Oakley’s chapter on the First Vatican Council contains the following nuggets. The first is that conciliarism was alive and sort of well in ecclesiologists such as Henri Maret, the last dean of the theology faculty at the Sorbonne. Oakley describes his position this way:
In conscious opposition, then, to De Maistre, Maret sought to identify in the Church’s constitution a liberal element that could open the way to his longed-for ‘reconciliation of the Church with the modern notion of freedom’. Noting the presence in the Church’s constitution of a ‘democratic element in that any member of the faithful could be called to the episcopal state and that is was the original practice of Christian communities to elect their bishops, he insists, none the less, that democracy cannot claim sovereignty in the Church. But nor does that sovereignty reside in any form of absolute monarchy. It belongs, instead, to monarchy tempered with aristocracy (in one place he calls it ‘a monarchy essentially aristocratic and deliberative’), in effect, what is sometimes called a mixed government, one framed along the same lines as ‘constitutional and representative monarchy’ in the world of secular regimes.
That much can be said, Maret believes, even without having determined the precise relationship between pope and bishops. But as soon as one attempts to make that determination, one comes up against the fact that two long-standing schools of thought compete for one’s allegiance. The first is the Italian school, which . . . . says, ‘the pope possesses a monarchical power that is pure, indivisible, absolute and unlimited.’ . . . The competing school, that of Paris, . . . asserts to the contrary that, while the pope is indeed the monarch of the Church, that monarchy is ‘truly and efficaciously tempered by [the] aristocracy’ of bishops. . . .
One has to decide between these competing schools, and to do so (he says) one has to put them to the test of scripture and tradition. So far as the scriptures are concerned, the celebrated cluster of texts (notably Matthew 16 and 18) which together constitute what he calls (and pace De Maistre) the very ‘constitutional charter’ of the Church, certainly seem to suggest that the sovereign power was given, not to Peter alone, but to the ‘collective unity’ of Peter and the other apostles, and to exclude from the government of the Church therefore any sort of ‘pure, absolute and indivisible monarchy’. But it is to the acts of the general councils down through history that one must turn for the ‘authentic commentary’ on and ‘legitimate interpretation’ of that fundamental scriptural’constitutional charter’. . . . [O]n the conflicted issue of the pope-bishop relationship the decrees emanating from Constance and Florence are ‘the most weighty and celebrated’. (211-213)
Maret’s conclusion was that Haec Sancta and Frequens, the conciliar determinations that resolved the Western schism, were not “dogma of faith,” but “constitutional law” that regulated ecclesiastical power. These were decrees that stated more clearly and solemnly than had been before that the “Church’s constitution was to be viewed as a mixed one, a ‘monarchy . . . essentially aristocratic and deliberative’, one in which the pope, while possessing by divine authority the plenitude of power, was no pure absolute and unlimited monarch but a ruler who, in the exercise of that power, was limited by the aristocratic element constituted by the bishops themselves — ‘true princes,’ he added, possessing by divine right a share in the Church’s sovereign power.”
The second nugget is that First Vatican Council ended this tradition of conciliarism:
Maret’s position was to be doomed, thrust into the outer darkness of heterodoxy by Pastor aeternus, the First Vatican Council’s historic decrees on the primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope. Or so the pertinent curial officials clearly concluded. If Lord Acton as a layman was able to avoid any forthright endorsement of the council’s teaching on infallibility against which he had fought so vigorously, clerics like. . . Maret were permitted very little room for manoeuvre. . . . [Maret] was to find that his earnest attempts to identify some fugitive common ground between his own form of neo-Gallicanism and the ecclesiology which informed Pastor aeternus were unacceptable at Rome. In August 1871, then, though without specifying what is was, precisely, that he had in mind, he publicly disavowed ‘whatever in his book and in his Defense is opposed to the Council’s definition.’ (216)
Old Life 
Darryl:
Poor Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) John Henry Newman, that self-loathing so-called Anglican and intellectual gymnast, was rather strongly opposed to Vatican 1’s infallibilism. The poor chap was in consultation with Mr. (Cardinal) Dollinger who, of course, argued that the centralizing posture was against the early patristic practices. But, like others, he [Dollinger] was elbowed out by Pius IX’s cohorts.
Also, while mentioning Mr. (Pope) Piux IX, his “Syllabus of Errors” is a real gem on Roman “strong arm tactics.” Mr. Abraham Lincoln was aware of these “anti-democratic” policies emanating from…um…ok, I’ll be polite…from Rome. I was going to say, “sewer,” the turgid brown Tiber River (and it is very brown).
Speaking of strong-armers. Doing some work on Mr. (Henry) Tudor’s problem with Catherine.
But, entirely off-point from Mr. Pius XI, pushing backwards 340 years before Vatican 1, Darryl, you should take a look at how Mr. (Pope) Clement VII “double-crossed” Henry VIII on the matrimonial issue. It’s a sad story in one sense, but entirely entertaining in another sense. That old bishop of Rome clearly “double-crossed” him (not that old Harry was some saint either). Old Clement had “two wives” himself so it wasn’t about sex-on-the-side, but rather the pacification of Emperor Charles V. He cut some land deals with Clement VII in clear “quid pro quos.” Three specific points in the deals, but will forego developments. What a hoot! Both Clement VII and Charles V would do Machiavelli proud. Cranmer wrote from Rome in 1532 that he’d “never seen such inconstancy.” Henry finally discovered the back-room dealing too. Long, but rather funny story. And some kind of English Reformation emerged from this Romanist mess?
Keep the hand firmly on the wallet in back pocket. Every bishop of Rome is born “dead in his sins and trespasses” and need Christ’s merits “alone.” But, they have investments in avoiding that message.
History is entertaining.
Regards.
Donald Philip Veitch
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
LikeLike
DGH and all — I don’t know about you, but I find Rome’s “official” doctrinal and constitutional actions over the centuries to be as harmful and reprehensible as anything that Hitler and Stalin did during the 20th century.
Note to Zrim: This is why I take no public issue at all with any other Christians (almost). Because there is a quantum difference between the Roman posturing and maneuvering (and not to mention the many murders they sanctioned) and anything at all that Protestant Christians (and even the Eastern Orthodox) may have gotten wrong over the centuries.
LikeLike
John, to say nothing that their ecclessiology isn’t grounded in Scripture. Yeah, my kids won’t have the Pope as their pastor. That’s kinda where the rubber meets the road, it seems to me. Later.
LikeLike
Viking, the, fascinating stuff. The Renaissance popes never figure in the defenses of high papalism. I suspect it’s because people don’t know.
Makes today’s popes look like Boy Scouts.
LikeLike
Re Conciliarism:
I stopped in at St. Thomas Aquinas today to see if they were having their annual rummage sale. In the hallway by their fellowship hall they had a bunch of really nice plaques that were paid for by their long-time priest and the Knights of Columbus. Were the plaques of the Popes? No, they were really informative descriptions of all of the Councils going back to the Council of Jerusalem.
On the plaque discussing the First Vatican Council they had a lengthy quote from Newman.
LikeLike
I suspect this particular church is on the progressive side. It is bordered by a fraternity house, a dorm, and the Iowa State student union. Lots of faculty and professionals are members there (I looked through the membership directory).
In spite of what the Callers say, it makes sense that the more educated you are the more likely you are to favor Councils over (infallible) popes. Power to the people.
LikeLike
As you wish, John, but it seems just this side of cynical to dole out an extra helping of disdain to a particular sect. Better to follow the lead of the three forms which keep things doctrinal and take strong public issue with the Romish mass (HC 80) and the detestable error of the Anabaptists (Belgic 34). While some may busy themselves with talk of Hitler and Stalin, others are wondering why not add to HC 80 something equally strong against evangelical altar calls or a fourth mark along the lines of doxology.
LikeLike
Rome is still struggling to find its conciliar self:
But when the converts think that a monarchical pontiff is what gives Roman Catholicism coherence — Christ ordained Peter as pope — giving up centralization in favor of ecclesial subsidiarity is a road block.
LikeLike
Not just collegiality, but Pope Francis wants to hear from Mermaid, vd, t, and Bryan and the Jasons:
LikeLike
Pope is still in charge, no reason to go to Philadelphia for the Bishops:
LikeLike