|
 |
|
|
The Conciliar movement is connected with the nature of the relationship between the papacy and the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. At its heart has been the conviction that an ecumenical or general council, representative of the whole body of the church, is superior to the Pope. It was held that appeals could be made over the head of the Pope to a General Council. This has, therefore, to do with how people view the Christian ministry, and the important matter of authority within the church.
Tracing the way in which understanding of the Christian ministry developed after apostolic days is a fascinating exercise. We tend to think that things have always been much as we know them now. A comparison of the present with the teaching of the New Testament shows that this is far from the case. The simple pattern then is hard to discern in the complex structures that have developed since.
In the course of that development greater stress came to be placed in the second century on the presiding elder in each local church, and he became the focus of unity and guardian of the truth. Eventually such men presided over groups of churches in the locality around. The influence of some spread even wider, and this became true of the bishop of Rome, as with other bishops in major centres.
Increasingly large claims began to be made for Roman authority over all the churches, and those claims were given disputed biblical and historical warrant, reaching their height in the medieval period. Those bishops in the western church who were unhappy about this argued for the superior authority of councils of bishops and for the autonomy of their own individual authority in their dioceses. This position had been held and argued centuries before, but it seemed to be achieving the upper hand during the time of the divided papacy with its corresponding diminution in papal power. The ending of the papal schism and political developments in Western Europe, however, led to the condemnation of conciliarism in 1460 by Pope Pius II in his bull, Execrabilis. >From now on no appeal could be made to a General Council. Since then there have only been four General Councils, Lateran V, 1512-17, Trent 1545-63, Vatican I 1869/70, and Vatican II 1962-65. Before Trent, Rome recognises 17 such Councils. The Eastern churches recognise none after AD 787 and have never accepted the universal primacy of the papacy. The Church of England in Article 21 says that such councils “may err, and sometimes have erred”. In matters necessary to salvation, it states conciliar decrees are subject to the authority of Scripture.
All three of the post-Reformation Councils have revealed some tensions between advocates of total papal authority and those who hold varying degrees of desire for a conciliar balance.
Leaving aside Trent and Vatican I we need to examine briefly the present situation following on Vatican II. In the judgement of Roman Catholic historian Eamon Duffy the Decree on the Church, Lumen Gentium, “abandoned the defensive juridical understanding of the Church which had dominated Catholic thinking since the conciliar movement...” He goes on to speak of the Decree “emphasising the doctrine of collegiality, and placing the Pope’s primacy in the context of the shared responsibility of all the bishops for the Church” (Saints and Sinners p361, Yale 2001).
The Decree itself makes no bones about regarding the bishops as the successors of the apostles, and the Pope as their head, as the successor of Peter. The Pope “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” The college of bishops only has authority as “united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” In that position the college has “supreme and full authority over the universal church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” It seems that however much power and authority are recognised in the bishops, the Pope’s importance is always going to be greater.
Our quotations of Lumen Gentium come from The Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp 204/5 Chapman1994). The Catechism goes on to speak of the teaching office, the infallibility promised to the church, and how this is found in the Pope and bishops. It also indicates that the Pope’s authority over the whole church doesn’t annul that of the bishops but actually confirms it.
Some may wonder what all this has to do with us, especially when we don’t accept Roman presuppositions underlying these statements. The answer lies in the discussions about church unity. A major stumbling-block has been the position of the Pope. A willingness has been expressed by some past leaders of the Church of England to recognise a form of papal primacy. Just what has not been clearly defined, but the way forward in ecumenical circles today may be seen along the lines of Lumen Gentium.
Biblically-taught Protestants, and there ought to be no other kind, will see straight away that this will simply not do. There can be no concession to Roman claims for the papacy to be given such a primacy, whoever may occupy that position. Indeed, some would go further and question the whole validity of the episcopal system as at present constituted, whether in Rome or any other denomination. It may seem a strange question after nearly two thousand years of Christian history, but what does the Bible teach us about the form the Christian ministry should take? That is what we need to see.
|
|---|
|
|
next
article |
| |
|
|
|
