St. Vincent of Lerins: The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434

We have made reference to this teaching in earlier posts.  For that reason we wanted to include the context of the quote, and look at the larger principal involved because it goes beyond simply what is to be considered catholic teaching, to what one should do if a portion of the church should not follow antiquity (see no 4).

From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium
A.D. 434
[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.

---

Catholic & Orthodox Debate on the Papacy

Having read through this debate I am somewhat surprised that it is housed on a "Catholic" site since the debate was clearly won by the Orthodox debater. 

Proposal

Is the modern role of the papacy a legitimate development from the Early Church?
Scott Windsor and Chris (aka "orthodox") debate the role of the papacy in the modern Church. Is the modern role of the papacy legitimate or a novel invention of the Catholic Church? Read the debate and you decide!

Affirmative/Negative

In the affirmative is Catholic Apologist, Scott Windsor supporting the modern role of the papacy.
In the negative is Eastern Orthodox Chris aka: "orthodox", denying the modern role of the papacy.

Opening Statement - Scott
Rebuttal 1 - Scott
Rebuttal 2 - Scott
Rebuttal 3 - Scott

Opening Statement - Chris
Rebuttal 1 - Chris
Rebuttal 2 - Chris
Rebuttal 3 - Chris

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/

Peter's Successor

Modern Roman Catholic apologists never tire of quoting (normally out of context) the early church fathers and their praise of St. Peter. One such example that is apparently meant to influence people of an eastern persuasion can be found here.  What they hope to effect in the mind of the reader is clear.  They hope that by listing a plethora of quotes attributing to Peter a primacy in the apostolic community the reader will come away impressed, and will apply these quotes to Peter's successor, who is, in their mind, the bishop of Rome.  By quoting the eastern fathers in this context it demonstrates that the apologists are playing their audience, hoping that they don't do their research.  It is routinely acknowledged that the later western papal claims were never part of the eastern church's understanding.

Catholic Cardinal and theologian Yves Congar stated

"The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century."

In fairness it should be pointed out that Petrine Primacy is not disputed.  What is disbuted is Petrine Supremacy which is a later western development.

Getting to the quotes it is not at all apparent from the selected quotes who the fathers considered Peter's successor.  During the patristic era there were three views of who was Peter's successor.  The three views were:  Everyone who confessed that Jesus was the "Christ, the Son of the living God," (Mat 16:16) was a successor of Peter.  Another view is that every bishop was a successor of Peter, and the third view was that the successor of Peter were the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexdria which were considered the three Petrine sees. 

Consider, for example, this quote from one of the great western fathers, St. Augustine:

When you hear the words: 'Peter, do you love me?' imagine you are in front of a mirror and looking at yourself.  Peter, surely, was a symbol of the Church.  Therefore the Lord in asking Peter is asking us too.

To show that Peter was a symbol of the Church remember the passage in the  Gospel: 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Has only one man received those keys?  Christ himself explains what they are for: 'Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' If these words had been said only to Peter, now that he is dead who would ever be able to bind and loose?

I make bold to say that all of us have received the keys.  We bind and loose.  And you also bind and loose.  Whoever is bound is separated from your community: he is bound by you.  When he is reconciled, however, he is loosed, thanks to you because you are praying for him.  We all in fact love our Lord, we are all his members. 

And when the Lord entrusts his flock to shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to one individual body, that of the one Shepherd.

Peter is undeniably a shepherd, but without doubt Paul also is a shepherd, each Apostles is a shepherd.  All the holy bishops are shepherds, without a shadow of a doubt. Serm. Morin, 16 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, 493ff.)

Vatican I tells us in Pastor Aeternus in chapter 2 no 2

 For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

Was it St. Augustine's understanding that holder of the keys was the bishops of the Holy Roman See?  If this was not known by such an illuminary as St. Augustine how can Vatican I say that it was known in every age?

In the near future I will supply additional quotes from the fathers regarding Peter's successor and their interpretation of Mat 16, but bear in mind that short of a consensus we cannot dogmatize quotes from the fathers.  While the quotes offer us insights the formal dogmas of the church were given at the seven ecumenical councils.  It is wrong headed then for apologists to anachronistically attempt to read the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility back into the fathers.

Vatican I - A Pseudo-Council?

For more on the question of if Vatican I had an ecumenical character, as well as the oppressive environment at present at the Vatican during the council's proceedings, let us turn to Archbishop Elias Zoghby of blessed memory. 

This article is from the book “Ecumenical Reflections” by Elias Zoghby (January 9, 1912 – January 16, 2008), Greek Melkite Catholic Archbishop, published by Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.
 

 Vatican I - A Pseudo-Council?

Unfavorable Atmosphere of the Second Millennium

 

            Council or pseudo-council, Vatican I is the product of a par­ticular Church, the Latin, that "cut off from the East, has seen its spirituality and theology dried up and impoverished by rationalization" (Cardinal Etchegaray).

This council is one of those that was held in the second millennium in the West. It followed the Council of Lyons (1274) that Pope Paul VI called the "sixth of the general synods of the West." Therefore Vatican I is not an ecumenical council, nor consequently, infallible. Moreover, one of the conditions required for a council to be ecumenical as enumerated by the second Ecumenical Council of Nicea (787) is that "the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem-in addition to that of Constantinople-consent to it" It is clear!  Not being ecumenical, Vatican I cannot be infallible.

            On the other hand, what right does any Church have, in the absence of other great churches and especially of the apostolic sees, to define the "things" that are binding on all Christianity, by submitting it to its ordinary, direct and immediate universal jurisdiction, and by imposing on it a papal infallibility binding in conscience. Such behavior is not surprising on the part of the Church of Rome, for already, on the eve of the Great Schism of 1054, Pope Leo IX claimed that "all that is decisive in the life of churches and even the quality of Church comes from the Roman Church" (Cardinal Yves Con gar, Eglise de Saint Augustin, p. 97).  Only an ecumenical council held by both Rome and Orthodoxy can legislate in such a matter.

            In the face of the impasse caused by Vatican Council I, we must ask ourselves what are the conditions in which this Council was held and unfolded, and if these conditions guaranteed the freedom of action of the bishops that participated in it.

            Let us see the atmosphere that prevailed in the Church of the West, especially after the Great Schism of 1054.

            1) We recall what Marcel Pacaut says concerning the Council of Lyons in 1274: "The conciliar assembly did not discuss; there was no debate, no opposition formulated; it heard the reading of the pro­posed documents and approved them. The Council of Lyons is there­fore, like the Councils prior to it from the twelfth century, a chamber recording pontifical decisions and not a parliament" ( Unite Chrhienne, 102 (1975), no. 2, p. 53).

            Humbert of Romans, Master General of the young Order of Preachers, recounts in his report that Pope Gregory X, on the eve of the Council of Lyons, recommended the following motto: "Variety is the mother and origin of discord" (Unite Chretienne, idem).

            We notice that six hundred years later the superior of the Redemptorists would write to Cardinal Deschamps, archbishop of Malines, on the subject of Vatican Council I: "In Rome, everything is so well prepared in advance, that nothing remained for the fathers other than voting" (Cardinal Deschamps, Louvain 1956, II, p.157).

                        2) It is true that beginning with Pope Saint Gregory the Great, the centralizing power of the pope grew more and more. But it is especially at the beginning of the second millennium that it became intolerable. So much so that  Saint Bernard, in a brochure, titled Coun­sels to the Pope, reproached Pope Eugene III between 1148 and 1152, for "mutilating Churches, upsetting the hierarchy and displacing limits that its Fathers had set. You err if you believe that your apostolic power, because it is the highest, is the only one that God has instituted.  All this forms a desire for prestige and wealth, that comes more from Constan­tine than Peter."

             3) And popes assumed rights over life and death.  The Tribunal of the Inquisition, born in 1231, condemned to death those who did not share the letter of the faith of the pope, or who adopted ideas considered dangerous.  Among  many others, Savonarola, Dominican preacher, was burnt in 1498, under the pretext of heresy.  In order to escaped the pyre, Galileo, whose great scientific discoveries were judged dangerous, at 70 years of age on his knees before the Tribunal of the Inquisition would have to renounce his so-called heresy and lived under the strict surveillance of that tribunal until his death in 1643. Thus it was that the popes subjected the Son of God to a regime of incredible terror. The tribunal of the Holy Office succeeded that of the Inquisition.

            4) The birth of the churches coming from the Reformation distressed the Roman Church, which tried by all means to protect herself against a new disintegration. In order to confront the decline of western Christianity and its political influence, the Council of the Counter Reformation, held in Trent 1545 to 1563, would make the pope, henceforth, the only defender of this Christianity, an absolute monarch. Without doubt, this Council would seek to bring back all the clergy, at all levels, to a more austere lifestyle, but it would be intransigent in the area of the faith, in order to avoid new shocks. Popes would impose a uniform formulation of this faith.

            5) At the same time the pope became the absolute monarch, the curia became increasingly powerful. To it was confided the charge of preparing conciliar texts on which the bishops would vote. At Vatican Council II, in which I myself participated, we were presented with texts prepared in advance by the curia. The Fathers enjoyed a sufficient liberty to refuse these texts and to replace them by others. Thus it was not the same as the Council of Lyons and those that followed, including Vatican I, where the curia was all powerful and could impose its texts.

            Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) who proclaimed himself the head of the entire Church and the father and the mother of all Christians, claimed that the college of cardinals was of divine origin. Indeed, in his Bull Non Mediocri, coming almost immediately after the Council of Florence (1439), he granted cardinals precedence over patriarchs, since according to terms of this same bull, the cardinalate had been, "insti­tuted by Saint Peter and his successors" and even, according to Innocent III, says the Bull, the cardinalate "is of divine origin."

             6) With popes becoming a type of demiurge between Christ and his Church, which put them “above” and longer “within” the Church and curia “of divine origin” what could Vatican Council I be? If Pope Eugene IV proclaimed himself in the fifteenth century “father and mother of all Christians,” Pius IX, the pope of Vatican I, in a conversation with the Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Guidi, declared: "I am the Tradition!"-in other words- "I am the Church!"

            The voters had to deal with a pope who identified himself as the Tradition and the Church, and with a curia claiming its origins in "Saint Peter and his successors," and who dreamt of sharing, if not in the ex sese infallibility of the pope, at least in his universal jurisdiction, from then on defined by a council. If we add there the climate of widespread distrust by the tribunal of the Holy Office, we are right in asking if the fathers of Vatican Council I enjoyed enough freedom to hold a valid council.

Oppressive Atmosphere of Vatican I

A. Vatican I-Council of the Latin Countries of Europe

            Having called the Council of Lyons (1274) the "sixth of the general synods of the West," Pope Paul VI himself denied it the quality of being ecumenical along with all the councils held in the West after the schism of 1054.

            Vatican I was not even representative enough of the Catholic West. Rather two-thirds of its majority represented the churches of the Latin countries of Europe.

            According to historians, ofthe 1055 fathers having the right to vote, approximately 700 fathers were present.

            The Italians represented 35 per cent of the fathers present, that is approximately 245 fathers.

            The French, 17 per cent, that is approximately 119 fathers.

            The fathers from America (121), Asia (41 ), Oceania (18), African Missions (9) totaled 189 Fathers and were, in their majority, originally from Latin countries of Europe.

            Approximately two-thirds of the fathers present were therefore from Latin European countries.

            The uniate fathers, latinized and subjected to Roman congre­gations, numbered sixty. Among them, three Patriarchs had arranged themselves on the side of the minority who refused the definition of infallibility of the pope and his other prerogatives, judged exaggerated.

            One could object that the majority of council fathers of the ecumenical councils of the first millennium were Eastern, and despite that, their decrees were not rejected. Such an objection is not valid, because all the apostolic sees were represented there, including Rome; and the ecumenical councils that followed, recognized the acts of their predecessors. However the apostolic sees of the East were in no way present at councils held in the West after the schism of 1054, although this presence is required-according to the second Council of Nicea­ for a council to be ecumenical.

            Uniate bishops and patriarchs present at Vatican Council I and Vatican Council II did not represent Orthodoxy, first, because they were latinized, and also because they had not received a mandate to represent it. This is all the more true since the Roman Catholics and Orthodox would denounce uniatism at the Balamand meeting in 1993.

B. Imbalance in the Distribution of Responsibilities of the Council

1) Arbitrary Choice of Consultors and Experts charged with pre­paring the decrees of the Council.

            Indeed, sixty of these Consultors and Experts were Romans and the others, numbering thirty six, were known for their ultramon­tanist tendencies. This resulted in the council decrees being prepared by a closed circle according to the will of the pope and the ultramon­tanists, and of their being presented as a fait accompli to the Council Fathers who, it was thought, would have only to sign them without debate.

2) Arbitrary Choice of Presidents of the Assembly.

            They were all Italians and favorable to the definition of the prerogatives of the pope and his infallibility.

3) Those opposed to infallibility were excluded from the Com­mittee of the Faith.

            In 1864, Pius IX began to prepare for the Council. In 1865, he appointed a commission of cardinals to be the central commission charged with directing the preparation of the council.
            This commission appointed subsidiary commissions for the faith and dogmas and others subjects, either religious or politico-relig­ious, such as relationships of the church with the state. In all these commissions which comprised 102 members, only 10 were bishops, 69 diocesan priests and 23 religious priests. They had prepared 51 schemas to propose to the Council Fathers.

            To facilitate the work, four permanent committees were cre­ated, among which the most important was that of the faith, from which were excluded those who opposed the definition of the prerogatives of the pope, particularly his infallibility. Archbishop Henry Edward Man­ning, principal partisan of the definition of infallibility, qualified those opposing it as "heretics, who came to the council only to be heard and condemned, not to take part in the formulation of the doctrine."

            The fathers opposed to the definition of infallibility could indeed defend their viewpoint in the general congregations, but was it admissible that a group, composed of brilliant and good theologians, not be represented in the most important committee of the Council?

            The way the council was conducted was imposed by the pope and his curia. It had not been elaborated by the conciliar assembly, nor even submitted to its vote as it had been at the Council of Trent.

            Since the members of the assembly opposed to the definition of papal infallibility had not participated in the elaboration of the regulations, they did not feel themselves bound to secrecy and they used a press campaign to make their objections known. The campaign was sometimes violent, especially in Germany.

C. Politico-Religious Character of the Council

            Pope Pius IX publicly announced the council on July 26,1867, at a time when churchmen in the West were of two major mindsets: on the one hand the liberal Catholics and neo-gallicans, and on the other hand the ultramontanists, adversaries of modem liberty.

            The conflict was not exclusively religious. It was politico-re­ligious. The two parties were opposed with regard to their conception concerning relations between the Church and the State. The ultramon­tanists, counter to the other part, wanted more interference of popes in the affairs of the State. When the council was announced their press campaign would claim that the definition of the prerogatives of the pope, and particularly his infallibility in matters of faith, would entail a certain infallibility in the political area and in his relations with the State, thus also favoring an autocratic authoritarianism.

D. The two-thirds majority was hardly concerned with theological reasons

            The fathers who were opposed to the definition of infallibility and the other prerogatives of the pope, while less numerous, had greater stature. They were distinguished by their theological knowledge and by the importance of their sees.

This minority was especially made up of the episcopates of Austria-Hungary, the great German Sees, a third of the French episco­pate, several archbishops from America, the archbishop of Milan and three Eastern patriarchs.

            With the infallibility majority, non-theological considerations prevailed. They were:

-Infallibility would have repercussions in the political domain, conferring more ascendancy to the pope over civil authorities and putting an end to the controversies on this subject.

-For more pastoral reasons, some bishops sought, through the definition of infallibility and the other prerogatives of the pope, to strengthen the principle of authority in a society and in a Church invaded by a revolutionary spirit.

The minority, opposed to this definition, advanced reasons from the ecumenical and theological order:

-The pope cannot define a matter of faith independently of the college of bishops and the ecumenical council. Such a defini­tion made by the pope personally would upset the traditional constitution of the church and would compromise the power of bishops and the episcopal college.

-The extension of the prerogatives of the pope would deepen the gulf that separates the Roman Church from the Orthodox Churches of the East. And Protestants would profit by consoli­dating their position in the face of the Catholic Church.

-Aside from the extension of the prerogatives of the pope, new schisms could be provoked in the milieus of Germanic intel­lectuals and others.

            It is regrettable that these considerations of theological, eccle­siological and ecumenical order were not shared by the European majority of Fathers and did not orient the council in a more religious rather than a political direction.

E. Pressures exerted by the Pope over the Council

            Some Council Fathers favorable to the definition of infallibil­ity, wanting to rally the opposing party, sought to appear conciliatory and to bring some rather fundamental reservations to the formulas prepared by the consultors and experts. The pope opposed this and intervened in favor of a rigorous formulation.

            On the other hand, fearing that political events would abruptly stop the works of the council before the elaboration of the definition of his infallibility, Pius IX had a chapter on infallibility and his other prerogatives added to the chapter titled "the Church of the Christ," April 27,1870. He decided to pass immediately, and by anticipation, to the discussion of this additional chapter. Under the threat of developing political events, the pope pressed the council fathers to finish and to accelerate the activities of the council by rushing through 37 general congregations between May 13 and July 13, 1870. Thus on July 13,1870, thanks to this rush, infallibility and the other personal preroga­tives of the pope were voted on, constituting a special decree under the title "Pastor aeternus."

            Driven by power to brake this zeal of the ultramontanists, openly pushed by Pope Pius IX, and not wanting to confront a pope who decided to have his infallibility defined and to widen his powers over the whole Church of God, an important number of bishops left Rome before the final vote. Some say a quarter of the council fathers left early.

            To give one example of the authoritarianism of Pius IX, let us cite the following fact. Our Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch, Gregory Youssef, had refused to sign the acts of the council relative to infalli­bility and to the unlimited powers of the pope over the whole Church. Having undergone some pressures, he ended up by subscribing to it by adding: "except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs." Before leaving Rome, he went to take leave of the pope, who shook the head of the old patriarch who was on his knees, and said to him. "Testa dura!" Therefore it is not surprising to see that Latin bishops left Rome and abstained from voting "non placet" in the presence of a pope so jealous of his authority.

            In conclusion, I am not an historian and am not qualified to settle this question of the validity or the invalidity of Vatican Council I. All that I can do is to submit to qualified historians this information, collected from here and there, so that they may check it, complete it or, if necessary, correct it. I leave to theologians the responsibility to judge, in the light of the pressures exerted over the council Fathers, whether they enjoyed enough freedom to hold a valid Council.

            What I know is that a marriage celebrated in similar conditions would have been declared null by the Roman Authorities themselves. If only reverential fear suffices for a declaration of nullity of a Catholic marriage, how can a council, held under such a regime of oppression, be valid?

            In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a "general" synod of the West. With this desig­nation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone. Besides, these theological opinions are peculiar to the circumstances of a certain historical period. And the Catholic Church itself today, with all of its bishops and theologians, would have hesitated to adopt them and especially to erect them as dogmas.

Was Vatican I An Ecumenical Council?

If Vatican I was not an "ecumenical council," then its definitions are not binding on anyone.  Our previous post included an article that detailed the history of the council.  The attentive reader would have noticed that at the time of the council there were complaints regarding the lack of freedom enjoyed by that fathers at the council.  A council that is not truly free is not truly a council.

Aside from the question of liberty, or lack there of, at the council we have to ask what the definition of an ecumenical council is? 

The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:

– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;

– the pope of Rome has to be a “co-operator” or “fellow worker” (synergos) with the council;

– the patriarchs of the East have to be “in agreement” (symphronountes);

– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;

– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole.

I understand most Catholics have a different definition today of what an ecumenical is, but this blog is dedicated to the ancient catholic understanding because we believe that a catholic should follow the canon of St. Vincent in determining catholic orthodoxy.
It is also noteworthy that modern scholarship is slowly returning to this principal.  To wit the Joint International Commission For The Theological Dialogue Between The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church agree that the holding of truly ecumenical council was rendered impossible after the schism between the two churches.

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an Ecumenical Council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissensions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.
For more please see  The Revenna Documents

Opposition at Vatican I

This is a rather lengthy article, but it is worth the read for anyone interested in this topic. Written in 1909 this article catalogues the Roman Catholic opposition to the definition of Papal Infallibility given at the first Vatican council held in 1870.
It lays the ground work for opposing the definition based upon traditional, conservative, catholic principals. Which is important since most Catholics of good will believe that the definition has to accepted based upon these very same principals. Yet, if one follows the Vincentian Canon of what it means to be catholic, Papal Infallibility must be discarded.
For those not familiar with this canon (or rule) it is "The famous threefold test of Catholic orthodoxy expressed by St. Vincent of Lérins (400-50) in his two memoranda (Comonitoria): "Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus]." By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error."
It is beyond dispute that the fathers (fathers of the church are the orthodox fathers from roughly 33ad to 800ad) were not concerned with "ex cathedra" statements given by the bishop of Rome, thus the very notion of papal infallibility is undermined by the Catholic definition of what it means to be catholic! For more on that, and the history of the council please read:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Opposition_to_Papal_Infallibility