CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Councils

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Councils
Encyclopedia
Summa
Fathers
Bible
Library
Catholic Encyclopedia
> General Councils
General Councils
Please help support the mission of New Advent
and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...
This subject will be treated under the following heads:
Definition
Classification
Historical Sketch
The Pope and General Councils
Composition of General Councils
Right of participation
Requisite number of members
Papal headship the formal element of Councils
Factors in the Pope's Co-operation with the Council
Convocation
Direction
Confirmation
Business Methods
The facts
The theory
Infallibility of General Councils;
Correlation of Papal and Conciliary Infallibility
Infallibility Restricted to Unanimous Findings
Promulgation
Is a Council above the Pope?
Has a General Council Power to Depose a Pope?
Definition
Councils are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and
theological
experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church
doctrine
and discipline. The terms
council
and
synod
are synonymous, although in the oldest
Christian
literature the ordinary meetings for worship are also called
synods
, and
diocesan
synods
are not properly councils because they are only convened for deliberation. Councils unlawfully assembled are termed
conciliabula
conventicula
, and even
latrocinia
, i.e. "robber
synods
". The constituent elements of an
ecclesiastical
council are the following:
A legally convened meeting
of members of the
hierarchy
for the purpose of carrying out their judicial and
doctrinal
functions,
by means of deliberation in common
resulting in regulations and decrees invested with the authority of the whole assembly.
All these elements result from an analysis of the fact that councils are a concentration of the ruling powers of the
Church
for decisive action.
The first condition is that such concentration conform to the constitution of the
Church
: it must be started by the head of the forces that are to move and to act, e.g. by the
metropolitan
if the action is limited to one province. The actors themselves are necessarily the leaders of the
Church
in their double capacity of judges and teachers, for the proper object of
conciliar
activity is the settling of questions of
faith
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, of
bishops
. Deliberation, with free discussion and ventilation of private views, is another essential note in the notion of councils. They are the mind of the
Church
in action, the
sensus ecclesiae
taking form and shape in the mould of
dogmatic definition
and authoritative decrees. The contrast of conflicting opinions, their actual clash necessarily precedes the final triumph of
faith
. Lastly, in a council's decisions we see the highest expression of authority of which its members are capable within the sphere of their
jurisdiction
, with the added strength and weight resulting from the combined action of the whole body.
Classification
Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the
Church
, or part of the
Church
, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at
Jerusalem
, and throughout her whole history whenever
faith
or
morals
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 classification
necessary
. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of
synods
are distinguished.
Ecumenical Councils
are those to which the
bishops
, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (
oikoumene
) under the presidency of the
pope
or his
legates
, and the decrees of which, having received
papal
confirmation, bind all
Christians
. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the
approbation
of the whole Church or of the
pope
, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (
Latrocinium Ephesinum
), the Synod of
Pisa
in 1409, and in part with the Councils of
Constance
and
Basle
The second rank is held by the
general
synods
of the East or of the West
, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The
Synod of Constantinople (381)
was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four
patriarchs
of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch
, and
Jerusalem
), with many
metropolitans
and
bishops
. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.
Patriarchal, national, and
primatial
councils
represent a whole
patriarchate
, a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a
primate
. Of such councils we have frequent examples in
Latin Africa
, where the
metropolitan
and ordinary
bishops
used to meet under the
Primate
of Carthage, in
Spain
, under the
Primate
of Toledo, and in earlier times in
Syria
, under the Metropolitan — later Patriarch — of Antioch.
Provincial councils
bring together the suffragan
bishops
of the
metropolitan
of an
ecclesiastical province
and other dignitaries entitled to participate.
Diocesan
synods
consist of the
clergy
of the
diocese
and are presided over by the
bishop
or the
vicar-general
A peculiar kind of council used to be held at Constantinople, it consisted of
bishops
from any part of the world who happened to be at the time in that imperial city. Hence the name
synodoi enoemousai
"visitors'
synods
".
Lastly there have been
mixed
synods
, in which both civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries met to settle secular as well as
ecclesiastical
matters. They were frequent at the beginning of the
Middle Ages
in
France
Germany
Spain
, and
Italy
. In
England
even abbesses were occasionally present at such mixed councils. Sometimes, not always, the
clergy
and
laity
voted in separate chambers.
Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the
Church
organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of
bishops
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 the
metropolitan
and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions of
faith
and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors or
bishops
in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted for
evil
rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings of
bishops
of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of the
bishops
present, they were important manifestations of the
sensus ecclesiae
(mind of the
Church
) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of the
Church
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 terms
concilia plenaria
universalia
, or
generalia
are, or used to be, applied indiscriminately to all
synods
not confined to a single province; in the
Middle Ages
, even
provincial synods
, as compared to
diocesan
, received these names. Down to the late
Middle Ages
all
papal
synods
to which a certain number of
bishops
from different countries had been summoned were regularly styled plenary, general, or universal
synods
. In earlier times, before the separation of East and West, councils to which several distant
patriarchates
or exarchates sent representatives, were described absolutely as "plenary councils of the universal church". These terms are applied by
St. Augustine
to the
Council of Arles
(314), at which only Western
bishops
were present. In the same way the
council of Constantinople (382)
, in a
letter to Pope Damasus
, calls the council held in the same town the year before (381) "an Ecumenical synod" i.e. a synod representing the
oikoumene
, the whole inhabited world as known to the Greeks and Romans, because all the Eastern
patriarchates
, 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 the
Apostolic See
. As a matter of fact, the Greeks themselves did not put this council on a par with those of
Nicaea
and
Ephesus
until its confirmation at the
Synod of Chalcedon
, and the Latins acknowledged its authority only in the sixth century.
Historical sketch of ecumenical councils
The present article deals chiefly with the
theological
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.
First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)
The
Council of Nicaea
lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen
bishops
were present.
Hosius
Bishop
of
Cordova
, assisted as
legate
of Pope Sylvester. The
Emperor Constantine
was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (
Symbolum
) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the
true
Divinity of the
Son of God
homoousios
), and the fixing of the
date for keeping Easter
(against the Quartodecimans).
Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)
The
First General Council of Constantinople
, under
Pope Damasus
and the
Emperor Theodosius I
, was attended by 150
bishops
. It was directed against the
followers of Macedonius
, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned
Nicene Creed
it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (
qui simul adoratur
) and all that follows to the end.
Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)
The
Council of Ephesus
, of more than 200
bishops
, presided over by
St. Cyril of Alexandria
representing
Pope Celestine I
, defined the true personal unity of
Christ
, declared
Mary
the Mother of
God
theotokos
) against
Nestorius
Bishop
of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of
Pelagius
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)
The
Council of Chalcedon
— 150
bishops
under
Pope Leo the Great
and the
Emperor Marcian
— defined the two natures (Divine and human) in
Christ
against
Eutyches
, who was
excommunicated
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553)
The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165
bishops
under
Pope Vigilius
and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the
errors
of
Origen
and certain writings (
The Three Chapters
) of Theodoret, of Theodore,
Bishop
of
Mopsuestia
and of Ibas,
Bishop
of
Edessa
; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some
heretics
Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)
The Third General Council of Constantinople, under
Pope Agatho
and the
Emperor Constantine
Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174
bishops
, and the emperor. It put an end to
Monothelitism
by defining two wills in
Christ
, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It
anathematized
Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787)
The
Second Council of Nicaea
was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under
Pope Adrian I
, and was presided over by the
legates
of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of
holy images
. Between 300 and 367
bishops
assisted.
Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)
The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under
Pope Adrian II
and Emperor Basil numbering 102
bishops
, 3
papal legates
, and 4
patriarchs
, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (
conciliabulum
) brought together by Photius against
Pope Nicholas
and
Ignatius
the legitimate
Patriarch
of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the
Greek Church
, and no other general council took place in the East.
Ninth Ecumenical Council: Lateran I (1123)
The
First Lateran Council
, the first held at
Rome
, met under Pope
Callistus II
. About 900
bishops
and
abbots
assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with ring and
crosier
to
ecclesiastical benefices
and dealt with church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.
Tenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran II (1139)
The
Second Lateran Council
was held at
Rome
under
Pope Innocent II
, with an attendance of about 1000
prelates
and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to the
errors
of
Arnold of Brescia
Eleventh Ecumenical Council: Lateran III (1179)
The
Third Lateran Council
took place under
Pope Alexander III
Frederick I
being emperor. There were 302
bishops
present. It condemned the
Albigenses
and
Waldenses
and issued numerous decrees for the reformation of
morals
Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV (1215)
The
Fourth Lateran Council
was held under
Innocent III
. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople and
Jerusalem
, 71
archbishops
, 412
bishops
, and 800
abbots
the
Primate
of the
Maronites
, and
St. Dominic
. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against the
Albigenses
(Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian
errors
of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the
Middle Ages
, and it marks the culminating point of
ecclesiastical
life and
papal
power.
Thirteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons I (1245)
The First General Council of Lyons was presided over by
Innocent IV
; the Patriarchs of Constantinople,
Antioch
, and Aquileia (Venice), 140
bishops
, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King of
France
, assisted. It
excommunicated
and deposed
Emperor Frederick II
and directed a new
crusade
, under the command of St. Louis, against the
Saracens
and Mongols.
Fourteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons II (1274)
The Second General Council of Lyons was held by
Pope Gregory X
, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15
cardinals
, 500
bishops
, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the
Greek Church
with
Rome
. The word
filioque
was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the
Turks
. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.
Fifteenth Ecumenical Council: Vienne (1311-1313)
The Council of Vienne was held in that town in
France
by order of
Clement V
, the first of the
Avignon
popes
. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300
bishops
(114 according to some authorities), and 3 kings —
Philip IV
of
France
, Edward II of
England
, and James II of
Aragon
— were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and
errors
imputed to the
Knights Templars
, the Fraticelli, the
Beghards
, and the
Beguines
, with projects of a new
crusade
, the reformation of the
clergy
, and the teaching of Oriental languages in the
universities
Sixteenth Ecumenical Council: Constance (1414-1418)
The
Council of Constance
was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the
Church
. It became legitimate only when
Gregory XI
had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the
schism
by the election of
Pope Martin V
, which the
Council of Pisa
(1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful
pope
confirmed the former decrees of the synod against
Wyclif
and
Hus
. This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by
Martin V
Seventeenth Ecumenical Council: Basle/Ferrara/Florence (1431-1439)
The
Council of Basle
met first in that town,
Eugene IV
being
pope
, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of
Bohemia
. Quarrels with the
pope
having arisen, the council was transferred first to
Ferrara
(1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the
Greek 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 decrees
Eugene IV
approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of
heresy
, the peace of
Christendom
, and the reform of the
Church
, and which at the same time did not derogate from the
rights
of the
Holy See
. (See also the
Council of Florence
.)
Eighteenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran V (1512-1517)
The
Fifth Lateran Council
sat from 1512 to 1517 under Popes
Julius II
and
Leo X
, the emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteen
cardinals
and about eighty
archbishops
and
bishops
took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new
crusade
against the
Turks
was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in
Germany
caused by
Luther
Nineteenth Ecumenical Council: Trent (1545-1563)
The
Council of Trent
lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five
popes
Paul III
Julius III
, Marcellus II,
Paul IV
and
Pius IV
, and under the Emperors
Charles V
and Ferdinand. There were present 5
cardinal
legates
of the
Holy See
, 3
patriarchs
, 33
archbishops
, 235
bishops
, 7
abbots
, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160
doctors
of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the
errors
promulgated
by
Luther
and other
Reformers
, and to reform the
discipline of the Church
. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.
Twentieth Ecumenical Council: Vatican I (1869-1870)
The
Vatican Council
was summoned by
Pius 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, 49
cardinals
, 11
patriarchs
, 680
archbishops
and
bishops
, 28
abbots
, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the
Church
, the council decreed the
infallibility of the pope
when speaking
ex cathedra
, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all
Christians
, he defines a
doctrine
concerning
faith
or
morals
to be held by the whole Church.
The pope and general councils
The relations between the
pope
and general councils must be exactly defined to arrive at a just conception of the functions of councils in the
Church
, of their
rights
and
duties
, and of their authority. The traditional phrase, "the council represents the
Church
", associated with the modern notion of representative assemblies, is apt to lead to a serious misconception of the
bishops'
function in general
synods
. 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. The
bishops
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 the
pope
, ultimately from
God
. What the episcopate in council does represent is the Divinely instituted
magisterium
, the teaching and governing power of the
Church
; the interests it defends are those of the
depositum fidei
, of the revealed rules of
faith
and
morals
, i.e. the interests of
God
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 the
pope
. A council in opposition to the
pope
is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the
pope
who opposes it, nor the absent
bishops
, who cannot act beyond the limits of their
dioceses
except through the
pope
. A council not only acting independently of the
Vicar of Christ
, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the
Church
; in fact, such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was no
pope
or the rightful
pope
was indistinguishable from
antipopes
. In such abnormal times the safety of the
Church
becomes the supreme law, and the first
duty
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 the
Church
, the
pope
rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising from
heresies
schisms
, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of the
Church
. 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 the
decree
issued in the thirty-ninth session of the
Council 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 the
pope
, 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 of
faith
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 the
bishops
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, their
right
and
duty
firmly to expostulate with the
pope
on certain of his acts or measures. The severe strictures of the
Sixth General Council
on Pope Honorius I may be cited as a case in point.
Composition of general councils
Right of participation
The right to be present and to act at general councils belongs in the first place and
logically
to the
bishops
actually exercising the episcopal office. In the earlier councils there appear also the
chorepiscopi
(country-bishops), who, according to the better opinion, were neither
true
bishops
nor an order interposed between
bishops
and
priests
, but
priests
invested with a
jurisdiction
smaller than the episcopal but larger than the
sacerdotal
. They were
ordained
by the
bishop
and charged with the administration of a certain district in his
diocese
. They had the power of conferring
minor orders
, and even the
subdiaconate
. Titular
bishops
, i.e.
bishops
not ruling a
diocese
, had equal
rights
with other
bishops
at the
Vatican Council
(1869-70), where 117 of them were present. Their claim lies in the fact that their order, the episcopal
consecration
, entitles them,
jure divino
, to take part in the administration of the
Church
, 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-episcopal
jurisdiction
without being
bishops
— such as
cardinal-priests
cardinal-deacons
abbots
nullius, mitred
abbots
of whole orders or congregations of
monasteries
, generals of clerks regular,
mendicant
and monastic orders — were allowed to vote at the
Vatican 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 the
Middle Ages
the contrary practice gradually prevailed, and has since become an acquired right. Priests and
deacons
frequently cast decisive votes in the name of absent
bishops
whom they represented; at the
Council of Trent
, however, such procurators were admitted only with great limitations, and at the
Vatican Council
they were even excluded from the council hall. Besides voting members, every council admits, as consultors a number of
doctors
in
theology
and canon law. In the
Council of Constance
the consultors were allowed to vote. Other
clerics
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 accepted
Christianity
, 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 both
Theodosius 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 at
provincial synods
, was of frequent occurrence. The motive and object of the royal presence were to protect the
synods
, to heighten their authority, to lay before them the needs of particular
Christian
states and countries.
This laudable and legitimate co-operation led by degrees to interference with the
pope's
rights
in
conciliar
matters. The Eastern Emperor Michael claimed the
right
to summon councils without obtaining the
pope's
consent, and to take part in them personally or by proxy. But
Pope 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 general
synods
dealing with matters of
faith
, and from that fact drew the conclusion that all other
synods
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 it
false
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 of
ecclesiastics
(at
provincial synods
). As early as the fourth century the
bishops
greatly complained of the action of
Constantine the Great
in imposing his commissary on the Synod of
Tyre
(335). In the West, however, secular princes were present even at
national synods
, e.g. Sisenand, King of the Spanish
Visigoths
, was at the Fourth Council of Toledo (636) and King Chintilian at the fifth (638);
Charlemagne
assisted at the
Council of Frankfort
(794) and two Anglo Saxon kings at the
Synod of Whitby
Collatio Pharenes
) in 664. But step by step
Rome
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.
Requisite number of members
The number of
bishops
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 the
Church
, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the
bishops
of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of
prelates
necessary
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 the
patriarchs
and
metropolitans
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 Western
bishops
being invited. As a rule, but very few Western
bishops
were personally present at any of the first eight general
synods
. 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 Eastern
synods
their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the
pope
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 best
proof
that, in the sense of the
Church
, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of
bishops
present to
bishops
absent than the organic connection of the council with the head of the
Church
Papal headship the formal element of councils
It is the action of the
pope
that makes the councils ecumenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the
Church
. Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of the
pope
; he alone can bind all the
faithful
. Its sufficiency is equally manifest: when the
pope
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 the
Council of Sardica
(313) to
Pope Julius I
, and was often quoted, since the beginning of the fifth century, as the (Nicaean) canon concerning the necessity of
papal
co-operation in all the more important conciliary Acts. The
Church
historian
Socrates
Church History
II.17
) makes Pope Julius say, in reference to the Council of Antioch (341), that the
law
of the
Church
kanon
) forbids "the churches to pass
laws
contrary to the judgement of the
Bishop of Rome
" and
Sozomen
(III, x) likewise declares "it to be a holy law not to attribute any value to things done without the judgment of the
Bishop of Rome
". The letter of Julius here quoted by both
Socrates
and
Sozomen
directly refers to an existing
ecclesiastical
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 the
Nicene Creed
received its present form — the one used at Mass — had in itself no claim to be Ecumenical. Before Pope Damasus and the Western
bishops
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, or
Symbol of Faith
: the canons of this council were still rejected by
Leo the Great
and even by
Gregory the Great
(about 600). A
proof
that the Creed of Constantinople enjoyed
papal
sanction may be drawn from the way in which the Roman
legates
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 the
papal
approbation
of the Creed that, in the sixth century, Popes Vigilius,
Pelagius II
, and
Gregory the Great
declared this council Ecumenical, although
Gregory
still refused to sanction its canons. The First Synod of Constantinople presents, then, an instance of a minimum of
papal
co-operation impressing on a particular council the mark of universality. The normal co-operation, however, requires on the part of the head of the
Church
more than a
post-factum
acknowledgment.
The
pope's
office and the council's function in the organization of the
Church
require that the
pope
should call the council together, preside over and direct its labours, and finally
promulgate
its decrees to the universal Church as expressing the mind of the whole teaching body guided by the
Holy Ghost
. Instances of such normal, natural, perfect co-operation occur in the five Lateran councils, which were presided over by the
pope
in person; the personal presence of the highest authority in the
Church
, his direction of the deliberations, and
approbation
of the decrees, stamp the conciliary proceedings throughout as the function of the
Magisterium Ecclesiae
in its most authoritative form. Councils in which the
pope
is represented by
legates
are, indeed, also representative of the whole teaching body of the
Church
, 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 the
pope
. The difference between councils presided over personally and by proxy is marked in the form in which their decrees are
promulgated
: when the
pope
has been present the decrees are published in his own name with the additional formula:
sacro approbante Concilio
; when
papal legates
have presided the decrees are attributed to the synod (
S. Synodus declarat, definit, decernit
Factors in the pope's co-operation with the council
We have seen that no council is Ecumenical unless the
pope
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 their
apologetics
on the simple and evident principle of a sufficient minimum of
papal
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 of
pope
and council are the convocation, direction, and confirmation of the council by the
pope
- but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.
Convocation
The juridical convocation of a council implies something more than an invitation addressed to all the
bishops
of the world to meet in council, viz.: the act by which in law the
bishops
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 the
pope
alone. Yet the convocation, in the loose sense of invitation to meet, of the first eight general
synods
, was regularly issued by the
Christian
emperors, whose dominion was coextensive with the
Church
, 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 the
Church
believing
it their
duty
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 the
pope
; 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 the
Christian
emperors cannot have acted thus without the consent, actual or presumed of the
pope
. Otherwise their conduct had been neither lawful nor wise. As a matter of fact, none of the eight Eastern Ecumenical
synods
, with the exception, perhaps, of the fifth, was summoned by the emperor in opposition to the
pope
. As regards the fifth, the conduct of the emperor caused the legality of the council to be questioned — a
proof
that the mind of the
Church
required the
pope's
consent for the lawfulness of councils. As regards most of these eight
synods
, particularly that of Ephesus, the previous consent of the
pope
, actual or presumed, is manifest. Regarding the convocation of the
Council of Chalcedon
, the Emperor Marcian did not quite fall in with the wishes of
Pope 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 the
pope
acknowledge such a right. On the contrary, as
Leo 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 expressions
jubere
and
keleuein
, 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 the
Apostolic See
. As the necessity of the
bishops'
meeting in council was dictated rather by the distressful condition of the
Church
than by positive orders, the
pope
contented himself with authorizing the council and this he effected by sending his
legates
to preside over and direct the work of the assembled
prelates
. The Emperor Marcian in his first letter to
Leo I
declares that the success of the intended synod depends on his — the
pope's
— authorization, and Leo, not Marcian, is later called the
auctor 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: the
pope
is the sole convener of the council as an authoritative juridical assembly. The difference lies in the circumstance that the
pope
left to the emperor the execution of the convocation and the
necessary
measures for rendering the meeting possible and surrounding it with the
éclat
due to its dignity in
Church 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 the
pope
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 the
First General Synod
were issued by
Emperor Constantine
, but as not one of those writs has come down to us, it remains
doubtful
whether or not they mentioned any previous consultation with the
pope
. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the Sixth General Synod (680) plainly affirmed that the
Council 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 the
Sixth General Council
took place in Constantinople, at a time when the
bishops
of the imperial city already attempted to rival the
bishops
of Old
Rome
, and the vast majority of its members were Greeks; their statement is therefore entirely free from the suspicion of Western
ambition
or prejudice and must be accepted as a
true
presentment of fact. Rufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius' history (I, 1) says that the emperor summoned the synod
ex sacerdotum sententia
(on the advice of the
clergy
)- it is but fair to suppose that if he consulted several
prelates
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 assembled
bishops
professed to have met in consequence of a letter of the
pope
to
Theodosius 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 the
pope
and the Synod of
Aquileia
, 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 that
Pope 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 the
duty
of the
bishops
present to hold fast to the
orthodox
faith
, expects them to accede to the sentence he has already pronounced on Nestorius, and adds that he has sent his
legates
to execute that sentence at Ephesus. The members of the council acknowledge the
papal
directions and orders, not only the
papal
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 Roman
bishop
, we have framed this sorrowful sentence against Nestorius." They express the same sentiment where they say that "the epistle of the
Apostolic See
(to Cyril, communicated to the council) already contains a judgment and a rule
psepho kai typou
on the case of Nestorius" and that they — the
bishops
in council — have executed that ruling. All this manifests the
bishops'
conviction that the
pope
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 of
Pope Leo I
and Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian. Immediately after the Robber Synod, Leo asked Theodosius to prepare a council composed of
bishops
from all parts of the world, to meet, preferably, in
Italy
. He repeated the same request, first made 13 October, 449, on the following
feast of Christmas
, and prevailed on the Western
Emperor 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 the
bishops
were to make a profession of the
orthodox
faith
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 the
pope
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 his
legates
, so that the
necessary
writs of convocation might be issued to the Eastern
bishops
. By that time, however, the situation had greatly improved in the
Eastern Church
—nearly all the
bishops
who had taken part in the Robber Synod had now repented of their aberration and signed, in union with their
orthodox
colleagues, the "Epistola dogmatica" of Leo to
Flavian
, by this act rendering the need of a council less urgent. Besides, the Huns were just then invading the West, preventing many
Latin
bishops
, whose presence at the council was most desirable, from leaving their flocks to undertake the long journey to Chalcedon. Other motives induced the
pope
to postpone the synod, e.g. the fear that it might be made the occasion by the
bishops
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 the
bishops
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 the
Christian
princes and with the consent of the
Apostolic See
). The emperor himself wrote to Leo that the synod had been held by his authority (
te auctore
), and the
bishops
of Moesia, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo, said: "At Chalcedon many
bishops
assembled by order of Leo, the
Roman pontiff
, who is the
true
head of the
bishops
".
(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Justinian I with the consent of
Pope Vigilius
, but on account of the emperor's dogmatic pretensions, quarrels arose and the
pope
refused to be present, although repeatedly invited. His Constitutum of 14 May 553, to the effect that he could not consent to
anathematize
Theodore of Mopsuestia
and Theodoret, led to open opposition between
pope
and council. In the end all was righted by Vigilius approving the synodal decrees.
(6, 7, 8) These three
synods
were each and all called by the emperors of the time with the
consent
and assistance of the
Apostolic See
Direction
The direction or presidency of councils belongs to the
pope
by the same right as their convocation and constitution. Were a council directed in its deliberations and acts by anyone independent of the
pope
and acting entirely on his own responsibility, such a council could not be the
pope's
own in any sense: the defect could only be made good by a consequent formal act of the
pope
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 of
conciliar
proceedings from a concrete example, taken from Hefele's introduction to his "History of the Councils":
Pope Adrian II
sent his
legates
to the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (787) with an express declaration to the Emperor Basil that they were to act as presidents of the council. The
legates
, Bishop Donatus of
Ostia
, Bishop Stephen of Nepesina, and the
deacon
Marinus of
Rome
, read the
papal 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 other
persons
, 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 the
papal 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 the
bishops
. The
papal 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 the
papal legates
and of the Eastern
patriarchs
, but before those of the
bishops
. Consequently
Pope Adrian II
, in a letter to the emperor, praises him for not having assisted at the council as a judge (
judex
), but merely as a
witness
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 the
patriarchs
though before the
bishops
; their names are absent from the signatures of the Acts. On the other hand it may be contended that the Eastern
patriarchs
Ignatius of Constantinople
, and the representatives of the other Eastern
patriarchs
, in some degree participated in the presidency: their names are constantly associated with those of the Roman
legates
and clearly distinguished from those of the other
metropolitans
and
bishops
. They, as it were, form with the
papal legates
a board of directors, fix with him the order of proceedings, determine who shall be heard, subscribe, like the
legates
, 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 the
papal 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), while
Ignatius of Constantinople
and the representatives of the other
patriarchs
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 the
bishops
. 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 general
synods
, showing that
papal legates
always presided over them when occupied in their proper business of deciding questions on
faith
and discipline. The exclusive right of the
pope
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 most
holy
bishops
to mingle in
ecclesiastical
inquiries". The
Council of Chalcedon
acknowledged that Pope Leo, by his
legates
, presided over it as "the head over the members". At Nicaea,
Hosius
, Vitus and Vincentius, as
papal legates
, signed before all other members of the council. The right of presiding and directing implies that the
pope
, 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 no
conciliar
decree
is legitimate if carried under protest — or even without the positive consent — of the
pope
or his
legates
. The consent of the
legates
alone, acting without a special order from the
pope
, is not sufficient to make
conciliar
decrees at once perfect and operative; what is
necessary
is the
pope's
own consent. For this reason no
decree
can become legitimate and null in law on account of pressure brought to bear on the assembly by the presiding
pope
, or by
papal 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 the
pope
, no choice being left the assembled Fathers to arrive at another decision. They were forced to conform their judgment to that of
Rome
, with or without discussion. Should
papal
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 the
papal
leadership is the grossest attack on the council's natural freedom. Thus the
Robber Synod of Ephesus
(449), though intended to be general and at first duly authorized by the presence of
papal legates
, was declared invalid and null by those same
legates
at Chalcedon 451), because the prejudiced Emperor Theodosius II had removed the representatives of the
pope
, and entrusted the direction of the council to
Dioscurus of Alexandria
Confirmation
Confirmation of the
conciliar
decrees is the third factor in the
pope's
necessary
co-operation with the council. The council does not represent the teaching Church till the visible head of the
Church
has given his approval, for, unapproved, it is but a headless, soulless, impersonal body, unable to give its decisions the binding force of
laws
for the whole Church, or the finality of judicial sentences With the
papal
approval, on the contrary, the council's pronouncements represent the fullest effort of the teaching and ruling Church, a
judicium plenissimum
beyond which no power can go. Confirmation being the final touch of perfection, the seal of authority, and the very life of
conciliar
decrees, it is
necessary
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.
Councils over which the
pope
presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the
soul
. The
Vatican Council
of 1869-70 offers an example in point.
Councils over which the
pope
presides through his
legates
are not identified with himself in the same degree as the former. They constitute separate, dependent, representative tribunals, whose findings only become final through ratification by the authority for which they act. Such is the theory. In practice, however, the
papal
confirmation is, or may be, presumed in the following cases:
When the council is convened for the express purpose of carrying out a
papal
decision previously arrived at, as was the case with most of the early
synods
; or when the
legates
give their consent in virtue of a special public instruction emanating from the
pope
; in these circumstances the
papal
ratification pre-exists, is implied in the
conciliar
decision, and need not be formally renewed after the council. It may, however, be superadded
ad abundantiam
, as, e.g. the confirmation of the
Council of Chalcedon
by
Leo I
The
necessary
consent of the
Apostolic See
may also be presumed when, as generally at the
Council of Trent
, the
legates
have personal instructions from the
pope
on each particular question coming up for decision, and act conformably, i.e. if they allow no decision to be taken unless the
pope's
consent has previously been obtained.
Supposing a council actually composed of the greater part of the episcopate, concurring freely in a unanimous decision and thus bearing unexceptional witness to the mind and sense of the whole Church: The
pope
, whose office it is to voice
infallibly
the mind of the
Church
, would be
obliged
by the very nature of his office, to adopt the council's decision, and consequently his confirmation, ratification, or
approbation
could be presumed, and a formal expression of it dispensed with. But even then his
approbation
, presumed or expressed, is juridically the constituent factor of the decision's perfection.
The express ratification in due form is at all times, when not absolutely
necessary
, at least desirable and useful in many respects:
It gives the
conciliar
proceedings their natural and lawful complement, the keystone which closes and crowns the arch for strength and beauty; it brings to the front the majesty and significance of the supreme head of the
Church
Presumed consent can but rarely apply with the same efficacy to each and all of the decisions of an important council. A solemn
papal
ratification puts them all on the same level and removes all possible
doubt
Lastly the
papal
ratification formally
promulgates
the sentence of the council as an
article of faith
to be known and accepted by all the faithful; it brings to light and public view the intrinsic ecumenicity of the council—it is the natural, official, indisputable criterion, or test, of the perfect legality of the
conciliar
transactions or conclusions.
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 a
papal
ratification to crush the endless chicanery which otherwise would endanger the success and efficacy of the highest tribunal of the
Church
. Even they who refuse to see in the
papal
confirmation an authentic testimony and sentence, declaring
infallibly
the ecumenicity of the council and its decrees to be a
dogmatic fact
, must admit that it is a sanative act and supplies possible defects and shortcomings; the Ecumenical authority of the
pope
is sufficient to impart validity and
infallibility
to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them. This was done by
Pope Vigilius
for the Fifth General Synod. Sufficient
proof
for the sanatory efficacy of the
papal
ratification lies in the absolute sovereignty of the
pope
and in the
infallibility
of his ex-cathedra pronouncements. Should it be argued, however, that the sentence of an Ecumenical council is the only absolute, final, and
infallible
sentence even then, and then more than ever, the
papal
ratification would be
necessary
. For in the transactions of an Ecumenical council the
pope
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 as
infallible
guides of their
faith
documents not authenticated by the seal of the fisherman, or the
Apostolic See
, which now wields the authority of St. Peter and of
Christ
Leo II
beautifully expresses these
ideas
in his ratification of the
Sixth General Council
: "Because this great and universal synod has most fully proclaimed the definition of the right
faith
, which the
Apostolic 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 this
Apostolic 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 is
Christ
."
No event in the
history of the Church
better illustrates the necessity and the importance of
papal
co-operation and, in particular, confirmation, than the controversies which in the sixth century raged about the
Three Chapters
. The
Three Chapters
were the condemnation (1) of
Theodore of Mopsuestia
, his
person
, 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 the
heresy
of Nestorius; Ibas and Theodoret were indeed restored at
Chalcedon
, but only after they had given
orthodox
explanations and shown that they were free from
Nestorianism
. The two points in debate were: (1) Did the
Council of Chalcedon
acknowledge the
orthodoxy
of the said
Three 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: the
approbation
of the council stands or falls with the
approbation
of the
pope's
legates
and of
Pope Leo I
himself. Defenders of the Chapters, e.g.
Ferrandus the Deacon
and
Facundus 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 of
faith
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 of
doctrine
causa fidei
) referred to is the
heresy of Eutyches
; the
Three Chapters
refer to that of Nestorius, or rather to certain
persons
and writings connected with it.
The
bishops
of the council, assembled at Constantinople in 533 for the purpose of putting an end to the
Three Chapters
controversy, addressed to
Pope Vigilius
two Confessions, the first with the Patriarch
Mennas
, the second with his successor
Eutychius
, in which, to establish their
orthodoxy
, they profess that they firmly hold to the four general
synods
as approved by the
Apostolic See
and by the
popes
. Thus we read in the
Confessio
of
Mennas
: "But also the letters of Pope Leo of blessed memory and the Constitution of the
Apostolic See
issued in support of the Faith and of the authority (
firmitas
) of the aforesaid four
synods
, we promise to follow and observe in all points and we
anathematize
any man, who on any occasion or altercation should attempt to nullify our promises." And in the
Confessio
of
Eutychius
: "
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 the
bishops
of the Apostolic
Roman See
, those of others as well as of Leo of holy memory, concerning the Faith and the four holy
synods
or any of them).
Business methods
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.
The facts
It has been sufficiently shown in the foregoing section that the
pope
, either in person or by deputy, directed the transaction of
conciliar
business. But when we look for a fixed order or set of rules regulating the proceedings we have to come down to the
Vatican Council
to find an official
Ordo concilii ecumenici
and a
Methodus 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-called
Ordo celebrandi Concilii Tridentini
is a compilation posterior to the council, written by the
conciliar
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 the
pope
. The substance of these rulings is given in the "Caeremoniale Romanum" of Augustinus Patritius (d. 1496). The institution of "congregations" dates from the
Council of Constance
(1415). At earlier councils all the meetings of the Fathers were called indiscriminately
sessiones
or
actiones
, but since
Constance
the term
session
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 termed
congregations
The distinction between general and particular congregations likewise dates from
Constance
, 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. At
Trent
there were congregations of
prelates
and congregations of
theologians
, both partly for
dogma
, partly for discipline. The congregations of
prelates
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 official
ordo
of the
Vatican Council
confirmed the
Tridentine
practice, leaving, however, to the initiative of the
prelates
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 by
individuals
capita
). At the
Vatican Council
there were seven "commissions" consisting of
theologians
from all countries, appointed a year before the actual meeting of the assembly. Their
duty
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 directive
cardinalitial
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 the
schemata
(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 the
pope
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 to
faith
); (5) deputatio pro rebus disciplinae ecclesiasticae (on
ecclesiastical discipline
); (6) pro rebus ordinum regularium (on
religious
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 proposed
schemata
had to be handed in in writing to the responsible deputation which considered the matter and modified the
schema
accordingly. Anyone desiring further to improve the modified draft had to obtain from the
legates
permission to propose his amendments in a speech, after which he put them down in writing. If, however, ten
prelates
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 the
prelates
standing or remaining seated. Next the
schema
, reformed in accordance with these votes, was submitted to a general congregation for approval or disapproval
in toto
. In case a majority of
placets
were given for it, it was accepted in a last solemn public session, after a final vote of
placet
or
non placet
("it pleases", or "it does not please").
The theory
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 of
faith
and
morals
, invested with the authority and majesty of the whole teaching body of the
Church
. To this end some means are absolutely
necessary
, 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:
The presence of all the
bishops
of the world is an ideal not to be realized, but the presence of a very great majority is desirable for many reasons. A quasi-complete council has the advantage of being a real representation of the whole Church, while a sparsely attended one is only so in law, i.e. the few members present legally represent the many absent, but only represent their juridical power, their ordinary power not being representable. Thus for every
bishop
absent there is absent an authentic witness of the Faith as it is in his
diocese
A free and exhaustive discussion of all objections.
An appeal to the universal
belief
— if existing — witnessed to by all the
bishops
in council. This, if realized, would render all further discussion superfluous.
Unanimity in the final vote, the result either of the universal
faith
as testified to by the Fathers, or of conviction gained in the debates. It is evident that these four elements in the working of a council generally contribute to its ideal perfection, but it is not less evident that they are not essential to its substance, to its conciliary effectiveness. If they were
necessary
many acknowledged councils and decrees would lose their intrinsic authority, because one or other or all of these conditions were wanting. Again, there is no standard by which to determine whether or not the number of assisting
bishops
was sufficient and the debates have been exhaustive — nor do the Acts of the councils always inform us of the unanimity of the final decisions or of the way in which it was obtained. Were each and all of these four elements essential to an authoritative council no such council could have been held, in many cases, when it was none the less urgently required by the necessities of the
Church
. Authors who insist on the ideal perfection of councils only succeed in undermining their authority, which is, perhaps, the object they aim at. Their fundamental
error
is a
false
notion of the nature of councils. They conceive of the function of the council as a witnessing to, and teaching of, the generally accepted
faith
— whereas it is essentially a juridical function, the action of judges as well as of witnesses of the Faith. This leads us to consider the essential elements in
conciliar
action.
From the notion that the council is a court of judges the following inferences may be drawn:
The
bishops
, in giving their judgment, are directed only by their personal conviction of its rectitude; no previous consent of all the faithful or of the whole episcopate is required. In unity with their head they are one solid college of judges authoritatively constituted for united, decisive action — a body entirely different from a body of simple witnesses.
This being admitted, the assembled college assumes a representation of their colleagues who were called but failed to take their seats, provided the number of those actually present is not altogether inadequate for the matter in hand. Hence their resolutions are rightly said to rest on universal consent:
universali consensu constituta
, as the formula runs.
Further, on the same supposition, the
college
of judges is subject to the rule obtaining in all assemblies constituted for framing a judicial sentence or a common resolution, due regard being paid to the special relations, in the present instance, between the head and the members of the college: the co-operative verdict embodies the opinion of the majority, including the head, and in law stands for the verdict of the whole assembly, it is
communi sensu constitutum
(established by common consent). A majority verdict, even headed by
papal legates
, if disconnected from the personal action of the
pope
, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim
infallibility
. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the
papal
approbation
. The verdict of a majority, therefore, not endorsed by the
pope
, has no binding force on either the dissentient members present or the absent members, nor is the
pope
bound in any way to endorse it. Its only value is that it justifies the
pope
, in case he approves it, to say that he confirms the decision of a council, or gives his own decision
sacro approbante concilio
(with the consent of the council). This he could not say if he annulled a decision taken by a majority including his
legates
, or if he gave a casting vote between two equal parties. A unanimous conciliary decision, as distinct from a simple majority decision, may under certain circumstances, be, in a way, binding on the
pope
and compel his
approbation
— by the compelling power, not of a superior authority, but of the
Catholic
truth
shining forth in the witnessing of the whole Church. To exert such power the council's decision must be clearly and unmistakably the reflex of the
faith
of all the absent
bishops
and of the
faithful
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 the
conciliar
assembly is primarily a judge who pronounces a verdict conjointly with the
pope
, and, at the same time, acts more or less as witness in the case. Its position is similar to that of
St. Paul
towards the first
Christians
quod accepistis a me per multos testes
. In relation to the
pope
the council is but an assembly of authentic witnesses and competent counsellors whose influence on the
papal
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. The
Vatican Council
, not excluding the fourth session in which
papal infallibility
was defined, comes nearer than any former council to the ideal perfection just described. It was composed of the greatest number of
bishops
, both absolutely and in proportion to the totality of
bishops
in the
Church
; 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 the
doctrine
under discussion, viz. the
duty
of submitting in obedience to the
Holy 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.
Infallibility of general councils
All the arguments which go to prove the
infallibility
of the
Church
apply with their fullest force to the
infallible
authority of general councils in union with the
pope
. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the
Holy Ghost
. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of
Jerusalem
Acts 15:28
), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the
Spirit 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 the
dogma
it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of
faith
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 the
Church
Emperor Constantine
saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" and
Athanasius
wrote to the
bishops
of Africa: "What
God
has spoken through the
Council of Nicaea
endureth for ever."
St. Ambrose
(Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and
Pope Leo the Great
expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among
Catholics
" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed
instruente Spiritu Sancto
, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same
doctrine
was embodied in many professions of
faith
may be seen in
Denzinger'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 unshaken
belief
is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of
truth
, is come, he will teach you all
truth
. . ."
John 16:13
) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (
Matthew 28:20
), "The gates of
hell
shall not prevail against it [i.e. the
Church
]" (
Matthew 16:18
).
Papal and conciliar infallibility
Papal and
conciliar
infallibility
are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the
pope
are
infallible
by reason of that
approbation
, because the
pope
is
infallible
also
extra concilium
, without the support of a council. The
infallibility proper to the pope
is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's
infallibility
. The Divine constitution of the
Church
and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to
faith
and
morals
, independently of the
pope's infallibility
: a fallible
pope
supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce
infallible
decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican
decree
concerning the
supreme pontiff's
ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be
infallible
even by those who denied the
papal infallibility
; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the
papal
privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the
infallibility
of councils, and the claims that it can be
proved
separately and independently on its proper merits. The
infallibility
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 all
Christ's
co-workers for the
salvation
of man through
true
faith
and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the
truth
for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the
necessary
completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of
bishops
. The same presence strengthens the action of the
pope
, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in
truth
, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of
infallibility
on the
conciliar
decree
irrespective of his own
personal infallibility
Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the
pope
have a double guarantee of
infallibility
: their own and that of the
infallible pope
. The council's dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of
papal infallibility
, nor does that definition imply a "circular demonstration" by which the council would make the
pope
infallible
and the
pope
would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the
pope
has no guarantee of
infallibility
, therefore the
conciliar
and the
papal
infallibilities
are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. An
infallible
statement of Divine
truth
is the voice of
Christ
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, the
bishops
who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive to
zeal
in publishing them and enforcing them in their
dioceses
; 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 Old
Rome
made a solemn
promulgation
of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre of
heresies
These considerations further account for the great esteem in which
conciliar
definitions have always been held in the
Church
, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the
Apostolic See
. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the
rule of faith
, the authority of the councils and that of the
popes
as substantially the same. Thus, we read in the formula, or profession of
faith
imposed by
Pope Hormisdas
(514-23) on the Eastern
bishops
implicated in the
schism
of Acacius: "The first [step towards]
salvation
is to keep the rule of
orthodox
[rectae]
faith
and in no wise to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers [i.e. councils]. But the words of
Our Lord
to St. Peter (Thou art
Peter
. . .) cannot be passed over, for what He said has been verified by the events, since in the
Apostolic See
the
Catholic
religion has always been preserved without spot or stain. Wishing by no means to be separated from this hope and
faith
, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we
anathematize
all
heresies
, especially the
heretic
Nestorius, in his time
Bishop
of Constantinople, who was condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Blessed Celestine, Pope of
Rome
, and by Cyril,
Bishop
of Alexandria . . . We declare and approve all the letters of Leo, Pope, which he wrote concerning the
Christian religion
, as we have stated before, following in all things the
Apostolic See
and professing [
praedicantes
] all its constitutions. And therefore I hope to be worthy to be with you [the
pope
] in the one communion which this
Apostolic See
professes, in which lies the entire, veracious, and peaceful solidity of the
Christian religion
. . . ." It should be noted that in this formula the
infallibility
of the
Apostolic See
is the centre from which radiates the
infallibility
of the councils.
Subject matter of infallibility
The subject matter of
infallibility
, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the
theological
, 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 of
infallibility
made to the
Church
as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is
infallible
, not the sense of individual
churchmen
of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the
pope
. Decisions referring to
dogma
were called in the East
diatyposeis
(constitutions,
statutes
); those concerned with discipline were termed
kanones
(canons, rules), often with the addition of
tes eutaxias
(of discipline, or good order). The expressions
thesmoi
and
horoi
apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known as
anathematismoi
anathemas
).
In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed:
canones
and
decreta
signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. The
Council of Trent
styled its disciplinary edicts
decreta de reformatione
; its dogmatic definitions
decreta
, without qualification, where they positively assert the points of
faith
then in dispute, and
canones
when, in imitation of the ancient
anathematisms
, they imposed an
anathema 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 attached
anathemas
) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that the
Tridentine
capita
are no more than explanations of the
canones
, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the
rule 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 the
truth
without discovering and refuting
error
, it has pleased the Holy Synod to subjoin the following canons, so that all, now knowing the
Catholic doctrine
, may also understand what
heresies
they have to beware against and avoid." The same remark applies to the chapters of the
Vatican Council
in its two Constitutions, as appears from the concluding words of the
proemium
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 the
doctrina catholica
, i.e. the authorized teaching of the
Church
, but not always and invariably
dogmata formalia
, i.e. propositions of
faith
defined as such.
Promulgation
Promulgation
of
conciliar
decrees is
necessary
because they are
laws
and no law is binding until it has been brought unmistakably to the
knowledge
of all it intends to bind. The decrees are usually
promulgated
in the name of the synod itself; in cases of the
pope
presiding in person they have also been published in the form of
papal
decrees with the formula:
sacrâ universali synodo approbante
. This was done first at the
Third Lateran Council
, then at the
Fourth
and
Fifth Lateran
, and also partly at the
Council of Constance
Is a council above a pope?
The Councils of
Constance
and of
Basle
affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to the
pope
, and French
theologians
have adopted that proposition as one of the famous four Gallican Liberties. Other
theologians
affirmed, and still affirm, that the
pope
is above any general council. The leading exponents of the Gallican
doctrine
are: Dupin (1657-1719), professor at the
Sorbonne
in
Paris
("Dissertatio de concilii generalis supra Romanum Pontificem auctoritate", in his book on the ancient
discipline 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 side
Lucius Ferraris
(Bibliotheca Canonica, s.v. Concilium) and Roncaglia, editor and corrector of Natalis Alexander's history, stoutly defend the
papal
superiority. Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that
Pope Martin V
approved the declaration of the
Council of Constance
, and
Pope Eugene IV
the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecumenical synod over the
pope
), concluded that both
popes
, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an
approbation
of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the
pope
. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)
The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent the
Church
; the
pope
therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the
Church
. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the
pope
is neither above nor below the
Church
, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as
intellect
and will are in the
soul
. By taking our stand on the Scriptural
doctrine
that the
Church
is the mystical body of Christ of which the
pope
is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the
pope
is but a lifeless trunk, a "rump parliament", no matter how well attended it be.
Can a council depose the pope?
This question is a legitimate one, for in the
history of the Church
circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for
papal
authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of
Constance
and
Basle
, and Gallican
theologians
, hold that a council may depose a
pope
on two main grounds:
ob mores
(for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
ob fidem
(on account of his
faith
or rather want of
faith
, i.e.
heresy
).
In point of fact, however,
heresy
is the only legitimate ground. For a
heretical
pope
has ceased to be a member of the
Church
, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A
sinful
pope
, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a
sinful
unjust
ruler for whom we must
pray
, 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 the
Apostolic See
, and the right of each is
doubtful
. In such a case the council, according to
Bellarmine
(Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a
right
to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the
Synod of Constance
. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful
pope
assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate
pope
being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.
Not even
John XXIII
could have been deposed at
Constance
, had his election not been
doubtful
and himself suspected of
heresy
John XXIII
, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the
Apostolic See
lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding
Rome
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 the
supreme pontiff
of the elder
Rome
" (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).
Sources
SCHEEBEN wrote copiously and learnedly in defence of the Vatican Council; his article in the
Kirchenlexicon
, written in 1883, contains the marrow of his previous writings, while HEFELE'S
History of the Councils
is the standard work on the subject. For a deeper study of the councils a good collection of the
Acta 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 Paris
Collectio 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. The
Acta 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 standard
History 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.
About this page
APA citation.
Wilhelm, J.
(1908).
General Councils.
In
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
New York: Robert Appleton Company.
MLA citation.
Wilhelm, Joseph.
"General Councils."
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Vol. 4.
New York: Robert Appleton Company,
1908.
.
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 webmaster
at
newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
Copyright © 2026 by
New Advent LLC
. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT