The Council of Constance vrs. Vatican I Part III

Christ promising to the Apostle Peter the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16

In the last two posts, I have demonstrated by historical evidence not only that Papal Infallibility was a later teaching in the history of the church, but that the Council of Constance taught that the church is higher than the pope, implying that a pope can be deposed, as was taught in Medieval canon law. In this final post, I will brief over how Papal Infallibility contradicted the Council of Constance, by its dogmatic definition at Vatican I. As I have a lot of history here to cover, I will try to be brief, lest this post become the size of an entire book.
 First off, shortly after the Council of Constance taught the superiority of a church council over the papacy{ a belief titled called Conciliarism,}  the leadership of the Catholic Church would seek to quickly to abolish this teaching. In 1460, Pope Pius II would issue a papal bull called Excrabilis, condemning this teaching. The Fifth Lateran Council would also deviate from Conciliarism by its teachings that the errors of a pope cannot be addressed to a church council.
 With all that said, the background is interesting to note that many of the Conciliar Roman Catholics were of Northern Europe, much like those that would come to support the coming Protestant Reformation. In other words, the debate of Papal Primacy, was even before the debate of justification, and papal primacy would come to be the true divide that would separate Catholics and Protestants for the next five hundred years. Before the Ninety-Five thesis, before Luther's excommunication, before Henry VIII of England would break from Rome,  Western Christians had already been divided. The divide did not start with Martin Luther in 1517, that was simply when the official lasting break would take place. The Conciliar theory had already been in direct opposition to Papal Supremacy for primarily two hundred years before the Protestant Reformation would kick off with Luther. As explained in a previous post,  the Spiritual Franciscan, William of Ockham, was actually the first Protestant.
 But Conciliarism would not end with Pope Pius II's condemnation of it, those that held the theory would either break from Rome, or hold the view for centuries after the Protestant Reformation.
 If I may now fast forward to Vatican I, we will see how the abuse of Papal Power would forever contribute to the crisis the Roman Catholic Church has found itself in today, in least regard to the papacy. But before we look, at the facts of what happened at Vatican I, it is important to keep all already in memory of what has been discussed.
 Vatican I was centuries after the Counter Reformation. This council claimed to have rejected the liberal beliefs of it's today, but it is one of the most controversial church councils in the history of the Catholic Church. The definition of Papal Infallibility, promulgated at the council, would add another huge area of division between Catholics and Protestants.
 Now Vatican I covered several core areas of doctrines, but that is not the topic of this post. All I want to do here, is to demonstrate the direct contrast between Constance and Vatican I.
 As sometimes misunderstood, Papal Infallibility was not suddenly taught for the first time at Vatican I. Indeed, many Roman Catholic Christians had already this doctrine for centuries. I think it's also important to truly understand, the limits of Papal Infallibility, which too has been misunderstood by many Christians. On the other hand, I have demonstrated, with much thanks being to Cambridge Medievalist, Brian Tierney, that this doctrine did not originate until the debate of Apostolic Poverty between Pope John XXII and the Spiritual Franciscans. Considering the unfounded claims made by many Catholic Apologist that Papal Infallibility was somehow always the teaching of the church,  this is especially important to know. It's interesting to know, as I have said many times, that many Catholic and Protestant historians alike, believe Papal Infallibility was a later teaching of the church.
 Strictly understood, many Catholic theologians have differences among each other on what doctrines qualify as Infallible, and which don't.  But Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I, claims infallibility of the papacy only on issues of faith and morals. It is not enough for a pope, to express an opinion on something, he must define a doctrine by his supposed apostolic authority, based on his supposed understanding of what has always been taught. As if, this is not enough, Vatican I anathamizes anyone that says otherwise, in other words, according this council, a Catholic is or aught to be excommunicated if they do not believe this doctrine.
 ''We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise  of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the whole church, he possess by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, the infallibility which the divine redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine of faith and morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not be consent of the church, irreformible. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject the definition of ours: let him be anathama-Vatican I.

                    Popes during the time of the Reformation, like Leo X above,  became notorious for immortal and luxurious lives. Their abuse of Papal Power, would hurt the Catholic Church perhaps more than they ever would have expected. While many widely believe that these Popes did not change church teaching, nothing could be further from the truth. Pope John XXII's change of the the doctrine of Apostolic Poverty, was the cause of the later long debate in the west, that still goes on today, of Papal Supremacy, and how far it goes.

 Vatican I teaches elsewhere, the great  Supremacy of the Pope over the universal church. The definitions of this council, thus taught that the pope was above that of a council, and that a council could not reform his teachings. Let us look again at the Council of Constance, to see the stark contrast between it and Vatican I.
''This holy synod of Constance, constituting a general Council, lawfully assembled to bring about the end of the present great schism and the union and reformation of the church of God in head and members, to the praise of Almighty God in the Holy Spirit, in order that it may achieve more readily, safely, amply, and freely the Union and reformation of the church of God, does hereby, ordain, ratify, enact, decree, and declare the following:
 First it declares that being lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic Church Militant, it has it's power directly from Christ, and that all persons of whatever rank or dignity, even a pope, are bound to obey it in matters relating to faith  and the end of the schism and the general reformation of the Church of God in head and members.'' -Council of Constance

                                                          Vatican I: 1869-1870


 It is indeed a pity, that Rome would later attempt to do away with the canon of Constance, by it's teaching that a pope's error, cannot be addressed to a church council. Vatican I, as well as the 1983 Code of Canon, both teach the immovability of a pope by a council of bishops. This is a direct contradiction to that confirmed in Medieval Canon law, and the Council of Constance. Perhaps this helps also explain not just the modern dilemma of whether a heretical pope, can be judged and deposed by the church, but one of the key factors why 40% of European Christians became Protestant. The debate of Concialirism then, was at the core of the Great Western Schism and Protestant Reformation, the debate of justification then, only contributed to this great conflict in the church.
 Now that I have shown the clear contradictions between the two councils, just one last area of this post, I wish to cover. That is, how Papal Infallibility became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine had been rejected by many Catholic theologians and catechisms before Vatican I, but in 1870 it would become MANDATORY TO BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC. It was not enough, that many had had differences over this doctrine for centuries, Pope Piux IX, would push it's way to dogma at Vatican I.
 At Vatican I, many bishops rejected the dogma simply out of fear that it would be misunderstood, some rejected it outright, especially those from the United States of America. One final group, actually believed everything the pope said was infallible.
 Without getting too much into the history of Vatican I, lest it get off topic of the post, I think it's important to mention that the Pope essentially just pushed the doctrine into the Council's documents. One cardinal objected to it, basing his rejection on church tradition. The pope answered, ''I AM THE TRADITION.''
 The effects of Vatican I are still being seen today. One of the only reasons C. S. Lewis never became a Catholic, was because of Papal Infallibility. . Who knows, but maybe someday a church council will again affirm the authority of itself over the papacy, as Constance once did.
 Some historians believe the Medieval Church was not so much led by a monarchy as the Catholic Church became at Vatican I. In recent years, some Catholic theologians have again assembled to the Conciliar doctrine, that a church council is above the papacy. The debate over Papal Primacy, has truly been one of the most controversial doctrines in the history of the church, and the confusion, the chaos, and the exaggerations that surround it, are still the topics of many debates. Much clarity is still needed, and dialogue between Catholics and Protestants on the differences between the two over the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church.
 It took one debate over Apostolic Poverty, to set Europe on fire by major differences in doctrine. What perhaps is most least known of all, was that the Protestant Reformation's roots were with a handful of Spiritual Franciscans that were truly just living their lives in imitation of the Apostles.


Further Sources: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwigg Ott, Papal Primacy: From it's origins to the Presnt by Klaus Schatz, The Battle for Christendom: The Council of Constance, the East-West Conflict, and the Dawn of Modern Europe by Frank Welsh, History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock, Creeds of the Churches by John H. Leith, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, Encyclopedia of Catholic History by Matthew Bunson.