Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 10: General Councils Can Err Before the Confirmation of the Supreme Pontiff, Unless the Fathers in Defining Follow the Pontiff’s Instruction
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 concerning universal Councils there are various opinions. For certain Parisians, and all those who teach that a Council is above the Pope, and moreover some others, hold that lawful general Councils cannot err even before the confirmation of the Pontiff. The contrary is taught by others, as Cajetan (Apology, part 2, chapter 21) and Torquemada (Book III, chapters 32, 33, 34, and 38).
Note two things. First, that legates are sometimes sent to a Council with an instruction from the Apostolic See, as we read was done in the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Councils; sometimes without an instruction, as was done in the Council of Trent. The reason is that in those first Councils only one question was treated, and therefore the Pontiff could easily explain to the legates what his own opinion was on that question. But at the Council of Trent so many and so various questions were to be treated that such an instruction could not conveniently be had.
Secondly, note that the definition of a general Council can come about in four ways. First, that the Fathers agree and define, the legates of the Apostolic See dissenting. Secondly, that they define with the legates consenting, but acting against the Pontiff’s instruction. Thirdly, with all consenting, even the legates, but who did not have a certain instruction. Fourthly, with all consenting, together with legates having and following the Pope’s instruction.
About the first and second ways there is no difficulty. For it is established that such Councils can err. For, first, the Second Council of Ephesus in fact erred, which wished to define against the resistance of the legates of Pope Leo, as is plain from Blessed Leo’s letters 24 and 25, and so on. Likewise the Council of Constantinople in the time of Nicholas erred, when the legates of Nicholas acted against the Pope’s instruction, as is plain from Nicholas’s letter to the Patriarchs and the other bishops of the East, and from Zonaras in the life of the Emperor Michael. Secondly, Councils of this kind ought to be called not only not confirmed but even reproved; for it is the same whether the Pontiff expressly reproves the Council, or the Council acts against the Pontiff’s opinion. And it is established that Councils reproved by the Pontiff have no authority, as Gelasius shows by many examples in his volume On the Anathema and in his letter to the bishops of Dardania. Thirdly, those Councils cannot be called lawful which conflict with their head; and likewise when they consent to legates acting against their information, because then the legates do not act as legates, since they do not act in the Pontiff’s name. For Blessed Leo expressly, in letter 45 to Pulcheria, and Agatho, in his letter to the Emperor which was read in the Sixth Synod (session 4), affirm that they do not give authority to their legates except they act according to the rules delivered to them.
About the third way the matter is under opinion. I, however, hold that such a Council can err, and that its judgment is not infallible before the confirmation of the Pontiff. First, because the sentence of that Council is not the final judgment of the Church, and yet if it could not err, it would be the final and irretractable judgment. But that these Councils are not the final judgment is plain; for Councils of this kind are sent to the Pontiff, and the Pontiff can approve or reprove the Council, as is plain from Gelasius in his letter to the bishops of Dardania, and from Nicholas in his letter to Michael, and from the practice of Councils seeking confirmation, and namely from the Bull of Pius IV in which he confirms the Council of Trent, on which matter see Torquemada, Book III, chapter [omitted].
Besides, secondly, the firmness of a Council arises from the consent and conjunction of the body with the head. But the head has not yet opened its opinion; for although the legates preside in the Pontiff’s name, yet they are not really Pontiffs, nor do they know what the Pontiff’s mind is, nor have they that privilege of not erring which the Pontiff has.
Thirdly, the Council of Basel (session 2), together with the Pope’s legate, by common consent established that a Council is above the Pope, which certainly is now judged erroneous.
Fourthly, a Council which defines something against the Pontiff’s instruction can err, as the Council of Constantinople in fact erred, even with the legates of Nicholas I consenting to the error. Therefore it can also err when no instruction is had; for the bishops in a Council are not bound to follow that instruction, otherwise they would not be judges, nor would their votes be free.
But they object: a Council of this kind is a lawful general one, representing the universal Church; therefore it cannot err. Cano answers that a Council cannot err in the way in which the Church cannot err, that is, as the Church cannot err in those things in which all of the Church agree, so also a Council cannot err, that is, in those things in which all of the Council agree. But against this: the Church cannot err as to its personal faith, and therefore it cannot err only in that in which all agree. But a Council cannot err in a judgment about faith, that is, in framing a decree. And the true decree of a Council is that which comes from the majority — otherwise there would be no lawful decree of a Council, since some always dissent. Therefore a Council is said absolutely to err when the majority, which frames the decree, errs. Wherefore I hold that the objection is to be solved by another reason.
I say therefore that a Council cannot err which is absolutely general and perfectly represents the universal Church; but a Council of this kind does not exist before the opinion of the supreme Pontiff is present. For the other bishops indeed represent the body of the Church, and what they do is deemed to be done by the body of the Church; but the Pope’s legates do not so represent the head of the Church, that is, the Pope himself, that what they do is absolutely deemed to have been done by the Pope — otherwise no confirmation would be required; but they only represent the Pontiff as his vicars and internuncios, who ought to refer to him when doubts arise, and await his opinion and execute it. And so such a Council, since it does not absolutely represent the authority of the head, represents the whole Church only imperfectly.
But if anyone insists that a Council of this kind absolutely represents the whole Church, he will be able to answer that a general Council is not deemed altogether absolute except after the confirmation of the Pontiff; and when it is said that a general Council cannot err and that its decrees make a certain faith, this is to be understood when it has been made wholly absolute and sealed by all.
They object, secondly, that Councils say anathema to those holding the contrary, before they are confirmed. I answer: they do indeed say anathema, but understand that it will have force if it be confirmed by the Pontiff — just as when a judge from whom appeal can be made passes a sentence of death upon someone, it is understood that he must die unless the prince retract the sentence.
About the fourth way there can scarcely be a doubt; for it seems certain that such a Council cannot err. For, first, in such a Council is found the express consent of the head and of the members, and therefore of the whole Church, which without doubt cannot err. Nor does it stand in the way that the instruction given by the Pontiff does not seem the definitive sentence of the Apostolic See; for when the Council consents with the Pontiff’s opinion, and the decree is framed by the legates in the Pontiff’s name, then it begins to be the definitive and final sentence not only of the Council but also of the Pontiff, nor can the Pontiff retract it; for he certainly understands that his opinion was from God, when it is approved by the Council, as Blessed Leo says in letter 63 to Theodoret: “What the Lord had first defined by our ministry, He confirmed by the irretractable assent of the whole brotherhood; that He might show it truly to proceed from Himself, which, first framed by the first see of all, the judgment of the whole Christian world had received; that in this too the members might accord with the head,” and so on.
That this may be better understood, it must be known that the Pontiff is wont to send legates instructed on the opinion of the Apostolic See, with this condition: that if the Council consent to the judgment of the Apostolic See, the decree be framed; if not, the framing of the decree be deferred until the Roman Pontiff, being consulted, answer. This is plain from the Council of Chalcedon; for in session 3, when the Council had consented to the Pontiff’s judgment concerning the deposition of Dioscorus, the legates at once framed the decree in these words: “The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo, head of the universal Church, through us his legates, the holy Synod consenting, endowed with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the Church and the rock of faith and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, has stripped Dioscorus of his episcopal dignity and made him an outcast from every priestly office.”
Then, in session 16, when the Council wished to establish something against the Pontiff’s instruction, the legates said that this ought first to be signified to the Apostolic See. When therefore a Council defines something following the express opinion of the Pontiff, it is the same as if it were confirmed.
To these is added that the Council of Chalcedon, in its letter to Leo (which is had in session 3), while it asks confirmation of its decrees, openly says that it writes to the Pontiff and asks confirmation because, besides the decree of faith against Dioscorus, they had also established certain other things without the express opinion of the Pontiff. And so they ask confirmation only of those things which they had defined apart from the Pontiff’s opinion. Leo himself too, in letter 61 to the Council of Chalcedon, by which he confirms it, indicates that there was no need of his confirmation, except that some doubted whether the decree of the Council had really been made with his consent; for which reason the Pontiff also confirmed many other similar Councils, not because they could have erred, but that it might be more certainly established to all that what the legates had done, they had truly done by the express mandate of the Pontiff.
Finally, in Councils of this kind, no other confirmation of the Pontiff being awaited, execution at once follows — that is, those who hold the contrary are condemned as manifest heretics and deposed from the episcopate or priesthood. Thus in the Council of Nicaea six bishops together with Arius were condemned and sent into exile, as Rufinus writes (Book X of the history, chapter 5). In the Council of Ephesus Nestorius was condemned and deposed, as Evagrius testifies (Book I, chapter 4). In that of Chalcedon (session 3) Dioscorus was deposed, and (session 4) ten Egyptian bishops are judged heretics because they would not acquiesce in the decree pronounced in session 3. In the Sixth Council (sessions 8 and 12) Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, with some of his disciples, is condemned, deposed, and cast into exile, and (session 15) the priest Polychronius is condemned and deposed. But if these Councils could have erred before the confirmation of the Pontiff, those who resisted before the confirmation would not have been manifest heretics.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Concilia generalia , ante confirmationem summi Pontificis , errare posse, nisi Patres in defi¬ niendo sequantur Pontificis instructionem. Jam vero de Conciliis universalibus variae sunt opiniones. Parisienses enim quidam, et illi omnes, qui docent, Concilium esse supra Papam, et aliqui praeterea alii existimant, Concilia generalia legitima non posse errare etiam ante confirmationem Pontificis. Con¬ trarium docent alii, utCajetanus in Apolog. par. 2. cap. 21. Turrecremata lib. III. cap. 32, 33, 34, et 38. Nota duo : primo, Legatos aliquando mitti ad Concilium cum instructione Sedis Apos- tolicae, sicut legimus factum in Concilio IV , VI et VII ; aliquando sine instructio¬ ne, ut factum est in Concilio Tridentino ; cujus ratio est, quia in illis primis Conciliis una tantum quaestio tractabatur, et ideo fa¬ cile poterat Pontifex explicare Legatis, quse esset sententia sua de illa quaestione. At in Concilio Tridentino, tot quaestiones, et tam varia; tractandae erant, ut non posset com¬ mode ejusmodi instructio haberi. Secundo nota, posse quatuor modis con¬ tingere, ut fiat generalis Concilii defini¬ tio. Primo, ut Patres consentiant, et defi¬ niant, dissentientibus Legatis Apostolicae Sedis. Secundo, ut definiant consentientibus Legatis, sed contra instructionem Pontificis agentibus. Tertio, consentientibus omnibus etiam Legatis, sed qui non habuerunt certam instructionem. Quarto, consentientibus om¬ nibus cum Legatis habentibus et sequentibus Papae instructionem. Ac de primo et secundo modo nulla est difficultas. Constat enim talia Concilia errare posse ; nam in primis de facto erravit Con¬ cilium Ephesinum II, quod repugnantibus Legatis Papae Leonis definire voluit, ut patet ex epist. B. Leonis 24 et 25, etc. Item Con¬ cilium Constantinopolitanum tempore Nico¬ lai, erravit, cum Legati Nicolai contra ins¬ tructionem Papae egerint, ut patet ex epist. Nicolai ad Patriarchas, etcaeteros Episcopos Orientis, et ex Zonara in vita Michaelis Im¬ peratoris. Secundo, ejusmodi Concilia, non solum non confirmata, sed etiam reprobata dici debent; idem enim est sive Pontifex ex¬ presse Concilium reprobet, sive Concilium agat contra Pontificis sententiam. Constat autem Concilia reprobata a Pontifice nullam habere auctoritatem, ut multis exemplis os¬ tendit Gelasius in tomo de Anathemate, et in epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae. Tertio, non possunt dici legitima Concilia, quae pugnant cum suo capite ; et similiter quando consen¬ tiunt Legatis agentibus contra informatio¬ nem, quia tunc Legati non agunt ut Legati, cum non agant nomine Pontificis ; diserte enim B. Leo in epist. 45. ad Pulcheriam; et Agatho in epist. ad Imperatorem, quae lecta est in VI Synodo, act. 4. affirmant se non dare auctoritatem Legatis, nisi agant secun¬ dum sibi traditas regulas. De tertio modo res est sub opinione. Ego tamen existimo tale Concilium posse errare, neque esse infallibile ejus judicium ante confirmationem Pontificis. Primo, quia sen¬ tentia ejus Concilii non est ultimum judi¬ cium Ecclesiae, et tamen si non posset erra¬ re, esset ultimum, et irretractabile judicium. Non esse autem ultimum judicium horum Conciliorum, planum est ; nam ejusmodi Concilia ad Pontificem mittuntur et Pontifex Concilium approbare potest vel reprobare, utpatet ex Gelasio in epist. ad Episcopos Dar¬ daniae, et ex Nicolao in epist. ad Michae- lem, et ex praxi Conciliorum petentium confirmationem ; ac nominatim ex Bulla Pii IV in qua confirmat Tridentinum Concilium, de qua re Turrecremata liber III. caput Praeterea secundo, firmitas Concilii nasci¬ tur ex consensione, et conjunctione corporis cum capite. At caput nondum aperuit sen¬ tentiam suam; etsi enim Legati praesunt nomine Pontificis, tamen non sunt revera Pontifices, nec sciunt, quae sit mens Pontifi¬ cis, nec habent illud privilegium non erran¬ di quod habet Pontifex. Tertio, Concilium Basileense, sess. II, una cum Legato Pontificis communi consensu sta¬ tuit, Concilium esse supra Papam, quod cer¬ te nunc judicatur erroneum. Quarto, potest errare Concilium, quod ali¬ quid definit contra instructionem Pontificis, ut de facto erravit Concilium Constantino¬ politanum consentientibus etiam errori Le¬ gatis Nicolai I. Ergo potest etiam errare, quando nulla habetur instructio ; nam non tenentur Episcopi in Concilio sequi illam ins¬ tructionem, alioquinon essent judices, neque essent libera suffragia. At objiciunt, ejusmodi Concilium est ge¬ nerale legitimum, et universalem Ecclesiam repraesentans, ergo errare non potest. Res¬ pondet Canus, Concilium non posse errare, eo modo quo Ecclesia non potest errare, id est, sicut Ecclesia non potest errare in iis, in quibus omnes de Ecclesia conveniunt, sic etiam Concilium non potest errare, id est, in quibus omnes de Concilio conveniunt. At contra ; nam Ecclesia non potest erra¬ re quoad fidem personalem, et ideo in eo solum non potest errare, in quo omnes conveniunt. At Concilium non potest errare, in judicio de Fide, id est in decreto forman¬ do. Est autem verum decretum Concilii, quod si a majori parte, alioqui nullum esset legitimum Concilii decretum, cum semper aliqui dissentiant. Ergo Concilium absolute dicitur errare quandoerrat major pars, quse format decretum. Quare alia ratione solven¬ dam esse objectionem existimo. Dico igitur, Concilium illud non posse er¬ rare, quod absolute est generale, et Eccle¬ siam universalem perfecte reprsosentat, ejus¬ modi autem Concilium non est, antequam adsit sententia summi Pontificis. Nam Epis¬ copi cfeteri representant quidem corpus Ec¬ clesiae, et quod illi faciunt, corpus Ecclesiae facere censetur; at Legati Papae non ita re¬ praesentant caput Ecclesiae, id est, ipsum Pa¬ pam, ut quod ipsi faciunt, absolute censea¬ tur fecisse Papa, alioqui nulla requireretur confirmatio ; sed solum repraesentant Ponti¬ ficem, tamquam vicarii et internuntii ipsius, qui ad ipsum referre debeant, cum oriuntur dubia, et sententiam ejus expectare, et cxe- qui. Itaque tale Concilium cum non reprae¬ sentet absolute auctoritatem capitis, non ni¬ si imperfecte totam Ecclesiam repraesentat. Quod si quis omnino velit ejusmodi Con¬ cilium absolute totam Ecclesiam repraesen¬ tare, is respondere poterit, Concilium gene¬ rale non censeri prorsus absolutum , nisi post confirmationem Pontificis ; cum autem dicitur Concilium generale non posse erra¬ re, et ejus decreta certam fidem facere, id es¬ se intelligendum, quando absolutum fuerit penitus, et ab omnibus obsignatum. Objiciunt secundo, quod Concilia dicunt anathema contrariumsentientibus, antequam confirmantur. Respondeo : illa quidem diee- re anathema, sed intelligere illud vim habi¬ turum, si fuerit a Pontifice confirmatum, sicut quando Judex, a quo appellari potest, fert sententiam mortis in aliquem, intelligi- tur illum debere mori, nisi Princeps senten¬ tiam retractet. De quarto mode vix dibuum esse potest, videtur enim esse certum, tale Concilium non posse errare. Primum enim in tali Con¬ cilio invenitur expressus consensus capitis, et membrorum, ac proinde totius Ecclesiae, quse sine dubio errare non potest. Neque obest, quod instructio illa a Pontifice data non videatur definitiva sententia Apostolicae Sedis ; nam quando Concilium consentit cum Pontificis sententia, formaturque decre¬ tum a Legatis nomine Pontificis, tunc inci¬ pit esse sententia definitiva, et ultima, non solum Concilii, sed etiam Pontificis, neque potest Pontifex eam retractare ; nam certo intelligit, sententiam suam fuisse a Deo, quando a Concilio approbatur, ut dicit B. Leo in epist. 63. ad Theodoretum: « Qua), inquit, Dominus nostro prius ministerio de¬ finierat, universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu; ut vere a se prodire osten¬ deret, quod prius a prima omnium sede for¬ matum, totius Christiani orbis judicium re¬ cepisset, ut in hoc quoque capiti membra concordent ete » Quod ut melius intelligatur, sciendum est, Pontificem mittere solere Legatos instructos de sententia Apostolicae Sedis cum ea condi¬ tione ut si Concilium consentiat judicio Apostolicae sedis, formetur decretum, sin minus, differatur decreti formatio, donec Romanus Pontifex consultus respondeat. Id quod patet ex Concilio Chalcedonensi, nam act. 3. cum Concilium consensisset judicio Pontificis circa depositionem Dioscori, mox Legati his verbis formaverunt decretum : « Sanctissimus ac beatissimus Papa, caput universalis Ecclesiae, Leo, per nos Legatos suos, sancta Synodo consentiente, ^ Petri Apostoli praeditus dignitate, qui Ecclesiae fundamentum, ac petra fidei, et coelestis re¬ gni Janitor nuncupatur, Episcopali dignita¬ te Dioscorum nudavit, et ab omni sacerdo¬ tali opere fecit extorrem. » Deinde actione 16. cum Concilium aliquid statuere vellet contra instructionem Pontifi¬ cis, Legati dixerunt, debere prius id signifi¬ cari Apostolicae Sedi. Quando ergo Conci¬ lium definit aliquid, sequens expressam sen¬ tentiam Pontificis, idem est, ac si confirma¬ tum esset. Accedit ad haec, quod Concilium Chalce- donense in epist. ad Leonem, quae habetur act. 3. dum petit confirmationem decreto¬ rum, aperte dicit, se scribere Pontifici, et petere confirmationem, quoniam praeter de¬ cretum de Fide contra Dioscorum, alia etiam quaedam statuerunt sine expressa Pontificis sententia. Itaque solum petunt confirmatio¬ nem eorum, quae definierant praeter Pontifi¬ cis sententiam, Ipse etiam Leo in epist. 61 . ad Concilium Chalcedonense, qua illud con¬ firmat, indicat non fuisse opus sua confirma¬ tione, nisi quia dubitabant aliqui, an revera cum ejus consensu factum fuisset decretum Concilii , qua etiam ratione confirmavit Pontifex multa alia similia Concilia non quia errare potuerant, sed ut omnibus certius constaret, quse Legati egerant, vere ex man¬ dato expresso Pontificis egisse. Denique in ejusmodi Conciliis, non expec- tata alia confirmatione Pontificis, mox fit exeeutio, id est, damnantur, qui contra- rium sentiunt, ut manifesti haeretici, et de¬ ponuntur ab Episcopatu, vel sacerdotio. Ita in Nicaeno Concilio damnati sunt et in exi¬ lium acti sex Episcopi una cum Ario, utscri- bit Ruffinus lib. X hist. cap. 5. in Epliesino Concilio damnatus et depositus estNestorius ut Evagrius testatur lib. I, cap. 4, In Chal- cedonensi, act. 3. depositus estDioscorus, et act. 4. decem Episcopi ^Egyptii judican¬ tur haeretici quia nolebant acqdisecere decre¬ to prolato, act. 3. In Concilio YI. actione 8. et 12. damnatur et deponitur, et in exilium ejicitur Macharius Patriarcha Antiochenus cum aliquot suis discipulis, et act. 15. dam¬ natur et deponitur Polychronius Presbyter. At si Concilia ista ante confirmationem Pon¬ tificis errare potuissent, non fuissent illi ma¬ nifesti haeretici, qui ante confirmationem resistebant.