Why/how are post-schism councils valid? I thought all the sees had to be represented in order for councils to make infallible statements. Since the Orthodox still have valid orders, there are apostolic sees that have not participated in councils with the West for nearly a millennium. What am I missing?
Funky Dung
Comments 9
Must every single bishop participate? Suppose one would become ill and be unable to attend a council. Would his absence make the council invalid?
I know that doesn't answer your question…
I hunted around on the EWTN web site and found an entire book online on the general councils of the Church. This is an excerpt:
"The difference between a General Council, then, and a local council, is not to be sought primarily in the legal requirements upon which they are based. The current laws of the Church only formulate, in their own way, the deeper theological truth. The true meaning of a General Council arises from the intimate nature of the Church established by Christ.
In other words, it is not fundamentally a question of how many bishops must attend, or from what parts of the world they must actually come, or by what papal decree they are approved. These are important questions, of course. But it is the supernatural life of the Church which gives meaning to them all. A General Council is a part of the "mystery" of the Church. Like all the varied elements within the Church, it also shares in the supernatural quality of that life. It is far more than a gathering together of bishops in a certain place; it is far more than solemnity and color. It is, above all this, a special manifestation of the Holy Spirit, ever dwelling within this Church of Christ."
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 7:16 am ¶Another quote:
There must, of course, be certain laws concerning such a Council. It is not up to every individual to decide whether a particular Council is or is not an Ecumenical Council. When the Holy Father, for example, gives to the Church a solemn definition (like the definition of the Assumption in 1950), we can also see beneath this the special working of the Holy Spirit. The Pope, however, must still make clear to the Church that he
intends to speak infallibly; he must let the members know that this is to be a solemn definition.
So also with a General Council: there must be some way of knowing that it is a General Council. The Church must make clear to its members that this is to be an Ecumenical, and not a local, Council, so that they may perceive in it this special
manifestation of the Holy Spirit….
A General Council will also include the "bishops of the entire world" This, again, must not be understood to indicate that the actual "celebration" of the Council demands that every bishop really be present. Morally speaking, bishops should be present from all parts of the world, but the emphasis is to be placed on another fact. In a General Council, all the bishops have a right to take a seat in the deliberations; they belong there. This will appear above all in the official approval of the Council by the Roman Pontiff which will signify the intention or purpose of the Council to legislate for the universal Church. This would not be true, let us say, of a particular or local council, where only the bishops attached to the dioceses concerned would have the right to be present. In other words, it is not simply a question of counting bishops until they are all
present, or until a majority of some sort has arrived. Such a Council is not any more "universal" if 2000 bishops attend than if only 200 are present. It is not a question of numbers.
Externally, of course, a General Council ought to express this "universality" by the actual attendance of bishops from all over the world; most frequently this has been the case. But this is not the precise point that makes such a Council "ecumenical" or
"universal." (Ecumenical comes from the Greek word , meaning "the inhabited world"; thus the entire world: "universal.")
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/GENCOUNC.TXT
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 7:20 am ¶I'm not sure those very long quotes answered the question, but at least they said it more eloquently than I would have been able to at this hour.
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 7:21 am ¶There was a good debate on this on the Pontificator's website. Evidently some of the councils the Orthodox (at least the Byzantine Orthodox) consider authoritative were not attended by some of the Oriental Churches (e.g., the Middle-Eastern churches like the Syriac Church). I'll see if I can track down that debate.
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 2:10 pm ¶BTW, "knowledge is power" may have been said by Hobbes, as reported on your "random thought of the moment", but he was (knowingly or not) quoting a Latin source–Cicero, methinks–to the effect of "ipsa scientia potestas est".
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 2:12 pm ¶Okay, go to Conciliar Authority: A Mini-study in Contrasts, which was posted on Pontification on 8/2/04. Couldn't find a link.
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 2:18 pm ¶I went there and the discussion was interesting but not terribly informative. It's still not clear to me what makes a council binding.
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 6:42 pm ¶I'm not sure, but since the Orthodox didn't always participate in every council before the schism themselves, it need not be a fight between East and West, which was a fear you expressed on your original entry. While a good definition is still lacking even from the Pontifications blog, at least that source of conflict is lessened.
+0
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 9:53 pm ¶Complete attendance has never been a requirement. At some of the earliest councils, all the bishops of the Western Church were represented by a handful of papal legates, some of whom weren't even bishops. I don't think more than 40-60 bishops took part in any of the sessions of Trent.
+0
Posted 14 Dec 2004 at 2:32 pm ¶Post a Comment