robber councils
i've heard that there have been over 30 "robber councils" in history of church. was vatican ii robber council? discuss.
I don't think it was a robber council. It was implemented badly and most theologians of post V2 vintage are robbers to me.
But it was their intent to undermine the Pope during the council. V2 is littered with ambiguities which need sharp clarification in my opinion.
Well, this will be an interesting thread!

Only the magisterium can decide about such thing as robber council. Any attempt by any laymen for such declaration is abusive.
Robber councils are never approved by the Pope and generally have a small number of bishops or other clergy and even lay people acting in opposition to the proper authority at the time. The prototypical example was the Monophysite Council convened by the Emperor in Ephesus and condemned by St. Leo the Great. Another example is the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI. Furthermore, the Council of Basel began as ecumenical and when the Pope moved it to Ferrara and then Florence, some bishops remained in Basel and carried on their own anti-papal council, electing an ant-pope, etc.

Certain sessions of the Council of Constance might fit a more broad definition of robber Council because they were convened by an anti-pope, passed erroneous decrees, etc, but a true Pope  later took presidency when the Great Western Schism was healed. While those previous sessions were never ratified by the Pope, they were also never formally condemned (the erroneous propositions were later condemned formally but without impugning the Council while the actual robber councils were themselves condemned).

Compare those with Vatican II which was convened by the Pope, had the highest participation of world-wide bishops (both in number and percentage) of any previous Council, and had each and every decree approved and promulgated by the Pope.

I don't think one can define it as a robber council without taking the sedevacantist position--but even then, AFAIK, the sedevacantist position was not developed until after the Council had been closed and things started going crazy--it wasn't as if the decrees were considered heretical when they were initially promulgated (there were some reservations), it was when the Council was seen as a catalyst for craziness that certain people went back to find the alleged heresies in the decrees or to come up with reasons to consider it invalid or illicit. The Council did not proceed against some true authority in the Church that coexisted with it and opposed it--the whole Church on earth was on board in one way or another. So say what you will about the value of the decrees and their fruits, but I don't think it fits what has been historically called a robber council.
thank you for commnts. learned a few things

I think there are many similarities between VII and some of the various robber synods/councils.
No need to exaggerate.  I wouldn't term it a "robber council".  Sufficient to call it what the Church declared it to be: a fallible, pastoral-only , non-binding council  that was open to error.
(10-16-2010, 08:19 PM)James02 Wrote: .....Sufficient to call it what the Church declared it to be: a fallible, pastoral-only , non-binding council  that was open to error.
Hopefully they clarify it as purely non-binding and just bury the dang thing.... :pray:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)