Medieval Councils: Authority vs. Conciliarism
Apologetics · The Ecumenical Councils
The Medieval Councils
Authority, Schism and the Century That Tried to Pick the Keys
Part 3 of 6The first seven councils asked who is Christ, and East and West answered together. The medieval councils ask a different question, and it is the question this whole series has circled from the start: who governs the Church Christ founded? This is the era of the great schism with the East, of two and then three men claiming the keys at once, and of a startling theory that a council could fire the pope. It is the messiest stretch of conciliar history, and it is where the doctrine of Part 1 gets stress-tested to breaking.
A word on method, because this article makes a claim some will resist. Read honestly, the tragedies below are far more about jurisdiction than about doctrine. The theology was real, but again and again it served as the banner raised over a fight about authority. We will give the theology its full and careful due, especially the Filioque, and then show the banner for what it was.
The Conciliar Spine · Jerusalem to Vatican II
Eleven lights on: the Western councils of the second millennium's first stretch, 869 to 1512. The shared spine has ended; these are councils the East does not receive, and that fact is half the story.
1. Constantinople IV (869): The Fault Line Appears
The eighth ecumenical council, the last the West and East even partly share in their numbering, was convened over the Photian schism: a disputed patriarchal election in Constantinople in which the emperor deposed Patriarch Ignatius and installed Photius, a brilliant layman rushed through holy orders in days. Rome judged the deposition uncanonical. The council of 869 vindicated Ignatius and condemned Photius, and it did so on a principle worth marking: it forbade laymen and civil powers to make and unmake patriarchs, insisting that the ordering of the Church is the Church's to govern, not the palace's.
Notice already what the fight is actually about. Not the nature of Christ, not grace, not the sacraments: a contested appointment, and who has authority to ratify or void it. The theological arguments that later attached to the Photian schism, the Filioque chief among them, arrived as reinforcements to a quarrel that began over jurisdiction. That sequence, jurisdiction first and doctrine as banner, is the pattern of the whole century.
The Error That Grew
Caesaropapism
The reduction of the Church's governance to an instrument of the state, patriarchs made and unmade by imperial will. The perennial temptation of a Church living inside an empire, and the deep engine under the Eastern schism.
The Conciliar Answer
The Church Governs the Church
Ignatius restored, the uncanonical deposition voided and the principle affirmed that spiritual office is not the emperor's to confer or cancel. The keys are the steward's, and behind the steward, Christ's, never Caesar's.
Beyond the Error
The numbering itself became a fault line: the East later reinstated Photius and repudiated this council, so that Rome counts 869 as the eighth ecumenical council and the East does not. The disagreement about which councils count is already the disagreement about the keys, exactly as Part 1 predicted.
2. The Filioque: The Banner and the Truth Beneath It
No phrase in Christian history has carried more weight for its word-count than Filioque, “and the Son.” Added in the Latin West to the Creed's line on the Holy Spirit, it became the theological centerpiece of the East-West rupture. It deserves to be stated correctly, because almost everyone states it wrong, including many of its defenders.
Here is what the Catholic Church does not teach. She does not teach two sources in the Godhead. She does not teach two ekporeuseis, two hypostatic originations. She does not teach that the Spirit has two independent causes. The caricature, “double procession,” is exactly that, a caricature, and if it were the doctrine the East would be right to reject it.
Here is what she does teach. The Father alone is the unoriginate source of the Godhead, the fons divinitatis. From the Father, the Son is eternally begotten. From the Father, the Spirit is eternally spirated, and the Son participates in that single spiration precisely because the Father, in begetting the Son, gives Him everything He has except the Fatherhood, the spirating power included. So the Son spirates only with and from the Father, as one principle, by one act.
The Procession, Stated Correctly
The Father → begets → the Son
The Father and the Son → as one principle, one spiration → the Spirit
One unoriginate source; two processions, begetting and spiration; never two causes. The Son's share in spirating is itself received from the Father in the Son's own begetting.
The Council of Florence would put it in exactly these guarded words: the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son tanquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione, as from one principle and by a single spiration. One principle. Single spiration. That formula was built to say the very thing the East feared losing: the monarchy of the Father, the oneness of the source.
The Bridge Was Built by an Eastern Saint
Maximus the Confessor already reconciled this, in the seventh century, in Greek.
Two hundred years before the schism hardened, St. Maximus the Confessor defended the Latin usage to his fellow Greeks. In his Letter to Marinus he explained that the Romans, in saying the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit: they know the Father is the one cause, the Son by begetting and the Spirit by procession, and they mean only that the Spirit's procession is manifested through the Son, showing the unity of the divine essence. Cause from the Father alone; manifestation through the Son. The modern historian of the whole controversy, Edward Siecienski, judges this letter the best bridge East and West have, then and now.
Honesty requires two limits on that bridge, and we give them plainly. First, the letter's full authenticity has been disputed since the fifteenth century; at Florence, even the pro-union Bessarion conceded it was hard to find in the ancient codices. Second, Maximus reconciles at the level of the Father is the sole cause; whether the developed Latin formula of one spirating principle says more than Maximus would grant is itself part of what East and West still discuss. The bridge is real. It is not a demolition of the far bank.
So why did so small a phrase carry so vast a war? Two reasons, and neither is mainly the metaphysics. The first is jurisdictional: the West inserted words into the Creed, and the East's deepest objection was often less this is false than by what authority did you edit an ecumenical Creed without an ecumenical council? Which is, once more, a question about the keys. The second is that a theological banner was needed for a rupture whose real causes, the sack of a city, the rivalry of two sees, the politics of a dying empire, were too raw and too worldly to march under. The Filioque became the flag. The war was about the keys.
3. Lateran IV (1215): The High-Water Mark
Amid the schism, the Western councils were doing extraordinary constructive work, and Lateran IV under Innocent III is the summit. It met the Cathar and Albigensian crisis, a dualist revival teaching that matter is evil and the God of the Old Testament a lesser or wicked power, the old Manichaean poison in a medieval bottle, and it answered with one of the richest doctrinal harvests of any council.
The Error That Grew
Catharism & Dualism
Two eternal principles, good and evil; matter, flesh and the Old Testament assigned to the evil god. A resurgent Manichaeanism that attacked creation, the Incarnation and the goodness of the body all at once.
The Conciliar Answer
One Creator of All Things
The council opened with a ringing creed: one God, creator of all things visible and invisible, who made all from nothing. And it gave the Eucharist its defining word, transubstantiation, affirming that matter itself becomes the vehicle of Christ against every claim that matter is evil.
Beyond the Error
Far beyond the error: Lateran IV mandated annual confession and Easter communion for every Catholic, disciplines that shaped ordinary Christian life for eight centuries. Here the two shelves from Part 1 are vivid: transubstantiation is doctrine and permanent; once a year is discipline and could in principle change. One council, both registers, cleanly distinct.
Lyons I (1245), Lyons II (1274) and Vienne (1311) followed, occupied largely with crusade, reform and the suppression of the Templars, the last driven more by the French crown's greed than by justice, a caution the Church has never needed to pretend away. But Lyons II carried something greater, and painful, which brings the Eastern thread back.
4. Lyons II and Florence: Reunion on Paper
Twice in the medieval centuries, East and West formally reunited. Twice it held on parchment and dissolved on the ground, and why it dissolved is the proof of this article's thesis.
At Lyons II (1274), Byzantine envoys sent by Emperor Michael VIII professed the Filioque and papal primacy, and union was declared. It collapsed almost at once. The Byzantine faithful and most of the clergy repudiated it, not because a new argument had defeated Maximus, but because the union was rightly seen as the emperor's political maneuver to buy Western protection, imposed from above by a ruler desperate for allies. When the emperor died, the union died with him, and a subsequent Eastern council at Blachernae repudiated it outright.
At the Council of Florence (1439), the effort was far more serious and far more learned. For months the finest theologians of both worlds debated in earnest, the Greeks led by Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion, the Latins deploying the Fathers and, crucially, Maximus's bridge. A genuine decree of union was signed, Laetentur Caeli, “Let the heavens rejoice,” embraced by nearly the entire Greek delegation. And it too collapsed, for reasons almost entirely outside the theology.
Why Florence Failed
The theology was reconciled in the hall. The keys were rejected in the street.
When the delegates sailed home, the union was overwhelmingly rejected by the Byzantine populace and clergy. The reasons given were rarely the metaphysics of spiration. They were these: the union had been signed by an emperor bargaining for military aid against the advancing Turks; Mark of Ephesus, who refused to sign, became a national hero precisely as a symbol of resistance to Latin domination; and beneath all of it lay a wound with a date and a body count, 1204, when a Western crusade had sacked Constantinople itself. You do not accept the primacy of the man whose armies burned your capital, however sound his theologians. Florence proves the point: when the doctrine was actually reconciled, the schism still would not close, because the schism was never mainly about the doctrine.
Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, fourteen years after Florence, and the reunion's last political rationale fell with it. But note what Florence achieved and left standing: a worked example that the Filioque can be confessed by Greek fathers without ceasing to be Greek, and a decree that remains, for Catholics, a genuine ecumenical council. The bridge was crossed once, by learned men of both lungs. It can be crossed again.
5. The Century That Tried to Pick the Keys
Now the hardest test the papacy ever faced from the inside. In 1378 the Western Church broke into the Great Western Schism: rival papal elections produced two claimants, one at Rome and one at Avignon, each with cardinals, each with nations swearing obedience, each excommunicating the other. An attempt to fix it at Pisa in 1409 made things worse by adding a third claimant. For a generation, sincere Catholics, saints among them, could not say with certainty who held the keys.
Out of that agony grew a theory that seemed to solve it, and that struck at the root of everything Part 1 established: conciliarism, the claim that a general council derives its authority directly from Christ and stands above the pope, who can be judged and deposed by it. The Council of Constance (1414-1418) stated it in the decree Haec Sancta (1415).
The Error That Grew
Conciliarism
A council outranks the steward and may depose him; supreme authority rests in the assembly, not in Peter's successor. It grew because it appeared to be the only exit from the scandal of three popes, an error born of a real emergency.
The Conciliar Answer
The Office Held; the Theory Fell
Constance did end the schism, securing the resignation or deposition of the claimants and electing Martin V. But its conciliarist claim was never ratified as doctrine, was pointedly not confirmed in that part by the legitimate pope, and was formally condemned when revived, definitively at Vatican I.
Beyond the Error
This is the century's decisive lesson and the vindication of Part 1's rule: a council's acts bind only as confirmed by the steward. Constance's legitimate work, ending the schism, was ratified and stands; its overreach, claiming supremacy over the pope, was not, and does not. The follow-on council at Basel pushed conciliarism further, degenerated, and collapsed into schism itself, illustrating the theory's fruits. The keys survived the one century that tried hardest to pry them loose.
Lateran V (1512-1517) closed the era by formally reasserting papal authority over councils, burying conciliarism as Catholic doctrine just as a monk in Wittenberg was preparing to reopen every question at once. That is Part 4.
6. The Comebacks
💬 “The Filioque proves Rome corrupts doctrine. She edited the Creed.”
Separate the two charges, because they are different and only one has any force. The doctrine is not a corruption: as Section 2 showed and an Eastern saint argued first, it teaches one unoriginate Father, one spiration, the Son's role itself received from the Father. Maximus called the Latin meaning orthodox in the seventh century. The metaphysics is defensible and was defended from within the East.
The procedure is the fairer question: should the words have entered the Creed the way they did, gradually and regionally, rather than by an ecumenical act? Rome's own answer is telling, and it is a peace offering: when reciting the Creed with the Orthodox, and in the Greek, the Holy See itself has used the text without the Filioque, distinguishing the truth of the doctrine from the prudence of its insertion. That is not the behavior of a Church claiming to have corrupted the faith. It is a Church holding a truth while conceding a point of manner.
💬 “Three popes at once. The whole system collapsed.”
It was a genuine crisis, and the Church has never dressed it up: for decades the identity of the officeholder was in agonizing doubt. But look precisely at what was and was not in doubt. Nobody proposed that the papacy had ceased to exist; nobody preached that the keys had vanished. The entire, painful argument was about which man held the one office everyone still believed in. A succession dispute presupposes the throne.
And the crisis resolved in favor of the office, not against it. One line was vindicated, the schism healed, the succession continued unbroken to this day. Compare the restorationist claim we tested at the end of the last pillar: a total defect of the Church is exactly what did not happen here, even under maximum strain. The gates did not prevail. They only made a great deal of noise.
💬 “Constance proves councils are supreme over popes. Catholics just ignore the inconvenient part.”
This is the serious objection of the set, and it has a precise answer that is not special pleading. Constance acted in two capacities. As an assembly ending a succession crisis, restoring one certain pope, it did legitimate and necessary work, and that work was confirmed and stands. When it decreed its own supremacy over the papacy in Haec Sancta, it exceeded its authority, and that decree was never confirmed by a legitimate pope as a rule of faith, which by the standard of Part 1 is exactly why it does not bind.
The principle is consistent, not convenient: a council's authority is real but derivative, activated by communion with and confirmation by the steward. Apply that rule evenly and Constance's valid acts stand while its overreach falls, precisely as they did. Basel then ran the experiment to its end: conciliarism unchained degenerated into a rump that deposed a true pope, elected an antipope and dissolved in schism. The theory was tested to destruction, and the keys outlasted it.
💬 “If Rome and the East reunited on paper twice, the split is just Rome's stubbornness now.”
The two reunions cut the other way. They prove the doctrinal gap is bridgeable, since it was in fact bridged, by learned Greek and Latin fathers together, at Florence, with an Eastern saint's theology as the keystone. What defeated both unions was not an unanswerable argument but a wound: imperial politics, national identity and above all the memory of 1204.
Which locates the real work of reunion honestly, and humbly, on both sides. The Catholic Church has done her part of the repentance out loud: in 2001 the pope asked God's forgiveness before the Orthodox for the sack of Constantinople, and Rome and Constantinople lifted their mutual excommunications of 1054 back in 1965. The banner can come down. Whether the two lungs breathe together again is a matter for prayer and for Part 6, where the Eastern case gets its own full and fair hearing rather than a paragraph.
Where That Leaves Us
The medieval councils tell one story under many names. A contested appointment at Constantinople, a phrase added to a Creed, two reunions signed and abandoned, three men claiming one chair, a theory that the assembly could unseat the steward: strip the theology away and every crisis is revealed as a struggle over who holds the keys. The theology was real, and we gave it its due, the Filioque most of all, stated as one spiration from one principle and reconciled once already by an Eastern saint. But the theology was the banner. The war was about authority.
And through all of it, the thing Part 1 said could not be broken was not broken. Popes wavered, cities burned, claimants multiplied, a council reached for the crown, and still the office with the keys came out the far side of the worst century intact, its overreaching challengers condemned, its true acts confirmed, its succession unbroken. The gates made their loudest assault here, and here too they did not prevail.
Next: Trent. The Reformation reopens every question at once, and the longest, most thorough council in history answers, book by book and canon by canon, defining the faith with a precision the Church had never before been forced to reach. The Counter-Reformation's engine, and the shape of Catholicism for the next four centuries.
→ Part 4
Trent and the Counter-Reformation
The longest council in history answers the Reformation, canon by canon.
The Ecumenical Councils · Part 3 of 6
Comments
Post a Comment