Page:Orthodox Eastern Church (Fortescue).djvu/110

74 The Emperor has no commission from Christ to rule the Church, the possibility of holding such councils would depend upon the existence of the Empire, whereas there has been no Emperor in the East since 1453, none in the West since 1805. Lastly, Emperors have summoned and declared as œcumenical such heretical synods as the Iconoclast one ordered by Constantine V in 753 at Hieria. The theory that would find most favour with other Christians would doubtless be that it is the general acceptance of the Church that makes a council œcumenical. But the Church, that is, the great body of the faithful, and their bishops, want to know first whether a synod is œcumenical before they can tell whether it is their duty to accept it. When "the whole world groaned and wondered to find itself Arian" it would have been of little use to tell a Christian, amid the endless confusion of synods and anti-synods which all claimed to represent the Church, to accept that one as œcumenical which—he and others like himself accepted. Moreover, there has always been a party (often a large party) which rejected these councils. The test of orthodoxy is to accept them; those Christians are orthodox who agree with the general councils. If, then, we say that those councils are general with which the orthodox agree, we have a perfect example of a vicious circle. There remains, then, our position, that an œcumenical synod is one summoned by the Pope, which sits under his presidency as Primate, whose decrees receive the Papal assent. It may, however, happen that a council, which is not œcumenical in itself, receives this character afterwards from the Pope's confirmation; his assent may supply for former irregularities. There are parallel cases in Canon and Civil Law. The second and fifth general councils are of this nature. Œcumenical neither in their summons nor in their sessions, they became so later through the Pope's assent. And, lastly, the result of this is that only those