Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 6: The Arguments from the Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers Answered
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).
In the second place they bring forward the testimonies of the Fathers. And first Calvin cites Saint Gregory Nazianzen, who in his letter to Procopius speaks thus: “For my part, if the truth must be written, I am so disposed in mind that I shun all Councils of bishops; for I have never seen a happy and prosperous end of any Council, nor one that removed evils rather than added to them and increased them.”
I answer: Nazianzen does not deny that lawful Councils establish a certain faith, but he complains that in his own time no Council could be held that was lawful in every respect — which is most true. For Gregory’s age fell in the middle time between the first and the second general Council, at which time very many Councils were held that, on account of the multitude of bishops favoring the heretics, came to an unhappy end — such as those of Seleucia, Tyre, Ariminum, Milan, Sirmium, and the rest. Since therefore in his own time he had seen so many bad Councils and no good one, and yet was summoned by Procopius in the Emperor’s name to a certain Council, he offered two excuses: one, that he despaired of seeing a lawful Council at that time; the other, and this the chief one, that he was held by a most grave illness, so that every day he thought he would die. This solution is confirmed from Basil, who flourished at the same time, that is, after the first Council and before the second. And writing in his 52nd letter to Athanasius, he says it seems to him impossible that at that time a lawful Council should be held, and that therefore one ought to write to the Roman Pontiff, that he by his own authority might annul the acts of the Council of Ariminum.
Finally, what Gregory thought concerning lawful Councils is plain, both from his opinions cited above, and also from this: that he was so strenuous a preacher of the Council of Nicaea that the church in which he preached at Constantinople was called Anastasia, that is, resurrection, because there, by the work of Gregory, the Nicene faith rose again, having before been in a manner extinguished by the Arians — as the Tripartite History relates in Book IX, chapter 9; and finally because afterward he himself took part in the second general Council, as is clear from his subscription and from the oration he delivered to the 150 Fathers.
The second testimony is that of Augustine, who in Book III against Maximinus, chapter 14, says: “Neither ought I to bring forward the Council of Nicaea, nor you that of Ariminum, as though to prejudge the case; neither am I bound by the authority of this, nor you by that,” and so on.
I answer: Augustine does not mean to say that Maximinus was in no way bound by the authority of the Council of Nicaea, but that he was not bound in that particular disputation, because Augustine permitted it. For since Maximinus set the Council of Ariminum against the Council of Nicaea, and it did not seem to Augustine worth the trouble to spend time then in showing that the Council of Nicaea was lawful and that of Ariminum unlawful, having (as he says) better arguments from the Scriptures, he says: for now neither are you bound by the authority of this, nor I by that — that is, I do not wish us now to be bound by the authorities of Councils; let us set the Councils aside and come to the Scriptures. But that Augustine otherwise held the Council of Nicaea to be of the highest authority, and that all ought to have acquiesced in it, is plain from the preceding words, where he says thus: “This is that homoousion which in the Council of Nicaea was established against the Arian heretics by the Catholic Fathers, by the authority of truth and the truth of authority,” and so on. For what is the truth of authority, but true and certain authority?
Another testimony they bring forward from Book II On Baptism, chapter 3, where Augustine says that earlier plenary Councils are amended by later ones. Nor can it be said that he speaks of plenary Councils improperly, that is, of national ones; for a little before he had said that regional and provincial Councils ought to yield to plenary ones, and then he adds that among the plenary Councils themselves the earlier are amended by the later. Here Hermann exults, in Book III, chapter 16, of his Prolegomena: “For if,” he says, “those earlier and most ancient Councils need amendment, with how many errors will these more recent ones swarm?”
I answer, first: perhaps Augustine is speaking of Councils that were not lawful, which are amended, as happened to the Second Council of Ephesus, which was amended at Chalcedon. Secondly I say, if he speaks of lawful ones, that he is treating of questions of fact, not of right. In questions of that kind there is no doubt that a Council can err. And certainly Augustine seems to be treating of questions of this sort. For the chief question between the Catholics and the Donatists was about Caecilian — whether he had handed over the sacred books to the enemies of the faith or not. It can also be said, thirdly, if our adversaries contend that he speaks of universal questions, that earlier Councils are amended by later ones as to the precepts of morals, not as to the dogmas of faith; for precepts are changed according to the changes of times, places, and persons, and those changes are called amendments — not because the thing was evil at the time it was instituted, but because it began to be evil once the circumstances were changed. Both solutions are sufficiently confirmed from the words of Augustine, who says that Councils are then amended when by some experience that is opened which had been closed. For by experience questions of fact or of morals are opened, not universal questions of right.
Thirdly, Calvin brings forward Leo, who in his letter 53 to Anatolius, 54 to Marcian, and 55 to Pulcheria, acknowledges that the Synod of Chalcedon was lawful, and yet does not hesitate to attribute to it ambition and rash temerity; therefore, he thought a lawful Council could err.
I answer: a lawful Council can err in those things which it does not do lawfully, and did in fact err, when it is reproved by the Apostolic See. Such is that for which the Council of Chalcedon is reprehended by Leo. For as is plain from the last session of that same Council, and from letter 61 of the same Leo, which is to the Council of Chalcedon, that decree by which the bishop of Constantinople is set before those of Alexandria and Antioch was made in the absence of the legates of the Roman See, not without fraud, and was disapproved by Leo, because it was contrary to the constitution of the Council of Nicaea.
To these Hermann adds, in Book III, chapter 13, of his Prolegomena, Isidore, who in Gratian, distinction 50, canon Domino sancto, asserts that when Councils disagree among themselves, one must stand by the more ancient and more approved ones — which rule is contrary to the rule of Blessed Augustine, who set later Councils before earlier ones; and moreover from it is gathered that Councils sometimes conflict among themselves, and consequently that some of them err. I answer: Isidore is speaking of Councils whose authority is not certain, namely those that are not expressly confirmed by the Pontiff, which Councils we do not deny can conflict among themselves and err. Nor does Isidore conflict with Augustine, for Isidore is speaking of the doctrine of faith, Augustine of questions of fact or precepts of morals.
Luther, in his book On Councils, page 54, tries to prove that Councils conflict among themselves, from the title of Gratian’s decree, The Concordance of Discordances. I answer: he is speaking of apparent discordances, not true ones; for if they were true, they could not be reconciled.
Certain others add, lastly, Gratian, who in distinction 18, canon 1, says that episcopal Councils are invalid for defining and establishing, but not for correcting. I answer: Gratian calls episcopal Councils not just any Councils, but only provincial ones. For those are properly episcopal in which only bishops, not archbishops or patriarchs, come together. And such Councils are not ordinarily instituted to establish dogmas of faith — for that is proper to general Councils — but only to restore ecclesiastical discipline and correct morals. And so of themselves, and ordinarily, they are invalid for establishing dogmas of faith. If, however, under some urgent necessity they define something concerning the faith, and their decree is approved by the Apostolic See, nothing hinders that they may be valid.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Solvuntur argumenta petita ex testimoniis veterum Patrum. Proferunt secundo loco Patrum testimo¬ nia. Ac primum Calvinus adducit in medium S. Gregorium Nazianzenum, qui in epistola ad Procopium ita loquitur : « Ego, si vera scribere oportet, ita animo affectus sum, ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia fugiam ; quo¬ niam nullius Concilii finem laetum, faustum- que vidi , nec quod depulsionem malorum potius, quam accessionem, et incrementum habuerit. » Respondeo, non negat Nazianzenus legiti¬ ma Concilia certam fidem facere, sed queri¬ tur suo tempore nullum Concilium fieri po¬ tuisse omni ex parte legitimum ; id quod ve¬ rissimum est. Nam Gregorii aetas incidit in tempus medium inter Concilium primum, et secundum generale , quo tempore plurima facta sunt Concilia, quae propter multitudi¬ nem Episcoporum, haereticis faventium, in¬ faustum exitum habuerunt ; qualia fuerunt Seleuciense, Tyrense, Ariminense, Mediola¬ nense, Sirmiense etc. Cum ergo suo tempo¬ re tot vidisset mala Concilia , et nullum bo¬ num, et tamen vocaretur a Procopio nomine Imperatoris ad Concilium quoddam , duas excusationes adhibuit : unam , quod despe¬ raret se legitimum Concilium eo tempore vi¬ surum : alteram, eamque praecipuam, quod morbo gravissimo detineretur, ut quotidie putaret se moriturum. Confirmatur haec so¬ lutio ex Basilio, qui eodem tempore floruit, id est, post primum Concilium , et ante se¬ cundum. Et scribens in epist. 52 ad Atha- nasium, dicit videri sibi impossibile , ut eo tempore fieret legitimum Concilium, et ideo oportere scribi ad Romanum Pontificem, ut ipse sua auctoritate irritaret acta Concilii Ariminensis. Denique, quid senserit Gregorius de legi¬ timis Conciliis, perspicuum est, tum ex ejus sententiis supra citatis, tum etiam ex eo quo adeo strenuus praedicator fuit Nicaeni Con¬ cilii, ut templum , in quo ipse Gonstantino- poli concionabatur, avoco-rao-ia, id est, resur¬ rectio vocatum sit, quia ibi resurrexerit ope¬ ra Gregorii fides Nicaena, per Arianos antea quodammodo extincta , ut refert historia Tripartita lib. IX, cap. 9. tum denique, quia postea interfuit ipse Qoncilio secundo gene¬ rali, ut patet ex subscriptione, et ex oratio¬ ne, quam habuit ad 150 Patres. Alterum testimonium est Augustini , qui lib. III contra Maximinum c. 14. ait : «Nec ego Nicaenum, nec tudebes Ariminense, tan¬ quam praejudicaturus, proferre Concilium, nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius deti¬ neris etc. » Respondeo, Augustinum non velle dicere, non teneri ullo modo Maximinum auctorita¬ te Concilii Nicaeni, sed non teneri in illa dis¬ putatione , quia Augustinus id permittebat. Quia enim Maximinus objiciebat Nicaeno Concilio Concilium Ariminense, et Augusti¬ no nonvidebatur operaepretium tunc tempus (1) Matth. XVI, 18; I. Tim. III, 15; Luc. XXII, 32. — (2) Act. XX, 29; Matth. XXIV, 11. consumere in ostendendo Concilium Nicae¬ num fuisse legitimum , et Ariminense illegi¬ timum, cum habere meliora argumenta ex Scripturis, ait ; nunc non ego hujus , nec tu illius auctoritate teneris, id est , nolo nunc teneamur Conciliorum auctoritatibus. Omit¬ tamus Concilia, ad Scripturas veniamus. Quod autem Augustinus alioqui putaverit, Concilium Nicaenum summae fuisse auctori¬ tatis, et oportuisse omnes illi acquiescere ; patet ex verbis praecedentibus , ubi sic ait : « Hoc est illud homousion, quod in Concilio Nicaeno adversus haereticos Arianos a Catho¬ licis Patribus veritatis auctoritate, et aucto¬ ritatis veritate firmatum est etc. » Quid enim est veritas auctoritatis, nisi vera et certa auc¬ toritas? Aliud testimonium proferunt ex lib. II de Baptismo cap. 3. ubi Augustinus dicit, Con¬ cilia plenaria priora aposterioribus emenda¬ ri. Nec dici potest , eum loqui de plenariis improprie, id est, nationalibus ; nam paulo ante dixerat, Cpncilia regionalia, et provin- cilia debere cedere plenariis, et tunc subdit, inter ipsa plenaria , priora a posterioribus emendari. Hic exultat Hermannus lib. III, cap. 16. Prole^om. a Si enim, inquit, prio¬ ra illa antiquissima , emendatione indigent, quot erroribus scatebunt ista recentiora ? » Respondeo primo, forte loqui Augustinum gitima emendantur, ut accidit Concilio Epbe- sino II , quod in Chalcedonensi emendatum est. Secundo dico, si de legitimis loquatur, agere eum de quaestionibus facti, non juris. In qualibus quaestionibus non dubium est, Concilium errare posse. Et certe Augustinus videtur de ejusmodi quaestionibus agere. Nam praecipua quaestio Catholicorum cum Dona- tistis erat de Caeciliano, libros ne sacros tra¬ didisset hostibus fidei, an non? Potest etiam tertio dici, si contendant adversarii eum lo¬ qui de universalibus quaestionibus, Concilia priora emendari per posteriora, quoad prae¬ cepta morum , non quoad dogmata fidei ; praecepta enim mutantur juxta temporum, locorum, et personarum mutationes , et illae mutationes dicuntur emendationes, non quod res mala esset eo tempore, quo est instituta, sed quod mala esse coeperit mutatis circum¬ stantiis. Utraque solutio satis confirmatur ex verbis Augustini , qui dicit tunc emen¬ dari Concilia; quando experimento aliquo aperitur , quod clausum erat. Experimento enim aperiuntur quaestiones de facto , vel de moribus, non quaestiones juris universa¬ les. Tertio, profert Calvinus Leonem , qui ep. 53. ad Anatolium, et 54. ad Marcianum, et 55. ad Pulcheriam , agnoscit Chalcedonen- sem Synodum legitimam fuisse , et tamen non dubitat ei attribuere ambitionem et in¬ consultam temeritatem , ergo putabat legi¬ timum Concilium posse errare. Respondeo , Concilium legitimum posse errare in his quae non legitime agit , et de facto errasse, quando abApostolica sede re¬ probatur. Tale est id, de quo reprehenditur Concilium Chalcedonense a Leone. Ut enim patet ex ultima actione ejusdem Concilii, et ex epist. 61. ejusdem Leonis, quae est ad Concilium Chalcedonense , decretum illud, quo anteponitur Episcopus Constantinopoli- tanus Alexandrino, et Antiocheno , factum est absentibus Legatis Romanae sedis , non sine fraude, et aLeone improbatum fuit, quia contrarium erat Nicaeni Concilii constitu¬ tioni. Ad haec addit Hermannus lib. III, cap. 13. Prolegomenorum, Isidorum, qui apud Gra- tian. dist. 50. can. Domino sancto , asserit, cum Concilia inter se dissentiunt , standum esse antiquioribus, magisque probatis; quae regula contraria est regulae B. Augustini, qui posteriora Concilia anteponebat prioribus, el praeterea ex ea colligitur , Concilia inter se aliquando pugnare, et proinde aliqua eo¬ rum errare. Respondeo, Isidorus loquitur de Conciliis, quorum non est certa auctoritas, quae videlicet non sunt a Pontifice expresse confirmata , quae Concilia inter se pugnare posse, et errare, non negamus. Neque pug¬ nat Isidorus cum Augustino , nam Isidorus loquitur de fidei doctrina , Augustinus de quaestionibus facti, vel morum praeceptis. Lutherus in lib. de Conciliis pag. 54. pro¬ bat Concilia inter se pugnare. Ex titulo de¬ creti Gratiani , concordantia discordantia- rum. Respondeo , loquitur de discordantiis apparentibus, non veris ; nam si verae essent, concordari non possent. Addunt quidam alii ultimo Gratianum, qui d. 18. can. 1. dicit, Concilia Episcopalia es¬ se invalida ad definiendum, et constituen¬ dum, non autem ad corrigendum. Respon¬ deo , vocat episcopalia Concilia Gratianus, non quaelibet Concilia , sed tantum provin¬ cialia. Illa enim proprie sunt Episcopalia, in quibus soli Episcopi, non Archiepiscopi, aut Patriarchae conveniunt : Ista autem Concilia ordinarie non instituuntur ad dogmata fidei constituenda; id enim proprium est genera¬ lium Conciliorum, sed tantum ad restituen¬ dam disciplinam Ecclesiasticam , et mores corrigendos. Itaque ex se, et ordinarie inva¬ lida sunt ad constituenda dogmata fidei. Si tamen aliqua urgente necessitate definiant aliquid de fide , et eorum decretum a sede Apostolica approbetur, nihil obstat, quo mi¬ nus valida esse possint.