THE TWENTY
ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
'By FATHER CLEMENT RAAB,
O.F.M.
From the Ecumenical Councils, the
nerve centres in Christ s Mystical
Body, every act, every decree, and
every movement reaches both back­
ward and forward either as a check
on some error or abuse, or as a stim­
ulus to some point of doctrinal de­
velopment, or to some wholesome
reform, or to some phase of religious
life of the Church.
The present volume is designed to
serve as a ready survey and reference
book on the history of the councils.
It does not pretend to enrich the
findings of the scholars; nor does it
propose to enter upon a discussion of
moot questions and problems. It is to
serve as an aid primarily to the cleric
or lay student who has neither the
time nor the opportuniy to delve into
and analyse sources and controversies,
but who is satisfied to learn the out­
standing facts and findings concern­
ing which Church historians gen­
erally agree. This brief and positive
sketch of the twenty great events in
history, so vibrant with life and so
far-reaching in their consequences,
will afford him, we trust, a very
definite and appreciable knowledge
of the nature and history of Holv
Mother Church.

Nihil nhstat
Fr. Benvenutus Ryan, O.F.M.

Censor Librorum
Nihil nhatat
Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.

Censor Librorum

imprimi pntrat
Fr. Mathias Faust, O.F.M.,

Min. Provincialis

imprimatur
Patrick Cardinal Hayes,
V

New York, August

Archbishop of New York

8, 1936

THE TWENTY
ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
OF THE

CATHOLIC CHURCH
BY

Father CLEMENT RAAB, O.F.M.

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
LONDON · NEW YORK · TORONTO

I937
SACRED HEART SEMih™u
LIBRARY DEPT.

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
I 14 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

221 EAST 2OTH STREET, CHICAGO

88 TREMONT STREET, BOSTON

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. Ltd.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E C 4

6

OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, CALCUTTA
J 3 NICOL ROAD, BOMBAY

36A MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
21J VICTORIA STREET, TORONTO

RAAB
THE TWENTY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

COPYRIGHT *19 3 7
BY CLEMENT RAAB

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, INCLUDING THE

RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS BOOK, OR

ANY PORTION THEREOF, IN ANY FORM

FIRST EDITION

PRINTED in THE united

STATES OF AMERICA

η

FOREWORD

Her conserva­
tism is not merely a measure of prudence and good
judgment ; it is an intrinsic necessity. No matter what
she may consider, decide or undertake, she always
harks back to the beginning. Keenly sensitive to every
new movement, every stir, every breath in the world
about her, she seeks to make her words and actions in­
telligible and convincing amid new conditions and new
demands. And the marvel is that every readjustment
bears the earmark of the venerable refrain : “Sicut erat
in principio, et nunc, et semper.” Pope Stephen’s Latin
might have offended the ears of classicists, but his un­
compromising words carried a classical principle when
he bluntly declared : “Nihil innovetur nisi quod tradi­
tum est.” And in this the Church distinguishes her­
self from other earthly organizations. The latter, in
order to survive, to function and prosper, must look
forward and move forward ; they must adapt them­
selves to ever-changing conditions, demands and oppor­
tunities. They must either conform or capitulate,
whereas the Church by calmly rehearsing the same old
truths in clearer accents commands universal attention.
And so, after these twenty centuries the “pillar and
ground of truth” has not moved a whit from her primi­
tive position, while all other human foundations have
either crumbled to dust or have been driven headlong
The Church is essentially conservative.

'

I

V

VI

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

by the maelstrom of this fast changing world. To
these, the ideal looms hazily in the distant future ; to
the Church, it stands firmly in the distant past. The
closer she aligns herself with Christ, the surer she is of
ultimate success and victory, being “built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief cornerstone.” (Eph. II. 20).
While there is no essential difference between a pro­
nouncement “ex cathedra” and a dogmatic definition
of an ecumenical council, still, no one will gainsay that
a great deal more human interest and human authority
attaches to the latter. The former proceeds from the
Head alone ; the latter, from both Head and members,
acting in perfect unison. At an ecumenical council the
Church arises in all her power and dignity. She is
stirred within herself and every fiber senses the solem­
nity of the hour. The successors of the Apostles have
come from every land to testify with the Successor of
Peter “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus
creditum est,” as St. Vincent of Lerins puts it. This
makes the study of the councils not only an important
issue, but affords perhaps more color, variety and sym­
pathetic concern than any other topic in our ecclesiasti­
cal curriculum.
If the history of the Church be compared to a river,
we might well say that in this long stream the twenty
councils stand out as so many waterfalls, where all
die currents assemble, where debris and dirt are de­
posited, where the waters are purified, and where the
river gathers new force and speed for its onward jour­
ney. And as the wanderer will be naturally impelled
to stop near the waterfall, even so will the student of

FOREWORD

•9

VH

history feci an urge to rivet his attention upon this
phenomenon in ecclesiastical life. In fact the ecumeni­
cal councils are the chief points of interest to the stu­
dent of theology and religion. For some decades past
down to this day history holds a leading position in all
ecclesiastical studies. Every subject in the curriculum
is prefaced by a historical survey. As a result, we have
the History of Dogma, the History of Liturgy, the His­
tory of the Bible, the History of Moral Theology, the
History of Ascetical Theology. Meanwhile Church
History proper is still imbued with the responsibility
over the entire field. This condition has its advan­
tages, but some day the matter will become cumber­
some, if not confusing. And if some one should some
day succeed in synthesizing all this historical material,
he would most likely concentrate upon the councils as
the strategic points in the development of the “magis­
terium, ministerium, imperium” of the living Church.
From the councils, the nerve centers in Christ’s Mysti­
cal Body, every act, every decree and every movement
reaches both backward and forward either as a check
on some error or abuse or as a stimulus to some point
of doctrinal development, or to some wholesome re­
form, or to some phase of religious life of the Church.
The present volume is designed to serve as a ready
survey and reference book on the history of the coun­
cils. It does not pretend to enrich the findings of the
scholars ; nor does it propose to enter upon a discussion
of moot questions and problems. It is to serve as an aid
primarily to the cleric or lay student who has neither
the time nor die opportunity to delve into, and analyze
sources and controversies, but who is satisfied to learn

VÜi

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the outstanding facts and findings concerning which
Church historians generally agree. This brief and pos­
itive sketch of the twenty great events in history, so
vibrant with life and so far-reaching in their conse­
quences, will afford him, we trust, a very definite and
appreciable knowledge of the nature and history of
Holy Mother Church.
Father Thomas Plassmann, O.F.M.
St. Bonaventure, New York

Feast of St. Bonarentare
July 14, 1936

AUTHOR’S REMARKS
The separate treatise of the Twenty Ecumenical

Councils of the Catholic Church is meant primarily for
seminarians, for students of Church History and for
study clubs. Some may find it strange that there is
an absence of footnotes. The reasons for this omission
are that, as a rule, seminarians have no time to read the
various quotations and they do not have at their dis­
posal the books from which the quotations are taken.
Others who are anxious to make a more comprehensive
study of the Councils will find ample material by
consulting the authors mentioned in the Bibliography.
Father Clement Raab, O.F.M.
St. Francis Monastery

New York City

SYNOPSIS OF THE
TWENTY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
First Ecumenical Council....................................... Page

i

"Place :
Nicaea.
fime :
325.
Pope :
St. Sylvester I, 314-335.
Emperor : Constantine the Great, 306-337.
WorJ^ of the Council : Condemnation of the heresy of
Arius by clearly defining the consubstantiality of God the
Son with God the Father.

Second Ecumenical Council

.... Page

9

Place:
Constantinople (first).
Time :
381.
Pope :
St. Damascus I, 367-384.
Emperor : Theodosius the Great, 379-394.
Wor!{ of the Council : Condemnation of the heresy of
Macedonius by clearly defining the divinity of the Holy
Ghost.

Third Ecumenical Council

.... Page

15

Place :
Ephesus.
"Fime :
431.
Pope :
St. Celestine I, 423-432.
Emperor : Theodosius II, 408-450.
Worl{ of the Council : Condemnation of the heresy of
Nestorius by clearly defining the divine maternity of the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
ix

X

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Fourth Ecumenical Council

.... Page 24

‘Place :
Chalcedon.
Time :
451.
Pope :
St. Leo I, the Great, 440-461.
Emperor : Marcian, 450-457.
Wor!{ of the Council: Condemnation of the heresy of
Eutyches.

Fifth Ecumenical Council

.... Page 34

Place:
Constantinople (second).
‘T/wi :
553.
Pope :
Vigilius, 540-555.
Emperor : Justinian I, 527-565.
Wor{ of the Council : Condemnation of the “Three
Chapters.”

Sixth Ecumenical Council

.... Page 41

Place:
Constantinople (third).
Time :
680.
Pope :
St. Agatho, 678-682.
Emperor : Constantine IV, 668-685.
Worl^ of the Council: Condemnation of the heresy of the
Monothelites.

Seventh Ecumenical Council .... Page 52
Place:
Nicaea (second).
Time :
Pope :
Hadrian I, 772-795.
Emperor : Constantine VI, 780-801.
JFor^ of the Council : Condemnation of iconoclasm.

SYNOPSIS

Eighth Ecumenical Council

XÎ

. Page 60

Place:
Constantinople (fourth).
Time :
869.
Pope :
Hadrian II, 867-872.
Emperor : Basil, 867-896.
Worf of the Council : Removal of the schism caused by
Photius.

Ninth Ecumenical Council

Page 68

Place :
Lateran in Rome (first).
Time:
1123.
Pope:
Callistus II, 1118-1124.
Emperor : Henry V, 1106-1125.
Worf of the Council : Confirmation of the Concordat of
Worms and abolition of the strife over investiture.

Tenth Ecumenical Council

. Page 75

Place :
Lateran in Rome (second).
Time:
1139.
Pope :
Innocent II, 1130-1143.
Emperor: Conrad III, 1137-1152.
Worf of the Council : Abolition of the papal schism and
condemnation of the heresy of Peter of Bruys.

Eleventh Ecumenical Council .

Page 80

Place:
Lateran in Rome (third).
Time:
1179.
Pope :
Alexander III, 1159-1181.
Emperor: Frederick Barbarossa, 1152-1190.
Worf of the Council : Regulation of election of a Pope and
condemnation of the Albigensian heresy.

XÜ

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Twelfth Ecumenical Council .... Page ^6
Place : Lateran in Rome (fourth).
Time :
1215.
Pope :
Innocent III, 1198-1216.
Emperor : Otto IV, 1208-1215.
Work oj the Council : Recovery of the Holy Land, reform
of discipline, condemnation of the Albigensian heresy.

Thirteenth Ecumenical Council

.

. Page 95

.

Place :
Lyons in France (first).
Time :
1245.
Pope :
Innocent IV, 1241-1254.
Emperor: Frederick II, 1215-1250.
Work of the Council: The excommunication of
Frederick II.

Fourteenth Ecumenical Council

.

. Page 101

.

Place :
Lyons in France (second).
Time :
1274.
Pope :
Gregory X, 1271-1276.
Emperor : Rudolph of Habsburg, 1273-1291.
Work of the Council : Help for the Holy Land, union of
the Greeks with the Latins, reform of morals.

Fifteenth Ecumenical Council

.

.

. Page no

Place :
Vienne in France.
Time:
1311.
Pope :
Clement V, 1305-1314.
Emperor: Henry VII, 1308-1313.
Work of the Council : (1) The case of the Knights 1 emplars ; (2) help for the Holy Land ; (3) reform of morals.

•··
Xlll

SYNOPSIS

Sixteenth Ecumenical Council.
.
.
Page 120
Place :
Constance.
Time :
1414.
Pope :
Gregory XII, 1406-1417.
Martin V, 1417—1431.
Emperor : Sigismund, 1410-1437.
Wor/( of the Council : (1) Removal of the papal schism ;
(2) extirpation of heresy ; (3) general reformation of the
Church in “Head and members

Seventeenth Ecumenical Council

.

.

. Page 136

Place :

Basle 1431—1437.
Ferrara 1438.
Florence 1439-1443.
Tim e :
I43I“I443·
Pope :
Eugene IV, 1431-1447.
Emperor : Albrecht II, 1438-1439.
Frederick III, 1440-1493.
Wor/( of the Council: (1) Extirpation of heresy and the
Grecl{ schism ; (2) re-establishment of peace among
Christian Princes ; (3) reform of the Church in “Head
and members.”

Eighteenth Ecumenical Council

.

.

. Page 157

Lateran in Rome (fifth).
1512-1517.
Julius II, 1503-1513.
Leo X, 1513-1521.
Emperor : Maximilian I, 1493—1519.
Wor/( of the Council: (1) The rooting out of schism;
(2) the reform of the Church ; (3) the crusade against
the Turl^s.

Place :
Time :
Pope :

xiv

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Nineteenth Ecumenical Council

.

.

. Page 170

Place :
Time:

Trent.
1545-1549 (First Period).
I55I"I552 (Second Period).
1562-1563 (Third Period).
Pope :
Paul III, 1534-1549.
Julius III, 1550-1555.
Pius IV, 1559-1565.
Emperor: Charles V, 1519-1556.
Ferdinand I, 1556-1564.
Worl( of the Council : Extirpation of heresy (against the
innovators of the 16th century) and reform of morals.

Twentieth Ecumenical Council

.

.

. Page 202

Place :
Vatican, Rome.
Time :
1869-1870.
Pope :
Pius IX, 1864-1878.
Wor{ of the Council : Condemnation of existing errors and
definition of papal infallibility.

Bibliography

....... Page 2*5

Index...................................................................... page 2I6

THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT NICAEA IN

325

WORK OF THE COUNCIL· : Condemnation of the
heresy of Arius by clearly defining the coilsubstantiality of
God the Son with God the Father.
Among the many wonderful manifestations of religious

activity in the Church, the councils or synods hold an
important place. In the language of the Church a
council is an assembly of ecclesiastics, properly con­
voked, to consider and to define doctrine or discipline
or other ecclesiastical matters. In this sense we find the
word “council” used in the writings of Tertullian, about
the year 200 a.d. According to the intention for which
these assemblies were convoked and the number of
members in attendance, they were divided, on the one
hand, into ecumenical councils, and, on the odier hand,
into general, national, provincial, and diocesan synods.
An ecumenical council did not require the presence of
all bishops ; it sufficed that all bishops or representa­
tives of all ecclesiastical provinces should be invited, and
that a considerable number of them from the different
Christian countries should actually be present. The
council was convoked either by the Pope or by the Em­
peror, with the consent of the Pope, who presided over
it through his legates. The decrees of an ecumenical
, council had no legal force until the papal confirmation
had been granted to them.
I

2

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

It
is
beyond
doubt
that
the
origin
of
councils
dates
A
***— —. - — —
w
*
*“
from that of the Apostles, held in Jerusalem about 52
a.d., at which Saints Peter, James, John, Barnabas, and
Paul were present. Theologians disagree as to the na­
ture of the councils, whether they are of divine or hu­
man authority. The best answer seems to be that they
are an apostolic institution, but that the Apostles acted
undoubtedly on the instruction of their divine Master ;
otherwise they could not have published the decrees of
this first council with the words : “It hath seemed good
to the Holy Ghost and to us. . . (Acts, xv, 28). The
decrees of the first council were four : The converted
Gentiles should abstain from things sacrificed to idols ;
from blood ; from things strangled ; and from fornica­
tion (Acts, xv, 29).
In the two hundred and fifty years which followed the
Apostolical Council, we read that many synods were
held, mostly in Asia Minor, Africa, and Spain : to com­
bat Gnosticism, the negation of positive Christianity ; to
oppose the heresies of Montanus and Novatianus ; to set­
tle the controversy on the celebration of Easter ; to define
the validity of baptism conferred by heretics ; to reclaim
to the true Church the Donatists and other heretics.
In the first quarter of the fourth century a new and
most formidable heresy arose. It made the convocation
of an ecumenical council imperative. The heresy was
Arianism, the condemnation of which occasioned the
First Ecumenical Council.
Author

of

Arianism

Arius (250-336), most likely a native of Lybia, or as
othefsTây, of Alexandria, was a vain and eccentric man.

THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

3

He first espoused the cause of the Meletians, when
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, a city in upper Egypt,
refused to submit to deposition by his ecclesiastical
superior, St. Peter of Alexandria. Abandoning the
espousal of this schism, Arius received deaconship at the
hands of the latter prelate. But when St. Peter excom­
municated the Meletians, the young deacon soon be­
came involved in the same condemnatory sentence.
After the martyrdom of St. Peter, his successor, Achillas,
restored Arius to communion with the Church, and
raised him to the priesthood in 312. He was appointed
pastor of a suburban church, called Baucalis. When, in
318, Bishop Alexander, the successor of Achillas, ex­
pounded the orthodox doctrine of the Blessed Trinity
at a conference of his priests, Arius openly contradicted
him, and there promulgated his heretical vîéwsT His
errors are contained in the following propositions :
(1) There was a moment when God was not Father ;
(2) the Son of God was created from nothing ; (3) the
Son of God is a creature, and, therefore, He is not
eternal ; (4) being a creature, the Son of God is sub­
ject to change ; (5) being a creature the Son of God
is not co-equal with the Father in essence, and only in
a figurative sense may we apply to Him the names
“God” and “Wisdom of God.”
These errors of Arius were condemned by the Synod
of Alexandria in 320, at which nearly 100 bishops were
present, and by which Arius with all his adherents was
excommunicated. In spite of this ecclesiastical censure,
Arius continued to exercise his priestly functions. He
won over to his side in the controversy Bishop Eusebius
of Nicomedia, a distant relative of Emperor Constan-

4

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

tine. Arius, exiled by his bishop, went first to Pales­
tine. From there he went to his friend and protector
Eusebius of Nicomedia. During his stay at Nicomedia,
Arius composed his principal work “Thaleia” (“Ban­
quet"), of which only fragments are still·Extant in the
writings of St. Athanasius. It was written partly in
prose and partly in poetry, and contained all the hereti­
cal views of Arius. Among his followers this book had
the authority of the Bible.
When unrest and quarrel spread, Emperor Constan­
tine (275-337) intervened. Not understanding the real
point at issue in the controversy he wished that Bishop
Alexander and Arius should come to an understanding.
To effect this reunion and reconciliation the Emperor
sent Bishop Hosius to Alexandria in 324. When this
attempt at intervention proved to be a failure, Con­
stantine, at the suggestion of Bishop Hosius, decided to
call an ecumenical council.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. Constantine addressed
most respectful letters to all the bishops, inviting them
to a general council, which was to be held at Nicaea in
tee
**
Z
<
Bithynia in 325. According to the Acts of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council, the Emperor convoked this Coun­
cil of Nicaea in agreement with and by the consent of
Pope St. Sylvester (314-335), who appointed as his per­
sonal representatives Bishop Hosius and the two Ro­
man priests, Vitus and Vincentius. According to the
best authorities, 318 bishops with many priests and dea­
cons (among whom St. Athanasius was the most re-

THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

5

nowned) came to the council which opened on May
20, and closed on August 25, 325. The Emperor de­
frayed all the personal expenses contracted by the bish­
ops in their journey to and stay at the council. The
Emperor himself arrived on June 14, 325, and was
present at all the sessions of the council until its close.
Arius, also, was called to the council. Many bishops
of this council were confessors who still bore on their
bodies traces of torture and suffering which they had
endured for the sake of their faith. There was Paphnutius of Upper Thebais who had undergone fearful tor­
tures in the reign of Maximian and had lost one eye;
Potamon of Heraclea who had suffered all but death
under Licinius. Others were known for their gifts of
prophecy and working miracles, such as James of Nisibis, Spiridion of Cyprus, Nicholas of Myra, Leontius
of Caesarea. Still others were renowned for their learn­
ing,
O z as Alexander of Alexandria,
z Eusthatius of Antioch,
z
Marcarius of Jerusalem, and Marcellus of Ancyra.
The work of the council was threefold : (1) the con­
demnation of the heresy of Arius ; (2) the decision on
the question of the celebration of Easter ; (3) the aboli­
tion of the schism of Meletius.
(1) 'The condemnation of the heresy of Ari us. The
fathers of the council stated the Catholic doctrine
against the heresy of Arius in precise terms, declaring
that Jesus Christ is really and truly the Son of God,
God from all eternity, and that the Son of God is “Consubstantial’' with the Father. The council drew up a
formula of Faith, containing the exact teaching of the
Church :

6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

πατέρα παντωκράτερα, ποιητην ονρανοϋ
και γης, ορατών τε πάντων και αοράτων’ και εις ενα κύριον Ίησοϋν
Χρίστον τον υιόν τον Θεού, τον μονογενή, τον εκ τον πατρος
γεννηθεντα προ πάντων των αιάινων τον Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεού
αληθινόν, γεννηθεντα, ον ποιηθεντα, ομοονσιον τω πατρί.
Τους δε λέγοντας· ήν ποτέ οτε ονκ ήν, καί πριν γεννηθήναι ονκ ήν
και ότι εκ ονκ οντων εγενετο, ή εξ (.τέρας νποστάσειος ή ουσίας
I ή/άσκοντας είναι ή τρεπτον ή άλλοιωτον τον νιον τον Θεοΰ, τοντονς
' αναθεματίζει ή καθολική και άποστολική εκκλησία.
I
“We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator
of heaven and earth, maker of all things, visible and in­
visible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages,
true God of the true God, born, not made, Consubstantial with the Father.”
“And those who say there was a time when he was
not, and he was not before he was born, and that he was
made out of nothing, or of a different substance or
essence, saying that the Son of God was changeable
and mutable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes.”
The formula of faith drawn up by the council is
known as the Nicene Creed, and is recited during Holy
Mass. The word Consubstantial became the touchstone
of orthodoxy.
All the bishops, except five Arians, signed the profes­
sion of faith, and joined in the anathemas which the
council pronounced against Arius and his heresy. These
five bishops were : Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of
Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and
Secundus of Ptolemais. The Emperor employed his
Πιστευο/uv εις era Θεόν

THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

7

temporal authority to enforce the decisions of the coun­
cil ; he banished Arius to Illyrium. The same fate over­
took Theonas and Secundus, the Arians, who remained
obstinate to the end. The writings of Arius were or­
dered to be burnt, while those who possessed any of the
writings of Arius were commanded to surrender them
under penalty of death.
(2) The decision on the question of the celebration of
Easter. Up to the time of the Council of Nicaea there
was a great variety regarding the time of the celebration
of Easter. The council forbade the celebration of Easter
on the same day with the Jews. It commanded that
Easter must be celebrated on the first Sunday which fol­
lows the spring full moon. It was ordained that the cal­
culations for the celebration of Easter should be made
yearly by the Bishop of Alexandria, who should forward
these calculations to the Pope for general publication.
(3) The abolition of the schism of Meletius. Bishop
Meletius had conferred orders outside of his diocese
against the law of the Church. These ordinations were
ratified by the council, but Meletius and those ordained
by him had to comply with certain conditions.
The council issued also twenty disciplinary canons.
The decrees and canons of the council were signed by
Hosius, who had presided at the council, by the two
apostolic legates, by the bishops of the council, and by
Emperor Constantine, who promulgated in three im­
perial edicts the decrees of the council as laws of the em­
pire. The Acts of die council were confirmed by Pope
St. Sylvester I.
The high esteem in which the Christians of the Orient

8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

held the Council of Nicaea may be gathered from the
fact that the Greeks, the Syrians, and the Egyptians cele­
brated an annual feast in honor of the fathers of the
council : the Greeks on the Sunday before Pentecost, the
Syrians in July, and the Egyptians in November.

II

THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT CONSTANTINOPLE IN

381

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Condemnation of the
heresy of Macedonius by clearly defining the divinity of
the Holy Ghost.
The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea held in the year 325

dealt the death blow to the heresy of Arius. Protected,
however, by the secular power, his heresy lived on.
After his miserable death, in which the judgment of
God against him was apparent, his followers began to
teach other doctrines than those which he had taught
them. They became divided into several sects, some of
which taught
O one' doctrine, some another. Thus from
the great heresy of Arianism arose several others. The
principal one of these branch heresies was Macedonianism, named after Macedonius, a semi-Arian Bishop of
Constantinople (342), who was a fierce persecutor of the
adherents of the faith of Nicaea. He not only expelled
those who refused to hold communion with him, but he
imprisoned some and brought others before the secular
tribunals. On account of his cruelty he was deposed in
the year 360, and died about 364.
As Arius had attacked the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity by teaching that the Son of God was not
equal to God the Father, so Macedonius attacked the
Holy Ghost, the Third Divine Person. He was sup­
ported by Marathonius, who was first a government of9

10

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

facial, then became a monk and a deacon, and finally
Bishop of Nicomedia. (Hence die name of this heresy
Macedonianism or Marathonianism). The originators
of this heresy held a synod at Zele in Pontus. They sep­
arated themselves from the orthodox Church as well as
from the Arian Church. They declared that the Holy^
Ghost was inferior to the Father and to the Son ; diey
called the Holy Ghost a creature of the Son of God.
St. Athanasius (296-373), from whose eagle eye noth­
ing escaped, wrote a treatise in refutation of this new
heresy. The orthodox faith was defended in like man­
ner by St. Basil in his work ‘On the Holy Ghost,” by St.
Gregory of Nazianzen in his fifth ‘‘Theological Ora­
tion." by Didymus of Alexandria in his books “On the
Trinity” and “On the Holy Ghost” and by St. Ambrose
of Milan.
A Roman synod held in the year 369, under Pope St.
Damasus (366-384), declared that the Father and the
Son arc of the one divine substance, together with the
Holy Ghost. In another Roman synod held in 374 the
Pope rejected the teachings of Macedonius as heretical.
In 379 Emperor Gratian had appointed Theodosius
his co-emperor to rule over the East. Soon after his bap­
tism. Theodosius issued an edict in which he said : “It is
our will that all our subjects should follow the religion
taught by the Prince of the Apostles to the Romans, and
observed by the reigning Pope Damasus, that in con­
formity with the Gospels and apostolic teaching, we may
believe one, only, indivisible Godhead of the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost. We decree that those alone
who thus believe be called Catholics, and that those
whose rash and insane impiety we condemn, be called

THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

11

heretics, and that their places of meeting be not called
churches.”
Theodosius, however, knew well that something more
than an expression of the imperial will was needed to
pacify the Church in the East, and to suppress its preva­
lent heresy. He resolved to convoke a council, and
selected Constantinople as the place of meeting. He
made provision for defraying the expenses of the bishops
whom he had summoned. They came from all parts of
the East, about 150, besides the 36 bishops who favored
the Macedonian heresy, who had also been invited to at­
tend the council. When the bishops were presented to
the Emperor, he besought them to restore peace to the
Church. He promised to give legal sanction to their
decrees, so that the decrees binding in conscience, should
be enforced also by the civil power.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was opened
with due solemnity in the month of May 381, under the
presidency of Mcletius, Bishop of Antioch. Attempts
were made to win back the Macedonians ; Theodosius,
also, exhorted them to return to the faith and com­
munion of the Church ; but they refused and withdrew
from the council.
The work of the council was threefold : (1) To pro­
vide for the orthodox succession in the episcopal See of
Constantinople ; (2) to confirm the Nicene Creed by ex­
plicit teaching on the Third Person of the Blessed Trin­
ity j (3) t0 Put an end to the Macedonian heresy.
(1) To provide for the orthodox succession in the
episcopal See of Constantinople. The first measure of

12

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the council was to reject Maximus who had usurped the
See of Constantinople, and to confirm St. Gregory of
Nazianzen as Bishop of Constantinople, who, however,
accepted the burden reluctantly. On the death of Meletius Gregory became president of the council, but on ac­
count of differences which arose concerning
o the succèssor of Meletius, Gregory resigned the presidency and the
bishopric of Constantinople. Nectarius, although he
was still a catechumen, was nevertheless chosen Bishop
of Constantinople and president of the council.
(2) To confirm the Nicene Paith by explicit teaching
on the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. The coun­
cil drew up a formal treatise on the Catholic doctrine of
the Blessed Trinity and a Creed (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). This is an enlargement of the Nicene
Creed with emphasis given to the divinity of the Holy
Ghost. The Nicene Creed said concerning the Incarna­
tion of the Son of God : “And was incarnate, was made
man, suffered, etc.” The Creed of Constantinople
added : “Was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin
Mary, and was made man ; he was crucified, etc.” In
regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the
Creed of Nicaea simply said : “We believe in the Holy
Ghost.” The Creed of Constantinople unfolded the
truth thus :
Πιστενο/ici' «ç το πνεύμα το άγιον, το κύριον και ζωοποιόν, τό εκ
τού πατρός εκπορευόμενοι', τό σίτ πατρϊ καί νίώ προσκννονμενον και
σννδοζαζόμενον, τό λαλήσαν δια των προφητών.
“We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver,
who proceeds from the Father, who together with the
Father and the Son, is adored and glorified, who spoke
through the Prophets.”

THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

IJ

Thus the divinity of the Holy Ghost was pronounced
in clear and precise terms.
(3)
Put- an en(l
the Macedonian heresy. The
council issued four important canons. The first is a
dogmatic condemnation of all kinds of Arianism and
Macedonianism. The second canon renews the injunc­
tions of the fifth and sixth canon of the Council of Ni­
caea. (The fifth canon was directed against those who
boasted of having obtained church preferment or or­
dination by money. The sixth canon ordained that
provincial synods should be held annually.) The third
canon gives to the Bishop of Constantinople a pre­
eminence of honor, because Constantinople is now the
new-Rome. The fourth canon declares the ordination
of Maximus as Bishop of Constantinople invalid.
Emperor Theodosius received the decrees of the coun­
cil as oracles of God, and gave them legal force in an
imperial decree which he issued on July 30, 381, declar­
ing that the churches should be restored to those bishops
who confessed the equal divinity of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, and who hold communion with
Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria,
Pelagius of Laodicea, Amphilochus of Iconium, Greg­
ory of Nyssa, and others, expressly mentioned. Those
who hold no communion with the bishops mentioned in
the imperial decree, must be expelled from the churches
as open heretics.
It is to be noted that this council was composed ex­
clusively of Eastern bishops ; neither had it been con­
voked by the Pope, nor was it presided over by his
legates ; but it is now reckoned among the ecumenical
councils of the Church. The ecumenical character of

14

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

this council dates among the Greeks from the Council of
Chalcedon, held in the year 451, which accepted and
solemnly read the Creed of Constantinople with that of
Nicaea. In the West, Pope Gregory the Great, follow­
ing the example of Pope Vigilius and Pope Pelagius II,
recognized it as an ecumenical council, but only in its
dogmatical utterances, by which the true doctrine on the
divinity of the Holy Ghost was defined, and heresies
denying this article were condemned.

Ill

THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT EPHESUS IN 43I

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Condemnation of the
heresy of Nestorius by clearly defining the divine maternity
of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
“This is the true faith to believe and confess that our

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
Although at the same time God and Man, there are not
in Him two, but only one Christ. One absolutely, not
by any confusion of substance, but by unity of person.”
These words of the renowned Athanasian Creed are the
pure expression of apostolic teaching on the great mys­
tery of the Incarnation. Christ is God and Man, yet He
is one and the same Person. Thus the Creed has dis­
pelled all the fallacies with which heresy and unbelief
have tried to obscure the unchangeable teaching of the
Church. The Cerinthians taught that Jesus was a mere
man upon whom the Holy Ghost descended in the form
of a dove, when He was baptized in the Jordan ; but
that the same Holy Spirit left Him at the time of His
Passion. The Arians, the first radicals of infidelity,
were still bolder by denying absolutely the divinity of
Jesus Christ. But all the errors concerning the Incarna­
tion may be summed up in general by the heresies of
Nestorius and Eutychcs. In the present treatise we deal
with the heresy of Nestorius and its condemnation by
>5

16

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the Third Ecumenical Council which was held at Ephe­
sus in the year 431.
Author of the Heresy

Nestorius, born in Germanicia in Syria, was educated
in the school of Theodore of Mopsuestia, priest and
monk of Antioch. There he gained some renown as
preacher. In 428 he was called by Emperor Theodo­
sius II to the episcopal See of Constantinople. At once
he commenced a bitter fight against the Arians. In the
beginning of his episcopate, he addressed the Emperor
with these words : “Give me the earth, O Emperor,
purged of heretics, and I will give heaven to thee ; aid
me in die destruction of heretics, and I will aid thee in
destroying the Persians.” Agitated by a tempestuous
character, and driven by an ardent desire for fame rather
than by a true zeal for faith, Nestorius, in the first year
of his episcopate, advanced his heretical views concern­
ing the divinity of Christ and the dignity of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
He contended that Christ was a mere man, but that
He was united with God ; that Jesus of Nazareth and
the Word of God are two distinct persons ; that the In­
carnation was simply an indwelling of the Word of
God in the man Jesus, as God abides in a temple, so that
God was not born, did not suffer and die. From this
primary error followed the second, that the Blessed
Virgin Mary was not the Θεοτόκος viz. “Mother of
God" but only the Χριστοτόκο? viz. “Mother of Christ.”
Implying that if Mary were the Mother of God, then the
Word of God would have a beginning.

THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I/

As St. Athanasius had been raised up by God to con­
found the Arians, so St. Cyril of Alexandria was chosen
by God to combat the heresy of Nestorius. The latter
published his treatise and several homilies on the Incar­
nation, which he took care to send into Egypt in order
to ascertain the views of others. Owins[
o to these writings St. Cyril issued his Easter encyclical to the monks of
Egypt, in which he defended the title and dignity of the
“Mother of God.” Cyril’s writings were eagerly read
in Constantinople to the great discomfiture and chagrin
of Nestorius who had won high favor at the imperial
Court. Cyril, in his clear exposition of the Incarnation,
informed the Emperor and the imperial family of the
new heresy. “Obliged by the old custom of the Church”
Cyril reported the heretical teachings of Nestorius to
Pope St. Celestine I. Nestorius, also, had written to the
Pope, putting the blame of the whole controversy on
Cyril, and he recommended in his letter to the Pope that
the term “Mother of Christ” should be the golden mean
between “Mother of God” and “Mother of man.” He
also suggested that die Church hold a council, saying
that he had already advised the Emperor to this effect.
When Pope Celestine had read the letters of Cyril and
Nestorius, he held a synod at Rome in August 430,
which decreed that a sentence of excommunication and
deposition was to be pronounced against Nestorius, un­
less he would renounce his errors in an open and written
confession within ten days. Pope Celestine, thereupon,
addressed epistles to St. Cyril of Alexandria, to Patriarch
John of Antioch, to the clergy and laity of Constantino­
ple, and to Nestorius, to acquaint all of them with the
decision of the Roman Synod. Cyril, the champion of

ι8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

orthodoxy, was appointed by the Pope to carry out the
sentence pronounced by the Roman Synod, should Nes­
torius persevere in his error.
In the month of November 430, Cyril held a synod of
all the bishops of Egypt. The object of this synod was
to state in clear terms the doctrine of the Incarnation and
divine maternity. A letter, composed by Cyril and en­
dorsed by the synod, was borne to Nestorius by the Bish­
ops Theopantus and Daniel, and two priests of Alexan­
dria, Potamon and Macarius. These messengers handed
the document to Nestorius on a Sunday, when he was
officiating in his cathedral. In diis letter Nestorius was
officially informed of the sentence which the Pope had
pronounced against him ; moreover, he was ordered to
reject publicly, in writing, his heretical views ; he was
furnished with a profession of faith and with twelve
anathemas, written by St. Cyril, to which he was or­
dered to subscribe. Instead of obeying he at once is­
sued twelve counter anathemas, each one of which
was a blasphemous contradiction to the corresponding
anathemas of Cyril.
On November 19,430, shortly before Cyril’s letter and
anathemas had arrived in Constantinople, Emperor
Theodosius II had issued an imperial decree, addressed
to all metropolitans and bishops, ordering them to con­
vene at Ephesus on Pentecost 431, for the purpose of
holding a council. A special invitation to come to the
council was extended to St. Augustine, but the messen­
gers returned with the news of St. Augustine’s death
which had occurred on August 22,430.
According to the imperial edict the council should
open on June 7 (Pentecost), 431. Nestorius, accom-

THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

19

panied by sixteen bishops, was the first to arrive in
Ephesus ; four or five days before Pentecost, Cyril ar­
rived from Alexandria with fifty bishops ; a few days
after Pentecost they were followed by the Patriarchs Ju­
venal of Jerusalem and Flavian of Thessalonica with
their suffragans ; Archbishop Memnon of Ephesus was
surrounded by forty suffragan bishops and twelve bish­
ops from Pamphilia. Patriarch John of Antioch had
sent word that he would arrive with his suffragans in
five or six days. When the Fathers of the council had
waited sixteen days after the stipulated time, and John
had not yet arrived, Cyril decided to open the council.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was formally
opened on June 22,431, in the church dedicated to Mary,
the Mother of God. Cyril presided at this session in the
name and with the authority of Pope Celestine I.
First Session (June 22, 431). In this session the Nicene Creed, the second epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, the
epistle of Pope Celestine to Cyril, and the synodical letter
of Alexandria to Nestorius were read. Then, the letter
of Nestorius to Cyril was read, and other writings of
Nestorius were examined. His teachings were found
to be manifestly heretical. Thereupon the council pro­
nounced the sentence of excommunication and deposi­
tion against Nestorius, “compelled by the sacred Canons,
and by the Epistle of the Most Holy Father Celestine,
Bishop of Rome.” This sentence of condemnation was
signed by 198 bishops, and a number of other bishops
added their signature to the document later.

20

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The first session of the council had lasted from morn­
ing till night. The inhabitants of Ephesus had waited
all day for the decision of the council. When the de­
cision was finally announced that “Mary is truly the
Mother of God," the joy of the people knew no bounds.
Great was their jubilation, and the bishops were escorted
to their houses with torchlights and censers.
On the following day, Nestorius who had stubbornly
rejected three special invitations to attend the first ses­
sion, was officially notified of his excommunication and
deposition by the council.
On June 26 or 27, John of Antioch arrived at Ephesus
and was informed of the proceedings of the council.
Being a secret friend of Nestorius, he hastily convoked a
meeting in his house. Surrounded by 42 bishops, he
excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. John witli his
adherents kept up agitation and spite-work against the
proceedings of the council to the very end.
Second Session (July 10, 431). This session was held
in the episcopal residence of Memnon. This session
was occasioned by the arrival of the papal legates, the
Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the priest Philip.
The epistle of Pope Celestine, addressed to the council,
condemning the heresy of Nestorius, was read. The
Fathers acclaimed Celestine as “the new Paul,” “the
Guardian of Faith.” The papal legates, then, de­
manded an inspection of die acts of the first session.
Tihird Session (July 11, 431). Again the session took
place in the episcopal residence of Memnon. The acts
of the first session and all that had been done in reference
to the heretic Nestorius, were read once more, and con­
firmed by die three papal legates.

THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

21

An official report of all proceedings was sent to the
Emperor, with the additional statement that the excom­
munication and deposition of Nestorius had been ap­
proved and confirmed by the papal legates.
Fourth Session (July 16, 431). Held in the church
dedicated to the Mother of God. Three bishops were
sent to John of Antioch to officially cite him before the
council. The bishops returned and reported that they
had been disrespectfully repelled by the guards of John.
The council declared the sentence of excommunication
pronounced by John against Cyril and Memnon null
and void.
Fi]th Session (July 17,431). John of Antioch, though
cited three times to appear, persisted in his obstinacy.
The council, therefore, pronounced the sentence of ex­
communication against him.
Sixth Session (July 22, 431). Held in the episcopal
residence of Memnon. The council ordained that no
Creed but the Nicene Creed may be used as the official
profession of faith for the Church.
Seventh Session (July 31, 431). Held in the Church
of the Mother of God. In this session six disciplinary
canons were issued by the council.
Because the imperial mind of Theodosius was per­
plexed by the conflicting reports of the Ephesine Council
on the one hand, and of the pseudo-synod of John of
Antioch and his adherents on the other, the fathers of
the council thought best to send ambassadors to the
court of the Emperor who would explain the true state
of affairs. But three days before these messengers of the
council arrived at Constantinople, the Count Irenaeus,
a friend of Nestorius and John, had already come from

22

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Ephesus to the Emperor. When the messengers of the
council presented themselves to Emperor Theodosius,
they found his mind prejudiced against their cause.
The Emperor ordered his almoner, Count John, to go to
Ephesus, to depose Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius, the
parties of the dispute, and to settle matters peacefully.
Count John’s first act was to arrest the three bishops.
Horrified by this action, the fathers of the council chose
a faithful messenger to carry their letter concealed in
the hollow of a reed to the Emperor. In this epistle the
bishops refused firmly to communicate with John of
Antioch and his followers, unless they would consent to
the condemnation of Nestorius ; they demanded also
the liberation of Cyril and Memnon. In the hollow of
the reed they enclosed also a letter addressed to all the
bishops, who were then in the capital, and to the clergy
of Constantinople. As Theodosius was so beset with
supplications, the consequence of this letter was to de­
cide him to receive a delegation of eight from each side.
He met the delegates at Chalcedon. After he had heard
their respective arguments, he became convinced of the
righteousness of the acts of Cyril. The hopes of John
of Antioch and his followers were crushed.
On October 25, 431, Maximian was consecrated
Bishop of Constantinople to replace die heretic Nes­
torius, who was banished first to his monastery in An­
tioch, then later to Egypt, where he ended his life most
miserably about 340.
The bishops were now allowed to depart from Ephe­
sus. Cyril, the star of this council, arrived home in
Alexandria on October 30, 431, amidst the greatest re­

THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

23

joicings of the people. Pope Celestine confirmed the
consecration of Maximian as Bishop of Constantinople
on March 15, 432, and bestowed die highest praise
upon the Council of Ephesus.

IV

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT CHALCEDON IN 45I

WORK OF THE COUNCIL· : Condemnation of the
heresy of Eutyches.

Out of the heresy of Nestorius was evolved another

error, equally opposed to the Catholic doctrine of the
Incarnation. Not all the opponents of the heretic Nes­
torius possessed the firm grasp of the truth and the clear
perception of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Eutyches (mean­
ing the “fortunate,” although some say his name should
have been “Atyches,” meaning the “unfortunate”), su­
perior of the largest monastery in the vicinity of Con­
stantinople, took an over-zealous part in refuting the
heresies of Nestorius, and hence was led to the opposite
extreme. He wandered far from the truth, and thus
became the originator of the heresy which was named
after him, “Eutychianism” or from its principal error,
“Monophysitism” (meaning “one nature”). Eutyches
taught that there was only one nature in our Lord Jesus
Christ, that after the Incarnation His divine nature ab­
sorbed His human nature. He professed to base his
heterodox views (though wrongfully) on the teaching
of St. Cyril.
So weak is human reason that in trying to escape from
one error, it rushes headlong into another. Only the
infallible Church of God, because it is visibly guided by
the Holy Spirit, condemns all errors, and is affected by
-4

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

25

none. Nestorius divided the one Person of our divine
Lord, while Eutyches confused His two natures. It
was unfortunate that St. Cyril of Alexandria was then
dead, and that his archdeacon Dioscorus had succeeded
him as Bishop of Alexandria.
Author of

the

Heresy

The heresiarch* W- Eutyches
at first developed his views
Ohl
-*
to a few friends in private conversation ; then he pro­
ceeded to teach these heretical innovations to his subjects
in his monastery. His friends used their utmost efforts
to reclaim him from his errors ; but they did so in vain.
Eutyches displayed the inflexible obstinacy common to
all heretics. Dioscorus of Alexandria supported the
views of Eutyches who also gained considerable favor
with Emperor Theodosius II through the court cham­
berlain Chrysaphius. As soon as his teaching became
generally known, Eutyches was opposed by Archbishop
Domnus of Antioch, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum,
and Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople who, on No­
vember 8,448, having exhausted all means of persuasion,
called together the bishops who happened to be in Con­
stantinople, and cited the innovator to appear before the
synod. Eutyches did not appear, but persisted in his
private fancies and errors. He was deprived of the of­
fice of superior in the monastery, and was excommuni­
cated by the 28 bishops, who with Flavian pronounced
the sentence on November 22, 448.
Eutyches protested against the sentence of the synod,
and appealed to Pope St. Leo I and to St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna. The latter answered him by saying :

16

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

“In all things we exhort thee to attend obediently to all
that is written by the most blessed Pope of Rome ; for the
Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See,
gives to seekers the trudi of faith.” In his appeal to the
Pope, Eutyches says that he seeks refuge under the de­
fender of religion, because he has been unjustly deprived
of his rights, although he confessed the Nicene Creed.
He petitioned the Pope to pronounce sentence on his
faith, to forbid that he be calumniated or excluded from
communion, when he had lived in continence and chas­
tity for the last seventy years.
As Flavian had not written to the Pontiff concerning
the decision of the Synod of Constantinople, Pope Leo
applied to that prelate for information. Flavian an­
swered immediately, and enclosed in his letter the acts
of the synod which had condemned Eutyches. In an­
swer to this letter the Pope sent the celebrated “Dog­
matic Epistle," dated June 13, 449, in which the Catholic
doctrine of the two natures of Christ, the human and
divine, is expounded with masterly theological preci­
sion.
Before this famous document arrived in Constanti­
nople, Eutyches and his friends had already taken steps
to prevail upon Emperor Theodosius II to convoke a
great council in Ephesus in August 449 for the examina­
tion of his case. Dioscorus was to preside at the council.
Those bishops who had condemned Eutyches at Con­
stantinople were to be deprived of their votes in the
council. Pope Leo was also invited to attend, or at least
to send legates to represent him.
The synod opened on August 8, 449, in the church
dedicated to the Blessed Mother of God, where eight-

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

27

ecn years previously the great Ecumenical Council of
Ephesus had been opened under the presidency of
St. Cyril of Alexandria. Some 130 bishops attended
this synod. The rights of the legates of the Holy See
were peremptorily and summarily set aside by Dioscorus, who, acting under pressure of the synod, de­
posed Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dory­
laeum, declared Eutyches orthodox in his teachings and
re-instated him as superior of the monastery. When
some of the bishops threw themselves suppliantly at the
feet of Dioscorus to intercede for Flavian, the Emperor’s
soldiers and monks fell upon them with blows. A scene
of horror ensued ; the papal legates protested ; one of
them, Hilarus, escaped and reported the whole matter
to Rome. So severely was Flavian wounded in the embroglio diat he died within a few days, while he was be­
ing carried into exile. From this epitome of facts we
may gather why Pope Leo styled this assemblage “the ·
Robber Synod of Ephesus” The entire Oriental Church
was in the greatest confusion. Pope Leo saved it, for he
was the staunch defender of truth and persecuted inno­
cence. In October 449 he annulled all the acts of the
synod. Theodosius II, however, forgot himself so in his
friendship for Eutyches that he confirmed the acts of
this “Robber Synod,” to the great dismay and horror of
the orthodox Church.
On July 28, 450, Theodosius II died suddenly, and
Pulcheria, his sister, who had been co-regent with him,
now became Empress. She gave her hand in marriage
to Marcian, a general in the imperial army, under the
condition that he would respect her vow of virginity.
Acceding to her request, the marriage was celebrated,

18

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

and Marcian became Emperor of the East. Both Em­
peror and Empress were eager to restore peace to the
Church. They recalled the exiled bishops, and brought
back the remains of Flavian for an honorable interment
in the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople. Mar­
cian announced his accession to the throne to Pope Leo,
recommended his reign to the prayers of the Pontiff, and
asked the Pope to convoke a general council, in order
to heal the wounds of the Church. The Emperor
and Empress sent the Pope a consoling report of their
achievements, and invited him to a general council.
The Pope was highly pleased with their report, but he
objected to the convocation of a council, at least for the
time, because the doctrine of the Church was clearly de­
fined in his “Dogmatic Epistle,” and because the ortho­
dox bishops had been restored to their sees, and the
guilty parties showed repentance.
But before this letter of Pope Leo arrived in Constan­
tinople, June 9, Marcian had already issued an edict,
dated May 17, 451, calling together a general council, to
be held at Nicaea on September 1, 451. Thereupon the
Pope acquiesced to the Emperor's edict, and appointed
the bishops Lucentius and Paschasinus, and the priests
Basilius and Boniface as his legates. Paschasinus was to
preside at the council in the name of the Pontiff.
The council, originally scheduled for Nicaea, was
transferred to Chalcedon, because the Emperor wished
to be present at the sessions.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was solemnly
opened on October 8,451, in the church dedicated to St.

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

29

Euphemia. Never before nor since was there such a great
number of bishops present at an ecumenical council
held in the Orient, for the attendance ranged from 520
to 630.
First Session (October 8, 451). By order of the papal
legat'êTÎFvvas decided that Dioscorus could not sit in the
council as a synodal judge. The acts of the “Robber
Synod” were read ; Flavian and Eusebius were vindi­
cated from the charges which the “Robber Synod" had
unjustly brought against them. The same punishment
was decreed against the leaders of the "Robber Synod" as
they had meted out to their victims. Dioscorus of Al­
exandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem and four other bishops
were deposed. The session had lasted through the day
till late in the evening.
Second Session (October 10, 451). The Creeds of
Nicaea and Constantinople were read ; also the two
synodical epistles of St. Cyril and the “Dogmatic Epistle"
of Pope Leo to Flavian, which the bishops received with
the joyous acclamation : “Peter has spoken through
Leo.”
Third Session (October 13, 451). By order of the
papal legates the accusations which were made by Euse­
bius of Dorylaeum against Dioscorus were read. Thrice
summoned to appear and defend himself, the culprit re­
fused to obey. Then the papal legates pronounced sen­
tence against him because he had received Eutyches into
communion, prevented the reading of the “Dogmatic
Epistle” of Leo at the “Robber Synod” and dared to ex­
communicate Pope Leo. “Hence,” they said, “by us
and through the present Holy Synod, the Most Holy and
Most Blessed Leo, Bishop of Rome, together with die

30

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

thrice Blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and foun­
dation of the Catholic Church, and the basis of the right
Faith, has deprived Dioscorus of his bishopric and de­
graded him from all sacerdotal dignity.”
Fourth Session (October 17, 451). The papal legates
demandedof the fathers of the council the unconditional
acceptance of Pope Leo’s “Dogmatic Epistle.” When
13 bishops of Egypt asked for an extension of time
for acceptance until a new Patriarch of Alexandria could
be appointed, the synod became indignant, and stated
unequivocally that 13 bishops cannot oppose the uni­
versal belief and the authority of a synod of 600 bishops.
Then a large number of abbots and monks, who favored
Eutyches, presented a petition to the synod to ask for
an impartial trial. When they were asked to subscribe
to the “Dogmatic Epistle,” the monks refused, and
threatened to withdraw from the communion of those
bishops who voted contrary to their will as expressed in
the petition. The synod gave them an extension of time
until November 15. Then all were obliged to subscribe
to the Epistle or be deposed and deprived of all dignity.
Fijth Session (October 22, 451). A profession of
faith,imposed by Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople,
was read, but the papal legates objected to certain parts
of it. These were then corrected, in order to be in har­
mony with the doctrinal expressions of the “Dogmatic
Epistle” of Leo. The definition in the Creed reads :
Έκδιδάσκο/xcp era καί τον αυτόν \ριστον νίον κύριον μονογενή εκ
δυο φύσεσιν άσυγχυτων, ατρέπτως, αδιαίρετων, αχώριστων γνωρι
ζόμενον, “We teach that one and the same Christ, the
Lord, the only begotten Son consists of two natures,
without confusion, without change, without separation,

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

31

without division.” This formula was accepted by all
the members of the council.
Sixth Session (October 25, 451). Both Marcian and
PulchefîTwerë present at this session. The Emperor of­
fered certain decrees to the council, and recommended
their acceptance. The decrees, which were later formu­
lated into canons, forbade monks to build monasteries
without the consent of the bishop ; clerics were forbid­
den to engage in secular business, and to pass from one
diocese into another of their own free will.
The principal work of the council came to an end in
this session. The bishops asked for permission to go
home, but Marcian wished them to remain a few days
more, to expedite business of a secondary importance.
Seventh and Eighth Sessions (October 26, 451). A
controversy pertaining to jurisdiction which had arisen
between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem,
was amicably adjusted. Theodoret anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches, and was re-instated as Bishop of
Cyrus.
Ninth Session (October 27, 451). The case of Ibas,
Bishop of Edessa, who had been deposed by the “Robber
Synod,” was examined.
Eenth Session (October 28,451). Bishop Ibas was re­
instated as Bishop of Edessa.
Eleventh Session (October 29, 451). The case of Bassian, former Bishop of Ephesus, was considered.
E tvelfth and Ehirteenth Sessions (October 30, 451).
The council ordained that a new bishop should be
elected for Ephesus, and that Bassian and Stephen, to
alleviate their needs, should be re-imbursed from the
church property. The bishops settled the dispute be-

HEAR i
LIBRARY D

32

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

tween Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea
by deciding that Nicaea was the ecclesiastical metropolis
in Bithynia, and enjoys privileges and exemptions only
in civil matters.
'Fourteenth Session (October 31, 451). The case of
Bishop Sabinian of Perrha was examined. If found in­
nocent of the charges brought against him, the council
decided that he should be re-instated in his bishopric.
Fifteenth Session (October 31, 451). The papal le­
gates were absent from this session in which the thirty
canons were compiled.
Sixteenth Session (November 1, 451). The occasion
for this session was the controversy raised by the famous
Canon 28. The papal legates protested strongly against
this canon, because it gave to the Bishop of Constanti­
nople the first rank in the Universal Church after the
Bishop of Rome. The protest of the papal legates was
duly recorded in the acts of the council. With this ses­
sion the Council of Chalcedon, which had lasted three
weeks, came to an end.
To the acts of the council the bishops attached an ex­
planatory document which the legates bore to Rome.
In this document the bishops asked Pope Leo for con­
firmation of the acts of the council.
Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople and Emperor
Marcian wrote to Pope Leo, to ask for confirmation of
the acts, especially of the protested Canon 28.
Pope Leo replied to the Emperor’s letter on May 22,
452, and thanked him for the interest he had taken in
restoring peace in the Church ; but he sternly rejected
Canon 28. On the same day, the Pope answered Ana­
tolius, praised him for his return to the true faith, repri-

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

33

manded him, however, for his pride and ambition, and
exhorted him to practise humility. Under the same
date, Pope Leo also wrote to Pulcheria, to give expression
of his regard for the Empress, but stated again in plain
words that he rejected Canon 28.
Marcian issued four edicts, February 7, 452, March 13,
452, July 6, 452, July 28, 452, respectively ; the first de­
manded the acceptance of the profession of faith of Chal­
cedon ; the second forbade under penalties all discus­
sions on the profession of faith ; the third revoked the
confirmation of the “Robber Synod” given by his prede­
cessor, Theodosius II ; the fourth set forth the civil pen­
alties to be inflicted on all followers of Eutyches, namely,
they were forbidden to make a will ; they could not en­
list in the army ; diose who live with Eutyches in his
“barn” (the house could not be called a monastery) must
be driven out of the Roman Empire ; the writings of
Eutyches and his adherents must be burned, etc.
Eutyches and Dioscorus were sent into exile.
Because a rumor spread in Palestine and Egypt that
Pope Leo had rejected the acts of the Council of Chalce­
don, Marcian asked again in a letter to Pope Leo, dated
February 15, 453, for a formal confirmation of the coun­
cil. On March 21, 453 Pope Leo issued a circular letter
to all the bishops who had attended the Council of
Chalcedon, confirming the profession of faith of the
council and its acts, excepting, however, Canon 28. This
council has always been reckoned among the ecumeni­
cal councils of the Church.

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT CONSTANTINOPLE IN

553

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Condemnation o£ the
“Three Chapters.”
While the Roman Empire in the West was breaking up

beneath the blows of barbarian invasion, in the East it
continued to exist, with Constantinople as its capital.
Emperor Leo I, the successor of Marcian, who had dis­
played such zeal for the Catholic Faith at the Council
of Chalcedon, followed his predecessor’s example and
issued several laws favorable to the interests of the
Church. He confirmed the privileges enjoyed by hos­
pitals, monasteries and ecclesiastics, and forbade that
judicial business be conducted and public spectacles be
staged on Sundays and feast days. Zeno, his successor,
did little but embroil religious questions. Justin I not
only promoted the temporal welfare of his subjects, but
protected the Catholic Faith from the renewed assaults
of the Eutychians. This sect had raised its head in
Egypt, and had committed many acts of violence. Its
partisans were too numerous, and too well supported by
those in authority, to be successfully put down. Their
one great aim was to discredit the authority of the Coun­
cil of Chalcedon, which had condemned them. Justin­
ian, the son of Justin, was raised to the throne in 527,
and during his reign the heretics pursued their ends with
great adroitness.
J4

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

35

A controversy arose, which had long agitated the East­
ern Church, and which is now known in history as that
of the “Three Chapters,” the name taken from the three
subjects which formed the matter of the dispute. In the
days of Nestorianism certain treatises had appeared,
which approved of that heresy, namely, the dissertation
of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, against St. Cyril ; the
letter of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa ; and the writings of
Theodore of Mopsuestia. All these works were indeed
heretical ; but their authors (at least the first two) re­
tracted their errors by making an orthodox profession
of faith at Chalcedon. The fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon, because they were not assembled formally to
examine the “Three Chapters” passed them over in si­
lence, and demanded only that their authors should
anathematize Nestorius. Theodoret and Ibas complied
with this demand, while Theodore had been summoned
to give an account of his faith to the Supreme Judge ; he
died in 428. The council, therefore, recognized the two
bishops as orthodox Catholics, and did not pronounce
judgment on their writings.
Now the Eutychians made this silence a ground for
accusation against the Council of Chalcedon. By their
repeated entreaties they induced Emperor Justinian to
condemn the “Three Chapters!’ Although the Catho­
lics knew that the writings contained errors, they feared
that their express condemnation would injure the au­
thority of the Council of Chalcedon, and afford a seem­
ing triumph to the Eutychians. The dispute was car­
ried on with intense animosity.
Emperor Justinian called Pope Vigilius to Constan­
tinople. In the hope of restoring peace to the Church,

36

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the Pope set out for Constantinople. He arrived there
on January 25, 547, and was,received by the people with
the greatest enthusiasm. Soon, however, things took
another turn. The Emperor obtained from the Pope
permission to discuss the “Three Chapters’ in a synod
of 70 bishops. Because there was little harmony among
the bishops, Pope Vigilius reserved the judgment of the
question to himself. He issued a decree, styled “Judica­
tum,” on April 11,548. In this document he condemned
the “Three Chapters’’ namely : (1) The writings and
the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia ; (2) the letter of
I bas to Menis ; (3) the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus,
“saving in all things the respect due to the Council of
Chalcedon.” Far from being a harbinger of peace, as
Pope Vigilius had fondly hoped, this “Judicatum”
proved to be the cause of strife. The judgment satisfied
neither party in the dispute, and violent commotions
arose. Throughout the West the Pontiff was accused
of failing to respect the decrees of Chalcedon.
In such a state of affairs, both Pope and Emperor
deemed a general council necessary ; accordingly they
sent letters to the principal sees of all provinces, to con­
voke a council to Constantinople. Very few of the West­
ern bishops seemed willing to attend the council, and as
the Pope was averse to taking any decided action in their
absence, a new trouble arose. The Emperor issued a
condemnatory edict of the “Three Chapters” and or­
dered it to be placarded in various churches. When the
Pope heard of this high-handed proceeding, he threat­
ened to excommunicate all who would obey the im­
perial edict. The Pope, then, fled to Chalcedon. During
his exile he was consoled by signal proofs of respect,

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

37

which were inspired by die dignity and authority vested
in the Vicar of Christ. The bishops returned to their
allegiance and begged pardon for their remissness, and
the Emperor withdrew his edict. The Pope returned
to Constantinople, and consented to the convocation
of a general council, provided that the East and West
be equally represented. The Western bishops did not
come, for they mistrusted Emperor Justinian. The
council assembled without them.
Proceedings of the Council

Opening of the Council. Complying widi the com­
mand of the Emperor, but without the consent of the
Pope, die bishops opened the council on May 5, 553, un­
der the presidency of Eutychius, Patriarch of Constan­
tinople.
First Session (May 5,553). At this session 151 bishops
were present. A letter of the Emperor addressed to the
fathers of the synod, and also the letters exchanged be­
tween the Pope and Eutychius were read. The synod
sent a delegation of the three patriarchs of the East to
Pope Vigilius, to invite him to attend the council.
Second Session (May 8, 553). The three patriarchs
reported to the synod that the Pope refused to attend the
council. The Emperor was notified of the Pope’s re­
fusal.
Fhird Session (May 9, 553). The acts of the preced­
ing session were read. A profession of faith was com­
posed, which declared adherence to the four preceding
councils.
Fourth Session (May 12,553). In this session 71 prop-

38

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

ositions, taken from the heretical writings of Theodore
of Mopsuestia, were read and again condemned.
Fifth Session (May 17, 553). The council continued
the examination of the heretical writings of Theodore,
and the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus were also ex­
amined.
Sixth Session (May 19, 553). This session busied it­
self with an examination of the letter written by Bishop
Ibas of Edessa to the Persian Maris. The letter was con­
demned as openly heretical.
While these sessions of the council were in progress,
Pope Vigilius compiled a famous document, known as
“Constitutum," dated May 14,553, signed by himself and
16 bishops and 3 Roman clerics. In this document the
Pope condemned 80 heretical propositions taken from
the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (almost identi­
cal with those of the fourth session), and repudiated in
five anathemas the Christological errors of Theodore ;
the Pope forbade, however, to condemn his person.
He also stopped further discussion of the writings of
Theodoret and Ibas. This document, sent to the Em­
peror to be delivered to the council, was never delivered.
In fact, the Emperor never accepted it.
Seventh Session (May 26, 553). Various documents,
such as the letter of Vigilius to the Emperor and Em­
press, the promise of Vigilius to anathematize the “Fhree
Chapters,' if his decree “Judicatum' were restored to
him, were read. Finally an edict of the Emperor was
read, which commanded the bishops to strike out the
name of Vigilius in the diptychs of the Church, “without
any prejudice, however, to communion with the Aposto-

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

39

lie See.” This imperial edict was published on July 14,

553·
Eighth Session (June 2, 553). In this session were
anathematized : ( 1 ) the writings and the person of Theo­
dore of Mopsuestia ; (2) the writings of Theodoret of
Cyrus ; (3) the letter of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa to Maris.
The condemnations were summed up in 14 anathemas.
The acts of the council were signed by 164 bishops, of
whom eight were African.
Pope Vigilius, together with other Latin bishops, was
banished. The Roman clergy and people, however, pe­
titioned the Emperor to permit the return of the Pope.
The Emperor consented on the condition that Vigilius
would recognize the council, and Vigilius agreed to do
this. In two documents (in a letter to Eutychius of
Constantinople, dated December 8, 553, and in a second
“Constitutum ” dated February 23, 554, probably ad­
dressed to the Western bishops), the Pope condemned
the “Three Chapters’’ without making any mention of
the council.
After an absence of seven years, Vigilius set out for
Rome, but died on the way at Syracuse in Sicily, June 7,
555In the West, in spite of the recognition of the council
by Pope Pelagius I (555-560) and Gregory the Great
(590-604), the Fifth Ecumenical Council acquired only
gradually in public opinion an ecumenical character.
In Northern Italy, Milan and Aquileja broke off com­
munion with the Apostolic See ; the former yielded only
towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter
protracted its resistance to about the year 700.

40

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

It is to be observed that throughout this controversy
no doctrine of Faith was at issue. On this both parties
agree, Pope and Bishops, the East and the West alike.
The question was whether, in the present state of die
Church, it was prudent to condemn those writings which
the Council of Chalcedon had not condemned, and to
excommunicate a man whom the council had not ana­
thematized. The question, thus, was one of prudence,
and not of Faith. The Pope changed his measures when
circumstances were altered. He deemed one mode
of action advisable at one time, and when conditions
changed, he adopted another. Here, also, we may note
the sovereign power claimed and exercised by the Church
of examining suspected writings, of condemning errors,
and of requiring the faithful to submit to her judgment.
This authority is essentially necessary for the Catholic
Church, the guardian of truth.

VI

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT CONSTANTINOPLE IN

68o

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Condemnation of the
heresy of the Monothelites.
Monophysitism having been condemned, the subtle

Greeks devised another heresy, or better, revived in a
new form the heresy of Eutyches, with some modifica­
tions. They taught that there was but one will and op­
eration in our divine Lord ; hence their name “Mo­
nothelites” or “asserters of one will.” On the other
hand, as the Catholic Church maintains diat there are
two distinct, though inseparable, natures in her divine
Founder, she also holds that there are two distinct wills
— the divine and the human will — in Christ, which can
never conflict with each other, yet can never be confused
one with the other. The error of the Monothelites was
vehemently and obstinately proposed by Sergius, Patri­
arch of Constantinople. He intruded himself craftily
into the good graces of Emperor Heraclius (610-641),
who supported him in his heretical stand by the cele­
brated edict, called “Ekthesis” (“Exposition”), which
was composed by Sergius. St. Sophronius, monk, later
Patriarch of Jerusalem, perceived the magnitude of the
evil. He published a treatise in which, after he had
established on solid scriptural foundations the distinction
of the two natures in Christ, he laid down the constant
41

42

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

doctrine of the Church in regard to the two wills and
operations in Christ.
Author

of the

Heresy

Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote a letter to
Pope Honorius 1 (625-638) in the hope of extorting
from him some reply which would seem to favor his
heretical views. His letter was one of artful dissimula­
tion and crafty deceit. Suppressing the rôle which he
really acted, he pretended in all simplicity to consult the
Pope concerning a doctrinal difficulty which might be
the occasion of scandal. He employed theological terms
calculated to mislead the Pontiff, and to obscure the true
question at issue. The reply of Pope Honorius was in
thorough accord with the interpretation in which he
understood the cunning letter of the heretic. If Hono­
rius was deceived by Sergius, the reason was that being
honest, practical and straightforward, he thought that
the wily Greek had sought his advice in the same spirit.
It never entered into his mind that the plain letter which
seemed to ask for guidance, was a cunningly devised
trap to inveigle him, at least, into ambiguous language,
on the theological question whether there were one or
two wills in Christ.
Honorius replied to Sergius in 634. After praising his
wish to preserve silence in relation to a new phrase which
might scandalize the simple, he emphasized the defined
truth of two complete natures in Christ. He inferred
that the will of our Lord was but one, because He as­
sumed a perfect human nature, one created before the
existence of sin, and therefore in perfect harmony, ex­

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

43

eluding all contrariety to the divine Will. Whether ‘‘on
account of the operations of the divinity and humanity
we ought to speak of one or two energies,” is to be left
to the grammarians to decide. A second letter of Hon­
orius, of which a fragment is extant, brings out the same
thought which he expressed in the first. In neither let­
ter did Honorius teach any heresy.
During the lifetime of Honorius, Sergius would not
publish the letters which the Pope had addressed to him.
Evidently he must have believed that Honorius did not
support his heretical views, but rather contradicted them
in a most uncompromising and formidable manner.
After the death of Honorius (638) Sergius induced
Emperor Heraclius to publish his famous edict “Ekthesis.”
The immediate successors of Pope Honorius do not
consider Honorius a heretic. On the contrary they de­
fend him. Pope John IV (640-642) assured the Em­
peror that the whole West was scandalized by the at­
tempt which Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, was
then making to give sanction to the new heresy by con­
necting the authority of Honorius with it. He denied
that his predecessor had any thought of giving approval
to the Monothelite doctrine, and he begged the Emperor
to withdraw the “Ekthesis” which he had forced the
bishops to sign.
Both the heresy and the imperial edict were con­
demned by Pope Severinus, who succeeded Honorius,
and by St. Martin I (649-655), whose zeal for truth cost
him both his liberty and his life. Emperor Constans II
(641-668), successor of Heraclius, issued a second edict,
called “Typus” in favor of the Monothelites, and then

44

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

seized die Pope. The Holy Father was put in chains,
led off to Constantinople and treated widi contempt and
barbarity. After ninety-three days of intolerable im­
prisonment he was sent into exile. Within two years,
on September 16,655, he died from die hardships which
he had suffered in captivity.
Emperor Constantine Pogonatus (668-685) resolved
to attempt the pacification of the troubled Church by
holding a general council. To this end he wrote to Pope
Donus on August 12, 678, to request his concurrence in
his plans. When the letter of the Emperor arrived in
Rome, Pope Agatho had already succeeded Donus.
Agatho concurred with the plan of the Emperor without
delay, and began preparations at once. He wished for
the Western Church to pronounce its judgment on the
question at issue, and he, therefore, ordered that synods
be held in various parts of the West. We read that
synods were held at Milan, at Heath field in England,
and at Rome, in which latter place 125 bishops assembled
under Pope Agatho. In all these synods Monothelism
was condemned.
The Pope appointed as legates to the council : the
bishops Abundantius of Paterno, John of Reggio and
John of Porto, the priests Theodore and George, the dea­
con John and the subdeacon Constantine of Rome, and
the priest Theodore of Ravenna. He gave two highly
important documents to the legates to take to Constan­
tinople ; one was the “Dogmatic Epistle” of Pope Agatho
in which three points stand out very prominently : (1)
the precision and clearness in which Pope Agatho states
the Catholic doctrine on the two wills in Christ ; (2) the
firmness with which he repeatedly declares the infalli-

w — g·

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

45

bility of the Roman Church ; (3) the pronounced assur­
ance that all his predecessors had held fast to the Catho­
lic doctrine, and had no thought of accusing Honorius
of heresy. The second document was the synodical
epistle of the Roman Synod, which was signed by the
Pope and 125 bishops.
On the arrival of die papal legates in Constantinople
on September 10, 680, the Emperor addressed an edict
to George, Patriarch of Constantinople and to the other
patriarchs, inviting them and their suffragan bishops to
attend the council. The papal legates were received en­
thusiastically and were lodged in the Placidia Palace.
Proceedings of

the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was held in a
hall of the Imperial Palace, known by the name “Trullus,” because it was surmounted by a cupola or dome.
It opened under the presidency of the papal legates and
the honorary presidency of the Emperor who was pres­
ent at the first eleven sessions, and at the last, on No­
vember 7, 680.
First Session (November 7, 680). It seems that only
43 bishops or procurators were present. The papal le­
gates demanded in an allocution to the Emperor that die
representatives of the Constantinopolitan Church should
describe the origin of the innovation which had dis­
turbed the peace of the Church for the last 46 years.
Macarius of Antioch and his followers declared : “We
have not invented new terms, we teach what we have
received from the Ecumenical Councils, from the Holy
Fathers, from Sergius, Honorius, and others, and we are

—W Rwa ■

4<j

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

ready to prove this.” Then the acts of the Council of
Ephesus were read, but nothing which could even be
construed as favoring Monothelism, could be shown.
Second Session (November io, 680). The acts of the
Council of Chalcedon were read, and were, of course,
unfavorable to the heresy. Macarius was definitively
refuted by Pope St. Leo's “Dogmatic Epistle.”
Third Session (November 13, 680). A letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and two supposed letters of Vigilius
were rejected as obvious interpolations. Macarius, un­
able to substantiate Monothelism from the acts of the
previous councils, was ordered to prove that his asser­
tions were taken from the writings of the Fathers.
Fourth Session (November 16,680). The “Dogmatic
Epistle’ of Pope Agatho was read, and received with
tremendous acclamations by the fathers of the council.
Fijth Session (December 7, 680). Macarius and his
friends delivered two volumes of passages taken from
the writings of the Fathers, which they thought favored
Monothelism.
Sixth Session (February 12, 681). The papal legates
declared that the testimonies of the Fathers, quoted by
Macarius, had been deliberately falsified.
Seventh Session (February 13,681). The Roman col­
lection of passages, taken from the writings of the Fa­
thers, testifying to two wills and two operations in Christ,
were read. Macarius, however, remained obstinate.
Eighth Session (March 7, 681). Patriarch George of
Constantinople and all his suffragans declared that they
accepted the definition of Pope Agatho. Macarius was,
then, asked whether he admitted two wills and two op­
erations in Christ, and he answered that he would not

I
|

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

47

admit them, “even if he were cut limb from limb, and
thrown into the sea.”
’Ninth Session (March 8,681). Macarius was deposed
as patriarch.
tenth Session (March 18, 681). The Roman collec­
tion of passages from the Fathers was found to agree
with the original Greek codices.
Eleventh Session (March 20, 681). The treatise of
Sophronius, addressed to Sergius, was read. The Em­
peror stated that he was unable to take part in the follow­
ing sessions on account of urgent imperial business.
t tvelfth Session (March 22, 681). A series of docu­
ments which Macarius had delivered to the Emperor,
the letter of Sergius to Honorius, and the latter’s reply
were read.
thirteenth Session (March 28, 681). The originators
and leaders of Monothelism, Sergius of Constantinople,
Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Peter and Paul of Con­
stantinople, were anathematized in this session. The
fathers of the council added : “We have also decreed to
eject from the Holy Catholic Church of God, and to ana­
thematize Honorius, who was Pope of ancient Rome,
because we End from the writings he gave to Sergius,
that in all things he held the latter’s view, and confirmed
the impious dogmas.”
Fourteenth Session (April 5, 681). The interpola­
tions of the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the
fictitious letters of Pope Vigilius were anathematized.
Fifteenth Session (April 26, 681). Polychronius, a
priest and monk, promised to restore a dead man to life
as an act of divine confirmation of Monothelism. The
fathers of the council witnessed the farce from a win-

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

48

dow ; Polychronius failed to work the miracle. He was
asked to renounce the heresy. When he refused to do
so, he was anathematized.
Sixteenth Session (August 9, 681). The Syrian priest
Constantine of Apamea advanced a new theory of the
two wills of Christ, obviously heretical ; it was immedi­
ately rejected by the council.
Seventeenth Session (September 11, 681). A profes­
sion of faith was considered, composed, and accepted by
the council. It reads as follows :
Δυο

φυσικά ς ά'ψγιιας άδιαιρ/τως, άτρόττως, à/χερίστως,

αντώ τω κνρίω ημών ’Γ//σοΰ Χριστώ τω άληθινώ θεώ
ημών δοξάζομεν, τοντεστι θείαν ενέργειαν και άνΟρωττίνην ενέργειαν
κατά τον θεηγόρον λέοντα.
“We proclaim two natural operations in our Lord Jesus
Christ, our true God, undivided, unchangeable, without
confusion, without separation, that is, a divine operation
and a human operation, according to the divine preacher
Leo.”
Eighteenth Session (September 16, 681). Emperor
Constantine Pogonatus was present. In this session ana­
thema was pronounced over all who had taught Monothelism. In the condemnations Pope Honorius was
mentioned by name.
The decrees of the council were signed by the papal
legates, by 174 bishops and procurators, and by the Em­
peror. The council requested Pope Agatho to confirm
the acts. Pope Agatho died on January 10, 682. The
news of his death and the election of his successor reached
Constantinople before the papal legates had departed
for Rome.
Pope St. Leo II (682-683), successor of St. Agatho,

ασυγχυτως èr

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

49

gave the requested confirmation of the acts of the coun­
cil in 683 with an important correction, however, of the
condemnation of Honorius, who was condemned (in
the confirmation of the Acts) “because he did not illu­
minate this Apostolic Church with the teaching of
the Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery 'per­
mitted’ its purity to be polluted.” The famous historian
Grisar holds the opinion that by these words Leo II ex­
plicitly abrogated the condemnation of Honorius for
heresy, and substituted a “condemnation of his negli­
gence.”
A Word on Pope Honorius. — The writer of the ar­
ticle on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. vu,
page 455, says that “no Catholic has the right to defend
Honorius.” The writer of the present book does not
agree with this assertion. Such great Church historians
as Grisar, Hergenroether, Mann, Alzog, and others,
have defended Honorius. And his immediate succes­
sors in the Apostolic Chair did not censure him.
Honorius had been warned by St. Gregory the Great,
his teacher, to be extremely careful and cautious when
he dealt with the wily Greeks. Following this advice,
Honorius was of die opinion that to rush precipitately
into this new controversy would bring about untold
harm ; hence, he hesitated. Honorius was simply silent
on defining die question at issue. Later developments
of the controversy show that his silence was imprudent.
Hence, the fault which Honorius committed was one
only of imprudent silence. In subsequent centuries the
Holy See has imposed silence when important questions
came up. In the controversy on Grace between the
Molinists and Thomists (1607), in the controversy on

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the Immaculate Conception in the sixteenth century (St.
Pius V) silence was imposed. No harm was seen in
these injunctions. Why so much ado in the case of
Honorius ? The ‘"Dogmatic Epistle’ of Pope Agatho
stated clearly the Catholic doctrine on the two wills and
operations in Christ. The Pope says that thus he re­
ceived it from his predecessors. Now, Honorius was
one of his predecessors. And Pope Agatho continues :
“Hence, when the Patriarchs of Constantinople endeav­
ored to introduce heretical novelties into Christ’s un­
spotted Church, my predecessors never ceased to exhort
them to desist from their errors, at least, by maintaining
silence.” This is a clear allusion to the conduct of Pope
Honorius. St. Agatho then mentions the names of
those who should be anathematized by the Council.
Honorius is not on the list. Hence, he was vindi­
cated by St. Agatho. The condemnation of Honorius
by the Council of Constantinople was a contradiction
of the sentiment expressed in the fourth session, in
which the bishops declared that Peter had spoken
through Agatho, and that the See of Rome was the
Rock of Faith. Pope St. Leo II, confirming the acts of
the council, made a distinction and correction in the case
of Honorius, when he came to pronounce anathema on
the Monothelites. The ever-present fear of an Eastern
schism may have influenced Leo II not to withdraw the
name of Honorius from the list. As long as he had
made a distinction in the condemnation — and it was a
strong one — he believed he had settled the question
satisfactorily. To some extent spite and jealousy, appar­
ent before and after the council, prompted the condem­
nation of Honorius by the council. The vital Honorius

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JI

question was greatly discussed and thoroughly exam­
ined at the Vatican Council (1870) ; but all findings,
objections, heated debates and proud opposition could
not dim the one, great, consoling, and all-important
word of Jesus Christ : “Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church” (St. Matthew, xvi, 18).

VII

THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT NICAEA IN

787

WORK OF THE COUNCIL : Condemnation of Icon­

oclasm.
The successors of Constantine Pogonatus,
o
? during
o whose

reign the Sixth Ecumenical Council was held, were both
brutal and stupid princes. Their chief occupation was
war and bloodshed. In seventy years eight Emperors
died a violent death. Then Leo III (717-741), surnamed the Isaurian, a warlike prince, obtained the
throne. Other Emperors had patronized heresy, it is
true, but Leo displayed to the astonished world the spec­
tacle of an Emperor becoming the originator of a heresy,
called “iconoclasm” (“breaking of images”). He had
been born and educated in the warriors’ camp. His ig­
norance of religion was profound, yet he indulged in his
childish fancy of becoming a reformer of religion. Leo
had conceived a prejudice against the use and veneration
of images, and pronounced the custom of the Church
idolatrous. He resolved to destroy images and statues of
the saints, and began his nefarious undertaking by issu­
ing an edict in the year 726, which commanded that all
the images of Our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the
saints be removed from the churches. This attempt, so
opposed to the principles and practice of the universal
Church, excited the indignation of the Christian world.
The inhabitants of Constantinople openly expressed
Si

THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

53

their discontent with the ordinances of the Emperor.
Great supporters of Leo were die Bishops Constantine
of Nacolia, Theodosius of Ephesus, Thomas of Claudiopolis, and the Syrian renegade Beser.
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, boldly op­
posed the heretical innovation of the Emperor. He
tried at first to enlighten the obstinate Leo in private
conferences, in which he pointed out to him that the
veneration bestowed on the sacred images was tendered
to the person whom the images represented, just as peo­
ple, honoring the portrait or statue of the Emperor, give
honor to him ; that this relative veneration had ever
been rendered from the earliest times to the images of
our Lord and His Blessed Mother, and that it was an
act of impious audacity to assail a doctrine so venerable
and so universal. But the conferences were in vain ; the
Emperor stubbornly persisted in his error.
The Patriarch referred the question to Pope St. Greg­
ory II (715-731), who thanked him for his zeal in com­
bating the rising error. The Pope then wrote to the
Emperor, exhorted him to revoke the edict, and re­
minded him that he was not competent to decide such
a question. The Emperor replied in the manner of men
who are accustomed to wield force more readily than
argument. He burnt all the sacred images in one of
the public places of the city, and in the churches he
whitewashed the walls, which were covered with pre­
cious paintings. He ordered that a large picture of our
Lord, which had been erected by Constantine at the en­
trance to the palace, be smashed. Some women who
happened to be on the spot implored the military officer
to desist from his impious task, but their prayers were

54

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

disregarded. The officer mounted a ladder, and with
a hatchet hacked away the countenance of Our Lord.
The women, beside themselves with grief and indignation, pulled away the ladder ; the officer fell down and
was killed on the spot. The women were condemned
to death. The Patriarch Germanus was driven from
his See, and died in exile in his ninetieth year.
Iconoclasm was condemned at synods held in Rome
under Popes St. Gregory II and St. Gregory III (731741), and at synods held in Jerusalem under the Patri­
arch Theodore. Among
o the firm defenders of veneration of images of our Lord, the Blessed Mother and the
saints, and of the relics of the saints, we must mention
St. John Chrysorrhoas of Damascus (St. John Dama­
scene), who composed three apologies in behalf of ven­
eration of images. The first he wrote at the beginning
of iconoclasm, the second and third after the deposition
of Germanus of Constantinople.
Constantine Copronymus, the son and successor of
Leo (741), followed in his father’s steps ; in fact, he
went beyond his father's example in reckless impiety.
Educated without religion, his violent character led him
to persecute with savage fury those who honored the
sacred images. Mutilation or death was their portion ;
their eyes were torn out, their noses were cut off, they
were cast into the river. The Emperor’s rage directed
itself with special violence against the monks. Their
beards were steeped in pitch and set on fire and the
sacred images were broken on their battered heads.
The iconoclastic persecution extended into the prov­
inces. Servile governors made war not only upon the

THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

55

images of the saints, but also upon their precious relics.
The vandals tore them out of the sanctuaries, they threw
them into rivers and common sewers ; they burnt them
togedier with bones of animals ; they deemed no out­
rage too gross or too revolting to be inflicted on the
relics.
Copronymus went so far as to convoke a synod in Con­
stantinople which should condemn the veneration of
images, and 338 bishops assembled under the presidency
of Theodosius of Ephesus. They rejected veneration of
images as idolatry. The decision of this synod was pub­
lished on August 27, 754.
After the death of Constantine Copronymus on Sep­
tember 14, 775, and that of his son, Leo IV on September
8, 780, the sovereign power devolved on Irene, regent
during the minority of her son Constantine VI (Porphyrogenitus). The distressed Church now received a
gleam of hope, for the Empress detested the impiety of
iconoclasm. In her anxiety to heal the many wounds
which her predecessors had inflicted on religion during
their reigns, she consulted the Patriarch Tarasius of Con­
stantinople, who advised her to write to Pope Hadrian I
(772-795) and request him to convoke an ecumenical
council to condemn iconoclasm. The Pope granted her
request readily. He appointed the archpriest Peter and
the abbot Peter as his legates ; they were despatched to
Constantinople with letters and documents. On the ar­
rival of the legates, Empress Irene with her son sum­
moned the bishops to Constantinople to take part in the
ecumenical council. It was their intention to hold the
council in the imperial city, but due to a hostile demon-

$6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

stration of the iconoclasts, it was transferred to Nicaea in
Bithynia, where the First Ecumenical Council had been
held in 325.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was solemnly
opened on September 24,787, in the church of St. Sophia.
Three hundred and sixty-eight bishops and procurators
had assembled from all parts of the empire ; two im­
perial commissioners maintained order in the city, and
the bishops were able to deliberate in peace and safety.
First Session (September 24, 787). Three bishops,
Basilius of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra, and Theodosius
of Amorium begged pardon for having fallen into the
heresy of iconoclasm. After a solemn abjuration of the
heresy they were received into the council. Seven other
bishops who asked for forgiveness, were ordered to pre­
sent their petition at another session.
Second Session (September 26, 787). The letters of
Pope Hadrian written to Empress Irene and to Patriarch
Tarasius were read. The papal legates asked Tarasius
and the assembled bishops, whether they were willing
to accept the doctrine of veneration of images “accord­
ing to the synodical letters of the most blessed Hadrian,
Pope of the older Rome,” to which question the bishops
of the council answered : “We follow, we receive, we
admit.”
Third Session (September 28, 787). Bishop Gregory
of Neo-Caesarea and the bishops of Nicaea, Rhodus, Ico­
nium, Hierapolis, Pessinum, and Karpathus, having
made their abjuration, were received into the council.

THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

57

Fourth Session (October i, 787). The lawfulness of
the veneration of images was proven by many passages
taken from Holy Scripture and from the writings of the
holy Fathers. Anathemas were pronounced over the
iconoclasts.
Fijth Session (October 4, 787). It was shown that
the iconoclast heresy came originally from the Jews,
Saracens and Manicheans.
Sixth Session (October 6, 787). The definition of the
pseudo-Seventh Council (754) was read and condemned,
chapter by chapter.
Seventh Session (October 13,787). In this session the
council issued a definition of faith, concerning the ven­
eration of holy images, in these words :
Όρίξο/χεν συν άκριβάα πάση καί. ίμμζλάα, παρακλησίως τω
τυπω τοϋ τιρ,ίου και ζωοποιού σταυρού άνατιθίσθαι τας σετττάς και
αγίας εικόνας, τάς εκ χρωμάτων καί ψηφίδος και trépas ύλης
ίπιτηδάως εχούστ/ς, ίν ταϊς άγίαις τοϋ Θεού ε’κκλτ/σίαις, tv ίεροϊς
σκεύεσι καί άτθήσι, τοίχοις τε καί σανίσιν, οίκοις τέ καί δδοίς· τής
τε τού κυρίου καί Θεού καί σωττ/ρος ημών ’ϊησοϋ Χρίστου εικονος,
καί της άχράντου δεσποινίς ημών τ^ς άγιας Θεοτοκου, τίμιων rt.
αγγέλων, καί πάντων αγίων καί οσίων άνδρών. *Όσω γάρ συνεχώς
δι’ εικονικές α να τύπωσε ως όρώνται τοσοϋτον καί οι ταυτας Οεωμίνοι
διανίστανται προς την των πρωτοτύπων μνημην re καί ίπιποθησιν,
και ταύταις άσπασμαν και τιμητικήν προσκυνήσω άπονέμαν., ου μην
την κατά πίστιν ημών αληθινήν λατρείαν, η πρόκα μονή τη θαα
φύσα.
“We define with all certainty and diligence that as the
figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so the ven­
erable and holy images, both painted and of stone and
of other proper material, should be set up in the holy

58

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

churches of God, put on the sacred vessels and vest­
ments, on the walls and on tables, in houses and along
the roads : that is, the image of our Lord God and Sa­
viour Jesus Christ, and of our inviolate Lady, the holy
Mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and of all
holy and distinguished men. The more frequently they
are seen by a pictorial representation, the more readily
those who contemplate them, are excited to a remem­
brance of and desire for the prototypes, and to bestow
upon them a respectful devotion ; not, however, a Tatria’ (adoration), which is, according to our faith, and
as is becoming, bestowed upon the divine nature alone.”
All the bishops signed this profession of faith.
Eighth Session (October 23, 787). At the request of
Empress Irene the last session of the council was held in
Constantinople, in the Magnaura Palace, at which the
Empress and her son were present. The profession of
faith was read again ; die Empress and her son signed
the document.
This council also edited 22 canons for the restoration
of ecclesiastical discipline.
The council then came to a close ; Irene dismissed the
bishops, and rewarded them with rich presents. The
papal legates returned to Rome with letters from Irene,
and with the acts of the council, written in Greek.
Though Hadrian I did not send a formal confirma­
tion of the council to Constantinople and to Irene, be­
cause his just demands in connection with the restora­
tion of the patrimonies and of his jurisdiction in the
diocese of Illyricum had not been attended to, he, never­
theless, accepted the council, and ordered its acts to be
translated into Latin. The faultiness of this translation

THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

59

caused considerable disturbance in the West, but a very
lengthy letter of Hadrian I to Charlemagne solved all
doubts, and finally settled the difficulty, so that the West
likewise accepted this council as an ecumenical council.

VIII
THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT CONSTANTINOPLE IN

869

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Removal of the schism
caused by Photius.

The first seeds for the separation of the Greek Church

from the Latin Church and from the Apostolic See were
sown by the third canon of the Council of Constanti­
nople (381), and by die twenty-eighth canon of the
Council of Chalcedon (451). The unfriendly senti­
ments which these canons created* between Rome and
Constantinople were increased by various circumstances,
such as the difference of national characters, of rite, and
discipline, and particularly through the despotism ex­
ercised by the Emperors of the East, and the ambition
of many patriarchs of Constantinople, who found ready
allies among the Eastern bishops. The relations of the
Byzantine Court with the Court of the Pope became
more unfriendly in view of the political changes in Italy,
especially since the States of the Church had come into
existence. The greatest stumbling block to unity was
occasioned by the restoration of the Western Empire,
which was a source of great anxiety to the rulers of the
East.
Many emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople ex­
hibited a marked aversion towards the See of Rome.
The formal separation of the Eastern and Western
Church, however, took place under the dissolute Em60

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

61

peror, Michael III (857-867), who left the government
of the empire to his uncle, Barcias, a man of vicious char­
acter. Barcias hated the virtuous Ignatius, Patriarch of
Constantinople. Bardas had been publicly denied Holy
Communion by Ignatius on die feast of the Epiphany
because of his scandalous life. He swore revenge, and
conspired with Archbishop Gregory Asbestas of Syra­
cuse against the intrepid patriarch, who was asked to
force the Empress-Mother and daughters to enter the
convent. When Ignatius refused to do so, he was ban­
ished to the island Terebinthos on November 23, 857,
having been Patriarch of Constantinople for twelve
years.
Author of the Schism

Photius, a layman, full of ambition and of a very du­
bious character to say the least, succeeded Ignatius as
Patriarch. He received all the Orders within a week
from the hands of Gregory Asbestas. A promotion so
irregular scandalized the Church, and the bishops at
first refused to recognize the usurper ; but eventually
some were won over to the cause of Photius, and the
others, who dissented, were banished. Photius was anx­
ious to have his appointment confirmed by Pope Nicho­
las I (858-867). For this purpose he wrote a crafty let­
ter to the Pope to announce his election, saying that his
elevation was against his wish, and that he had yielded
with tears to overbearing force. He added that Ignatius
had retired of his own accord to a monastery, in order
to pass his last days in peaceful preparation for death.
His letter was accompanied by another from the Em­
peror which confirmed his statements. Ignatius, mean­

61

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

while, was shut up in a loathsome prison, where he was
treated with indignity. These things the Patriarch and
the Emperor had carefully concealed from the Pope, but
the letters created a suspicious atmosphere. Pope Nich­
olas declined to decide on the election of Photius without
a thorough examination. He sent Bishop Rodoald of
Porto and Bishop Zachary of Anagni as his legates to
Constantinople, to investigate the facts of the case. On
their arrival at the imperial city the legates were imme­
diately put under surveillance and cut off from every
source of information. They were also threatened with
punishment, if they refused to recognize Photius as
Patriarch. Although they resisted for a long time, they,
at length, yielded to the will of the Emperor, having
been subdued by his solicitations, promises and threats.
A synod was held in May 861, at which 318 bishops were
present ; it deposed Ignatius. The papal legates con­
curred with this deceitful deal of intrigue and fraud.
Photius was declared Patriarch of Constantinople.
The unhappy Patriarch Ignatius, whom Photius tried
to compel by every kind of ill treatment to resign his
dignity, appealed to the Pope, who gave the matter a
careful examination at a synod convened in Rome
(March 862). He annulled the decision of the Synod
of Constantinople, and suspended Photius from all his
ecclesiastical dignities. The same sentence of suspen­
sion was pronounced over the papal legates and over
Gregory Asbestas.
Photius, whose cause was espoused by the Emperor,
did not submit to this sentence ; on the contrary, he was
now bent on excommunicating the Pope. Photius, hav­
ing won over to his side a great portion of the people, did

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

not long delay the execution of his unheard-of plan. In
867 he addressed a circular to the Eastern patriarchs,
in which he makes numerous complaints against the
Latins, accusing them among other things of heresy. A
synod was held, and excommunication and deposition
were pronounced against Pope Nicholas. Only 21 bish­
ops signed the document, but Photius forged more than
a thousand signatures to this document.
The death of Emperor Michael III suddenly changed
the state of affairs. Basil, his murderer, had himself pro­
claimed Emperor. He was anointed Emperor by Pho­
tius, from whose hands he received Holy Communion.
However, on the next day, September 25, 867, the new
Emperor expelled Photius from his usurped see and shut
him up in the monastery of Skepe. He recalled the
much-tried Ignatius immediately, and reinstated him in
his dignity and office on November 23, 867, exactly ten
years after he had been sent into exile by his predecessor.
Emperor Basil notified Pope Nicholas of what he had
done in the case of Ignatius. In a second letter to the
Pope, the Emperor asked that mercy be shown to the
repentant adherents of Photius, and that legates be sent
to Constantinople to repair the late scandals. Ignatius
also addressed himself to the Pope.
Hadrian II (867-872), successor to Nicholas, held a
synod at St. Peter's, Rome, annulled the decrees of the
pseudo-council of 867, and sent three legates, Donatus,
Stephen and Marianus, to Constantinople, to preside at
the Eighth Ecumenical Council. The legates entered
Constantinople amid the acclamations of the people on
September 25, 869, and were lodged in the Magnaura
Palace.

64

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was solemnly
opened on October 5, 869, in the church of St. Sophia.
To add to the solemnity of the occasion, the true Cross
of Our Lord was erected in the midst of the assembly.
The papal legates presided at the council.
First Session (October 5, 869). The papal legates
were asked to show their credentials. As they deemed
die question rather insolent, they hesitated to answer.
When they were convinced that no contempt of the
Apostolic See was meant by the request, but rather that
tliis precaution was taken because of the prevarication
of Rodoald and Zachary, the legates of Nicholas I, they
were satisfied, and read the letter of Hadrian II to the
council. The letter contained a condemnation of all
heresies ; an anathema against Photius ; also a “docu­
ment of reconciliation,” which stated clearly the condi­
tions which those who had sided with Photius must ful­
fill, if they wished to be reconciled.
Second Session (October 7, 869). Several bishops
who had joined Photius asked for pardon, and having
signed the “document of reconciliation,” they were ad­
mitted to the council, but they were forbidden to per­
form any episcopal functions until the following Christ­
mas. The time intervening they had to spend in doing
penance.
Third Session (October 11, 869). The Bishops Theodulus of Ancyra and Nicephorus of Nicaea were asked
to subscribe to the Roman definition ; they refused.
The letter of Hadrian II to Ignatius, dated June 10, 869,
was read.

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

6J

Fourth Session (October 13,869). The Bishops Zach­
ary and Theophilus of the Photian faction were asked to
sign the Roman definition ; they declared that they had
been received into communion by Pope Nicholas I. The
papal legates, however, proved that the two schismatics
lied, and when they stubbornly refused to sign, they were
expelled from the council.
Fifth Session (October 20, 869). Photius was sent to
the council by the Emperor. When asked whether he
would abide by the decrees of Nicholas I and Hadrian II,
he remained silent. Urged by the legates to repent, so
that he might merit at least lay-communion, he an­
swered : “My justification is not in this world.” He re­
lapsed again into obstinate silence and was dismissed
from the council.
Sixth Session (October 25, 869). Emperor Basil at­
tended the session. By this time the number of bishops
attending the council had increased to 37. Even the
Emperor urged the bishops who had favored Photius to
yield to the decision of the Church, and exhorted them
to repent. The dissenting bishops were given seven
days of grace, in which to make their submission.
Seventh Session (October 29,869). Emperor Basil at­
tended again. Photius and Gregory were brought to
the council, and asked whether they were willing to ac­
cept the papal decision. Urged by the legates to submit,
Photius answered that they had more need of submission
and repentance than he had. Finally, the council pro­
nounced anathema over Photius “the courtier and in­
vader, neophyte and tyrant, the condemned schismatic,
I adulterer and parricide, the inventor of lies and perverse
I dogmas, the new Judas and Dioscorus, anathema to all

66

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
φ

his followers and sympathizers.” Gregory of Asbestas
was also anathematized.
Eighth Session (November 5, 869). The Emperor
was again present. All the writings of Photius against
die Popes, and die acts of the pseudo-synod were thrown
into the flames. Several iconoclasts were reconciled to
the Church, the Emperor kissing diem after their ab­
juration.
Ninth Session (February 12, 870). Several perjurers
were introduced who, compelled by Photius and Michael
III, had sworn falsely against Ignatius on the occasion
of the mock trial. They confessed their crime, and ana­
thematized Photius. They received a canonical penance
of seven years : during the first two years they had to
take their places among the penitents ; during the next
two years they could have their places among die cate­
chumens, and moreover, they had to abstain from wine
and meat, except on Sundays and feasts of Our Lord ;
during the last three years they could be with the faith­
ful, but had to abstain from wine and meat on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays ; they could, however, receive
Holy Communion on the feasts of the Lord.
Tenth Session (February 28, 870). In the presence of
the Emperor, die council edited 27 canons, many of
which were directed against Photius. After the promul­
gation of the canons, the council issued a definition of
faith which anathematized all heresies and condemned
Photius and his followers. This document was signed
by the papal legates, by the bishops and by the Emperor.
Then the council issued an epistle, addressed to the bish­
ops and the faithful, which gave them an account of
the crimes committed by Photius, and a record of all

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

67

the proceedings against him. Another epistle was ad­
dressed to Pope Hadrian II, which asked for confirma­
tion of the decrees of the council, which in final analysis
were practically his own.
The papal legates having left Constantinople without
any protection from the Emperor, on their homeward
journey fell into the hands of pirates, and were robbed.
Of this Hadrian complained bitterly in a letter to the
Emperor, on November io, 871.
The West always acknowledged this council as ecu­
menical, but it was rejected by the Greek Church at the
time of separation from the Latin Church in 1054 under
the Patriarch Michael Caerularius.

IX

THE NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT THE LATERAN, ROME, IN ΙΙ2β

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Confirmation of the
Concordat of Worms and abolition of the strife over in­
vestiture.

The tyranny exercised by the great feudal powers in­

duced so many disorders and such relaxation of disci­
pline, that those who should have been a source of edi­
fication to their flocks, became their scandal. Hence, the
enemies of the Church have ever found in the tenth,
eleventh and twelfth centuries an unfailing supply of
reproaches and calumnies against her. But these scan­
dals ought rather to strengthen than to shake our faith.
Never was it more obvious that the Church was guided,
not by man, but by the strong, over-ruling hand of
God. Had the Church been a human institution, those
centuries would have seen its destruction and its death.
This remark applies also to other troubled periods in
the history of the Church. The weakness and the sins
of the pastors of the Church do not compromise her di­
vine origin and mission ; in times of the worst corrup­
tion there have been not only those chosen souls — few
in number, but eminent in sanctity — to whom has been
given the glorious title of Saints, but also multitudes
whose lives were models of all Christian virtues, and a
reproach to the world at large. Those who were scan­
dalous in their conduct were so, not on account of their
68

THE NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

69

faith, but in spite of it. The moral teaching of the
Church remained unsullied, and her Creed untouched.
Her voice of rebuke and protest was ever audible amidst
the tumult of violence and iniquity. Even when appar­
ently most powerless, the Church was able by her inher­
ent divine energy to heal the wounds inflicted on her.
One of the prevalent vices of the twelfth century was
simony. Nowhere had it struck deeper roots than in
Germany and Lombardy, although the abuse had also
crept into France and England. The source of the evil
was found in the tyranny of the secular power, which
made ill use of the extensive patronage which it enjoyed
in conferring benefices, bishoprics and abbeys on worldly
prelates, and even selling episcopal sees and abbeys to
the highest bidders. It was customary for the Emperor
to put bishops and abbots in possession of their temporal
domains by delivering to them the crosier and the ring.
This was called the right of investiture. As the ring
and crosier were the symbols of spiritual power, this
practice of investiture became a great and mischievous
abuse, which led men to imagine that the temporal ruler
conferred the spiritual authority, an idea which ambi­
tious and unscrupulous emperors took care to foster and
strengthen. In some countries, immediately after the
death of a bishop or abbot, his ring and crosier, the em­
blems of his spiritual jurisdiction, were taken to the
sovereign, and retained by him until he saw fit to confer
them upon another acceptable candidate. Until the
ceremony of investiture had been performed, whether
the candidate was canonically elected or not, whether he
was consecrated or not, no bishop or abbot could enter
upon the duties of his office.

70

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

In taking a determined stand against this method of
investiture, the Roman Pontiffs derogated from no legiti­
mate right of a sovereign ; they simply insisted upon the
inherent and divinely accorded right of the Church to
elect her own pastors.
St. Gregory VII (1073-1085) was not the first Pontiff
to raise his voice against the abuse of lay investiture, al­
though he was the first to use the axe on the root of the
evil, for he decreed that the complete system of lay in­
vestiture should be abolished. He pronounced excom­
munication on all prelates who received investiture by
means of crosier and ring from the hands of a layman.
Gregory VII, one of the best and most able of a long
line of Pontiffs, was determined to assert and to main­
tain the discipline of the Church. Towards Henry IV
(1056-1106), emperor-elect of Germany, he never ceased
to act as a tender father and friend, as long as the small­
est hope of reclaiming him existed. But when his ob­
stinacy became too apparent, when he even proceeded
to publish with the concurrence of his creatures in the
episcopacy an act of deposition against the supreme Pon­
tiff, this holy Pope, with sorrowful regret, pronounced
the sentence of excommunication against him. Excom­
munication in those days deprived one of all civil rights,
and an excommunicated sovereign could not rule over
Catholic subjects. A year and a day was, however, al­
ways granted to the ruler, before it became incumbent
on his subjects to withdraw their allegiance. Henry,
seeing himself abandoned by his subjects, pretended to
seek reconciliation with the Pope. He crossed the Alps,
and repaired to Gregory at the castle of Canossa in Lom­
bardy. Confessing his guilt, and feigning profound

THE NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

71

humility, he touched the heart of Gregory VII, who on
the fourth day of Henry’s penance admitted him to
reconciliation with the Church, and absolved him from
the censures of the Church. Henry soon threw off his
mask ; he passed rapidly into Italy, and created an anti­
Pope, Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna. All his prom­
ises were now forgotten ; Henry continued to invest
bishops and abbots with crosier and ring.
The immediate successors of Gregory VII imitated his
firmness in the matter of lay investiture. Under Henry
V (1106-1125), the son of Henry IV, the question of in­
vestiture assumed a bloody aspect. Henry, at the head
of an immense army, moved from Germany into Italy
and caused untold harm.
By dint of his determination Pope Callistus II (11181124) finally succeeded in subduing the obstinate Henry
V. Finding that his own German subjects were heartily
sick of the long struggle with the Papacy, Henry yielded,
and made overtures to Callistus. The Bishop of Spires
and the Abbot of Fulda were sent to Rome. The Pope
commissioned the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, Lambert,
the Cardinal Priest Saxo, and the Cardinal Deacon Greg­
ory, to receive Henry into the Church, after he had
abandoned all claim to investiture, and to accord to him
the right of superintending the elections, and of giving
investiture by means of the sceptre. The papal legates
invited the Emperor and the bishops and nobles to a Diet
at Worms.
Henry presented die following agreement to the Diet
at Worms : “I, Henry, by the grace of God, august Em­
peror of the Romans, for the love of God and of the Lord
Pope Callistus, and for the good of my soul, do yield to

72

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

God and to His Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the
Holy Catholic Church, every investiture by crosier and
ring, and do grant that in all churches free election and
consecration be held. I restore to the same Holy Ro­
man Church all the possessions and regalia of Blessed
Peter, which have been appropriated from the beginning
of this discord until today, and which I hold ; and as for
those which I do not hold, I shall faithfully see that they
be restored. I shall also faithfully help in the restitution
of the possessions of all the other churches, of the princes
and of others, both clerics and laymen ; and I accord true
peace to the Lord Pope Callistus, to the Holy Roman
Church, and to all who are or have been on their side ;
and I shall faithfully aid the Holy Roman Church in all
she asks of me.”
On the other hand, Pope Callistus had agreed to the
following concession : “I, Callistus, Servant of the serv­
ants of God, do grant unto thee, beloved Son Henry, by
the grace of God, august Emperor of the Romans that
in thy presence be held, without simony or any violence,
those elections of Bishops and Abbots of the German
kingdom which belong to the kingdom, so that, if any
discord shall arise between the parties, thou mayest, by
the advice and judgment of the metropolitan and pro­
vincials, give countenance and aid to the deserving side.
The person elected shall receive the regalia from thee by
incans of the sceptre, and he shall do what he owes to
thee of right, excepting all those things which are known
to belong to the Roman Church. Anyone, however,
who is consecrated in other parts of the empire, shall re­
ceive from thee the regalia, by means of sceptre, within

THE NINTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

73

six months. I shall grant my aid, according to the
duties of my Office, in all things of which thou mayest
complain to me. I accord true peace to thee, and to all
who are or have been on thy side during this discord.
Given on September 23, 1122.”
These two agreements were signed by both parties
concerned and were promulgated at the Diet of Worms.
When Callistus had heard of the happy culmination of
the Concordat, he sent congratulatory letters to Henry,
dated December 23,1122, asking him at the same time to
send ambassadors to Rome, that they might represent
him at the general council which was then being pre­
pared.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. All previous ecumenical
councils, having been held in the East, were presided
over by the papal legates. In the Ninth Ecumenical
Council, held in the Lateran Basilica in Rome, and hence
called “the First of the Lateran,” Pope Callistus presided
in person. According to some authorities 997 bishops
and abbots attended, according to others, 500 bishops.
It opened on the third Sunday in Lent, March 18, 1123.
First Session (March 18, 1123). The council con­
firmed the Concordat of Worms ; thus it definitely re­
stored peace between the Church and the State.
Second Session (March 27,1123). The council issued
canons for the restoration of discipline, mostly concern­
ing investiture, and for the encouragement of the Cru­
sades, granting a plenary indulgence to the Crusaders.
Third Session (April 6,1123). The Pope issued a de-

74

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

créé concerning the consecration of the Bishops of Cor­
sica. He also canonized Bishop Conrad of Constance.
This council had given the finishing stroke to the con­
flict on investiture, which had raged for fifty years, and
had embittered many.

X

THE TENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT THE LATERAN, ROME, IN II39

WORK OF THE COUNCIL·: Abolition of the papal
schism and condemnation of the heresy of Peter of Bruys.
On the death of Honorius II the Church was thrown

into confusion, not, on this occasion, by the imperious
will of a German sovereign, but by the ambition either
of individual members of the College of Cardinals or
of their families.
Whilst Honorius was still alive, it was common
knowledge
o diat “a certain Peter was oscheming to obtain
the Papacy.” This “certain Peter” belonged to a fam­
ily of Jewish extraction which had become very pow­
erful in Rome through the conversion of Peter’s
grandfather. This “certain Peter” became the future
anti-Pope, Anacletus II. A monk of Cluny, Pope Pas­
chal II had called him to Rome to make him a cardinal
deacon. Calixtus II elevated him to the rank of a cardi­
nal bishop. Having thus become one of the principal
members of the Roman clergy, he was soon selected for
important work. Sometimes in the performance of his
important duties he was jointly commissioned with
Cardinal Gregory, the future Pope Innocent II, whom
Peter opposed so bitterly.
When the demise of Honorius II seemed imminent,
the assembled cardinals agreed that no election should
take place till after the Pope was buried. They en75

7b

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

trusted to eight of their number the right of electing a
successor to Honorius when death should leave the See
of Peter vacant. Cardinal Gregory, though resisting,
was elected to the Papacy and took the name of Inno­
cent II (1130-1143).
Furious at being forestalled, Peter and his brothers,
by a liberal distribution of money, got together a num­
ber of clergy, including many cardinals, and assembled
in the Church of St. Mark. There amid the applause
of Peter’s party, the Cardinal Bishop of Porto invested
Peter with the red mantle and acclaimed him Pope
Anacletus II. Once proclaimed Pope, Peter lost no
time in endeavoring to gain possession of Rome. After
much bloodshed, he succeeded in seizing both St. Peter’s
and the Lateran.
The position of the lawful Pope, Innocent II, became
untenable. He therefore left Rome and went to France
where he held synods at Liege and Rheims, thereby
strengthening his position and authority.
Anacletus succeeded in gaining over to his cause
Roger, Duke of Sicily, by giving him his sister’s hand in
marriage and by promising him the title of “King of
Sicily, Calabria and Apulia.” Thus won, Roger re­
mained true to Anacletus.
As soon as the passes over the Alps were open, Inno­
cent descended into northern Italy. He made peace
between Pisa and Genoa. He entered Rome with Lothaire, who was crowned Emperor on June 4, 1133.
The schism lasted till 1138, when Anacletus died sud­
denly on January 25, 1138. His successor was Gregory,
Cardinal Priest of the Holy Apostles, elected as Vic­
tor IV. But on May 29, 1138, Victor and his supporters

THE TENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

77

submitted to Innocent II and there was “great joy
among the people.”
With a view to removing the last traces of die schism,
and to carrying on the work of reform, Innocent II
summoned the bishops of Christendom to meet in Rome
on Laetare Sunday, April 2, 1139, for the purpose of
holding an ecumenical council. A very large number
of prelates responded to the mandate of the Pope.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The Pope opened the Tenth
Ecumenical Council, the second of the Lateran, on April
4, 1139, in the presence of about a thousand prelates :
patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and abbots.
The work of the Council was threefold : (1) the re­
moval of the consequences of the eight years’ schism ;
(2) the condemnation of the heresy of Peter of Bruys ;
(3) the restoration of discipline.
(1) Removal of the consequences of the eight years
schism. The proceedings of the council were opened
by an address to the assembled bishops by the Pope,
who, says the Chronicler of Morigney, “was superior to
all the others in splendor of apparel, in venerableness of
appearance, and in learning.” “You know,” Innocent
said, “that Rome is the head of the world, and that from
the Roman Pontiff all ecclesiastical honors are received,
as though by feudal custom, and that without his per­
mission they cannot be held lawfully.” Such being the
case, he pointed out the evils of a divided Papacy. He
reminded the audience that, according to St. Augustine,
whoever was cut off from the Catholic Faith, no matter

78

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

if he think he is living will be, by the very crime of be­
ing separated from the unity of Christ, devoid of life
and subject to the anger of God. The Pope continued
amid the applause of the assembly : “Those then who
are in this state must be dealt with severely,” and so
“whatever Peter (anti-Pope Anacletus II) decreed, we
annul ; whomsoever he exalted we degrade, and whom­
soever he consecrated we desecrate and depose.” Then
Innocent upbraided the guilty parties by name and de­
manded that they surrender into his hands their cro­
siers, their palliums and their episcopal rings. Among
those who had been treated with just ice un tempered by
mercy was Cardinal Peter of Pisa, whom St. Bernard
had brought repentant to Innocent’s feet. The ordina­
tions of Anacletus were declared null and void.
(2) The condemnation of the heresy of Peter of
Bruys. Peter of Bruys first disseminated his errors in
the province of Arles, France, about 1120. He denied
that baptism was valid or useful when it was adminis­
tered to a person who had not yet arrived at the use of
reason. He decried churches as places for divine wor­
ship, and taught that the crucifix should be broken to
pieces and burnt. He denied the real presence of Christ
in the Holy Eucharist, ridiculed all sacrifices, prayers,
alms offered for the dead. He rejected tradition and
the authority of the Fathers. These errors were con­
demned by the council in the following words : “Eos,
qui religiositatis speciem simulantes, Domini corporis
et sanguinis sacramentum, baptisma puerorum, sacerdo­
tium et ceteros ecclesiasticos ordines et legitimarum
damnant foedera nuptiarum, tamquam hcreticos ab Ec­
clesia Dei pellimus et damnamus et per potestates ex­

THE TENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

79

teras coerceri praecipimus.” — “Those who, under the
guise of religion, deny the sacrament of the Body and
Blood of the Lord, infant baptism, priesthood and the
other ecclesiastical Orders and lawful matrimony, we
expel as heretics from the Church of God and condemn
them, and command that they be punished by the secu­
lar powers.” This condemnation is directed against
Peter of Bruys and the nco-Manicheans, from whom the
Albigensians sprang later. The canon is taken verba­
tim from the decrees of the Synod of Toulouse, which
was held in the presence of Callistus II in 1119.
King Roger of Sicily was excommunicated for his
opposition to the Papacy and for holding Church prop­
erty illegally.
(3) Restoration of discipline. The council issued
thirty canons to complete former decrees against si­
mony, clerical incontinence, usury, tournaments, the
study of medicine and of civil law by clerics for the sake
of enriching
o themselves,
The new Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury, who
attended this council with five other English bishops
and four abbots, received the pallium. At this council
Sturmius, founder of the Benedictine Abbey at Fulda,
Germany, was canonized.

XI
THE ELEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT THE LATERAN, ROME, IN II79

WORK OF FHE COUNCIL : Regulation of election
of a Pope, and condemnation of the Albigensian Heresy.
“The man who in the Middle Ages deserved perhaps

the highest tribute from the human race was Pope Alex­
ander III. He, in a council held in the twelfth cen­
tury, abolished as far as lay in his power the curse of
slavery. He, in the Council of Venice, triumphed by
his prudence over the violence of Emperor Barbarossa
and compelled Henry II, King of England, to ask
pardon of God and men for the murder of Thomas à
Becket. He restored the rights of nations and curbed
the passions of kings. Before his time, all Europe —
save a small number of cities — was divided into two
classes of men : the lords of the lands, ecclesiastic and
lay, and the slaves. The men of law who assisted the
knights in their judgments and the bailiffs were but
mere serfs by origin. If men have recovered their
rights, it is chiefly to Pope Alexander that they are in­
debted for it ; to him so many cities owe their new or
recovered splendor.” The writer who thus eulogizes
Alexander is Voltaire, the foresworn enemy of the Pa­
pacy.
Alexander III (i 159-1181) purchased, if we may so
speak, the glory of such a eulogy by bearing for twenty
years persecution, exile, struggle and proscription with
So

THE ELEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

81

heroic constancy and unshaken courage. His patience
was equalled only by his sufferings. In opposing the
tyranny of Frederick Barbarossa, Alexander became in
the eyes of all Europe the avenger of wrong and the
protector of the oppressed. For seventeen years this
great Pope endured the most bitter perscution from the
hands of Barbarossa. By intrigue and despotism the
Emperor created three anti-Popes successively, thereby
causing a schism which did more harm to his empire
than to the Church. Eventually the Lombards formed
a league against this despot and tyrant, and Alexander
gave the enterprise his full support. The Lombards
routed the army of Barbarossa in the battle of Legnano
on May 29, 1176, and forced the Emperor to seek the
peace which was afterwards concluded at Venice on
August i, 1177. Barbarossa accepted the conditions of
peace submitted by Alexander III.
A like struggle had been going on between Henry II
of England, and the heroic Thomas à Becket. Alex­
ander was Thomas’ protector, and on learning the news
of the English prelate’s atrocious murder, he shed bitter
tears. He excommunicated Henry II who then came
to his senses, and begged for forgiveness. The re­
pentant King then invalidated the customs which he
had unlawfully introduced into the Church in Eng­
land. When Henry expiated the crime, he was given
absolution by the legates of Alexander III.
The long strife which had embittered the pontificate
of Alexander III produced a sad state of disorder in the
Church. Working under cover of the long struggle of
Alexander III with Frederick Barbarossa, the Albigen­
sian heresy strengthened its position in southern France.

82

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The bonds of ecclesiastical discipline were loosened, and
the people came to disregard the authority of the Holy
See when they saw it openly opposed by the Emperor.
To check these disorders and to establish a lasting peace,
Alexander III in September 1178 despatched letters and
legates to all parts of the Christian world to summon to
Rome for the first Sunday in Lent of 1179 “the Bishops
of the East and West and of all Italy.” Bishops came
from Spain, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Ger­
many, Denmark, Hungary and Palestine.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was opened
on March 5, 1179 in the Lateran Basilica. Pope Alex­
ander III presided over the council, which was at­
tended by over three hundred bishops and a great num­
ber of abbots, making altogether about a thousand
prelates. Almost all that we know from history about
the work of the council and of this great assembly of
Catholic prelates is that it held three sessions ; on March
5th, March 7th and March 19th, or, as other historians
say, on March 5, March 14 and March 22, and that at
its last session it issued twenty-seven important canons.
From these canons we may gather the three reasons for
which the council was convoked.
The work of the council was : (1) To remedy the
evils caused by the schism of the anti-Popes ; (2) To
condemn the Albigensian heresy ; (3) To restore ec­
clesiastical discipline.
(1) Elimination of the euils caused by the schism of
the anti-Popes. To preclude the recurrence of another

THE ELEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

83

schism, the council issued the following decrees : “Al­
though our predecessors issued constitutions which
sufficiently guard against discord in the election of the
Supreme PontiH, the Church has frequently suffered
grievous schism on account of the audacity of wicked
ambition ; hence, to avoid this evil we have decreed, by
the advice of our brethren and with the approbation
of the holy Council, to add something to those consti­
tutions. We, therefore, decree that if by the enemy’s
sowing of nettles there be no full concord among the
cardinals in their choice of the PontiH, and if twothirds agree, and the other third will not yield, but pre­
sumes to declare another PontiH for itself, he shall be
the Roman Pontiff who is elected and acknowledged
by the two-thirds. And if any one not being able to
attain his end, relies upon the nomination by one third
and usurps the name of PontiH, he and all who recog­
nize him are excommunicated, deprived of the exercise
of their order, and even Communion shall be denied to
them, unless they are at the point of death. If they
do not repent, let them have their lot with Dathan and
Abiron, whom the earth swallowed alive. Again, if
any one be chosen by less than two-thirds, and no bet­
ter agreement can be reached, he will incur the above
punishment, unless he humbly retreats.” From the
reign of Alexander III the two-thirds system has been
the norm in the papal elections.
(2) Phe condemnation of the Albigensian heresy.
The Albigensian heresy was a confused conglomeration
of previous heresies. The adherents of this heresy re­
jected all Sacraments and external worship of the
Church and manifested violent hatred against the

84

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

hierarchy. The Albigenses, named after the City of
Albi in soudiern France, their stronghold and the birdiplace of the heresy, were a menace to both Church and
State. The council pronounced anathema on them,
their defenders and their harborers : “If they die in their
sins, let no offering be made for them, nor burial
among Christians be accorded them.”
(3) Restoration of ecclesiastical discipline. Of the
enactments, which by their practical wordi reflect so
much credit on this great Christian parliament, only
the more important may be named here. The eight­
eenth canon, in favor of the poor, did the greatest
honor to the Pope and his counsellors. It ran thus :
“Since the Church of God, like an affectionate Mother,
is bound to provide for the poor in matters that con­
cern the body as well as in those things which redound
to the profit of the soul, therefore, lest the opportunity
of reading and improving be denied to the poor per­
sons who cannot be assisted by the resources of their
own parents, we command that in each cathedral
church some competent benefice be assigned to a
teacher, who may gratuitously teach the clerks of the
same church as well as the indigent scholars.” The
interests of the poor were also safeguarded by the
twenty-fifth canon enacted against usurers. Even the
poorest of the poor were not forgotten, and this glori­
ous diet of Christendom could find time to think of
the lepers (canon 23). The renewal of the “Treuga
Dei" — “the truce of God” — was for the benefit of the
poor (canon 21). For the benefit of the poor and de­
fenceless and for the good of trade this Council decreed
continual security for clerics, pilgrims, merchants and

THE ELEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

8J

husbandmen with their cattle, and enacted that tolls
were not to be increased nor imposed except by proper
authority (canon 22). The twenty-fourth canon ex­
communicates all who furnish ammunitions of war to
the Mohammedans, or become navigators on their ships.
The same penalty is launched against all pirates and
those who make slaves of Christians. The twenty­
sixth canon excommunicates Christians who have be­
come domestics in the service of Jews.
The Eleventh Ecumenical Council was really one of
the most magnificent diets held in the Christian world.

XII

THE TWELFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
1

HELD AT THE LATERAN, ROME, IN 1215

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Recovery of the Holy
Land, reform of discipline, condemnation of the Albigensian
Heresy.
The history of the Church is the history of modern

civilization. The greatness and the power of the one
is always the measure of the progress of the other. The
pontificate of Innocent III affords an undeniable con­
firmation of this statement. Never did the Papacy
rule the world more visibly. The various interests of
European nations, die claims of rival kings, the im­
perial elections, the hopes of political parties, the pray­
ers of whole peoples, all turned to the Sovereign Pontiff,
in whom was vested the supreme authority, who was
the supreme arbiter of all disputes, and the universal
mediator.
Raised to the Chair of St. Peter, in spite of his pro­
testations, Innocent III (1198-1216) gave his whole
mind and heart to the task which the Church had im­
posed on him. His tireless energy was equal to the
numerous and varied occupations which called for his
attention and consideration. His judgments, stamped
with the zeal of solemn grandeur and impartiality, were
uttered only after mature deliberation. “His love of
justice, ' says Hurter, “was a resolution interwoven, so
to speak, with every act of his life.”
86

THE TWELFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

87

At the time of his accession to the papal throne the
state of the world opened a vast field of activity to the
apostolic zeal of Innocent III. The Romans could not
yet understand the high destiny which Divine Provi­
dence marked out for papal Rome. Civil and political
unity were utterly lost : political revolutions deluged
Sicily with blood ; in Lombardy anarchy reigned su­
preme ; in Germany the imperial scepter of Henry VI
became an object for strife between three rival claim­
ants ; in France Philip Augustus, blinded by a crim­
inal passion, shocked the world by an incestuous alli­
ance ; in England Richard the Lionhearted fell mortally
wounded by an arrow at the siege of Chaluz, leaving
the crown to John, his brother, who possessed the quali­
ties neither of a soldier nor even of an honest man ; in
Spain the Moors had attained full possession and mas­
tery of all the southern provinces of the peninsula ; in
the East the fate of the world was to be irrevocably de­
cided by bloody struggles then raging between Chris­
tian civilization and Mohammedan barbarism ; while in
the West, a sect, more dangerous than Islamism, the
Albigensian heresy, under a specious claim of Christian
orthodoxy, strove to sap the foundation of all religion,
morality and social order. The Church placed this
herculean task before the new Pontiff, Innocent III.
He was found equal to the work. “If Christianity,”
says Hurter in the history of this pontificate, “has not
been thrown aside as a worthless Creed into some iso­
lated corner of the world ; if it has not, like the sects
of India, been reduced to a mere theory ; if its European
vitality has outlived the voluptuous effeminacy of the
East, it is due to the watchful severity of the Roman

88

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

pontiffs, to their unceasing care to maintain the princi­
ple of authority in the Church.”
From the very beginning of his pontificate, Innocent
III had been considering the advisability of launching
a new Crusade to win back Palestine, which the power­
ful arms of Saladin had lately wrested from the grasp
of the Christians. A man of his times, Innocent could
not fail to be profoundly interested in the Holy Land.
He devoted himself throughout his entire pontificate
to the cause of the Crusades. He did not cease in spite
of one failure after another, to push forward the rescue
of the Holy Land from the dominion of the Moslem.
The other great object of his pontificate, was the re­
generation of both the lay and the clerical elements of
the Church. The crowning point of his pontificate was
the convocation of an ecumenical council, so that he
might lay before the representatives of Europe all that
he had done and all that he wished to do. To allow
plenty of time for preliminary deliberations, Innocent
III issued on April 19, 1213 the Bull “Vineam Domini
Sabaoth” (“The Vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth”), call­
ing the spiritual and temporal rulers of the Catholic
world to meet together in Rome in November 1215.
The result of the summons of the Pope and of the ex­
hortations of his legates was that towards the autumn
of 1215 so many people assembled in Rome that “the
whole world seemed to be there.” There came some
412 bishops, including 71 primates, the Patriarchs of
Jerusalem and Constantinople, and representatives of
the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Also pres­
ent were more than 800 abbots and priors, and an un­
known number of proctors of absent prelates and chap-

THE TWELFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

8?

ters. In Rome there were bishops from the “Byzantine
Empire, the Latin States of Syria, Germany, France,
England, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Poland,
Hungary, Dalmatia, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, Cyprus
and Italy.” The civil authorities also sent envoys. In
a word, there were so many attending the Council that
we read of some of them being crushed to death.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. Apart from die subsidiary
meetings, three formal sessions of the council were held
on November n, 20 and 30, 1215. The council met
under the presidency of Innocent III in the Lateran
Basilica ; hence it was styled the Fourth Council of the
Lateran.
The work of the council was threefold : (1) the re­
covery of the Holy Land ; (2) the reform of discipline ;
(3) the condemnation of the Albigensian heresy.
(1) The Recovery of the Holy Land. At the first
public session, Innocent himself preached to the as­
sembled multitude, taking for his text : “With desire
have I desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer”
(St. Luke, xxii, 15), and the Pope added : “Before I
die.” He first touched upon the state of the Holy
Land. In impassioned tones he proclaimed the dis­
grace which had befallen the name Christian since the
Saracens had taken possession of the holy places. He
declared that he was at the service of the council, ready,
if it saw fit, to go out himself to rouse the Christian na­
tions to free the land which the Redeemer had sanctified
by His Blood. Innocent ordered that on the first of

I

£0

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

June following, all Crusaders who wished to go by sea
to the Holy Land should be at Brindisi ready to em­
bark ; those who preferred the land route should set
out on the same day accompanied by a papal legate.
“In order that nothing may be neglected,” said the
Pontiff, “in this work of Jesus Christ, we command all
the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and pastors
of souls, to preach seriously the Word of the Cross to
those who are confided to their care and to conjure in
the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost all the kings, dukes, princes, marquises, counts,
barons and other nobles, the citizens of all cities, towns
and villages, that those who themselves cannot depart,
will equip a proper number of warriors and furnish
them with necessaries for three years ; and all this for
the remission of their sins. All who will donate ships,
or construct them, for this object, will share in the par­
don.” And that it might not be said that the Pope
himself did nothing, Innocent pledged himself to re­
strict his expenses to the smallest amount, and to do­
nate a ship for the transportation of the Roman con­
tingent. All clergymen were obliged to give to the
cause of the Crusades the twentieth part of their reve­
nues for a three-years’ period, whereas the cardinals had
to ogive one-tenth.
(2) Reform of Discipline. Of the seventy canons is­
sued by the council, some are of lasting importance.
Canon 21 reads as follows : “Omnis utriusque sexus
fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia
sua solus peccata saltem semel in anno fideliter con­
fiteatur proprio sacerdoti, et injunctam sibi poeniten­
tiam pro viribus studeat adimplere, suscipiens reverenter

Λ

THE TWELFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

91

ad minus in Pascha Eucharistiae Sacramentum ; alioquin et vivens ab ingressu ecclesiae arceatur et moriens
christiana careat sepultura.” “All the faithful of both
sexes, when they have reached the years of discretion,
shall at least once a year confess their sins sincerely to
their own priest and shall perform the enjoined pen­
ance according to their ability, and receive reverently,
at least at Paschal time, the sacrament of the Eucharist,
otherwise they shall be debarred from entrance to a
church while living, and shall not receive Christian
burial when dead.” This canon did not institute con­
fession, as unbelievers and antagonists of the Church
assert ; it simply regulated the time when and how
often the sacrament of penance and Holy Eucharist
must be received, if one wishes to retain union with
the Church. Canon 50 restricts the prohibited degrees
of matrimony to the fourth degree of consanguinity.
Canon 51 prohibits clandestine marriage, and declares
children born thereof illegitimate. The pastor who
does not forbid nuptials within the prohibited degrees is
suspended from his office for three years.
(3) Condemnation of the Albigensian heresy. The
errors of the Albigenses, together with the Waldenses,
were condemned by this council. The errors may be
summed up as follows : There are two Creators, the
good God, the author of the invisible world, and the
evil God, the author of the visible world. The latter
was the author of the Old Testament and was a liar ;
the former was die author of the New Testament. All
the patriarchs, prophets, etc. are damned : John the
Baptist was one of the greater demons ; the Christ who
was born in Bethlehem and crucified at Jerusalem was

92

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

also a wicked man. Our souls are apostate spirits of
heaven. The sect also denied all the sacraments, in­
fant baptism, Holy Eucharist, etc., matrimony was
whoredom, and no one who begot children could be
saved. These errors were condemned by the council
and die following definition of faith was made by the
council : “Firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur,
quod unus solus est verus Deus, aeternus, immensus, et
incommutabilis, incomprehensibilis, omnipotens et in­
effabilis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus : tres quidem
personae, sed una essentia, substantia seu natura simplex
omnino. . . Et unigenitus Dei Filius Jesus Christus,
ex Maria semper Virgine Spiritus Sancti cooperatione
conceptus, verus homo factus ex anima rationali et hu­
mana carne compositus, una in duabus naturis persona,
viam vitae manifestius demonstravit.” “We believe
firmly and we profess humbly that there is only one
true God, immense, and immutable, incomprehensible,
almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost ; though three in person, yet one essence,
substance or entirely one simple nature. . . And the
only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, conceived by
the cooperation of the Holy Ghost by the ever Virgin
Mary, having become true man, composed of a rational
soul and human flesh, one person in two natures, has
shown us the way of life rather in a brilliant way.”
In stating the doctrine of the Church on the Holy
Eucharist against the innovators, this council uses for
the first time the term Ίransubstantiation to express
the change that takes place through the words of con­
secration : “Una vero est fidelium universalis Ecclesia,
extra quam nullus salvatur omnino, in qua idem ipse

THE TWELFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

93

sacerdos est sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et
sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini
veraciter continentur, tran substantiatis pane in corpus
et vino in sanguinem potestate divina.” “One is the
universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no
one can be saved, in which the priest himself, Jesus
Christ, is the sacrifice, whose body and blood are con­
tained in the sacrament of the altar truly under the
species of bread and wine, after by divine power bread
and wine have been transubstantiated into the body
and blood.”
The errors of the Albigenses and Waldensians were
condemned by the council (canons i and 3), and be­
cause some of their teachings were aimed at the de­
struction of social life, the Pope ordered a Crusade to be
preached against these heretics.
The council also condemned (canon 2) the treatise of
Abbot Joachim, which he issued against the Master
Peter Lombard, and in which he advocated a “Qua­
ternary” instead of a “'Trinity” in God.
During this council Innocent III came once more into
contact with St. Francis of Assisi, whose sweet, clear
voice sounded in winning tones the praises of the simple
gospel form of Christian life. Men of all ranks were
enraptured and embraced his teaching. The very ani­
mals paused in their wantonness to listen to it or laid
aside their fierceness to be guided by it. It was a voice
that in the midst of the clangor of arms preached peace
and, amidst the vagaries of license, proclaimed obedi­
ence to authority. The bruised reed it did not break ;
the smoking flax it did not extinguish. Yet the voice
of Francis of Assisi was strong. It forced its way into

I

94

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the hearts of men and women. It was soon the leader
of a new and mighty chorus of praise and love that day
by day rose up to the throne of God. With his mind
full of thoughts of peace and of that respect for au­
thority whence peace flows, Francis1 heart naturally
turned to him whom he regarded as the earthly repre­
sentative of the Prince of Peace. He directed his steps
toward Rome. There can be no reasonable doubt that
Francis was one of the thousands who assembled in
Rome for the Lateran Council. Angelo Clareno de­
clares that Innocent III, after the verbal approbation of
the Rule of St. Francis in 1209, “in the General Council
held in Rome in the year of our Lord 1215 informed all
the prelates that he had sanctioned a Rule of Life for
St. Francis and those who wish to follow him.” From
this assertion we may conclude that, though no formal
sanction was given by die council to the Rule of St.
Francis, the Pope caused it to be regarded by the assem­
bled bishops as one of the already recognized Rules.
Innocent III survived the council till the following
year. Although still young when he died, he left an
imperishable memory in the history of the Papacy.
Sometimes we may like to think of him as Giotti
painted him — the youthful Pontiff seated on his mod­
est Gothic throne, his pensive eyes gazing into the dis­
tance, while St. Francis of Assisi stands by, expounding
that simple life of Christian perfection with which In­
nocent sympathized so strongly.

XIII

THE THIRTEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT LYONS, FRANCE, IN 1245

HW OF THE COUNCIL: The excommunication
of Frederick II.
There was a close relation between the policy of In­

nocent III and that of his successor, Honorius III (12161227), who was chosen on the morrow of Innocent's
death to fill the vacant See. He followed faithfully in
his predecessor’s footsteps, especially in the matter of
the recovery of the Holy Land and of the reform of
the Church. Immediately on his elevation to the pon­
tifical throne, Honorius sent a circular letter to the rul­
ers and prelates of the various countries of Europe, ex­
horting them to a new Crusade, decreed by the Fourth
Lateran Council. The Pope and the cardinals con­
tributed a tenth, and all other churchmen a twentieth
of their income for three years to subsidize the Cru­
sades.
King Andrew of Hungary was the first to start in
answer to the Pontiff’s appeal. Soon after a fleet of
Northmen and Hollanders came by way of the sea to
join the Magyars ; but as usual dissension hindered the
full effect of these expeditions. Damietta was taken.
St. Francis of Assisi tried to convert the Sultan to Chris­
tianity. Not succeeding in his enterprise, he returned
to Italy but left some Franciscan friars in the Holy Land
95

$6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

for the benefit of pilgrims and for the protection of the
holy places. Emperor Frederick II had taken a vow
to go on a Crusade and his presence might have made
the war a success. Honorius urged him not to delay,
but he found one excuse after another to delay, and he
postponed his Crusade as many as nine times. He
was ready to put off the Crusade for a tenth time, when
Gregory IX, who succeeded Honorius III, sent a sum­
mons — three days after his consecration — to the Em­
peror exhorting him to fulfill his vow. After various
evidences of bad faith on the part of the Emperor, the
Pope excommunicated him. Though under the cen­
sure of excommunication, the Emperor now started on
a Crusade. He remained in Palestine for nearly two
years and negotiated with the Sultan of Egypt. He
gained from him a truce of ten years and the restora­
tion of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem, except the
mosque of Omar. Frederick entered the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre in state. As no bishop would crown
the excommunicated monarch, he took the crown from
the high altar and put it on his head. Frederick re­
turned to Italy, and landing at Brindisi met the Pope
at San Germano. Gregory IX made a sincere effort
to effect a permanent reconciliation ; Frederick prom­
ised to restore what he had taken from the Church, to
reinstate the banished bishops, and to pay indemnity for
the great losses he had caused to the Church. In re­
turn for these promises he was absolved from excom­
munication, but Frederick never meant to do what he
had promised. He held such extravagant views of his
own boundless power that he was certain to be brought
by them into collision both with popular liberty and

THE THIRTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

97

papal prerogative. He tried to break the power of the
Lombard League, and for a time it seemed as if the
Papal States and the whole of Italy would fall into his
hands. In 1238 Gregory again excommunicated and
deposed Frederick.
Gregory died of grief (1241). He was succeeded by
Celestine IV, whose pontificate lasted only 17 days.
After the See was vacant for a year and a half, due to
the machinations of Frederick, Innocent IV was unani­
mously elected Pope at Anagni (1243). It was hoped
that the new Pope would be able to bring about a
reconciliation with the Emperor, but the latter’s condi­
tions for peace were haughty and unacceptable. When
the Pope refused to accept his terms, he marched on
Rome and was determined to seize possession of the
person of the Pope. Innocent fled to Genoa ; thence
he betook himself to France where he was received with
the greatest reverence and devotion by St. Louis IX,
the young King of that realm. On January 3, 1245,
Innocent IV sent summons to the bishops to come to
an ecumenical council, to be held within six months
at Lyons, France. This council is known in history as
the First Ecumenical Council of Lyons.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. The council was attended
by 250 archbishops and bishops, besides many minor
prelates, and was presided over by Innocent IV in per­
son. A preliminary session was held in the Monastery
of St. Justus, at which 140 bishops were present. This
introductory session was held on June 26, 1245.

98

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

First Session (June 28, 1245). This session was held
in the Cathedral of St. John. After the celebration of
Holy Mass, the Pope ascended his throne, and in an
eloquent sermon on the text : “According to the mul­
titude of my sorrows in my heart, thy comforts have
given joy to my soul” (Ps, xc, 19), he compared his
sorrows with the five wounds of our Lord. The first
sorrow, he said, was caused by the sins of die higher
and lower clergy ; the second by the fall of Jerusalem
into the hands of the Saracens ; the third by the
schismatic Greeks who threatened Constantinople ; the
fourth by the barbarity of the Tartars who had invaded
Hungary, murdering all its inhabitants irrespective of
age or sex ; the fifth by the persecution of the Church
by Frederick II. This last point the Pope enlarged
upon, enumerating all the serious charges against the
Emperor. Frederick was ably, though insolently, de­
fended by his chancellor, Thaddeus of Suessia, whose
sophistry failed to impress the assembled bishops, and
still less the experienced Pontiff. This ended the first
session.
Second Session (July 5, 1245). This session was
opened with the same solemnities as the first. A Cis­
tercian bishop of southern Italy preached a vehement
sermon against Frederick, to which the imperial chan­
cellor again answered. Thaddeus asked for time to
communicate with Frederick. The Pope and the fa­
thers of die council, anxious to make a final effort
to effect peace with him, granted a respite of twelve
days in which Frederick should make good his justifica­
tion or advance acceptable propositions. Frederick was
unyielding ; the hour of justice was at hand.

THE THIRTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

99

Third Session (July 17, 1245). The Pope re-enacted
a former decree by which the feast of the Nativity of
the Blessed Virgin Mary should be kept with an octave.
After this, 17 canons — according to others 29 canons
— were published, of which the seventeenth Canon is
of great importance. It directed the gathering of sub­
sidy for the Crusaders and for the restoration of the
Holy Land. After the publication of the canons, In­
nocent IV proceeded to the excommunication and depo­
sition of Frederick II before the whole council. The
prescribed ceremonial for solemn excommunication
was carried out. The Pope held a lighted candle in his
hand, likewise every bishop. Thaddeus, persisting to
the end in his desperate part of imperial advocate, called
out aloud : “In the name of my master, Frederick II, I
appeal from the sentence you are about to pronounce
to the next Pope and to a more General Council.” His
protest was not heeded. Amid the deep and impressive
silence of the august assembly, the Pope read the decree
of excommunication directed by the Church against the
Emperor : “After mature deliberations with the Car­
dinals and the Fathers of the Holy Council, We declare
Frederick II rejected from the pale of the Catholic
Church. We absolve forever from their oath all who
have sworn allegiance to him ; by the Apostolic au­
thority, We forbid any one henceforth to obey him as
Emperor of Germany or King of Sicily, and whoever,
hereafter, affords him help and counsel, shall by the
very fact incur excommunication. The Electors are
bound to name, with as little delay as possible, a suc­
cessor to rule the empire. As for the Kingdom of
Sicily, We shall provide for it, with the advice of our

100

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

brethren, the Cardinals.” At the concluding words
of the sentence the Pope and all the bishops extinguished
their candles and threw them on the floor. An inde­
scribable emotion seized upon the vast throng which
crowded the cathedral. Thaddeus overcome by awe
and terror cried aloud : “The blow has struck ; this is
truly the day of wrath and calamity.”
Innocent used to the full the rights which medieval
Christianity gave him. He could hardly have used
them against a more cunning, faithless and withal
potent secular ruler than Frederick II.

XIV

THE FOURTEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT LYONS, FRANCE, IN 1274

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: Help for the Holy
Land, union of the Greeks with the Latins, reform of
morals.
On September i, 1271, after a three years’ vacancy of

the Holy See, due to the private ambitions and po­
litical discords of the cardinals, the long dissentient
voters decided at last to elect to the Chair of Peter Theo­
bald de Visconti, Archdeacon of Liège, who was at the
time apostolic legate in Palestine. This happy out­
come was due to the influence of St. Bonaventure. The
new Pope received the news of his election at Acre, on
October 27, 1271, and took the name of Gregory X
(1271-1276). This election revived the drooping spirits
of the Christians in the Holy Land. Before leaving
Palestine for Europe, the new Pope took leave of the
Christians in a most touching address, at the end of
which he exclaimed in the words of the Psalmist : “If
ever I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be
forgotten. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my
mouth, if I do not remember thee, if I make not Jeru­
salem the beginning of my joy” (Ps. 136).
During the whole course of his pontificate, Gregory
cherished the project of a new Crusade. His efforts,
however, were fruitless and useless amid the general
IOI

102

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

spirit of indifference. Yet this design was the object
of his solicitude together with the hope of winning back
the Greek Church, which had broken entirely away
from the Church of Rome under Michael Cerularius in
1054. This hope of the Pope’s heart seemed to be
capable of realization in the distant future. The Greek
Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, who had again be­
come master of Constantinople, stood in great dread
of Charles of Anjou. Whether from motives of policy,
or hope to win the mediation of the Pope, or from a
sincere desire to bring back his subjects to the bosom
of Catholic unity, Michael labored with persevering
energy, and succeeded in converting the bishops of his
empire to thoughts of union in the face of prejudices
from the majority of the Greeks. The Pope sent the
Franciscan, John Parastron, to Constantinople ; he la­
bored long and faithfully in an effort to bring about a
union with Rome, and to acquaint Gregory with the
actual and promising conditions. Gregory then des­
patched four Franciscans — Jerome of Ascoli (later
Pope Nicholas IV), Raymond Bcrengarius, Bonagratia
and Bonaventure of Mugello
— who brought
o
o a formula
of union to Emperor Palaeologus. These five Fran­
ciscans were very active in Constantinople in their effort
to bring about the return of the Greeks to the Latin
Church.
With a view to adding greater solemnity to the union
of the Greek Church with the Latin Church, and to
preach a Crusade on a wider scale, the Pope decided to
convoke an ecumenical council, to be held in May
1274. Later he selected the city of Lyons in France
as the meeting place for the council.

THE FOURTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

10}

Before setting out for France, Gregory X created St.
Bonaventure, General of the Franciscan Order, a car­
dinal ; the same honor was bestowed on the Dominican
Peter of Tarantaise (the future Innocent V). After his
arrival in Lyons, the Pope sent another request to Em­
peror Michael Palaeologus to come in person, or to send
ambassadors to the council, promising them safe con­
duct. The Pope also summoned St. Thomas of Aqui­
nas, who set out from Naples in January 1274. St.
Thomas never reached Lyons, for he died in the Cis­
tercian Abbey at Fossanuova on March 7, 1274.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. After a three days’ fast,
Gregory X opened the Fourteenth Ecumenical Coun­
cil in the Cathedral of St. John, Lyons, on AVednesday
of Rogation week, May 7, 1274. He committed to St.
Bonaventure a great share in the task of guiding the
deliberations of the council. According to the best
authorities, this council was attended by 13 cardinals,
500 bishops, 70 abbots, and about a thousand minor prel­
ates, in addition to the envoys of the reigning powers,
and was presided over by the Pope in person.
First Session (May 7, 1274). Pope Gregory X, after
celebrating a Pontifical Mass and after intoning the
hymn “Veni Creator” (“Come, Holy Ghost”) preached
the opening sermon in which he laid down the three
reasons for holding the council : help for the Holy
Land ; union of the Greeks with, the Latins ; and re­
form of morals.
Speaking of the needs of the Holy Land, Gregory

104

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

said : “We have witnessed in person the woes of those
generous pilgrims. We have traced, one by one, all
their sufferings. Their courage is even greater than
their fatigues ; their piety is superior to their adversity.
Like the warriors of Godfrey de Bouillon, they are
worthy sons of the Cross. This is not the time to found
new kingdoms in the provinces of Asia. We must
march to the rescue of the Holy Sepulchre.” At the
end of the sermon the first session was closed.
During the interval between the first and second ses­
sion, the Pope called the archbishops, together with one
bishop from each ecclesiastical province, to devise means
by which the tithes for the Holy Land could be col­
lected in their respective dioceses. During this time
Gregory received very consoling news from his legates
in Constantinople concerning the return of the Greeks
to the Latin Church, and the Pope immediately com­
municated the happy news to the council. St. Bona­
venture preached on the text : “Arise, O Jerusalem, and
stand on high ; and look about towards the east, and
behold thy children gathered together from the rising
to the setting sun” (Baruch, v, 2).
Second Session (May 18, 1274). This session was
opened with prayers and ceremonies similar to those
which solemnized the first. The Pope preached again
on the three objects for which the council was being
held. In this session the council formulated the canon
on faith, declaring that it is the belief of the Latin and
Greek Church that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father and the Son, from one principle, from all eter­
nity. The Constitution on the procession of the Holy
Ghost reads thus : “Fideli ac devota professione fate-

THE FOURTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

IOJ

mur, quod Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter ex Patre et
Filio, non tamquam ex duobus principiis, sed tamquam
ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica
spiratione procedit : hoc professa est hactenus, praedica­
vit et docuit, hoc firmiter tenet, praedicat, profitetur et
docet sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, mater omnium fidel­
ium et magistra : hoc habet orthodoxorum Patrum
atque Doctorum, Latinorum pariter et Graecorum in­
commutabilis et vera sententia. Sed quia nonnulli
propter irrefragabilis praemissae veritatis ignorantiam
in errores varios sunt prolapsi : Nos hujusmodi errori­
bus viam praecludere cupientes, sacro approbante Con­
cilio, damnamus et reprobamus, qui negare praesump­
serint, aeternaliter Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre et Filio
procedere : sive etiam temerario ausu asserere, quod
Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio, tamquam ex duobus
principiis, et non tamquam ex uno, procedat.” “We
profess with a sincere and humble faith that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from all eternity from the Father and
the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one
principle, not as from two spirations, but as from one
spiration : this the Holy Roman Church, the mother
and teacher of all faithful, has so far professed, preached
and taught ; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes
and teaches : this is the immutable and true doctrine of
the orthodox Fathers and doctors of the Latins as well
as of die Greeks. But because some have fallen into
various errors, due to the ignorance of this undeniable
truth and wishing to bar the way for these errors, We,
with the consent of the Holy Council condemn and re­
prove those who dare to deny that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity,

Ιθ6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

or even assert rashly that the Holy Ghost proceeds as if
from two principles, and not as if from one, from the
Father and the Son.”
Third Session (June 7, 1274). Peter of Tarantaise,
Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, preached the sermon.
Twelve canons on reform were issued in this session.
The Greek envoys arrived at Lyons on June 24, 1274,
and were received with great honors. All the members
of the synod went out to meet them and accompanied
them to the papal residence, where Gregory X greeted
them with marked distinction. They brought letters
from the Emperor and from many bishops, and de­
clared they had come to show obedience to the Roman
Church. On the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June
29, 1274, the Pope pontificated in the cathedral in the
presence of all cardinals and bishops and the Greek
envoys. The Epistle and Gospel were sung in Latin
and Greek, and St. Bonaventure preached the sermon.
The Credo was sung in Latin and Greek, and the phrase
“Filioque” (and from the Son) was repeated three times.
During the chanting of the Credo, St. Bonaventure stood
with the Greeks.
Fourth Session (July 6, 1274). The Cardinal Bishop
Peter of Ostia preached. Then the Pope stated again
the three reasons for holding the council, and gave ex­
pression to his great joy on the return of the Greeks on
their own accord to the Roman Church. Thereupon
three documents — one of the Emperor, the second of
the Greek Bishops, the third of the Crown Prince An­
dronicus— were read to the synod. The Emperor re­
peated the words of the Symbol of Faith, which had
been sent to him by Rome, and he declared : “I believe

THE FOURTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

IO/

in my heart, as I profess with my lips, the true, Cath­
olic, Roman, orthodox faith ; I promise ever faithfully
to follow it, never to forsake it. I acknowledge the
primacy of the Roman Church and the obedience due
to it ; I pledge myself to all these professions by oath,
upon my soul.” After this solemn declaration, which
after two centuries of struggle and contest put an end
to the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, Greg­
ory X stood up and intoned the T'e Deum, while his
cheeks were bathed with tears of grateful emotion.
This was the last session in which St. Bonaventure
appeared ; he died on Sunday, July 15, 1274. The Pope
officiated in person at his funeral, to honor by this ex­
ception to the pontifical custom the genius and virtue
so eminently displayed by the Seraphic Doctor of the
Franciscan Order. The Dominican Cardinal Bishop
of Ostia, Peter of Tarantaise, preached the funeral ser­
mon on the text : “I grieve for thee, my brother Jona­
than” (II. Kings, i, 26). Many tears flowed, for St.
Bonaventure had won the hearts of all who knew him.
He exercised the greatest influence over the Greeks
whose reunion with the Church he had brought about
at the council mainly through his own efforts.
Fifth Session (July 16, 1274). Fourteen canons on
reform were issued at this session. Towards its close
Gregory X spoke of the great loss which the Church
had suffered through the demise of Bonaventure, and
he obliged all bishops and priests of the world to offer
up one Holy Sacrifice for the repose of his soul. He
enjoined that another Holy Mass be offered for all
those who had died going to or coming from any coun­
cil, referring especially to the present one.

JJ
Ιθ8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Sixth Session (July 17, 1274). Two more canons
were issued in this session. The Pope then announced
that of the three objects of the council two had been
happily settled, namely, the union with the Greeks and
the needs of the Holy Land. As for the third, Gregory
exhorted all to a better and holier mode of living, add­
ing that, since the council could not remedy all defects
at once, he would continue the work which he had be­
gun and provide for the other needs of the Church.
Having recited the customary prayers, the Pope im­
parted die apostolic blessing and dismissed the fathers
of the council.
Of the decrees of this council, two claim our particu­
lar attention. The second canon renewed the decree of
Alexander III regarding the election of the Roman
Pontiff, and made some additional provisions which
experience had shown to be necessary. According to
this canon, the cardinals who are in the place where the
Pope dies, shall wait only ten days for the arrival of the
absent cardinals ; then they shall enter upon an elec­
tion. They should proceed to the Pope’s palace, each
with only one attendant ; or, if necessity demands it in
particular cases, with two. In the palace they will be
shut up under lock and key (hence the term “Con­
clave’'). No one shall enter or leave the Conclave un­
til after election, and no communication may be had
with the outside world, under pain of excommunica­
tion. If a Pope is not chosen within three days, only
one dish is to be furnished for each cardinal’s dinner
and supper during the next five days ; if the election is
not finished on the eighth day, only bread, wine and
water will be served until an election is reached. This

THE FOURTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

109

canon did not please many of the cardinals, and they
tried hard, but in vain, to prevent its adoption.
In the twenty-third canon the Council promulgated
strict regulations against the useless multiplication of
religious Orders. “It is not our intention,” said the
Fathers, “to include the Friars Preachers (Dominicans)
nor the Friars Minor (Franciscans) who render such
valuable services to the Church. We also approve the
Carmelites and Hermits of St. Augustine, whose au­
thorized establishment is anterior to our Decree.”
On November i, 1274 Pope Gregory X published a
collection of the 31 decrees of this council which were
embodied in the Canon Law.

XV

THE FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT VIENNE, FRANCE, IN I3II

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: (i) The case of the
Knights Templars ; (2) help for the Holy Land ; (3) reform
of morals.

A new period in the history of Church and State be­
gan in the latter years of the reign of Philip the Fair —
a mockery of the surname — King of France. The
stormy years of Boniface VIII, scarcely calmed by the
brief reign of Benedict XIII, left the body of cardinals
so divided and agitated that the election of a successor
was very difficult. The electors met at Perugia ; month
followed month without any choice being made. Fi­
nally, after eleven months, looking outside of their
own ranks, the cardinals thought they had secured a
suitable candidate for the Papacy in Bertrand de Goth,
Archbishop of Bordeaux, a prelate who would be
friendly to the French King, and at the same time
reverent to the memory of Boniface VIII. Having
notified him of his election, they invited him to come
to Italy. But he replied by summoning the cardinals
to come to France for his coronation. He announced
that upon his ascension to the throne, he would assume
the name of Clement V (1305-1314).
The removal of the papal residence from Rome to
southern France brought about a new condition of
I IO

THE FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

\

III

things, in which the prestige of the Holy See sank to
a lower level. The State became bolder in its encroach­
ments on the domain of the Church ; but Divine Provi­
dence watching over the Holy Sec carried it through
the storm of the times to new splendor and victories.
Shrinking from the troubles which the Italian fac­
tions were stirring up in Rome, Clement V took his
abode, first at Lyons, where he was crowned on Novem­
ber 14, 1305, then at Avignon in 1309, a city on the
Rhone. Then came the creation of ten new cardinals,
all French except one — an Englishman. These new
elections changed the composition of the Sacred Col­
lege. All this helped to dispose the Pope to grant
concessions to the insatiable Philip and to the French.
First and foremost,' the French King
called for a conCl
demnation of Boniface VIII. If he had obtained his
desire, the great Pontiff would have been tried by a
papal court after death, condemned as a heretic, and
his body disinterred and burned. But Clement V con­
scientiously refused to condemn his predecessor. He
sought to put off Philip by delay and by granting favors
which might placate his hostility. He granted the King
the tithes expected from the French dioceses for five
years. He modified the bulls of Boniface VIII, declar­
ing that no change in the old relations between the
Papacy and the French crown had taken place in any
way. Having received all these favors from the Pa­
pacy, Philip reiterated his charges and demanded once
more that Boniface should be branded as a heretic.
Clement finally yielded to his demands so far as to name
February 2, 1309, as the time, and Avignon as the place,
for a juridical inquiry into the charges brought against

I 12

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Boniface VIII. There was much delay, and after other
negotiations, Philip agreed to wait for the coming ecu­
menical council to have the matter investigated and
decided.
Another important matter awaiting the decision of
the council was the process against the military order
of the Templars. The Knights Templars had their
origin in the Crusades and a considerable portion of
the glories of the Crusades belongs to diem. It had
gradually increased in numbers and wealth, until at
the time of its suppression it counted 16,000 members
and owned extensive properties in nearly all the Euro­
pean countries. The Church had long felt that this in­
crease in worldly possessions had weakened the early
spirit of the order and had fostered many abuses among
its members. The particular character of the order
lent itself to abuses, for it admitted military men whose
lives had often been disorderly until their admission,
and then professed them without any novitiate, such
as other religious orders required. At the same time,
the Templars' wealth and privileges made them an ob­
ject of envy to the mighty. Kings and princes found
them formidable and troublesome. Serious charges of
unbelief, immorality and insubordination had long
been in circulation concerning the members of the or­
der and several popes and synods had censured the
Templars. King Philip, having made all his prepara­
tions secretly beforehand, arrested all the Templars in
France on October 13, 1307, and cast them into prison.
Clement V was informed of Philip’s encroachment
upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for the Templars were
a religious order depending directly upon the Holy See,

THE FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

II)

and immediately addressed a protest to the King in
these words : “You have overstepped the bounds of
your authority in constituting yourself the judge of im­
mediate subjects of the Church, and by seizing upon
their possessions.” Furthermore, to show that he did
not limit his protest to mere words, the Pope sum­
moned the entire case of the Templars to be laid be­
fore his own tribunal. From this moment on the con­
duct of Clement V begins to appear in a clear light.
The sudden arrest, the trial, the inquiry by torture into
their guilt and the capital punishment of the Templars,
are the work of Philip and Philip alone. The juridical
inquiry, examination without torture, canonical investi­
gation carefully carried on through four years, and
finally the sentence of suppression constitute the part
taken by Clement V in this famous trial of the Tem­
plars. The Pope’s decree, demanding that the whole
case be laid before the tribunal, completely disconcerted
Philip’s plans.
With a view to settling a question which disrupted the
world, Clement V in the Bull “Alma Mater,” dated
April 4, 1310, assigned October 1, 1311 as the opening
day of the Fifteenth Ecumenical Council, to be held
at Vienne, France.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opejiing oj the Council. The council was attended
by 20 cardinals, 4 patriarchs, 29 archbishops, of whom
one was archbishop-elect, 79 bishops, of whom nine
were bishops-elect, and 38 abbots. Clement V presided
over it in person. In the bull of convocation the Pope
had assigned three reasons for holding the council :

114

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

(i) The case of die Knights Templars ; (2) help for
the Holy Land ; (3) reform of morals.
First Session (October 16, 1311). This session was
opened with great solemnity in the Cathedral of St.
Maurice, Vienne. The Pope preached on the text : “In
concilio justorum et congregatione magna opera Do­
mini.” “In the council of the just, and in the congre­
gation great are the works of the Lord” (Ps. no,
2,3). In diis sermon the Pope stated the threefold work
of the council. After the sermon, two commissions
were appointed to examine thoroughly die case of the
Knights Templars. Then the Pope dismissed the as­
sembly with his blessing, which he also imparted to the
people waiting outside the cathedral.
The council’s work concerning the Templars was
now taken up in all earnestness. The two commissions
consisted of archbishops and bishops, under the Patri­
arch of Aquileja, who were to examine all the acts re­
lating to the Knights Templars “not perfunctorily, but
with precision and plenty of time.” In the meantime,
the Pope requested the opinions of various cardinals
and members of die council in secret sessions. The ma­
jority of the commission held that before a juridical
condemnation of the whole order was issued, the Tem­
plars should be allowed to defend themselves. This
decision was rendered early in December 1311. From
the end of December to the following February no de­
cision was rendered in the case of the Templars, either
by the council or by the Pope. A French delegation
arrived in Vienne on February 17, 1312, and for twelve
days, until February 29, its members conferred con­
tinually with the Pope and five cardinals. Then the

THE FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

IIJ

ambassadors returned to the King to report die nego­
tiations. On March 2, 1312, the King sent a “humble
request” to the Pope to suppress the Templars on ac­
count of heresy and many other crimes of which the
order was guilty. After the arrival of the King at
Vienne on March 19, 1312, secret conferences were held
between the Pope and the King. Because the records
of these meetings have been either lost or destroyed, we
may only surmise the nature of these conferences. The
disposition of the temporal possessions of the Templars
was most certainly discussed.
On Wednesday of Holy Week, March 22, 1312, Pope
Clement assembled all the cardinals and the members
of the special commissions in a secret consistory. In
their presence, by his supreme authority and without
further inquiry, he suppressed the Templars “by way
of provision” as a matter of policy and discipline.
Second Session (April 3, 1312). Pope Clement V
published in this session the Bull “Vox in excelso” (“A
voice from on high") suppressing the Knights Templars
in the presence of King Philip and his three sons.
Towards the end of the bull of suppression, the Pope
declared that he arrived at his decision and sentence
after long and mature deliberation and that he disposed
of the case in the interests of the Holy Land from the
following motives : (1) The order is at least suspected
of heresy ; (2) the Grand Master and many other
members of the order have confessed to the charge of
heresy and other crimes and vices ; (3) the order has
lost its prestige with many bishops and kings ; (4) the
order, founded in defense of the Holy Land, has lost
its usefulness ; (5) a delay in the sentence of suppres­

116

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

sion would entail great temporal losses in the posses­
sions of the order. The Pope added that in the future
no one could enter the order, wear its dress, or use the
name of Templar under pain of excommunication.
Third Session (May 6, 1312). The Pope published
the Bull “Ad providam,” to dispose of the property of
the Templars. The property of the order was trans­
ferred to the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jeru­
salem. The Pope reserved to himself the right to
sentence personally the highest dignitaries of the Tem­
plars ; the others — lesser dignitaries — were left to be
dealt with by the provincial councils. He urged clem­
ency in favor of those knights who showed signs of
repentance for the crimes which they had confessed.
From the property of the suppressed order they were
to receive an honorable maintenance. Those who met
every charitable admonition of the Church with a stub­
born mind were to suffer severe penalties, both civil
and canonical.
For many years a heated controversy raged in the
Franciscan Order on the right and full meaning and
obligation of the vow of poverty, carried on by the
spirituals on the one side, and by the community on
the other side. Argument followed argument, until
the spokesmen for both sides brought the case before
the Council of Vienne to receive from it an authoritative
pronouncement and decision. Clement V appointed
a separate commission of cardinals to examine care­
fully the interpretation which each party in the dispute
gave to the meaning and obligation of poverty. After
many meetings held while the council was in progress,
Clement V, on May 5, 1312, called the cardinals and

THE FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

117

representatives of each faction to a secret consistory.
In this consistory the controversy was definitely settled.
On the following day, May 6, in the third session of the
council, Clement V published the Constitution “Exivi
de Paradiso,” which is the official declaration and ex­
position of the whole Rule of the Franciscan Order,
and as such it was incorporated in the acts of the coun­
cil. Thus the Franciscan Rule is the only Rule ap­
proved by an ecumenical council.
In the same session, Clement V published the dog­
matic constitution “Fidei Catholicae fundamento” by
which some supposed errors of Peter Olivi, a Francis­
can Spiritual, were condemned : “Dominus papa Clem­
ens in dicta decretali ‘Fidei Catholicae fundamento’
reprobat tres errores, sc. dicere, quod Christus fuerit
vivus lanceatus ; item dicere, quod anima rationalis
sive intellectiva non sit forma corporis per se et essen­
tialiter ; item dicere quod gratia non conferatur par­
vulis in sacramento baptismi.”
The three dogmatic definitions were : (i) The side
of Christ was opened after the death of the Saviour ;
(2) the substance of the rational human soul is truly
the form of the human body ; (3) at baptism children
and adults alike receive sanctifying grace and the vir­
tues.
The second object of the council — Help for the Holy
Land — was mostly of a pecuniary nature.
Besides issuing the declaration against Philip that
Boniface VIII had been a legitimate Pope, thus redeem­
ing the memory of that great Pontiff, the council also
promulgated many decrees for the reform of morals.
Because a great portion of the acts of this council has

Il8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

been lost, some historians speak of twenty decrees,
others of twenty-five decrees. They dealt with ec­
clesiastical benefices, relations between bishops and
princes, the condemnation of the life and practices of
the Beghards and Beguines, the monastic discipline and
the relation of the mendicant orders to the secular
clergy, the election of a Pope, and a variety of other
important disciplinary matters. One decree merits the
undying gratitude of the literary world ; namely, that
which introduced the study of Oriental languages in
the West. Blessed Raymund Lull, a Franciscan tertiary
and martyr, had asked the Holy See repeatedly to estab­
lish schools in which the Arabic, Hebrew and Chaldaic
languages should be taught in order to prepare mission­
aries for the conversion of Saracens, Jews and other in­
fidels. At the Council of Vienne he again presented
his petition : “Petitio Raymundi in concilio generali ad
acquirendam Terram Sanctam.” The council decreed
that Arabie, Hebrew and Chaldaic tongues should be
taught publicly wherever the Roman Court was held, as
well as in the universities of Paris, Oxford, Salamanca
and Bologna ; that two professors should be maintained
for each language in the University of Paris by the
King of France, and those in the other universities by
the Pope and the Bishops.
At the close of the council, the Pope, on the one hand,
rewarded those bishops who had attended the council,
and, on the other hand, severely reprimanded those
who through indifference or negligence had failed to
attend.
The Pope intoned the “Te Deum laudamus.” The
assembly joined in the singing ; the Pope imparted the

THE FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

n£

blessing ; the Cardinal Deacon Napoleon sang : “Re­
cedamus in pace” (“Let us go in peace”) and all Fa­
thers of the Council deeply moved answered : “In
nomine Jcsu Christi. Amen.” (“In the name of Jesus
Christ. Amen.”) And the Master of Ceremonies of
the Council adds : “Sic concilium fuit dissolutum.”
(“Thus the Council was dissolved.”)

XVI
THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT CONSTANCE IN I414

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: (i) Removal of the
schism ; (2) Extirpation of heresy ; (3) General reforma­
tion of the church “in Head and members.”
Toward the end of the fourteenth century a schism,

more scandalous even than that of the Greeks, harassed
the Church. Pope Clement V, a native of France, was
driven by die violence of the Italian nobles to fix his
residence at Avignon, in 1309. His successors for the
next seventy years followed his example. Italy suffered
greatly from the absence of the Popes while Rome, in
particular, was torn by contending factions striving for
political and civil control. There was a universal and
eager cry for the return of the Sovereign Pontiff to his
own episcopal See — Rome. At length, in 1377, Greg­
ory XI yielded to the entreaties of St. Catherine of Siena
and of the Roman people. He returned to Rome and
was welcomed there with great enthusiasm. After his
death, the Roman people, fearing that if the new Pope
were a Frenchman he would return to Avignon, col­
lected round the building in which the cardinals were
assembled for the election and shouted : “We want a
Roman Pope.” They threatened the Conclave of Car­
dinals that if their request were not granted, they would
make their heads as red as their hats. The terrified
cardinals hastily elected the Archbishop of Bari, who
120

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

121

took the name of Urban VI (1378-1389). Shortly
afterwards they deliberately confirmed his election.
They were present at the Pope’s coronation. Thus
they acknowledged him as lawful Pope. Though Ur­
ban was remarkable for the piety and austerity of his
life, and for his zeal against religious abuses, he was
unfortunately a man of stern and inflexible character.
His severity soon alienated the love and allegiance of
the majority of those who had elected him. All the
cardinals, with the exception of four, who were Italians,
retired from Rome on various pretexts. They declared
their election of Pope Urban null and void because
their choice had been made under pressure. They
chose another Pope, Cardinal Robert of Geneva, who
took the name of Clement VII,✓ and resided at Avignon.
o
This unhappy event threw the Church into confusion,
and what is most deplorable, this schism was created
by the very men whose sacred duty it was to preserve
the Church from such a catastrophe. Christendom
was divided by two Popes :
The Popes During the Great Western Schism
Lawful Popes
Roman Line
Urban VI (1378-1389)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-1406)
Gregory XII (1406-1415)

Anti-Popes
Avignon Line
Clement VII (1378-1394)
Benedict XIII (1394—1417)

Council of Pisa’s Line
Alexander V (1409-1410)
John XXIII (1410-1415)

Council of Constance
Martin V (1417—1431)

122

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Clement VII was recognized in France, Spain, Scot­
land and Sicily ; while Urban was supported and
obeyed in England, Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Bo­
hemia and Italy. Excommunications were pronounced
by both sides ; dissensions increased, and men’s minds
were troubled by deeds of deplorable violence. The
schism was prolonged by the adherents of Clement VII
electing a successor on the death of the claimant of
the papal throne, who took the name of Benedict XIII.
At length, the cardinals and prelates of both factions
met in a synod convoked at Pisa in 1409, with the hope
of putting an end to the unfortunate schism. They
therefore took upon themselves the deposition of Greg­
ory XII, the lawful Pope, and Benedict XIII, the anti­
Pope. By the same assumed authority they elected
Alexander V as Pope. Their motive was good but
their acts were irregular and absolutely wrong. The
effect of their acts was the increase of the confusion
which already prevailed. Instead of two, there were
now three claimants of the Papacy : Gregory XII, Bene­
dict XIII and Alexander V, each of whom was regarded
by his own faction as the lawful Pontiff. The jealousy
of the cardinals of the several obediences, the conflict­
ing interests of temporal princes, and the animosity
of the people seemed to prolong the schism indefinitely.
Upon the death of Alexander V, Cardinal Balthasar
Cossa was elected Pope, choosing the name of John
XXIII. “Of all the miserable consequences of the disas­
trous Synod of Pisa, this election was the worst.” John
XXIII was not the moral monster his enemies after­
wards endeavored to represent him, but he was utterly
worldly-minded and completely engrossed by temporal

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I2J

interests ; an astute politician and courtier, not scrupu­
lously conscientious, and more a soldier than a church­
man. No help for the distracted Church was to be
expected from him. The eyes of the Church, there­
fore, turned to the powerful and right-minded Sigis­
mund, King of the Romans (1410-1437), who was
necessarily deeply interested in the termination of the
schism inasmuch as his coronation as Emperor could
not take place in Rome until Western Christendom was
again united under one spiritual head. He did not
disappoint the hopes which were fixed upon him, for
the termination of the schism and the restoration of
unity in the Church of the West were in great measure
his work.
The mischief wrought by the Synod of Pisa did not
check the ever increasing belief that peace could only
be restored by a general council, but rather increased
that belief and brought the question to an issue. A
threefold Papacy was a terrible scandal to the Church
and made its children long for peace and unity at any
price. The belief that the Emperor, the protector of
the Church, was bound to summon a general council
became more and more fixed in the public mind. Sig­
ismund understood psychology. He knew how to turn
the temper of the time and he also knew how to over­
come the great obstacles which stood in the way of
the convocation of a general council. Fortune favored
him in a remarkable manner. John XXIII was in a
precarious condition due to the conquest of Rome by
King Ladislaus (June 1413). Sigismund, after he had
overcome a prolonged resistance to the idea of the con­
vocation of a council from the cardinal-legates of John,

124

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

succeeded at length in obtaining their consent to his
selection of Constance as the place for the general coun­
cil. This point settled, Sigismund informed all Chris­
tendom that in agreement with John XXIII a general
council would be opened at Constance on November i,
1414. He invited all prelates, bishops, princes, lords
and doctors of universities to attend the council. John
XXIII, who was completely powerless, had no choice
but to submit. On December 9,1413 he signed the bull
which convened a general council at Constance and
promised that he would be present. Sigismund wrote
also to Gregory XII (the lawful Pope) and to Bene­
dict XIII (the anti-Pope), inviting them to come to the
council. The Kings of France and Aragon were also
invited to attend.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. John XXIII arrived at Con­
stance with nine cardinals on October 28, 1414. He
opened the council on November 5, with great splendor.
At the time of the strongest representation of the Uni­
versal Church at the council, 3 patriarchs, 29 cardinals,
33 archbishops, 150 bishops, over 100 abbots, about 300
doctors of theology and Canon Law, and a great num­
ber of inferior clergy, attended.
Three great tasks confronted the council : (1) re­
moval of the schism, which involved the disposal of the
three claimants to the Papacy and the election of a
universally acknowledged Head of the Church ; (2)
extirpation of heresy, which under the influence of John
Huss was threatening the authority of the Church in

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

Bohemia ; (3) general reformation of the Church “in
Head and members.”
First Session (November 16, 1414). The bull of con­
vocation, issued by John XXIII, was read to the fathers
of the council.
The hostility of the party which was most adverse to
John XXIII soon manifested itself in the most unmis­
takable manner. The opposition gained new strength
by the arrival of Sigismund on December 24, 1414. Its
first great achievement was the new mode of voting by
nations, which it introduced for the election of the
Pope : French, German, Italian and English. Events
unfolded themselves with great rapidity. The pros­
pects of John’s party became more and more gloomy.
An anonymous memorial, addressed to the fathers of
the council and containing most serious charges against
John, caused great havoc. His bearing from the be­
ginning of the council had been irresolute, and now he
lost heart altogether. On January 22, 1415 Cardinal
John Dominici of Ragusa, plenipotentiary of Gregory
XII, arrived at the council and publicly declared that
Gregory was willing to abdicate his throne uncondi­
tionally, if John and Benedict would do the same.
Fearing judicial proceedings, John promised to give
peace to the Church by his own absolute abdication,
but he did not give this promise in good faith.
Second Sessioiï (March 2, 1415). John at last came
to the conclusion that nothing but bold and strong ac­
tion could save him. On March 19, 1415, with the
connivance of Duke Frederick of Austria, disguised as a
messenger, he fled “on a little horse” to Schaffhausen.
His flight, motivated by desperation, caused the great-

116

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

est confusion and alarm among those assembled at
Constance.
In this stormy episode of the council, the party which
looked for a definite limitation of papal rights as the
sole means for suppressing the schism and for reform­
ing the Church gained the upper hand. The general
council was ordered and empowered to bring about
this limitation of papal power, and accordingly it as­
serted that the Pope was subject to its jurisdiction.
With characteristic precipitation the council decided in
its third (March τβ) fourth (March 30) and fijth (April
6) sessions that a general council could not be dissolved
by the Pope without its consent ; that the present coun­
cil continued in full force after the flight of John
XXIII ; that every one, even the Pope, must obey the
council in matters of faith, and that an ecumenical
council had authority over the Pope just as it had over
all Christians.
By these machinations a power, not instituted or
delegated by Christ, was conferred upon an assembly
— a power which made it superior to the Pope, the
Vicar of Christ. These decrees proceeded from a head­
less assembly. Moreover, the method of its procedure,
adopted by a majority of votes, had no precedent in the
ancient councils of the Church. The assembly of Con­
stance was no longer an ecumenical council. The
great mistake of those assembled was to consider it pos­
sible that an ecumenical council could be held without
the approbation of the Pope and, in fact, in opposition
to him, an opinion as fatal as would be the supposition
that a body without a head could be a living organism.
The firmness and prudence of Sigismund had been

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

12/

the chief means of frustrating the attempt made by
John XXIII to disperse the assembly. The fate of this
Pope was soon decided. In the sixth session (April
17) a formula of abdication for John was drawn up ; in
the seventh session (May 2) John was cited before the
synod ; in the eighth session (May 4) the citation of
John before the assembly was placarded publicly. In
this session the heresies of Wiclif were condemned.
John was cited once more in the ninth session (May
13). In the tenth session (May 14) John was suspended
from the government of the Church, and all the faith­
ful were forbidden to obey him. On May 17, John
was arrested and confined in Radolfzell. The council
had drawn up a list of 72 grievances against John, but
in the eleventh session (May 23) it reduced these griev­
ances to 54. In the tivetfth. session (May 29) John was
solemnly and formally deposed. Utterly broken in
spirit, John accepted the sentence of the council and
submitted to it without any remonstrance on May 31,
1415. The deposition of John XXIII from the Papacy
nullified the work of the Synod of Pisa, and the present
Synod of Constance was in an untenable position.
Gregory XII solved the difficulties of the council by
his magnanimous resolution to abdicate the throne of
Peter. The manner in which this was done is of the
highest significance. It must by no means be viewed as
a concession in non-essentials to the assembled bishops
of the Council. Gregory XII, the one legitimate Pope,
sent his plenipotentiary, Malatesta, to Constance, where
the cardinals and bishops of his obedience had already
assembled. Gregory now lawfully summoned the bish­
ops to the Council — thirteenth session on June 15,

118

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

1415. Malatesta, acting as his cardinal-legate, read
Gregory’s bull of convocation to the assembled bishops
(fourteenth session July 4, 1415), and the bull was un­
reservedly accepted by all. Malatesta then informed
the synod, now lawfully convened, of Gregory’s abso­
lute abdication from the throne of Peter. Light had
at last broken through the clouds of intrigue and con­
fusion. Gregory’s summons had given the synod a legal
basis. It was from now on an ecumenical council.
“Even if we admit the proposition,” observes Phillips,
“that Gregory XII’s fresh convocation and authoriza­
tion of the Council were a mere matter of form, this
form was the price to which he attached his abdication ;
and it meant nothing less than that the Assembly
should formally acknowledge him as the lawful Pope,
and accordingly confess diat its own authority dated
only from that moment, and that all its previous acts —
in particular those of the fourth and fifth sessions were
devoid of all ecumenical character. The recognition
of
o
the legitimacy of Gregory XII necessarily included a
similar recognition of Innocent VII, Boniface IX and
Urban VI, and entailed the rejection of Clement VII
and Benedict XIII.’'
In gratitude for his magnanimous resignation from
the Papacy, the council conferred upon Gregory the
cardinal bishopric of Porto together with the perma­
nent legation of Ancona, a rank second only to that of
the Pope. He did not, however, long enjoy these dig­
nities, as he died a nonagenarian, in the odor of sanctity,
on October 18, 1417.
The council now tried to secure the voluntary abdica­
tion of Benedict XIII, who was still recognized by

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

x

129

Spain, Scotland, Sardinia, Corsica and Minorca. His
indomitable and stubborn will gave little hope diat he
would abandon his pretensions to the Papacy. To ob­
tain the abdication of Benedict, the council appointed
in the sixteenth session, held on July n, 1415, a deputa­
tion of fourteen legates who should accompany Em­
peror Sigismund to Benedict for the purpose of obtain­
ing the latter’s resignation. In the seventeenth session,
held on July 14, the council offered prayers for the suc­
cess of Sigismund’s mission. He thereupon departed
with his appointed escort. After he had arrived at
Perpignan, Sigismund had many interviews with Bene­
dict. The obstinate old man, however, would not con­
sider the matter of resignation, and flatly refused to
abdicate. Meanwhile, Ferdinand of Aragon had re­
solved to withdraw the allegiance of Spain from Bene­
dict. The ambassadors of Castille and Navarre were
instructed to do likewise by their sovereigns. Cha­
grined over the failure of his mission, Sigismund re­
turned to the council. Benedict fled to Peniscola, near
Valencia.
During Sigismund’s negotiations with Benedict, the
council proceeded with its sessions, discussing matter
of greater or less importance in the eighteenth (August
17), nineteenth (September 23), twentieth (November
21) and twenty-first (February 4, 1416) sessions. In
the twenty-second session, held on October 15, 1416, the
Spaniards joined the council and were now reckoned
as the fifth nation to be represented there.
In the twenty-third session (November 5, 1416), a
commission was appointed to examine the charges
made against Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII). This

/

I 3O

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

commission consisted of twelve members. Twenty­
seven grievances were advanced against Benedict, and
he was cited several times to appear at the council and
submit to its will. The council was occupied with the
affair of Benedict from the twenty-third to the thirty­
seventh session (July 26, 1417). The council decided
the case by declaring Benedict contumacious, heretical
and schismatic, depriving him of all dignity and right,
and forbidding the faithful to show obedience to him.
Benedict refused to submit. He continued to live as
Pope until his death in 1424, surrounded by three cardi­
nals in Peniscola, which he called the “Ark of Noah.”
In the thirty-ninth session (October 9, 1417), five de­
crees of reform were published. The first concerned
the holding of general councils, which were to be
henceforth of more frequent occurrence ; the next
council was to be held in five years ; the following ten
years later, and after that every ten years. The second
decree enacted measures of precaution to prevent the
outbreak of a new schism ; the third decree required
that every newly-elected Pope make a profession of
faith before the proclamation of his election. The re­
maining decrees limited the transfer of bishops and
prelates.
Regarding the election of a new Pope, the council
agreed on October 28, 1417, that thirty other prelates
and doctors — six for each nation — should be associ­
ated with the cardinals present at Constance. This de­
cree, as well as the other decree for securing reform,
was immediately published in the fortieth session (Oc­
tober 30, 1417). The decree on reform commanded
that before the dissolution of the council the new Pope

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

131

should take measures for ecclesiastical reform, especi­
ally in reference to the Supreme Head of the Church
and the Roman Court. He should effect this reform
either with the co-operation of the members of the
council or with the deputies of the nations.
The Conclave began in the forty-first session on No­
vember 8, 1417, in the Merchants’ Hall at Constance
with fifty-three electors, of whom twenty-three were
cardinals, and thirty deputies of the nations, present
on the feast of St. Martin, November n, 1417. The
Cardinal Deacon Otho Colonna came forth from the
council as Pope Martin V.
There was indeed cause for the unbounded rejoicings
of the Catholic world, for the unity of the Church was
restored. These evidences of joy re-echo through the
pages of the histories written by the ancient chroniclers
of this period. “Men could scarcely speak for joy,” says
one of the historians. The Church had again a Head
— the great and deplorable Western schism was at an
end. These nine and thirty years of division caused
by the cardinals were the most terrible crisis through
which the Roman Church had passed in all the cen­
turies of her existence. An uncompromising opponent
of the Papacy has acknowledged that any secular king­
dom would have perished in such a crisis ; yet so mar­
velous was the organization of this spiritual dynasty,
and so indestructible the idea of the Papacy, that the
schism only served to demonstrate its indivisibility.
In the forty-second session on December 28, 1417,
Martin V treated of the release of Balthasar Cossa
(John XXIII), and of the elevation of the Bishop of
Winchester to the cardinalate.

I32

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

In the forty-third session on March 21, 1418, seven
decrees on reform were published, and treaties which
were entered into with Germany, France and England
were accepted by the council.
In the forty-fourth session on April 19, 1418, Pope
Martin V announced the time and place of the next
council — to be held in 1423 at Pavia.
In the forty-fifth session on April 22, 1418, Pope Mar­
tin declared the Council of Constance closed.
The council had accomplished the first task placed
before it, namely, the removal of the schism by the elec­
tion of Martin V as the one universally acknowledged
Head of the Church.
The second tas/( — that of extirpation of heresy — the
council accomplished by condemning the heresies of
John Wyclif of England and of John Huss of Bohemia.
The deplorable Western Schism offered Wyclif the
opportunity he desired and which he used under the
guise of zeal for the Church — the opportunity to ca­
lumniate the Holy See. His ill-feeling toward Rome
soon developed into open opposition to the Church in
general. Without any knowledge of Greek and He­
brew, he began in 1380 to translate the Bible into Eng­
lish, omitting from his work the deutero-canonical
books. He declared the Bible the only source of faith
and denied tire doctrine of the freedom of the will
and the dogma of Transubstantiation. Further, he de­
fended the doctrine of unqualified predestination and
taught that the Papacy and Episcopacy are not of
divine institution. He went so far as to teach that all
power, spiritual as well as temporal, is dependent on
the state of grace and that the Church is only the com­

V *

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I})

munion of the predestined. A synod, held in London
in May 1382, had condemned 24 articles, drawn from
the writings of Wyclif, and the Council of Constance
condemned 45 propositions taken from the books of
the same heretic.
John Huss, an ardent defender of the errors of Wyclif,
promulgated in his preaching Wyclif’s heretical doc­
trine in Bohemia, and while doing so he made the most
odious attacks on the clergy. The errors of Huss are
almost identical with those of Wyclif, except that Huss
did not accept the Wyclifist doctrine on the Holy Eu­
charist. John Huss denied that the priest had the
power to absolve from sin, conceding to him only the
right of declaring that God had forgiven the penitent’s
sin. Having been commanded by his Archbishop
Sbinko to burn his heretical writings, Huss raised a
storm of protest. This brought upon him the excom­
munication of John XXIII, who at the same time enun­
ciated the penalty of interdict on Prague as long as Huss
should remain there. Sigismund cited John Huss to
appear before the Council of Constance to defend
himself. He set out for Constance protected by a letter
of safe-conduct from King Sigismund. At first, the
council treated the heretic with mildness. After a long
preliminary examination, the public trial of Huss took
place on June 5th, 7th and 8th, 1415. The council re­
jected the heretical teachings of Huss, who refused to
revoke them. Because of his refusal he was degraded
from his sacerdotal dignity on July 6th, and handed
over to the secular power for punishment. Huss re­
mained obstinate to the end ; he declared the Council
of Constance to be an assembly of Pharisees. He was

134

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. His friend and fol­
lower, Jerome of Prague, suffered the same fate on
May 30, 1416.
Ί he third purpose for which the Council had been
summoned was the reformation of the Church “in
Head and members.” Through all the deliberations
on reform, the nations could agree neither on the points
proposed by the reform commission nor on the amend­
ments proposed by the Pope. Thus, the movement for
a reform ended in a compromise. The council, as a
whole, accepted seven decrees. Concerning the other
points, Martin V concluded separate concordats with
the German and Latin nations for five years, and with
the English nation in the form of a permanent charter.
Sigismund made every effort to induce Pope Mar­
tin V to take up his residence in Germany ; Basle,
Strassburg, Mayence were offered to him as places of
abode. The French begged him to reside at Avignon,
as so many of his predecessors had done. But Martin V
was not willing to become dependent on any foreign
power, and hence he firmly declined all these proposals.
In the absence of its chief Pastor, the inheritance of the
Church was, he said, destroyed and despoiled by ty­
rants. In order to prevent its complete destruction,
he must go, hence he begged them to let him depart.
Since the Roman Church is the Head and Mother of
all churches, in Rome alone is the Pope at his post, like
the pilot at the helm of his vessel. The conditions of
the States of the Church undoubtedly demanded the
return of the Pope, and Martin V acted prudently in
resolving to return to Italy and to Rome. He left Con­
stance on Pentecost Monday, May 16, 1418. Amidst

THE SIXTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

135

the rejoicings of the people he travelled through Berne
to Geneva. From Geneva the Pope went to Mantua ;
there he remained from October 1418 to February 1419.
The critical conditions of the States of the Church com­
pelled him to spend nearly two years in Florence, until
he finally made his solemn entrance into the Eternal
City on September 30, 1420, where he was enthusiasti­
cally welcomed by the people of Rome as their deliverer.

XVII

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT BASLE, FERRARA, FLORENCE FROM I43I TO I442.

WORK OF FHE COUNCIL: (i) Extirpation of her­
esy and of the Greek Schism ; (2) re-establishment of peace
among Christian Princes ; (3) reform of the Church “in
Head and members.”

According to the decision of the Council of Constance,

general councils were henceforth to be held at ap­
pointed periods. The extraordinary remedy which had
hitherto been employed only in desperate crises and at
rare intervals, and which proved to be beneficial only
in certain circumstances, was made a common and ordi­
nary remedy. Instead of once in a century, or, at most,
once in fifty years, a council was now to be convoked
every five or ten years. The aim of this innovation was
to substitute constitutional for monarchial government
in the Church.
Martin V was absolutely opposed to any attempt to
alter the constitution of the Church. From his point
of view he was no doubt perfectly right. Erroneous
ideas regarding the constitution and position of a coun­
cil were at this time widely diffused, threatening the
very foundation of papal power, and it was the Pope’s
duty to consider how they might be set right. The
endless disputes as to whether the Pope or the council
was to hold the first place in the Church, and the preij6

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I 37

tensions of the Synod of Pisa and the Council of Con­
stance (4th and 5th sessions) to dictate to the Pope, had
not only filled Martin V with distrust but inspired in
him a real horror of the very name of a council. He
could not, however, venture to oppose the movement
openly. Accordingly, he summoned a council to meet
at Pavia in 1423. Circumstances were most unfavor­
able for such an assembly. England and France were
engaged in a bloody conflict ; Germany was laid waste
by the Hussites, and war with the Moors was raging in
Spain. It was evident that the council which opened
at Pavia on April 23, 1423, could not be adequately at­
tended. In June the council had to be transferred to
Siena because a plague broke out in Pavia. Now in
Siena it soon became plain that the attitude of the coun­
cil towards the Pope was identical with that of the
Council of Constance. Matters were made worse by
the hostile position assumed by King Alfonso of Ara­
gon, who endeavored to incite the fathers of the council
against the Pope. Martin V accordingly made the
small attendance of prelates and their dissensions a
pretext for suddenly dissolving the council on February
26, 1424. All archbishops, bishops and others were
strictly forbidden to attempt its continuation. Before
the publication of the decree of dissolution, Basle had
been selected as the place for a new council, and it was
scheduled to meet in seven years.
On January 1, 1431, Martin V appointed Cardinal
Cesarini to act as legate of the Apostolic See for the
forthcoming crusade against the Hussites. A month
later the Pope decided that Cesarini should preside over
the Council at Basle from its beginning and should un-

IJ8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

dertake its guidance. The aim of the council was to
be : (i) the extirpation of heresy and of the Greek
Schism ; (2) the re-establishment of peace among
Christian princes ; (3) the reformation of the Church
“in Head and members.” Two papal bulls were pre­
pared for Cesarini ; the first authorized him to open the
council and preside over it ; the second, in case of neces­
sity, empowered him to dissolve it or to transfer it to
another city. The latter bull clearly indicated the
attitude which Martin V intended to assume towards
the council. He justly apprehended that the council
would attempt further encroachments on the papal
authority, which had already been seriously impaired
by the Western Schism, but before the necessity for ex­
treme measures had arisen, Martin V died of apoplexy
on February 20,1431. He was succeeded by Eugene IV
(1431-1447), a nephew of Gregory XII.
Cardinal Cesarini was engaged in launching the cru­
sade against the Hussites when he received the appoint­
ment as President of the Council of Basle. It was not
till September 9, 1431, that he arrived at Basle. The
attendance at the council was very poor in the begin­
ning. A report of this fact was sent to Eugene IV,
who, due to misrepresentations issued a bull, December
18, 1431, dissolving the council and transferring it to
Bologna, to be opened in that city after the lapse of
eighteen months.
Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. On December 14, 1431, Car­
dinal Cesarini, in the presence of three bishops, fourteen

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

139

abbots and a great number of doctors of universities
solemnly opened the council. When the bull of dis­
solution arrived in Basle, those assembled evaded the
issue of reading publicly the bull on January 13, 1432,
by absenting themselves from the place of meeting.
Cardinal Cesarini urged the Pope to recall the bull of
dissolution. Unfortunately, his efforts were in vain ;
Eugene would not yield. Cesarini resigned as presi­
dent of the council. In order to defend themselves
against the Pope, the members of the synod proceeded
to re-assert the revolutionary resolutions by which the
Council of Constance declared itself superior to the
Pope.
Second Session (February 15, 1432). Measures more
hostile to the power of the Papacy soon followed. In
the third session held on April 29, 1432, the Pope and
his cardinals were formally summoned to Basle. The
council threatened to institute proceedings against
them for contumacy in event of their failure to appear
before the council within a period of three months.
An order, published on September 26, 1432, admitted
representatives of the lower ranks of the clergy to the
council in such overwhelming numbers, that the higher
ecclesiastics were completely deprived of the moderat­
ing influence so necessary in such assemblies.
It is impossible to justify the course taken by the
Synod of Basle. It soon overstepped all bounds in its
opposition to Eugene IV. The danger which threat­
ened the Papacy and the Church was of incalculable
magnitude
for if the Basle resolutions were carried into
o
effect the overthrow of the divinely established consti­
tution of the Church was inevitable, and the Vicar of

J

I40

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Christ would become merely the first official of a consti­
tutional assembly. If priests dealt in a similar manner
with their bishops, and the faithful with their priests,
the dissolution of the whole Church would be the in­
evitable consequence. The synod had entered upon a
course which was leading unmistakably and inevitably
to a new schism, and this was clearly perceived in Rome.
At last the gravity of the whole situation induced
Eugene IV to yield and to enter into negotiations with
the council. The Pope recalled the decree of dissolu­
tion in 1431 ; acknowledged the council as ecumenical
in its origin by a bull of December 15, 1433, demand­
ing, however, that his legates preside at the council, and
that all acts of the council against his person and against
the authority of the Apostolic See should be revoked.
The reconciliation of the council with the Pope had
only the semblance of sincerity, and the feelings of the
majority remained unchanged, so that the fanatical
partisans of the council soon gained the upper hand in
the assembly. Their leader was the French Cardinal
Louis D’Allemand of Arles, and their object was to
make the council a permanent corporation and institu­
tion and to endow it with all the attributes of sov­
ereignty, admitting the Pope as its more or less neces­
sary appendage. Instead of the reform of ecclesiastical
abuses, the decreasing of the papal authority became the
chief business of the synod.
From the very beginning of the council the Hussites
had been invited to attend. In January 1433, Pro­
copius, leading a band of four hundred Hussites, ar­
rived at Basle and made the following demands : (1)
Communion tinder both species for the laity ; (2) the

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

141

right to preach the Word of God for all priests without
restriction of place ; (3) the promulgation of canonical
regulations forbidding ecclesiastics to hold temporal
possessions ; (4) the declaration that every one of the
faithful be authorized to punish public sinners with his
own hand and according to his own judgment. The
council rejected these demands, and the deputies of the
Hussites left Basle. However, they resumed confer­
ences in Bohemia with this final result : (1) the Bohe­
mians may receive Holy Communion under both spe­
cies, but the priests must always explain that the Body
and Blood of Christ were equally and fully present
under each species of the Eucharist ; (2) every priest
possesses the right to preach the Gospel but he must
always remain subject to the approval of the bishop ;
(3) ecclesiastics have the right to hold temporal posses­
sions — this grant is warranted by examples found in
both the Old and the New Testament — but the
Church has the power and the will to prevent or to
reform abuses by wise regulations ; (4) the right to
punish public crimes belongs directly, in spiritual mat­
ters, to the ecclesiastical tribunals ; in temporal con­
cerns, to the civil magistrates. Any canonical decree
to the contrary would only make vengeance lawful,
perpetuate feuds, and authorize countless murders.
Upon the basis of these grants, a concordat was drawn
up by the Church to the satisfaction of the moderate
Hussites. The Council of Basle sanctioned these grants
of rights and privileges. In this matter the conduct of
the Council of Basle was irreproachable, but soon other
decrees were formulated, which were directed against
the authority of the Pope.

142

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The new proceedings were so prejudicial to the un­
doubted rights of the Holy See that Eugene IV was
constrained to address a memorial to all the European
powers, making bitter complaints of the unheard-of
presumption of the synod. The council had, he says,
degraded his legates by arbitrarily limiting their author­
ity ; by making their presidency merely nominal by
publishing its decisions without their consent ; trans­
formed itself into a headless body ; subjected the Pope,
by a false interpretation of the decrees of the Council
of Constance, to the censorship of the synod in a man­
ner unknown in former times ; granted papal dispensa­
tions ; demanded for itself revenues which were refused
to the Pope ; assumed the right to deal with cases re­
served to the Holy See, and suppressed the prayer for
the Pope in the liturgy. For these and many other rea­
sons the Pope deemed that it was time for the princes
to recall their bishops and ambassadors from Basle, and
thus render possible the assembling of another and
better-disposed council.
The complaints of Eugene, who was unwilling to let
his high dignity become a mere shadow, were fully
justified, for the conduct of the clerical democracy at
Basle went beyond all bounds. The majority of the
assembly consisted of Frenchmen, who offered no op­
position to any measure directed against the Pope.
The most fanatical party seized every opportunity of
making the Pope feel their power and ill-will. Their
real aim the Bishop of Tours declared with admirable
candor in one of the sessions in the following words :
“We must either wrest the Apostolic See from the
hands of the Italians, or else despoil it to such a degree

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

143

that it will not matter where it abides.” The council
would have proceeded yet further in its destruction of
papal dignity and power but for a crisis precipitated by
the negotiations of the Greek Church for union with
the Latin Church.
The history of these negotiations shows that Eu­
gene IV alone sought sincerely for this union. The
Greek Emperor used the idea of a union with Rome as a
talisman to procure the aid of the West against the
Turks. The members of the Council of Basle hoped
by utilizing the insincerity of the Emperor to gain a
fresh victory over the Pope. The choice of the place
where the union council should meet led to fresh dis­
cord between the Pope and the assembly at Basle. In
the twenty-fijth session held on May 7, 1437, the council
arrived at an important decision. The anti-papal party,
led by Cardinal D’Allemand, had shortly before this ses­
sion so strengthened itself by the admission of a number
of ecclesiastics from the neighborhood of Basle that it
could command a majority of the votes of the council.
Amidst violent opposition it decided that Basle should
be the place of meeting, or, if this city were not con­
venient for the Greeks, that Avignon would be selected,
or some other city in Savoy ; also that a general tithe
should be levied on Church property to meet the neces­
sary expenses of the council. A minority of the as­
sembly, headed by Cardinal Cesarini, voted for the
selection of Florence or Udine as the city for the council
because those places had been proposed by the Pope.
The Pope approved of the decision of the minority.
He did everything in his power to hinder the carrying
out of the decree of the majority. He saw plainly the

I44

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

object of the projected and contemplated transfer of the
council to Avignon. This would mean after his death
or deposition the establishment of the Roman Court
under French protection in the latter city. This ex­
plains the obstinacy with which Cardinal D’Allemand
and his followers held to the plan of selecting Avignon
in spite of the objections of the Pope, who vividly re­
membered the disastrous results of the sojourn of his
predecessors in that city. The objections of the Greeks
to the selection of Avignon as the place for the coun­
cil frustrated all negotiations between them and the
party of Cardinal D’Allemand, while the superior skill
of the papal diplomatists completely won die Greeks
over to the side of Eugene IV.
The Pope’s success provoked his adversaries at Basle
to the utmost, and on July 3, 1437 they issued a decree
in which, after pouring forth a torrent of accusations
against him, they summoned him to appear before their
tribunal. The Pope replied to this summons by a bull,
published on September 18, 1437, in which he declared
that die six years’ duration of the Council of Basle had
produced surprisingly small results ; and he made
known to all Christendom its evil doings. Upon the
publication of this bull, the synod was to discontinue its
work at once, except in regard to the Hussite affair ;
hence to complete its work the council might continue
for thirty-one days more. Should the members of the
synod continue their outrageous activity, the Coun­
cil of Basle would be automatically concluded and
transferred to Ferrara, a city more convenient for the
Greeks.

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

145

The synod declared the Pope’s bull invalid and
threatened him with suspension and deposition. In
vain did Cardinal Cesarini endeavor again to make
peace. In a long discourse he earnestly entreated the
members of the synod to lay aside all hatred and strife,
but his words fell upon deaf ears. Cesarini widi his
numerous friends then left Basle for Ferrara.
The members of the Synod of Basle stubbornly con­
tinued their work ; they went even so far as to elect an
anti-Pope in the person of Duke Amadeus of Savoy,
who took the name of Felix V. The synod, however,
came to an inglorious end in 1449.
The Council of Basle — only in those sessions and in
those measures which were recognized by the Pope —
and the Council held at Ferrara-Florence, which Pope
Eugene IV summoned as the continuation of the Coun­
cil of Basle, form together the Seventeenth Ecumenical
Council. Therefore the first twenty-five sessions of
the Council of Basle must be distinguished from the
rest. The latter sessions are obviously schismatic, and
even of the former sessions only those decrees are to be
regarded as ecumenical which treat of the extirpation
of heresy, of the maintenance of peace in Christendom,
and of the reformation of the Church, provided these
decrees contained nothing in them which lessened or
detracted from the authority and dignity of the Apos­
tolic See.
At the opening of the Council of Constance (1414),
a delegation, consisting of twenty-one persons, sent by
the Greek Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantino­
ple, arrived for the purpose of bringing about a union

146

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

between the Greek and Latin Church. But the proj­
ect did not materialize because the delegates lacked
full powers to subscribe to a union. Joseph, Arch­
bishop of Ephesus, became Patriarch of Constantinople
on May 21, 1416. He sent John Eudacmon with new
proposals to the Council of Constance and entered
into negotiations with the newly-elected Martin V.
Letters were exchanged between the Pope and the Pa­
triarch— both prelates asked for a union council.
Martin V sent Anthony Messanus, a Franciscan, to
Constantinople to submit nine proposals to the Orien­
tal Church on the basis of which a union might be
brought about. Because the conditions advanced by
the Emperor of the East were well-nigh impossible to
fulfill, negotiations between the East and die West
were broken off.
In 1430 the Mahometans captured Saloniki ; thus
imminent danger threatened Constantinople. To so­
licit help from the West, under the pretext of religion
and union, an embassy was sent from Constantinople
to Rome. Eugene IV, who had succeeded Martin V,
considered it an important task of his pontificate to
bring about the union with the Greeks. The embassy
arrived in Rome about the same time that word was
received from Basle that the council then in session
was poorly attended. This fact, and the request of
the Greeks to hold a union council in an Italian city,
determined Eugene to dissolve the Council at Basle
(1431) and to transfer it to Bologna in Italy where it
should convene in eighteen months. This act of the
Pope caused great dissension between the council and
himself. The Baseleans tried hard to win the Greeks

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

147

Dver to their side. But the Greeks espoused the cause
□f the Pope, and when all negotiations were finished
they embarked for Italy on November 24, 1437 on a
fleet furnished by the Pope, who also defrayed all their
expenses during the council.
After a perilous voyage, the Greeks landed in Ven­
ice on February 8, 1438. There they were received
with great honors. Having been informed that the
Pope had selected Ferrara as the place for the Union
Council, the Greeks left Venice on February 28, and
arrived at Ferrara on March 4.
Cardinal Albergati had opened the council on Jan­
uary 8, 1438, at the behest of Pope Eugene IV. In the
first session on January 10, 1438, the Synod of Basle
was excommunicated. On January 24, Pope Eugene
arrived at Ferrara. On February 15 the second session
was held under the presidency of the Pope, at which
seventy-two bishops were present. The council de­
clared the decrees of Basle null and void, and pro­
nounced excommunication and deposition on the
obstinate prelates, who persisted in carrying on the coun­
cil despite the papal bull of dissolution.
On March 4, 1438, Emperor John Palaeologus, ac­
companied by twenty-two archbishops and bishops and
eleven abbots, also by a large number of Greek sena­
tors and nobles — in all seven hundred persons — ar­
rived at Ferrara for the purpose of accomplishing the
long-talked-of and much-desired reconciliation of the
Greek schismatics with the Roman See. Joseph, Pa­
triarch of Constantinople, an ardent advocate of the
union, arrived at the council on March 7, and all were
received with great enthusiasm.

148

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The Union Council at Ferrara

The Union Council was formally opened on April
9, 1438. Due to sickness the Patriarch Joseph was
unable to attend. Everything seemed ready for the
consummation of the great object of the council when
the Greek Emperor requested that the Western sover­
eigns should be present at the reunion either in person
or through their envoys. Seven months of delay ensued
before the Latins and Greeks could again meet in full
council. Meanwhile, however, they held many confer­
ences, in which there were discussions on the doctrines
of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and
the Son, on purgatory, and on the Beatific Vision, on
the use of leavened or unleavened bread in Holy Eu­
charist, and on the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.
Most of these conferences were held in the Franciscan
church and were conducted by a Latin and Greek com­
mission, each consisting of ten members. While these
conferences were in progress, the Greeks obstinately re­
fused to discuss the doctrine of the procession of the
Holy Ghost, but they agreed to consider the doctrine on
purgatory and the Beatific Vision. After they had
heard the exposition of die belief of the Roman Church
on these latter points, they declared that Rome’s faith
differed little from their teaching. The Greeks ad­
mitted the existence of a middle state, in which souls
after death not entirely purified from the stains of sin
are temporarily detained, and that these souls are re­
lieved by the prayers and sacrifices of the Church Mili­
tant, but they excluded from this state of purgation the
pain of fire, which they regarded as peculiar to the hell

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

149

of the damned ; and even in hell only after the General
Judgment. The conferences soon degenerated into the­
ological altercations, and it seemed as if the work of the
council would come to naught. After a while things
took a better turn, and the
First Session of the Union Council (the third since its
beginning in Ferrara) was held on October 8, 1438.
Six prominent members were chosen from each side to
discuss the great questions at issue. The Latins selected
Cardinal Cesarini ; Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodus ;
Louis, Bishop of Forli ; Peter Perquiere, a Franciscan,
and the two Dominicans John of Montenegro and John
Torquemada. The Greeks chose Bessarion, Archbishop
of Nicaea ; Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, an obstinate
opponent of the union ; Isidore, Archbishop of Kiew ;
and three others. In the first session, Bessarion, out of
deference to the Greeks, was given the privilege of ad­
dressing the council.
Second Session (October 11, 1438). Archbishop An­
drew of Rhodus spoke on the union in glowing words.
Third Session (October 14, 1438). Archbishop Mark
of Ephesus assailed the Latin Church vehemently on
account of the addition “Filioque” (“and from the Son")
to the Creed, and demanded the suppression of this ad­
dition in the Creed. Cardinal Cesarini answered : “If
the addition is blasphemous, prove it and suppress it ;
if it is correct, receive it !” The Greeks were now forced
to enter on an examination of the doctrine of the Pro­
cession. In vain the Emperor besought the Pontiff to
have the discussions take place in private sessions. The
dogma of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the
Father and the Son occupied the attention of the coun-

IjO

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

cil from the jourth to the fifteenth session (October 15,
16,20, 25, November 1, 4, 8,11,15, December 4, 8, 1438).
The plague broke out in Ferrara towards the end of
the year 1438, and desolated the city ; many Greek mem­
bers of the council fell victims to the pestilence. In ad­
dition to this the horrors of war were approaching Fer­
rara.
In the sixteenth session, held in January 1439, Pope
Eugene IV decreed that the council should be trans­
ferred from Ferrara to Florence. The Greeks were
averse to the transfer, but the Pope declared that he could
no longer pay them the promised subsidies as he had at
Ferrara, and that he had been obliged to accept a loan
from Cosmo of Medici on condition that the council be
transferred to Florence. If the Greeks would agree
to
o
the transfer, the Pope promised to furnish money and
two galleys for the defence of Constantinople ; to satisfy
all the wants of the visitors, and to allow them, united
or schismatic, to depart in three or four months. Cosmo
of Medici received the members of the council with a
magnificence
which befitted the chief magistrate
of
o
o
Florence and the wealthiest individual in Europe.
The Union Council

at

Florence

Seventeenth Session (February 26, 1439). Cardinal
Cesarini and the Emperor discussed the subjects to be
treated in future sessions.
Eighteenth Session (March 2, 1439). The first pub­
lic disputation on the procession of the Holy Ghost took
place between the Dominican Provincial of Lombardy,
John of Montenegro, and Mark, Archbishop of Ephe-

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

IJI

sus. These disputations continued for the next five ses­
sions (from the 19th to the 23rd Session).
fiwenty-fourth and twenty-fifth sessions were held re­
spectively on March 21 and 24,1439. Archbishop Mark
of Ephesus and Archbishop Anthony of Heraclea de­
liberately absented themselves from the sessions. The
Greeks were divided into two parties : the one which
favored a union was headed by Bessarion and Isidore ;
the odier, which was directly opposed to the union, was
headed by Mark of Ephesus. Bessarion delivered a
magnificent speech before the Greeks on April 13th
and 14th, urging that the union between the Greeks
and Latins be accomplished. The result was the selec­
tion of ten men who should devise a formula of union.
On June 8, 1439, a deputation of the Greeks waited
upon Eugene IV and declared : “We agree with you
that the addition to the Creed as you recite it, is derived
from the Holy Fathers ; we approve it and we are united
with you ; we declare that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father and the Son, as from one Principle
and Cause.” The Greeks were not forced to insert the
addition “and from the Son” into their Creed as long
as they accepted the dogma.
On June 9, Pope Eugene demanded a settlement of
the other important questions concerning the use of un­
leavened or leavened bread, the Beatific Vision and
purgatory, and the primacy of the Pope.
On July 6, 1439, Pope Eugene IV, all the members of
the council and the Emperor assembled in the cathedral.
Cardinal Cesarini ascended the pulpit, and read in Latin
the Apostolic Constitution : “Laetentur caeli” (“Let the
heavens rejoice”) ; it was the dogmatic definition of the

x52

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Union Council : “In nomine Sanctae Trinitatis, Patris et
Filii et Spiritus Sancti, hoc sacro universali approbante
Florentino Concilio definimus, ut haec fidei veritas ab
omnibus Christianis credatur et suscipiatur, sicque omnes
profiteantur, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeter­
naliter est et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens ha­
bet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter
tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit ;
declarantes, quod id, quod sancti Doctores et Patres
dicunt, ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritum Sanctum,
ad hanc intelligentiam tendit, ut per hoc significetur,
Filium quoque esse secundum Graecos quidem causam,
secundum Latinos vero principium subsistentiae Spiritus
Sancti, sicut et Patrem. Et quoniam omnia, quae Patris
sunt, Pater ipse unigenito Filio suo gignendo dedit, prae­
ter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum quod Spiritus Sanctus pro­
cedit ex Filio, ipse Filius a Patre aeternaliter habet, a quo
etiam aeternaliter genitus est. Definimus insuper, ex­
plicationem verborum illorum ‘Filioque’ veritatis de­
clarandae gratia, et imminente tunc necessitate, licite ac
rationabiliter Symbolo fuisse appositum.
“Item, in azymo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus
Christi veraciter confici ; sacerdotesque in altero ipsum
Domini corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet
juxta suae Ecclesiae sive occidentalis, sive orientalis con­
suetudinem.
“(Df novissimis). Item, si vere poenitentes in Dei cari­
tate decesserint, antequam dignis poenitentiae fructibus
de commissis satisfecerint et omissis, eorum animas poe­
nis purgatoriis post mortem purgari : et ut a poenis
hujusmodi releventur, prodesse eis fidelium vivorum
suffragia, Missarum scilicet sacrificia, orationes et elee-

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

153

mosynas, et alia pietatis officia, quae a fidelibus pro aliis
fidelibus fieri consueverunt secundum Ecclesiae instituta.
Illorumque animas, qui post baptisma susceptum nullam
omnino peccati maculam incurrerunt, illas etiam qui post
contractam peccati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel
eisdem exutae corporibus, prout superius dictum est, sunt
purgatae, in caelum mox recipi et intueri clare ipsum
Deum trinum et unum, sicuti est, pro meritorum tamen
diversitate alium alio perfectius. Illorum autem animas,
qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originali decedunt,
mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus
puniendas.
“Item definimus, sanctam Apostolicam Sedem, et Ro­
manum Pontificem, in universum orbem tenere prima­
tum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem esse
beati petri principis Apostolorum et verum Christi vi­
carium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput et omnium Christiano­
rum patrem ac doctorem exsistere ; vel ipsi in beato
petro pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi universalem
Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potes­
tatem traditam esse ; quemadmodum etiam in gestis
oecumenicoruin Conciliorum et in sacris canonibus
continetur.”
This dogmatic
definition of the Union Council deo
dares : that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
and the Son ; that leavened or unleavened bread are
equally valid matter of the Holy Eucharist, but com­
manded that each priest must follow the custom of his
church ; that the just, dying before their sins are entirely
expiated, are purified in purgatory, and arc there assisted
by the sacrifices, prayers and alms of the faithful ; that
the completely purified soul is received into heaven there

154

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

to enjoy the Beatific Vision of the triune God according
to their merits ; that those who die in actual mortal sin,
descend into hell, there to undergo punishment ; that the
Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince
of the Apostles ; that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ,
the head of the Universal Church, and the father and
teacher of all Christians ; that Christ has given to him,
in the person of Blessed Peter, the full power of teaching
and ogoverning
o the Universal Church.
After Cesarini delivered the dogmatic definitions of
the Church, Bessarion mounted the pulpit and read the
Greek version of the definition of faith. This definition
was signed for the Greeks : by the Emperor, four repre­
sentatives of the Greek patriarchs, sixteen archbishops,
four deacons and the envoys of some other Greek princes.
Mark of Ephesus stubbornly refused to sign the defini­
tion. The definition was signed for the Latins : by the
Pope, eight cardinals, two latin patriarchs, sixty-one
archbishops and bishops, forty abbots, four generals of
religious orders, and the envoys of the Duke of Bur­
gundy.
The original document is still preserved in the Laurentiana Library in the city of Florence.
Towards the end of July, most of the Greeks left Flo­
rence and went to Venice ; the Emperor followed on
August 26,1439, and in the middle of October all set sail
for Constantinople.
After the departure of the Greeks, Eugene IV an­
nounced to all Christendom the happy event of the
union, and ordered public prayers and processions to
thank God for the great success, and to implore Him to
perfect His work.

THE SEVENTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The dogmatic decision regarding the extent of the
papal power, which was embodied in the Union De­
cree of the Council of Florence, was of extreme impor­
tance to Western Christendom, which had not yet re­
covered from the effects of the Western Schism. An
ecumenical council had now pronounced the Pope to be
the Head, not merely of individual churches, but of the
Universal Church ; that he derived his power, not from
the will of the faithful, but immediately from Christ,
whose Vicar he is, and that he is not only the Father but
also the Teacher, to whom all Christians owe submis­
sion. The publication of this decision, which has be­
come since the essential foundation of the theological
development of the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope,
struck a mortal blow at the very root of the schism.
Eugene IV prolonged the Council of Florence and
entered into negotiations with other schismatic Orien­
tals. In 1437 he had sent several Franciscans to the Ar­
menians to bring about their return to the true Church.
Before the Greeks departed, the Armenians arrived at
Florence. After many conferences they too united with
the Latin Church. The decree on the union of the Ar­
menians “Exultate Deo” was published on November
22, 1439. This decree contained the Nicene Creed, the
definitions of the Councils of Chalcedon and Constan­
tinople, also an instruction on the sacraments. This in­
struction on the sacraments was taken almost verbatim
from the work of St. Thomas of Aquinas “on the articles
of Faith and the Sacraments of the Church.”
In like manner, the Jacobites of Egypt, Ethiopia and
Lybia sent envoys to the Pope in Florence to bring about
a union. On February 4,1442, the decree of their union

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

“Cantate Domino” was promulgated by the council to
the whole Church.
In the fall of 1443, Eugene transferred the council from
Florence to Rome, and continued to receive the Orientals
into the Church. King Stephen of Bosnia made his sub­
mission ; his example was followed by his relations and
by the most distinguished magnates of Bosnia. Abdal­
lah, the Syrian Patriarch of the Jacobites between the
rivers Tigris and Euphrates, submitted to Rome on Sep­
tember 30, 1444. The Archbishop Timothy of Tarsus
and the Maronite Bishop Elias of Cyprus returned to the
obedience of the Roman Church on August 7, 1445.
On this date, Eugene IV published a bull, giving
thanks to God that, after the return of the Greeks, Ar­
menians and Jacobites, the Nestorians and Maronites
had also paid heed to his admonitions and had solemnly
professed the immutable faith of Rome.
The success obtained by Eugene IV was indeed signal
and few Popes have done so much for the Eastern
Church.

XVIII
THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT THE LATERAN, ROME, I512-I517

WORK OF THE COUNCIL: (i) The rooting out of
schism ; (2) the reform of the Church ; (3) the Crusade
against the Turks.
On October 31, 1503 Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere,

practically Pope-elect, entered the Conclave together
with thirty-seven other cardinals. Not many hours
later his election was an accomplished fact. On the fol­
lowing morning, November 1, the decision of the Con­
clave, which had been the shortest known in the long
history of the Papacy, was formally announced to the
people. The newly-elected Pope took the name of Ju­
lius II (1503-1513). After his election, the Pope con­
firmed once more the election-capitulation. Among its
conditions were the waging of the war against die Turks
and the restoration of discipline in the Church. To ac­
complish this end, it stipulated that a general council
should be summoned within two years ; that the Pope
should not make war against any of the powers without
the consent of two-thirds of the cardinals, and that the
Sacred College should be consulted on all important oc­
casions, especially in the choice of new cardinals. In
order to secure the necessary freedom and safety for the
next ecumenical council, die place for the meeting was to
be determined by the Pope and two-thirds of the College
Π7

IjS

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

of cardinals. In case any impediment should be alleged
to this meeting, this must be proven to the satisfaction of
the same majority.
"Both as a Pope and as an Italian, Julius II found him­
self in a most difficult position. To remain a passive
spectator of confusion would have been outright aban­
donment of duty in a ruler and still more in a Pope. To
avoid being overwhelmed by circumstances and falling
helplessly into the clutches of one or the other of the
great powers, it was indispensable that Julius should act
at once and with decision, and if necessary take the sword
into his own hands.” For such a task he was admirably
fitted. Disorder prevailed on all sides ; the States of the
Church were hardly anything more than a name. In
the south, war was raging between the Spaniards and
the French ; in the north, Venice was taking advantage
of the confusion to extend her borders at the expense of
the temporal possessions of the Church.
When the Pope had finally concluded peace with
Venice, thus securing the independence of the Holy See,
storms arose in France and brought the Pope into con­
flict with Louis XII. On July 30, 1510 Louis issued a
summons to all the bishops of his kingdom to send rep­
resentatives from their dioceses to Orleans in September.
There they were to meet and to hold a consultation on
the liberties and privileges of the Gallican Church. By
a royal ordinance of August 16,1510, all French subjects
were forbidden to visit the Court of Rome. The as­
sembly met, not, however, at Orleans, but at Tours,
whither Louis also betook himself. Another and more
painful surprise awaited the Pope. On May 16, 1511, a

THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

159

document was issued stating that the delegates of the
Roman Emperor Maximilian and of the King of France
proposed to summon a universal council to Pisa, to be
opened on September 1,1511. This action, in their opin­
ion, had become necessary in order to comply with the
Decree of “Frequens” of the Council of Constance, owing
to the negligence of the Pope who had not kept the oath
which he had sworn in the Conclave. They declared
that the Pope’s opposition to the council fully justified
the action of the cardinals in thus taking the matter into
their own hands. They entered beforehand a protest
against all censures which the Pope might pronounce
upon them. The Pope was, however, requested to at­
tend the council either personally or through his repre­
sentative. All cardinals, bishops, chapters and universi­
ties, as well as secular princes were summoned and
invited to attend the council. The council was to be con­
voked in the name of the Cardinals Carvajal, Briconnet,
Francesco Borgia, Adriano da Corneto, de Prie, Carlo
del Carretto, San Severino and Ippolito D’Este. The
object of the council, or, more correctly, the banners
under which the forces of hypocrisy and ambition were
to be marshalled, were the pacification of Christendom,
a crusade against the infidels and the reform of the
Church in its “Head and members.” The convocation
of a council under these futile pretexts by a body of
schismatic cardinals was an act of open rebellion and a
daring attack upon the most indisputable prerogatives
of the Supreme Head of the Church. King Louis of
France and Emperor Maximilian supported the refrac­
tory cardinals.

ΐ6θ

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Cardinals Philip of Luxemburg, Adriano da Corneto,
and Carlo del Carretto, whose names had been affixed by
the other cardinals to die citation without consulting
them or obtaining their permission, protested loudly
against this treacherous plot and declared openly they
would have nothing to do with the anti-papal council.
Cardinal D'Este adopted an equivocal and compromis­
ing attitude, which finally led him to his reconciliation
with Julius.
To deprive the revolting cardinals of all pretext for
keeping up the schism, Julius II turned their own weap­
ons against them for on July 25,1511, he published a bull
dated July 18, 1511, summoning a universal council to
assemble in Rome on April 19, 1512. In the preamble
the Pope set forth the supreme dignity of the Roman
Church, sanctified by the blood of martyrs, preserved
from all error, and endowed with the primacy over all
churches, which entailed upon her and her Head the
duty of withstanding all schismatic attempts to destroy
her unity. He then declared that, both as Cardinal and
Pope, he had done his best to further the convocation
of a council, and that it had not been his fault that its
convocation had been so long delayed. The bull con­
tinues to emphasize the point that a council can be law­
fully summoned only by the Pope. Julius, then, de­
clared that he, with the approval of the loyal cardinals
and by the plenitude of his apostolic power, pronounced
the edict of convocation of a synod by the revolting
cardinals to be, in both its contents and effects, illegal,
null and void ; that its authors and their aides are de­
prived of all dignities, and that all cities and districts
which harbor and support them are laid under interdict.

THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

Proceedings

of the

l6l

Council

Opening of the Council. For three days processions
of supplication were held in the Holy City, and on May
3, 1512, the council was formally opened in that vener­
able basilica which bears the honorable title of “Mother
and Queen of all Churches.” Besides Pope Julius II,
sixteen cardinals were present, one hundred prelates
(mostly Italians), of whom seventy were bishops, twelve
patriarchs, and three generals of religious orders ; in ad­
dition to these were the envoys of Spain, Venice and
Florence, and a number of Roman nobles. The Mass in
honor of the Holy Ghost was sung by Cardinal Riario,
after which the General of the Augustinians,
o
7 Giles of
Viterbo, delivered an address in classical Latin, which
the members of the council universally applauded.
Then die Pope bestowed the solemn benediction and an­
nounced a plenary indulgence. After the customary
prayers, Cardinal Farnese read the Pope’s address, in
which Julius set forth the reasons which inspired him
to summon the council. When the introductory cere­
monies were concluded, the Pope fixed the tenth of May
as the day of the first session.
First Session (May 10, 1512). The session took place
under the presidency of the Pope ; Cardinal Grimani
sang the Mass and Bernardino Zane preached the ser­
mon. In his sermon the latter touched first and briefly
on the Turkish danger and then proceeded to treat of
die unity of the Church. Unity he defined as consist­
ing : (1) in the union of the members with each other ;
(2) in their subordination to die Head, the Vicar of
Christ ; hence all members who do not obey the Plead

161

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

and who separate themselves from the other members
of the body, are thereby schismatics. The Pope then de­
livered a short address, in which he stated the objects of
the council. He described these as : (i) T^he rooting
out of schism ; (2) the reform of the Church ; (3) the
Crusade against the Turl^s.
Second Session (May 17,1512). The High Mass was
sung by the Hungarian Cardinal, Thomas Backocs, and
a very remarkable sermon was preached by the General
of the Dominicans, Thomas de Vio (Cajetan). His sub­
ject was the Catholic doctrine regarding the Church and
synods. He described the Church as the Holy City of
Jerusalem seen by St. John (Apoc., xxi, 1), with her
healing powers (the sacraments), her apostles, pastors,
teachers and gifts, and expounded the close, mutual
union existing
o among
o her inhabitants like that union
which exists between all the members of the same body.
This Church, he went on to say, is governed by the Vicar
of Christ, and to him all her citizens owe allegiance.
The Pisan Synod possessed not one of the notes of the
true Church. It was neither holy nor lawfully con­
voked ; in fact, it was stained with error for it subordi­
nated the Pope to the Church and set the members above
the Head.
At the conclusion of Cajetan's address a letter from
the King of England professing his alliance with the
Pope was read ; and another from the King of Spain.
The reading of the papal bull followed next, confirming
and renewing the censures which the Pope had pro­
nounced against the pseudo-Council of Pisa.
Tfhird Session (December 3,1512). One hundred and

THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

163

eleven members, under the presidency of Julius II, at­
tended the session. The High Mass was sung by Cardi­
nal Vigerio and the sermon was preached by the Bishop
of Melfi, his subject being the unity of the Church.
After this the Secretary of the Council read a letter
from Emperor Maximilian, in which he repudiated the
pseudo-Council set up by the King of France, first at
Tours, and afterwards at Pisa. Maximilian declared his
adherence to the Lateran Council. At die close of the
session the Bishop of Forli read a papal bull which de­
clared again that all the acts of the Pisan Synod were
null and void and pronounced the interdict on France.
Fourth Session (December io, 1512). Nineteen car­
dinals, ninety-six patriarchs, archbishops and bishops,
four abbots and four generals of religious orders were
present under the presidency of the Pope. The Pope
ordered the Secretary to read the letters patent, whereby
Louis XI, King of France, had abrogated the Pragmatic
Sanction of Bourges.
(Charles VII, in an assembly of bishops and nobles
at Bourges, in 1448, issued an edict known as the Prag­
matic Sanction of Bourges. In it the King declared that
a general council was superior to the Pope, suppressed
the revenues gathered for the Court of Rome, and denied
that the Pope had the right to nominate bishops and
abbots in France. This sanction had been abolished by
Louis XI on November 27,1461. Louis XII, to spite the
Pope, re-introduced it in France.)
After the reading of the abolition of the Pragmatic
Sanction, a warning was issued to France, which
summoned all protagonists of the Sanction in France,

164

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

whether they be laymen or ecclesiastics, to appear before
the council within sixty clays to give an account of their
conduct.
Fifth Session (February 16, 1513). A bull was read,
confirming former papal decrees on the Pragmatic Sanc­
tion. The address at this session, the last at which Julius
II was present, was delivered by the Apostolic Notary,
Marcellus of Venice, and was an enthusiastic panegyric
on the Pope.
On February 21,1513, Julius II passed away, clear and
conscious to the last. “Rome felt that the soul which
had passed from her had been of royal cast.” Julius was
succeeded on March 11, 1513, by the Cardinal Deacon
John de Medici, who assumed the name of Leo X (1513I521)·
Sixth Session (April 27,1513). Pope Leo X presided.
The new Pope addressed the members of the synod and
declared his resolve to continue the council until it had
secured complete peace for Christendom.
Seventh Session (June 17, 1513). The Cardinals Car­
vajal and San Severino repudiated the Synod of Pisa,
recognized
the Lateran Council,
and asked for absoluo
'
tion from the censure they had incurred. There was a
long discussion before this favor was granted to them.
Leo hoped, and rightly so, to destroy schism by gentle­
ness rather than by severity. He proposed to them a
form of abjuration, after the reading and signing of
which the Pope pronounced their absolution, and re­
ceived them back into the Sacred College. For penance
they received the obligation of fasting once a week for
the rest of their lives.
Eighth Session (December 19, 1513). Besides the

THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

l6j

Pope, twenty-three cardinals, eleven archbishops, fortyfive bishops, five generals of religious orders and many
envoys were present. The ambassadors of Louis XII
presented his renunciation of the Synod of Pisa, then in
session at Lyons, and his recognition of the Lateran
Council. In this session, Leo X published the bull
“Apostolici Regiminis,” which condemned the doctrine
that the soul of man is mortal, and also the teaching that
one and the same soul is in all men. “De anima humana
(contra Neo-Aristotelicos) : Cum diebus nostris (quod
dolenter referimus) zizaniae seminator, antiquus hu­
mani generis hostis, nonnullos perniciosissimos errores,
a fidelibus semper explosos, in agro Domini supersemi­
nare et augere sit ausus, de natura praesertim animae
rationalis, quod videlicet mortalis sit, aut unica in cunc­
tis hominibus, et nonnulli temere philosophantes, secun­
dum saltem philosophiam verum id esse asseverent :
contra hujusmodi pestem opportuna remedia adhibere
cupientes, hoc sacro approbante Concilio damnamus
et reprobamus omnes asserentes, animam intellectivam
mortalem esse, aut unicam in cunctis hominibus.”
It was resolved to send legates to all Christian sov­
ereigns to implore them to turn their arms against the
Turks.
Ninth Session (May 5, 1514). The absent French
bishops were charged with contumacy ; after it had been
shown that these prelates had started on their journey
to the council, but had been detained by the Duke of
Milan, Pope Leo extended the time allowed for their
appearance at the council.
Ÿenth Session (May 4,1515). Two decrees of capital
importance were passed at this session : the first gave

l66

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

sanction to the "‘Monti di Vieta' —“Mountains (Institu­
tions) of Benevolence" ; the other concerned the print­
ing of books.
As in the thirteenth century, so in the latter half of
the fifteenth century, it was the Franciscans who, with
the sanction of the Holy See, took the social reform in
hand. Their contacts with all classes of society had
rendered them familiar with the pitiless greed with
which Jewish money-lenders took advantage of a tem­
porary embarrassment of the impoverished to demand
incredibly high interest. To prevent this oppressive ex­
ploitation of the needs of the smaller townsfolk and of
the poor, the Franciscans resolved to found institutions
where any one in want of ready money could obtain it
in exchange for some pledge and without interest. The
working capital of the scheme would be supplied by
voluntary contributions, gifts and legacies ; hence the
name “Monti di Pieta’ — “Mountains (Institutions) oj
Benevolence" The first of these charitable institutions
was opened in the Papal States ; in Orvieto in 1463, and
in Perugia in 1461. In both places die Franciscans were
the originators of the plan. In fact, such great saints
of the order, as St. Bernardine of Siena, St. John Capis­
trano and St. James della Marchia were indefatigable
supporters and workers for these institutions. In the
course of time similar benevolent banks were opened in
Assisi, Mantua, Pavia, Ravenna, Verona, Ferrara, Parma,
Rimini, and in many other places. Blessed Bernardine
of Monte Feltro, a famous Franciscan missionary, was
especially untiring in this work. The extraordinary
and rapid growth and spread of these institutions — to
France, England, Bavaria — are the best proofs that they

THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

167

responded to a real want. The grinding usury prac­
ticed by the Jews was almost incredible. In Florence
they exacted 32% per cent interest for loans ; in some
other places they demanded as high as 40 per cent in­
terest. The ever-increasing demands upon the Monti
di Pietà necessarily entailed a corresponding increase in
the expenses of administration. Thus it was found nec­
essary to make a small charge on each loan in order to
cover these expenses. To this plan the Dominicans ob­
jected. A literary controversy arose on this question,
but at last the Franciscans won out. The foundation of
these institutions had been approved by Popes Pius II,
Paul II, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII and Julius II.
Leo X in this tenth session of the council approved of
the Monti di Pietà and permitted the demand of a small
percentage of interest on loans, sufficient to defray the
expenses of the management, but there was to be no
profit in the transaction. And any one who asserted this
to be unlawful thereby incurred excommunication. The
decree of the council reads : “Sacro approbante Concilio,
declaramus et definimus, ‘Montes pietatis’ per respublicas
institutos et auctoritate Sedis Apostolicae hactenus pro­
batos et confirmatos, in quibus pro eorum impensis et
indemnitate aliquid moderatum ad solas ministrorum
impensas et aliarum rerum ad illorum conservationem,
ut praefertur, pertinentium, pro eorum indemnitate
dumtaxat, ultra sortem absque lucro eorundem Montium
recipitur, neque speciem mali praeferre, nec peccandi
incentivum praestare, neque ullo pacto improbari, quin
immo meritorium esse ac laudari et probari debere tale
mutuum et minime usurarium putari. . . Omnes au­
tem religiosos et ecclesiasticas ac saeculares personas, qui

168

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

contra praesentis declarationis et sanctionis formam de
cetero praedicare seu disputare verbo vel scriptis ausi
fuerint, excommunicationis latae sententiae poenam,
privilegio quocunque non obstante, incurrere volumus.”
In the other decree the Pope forbids, with the approval
of the council, under pain of excommunication and im­
position of heavy fines, the printing of books without the
approbation of the bishop of the diocese and the in­
quisitor, and in Rome, of the Cardinal Vicar and the
Master of the Palace. Every book printed contrary to
these regulations shall be burned.
Yet another weighty question came up : the reform of
the calendar. The opinions, however, were so divergent
that Leo X had to withdraw the question from the busi­
ness of the tenth session as not yet ripe for action.
Eleventh Session (December 19, 1516). The envoys
of Simon Peter, Patriarch of the Maronites of the Leba­
non, were admitted to tender their obedience to the Pope.
The Patriarch’s letter contained a profession of faith,
wherein the Maronites avowed their belief in the pro­
cession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son ;
in the doctrine of purgatory and in Easter Communion.
The Patriarch thanked the Pope for having sent the
Guardian of the Franciscan Monastery at Beyrut to in­
struct the Maronites. A concordat made between the
Pope and the King of France was next read to the coun­
cil. Then followed the reading of the bull “Pastor aeter­
nus” which abrogated the Pragmatic Sanction.
Twelfth Session (March n6, 1517). A bull was read
to the effect that there was no need of prolonging the
Lateran Council since peace had been now established
among Christian Princes ; the reform of morals had

THE EIGHTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

169

been attended to by salutary canons, and the Schism of
Pisa had been abolished. An imposition of tithes on
all benefices was ordered ; these tithes were to be used
for a war against the Turks.
Many assert that the closing of the Lateran Council
was premature in view of the tempest which broke loose
on the following October 31,1517. Certainly Leo X had
good reasons for closing the council. If the Lateran
Council fell short of a “root-and-branch reform,” it pro­
duced many opportune and salutary laws, on which the
Council of Trent was able afterwards to enlarge and
improve.

XIX
THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL
COUNCIL
HELD AT TRENT

1545-1563

WORK OF 'THE COUNCIL: Extirpation of heresy
(against the innovators of the 16th century), and reform of
morals.

For more than a century and a half reform of the Church

“in its Head and members” was the watchword both
of the friends and the enemies of religion. Earnest men
looked forward to it as the only means of stemming the
tide of neo-paganism which threatened to engulf the
Christian world, while wicked men hoped to find in
the movement for reform an opportunity for wrecking
the divine constitution which Christ had given to His
Church. Popes and councils had failed hitherto to ac­
complish the much-needed reform. The bishops had
met at Constance and Basle, at Florence and at Rome,
and had parted, leaving the root of evil untouched. Not­
withstanding all these failures the feeling was practically
universal that in a general council lay the only hope of
reform. For one reason or another the Roman Curia
looked with an unfavorable eye on the convocation of
such an assembly.
The hesitation of Hadrian VI (1522-1523) and of
Clement VII ( 1523-1534) to yield to the demands for an
ecumenical council was due neither to their inability to
170

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I/I

appreciate the magnitude of the abuses nor to their desire
to oppose any and every proposal for reform. The dis­
turbed condition of the times, when so many individuals
had fallen away from the faith, and when whole nations
formerly noted for their loyalty to the Pope threatened to
follow in the footsteps of individuals, made it difficult
to decide whether the suggested remedy might not prove
worse than the disease. The memory, too, of the scenes
which took place at Constance and Basle, and of the
revolutionary proposals which were put forward in these
assemblies, made the Pope less anxious to try a similar
experiment with the possibility of even worse results,
particularly at the time when the unfriendly relations
existing between the Empire, France and England held
out little hope for the success of a general council. As
events showed, the delay was providential. It afforded
an opportunity for the excitement and passion to die
away ; it helped to secure moderation in the views and
it allowed the issues in dispute to shape themselves more
clearly, and to be narrowed down to their true propor­
tions, thereby enabling the Catholic theologians to for­
mulate precisely the doctrines of the Church in opposi­
tion to the opinions of the Lutherans.
It was only on the accession of Paul III (1534-1549)
to the Chair of St. Peter, that a really vigorous effort was
made to undertake the work of reform. He signalized
his pontificate by the stern measures he took to reform
the Roman Curia ; then, by the appointment of learned
and progressive ecclesiastics, like Reginald Pole, Sadoleto, Cantarini, to the College of Cardinals, and by the
establishment of special tribunals to combat heresy.
After a preliminary agreement with Emperor Charles

ΐγΐ

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

V (1519-1556), Paul III convoked a general council and
ordered it to meet at Mantua in 1537 ; but the refusal of
the Lutherans to send representatives to the council, the
prohibition issued by Francis I (1515-1547), King of
France, forbidding the French bishops to attend, and
the unwillingness of the Duke of Mantua to make the
necessary arrangements for such an assembly in his ter­
ritory, made it necessary to prorogue the council to
Vincenza in 1538. But because only a few bishops had
arrived at the place and time appointed, the council was
adjourned, at first, but later on prorogued indefinitely.
Negotiations were, however, continued regarding the
place of the future assembly. The Pope was anxious
that the council should be held in an Italian city, while
Charles V, believing that the Lutherans would never
consent to go to Italy, or to accept the decrees of an
Italian assembly, insisted that a German city should be
selected. In the end, as a compromise, Trent was agreed
upon by both parties. Then the council was convoked
once more to meet in Trent in 1542. The refusal of the
Lutherans to take part in the proposed council, the un­
willingness of Francis I to permit any of the bishops to
be present, and the threatened war between France and
the Empire, made it impossible for the council to meet
at the specified time. Finally, at the conclusion of the
Peace of Crespy (1544), which put an end to the war
with France the council was again convoked to meet at
Trent in March 1545. The Cardinal Bishop John Maria
del Monte, the Cardinal Priest Marcellus Cervini, and
the Cardinal Deacon Reginald Pole were appointed to
represent the Pope. When the day (March 15, 1545)
fixed for the opening ceremony had arrived, a further

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENIC,XL COUNCIL

173

adjournment of the council was rendered imperative,
owing to the sparse attendance of bishops.
On May 3, 1545, the legates called together the ten
bishops who had appeared in Trent, and communicated
to them the papal orders and the reasons for the tempo­
rary delay. In a consistory, held on November 6, 1545,
it was finally settled that the opening of the council
should take place on the third Sunday in Advent, De­
cember 13,1545. The universal longing of many years,
the event around which so many baffled hopes had cen­
tered, was on the point of realization.
Proceedings

of the

FIRST PERIOD,

Council

I545-I549 *

On receiving the papal brief giving orders for the
opening of the council, the legates immediately ap­
pointed a day of fast and prescribed that processions be
held on December 12, 1545. They proclaimed an in­
dulgence for those who received the sacraments under
the usual conditions. Paul III, in a special bull, ordered
universal supplications and processions to invoke God’s
blessing upon the council. In Rome, these processions
were held on December 14, 15, 16,1545.
First Session (December 13, 1545). The bishops as­
sembled with the legates
in the church of the Most
o
Blessed Trinity, and thence proceeded in copes and
mitres to the cathedral, accompanied by the clergy of
* There arc three distinct Periods in the Council of Trent : First Period :
from 1545-1549, Session I-X, under Paul III ; Second Period : from 15511552, Session XI-XVI, under Julius HI ; Third Period : from 1562-1563,
Session XVII-XXV, under Pius IV. The ninth and the tenth sessions in
the First Period were held at Bologna, all other sessions were held at Trent.

174

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the city, singing the “Veni, Creator.” The choir of the
cathedral had been fitted up as the council hall. The
senior President of the Council, Cardinal del Monte,
celebrated the solemn Mass in honor of the Holy Ghost,
and granted a plenary indulgence to those present.
Bishop Cornelius Mussi of Bitonto, a renowned Francis­
can orator, then mounted the pulpit and preached a
Latin sermon, in which he gave his enthusiasm free
course. After Cardinal del Monte had said the prayers
prescribed by the Ceremonial, Bishop Thomas Campeg­
gio of Feltre read the bull : “Laetare Jerusalem’’ (“Re­
joice Jerusalem”) of November 19, 1544, and the bull of
February 22, 1545, in which the cardinal legates were
nominated. Finally, Cardinal del Monte, with the as­
sent of the bishops, declared the council officially open.
He appointed January 7, 1546 for the second session.
The ceremonies ended with the singing of the “Te
Deum.’’ Present at the opening session, besides the
three papal legates, were Cardinal Madruzzo of Trent,
four archbishops, twenty-one bishops, five generals of
religious orders. The theologians present at this session
included four secular priests from Spain ; the remaining
were regulars, namely, six Dominicans, eighteen Fran­
ciscans, five Augustinian Hermits, five Carmelites, and
four Servîtes.
Three general congregations, occupied with the or­
ganization and procedure of the council, prepared the
way for the second session. The important question
whether dogma or reform was to be discussed first in
the council was brought up before the bishops, and made
the subject of debate. As differences of opinions mani­
fested themselves, a decision was postponed for the time

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

175

being. The question of the right to vote also came up
for discussion ; some wished this right to be vested ex­
clusively in the bishops, others wished the decision be
deferred until the council had a larger attendance. Car­
dinal del Monte carried his point that the generals of
religious orders should also enjoy the right to vote.
After long discussion it was decided that the three Benedictine abbots, sent by the Pope, should have one vote col­
lectively, and that each general of a religious order
should have a vote for his respective order.
Another debate arose on the title of the council. Sev­
eral bishops proposed that to the title “Holy Synod of
Trent" should be added : “representing the Universal
ChurchT This proposal met with special and vigorous
opposition from Cardinals del Monte and Madruzzo.
The former showed that it was uncalled for, to imitate
the precedents of Constance and Basle ; the latter pointed
out that this magniloquent title would only irritate die
Protestants. The majority were in favor of rejecting
this title.
Second Session (January 7, 1546). After the usual
prayers and ceremonies the Secretary of the Council,
Massarclli, read an impressive exhortation, composed by
Cardinal Pole, from the legates to the fathers. In elo­
quent terms this document described the corruption of
the Church, and exhorted the fathers to amendment and
contrition of heart, whereby alone they could expect
the descent of the Holy Spirit upon themselves and their
work. Besides the three legates and the Cardinal of
Trent there were present four archbishops, twenty-eight
bishops, five generals of religious orders and three abbots.
In the interval between the second and third sessions

ΐγ6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

six general congregations were held, in which the title
of the council gave rise to prolonged discussions. After
many deliberations the fathers agreed to treat dogma
and reform simultaneously.
Third Session (February 4, 1546). The profession
of faith was made by all present : “Haec sacrosancta
occumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu
Sancto legitime congregata. . . Symbolum fidei, quo
sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium
illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur,
necessario conveniunt, ad fundamentum firmum et
unicum, contra quod ‘portae inferi nunquam praevale­
bunt’ (Matth, xvi, 18) totidem verbis, quibus in om­
nibus ecclesiis legitur, exprimendum esse censuit. Quod
quidem ejusmodi est : (sequitur Symbolum NicaenoConstantinopolitanum).” “This holy ecumenical and
general Synod of Trent, legitimately assembled in the
Holy Spirit, is of the belief that there should be given
expression to a symbol of Faith which the holy Roman
Church uses, as that principle, on which all who profess
the faith of Christ, must necessarily agree, conformable
to the firm and only foundation, against which ‘the gates
of hell shall never prevail' (Matth, xvi, 18) with so
many words as it is read in all churches. And this is of
this tenor : (Here follows the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed).”
The council also settled the official title : “Sacrosancta
oecumcnica et universalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu
Sancto legitime congregata.’’ “The Holy Ecumenical
and General Synod of Trent, legitimately assembled in
the Holy Spirit.” Present at this session were five cardi-

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

177

nais, six archbishops, twenty-six bishops, four generals
of religious orders and three abbots.
The attitude of the Protestants towards the council was
anything but encouraging, and Luther’s death, which
occurred on February 18,1546, did not improve the situa­
tion. Melanchthon issued a pamphlet opposing the
council ; and soon afterwards two long pamphlets were
printed by the Protestants, rejecting the council.
fourth Session (April 8, 1546). The first decree on
the “Canonical Scriptures” declared diat not only the
books of the Old and New Testament, but also the Apos­
tolic Tradition are the source of faith in the Church.
Then the council enumerates all the Books of each Testa­
ment. The abuses which had become current in re­
gard to editions and translations of the Holy Books, as
well as in regard to their interpretation and use, led to
the second decree of “the editions and use of the Sacred
Books.” The council declared that the ancient Latin
version, known as Vulgate, used by the Church for
so many centuries, is the authentic edition, and, there­
fore, must be used in public lectures, disputations, ser­
mons and expositions, and no one should dare, under any
pretext whatever, to reject it. It was further ordained
that in the future no books on religious subjects could
be printed, if the name of die author is omitted, nor
could they be sold or kept, if diey have not been exam­
ined and approved by the bishop beforehand. Present
at this session were five cardinals, eight archbishops,
forty-one bishops, four generals of religious orders and
diree abbots.
Fifth Session (June 17, 1546). The decree on “Ong-

178

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

inal Sin,” its nature, its propagation, its consequences,
and its remission in baptism was published. The council
declared that it was not its intention to include in this
decree on “Original Sin” the Blessed and Immaculate
Virgin and Mother of God. It upheld the decision of
the Franciscan Pope Sixtus IV, who in 1475 issued an
Office of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Vir­
gin Mary. “Declarat haec ipsa sancta Synodus, non
esse suae intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi
de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Vir­
ginem Mariam Dei genetricem, sed observandas esse
constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti Papae IV, sub
poenis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.”
The Franciscans and the Jesuits Laynez and Salmeron
were the champions of Mary’s “exemption” from the
decree on “Original Sin,” while the Dominicans argued
against it to the end. The reform decree dealt with
Holy Scripture, demanding expert instruction in the
same, and regulated the preaching of the Word of God.
Present at this session were four cardinals, nine arch­
bishops, forty-eight bishops, three generals of religious
orders and two abbots.
Sixth Session (January 13,1547). This was one of the
most important sessions of the council ; the decree on
“Justification" was published. After repeated drafts, re­
drafts and alterations, after thorough and impartial dis­
cussions, the decree on “Justification,” composed with
scrupulous care, was finally published. It consists of
sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons. It is a master­
piece of theology, formulating with clearness and pre­
cision the Catholic doctrine as distinguished from the
Pelagian errors, on the one hand, and from the Protestant

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

179

errors, on the other. The General of the Augustinian
Hermits, Seripando, the Franciscan and Jesuit theolo­
gians, together with Cardinal del Monte, were the chief
framers of the decree on “Justification.” The reform
decree of this session dealt with episcopal residence.
Present at it were four cardinals, ten archbishops, fortyfive bishops, five generals of religious orders and two
abbots.
Seventh Session (March 3,1547). The council passed
thirteen dogmatic canons on the “Sacraments” in gen­
eral ; fourteen canons on “Baptism” ; three canons on
“Confirmation.” The reform decree dealt with the life
of the bishops, the exemption of regulars, and the hold­
ing
o of ecclesiastical benefices. Present at this session
were four cardinals, nine archbishops, fifty-two bishops,
five generals of religious orders and two abbots.
Eighth Session (March 11,1547). In this session Car­
dinal del Monte made known the ascertained facts of
the plague which had broken out in Trent. He then
read a decree on the transfer of the council ; a vote was
taken and a majority of two-thirds were found to be in
favor of transferring the council to Bologna. Del Monte
now informed the fathers of the council that the legates
had from the very beginning been empowered by a papal
bull to transfer the council, should necessity arise.
Ninth Session (April 21, 1547). The council, now
meeting in Bologna, passed decrees on the “Holy Eucha­
rist” and “Penance.” Three cardinals, six bishops, four
generals of religious orders and one abbot were in at­
tendance.
7enth Session (June 2, 1547). The subject-matter of
the previous session was continued. Three cardinals,

ΐ8θ

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

eight archbishops, sixty-nine bishops, six generals of re­
ligious orders and two abbots were present.
The council was officially suspended on November 17,
1549. Pope Paul III, who has won undying fame by his
unceasing and untiring work in behalf of the council,
died on November 10, 1549.
SECOND PERIOD,

I55I-I552

In casting a glance over the fifteen years of the pontifi­
cate of Paul III, the conviction is forced upon us that
the dawn of a new era, full of hope, had arisen for the
Church, in which she would again, as so often before,
gloriously establish her spiritual ascendancy and her
marvelous power of rejuvenation. The externally bril­
liant, but essentially worldly, period of the Renaissance,
which took Church and religion as lightly as it did life
itself, was hurrying towards its end. However much
Paul III paid tribute to the fearful epoch in which he had
come to power, he was nevertheless just to that genera­
tion in which the strictly ecclesiastical element, never
losing sight of its goal, was working towards a reform of
conditions that were utterly corrupt, and was striving to
cope with a dangerous crisis by means of an entirely new
state of things. The inauguration of the Council of
Trent, the removal of abuses, the renewal of the College
of Cardinals, were all of epoch-making importance.
After the death of Paul III the Church remained for
nearly three months without a Head. The cause of this
unusual delay is to be found rather in the behaviour of
the secular princes, who interfered in the most unjustifi­
able manner in the electoral discussions, than in the party

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

l8l

deliberations of the College of Cardinals, and the great
number of candidates. The Conclave began on No­
vember 29, 1549, and finished only on February 8, 1550,
when Cardinal del Monte was elected ; he assumed the
name of Julius III (1550-1555)· Among the points of
the election capitulation to which Julius III had pledged
himself in the Conclave, the re-opening of the Council
of Trent for the extirpation of heresy and the reform of
the Church stood in the first place. For the promotion
of this promise the Pope entered upon diplomatic nego­
tiations with Charles V and Henry II immediately after
his accession to the papal chair.
Regardless of the political situation, which grew
darker from day to day, Julius continued his prepara­
tions for the council, which he was determined to open
in spite of every difficulty. In a bull, carefully prepared
and adopted in a secret consistory, Julius III announced
his intention of laboring for the peace of the Church, the
spread of the Christian Faith, and of providing, as far
as lay in his power, for the tranquillity of Germany. As
it was his right, in virtue of his office, the Pope addressed
to the patriarchs, bishops, abbots, and all upon whom it
may be incumbent to assist at a general council of the
Church, the earnest admonition and invitation to repair
to the city of Trent on the coming first of May, for the
re-opening of the council ; should he be prevented from
presiding in person, the papal legates would be there on
the appointed date.
The legates of the council, Crescenzi, Pighino, and
Hippomano, made their solemn entry into Trent on
April 29,1551. Cardinal Madruzzo of Trent, four arch­

I 82

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

bishops and nine bishops welcomed them. Cardinal
Crescenzi declared that in accordance with the will of
the Pope, the council must open on May 1.
RE-OPENING OF THE COUNCIL

Eleventh Session (May 1, 1551). This session, the
first held under Pope Julius III, was very poorly at­
tended. After a solemn High Mass celebrated by Car­
dinal Crescenzi, the Franciscan Sigismond Fedrio of
Diruta preached the sermon. After the sermon the Sec­
retary of the Council, Massarelli, read the papal bull,
summoning the council, and the brief, nominating the
presidents. Announcement was made that the next ses­
sion would not take place till September 1, so that the
Germans might have time to appear in Trent. On the
same day, May 1, the Pope had gone in solemn proces­
sion from St. Mark to the Church of the Holy Apostles
in Rome, where a Mass was celebrated in honor of the
Holy Ghost for the happy issue of the council.
Although the Emperor showed great zeal for the fur­
therance of the council, the prospects for the assembly
still looked very gloomy ; for Henry II of France worked
deliberately against the assembly. He broke off diplo­
matic relations with die Pope at the beginning of July,
and his ambassador made a formal protest against the
council.
Twelfth Session (September 1, 1551). The three
Presidents, Cardinal Madruzzo, two prince-electors, five
other archbishops, twenty-six bishops and twenty-five
theologians assembled for this session. High Mass was
celebrated by the Archbishop of Cagliari, and instead of
a sermon, the Secretary of the Council read a long ad-

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

l8j

monition, written by the Presidents, and addressed to
diose assembled. It was decided that the Sacrament of
Holy Eucharist and the duty of residence of the bishops
should be dealt with at the next session on October nth.
The bishops assembled in Trent resumed their activi­
ties at once after the twelfth session. On September 2,
ten articles concerning the Eucharist, taken from the
writings of Luther and the Swiss reformers, were laid
before the theologians of the council for examination.
The theologians were enjoined to base their reasons on
the Holy Scriptures, on Apostolic tradition, on lawful
councils, on the Fathers of the Church, on the constitu­
tions of the Popes and on the consensus of the Universal
Church. In so doing they were to avoid all haste, as
well as all unnecessary discussions and contentious dis­
putations. Cardinal Crescenzi urged especially that
they should limit themselves to a clear setting forth of
the errors and not venture on theological sarcasm. Dur­
ing the deliberations the question of die chalice for the
laity and of children’s Communion were minutely dis­
cussed.
thirteenth Session (October 11, 1551). This session
took place with unusual solemnity. The three Presi­
dents, Cardinal Madruzzo, three prince-electors, Eve
archbishops, thirty-four bishops, five generals of religious
orders, three abbots, forty-eight theologians, as well as
several ambassadors, took part in this session.
In the decree dealing with the “Holy Eucharist” the
Catholic doctrine concerning this Sacrament, the great­
est of the treasures of the Church, to the glorification of
which Raphael had created the immortal fresco of die
“Disputa,” is set forth with admirable lucidity.

184

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

“Although our Saviour,” teaches the council, “in His
natural existence is always at the right hand of the Fa­
ther in heaven, He is still, in His substance, present in
many places in a sacramental manner.” “Ut Salvator
noster semper ad dextram Patris in coelis assideat juxta
modum existendi naturalem et multis nihilominus aliis
in locis sacramentaliter praesens sua substantia nobis ad­
sit” (Chap. 1). “By the consecration, the substance of
the bread and the substance of the wine are changed into
the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord.
And this change is rightly and fittingly called ‘Transubstantiatiori by the Holy Catholic Church. Sancta haec
Synodus declarat : “Per consecrationem panis et vini con­
versionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam
corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantiae vini
in substantiam sanguinis ejus. Quae conversio con­
venienter et proprie a sancta catholic Ecclesia ‘Transsubstantiatio est appellata" (Chap. 4). “The Church
has always believed that immediately after the consecra­
tion Christ our Lord is present, widi body and soul, with
Divinity and Humanity under the appearances of bread
and wine, and also in every particle of the same.” “Sem­
per haec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit, statim post consecra­
tionem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque ejus san­
guinem sub panis et vini specie una cum ipsius anima et
divinitate exsistere. . . Totus integer Christus sub panis
specie et sub quavis ipsius speciei parte, totus item sub
vini specie et sub ejus partibus exsistit” (Chap. 3). It
is further emphasized that Christ is not only present at
the moment of participation, but also before and after.
“Si quis dixerit, peracta consecratione in admirabili Eu­
charistiae sacramento non esse corpus et sanguinem

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

18$

Domini nostri Jesu Christi, sed tantum in usu, dum sumi­
tur, non autcm ante vel post, et in hostiis consecratis, quae
post communionem reservantur vel supersunt, non re­
manere verum corpus Domini : anathema sit” (Canon
4). Concerning the preparation for Holy Communion,
the Council expressly declares that no one, conscious of
mortal sin, should dare to approach the Holy Sacrament
without having previously confessed (Canon n). With
regard to the effects the Council teaches that die Holy
Eucharist blots out our daily sins and preserves us from
mortal sin, that it is a food for our souls, and a pledge of
a future life, so that we should often partake of this
Bread of the Angels (Chapter 2).
The reform decree, consisting of eight chapters, dealt
mainly with the authority of the bishops in their dioceses,
with jurisdiction, with the procedure of an appeal to the
Pope, and similar matters relating to the ecclesiastical
government of the Church.
fourteenth Session (November 25,1551). In this ses­
sion the council published twelve dogmatic chapters on
the Sacraments of "‘Penance' and “Extreme Unction'
and nineteen canons condemning the heretical teachings
of the reformers in regard to these sacraments.
Regarding the sacrament of penance the council
teaches — in fifteen canons — that it was instituted by
Christ, that it differs from baptism, that it is a necessary
means of reconciliation with God for every one who has
committed mortal sin after baptism ; that the penitent
must have contrition which is defined as a sorrow of the
soul and hatred of sins committed, with the purpose of
sinning no more ; that he must make the confession of
all his mortal sins, and make due satisfaction for them.

186

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

By confession of sins, which is ordained by God, the
Church demands nothing further from the penitent than
that he should confess all those mortal sins which he re­
members after a diligent examination of conscience.
Absolution is not a mere declaration that the sins are
forgiven, it is an official act, by which the priest pro­
nounces sentence as a judge. The power of giving ab­
solution is possessed by every priest validly ordained,
even if he should be in the state of mortal sin, provided
he possesses either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.
Regarding satisfaction, it is emphasized that the tem­
poral punishment due to sin, is not fully remitted by
absolution. “Si quis dixerit, fictionem esse, quod, vir­
tute clavium sublata poena aeterna, poena temporalis
plerumque exsolvenda remaneat, anathema sit.” “If
any one should say that it is fiction, that after the eternal
punishment has been taken away by the power of the
keys, the temporal punishment often remains to be paid,
let him be anathema” (Canon 15).
In dealing with extreme unction — in four canons —
the council emphasizes above all things that it is a real
sacrament, instituted by Jesus Christ.
The reform decree, which contained fourteen chap­
ters, was drawn up principally with the intention of reg­
ulating clerical life and dress.
At the fourteenth session were present, besides the
three presidents, Cardinal Madruzzo, six archbishops,
forty bishops, one general, five abbots, six procurators,
three dukes and fifty-one theologians.
Fifteenth Session (January 25, 1552). The Catholic
doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the ordi­
nation of priests was to be published in this session. A

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I 87

commission of eighteen prelates had drawn up four
chapters of instruction and thirteen canons on the Holy
Mass and three chapters of instruction and eight canons
on holy orders. The publication of these decrees did
not take place in this session, nor during the second
period of the council. In order to do everything pos­
sible on his part to win over the Protestants, the legate
declared himself ready to comply with the wish of those
Protestants who had come to Trent, to postpone the de­
crees already prepared on the Sacrifice of the Mass and
holy orders until March 19th.
At this (15th) session, the decree of adjournment, as
well as the new letter of safe-conduct for the Protestants,
were made public. This letter afforded to all Germans,
and in particular to all the adherents of the “Confession
of Augsburg” the fullest security in coming to Trent, in
staying there, in making proposals, in negotiating with
the council, in presenting any article of the Creed in
writing or orally, supporting the same with passages
taken from Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers. The
Protestants were finally assured that they would not be
punished on account of their religion ; that they would
be at perfect liberty to return home when it pleased
them ; that they could leave the city and return to it at
their own discretion. Some representatives of Protestant
princes were, however, not yet satisfied with this exhaus­
tive letter of safe-conduct.
On March 20, news reached Rome that the whole of
Germany was in arms, and there was no longer any
doubt as to the alliance made between the French King
and the Protestant princes. It seemed certain that to
continue the council in view of the existing state of

188

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

affairs would be highly dangerous. The Pope, how­
ever, in spite of this alarming news, still hesitated until
the middle of April to suspend the council. His deci­
sion was made imperative by the news that Augsburg
had fallen into the hands of the enemies of Charles V,
whereby the safety of Trent was greatly threatened.
Julius III, after due deliberation with the cardinals, de­
cided to suspend the council on April 15th, in order to
obviate the danger of the council dissolving itself.
Sixteenth Session (April 28,1552). The decree of sus­
pension was published. Twelve prelates, mostly Span­
ish, protested against it. They remained in Trent, but
were compelled to make a hasty exit, when the Ehrenber
mountain pass was captured by Maurice of Saxony. The
legate, Cardinal Crescenzi, went from Trent to Verona
on May 26th, where he died on May 28di.
The council was suspended for two years. If, how­
ever, a propitious time for resuming the council should
come before the lapse of two years, the council was to
take up its work immediately.
THIRD PERIOD,

1562-1563

On the death of Julius III (1555), Marcellus II suc­
ceeded to the Papacy, but his reign was cut short by
death (he reigned twenty-two days). In the Conclave
which followed, Cardinal Peter Caraffa, the first Gen­
eral and in a certain sense the founder of the Theatines,
received the required majority of votes, notwithstanding
the express veto of the Emperor. He was proclaimed
Pope under the name of Paul IV (1555-1559). The new
Pope had been remarkable for his stern views, his ascetic
life, and his adherence to the scholastic as opposed to

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

189

humanist views. As nuncio in Spain he had acquired a
complete distrust of the Spanish rulers. The unfriendly
relations existing between Paul IV and Philip II of Spain
(I555~I59S), the husband of Mary I, Queen of England
(1553-1558), rendered difficult the work of bringing
about a complete reconciliation between England and
the Holy See. Owing to the disturbed condition of Eu­
rope, and the attitude of the Emperor and the King of
Spain, it would have been impossible for the Pope, even
had he been anxious to do so, to re-convoke the council.
He would not so much as even consider the idea of se­
lecting Trent or any German city as a fit place for such
an assembly. But of his own initiative he took strong
measures to reform the Roman Curia, established a spe­
cial commission in Rome to assist him in this work, and
presided frequently at the meetings of the Inquisition.
He had been beloved at first by the Romans on account
of his economic administration, whereby the taxes were
reduced considerably, but the disastrous results of the
war against Philip II in Naples effaced the memory of
the benefits he had conferred, and he died, detested by
the people.
In the Conclave which followed, the two great parties
among the cardinals were the French and the AustroSpanish, neither of which, however, was strong enough
to procure the election of its nominee. After a struggle,
lasting three months, Cardinal fohn Angelus de Medici
was elected by acclamation, and assumed the name of
Pius IV (1559-1565)· The new Pope had nothing of
the stern, morose temperament of his predecessor. He
was of a mild disposition, and anxious to advance the
interests of religion by kindness rather than by severity.

190

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

He was determined to proceed at all cost with the work
of the council, and as a first step in that direction he de­
voted all his energies to the establishment of friendly
relations with Emperor Ferdinand I (1556-1564) and
with Spain. In all his ambitions for reform he was
loyally supported by his nephew, St. Charles Borromeo,
whom he created cardinal, and to whom he entrusted the
work of preparing the measures which should be sub­
mitted to the future council.
When all arrangements
had
been made, the bull of reO
'
convocation, summoning the bishops to meet at Trent
at Easter 1561, was published on November 29, 1560.
Though it was not expressly stated in the document,
yet it was implied clearly enough, that the assembly was
not to be a new council, but only the continuation of
the Council of Trent. This was not satisfactory to
France, which demanded a revision of some of the de­
crees passed previously at Trent, and objected strongly
to the selection of Trent as the meeting place. The Em­
peror Ferdinand I and King Philip II expressed their
anxiety to further the project of the Pope. Delegates
were sent from Rome to interview the Lutheran princes
and theologians, but everywhere they met with sharp
rebuffs. In an assembly held at Naumburg in 1561, the
Lutherans refused to attend the council unless they were
admitted on their own terms, while many of the Catho­
lic princes and bishops showed no inclination to respond
to the papal convocation.
The Pope appointed Cardinal Hercules Gonzaga the
first President of the council, together with Cardinal
Hosius, Bishop of Ermland, Jerome Seripando, Arch­
bishop of Salerno, Louis Simonetta of Milan and Mark

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

191

of Altemps. When the legates arrived in Trent on
April 16, 1561, to open the council, they found so few
bishops in attendance that they could do nothing but
prepare the subjects to be submitted for future discussion.
RE-OPENING OF THE COUNCIL

Seventeenth Session (January 18, 1562). Besides the
legates, three patriarchs, eleven archbishops, forty bish­
ops, four generals of religious orders and four abbots
attended the session. From the very beginning the leg­
ates found themselves in a very difficult position, owing
to the spirit of hostility against the Holy See, manifested
by some of the bishops and representatives of the civil
powers. At this session very little was accomplished.
The formal opening of the council was announced, the
date for the next public session was fixed, and safe con­
duct for the delegates of the Protestant princes was pre­
pared.
Eighteenth Session (February 25, 1562). Besides the
five legates, the Cardinal of Trent, three patriarchs, six­
teen archbishops, one hundred and five bishops, five gen­
erals of religious orders and four abbots were present.
Despite the earnest efforts of the legates it was found
impossible to make any progress. Grave differences of
opinion manifested themselves both within and without
the council. The question whether bishops are bound
to reside in their dioceses by divine or ecclesiastical law
gave rise to prolonged and angry debates. Moreover,
Spain demanded that a definite statement should be
made to the effect that the council was only the contin­
uation of the Council of Trent, while France insisted

192

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

that it should be regarded as a distinct and independent
council.
'Nineteenth Session (May 14, 1562). Besides the
five legates, this session was attended by one cardinal,
three patriarchs, eighteen archbishops, one hundred and
thirty-one bishops, four generals of religious orders and
two abbots. No decree of any importance was passed.
'twentieth Session (June 4, 1562). At this session
were present the five legates, one cardinal, two patri­
archs, eighteen archbishops, one hundred and thirty­
seven bishops, four generals of religious orders and two
abbots. Various subjects were discussed, and the date
for the next session was fixed.
Twenty-first Session (July 16, 1562). In this session
the decrees on Holy Communion were passed. It
was defined that there was ‘‘no divine law obliging the
laity to receive Holy Communion under both kinds.”
“Sancta ipsa Synodus . . . declarat ac docet, nullo di­
vino praecepto laicos et clericos non conficientes obligari
ad Eucharistiae sacramentum sub utraque specie sumen­
dum” (Chap. 1) ; “that Christ is really present whole
and entire both under the appearance of bread and under
the appearance of wine” — “declarat fatendum esse,
etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum
Christum verumque sacramentum sumi” (Chap. 3) ;
“that infants who have not come to the use of reason, are
not bound to receive Holy Communion, since they have
been regenerated by baptism, and cannot lose, at that
age, being already incorporated in Christ, the grace of
adoption of the children of God” — “Eadem sancta
Synodus docet, parvulos usu rationis carentes, nulla obli­
gari necessitate ad sacramentalcm Eucharistiae com-

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

193

munionem, siquidem per Baptismi lavacrum regenerati
et in Christo incorporati adeptam jam Eliorum Dei gra­
tiam in illa aetate amittere non possunt” (Chap. 4).
At this session were present the five legates, one cardi­
nal, three patriarchs, nineteen archbishops, one hundred
and forty-eight bishops, six generals of religious orders
and four abbots.
7'tventy-second Session (September 17,1562). In this
session nine chapters and nine canons on die “Holy Sac­
rifice of the Mass" were published. It was laid down
“that in place of the sacrifices and the priesthood of the
Old Law Christ set up a new sacrifice, namely, the Mass,
the clean oblation foretold by the Prophet Malachy, and
a new priesthood, to whom he committed the celebration
of Mass ; that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacri­
fice as that of the Cross, having the same High-Priest
and the same Victim, and that the Mass may be offered
up for the living and for the dead.” “Si quis dixerit, in
Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium,
aut quod oiïerri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad
manducandum dari, anathema sit” (Canon 1). “Si
quis dixerit, illis verbis : ‘Hoc facite in meam commemo­
rationem’ Christum non instituisse Apostolos sacerdotes,
aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi aliique sacerdotes offerrent cor­
pus et sanguinem, anathema sit” (Canon 2). “Quare
non solum pro vivorum fidelium peccatis, satisfactioni­
bus et aliis necessitatibus, sed et pro defunctis in Christo,
nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite juxta Apostolorum
traditionem offertur” (Chapter 4).
The question of allowing the laity to receive Holy
Communion under both species was discussed at length,
and it was finally decided to submit the question to the

194

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Pope. Pope Pius IV did, indeed, make a concession on
this point in favor of several districts in Austria, but as
the Catholics did not desire such a concession, and since
the Lutherans refused to accept it as insufficient, the in­
duit remained practically a dead-letter ; later on it was
entirely withdrawn.
The reform decree dealt with the life of the clergy.
Present at this session were one hundred and eighty-two
voters.
The next session was fixed for November 1562, but on
account of very grave difficulties which arose, a much
more prolonged adjournment was rendered necessary.
During this interval the old controversies broke out with
renewed violence and bitterness, and more than once, it
appeared as if the council would break up in disorder ;
but the perseverance, tact and energy of the new legates,
Cardinals Morone and Navagero, who had been nomi­
nated after the death of the two Cardinals Gonzaga and
Seripando, averted the threatened rupture, and made it
possible for the fathers to accomplish the work for which
they had been convoked. The question whether the
residence of the bishops in their dioceses was obligatory
by divine or ecclesiastical law, became very acute. Em­
peror Ferdinand I put forward a very comprehensive
scheme of reform. Some of its portions were consid­
ered by the legates to be prejudicial to the rights of the
Holy See, and were, therefore, rejected by them. Ferdi­
nand asserted that there was no liberty at the council, and
that it was entirely controlled by Rome. At his request
several bishops left Trent, and joined Ferdinand at Inns­
bruck, where a kind of opposition assembly was begun.
Cardinal Morone, realizing fully the seriousness of the

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

1%

situation, went to Innsbruck, where he had a personal
interview with the Emperor in April 1563. The meet­
ing resulted in clearing away many of the misunder­
standings, which had arisen, and in bringing about a
compromise.
7we nty-third Session (July 15, 1563). In this session
it was defined tliat Christ instituted the Sacrament of
“Holy Orders” ; tliat there are seven orders in the
Church, two of which are expressly mentioned in Holy
Scripture — priesthood and diaconate—(Acts, vi, 5) :
“Ab ipso Ecclesiae initio sequentium ordinum nomina
atque uniuscujusque eorum propria ministeria, subdiaconi scilicet, acolythi, exorcistae, lectoris et ostiarii in usu
fuisse cognoscuntur” (Chapter 2) ; “Si quis dixerit
praeter sacerdotium non esse in Ecclesia catholica alios
ordines, et majores et minores, per quos vclut per gradus
quosdam in sacerdotium tendatur, anathema sit”
(Canon 2) ; that there is a hierarchy in the Catholic
Church, by divine ordination, consisting of bishops,
priests and ministers : “Si quis dixerit, in Ecclesia Cath­
olica non esse hierarchiam, divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex episcopis, presbyteris et ministris :
anathema sit” (Canon 6) ; that the bishops are superior
to the priests, that neither the consent of the people nor
of the civil power is necessary for the valid reception of
the orders : “Si quis dixerit, episcopos non esse presby­
teris superiores, vel non habere potestatem confirmandi
et ordinandi, vel eam, quam habent, illis esse communem
cum presbyteris ; vel ordines ab ipsis collates sine populi
vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione irritos
esse ; aut eos, qui nec ab ecclesiastica et canonica potes­
tate rite ordinati nec missi sunt, sed aliunde veniunt,

I

;

I y6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

legitimos esse verbi et sacramentorum ministros : ana­
thema sit” (Canon 7) ; and that the bishops who are
appointed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, are
true bishops : “Si quis dixerit, episcopos, qui auctoritate
Romani Pontificis assumuntur, non esse legitimos et
veros episcopos, sed figmentum humanum, anathema
sit” (Canon 8).
The question whether the duty of episcopal residence
is of divine law, about which such a protracted and
heated controversy had been waged, was settled amica­
bly by deciding that the bishops as pastors are bound
by divine command to know their flocks, and that they
cannot acquire this knowledge unless they reside in their
dioceses. This was the subject of the reform decree.
At this session there were present four cardinals, three
patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and
ninety-three bishops, four generals of religious orders
and three abbots.
T' wenty-fourth Session (November 11, 1563). The
decrees on the nature and sacramental character of
"Matrimony" were published. The council defined
that matrimony is truly one of the seven sacraments of
the evangelical law, instituted by Christ ; that Christians
may not have several wives simultaneously ; that the
Church has the power to establish diriment impedi­
ments ; that adultery does not dissolve the bond of mat­
rimony ; that clerics in sacred orders and religious who
have made the solemn vow of chastity cannot contract
matrimony validly. “Si quis dixerit, matrimonium
non esse vere et proprie unum ex septem Legis evangelicae sacramentis, a Christo Domino institutum, sed
ab hominibus in Ecclesia inventum, neque gratiam con-

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

197

ferre : anathema sit” (Canon i). “Si quis dixerit, licere
Christianis plurcs simul habere uxores, et hoc nulla lege
divina esse prohibitum : anathema sit” (Canon 2). “Si
quis dixerit, Ecclesiam non potuisse constituere impedi­
menta matrimoniorum dirimentia, vel in iis constituen­
dis errasse : anathema sit” (Canon 4). “Si quis dixerit,
Ecclesiam errare, cum docuit et docet, juxta evangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam, propter adulterium
alterius conjugum matrimonii vinculum non posse dis­
solvi . . . anathema sit” (Canon 7). “Si quis dixerit,
clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel regulares
castitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium
contrahere, contractumque validum esse . . . anathema
sit” (Canon 9).
The reform decrees, promulgated in this session, for­
bid by the famous decree “Tametsi dubitandum non
est” (“Though there is no doubt”) clandestine mar­
riages : “Qui aliter quam praesente parocho, vel alio
sacerdote de ipsius parochi seu Ordinarii licentia, et
duobus vel tribus testibus matrimonium contrahere at­
tentabunt, eos sancta Synodus ad sic contrahendum
omnino inhabiles reddit, et hujusmodi contractu irritos
et nullos esse decernit.” “Those who shall attempt to
contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the
Pastor, or another Priest with the permission of the Pas­
tor or Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three wit­
nesses, this holy Synod makes them entirely unfit to
enter upon such a marriage, and declares such contracts
null and void” (Chapter 1). The council also re­
newed the ancient prohibitions of solemn nuptials from
Advent to Epiphany and from Ash Wednesday until
the Octave of Easter (Canon 11). The other disci­

198

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

plinary decrees speak of the procedure to be followed
in the election of bishops and cardinals ; of the holding
of provincial synods every third year, and of Diocesan
synods every year.
All were anxious to bring the council to an end. In
accordance with the general desire the addresses were
cut short, and so rapid was the progress that the last
session could be announced for December 3.
‘7tuenty-fifth Session (December 3 and 4,1563). The
decrees on “Purgatory, Veneration of the Saints and
their Relics," and on “Indulgences" were promulgated.
“Cum catholica Ecclesia ... et in hac oecumenica
Synodo docuerit, purgatorium esse, animasque ibi de­
tentas fidelium suffragiis, potissimum vero acceptabili
altaris sacrificio juvari : praecipit sancta Synodus epis­
copis, ut sanam doctrinam de purgatorio, a sanctis Patri­
bus et sacris Conciliis traditam, a Christifidelibus credi,
teneri, doceri et ubique praedicari studeant.” “Since
the Catholic Church . . . and lately in this Ecumenical
Synod has taught that there is a purgatory, and that the
souls detained there are assisted by the suffrages of the
faithful, especially by the acceptable sacrifice of Mass :
the holy Synod enjoins on die Bishops to take pains that
the wise doctrine of purgatory, handed down by the
Holy Fathers and holy Synods is believed, held by the
faithful of Christ, and taught and preached every­
where.” The council renews the teaching of the Sec­
ond Ecumenical Council of Nicaea held in 787, con­
cerning the veneration of the saints and their relics.
Concerning indulgences the Holy Synod decreed : “Sac­
rosancta Synodus indulgentiarum usum, christiano

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

199

populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum Conciliorum
auctoritate probatum, in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet
et praecipit, eosque anathemate damnat, qui aut inutiles
esse asserunt, vel eas concedendi in Ecclesia potestatem
esse negant.” “The holy Synod teaches and commands
that the use of indulgences, so very salutary to the Chris­
tian people and sanctioned by holy Councils, must be
retained in the Church, and pronounces anathema over
those who assert that they are useless or deny the power
of the Church to grant them” (Decree on Indulgences).
The reform decrees treated of fast days and holy days,
in the observance of which the custom of the Roman
Church should be followed ; of monastic life ; of the
relation of the regular clergy to the bishop ; of forbid­
den books and of a revision and new edition of the
missal and breviary. Thereupon the decrees which had
been passed in the First Period under Paul III and in
the Second Period under Julius III were read and ac­
cepted. The legates were asked to obtain the approval
of the Pope for the decisions of the council.
Cardinal Moronc, the first Legate and President of
the Council then blessed the assembled prelates, and
after the singing of the “Te Deum,” he dismissed them
with the customary formula : “Most Reverend Fathers,
go in peace.” And all answered with heart and mind :
“Amen.” Tears flowed from the eyes of every one ;
the Fathers, with mutual embraces, congratulated each
other upon the successful outcome of their work.
Finally, all signed their names to the acts of the council,
namely, four cardinal-legates, two cardinals, three pa­
triarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and

200

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

sixty-seven bishops, seven generals of religious orders,
seven abbots, and nineteen procurators in the name of
thirty-three absent prelates.
On the conclusion of the council, Cardinal Morone
hastened to Rome to seek the approval of the Pope for
the decrees. On January 26, 1564 Pope Pius IV issued
the bull of confirmation, saying that the decrees would
go into effect on May 1, 1564.
Italy received the decrees of the council immediately ;
so also King Sebastian of Portugal. Philip II, King of
Spain, acted similarly, except that he insisted on the ad­
dition of a saving clause : “without prejudice to royal
authority.” Emperor Ferdinand I hesitated for some
time to accept the decrees, but finally gave in (1566).
In France, the dogmatic decrees were accepted ; but as
several reform decrees, notably those relating to mar­
riage, benefices, etc., were opposed to the civil law, per­
mission to publish them was refused. However, the
reform decrees were gradually promulgated in the
provincial synods.
A “Profession of Faith,” based on the decrees of the
Council of Trent, was drawn up by Pius IV on Novem­
ber 13, 1564. This profession of faith had to be made
by those who were appointed to ecclesiastical dignities,
who received an academic degree, and who were con­
verts from Protestantism.
The "Catechism of the Council of Trent” was pre­
pared by St. Pius V, a Dominican, and published in
1566. It is a most valuable work of instruction, ap­
proved by the highest authority in the Church.
The Council of Trent met under very difficult con­
ditions and circumstances, and it carried on its work in

THE NINETEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

201

face of great opposition and disappointments. More
than once it was interrupted for a long period, and more
than once, too, it was feared by many that it would re­
sult in creating schism rather than in promoting unity.
But under the Providence of God the dangers were
averted, the arms of the enemies were weakened, and
the hearts of the faithful children of the Church through­
out the world were filled with joy and gratitude. Never
had a council of the Church met under more alarming
conditions ; never had a council been confronted with
more serious obstacles, and never did a council confer a
greater service on the Christian world than did the
Council of Trent from 1545 to 1563.

XX
THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
HELD AT THE VATICAN, ROME,

1869-1870

WORK OF FHE COUNCIL· : Condemnation of exist­
ing errors and definition of papal infallibility.

More than three hundred years had elapsed since the

celebration of the Council of Trent. We do not meet
another period in the history of the Church so long
without the convocation of an ecumenical council. To
counteract the prevalent machinations which threat­
ened to overthrow the supernatural order, Pius IX, on
December 6, 1864, communicated to certain cardinals,
under the seal of secrecy, his intention of convoking an
ecumenical council, and requested the cardinals then
present in Rome to furnish him a statement of their
views. Nearly all of them were in favor of holding a
council. In March 1865, Pius IX appointed a central
commission of five cardinals (Patrizzi, Reisach, Panebianco, Bizzari, Caterini) to report on the advisability
of a council. In April and May 1865, letters were sent
to thirty-six of the leading bishops of the Latin Rite,
and, later on, to the principal bishops of the Oriental
Rite concerning the advisability of holding a synod.
The replies of the bishops were favorable to the idea.
In 1867, Pope Pius IX invited the bishops of the world
to attend the celebration of the eighteenth centenary of
die martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. Great
202

THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

20}

numbers from all parts of die world attended, and in
a public consistory, held on June 26, 1867, the Pope an­
nounced his intention of holding an ecumenical coun­
cil. The bishops, in their reply on July 2, 1867, con­
gratulated the Pope on his resolve and promised him
their earnest co-operation. The central commission ad­
vised that five auxiliary commissions should be estab­
lished : one for doctrine, one for ecclesiastico-political
questions, one for missions and the re-union of the
Churches, one for discipline, and one for religious or­
ders; and that in addition to the Roman theologians
and canonists, distinguished scholars should be invited
from all parts of the world to attend the council (Au­
gust ii, 1867). This suggestion was accepted and
Church historians of repute and theologians were called
to Rome. Hefele, Schraeder, Hergenroether, Alzog,
Hettinger were among die distinguished representatives
of Germany ; Feye represented Louvain ; Gay, Freppel,
Gibert, Chesnel were among the French scholars ;
Canon Weathers, Rector of St. Edmund’s, attended
from England, and Dr. Corcoran of Charleston from
the United States of America.
The bull “Aeterni Patris” (“Of the Eternal Father”),
which was based on the bull of Paul III, convoking the
Council of Trent in 1542, was issued by Pius IX on June
29,1868, convoking the Vatican Council, to open on De­
cember 8, 1869.
On September 8, 1868, Pius IX invited the Eastern
bishops, not in communion with Rome, to the coming
council. On September 13, 1868, he sent an invitation
to the Protestants to return to Catholic unity. Both
these parties declined to take part in the council.

204

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The convocation of the council, while pleasing to the
vast body of the Catholic clergy and people, roused the
bitter enmity of the radical-liberal party throughout
Europe. Even in Catholic circles bitter controversies
broke out, especially in Germany and France. The
ablest opponent in Germany at this period was Doctor
Ignatius von Doellinger, Professor of Church History
at the University of Munich. As an historian, Doellinger
stood in the front rank of his profession, and, as a writer
and speaker, he had wrought wonders for the Catholic
Church in Germany ; but as his reputation for learning
became greater, his respect for the Church and Church
authority grew less. The knowledge that he was dis­
trusted in Rome embittered his feelings, so that from
1867 on it was well known that Doellinger must be
reckoned among the strong opponents of the council.
In 1868 he contributed a series of letters, principally on
the question of papal infallibility, to an Augsburg paper.
These at once attracted ogeneral attention on account of
the bitterness with which he discussed the question. In
1869 Doellinger published the book “Janus,” a summary
of all the historical objections which could be urged
against papal infallibility. Refutations of this book
were not few. The best of these was undoubtedly the
“Anti-Janus,” written by Professor Hergenroether of
Wuerzburg, an able historian, who knew how to com­
bine scientific investigation with due respect for the
divinely constituted authority of the Church.
In France the most active opponent of papal infalli­
bility was Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans, who was sup­
ported by Cardinal Mathieu of Besançon, by Archbishop
Darboy of Paris, and by Bishop Maret, Dean of the

THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

205

Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne, and by other
lesser personages.
In Belgium the feeling was general in favor of papal
infallibility. Archbishop Deschamps of Malines was
its prominent supporter, and in his efforts he was sec­
onded by the professors of Louvain University.
In England, Cardinal Manning was recognized as a
leader in the movement for the definition of papal in­
fallibility, and he was ably helped by Monsignor Ward
in the “Dublin Review.” In Ireland Dr. Murray was a
strong supporter of papal infallibility.
In the United States of America the principal oppo­
nent to the definition of papal infallibility was the Most
Reverend Peter Richard Kenrick, Archbishop of St.
Louis, Missouri.
While the controversies were going on in almost every
country of the world, the central commission was at
work in Rome preparing the general direction of the
council and special commissions were engaged in
drafting the schemata, which were to be submitted to
the fathers. Four committees were selected, each con­
sisting of twenty-four members, to deal with the four
classes of subjects : faith, discipline, Oriental Church,
and religious orders. Each committee was directed to
discuss the schema and then submit it to the general
congregation of the council for discussion. If, after due
discussion, the schema was accepted, a public session of
the council could be held at once in the presence of the
Pope and then the decrees could be promulgated. If,
however, serious changes had to be made, or if the
schema was rejected entirely, the committee had to sub­
mit it again in an improved form.

2o6

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Proceedings

of the

Council

Opening of the Council. Pope Pius IX opened the
council with great solemnity in St. Peter’s on December
8, 1869. The customary prayers were said, and the
Archbishop of Iconium, Passavalli, O.M. Cap., preached
the sermon on this occasion.
First Session (December 8, 1869). The council was
declared officially opened, and the next session was an­
nounced for January 6, 1870. The number of the par­
ticipants in the Vatican Council varied at different
times. The highest number present at any time was
774 : forty-nine cardinals, ten patriarchs, ten primates,
one hundred and twenty-seven archbishops, five hun­
dred and twenty-nine bishops, twenty-two abbots,
twenty-six generals of religious orders, and one apostolic
administrator. The total number of those who were
entitled to be present was about 1,050, so that about 280
were absent through age, sickness, or for some other
good reason. If the Vatican Council be viewed from
the point of number of bishops present, it is the largest
and most representative council held in the history of
the Church.
On the same day, December 8, 1869, the “Brothers of
the Three Points” (Freemasons) opened a grand coun­
cil of their infamous order in Naples. This gathering
had been decreed at a Masonic banquet given in Paris
on the Good Friday previous for the express purpose of
manifesting a diabolical hatred of the God-Man. At
this banquet to the accompaniment of blasphemies
“sausages were flung at the Head of Christ, and the rep-

THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

20/

resentation of Calvary was smeared with scraps of pork”
(Rivaux, Eccles. Hist. Vol. Ill, page 605).
The General Congregations opened their sessions on
December 10, 1869. Before January 6, 1870 they held
seven general meetings.
Second Session (January 6,1870). Because no schema
was so far advanced in its preparation as to be proposed
to the fathers of the council for voting, all present made
the customary profession of faith.
Between this and the next session twenty-two general
meetings
o were held,
Though the question of papal infallibility was not yet
on the schemata to be submitted to the council, the con­
troversies of the previous year had brought it into such
considerable prominence that from the very beginning
of the council the friends and the opponents of the defi­
nition were not idle. In December 1869, Archbishop
Deschamps sent a request to the congregations ap­
pointed to deal with such proposals that the question of
papal infallibility should be defined by the council.
About the same time the leading supporters of infallibil­
ity (Manning of England, Martin of Paderborn, von
Senestrey of Ratisbon, Spalding of Baltimore, and
others), agreed that a petition which would demand the
definition of the dogma should be prepared and cir­
culated in order to obtain the signatures of the fathers.
It was signed by 380, and about 100 bishops signed other
petitions of a similar kind, so that altogether about 480
of the fathers requested that the^question of papal in­
fallibility should be placed upon the schemata. On the
other hand, the opponents of infallibility were not idle.

2O8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Cardinal Schwarzenberg of Prague, Cardinal Rauscher
of Vienna, Strossmayer of Diakovar, Darboy of Paris,
and Dupanloup of Orleans were particularly active.
Instead of one common petition against infallibility, five
separate ones were handed in. The first of these from
the German, Austrian and Hungarian bishops bore the
signatures of sixty-four bishops ; the second, mainly
from the French and Portuguese, was signed by forty
bishops ; the third, from the Italians, was subscribed to
by seven bishops ; the fourth, mainly from the North
Americans, England and Ireland, had the signatures of
twenty-three bishops ; the fifth, from the Orientals, was
signed by sixteen bishops. American bishops against
infallibility were Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis,
Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, Bishop Berot of Sa­
vannah, Bishop Domenec of Pittsburg, Bishop McQuaid
of Rochester, Bishop Mrak of Marquette, Bishop Fitz­
gerald of Little Rock and Bishop Connelly of Halifax.
The two Irish bishops who signed the counter petition
were Moriarty of Kerry and Leahy of Dromore, while
the two English bishops who had affixed their signatures
were Errington, the former Coadjutor of Westminster,
and Clifford of Clifton. The two petitions — pro and
con — were considered by the congregation charged
with the examination of such proposals on February 9,
1870. With the exception of Cardinal Rauscher of
Vienna, all the members of the congregation voted in
favor of including papal infallibility in the program of
the council. Pius IX approved of their decision.
The excitement both within and without the council
became greater every day. The greater part of the Ger­
man and Austrian bishops were opposed to the defini-

THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

20?

tion, but their opposition was based principally on the
danger which would result from such a definition in
Germany rather than on objections to the doctrine it­
self. About one-third of the episcopate of France was
in the ranks of the opposition, but they too professed
that they opposed the definition not from the doctrinal
standpoint but for reasons of prudence. Archbishop
Darboy of Paris and Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans
seem to have spared no pains to secure a victory for
their views. In Germany Doellinger carried on his un­
bridled campaign. From December 16, 1869 till July
19, 1870 a series of sixty-nine articles, entitled “Roemische Briefe” (“Roman letters”) appeared in the
“Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung.” Doellinger had prob­
ably a great share in the composition of these letters, but
the information was supplied mainly by Friedcrich, the
theologian of Cardinal Hohenlohe, and by Sir John
Acton (Grandcrath, Gesch. des Vat. Konzils, Vol. Ill,
599-602).
Very able replies to these letters were issued by Hergenrocther, Scheeben, Stoekl and Zahn. The bishops
of Germany publicly disassociated themselves from the
Doellinger campaign.
In the meantime the schema “On Faith” had been so
thoroughly debated and recast that it was ready for
final voting and promulgation.
Fhird Session (April 24, 1870). The schema “On
Faith” was accepted and promulgated by Pius IX in the
constitution “Dei Filius” (“The Son of God”). This
constitution condemns atheism, pantheism, materialism,
the errors of Guenther and Hermes, the errors of the
pseudo-philosophers and pseudo-theologians ; it defines

210

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

the necessity of revelation, and emphasizes the necessity
of faith, the impossibility of opposition between faith
and reason and the mutual aid which faith and science
render to each other. This constitution contained five
canons on “God the Creator of all things” ; four canons
on “Revelation” ; six canons on “Faith,” and three can­
ons on “Faith and Reason.”
Six hundred and sixty-seven voters were present at
this session.
The majority of the bishops were of the opinion that
because of the excitement which raged around the defi­
nition of papal infallibility, the question should be
determined immediately. On April 27, 1870, the Car­
dinal Prefect announced that the schema “On the Ro­
man Pontiff' should be taken up. On April 29th,
seventy-one bishops signed a protest against it and de­
manded that this protest should be presented to the
Holy Father. The Committee “On Faith” proceeded
to draft the formal decrees. There was great difficulty
in presenting an acceptable formula for the definition
of papal infallibility. Cardinal Bilio suggested that the
formula should state that the Pope was infallible when­
ever, as Supreme Pastor, he taught that something
should be accepted by the whole Church as of “divine
Faith,” or that something should be rejected as opposed
to “divine Faith.” This formula was agreeable to most
of the bishops, except to Manning and von Senestrey.
On May 13th the general debate began in the council.
It lasted till June 13th, during which time fourteen gen­
eral meetings were held and sixty-four speeches were
made by bishops from all parts of the world. On June
13th, Cardinal de Angelis with a vast majority were in

THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

211

favor of closing the general debate. A protest was
lodged against this proceeding by Cardinals Mathieu,
Schwarzenberg and Rauschcr in the name of eighty-one
bishops.
The difficulty of agreeing on a suitable formula for
the definition of papal infallibility still continued. At
last on June 18, Dr. Cullen of Dublin proposed a for­
mula which with a few slight changes gave general
satisfaction. The public session for the solemn ratifica­
tion of the decree was fixed for July 18, 1870.
During the intervening days the minority made great
efforts to secure the insertion of their amendments in
the text, or to have the solemn definition of the doc­
trine postponed. To obtain either the one or the other
of their demands, six of their number : Darboy (Paris),
Cinoulhiac (Lyons), Simor (Gran), Scherr (Munich),
Kctteler (Mayence), and Rivot (Dijon) went as a depu­
tation to Pius IX, but the Pope declined to interfere with
the decisions of the council. The minority were, there­
fore, obliged to make up their minds, either to attend
the public session, and vote against the definition, or to
take their departure from Rome before the session for
the definition would be held.
Fourth Session (July 18, 1870). In this session the
“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ”—
“Pastor aeternus” (“Eternal Pastor") was accepted.
The constitution treats of the institution of the primacy
in Blessed Peter, of the perpetuity of the primacy of
Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs, of the rights and
the significance of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff,
of the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pon­
tiff, in which section the constitution cites the Fourth

2 12

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (870), the Sec­
ond Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1274) and the Ecu­
menical Council of Florence (1445), and the Constitu­
tion concludes with the Definition of Infallibility :
“Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei christianae exordio per­
ceptae fideliter inhaerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri
gloriam, religionis catholicae exaltationem et Christian­
orum populorum salutem, sacro approbante Concilio,
docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma
esse definimus :
π
Romanum Pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est,
cum omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris mu­
nere fungens pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate
doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia
tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam ipsi in beato
Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus
Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de
fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit ; idcoque ejus­
modi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem
ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse.” Canon :
“Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere,
quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit, anathema sit.” “We,
therefore, adhering to the tradition perceived from the
beginning of the Christian Faith, for the glory of our
God-Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion
and for the salvation of Christian peoples, with the ap­
proval of the Holy Council, teach and define that it is a
dogma divinely revealed : That the Roman Pontiff,
when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the dis­
charge of his office as pastor and teacher of all Chris­
tians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he
defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be held

THE TWENTIETH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

21}

by the Universal Church, is by divine assistance prom­
ised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibil­
ity with which the Divine Redeemer willed that the
Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regard­
ing faith or morals ; and that, therefore, such definitions
of the Roman Pontiffs are of themselves, and not from
the consent of the Church, irreformable.” Canon :
“If any one should presume to contradict this our defi­
nition, which God avert, let him be anathema."
Of the bishops present, five hundred and thirty-three
voted in the affirmative, and only two in the negative,
namely, Bishop Riccio of Cajazzo in Sicily, and Bishop
Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas. Some bishops
from Germany, Austria, Hungary, and United States of
America, fifty-five in all, absented themselves from this
solemn session. Pope Pius IX, amid lightning and
thunder, promulgated the decree of the council, and the
two bishops who had voted against the definition made
their humble submission immediately after the publica­
tion of the decree. These two bishops who voted nega­
tively rendered great service to the council inasmuch as
they proved conclusively that the council was absolutely
free in its action.
War was declared between France and Germany on
July 19, 1870, and most of the bishops left Rome. It
was well known that an invasion of the city of Rome
might be expected immediately. The debate on the
schema of discipline was begun, but it was not con­
cluded when the city was surrounded by the forces of
Italy. On October 20, 1870, Pius IX issued a decree,
proroguing the council. Some of the bishops, notably

214

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Manning, Cullen and Spalding (Baltimore) were anx­
ious for the council to continue its work in Malines, but
their plan did not find support.
The Vatican Council was convoked as a remedy for
the evils of the time ; its object was to unmask the en­
emy of Christian society. In proclaiming the Infalli­
bility of the Pope, this august assembly gave to the world
a principle which regenerates authority ; one, which in
the course of time, will re-establish in society — order,
peace and unity.
“Jesus Christ has three existences : His personal ex­
istence, which Arius denied ; His sacramental existence,
which Calvin denied, and that other existence which
completes the two, and by means of which He continu­
ally lives, through His authority, in the person of His
Vicar. The Council of the Vatican, in proclaiming this
third existence, has completed the task of assuring the
world of the possession of Jesus Christ.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alzog, Universal Church History.
Brueck, History of the Catholic Church.
Bullarium Romanum.
Butler, The Vatican Council (2 vols.).
Catholic Encyclopedia.
Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum.
Hefele, Conciliengeschichte.
Herder’s Konversationslexikon.
Hergenroether, Handbuch der allgemeinen KirchenGeschichte.
Holzapfel, Historia Ordinis Fratrum Minorum.
Koch, Jesuiten-Lexikon.
/juilday, Church Historians.
Gilmartin, Manual of Church History.
Knopfler, Manual of Church History.
Manning, The Vatican Council.
Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Col­
lectio.
Müller, Das Konzil von Vienne.
Parsons, Studies in Church History.
Pastor, History of the Popes.
Ritter, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte.
Universal Knowledge, Encyclopedia of.
Vaticanum im Lichte des katholischen Glaubens.
Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon.
Palla vicini, Gcschichte des Trienter Concils.
Grisar, Analecta Romana, Geschichte Roms im Mittelalter.
Hurter, Pontifikat Innocenz III.
Hettinger, Apologie des Christcntums.
Granderath, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils.

INDEX
Abundantius, of Paterno, papal leg­
Apostolical Council, decrees of, 2.
ate to 6th Ecum. Council, 44.
A postalici Regiminis, bull of Leo
Ad providam, bull of Clement V,
X, 165.
disposing of property of Knights
Aquileja, breaks off Communion
with Holy Sec, 39.
Templars, 116.
Aeterni Patris, bull of Pius IX, con­
Aquin, St. Thomas of, called to
14th Ecum. Council, 103.
voking Vatican Council, 203.
Aeternus Pastor, dogmatic constitu­
Arcadius, papal legate to 3rd Ecum.
Council at Ephesus, 20.
tion of Pius IX, 211.
Arius : arch-heretic, author of Ar­
Agatho, St., I, Pope ; orders synods
ianism, 2 ; his errors, 3 ; his con­
to condemn Monothelism, 44 ;
demnation, 6.
sends dogmatic epistle to 6th
Ecum. Council, 44 ; defends Pope
Armenians,
return
to
Roman
Church at 17th Ecum. Council,
Honorius I, 50.
156.
Albcrgati, Cardinal, President of
Asbestas, Gregory, Bishop of Syra­
Union Council at Ferrara, 147.
Albigensian heresy, condemnation
cuse : ordained Photius, 61 ; fa­
vored Photian schism, 61 ; sus­
of, 83, 91.
Alexander HI, Pope : eulogized by
pended by Nicholas I, 62 ;
excommunicated by 8th Ecum.
Voltaire, 80 ; triumphs over Fred­
erick Barbarossa, 81 ; convokes
Council, 66.
nth Ecum. Council, 82.
/\scoli, Jerome of, Franciscan, and
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria,
Greek Union, 102.
contradicted by Arius, 3, 5.
Assisi, St. Francis of, at 4th Lateran
Alexandria : St. Peter bishop of, ex­
Council, 93.
communicates Meletians, 3 ; syn­
Athanasian Creed, 15.
od of, condemns heresy of Arius,
Athanasius, St., at 1st Ecum. Coun­
3 ·, St. Cyril of, at 3rd Ecum.
cil, 4·
Council, 17.
Augsburg, adherents of Confession
Anaclctus II. anti-pope : aided by
of, 187.
Roger of Sicily, 76 ; his ordina­
tions declared null, 78.
Baptism, Sacrament of, discussion
Ancyra, 56, 64.
'
at Council of Trent, 179.
Anatolius, Patriarch of Constanti­ Barbarossa, Frederick : peace with
nople : asks for confirmation of
Alexander III, 81 ; vow to start
the Council of Chalcedon, 31 ; is
on Crusade, 96 ; excommuni­
rebuked by Leo I, 32.
cated at 13th Ecum. Council, 99.
Anathemas : of St. Cyril, 18 ; coun­ Bardas, opponent of Ignatius of
ter—, of Nestorius, 18; con­
Constantinople, 61.
demning “Three Chapters,” 39.
Basil, St., refutes Maccdonianism,
Andrew, King of Hungary, and
10.
Crusade, 95.
Basil, Emperor : expels Photius, 63 ;
Anthonv Messanus, Franciscan, and
recalls Ignatius from exile, 63 ;
union with Greek Church, 146.
notification to Pope Nicholas I,
Antt-Janus, by Hergenroether, 204.
63.
Apamea, Constantine, teaches ex­
Basilius, Bishop of Ancyra, abjures
istence of two wills in Christ, 48.
iconoclasm, 56.
216

INDEX
Basilius, oapal legate to 4th Ecum.
Council at Chalcedon, 28.
Basle, 17th Ecum. Council (1431) :
136 ; hostile measures of council
against Papacy, 139, 140, 142;
dissolved by Eugene IV, 144 ;
stubbornly continues, 145 ; ecu­
menical character of, 145.
Bassian, Bishop of Ephesus, ease ex­
amined by 4th Ecum. Council at
Chalcedon, 31.
Benedict XIII, anti-pope : his ad­
herents, 122 ; his stubbornness,
128 ; deposed by 16th Ecum.
Council of Constance, 130.
Berengarius, Raymond, Franciscan,
and Greek Union, 102.
Beser, defender of iconoclasm, 53.
Bologna, Council of Trent trans­
ferred to, 179.
Bonagratia, Franciscan, and Greek
Union, 102.
Bonaventure, Franciscan sent by
Gregory X to work for Greek
Union, 102.
Bonaventure, St., created cardinal
by Gregory X, 103 ; at 14th
Ecum. Council, 104.
Boniface, papal legate to 4th Ecum.
Council, 31.
Books, printing of, regulated by
18th Ecum. Council, 168.
Bourges, Pragmatic Sanction of :
issued by Charles VII, 163 ; abro­
gated at 18th Ecum. Council,
163.
Bruys, Peter of, condemnation of
his heresy, 78.
Bulls : Ad providam of Clement V,
disposing of the property of the
Knights Templars, 115; Aeterni
Patris of Pius IX, convoking the
Vatican Council, 203 ; Exivi de
paradiso of Clement V, explain­
ing Rule of Franciscan Order,
117; Laetare Jerusalem of Paul
III, opening Council of Trent,
174 ; Vineam Domini of Inno­
cent III, convoking 12th Ecum.
Council, 88 ; Vox in excelso of
Clement V, suppressing Knights
Templars, 115.

^7

Cacrularius, Michael, break with
Rome (1054), 67.
Calendar, reform of, 168.
Callistus II, Pope, settles investiture
at Diet of Worms, 72.
Canonical Scriptures, decree of
Council of Trent, 177.
Canons : Council of Nicaea, 7 ;
Council of Constantinople, 13 ;
Council of Ephesus, 21 ; Coun­
cil of Chalcedon, 32 : Council of
Nicaea, 58 ; Council of Constan­
tinople, 66 ; Council of the Lat­
eran, 73 ; Council of the Lateran,
79 ; Council of the Lateran, 84 ;
Council of the Lateran, 90 ;
Council of Lyons, 99 ; Council
of Lyons, 107, 108 ; Council of
Vienne, 117; Council of Con­
stance, 134.
Cardinals : tenth part of revenue
to Crusades, 90, 104 : refractory,
convoked Council of Pisa in 1511,
159; central commission of, to
report on advisability of holding
Ecum. Council of Vatican, 202.
CarrafTa, Peter Cardinal, Pone Paul
IV, 188.
Catechism of Council of Trent, 200.
Celestine, I, St. : writes to St. Cyril
of Alexandria and Nestorius, 17 ;
sends legates to Council of Ephe­
sus, 20 ; confirms Council of
Ephesus, 23.
Cervini, Marcellus Cardinal, ap­
pointed president of Council of
Trent, 172.
Corinthians, heresy of, 15.
Ccsarini, Cardinal : legate of Holy
See for Crusade against Hussites,
137 ; president of Council of
Basle, 137.
Chalcedon, 4th Ecum. Council at
(451) : 24 ; condemns heresy of
Eutychcs, 25 ; issued thirty can­
ons, 32 ; papal legates protest
against 28th canon, 32 ; Dog­
matic Epistle of Pope Leo I, 26 ;
profession of Faith, 30 ; confir­
mation of council by Leo I, 32.
Chalice, lay, discussion at Council
of Trent, 192.

2l8

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Chapters, Three, condemned at 5th
Ecum. Council at Constantinople,
36, 39·
Charles Borromco, St., at Council
of Trent, 190.
Charles V, Emperor, and Council
of Trent, 171.
Christ : divinity of, 6 ; Mother of,
20.
Chrysologus, St. Peter, Eutychcs ap­
peals to, 25.
Chrysorrhoas, St. John (Damas­
cene), writings against icono­
clasm, 54.
Clandestine marriages, nullified by
Council of Trent, 196.
Clement V, Pope : permanent resi­
dence in Avignon, in ; resist­
ance to King Philip, in ; con­
vokes 15th Ecum. Council, 113 ;
and case of Knights Templars,
114, 115; settles controversy re­
garding Franciscan vow of pov­
erty, 117; issues bull Exivi de
paradiso explaining Rule of Fran­
ciscan Order, 117 ; issues consti­
tution Fidei Catholicae funda­
mento, 117.
Clerics, canon 26 of nth Ecum.
Council regarding, 84.
Colonna, Cardinal (Martin V), and
Council of Constance, 131.
Communion : of infants, discussion
at Council of Trent, 192 ; pascal,
and 12th Ecum. Council, 90.
Concordat of Worms, abolition of
investiture, 71.
Condemnations : of Arius, 6 ; of
Macedonius and Marathonius, 9 ;
of Nestorius, 20 ; of Eutychcs, 30 ;
of the “Three Chapters,” 39 ; of
Monothclism, 47 ; of iconoclasm,
52 ; of Photius, 65 ; of Peter of
Bruys, 78 ; of Albigensian heresy,
91 ; of Frederick Barbarossa, 99 ;
of Wiclif and John Huss, 132 ; of
errors of innovators at Council of
Trent, 170 ; of atheism, panthe­
ism, materialism, and errors of
pseudo-philosophers and pseudo­
theologians at Vatican Council,
209.

Confession of Augsburg, adherents
of, 187.
Confession, yearly, ordained by 12th
Ecum. Council, 90.
Confirmation, Sacrament of, discus­
sion at Council of Trent, 179.
Constance, 16th Ecumenical Coun­
cil of (1414) : 120 ; authority of
council over Pope, 126 ; con­
demns heresies of Wiclif and
John Huss, 132 ; deposes John
XXIII, 127 ; deposes Benedict
XIII, 130 ; accepts resignation of
Gregory XII, 127 ; elects Cardinal
Colonna Pope Martin V, 131.
Constans II, Emperor, issues Jypus,
43·
Constantine the Great, and Coun­
cil of Nicaea, 4, 5, 7.
Constantine, papal legate to 6th
Ecum. Council, 44.
Constantine Copronymus, Emperor,
iconoclast, 54.
Constantine Pogonatus, Emperor :
convokes 6th Ecum. Council at
Constantinople, 45 ; writes to
Pope Donus, 44.
Constantine Porphyrogcnitus, Em­
peror, signs profession of Faith
of 7th Ecum. Council, 58.
Constantinople, Second Ecumenical
Council at (381) : 9 ; condem­
nation of the heresy of Macedo­
nius and other work of, 11 ; can­
ons issued by, 13 ; ecumenical
only in dogmatical utterances, 14.
5th Ecumenical Council at
(553) : 34 ’> condemnation of
“Three Chapters,” 34, 39 ; Pope
Vigilius issues Judicatum and
Constitutum, 36 ; and second
Constitutum, 39 ; gradual recog­
nition of ecumenical character,
396th Ecumenical Council at
(680) : 41 ; Monothclism, 42,
47 ; Emperor Hcraclius issues
El{thesis, 43 ; Constantine Pogo­
natus asks for an Ecum. Council,
44 ; Pope Agatho sends legates
and “Dogmatic Epistle,” 44 ; is­
sues profession of Faith, 48 ;

INDEX
Constantinople {continued)
Monothclism condemned, 47, 48 ;
Leo II confirms acts of council
with correction, 48 ; word on
Pope Honorius I, 49.
8th Ecumenical Council at
(869) : purpose to combat Pho­
tian schism, 60, 61 ; deposes
Pope Nicholas in pseudo-synod,
63 ; Emperor Basil ousts Photius,
63 ; asks Pope Hadrian II for an
Ecum. Council, 63 ; Pope sends
legates, 63 ; “Document of Rec­
onciliation,’’ 64 ; Photius is de­
posed, 65.
Synod of (754), endorses icon­
oclasm, 55.
Synod of (861), 62.
Constitutions, Dogmatic : Dei Fi­
lius of Pius IX, condemning prev­
alent errors, 209 ; Fidei Catho­
licae fundamento of Clement V,
condemning errors of Peter Olivi,
117 ; Pastor aeternus of Pius IX
on the Church of Christ, 211.
Consubstantiality, touchstone of or­
thodoxy, 6 ; Council of Nicaea, 1.
Creed : Athanasian, 15 ; Niccne, 6 ;
Niccne-Constantinopolitan, 12.
Crcsccnzi, Cardinal legate to Coun­
cil of Trent, 181.
Crusades, aid for, 90, 104.
Cyril, St., Bishop of Alexandria :
17 ; combats Nestorian heresy,
17 ; reports to St. Celestine I, 17 ;
anathemas against Nestorius, 18 ;
champion of orthodoxy at Coun­
cil of Ephesus, 19.
D’Allemand, Cardinal Louis, lead­
er of fanatics at Council of Basle,
140.
Damascene, St. John, writings re­
garding veneration of saints, im­
ages and relies, 54.
Damasus, I, St., Pope, condemns
Maccdonianism, 10.
Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, oppo­
nent of papal infallibility, 211.
Definition, dogmatic, of Union
Council of Florence, 153.

219

Dei Filius, dogmatic Constitution
of Pius IX, 209.
Del Monte, John Maria Cardinal :
appointed president of Council of
Trent, 172 ; later Pope Julius III,
181 ; and Council of Trent. 182.
Deschamps, Archbishop of Malines,
and papal infallibility, 205.
Diet of Worms, 71.
Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria :
presides at “Robber Synod’’ of
Ephesus, 27 ; deposed by 4th
Ecum. Council, 29.
Disputa, of Raphael, 183.
Divinity of Christ, defined by 1st
Ecum. Council, 6.
Divinity of the Holy Ghost, defined
by 2nd Ecum. Council, 12.
Doellinger, Ignatius von : enemy of
Vatican Council, 204 ; Janus,
summary of historical objections to
papal infallibility, 204 ; Roeniische
Briefe, 209.
Dogmatic Epistles : of St. Agatho to
6th Ecum. Council, 44 ; of St.
Leo to 4th Ecum. Council, 28, 30.
Dominici, John Cardinal, plenipo­
tentiary of Gregory XII, 125.
Donatists, 204.
Dupanloup, Archbishop of Orleans,
and papal infallibility, 204.

Easter, calculations for and celebra­
tion of, 7.
Ekthesis, of Hcraclius, favoring
Monothclism, 43.
Election : of new Pope at Council of
Constance, 131 ; decree on papal,
issued by nth Ecum. Council, 82,
108.
Ephesus, 3rd Ecumenical Council
at (431) : 15; condemnation of
the heresy of Nestorius, 16, 19,
20 ; St. Cyril’s defense of Chris­
tian doctrine, 17, 18.
Ephesus, Robber Synod of. See Rob­
ber Synod of Ephesus.
Epistles, Dogmatic : of St. Agatho to
6th Ecum. Council, 44 ; of St. Leo
I to 4th Ecum. Council, 28.
Eucharist, Sacrament of Holy, dis­
cussed at Council of Trent, 183.

220

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Eugene IV, Pope : dissolves Council
of Basle, 139 ; recalls decree of
dissolution, 140 ; seeks union
with Greek Church, 143 ; com­
plains of presumption of the coun­
cil, 144 ; dissolves Council of
Basle, 144 ; attends Councils of
Ferrara and Florence, 147 ; work
for union with Eastern Church,
148, 150, 155.
Euphemia, St., church of, 29.
Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia,
friend of Arius, 3.
Eusthatius, Bishop of Antioch, 5.
Eutychcs : author of heresy of Monophysitism, 25 ; excommunicated
by Synod of Constantinople, 25 ;
appeals to St. Leo I, 25 ; con­
demned by 4th Ecum. Council,
3°- .
Eutychians, accusation against Coun­
cil of Chalcedon, 35.
Extreme Unction, Sacrament of,
discussed at Council of Trent,
185.

Faith, profession of, Council of
Trent, 200.
Farnese, Cardinal, opens 18th Ecum.
Council, 161
Ferrara, Union Council of, 148.
Filioque, addition to Creed, 104.
Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople,
opposes Eutychcs, 25.
Florence, third place of Union Coun­
cil, 150.
Francis, St., of Assisi, at 12th Ecum.
Council, 93.
Franciscans: controversy on obliga­
tion of vow of poverty, 117 ;
Rule, approved by 15th Ecum.
Council, 117 ; founders of Monti
di pictù, 166.
Frederick II, excommunicated by
13th Ecum. Council, 99.

Germanus, Patriarch of Constanti­
nople, opposes iconoclasm, 53.
Gonzaga, Hercules, legate to Coun­
cil of Trent, 190.
Gratian, Emperor, 10.
Greek Union : discussed at 14th

Ecum. Council, 106 ; at 17th
Ecum. Council, 147, 154.
Gregory I, St., warning to Honor­
ius I, 49.
Gregory, bishop of Nco-Cacsarca,
56.
Gregory of Nazianzen, writings, 10.
Gregory VII, Pope, denounces in­
vestiture, 70.
Gregory X : opens 14th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 103 ; brings about Greek Un­
ion, 106.
Gregory XII : lawful Pope, 121 ;
sends plenipotentiary to Council
of Constance, 127 ; abdicates, 128.
Gregory Asbestas, Bishop of Syra­
cuse. See Asbestas, Gregory.

Hadrian I, St. : convokes 7th Ecum.
Council, 55 ; confirms acts, 58.
Hadrian II, Pope, annuls decrees of
pseudo-council of Constantinople,
63 ; sends legates to 8th Ecum.
Council, 63.
Henry II, of England, murders
Thomas à Becket, 81.
Henry II, of France, opponent of
Council of Trent, 182.
Henry IV, and investiture, 70.
Henry V, and investiture, 71.
Heraclius, Emperor, issues E^thesis,
43Hergenroether,
Cardinal,
Anti­
Janus, 204.
Holy Eucharist, Sacrament of, dis­
cussed at Council of Trent, 183.
Holy Ghost : divinity of, 12 ; pro­
cession of, 104.
Holy Land : recovery and aid for
Holy Land discussed at 12th
Ecum. Council. 89 ; at 14th Ecum.
Council, 103 ; at 15th Ecum.
Council, 117.
Holy Orders, Sacrament of, dis­
cussed at Council of Trent, 195.
Honorius I, Pope : and Monothclism,
42 ; word on, 50.
Honorius III, decrees Crusadc, 95.
Hosius, Bishop, at 1st Ecum. Coun­
cil, 4, 7Huss, John, Bohemian heretic, 134.

INDEX
Hussites : Crusade against, demands
rejected by Council of Basle, 140.
Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, 31, 39.
Iconoclasm, 52.
Iconoclastic Synod of Constantino­
ple, 55·
Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantino­
ple, 61.
Indulgences, 198.
Infants, Communion of, 192.
Innsbruck, opposition assembly at,
194.
Innocent II, Pope, convokes 10th
Ecum. Council, 77.
Innocent III, Pope, convokes 12th
Ecum. Council, 88.
Innocent IV, Pope, convokes 13th
Ecum. Council, 97.
Investiture : abolition of, at Latcran
Council, 68 ; Henry IV and, 70 ;
Henry V and, 71 ; Callistus II
and. 71 ; Cardinals Lambert, Saxo
and Gregory and, 71 ; installation
“by sceptre,” 72.
Irenaeus, Count, friend of Ncstorius,
21.
Irene, Empress, petitions for 7th
Ecum. Council, 55.
James of Nisibis, at 1st Ecum. Coun­
cil, 5.
Janus, of Doellinger, summary of
historical objections to papal in­
fallibility, 204.
Jerome of Ascoli (Nicholas IV),
Franciscan, and Greek Union,
102.
Jerome of Prague, heretic, con­
demned at 16th Ecum. Council,
134·
Joachim, Abbot, writings con­
demned by 12th Ecum. Council,
93·
John of Antioch : friend of Ncsto­
rius, 20 ; excommunicated by 3rd
Ecum. Council, 21.
John IV, Pope, defends Pope Hon­
orius I, 49.
John of Reggio, papal legate to 6th
Ecum. Council, 44.
John Parastron, Franciscan sent by

221

Gregory X to labor for Greek
Union, 102.
John XXIII, anti-pope : convokes
Council of Constance, 124 ; his
position untenable, 125 ; flees,
125 ; deposed by council and ar­
rested, 127 ; Martin V intervenes
for him, 131.
Judicatum, decree of Pope Vigilius,
36.
Julius II, Pope : frustrates action of
refractory cardinals. 159; con­
vokes 18th Ecum. Council, 160 ;
brings about abolition of “Prag­
matic Sanction,” 163.
Julius III, Pope, at Council of Trent,
182.
Justification, decree on, published
at Council of Trent, 178.
Justin I, Emperor, 34.
Justinian, Emperor, 36.
Juvenal of Jerusalem, deposed at
4th Ecum. Council, 29.
Kcnrick, Peter R., Archbishop of
St. Louis, opponent of papal infal­
libility, 208.
Knights Templars : trial and sup­
pression at 15th Ecum. Council,
no ; charges against, 112 ; arrest
in France, 112; Clement V pro­
tests arrest, 113 ; bull Vox in ex­
celso suppressing, 115; bull Ad
providam disposing of, 116.
Lactare Jerusalem, bull of Paul III,
opening Council of Trent, 174.
Lactentur coeli, dogmatic defini­
tion of Union Council of Flor­
ence, 151.
Lambert, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia,
deals with Henry V on investiture,
71·
Latcran, 9th Ecumenical Council at
(1123) : purpose of, 68 ; means
of investiture, 72 ; convoked by
Callistus II, 73.
10th Ecumenical Council at :
purpose of council, 75 ; convoked
by Innocent II, 77 ; papal schism
removed, 78 ; heresy of Peter of
Bruys condemned, 78.

222

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

nth Ecumenical Council at
(1179) : purpose of council, 80 ;
convoked by Alexander III, 82 ;
issues regulations to be observed
in papal elections, 83 ; condemns
Albigensian heresy, 83 ; canons
issued, 84.
12th Ecumenical Council at
(1215) : purpose of council, 86 ;
convoked by bull Vincain Domi­
ni Sabaoth, 88 ; orders contribu­
tions to Crusade, 89 ; decree on
yearly confession and pascal Com­
munion, 90 ; regulations regard­
ing marriage, 91 ; issues defini­
tion of Faith, 92.
18th Ecumenical Council at
( 1512-17) : convoked by Julius II,
160 ; condemns pscudo-Council of
Pisa, 162 ; abolishes “Pragmatic
Sanction” of Bourges, 163 ; on
death of Pope Julius II, council is
continued by Leo X, 164 ; council
endorses Franciscan Monti di
Pieta, 166 ; regulations concern­
ing printing of books, x68.
Lay Chalice: granted to Bohemia
by Council of Constance, 141 ; reg­
ulations of Council of Trent, 192.
League of Lombardy, against inva­
sion of Frederick Barbarossa, 81.
Leo L St., Pope, “Dogmatic Epistle,”
28, 30 ; confirms 4th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 33 ; rejects canon 28, 33.
Leo I, Emperor, 34.
Leo II, St., Pope, confirms Acts of
6th Ecum. Council, 49 ; corrects
condemnation of Honorius I, 50.
Leo 111, Emperor, originator of icon­
oclasm, 52.
Leo X, Pope, continues 18th Ecum.
Council at Latcran, 164 ; sanc­
tions Franciscan Monti di Pieta,
166 ; condemns prevalent errors,
165 ; regulations for printing of
books, 168.
Lepers, canon of 11 th Ecum. Coun­
cil regarding, 84.
Lothairc, crowned Emperor by In­
nocent II, 76.
Lullus, Blessed Raymond, Francis­
can tertiary, 118.

Lyons, 13th Ecumenical Council at
(1245) : charges against Freder­
ick II, 95, 96 ; Innocent IV calls
council, 97 ; Frederick defended
to council, 98 ; Frederick excom­
municated, 99 ; his subjects ab­
solved allegiance, 99.
14th Ecumenical Council at
(1274) : purposes of council,
101 ; Gregor}' X sends Franciscans
to Constantinople, 102 ; ways and
means to help Holy Land, 104 ;
Greek envoys arrive at Lyons,
106 ; addition Filioque to Creed,
106 ; St. Bonaventure’s work at
council, 107 ; two important can­
ons, 108.
Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, at
1st Ecum. Council, 5.
Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, 46,
47·
Macedonius, author of Maccdonianism, 9.
Magnaura Palace, 58, 63.
Malatcsta, Cardinal, plenipotentiary
of Gregory XII, 127.
Marathonius. Bishop of Nicaea, 9.
Marcellus, of Ancyra, 5.
Marcian, Emperor : asks Leo I to
convoke a general council, 28 ;
edicts enforcing decrees of Coun­
cil of Chalcedon, 33.
Marct, Dean of Sorbonne, and papal
infallibility, 204.
Marianus, papal legate to 8th Ecum.
Council, 63.
Maris, Bishop of Chalcedon, refuses
to sign condemnation of Arius, 6.
Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, op­
ponent of Union Council of Flor­
ence, 150.
Maronites : at 17th Ecum. Council,
156 ; at 18th Ecum. Council, 168.
Marriages, clandestine, 91, 196.
Martin I, St., condemns Monothe­
lism, 43.
Martin V, Pope : elected at 16th
Ecum. Council, 131 ; intervenes
in behalf John XXIII, 131 ; asked
by Sigismund to reside in Ger­

INDEX
many, 134 ; enters Rome in 1420,
135·
Mass, Sacrifice of, provisions of
Council of Trent concerning, 193.
Massarelli, 182.
Maternity, Divine, of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, 20.
Mathieu, Cardinal, and papal infal­
libility, 204.
Maximian, Archbishop of Constan­
tinople, 22.
Maximus, Bishop of Constantino­
ple, 12.
Medici, John Cardinal de (Pius IV) :
re-opens Council of Trent (3rd
Period), 190 ; assisted by St.
Charles Borromco, X90 ; issues
bull of confirmation, 200.
Melctians, aided by Arius, 3.
Melctius, abolition of schism of, 7.
Memnon, Archbishop of Ephesus, at
3rd Ecum. Council, 19.
Michael III, Emperor, separated
Eastern Church from Rome, 60.
Michael Cacrularius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, 67.
Michael Palacologus, Emperor, de­
sires union with Rome, 102.
Mohammedans, 85.
Monophysitism : heresy of Eutyches,
24 ; “Dogmatic Epistle” of St.
Leo I, 28 ; condemned at 4th
Ecum. Council, 30.
Monothelism : heresy of Sergius,
42 ; Emperor Hcraclius issues Ex­
thesis, 43 ; Pope St. Agatho sends
“Dogmatic Epistle" to 6th Ecum.
Council, 44 ; Sergius and follow­
ers excommunicated, 47 ; Pope
St. Leo II confirms acts with cor­
rection, 49 ; and Pope Honorius,
50.
Montanus, heresy of, 2.
Monti di Pieta : charity banks found­
ed by Franciscans, 166 ; sanc­
tioned by 18th Ecum. Council,
167.
Mopsucstia, Theodore of, writings
condemned at 5th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 39Morone, cardinal legate at Council
of Trent, 194.

22J

McQuaid, Bishop of Rochester, and
papal infallibility, 208.

Naples, “Brothers of three Points”
hold council at, 206.
Navagero, cardinal legate at Coun­
cil of Trent, 194.
Nazianzen, St. Gregory of, writings,
10.
Nectarius, Bishop of Constantino­
ple, presides at 2nd Ecum. Coun­
cil, 12.
Ncstorians, at 17th Ecum. Council,
156.
Nestorius, Patriarch of Constanti­
nople : his heresy, 16 ; writes to
Pope St. Celestine, 17 ; excommu­
nicated by Roman Synod, 17 ; ana­
themas of St. Cyril, 18 ; answers
with counter-anathemas, 18 ; de­
posed and excommunicated by
3rd Ecum. Council, 20 ; banished,
22.
Nicaea, 1st Ecumenical Council at
(325) : purpose of council, 1 ;
Arius and his heresy, 2, 3 ; prel­
ates attending, 4 ; profession of
Faith, 6 ; condemnation of Arius
and his heresy, 6 ; celebration of
Easter, 7 ; abolition of the schism
of Melctius, 7 ; council is honored,
8.
7th Ecumenical Council at
(787) : 52 ; purpose of, condem­
nation of iconoclasm, 52, 57 ;
Pope Hadrian sends legates to,
55 ; definition of Faith, 57 ; icono­
clasm condemned by, 57.
Niccnc-Constantinopolitan Creed, 12.
Niccphorus, Bishop of Nicaea, re­
fuses to sign Roman definition,
64.
Nicholas I, Pope : asked to confirm
election of Photius, 61 ; sends two
legates to investigate heresy, 62 ;
annuls election of Photius, 62 ;
Pope is deposed by Photius, 63.
Olivi, Peter, Franciscan Spiritual,
errors condemned, 117.
Oriental languages, study of, de-

224

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

creed by 15th Ecum. Council,
11S.
Palacologus, John, Greek Emperor,
147, 154.
Palacologus, Michael, desires re­
turn to Rome, 102.
Papal infallibility : opponents of,
204, 205, 208 ; debate at Vatican
Council, 210 ; decree on, 212,
Paphnutius, of Thebais, at 1st Ecum.
Council, 5.
Parastron, John, Franciscan, and
Greek Union, 102.
Paschasinus, papal legate to 4th
Ecum. Council, 28.
Paterno, Abundantius of, papal leg­
ate to 6th Ecum. Council, 44.
Pastor Aeternus, Dogmatic Consti­
tution of Pius IX, 211.
Paul III, Pope : convokes Ecum.
Council of Trent, 171, 172 ; ap­
points legates, 172 ; presides first
period of council, 173 ; suspends
council in 1549, 180.
Paul IV, Pope, 189.
Pelagius I, recognizes 5th Ecum.
Council, 39.
Penance, canonical, prescribed for
repentant bishops by 8th Ecum.
Council, 66.
Penance, Sacrament of, discussed
at Council of Trent, 185.
Peter Chrysologus, St., Eutyches’
appeal to, 25.
Peter of Bruys, heretic, condemned
by 10th Ecum. Council, 78.
Peter of Tarcntaisc, at 14th Ecum.
Council, 103.
Peter Olivi, Franciscan Spiritual, er­
rors condemned, 117.
Philip the Fair, King of France :
enemy of Boniface VIII, in ;
and Knights Templars, 112, 114.
Photius, Patriarch of Constantino­
ple : schismatic, 60 ; intrudes upon
See of Constantinople, 61 ; de­
poses and excommunicates Pope
Nicholas I, 63 ; cited before 8th
Ecum. Council, 64 ; is excommu­
nicated, 65 ; his writings burned,
'
66.

Pius IV, Pope, and Council of Trent,
188.
Pius IX, Pope : inquires into advisa­
bility of holding ecumenical coun­
cil, 202 ; letters to bishops of
Latin and Oriental Rite, 203 ; is­
sues bull Aeterni Patris convoking
Vatican Council, 203 ; issues con­
stitution Dei Filins, 209 ; issues
constitution Pastor aeternus, 211 ;
defines infallibility of Pope, 212 ;
prorogues Vatican Council, 213.
Polychronius, monk, 47.
Pole, Reginald Cardinal, papal leg­
ate to Council of Trent, 172.
Pope, election of, discussed at nth
Ecum. Council, 82, 108.
Poverty, obligation of, in Francis­
can Order, 117.
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges,
164.
Prague, Jerome of, heretic burnt at
stake, 134.
Procopius, leader of Hussites at
Council of Basle, 140.
Protestants, and Council of Trent,
177, 187.
Pseudo-Councils : of Ephesus (Rob­
ber Synod), 27 ; of Constanti­
nople, endorsing iconoclasm, 55 ;
of Pisa, convoked by refractory
Cardinals, 163.
Pulcheria, Empress, and 4th Ecum.
Council, 28, 33.
Purgatory, doctrine of, 198.
Ravenna, Guibert of, anti-pope cre­
ated by Henry IV, 71.
Reform of calendar, 168.
Relies, veneration of : 7th Ecum.
Council, 57 ; Council of Trent,
198.
Religious orders, useless multiplica­
tion of, 109.
Robber Synod of Ephesus, con­
demned at 4th Ecum. Council,
27, 29.
Robert of Geneva, anti-pope Clem­
ent VII, 121.
Rodoald, Bishop of Porto, sent by
Nicholas I to investigate ease of
Photius, 62.

INDEX
Roemische Briefe, by
209.
Roger of Sicily, 76.

Doellinger,

Sacraments,
Decree
regarding,
passed at Council of Trent, 179.
Sanction, Pragmatic, of Bourges,
abrogated by 18th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 163.
Saxo, papal legate, deals with
Henry V on investiture, 71.
Scriptures, Canonical, first decree of
Council of Trent, 177.
Sergius, Patriarch of Constanti­
nople : author of Monothclism,
42 ; tries to ensnare Pope Hon­
orius I, 42 ; condemned by 6th
Ecum. Council, 47.
Sigismund : strives to put an end to
Western Schism, 123 ; convokes
the Council of Constance, 124 ;
supervises deposition of anti-pope
John XXIII, 127 ; goes to Bene­
dict XIII to obtain his resigna­
tion, 129.
Silvester, St. I, Pope, 1st Ecum.
Council at Nicaea, 4, 7.
Simony, prevalent in 12th century,
69.
Sophia, St., church of, 8th Ecum.
Council held, 64.
Sophronius, St., Patriarch of Jeru­
salem, 41.
Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore,
supporter of papal infallibility,
214.
Sturmius, St., of Fulda, 79.

Tarasius, Patriarch of Constanti­
nople, opponent of iconoclasm,
55·
Templars, Knights, suppressed at
15th Ecum. Council, 115.
Thaddeus of Sucssia, Chancellor of
Frederick II, 98.
Thalcia, work of Arius, 4.
Theobald, Archbishop of Canter­
bury, attends 10th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 79·
Theodosius, Bishop of Ephesus, de­
fends iconoclasm, 53.

Theodosius, Bishop of Amorium,
abjures iconoclasm, 56.
Theodosius I, convokes 2nd Ecum.
Council, 10, 13.
Theodosius II, confirms Acts of
“Robber Synod” of Ephesus, 27.
Theodore of Mopsucstia, writings
condemned by 5th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 38.
Theodoret of Cyrus, writings con­
demned by 5th Ecum. Council,
39·
Theophilus, bishop of Photian fac­
tion, 65.
Thconas of Mamarica, refuses to
condemn Arius, 6.
Theotokos (Mother of God), doc­
trine at 3rd Ecum. Council, 20.
Third Person of the Blessed Trin­
ity, divinity of, 12.
Thomas, St., of Aquin, called to
14th Ecum. Council, 103.
Thomas, bishop of Claudiopolis, de­
fends iconoclasm, 53.
Three Chapters, condemned at 5th
Ecum. Council, 39.
Transubstantiation, discussed at
12th Ecum. Council, 92, at Coun­
cil of Trent, 183.
Trent, 19th Ecum. Council at
(1545-1563) : purposes of, 170;
council convoked by bull Laetare
Jerusalem of Paul III, 174 ; right
to vote at, 175 ; title of council,
176 ; attitude of Protestants
toward, 177 ; Canonical Scrip­
tures, first decree, 177 ; doctrine
of Immaculate Conception, 177 ;
justification, 178 ; Sacraments
discussed, 179 ; transferred to
Bologna, 179 ; second period of,
183 ; Penance and Extreme Unc­
tion discussed, 185 ; council sus­
pended by Julius III, 188 ; third
period of, 191 ; decree on Holy
Eucharist, 192 ; Sacrifice of Mass
discussed, 193 ; Holy Orders dis­
cussed, 195 ; Matrimony dis­
cussed, 196 ; Purgatory, ven­
eration of saints and relies,
indulgences, 198 ; confirmation
of acts by Pius IV, 200 ; how re-

226

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

ccived by the various powers,
200 ; profession of Faith, 200 ;
Catechism of Council of Trent,
200.
Jreuga Dei (Truce of God), 84.
Jypus, edict of Constans II, in fa­
vor of Monothclism, 43.
Union, Greek : at 14th Ecum. Coun­
cil at Lyons, 102 ; at Union
Council at Florence, 17th Ecum.
Council, 150.
Urban VI, Pope, 120.

Vatican, 20th Ecum. Council at
(1869-1870) : purpose of, con­
demnation of prevalent errors,
and definition of papal infalli­
bility, 202 ; convoked by bull
Aeterni Patris, 203 ; invitations
to Eastern bishops and Protes­
tants, 203 ; convocation rouses
enmity, 204 ; appointment of
four committees, 205 ; opening
of council, 206 ; constitution Dei
Filius, 209 ; debate on papal in­
fallibility, 210 ; constitution Pas­
tor aeternus, 211 ; definition of
papal infallibility, 212 ; bishops
voting against definition, 213 ;
council prorogued, 213.
Veneration of saints and relics : dis­
cussed at 7th Ecum. Council, 57 ;
at Council of Trent, 198.
Victor IV, anti-pope, 77.
Vienne, 15th Ecumenical Council at
(1311-1312) : no; to examine
ease of Knights Templars, 112;
council convoked by bull Alina
Mater, 113 ; two commissions ex­
amine ease of Knights Templars,

114 ; Clement V issues bull sup­
pressing Knights Templars, 115;
bull Ad providam, 116 ; bull
Exivi de paradiso, 117 ; help for
the Holy Land, 117.
Vigilius, Pope : goes to Constanti­
nople, 36 ; issues Judicatum, 36 ;
issues Constitutum, 38 ; issues
second Constitutum, 39 ; is ban­
ished, 39 ; condemns “Three
Chapters,” 39.
Vinccntius, papal legate to ist
Ecum. Council, 4.
Vineam Domini, bull of Innocent
III, convoking 12th Ecum. Coun­
cil, 88.
Vitus, papal legate to ist Ecum.
Council, 4.
Voltaire, eulogy of Alexander III,
80.
J
Vox in excelso, bull of Clement V,
suppressing Knights Templars,
115.
Vulgate, authentic edition of Holy
Scriptures, 4th Session of Coun­
cil of Trent, 177.

Waldcnscs, heretics condemned at
12th Ecum. Council, 91.
Western Schism, 121.
Wiclif, heresies of : condemned at
synod in London, 133 ; at Coun­
cil of Constance, 133.
Worms, Concordat of, abolition of
investiture, 71.
Zachary, bishop of Anagni, investi­
gates case of Photius, 62.
Zachary, bishop of Photian faction,
65.
Zeno, Emperor, 34.