Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

1. An ecumenical council (universal, general) is the union of the whole episcopate with the supreme pontiff for the treatment of ecclesiastical affairs. In order, therefore, that a council be truly ecumenical, both must concur, namely the primate of the whole Church as head of the council and the bishops of the universal Church as members of the council. And indeed the conditions required on both sides are these:

a) On the part of the head of the council, that α) he possess by right the threefold right of convoking, presiding over, and confirming the council. For the convocation, the presidency, and the confirmation of the council are acts of jurisdiction over the universal Church, as is evident, since the bishops of the whole world are summoned. But jurisdiction over the universal Church the Roman pontiff alone has by divine right in virtue of his primacy. Therefore he alone possesses the right of convoking, presiding over, and confirming the council. Although, however, the pontiff can in some cases renounce an explicit convocation and confirmation, it is nevertheless always and absolutely required that β) he exercise in reality at least the presidency of the council. For a pontifical convocation, if it is lacking, can be supplied by a subsequent implicit approval, in that the pope takes part in the council. Likewise an explicit confirmation is not required, provided that an implicit confirmation is present in that the pope pronounces judgment in the council himself or through his legates furnished with determinate instructions.¹ But a genuine council will never exist unless the pontiff is present and presides in reality and in act, himself or through his legates. For a council is ecumenical inasmuch as it represents the universal Church; but a council without the pope, since it is a body without a head, does not represent the universal Church.²

b) On the part of the members of the council, that α) all bishops who actually possess jurisdiction be called (whether they are already consecrated or not yet consecrated). For all bishops possessing jurisdiction belong by divine right to the apostolic college, as we have proved elsewhere.³ By the ecclesiastical law now in force⁴ there are also called to the council the cardinals, the abbots "nullius" and the generals of religious orders, because they enjoy quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, as well as the titular bishops, because they have potential (but not actual) jurisdiction.⁵ But it is not necessary that all bishops convene, since this is morally impossible; rather it suffices that β) so many bishops be present as are able, morally speaking, to represent the whole Church, i. e. to attest the doctrine of the whole ecclesiastical magisterium. For this, however, it is not required that the greater part of the bishops convene; indeed not even a third part is required, provided that at least some bishops from each region are present or that the mind of all regions is otherwise known, e. g. the legates of the supreme pontiff are able to attest the mind of the western regions. Bishops who, when called, do not come, renounce their right and tacitly consent to the decrees to be issued.⁶

2. The definitions of ecumenical councils are those solemn conclusions by which the councils, by their supreme authority, teach that something is to be held by faith. For the genuine notion of definitions three conditions are required, namely that:

a) They be issued in clear terms, i. e. in a manner of speaking by which it is signified without any doubt that something is to be believed or rejected. For: "No matter is understood as declared or dogmatically defined unless this manifestly appears."⁷ Hence things said in passing, arguments adduced, and the like, which occur in the acts of the councils, are not held to be defined. It is clear, however, that the council in issuing definitions is not bound to any formula of words. Therefore some theologians have wrongly thought that the "decrees" or "chapters" of the councils contain no definitions, but only the "canons" fortified with anathema.⁸ The chapters and canons differ in this alone, that the former positively set forth the truths to be believed, the latter enunciate the errors to be avoided.

b) They be issued by free votes, that is, with force, fear, or fraud excluded as inflicted upon the fathers to bend them to one or the other opinion. For the assent of the teaching Church would by no means be had, if the bishops' subscription were extorted by threats and weapons of the secular arm, by the terrorism of a seditious populace, or by the arrogance of violent prelates, as happened in the conciliabulum of Ephesus, that of Rimini, and in other robber assemblies. Whether any council has enjoyed the necessary freedom is a question of fact, which it belongs to the ecclesiastical authority to decide definitively.

c) They be issued in union with the supreme pontiff, i. e. that they proceed from that part of the bishops with which the supreme pontiff stands. For there is infallible magisterium where there is the apostolic college with its head Peter. Hence it is most false to regard the pontiff as the presiding officer of a senate, whose office it is to count the votes and to promulgate wherever the greater part goes. Rather he himself is the supreme judge, whose office it is to judge of the bishops' opinion and to give or deny his confirmation. Therefore a definition to which the supreme pontiff does not adhere is not a conciliar definition, even if a great or the greater part of the fathers voted for such a definition. Besides, it has never happened that a relatively great part, let alone a majority, of the bishops disagreed with the pope, although in all councils there were dissenting fathers.⁹

3. The infallibility of conciliar definitions is easily proven:

a) From the infallibility of the whole episcopate, already proven long since.¹⁰ For since the whole episcopate is infallible in teaching, it teaches infallibly then most of all, when it exercises its magisterium in the most solemn manner in issuing conciliar definitions.

b) From the fathers, who without hesitation ascribe infallible force to the definitions of the councils. Thus St. Athanasius, speaking of the decree of the Nicene council against the Arians, says: "The word of the Lord, put forth through the ecumenical Nicene synod, abides forever."¹¹ Of the same decree St. Ambrose protests: "From which neither death nor the sword will be able to separate me."¹² St. Basil adds: "The Nicene fathers spoke not without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."¹³ St. Leo equates the definitions of the councils with the authorities of Scripture and ascribes to them absolute faith: "We must therefore detest and perseveringly avoid what heretical fraud strives to obtain, nor are the things piously and fully defined to be called back into any disputation, lest we ourselves seem, at the will of the condemned, to doubt concerning those things which are manifestly in all things consonant with the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic authorities. Whence if there are any who dissent from those things which have been constituted from heaven, let them be left to their own opinions and depart from the unity of the Church ..."¹⁴ Almost the same St. Gregory teaches: "As I profess to receive and venerate the four books of the holy Gospel, so also the four (earlier) councils."¹⁵

c) From the persuasion of the teaching and of the learning Church. The teaching Church in all councils pronounced anathema against those who would not receive its definitions. But it could not act thus, if it were not itself persuaded of the infallibility of the conciliar definitions. The learning Church has always embraced the definitions of the ecumenical councils with such veneration, that the faithful have not seldom preferred to suffer exile and death itself rather than depart from them. E. g. in Africa, while the Vandal persecution (427-484) raged, very many sustained martyrdom, because they refused to fall away from the definitions of the Nicene council.¹⁶ Therefore the Church, both learning and teaching, has always attributed infallible force to the conciliar definitions.

Nevertheless, not only those things are to be held infallibly which are defined by the solemn judgment of the councils (and of the Roman pontiffs), but also those "which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world".¹⁷