王盈方醫師瘋狂之旅 Dr Yvonne Wang's Blabberings

Abstract:

Conciliarism was more than a simply an argument concerning the authority of popes versus councils. This essay first reviews the historical events leading up to the Great Western Schism. Then it explores how threat in the unity of the church brought about the conciliar movement. Finally it analyses the various councils held in the era. From this, we make the conclusion that conciliarism was a complicated movement which came about firstly a response to the threatened division of the church due to the Great Western Schism, secondly as a result of ambitions and interests of various political powers, and thirdly, in response to the rampant abuse of papal power as a call for reformation. Therefore, the conciliar movement was not simply a power struggle between the authority of popes versus councils but an attempt to achieve unity and reformation of the Church.

This essay seeks to assess the view that conciliarism was more than a simply an argument concerning the authority of popes versus councils. This essay will first review the historical events leading up to the Great Western Schism. Secondly we will explore how threat in the unity of the church brought about the conciliar movement. Finally we will review the various councils held in the era to analyse whether it was simply a power struggle between the popes versus councils or something more.

To understand how the concept of conciliarism came about, we first need to review the historical background on the power struggles and rampant abuse of papal authority that led up to the Great Western Schism. The worst abuses in the Church and the papacy was seen after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire in the tenth century. Renewal and reform had never been so necessary[1]. A series of good reforming popes then followed[2]. There then came a period of direct confrontation between the papal and the imperial powers and an agreement called the Concordat of Worms was formed between Pope Calixtus II and Holy Roman Emperor Henry V in 1122 which ended this series of confrontations but allowed the power of papacy to grow so much that it reached its apex in the thirteenth century[3], where the Church became so rich and powerful that it resulted in abuses of every kind[4]. The rise in nationalism came a period of decline of the universal imperial authority in the West, which weakened the universal papal authority[5]. The popes became dependent on France, and were “exiled” to Avignon, giving rise to a period of “Avignon Papacy”, from 1309 to 1377, during which seven successive popes resided in Avignon, France[6] and the papacy became subservient to French state interests[7]. Historically, we could already see a constant struggle for authority between the popes and the political powers.

The Great Western Schism[8] then followed, where several men were simultaneously claiming to be the true pope. Another word, a struggle for authority between several papal claimants! Although on several earlier occasions there had been more than one claimant to the papacy, the antipopes had been appointed by various rival factions. This was the first time a single group of leaders of the Church created both the pope and the antipope[9]. The conflicts quickly escalated from a church problem to a diplomatic crisis that divided Europe, as secular leaders had to choose which claimant they would recognise, whereby France and its allies recognised the Avignon claimant; England, Scandinavia, Flanders, Hungary, Poland, Germany recognised the Roman claimant, and other regions changed their allegiance repeatedly[10]. We can see that this schism was driven by politics rather than any theological disagreement[11]. Faced with this international disgrace, the king of France asked the University of Paris to devise a way of ending the schism in 1393. In response to this request, each member of the faculty was asked to propose in writing the way which seemed best to him[12]. Abdication, arbitration and a church council were the three solutions proposed and the first two did not work so the later was called.

In church history, various councils had been called when the church was threatened with schism, such as the Council of Jerusalem which dealt with the topic of Gentile-Jew table fellowship, and councils called by Constantine over the Arian controversy. Later, as popes gained power, the council became instruments for their policies and programs. However, the crisis faced in the Great Western Schism was, “Who was the true pope and how could one known this?[13]” Canon law had stipulated that an ecumenical council must be called by a legitimate pope in order to have canonical authority. Furthermore, Gratian’s famous twelfth century work on the canon law, the Decretum, had left open the possibility of a pope falling into heresy. So how can one remove an unworthy pope and elect another one[14]? And what if there is a pope but he contumaciously refuses to call a council after sufficient requests[15]?

With these pressing questions being asked and the unity of the whole Church at stake, a reform movement known as the conciliar movement, came about, which held that a universal council, representing the entire church, had more authority than the pope[16]. In fact, nineteenth/twentieth century scholars Bernard Huber and Johannes Haller understood conciliarism as “an effort to provide a parliamentary government for the universal church”[17]. The other extreme was the theology of papal primacy, drawn up by Pope Leo I, that used Petrine text of Matthew 16:18-19 to justify papal authority where Peter’s relationship with Jesus was so intimate that the apostle’s judgments were considered to be identical with those of Christ. Leo held that the Pope continued to fulfil Peter’s role in the Church[18] as the “vicar of Christ”[19]. This is a very controversial topic as historical research has failed to provide any evidence before the third century that the bishop of Rome interpreted the Petrine texts in reference to himself as successor of Peter[20]. So we can see that the papacy-conciliarism argument involved two extremes, that of saying all the apostles were instituted by Christ in the same way as his vicars, and that of saying that Christ gave the power of jurisdiction immediately to Peter alone[21]. Valliere[22] observes that the Roman papacy and conciliarism were not necessarily antagonists, because in the Middle Ages the two generally complemented each other. For example, in seventh-century England, the organisation of a church of Roman obedience was accompanied by a renaissance of conciliar practice.

Oakley[23] observes that one should not trap the conciliar thinking of the classical age within the framework of any simple classification, and that it is possible to discern within the pattern of that thinking three broad strands: 1) The demand for reform of the church“in head and members”and the belief that this could best be initiated and consolidated through the periodic assembly of general councils. 2) Envisaging the constitution of the church in oligarchic terms, its government ordinarily in the hands of the Roman curia, the pope being limited in his power by that of cardinals with whose “advice, consent, direction and remembrance” he had to rule.3) The strict conciliar theory itself, an assertion of the superiority of general council to pope. Therefore, each individual council participant had their own agenda in mind which differed greatly from each other.

While things may look idealistic in theory, Biechler[24]points out that in reality the council had been beset with serious difficulties from the outset, and these only increased as time went on. For one thing, the general council had never been able to muster anything but a comparatively meagre attendance, and was unable to be truly representative of the whole church. The Council of Pisa (1409)[25] was the first council to be called, by the cardinals who had created the problem, to deal with the situation. Ironically, as Avis states[26], the schism was inadvertently exacerbated at Pisa, because when they deposed the two rival popes and elected a third pope, neither of the deposed pope accepted deposition, so this council ended up producing three popes! However, the Council of Pisa gave momentum to the growing demand for a council that would be able to unify the papacy and to reform the church.

Whilst the Council of Constance in 1414 was often seen as the high-water mark of conciliarism, having put an end to the Great Western Schism, it was also criticised as being deficient in the actual enactment of reform[27]. Avis[28] observes that this particular council was called under the pressure from the emperor, Sigismund of Hungary, and therefore had firm imperial support which proved decisive and had thousands in membership. The council’s purpose was threefold: 1) to restore the unity of the Church by unifying the papacy, 2) to purge the church of erroneous doctrine by dealing with the ‘heresies’ of Wyclif and Hus, 3) to reform the Church ‘in head and members’. However, although Constance succeeded in the first two points, it was the condemnation and execution of Hus that convinced Martin Luther that General Councils were not infallible, but could err in their judgments, as it was the conciliarists who implacably condemned Hus on false charges, refused to hear his protestations that he had never taught the views attributed to him and secured his execution in spite of a safe-conduct[29]. Rather than a simple struggle between papal and conciliar authority, we can see here a complicated picture of the political power encouraging a high council participation rate to achieve a sense of unity and control.

Pope Eugenius IV went on an offensive against the council in 1436, and the Council of Basel was a provocative move motivated by hostility to Eugenius’ manoeuvrings[30]. Ferguson[31] observes that the Council of Basel (1431-1449) carried the reforming spirit to the excess, the aftermath of which led directly to the papacy’s open hostility to the conciliar form of government, eventually outlawed in 1460 by Pope Pius II in his bull Execrabilis. It was in Basel where Nicholas of Cusa, one of the most active conciliarists[32], became so disillusioned that he took the side of papacy instead. Tierney[33] asserts that the urgent, widespread desire for unity in the Church was the very lifeblood of the conciliar movement. Avis[34] points out that for Cusanus, a General Council, by definition, was marked by the virtues of harmony, concord and unanimity. The personal rivalries, quarrels and even violence that marked the Council of Basel discredited Basel in Nicholas’ eyes. And while the council was becoming more extreme and divided, the pope was concluding an agreement with the Greeks for the reunification of the Church. One by one, the council’s most distinguished leaders left it and joined the pope’s council. What was left of the old council declared Eugene deposed and named Felix V in his stead, so ironically this gave rise to two councils and two popes, resurrecting papal schism again[35]. The council was buoyed up by enormous expectations of reform that were doomed to be disappointed at the Council of Basel, and eventually disbanded after that[36]. Although on the superficial level, the Council of Basel may seem like a direct struggle for power between the pope and council, on a deeper level it was an attempt by the conciliarists to push for reformation of the church which failed and ended with disillusion.

Since the Church did not reform, rampant abuse of papal authority continued on in the sixteenth century, giving rise to the Protestant Reformation where Protestants sought a new authority to trump that of the pope and ecumenical councils[37]. As Ferguson[38] puts it, the conciliar movement was seen an attempt to reform the church from within before external reform was forced on the church by Luther and others. According to Tierney[39], the Reformation, in its ecclesiological aspect at least, was a violent outburst of dammed-up conciliar aspirations. Küng[40] believes renewal and reform of the Church are permanently necessarybecause the Church consists of faithful human beings spread all over the earth, and as human beings, we are all sinful. It is only if the Council becomes the concern of the whole Church that it can succeed in genuine renewal[41]. Küng elaborates that the church is not exempt from human weakness and would not be in a state of perfection and final glory on her journey through the history until the very end[42].

In conclusion, it is an oversimplification to say that conciliarism was simply an argument concerning the authority of popes versus councils, as the council was called in response to multifactorial reasons. What was more complicated was that even within the conciliarists themselves, there were a range of different agendas, such as some being focused on reformation, some focused on achieving unity, some focused on the strict conciliar concept itself, etc. Rather than simply an argument concerning the authority of popes versus councils, conciliarism was firstly a response to the threatened division of the church due to the Great Western Schism and aimed at achieving unity in the church. Secondly, political ambitions and interests also played an important role so it was also a struggle between political powers. In fact, it was the imperial power behind the Council of Constance which made it so successful. Thirdly, conciliarism arose in response to the rampant abuse of papal power as a call for reformation, and indeed acted as a precursor for the Protestant reformation. Furthermore, papacy and conciliarism are not necessarily antagonists, because the two has been observed to complement each other at various points historically. Therefore, I see the conciliar movement more as an attempt to achieve unity and reformation of the Church which failed because those in the leadership positions refused reform. Since the church is not exempt from human weakness and would not be in a state of perfection until the final glory, the process of reformation will continue until the end times, when true unity occurs in a state of perfection.

Bibliography:

Avis, Paul. Beyond the Reformation?Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition, London: T&T Clark, 2008.

Biechler, James E.“Nicholas of Cusa and the end of the conciliar movement: a humanist crisis of identity”, Church History, 44 (1975): 5-21.

Burns, James Henderson. Conciliarism and Papalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Ferguson, Thomas. “The Council of Pavia-Siena and Medieval Conciliarism”, Journal of Religious History, 2001(25): 1-19.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity Volume I: TheEarly Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

Hill, Jonathan. The New Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2007.

Küng, Hans. The Council, Reform and Reunion, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961.

Miller, J. Michael. What are they saying about papal primacy?, New York: Paulist Press, 1983. 

Morrissey, Thomas E. “After Six Hundred Years: The Great Western Schism, Conciliarism, and Constance”, Theological Studies, 40 (1979): 495-509.

Moyer, Elgin. Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1951.

Oakley, Francis. “Conciliarism at the Fifth Lateran Council”, Church History, 41 (1972): 452-463.

Oakley, Francis.“New conciliarism and its implications: a problem in history and hermeneutics”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 8 (1971): 815-840.

Powell, Mark E. Papal Infallibility: A protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue, Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.

Previte-Orton, C.W. The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History Volume II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Skarsten, Trygve R. “The Origin of Conciliarism as Reflected in Modern Historiography”, Lutheran Quarterly, 19 (1967): 296-311.

Thatcher, Oliver J. and McNeal,Edgar Holmes eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, New York: Scribners, 1905.

Tierney, Brian. Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Tierney, Brian. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.

Valliere, Paul. Conciliarism: A History of Decision-Making in the Church, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Vischer, Lucas.“Is This Really 'the Unity We Seek'?”, Ecumenical Review, 44 (1992): 467-478.