Summa de Ecclesia

HAVING RUN THROUGH, for the smallness of our wit, the first two books of this our work, namely the first book on the universal Church, and the second on the Roman Church and the primacy of her pontiff, it remains, according to the form of our purpose, with the grace of the Saviour aiding us, to subjoin the third book on universal councils. We premise first what is imported by the name of council. For which it is to be known that, as we can gather from our Isidore in his book of Etymologies and from ch. canones, dist. 1, there is a threefold interpretation of this name of council. First, indeed, council is so called as counsel, from confiding, as considium, with the letter d changed into l, and this because in a council the elders confide together, after the manner of those treating weighty matters pertaining to communities; hence Isidore says in the same place: Synod is interpreted from the Greek as company or assembly.¹ But the name of council is drawn from Roman custom. For in the time when they pleaded causes all convened into one and reconsidered with common intent. It is written also in 1 Macc. ch. 14 that the elders sat in the streets and treated of the goods of the land. Second, council is so called from common intent. Whence Isidore in the same place: or council is so called from common intent, because they direct every gaze of the mind into one. For cilia according to Papias are the veils of the eyes, so called from concealing the eye. Council therefore is so called from con and cilium, because all are gathered in council that they may convene into one, directing every gaze of the mind to one thing, namely to the public utility; whence Synod is so called from syn, which is together, and odos, which is way: because all tend to the same end. Whence there follows in the decree: Assembly is a gathering or congregation from coming together or convening into one; hence also it is called a convent because there men convene, just as a convent is an assembly, so also the name of councils is from the society of many into one; thus there. Third, council is so called from consulting, as counsel, and this rightly: since the counsel of a council is by antonomasia called council. For to this end are wise men called to councils, that they may consult concerning things to be done. For since in things to be done much uncertainty is found, because actions are about singular contingencies which on account of their variability are uncertain, and in doubtful and uncertain matters reason does not bring forth right judgment without a preceding inquiry, therefore inquiry of reason before judgment concerning things to be chosen is necessary, and this inquiry is called council. From this threefold interpretation of the name of council one magistral definition could be elicited, common to all councils, both ecclesiastical, whether general or particular, and secular or lay, which emperors or kings hold with the greater nobles or princes and the magistrates of kingdoms for arduous causes; whence, from 1 Paral. ch. 3, it is thus read: King Ezechias also sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters that they should come into the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, and below: By the counsel therefore of the king and princes and of the whole assembly of Israel, they decreed that they should do, etc. Whence also in ch. Canones, dist. 15, Isidore says that the name of council is drawn from Roman custom; for in the time when they pleaded causes all convened into one and reconsidered with common intent.² But the magistral description can be such: A council is a congregation or assembly of prudent men, convoked by public authority, to treat with common intent concerning necessary matters or the interests of the republic or of the community. But in this definition are touched the four causes of the council itself. First, the material, from which the body of the council arises, when it is said that it is a congregation or assembly of men, that is, of those having reason. For to reason and to inquire concerning things to be done belongs to a rational nature alone. But brute animals move themselves not by counsel but by the impulse of nature. Whence Tully in his Rhetoric, defining counsel, says: Counsel is reason rightly devised for doing or not doing something. But there is added, of the prudent, since a congregation of imprudent men is not worthy of the name of council. For since prudence is right reason concerning things to be done, as is said in the 6th book of the Ethics, counsel pertains above all to prudence. Whence the prudent man, as Aristotle says in the same place, is one who takes good counsel. But conversely the imprudent or foolish man can take counsel badly; therefore it is said in Ecclus. 8: Have no counsel with fools: for they cannot love but what pleases them. The proper matter therefore from which the body of a council is to be instituted is an assembly of prudent men; wherefore the wise Ecclesiasticus says in ch. 6: Stand in the multitude of prudent priests, and join yourself from your heart to their wisdom. Second, the efficient cause authorizing the council is touched, when it is said, convoked by public authority. Indeed since to the public power it most of all pertains to consider those things which regard the community, to it above all it pertains, whether it resides in one, as in a kingdom, or in many, as in other species of polity, to convoke, effect, and authorize a council. Third, the quasi formal cause is touched, when it is said, with common intent. Plainly just as form gives being and name to a thing, so common intent gives being and name of council to the congregation itself. Whence, as Isidore says in the same place, those who disagree among themselves do not hold a council, because they do not agree into one. Fourth, the final cause of the council is touched, when it is said, to treat concerning things necessary or useful to the community; this indeed ought to be the principal end of a synodal congregation of prudent men or fathers; these two precepts Plato is read to have given, with Tully’s book on Duties as witness, to those wishing to benefit the republic: one is that they so guard the utility of the citizens that in whatever they do they refer it to it, forgetful of their own advantages. The second precept is that they care for the whole body of the republic and do not guard one part and abandon the rest.

To those diligently running through holy scripture it will be easy to find whence the celebration of councils in the Church of God has had its origin. For we find that the example of the celebration of councils in the Church was derived both from the fathers in the old testament and from the apostles in the new. Of the old testament indeed an example is gathered from that passage of Numbers 16, where it is said: the chief men of the synagogue, who at the time of the council were called by name. In the new testament indeed we have the example of the celebration of councils from the apostles, because as is gathered from the book of Acts and from the tradition of the fathers, they are reported to have instituted several synods for the instruction of the nascent Church. The first synod celebrated by the apostles was straightway after the ascension of the Lord, concerning the election of Matthias; for with the bodily and visible presence of our Saviour withdrawn from the Church, blessed Peter, understanding Christ to be present and that the time was come in which he was to perform the office of his pontificate, beginning from the greater, took care in the first place lest that sacred number twelve, by which the number of the apostles had been consecrated, remain diminished. Whence he addresses the college of the apostles and the disciples of Christ, as Luke the evangelist and truthful writer testifies in the first chapter of Acts: Men brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was leader of them that apprehended Jesus; who was numbered with us and had obtained part of this ministry. And below: Wherefore of these men who have been gathered together with us in all the time, there follows, one of these is to be made with us a witness of his resurrection, etc. Where it is to be noted for what is to be said hereafter that in this first synodal congregation which we read the apostles to have celebrated, not only apostles were present but also laymen, and also women who by a common name were called disciples of the Lord, which is openly had from the text of the same chapter, where, the apostles enumerated, there follows: All these were persevering in prayer with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and the brethren; there follows, in those days, the interlinear Gloss: when the apostles were in the upper chamber. Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren said: The number of men was about a hundred and twenty. The second synod is reported celebrated by the apostles when the seven deacons are said to have been elected for the ministry of daily dispensation, concerning which it is thus said in Acts 6: In those days the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministry; and the apostles calling together the multitude of the disciples said: It is not fit that we leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, consider seven men of you of good testimony, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; where it is to be noted that there were summoned by the twelve apostles to this synod or to this counsel laymen who were called disciples of the Lord, to whom the apostles gave freedom of electing those who should superintend the ministry of dispensation of necessities. The third synod we read the apostles to have celebrated at Jerusalem, when hearing that Samaria at the preaching of Philip, who was one of the seven deacons, had received the word of God, they sent to him Peter and John that they might receive the Holy Spirit, namely in a visible sign; for he was not come upon any of them, namely visibly, as is had in Acts 8. Concerning which synod, if it is to be called a synod as we now speak of a synod, it is also to be noted that in it no summoning is read to have been made of any others who were absent from Jerusalem. The fourth synod is said celebrated by the apostles where, when the people of the faithful grew strong by apostolic preaching and the Church gathered increased from day to day, and the apostles holding council, first the disciples were called Christians who before by a common name were called disciples; of this synod the Gloss of the decree makes mention in ch. Sacrosancta, the twenty-second distinction. Within which synod this comes first to be noted: that in it there were none but Paul and Barnabas as apostles. The fifth synod or fifth council they are said to have celebrated concerning the question of the observance of the legal ceremonies, concerning which in Acts 15 it is thus said: And some rising up of the heresy of the Pharisees who believed said that it is needful to circumcise them, to command also to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and the elders of Judea assembled to consider; where the Gloss says: here is given an example of making assemblies to discern those things which are of the faith; there follows: And when there was much disputing, Peter rising up said to them, where the Gloss says: as prince Peter speaks to all. Concerning which synod it is to be noted that as is gathered from the text itself, to this synod, though the question was grave in matter of faith, yet there came together none but four apostles, namely Peter, Paul, Barnabas and James, as is gathered from ch. 2 to the Galatians, nor any other elders whatsoever of the province of Judea. The sixth synod which is said to have been celebrated by the apostles at Jerusalem was concerning the abolishing of the suspicion of certain Jews, who thought that Paul spurned the legal ceremonies as idolatry, concerning which it is thus had in Acts 21: When Paul had come to Jerusalem and had gone in to James, all the ancients were gathered together, who said to him: Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed, and they are all zealots of the law; for they say of thee that thou teachest dissension from Moses to those Jews who are among the Gentiles, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor walk according to custom; what is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men who have a vow upon them; take these and sanctify thyself with them, and spend on them that they may shave their heads, and all may know that the things which they heard of thee are false, but that thou thyself walkest keeping the law; these things there. Concerning which synod it is to be noted first that in it Peter does not seem to have been present nor the other disciples, save those two, namely James bishop of Jerusalem and Paul. Second, that this congregation was made by James and under him, and not save under the elders who were at Jerusalem; third, that it seems made only for taking away the suspicion which those believing from among the Jews had concerning Paul. The seventh synod is read gathered under Paul at Miletus concerning the rule of the Church, in which they are said to have gathered the elders of the Church, that is, the Ephesian priests, whom Paul himself there calls by the venerable name of bishops, to whom he says in Acts 20: Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock wherein the Holy Spirit hath placed you to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his blood. Concerning which synod it is to be noted that in it Paul alone of the number of the apostles was present, and under him it was celebrated, to which he is read to have summoned only the priests of Ephesus. The eighth synod which the apostles are said to have celebrated was that in which the apostles coming together into one set forth the creed; for as we have received from the tradition of the elders, the apostles, about to depart from one another, when they wished according to the command of the Lord to set out to the several nations, took care to establish for themselves a norm of future preaching, and a rule of faith for believers.

Whence coming together into one, and each bringing forth his several sentence, they handed down the creed of faith which the universal Church holds. For thus blessed Clement, disciple and successor of the apostles, testifies in his decrees. Likewise Leo the first pope, writing to the most fair Augusta, says thus: The brief and perfect confession of the catholic creed has been sealed by as many sentences of the twelve apostles. Likewise blessed Ambrose, accounting the faith of the apostles to be the key of the kingdom of heaven, says: This key I judge to have been forged by the working of twelve artificers; for in the creed of the twelve apostles the holy faith has been conceived, who as skilled artificers coming together into one constructed a key by their counsel. For I would call that creed itself a certain key by which the darkness of the devil is unlocked that the light of Christ may come, etc.; these things he. It is to be noted that the ordinary Gloss on the Acts of the apostles sets down no more than four synods celebrated by the apostles. Of which the first, as is had on ch. 1, was held for the election of another apostle in place of Judas. The second concerning the election of the seven deacons; the third concerning circumcision not to be imposed on those who believed, from the Jews or the Gentiles; the fourth concerning not forbidding Jews in the early time to be initiated with the legal ceremonies where necessity should require.

We find three species of ecclesiastical councils commonly distinguished among the doctors, whose form and example went before in the councils celebrated by the apostles, namely the universal or general, the provincial, and the episcopal. Now a general or universal council is found to be distinguished at times in two ways, according as the notion of generality can be taken in two ways: in one way, namely, on the part of those to be summoned or assembling at the council, and thus a council is called universal which is plenary: which, according to blessed Aug. in the book on the one baptism, is said to be celebrated with bishops summoned from the whole Christian world, and of such a universal council holds that definition which is placed in the Gloss on ch. 1 dist. 17, where it is said that a universal council is that which is constituted by the Pope or his legate with all the bishops, that is, with bishops gathered from the whole Christian world. And speaking in this way of a universal council, its fullness was said to arise from the five patriarchal sees, namely those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome, when the light of faith irradiated all of them. Hence in the ninth action of the eighth council it is read that the fathers of that council, at the reception of the patriarch of Alexandria who came last, said: We glorify the God of all who has supplied what was lacking to the universal council, and now shows it most perfect. The form of such a universal council seems to have gone before in some way in the first council celebrated by the apostles in Acts 1, which blessed Peter, pontiff of the universal Church, celebrated with all the apostles present. In another way the notion of universality in a council is taken not on the part of those summoned but on the part of the authority presiding in it, which is so great that it can lay down law and command the whole multitude of the faithful, and in this way a council is called universal which the Pope, prince and ruler of the whole Church, celebrates by himself or his legate with a special commission for matters concerning the whole Church, with the prelates of the Church summoned, even if not all of them, since this is not always easily possible nor even necessary (as we shall show below). And speaking in this way of a universal council, many universal councils are named which were celebrated by the supreme pontiffs with only the bishops of Italy, as is clear in the acts of the councils concerning the council celebrated by blessed Pope Sylvester after the Nicene synod of 270 fathers, in which the faith of the Nicene synod was confirmed and Arius condemned. Likewise it is clear concerning the synod celebrated at Rome by Pope Symmachus, in which Symmachus the Pope is said to preside in a general council, and so of many others, to which even if prelates did not come nor were summoned from the whole Christian world, but only from the Roman patriarchate, they are nevertheless truly called universal on account of the authority of the Roman pontiff or patriarch, who, since he is not only the Roman patriarch but also that of the whole world — hence in the council of Chalcedon blessed Pope Leo was called Oecumenical, that is patriarch — for which reason in ch. Convenientibus 1 q. 7 the Gloss, defining a universal synod, says that universal synods are those at which the Roman pontiff or his legate was present, on account of which the canons or synodal definitions of such universal councils bind not only those subject to the Roman patriarchate but all the faithful who are mediately subject to other patriarchates and powers. The form of this general council went before in the second council of the apostles, which blessed Peter is read to have celebrated with only three other apostles present, namely Paul, James, and Barnabas. It is to be noted here that even if a plenary council, at the time when the light of the Catholic faith illumined the eastern parts, was said to arise from the five patriarchal sees, yet from the time when the splendor of the faith set in the eastern parts, the council of the Roman patriarchate, in which the brightness of the Christian religion has always purely endured, is universal, not only on the part of the authority of the Roman pontiff which extends to the whole Church, but also on the part of those summoned or assembling, since they are gathered from the whole Christian world, as the Church has been reduced to the Roman patriarchate alone, with blessed Jerome saying on Ps. ch. 33: The Church does not consist in walls but in the truth of doctrines; where the true faith is, there is the Church. And Chrysostom on Matt.: where faith is, there is the Church, there the priest, there baptism, there the Christian; where faith is not, there is no Church. And Ambrose on the first epistle to Timothy ch. 1: I write to you that you may know what church you order, which is the house of God, so that although the whole world of God is the church, yet that is called his house whose ruler today is Damasus. For the world in its transgression is disturbed by diverse error; therefore it is necessary that the house of God and the truth be said to be there where he is feared according to his will. Nor should it be passed over, for fuller knowledge of this name of universal council, that since the universal Catholic Church is called Catholic in speaking broadly, a council can be called Catholic or universal which has not departed from its unity. For which reason Lord Aimarus, archbishop of Rheims, says in his book on synods that when the bishops of two or three provinces come together and establish what befits the Catholic Church, perhaps such a council can be called universal although it was not enacted by all prelates. For it suffices that it does not disagree in faith and traditions from the unity of all, thus far he. But in this place, when we distinguish the species of councils, we do not speak of a universal council so generally, since in this way all patriarchal councils and even many provincial ones would be called universal which did not disagree from the traditions of the universal Church. Moreover what is sometimes found does not stand against the foregoing, that a council of one nation or region is called universal, as in the African council it is said that lest they be wearied by an anniversary assembly it was pleasing that when necessary a common cause of all Africa should so require we should assemble a universal council; but when causes are not common they should be judged in their own provinces; since such is not called a universal council simply of the universal Church, neither with respect to those assembled since they are not gathered from the whole world, nor with respect to authority since it is not supported by the special authority of the Roman pontiff presiding through the Pope himself or his legate, but is called universal in a qualified sense, of one nation or region. ¹ The second species of councils is named a provincial council, as in ch. Porro dist. 3. And this is subdivided, since one is decreed for a province, whether delegated to a legate a latere of the Pope or to another sent for this purpose, which he celebrates by right of legation or special commission with the primates and metropolitans, and bishops, and clerics even exempt, of the province or provinces contained within the bounds of his legation, according to what is read and noted on the office of a delegate, last ch. and under that title ch. 3 in the 6th. Another is called a provincial council of a limited province, over which a patriarch presides, or a legate, an elder, or a primate, or a metropolitan, who ought to celebrate such a council with the bishops subject to him, abbots and clerics of his province not exempt, as in ch. 1 on the office of a delegate with what is noted there by Hostiensis and Johannes Andreae. Hence the Gloss, speaking of this provincial council on 1 ch. dist. 17, says a provincial council is that which a metropolitan or primate holds with his suffragans, as dist. 18 ch. 5 and 9 dist. 100 if any of the bishops. Under this species of provincial council is comprehended the patriarchal council which is celebrated by patriarchs other than the Roman patriarch, since as the Pope is patriarch not only of the city but of the world, his council celebrated with only the bishops of the Roman patriarchate has the character of a universal one on the part of authority, as we said above. The form of this provincial council seems to have gone before in the council which Paul is said to have celebrated at Miletus with the elders of the province of Ephesus summoned, concerning which Acts 20. ² The third species of councils is called an episcopal council or episcopal synod, which a bishop celebrates in his diocese with the abbots and clerics subject to him, concerning which in ch. Quando dist. 38 and 18 q. 2 Abbates. The form of this council seems to have gone before in the council which blessed James is said to have celebrated at Jerusalem with the elders for removing the suspicion raised against Paul, concerning which Acts 20, and as was said above in the preceding chapter. It is to be noted here that the Gloss in ch. Convenientibus 1 q. 7, reducing all synods to two species, says that some synods are universal, at which the Roman pontiff or his legate is present, others are local, which primates or metropolitans assemble without the presence of the Pope or his legate, where note that the aforesaid Gloss calls all councils besides the universal ones, which it says are those which the Roman pontiff celebrates by himself or his legate, local, which in our judgment it does because the authority of those local councils is confined by fixed limits beyond which it does not extend. Not so however with universal ones, since they are supported by the authority of him who is head and bishop of the whole Christian world.

It remains to be seen, in consequence, concerning the time at which the celebration of councils began in the Church. For the fuller knowledge of this, the distinction of universal councils which we marked out in the preceding chapter must be recalled. We said, moreover, that the universal council is in one way so called from the universality of the world, namely that which the Pope celebrates with the bishops of the whole Christian world, which we have called, after blessed Aug., the plenary universal council. In another way a council is called universal from the universality of its authority, since it is of so great authority that it treats of universal matters and binds all the faithful to the observance of its laws, and this is what the Pope celebrates with the prelates of some province or provinces, even if they are not convoked from the whole entire Christian world. With this distinction recalled, it seems that we must say that, if the discussion here concerns universal councils in the first sense, which are called plenary, and at what time they began, then we must say that the celebration of such councils began from the time of the Emperor Constantine, since in no earlier time is any council read to have celebrated to which all the bishops of the world came together or were convoked, although some likeness preceded in certain synods celebrated by the apostles, whence blessed Isidore, book 6, ch. 17, and as is had in ch. Canones dist. 15, speaking of this, says thus: The canons of councils began from the time of the Emperor Constantine, for in preceding times, with persecutions raging, the faculty of teaching the peoples was scarcely given at all. Whence Christianity was split into diverse heresies, since the bishops had no license to assemble together except from the time of the aforesaid Emperor. For he gave Christians the faculty of assembling freely. Thus far he. But if the discussion here concerns universal councils in the second sense, then we must say that they did not begin from the time of the Emperor Constantine but began to be celebrated much earlier, as we showed above partly in ch. 2 concerning the time of the apostles. Even after the times of the apostles, before the time of the Emperor Constantine, ancient histories teach us that many councils were celebrated, whence in the time of Pope Victor, concerning the question of on what day the paschal solemnity should be celebrated, as is gathered from the ecclesiastical history, book 5, we read that three synods were celebrated. One in Asia, in which at the command of the same Pope a very great multitude of bishops was assembled, as Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, intimates through his letter to Pope Victor, saying thus: we observe the unchangeable Passover, he says, neither adding nor taking away anything, and below. I could also make mention of the bishops present whom thou didst not wish me to summon, as I did, whose names, if I should write them, are a very great multitude, who, knowing my littleness, all confirm with their judgment the things we have written. The second synod in the time of the same pontiff was also celebrated at Rome under his presidency concerning the same matter, of which synod is written that canon Celebritatem, On Consecration, dist. 3. The third synod is said to have been celebrated in Caesarea in Palestine, as is had in the same book of ecclesiastical history, at which brother Martin in his history of the supreme pontiffs says that the same Pope Victor was present. Moreover, in the time of Pope Cornelius, who preceded the times of the aforesaid Emperor Constantine, two councils are read to have been celebrated against Novatus the priest, who denied that the lapsed could attain salvation through penance: one of which was celebrated at Rome, which is said to have been most celebrated, as Eusebius of Caesarea relates, book 6 of ecclesiastical history, in which the aforesaid Novatus was condemned and it was defined, among other things, that those who had lapsed could attain the healing remedy of salvation through the sacrament of penance. The second council concerning the same matter was celebrated by the authority of the same Pope Cornelius, of which Dionysius of Alexandria of most flourishing memory makes mention in his letter to the aforesaid Pope Cornelius, as the same Eusebius relates in the above-written book, saying that he was invited to it by many bishops, since certain men there attempted to assert the dogma of Novatus. Further, in the time of Pope Dionysius two famous councils are read to have been celebrated against Paul of Samosata, who asserted that Christ was only man. The first was celebrated at Antioch, at which the legate of the apostolic see was the bishop of Ostia, as is had from book 6 of ecclesiastical history. The second was also celebrated at Antioch, in which the aforesaid Paul was refuted and manifestly convicted. Likewise in the time of Pope Marcellinus, who, compelled by the command of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian, entered the temple of the gods and from fear of punishment offered incense to idols, a solemn synod was assembled at Rome, of which in ch. Nunc autem distinct. 21. These things suffice to show which general councils began, and which did not begin, from the time of the Emperor Constantine.

Since we have undertaken to speak only of universal councils, leaving aside the other kinds of councils, let us explain what a universal council of the catholic Church is by definition. According to what was said above in ch. 1, such a magisterial description of a universal council of the catholic Church can be given. ¹ A universal council of the catholic Church is an assembly of the greater prelates of the Church, specially convoked by the authority of the Roman pontiff, to treat solemnly of some matter in the Christian religion with a common intention, with the pope himself presiding in the council or someone in his place. This definition or description seems fitting and sufficient, since it contains what essentially belongs to the integrity of a universal ecclesiastical council and that by which the assembly of a universal council is distinguished from any other assembly. First, the matter from which the body of a universal council principally arises and is constituted is touched upon, when it is called an assembly of prelates, such as are bishops and other superiors ascending upward: since, as will be shown more fully below, only such prelates belong, by reason of the singularity of their dignity and authority in the Church, to the body of a universal council. Of this there is a sufficiently illustrious testimony in that, when mention is made of universal councils in the body of the Decree, as in dist. 15 throughout, they are said to be councils of bishops only. From this it is gathered quite plainly that a universal council is less fittingly defined when it is said to be an assembly drawn from every hierarchical state of the catholic Church, etc., since it is not required for the being of a universal council that prelates from every hierarchical state be summoned, but it suffices that the greater prelates be summoned, as we shall demonstrate more fully below. From this aspect too it is gathered that a universal council is not sufficiently defined when it is defined by certain masters as a society of the faithful gathered together into one purpose and for one common intention. It is plain, since this definition fits an assembly of lay faithful just as well as one of prelates, as any learned man can see. Secondly, the efficient cause authorizing the council is touched upon, when it is said by authority, for regularly the authority of convoking universal councils resides singularly, so that no assembly of prelates which has not been convoked or supported by the authority of the apostolic see deserves to bear the name of a universal council. Hence blessed Marcellus, pope and martyr, writing to Maxentius the bishop, as is found in ch. 1, 17 dist., says: You cannot regularly hold a synod of bishops without the authority of this see, although you may gather together certain bishops, where the gloss says that such an assembly of bishops is not called a synod. It is said, moreover, by special authority, to distinguish it from the other patriarchal or provincial councils, which are celebrated by a general permission and disposition of the law, without further permission of the pope, at appointed times, as in dist. 18 throughout. Thirdly, the quasi formal cause of a universal council is touched upon, when it is said with a common intention, as we touched above in ch. 1. And blessed Isidore says in ch. Canones, dist. 15: those who disagree among themselves do not hold a council. Fourthly, the final cause of a universal council is touched upon in the aforesaid definition, when it is said to treat of some matter in the Christian religion, namely what is useful and salutary to the whole universal Church, as what pertains to the illumination of the faith, to the ordering of morals, to the increase of the Christian religion, to the adornment and growth of divine worship and the peace of the Christian people. Fifthly, the ceremonial rite which is observed in synodal definitions and constitutions is touched upon, when it is said solemnly, by which the assembly of a universal council is distinguished from a consistorial assembly or other assemblies of prelates which the Roman pontiff sometimes holds in the curia when weighty matters press, without the solemnity and ceremonies customarily observed in general synods. Sixthly, the director and governor of the council is touched upon, when it is added that the pope is in the council. For it is indeed necessary that a multitude gathered to do something have some director and leader, and by this particle a universal council is distinguished from headless assemblies, which gather without any legitimate president or head. It is distinguished also by this from assemblies of prelates in which there preside either a patriarch, or primates, or metropolitans or bishops who are not specially deputed to preside in the place of the pope, but preside by right of legation or of their own dignity, as is noted in dist. 17 in the summa.

If anyone attentively reads through divine scripture and the canons and institutions of the holy fathers, he will manifestly understand that it regularly belongs to the authority of the Roman pontiff alone to assemble a universal synod. Sacred scripture in the first place teaches us this in 1 Maccabees 4, where among other things attributed to Simon the great priest by the consent of the whole people and of all the priests, this is as it were a singular privilege of the supreme pontiff: that no assembly should be held in the region without him. Since, moreover, according to the Apostle the priesthood of the old law is a figure of the new testament, and the high priest of the new testament is of more excellent dignity, it is to be believed that the high priest himself in the new law, namely the Roman pontiff, has a like privilege by divine institution: that no universal assembly be held in the Church without his authority. Second, the same is shown from the canons of the sacred councils. Hence the Alexandrine synod, in which Athanasius was present, writing to Pope Felix concerning this privilege of the apostolic see, making celebrated testimony, speaks thus: We know it to have been concordantly strengthened by all in the great Nicene synod of about 318 bishops that councils should not be celebrated nor bishops condemned without the sentence of the Roman pontiff. Third, this is clear by the authority of many holy fathers which Gratian adduces in dist. 17 throughout, of whose testimonies the lord Aymarus, archbishop of Rheims, of venerable memory, commemorating some in his book on synods, ch. 18, speaks thus: Wonder not that we ascribe the authority of the councils themselves to the Roman pontiff. For no councils are read as ratified which were not supported by apostolic authority, as Pope Damasus asserts in his decrees, ch. 9, to whom Athanasius and Pope Julius and the Nicene council also and the other fathers also give assent. St. Marcellus also, pope and martyr, in his decrees, ch. 5, says: The apostles themselves and their successors, with the Lord inspiring, constituted that no synod be held apart from the authority of the Roman see. For the bishop of that see is the judge of the whole Church, nor does any judgment stand without a legitimate judge. Where note that the apostles constituted this with the Lord inspiring. Fourth, the same is testified by Pope Pelagius, writing to all bishops who by the illicit invitation of John, bishop of Constantinople, called him universal, who speaks thus: It has been reported to the apostolic see that John, bishop of Constantinople, writes himself universal, and summons you, from this presumption of his, to a general synod, although the authority of convoking general synods was handed to the apostolic see of blessed Peter the Apostle by singular privilege, and no synod is ever read as ratified which was not supported by apostolic authority; wherefore, whatever you establish in your aforesaid conventicle, since it cannot at all be presumed a synod, by the authority of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and of the Lord Savior, by whose voice the Savior himself gave to blessed Peter the power of binding and loosing, which power also passes undoubtedly into his successors, I command that all things you establish there be vain and void etc. Moreover, that the assembling of a universal council pertains above all to the authority of the Roman pontiff, we have shown most clearly by reasons thus: To him alone seems to belong to do and dispose all things that regard the universal Church, such as is the assembling and convoking of a universal council, in which the universal care of the Church is treated. But to the Roman pontiff alone is committed such universal care of the Church, as to the chief shepherd and father of the whole Christian people: therefore it follows that to his authority alone does the convocation or assembling of a universal council regularly belong. With this reason Pope Felix proves the same in the letter which he writes to the Alexandrine synod, speaking thus: Jesus Christ alone committed this to this holy apostolic see, as being he who alone and before all was believed prince of the apostles and merited to receive from Christ the king of kings, God, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Thus he. Second, this reason is confirmed thus: as Aristotle says in Ethics 1, according to the order of ends is the order of acts and of agents; therefore, with respect to the ultimate end of the whole Christian people, consideration belongs to him who presides over the whole Christian republic; but after Christ the Roman pontiff alone presides over the universal Church, as prince, shepherd, and rector of it: therefore to him alone will it regularly belong to assemble universal councils, since their assembling above all concerns the good of the Christian universality. Blessed Thomas uses this reason to prove the same in 2-2, q. 1, last ch. Third, the argument is thus: to the authority of him alone seems to belong to assemble universal councils whom all of the whole Church are bound to obey: this is clear, since otherwise convocation would be rendered illusory unless those to be convoked owed obedience; but to the Roman pontiff alone, convoking to universal councils, are all of the whole Church bound to obey, as to a superior and one having primacy among all, as in ch. Obedientiam, dist. 93: therefore etc. Pope Julius uses this reason to prove the same in the letter directed to the Orientals, in which, as is had in ch. Dudum, 3. q. 6, he speaks thus: Long ago it was decreed in ancient statutes by the holy apostles and their successors, which the holy and universal Church holds to this day, that it is not apostolic, that is, not fitting, for councils to be celebrated or a bishop condemned without the sentence of the Roman pontiff. Since they knew the holy Roman church to be the primate of all churches, and just as blessed Peter was first of all the apostles, so also this church, consecrated to his name, is by the Lord inspiring first and head of the rest. Fourth thus: To him alone seems authoritatively to belong to assemble universal councils in the Church of God who has the power of coercing all prelates to be summoned to councils to come, and of punishing those neglecting or scorning to come, 18. dist. throughout. But the Roman pontiff alone is of this kind, since he in the place of Christ was ordained judge over all prelates of the Church, having jurisdiction, as blessed Gregory testifies in ch. De constantia, dist. 22, and in ch. Si episcoporum, 21, last q.: therefore etc. Fifth thus: To the authority of the sole prince seems to belong to convoke to general councils all other primates or greater men of his principate; experience teaches us this; it is also clear from 1 Maccabees 30 at the beginning, adduced above in the first chapter. But the Roman pontiff is prince of the bishops, who are principally to be summoned: therefore by the authority of the Roman pontiff alone are they to be summoned and assembled synodally. The consequence is manifest. Sixth thus: To him who is of greater dignity in a particular church belongs the convocation of a particular chapter, as Innocent notes, De maioritate et obedientia, ch. 1; and to him who is of greater dignity in a province belongs the convocation of a provincial council, for instance to the metropolitan, as is gathered from ch. Propter ecclesiasticas, and ch. Si episcopus, and ch. Si quis episcoporum, dist. 18: therefore likewise to him who is of greater dignity in the universal Church belongs by singular right the convocation of a universal council; but such is the Roman pontiff alone: therefore etc. Seventh, the same is shown manifestly from this: that if it were not reserved to the Roman pontiff alone to convoke a universal council, but anyone, even the greater, in the Church could assemble a council, schism could most easily arise in the Church of God: therefore, for preserving the unity of the Church, it is to be believed to be from divine ordination that to the one who is head and rector of the whole Church the authority of convoking councils should be singularly reserved. And this reason seems to be assigned by blessed Jerome to the priest Evander, and is had in ch. Legimus, dist. 93; and therefore it was done by divine wisdom as a remedy of schisms, that one be chosen who is set over the rest, lest, with each dragging to himself, the Church of Christ be torn into pieces. From this it is most clearly gathered that an assembling which was not convoked or supported by the authority of the Pope, with one undoubted Pope existing in the chair of Peter, can neither be named a universal council nor have any authority: hence Pope Pelagius in ch. Multis, dist. 17, writing to the bishops who had convened at the illicit invitation of John of Constantinople, speaks thus: By many apostolic and canonical and ecclesiastical institutions anew we are instructed by rules that no council should be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman pontiff. Wherefore, as has already been said, rightly not a council but your conventicle or conciliabulum is quashed, and whatever was done in it is held void and empty. Thus he.

SOME of the adversaries argue and object many things concerning what was said about the authority of the Roman pontiff in congregating universal councils. ¹ First, from Acts 6, where it is said: "But the Twelve, calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not right," etc., where, they say, it is manifestly proved that the authority of convoking a council belonged not to Peter alone but to the whole apostolic college, and consequently that congregating a universal council does not belong to the Roman pontiff alone. ² Second. Many universal councils in the Church of God, such as Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, are read to have been congregated by the emperors, as is plain in ch. Canones, dist. 15, and in ch. Sexta, dist. 16; but the emperors are not on this account blamed as usurpers of another's authority, but are rather read to be commended because they are believed to have done it kindled with zeal for the faith or for the Christian religion: therefore it does not seem that universal councils are congregated by the authority of the Roman pontiff alone. ³ Third. In the event that an imminent danger threatens the Church which could not be met except through a universal council, and the Pope in truth refused to convoke it, there ought to be no doubt that one other than the Pope could convoke the council; otherwise it would lie in the hands of one man to subvert the Christian faith and the state of the universal Church: which is by no means to be said: therefore etc. ⁴ Fourth, in the case in which the Pope were vehemently defamed and suspected of heresy, convoking the universal council seems to belong to one other than the Pope, since it does not seem fitting that the Pope should confer authority in his own affair: therefore etc. ⁵ Fifth, in the case in which the Pope became a heretic, there is no doubt that the convocation of the universal council would belong to another, as is plain in the time of Pope Marcellinus, when a report spread through the Church that he had burned incense to idols and the bishops were at once congregated to look into this, as is held in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21: therefore the same as before. ⁶ Sixth, in the case in which two contended for the papacy, according to ch. Si duo, dist. 79, a congregation of the universal council seems necessary to judge which of them is the true Pope, and yet the congregation of the universal council does not seem to belong to the contenders: therefore to others, and so the same as before. ⁷ Seventh, suppose the Pope were dead naturally or civilly, or resigned, and the cardinals, unwilling to proceed to election, did not provide for the Church: it seems that the universal council ought to be convoked so that provision may hence be made of necessity for the Church, and yet it would not be congregated by the authority of the Pope, since there would be no Pope: therefore the same as before. ⁸ Eighth, suppose it is possible that the Pope falls into madness, so that, made mad, he is rendered unfit to rule the universal Church; but in such a case the universal council seems to be congregated to take counsel for the universal Church, and not through the Pope, as is plain from the case: therefore the same as before. ⁹ Ninth, suppose it is possible that after the death of the Pope all the cardinals die together with him, for they could be slain together, and yet to provide for the Church it seems necessary that a universal council be held, and it could not be through the Pope or the cardinals, as is plain from the case: therefore by the authority of another, and so the same as before. ¹⁰ Tenth. It happens at times that various causes are pleaded against the Pope; but it seems that then the council ought not to be congregated by his authority but by another, lest he act in his own cause, etc.: therefore the same as before.

It is very easy to answer the aforesaid objections if the sayings of the saints are rightly taken. For the sayings of the holy fathers which attribute to the Roman pontiff the authority of congregating a universal council must be taken as applying when one undoubted Roman pontiff resides in the apostolic see, and of a congregation not merely local to a certain place, but of an authoritative congregation for disposing and ordaining something in the universal Church to be observed by all the faithful, which, according to the sentences of the holy fathers, as we said in the preceding chapter, seems singularly to belong to him who presides over the Christian republic and to whom its rule and government have been entrusted, of which sort is the Roman pontiff. For Pope Pelagius says in the epistle which he wrote to all bishops: "The authority of congregating synods has been committed privately to the apostolic see by its power. Nor do we read that any general synod was valid which was not congregated or supported by its authority. The canons attest this, ecclesiastical history confirms it, the holy fathers confirm it"; so he. It must therefore be said in answer to the reasons to the contrary.

¹ To the first I answer by denying the consequence, since from the other apostles being said with Peter to have convoked the crowd of the disciples to the synod, as the Pope would now do with the cardinals, it does not follow that that convocation was not made principally by the authority of Peter, though it is not expressly stated. Plainly greater was the reverence of the apostles toward blessed Peter as toward their head and prince than that Scripture commemorates. Above all since blessed Cyril says in the book of Treasures that the apostles affirm in the Gospels and Epistles that in all doctrine Peter holds the place of the Lord in his Church, giving him place in every chapter and congregation, in every election and confirmation.

² To the second reason I answer that those emperors did not congregate universal councils except with the consent and authority of the Roman pontiffs first obtained. Hence the Archdeacon in the Rosary on ch. Mandatis, second, q. 5, where the text says "Valentinian Augustus commanded a synod to be congregated on our authority concerning the word," on "our authority" says thus: wherever you find that the emperor congregated a council, understand it according to this. Hence the emperors were rather executors of the will and authority of the Roman pontiffs in the congregation of councils than congregators by their own authority. Hence in ch. Sexta synodus, dist. 16, it is said thus: "The universal synod was celebrated at Constantinople and written in the Greek tongue in the times of Pope Agatho, with the most pious prince Constantine executing it." For in those times the Church was not so powerful that it could in deed compel the unwilling to come and give safe access to those called and to be congregated from distant parts, and therefore the apostolic see often did through princes what it could not conveniently do through itself. But afterwards, when with the Lord disposing it could act through itself, it did and does so not through princes but through itself. Nor does it stand in the way that in ch. Adrianus, dist. 63, it is said that Charles, king of the Franks, constituted a synod with Pope Adrian, for it is not to be understood that King Charles concurred authoritatively with the Pope for the constitution of the synod, since he had no authority for this, but he well concurred deliberatively, so that the sense is that the king and the Pope deliberated together that a synod be congregated, but yet it was to be constituted and celebrated by the authority of Pope Adrian alone; hence the Archdeacon in the Rosary on this place, on the word "constituted," says thus: "He constituted by the authority of the Pope," with reference to 2, q. 5, mandates, and dist. 17, ch. Hinc; hence he would have spoken better conversely if he had said Adrian constituted it with Charles; so he. For the rest it is also to be noted that even if bishops are sometimes read to have convened at the command of the emperors, yet such a meeting of bishops is not to be called a universal council unless it was supported by the authority of the Roman pontiff, as is openly gathered from ch. Bene quidem, dist. 96, and from ch. Multis, dist. 17. And therefore Pope Pelagius says most well in the authority set above that we read of no general synod as valid which was not congregated or supported by apostolic authority. Note the alternative: hence the bishops who had convened at Rome at the precept of King Theodoric in the time of Pope Symmachus, seeing that that congregation made at the precept of the king could not be called a synod unless it were supported by the authority of the Roman pontiff, said that Symmachus the Pope himself ought to convoke the synod, which convocation or congregation cannot be understood except as an interposition of his authority, since they were already locally where they ought to be congregated. For it is one thing to command prelates to congregate to some place, which the emperors are sometimes read to have done and kings frequently do in their kingdoms, and another to congregate a universal council: for this says not only a congregation of prelates to a certain place, but a certain authorization or influx of authority for defining, disposing, and ordaining those things which are to the advantage and necessity of the Church, to give which authority the emperors cannot give, since, being laymen, no faculty concerning ecclesiastical matters to be disposed has been given to them, as in the said ch. Bene quidem, dist. 96.

³ To the third reason many things must be said. First, that that case does not seem admissible. For it does not seem possible that such dangers could befall the Church as could not be provided for except through a general or universal council. This is plain from two points. First, because, as the adversaries argue, it would follow that it should lie in the power of one man, for instance of one powerful prince, to hinder a universal council from being celebrated would be to subvert the Christian faith and the state of the universal Church. Then second, because since the celebration of a universal council could be hindered by the discords of wars, as Isidore says happened before the times of Constantine in ch. Canones, dist. 15, it would then be possible for the faith and the state of the Church to be endangered, which is utterly false, since it is against that promise of Christ saying: "Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world," Matt., last chapter; hence it is said that no case could befall the Church for which provision could not be made through the diligence of the Roman Church, to whose most manifest testimony the holy fathers taught that recourse must be had to the apostolic see in greater causes, as in ch. Rogamus, 24, q. 1, and also when the reason of faith comes to be ventilated, as in ch. Quotiens, in the same cause and question; hence blessed Thomas in the second book on power, tenth question, fourth article, says that for making an explanation of the faith it is not necessary that the Pope congregate a universal council, since the discords of wars sometimes forbid it. Second, I answer that it would be very difficult for pious minds to believe that any true Roman pontiff, certified that the faith and the state of the universal Church were in peril unless a general council were celebrated, would refuse to congregate a universal council, since of the Roman pontiff good must always be presumed, as in ch. Non nos, dist. 40, and the Pope says in ch. Officii nostri, 24th question, that greater zeal for the Christian religion lies upon him than upon all. Third, it is said that, supposing such a case threatened the universal Church, then if the Pope, requested by the lord cardinals and by other Catholics, above all the prelates and princes of the Church, refused to congregate a universal council or to give authority to congregate it, since he would have to be held suspect of heresy and consequently doubtful in the papacy, it would already belong to others to congregate the universal council. What is said in answer to the fourth reason we likewise say, but that the Pope in the aforesaid case would be rendered suspect in faith is proved openly from ch. Error, 83rd distinction, where Innocent says: "Error which is not resisted is approved, and truth, when it is least defended, is oppressed. For to neglect, when you can, to confound the perverse is nothing else than to foster them; nor does he lack the stain of hidden fellowship who ceases to oppose a manifest crime." In this case, therefore, when the Pope refuses to congregate the council, the convocation of the universal council would belong to the cardinals, to do those things which in such a case are necessary to be done. ⁴ To the fourth I answer that the reason does not seem to make for the point, since, as we said, we do not speak of the congregation of a universal council concerning the deed of the Pope, but concerning the definition and constitution of canons and laws for the rule of the universal Church and the direction and reformation of all the faithful, whose prince, shepherd, director, and teacher is the Roman pontiff; hence to his authority alone, as to the prince of the Church, does it belong to congregate a universal council. Nevertheless, to such an objection we answer that in the case in which the Pope were vehemently defamed, above all among grave and learned men, of heresy, which infamy could not without scandal to the Church or peril to the faith be dissembled or tolerated, such a course seems in our judgment to be prescribed to be observed: that first he be requested through the cardinals, or through some other faithful ones if they are negligent, to wipe away the aforesaid infamy from himself by publicly confessing the Catholic faith, above all concerning the article or articles of which he was defamed, and to denounce such a public confession by bulls to those among whom his infamy runs. We read this practice to have been observed for the more principal part concerning the apostle Paul, Acts 20, who, when he had been defamed among the believers from the Jews for preaching that the law of Moses was not to be kept, by the counsel of blessed James and of the elders who were congregated at Jerusalem with him, entered the temple and, purified after the manner of the Jews, wiped away his infamy, as was commemorated above in ch. 2. But if it happened that the Pope, being requested, refused to do this, then he would have to be requested to congregate a universal council or to give authority to congregate it. If he did this, then the congregated council would inquire into the truth. But if he refused either to congregate or to give authority to congregate, then in our judgment the lord cardinals, who are the more excellent members of the Roman Church, upon whom it most incumbent lies to provide for the necessities of the universal Church and to meet imminent dangers, ought to convoke and congregate the prelates of the Church to inquire into the truth of the infamy, namely whether the Pope is truly a heretic or not. But where the cardinals refuse to do this, the emperor or Christian princes could do it, or even the prelates of the Church themselves, understanding such vehement suspicion concerning the Pope, could congregate themselves, as was done in the time of Pope Marcellinus, as is held in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21. But once the prelates and others who had been called were congregated in some place, the Pope would have to be requested to authorize that congregation by his authority, as is read to have been done in the preceding case of Pope Symmachus, of which in ch. Hinc etiam, dist. 17. But if the Pope were willing to authorize the congregation, as Pope Symmachus did, well and good. But if he refused, then that congregation of prelates ought to proceed to the inquisition of the truth even with the Pope unwilling. And if you ask by what authority: I answer that both by the authority of divine law and of human law; of divine indeed, which is held in John 12, where it is said: "He that despises me and receives not my words has one to judge him. The word which I have spoken, that shall judge him on the last day." Hence holy Thomas on the Epistle to the Galatians, on that word of the apostle in the first chapter, "If anyone preach to you besides what you have received, let him be anathema," inquires, since an equal has no command over an equal, and much less over a superior, how the apostle could excommunicate apostles who were his equals, and angels who are superiors, and in answering says thus it must be said that the apostle pronounces this sentence not by his own authority but by the authority of the evangelical doctrine, whose authority of doctrine holds that whosoever teach against it are to be excluded and repelled; for this he adduces that authority of John 12 set above. Second, by the authority of human or canonical law, fifth chapter on the Pope, which is of holy Pope Boniface the martyr, dist. 40; since of this crime, namely heresy, in the Pope the competent judge seems to be the universal council alone, as is gathered in dist. 17, ch. Hinc, by the very fact that the Pope refuses to give authority to the congregation, the law itself is understood to give it authority; otherwise the provision of the law would be frustratory, which in the case of heresy disposed that the universal council can judge a heretical Pope if through the denial of the Pope it were taken away that he persist pertinaciously in his heresy. For laws would be in vain unless a minister were assigned to them, as the text says on elections, where danger, book 6. But the disposition of the law would without doubt be taken away if in that case the council could not proceed. But once the inquisition has been duly made, and it is found that the Pope has truly lapsed into heresy, then the council ought to inform him of the truth, showing through sacred Scripture or through the determination of the universal Church that what he holds is erroneous, and to require him with charitable admonition to abjure the said error or to revoke it by publicly confessing the truth of the faith. And perhaps it would be expedient for greater caution to assign him a term within which he would revoke the aforesaid error; but if within the term assigned to him he does so, the council can do nothing further against him, as Hugo expressly sets forth in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21, and in ch. Si papa, dist. 40, on the word "deviant from the faith." But the Pope himself, in the forum of conscience, as far as he knows himself to have been culpable, should through his confessor provide for his soul with salutary penance, dist. 21, Nunc autem. But if the Pope refuses to do this, then proceeding must be had against him, as will be said in the following answer. ⁵ To the fifth reason I answer under such a distinction: either it is notorious that the Pope is a heretic, as for instance that he has fallen into a condemned heresy by publicly asserting and preaching it, or it is not notorious. If notorious, as we said, in our judgment such a course is to be observed: for the lord cardinals, or even other Catholics, ought to admonish him to deny the aforesaid error into which he has lapsed, professing the Catholic faith inviolate and whole, as every good believer is bound to do, showing him through sacred Scripture or the determination of the universal Church that what he holds is erroneous and alien to the Catholic faith; and if he is ready to be corrected and, with his errors denied, to hold and confess the faith of Christ, then, as we said in answer to the preceding reason, the universal council has no authority over him. But if he refuses to revoke the error and persists pertinacious and incorrigible in it, then first the cardinals ought to withdraw from him, according to John in the second canonical chapter 1, speaking of the faith of Christ: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine of Christ, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you," where the ordinary Gloss says "receive not," etc., that is, not only do not assent, but do not receive him even for an hour. This is also gathered from ch. Anastasius, dist. 19. Second, the cardinals themselves ought to denounce the present case to the prelates of the Church and convoke them to come, as they are bound, to succour the Church in this horrible case and to provide for the Church, since it has now fallen by falling pertinaciously and incorrigibly from the rock of faith upon which the Church is founded, Matt. 16. Then indeed, as we said in the preceding case, the congregated council of prelates ought by authority of law to proceed to his deposition, as pleases some, or, as is more pleasing to us according to what was already said, to a declaration that he is no longer Pope and that the apostolic see is vacant; for of such a crime the proper judge is the universal council, as was said. But if it is not notorious that the Pope is a heretic, but only among some grave men of good faith a report or presumption has gone forth, then proceeding seems to be had as was said in answer to the fourth reason.

To the sixth reason I answer in two ways. First, that if it is certain that one of the contenders is the true and apostolic one, as for instance because he was elected by two-thirds of the cardinals, while the other consequently cannot be but an intruder and consequently not apostolic but apostate or profane, as in ch. Factus est, 7, q. 1, then, since no rational doubt occurs as to who is the true Pope, no convocation of the universal council is necessary to judge the election of him which is already presumed canonical, but only for the condemnation of the intruder and for commanding that all the faithful obey and be subject to the true apostolic one, according to ch. Si quis pecuniam, dist. 79, as is read to have been done both in the time of Pope Damasus against Ursinus and in the time of Cornelius against Novatian; and ch. Si forte is not understood of such a contention, as Gratian says, and well, in the sixth canon following in the same place. Second, I answer that if a contention arose between some parties over the right of election, as to which of those elections was canonical, then in our judgment, if the contenders were willing to submit themselves to the judgment of some wise man or men, so as to stand by their judgment, no convocation of the universal council would seem necessary, as was done in the time when Symmachus and Lawrence contended for the papacy, where, since neither party would yield to the other, they established that the suit be ended by the judgment of King Theodoric, who, positioned at Ravenna, when he had heard the legates of each party, decreed that he who had been ordained first, or whom the greater part of the clergy and people together had elected, should sit in the apostolic see. But where the contenders refuse to submit themselves to the judgment of any wise men, then a general council must be congregated to discern and judge the right of election, since, as the Gloss says in the aforesaid ch. Si forte, the council is judge in this case. Here, however, a question arises. If both contenders were in possession of the papacy, so that each was held as supreme pontiff by Catholic men, it seems to us, saving better judgment, that both ought to congregate the prelates of their obediences to some place, and the council constituted from both congregations would judge. But if the aforesaid contenders refused to do this, then the lord cardinals ought, even with the contenders contradicting, to congregate the council. But where they themselves refuse or are negligent, the prelates of the Church themselves, having zeal for God, could congregate themselves to extinguish the fire of the Church, or the emperor himself, whose interest it is that there be peace in the city, and more strongly in the whole world, which cannot exist while contention over the supreme pontiff stands, as Christ says, Matt. 11: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be laid waste." But of these things we shall perhaps say something more, with the Lord's help, in the following book, where the subject will be schism. ⁶ To the seventh reason I answer that in that case, where the cardinals refuse to proceed to election, provision has already been sufficiently made by law in ch. Fundamenta, on elections, in the sixth book, and ch. Ne Romani, ch. 10, in the Clementines. Nevertheless, where the cardinals flee or fail, then for greater security the universal council would seem to be convoked, and this through the emperor or the Roman clergy, and there provision would have to be made for the necessity of the Church, since in such necessities, which regard the whole republic, when the ordinaries fail, provision seems to belong to the republic itself. ⁷ To the eighth reason I answer that since in the case in which the Pope has been made mad with an incurable dementia by nature he must be judged as dead, since he cannot perform or exercise the acts incumbent on the office of the supreme pontificate, according to the argument from on sick clerks, first chapter, book 6, then the lord cardinals ought to enjoin this upon the prelates of the Church and invite them that, coming together in one place, they take counsel what is to be done, namely whether another is to be elected, since the Church seems as it were vacant in the aforesaid case, or whether a helper is to be given him. ⁸ To the ninth I answer as to the seventh. ⁹ To the tenth it seems to be answered that in that case the council would have to be convoked by the authority of the Pope if that cause could not be terminated without a council, according to what we read of Pope Sixtus in the mandates, 2, q. 6, and of Pope Symmachus, and hence also dist. 17.

AFTER we have shown by what authority universal councils are regularly to be congregated, now it must be seen for what causes they are to be congregated, since prelates are not to be called away and wearied from their churches for a slight cause, but for the gravest and most arduous ones. But having run through many histories we find that the fathers of the Church have convened in council for many causes. First indeed, that over matters to be treated and disposed in the universal Church more mature and sounder counsel be had. For if, as the wise man says, Ecclesiasticus 37, stable counsel ought to go before every act, much more is this to be observed where action is to be taken concerning the greatest matters and those touching the whole Christian republic. But for having mature and sound counsel over such matters the multitude of the wise avails greatly, according to Prov. 11: "Where there are many counsels, there is safety"; and Ecclesiasticus 6: "A multitude of the wise is the health of the world"; and we read that this was observed above all by the fathers in matters of faith, in which error is more perilous, as blessed Aug. says. This cause of celebrating a council is touched by blessed Cyprian in the epistle which he and a certain synod write to Stephen, saying: "Cyprian and the rest to Stephen our brother, greeting. To dispose certain things and to settle them by the examination of a common council, we must of necessity, with very many priests convening in one place, gather and celebrate a council." Likewise the emperor Theodosius, with a mandate given that the bishops convene to celebrate the second synod of Ephesus, assigning the reason, says that since Pope Leo thought it was not safe without a holy synod and the prelates of the holy churches everywhere to unravel such a question of faith, "we have judged it necessary for your fraternity." Hence also the Gloss in ch. Anastasius, nineteenth distinction, says that where faith is at stake the Pope ought to seek the council of the bishops, which is above all to be understood when the question of faith itself was not previously determined and defined through the Church by itself or in like manner, being of such difficulty that the Pope with his college did not fully see what was to be held in that respect. And so in these matters that rule is always to be held, from on what causes, twentieth distinction, where Innocent consulted: "Concerning what causes no authority of loosing and binding appears in the books of the New and Old Testament, or in the four Gospels, or in the writings of the apostles, have recourse to divine Scripture; if not even in those, put your hand to the histories of the Catholic Church written by Catholic doctors; if not even in those, perspicaciously recall the examples of the saints; but if in all these interpreted things the quality of this question is not lucidly found, congregate the elders of the province and interrogate them. For what is sought by many elders is more easily found"; but also the promise says: "If two or three of you convene upon earth in my name, concerning everything which you shall ask, I will grant it"; so he. For this cause blessed Peter and the other apostles are read to have celebrated a council at Jerusalem when the question of the observance of the Mosaic law was raised, which was there defined with the grace of the Holy Spirit breathing upon it, as is held in Acts 15. Second, universal councils are read to have been congregated for a more solemn and ampler authority of the reprobation of heresies and the condemnation of heretics, plainly since, when justice is to be executed upon public robbers and enemies of the republic, it is customary to convoke the people, with a crowd of others and the bell, as much for its fuller knowledge as for the greater confusion of the evildoers; so a universal council is fittingly convoked when the judgment of reprobation and condemnation is to be exercised against heretics, whose errors have both powerful authors and many fautors through diverse parts of the world; for this cause many councils, and above all the seven illustrious and principal ones, are read to have been celebrated. The first of these is Nicaea, of 318 fathers, in which the error of Arius, bishop of Alexandria, who posited three degrees in the Trinity, namely the Father greater, the Son lesser, and the Holy Spirit a creature or servant, was condemned. The second was Constantinople, of 150 fathers, in which the error of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied that the Holy Spirit is God, is convicted. The third is the first Ephesus, of 200 fathers, in which the impiety of Nestorius is judged, who said that the blessed virgin Mary was the bearer not of God but of man only, so as to make one person of the flesh and another person of the Godhead. The fourth council was Chalcedon, of 630 fathers, in which the error of Eutyches was reprobated, who asserted that Christ after the human assumption does not exist from two natures but that only the divine nature remains. The fifth was Constantinople, in which the perfidy of many heretics is condemned, above all of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who asserted that the Word is one thing and Christ another, and denied that the holy Virgin Mary was the bearer of God. The sixth was also Constantinople, of 150 fathers, in which the folly of Macarius, bishop of Antioch, and of his fellows, who by false suspicion affirmed only one will and operation in Christ, is confuted. The seventh council is the second Nicaea, of 367 fathers, in which the heresy of those execrating the images of the saints in the church, saying that they are neither to be honoured nor venerated, was wiped away. Third, councils are read to have been congregated for the extirpation of schism, as the eighth universal council, of 300 fathers, celebrated at Constantinople, in which the congregated fathers extirpated the schism arisen over the deposition of Ignatius and the ordination of Photius, anathematizing Photius and restoring Ignatius. For this reason also we read that a council was congregated at Rome when a certain Ursinus contended with Pope Damasus over the papacy, in which, with Damasus confirmed in the apostolic see and Ursinus driven out, the schism was settled, as Eusebius relates in his ecclesiastical history. Likewise for the same reason a synod is read to have been congregated in the time of King Theodoric, in which the schism arisen over Symmachus and Lawrence contending for the papacy was extirpated, as in ch. Symachus, second, q. 7. Moreover in our age, with three contending for the papacy, Benedict 13, John 23, and Gregory the twelfth, a synod was congregated at Constance in the German nation, in which, with one, namely Gregory, resigning whatever right he had, and the other two, namely John and Benedict, deposed, peace was given to the Church. Fourth, councils are read to have been congregated for the reduction or confounding of heretics by way of disputation; for this cause in the time and with the consent of blessed Pope Sylvester, at the command of the emperor Constantine, a great meeting of bishops is said to have convened at Rome to dispute with the Jews concerning the law, namely whether the faith of the Christians was to be preferred to the law of the Jews, where, with a long contest completed, since the conclusion was for the faith of Christ, the empress Helena with three thousand Jews, converted to the faith of Christ, received baptism. For this cause also in our days the synod of Basel was congregated for the reduction of the Bohemians, where, with licence given to the Bohemians to dispute and to say freely whatever they wished in defence of their errors, and with four Catholic doctors assigned by the synod to answer them in public congregation, a very long contest took place, with us always present there; but although they were most manifestly convicted, and concession had been made to them in many things for the sake of gaining them, nevertheless they withdrew, their sins deserving it, as sordid as they had come. For this cause also a most ample synod was congregated at Florence in our days under Eugene of holy memory for the reduction of the Greeks, where the emperor of the Greeks was present, and the patriarch of Constantinople with many other prelates of the Eastern Church, where, with our Saviour working, who is true peace, the wall dividing the Western and Eastern Church being taken from the midst, union and concord were concluded among them, though alas it was not accepted by all in the Eastern parts. Fifth, councils are read to have been congregated when the Church has great and powerful enemies and disturbers. For then the supreme pontiff, prince of the Church and vicar of God the king of the kings of the earth, is wont to congregate a meeting of the fathers and princes of the Church, of whom in the psalm: "You shall constitute them princes over all the earth," to punish them. For this cause Gregory the third, when he could not compel the emperor Leo, third of this name, an incorrigible heretic, concerning the deposition of the images of Christ and of the blessed virgin and of the saints, which he had caused to be all destroyed and burned in the city of Constantinople, with a council congregated at Rome of as it were a thousand bishops, made Rome and all Italy withdraw from his obedience and power, forbade tribute, and, anathematizing him, confirmed the veneration of images. Likewise for this cause Gregory the seventh, against the emperor Henry, third of this name, because he strove to rend the unity of the Roman Church, congregated a council of 110 bishops at Rome and excommunicated him there. Likewise for this cause Innocent the fourth, pressing the emperor Frederick, second of this name, a rebel, contumacious, and incorrigible enemy of the Church, congregated a council at Lyons and there deposed him from the empire. Sixth, a universal council is read to have been congregated for the sake of obtaining supernal revelation from God concerning arduous things to be constituted in the Church. For this cause the first synod is read to have been congregated by the apostles, namely that they might know through prayers from God who was to be assumed to the integrity of the apostolic college in place of Judas the traitor; hence it is said, Acts 1: "And they appointed two, Joseph the saint who was surnamed the just, and Matthias, and praying they said: You, Lord, who know the hearts of men, show whom you have chosen," etc. Seventh, councils are read to have been congregated when great necessity or persecution threatens the Christian republic, which could be succoured by none but the aid of the whole Church. For this cause indeed, among others above all, Urban the second, hearing that the holy city of Jerusalem had been captured by infidels to the disgrace and confusion of the Christian people, convoked a general council at Clermont in Auvergne, and in aid thereof the passage overseas was ordained. Eighth, councils are read to have been congregated for the greater firmness of the faith and the plenary acceptance as much of the constitutions as of the definitions made in the preceding councils; hence after the Nicene synod a synod of 277 fathers was congregated at Rome by blessed Sylvester, in which the faith of the Nicene synod was strengthened and Arius condemned; in which blessed Sylvester speaks thus: "Whatever was constituted in the Nicene synod for the strength of the holy mother, the Catholic and apostolic Church, we 318 holy priests confirm with our mouth; and all who dare to dissolve the definition of the holy great council which was congregated at Nicaea in the presence of the most pious and venerable prince Constantine Augustus, we anathematize"; and all the bishops said: "It pleases us." Likewise the sixth synod celebrated at Constantinople, as is held in dist. 16, ch. Quoniam, speaks thus: "We confirm both the rest," namely "the canons of the holy fathers, and the synods," namely "Nicaea, Ancyra, Antioch," etc. Ninth, councils are read to have been congregated for the sake of inquiring into the truth concerning a suspicion of heresy arisen about the Roman pontiff. For this cause a council is read to have been congregated both in the time of Pope Symmachus, of which in the fifth, hence also dist. 16, and in the time of Pope Marcellinus, who had sacrificed to idols, of which in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21. Tenth, a council is read to have been congregated for the sake of the purgation which the Pope wished to make, so that, since the infamy had been public, the purgation also be known to all. For this reason Pope Damasus, Leo the fourth, and Sixtus, Roman pontiffs, caring for the good repute of their fame, are read to have congregated councils to allay scandal, as is held of blessed Damasus in 2, q. 7, nos, near the end; of Leo 4 in 2, q. 5, omnibus, near the end; of Pope Sixtus in ch. Mandatis, 2, q. 7. Eleventh, a universal council is to be congregated when a vehement doubt runs concerning the right of election of someone to the supreme pontificate, according to the Gloss in ch. Si forte, dist. 79; for this cause many councils were congregated by the holy fathers, which we described above for the sake of extirpating schism. Twelfth, councils are sometimes read to have been celebrated, and reasonably come to be celebrated, for a more efficacious, more solemn, and more universal reformation of the Church to be made. For although the supreme pontiff, by the singularity of his principate, could make and give every law to the whole Church, according to ch. Sunt quidam, 25, first question, nevertheless he often, and this reasonably, convokes the fathers of the Church synodally, so that laws to be made pertaining to reformation, formed by their counsel and approbation, have more authority and become more acceptable among the faithful. For this cause many councils have been congregated, in which canons containing many useful things for the correction of vices, for composing morals, for honesty of life, and for the peace of the Christian people have been instituted. From these the body of the Decree has for the great part been composed; among them is that singular synod which Gregory the seventh celebrated at Rome for the reformation of the Church, in which he anathematized simoniacs, forbade divine things to clerics having wives, prohibited laymen from hearing their masses, and applied the sentence of excommunication lest they receive investitures from laymen.

ALTHOUGH from what has been said above it is sufficiently clear how great a benefit to holy Church the very celebration of universal councils brings, nevertheless, in order to have a fuller knowledge of this matter, going over again some things from the preceding ch., we say that it avails most toward six ends. First, the celebration of universal councils avails for preserving the Christian religion in unity of faith, which is the first bond of Christian society, as blessed Chrysostom says. Blessed Isidore assigns this benefit of universal councils in ch. Canones, dist. 15, saying thus: "The canons of general councils began from the times of the emperor Constantine. For in the preceding years, while persecution raged, hardly any opportunity was given of teaching the peoples, whence Christendom was split into diverse heresies, because they had no license to come together into one, except in the time of the aforesaid emperor. For he gave Christians the opportunity of assembling freely." Likewise for this reason the emperor Marcian, writing to all bishops everywhere in the world that they should come to the Chalcedonian synod, speaks thus to the point: "We judged all things then to be set before other affairs which pertain to the true faith and the Christian orthodox religion. With God propitious, we strive that both our empire and the common causes may be the better." Since therefore certain doubts have been raised concerning the orthodox faith, as even the letters of the most holy archbishop of the most happy city of Rome indicate, it has pleased us that a holy council speedily be held, so that, with the fathers agreeing and the truth examined and all partisanship laid aside by which certain men, having already abused religion, have disturbed religion — the orthodox, true, and most salutary faith — that it may be most manifest to the whole world, and henceforth all questioning and doubt may be removed; and below: for whoever sins against the future general synod, useful to the whole world, offends against God indeed and offends our divinity, thus far he. Second, it avails for the easier and firmer elucidation of the truth in doubtful matters: easier indeed, because what is sought by many wise men is more easily found, as Inno. says in ch. de quibus, dist. 20; we call it firmer also, because a judgment is by so much the firmer or weightier as it is confirmed by the sentences of more men and approved by assent. Whence in ch. Extra conscientiam, dist. 64, Inno. says: A judgment is whole which is confirmed by the sentences of very many. Whence blessed Aug. says in book one on baptism against the Donatists that the ancient fathers wavered in faith until they were confirmed by a council of the whole world. For he says thus: "Lest I seem to pursue this by human arguments, since the obscurity of this question in the earlier times of the Church before the schism of Donatus so compelled great men and fathers, bishops endowed with great charity, to dispute and waver among themselves with peace unbroken, that they changed the diverse statutes of councils in their own several regions, until by a plenary council of the whole world what was most salutarily held was strengthened, doubts removed," thus far he. Hence also the emperor Theodosius, writing to Dioscorus archbishop of Alexandria that he meet with his metropolitans — at Ephesus without delay, he says thus — and hasten thou with all the holy bishops whom we have decreed by our sacred letters to meet at the aforesaid city, and with all contrary error removed from the midst as they investigate and inquire most subtly, may the catholic faith or orthodox doctrine be made firm, and shine forth in quiet wherein all hereafter may keep it unshaken and undefiled. Plainly, since the congregation of so many fathers of the Church to whom the Lord says in the Gospel, Matt. 5: you are the light of the world, seems to be nothing else than a congregation of many lamps, the synodal congregation of the fathers conduces well to the illumination of the Christian people and the adornment of the universal Church. Whence that of Eccles. 43 fits the point well: The beauty of heaven, that is, of the Church; the glory of the stars, that is, of the doctors, illumining the world — where the ordinary Gloss says thus: The beauty of heaven, that is, the adornment of the Church, of the saints, the fullness whom the most high God ordained to illuminate the world by the preaching of the Gospel. Third, the celebration of universal councils is useful for the cultivation of the Lord's field, as the canon frequens of the Council of Constance says. For the fathers gathered in council are indeed ministers, workmen, husbandmen of that field of which the Lord says, John 15: My Father is the husbandman, whose ministers' office is to root out the brambles of errors from the Lord's field, to plant the faith, and, with the roots of vices torn out, to engraft virtues. Whence the Lord seems to have said in figure of the Roman pontiff, who is the convoker and director of universal councils, that of Jer. 1: Behold I have set thee over nations and kingdoms, to root up and destroy, and scatter and disperse, to build and to plant, as Pope Inno. attests in ch. Solite, Extra, on majority and obedience. Whence Pope Adrian, speaking to the fathers in the council which he gathered at Rome, says thus to the point: Since we ought, O brethren and most beloved sons, to be strenuous and faithful cultivators of the Lord's field, and for its cleansing there is need to use the heavenly precepts as hoes, so that, if we see any thorny or any poisonous growths germinating in it, with equal labor and unanimous zeal, eager to extirpate these by the roots, let us take up the beak of examination and bring forth the sickle of judgment with concordant sentence, lest what be said reproachfully against us: The harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few, thus far he. Fourth, the celebration of universal councils is useful for humbling the pride of tyrants and unbelievers, greatly profitable indeed, as we have learned from trustworthy men who were unbelievers in the eastern parts — namely, in Turkey they are terrified, hearing that among Christians universal councils are gathered, and they do so wherever they lurk, and this reasonably, since the Church of God, as is said in Cant. 6, is terrible as an army in battle array. The camps are the doctors, the fathers of the Church gathered together, by whom as soldiers of Christ and champions the Church is fortified, protected and defended. Of whom it is said, Zach. 9: I will encompass my house, that is the Church, with those who fight for me, namely prelates, doctors and faithful princes, who in defending her are said to fight for Christ. Whence the apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, says: Labor as a good soldier, the Gloss in preaching the Gospel against enemies, 2 Tim. ch. 2. Fifth, the celebration of councils is useful for restraining the excesses of certain pontiffs who in their pontificate either exercise it at will with the rules of the holy fathers spurned, or dishonor it by simoniacal depravity, or confound it by worldly vanity and scandalous life. For this cause a council of the bishops of Italy is read to have been gathered at Rome by the emperor against Pope John the twelfth, who was a hunter and a public libertine and incorrigible. For as Pope Hormisda says in the decretal epistle to the bishops constituted throughout Spain, it is hard for anyone's heart to be so hardened by evil thoughts that he suffers himself to become blameworthy when he knows he will undergo the judgments of a council. Sixth, the celebration of universal councils avails for the extinction of almost all scandals which are stirred up in the Church, plainly as the earlier examples teach us, the last refuge of the Church in all her great straits, as was exemplarily shown in the preceding ch. — and there is this in many cases — concerning scandals arisen both by occasion of heretics or schismatics and otherwise, whence on account of these manifold benefits accruing to God's holy Church from the celebration of sacred councils there could most fittingly be adapted mystically to the point, as though spoken to the supreme pontiff, that of Eph. 16: Enter into counsel, namely with the wise. Gather a council, that is, assemble, as Master Nicholas of Lyra expounds, who says: the Holy Spirit — to the Roman pontiff when most grave dangers threaten in the Church: Into council, and gather, that is, gather a universal council, since if where two or three are gathered in Christ's name He Himself is present as inspirer, teacher and helper, as is had in Matt. 18, much more is He to be believed present where a society of many holy fathers has met in the name of Jesus Christ, especially for matters respectively concerning the whole of the Christian religion. But it is to be noted here that these things which have been said are to be taken as when in universal councils procedure is canonical and holy, since otherwise it were better to abstain from celebrating councils, since just as councils duly celebrated have wrought most salutary fruits, so those not duly celebrated have disturbed the whole Church with the greatest scandals, as the traditions of the fathers and the venerable histories teach us. Wherefore Eusebius, most religious bishop of the city of Dorylaeum (who had been unjustly condemned with Flavian by Dioscorus, as is had in the first action of the Chalcedonian council synod), speaking to the synod, says thus: We approach your piety supplicating to obtain justice, and the cause is this: lately a council was held in Ephesus the metropolis which was the last, not to be future, etc., that it fill not the whole world with so great evils and perturbations.

ALTHOUGH universal councils, as we have said before, are as a rule to be convoked only through the Roman pontiff and sustained by his authority, nevertheless it is not necessary nor always fitting that he always be personally present at them; but it suffices that his legates or vicars or his apocrisiaries be present, which is most openly shown by the fact that at none of the eight universal councils which are described in the Church as of more excellent authority was the Roman pontiff personally present, but through his legates. Whence Pope Leo the first of this name, most devoutly invited by the most Christian emperor Marcian to the Chalcedonian council, excused himself for this reason among others, that he had received no precedent therefor from his predecessors, as he himself writes both to the fathers of the Chalcedonian council and to the most beautiful Augusta; whence the legates of the aforesaid blessed Leo, assigning this excuse in the Chalcedonian council, said thus: Our most glorious and most Christian emperors, holding catholic charity, faith and affection, besought by venerable letters our most blessed Leo, prelate of the apostolic see, to be present at this venerable and holy council, to whose piety it could be pleasing if in this matter something similar done by predecessors were proved. For your holiness can better know that neither in the Nicene nor in the Ephesine synod nor in any other holy council was the pope of the holy see present. Following the custom of this form he has directed us, who most holy, not doubting himself to be present in those whom he chiefly knows to do all things which pertain to the sincerity of the catholic faith and to the reverence of the holy apostle Peter, has also through us directed to your beatitude fitting letters for the councils of the holy fathers, which receive ye, and take ye to be read through. But that the presence of the Roman pontiff is not necessarily required in universal councils, though his authority is, seems plainly enough gathered from the fact that the form of the authorities of the holy fathers concerning which throughout dist. 17, adduced above in ch. 6, does not hold that universal councils ought not to be celebrated without the presence of the Roman pontiff, but indeed that they ought not to be celebrated without his authority or sentence, and this the Gloss of the decree well shows in ch. 1, dist. 17, where, defining a universal council, it says it is that which is constituted, that is celebrated, by the pope or his legate with all the bishops. Of this custom, that in ancient earlier times the supreme pontiffs were not present in person at universal councils, especially at the time when emperors held most sway in the world, a threefold reason can be assigned. The first, lest any violence be inflicted on the Roman pontiffs in councils by emperors or other tyrants, as we read of Pope Felix, who, because after a council was celebrated he excommunicated Ursacinus, and Valens who agreed with the Emperor Constantine in Arian perfidy, was driven from the see and beheaded by that emperor and crowned with martyrdom. And like violence is read to have been done in the second Ephesine synod to the legates of the apostolic see, where Fabian, who acted in place of blessed Pope Leo, was slain. The second reason, that the Roman pontiff, who is accustomed to confirm the sentences of universal councils, as we shall show below from the acts of the councils, might with full liberty, which is most necessary in this behalf, abiding in his own see, confirm what seemed to him to be confirmed, and leave or quash by free power, void of authority, what was not to be confirmed. The third reason is on account of the incumbent necessities both of the Church and of the Roman city, to which the presence of the Roman pontiff is above all a protection and aid. This reason Pope Leo assigns to the fathers gathered in the Chalcedonian council, speaking thus of the emperor Marcian: The counsel of the most clement emperor, full of religion, is to be embraced, whereby he preferred your holy brotherhood to meet for destroying the snares of the devil and reforming ecclesiastical peace, with the right and honor of blessed Peter the apostle preserved, so much so that he invited us also to this, that we offer our sentence to the venerable synod, which indeed neither the necessity of the time nor any custom could permit: yet in these brethren, that is Paschasius, and Licentius bishops, Boniface and Basil presbyters, who have been directed from the apostolic see, let your brotherhood take heart to preside over your synod, nor deem my presence enjoined upon you. Likewise the aforesaid legates said thus to the aforesaid synod: For it is well known that sacred letters were sent to this beloved council to blessed and apostolic and catholic Pope Leo, which they hold, that he would deign to present himself to this sacred council; but since neither ancient custom nor the general necessity of the time permitted, he has commanded our littleness to preside over this holy council in his stead. And therefore it is necessary that the things brought forward into the midst be discussed through our interlocution.