Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 8: The Objection Drawn from Reason 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).
Lastly they object this reason. In every assembly of a multitude it often happens that the greater part overcomes the better; therefore in the Councils of the Church, where all things are defined by the majority of votes, it may easily come about that error occurs. Next, granted that lawful Councils cannot err, yet who knows whether there was ever any lawful Council? For a Council is not lawful unless it be of faithful bishops; but who can know whether those who assemble in a Council have true faith and true ordination? Finally, that in the ancient Councils bishops assembled from many provinces, diligently examined the question proposed, then subscribed of their own accord, compelled by no external force, and did the other things of that kind which are required for lawful Councils — whence do we know this, except from the credit of the historians? But historians (the sacred ones excepted) not seldom lie, and certainly do not establish a firm and infallible faith. It remains, therefore, that the decrees of Councils are all doubtful.
We answer: in human assemblies it sometimes happens that the greater part overcomes the better; but in a Council of the Church, where the Holy Spirit presides, and where Christ is in the midst of those who are gathered in His name, and where He is present to whom it was said by Truth itself, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” — there is no reason why any such thing should be feared. For even if the greater part resist the better, as happened in the Council of Ariminum and the Second of Ephesus, yet it never prevails; for the acts of Councils of that kind are soon annulled by him whose office it is to confirm the brethren, as we see was done in the aforesaid Councils of Ariminum and the Second of Ephesus.
To the second objection I answer: it is not necessary that we know the bishops who assemble at a Council to have true faith and true ordination, but it is enough if the contrary is not established. For even if the supreme Pontiff (which we believe cannot happen) and all the bishops who are convoked by the supreme Pontiff to some general Council were heretics in heart, and Catholics only by outward profession, and had not truly received the invisible character of sacred orders but a bare imposition of hands — yet we are certain that God would never permit a Council of that kind to err in framing its decrees. For the Holy Spirit assists the Council, not so much for the sake of the Council itself as for the sake of the universal Church, which is bound by divine precept not to discuss the sentence of the bishops but to venerate it. And so, lest the universal Church err, divine providence would bring it about that even that Council of pretended bishops would, willing or unwilling, propose the truest faith of the Church to be followed. Therefore, for an assembly of bishops to be lawful and to be so called, this alone is required: that those bishops assemble who ordinarily preside in the Church, and are openly held by all to be true and Catholic bishops — whatever be the case with the things that lie hidden in their hearts.
Yet because we not only know that the salvation of His Church is God’s care, but have also learned from the Scriptures that God’s providence disposes all things sweetly, therefore we certainly believe that God will not permit that in a Council which the Church believes to be lawful, the bishops who assemble should be, all or for the greater part, not lawful or not Catholic. For it would be exceedingly hard and violent (though not impossible to God, who once even rebuked the folly of a prophet by a beast) that a whole Council of heretics should, against its own will and opinion, frame a Catholic decree.
To the last objection some answer, as Vega does (on the Council of Trent, Book III, chapter 39): that a Council is lawful, and to be held by the faithful with Catholic faith, not because the historians testify it, but because the Council itself defined this; for Councils are wont, at the beginning of their acts, to define that their assembly is lawful and gathered in the Holy Spirit.
But truly this does not seem a solid answer. First, because the ancient Councils were not wont at the beginning to testify that their assembly was lawfully and in the Holy Spirit gathered; whereas certain later Councils, as Constance, Basel, the Lateran, Trent, and others, do indeed testify this, but not as though they were framing some decree of faith. For nowhere among the canons properly so called is found any canon of a Council by which it is defined that that very Council, by which those canons were established, is lawful. Secondly, either it is established to us from elsewhere that some Council was lawful when it wished to define that it was lawful, or it is not established. If it is established, such a decree is framed in vain; if it is not established, we shall now begin to doubt about the decree itself; for if I am in doubt whether it was a lawful Council before it defined itself to be lawful, I am also in doubt whether it did not err in that very decree by which it pronounced itself lawful.
Others therefore answer that a Council’s being lawful can be evident, without any other proof, to those who are then present. For they see that the bishops assembled in one place are held by all to be true bishops, and assembled from various provinces, and summoned by him who has authority; and if anything else is required for a lawful Council, that too they can see, for nothing invisible, as we said above, is required. But to posterity, or to the absent, this same is known from human faith — but a most certain faith, and one that can in some way be compared with natural evidence. For, by way of example, that the Council of Nicaea was lawful, not one or another historian testifies, but many and various writers of that time and of the following times, and the Church which now is asserts the same; nor is there, or was there, anyone who thinks or thought the contrary.
Wherefore, just as that Cicero was once Consul, that Julius Caesar was Dictator, that Octavian fought a naval battle with Antony, and other things of that kind, though they depend on human faith, are yet so certain that they seem to have a certain evidence; so also the Councils of the Church which we say were lawful have so many testimonies of all ages that they leave no doubt in our minds but that we believe them to have been such as they are said to be.
Wherefore, since from Catholic faith we hold that lawful Councils confirmed by the supreme Pontiff cannot err, and from natural evidence, or from a most certain human faith, we know that the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the First of Ephesus, and other lawful ones of that kind were approved by the supreme Pontiff, it certainly follows that we believe the decrees of such Councils with a certain faith. See, if you please, on this matter Melchior Cano (Book VI On the Places, last chapter, in the solution of the tenth argument).
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Solvitur objectio , ducta ex ratione. Objiciunt postremo eam rationem. In omni coetu multitudinis saepe accidit ut major pars vincat meliorem, igitur in Conciliis Eccle¬ siae, ubi definiuntur omnia ad plura suffra¬ gia, facile fieri poterit, ut contingat error. Deinde esto. Concilia legitima non possint errare, tamen quis novit, an ullum fuerit un¬ quam legitimum Concilium ? Nec enim est Concilium legitimum, nisi Episcoporum fide¬ lium ; quis autem scire potest, an qui in Con¬ cilio conveniunt, habeant veram fidem, et veram ordinationem ? Denique, in antiquis Conciliis convenisse Episcopos ex multis provinciis, quaestionem propositam diligen¬ ter examinasse, subscripsisse deinde sponte sua, non aliqua vi externa coactos, et alia ejusdem generis fecisse, quae requiruntur ad legitima Concilia , unde novimus, nisi ex fide historicorum? At historici (divinis ex¬ ceptis) non raro mentiuntur, et certe non fir¬ mam et infallibilem fidem faciunt. Restat igitur, ut Conciliorum decreta sint omnia dubia. Respondemus, in coetibus humanis ali¬ quando id accidere, ut major pars vincat meliorem : in Concilio autem Ecclesiae, ubi Spiritus sanctus praesidet : et ubi Christus est in medio eorum, qui in nomine ipsius congregati sunt, et ubi ille adest, cui dictum (1) Lue. XXII, 32. Tom. II. est ab ipsa Veritate : Rogavi pro te , ut non defciat fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos (I), non est, quod tale aliquid timeatur. Nam etiamsi major pars resistat meliori ; ut factum est in Concilio Ariminensi, etEphesino II, tamen nunquam vincit; mox enim irritantur ejusmodi Con¬ ciliorum acta ab eo, cui convenit ex officio fratres confirmare, quemadmodum in prae¬ dictis Conciliis Ariminensi et Ephesino II, factum videmus. Ad alteram objectionem respondeo, non esse necessarium, ut sciamus Episcopos, qui ad Concilium conveniunt, habere veram fi¬ dem, et veram ordinationem, sed satis esse, si non constet contrarium. Nam etiam si summus Pontifex, quod fieri non posse credi¬ mus, et omnes Episcopi, qui ad aliquod gene¬ rale Concilium a summo Pontifice convo¬ cantur, essent corde haeretici ; et sola exter¬ na professione Catholici, nec vere accepis¬ sent sacri ordinis invisibilem characterem, sed nudam impositionem manuum; tamen certi sumus, Deum nunquam permissurum, ut ejusmodi Concilium in decretis suis for¬ mandis erraret : Assistit enim Concilio Spi¬ ritus sanctus , non tam propter ipsum Concilium, quam propter Ecclesiam univer¬ sam, quae divino praecepto tenetur, Episco¬ porum sententiam non discutere, sed vene¬ rari. Itaque ne erraret Ecclesia universa, di¬ vina providentia faceret, ut etiam Concilium illud Episcoporum fictorum, vellet, nollet, verissimam fidem Ecclesiae sequendam pro¬ poneret. Proinde, ut conventus aliquis Epis¬ coporum legitimus sit, et dicatur ; id solum requiritur, ut Episcopi illi conveniant, qui in Ecclesia ordinarie praesident, et Episcopi ve¬ ri, atque Catholici palam ab omnibus habe¬ antur, quidquid sit de iis, quae in cordibus eorum latent. Quia tamen non solum scimus Deo curae esse salutem Ecclesiae suae, sed etiam ex Scripturis didicimus, Dei providentiam sua¬ viter omnia disponere : propterea certo cre¬ dimus, Deum non permissurum, ut in Conci¬ lio, quod ab Ecclesia legitimum creditur, conveniant Episcopi, aut omnes, aut pro ma- jori parte non legitimi, aut non Catholici. Esset enim vehementer durum ac violentum (etsi non impossibile Deo, qui etiam per ju¬ mentum aliquando corripuit Prophetae insi¬ pientiam) ut Concilium totum haereticorum, repugnante voluntate ac sententia, decretum Catholicum conderet. Ad postremam objectionem quidam res¬ pondent, ut Vega in Cone. Trid. lib. III, cap. 39. Concilium esse legitimum, fide Ca¬ tholica teneri a fidelibus, non quia id histo¬ rici testantur, sed quia ipsum Concilium hoc definivit ; solent enim Concilia initio acto¬ rum definire, suum conventum esse legiti¬ mum, et in Spiritu sancto congregatum. At profecto non videtur haec solida res¬ ponsio ; primum, quia vetera Concilia non solebant initio testari, suum conventum esse legitime, et in Spiritu sancto congregatum ; Concilia vero quaedam posteriora, ut Cons- tantiense, Basileense, Lateranense, Triden- tinum et alia, id quidem testantur, sed non tanquam decretum aliquod forment de fide. Nusquam enim invenitur inter canones pro¬ prie dictos, alicujus Concilii aliquis canon, quo definiantur illud ipsum Concilium esse legitimum, a quo canones illi conditi sunt. Secundo, aut constat nobis aliunde Conci¬ lium aliquod fuisse legitimum, dum definire vellet, se esse legitimum, aut non constat. Si constat, frustra conditur tale decretum ; si non constat, jam de ipso decreto dubitare incipiemus ; si enim ambigo, an fuerit legi¬ timum Concilium antequam definiret se esse legitimum, ambigo etiam, an non erraverit in eo ipso decreto, quo se legitimum esse pronuntiavit. Alii igitur respondent, Concilium aliquod esse legitimum, iis, qui tunc adsunt praesen¬ tes, evidens esse posse sine alia probatione. Vident enim convenisse in unum Episcopos, qui habentur ab omnibus veri Episcopi , et convenisse ex variis provinciis, et vocatos ab eo, qui habet auctoritatem, et si quid ali¬ quid requiratur ad legitimum Concilium, id etiam videre possunt, nihil enim invisibile, ut supra diximus, requiritur. Posteris autem vel absentibus, id ipsum est notum ex huma¬ na fide, sed certissima, et quae evidentiae naturali aliquo modo comparari possit. Nam exempli gratia, Nicaenum Concilium fuisse legitimum, non solum unus aut alter histo¬ ricus testatur, sed multi et varii scriptores ejus temporis, et temporum consequentium, et Ecclesia, quae nuuc est, idipsum asserit, nec est, aut fuit, qui contrarium sentiat, aut senserit. Quare quemadmodum fuisse quondam Con¬ sulem Ciceronem, Julium Caesarem Dictato¬ rem, Qclavianum cum Antonio proelio nava¬ li decertasse, et alia id genus, etsi ex fide humana pendeat, tamen adeo certa sunt, ut evidentiam quamdam habere videantur : Sip etiam Concilia Ecclesiae, quae nos legitima fuisse dicimus, tot habent testimonia om¬ nium aetatum, ut nihil dubitationis in animis nostris relinquant quo minus credamus, talia fuisse, qualia dicuntur. Qaare cum ex fide Catholica habeamus, Concilia legitima a summo Pontifice confir¬ mata, non posse errare, et ex naturali evi¬ dentia, aut ex fide humana certissima scia¬ mus, Concilium Nicsenum, Constantinopoli- tanum, Ephesimum I et alia ejusmodi legiti¬ ma, et a summo Pontifice approbata fuisse, id certe sequitur, ut hujusmodi Conciliorum decreta certa fide credamus. Vide, si placet, de hac re Melchiorem Canum lib. VI de locis cap. ult. in solutione decimi argumenti.