Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 19: Whose It Is to Preside Over a General Council
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book I (of the controversy On Councils and the Church). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The other part of the question is: whether someone ought to preside, and who he is. The heretics of our time teach that the ordinary President of Councils ought to be the Emperor, or someone sent by him, or, if he send none, that one ought to be appointed by the Synod itself. And in fact, they say, in the ancient general Councils the Roman Pontiff scarcely ever presided, but either the Emperor, or his Legates, or the more ancient Patriarch, or the Bishop of the place where the Council was held. So teach the Magdeburgians, Century 4 chapter 7 column 536; Calvin, Book 4 chapter 7 §§ 1 and 2 of the Institutes; Charles Molinaeus, in his counsel on not receiving the Council of Trent, § 4 — where he openly lies, when he says that the Legates of the Pontiff always sat after all the Bishops in Councils, whereas in no Council are they found to have sat in the last place; Hermann Hamelmann, Book 3 of the Prolegomena chapter 8; and Brentius in the Prolegomena against Peter a Soto.
All Catholics teach that this office is proper to the supreme Pontiff: that in person or through Legates he preside over the Synod, and as supreme Judge moderate all things. And we say “in person or through Legates,” because the supreme Pontiff never was present in person at the Eastern Councils; nor was this done by chance, but for a certain reason, as is plain from Leo's letter 17 to Theodosius and 47 to the Council of Chalcedon, where he says that he does not come to the Synod because custom does not allow it, nor is there any example of his predecessors in this matter. Add that Pope Vigilius was at Constantinople when the fifth general Council was held in that city, and yet would not be present, but by a document confirmed the acts of the Council, as Photius writes in his book on the seven Synods. The Emperors themselves too, when they proclaimed Councils, called all the other Bishops by edict, commanding them; but the Roman they invited, that he would deign to come, if it pleased him — as is plain from the letter of the Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo, which is had before the Council of Chalcedon. But what the reason of this is, is uncertain. John of Torquemada, Book 3 chapter 11, sets some reasons which are not much approved by me.
I suspect these two to have been among the causes. One, because it did not seem fitting that the head should follow the members, since rather the members ought to follow the head; and so therefore the Pope was present at the Roman Councils, and at certain others which he himself convoked to himself — that is, to the place where he himself was — but would not, and ought not, to go to Councils gathered elsewhere. The other reason is that at the Eastern Councils the Emperor, or some Legate of his, was always present; and although neither the Emperor nor his Legate presided over the Council properly as Judge, yet he presided at least as to the material place; and even if the supreme Pontiff had been there, still they would have wished so to preside — as is plain from the Council of Florence, at the beginning, where the Greeks altogether contended that their Emperor should sit in the highest place and precede the supreme Pontiff. But although it be in some way tolerable that secular Princes sit in a Council before the other Bishops, yet it is in no way fitting that they sit before the supreme Pontiff himself. Lest, then, either this had to be tolerated, or a tumult be stirred up, he did not go to those Councils, but sent only Legates.
But, these things omitted, that the presidency in general Councils pertains by right to the supreme Pontiff is proved. First, by a reason drawn from Scripture. The supreme Pontiff is the pastor and father of the whole Church, so much so that even the Bishops, and all Princes, in respect of the supreme Pontiff, are called sheep and sons, as is known from that of John last chapter, Feed my sheep. And it is confirmed from this, that the Councils call the Pontiff father, and he calls the Bishops gathered in Councils sometimes sons — as is plain from Theodoret, Book 5 of the history chapter 10, where Damasus, answering the Bishops of the second general Council, thus begins: “That you show due reverence to the Apostolic See is a great honor to yourselves, most honored sons.” Likewise from the letter of the Council of Antioch to Julius, which thus begins: “To the most blessed lord and honorable father Julius, etc.” And Stephen, Archbishop of Carthage, with three Councils, writes thus: “To the most blessed lord and holy father of Fathers, Damasus, etc.” And the Council of Chalcedon, in its letter to Theon: “We ask that by thy decrees thou honor our judgment, that thy firmness may fulfill to thy sons what is fitting.” But who, I ask, can doubt whether fathers ought to preside over sons, and pastors over sheep, or sons over fathers, and sheep over pastors?
Secondly, it is proved from the Apostolic Council, Acts 15, in which that Peter presided Jerome affirms in his letter to Augustine, which is the 11th among the letters of Augustine; and the same is gathered from this, that Peter first rises, first speaks, first defines the question, and all, as Jerome said, follow his opinion.
Thirdly, it is proved from the acts of the eight general Councils.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. + Cujus sit generali Concilio praesidere. Altera pars quaestionis est : An debeat ali¬ quis praesidere, et quis ille sit. Haeretici nos¬ tri temporis docent, ordinarium Praesidem Conciliorum debere esse Imperatorem , ve aliquem ab eo missum , vel si nullum ipse mittat, debere ab ipsa Synodo constitui. Et re ipsa, dicunt, in Conciliis generalibus an¬ tiquis non praefuisse fere unquam Romanum Pontificem, sed vel Imperatorem, aut ejus (1) Luc. XXII, 32. Legatos, vel antiquiorem Patriarcham, aut Episcopum ejus loci, ubi fiebat Concilium ; ita docent Magdeburgenses Cent. IV. cap. 7. coi. 536. Calvinus lib. IV c. Instit. 7§. 1 et 2 Carolus Molinaeus in consilio de Concilio Tri~ dent, non recipiendo, §. 4 ubi aperte men¬ titur, cum ait, Legatos Pontificis post omnes Episcopos in Conciliis semper sedisse, cum in nullo Concilio inveniantur ultimo loco se- disse.Hermannus Hamelmannus lib. III. Pro- legomen. cap. 8. et Brentius in Prolegom. contra Petrum a Soto. Catholici omnes id munus proprium esse docent summi Pontificis, ut per se vel per Legatos Synodo praesideat, et tanquam su¬ premus Judex omnia moderetur. Dicimus autem, per se vel per Legatos, quia summus Pontifex numquam interfuit Conciliis Orien¬ talibus per se, neque id factum est casu, sed certa ratione, utpatetex epistola Leonis 17 ad Theodosium, et 47 ad Concilium Chalcedo- nense, ubi dicit, se non venire ad Synodum quoniamid non patitur consuetudo, nec ulla praedecessorum habet de hac re exempla. Adde, quod Vigilius Papa erat Constan- tinopoli, cum fieret in ea civitate Concilium V generale, et tamen noluit interesse, sed per libellum confirmavit acta Concilii, ut scribit Photius in lib. de septem Synodis. Ipsi etiam Imperatores cum indicebant Con¬ cilia, alios omnes Episcopos per edictum praecipiendo vocabant, Romanum autem in¬ vitabant, ut dignaretur venire, si ei placeret ut patet ex epistola Marciani Imperatoris ad Leonem Papam, quae habetur ante Conci¬ lium Chalcedonense. Quae autem sit ratio hujus rei, incertum est. Joannes de Turre- cramata lib. III. cap. 11. ponit aliquot ra¬ tiones, quae mihi non multum probantur. Ego suspicor, has duas fuisse causas inter alias unam, quia non videbatur convenire, ut caput sequeretur membra, cum potius membra sequi debeant caput ; itaque prop- terea interfuit Papa Conciliis Romanis, et quibusdam aliis, quae ipse convocavit ad se, id est, ad locum, ubi ipse erat, non autem voluit, neque debuit ire ad Concilia alibi congregata. Altera rqtio est, quia in Conciliis Orientali¬ bus semper interfuit Imperator, aut aliquis ejus Legatus ; et quamvis nec Imperator, nec Legatus ejus praesideret Concilio proprie ut Judex, tamen praesidebat saltem quoad locum materialem ; et etiamsi summus Pon¬ tifex ibi fuisset, adhuc voluissent illi eo modo praesidere, ut patet ex Concilio Florentino, in initio, ubi Graeci ornnio contendedant, ut in summo loco sederet eorum Imperator, et summum Pontificem praecederet. At quam¬ vis utcumque tolerabile sit, ut Principes se- culares in Concilio sedeant ante alios Epis¬ copos, tamen nullo modo convenit, ut ante ipsum summum Pontificem. Ne ergo vel hoc tolerandum esset, vel tumultus excitaretur, non ibat ad ea Concilia, sed Legatos tantum mittebat. Sed his omissis, ad summum Pontificem jure pertinere pracsidentiam in Conciliis ge¬ neralibus, probatur. Primo, ratione ex Scriptura petita. Summus Pontifex est pas¬ tor et pater Ecclesiae universae, adeo ut etiam Episcopi, et Principes omnes, respec¬ tu summi Pontificis, oves et fdii dicantur, ut notum est ex illo Joannis ultimo Pasce' oves meas (I). Et confirmatur ex eo, quod Conci¬ lia vocant Pontificem patrem, et ipse vocat Episcopos in Conciliis congregatos, aliquan¬ do filios, ut patet ex Theodoreto lib. V. hist. cap. 10. ubi Damasus respondens Episcopis Concilii secundi generalis, sicincipit : « Quod inquit, Apostolicae sedi debitam reverentiam exhibetis, vobis ipsis magno honori est, filii honoratissimi. » Item ex epistola Concilii Antiocheni ad Julium, quae sic incipit : « Domino beatissimo et honorabili patri Ju¬ lio etc. » Et Stephanus Arehiepiscopus Car¬ thaginiensis, cum tribus Conciliis ita scri¬ bunt : « Domino beatissimo et sancto patri Patrum Damaso etc. » Et Concilium Chalce¬ donense in epistola ad Theonem : « Rogamus, inquiunt, tuis decretis, nostrum honora ju¬ dicium, ut firmitas tua, filiis, quod decet, adimpleat. » At quis, quaeso, ambigere po¬ test, utrum patres filiis, et pastores ovibus praesidere debeant, an filii patribus, et oves pastoribus. Secundo, probatur ex Concilio Apostolico, act. 15. in quo Petrum praesedisse affirmat Hieronymus in epistola ad Augustinum, quae est 11, inter epistolas Augustini ; et idem ex eo colligitur, quod Petrus primussurgit, pri¬ mus loquitur, primus quaestionem definit, et omnes, ut Hieronymus dixit, sententiam ejus sequuntur. Probatur tertio, ex actis octo generalium Conciliorum ; nam quod in aliis Romanus (1) Joan. XXI, 17. A