The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1962-07-27

justification.
3. Unanimity in their de-
cisions is most desirable: but
obviously this is not neces-
sary. A simple majority is
sufficient for a valid deci-
sion
TO REQUIRE the actual
presence of a majority of
bishops would be to over
look the triple function of
bishops in a Council. They
are not only witnesses and
authentic teachers of the
faith, but, above all, judges,
JUDGES fidei. The acts of a
Council are essentially ju-
dicial, deciding between
truth and falsehood, accept
ing or rejecting a given for
mula.
Provided that, under the
existing conditions, a num-
Der of bishops sufficient to
represent the whole Church
is lawfully assembled, that
body acts for all the other
members who were invited,
though not present. Their
resolutions may be rightly
said to embody the consen-
sus of the Church as a whole.
The third kind of ecu
menicity, that of authority
universally acknowledged, is
of greatest importance. 1t re-
suits, as a rule, from the
ecumenical mons and
the ecumenical asse m bly,;
and it is absolutely essen
tial. In case of necessity, it
may act as a substitute for
the two others, but nothing
can ever replace it. The first
and second Councils of Con-
stantinople 1881 and 553)
were neither of them ecu
menical in their summons or
their actual sitting, since
the easternS only were invit-
ed and were present; but
they became ecumenical
through ratification by the
pope and the resulting &C.
ceptance by the whole
Church.
A Council possesses ecu
menical authority only if it
is the authorized organ of
the whole Church. This it
cannot be apart from the
participation of the Pope, for
without him the assembled
teaching body would lack its
visible head and organic CEN
ter of unity. That is the rea-
son why the definition of the
papal primacy by the Vati-
can Council has not in any
way altered the authority of
Councils. There has never
been a juridically ecumenical
Council without the pope,
though his collaboration has
taken various forms.
IN THE CHURCH of the
first millennium it was a
universally accepted prirci-
pie that no decision in mat
tiers of faith could be final
and binding on all without
the consent of the Bishop of
Rome.
The decisive authority of
Councils rests on the infal-
libility of their decisions.
The theological basis of this
is that the episcopal body in
union with the Pope is the
successor of the Apost
College. Admi ttedly, the
bishops cannot int roduce
new revealed truths, as the
Apostles did, but they pos
sess, as a body, the infalli-
bility Christ promised His
Church. When assembled in
Council in accord with their
visible head, they are kept
from error by the assistance
of the Holy Spirit.
The bishops as successors
of the Apostles exercise their
teaching function in the
most solemn manner when
assembled at a Council, and
all believers are bound to &C
cept their decisions in mat
tiers of faith. For that rea-
son, the early Church held
the conviction that Ecu
menical Councils were in
fallible.
The conviction of the in
fallibility of Councils was
universal till the Reforma-
ton, and hardly questioned
even at the time of the medi-
eval counciliar movement.
One of the most current
objections to the infallibility
of Councils is expressed in
the saying that Councils can
not place the Holy Ghost "at
their disposal" This popular
objection would have been
impossible in the time of the
ancient Church; it has its
origin in an ecclesiology
quite other than that of the
primitive Church, and bears
too the imprint of rational
ism.
WHAT is IA by