Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/485

 COUNCILS

427

COUNCILS

ited; at the Council of Trent, however, such pro- nators were admitted only with great limitations, i at the Vatican Council they were even excluded m the council hall.

Besides voting members, every council admits, as isultors, a mnnber of doctors in theology and canon IT. In the Council of Constance the consultors re allowed to vote. Other clerics liave always been tnitted as notaries. Lay people may be, and have »n, present at councils for various reasons, but rer as voters. They gave advice, made complaints, lented to decisions, and occasionally also signed the ristianity, they assisted either personally or through auties (commissarii). Constantine the Great was sius II sent his representatives to the third, and iperor Marcian sent his to the fourth, at the sixth sion of which himself and the Empress Pulcheria listed personally. Constantine Pogonatus was 'sent at the sixth; the Empress Irene and her son nstantine Porphyrogenitus only sent their repre- itative to the seventh, whereas Emperor Basil, the icedonian, assisted at the eighth, sometimes in per- 1, sometimes through his deputies. Only the Sec- i and the Fifth General Synods were held in the ab- ice of the em])erors or imperial commissaries, but th Theodosius the Great and Jirstinian were at Con- ntinople while the councils were sitting, and kept constant intercourse with them. In the West the endance of kings, even at provincial synods, was frecpient occurrence. The motive and object of ' royal presence were to protect the synods, to gliten their authority, to lay before them the needs particular Christian states and countries, rhis laudable and legitimate co-operation led by ar matters. The Eastern Emperor Michael imed the right to summon councils without obtain- lally or by proxy. But Pope Nicholas I resisted ! pretensions of Emperor Michael, pointing out to n, in a letter (86.5), that his imperial predecessors 1 only been present at general synods dealing with ,tters of faith, and from that fact drew the conclu- n that all other synods should be held without the peror's or his commissaries' presence. A few years erthe Eighth General Synod (Can. xvii, Hefele, IV, I ) declared it false that no synod could be held with- t the emperor's presence — the emperors had only m present at general councils — and that it was not ht for secular princes to witness the condemnation ecclesijistics (at provincial synods). As early as ■ fourth century the bishops greatly complained of i action of Constantine the Great in imposing his nmi.ssary on the Synod of Tyre (335). In the West, tvever, secular princes were • present even at na- nal synods, e. g. Sisenand, King of the Spanish Vis- ths, was at the Fourth Council of Toledo (636) and ng Chintilian at the fifth (638); Charlemagne as- ted at the Council of Frankfort (794) and two Anglo- xon kings at the Synod of Whitby {Collatio Pharen- ) in 6(i4. But step by step Rome established the nciple that no royal commissary may be present at y council, except a general one, in which "faith, onnation, and peace" are in question. (b) Rcriuixite nutnlier of members. — The number of hops present required to constitute an oecumenical incil cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so ined. for (ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-opera- n with the head of the Church, and only secondarily the number of co-operators. It is physically iin- ssible to bring together all the bishops of the world, p is there any standard by which to determine even approximate number, or proportion, of prelates jessarj' to secure cecumenicity. All should be in- ed, no one should be debarred, a somewhat consid-
 * rees. Since the Roman emperors had accepted
 * sent in person at the First General Council ; Thco-
 * rees to interference with the pope's rights in con-
 * the pope's consent, and to take part in them per-

erable number of representatives of the several prov- inces 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 Cluilceilon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the coimcil was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. .\s a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight gen- eral synods. Occasionally, e. g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deinities with pre- cise in.structions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern .synotis their (ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the West- ern, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prom- inent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, af- fords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of cecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent than the organic connexion of the council with the head of the Church.

(c) Papal headship the formal element of councils. — It is the action of the pope that makes the councils cecumenic. 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 sjjoken e.x 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 bind- ing on the whole Church. The earliest enunciation of the principle is found in the letter of the Council of Sardica (343) to Pope Julius I, and was often quoted, since the beginning of the fifth centuiy, as the (Nicffian) canon concerning the necessity of papal co-operation in all the more important con- ciliary Acts. The Church historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl., II, xvii) makes Pope Julius say, in reference to the Council of Antioch (341), that the law of the Church (Kavdv) forbids "the churches to pass laws contrary to the judgment 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 de- position of a jiatriarch), 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 Ni- cene Creed received its present form — the one used at Mass — had in itself no claim to be oecumenical. Before Pope Damasus and the Western bishops had seen its full Acts they condemned certain of its pro- ceedings 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 coimcil 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 m.ay be drawn from the way in which the Roman legates at the Fourth General Synod i Chalcedon, 451) allowed, without any protest, apiieals 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 Vigiliu.s, Pelagius II, and Gregory the Great