It is Revolutionary for Church leaders to Hold Regular, Frequent General Councils (Synods)

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The Traditional Role of General Councils in the Catholic Church

A General Council of the Catholic Church is a council called by the pope.[1] The authority of a General Council apparently does not depend on the number of bishops who attended, since Catholics have never questioned the authority of a Church Council based on the small number of bishops who attended.[2]

A General Council is a rare event.[3] In approximately 2,000 years, there have been only 21 General Councils up to, and including Vatican II.[4] A General Council is generally called to address a great crisis in the Church.[5]

 

Holding Regular, Frequent General Councils is revolutionary and is not part of Catholic Tradition.

The idea of holding regular and frequent General Councils was a novelty that was attempted once before Vatican II (in 1417), by a valid (but in some ways, evil) General Council of the Catholic Church called the Council of Constance.[6] Among other things, this council commanded frequent future councils. Here are its words:

[B]y this perpetual law, we command that, from this time on, General Councils shall be held as follows: the first within five years immediately following the close of this present council; the second within seven years of the close of the council immediately following this present council; and ever afterwards thenceforward every ten years ….[7]

Such implementation of regular, frequent General Councils was completely revolutionary in the history of the Catholic Church.[8] It is not the way that Our Lord Jesus Christ established the Church to be governed.

After the Council of Constance, the next Church Council was scheduled for five years later, as commanded by the Council of Constance. This council was to be held at Pavia, Italy (near Milan). But almost no bishops came and a plague struck that town and broke up the little group assembled for the council.[9]

As the Council of Constance ordered, the next Council (after the failed Pavia attempt) was scheduled for seven years later – to be convened in Basel, Switzerland. Id. Although this Council did convene in Basel, it was moved to Ferrara, Italy, and then moved to Florence. Id. This Council treated various business and eventually disbanded but there is no record of when or why it disbanded and there is no final Council document. Id.

In practical terms, this was the end of the Council of Constance’s legislation that regular and frequent General Councils must be convened. Strangely, the Council of Constance’s legislation (mandating regular and frequent Councils) was never formally revoked, although it was ignored after that.

 

The conciliar church has done what the Council of Constance tried to do

After Vatican II, the conciliar church began the novelty of holding General Councils/synods of “bishops”[10] about every three years.[11] These synods are called by the pope, with “bishops” chosen to represent all of the other “bishops” in the world. The legislation for these synods was decreed by Pope Paul VI in 1965, who established these synods as a new, permanent Council of “bishops”.[12] This permanent General Council/synod is designed to promote collegiality[13] and Vatican II’s false teaching that the Catholic Church has two supreme authorities.[14]

After Vatican II, the conciliar church has declared itself a “synodal church”[15] to promote collegiality and decentralization[16] in the Church, despite the truth that the Catholic Church is essentially a monarchy.

In the 52 years since Vatican II, the conciliar church has held 29 councils/synods[17], compared with the Catholic Church holding 21 Councils[18] (including Vatican II) in the roughly 2000 years before that!

 

The synods promote the evil of ecumenism

Among the many other evils of this revolutionary post-Vatican II “synodality”, is the promotion of ecumenism with false religions. The synods include as participating but non-voting “delegates” the members of various false religions, who are called “fraternal delegates”. For example, the 2015 synod included 14 such “fraternal delegates”, including heretics from Anglicanism, the Baptists, and the so-called “Orthodox” sects.[19]

 

These synods bring about evil effects

Bad trees bear only bad fruit. These revolutionary synods are bad trees which predictably bear only bad fruit. For example:

➢   The Amazon Synod in October 2019 promoted the policy of ordaining married men,[20] and also promoted the ordination of women. As a step in the revolutionaries’ push for female priests, the Amazon synod specifically recommended that women be ordained to the priestly minor orders of Lector and Acolyte.[21]

➢  The Synod on the Family promoted reception of Holy Communion by divorcées who (supposedly) “remarry”.[22]

 

Conclusion

We live in the time of the Great Apostasy. Let us always be vigilant and stand strong against the novelties of the conciliar church!

Let us thank God every day for giving us the tremendous and completely-undeserved blessing of the fully-Traditional Catholic Faith!


[1] Historian Msgr. Philip Hughes wrote a history of the Catholic Church’s 20 general councils (before Vatican II). Here is how he stated this truth:

 

Ever since the popes were first articulate about the General Council, they have claimed the right to control its action and, to take their place in it (whether personally or by legates sent in their name) or by their subsequent acceptance of the council, to give or withhold an approbation of its decisions, which stamps them as the authentic teaching of the Church of Christ. Only through their summoning it, or through their consenting to take their place at it, does the assembly of bishops become a General Council.

 

Quoted from: THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, introduction (emphasis added).

 

[2] Historian Msgr. Philip Hughes wrote a history of the Catholic Church’s 20 general councils (before Vatican II). Here is how he stated this truth:

 

Nowhere in these early centuries, in fact, do we find any member of the Church questioning the truth as the General Councils have defined it. What they teach as the truth is taken to be as true as though it were a statement of Scripture itself. The question was never raised, seemingly, that the greater or smaller number of bishops who in response to the summons attended, in any way affected the peculiar authority of the General Council.

 

THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, introduction (emphasis added).

 

[3] Historian Msgr. Philip Hughes wrote a history of the Catholic Church’s 20 general councils (before Vatican II). Here is how he stated this truth:

 

The General Council of the teaching Church, in all the sessions of the occasions on which it has met, in the nineteen hundred years and more of the Church’s history, has sat for perhaps thirty years in all, at most. It is an exceptional phenomenon in the life of the Church, and usually it appears in connection with some great crisis of that life.

 

THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, introduction (emphasis added).

[4] The Church Councils are listed in chronological order in the table of contents of this book: THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961. Each Council is given its own chapter of the book.

[5] Historian Msgr. Philip Hughes wrote a history of the Catholic Church’s 20 general councils (before Vatican II). Here is how he stated this truth:

 

The General Council of the teaching Church, in all the sessions of the occasions on which it has met, in the nineteen hundred years and more of the Church’s history, has sat for perhaps thirty years in all, at most. It is an exceptional phenomenon in the life of the Church, and usually it appears in connection with some great crisis of that life.

 

THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, introduction.

[6] The Council was held in the Swiss town of Constance. Though the Council of Constance was a real council of the Church, like Vatican II was, the Council of Constance taught a number of grave errors (although it did not teach those errors infallibly), just as Vatican II taught countless grave errors, but not infallibly.

 

For example, among other grave errors, the Council of Constance taught that a Church Council was superior to the pope and could punish the pope. Here are the words of that Council:

 

This holy Council of Constance … declares, in the first place, that, lawfully come together in the Holy Spirit, being a General Council and representing the Catholic Church, it holds an authority directly [derived] from Christ, which authority everyone, of whatever status or dignity, even the pope, is bound to obey in those matters concerning the faith, the extirpation of the said Schism, and the reformation of the Church in head and members. It declares, furthermore, that whoever contumeliously scorns to obey the commands and the laws of this holy council, or of any other General Council lawfully assembled [commands, etc. referring to the matters stated], he is to be duly punished, whatever his status or dignity, even though he is the pope.

 

Quotation from the Council document, Sacrosancta, from THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, ch.16 (emphasis added; bracketed words in the original).

[7] Here is a longer part of the summary of this Council, given by historian, Msgr. Philip Hughes:

 

Five decrees were accordingly published on October 5, 1417. The first, and by far the most important in its consequences, is that called, from its first word, Frequens. It is a kind of practical corollary to the decree Sacrosancta already mentioned. Here is its text: "The frequent celebration of General Councils is the best of all methods for tilling the Lord’s field, and for extirpating the weeds and thorns of heresy, schisms and errors …. This it is that brings the Lord’s vineyard to the fullness of its fertility. The neglect to hold General Councils fosters and encourages all the disorders here spoken of; the history of former times and the events we ourselves are witness

to make this very evident. Therefore, by this perpetual law, we command that, from this time on, General Councils shall be held as follows: the first within five years immediately following the close of this present council; the second within seven years of the close of the council immediately following this present council; and ever afterwards thenceforward every ten years; all these councils to be held in a place which the pope is bound to announce one month before the end of the council, and with the approbation and consent of the council. Should the pope fail to do this, then the council itself is to choose the place and time. So that, in this way, by a kind of continuity, there shall always be a council in session or the expectation of a council. The term appointed for the coming council the pope may, with the consent of the cardinals, shorten, but in no case may he make it any longer."

 

Quoted from THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, ch.16, at footnote 309.

 

[8] After describing the Council of Constance’s declaration that there be regular General Councils in the Catholic Church, Msgr. Hughes then adds:

 

There is no need to explain what a revolution in the government of the Church was thus attempted.

Quoted from THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, ch.16.

 

[9] THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, ch.17.

 

[10] We place the word “bishop” in quotation marks because conciliar ordinations and consecrations are inherently doubtful. For an explanation of this, read these articles:

 

➢  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

 

➢   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGd2RRcTFSY29EYzg/view

➢   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view

 

However, conciliar “bishops” who are given jurisdiction (for governing) by the pope do possess this jurisdiction because this jurisdiction does not depend on the valid ordinations and consecrations of the “bishops”. A layman can wield Episcopal jurisdiction when it is given to him by the pope. For an explanation of this, read section ten of this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html

[12] Here are Pope Paul VI’s words, in his legislation:

 

It was also the Ecumenical Council that gave Us the idea of permanently establishing a special Council of bishops …. We hereby erect and establish here in Rome a permanent Council of bishops for the universal Church ….

 

The Synod of Bishops, whereby bishops chosen from various parts of the world are to offer more effective assistance to the supreme Shepherd, is to be constituted in such a way that it is: a) a central ecclesiastical institution; b) representing the whole Catholic episcopate; c) of its nature perpetual; d) as for structure, carrying out its function for a time and when called upon.

Pope Paul VI , Apostolica Sollicitudo, Establishing The Synod Of Bishops For The Universal Church, 1965.

 

[13] Pope Francis described the synods as “one of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council” and “an expression of collegiality.” https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-says-structures-collaboration-collegiality-need-strengthening

Similarly, Pope John Paul II referred to the Church Synod as “a particularly fruitful expression and instrument of the collegiality of bishops”. http://www.synod.va/content/synod2018/en/the-synod-of-bishops.html

 

[14] Among the many revolutionary changes made by Vatican II and the subsequent conciliar church, is the promotion the errors of collegiality and that the bishops (with the pope) is a separate supreme authority in the Church. Here is Vatican II’s revolutionary teaching that the Church has two supreme authorities:

 

The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. … The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. … [I]t is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them. This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world ….

 

Quoted from Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, §22 (emphasis added).

 

Vatican II’s fuzzy, illogical teaching here, indicates that there are dual authorities in the Church: 1) the pope singly and 2) all the bishops together. This concept – of a double supreme authority – makes no sense, any more than two spouses can each be the head of the family, since there cannot be two greatest authorities. The conciliar church’s error of two supreme authorities in the Church is thus analogous to the false and contradictory conciliar error of “mutual submission” of spouses, as both heads of the family. (Pope John Paul II sets out this error of “mutual submission” in his encyclical, Mulieris dignitatem, §24.)

 

To read the Catholic Church’s infallible condemnations of the error of dual supreme authority in the Church, read: Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, beginning on page 187. This book is available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGbzRhdmQ3X0Z6RFE/view (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).


[15] For example, Pope Francis declared on October 17, 2015:

 

The journey of synodality is the journey that God wants from his [sic] church in the third millennium. A synodal church is a listening church, aware that listening is more than hearing. It is a reciprocal listening in which each one has something to learn.

 

Words of Pope Francis, quoted here: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-calls-synodal-church-listens-learns-shares-mission

 

[16] Declaring his intent to decentralize the Catholic Church, here are the words of Pope Francis, quoted in a news report:

 

“In this sense, I feel the need to move ahead with a healthy decentralization,” he [viz., Pope Francis] said. [Pope] Francis also said it was “necessary and urgent to think about a conversion of the papacy”, a possibility that was first floated by the late Pope John Paul II in 1995.

 

https://religionnews.com/2015/10/18/pope-francis-calls-for-changes-to-papacy-and-a-more-decentralized-church/ (bracketed words added for clarity).

 

[18] THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870, by Msgr. Philip Hughes, Hanover House, New York, ©1961, See, the table of contents and introduction.

 

[21] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-leaves-out-call-for-womens-ministries-from-english-version-of-amazon-synods-final-doc

 

Although the conciliar hierarchy has eliminated the traditional four minor orders in the evil novus ordo “ordination” rite (for men), it is interesting that these modernists would propose those minor orders for women as a concrete step toward women’s (supposed) ordination to the priesthood.