 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
This subject will be treated under the following heads:
Councils are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries andtheological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of churchdoctrine and discipline. The termscouncil andsynod are synonymous, although in the oldestChristian literature the ordinary meetings for worship are also calledsynods, anddiocesansynods are not properly councils because they are only convened for deliberation. Councils unlawfully assembled are termedconciliabula,conventicula, and evenlatrocinia, i.e. "robbersynods". The constituent elements of anecclesiastical council are the following:
All these elements result from an analysis of the fact that councils are a concentration of the ruling powers of theChurch for decisive action.
The first condition is that such concentration conform to the constitution of theChurch: it must be started by the head of the forces that are to move and to act, e.g. by themetropolitan if the action is limited to one province. The actors themselves are necessarily the leaders of theChurch in their double capacity of judges and teachers, for the proper object ofconciliar activity is the settling of questions offaith and discipline. When they assemble for other purposes, either at regular times or in extraordinary circumstances, in order to deliberate on current questions of administration or on concerted action in emergencies, their meetings are not called councils but simply meetings, or assemblies, ofbishops. Deliberation, with free discussion and ventilation of private views, is another essential note in the notion of councils. They are the mind of theChurch in action, thesensus ecclesiae taking form and shape in the mould ofdogmatic definition and authoritative decrees. The contrast of conflicting opinions, their actual clash necessarily precedes the final triumph offaith. Lastly, in a council's decisions we see the highest expression of authority of which its members are capable within the sphere of theirjurisdiction, with the added strength and weight resulting from the combined action of the whole body.
Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of theChurch, or part of theChurch, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles atJerusalem, and throughout her whole history wheneverfaith ormorals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classificationnecessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds ofsynods are distinguished.
Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of theChurch organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number ofbishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection. They were most frequent in the fourth century, when themetropolitan and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions offaith and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors orbishops in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted forevil rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings ofbishops of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of thebishops present, they were important manifestations of thesensus ecclesiae (mind of theChurch) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of theChurch they often acquired a far-reaching influence due, either to their internal soundness, or to the authority of their framers, or to both.
It should be noted that the termsconcilia plenaria,universalia, orgeneralia are, or used to be, applied indiscriminately to allsynods not confined to a single province; in theMiddle Ages, evenprovincial synods, as compared todiocesan, received these names. Down to the lateMiddle Ages allpapalsynods to which a certain number ofbishops from different countries had been summoned were regularly styled plenary, general, or universalsynods. In earlier times, before the separation of East and West, councils to which several distantpatriarchates or exarchates sent representatives, were described absolutely as "plenary councils of the universal church". These terms are applied bySt. Augustine to theCouncil of Arles (314), at which only Westernbishops were present. In the same way thecouncil of Constantinople (382), in aletter to Pope Damasus, calls the council held in the same town the year before (381) "an Ecumenical synod" i.e. a synod representing theoikoumene, the whole inhabited world as known to the Greeks and Romans, because all the Easternpatriarchates, though no Western, took part in it. The synod of 381 could not, at that time, be termed Ecumenical in the strict sense now in use, because it still lacked the formal confirmation of theApostolic See. As a matter of fact, the Greeks themselves did not put this council on a par with those ofNicaea andEphesus until its confirmation at theSynod of Chalcedon, and the Latins acknowledged its authority only in the sixth century.
The present article deals chiefly with thetheological and canonical questions concerning councils which are Ecumenical in the strict sense above defined. Special articles give the history of each important synod under the head of the city or see where it was held. In order, however, to supply the reader with a basis of fact for the discussion of principles which is to follow, a list is subjoined of the twenty Ecumenical councils with a brief statement of the purpose of each.
TheCouncil of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteenbishops were present.Hosius,Bishop ofCordova, assisted aslegate of Pope Sylvester. TheEmperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius thetrue Divinity of theSon of God (homoousios), and the fixing of thedate for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).
TheFirst General Council of Constantinople, underPope Damasus and theEmperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150bishops. It was directed against thefollowers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentionedNicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
TheCouncil of Ephesus, of more than 200bishops, presided over bySt. Cyril of Alexandria representingPope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity ofChrist, declaredMary the Mother ofGod (theotokos) againstNestorius,Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation ofPelagius.
TheCouncil of Chalcedon — 150bishops underPope Leo the Great and theEmperor Marcian — defined the two natures (Divine and human) inChrist againstEutyches, who wasexcommunicated.
The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165bishops underPope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned theerrors ofOrigen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore,Bishop ofMopsuestia and of Ibas,Bishop ofEdessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by someheretics.
The Third General Council of Constantinople, underPope Agatho and theEmperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174bishops, and the emperor. It put an end toMonothelitism by defining two wills inChrist, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. Itanathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
TheSecond Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, underPope Adrian I, and was presided over by thelegates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration ofholy images. Between 300 and 367bishops assisted.
The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, underPope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102bishops, 3papal legates, and 4patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius againstPope Nicholas andIgnatius the legitimatePatriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in theGreek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.
TheFirst Lateran Council, the first held atRome, met under PopeCallistus II. About 900bishops andabbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with ring andcrosier toecclesiastical benefices and dealt with church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.
TheSecond Lateran Council was held atRome underPope Innocent II, with an attendance of about 1000prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to theerrors ofArnold of Brescia.
TheThird Lateran Council took place underPope Alexander III,Frederick I being emperor. There were 302bishops present. It condemned theAlbigenses andWaldenses and issued numerous decrees for the reformation ofmorals.
TheFourth Lateran Council was held underInnocent III. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople andJerusalem, 71archbishops, 412bishops, and 800abbots thePrimate of theMaronites, andSt. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against theAlbigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarianerrors of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of theMiddle Ages, and it marks the culminating point ofecclesiastical life andpapal power.
The First General Council of Lyons was presided over byInnocent IV; the Patriarchs of Constantinople,Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice), 140bishops, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King ofFrance, assisted. Itexcommunicated and deposedEmperor Frederick II and directed a newcrusade, under the command of St. Louis, against theSaracens and Mongols.
The Second General Council of Lyons was held byPope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15cardinals, 500bishops, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of theGreek Church withRome. The wordfilioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from theTurks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.
The Council of Vienne was held in that town inFrance by order ofClement V, the first of theAvignonpopes. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300bishops (114 according to some authorities), and 3 kings —Philip IV ofFrance, Edward II ofEngland, and James II ofAragon — were present. The synod dealt with the crimes anderrors imputed to theKnights Templars, the Fraticelli, theBeghards, and theBeguines, with projects of a newcrusade, the reformation of theclergy, and the teaching of Oriental languages in theuniversities.
TheCouncil of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in theChurch. It became legitimate only whenGregory XI had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to theschism by the election ofPope Martin V, which theCouncil of Pisa (1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightfulpope confirmed the former decrees of the synod againstWyclif andHus. This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved byMartin V.
TheCouncil of Basle met first in that town,Eugene IV beingpope, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification ofBohemia. Quarrels with thepope having arisen, the council was transferred first toFerrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with theGreek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the council's definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decreesEugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation ofheresy, the peace ofChristendom, and the reform of theChurch, and which at the same time did not derogate from therights of theHoly See. (See also theCouncil of Florence.)
TheFifth Lateran Council sat from 1512 to 1517 under PopesJulius II andLeo X, the emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteencardinals and about eightyarchbishops andbishops took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A newcrusade against theTurks was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval inGermany caused byLuther.
TheCouncil of Trent lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under fivepopes:Paul III,Julius III, Marcellus II,Paul IV andPius IV, and under the EmperorsCharles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5cardinallegates of theHoly See, 3patriarchs, 33archbishops, 235bishops, 7abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn theerrorspromulgated byLuther and otherReformers, and to reform thediscipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.
TheVatican Council was summoned byPius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49cardinals, 11patriarchs, 680archbishops andbishops, 28abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of theChurch, the council decreed theinfallibility of the pope when speakingex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of allChristians, he defines adoctrine concerningfaith ormorals to be held by the whole Church.
The relations between thepope and general councils must be exactly defined to arrive at a just conception of the functions of councils in theChurch, of theirrights andduties, and of their authority. The traditional phrase, "the council represents theChurch", associated with the modern notion of representative assemblies, is apt to lead to a serious misconception of thebishops' function in generalsynods. The nation's deputies receive their power from their electors and are bound to protect and promote their electors' interests; in the modern democratic State they are directly created by, and out of, the people's own power. Thebishops in council, on the contrary, hold no power, no commission, or delegation, from the people. All their powers, orders,jurisdiction, and membership in the council, come to them from above — directly from thepope, ultimately fromGod. What the episcopate in council does represent is the Divinely institutedmagisterium, the teaching and governing power of theChurch; the interests it defends are those of thedepositum fidei, of the revealed rules offaith andmorals, i.e. the interests ofGod.
The council is, then, the assessor of the supreme teacher and judge sitting on the Chair of Peter by Divine appointment; its operation is essentially co-operation — the common action of the members with their head — and therefore necessarily rises or falls in value, according to the measure of its connection with thepope. A council in opposition to thepope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents thepope who opposes it, nor the absentbishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of theirdioceses except through thepope. A council not only acting independently of theVicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of theChurch; in fact, such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was nopope or the rightfulpope was indistinguishable fromantipopes. In such abnormal times the safety of theChurch becomes the supreme law, and the firstduty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.
In normal times, when according to the Divine constitution of theChurch, thepope rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising fromheresiesschisms, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of theChurch. This principle is confirmed by the fact that during nineteen centuries of Church life only twenty Ecumenical councils took place. It is further illustrated by the complete failure of thedecree issued in the thirty-ninth session of theCouncil of Constance (then without a rightful head) to the effect that general councils should meet frequently and at regular intervals, the very first synod summoned at Pavia for the year 1423 could not be held for want of responses to the summons. It is thus evident that general councils are not qualified to issue independently of thepope, dogmatic or disciplinary canons binding on the whole Church. As a matter of fact, the older councils, especially those of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), were not convened to decide on questions offaith still open, but to give additional weight to, and secure the execution of,papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative. The other consequence of the same principle is that thebishops in council assembled are not commissioned, as are our modern parliaments, to control and limit the power of the sovereign, or head of the State, although circumstances may arise in which it would be, theirright andduty firmly to expostulate with thepope on certain of his acts or measures. The severe strictures of theSixth General Council on Pope Honorius I may be cited as a case in point.
The right to be present and to act at general councils belongs in the first place andlogically to thebishops actually exercising the episcopal office. In the earlier councils there appear also thechorepiscopi (country-bishops), who, according to the better opinion, were neithertruebishops nor an order interposed betweenbishops andpriests, butpriests invested with ajurisdiction smaller than the episcopal but larger than thesacerdotal. They wereordained by thebishop and charged with the administration of a certain district in hisdiocese. They had the power of conferringminor orders, and even thesubdiaconate. Titularbishops, i.e.bishops not ruling adiocese, had equalrights with otherbishops at theVatican Council (1869-70), where 117 of them were present. Their claim lies in the fact that their order, the episcopalconsecration, entitles them,jure divino, to take part in the administration of theChurch, and that a general council seems to afford a proper sphere for the exercise of a right which the want of a proper diocese keeps in abeyance. Dignitaries who hold episcopal or quasi-episcopaljurisdiction without beingbishops — such ascardinal-priests,cardinal-deacons,abbots nullius, mitredabbots of whole orders or congregations ofmonasteries, generals of clerks regular,mendicant and monastic orders — were allowed to vote at theVatican Council. Their title is based on positive canon law: at the early councils such votes were not admitted, but from the seventh century down to the end of theMiddle Ages the contrary practice gradually prevailed, and has since become an acquired right. Priests anddeacons frequently cast decisive votes in the name of absentbishops whom they represented; at theCouncil of Trent, however, such procurators were admitted only with great limitations, and at theVatican Council they were even excluded from the council hall. Besides voting members, every council admits, as consultors a number ofdoctors intheology and canon law. In theCouncil of Constance the consultors were allowed to vote. Otherclerics have always been admitted as notaries. Lay people may be, and have been, present at councils for various reasons, but never as voters. They gave advice, made complaints, assented to decisions, and occasionally also signed the decrees. Since the Roman emperors had acceptedChristianity, they assisted either personally or through deputies (commissarii).Constantine the Great was present in person at the First General Council, Theodosius II sent his representatives to the third, and Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth, at the sixth session of which himself and the Empress Pulcheria assisted personally. Constantine Pogonatus was present at the sixth, the Empress Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus only sent their representative to the seventh, whereas Emperor Basil, the Macedonian, assisted at the eighth, sometimes in person, sometimes through his deputies. Only the Second and the Fifth General Synods were held in the absence of the emperors or imperial commissaries, but bothTheodosius the Great and Justinian were at Constantinople while the councils were sitting, and kept up constant intercourse with them. In the West the attendance of kings, even atprovincial synods, was of frequent occurrence. The motive and object of the royal presence were to protect thesynods, to heighten their authority, to lay before them the needs of particularChristian states and countries.
This laudable and legitimate co-operation led by degrees to interference with thepope'srights inconciliar matters. The Eastern Emperor Michael claimed theright to summon councils without obtaining thepope's consent, and to take part in them personally or by proxy. ButPope Nicholas I resisted the pretensions of Emperor Michael, pointing out to him, in a letter (865), that his imperial predecessors had only been present at generalsynods dealing with matters offaith, and from that fact drew the conclusion that all othersynods should be held without the emperor's or his commissaries' presence. A few years later the Eighth General Synod (Can. xvii, Hefele, IV, 421) declared itfalse that no synod could be held without the emperor's presence the emperors had only been present at general councils — and that it was not right for secular princes to witness the condemnation ofecclesiastics (atprovincial synods). As early as the fourth century thebishops greatly complained of the action ofConstantine the Great in imposing his commissary on the Synod ofTyre (335). In the West, however, secular princes were present even atnational synods, e.g. Sisenand, King of the SpanishVisigoths, was at the Fourth Council of Toledo (636) and King Chintilian at the fifth (638);Charlemagne assisted at theCouncil of Frankfort (794) and two Anglo Saxon kings at theSynod of Whitby (Collatio Pharenes) in 664. But step by stepRome established the principle that no royal commissary may be present at any council except a general one, in which "faith, reformation, and peace" are in question.
The number ofbishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of theChurch, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all thebishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, ofprelatesnecessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only thepatriarchs andmetropolitans received a direct summons to appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Westernbishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Westernbishops were personally present at any of the first eight generalsynods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Easternsynods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of thepope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the bestproof that, in the sense of theChurch, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion ofbishops present tobishops absent than the organic connection of the council with the head of theChurch.
It is the action of thepope that makes the councils ecumenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of theChurch. Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of thepope; he alone can bind all thefaithful. Its sufficiency is equally manifest: when thepope has spoken ex cathedra to make his own the decisions of any council, regardless of the number of its members nothing further can be wanted to make them binding on the whole Church. The earliest enunciation of the principle is found in the letter of theCouncil of Sardica (313) toPope Julius I, and was often quoted, since the beginning of the fifth century, as the (Nicaean) canon concerning the necessity ofpapal co-operation in all the more important conciliary Acts. TheChurch historianSocrates (Church History II.17) makes Pope Julius say, in reference to the Council of Antioch (341), that thelaw of theChurch (kanon) forbids "the churches to passlaws contrary to the judgement of theBishop of Rome" andSozomen (III, x) likewise declares "it to be a holy law not to attribute any value to things done without the judgment of theBishop of Rome". The letter of Julius here quoted by bothSocrates andSozomen directly refers to an existingecclesiastical custom and, in particular, to a single important case (the deposition of a patriarch), but the underlying principle is as stated.
Papal co-operation may be of several degrees: to be effective in stamping a council as universal it must amount to taking over responsibility for its decisions by giving them formal confirmation. The Synod of Constantinople (381) in which theNicene Creed received its present form — the one used at Mass — had in itself no claim to be Ecumenical. Before Pope Damasus and the Westernbishops had seen its full Acts they condemned certain of its proceedings at an Italian synod, but on receiving the Acts, Damasus, so we are told by Photius, confirmed them. Photius, however, is only right with regard to the Creed, orSymbol of Faith: the canons of this council were still rejected byLeo the Great and even byGregory the Great (about 600). Aproof that the Creed of Constantinople enjoyedpapal sanction may be drawn from the way in which the Romanlegates at the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) allowed, without any protest, appeals to this Creed, while at the same time they energetically protested against the canons of the council. It was on account of thepapalapprobation of the Creed that, in the sixth century, Popes Vigilius,Pelagius II, andGregory the Great declared this council Ecumenical, althoughGregory still refused to sanction its canons. The First Synod of Constantinople presents, then, an instance of a minimum ofpapal co-operation impressing on a particular council the mark of universality. The normal co-operation, however, requires on the part of the head of theChurch more than apost-factum acknowledgment.
Thepope's office and the council's function in the organization of theChurch require that thepope should call the council together, preside over and direct its labours, and finallypromulgate its decrees to the universal Church as expressing the mind of the whole teaching body guided by theHoly Ghost. Instances of such normal, natural, perfect co-operation occur in the five Lateran councils, which were presided over by thepope in person; the personal presence of the highest authority in theChurch, his direction of the deliberations, andapprobation of the decrees, stamp the conciliary proceedings throughout as the function of theMagisterium Ecclesiae in its most authoritative form. Councils in which thepope is represented bylegates are, indeed, also representative of the whole teaching body of theChurch, but the representation is not absolute or adequate, is no real concentration of its whole authority. They act in the name, but not with the whole power, of the teaching Church, and their decrees become universally binding only through an act, either antecedent or consequent, of thepope. The difference between councils presided over personally and by proxy is marked in the form in which their decrees arepromulgated: when thepope has been present the decrees are published in his own name with the additional formula:sacro approbante Concilio; whenpapal legates have presided the decrees are attributed to the synod (S. Synodus declarat, definit, decernit)
We have seen that no council is Ecumenical unless thepope has made it his own by co-operation, which admits of a minimum and a maximum consequently of various degrees of perfection.Catholic writers could have saved themselves much trouble if they had always based theirapologetics on the simple and evident principle of a sufficient minimum ofpapal co- operation, instead of endeavouring to prove, at all costs, that a maximum is both required in principle and demonstrable in history. The three factors constituting the solidarity ofpope and council are the convocation, direction, and confirmation of the council by thepope- but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.
The juridical convocation of a council implies something more than an invitation addressed to all thebishops of the world to meet in council, viz.: the act by which in law thebishops are bound to take part in the council, and the council itself is constituted a legitimate tribunal for dealing with Church affairs.Logically, and in the nature of the thing, the right of convocation belongs to thepope alone. Yet the convocation, in the loose sense of invitation to meet, of the first eight generalsynods, was regularly issued by theChristian emperors, whose dominion was coextensive with theChurch, or at least with the Eastern part of it, which was then alone convened. The imperial letters of convocation to the Councils of Ephesus (Hardouin I, 1343) and of Chalcedon (Hardouin II, 42) show that the emperors acted as protectors of theChurch,believing it theirduty to further by every means in their power the welfare of their charge. Nor is it possible in every case to prove that they acted at the formal instigation of thepope; it even seems that the emperors more than once followed none but their own initiative for convening the council and fixing its place of meeting. It is, however. evident that theChristian emperors cannot have acted thus without the consent, actual or presumed of thepope. Otherwise their conduct had been neither lawful nor wise. As a matter of fact, none of the eight Eastern Ecumenicalsynods, with the exception, perhaps, of the fifth, was summoned by the emperor in opposition to thepope. As regards the fifth, the conduct of the emperor caused the legality of the council to be questioned — aproof that the mind of theChurch required thepope's consent for the lawfulness of councils. As regards most of these eightsynods, particularly that of Ephesus, the previous consent of thepope, actual or presumed, is manifest. Regarding the convocation of theCouncil of Chalcedon, the Emperor Marcian did not quite fall in with the wishes ofPope Leo I as to the time and place of its meeting, but he did not claim an absolute right to have his will, nor did thepope acknowledge such a right. On the contrary, asLeo I explains in his letters (Epp. lxxxix, xc, ed.Ballerini), he only submitted to the imperial arrangements because he was unwilling to interfere with Marcian's well-meant endeavours.
It is still more evident that convocation by the emperors did not imply on their part the claim to constitute the council juridically, that is, to give it power to sit as an authorized tribunal for Church affairs. Such a claim has never been put forward. The expressionsjubere andkeleuein, occasionally used in the wording of the convocation, do not necessarily convey the notion of strict orders not to be resisted; they also have the meaning of exhorting, inducing, bidding. The juridical constitution of the council could only emanate, and in fact always did emanate, from theApostolic See. As the necessity of thebishops' meeting in council was dictated rather by the distressful condition of theChurch than by positive orders, thepope contented himself with authorizing the council and this he effected by sending hislegates to preside over and direct the work of the assembledprelates. The Emperor Marcian in his first letter toLeo I declares that the success of the intended synod depends on his — thepope's — authorization, and Leo, not Marcian, is later called theauctor synodi without any restrictive qualification, especially at the time of the"Three Chapters" dispute, where the extension of the synod's authority was called in question. The law therefore, at that period was the same as it is now as far as essentials are concerned: thepope is the sole convener of the council as an authoritative juridical assembly. The difference lies in the circumstance that thepope left to the emperor the execution of the convocation and thenecessary measures for rendering the meeting possible and surrounding it with theéclat due to its dignity inChurch and State. The material, or business, part of the councils being thus entirely in the hands of the emperors, it was to be expected that thepope was sometimes induced — if not forced — by circumstances to make his authorization suit the imperial wishes and arrangements.
After studying the principles it is well to see how they worked out in fact. Hence the following historical summary of the convocation of the first eight general councils:
(1)Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III, vi) informs us that the writs of convocation to theFirst General Synod were issued byEmperor Constantine, but as not one of those writs has come down to us, it remainsdoubtful whether or not they mentioned any previous consultation with thepope. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the Sixth General Synod (680) plainly affirmed that theCouncil of Nicaea had been convened by the emperor and Pope Sylvester (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XI, 661). The same statement appears in the life of Sylvester found in the"Liber Pontificalis", but this evidence need not be pressed, the evidence from the council being, from the circumstances in which it was given, of sufficient strength to carry the point. For theSixth General Council took place in Constantinople, at a time when thebishops of the imperial city already attempted to rival thebishops of OldRome, and the vast majority of its members were Greeks; their statement is therefore entirely free from the suspicion of Westernambition or prejudice and must be accepted as atrue presentment of fact. Rufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius' history (I, 1) says that the emperor summoned the synodex sacerdotum sententia (on the advice of theclergy)- it is but fair to suppose that if he consulted severalprelates he did not omit to consult with the head of all.
(2) The Second General Synod (381) was not, at first, intended to be Ecumenical; it only became so because it was accepted in the West, as has been shown above. It was not summoned by Pope Damasus as is often contended, for the assertion that the assembledbishops professed to have met in consequence of a letter of thepope toTheodosius the Great is based on a confusion. The document here brought in as evidence refers to the synod of the following year which was indeed summoned at the instigation of thepope and the Synod ofAquileia, but was not an Ecumenical synod.
(3) The Third General Council (Ephesus, 431) was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II and his Western colleague Valentinian III- this is evident from the Acts of the council. It is equally evident thatPope Celestine I gave his consent, for he wrote (15 May, 431) to Theodosius that he could not appear in person at the synod, but that he would send his representatives. And in his epistle of 8 May to the synod itself, he insists on theduty of thebishops present to hold fast to theorthodoxfaith, expects them to accede to the sentence he has already pronounced on Nestorius, and adds that he has sent hislegates to execute that sentence at Ephesus. The members of the council acknowledge thepapal directions and orders, not only thepapal consent, in the wording of their solemn condemnation of Nestorius: "Urged by the Canons and conforming to the Letter of our most holy Father and fellow servant Celestine the Romanbishop, we have framed this sorrowful sentence against Nestorius." They express the same sentiment where they say that "the epistle of theApostolic See (to Cyril, communicated to the council) already contains a judgment and a rulepsepho kai typou on the case of Nestorius" and that they — thebishops in council — have executed that ruling. All this manifests thebishops' conviction that thepope was the moving and quickening spirit of the synod.
(4) How the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) was brought together is set forth in several writings ofPope Leo I and Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian. Immediately after the Robber Synod, Leo asked Theodosius to prepare a council composed ofbishops from all parts of the world, to meet, preferably, inItaly. He repeated the same request, first made 13 October, 449, on the followingfeast of Christmas, and prevailed on the WesternEmperor Valentinian III together with his empress and his mother, to support it at the Byzantine Court. Once more (in July, 450) Leo renewed his request, adding, however that the council might be dispensed with if all thebishops were to make a profession of theorthodoxfaith without being united in council. About this time Theodosius II died and was succeeded by his sister,St. Pulcheria, and her husband Marcian. Both at once informed thepope of their willingness to summon the council, Marcian specially asking him to state in writing whether he could assist at the synod in person or through hislegates, so that thenecessary writs of convocation might be issued to the Easternbishops. By that time, however, the situation had greatly improved in theEastern Church—nearly all thebishops who had taken part in the Robber Synod had now repented of their aberration and signed, in union with theirorthodox colleagues, the "Epistola dogmatica" of Leo toFlavian, by this act rendering the need of a council less urgent. Besides, the Huns were just then invading the West, preventing manyLatinbishops, whose presence at the council was most desirable, from leaving their flocks to undertake the long journey to Chalcedon. Other motives induced thepope to postpone the synod, e.g. the fear that it might be made the occasion by thebishops of Constantinople to improve their hierarchical position, a fear well justified by subsequent events. But Marcian had already summoned the synod, and Leo therefore gave his instructions as to the business to be transacted. He was then entitled to say, in a letter to thebishops who had been at the council that the synod had been brought together "ex praecepto christianorum principum et ex consensu apostolicae sedis" (by order of theChristian princes and with the consent of theApostolic See). The emperor himself wrote to Leo that the synod had been held by his authority (te auctore), and thebishops of Moesia, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo, said: "At Chalcedon manybishops assembled by order of Leo, theRoman pontiff, who is thetrue head of thebishops".
(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Justinian I with the consent ofPope Vigilius, but on account of the emperor's dogmatic pretensions, quarrels arose and thepope refused to be present, although repeatedly invited. His Constitutum of 14 May 553, to the effect that he could not consent toanathematizeTheodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, led to open opposition betweenpope and council. In the end all was righted by Vigilius approving the synodal decrees.
(6, 7, 8) These threesynods were each and all called by the emperors of the time with theconsent and assistance of theApostolic See.
The direction or presidency of councils belongs to thepope by the same right as their convocation and constitution. Were a council directed in its deliberations and acts by anyone independent of thepope and acting entirely on his own responsibility, such a council could not be thepope's own in any sense: the defect could only be made good by a consequent formal act of thepope accepting responsibility for its decisions. In point of fact,papal legates presided over all the Eastern councils, which from their beginning were legally constituted. The reader will obtain a clearer insight into this point ofconciliar proceedings from a concrete example, taken from Hefele's introduction to his "History of the Councils":
Pope Adrian II sent hislegates to the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (787) with an express declaration to the Emperor Basil that they were to act as presidents of the council. Thelegates, Bishop Donatus ofOstia, Bishop Stephen of Nepesina, and thedeacon Marinus ofRome, read thepapal rescript to the synod. Not the slightest objection was raised. Their names took precedence in all protocols; they determined the duration of the several sessions, gave leave to make speeches and to read documents and to admit otherpersons, they put the leading questions, etc. In short, their presidency in the first five sessions cannot be disputed. But at the sixth session Emperor Basil was present with his two sons, Constantine and Leo, and, as the Acts relate, received the presidency. These same Acts, however, at once clearly distinguish the emperor and his sons from the synod when, after naming them they continue:conveniente sanctâ ac universali synodo (the holy and universal synod now meeting), thus disassociating the lay ruler from the council proper. The names of thepapal legates continue to appear first among the members of the synod, and it is they who in those latter sessions determine the matters for discussion, subscribe the Acts before anyone else, expressly as presidents of the synod, whereas the emperor, to show clearly that he did not consider himself the president, would only subscribe after all thebishops. Thepapal legates begged him to put his and his son's names at the head of the list, but he stoutly refused and only consented at last, to write his name after those of thepapal legates and of the Easternpatriarchs, but before those of thebishops. ConsequentlyPope Adrian II, in a letter to the emperor, praises him for not having assisted at the council as a judge (judex), but merely as awitness and protector (conscius et obsecundator).
The imperial commissaries present at the synod acted even less as presidents than the emperor himself. They signed the reports of the several sessions only after the representatives of thepatriarchs though before thebishops; their names are absent from the signatures of the Acts. On the other hand it may be contended that the EasternpatriarchsIgnatius of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other Easternpatriarchs, in some degree participated in the presidency: their names are constantly associated with those of the Romanlegates and clearly distinguished from those of the othermetropolitans andbishops. They, as it were, form with thepapal legates a board of directors, fix with him the order of proceedings, determine who shall be heard, subscribe, like thelegates, before the emperor and are entered in the reports of the several sessions before the imperial commissaries. All this being granted, the fact still remains that thepapal legates unmistakably hold the first place, for they are always named first and sign first, and — a detail of great importance — for the final subscription they use the formula:huic sanctae et universali synodo praesidens (presiding over this holy and universal synod), whileIgnatius of Constantinople and the representatives of the otherpatriarchs claim no presidency but word their subscription thus:suscipiens et omnibus quae ab ea judicata et scripta sunt concordans et definiens subscripsi (receiving this holy and universal synod and agreeing with all it has judged and written, and defining I have signed). If, on the one hand, this form of subscription differs from that of the president, it differs no less, on the other, from that of thebishops. These, like the emperor, have without exception used the formula:suscipiens (synodum) subscripsi (receiving the synod I have signed), omitting the otherwise customary definiens, which was used to mark a decisive vote (votum decisivum).
Hefele gives similar documentary accounts of the first eight generalsynods, showing thatpapal legates always presided over them when occupied in their proper business of deciding questions onfaith and discipline. The exclusive right of thepope in this matter was generally acknowledged. Thus, the Emperor Theodosius II says, in his edict addressed to the Council of Ephesus, that he had sent Count Candidian to represent him, but that this imperial commissary was to take no part in dogmatic disputes since "it was unlawful for one who is not enrolled in the lists of the mostholybishops to mingle inecclesiastical inquiries". TheCouncil of Chalcedon acknowledged that Pope Leo, by hislegates, presided over it as "the head over the members". At Nicaea,Hosius, Vitus and Vincentius, aspapal legates, signed before all other members of the council. The right of presiding and directing implies that thepope, if he chooses to make a full use of his powers, can determine the subject matter to be dealt with by the council, prescribe rules for conducting the debates, and generally order the whole business as seems best to him. Hence noconciliardecree is legitimate if carried under protest — or even without the positive consent — of thepope or hislegates. The consent of thelegates alone, acting without a special order from thepope, is not sufficient to makeconciliar decrees at once perfect and operative; what isnecessary is thepope's own consent. For this reason nodecree can become legitimate and null in law on account of pressure brought to bear on the assembly by the presidingpope, or bypapal legates acting on his orders. Such pressure and restriction of liberty, proceeding from the internal, natural principle of order through the use of lawful power, does not amount to external, unnatural coercion, and, therefore, does not invalidate the Acts due to its exercise.
Examples of councils working at high pressure, if the expression may be used, without spoiling their output, are of frequent occurrence. Most of the early councils were convened to execute decisions already finally fixed by thepope, no choice being left the assembled Fathers to arrive at another decision. They were forced to conform their judgment to that ofRome, with or without discussion. Shouldpapal pressure go beyond the limits of the council's dignity and of the importance of the matters under discussion the effect would be, not the invalidation of the council's decrees, but the paralysing of its moral influence and practical usefulness. On the other hand, the fact that a synod is, or has been, acting under the leadership of its Divinely appointed head, is the best guarantee of its freedom from unnatural disturbances, such as intrigues from below or coercion from above. In the same way violent interference with thepapal leadership is the grossest attack on the council's natural freedom. Thus theRobber Synod of Ephesus (449), though intended to be general and at first duly authorized by the presence ofpapal legates, was declared invalid and null by those samelegates at Chalcedon 451), because the prejudiced Emperor Theodosius II had removed the representatives of thepope, and entrusted the direction of the council toDioscurus of Alexandria.
Confirmation of theconciliar decrees is the third factor in thepope'snecessary co-operation with the council. The council does not represent the teaching Church till the visible head of theChurch has given his approval, for, unapproved, it is but a headless, soulless, impersonal body, unable to give its decisions the binding force oflaws for the whole Church, or the finality of judicial sentences With thepapal approval, on the contrary, the council's pronouncements represent the fullest effort of the teaching and ruling Church, ajudicium plenissimum beyond which no power can go. Confirmation being the final touch of perfection, the seal of authority, and the very life ofconciliar decrees, it isnecessary that it should be a personal act of the highest authority, for the highest authority cannot be delegated. So much for the principle, or the question of right. When we look for its practical working throughout the history of councils, we find great diversity in the way it has been applied under the influence of varying circumstances.
If we bear in mind the numerous disturbing elements at work in and around an Ecumenical council, the conflicting religious, political, scientific, and personal interests contending for supremacy, or at least eager to secure some advantage, we can easily realize the necessity of apapal ratification to crush the endless chicanery which otherwise would endanger the success and efficacy of the highest tribunal of theChurch. Even they who refuse to see in thepapal confirmation an authentic testimony and sentence, declaringinfallibly the ecumenicity of the council and its decrees to be adogmatic fact, must admit that it is a sanative act and supplies possible defects and shortcomings; the Ecumenical authority of thepope is sufficient to impart validity andinfallibility to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them. This was done byPope Vigilius for the Fifth General Synod. Sufficientproof for the sanatory efficacy of thepapal ratification lies in the absolute sovereignty of thepope and in theinfallibility of his ex-cathedra pronouncements. Should it be argued, however, that the sentence of an Ecumenical council is the only absolute, final, andinfallible sentence even then, and then more than ever, thepapal ratification would benecessary. For in the transactions of an Ecumenical council thepope plays the principal part, and if any deficiency in his action, especially in the exercise of his own special prerogatives, were apparent, the labours of the council would be in vain. The faithful hesitate to accept asinfallible guides of theirfaith documents not authenticated by the seal of the fisherman, or theApostolic See, which now wields the authority of St. Peter and ofChrist.Leo II beautifully expresses theseideas in his ratification of theSixth General Council: "Because this great and universal synod has most fully proclaimed the definition of the rightfaith, which theApostolic See of St. Peter the Apostle, whose office we, though unequal to it, are holding, also reverently receives: therefore we also, and through our office thisApostolic See, consent to, and confirm, by the authority of Blessed Peter, those things which have been defined, as being finally set by he Lord Himself on the solid rock which isChrist."
No event in thehistory of the Church better illustrates the necessity and the importance ofpapal co-operation and, in particular, confirmation, than the controversies which in the sixth century raged about theThree Chapters. TheThree Chapters were the condemnation (1) ofTheodore of Mopsuestia, hisperson, and his writings; (2) of Theodoret's writings against Cyril and the Council of Ephesus; (3) of a letter from Ibas to Maris the Persian, also against Cyril and the council. Theodore anticipated theheresy of Nestorius; Ibas and Theodoret were indeed restored atChalcedon, but only after they had givenorthodox explanations and shown that they were free fromNestorianism. The two points in debate were: (1) Did theCouncil of Chalcedon acknowledge theorthodoxy of the saidThree Chapters? (2) How, i.e. by what test, is the point to be settled? Now the two contending parties agreed in the principle of the test: theapprobation of the council stands or falls with theapprobation of thepope'slegates and ofPope Leo I himself. Defenders of the Chapters, e.g.Ferrandus the Deacon andFacundus of Hermiane, put forward as their chief argument (prima et immobilis ratio) the fact that Leo had approved. Their opponents never questioned the principle but denied the alleged fact, basing their denial on Leo's epistle to Maximus of Antioch in which they read: "Si quid sane ab his fratribus quos ad S. Synodum vice mea, praeter id quod ad causam fidei pertinebat gestum fuerit, nullius erit firmitatis" (If indeed anything not pertaining to the cause offaith should have been settled by the brethren I sent to the Holy Synod to hold my place, it shall be of no force). The point ofdoctrine (causa fidei) referred to is theheresy of Eutyches; theThree Chapters refer to that of Nestorius, or rather to certainpersons and writings connected with it.
Thebishops of the council, assembled at Constantinople in 533 for the purpose of putting an end to theThree Chapters controversy, addressed toPope Vigilius two Confessions, the first with the PatriarchMennas, the second with his successorEutychius, in which, to establish theirorthodoxy, they profess that they firmly hold to the four generalsynods as approved by theApostolic See and by thepopes. Thus we read in theConfessio ofMennas: "But also the letters of Pope Leo of blessed memory and the Constitution of theApostolic See issued in support of the Faith and of the authority (firmitas) of the aforesaid foursynods, we promise to follow and observe in all points and weanathematize any man, who on any occasion or altercation should attempt to nullify our promises." And in theConfessio ofEutychius: "Suscipimus autem et amplectimur epistolas praesulum Romance Sedis Apostolicae, tam aliorum quam Leonis sanctae memoriae de fide scriptas et de quattuor sanctis conciliis vel de uno eorum" (We receive and embrace the letters of thebishops of the ApostolicRoman See, those of others as well as of Leo of holy memory, concerning the Faith and the four holysynods or any of them).
The way in which councils transact business now demands our attention. Here as in most things, there is an ideal which is never completely realized in practice.
It has been sufficiently shown in the foregoing section that thepope, either in person or by deputy, directed the transaction ofconciliar business. But when we look for a fixed order or set of rules regulating the proceedings we have to come down to theVatican Council to find an officialOrdo concilii ecumenici and aMethodus servanda in prima sessione, etc. In all earlier councils the management of affairs was left to the Fathers and adjusted by them to the particular objects and circumstances of the council. The so-calledOrdo celebrandi Concilii Tridentini is a compilation posterior to the council, written by theconciliar secretary, A. Massarelli; it is a record of what has been done not a rule of what should be done. Some fixed rules were, however, already established at the reform councils of the fifteenth century as a substitute for the absent directing power of thepope. The substance of these rulings is given in the "Caeremoniale Romanum" of Augustinus Patritius (d. 1496). The institution of "congregations" dates from theCouncil of Constance (1415). At earlier councils all the meetings of the Fathers were called indiscriminatelysessiones oractiones, but sinceConstance the termsession has been restricted to the solemn meetings at which the final votes are given while all meetings for the purpose of consultation or provisory voting are termedcongregations.
The distinction between general and particular congregations likewise dates fromConstance, where, however, the particular congregations assumed a form different in spirit and composition from the practice of earlier and later councils. They were simply separate assemblies of the "nations" (first four, then five) present at the council; their deliberations went to form national votes which were presented in the general assembly, whose decisions conformed to a majority of such votes. The particular congregations of more recent councils were merely consultative assemblies (committees commissions) brought together by appointment or invitation in order to deliberate on special matters. AtTrent there were congregations ofprelates and congregations oftheologians, both partly fordogma, partly for discipline. The congregations ofprelates were either "deputations", i.e. committees of specially chosen experts, or conciliary groups, usually three into which the council divided for the purpose of facilitating discussion.
The officialordo of theVatican Council confirmed theTridentine practice, leaving, however, to the initiative of theprelates the formation of groups of a more private character. The voting by "nations", peculiar to the reform councils, has also been abandoned in favour of the traditional voting byindividuals (capita). At theVatican Council there were seven "commissions" consisting oftheologians from all countries, appointed a year before the actual meeting of the assembly. Theirduty was to prepare the various matters to be laid before the council. The object of these congregations is sufficiently described by their titles: (1) Congregatio cardinalitia directrix; (2) Commissio caeremoniarum, (3) politico-ecclesiastica; (4) pro ecclesiis et missionibus Orientis; (5) pro Regularibus; (6) theologica dogmatica; (7) pro disciplina ecclesiastica (i.e. a general directivecardinalitial congregation, and several commissions for ceremonies, politico-ecclesiastical affairs, the churches and missions of the Orient, the regular orders,dogmatic theology,ecclesiastical discipline). On the basis of their labours were worked out theschemata (drafts of decrees) to be discussed by the council. Within the council itself there were seven "deputations": (1) Pro recipiendis et expendendis Patrum propositionibus (appointed by thepope to examine the propositions of the Fathers); (2) Judices excusationum (Judges of excuses); (3) Judices querelarum et controversiarum (to settle questions of precedence and such like); (4) deputatio pro rebus ad fidem pertinentibus (on matters pertaining tofaith); (5) deputatio pro rebus disciplinae ecclesiasticae (onecclesiastical discipline); (6) pro rebus ordinum regularium (onreligious orders); (7) pro rebus ritus orientalis et apostolicis missionibus (Oriental rites and Apostolic missions).
All these deputations, except the first, were chosen by the council. Objections and amendments to the proposedschemata had to be handed in in writing to the responsible deputation which considered the matter and modified theschema accordingly. Anyone desiring further to improve the modified draft had to obtain from thelegates permission to propose his amendments in a speech, after which he put them down in writing. If, however, tenprelates decided that the matter had been sufficiently debated, leave for speaking was refused. At this stage the amendments were collected and examined by the synodal congregation, then again laid before the general congregation to be voted on severally. The votes for admission or rejection were expressed by theprelates standing or remaining seated. Next theschema, reformed in accordance with these votes, was submitted to a general congregation for approval or disapprovalin toto. In case a majority ofplacets were given for it, it was accepted in a last solemn public session, after a final vote ofplacet ornon placet ("it pleases", or "it does not please").
The principle which directs the practical working of a council is the perfect, or best possible, realization of its object, viz. a final judgment on questions offaith andmorals, invested with the authority and majesty of the whole teaching body of theChurch. To this end some means are absolutelynecessary, others are only desirable as adding perfection to the result. We deal first with these latter means, which may be called the ideal elements of the council:
From the notion that the council is a court of judges the following inferences may be drawn:
To gain an adequate conception of the council at work it should be viewed under its twofold aspect of judging and witnessing. In relation to the faithful theconciliar assembly is primarily a judge who pronounces a verdict conjointly with thepope, and, at the same time, acts more or less as witness in the case. Its position is similar to that ofSt. Paul towards the firstChristians:quod accepistis a me per multos testes. In relation to thepope the council is but an assembly of authentic witnesses and competent counsellors whose influence on thepapal sentence is that of the mass of evidence which they represent or of the preparatory judgment which they pronounce, it is the only way in which numbers of judges can influence one another. Such influence lessens neither the dignity nor the efficiency of any of the judges — on the other hand it is never required, in councils or elsewhere, to make their verdict unassailable. TheVatican Council, not excluding the fourth session in whichpapal infallibility was defined, comes nearer than any former council to the ideal perfection just described. It was composed of the greatest number ofbishops, both absolutely and in proportion to the totality ofbishops in theChurch; it allowed and exercised the right of discussion to an extent perhaps never witnessed before; it appealed to a general tradition, present and past, containing the effective principle of thedoctrine under discussion, viz. theduty of submitting in obedience to theHoly See and of conforming to its teaching; lastly it gave its final definition with absolute unanimity, and secured the greatest majority — nine-tenths — for its preparatory judgment.
All the arguments which go to prove theinfallibility of theChurch apply with their fullest force to theinfallible authority of general councils in union with thepope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by theHoly Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council ofJerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of theSpirit of God and of themselves:Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and thedogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit offaith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by theChurch.Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" andAthanasius wrote to thebishops of Africa: "WhatGod has spoken through theCouncil of Nicaea endureth for ever."St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, andPope Leo the Great expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered amongCatholics" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framedinstruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the samedoctrine was embodied in many professions offaith may be seen inDenzinger's (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshakenbelief is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit oftruth, is come, he will teach you alltruth . . ."John 16:13) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20), "The gates ofhell shall not prevail against it [i.e. theChurch]" (Matthew 16:18).
Papal andconciliarinfallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by thepope areinfallible by reason of thatapprobation, because thepope isinfallible alsoextra concilium, without the support of a council. Theinfallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council'sinfallibility. The Divine constitution of theChurch and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining tofaith andmorals, independently of thepope's infallibility: a falliblepope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounceinfallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vaticandecree concerning thesupreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to beinfallible even by those who denied thepapal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of thepapal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in theinfallibility of councils, and the claims that it can beproved separately and independently on its proper merits. Theinfallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature.Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of allChrist's co-workers for thesalvation of man throughtruefaith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into thetruth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it thenecessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number ofbishops. The same presence strengthens the action of thepope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say intruth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal ofinfallibility on theconciliardecree irrespective of his ownpersonal infallibility.
Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by thepope have a double guarantee ofinfallibility: their own and that of theinfallible pope. The council's dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition ofpapal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a "circular demonstration" by which the council would make thepopeinfallible and thepope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without thepope has no guarantee ofinfallibility, therefore theconciliar and thepapalinfallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. Aninfallible statement of Divinetruth is the voice ofChrist speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circumstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. It works its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful with almost irresistible force, because in the universal harmony each individual believer hears his own voice, is carried away by the powerful rhythm, and moved as by a Divine spell to follow the leaders. Again, thebishops who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive tozeal in publishing them and enforcing them in theirdioceses; nay the council itself is an effective beginning of its execution or enforcement in practice. For this reason alone, the holding of most Eastern councils was a moral necessity — the great distance between East and West, the difficulty of communication, the often keen opposition of the Orientals to OldRome made a solemnpromulgation of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre ofheresies.
These considerations further account for the great esteem in whichconciliar definitions have always been held in theChurch, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of theApostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in therule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of thepopes as substantially the same. Thus, we read in the formula, or profession offaith imposed byPope Hormisdas (514-23) on the Easternbishops implicated in theschism of Acacius: "The first [step towards]salvation is to keep the rule oforthodox [rectae]faith and in no wise to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers [i.e. councils]. But the words ofOur Lord to St. Peter (Thou artPeter . . .) cannot be passed over, for what He said has been verified by the events, since in theApostolic See theCatholic religion has always been preserved without spot or stain. Wishing by no means to be separated from this hope andfaith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, weanathematize allheresies, especially theheretic Nestorius, in his timeBishop of Constantinople, who was condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Blessed Celestine, Pope ofRome, and by Cyril,Bishop of Alexandria . . . We declare and approve all the letters of Leo, Pope, which he wrote concerning theChristian religion, as we have stated before, following in all things theApostolic See and professing [praedicantes] all its constitutions. And therefore I hope to be worthy to be with you [thepope] in the one communion which thisApostolic See professes, in which lies the entire, veracious, and peaceful solidity of theChristian religion. . . ." It should be noted that in this formula theinfallibility of theApostolic See is the centre from which radiates theinfallibility of the councils.
The subject matter ofinfallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of thetheological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up. These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise ofinfallibility made to theChurch as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that isinfallible, not the sense of individualchurchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by thepope. Decisions referring todogma were called in the Eastdiatyposeis (constitutions,statutes); those concerned with discipline were termedkanones (canons, rules), often with the addition oftes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order). The expressionsthesmoi andhoroi apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known asanathematismoi (anathemas).
In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed:canones anddecreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. TheCouncil of Trent styled its disciplinary edictsdecreta de reformatione; its dogmatic definitionsdecreta, without qualification, where they positively assert the points offaith then in dispute, andcanones when, in imitation of the ancientanathematisms, they imposed ananathema sit on those that refused assent to the defined propositions. An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attachedanathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that theTridentinecapita are no more than explanations of thecanones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain therule of faith. Thus Session XIII begins: "The Holy Synod forbids to all the faithful in future to believe, teach, or preach concerning the Holy Eucharist otherwise than is explained and defined in the present decree", and it ends: "As, however, it is not enough to speak thetruth without discovering and refutingerror, it has pleased the Holy Synod to subjoin the following canons, so that all, now knowing theCatholic doctrine, may also understand whatheresies they have to beware against and avoid." The same remark applies to the chapters of theVatican Council in its two Constitutions, as appears from the concluding words of theproemium of the first Constitution and from the initial phrases of most chapters. All that may be conceded is that the chapters of both councils contain thedoctrina catholica, i.e. the authorized teaching of theChurch, but not always and invariablydogmata formalia, i.e. propositions offaith defined as such.
Promulgation ofconciliar decrees isnecessary because they arelaws and no law is binding until it has been brought unmistakably to theknowledge of all it intends to bind. The decrees are usuallypromulgated in the name of the synod itself; in cases of thepope presiding in person they have also been published in the form ofpapal decrees with the formula:sacrâ universali synodo approbante. This was done first at theThird Lateran Council, then at theFourth andFifth Lateran, and also partly at theCouncil of Constance.
The Councils ofConstance and ofBasle affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to thepope, and Frenchtheologians have adopted that proposition as one of the famous four Gallican Liberties. Othertheologians affirmed, and still affirm, that thepope is above any general council. The leading exponents of the Gallicandoctrine are: Dupin (1657-1719), professor at theSorbonne inParis ("Dissertatio de concilii generalis supra Romanum Pontificem auctoritate", in his book on the ancientdiscipline of the Church, "De antiquâ Ecclesiae disciplinâ dissertationes historicae"); and Natalis Alexander, 0.P. (1639-1724), in the ninth volume of his great "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Diss. iv ad saeculum XV). On the other sideLucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca Canonica, s.v. Concilium) and Roncaglia, editor and corrector of Natalis Alexander's history, stoutly defend thepapal superiority. Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. thatPope Martin V approved the declaration of theCouncil of Constance, andPope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecumenical synod over thepope), concluded that bothpopes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply anapprobation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over thepope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)
The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent theChurch; thepope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to theChurch. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: thepope is neither above nor below theChurch, but in it as the centre is in the circle, asintellect and will are in thesoul. By taking our stand on the Scripturaldoctrine that theChurch is the mystical body of Christ of which thepope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from thepope is but a lifeless trunk, a "rump parliament", no matter how well attended it be.
This question is a legitimate one, for in thehistory of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended forpapal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils ofConstance andBasle, and Gallicantheologians, hold that a council may depose apope on two main grounds:
In point of fact, however,heresy is the only legitimate ground. For ahereticalpope has ceased to be a member of theChurch, and cannot, therefore, be its head. Asinfulpope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as asinful,unjust ruler for whom we mustpray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.
But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of theApostolic See, and the right of each isdoubtful. In such a case the council, according toBellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has aright to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at theSynod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightfulpope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimatepope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.
Not evenJohn XXIII could have been deposed atConstance, had his election not beendoubtful and himself suspected ofheresy.John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from theApostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regardingRome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: "If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against thesupreme pontiff of the elderRome" (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).
SCHEEBEN wrote copiously and learnedly in defence of the Vatican Council; his article in theKirchenlexicon, written in 1883, contains the marrow of his previous writings, while HEFELE'SHistory of the Councils is the standard work on the subject. For a deeper study of the councils a good collection of theActa Conciliorum is indispensable. The first ever printed was the very imperfect one of MERLIN (Paris, 1523). A second and richer collection, by the Belgian Franciscan PETER CRABBE, appeared in 1538 at Cologne, in 3 vols. Completer editions were published as time went on: SURIUS (Cologne, 1567, 5. vols.); BOLANUS (Venice, 1585, 5 vols.); BINIUS (Cologne, 1606), with historical and explanatory notes from Baronius — republished 1618, and in Paris, 1636, in 9 vols.; the Roman collection of general councils with Greek text, arranged by the Jesuit SIRMOND (1608 — 1612), in 4 vols. — each council is preceded by a short history. On Bellarmine's advice Sirmond omitted the Acts of the Synod of Basle. This Roman collection is the foundation of all that followed. First among these is the ParisCollectio Regia, in 37 vols. (1644). Then comes the still completer collection of the Jesuits LABBE and COSSART (Paris, 1674), in 17 folio vols., to which BALUZE added a supplementary volume (Paris, 1683 and 1707). Most French authors quote from LABBE-BALUZE. Yet another and better edition is due to the Jesuit HARDOUIN; it is of all the most perfect and serviceable. MANSI — later Archbishop of Lucca, his native town — with the help of many Italian scholars, brought out a new collection of 31 volumes, which, had it been finished, would have surpassed all its predecessors in merit. Unfortunately it only comes down to the fifteenth century, and, being unfinished, has no indexes. To fill this gap, WELTER, a Paris publisher, took up (1900) the new collection proposed (1870) by V . Palme. To a facsimile reprint of the 31 volumes of MANSI (Florence, Venice, 1757-1797) he added 19 supplementary volumes, furnishing the necessary indexes, etc. TheActa et Decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum Collectio Lacensis (Freiburg im Br., 1870-90), published by the Jesuits of Maria-Laach, extends from 1682 to 1869. An English translation of HEFELE'S standardHistory of the Christian Councils, by W. R. CLARK, was commenced in 1871 (Edinburgh and London); a French translation by the Benedictines of Farnborough is also in course of publication (Paris, 1907). Among the latest authors treating of councils are WERNZ,Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), I, II; OJETTI,Synopsis rerum moralium et juris canonici, s.v. Concilium.
APA citation.Wilhelm, J.(1908).General Councils. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
MLA citation.Wilhelm, Joseph."General Councils."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 4.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1908.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Gerard Haffner.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.