Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/489

 COUNCILS

431

COUNCILS

nay, however, be superadded ad ahundantiam, as, 3. g. the confirmation of the Council of Chalcedon by Leo I.

(b) The necessary consent of the Apostolic See may ilso be presumed when, as generally at the Council of Frent, the legates have personal instructions from the 3ope on each particular question coming up for deci- sion, and act conformably, i. e. if they allow no decision jeen obtained.
 * o be taken unless the pope's consent has previously

(c) Supposing a council actually composed of the greater part of the episcopate, concurring freely in a iiianiinous decision and thus Ijearing unexceptional vitnpss to the mind and sense of the whole Church; riio pope, whose office it is to voice infallibly the mind )f the Church, would be oljligcd by the very nature of lis office, to adopt the coimcil's decision, and conse- piently his confirmation, ratification, or approbation ■ould be presumed, and a formal expression of it dis- )ensed with. But even then his approbation, pre- lumed or expressed, is juridically the constituent actor of the decision's perfection.

(.3) The express ratification in due form is at all imes, when not absolutely necessary, at least desir- ible and useful in many respects: —

(a) It gives the conciliar proceedings their natural md lawful complement, the keystone which closes and Towns the arch for strength and beauty; it brings to he front the majesty and significance of the supreme lead of the Church.

(b) Presimied consent can but rarely apply with the ame efficacy to each and all of the decisions of an im- lortant council. A solemn papal ratification puts hem all on the same level and removes all possible loubt.

(c) Lastly the papal ratification forinally promul-
 * ates the sentence of the council as an article of faith

be known and accepted by all the faithful; it )rings to light and public view the intrinsic oecumen- city of the council; it is the natural, official, indispu- able criterion, or test, of the perfect legality of the onciliar transactions or conclusions. If we bear in nind the numerous disturbing elements at work in .nd around an oecumenical council, the conflicting eligious, political, scientific, and personal interests lontending for supremacy, or at least eager to secure ome advantage, we can easily realize the necessity of

1 papal ratification to cru.sh the endless chicanery fhich otherwise would endanger the success and effi- acy of the highest tribunal of the Church. Even hey who refuse to see in the papal confinnation an uthentic testimony and sentence, declaring infallibly he cecvimenicity of the council and its decrees to be a logmatic fact, must admit that it is a sanative act .nd supplies possil)Ie defects and shortcomings; the ecumenical authority of the pope is sufficient to im- lart validity and infallibility to the decrees he makes lis own by officially ratifying them. This was done ly Pope Vigilius for the Fifth General Synod. Suffi- ient proof for the sanatory efficacy of the papal rati- ication lies in the absolute sovereignty of the pope ,nd in the infallibility of his ex-cathedra pronounce- nents. Should it be argued, however, that the sen- cnce of an oecumenical council is the only ab.solute, inal, and infallible sentence, even then, and then lore than ever, the papal ratification would be nece.s- arj'. For in the tran.sactions of an oecumenical ouncil the pope plays the principal part, and if any leficiency in his action, especially in the excrci.se of lis own special prerogatives, were apparent, the la- bours of the council would lie in vain. The faithful esitate to accept as infallible guides of their faith ocuments not aullicnticati'il by the seal of the fisher- man, or the .\p(istiilic .Sec. which now wields th<' au- hority of St. Peter and of Christ. Leo II beautifully xpre,s.ses these ideas in his ratification of the Sixtli leneral 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 w-e, 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 the Lord Himself on the solid rock which is Christ. "

No event in the history of the Church better illus- trates the necessity and the importance of papal co- operation and, in particular, confirmation, than the controversies which in the si.xtli century raged about the Three Chapters. The Three Chapters were the condemnation (1) of Theodore of Mopsuestia, his per- son, and his writings; (2) of Theodoret's writings against Cyril and the Council of Ephesus; (3) of a let- ter 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 Nes- torianism. 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 contend- ing parties agreed in the principle of the test: the ap- probation of the council stands or falls with the appro- bation 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 imtnobilis 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, pra>ter 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 Constan- tinople in 533 for the purpose of putting an end to the Three Chapters controversy, addressed to Pope Vigil- ius two Confessions, the first with the Patriarch Men- nas, the second with his successor Eutychius, in which, to establish their orthodoxy, they profess that they firmly hold to the four general synods as ap- proved 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 Con- stitution of the Apostolic See issued in support of the Faith and of the authority (firmitan) 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: " Suscipinius aulem et ampler! imur cpistolas prcesulum Romance Sedis Aposlolicw, tarn aliorum quam Leonis sanctfB memorial de fide scriptan el de qualtuor Sanctis corwiliis vcl de uno corum" (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 fourholy synods or any of them).

VII. Business Mkthod.s. — The way in which coun- cils trans.act business now demands our attention. Here as in most things, there is an ideal which is never completely realized in practice.

(a) Tlic 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 regu- lating the proceedings we have to come down to the