Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

You will ask 1° who are those that may be convoked by right to a general council.

I answer. Only bishops are to be summoned by right to a general council.

Proof. 1°. Those alone are to be summoned by right to a general council who have jurisdiction not only in the internal forum but also in the external ecclesiastical forum. But only bishops have jurisdiction of this kind. Therefore. — The minor is evident; for laymen, of whatever condition or dignity they may be, even imperial, do not have jurisdiction in the external ecclesiastical forum, since it is spiritual. Nor inferior clerics, such as curates. This is clear from usage, and because they are not primary and proper pastors, but, as the Author says in IIa IIae, q. 184, a. 6, ad 2, «have only certain ministrations under the bishops,» which the bishops limit at their nod.

— Proof of the major. In general councils not only are controversies concerning faith, morals, and the private causes of bishops simply defined, but laws are also enacted, penalties are decreed, and the contumacious are compelled to obey the definitions and sentences pronounced. But these things pertain to the external forum of the Church. Therefore.

Proof. 2°. From the usage of the Church, which is not accustomed to summon to general councils anyone but bishops by right.

I said «by right»; because sometimes Abbots and Generals of Orders are summoned by privilege of the supreme Pontiffs, with a decisive right of vote, and that not incongruously, namely as representing their subjects, who were exempted by a prior privilege from the jurisdiction of the bishops.

[When the convocation of the Vatican Council was under discussion, it was keenly disputed whether bishops administering no diocese, formerly called annular or honorary bishops, although marked with the episcopal character, ought by right to be admitted to it; such bishops were then called bishops in partibus infidelium, because their sees were situated in regions that were not Christian; now, however, by a decree laid down by Pius IX, they are called titular, or shining with title alone. Not a few held the negative side, on the ground that bishops sit in a council chiefly as witnesses of the faith of their churches. The most wise Pontiff, passing over the speculative question of strict right, composed the dispute in practice, by summoning the titular bishops together with the diocesan bishops.]

Theologians and canonists are also summoned, not with a decisive right of vote, but that they may inquire into and examine the matters of faith and of the Church, and report their opinions to the Fathers of the council. Likewise emperors are sometimes summoned, not to define the matters of the Church, but to defend and aid the council, and to be witnesses of the decrees and to commit them to execution more willingly and more effectively, and to coerce rebels with penalties.

You will ask 2° what number of bishops is required for a general council.

I answer. It is not required that absolutely all the bishops of the whole world be present; otherwise general councils could never be celebrated. Nor is a fixed number of bishops required, since this is had neither from Scripture, nor from tradition, nor from usage. But it is required that the convocation made by the authority of the supreme Pontiff become known to all, at least to the greater provinces, and that no true bishop who is not excommunicated be excluded from any part of the whole world, but that some from the greater part of the provinces be present: yet so that, if the council is celebrated in the East, more from the East be present, and some from the West to represent the others, and conversely, if it is celebrated in the West. This is clear from the practice of the Church in the earlier councils.

You will ask 3° whether bishops in a council are truly judges, or only counselors.

I answer. As I said before, they are not only counselors, but truly judges, enjoying a decisive right of vote, yet subordinate to the supreme Pontiff.

Proof. 1°. The Apostles in the council of Jerusalem, Acts, XV, 34, were true judges. For they said: It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; and James pronounced sentence under these words, ibid., 19: Therefore I judge. 2°. The bishops subscribe in the councils: «I N., decreeing,» or: «I N., defining, have subscribed.»

[Nor does it matter that the supreme Pontiffs are accustomed to say: «With the holy council approving,» or: «By the counsel of our brethren»; because indeed the bishops approve and give counsel, but they not only render this, they also judge together with the Pontiff. The Pontiff says, by their counsel, and not by their judgment, because he receives counsel from them, but not judgment, nor the power of judging, which he has from God alone.]

I said «yet subordinate to the supreme Pontiff»; because the supreme Pontiff sits in the council, not as a simple president, but as prince. Now judges in the senate are subordinate to the prince, so that he is not bound to follow the greater part of the judges, but could nullify their judgment.

You will ask 4° whose it is to preside over a general council.

I answer. To preside authoritatively over a general council belongs to the supreme Pontiff alone, by himself or through his legates.

Proof. 1°. To preside authoritatively over a general council belongs to him whose it is to preside over the whole Church, which the general council represents. But to preside authoritatively over the whole Church belongs to the supreme Pontiff alone, whose head, pastor, and prince he doubtless is, as is clear from the preceding dissertation. Therefore. 2°. To preside over a general council belongs to him whose it is to convoke it, as is clear in diocesan, provincial, and national councils. But to convoke a general council belongs to the Pontiff alone, as was proved in art. 1. Therefore. 3°. If a synod had been celebrated in the time of Christ, Christ would without doubt have presided over it. Therefore this belongs to his Vicar.

Proof. 4°. From the usage and practice of the Church. No general council has been celebrated up to this time over which the supreme Pontiff has not presided, by himself or through his legates. Therefore the Church has consistently recognized in him the right of presiding.

[You will say: Emperors are often said to have presided over councils. Therefore.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. Emperors are often said to have presided over councils by place and honor, I concede; by authority and power, I deny. Or they are said to have presided in order to protect the council and preserve order, I concede; in order to define and decree in matters of faith and in things pertaining to purely ecclesiastical discipline, I deny.]