Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 14 (Seven Ecumenical Councils)

...not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented, or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited. All that is required is that its decrees eventually find ecumenical acceptance and that its ecumenical character be universally recognized.

The reader will notice that in the foregoing, I have not proceeded from the theological foundation of what an Ecumenical Synod should be (the present volume does not deal with that question), but from a consideration of the historical question of what the Seven Councils have in common, which distinguishes them from other councils of the Christian Church.

It is well to note here that there have been many "General Councils" which have not been "Ecumenical." Although we often use these expressions interchangeably in ordinary speech, they are not, in fact, the same. There are only seven universally recognized and undisputed "Ecumenical Councils"; on the other hand, the number of "General Councils" is very considerable, and in reality, several of these very large councils fell into heresy. It is only necessary to mention as examples the Latrocinium original: "Latrocinium" (The Robber Council of Ephesus, 449 AD) and the spurious "Seventh Council" held by the iconoclastic heretics. It is, therefore, a simple statement of historical fact to say that General Councils have erred.

The Ecumenical Councils claimed immunity from error in their doctrinal and moral teaching, resting such a claim upon the promise of the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Council regarded itself not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once delivered to the Saints. Its decisions were therefore ecumenical in themselves, as they were an expression of the mind of the whole body of the faithful, both clerical and lay—the sensus communis common sense/consensus of the Church. According to the teaching of the Church at that time, this ecumenical consensus was considered free from the suspicion of error, guarded, as was believed, by the Lord's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. This is what Catholics mean when they affirm the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. Whether this opinion is true or false is a question outside the scope of this discussion. However, it was necessary to state that these Councils regarded themselves as divinely protected from error in faith and morals, lest the reader be at a loss to understand the anathematisms formal ecclesiastical curses or excommunications that follow the decrees. These would be singularly out of place if the decrees they so emphatically affirm were supposed to rest only upon human wisdom and speculation rather than upon divine authority.

Theologians consider that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, like all legal decrees, must be construed strictly, and that only the point at issue must be regarded as decided. The obiter dicta things said in passing of such an august body are no doubt of the greatest weight, but they have no claim to the supreme authority that belongs to the definition of the specific point under consideration.¹

The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together by the commandment and will of Princes. In at least one case (First Constantinople), this occurred without any knowledge on the part of the Pope.² In the case of the First Council of Nicaea, there was no consultation with the Pope, as far as we know.³ In the case of Chalcedon, the council was held contrary to his expressed desire; he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already summoned the synod. From this, it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome.

In the history of the Christian Church, especially during the later period connected with the Great Schism, there has been much discussion among the learned regarding the relative powers of a General Council and the Pope. It will be remembered that the superior authority of the council was not only taught but on one occasion acted upon by a council, but this is outside the period covered by the Seven Ecumenical Synods.

¹ See Vasquez, P. III., Disp. 181, c. 9; Bellarmine, De Conciliis, Book II, ch. 17; Veron, Rule of the Cath. Faith, Ch. I, §§ 4, 5, and 6.
² See Hefele’s answer to Baronius’s special pleading, History of the Councils, Vol. I, pp. 9–10.
³ It should be stated that at the Sixth Synod it was said that First Nicaea was "summoned by the Emperor and Pope Sylvester," though I do not know on what authority.