Can Ecumenical Councils ever be failures?

Not sure that this is how it works.

There is an instructive post at NLM by Gregory DiPippo about Ecumencial Councils that failed but were, nonetheless, legitimate Ecumentical Councils.

Councils are called because there is a problem, not just for the heck of it.  Or so it ought to be.  Gregory uses the example of how the problem of clerics abusively holding multiple benefices had to be addressed.  He explains what benefices are, btw.  Lateran V addressed the problem of a plurality of benefices it but got the solution wrong (it still allowed four simultaneous benefices).  That doesn’t make Lateran V a non-Council or illegitimate.  The failure makes it a failed Council.  Trent had to get the job done correctly down the line.

With that in mind, here are a couple of interesting paragraphs.

Here, then, is the second lesson to be drawn from this matter: it is perfectly possible for an ecumenical council (such as Lateran V) to correctly identify a problem within the Church (plurality of benefice), without correctly identifying the solution to that problem. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for said council to correctly identify a problem, and offer as a solution the exact opposite of what was needed to solve it, by de facto allowing it to continue. And it is perfectly possible to say this without denying the legitimacy of Lateran V as an ecumenical council.

Likewise, it is perfectly possible that Vatican II correctly identified a problem within the Church, the then-current state of its liturgical life, without correctly identifying the solution to that problem. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for said council to have correctly identified the problem, and offered as a solution the exact opposite of what was needed to solve it. (Of course, no two councils or the events that follow them are exactly alike, and so we must here once again note that the post-Conciliar reform is what it is in large measure because it rejected what Vatican II had said about the liturgy.) And it is perfectly possible to say this without denying the legitimacy of Vatican II as an ecumenical council.

Not all legitimate Councils were good.  Not all succeeded in solving the problems of the day.   Some solved some problems but not all.  Some Councils failed.  They are still legitimate Councils.

Not all priests, bishops or popes were or are good.  Some fail.  Some are even wicked.

Not all juridical and disciplinary decisions made by ecclesial authorities are good, simply by the fact that they were issued by an authority.  Some are really bad.  That doesn’t mean that the authority didn’t really have authority.  Well… maybe he didn’t.  My point is that just because an authority does something authoritative, that makes what he did good.

Our Church has a human dimension.  That’s going to mean, over time, lots of screw ups and downright evil.  The grace of orders does not overwhelm our fallen human nature and force men to become virtuous or intelligent.   Vices can be overcome, of course, but stupid is forever.

It has ever been so.  Happily, Our Lord knew this and, so, built in some fail safes to prevent total disaster.

Remember.  Our Lord promised that Church would not fail, but He didn’t promise it would last in North Africa, Asia Minor, these USA or Vatican City.

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Comments

  1. pjm88 says:

    A very important distinction: The Church and her personnel. Not everything that the personnel do, that a churchman does, is an act of the Church herself. The vocabulary is from Maritain, in his book The Church of Christ. The truth, the doctrine is in the Depositum fidei. For this reason we should be more precise and more circumspect in saying “The Church teaches…”
    The Church is infallible. The Magisterium shares in that infallibility… sometimes.
    So, for example, I think we should not say that the Church has recently restricted the TLM.

  2. anotherphilothea says:

    “My point is that just because an authority does something authoritative, that makes what he did good.“

    You meant to say “doesn’t make what he did good”, right?

  3. I think it goes back to a correct understanding of the operation of the Holy Spirit on the Church, or the Magisterium in particular, or the pope most particularly.

    So many muddle it all up, and seem to think that if we insist God inspires Scripture, or assists the Church with infallibility, or assures the indefectibility of the Church, that this means something like the Church (and her personnel) will only take the exactly right steps, and utter the exactly right words, at all the right times. None of this means anything like that.

    Even inspiration — that God inspires the human authors of Scripture — doesn’t eliminate the contributions of those human authors’ particular gifts, and it doesn’t mean the limitations of the human authors aren’t still at work. It doesn’t mean God seizes control and simply dictates. Same for infallibility.

    Supposing — for the sake of argument — that the pope were infallible on mathematics (he’s NOT!), if he were presented with a 100-question exam on math, how many correct answers must there be on the completed exam? The answer is ZERO. The pope can return the exam completely blank, and he remains infallible: because all it means is that God prevents him from giving a WRONG answer. And indeed, even this isn’t a perfect analogy, because he is only infallible in even more tightly defined circumstances, i.e., more formal and comprehensive circumstances, so he could still give a wrong answer informally and yet remain infallible.

    So, in the case of a pope, or the college of bishops, or an ecumenical council: it can be prevented from teaching error, but that doesn’t mean it will get the exact right answer, or even give out bad guidance that nonetheless isn’t error regarding faith and morals.

    Think of all this as divine guardrails. You can have the most excellent guardrails on the most treacherous of roads, assuring that your vehicle won’t plunge off into the abyss. And yet your car ride can be pretty rough, with the bumpers and side panels being badly damaged and passengers throwing up all the same.

  4. GregB says:

    The “spirit of V-2” is the modernist attempt to weaponize the Council via the hermeneutic of rupture. One could wonder if this “spirit” resembles the World War 2 German V-2 as being a kind of vengeance weapon to be used against historic Church teachings.

  5. Pingback: Zap Big Pulpit – Big Pulpit

  6. JohnMa says:

    The SSPX has an amazing podcast series (Crisis in the Church). The podcast dedicated a couple hours to this question.

  7. kurtmasur says:

    All things aside, I can’t help but wonder what place is depicted in the painting. Is it a Roman basilica? If so, which one? Or is it some special hall in Rome? If so, which one?

  8. Cornelius says:

    This is a good post and very useful in pointing us to Gregory DiPippo’s post.

    I have always struggled with balancing two seemingly opposite beliefs: 1) that VII was a valid ecumenical council at which the HS was at work in some way, and 2) that the Council unleashed a horrendous destructive force (unanticipated by some, greatly desired by others) that cripples the Church to this day – and into the foreseeable future unless it is confronted and checked.

    So VII was a valid Council that got a lot of things wrong, and it is not the first time in the Church’s history.

  9. Semper Gumby says:

    Helpful post and comments.

    “Not all juridical and disciplinary decisions made by ecclesial authorities are good, simply by the fact that they were issued by an authority. Some are really bad.”

    “Our Church has a human dimension… Remember. Our Lord promised that the Church would not fail, but He didn’t promise it would last in North Africa, Asia Minor, these USA or Vatican City.”

    Good point. We’ll keep the Faith and most of the relics, as for sacred architecture, we can build again.

    Mario Bird: *chuckle* Good one.

    “In the Latin alphabet Jehovah begins with an I.”

    https://i2.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/jehovah.jpg?type=vertical

  10. Kurtmasur, it’s the north transept of St. Peter’s Basilica, with the floor covered in carpet, plus suspended tapestries, and the whole space outfitted with special seating, including ‘bleachers’ and balconies, for Vatican I.

  11. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  12. gouletdrg says:

    Good points in the article. And a reminder that the Second Vatican Council was more than just liturgy. Just as the First was not just about infallibility.

Comments are closed.