The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1962-07-13

Visible unity VI all W0O De-
lleve in Him.
Thus the participation Of
the Pope is indispensable for
a council to be ecumenical;
and at the some time, it is
often sufficient in order to
complete what may be lack
ing in ecumenicity, for pa2al
participation is a guarantee
of universal validity of con-
ciliar decisions. That is why
many councils can only be
considered ecumenical as to
part of their decisions, since
papal cooperation and sane
ton was lacking to the rest.
A COUNCIL is ecumenical
at the moment of its summons,
if all the bishops of the
Catholic world have been Of
ficially invited. For it also to
be ecumenical from the be-
ginning of its sessions the
invitations must have reached
their destinations and been
answered from every part of
the Church, 1t is, in practice,
unavoidable for some of the
bishops to be prevented from
attending. Clearly, then, the
ecumenical character of the
Council cannot depend on the
actual participation of all, or
nearly all, the bishops. Nor is
it necessary for the majority
of bishops to be present.
Further, it cannot be re-
quired that every country or
nation should be actually rep
resented by its own bishop. AS
proof that a majority of biSh-
ops is not necessary, we can
instance the Council of Trent,
which opened, on December
Is, 1915, with four cardinals,
four archbishopS (of AK, Pal
ermo, Upsala, Armagh-from
four different nationS), and
81 bishops, three quarters of
them Italian, two Spaniards,
an Englishman, and a German.
In addition, there were the
Generals of the Franciscan
Observants, franciscan Con-
%ventualS, Augustinian Hermits,
Carmelites and Services. The
Catholic diocesan bishops at
the same time numbered more
than 500, not including Eng.
lish, scandinavian and Ger
man bishops who had gone
over to the Reformation; so
the number present at the
opening was indeed modest.
Nonetheless, the Council
of Trent is held ecumenical
from its beginning on Deem
Der Is, 1545. 1t makes no diff
ference that the German bish-
ops, though invited, were al
most wholly absent. They have
been severely blamed for this
on the ground that they failed.
to see the Importance of the
Council and were more con.
cerned for their temporal au-
thority and possessions than
for their spiritual duty to at
tend the Council. But in JUS
tice we ought to consider the
difficulties of their position.
In the tension prevailing just
before the Schmalkaldic war,
their absence from home
might well have induced the
neighboring Protestant rulers
to seize their bishoprics, which
would then have been lost to
the Catholic Faith.
How many must be pres
ent as a minimum for a Coun-
Gil to be ecumenical? No SIM
pie and conclusive answer is
given either by theologians or
Canon Law. We can, however,
formulate some general rules.
AFTER ALL the bishops
and those entitled have been
invited, voting members from
various countries must as
assemble, under the direction
of the proper authority, in
such a number that it can be
truly said, having regard to
the conditions of the time,
that the entire Church is rep
resented.
In cast of doubt whether a
Council be ecumenical, it be-
longs to the Church's teaching
authority to decide the ques-
ton as one of dogmatic fact
(faefvm dosmatieUm). An au-
thoritative decision of the
kind cannot make ecumenical
what was not already such,
but it can infallibly settle that
a council was really ecumen-
ical.
Further, it can give ecumen-
ical validity to a council which
was not ecumenical at the
time of its meeting. For in
stance, the eastern bishops
were alone invited to the first
Council of Constantinople
(381); and the second $3.50
was, at first, only an east
ern one. But both received
ecumenical status through sub
sequent ratification by the
pope and agreement of the
western Church.