Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/487

 COUNCILS

429

ddtJNdiLS

nople, at a time when the bishops of the imperial ty already attempted to rival the bishojis of Old ome, and the vast majority of its members were reeks ; their statement is therefore entirely free from le suspicion of Western ambition or prejudice and ust be accepted as a true presentment of fact, ufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius' history (1,1) ys that the emperor summonetl the synod ex sticcr- •tuni senleiitid (on the advice of the clergy); it is but ir to suppose that if he consulted several prelates he d not omit to consult with the heatl of all. (2) The Second General Synotl (381) was not, at ■st, intended to be oecumenical; it only became so !cause it was accepted in the West, as has been own above. It was not summoned by Pope Da- asus, as is often contended, for the assertion that the sembled bishops professed to have met in consc- ience of a letter of the pope to Theodosius the Great based on a confusion. The docimient here brought as eviilence refers to the sjaiod of the following year liich was indeed summoned at the instigation of the )pe and the Synod of Aquileia, but was not an oecu- enical synod.

(.3) The Third General Council (Ephesus, 4.31) was invoked by Emperor Theodosius II and his Western Ileague Valentinian III; this is evident from the II) to Theodosius that he could not appear in person the synod, but that he would send his representa- /es. And in his epistle of 8 May to the synod itself, ! insists on the duty of the bishops present to hold st to the orthodox faith, expects them to accede to e sentence he has already pronounced on Nestorius, id adds that he has sent his legates to execute that ntence at Ephesus. The members of the council knowledge the papal directions and orders, not only e papal consent, in the wording of their solemn con- •mnation of Nestorius: "Urged by the Canons and nfonning to the Letter of our most holy Father and How servant Celestine the Roman bishop, we have imed this sorrowful sentence against Nestorius." ley express the same sentiment where they say that ted to the council) already contains a judgment and rule ("A^^o tai rvTrov) on the case of Nestorius", id that they — the bishops in coimcil — have executeil at ruling. All this manifests the bishops' conviction at the pope w.as the moving and quickening spirit of e synod.
 * ts of the council. It is equally evident that Pope
 * lestine I gave his consent, for he w-rote (15 May,
 * he epistle of the Apostolic See (to Cyril, communi-

(4) How the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, il) was brought together is set forth in several writ- gs of Pope Leo I and Emperors Theodosius II and arcian. Immediately after the Robber SjTiod, bishops from all parts of the world, to meet, pref- ably, in Italy. He rc]ieated the same request, first ade 13 October, 449, on the following feast of Christ- as, and prevailed on the Western Emperor Valen- lian III together with his empress and his mother, support it at the Byzantine Court. Once more (in ily, 4.50) Leo renewed his request, adding, however, at the council might be dispensed with if all the shops were to make a profession of the orthodox ith without being tniited in council. About this ne Theodosius II died and was succeeded by his iter, St. Pulcheria, and her husband Marcian. Both once informed the pope of their willingness to sum- on the council, Marcian specially asking him to state writing whether he could assist at the synod in por- n CT through his legates, so that the necessary writs convocation might be issued to the Eastern bishops. C that time, however, the situation had greatly im- oved in the Ea.stem Church; nearly all the bishops lo had taken part in the Robber Svnod had now pentcd of their aberration and signed, in union with eir orthodox colleagues, the "Epistola dogmatica"
 * o asked Theodosius to prepare a council composed

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 svmnnoned the synod, and Leo therefore gave his instnicticms 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 prin- cipum et ex consensu apostolicse 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 atictore), anil the bishops of Moesia, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo, said: "At Chalcedon many bishops assembled by order of Leo, the Roman pon- tiff, who is the true head of the bishops".

(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Jus- tinian I with the consent of Pope Vigilius (q. v.), 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 ctTect 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. (See Constan- tinople, Councils op; Nic.ba, Cooncils of.)

(b) Direction. — The direction or presidency of councils belongs to the pope by the same right as their convocation and constitution. Were a council di- rected in its deliberations and acts by anyone inde- pendent 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 (Ecu- menical 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 rescrijit to the .synod. Not the slightest objection was raised. Their names took precedence in all protocols ; they determined the dura- tion 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. Tliese same Acts, however, at once clearly distinguish the emperor and his sons from the synod when, after naming them, they continue: conveniente sanctA ac uninersnli s^ynoito (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