The councils of the Middle Ages and Reformation dealt primarily with reforming church divergences and clarifying certain doctrines. In the modern period the two Vatican councils were gathered for dissimilar reasons: the first to define papal infallibility, the second to renew the Church in line with contemporary developments. Some councils completed the unfinished business of their predecessors. For example, the first eight councils, from Nicaea to Constantinople IV , met in somewhat rapid succession because they were refining creedal statements.
In their deliberations they hammered out the profoundly interrelated dogmas of the Church concerning the Blessed Trinity and the Person of Christ. Several councils followed soon after another to address persisting problems. The first four Lateran councils met successively in less than a century , , , to address questions of Church reform.
In later situations councils finished the work that earlier meetings could not because of difficult circumstances. The time between councils, their duration and their attendance reveal a wide variance. Counting 21 general councils might lead us to think that they were called about one each century. But in reality general councils have met infrequently, often in clusters. And there were long periods of time — sometimes several centuries — that experienced no councils at all. General councils varied also in duration.
Lateran II sat only a week, while Constance met for three and a half years of steady activity. But length of time is no indicator of importance or achievement.
Lateran IV gathered for only 20 days, yet was the most impressive of the medieval councils. This was the last council to meet for the next years.
First Lateran Council — Who has the right to appoint bishops and provide them with the symbols of their office — the secular ruler or the Pope? This question, known as the Investiture Controversy, dominated the relationship between secular rulers, especially King of the Germans Henry IV, and the pope, especially Pope St.
Gregory VII, during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. At this time, bishops held feudal secular territories as well as ecclesial lands and the secular lord regularly invested the bishop with the symbols the ring and crozier of his ecclesiastical office. The controversy turned violent as the excommunicated Henry IV marched his army to Rome and only retired when Pope Gregory elicited the help of Norman troops from southern Italy.
The Normans proceeded to sack the city and the pope died amidst much criticism. The Investiture Controversy ended with a compromise whereby bishops, who were also secular lords, received the symbols of their secular office from the king or his representative and the symbols of his church office from the pope or his representative.
John Lateran in Rome was convoked. Third Lateran Council — Similar to the previous council held forty years earlier, this council met to resolve the remaining issues of conflict in the papacy when antipope Callistus III repudiated his claim and pledged allegiance to Pope Alexander III.
The council condemned the Waldensian heresy and specified the election of a pope required a two-thirds majority of votes by the cardinals. The importance of evangelization as a primary mission of the Church was emphasized, as was the requirement for episcopal approval to preach.
First Council of Lyons — The Crusades were an agenda item at a council once more when the bishops gathered in the French city of Lyon midway through the thirteenth century. Besides the crusades, the council discussed the recalcitrant Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, who was excommunicated and deposed by the council for his anti-papal political activity.
Second Council of Lyons — The fissure between the Eastern and Western halves of the Church was repaired, albeit briefly, during this ecumenical council. A later emperor repudiated the union in and a fifteenth council would once more address the schism and achieve a short-lived reunion. The king ensured his favored candidate was ultimately chosen to succeed Boniface after the short reign of Bl.
Benedict XI. The king sought to control Pope Clement V r. Clement initiated a trial of the former pope but stalled the proceedings. He moved the papal residence to Avignon in , where it remained until The suppression of the Templars, after their imprisonment in France, was accomplished at this council, although no decision on their guilt of innocence of the charges levied by Philip was made.
The Knights Hospitallers assumed control of Templar property. For the previous seventy years, the Roman Pontiffs lived in the southern French city of Avignon. To be truthful, some of these technical requirements seem to have varied through the centuries. The Church can establish the laws which seem most fitting for the circumstances in which she finds herself. The history of some of these twenty Councils is shrouded in a good amount of obscurity.
Special questions may be raised concerning precisely who first called the Council together, who attended it, and what its precise relationship to the Bishop of Rome might have been. But in the life of the Church, the matter shines forth with much more clarity. The Church of Christ is a living thing, and as such it grasps in a living fashion the activity of the Holy Spirit within it. Thus the Church has recognized certain Councils as ecumenical.
The decrees of these gatherings have played a special role in the life of Christ's members. If we look over the general history of them all, we are able to draw certain conclusions about what makes a General Council. It is from a consideration of all these various elements that we come to our present-day understanding of such a Council. If we were to define it, our definition would run something like this: "A General Council is a legitimate gathering of the bishops of the entire world, called for the purpose of discussing and settling the doctrinal and disciplinary questions of the universal Church.
It is first of all a "legitimate" gathering. As Christ established His Church, there are to be always and everywhere bishops who rule their dioceses in the same way in which the Pope rules the universal Church. These bishops are not simply the Pope's "representatives" in the diocese. They rule in the place of Christ, by divine right. They are, therefore, Christ's "local vicars," as it were. While their power to rule comes , however, it is also true that they receive it the Pope.
And this is important. The bishops of the world and the Roman Pontiff form together the "college of bishops. They act in a Council as one unit, setting forth one teaching, one solemn judgment. A universal gathering of bishops, however, can never be "legitimate" without the head- the Roman Pontiff. This springs from the very nature of the Church as Christ established it. The Pope, therefore, must in some way preside over every General Council; this is his office by the will of God and it cannot be set aside.
There still can be a question of exactly what this involves for the Pope. In giving their answers, writers will phrase them in different ways, using various distinctions. But the over-all response is much the same. It does not seem that the Roman Pontiff must "call together" the General Council in the sense that he the entire procedure. Some writers will speak of this as the "material convocation"-that is, the actual sending out of invitations, and the like. Today, of course, this is always true, but history seems to indicate that such was not the case in the early centuries, where the emperor seems to have taken the first official step.
The teaching both of the Church and of history tells us, however, that no General Council has been called against the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff, and without his solemn approval. It is this approval of the "head" that gives to the entire proceedings the nature of a legitimate Council. Without it, there would not be the authority required, nor this special manifestation of the Holy Spirit we talked about. This the authors will call the "formal convocation," that is, the official, authoritative "calling together" of this group precisely as a General Council.
Unless this takes place at some time, there is no such Council, even though the actual might take place. In practice, this approval or "formal convocation" has generally been given the Council actually meets; but it may occur with the meetings themselves, or it can even the actual gathering. Moreover, the Roman Pontiff may show his approval in any number of ways: by solemnly calling the Council, or by addressing an official letter to the group; or by sending his delegates to attend; or by signifying his approval at the completion of the discussions.
In any event, no final decree of a Council is binding unless the Roman Pontiff approves of that final form. This, again, springs from the very nature of the Church. A Council is a gathering of the head and members; but if the head refuses to approve of what the members have done, those particular statements are not decrees of an Ecumenical Council.
We shall have occasion to note instances of this as we look at the Councils of the past. 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 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 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 bishops attend than if only 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 the precise point that makes such a Council "ecumenical" or "universal.
This notion is also expressed in the definition by the words: "called for the purpose of discussing and settling the doctrinal and disciplinary questions of the universal Church. For this reason, its decrees will have a greater meaning than any local Council. Ultimately, however, it is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in a special fashion that makes this so. Only in a General Council is the Spirit of Truth active in this extraordinary manner.
For this reason a General Council can decree for the universal Church; and the decrees only of a General Council are infallible. A local or particular council of bishops is not infallible; it does not carry with it the promise of freedom from error. A General Council, on the other hand, called together as a moral person-head and members the Roman Pontiff and the bishops of the world -enjoys the same infallibility as a solemn definition of the Roman Pontiff himself.
It is, thus, the infallible Church which is the primary concern. In setting forth the revealed truth, this Church cannot fall into error. Since the Church possesses official teachers, however, this infallible statement can come about in various ways: 1 It may be evidenced in the day-to-day teaching of the bishops throughout the world, teaching the same doctrine, in union with the Supreme Pontiff. In every instance, the Church has the assurance that these statements will not be erroneous.
They will be true guides for the Christian, bringing him a clearer understanding of the message of Christ, and helping him to serve his Master more faithfully and more perfectly. In all of this, we see the action of the Holy Spirit, ever dwelling within the Church. If we turn now to a closer look at the individual Councils of the Universal Church, we will be able to see how, under the guidance of this Spirit of Truth, the Church has been able to meet the problems of the ages. The first conciliar landmark dates from the fourth century: the Council of Nicea It was especially concerned with the Trinity, and for the next three hundred years or so, other General Councils would arise, dealing with this same question.
In this fashion, the Church arrived at a more precise statement of the truths concerning Christ and the Trinity. In the Middle Ages, new problems would demand attention. There was the question of reform within the Church, and that of reunion with those who had drifted away from it. At one point in history, the Councils had to deal especially with the papacy itself when the entire Church was thrown into confusion by the claims of pseudo-popes.
The Protestant Revolt of the sixteenth century would bring forth the great Council of Trent; and the problems of our modern world had to be answered in the Vatican Council of the past century. All of these, one by one, took their place in the list of great Councils, through which Christ spoke again and again to His people. Even if they seemed, at times, to fail in the achievement of their immediate goal, the directives were there-the voice of Christ was heard.
Because of the special influence of the Holy Spirit in these most solemn gatherings, they were destined to overshadow the many local councils and synods held during these same centuries. And this is the mystery of the Councils, the role of these Christian landmarks.
By the will of God, they were destined, each in its own way, to shine forth as beacons, directing the life of the Church and outlining through the darkness the path to be followed by the faithful members of Christ upon earth. When Christ walked the earth with His disciples, preaching to the people, He unfolded clearly for the first time the sublime mystery of the Trinity. The mind of man stood helpless before this revelation It could never grasp this truth completely.
In fact, until God Himself opened up to the mind of man the secret of the Trinitarian life, no one could have even imagined the divine nature being shared equally by three divine Persons. Yet this was, above all, the mystery revealed by Christ. It was the mystery of Christ Himself: God the Son among men, come to save them from their sin. It was to be the work of the Church on earth to continue the work of Christ.
Aided by His Spirit, it was to keep alive and unchanged the truth unveiled by God; acting as His instrument, it was to share in the work of applying to the souls of men the graces won for them upon Calvary. For this reason, the history of the Church is really the history of Christ-Christ in His fullness, the Mystical Christ. The early years of that history were troubled years. They were dominated by two chief concerns. There were on the one hand, the recurring persecutions from without, and, on the other, the doctrinal errors within.
The doctrinal battles had to be carried on while the men and women who believed in Christ passed through the terrors of persecution. This was the special cross of the first few centuries. Sometimes our modern view of the ancient Church may tend to exaggerate the nature of the persecutions. Unless we are careful, we may come to think of the Christians of the first few centuries as living constantly in the catacombs, and coming into the light of day only to meet the beasts in the martyr's arena.
Actually, the persecutions were not a continual, relentless persecution of the followers of Christ. They were more periodic, interspaced with years of relative peace. But they did keep returning, again and again, until the end of the third century. In the background of these persecutions, especially in the years of peace, the Church continued to grow, became more definitely organized, and set forth its doctrine with ever increasing clarity.
The first persecution broke out soon after the death of Christ, in Jerusalem itself. It was this that first helped the faith to spread to other parts of the known world, for the Christians had to leave Jerusalem. This persecution under Agrippa, which must have begun about the year 36, brought the Church its first martyr, St. This, however, was only a faint echo of the two particularly fierce persecutions which marked that first century.
The Roman emperors also turned their hatred against the Christians. First there was the persecution of Nero from A. Yet these two trials were only the beginning. In the next century, Rome continued to persecute the followers of Christ. There was, however, one difference. In the second century, the emperors paid more attention to the legal requirements for condemning Christians. This was, of course, scant comfort to those who died "legally. Thus, while these later emperors were not exactly "friends" of the Church, their attitude was different enough that Tertullian could write that only Nero and Domitian were the "enemies" of the Christians.
Nevertheless, the persecutions did continue; Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch died under Trajan at the beginning of the second century. Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus Aurelius all continued to bring Christians to trial and to punish them with death. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, died under Antoninus, in ; the church at Lyons was all but blotted out under Marcus Aurelius, only to rise again under the direction of Irenaeus.
The first real help came from the worst of the Roman emperors from the point of view. Commodus was very little interested in enforcing the Roman law, but from this the Christians benefited. It was still against the law to be a Christian, but the State under Commodus was not too much concerned with that fact. With the death of Commodus, matters took on a different color once again.
Under Septimius Severus , the State began to take the initiative in bringing Christians to trial. Formerly, the State had waited for denunciations from the people.
In practice, however, this change resulted in even more sporadic persecutions. They arose more suddenly, at the will of the Emperor; they were in some ways more violent. Eventually they died out, one by one, having spent their force with no lasting effect. Septimius Severus failed in his attempt to slow down the progress of Christianity.
Nor did the bloody persecution of Maximin , brief though it was, meet with any greater success. The Christian Church remained. In the middle of the 3rd century, with the coming of Decius , we came upon the last-and the most violentpersecution of the century.
This general persecution aimed at stamping out the Christians once and for all. During this period large numbers of Christians apostatized. The persecution was waged on all sides: at Rome, in Africa, in Gaul, in Spain, and in Asia; Christians died by the hundreds.
Gallus succeeded Decius in and renewed the persecution. Valerian, the successor of Gallus, continued this policy soon after he became emperor It was only after his death that it appeared the trials were over.
But the appearances were deceptive. After nearly twenty years of peace, Diocletian was instigated by Galerius to undertake what was to be the final persecution of the Christians A period of violence followed, with many deaths, but Christianity was to triumph.
The bloody purge was finally called off in by Constantine, Licinius and Galerius-one of the very men who had moved Diocletian to begin it. It was now stated officially even though begrudgingly that "it is permissible to be a Christian. The final and lasting peace came with the famous Edict of Milan in the peace of Constantine.
It marks the dividing point in the history of the early Church, and brings with it the first General Council of Nicea. With these external trials as a backdrop, the doctrinal battle went on within the Church during these same years. Before St. Paul died, he wrote a letter to his disciple Timothy, summing up the Christian teaching: "Remember that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was descended from David; this is my gospel, in which I suffer even to bonds, as a criminal" 2 Tim.
These two points were the extremes which had been joined together in Christ. The whole doctrinal story of the early Church is a defense of these two extremes against those who would over- emphasize one point at the expense of the other. Even before the first century had drawn to a close, there were those who had begun to challenge this central thought of Christianity. For different reasons, they denied especially that Christ was true God. When St.
John wrote the Fourth Gospel toward the end of the first century, he clearly had them in mind. He explains this as the very reason why he wrote his Gospel: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
There were also some men who denied that Christ was the Messias; these were, especially, the early Christians who belonged to the so-called "Judaizing" party. They wished to hold fast to the practices of the old Jewish Law, and yet they realized that there was in the teaching of Christ a certain rejection of at least part of this Law. In rejecting Him as the Messias, however, they also rejected Him as God.
Other Christians of the first century came into contact with systems of philosophy that taught that material things were evil in themselves. They believed in Christ, but came to deny that He was true Man. Because of these other ideas, they felt they had to deny at once that Christ ever possessed a real, physical body. To them it seemed impossible that "God" could have taken on something as "evil" as a material, physical body.
Ignatius of Antioch, put to death at the beginning of the second century, was greatly concerned with those who denied that Christ possessed a true human nature. On his journey to Rome, where he was to die, he wrote seven letters to different churches. In them he mentions the error of these men.
We now refer to them as "Docetists," from the Greek word which means "to seem" or "to appear". They claimed that Christ only "seemed" to have a body like ours; actually He did not. Hence Ignatius wrote: "Be deaf, then, to any talk that ignores Jesus Christ, of David's lineage, of Mary: who was really born, ate, and drank; was really persecuted under Pontius Pilate; was really crucified and died, in the sight of heaven and earth and the underworld.
He was really raised from the dead, for his Father raised him, just as his Father will raise us It is not as some unbelievers say, that his Passion was a sham. It is they who are a sham! Yes, and their fate will fit their fancies-they will be ghosts and apparitions. The men of this period eventually began to speak of the Trinity by using terms that differ from those in Scripture.
This, of course, was something that had to happen. The doctrinal history of the Church is a continuation of this process. What has been said in the graphic speech of Scripture must come to be expressed in more "technical" terms to satisfy the needs of the inquiring mind of man, and to answer the objections of various heretics. This could not be avoided. But when man attempts to explain in any way the content of revealed truth, there is the grave danger that he will distort it. He may all too easily put his ideas into the words of Scripture, and give them an entirely new meaning.
Ultimately, only the proper teaching authority in the Church can give the final answer. This is the task of the Popes and the General Councils down through the ages: to single out what is a valid clarification of scriptural terminology from what is erroneous.
Without the guarantee of an infallible guide in this matter, Christian truth would soon be lost in the maze of contrary opinions. Yet, we need not believe the opinion of any mere man, no matter how wise nor how saintly he may be. We are obliged to accept on faith only the word of God, and nothing more. For this reason God continues to speak through His Church. He makes use of those to whom He has entrusted the sacred office of teaching. They speak not on their authority, but on God's and we accept not their opinion but the truth testified by the authority of God who speaks through them.
Before such matters are settled, however, history recounts a long series of errors and confusions. An infallible teaching authority does not receive a new revelation from heaven. Though guided always by the Holy Spirit, the Popes and the bishops of the world have not always known what to say. They must discuss and study the truths of faith, and only then can they speak. Infallibility at that moment means that when they do speak, God will keep them from error. Thus in these early years, we see the need of stating the very same truth of Scripture, but by expressing it in different words.
In that way, the Church comes to understand revealed truth more clearly. Later, for example, we will note how the Blessed Mother is solemnly defined, at the Council of Ephesus, as the "Mother of God. It is contained in Scripture, just as the belief in it was a part of the faith and teaching of the Church in the first century. But it must gradually be stated in these more precise terms. Perhaps the first great impulse toward this process came from the Gnostics.
There were pagan Gnostics before Christ; thus Gnosticism did not develop from Christianity. When some of these men came into contact with Christian truth, however, they attempted to join the two teachings together. Frequently they fell into error.
Their fundamental belief that matter is evil was at the basis of the error of "Docetism," into which some of them fell-the belief that Christ had no true physical body. The Gnostics also thought of God as someone from whom there came forth "sparks" of some sort-emanations, they called them.
This notion was to confuse the Christians of later centuries when they came to describe the relationship of the Second Person of the Trinity to the Father. In fact, the general Gnostic notions will occasionally appear in our doctrinal history for many centuries. Gnosticism developed many varied forms, so that it is really impossible to reduce them all to one system. But the general tendencies are clear when they do appear.
As a result, the early defenders of the faith were especially concerned with these and similar errors. In regard to the explanation of Christian faith in the third century two men stand out: Tertullian and Origen. These two had a tremendous effect on the "technical" vocabulary which the Church was developing -Tertullian in Latin, Origen in Greek. New words had to be coined to express the truths of the Christian faith in something beyond the words of Scripture, and they helped lead the way.
By departing from the graphic terms of Scripture, however, they were taking a certain risk, and eventually they both fell into a doctrinal error. Tertullian even left the Church and joined the group known as Montanistsa group of Christians who desired to lead extremely devout lives, but who fell into error since they felt they alone were being guided by the Holy Spirit; the Church itself had supposedly fallen into serious heresy.
In the third century, however, new errors began to rise, errors that can be identified in special ways. They were actually preparing the way for heresy of the early Church:. The names of two men stand out in this early period: Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. Sabellius was a priest of Lybia who taught chiefly at Rome. He attempted to explain the Trinity in a novel fashion: he admitted only a. Thus, he claimed, whenever we speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are really only calling the one divine Person by three different names, depending on how God is manifesting Himself to the Church.
Sabellius has the dubious honor given to others throughout the centuries of having this general error named after him:.
There were, however, other men who held similar teachings, and other names. One group was known as the. They logically concluded that if there was only a difference in names, it was really the "Father" who suffered on the cross. Hence the name, from father and suffer. Paul of Samosata was the bishop of Antioch, and an important name in history, since he was a friend of Lucian, the teacher of Arius. Paul of Samosata taught things very much like Sabellius, but he attempted to explain the teaching in more scientific fashion.
His starting place was God as an intelligent Being. God has intelligence, and therefore He can "utter" a divine. This word he called by the Greek name , which means the same thing. For Paul, however, this was not a person at all; it was only a manner in which God manifested His power. As a result, when Paul of Samosata came to speak of Christ, he claimed that Christ was only a man-a mere man, and nothing more.
He was not God. We might call him the "adopted son" of God, but for Paul that meant only one thing: this "power" of God the overshadowed Jesus, and dwelt in Him as in a temple.
In this teaching, the is not really "distinct" from God; it is simply an mpersonal power of God. Thus the Logos was not a divine person. Paul of Samosata expressed this by saying that God and the were "of one substance. The was simply an attribute or power of God.
In this he was very much like Sabellius. To this, however, Paul had added another idea: the notion of the coming to dwell in Jesus of Nazareth. In this way he was helping to prepare for the big debate of the Council of Nicea, for Arius was to develop this thought in his own way. With the stage set in this fashion, two new figures appear who are destined to bring forth the first General Council of the Church. The main work of the council was to confirm the condemnation issued by edict in by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters.
What is the purpose of ecumenical councils? Category: religion and spirituality christianity. An ecumenical council or oecumenical council ; also general council is a conference of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice in which those entitled to vote are convoked from the whole world oikoumene and which secures the. Who can call an ecumenical council? How do ecumenical councils work? How many councils are there?
What are the four councils? Which council decided the books of the Bible? Who believes in the Nicene Creed? Who wrote the Nicene Creed? Original Nicene Creed of How many Lateran Councils were there? Fourth Council of the Lateran.
0コメント