Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 3: The Same Shown by Arguments Drawn from Reason
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book II (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).
Let there be added, lastly, natural reason also. First, if general Councils could err, there would be in the Church no firm judgment by which controversies could be composed and unity preserved in the Church; for there is nothing greater than a general Council, legitimate and approved.
Secondly, if the judgment of such Councils were not infallible, all condemned heresies could deservedly be called again into doubt. For Arius would say that the Council of Nicaea erred; Macedonius, that of Constantinople; Nestorius, that of Ephesus; Eutyches, that of Chalcedon.
Thirdly, there would be no certainty about many books of holy Scripture; for concerning the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, and the Apocalypse — which books the Calvinists too receive — it was doubted so long, until the matter was declared by a Council.
Fourthly, if all Councils could err, this certainly follows, that all admitted an intolerable error, and accordingly are worthy of no honor. For it is an intolerable error to propose something to be believed, as an article of faith, of which it is not established whether it be true or false; but the chief Councils, as Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, put forth new Creeds of the faith, or at least new opinions, which they willed to be held as articles of faith. But who will dare to say that those four Councils contain an intolerable error, and are worthy of no honor, when we see them received even by the adversaries with honor, and not rarely adduced in testimony of true doctrine? It remains, therefore, that we believe their judgments to be firm and infallible.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Idem ostenditur argumentis a ratione ductis. Accedat postremo etiam naturalis,ratio. Primum, si Concilia generalia possent erra¬ re, nullum esset in Ecclesia firmum judicium, quo controversiae componi, et unitas in Ec¬ clesia servari posset; nihil enim est majus generali Concilio, legitimo, et approbato. Secundo, si non esset infallibile judicium ejusmodi Conciliorum, possent merito revo¬ cari in dubium omnes damnatae haereses. Di¬ ceret enim Arius errasse Nicaenum Conci¬ lium ; Macedonius, Gonstantinopolitanum ; Nestorius, Ephesinum ; Eutyches, Chalce- donense. Tertio, nulla esset certitudo de multis sa¬ crae Scripturae libris; nam de epistola* ad He¬ braeos, II Petri, II et III Joannis, Jacobi et Judae, et de Apocalypsi , quos libros etiam Calvinistae recipiunt, tamdiu est dubitatum, donec a Concilio res declarata est. Quarto, si omnia Concilia possent errare, illud certe sequitur, ut omnia intolerabilem errorem admiserint, acproinde nullo honore digna sint. Nam error intolerabilis est, pro¬ ponere aliquid credendum, tanquam articu¬ lum fidei, 'de quo non constet, an sit verum, vel falsum; at Concilia praecipua, ut Nicae¬ num , Constantinopolitanum , Ephesinum, Chalcedonense, ediderunt nova Symbola fi¬ dei, aut certe novas sententias, quas volue¬ runt haberi tanquam articulos fidei ; quis autem dicere audebit, illa Concilia quatuor intolerabilem errorem continere , nulloque honore digna esse , cum ea videamus etiam ab adversariis cum honore suscipi , et non raro in testimonium verae doctrinae adduci ? Restat igitur , ut firma , et infallibilia esse credamus eorum judicia. Tom. II.