Summary
1 What are they?
2 History
3 Ecumenicity, the churches and lay participation
4 Current Doctrine
5 Bibliographic references
1 What are they?
The holding of major assemblies of bishops is a practice that spans the millennial history of the Church, constantly giving it new vitality. Councils emerged spontaneously, influenced by the models of the Hebrew Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate. It appears that meetings of bishops from the same region, sanctioning the appointment of a new bishop made by the local community through consecration, are at the core of this praxis that had already begun to take root since the 2nd century.
The periodicity of councils is not regular and may appear random. The reason for their convocation is the resolution of doctrinal issues, such as confronting heresies, urgent needs for reform, challenges to the authority of the Church, or reflection and deliberation on other significant topics in specific historical periods. It is in councils that the Church reflects on itself as it addresses the issues affecting its life. In general, they mark the most significant moments of ecclesial life. It is also important to consider their long preparation time and, especially, their implementation and reception (ALBERIGO, 1997, p.5). In every council, the Church studies how to resolve its problems, establishes principles or norms, and organizes their implementation.
Based on this history of conciliar praxis, Pope Paul VI addressed the participants of the Second Vatican Council saying:
To you, Venerable Brothers, will belong the task of pointing out to us the means to purify and rejuvenate the face of the Holy Church. Yet once again we express our purpose of promoting such reform: how often in past centuries has this intention appeared alongside the history of Councils! May it be so once again, not now to uproot certain heresies and general disorders in the Church, which, thanks be to God, do not exist today, but to instill new spiritual vigor into the Mystical Body of Christ as a visible organization, purifying it of the faults of many of its members and stimulating it to new virtues (PAUL VI, 1964, n.22).
2 History
In historical records, synod and council often refer to the same type of gathering. The Catholic Church has a list of the 21 councils considered general or ecumenical. The council often regarded as a model is not on this list. It is the “Council of Jerusalem,” which brought together Peter, James, Paul, Barnabas, and others in the year 49 or 50. Less than two decades after the resurrection of Jesus, Christians faced the question: must someone be Jewish in order to become Christian? Some firmly argued yes, others no. To resolve the controversy, “they decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some others should go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. Sent on their way by the church (…)” (Acts 15:2–3). This procedure is often repeated. Leaders from various places travel to a common location, as representatives of their communities, to discuss a problem affecting all and to seek solutions.
Centuries later, the Arian controversy, widespread in the East, provoked the first ecumenical synod of Nicaea (325), which was recognized as the first ecumenical council. This and the following ecumenical councils, up to the eighth in 869, were convened by the emperor and held their sessions under the protection and supervision of the Roman Empire, which had become Christian. Their decisions became imperial laws. During the first millennium, emperors and one empress convened—and sometimes presided over—some councils. In most cases, they did so with the knowledge and blessing of the pope. Generally, bishops presided over the sessions. The Bishop of Rome did not personally attend any of the first councils, but his representatives enjoyed a privileged position and were the first to sign the acts. In the first four ecumenical councils, the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines were formulated. They consolidated and strengthened the faith of the nascent Church, in a dialectical relationship with classical culture. They were compared by Saint Gregory the Great (†604) to the four Gospels, but not equated with them in authority (JEDIN, 1970, p.242).
In general, the early councils were convened to establish doctrinal rules aimed at combating heresies. After the Eastern Schism in the 11th century, general councils became Western and papal. They were called by the bishop of Rome, presided over personally by him or by his representatives, and confirmed by him. These general councils committed themselves to regulating the societas christiana of the West. Trent and Vatican I chose to defend Roman Catholicism against the theses of the Reformers and the threats of secularized culture, primarily generating an anti theology, that is, one of opposition. The two Vatican councils have very distinct emphases: the first defines papal infallibility; the second is characterized by a prominent pastoral effort, understood as an overcoming of the long period in which the Church opposed society and issued multiple condemnations. The Second Vatican Council refrained not only from anathemas but also from definitions. It set aside the doctrine-discipline binomial and sought a global aggiornamento of the Church, in response to the signs of the times and the great transformations of contemporary society (ALBERIGO, 1997, p.7-8).
Some councils resumed themes or issues addressed by the previous council, seeking to resolve them fully. The first eight councils, from Nicaea I (325) to Constantinople IV (869–870), were convened in relatively quick succession because the creed and fundamental affirmations of faith pronounced by one council often raised new questions that had to be addressed. Some councils followed almost immediately one after another to tackle a persistent problem. Four Lateran councils were convened in the years 1123, 1139, 1179, and 1215 to reform the Church (BELLITTO, 2010, p.15–6). On other occasions, one council completed the work begun by a previous one, which had not been able to proceed due to circumstances. This relative continuity exists between the Fifth Lateran Council and Trent, and between Vatican I and Vatican II.
At first glance, the number of 21 councils gives the misleading impression that general councils gathered once every century throughout two thousand years of Christian history. In fact, the frequency of general councils was sporadic or clustered, with long stretches of time in which none were held. General councils could last only a week, like the Second Lateran Council (1139), or up to three and a half continuous years, like the Council of Constance (1414–1418). However, a longer duration does not necessarily mean greater importance or more accomplishments. The Fourth Lateran Council lasted only twenty days and was the most notable of the medieval reforming councils. The Second Vatican Council met for a total of 281 days, divided into four autumn sessions. However, as in all councils, much of the work took place behind the scenes, in preparatory commissions before or after the plenary sessions. The Fifth Lateran Council met for almost five full years (1512–1517), but achieved very little (BELLITTO, 2010, p.25–6).
3 Ecumenicity, the churches and lay participation
Technically, an ecumenical council is one that brings together representatives of the Church from around the world. Based on this definition, the first seven major councils are considered ecumenical, as self-designated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. From Nicaea in 325 to Nicaea II in 787, bishops from both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire, then considered the whole world, almost always attended — hence the name “ecumenical.” However, only a few Western bishops participated. The Council of Nicaea I, for example, had 220 bishops in attendance, but only a few were from the West. The Council of Constantinople I (381) included only Eastern bishops. They were also the majority at the Councils of Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), and Constantinople III (680–681).
The Orthodox churches recognize only the first seven councils as ecumenical, in contrast to the 21 recognized by the Catholic Church as general or ecumenical. The First Lateran Council (1123), the first after the Eastern Schism, called itself general, even though no Eastern bishops participated. On the other hand, the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (1431–1445) called itself ecumenical, since on that occasion Western and Eastern bishops discussed the reunification of the Church (BELLITTO, 2010, p.22–3).
Laypeople participated in the official acts of numerous ecumenical councils. Emperor Constantine opened the Council of Nicaea with a speech in Latin. Imperial commissioners oversaw external order. In the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, secular princes were present or represented by their ambassadors. The Roman emperor’s role in ancient councils was external, as guardian of order. In the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, laypeople acted as representatives of secular powers, whose collaboration appeared necessary for matters related to public order and mixed affairs. At Vatican I, no invitations were extended to governments.
Some questions arise: based on the universal priesthood and their collaboration in the apostolate, could or should laypeople at least be heard on topics that concern them, such as the lay apostolate or marriage? Once invited, should laypeople be admitted as experts or as members with voting rights? There is no reason why laypeople cannot be heard on matters that concern them, just as priests who are experts in theology or canon law are heard, even if they are not voting members of the council. A step toward the solution was taken by Paul VI, who admitted qualified laypeople as auditors in the General Congregations starting from the Second Session of the Second Vatican Council.
Councils have always sought the unity of the Church, but they have not always been able to achieve it. After the first and fourth ecumenical councils, long disputes followed. Both the Eastern Schism and the division of the Church in the 16th century occurred without councils being able to prevent them. At the Councils of Lyon II and Ferrara-Florence, union with the Eastern churches was officially restored, but it did not take effect because, in both cases, it was based on political motives and failed to overcome internal resistance within the Greek Church. The Council of Trent could not be a council of union, as by the time it convened the ecclesial rupture was already a reality. Negotiations with the German Protestants (1551–1552) showed that the conceptions of authority and structure of ecumenical councils were highly divergent. On the eve of Vatican I, Pius IX’s appeal to Protestants to return to the Catholic Church was rejected. During the preparation of Vatican II, a Secretariat for the Unity of Christians was established, with positive results in the council itself and in steps toward rapprochement among the churches (JEDIN, 1970, p.249–50).
4 Current Doctrine
The main Christian traditions have different conceptions of conciliar authority, the internal organization of the council, and the effect of its decisions. As mentioned, Orthodox Christians recognize only the first seven councils and have difficulty admitting a new pan-Orthodox synod. The Western Reformed tradition has varying positions regarding both past councils and a future ecumenical council. The Roman Catholic tradition increasingly emphasized the pope’s role, especially since the High Middle Ages, assigning him the direction of the council, including its convocation, regulation, daily operations, transfer, and closure. History seems to show a progressive reduction in the ecumenicity of councils: from universal to Western, from the first to the second millennium; from Western to Roman, from the first to the second half of the second millennium (ALBERIGO, 1997, p.9). The rapprochement and ecumenical dialogue initiated by Vatican II may eventually reverse this trend.
In the Catholic Church, the role of ecumenical councils is linked to the college of bishops and its head—that is, the stable and permanent group formed by the bishops and their leader, the bishop of Rome. According to the Second Vatican Council:
The collegial nature of the episcopal order, clearly demonstrated by the ecumenical councils celebrated throughout the centuries, is already evident in the early discipline, according to which the Bishops of the whole world communicated among themselves and with the Bishop of Rome in the bond of unity, charity, and peace; and also in the gathering of Councils, in which important matters were decided collectively, after the decision had been considered by many; this is also clearly demonstrated by the Ecumenical Councils held throughout the centuries. […] The supreme authority over the universal Church, which this college possesses, is exercised solemnly in an Ecumenical Council. An Ecumenical Council is never valid unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these Councils, to preside over them, and to confirm them (LG n.22).
Ecumenical councils preserve and develop the depositum fidei. This “precious deposit” of the doctrine of faith that was entrusted (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14) is not a simple catalog of articles or an inventory of juxtaposed items. Given the nature of the message of revelation and the salvific event of Christ, it encompasses the totality of the riches and goods of salvation entrusted to the Church. The Church communicates them to believers, updating their content with notable prudence, in order to make the unchangeable patrimony of this truth intelligible, credible, and fruitful, while responding to the needs and questions of people and times (POZZO, accessed Dec 21, 2014). Ecumenical councils also adapt the exercise of the priestly and pastoral office, as well as the Church’s legislation, to the diverse demands of the times. The greater this adaptation, the more effective and historically significant it will be.
Regarding its interpretation, the loss of the conciliar work protocols—such as in Nicaea—their precariousness in the medieval councils, and even their long unavailability in the case of the Council of Trent, fostered a hermeneutic that disregarded the historical context of the decisions and the nature of the conciliar event that expressed them. There was an entrenchment in a juridical-formal interpretation, long supported by the Roman congregation responsible for the councils (ALBERIGO, 1997, p.10). The assistance of the Holy Spirit, on which the inerrancy of an ecumenical council in matters of faith and morals is based, should not be confused with the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. Among theologians, it is debated whether this assistance should be understood only in a negative way—as preservation from error—or as positive cooperation. The latter position better corresponds to the thought of the early councils (JEDIN, 1970, p.248–50).
Luís Corrêa Lima, SJ. PUC Rio. Original text in Portuguese.
5 Bibliographic References
ALBERIGO, G. (ed.). History of the Ecumenical Councils. São Paulo: Paulus, 1997.
BELLITTO, C. M. History of the 21 Church Councils: from Nicaea to Vatican II. São Paulo: Loyola, 2010.
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. Dogmatic Constitution lumen gentium on the Church (LG). Rome, 1964. Available at: www.vatican.va. Accessed: Dec 21, 2014.
JEDIN, H. Council. In: FRIES, H. (ed.). Dictionary of Theology: Fundamental Concepts of Contemporary Theology. v. I. São Paulo: Loyola, 1970. p.242–51.
PAUL VI. Encyclical Letter ecclesiam suam. Rome, 1964. Available at: www.vatican.va. Accessed: Dec 20, 2014.
POZZO, G. Depositum fidei. Available at: www.mercaba.org/VocTEO/D/depositum_fidei.htm. Accessed: Dec 21, 2014.