this objection:
“This is erroneous…Gregory’s Commentary on Job was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church of the Middle Ages. He is teaching here in his official capacity as pope on issues related to morals. The fact that the Commentary on Job was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. And Gregory never retracted what he had written about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late seventh century regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.”
-William Webster, http://www.christiantruth.com/sippocanon.html
Gregory’s work on Job was included in the Glossa Ordinaria, the official Biblical text and commentary of the Middle Ages. There is no doubt that this was an official Church pronouncement on morals of the faith, an infallible statement according to Roman dogma.
Trent vs. The History of Penance in the Early Church
The ‘Counter-Reformation’ Council of Trent (a Roman Catholic ecumenical council) claimed that the Roman Catholic version of penance had always been practiced in the whole Church throughout all ages:
“If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema."
-Council of Trent, session 14, canon 6
Clearly, the Council of Trent is claiming that the early church had always practiced private confession to a priest. However, as scholars of both backgrounds have pointed out, this simply is not true. It was the practice of the early church to have a confession done before the entire congregation (i.e. not privately to a priest), only done for mortal sins (i.e. not for all sins), and could only be done once in one’s lifetime (i.e. no multiple absolutions). Since the private aspect of confession is mentioned in Trent’s canon specifically, then only that aspect will be dealt with. Philip Schaff, a Protestant historian wrote:
“At the close of the twelfth century a complete change was made in the doctrine of penance. The theory of the early Church, elaborated by Tertullian and other Church fathers, was that penance is efficient to remove sins committed after baptism, and that it consisted in certain penitential exercises such as prayers and alms. The first elements added by the medieval system were that confession to the priest and absolution by the priest are necessary conditions for pardon. Peter the Lombard did not make mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. In his time [twelfth century], he says, there was no agreement on three aspects of penance: first, whether contrition for sin was not all that was necessary for its remission; second, whether confession to the priest was essential; and third, whether confession to a layman was insufficient. The opinions handed down from the Fathers, he asserts, were diverse, if not antagonistic.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 5, ch.14, part 117
This is one of the best examples of an ecumenical council committing an historical error. [This subject will be more thoroughly discussed in the article on the early church and penance where numerous scholars, early fathers, and their quotes will be listed.]
Vatican II vs. Pope Boniface VIII
At the very beginning of the 14th century, Pope Boniface VIII issued the famous Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam, which says in part:
“So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd.’”
-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
Here, the Pope of Rome, in an official decree (see the next quote) clearly excludes the Eastern Orthodox from salvation. The last part of the bull states why:
“Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”
-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
The words of Unam Sanctam, “…we declare, state, define, and pronounce…”, are very similar to the words that made the Immaculate Conception of Mary a dogma:
“…we, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ…do declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the Virgin Mary was, in the first instance of her conception, preserved untouched by any taint of original guilt…”
-Ineffabilis Deus
Clearly, Unam Sanctam is an ex cathedra statement on faith and morals, and thus, it meets the criteria required by Vatican I to be an infallible decree of a pope. Recently however, the Roman Church has reversed its stance on the Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants in Vatican II. This is clearly shown forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
-Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838
This is a clear contradiction between two supposedly infallible statements. To say at one time that the Eastern Churches and all other non-Catholics are “not of Christ’s sheep” (i.e. excluded from salvation) and then say, 650 years later, that the Eastern Churches are “brothers in the Lord” totally destroys the infallibility of the Church of Rome.
The Fourth Lateran Council vs. Vatican II
The Fourth Lateran Council said, on the subject of the proper treatment of heretics:
“Catholics…may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it [i.e. the heretic’s land and property] unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith…Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land [i.e. the crusaders].”
-Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, Paragraph 1
The effects of this ecumenical council are clearly seen in the case of the crusade of Prussia by the Teutonic Knights:
“In 1217 Pope Honorius III proclaimed a crusade against the Prussian pagans…Duke Conrad of Massovia…asked the Teutonic knights to come to his aid. He promised the Master possession of Culm and Dobrzin which Salza accepted with the provision that the knights could retain any Prussian territories that the Order captured…The campaign to drive out the pagan tribes from Prussia only lasted fifty years…This Crusading enterprise succeeded only at a terrible cost, above all to the native populations but also the lives of thousands of knights and soldiers.”
-Guy Stair Sainty, The Teutonic Order of Holy Mary in Jerusalem
The crusade by the Teutonic Knights that exterminated, uplifted, or forcefully converted the entire pagan population of Prussia and replaced it with a German populace coined the word, Germanization. I only bring this up to diffuse the allegation that I am misinterpreting the words of the Fourth Lateran Council. Now that we have seen the beliefs and official decree of the this ecumenical council, let us look at the declarations of the Second Vatican Council, namely Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration of Religious Freedom:
“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power…in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone aught at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion…no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will…”
-Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, parts 2, 4, and 10
These two ecumenical councils (which are infallible according to Roman Catholic dogma) are at complete odds with one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment