Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 9: Particular Councils Not Approved by the Supreme Pontiff Do Not Make an Altogether Certain Faith
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).
Now follows another question, namely, whether Councils not confirmed by the supreme Pontiff establish a certain faith — a question scarcely settled even among Catholics; and so we will explain the whole matter briefly, treating first of particular Councils, then of general ones.
Of provincial Councils, therefore, we assert two things from the common opinion of Catholics: that such Councils can absolutely err, yet that they are of great authority, so that it is rash not to acquiesce in them. That Councils of this kind can err is witnessed by the Council of Carthage under Cyprian, which was national, most celebrated, lawful, of 85 bishops, most of whom were martyrs or confessors, as is plain from Cyprian’s letter to Jubaianus — and yet it erred. Secondly, witness is the Fifth Roman Synod under Symmachus, where we read that provincial Councils, because they do not have the presence of the Pope, have lost their soundness. Thirdly, Prosper (in his Chronicle for the year 420) says that the Pelagian heresy, condemned by an African Council of 217 bishops, was not condemned by the Church of the whole world until Pope Zosimus had approved the decrees of that Council. Whence also Augustine (Book II Retractations, chapter 50) does not say that the Pelagian heresy was condemned by the African Councils, which were particular, but by the Pontiffs Innocent and Zosimus, with the African Councils cooperating. Fourthly, there is a twofold chief cause why general Councils cannot err. The first, because a general Council represents the whole Church, and therefore, if it erred, the whole Church would err. The second, because a general Council is not held without the supreme Pontiff, for whom Christ prayed that his faith should not fail. But neither of these causes has place in a particular Council.
But you will object to the contrary: for in the chapter Ad abolendam (in the title on heretics) all those are excommunicated who are judged heretics by the Roman Church, or by a provincial or diocesan Council. Therefore provincial and diocesan Councils make dogmas of faith; otherwise he who denied them would not be a heretic.
I answer: judgment about heresy can be made in two ways. In one way, about the heresy itself in itself, and as it were in the abstract, as when it is asked whether it is heretical to say this or that. In another way, in relation to a heretical man, as when it is asked whether this man has fallen into a heresy condemned by the Church. Although, therefore, provincial or diocesan Councils cannot establish dogmas of faith, yet they can judge whether someone has fallen into a manifest heresy, just as inquisitors also judge. To this end the Council of Aquileia was gathered in the time of Ambrose; for nothing was there defined except that a certain Palladius was truly a disciple of Arius; and of this that chapter Ad abolendam on heretics seems chiefly to treat. For although this judgment is not infallible, yet it suffices for excommunicating.
Besides, I say secondly, that particular Councils can also pass judgment about heresy in itself, when the matter is easy, and one in which almost all the Doctors agree; in which way the Council of Antioch of old judged concerning the heresy of Paul of Samosata, in Eusebius (Book VII of the history, chapter 24); for the bishops assembled from every side, not as to a doubtful matter, but as to a manifest wolf to be cast out of the sheepfold of Christ. For although this judgment is not altogether infallible, yet private men ought to acquiesce in a judgment of this kind, and if they act otherwise they are deservedly excommunicated, so long as the Apostolic See or a universal Council has not judged otherwise.
Finally, I say thirdly, that particular Councils can also define dogmas truly doubtful, and their decrees are firm, if they do this by commission of the Apostolic See, as the Fathers of the Second Council of Orange and the First of Toledo did in the time of Leo I, and the Synod of Complutum in the time of Sixtus IV, of which see the Summary of the Councils. Or at least if they send their decision to the Roman Pontiff and receive confirmation from him; as it is established was done in the Councils of Milevis and Carthage, from Augustine’s letters 90, 91, 92, 93. Nay, it is credible that no particular Council defined anything of faith without the approval of the Apostolic See. Of all these that chapter Ad abolendam can be understood.
That a particular Council not expressly confirmed nevertheless makes an argument so probable that it is rash not to acquiesce in it, is plain. First, because in the Seventh Synod (session 3) and in the Eighth Synod (last session, canon 1) local Synods are honored and received, and no mention is there made of confirmed or not confirmed. Secondly, because very many of these Councils — such as those of Toledo, Braga, Arles, Seville, and the rest — seem in some manner approved by the very use of the Church. Thirdly, because if some holy Fathers, by chance agreeing in the same opinion, make a probable argument, how much more do 40 or 50 bishops assembling together, and, the Holy Spirit having been invoked, establishing something by common consent?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Concilia particularia, non probata a summo Pontifice , non omnino certam fidem facere. Sequitur jam altera quaestio, num videli¬ cet Concilia a summo Pontifice non confir¬ mata, certam fidem faciant, quae non est vix etiam inter Catholicos ; ideo rem totam breviter explicabimus, ac primum de Conci¬ liis particularibus, deinde de generalibus agemus . De provincialibus igitur duo ex communi sententia Catholicorum asserimus, posse ejus¬ modi Concilia absolute errare, tamen magnae esse auctoritatis, ita ut temerarium sit, eis non acquiescere. Quod ejusmodi Concilia possint errare, testis est Carthaginiense Con¬ cilium sub Cypriano, quod fuit nationale, celeberrimum, legitimum, Episcoporum 85, quorum plerique Martyres, aut Confessores erant, ut patet ex epistola Cypriani ad Juba- janum, et tamen erravit. Secundo, testis est quinta Synodus Romana sub Symmacho, ubi legimus, Concilia provincialia, quia prae¬ sentiam Papae non habent, valetudinemper- didisse. Tertio, Prosper in Chronico anni 420, dicit, haeresim Pelagianam a Concilio Africano 217 Episcoporum damnatam non prius ab Ecclesia totius orbis damnatum, quam Zozimus Papa decreta Concilii illius probasset. Unde etiam Augustinus lib. II. retract. cap. 50. non dicit, haeresim Peiagia- nam a Conciliis Africanis, quae particularia erant, damnatam, sed a Pontificibus Inno- centio, Zozimo, cooperantibus Africanis Conciliis. Quarto, cur Concilia generalia er¬ rare non possint, duplex est causa praecipua. Prima quia Concilium generale totam Eccle¬ siam repraesentat, et ideo ipso errante tota Ecclesia erraret. Secunda, quia Concilium generale non sit sine summo Pontifice, pro quo Christus oravit, ut non deficeret fides ejus : at nulla harum causarum locum ha¬ bet in Concilio particulari. Sed contra objicies : nam cap. Ad abolen¬ dam, extra de haereticis, excommunicantur omnes illi, qui judicantur haeretici ab Eccle¬ sia Romana, vel Concilio provinciali, aut dioecesano. Concilia igitur provincialia et dioecesana faciunt dogmata de fide, alioqui non esset haereticus, qui ea negaret. Respondeo : duobus modis posse judicari de haeresi: Uno modo, de ipsa haeresi secun¬ dum se, et quasi in abstracto, ut cum quae¬ ritur, an sit haereticum, hoc aut illud dicere. Altero modo, in ordine ad hominem haereti¬ cum, ut cum quaeritur, an hic inciderit in haeresim ab Ecclesia damnatam. Quamvis igitur Concilia provincialia, vel dioecesana, non possint dogmata fidei constituere, ta¬ men possunt judicare an aliquis inciderit in haeresim manifestam, sicut etiam judicant inquisitores. Ad hunc finem collectum fuit Concilium Aquileiense tempore Ambrosii; nihil enim ibi definitum est, nisi Palladium quemdam verum esse Arii discipulum et de hoc videtur praecipue agere caput illud, Ad abolendam, de haereticis. Etsi enim hoc ju¬ dicium non sit infallibile , tamen sufficit ad excommunicandum. Praeterea secundo dico, posse etiam Con¬ cilia particularia censere de haeresi secun¬ dum se, quando res est facilis, etin qua om¬ nes fere Doctores conveniunt; quomodo Con¬ cilium Antiochenum olim judicavit de hae¬ resi Pauli Samosateni apud Eusebium lib. VII. histor. cap. 24. conveneruntenim undi- dique Episcopi, non tamquam ad rem du¬ biam, sed tamquam ad manifestum lupum de ovili Christi ejiciendum. Etsi enim hoc judicium non prorsus infallibile, tamen de¬ bent privati homines acquiescere ejusmodi judicio, etsi secus egerint, merito excom¬ municantur, donec non judicaverit aliter Apostolica sedes, vel Concilium universale. Denique tertio dico, posse etiam Concilia particularia definire dogmata vere dubia, et eorum decreta esse firma, si id facinat ex commissione Apostolicae sedis, ut fecerant Patres Concilii Arausicani II, et Toletani I, tempore Leonis I, et Synodi Complutensis, tempore Sixti IV, de quo vide summam Conciliorum. Vel saltemsi decisionem suam mittant ad Romanum Pontificem, et ab eo confirmationem accipiant ; quomodo cons¬ tat factum esse in Conciliis Milevitano etCar- thaginiensi, ex Augustino epist. 90, 91, 92, 93. Imo credibile est, nullum Concilium par¬ ticulare definivisse aliquid de fide, sine ap¬ probatione Apostolicse Sedis. De his omni¬ bus intelligi potest illud cap. ad Abolendam. Quod autem Concilium particulare non expresse confirmatum, faciat argumentum adeo probabile, ut temerarium sit ei non ac¬ quiescere, planum est. Primo, quia in VII Synodo, act. 3. et in VIII Synodo, act. ult. can. 1. honorantur Synodi locales, et susci¬ piuntur, nec fit mentio ibi confirmatorum, vel non. Secundo, quia plurima horum Con¬ ciliorum, ut Toletana, Bracarentia, Arela- tensia, Hispalensia etc. videntur, ipso usu Ecclesias quodammodo probata. Teidio, quia si aliquot sancti Patres casu in eamdem sen¬ tentiam convenientes, faciunt argumentun probabile, quanto magis 40 aut 50 Episcopi simul convenientes, et invocato Spiritu Sancto, aliquid communi consensu statuen¬ tes ?