Here is a counterfactual for you. The year is 1545, and the Catholic Church is in shambles. The Protestant revolt has spread across Germany, France, Scandinavia, and into Eastern Europe. Violent uprisings against the established order during the Peasants’ War (1525) and the siege of Munster (1534), the Ottoman invasion of Eastern Europe (1529) and warfare between France and the Holy Roman Empire threaten the stability of Europe even as the virus of religious heresy spreads apace. Rome, beset by a deeply corrupt curia, was paralyzed for nearly three decades after Luther began his break with the Church, fearing the outcome of an ecumenical council might jeopardize its power.
But now, a new generation of bishops and Churchmen has finally managed to gather in the city of Trent, to debate the crises of war and Reformation, sometimes quite acrimoniously, but finally determined to do something about them. As the bishops file into the nave of the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, the bishops take their seats, a sea of red birettas filling the great cathedral. Finally, they begin debating the momentous issue of how to reform the Church and heal the division caused by the Reformation. But before the first bishop can raise his voice to speak, a voice interjects.
“Stop! This council cannot proceed. It must be dissolved immediately!”
The other bishops look to their confreres, whose countenances betray their astonishment at this assertion. Before they can react, the voice acquires a face, who shouts at them with indignation.
“You are all heretics and schismatics, guilty of the sin of denying the Holy Spirit!” The man, who appears otherwise quite sane, goes on in this manner for some time, until the bishops demand an answer, to which the man retorts: “you have betrayed the Fifth Lateran Council, an ecumenical council called by Pope Julius II, who was chosen by the Holy Spirit. Your unfaithfulness to the council is why the Church has not flourished. We must go back to her documents and taste their pure and living doctrine, and only then will the Church flourish again!”
As preposterous as this scenario might sound—it is amusing to think what a St. Charles Borromeo might make of such a person—it is precisely what those insist that “the Vatican II hasn’t been tried yet” crowd insists upon in the face of all evidence. They deny that the precipitous decline of membership and mass attendance in the 1960s and 70s has anything to do with Vatican II, but their most effective response is to shoot the messenger and insinuate the Catholics pointing out this fact are somehow unfaithful, perhaps even heretical, for noticing its failure.
Short History of Failed Councils
Ordinary Catholics, not being acquainted with the history of the ecumenical councils, might be tempted to believe such assertions. But as Bishop Paprocki has noted, a council can have “failed in its objectives” while still being valid. Just a few examples should suffice to make the point.
The most obvious examples are those councils that largely failed because they were not “received” by some great body of the Church and did not achieve what they set out to do. Second Lyons (1274) seemed to reunite the East and West, until Pope Martin IV excommunicated the Catholic Emperor of Constantinople in order to call a false crusade against him. The other reunion Council, Ferrara-Florence (1439), did achieved more success by forming a basis for the Eastern Catholic churches. But still, the majority of Eastern Christians have not come into communion with Rome as a result.
In other words, these councils were valid but failed in their objectives.
Something similar happened in the case of the Fifth Lateran Council, mentioned in the scenario above. Pope Julius II so tightly controlled the proceedings of Lateran V that it appeared to many not to be a genuine council at all; many Germans, for example, ignored it, calling for a “free Christian council in German lands” within in the Holy Roman Empire. Skepticism of papal sincerity with regards to reform scuttled any success it might have, even though many of its ideas would be repeated at Trent.
Even councils we remember as successful did not always achieve all their immediate objectives. The Council of Trent (1545-1563), so successful in reforming the abuses that led to the Reformation and reinvigorating Catholic life in the late sixteenth century, did not achieve the “extirpation of heresies… the peace and union of the Church” or “the depression and extinction of the enemies of the Christian name” as promised in its opening session. The fourth Lateran Council (1215) was largely successful in its reform efforts but failed in its “ardent desire to liberate the holy Land from infidel hands,” which it too, failed to realize.
It might even be said that an ecumenical council was a failure precisely because it did achieve its stated objectives. The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) was called by Clement V at the behest of Philip IV of France, for the purpose of hearing accusations against the Knights Templar. Clement V dissolved the order, but we now know that Clement V pardoned some of the Knights, and the motives of Philip IV have always been suspect, as he was financially indebted to the order.
Of course, some councils, though they failed to achieve their immediate goals, were received in the long run. The first Council of Nicaea (325) is remembered for the creed it promulgated, but it did not bring the unity that the Emperor Constantine hoped for when he convened it. It took another half century of theological wrangling, rival synods, imprisonments, excommunications, and finally another council in 381 (Constantinople I) to define the nature of the Trinity and the final form of the creed. Even then, that later council was not even recognized as being ecumenical until yet another council at Chalcedon, seventy years later in 451.
