Contrasting the Council of Constance with Vatican I Part I

 This is the first of three posts on the debate of Papal Infallibility. This first one covers some topics of Christian history before the Medieval Council of Constance. The second post, will concentrate on this debate within the context of the Protestant Reformation and it's Counter response by the Catholic Church. The this part will concentrate on what happened at Vatican I. The actual contrast between Constance, and Vatican are saved however, for the next two posts.
I am about to write one of my longest blog posts. Because this topic is a long and complicated one, I may to split in in several parts.

I thought I would do a post on the differences between the councils of Constance and the first Vatican council. This post specifically addresses the debate over whether the pope is Infallible.  This has been a topic that I have been looking at for quite sometime. I expect this post to be a controversial one.
In another post on this blog that I wrote, I defended the Fact that Medieval People knew the Bible. By reading that post, it may also shed more light on the one I am writing today.
My research on the debate of papal infallibility has been one of extensive work. I have carefully studied both sides of it before drawing a conclusion. Some people may hate my views, cast the word heresy upon me, but none can truthfully say that I have not been fair in researching both sides.
With all said, I proceed to this post. Some of my closest friends and I have fundamental differences with each other on theological issues. Lewis and Tolkien did likewise, yet retained being friends. I hope my friends will shed the same grace on me despite our differences, as I do on them.
First of all, it is important to understand what papal Infallibility is.
Papal Infallibility is the doctrine of Vatican I, that when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra on an issue of faith and morals, he is promised by God that he will not err in so doing. Thus any dogma pronounced  by him is inerrant.
Many Catholics disagree among themselves how many dogmas the pope has proclaimed as Ex Cathedra. Some say only the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well her bodily Assumption qualify as Ex Cathedra statements. Other Catholic theologians list statements before and after these as Ex Cathedra.
But of course, the number of Ex Cathedra statements are not the issue of this post. Theologians can debate which doctrines are dogmatic, but historians have to carefully comprehend when doctrines were first formed. This post will reflect more on a historical understanding than papal Infallibility, rather than a theological one.

 Last, it is not my intention to get in a doctrine debate here. This blog is not an advocate for Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox beliefs. I like to evaluate as historians do, how certain doctrines were developed, and why. People can choose to believe or not believe Papal Infallibility.  But on how this doctrine came to be, let us not avoid the obvious facts of church history. 

 With that, I proceed to this post. 

  First of all it is true that Infallibility of the Pope was not suddenly taught for the first time at Vatican I in 1870. In fact, this doctrine had supporters and objectors of it for centuries prior. One of the things that Vatican I did do was make this teach dogmatic. 

 Now before I continue this topic on Vatican I, I want to address where this doctrine came from. 

 Some people may say that Infallibility of the Pope is taught in Matthew 16 when Christ gives Peter the keys of the kingdom. If this were true, it is awful odd that it would take roughly 1840 years later for this to be dogmatically affirmed as true teaching. After all, why was papal Infallibility not dogmitized during any of the church splits with the Greek Orthodox and Protestants that the Catholic Church had experienced centuries prior? Would this not have been a good time to affirm such an important doctrine, especially if it were truly apostolic? 

 Many of those that defend Vatican I will say that the church had already taught Papal Infallibility long before this. Well, if this is true why did not a single patristic church father teach it? Why did no church council in the ancient or medieval church affirm it? Why did none medieval canon law teach Infallibility of the pope? Perhaps most intriguing, is the lack of popes for the first thousand years of Christian history, that did not refer to themselves as infallible. 

 These are all important questions that many apologist of Vatican I cannot honestly answer.

  Historians once again can shed important light on this. In this post I am going to address one historian on the issue of papal Infallibility. He is not just any historian, his view on this subject has been widely accepted by scholars.  He  like many scholars, affirms that this dogma of Vatican I was a later teaching in the history of the church.

 I have said in other posts that many theologians tend to more biased than do historians. You can check my previous posts on why I say that.

  In my post Medieval People Knew the Bible, I illustrated the fact that some Protestants in an attempt to exaggerate the catholic church of the past have held to their opinions over clear historical facts. But just as some protestants are guilty of twisting history for their agenda, so are some Catholics. For those Catholics that ignore obvious historical facts, this is is perhaps never more true than when it comes to papal Infallibility. Some Catholic Apologist that defend Papal Infallibility will ignore facts not from Protestant historians alone, but even catholic ones, when it comes to twisting historical facts for their agenda.

 I have personally seen this bias many times among different Christian denomination. I find it particularly irritating, because we choose to believe a doctrine or not, but people should not twist facts to fit their agenda. Yes, many catholic apologist have done the latter when it comes to their false claim that papal Infallibility was somehow always part of church teaching.
 I said this post maybe controversial. For me, that is nor rare thing. Ha-Ha.
 One of the biggest factors that runs contrary to Vatican I, which is not only Papal Infallibility, but also the impossibility of a church council being summoned against the pope, is the fact that Medieval Canon law says otherwise.
 Gratian's Code of Canon Law was quite clear that a heretical pope could be judged and deposed by a church council. So was his holiness, Pope Innocent III.
 ''If the pope, being neglectful of his own salvation and that of his brethren, be found useless and remiss in his works, and, more that, reluctant to do good { which harms himself and others even more}, and nonetheless brings down with him innumerable throngs of people...Let no mortal man presumes to rebuke him for his faults, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith. '' -Gratian
 ''For faith is so necessary for me that, while for other sins I have God only as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against faith could I be judged by the church. '' -Pope Innocent III
 ''The Pope should not glory about himself about his power, nor should he rashly in his glory and high estate...still less can the Roman Pontiff glory,  because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to already be judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe, is already judged. '' -Pope Innocent III
 ''It is necessary to obey the pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he need not be obeyed. ''-Pope Innocent III

 There you have it! Clear examples I have laid out of Medieval teaching concerning the papacy. It was a widely believed thought, that a heretical pope could be deposed. Saint Augustine sounds the same: ''Well let us suppose that those bishops {including the pope} who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary council of the universal, in which these judges might be put on their defense; so that if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed. '' -Saint Augustine

 It was quite common in the Middle Ages,to believe not only that a heretical pope was a theoretical possibility, but that he indeed could be deposed by a church council. This is is not a hard fact to find from the writings of Medieval Christians.

 The first historian I want to address on the issue of Papal Infallibility, is Cambridge Medievalist and historian, Brian Tierney. Dr. Tierney has written the controversial book Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages.  I own several books from Dr. Tierney, and most of what I know about Papal Infallibility is probably from him.
 At some point or another, I guess I became more and more interested in studying the doctrine of papal infallibility. While doing so, I came across Dr. Tierney book, and purchased it used for one 130 dollars. This was the cheapest copy I found online for it!
 I found the book most interesting. It focuses primarily on the Spiritual Franciscans of the 14th century. The book shows that Papal Infallibility actually originated by some of these Franciscans such as Peter Olivi by claiming that Pope John XXII had committed formal heresy and therefore needed to be deposed. The pope's alleged heresy was of changing church teach from these Franciscans pint of view, on Apostolic Poverty. While he believed Christ and the Apostles, owned property, they did not. Also in contrast to their views, the pope believed he could change teachers from his predecessors. However, the Spiritual Franciscans found comfort in Papal Infallibility, as they saw it as protecting their Apostolic living on nothing whatsoever. In time, these Spirituals believed they were the true remnant of the church, and believed they were holding to what the popes before John XXII had taught.
 It's also interesting to note that Pope John XXII did not simply have a different opinion than the Franciscans. Rather, he tried to force his view on the Franciscans by masking them own worldly goods through force.  Just as he charged them with disobedience for not adhering to his Papal Bulls, so they likewise accused him of heresy. Over time, many of them were burned at the stake, ane essentially, wiped out.
 It is also interesting to note that a certain English Franciscan friar by the name of William of Ockham, never took some of the extreme theological views later advocated by Martin Luther. This Franciscan, unlike some of his colleagues  rejected Papal Infallibility. Like the other Spirituals however, he did believe the pope was a formal heretic. Not all the Spiritual Franciscans however taught Papal Infallibility. William of Ockham was among this group's leaders. He has been called the first Protestant, and this is with good reason, and in time his teachings would influence Luther.
 William of Ockham has been called the first Protestant.
 Most of what I have said is from the book about Papal infallibility that I mentioned above, written by a Cambridge Medieval Historian. Check it out if this topic is of great interest to you.
 All that said, this first part was really just the introduction to this great debate of Christian History. The second part will follow next week. For now, Adieu!



''Because of the errors and heresies above by others, I turn away obedience from the false pope...because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy,  and excommunicated by canon law itself, without need of further sentence...if anyone should like to recall mew to his obedience...let him try to defend his constitutions and sermons, and show they agree with holy scripture, or that a pope cannot fall into a wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him.''
 -William of Ockham


 Jesus said unto them,''If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. ''
-Matthew 19: 21

 Further reading:
The Spiritual Franciscan: From Protest to Persecution in the century after Saint Francis by David Burr, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages by Brian Tierney,  Papal Primacy: From It's Origins to the Present by Klaus Schatz, Encyclopedia of Catholic History by Matthew Bunson, Medieval Christianity: A New History byKevin Magidan, The Battle for Christendom: The Council Constance, the East West Conflict, and the dawn of modern Europe by Frank Welsh, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages edited by Norman F. Cantor, Usborn World History: Medieval World by Jane Bingham. 
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/CH_502_Modern/02_conciliarism/00a_start.htm
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/CH_502_Modern/02_conciliarism/00a_start.htm