8

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id166.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION"><U><B>SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id169.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id171.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id172.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id173.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id174.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id175.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>7</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><B>8</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id177.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id178.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id179.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id180.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id181.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 7: CONCLUSION</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 133-134. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 8. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>CHAPTER 8</U></div> <bR> <div> <B>THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE (1414-1418)</B></div> <bR> <div>      The Roman Catholic apologists' claim the pope is superior to any church council is clearly disproved by an examination of the earliest general councils and by the Council of Constance.</div> <div>      The Council of Constance ended the “Great Schism” of the Roman Catholic Church when there were three simultaneous popes and chose the new pope, Martin V.</div> <div>      This schism started when the same group of cardinals chose Clement VII as the pope a mere four months after they chose Urban VI because they disagreed with what Pope Urban VI was doing (their excuse was that they were forced to elect him). Urban VI didn't recognize their actions and neither did half of Catholic Europe. Half of Europe recognized Urban VI as the legitimate pope and the other half recognized Clement VII with each pope gathering around himself his own group of cardinals and clergy, and with both Popes excommunicating the other. Both cardinal bodies chose new popes when Clement VII and Urban VI died.</div> <div>      To rectify this situation, all of the cardinals, the heads of the orders of the church, numerous bishops and abbots, theologians, scholars and government representatives created a church council in Pisa in 1409. This council deposed both popes and chose another as pope who became Alexander V.</div> <div>      The problem only became greater since the two rival popes didn't abdicate and now there were three rival popes and Catholic Europe was split into three camps each acknowledging one pope as the legitimate pope. All three popes excommunicated each other just as the previous two did.</div> <div>      The biggest problem with the three competing popes was the fact that all three were chosen by the same body of cardinals, and if one is honest about it, from a purely Roman Catholic point of view, all were legitimate and none of them were usurpers.</div> <div>      This was the problem the Council of Constance fixed and if the Council of Basel (1433) didn't drop the ball, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church today would be identical with the ancient Catholic position that the church councils are always superior to any pope. This would've resolved the primary problem between the Eastern and Western churches and both divisions would've enjoyed full communion today.</div> <div>      The Council of Constance accurately described ancient Catholicism in its <I>Sacrosancta</I>, which occurred in the fifth session and states,</div> <bR> <div>   “This holy Synod of Constance, being a General Council, and legally assembled in the Holy Spirit for the praise of God and for the ending of the present schism, and for the union and reformation of the Church of God … ordains, declares, and decrees as follows: and first it declares that this Synod, legally assembled, represents the Catholic Church militant and has its authority direct from Christ; and everybody of whatever rank or dignity,<I> including also the pope</I>, is bound to obey this council in those things which pertain to the faith, to the ending of this schism, and to the general reformation of the Church in its head and members. Likewise it declares that if anyone … <I>including also the pope</I>, shall refuse to obey the commands … of this holy Council, or of any other holy Council properly assembled, in regard to the end of the schism and to the reformation of the Church, he shall be subject to proper punishment.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This <I>Sacrosancta</I> of the Council of Constance and the decree of the 39th session clearly state that the Council is always superior to any pope.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT> Despite the protestations of some RC apologists that this is a forgery; the evidence clearly shows this is authentic for a number of reasons. This Council <I>acted</I> superior to any pope as evidenced by it removing all three from office, preventing any successor of the three to be chosen, and by it appointing a new pope. In addition, the council's actions and views on authority are identical with pre-eighth century Catholicism. </div> <div>      The consequences are devastating for the Roman Catholic Church if the RC apologists are right in arguing that the Council of Constance was wrong in placing itself above the pope, and its actions inappropriate. This council was responsible for the appointment of Martin V and if the council was wrong, then its actions, including the appointment of Martin V was wrong as well. Since all the successors of Martin V, including the present pope came from the same body that the Council of Constance came from, that would mean the entire hierarchy of present Roman Catholicism lack divine authority. </div> <div>      The Roman Catholic's arguments of picking and choosing which sessions are valid don't make any sense. They claim the 5th session is invalid because the Pope didn't ratify the council until the 14th session. Their problem is the 39th session says the same thing as the fifth, and it occurred after the 14th. In addition, the bishop of Rome didn't support most of the earliest Ecumenical Councils until months afterward. Are these same Roman Catholic apologists saying the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils are invalid since the bishop of Rome didn't support them until long after the councils ended?</div> <div>      The Council of Constance proves that a General or Ecumenical Council is always superior to any one person, including the Pope of Rome.</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]:</B></div> <bR> <div> 1.THE CHURCH (Jay). pp.138-139.</div> <div> 2.ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA. 3:559-560.</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>