COUNCIL. - I. ORIGIN. - The rise of heresies in the 2nd century A.D. imposed on the bishops the necessity of gathering in assemblies to legislate on the nascent errors: Tertullian (De ieiunio, ch. 13) calls these gatherings concilia, while Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 7) and the Canons of the Apostles (can. 38) use the term synodus. The two appellations, used interchangeably, designated not only the assemblies but also the place where they were gathered. Subsequently these names were reserved only for the assemblies in which the bishops took part in order to deliberate on ecclesiastical matters. Hence the distinction between real councils and ecclesiastical councils: in the former there took part, besides the bishops, also counts, dukes and other secular princes; in the latter only the bishops assembled. Later, the name council was reserved only for the meetings of ecclesiastical prelates (L. Thomassin, De vet. et nova eccl. discipl., Paris 1688, part 2, III, ch. 36; Benedict XIV, De synodo dioec., I, Prato 1844, ch. 1, pp. 1-5).
The series of councils begins with the Apostles themselves (v. GERUSALEMME). From the words of the Lord (Mt. 18, 20: «ubi duo vel tres congregati sunt etc.»), confirmed by the Apostles (Act. 15, 28: «visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis etc.») some theologians deduced the divine origin of councils: a thesis upheld also by St. Gregory (Greg. I registrum epist., ed. P. Ewald, in MGH, Epist., I, 1, 24, Berlin 1887, p. 36). Although no one can deny the appropriateness and usefulness of councils, nevertheless there is not sufficient evidence to infer their divine origin. Christ sufficiently provided for maintaining the genuineness of his doctrine through the institution of the primacy (Wernz-Vidal, II, p. 524).
After that of the Apostles, the first councils that history records are from the 2nd century. Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, mentions many synods held in Asia Minor (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 16); others were held for the controversy over Easter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 23). Around the year 220 Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, opens the series of African councils (Cyprian, Epist., 71, 73). Subsequently other councils were held at Iconium in 230 and 235 (Cyprian, Epist., 75), and at Antioch in 264 and 269 (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 7). In these councils there took part the bishops, the presbyters and even the deacons; the laity, as simple observers, were not excluded. Only to the bishop was reserved the decisive vote. The acts, at first, were signed only by the metropolitan, later also by the other bishops and sometimes even by the presbyters, but only in a form of consent. The object of the deliberations was to condemn heresies and to resolve disciplinary questions; rarely was legislative power exercised (Hinschius, System des K. Kirchenrechts, III, Berlin 1869-79, p. 475). If questions of great importance in the faith arose, then all the bishops of the province took part in the meetings. Such was the Council of Alexandria of 320 for the cause of Arius, and that of 430 for the cause of Nestorius. Also worthy of mention are those of 445 and 447, held in Antioch, and those of Jerusalem of 518 and 536. The patriarch presided over these assemblies. Their deliberations did not have to be submitted to the imperial beneplacitum. St. Gregory also held two similar councils in Rome in 595 and 601 (Greg. I reg. epist., ed. P. Ewald-L. M. Hartmann, in MGH, Epist., V, 57ª, p. 362). The plenary councils resemble these: those assembled in Carthage had great authority, and indeed the earliest canonical collections report their canons in full. In such gatherings decisions of every kind were taken in judicial and administrative matters; legislative power was also exercised extensively. Of equal interest is the Council of Arles of 314 in the cause of the Donatists.
II. DEFINITION AND DIVISION
The council, therefore, can be defined as the legitimate assembly of bishops to deliberate and decree on matters ecclesiastical. If the bishops of the whole universal Church are called to take part in these assemblies and in fact represent it, the council is called ecumenical; if, on the other hand, only some bishops of Christendom take part in it, the council is called particular. The latter can be plenary if the bishops of several ecclesiastical provinces take part in it (CIC, can. 281); provincial or metropolitan if the bishops of a single province gather (CIC, can. 283). All of them possess a particular juridical character that gives them a special jurisdiction, distinct from that of individual bishops, to legislate on religious matters. This prerogative distinguishes councils from episcopal conferences (CIC, can. 292).
III. ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
1. Composition
By divine right, only residential bishops are called to participate in it; by ecclesiastical right, today cardinals who have not received episcopal consecration are also convoked; abbots and other prelates nullius, the abbots general of monasteries united in congregation and the superiors general of the Orders (CIC, can. 223).
2. Convocation
Only the Roman pontiff has the proper and exclusive right to convoke an ecumenical council (Leo X, const. Pastor aeternus, 19 Dec. 1516; CIC, can. 222 § 1). This prerogative springs from the primacy of jurisdiction that he has over the whole Church and over all and each of the bishops. No one else can arrogate this right to himself without injuring the inalienable rights of the bishop of Rome. From the right of convocation there necessarily follows the power to transfer, suspend, and dissolve an ecumenical council (Pius IX, const. Cum Romani Pontificis, 4 Dec. 1869; Pius X, const. Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 Dec. 1904, n. 28). The convocation of the first eight ecumenical councils ordered by the emperors reflects the circumstances of those times. Only the emperor could gather so many bishops into a council, since the Eastern bishops would hardly have responded to the invitation of the Roman pontiff, and because only the emperor could make available the swiftest means for travel and for their sustenance. This does not derogate from the primacy of the Roman pontiff, since in fact the emperors arrogated this right to themselves at the request of the pope or with his express or tacit consent, which is sufficient for a legitimate convocation.
3. Constitution
The constitution of an ecumenical council comes about immediately after the participation of the bishops, in a number sufficient to represent the universal Church. What the number of participants ought to be has never been defined: certainly it is not required by right that all the bishops of the world be present, a thing morally impossible, nor can one consequently have recourse to an absolute majority, since many times it does not represent the wiser part of the Church. A necessary condition, therefore, is that only then do the bishops represent the universal Church when they are united with the successor of St. Peter; only thus can there be a legitimate college of bishops united with the pastor, that is, the head united with the members. The absolute necessity of the consent of the majority of the bishops cannot be demonstrated; indeed, the pope can reject the decisions taken by the absolute majority of the bishops. To have this intimate union between the head and the members, it is required that the bishop of Rome preside over the council personally or through his legates (CIC, can. 222 § 2; Wernz-Vidal, II, n. 460; Benedict XIV, De symbolo dioec., XIII, cap. 2, n. 3; Hefele-Leclerq, I, pp. 71, 752).
4. Authority
The ecumenical council has ordinary and supreme authority in the universal Church. It differs from that of the Roman pontiff solely in the number of those who exercise it: the pope indeed has in the universal Church the same complete and supreme jurisdiction. Between the one and the other there is an intimate relation: while the power of the Roman pontiff is conceived as unique, sole, universal, supreme, on the other hand these same qualities cannot be assigned to the ecumenical council unless there is union with the vicar of Christ (M. D. Bouix, De papa, ubi et de conc. oec., II [Paris 1869], pp. 503, 687). This consideration definitively excludes the possibility of an appeal from the sentence of the pope to the ecumenical council. The competence of the universal council extends to everything that is intimately connected with the dogmatic and moral patrimony (CIC, can. 228).
5. Celebration
Questions must be proposed by the Roman pontiff; this right is also left to the bishops, in a subordinate order, with the prior approval of the president of the council (Pius IX, const. Multiplices, 29 Nov. 1869, n. 2; CIC, can. 226). Discussion must be free in order to allow room for a broader elucidation of the questions, and also because it is fitting that doctrine not be imposed authoritatively, but rather be allowed to flow naturally and spontaneously from the infallible magisterium of the Church. Once the various questions have been discussed, they are put to a vote. It is self-evident that dogmatic questions and universal decrees should have an absolute majority. But even in this matter, if the lesser part of the bishops is the wiser part and in harmony with the vicar of Christ, it can reject the position of the majority.
6. Approval
The bishops assembled in council are true and proper judges, by the power received from God. Their decisions are true and proper definitions and judgments, not mere counsels: that is, they are juridical acts issued by virtue of their jurisdiction. This power is not absolute, but subordinate to the approval of the Roman pontiff. Such confirmation on the part of the bishop of Rome is essential, not accidental, as the head is for the body; lacking it, the acts of the bishops have neither full value nor universal force of obligation (R. Bellarmino, De conciliis et eccl., I, cap. 18; D. Palmieri, De Romano Pont., 2nd ed., Prato 1891, p. 683). The confirmation on the part of the Roman pontiff can be antecedent by means of a special mandate, or concomitant when he himself presides, or subsequent (CIC, can. 227). There follows the chronology of the ecumenical councils, on each of which v. under the appropriate entry.
7. Chronology
1) First Council of Nicaea, a. 323, convened by Constantine under the pontificate of St. Sylvester (against the Arians). 2) First Council of Constantinople, a. 381, assembled under Pope Damasus and the emperor Theodosius the Great (against the Macedonians). 3) Council of Ephesus, a. 431, under the pontificate of Celestine I and Theodosius the Younger (against Nestorius). 4) Council of Chalcedon, a. 451, with Pope Leo the Great and the emperor Marcian (against Eutyches). 5) Second Council of Constantinople, a. 553, convoked by the emperor Justinian against the will of Pope Vigilius, became ecumenical through the subsequent approval of the Pontiff (it settled the question of the Three Chapters). 6) Third Council of Constantinople, a. 680, convoked under Pope Honorius, was approved by Agatho (against the Monothelites). 7) Second Council of Nicaea, a. 787, under the regency of the empress Irene with Pope Adrian I (against the iconoclasts). 8) Fourth Council of Constantinople, a. 869-70, under the pontificate of Adrian II (against Photius). 9) First Council of the Lateran, a. 1123, the first ecumenical council in the West, with Pope Callistus II (at the end of the investiture struggle). 10) Second Council of the Lateran, a. 1139, under Innocent II (to settle the schism of Pier Leone). 11) Third Council of the Lateran, a. 1179, with Pope Alexander III (ratification of the peace with Frederick Barbarossa). 12) Fourth Council of the Lateran, a. 1215, under Innocent III (the most important of the Middle Ages, for the doctrine formulated and the errors condemned [Joachimism, the Albigensian heresy, etc.], and for the disciplinary norms issued). 13) First Council of Lyon, a. 1245, under Innocent IV (against Frederick II). 14) Second Council of Lyon, a. 1274, convoked by Gregory X (for union with the Easterners) in France. 15) Council of Vienne, a. 1311-12, under the pontificate of Clement V (for the cause of the Templars and the condemnation of various heretical doctrines). 16) Council of Constance, 1414-18, for that part which was approved by Martin V (for the settlement of the Western Schism and the condemnation of Hus and Wyclif). 17) Council of Florence, a. 1439-45, convoked by Eugene IV (for union with the Greeks and other Easterners). 18) Fifth Council of the Lateran, a. 1512-17, convoked by Julius II, continued and approved by Leo X (for the condemnation of various doctrines against the deniers of the immortality of the soul). 19) Council of Trent, convoked by Paul III in 1545, was concluded by Pius IV in 1563 (against the errors of the Protestants and for the true reform of the Church). 20) Vatican Council, convoked by Pius IX and personally inaugurated on 8 Dec. 1869, suspended in the wake of political events on 20 Dec. 1870 (most famous for the condemnation of materialistic errors and of rationalism in general [const. Dei Unigenitus] and the definition of the Primacy and of the infallible magisterium of the Roman pontiff [const. Pastor aeternus]).
IV. PLENARY COUNCIL
To celebrate a plenary council, the prior permission of the Roman pontiff is required, who, in granting it, appoints a legate to convoke and preside over the council (CIC, can. 281). Besides the legate, all archbishops, residential bishops, administrators, vicars, and apostolic prefects must take part in it; abbots and prelates nullius, capitular vicars, and if titular bishops are convoked they have a deliberative vote (CIC, can. 282). The other norms are the same as those concerning the provincial council.
Plenary councils to which all the bishops of a State are invited are more properly called national councils.
Italy has been divided (by measures of the Sacred Congregation Consistorial of 15 February and 22 March 1919 and 29 September 1933) into nineteen conciliar regions, in each of which, with a few exceptions, the regional council, which is a true plenary council, must be held in place of the provincial councils (v. below).
V. PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
Its origin is earlier than the Council of Nicaea, which prescribed its celebration twice a year (can. 5), renewed by the Council of Chalcedon (can. 17; Leo I, Epist. 14, chap. 7 [a. 445]; Greg. I, Reg. 4, 9). The convocation belongs to the metropolitan, who presides over the assemblies (CIC, can. 284). The composition is established by the code. The following must take part in it: 1) all the bishops, even if not consecrated, of the province, 2) the apostolic administrators, 3) the coadjutors with full administration of the diocese, 4) the exempt bishops but deputed to the province, 5) all the abbots and prelates nullius, 6) the capitular vicars (CIC, can. 286). Its competence is restricted almost exclusively to the common law, whose application they must promote in particular provisions so that the faith and morals may be preserved in a most upright manner (CIC, can. 290). Its acts, sent to the Holy See, are submitted to the judgment of the Congregation of the Council. This approval does not confer new authority on the decrees, except if it were in specific form. Once published, the decrees bind the whole province; the bishops may dispense only in particular cases (CIC, can. 291).
Bibliography7 works
Giuseppe Damizia
VI. COUNCIL IN THE MISSIONS
The norms for councils and synods in the missions fall within the competence of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide. This, however, was not always the case: at the beginning of its establishment, it often referred the examination of the councils and synods held in the missions to the Sacred Congregation of the Council. Some of these were celebrated before the founding of Propaganda, such as the five provincial councils of Goa (1567, 1575, 1585, 1592, 1606) and the Synod of Diamper (1599) in India. In Latin America the councils and synods were very numerous, and among the oldest and most important are to be counted those of Lima and of Mexico. Only the two councils of Port of Spain (1854, 1867) were submitted for the approval of Propaganda. In North America the series opens with the first diocesan Synod of Baltimore (1791), which was followed in 1829 by the first provincial council of Baltimore. In that same city nine other provincial councils were celebrated, the tenth of which was held in 1869. More important are the three plenary councils also held at Baltimore (1852, 1866, 1884), which are still in force in the Church of the United States. Numerous other councils and synods were celebrated in other dioceses, as, for example, at Philadelphia, Buffalo, Cincinnati and New York.
In Canada there are seven provincial councils and the plenary council of 1909.
In northern Europe the following were celebrated: a Synod in the apostolic vicariate of Scotland (1700), three Irish Synods (Tuam 1633, Meath 1686, Dublin 1770) and the four provincial councils of Westminster (1852, 1855, 1859, 1873) in England and the plenary council of Maynooth (1875) in Ireland.
The Eastern Church has likewise had a great number of councils and synods, among which the provincial Synod of Mount Lebanon (1736) for the Maronites, the national council of the Armenians (1911), the national Synods of Carcapha (1806), which was not approved, and of Ain-Traz (1835) for the Melkites; for the Ruthenians the provincial Synod of Zamość (1720).
In India, after the councils of Goa and Diamper and the Synod of Cranganore (1606), there is the Synod of Pondicherry in 1844, and no plenary council.
After the Synod of Juthia (1665) in Indochina there was a scanty number of synods and councils. In 1934 the first plenary council took place.
In China there was in 1803 the Synod of the apostolic vicariate of Sant'Quien, which was approved only in 1822 and then extended to all of China. In the following years several others were celebrated; worthy of mention are the synods of the various regions into which that immense territory had been divided. In 1924 the first general council was celebrated at Shanghai.
In Japan and Korea conciliar activity has been very limited. In 1890 the regional Synod of the two territories was celebrated. At Tokyo in 1895 and 1924 the two provincial councils assembled, and in 1931 there was another regional council.
Indonesia records only one Synod in the apostolic vicariate of the Lesser Sunda Islands; and the Philippine Islands, which have always been independent of Propaganda, have had the diocesan Synod of Manila (1582), that of Nueva Segovia (1773) and the provincial council of Manila (1907).
The Australian and New Zealand Church enumerates several councils held at Sydney (1844, 1885, 1895, 1905), at Melbourne (1862, 1869, 1885, 1907) and at Wellington (1899); in 1937 it had the fourth plenary council, celebrated likewise at Sydney.
In Africa various synods were held at St-Denis, at Algiers and at Carthage. But in the recent period there have been very few synods and numerous conferences of the Ordinaries.