COUNCILS
42.S
COUNCILS
declared this couiiril rerumenical, although Grogorj'
still refused to sanction its canons. The First Synod
of Constantinople [jresents, then, an instance of a
minimum of papal co-operation impressing on a par-
ticular council the mark of universality. The normal
co-operation, liowever, requires on the part of the head
of the Church more than a post-Jactum acknowledg-
ment.
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. In- stances of such normal, natural, perfect co-operation occur in the five Lateran coimcils, which were pre- sided over by the pope in person; the personal pres- ence of the highest authority in the Church, his direc- tion of the deliberations, and approbation of the de- crees, stamp the conciliary proceedings throughout as the function of the Magisterium Ecdesiw in its most authoritative form. Councils in which the pope is represented by legates are, indeed, also representa- tive 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 tlie 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 pre- sided 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 a]>- probante Concilio; when papal legates have presided the decrees are attributed to the synod (S. Synodus declarat, definit, decernit).
VI. F,\CTORS IN THE PoPe'.S Co-OPERATION WITH
THE Council. — We have seen that no council is oecumenical unless the pope has made it his own by co-operation, which admits of a minimum and a max- imum, 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 mini- mum of papal co-operation, instead of endeavouring to prove, at all costs, that a maximum is both re- quired in principle and demonstrable in history. The three factors constituting the solidarity of pope and council are the convocation, direction, and confirma- tion 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.
(a) 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, 1, V.WA) and of Chal- cedon (Hardouin, II, 42) .show that the emperors acted as protectors of the Church, believing it their duty to further by every means in their iiower tlie 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 fol- lowed none but their own initiative for convening the council and fixing its place of meeting. It is, how- ever, evident that the Christian emperors cannot have
ODVOt
acted thus without the consent, actual or presumedj
of the pope. Otherwise their conduct had been neiJ
ther lawful nor wise. As a matter of fact, none of tha
eight Eastern oecumenical 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 tha;
council to be questioned — a proof that the mind of
the Church required the pope's consent for the lawJ
fulness of councils. As regards most of these eigha
synods, particularly that of Ephesus, the previous
consent of the j)ope, actual or presumed, is manifesto
Regarding the convocation of the Council of Chalce4
don, the Emperor Marcian did not quite fall in withJ
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 let-
ters (Epp. Ixxxix, xc, ed. Ballerini),he only submitted; !l
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 con- stitute 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 ex- pressions jubere and K(\eveiv, occasionally used in the ictsoi wording of the convocation, do not necessarily con- elesiii vey the notion of strict orders not to be resisted; they Slito also have the meaning of exhorting, inducing, bidding, itliei The juridical constitution of the council could only its. emanate, and in fact always did emanate, from theeiis Apostolic See. As the necessity of the bishops' meet- is! tot ing in council was dictated rather by the distressful bestot condition of the Church than by positive orders, the ml add pope contented himself with authorizing the council, entecre and this he effected by sending his legates to preside tboil over and direct the work of the assembled prelates, iffapa The Emperor Marcian in his first letter to Leo I de- kiatii clares that the success of the intended sjiiod depends oniumij on his — the pope's — authorization, and Leo, not Mar ftrse cian, is later called the auctor synodi without anj aiiial i restrictive qualification, especially at the time of th( leyeup "Three Chapters" dispute, where the extension of th( 'ikepB sjniod's authority was called in question. The law ilaliol therefore, at that period was the same as it is now ai ii^eif far as essentials are concerned: the pope is the solioiw convener of the council as an authoritative juridica btmliii assembly. The difference lies in the circumstano isiiiKp that the pope left to the emperor the execution of th" ke.iyiiod convocation and the necessarj' measures for renderinj l! Ho; the meeting possible and surrounding it with th Slwisl eclat due to its dignity in Church and State. ThpoiPo material, or business, part, of the coimcils being thu Iwian. entirely in the hands of the emperors, it was to b is< lAti expected that the pope was sometimes induced — iftiiopg not forced — by circumstances to make his authorizt uUv.inl tion suit the imperial wishes and arrangements. nielSD
After studying the principles it is well to see ho' t indi they worked out in fact. Hence the following hist« ijilHi rical summary of the convocation of the first ei^ i ;B[(,it general councils: — ^:A}))]
(1) Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III, \i) informs i fc ide^ that the writs of convocation to the First Genep iffiupitu Synod were issued by Emperor Constantine, but t ia ;, not one of those writs has come down to us, it remaij iti i doubtful whether or not they mentioned any previoi Rfrv : consultation with the pope. It is, however, an und I :,fHiiuj, niable fact that the Sixth General Synod (OSO) plain t:.-'ii.n«
affirmed that the Council of Nica>a hail been conveni
by the emperor and Pope Sylvester (Mansi, Coll. Com l
XI, C61). The same statement appears in the li t
of Sylvester found in the "Liber Pontificalis", b
this evidence need not be pre.s,sed, the evidence frfl
the council being, from the circumstances in which io
was given, of sufficient strength to carry the poll imif
For the Sixth General Council took place ill Consta iit(j
iaiag,]
