Catholic Ecclesiology

Paulus Fabrolottus : The fifth argument that many adversaries take up is from the Council of Constance. At that time, in the fourth session of that council, it defined that a general council [concilium generale] has authority immediately from Christ, which all are held to obey, even if he be Papal in dignity. Thus, either the council was approved by a Roman Pontiff or it was not: either it is legitimate, or it is not. If it is legitimate and was approved, then it is also a matter of faith that a council is above a Pope. If it is illegitimate and rejected, it could not have deposed John XXIII, nor could it have elected Martin V. If Martin V was not legitimately elected and wasn’t a true Pope, though, then no Pope would be a true Pope in the Church, since they all succeed Martin. I respond: the council of Constance is approved and is legitimate in part, and is also rejected in part. Because the approval of the council depends on the Pope, and he can approve some decrees and reject others...

Chapter CX. The Said Privileges of the Apostolic See are Proved and Confirmed by Arguments from Reason Since we have shown from the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and subsequently the expositions of the holy fathers and doctors that the Apostolic See necessarily cannot err in matters of faith and the salvation of men due to the divine promise of our Lord, it remains that we confirm this by arguments from reason.  The first is from what has been said above: that See is believed to be unerring in matters of faith whose teaching authority pertains to defining and determining what is to be believed by the Christian people with a Creed, and which dares to declare answers to questions of the faith in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. This is clear; indeed, it seems most evident, as if it were a first principle, since no other than the authority and judgment of that See would be firm and certain concerning matters of faith about the condemnation of errors concerning the sacraments, ...