Absolutely a good point, or a question leading to an important distinction. No individual should be believed as an infallible witness to truth, not a patriarch, bishop, or even a saint, but in council the conciliar opinon, representing the understanding or agreement of the majority is a sign of the unity of the Holy Spirit. "In the mouths of two or three witnesses the truth is established." This is what was done in council, starting with the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts. They came together, seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit, which was only confirmed by a consensus of understanding being seen among them. The existence of the consensus was a sign that the Holy Spirit, and not fallible human reasoning, had led them to the correct understanding.
No man can individually, infallibly declare truth--some protestants believe they come to truth alone, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, but they should not trust their own understanding, but test the spirits, by putting what they believe to be true against the consensus within the Church throughout the ages. If you think the Holy Spirit is telling you something, but it contradicts what is understood to be true within the Church as a whole, you are being deceived. You must test your conclusions and the conclusions of others against the witness of the Church. Test the declarations of the popes ex cathedra against the eternal witness of the Church. By doing this you'll see that the popes are indeed fallible and do not always understand the truth or declare it infallibly.
Basil
You see, I think perhaps this conversation is getting a bit beyond us... at least where I want to take the conversation.
I say this not to accuse others of being ignorant or anything. Rather, it seems to me that the Catholic Church believes that if the Pope declares something "ex-cathedra" that is later deemed ludicrus in the face of history scripture and already established theology, the Catholic Church can state that the Pope was not in his right mind and therefore the statement was never really ex-cathedra.
Please don't quote me on any of this as I may very well have gotten some details wrong. However, I point this out because I actually do see a lot of parallels between how we view a Council to be deemed infallible and how the RCC deems a papal statement to actually be "ex-cathedra" in theory.
Just as we do not say that the council expresses truth becuase the participants were so awesome (ie, it was not so by their own merit, but rather many times IN SPITE of it), the Catholic Church does not believe the Pope can express truth under very specific circumstances not by his own merit (they would be the first to say that he is only human). I have to say that to me it quite miraculous that a group of stubborn men can express such profound Truth, but I believe it. That same leap of faith (for myself personally) could easily be used to support the miracle that the Holy Spirit could talk through one man. No man is perfect at all... neither are men. I don't understand how we could say that the Holy Spirit can work through a council of men, but not through one man.
For me, it's not about the possibility of the Holy Spirit speaking through one Man (or perhaps more appropriately stated, one See represented by one man); God can do anything and I actually don't think the Modern Roman set-up is so absurd. My problem is simply that it's not historical. When, as you point out, we look at history, the Holy Spirit seems to lead the Church conciliarly and I am just not convinced that the Pope or his delegates were ever divinely necessary any more than the bishop or delegate of any other see.
I know I am in the minority when I say this, but I have no problem with the Roman model in structure. However, I DO have a problem with the idea that the place of the Pope of Rome is a God-given right that can never be taken away; that anytime autonomy is granted to a bishop (eg the Melkite Patriarch Gregoire) it is just that, granted. It is simply not the pope's to grant. He has never had any last say in the affairs of the East to give up other than those that Eastern Bishops have handed over to him (that is, Eastern Catholics). There was a time when many bishops and faithful looked to the Patriarch of Rome for guidance in faith and morals because there was a time when the discernment of Rome was more stable than any other. It was EARNED respect, not innate.
So, to me, the Holy Spirit can do anything He wants and I don't think it is improbable for Him to speak through one person just as I don't think it is improbable for a group of holy men to get something wrong. But the fact is that there are so many examples where the Holy Spirit did not use the Pope to guide the Church.
Do you see my distinction? I don't know, though. I'm not saying you are wrong. It's just how I see it. In the end, both you and I agree that union with Rome is not the litmus test for where the Church is and historically the Conciliar method has been the method that has prevailed in the most important of situations without the Pope as a key figure (even if he was important).
Sorry for rambling.
John
