On Sarx a question came up about that made me think about the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Ecumenical Councils. And, not surprisingly, my conclusion is that the relationship is a complex interaction that does not boil itself down to a set of easily memorizable doctrinal statements. I can, however, perhaps give some generalized thoughts on the interaction.
Too often we (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant) all behave as though there were some easy answer to the whole subject of authority. Scripture has spoken, and there is no other answer possible. The Holy Father has spoken ex cathedra, and there is no other answer possible. An Ecumenical Council has spoken, and there is no other answer possible. Nevertheless, when we look at history we see that such are over-simplified answers.
Many have pointed out that the claim of Scripture having spoken is hard to uphold when there are many differing interpretations of Scripture. For the Roman Catholic Church, one need only look at the widespread disobedience, in many countries, of the papal prohibitions against birth control to note that such prohibitions have not functioned. Even for us Orthodox, we hate to admit that several of our ecumenical pronouncements have never been obeyed, such as the prohibition against using the image of a lamb to represent Christ and the prohibition against unleavened bread. Even before the Great Schism, those two prohibitions were never received by either the West or Armenia and were never successfully enforced by the pre-schism Catholic Church.
In fact, on the other post I said, “The people of Vatican Council II (bishops, theologians, etc.) vastly underestimated the strength of the cultural traditions that held pre-Conciliar Roman Catholicism together. They also vastly overestimated the practical authority of the bishops who would be implementing it. Part of what held the Roman Catholic Church so tightly together was a popularly shared view of ‘how it all worked’ whether that view was right or not.
Once that view was changed, something had to replace it, some overarching explanation of ‘how it all works.’ However, the Council Fathers were not able to move into that vacuum, rather many Roman Catholics (at least in the USA) began to doubt that it did all work. Once the doubt crept in and the bonds of a shared tradition were loosened, you began to see some people running off in all directions, every one of them claiming the imprimatur of the Council to do as they wished.
That is, speaking theologically, the Council Fathers assumed that Conciliar authority was sufficient. What they found out was that tradition (whether Holy or not) forms a counterweight to Ecumenical Councils.”
So, how does some of this fits together? Tune-in tomorrow, same time, same station.
— More to follow —
As I said over there, it’s one of the best answers on the topic I’ve seen.
“Tradition (whether Holy or not) forms a counterweight to Ecumenical Councils.” Certainly it is that way for the Pope, too, who enters into a dialogue with his advisers and theologians years before making anything ex cathedra-ly infallible.