A Historical
Retrospect
Brother John M.
Samaha, S.M.
A Skeletal Church History
At this time we
have passed a half-century since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the
450th anniversary of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). These anniversaries offer an opportune
occasion to recall also the importance of the other nineteen general councils
of the Catholic Church. Church
historians remind us that tracing the developments of the twenty-one general
councils is an outstanding way to survey the two-thousand-year history of
Christianity. While the general councils
did not treat every aspect of theology and spirituality, they did address the
major issues of their times. For this
reason scholars recognize these meetings as an essential lifeline in church
history.
Church councils
imply democratic or constitutional meetings happening in a hierarchical church
presided over by a pope claiming a singular and unique authority directly from
Christ. Such a paradox is quite
interesting and controversial, and a dominant theme threading across all the
general councils.
Another prevailing
theme is the cycle of challenge and response that brings councils into session
to treat heresy, the need for reform, questions of church authority, and other
significant issues popping up in various periods of the two millennia of
Christian history.
Appreciating the Significance of Councils
The councils are
the church’s “think tanks” for solving problems and plotting the future. Often issues are churning for decades or even
centuries before they are brought to a council for solution. The council fathers enunciate guiding
principles and procedures, and plot their implementation. The general pattern is to identify the reason
for convoking the council, setting the goal, a period of preparation, the
meeting itself, and the efforts to put into practice the decisions.
While still recent
history, Vatican II’s landmark sessions (1962-1965) offers an opportune moment
for a retrospective review of the previous twenty general councils. This will not only aid in understanding the
specific history of each, but especially to put Vatican II and its results into
clearer perspective. Studies of Vatican
II and its different kind of conciliar documents abound. But what is lacking is sufficient attention
to the prior councils and their documents in light of our own experience of
Vatican II. The past is prologue.
Reading about
councils is one thing. Living through a
council and having learned about earlier councils is quite another. Firsthand familiarity with Vatican II gives
people today an exceptional insight and perspective on how other councils
worked. Contemporary Christians are more
fortunate in this regard than the millions who lived during periods when no
councils met, such as the 306 years between Trent and Vatican I, or the 92
years between Vatican I and Vatican II.
A Historical Overview
Tracing the twenty-one general
councils in broad strokes, we can group them in four periods of church history
because they seem to fit together in these four eras: early, medieval,
reformation, and modern.
In the first
millennium the councils met to formulate doctrinal statements to correct
heretical differences. The councils of the
middle ages and reformation dealt with reforming church divergences and
clarifying certain doctrines. In the
modern period the two Vatican councils were gathered for dissimilar reasons:
the first to define papal infallibility; the second to renew the church in line
with contemporary developments.
Some councils
completed the unfinished business of their predecessors. The first eight councils, Nicaea (325) to
Constantinople IV (869-870), met in somewhat rapid succession because they were
refining creedal statements. Several
followed soon after another to address persisting problems. The first four
Lateran councils met successively in less than a century (1123, 1139, 1179,
1215) to address questions of church reform.
In later situations councils finished the work that earlier meetings
could not because of difficult circumstances.
Reviewing the
historical contexts and major undertakings of the councils to respond to
particular challenges will help to recognize the connecting themes and to form
a general synthesis of the church’s journey to the present.
Why Church Councils Meet
What constitutes a
general council? This is a meeting
convened by the pope, although this has not always been the case in early
church history. All bishops are called
to participate, but others are also invited.
There is no regular schedule for convoking a council; they are called as
needed so that the council fathers can address the demanding religious and
social issues of their day. From the
very outset of the Church’s life, Christian leaders have used such major
meetings to compare notes and solve problems.
For example, when Pope
Innocent III announced Lateran IV, which met in 1215, he declared that some
important questions required attention, and “since these objects affect the
condition of the whole body of the faithful, we should summon a general council
according to the ancient custom of the holy fathers to be held at a convenient
time and to be concerned only with the spiritual good of souls.” Then he suggested a sweeping agenda “to
uproot vices and implant virtues, to correct abuses and reform morals, to
eliminate heresies and strengthen faith, to allay differences and establish
peace, to check persecutions and cherish liberty, to persuade Christian princes
and peoples to grant succor and support for the Holy Land from both clergy and
laymen, and for other reasons which it would be too tedious to enumerate
here.” All invitees were requested to be
in Rome two and a half years after the summons and to prepare according to this
directive: “Meantime, both personally and by discreet agents, you will inquire
precisely about all matters which seem to call for energetic correction of
reform, and, conscientiously writing a report, you will deliver it for the
scrutiny of the sacred council.”
Constance (1414-1418) was
a controversial assembly that wanted to put councils on a regular schedule
mainly to assert their claim to authority over the papacy. In 1417 Constance stated: “The frequent
holding of general councils is a pre-eminent means of cultivating the Lord’s
patrimony. It roots out the briars,
thorns, and thistles of heresies, errors, and schisms; corrects deviations;
reforms what is deformed; and produces a richly fertile crop for the Lord’s
vineyard.”
While Constance failed in
this attempt, no one in church leadership doubted the value and crucial
importance of a general council. In
1512, five years before Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, John Colet,
the dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and a friend of Erasmus, preached a
sermon to a gathering of England’s clergy in which he clearly stated: “For
nothing ever happens more detrimental to the church of Christ than the omission
of councils, both general and provincial.”
He and others knew the church needed to call a council to address
critical conditions.
While general councils met
for a variety of reasons, Vatican II is considered to be the first council
without a serious doctrinal issue at the head of its agenda. Vatican II was a different type of council,
and Pope Paul VI affirmed this in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (1964)
when he encouraged the continuation of its innovative direction: “How often in past centuries has the
determination to instigate reforms been associated with the holding of
ecumenical councils! Let it be so once
more; but this time not with a view to removing any specific heresies
concerning the church or to remedying any public disorders – for disorders of
this sort have not, thank God, raised
their head in our midst – but rather with a view to infusing fresh spiritual
vigor into Christ’s mystical body considered as a visible society and to
purifying it from the defects of many of its members and urging it on to the
attainment of new virtue.”
The First and Model Council in the
New Testament
While the council held in
Jerusalem and recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is not listed with those we
consider general or ecumenical, this meeting of Peter and James, Paul and
Barnabas, and others is often noted as the first and model council. Constantinople II (553) explicitly mentioned
the importance of the apostles coming together to consult and to make a
decision.
The New Testament includes two accounts of this meeting: Acts of the
Apostles 15 and Galatians 2:1-10. The
“Council of Jerusalem” probably met in 49 or 50 to address the question that
arose a handful of years after Jesus’ death and resurrection: Must one be a Jew
in order to be a Christian? The issue
boiled down to whether men needed to be circumcised and whether all were bound
by the Jewish dietary laws.
Acts 15 set some important
patterns for future councils. For
example, Paul and Barnabas were “appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss
this question with the apostles and the elders.
So they were sent on their way by the church….” Henceforth church
leaders representing distant and diverse areas gathered in a central place to
discuss common issues and arrive at solutions to the vexing problems. James employed a reasonable compromise approach,
and the decision of his council was that Gentile men need not be circumcised to
be followers of Christ. Then those
meeting sent a letter explaining the decision and indicating the source of its
authority: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….”
In his letter to the
Galatians, Paul relates that the group seemed to agree over a handshake, as
though everyone participated equally in the decision: “they gave me and
Barnabas their right hands in partnership” (Gal 2:9). But in the Acts of the Apostles, James
listened to everyone and then made a decision: “My brothers, listen to
me…. It is my judgment...” (Acts 15:13,
19). A slight discrepancy appears
between Acts, which suggests one decision maker with whom others agreed, and
Galatians, which sounds like a consensus decision. This situation is indicative of a tension in
several general councils between popes exercising their primacy and bishops
emphasizing collegiality and collaborative action.
Church Law on the Relationship of
Pope and Bishops
The present Code of Canon
Law, promulgated in 1983, explains the working relationship between pope and
bishops at general councils (canons 336-341).
Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (no. 22) uses almost the same
language. Canon 336 declares that the two working together are
the final authority in the church: “The college of bishops, whose head is the
Supreme Pontiff, …together with its head and never without this head, is also
the subject of supreme and full power over the universal church.” The pope is a member of the college of
bishops as head of the diocese of Rome, but the emphasis is placed on the pope
as head of the college.
In regard to councils, canon 337 states: “The
college of bishops exercises power over the universal church in a solemn manner
in an ecumenical council.” Canon 338
reserves to the pope sole authority in some matters: convoking an ecumenical
council; presiding over it personally or through others; transferring,
suspending, or dissolving a council; approving its decrees; setting the agenda,
and approving items added to the agenda.
Current church law states
that an ecumenical council cannot come into play without papal authority. But history shows exceptions in the first
millennium when emperors and one empress called and sometimes presided over
councils, usually with the knowledge and blessing of the popes. Nor did popes always attend general councils
in person. In such a case they would
send a legate to speak for them.
The decrees of a general
council are valid and binding only after the pope approves them and orders them
published. Canon 341: “The decrees of an
ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved
by the Roman Pontiff with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and
promulgated at his order.” Only at the
behest of the pope are the results then shared with the universal church.
Bishops are the main
participants, and canon law gives them alone the deliberative vote, one that is
binding on a council’s decisions and not merely an opinion that may be
overlooked. However the convening pope
may invite others to a council and determine how they will participate. This is covered in canon 339. At Vatican II, John XXIII and Paul VI gave a
deliberative vote to the heads of religious orders, and invited the advice of
many experts and observers – clerical and lay, male and female, Catholic and
non-Catholic – especially in committee sessions, public lectures, and private
consultations.
“Ecumenical” or “General”?
The terms “universal,” “ecumenical,
and “general” are ordinarily used
interchangeably, and somewhat loosely.
But it is important to be accurate and note the distinctions. “Ecumenical” comes from the Greek word for
“universal.” A truly ecumenical council,
then, is a gathering that included representatives of the church from all parts
of the world. By that definition, the
first seven major councils were ecumenical, as Chalcedon called itself in 451,
because they included bishops from the eastern and western parts of the Roman
Empire, considered to be the entire world at that time. In fact, very few western bishops were
present at some of those meetings.
While the separated
Eastern Orthodox churches consider only the first seven councils ecumenical,
the Roman Catholic Church recognizes twenty-one to be ecumenical or general,
even though the east was missing from the councils of the second
millennium. Lateran I (1123) called
itself a general and not an ecumenical council because no eastern bishops
participated.
Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome referred to itself as ecumenical since
eastern and western bishops gathered to discuss reuniting the church.
The common usage of
“general council” acknowledges the absence of the east from most meetings after
the first millennium. This use became
the custom in the course of time. In 1974 when marking the 700th
anniversary of Lyons II, Paul VI said it was “counted sixth among the general
synods celebrated in the western world,” since those meetings of the medieval
period took place in western Europe.
Paul VI used “synod” instead of “council” but both terms carry the same
meaning in the church records of the day.
The important distinction is the difference between general, universal,
or ecumenical meetings, and local, regional, or provincial meetings. Numerous provincial or local councils or
synods met during the first three centuries of Christianity, especially during
the third century, to handle matters of doctrine and discipline. These earliest church meetings in North
Africa, Rome, Gaul, Asia Minor, and Iberia paved the way to Nicaea I, the first
general council. Many local meetings,
some attended by popes or their delegates, also met during the Middle
Ages. Today regional synods of bishops
continue to meet, sometimes in Rome, and frequently in the home countries as
national synods or conferences.
A Concluding Review
The time between councils,
their duration, and their attendance reveal a wide variance. Counting twenty-one general councils may lead
one to think that they were called about one each century. But in reality general councils have met
infrequently and often in clusters. And
there were long periods of time that experienced no councils at all. Three centuries elapsed before Christianity
was recognized by the Roman Empire. Only
then was the first general council convened.
Then eight councils sat in the 545 years between Nicaea I (325) and
Constantinople IV (869-870). Two and a
half centuries later the seven medieval councils, Lateran I (1123) to Vienne
(1311-1312), met over the next 189 years. With the passing of another century
two more general councils met within three decades: Constance (1414-1418) to
Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (1431-1445).
In the sixteenth century Lateran V (1512-1517) followed more than sixty
years later, succeeded by Trent, which met in three stages over 1545-1563. Three centuries transpired before the next
council, Vatican I (1869-1870). Another century
and Vatican II (1962-1965) met.
General councils varied in
duration. Lateran II sat only a week, while Constance (1414-1418) met for three
and a half years of steady activity. But
length of time is no indicator of importance or achievement, for Lateran IV
gathered for only twenty days and was the most impressive of the medieval
councils. Vatican II met 281 days over
four autumn gatherings, but, as at most councils, a great deal of work took
place before and after the four sessions.
Lateran V met for five years, 1512-1517, but accomplished little.
Concerning participation,
as few as a dozen members were present during a low point at Constantinople IV
(869-870), and only seventeen during one session of Trent in 1551-1552. In striking contrast 2,540 packed St. Peter’s
Basilica for the first session of Vatican II in 1962. But the historical period of a general
council was not necessarily a big influence on attendance. In spite of difficulties in travel and
communication during the ancient and medieval eras, about 600 took part in
Chalcedon (451), more than 400 at Lateran IV (1215), and nearly 900 at
Constance (1414-1418).
Even though each general
council exhibited distinctive characteristics, a common thread runs through
all. Each council rose to the occasion
and responded to the urgent needs of its day.
Hopefully this brief and broad view of conciliar history offers a
context for a better appreciation of our church’s growth and development, and
places the church’s life in clearer perspective. Perhaps it will whet our appetites for
delving a little deeper into how these councils have served the church in
addressing the challenges they confronted.
History repeats itself.
The Correct Context
Each council must be seen
in its proper context. Our faith reminds
us that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and the fathers of the councils
through all the centuries. And the Holy
Spirit will be with the Church in all the years to come. If we lose sight of this fundamental truth,
we risk the confused thinking that the Holy Spirit might abandon Christ’s
Church. But we know the Holy Spirit,
like Christ himself, is always with us.
In 1870 Blessed John Henry
Newman shrewdly projected that it takes a century to integrate fully the wisdom
of an ecumenical council. “It is rare,”
he wrote, “for a council not to be followed by great confusion…. The century following each council has ever
been a time of great trouble.”
At the outset of Vatican
II, Blessed John XXIII noted that “It is now only dawn….” We are still digesting the work of Vatican
II: 16 major decrees approved by more than 2,500 council fathers, who cast over
1,200,000 ballots after 1,000-plus speeches, and over 6,000 written
interventions.
Consider this an
invitation and opportunity to refresh and to renew ourselves by rereading (or
reading for the first time) the dynamic teachings of Vatican II and of earlier
councils. These documents reveal a
Church ever faithful, a divine gift, a Church ever dynamic, and a grace that
continues from the time of the Apostles.
Pope Benedict XVI reminds
us that “The Church both before and after the [Second Vatican] Council is the
same one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church journeying through time.”
