66 bishops and churches, consequently it cannot be accounted œcumenical. It was also not acknowledged as such by the first edition of the synod of Florence *; by the historians Platina, Flavius Blondus, Trithemius, Albertus Stadensis; or by cardinal Contarenus in the sixteenth century; and although some modern writers pretend that it was the "thirteenth œcumenical synod," many catholics," as Tournely says, have doubted its œcumenicity for the following reasons: "First, because the council of Florence, according to the papal diploma, is entitled the eighth general council; so that whatever councils were celebrated from the time of the seventh general synod, which was the second Nicene, to the time of the council of Florence, were held not to be œcumenical by whoever wrote the title of the council of Florence, or confirmed it." He also observes that bishops were not present from all christian provinces, or even all western provinces, which Bellarmine (Lib. i. de Conciliis, cap. 17.) regards as the last condition necessary to a general council when celebrated in the west. So far from this being the case, no bishops were present from Germany, Hungary, Italy, Brittany, Spain, Sweden, Poland. The council of Constance, in the formulary which it appointed to be subscribed by the pontiff elected, enumerates the general synods to that time, but only mentions one synod of Lyons, which must have been the second synod in 1274, as being a much greater synod than this. And in fine, "the authors who speak of it, as Matthew Paris, Albertus Stadensis, Trithemius, and Platina, do not call it general. Onuphrius, who lived in the six • Launoii Epist. 1. viii. ep. xi. f Contareni Opera, p. 563. teenth century, first gives it that title." Delahogue also observes that the cecumenicity of this synod is disputed ". 2. The second synod of Lyons was convened by Gregory X. bishop of Rome, in 1274: it was attended by 500 bishops of the Latin churches. In the fourth session of the council, the embassadors of the Eastern emperor, viz. Germanus, formerly bishop of Constantinople, and Theophanes of Nicæa, George Acropolita, &c. were present; when a letter was read from the Greek emperor Michael, professing the doctrines of the Roman primacy, purgatory, transubstantiation, and seven sacraments. A letter from thirty-five Greek bishops was also read, in which they expressed their wish for union, and admitted the primacy of the Roman see'. The council did not examine or formally approve these letters, but not judging them to be contrary to faith, permitted the union of the churches without requiring the Greeks to add filioque to the creed. The only decree in faith made by Gregory in this synod was a definition that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, and a condemnation of the contrary doctrine *. This synod was never accounted œcumenical in the east, the eastern patriarchs and bishops not having sent any deputies to it; and whatever consent some of them gave to the union, having been extorted by the violence of the Emperor Michael Palæologus, who was desirous of obtaining the political assistance of the Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii. p. 435, 436. h Delahogue, De Eccles. p.278. i Harduin. Concil. t. vii. p. 694-698, 698–701. k Constitutio i. Harduin. t. vii. p. 705. Roman see'. This synod was not reckoned œcumenical by the editors of the synod of Florence", by Cardinal Contarenus", or by Platina, Nauclerus, or Flavius Blondus. 3. The same observations apply to the synod of Vienne of 300 bishops, assembled by Clement V. in 1311: none of the oriental bishops were present, nor was it ever acknowledged in the eastern church. This synod condemned the errors of Peter de Oliva and the Beghards, and made decrees of doctrine concerning the nature of our Lord and some other points, which seem to have been generally laudable: but it cannot have any just claim to be accounted "the fifteenth oœcumenical synod," as it is by some modern theologians. It was not styled œcumenical by Platina, Blondus, Trithemius, the synod of Florence, or Contarenus. SECTION IV. THE SYNODS OF PISA AND CONSTANCE. 1. The synod of Pisa was assembled by the cardinals in 1408, to terminate the schism in the papacy. It consisted of twenty-two cardinals, eighty-three bishops, and the deputies of eighty-five more. No decrees were made in matters of faith or discipline. It is not usually accounted œcumenical by Roman theologians, and was never known in the east. 2. The synod of Constance assembled by John 'Barlaam declares that this was the opinion of the Greeks. See Raynald. Annales ad an. 1339, n. 21; Bzovii Annales, ibid. c. xxiv. synod are contained in the liber Clementinorum, but are mixed up with others, which were not made by the synod of Vienne.— Harduin. vii. p. 1359. There seem considerable difficulties in ascertaining what the precise decrees of the synod actually were. XXIII. in 1414, consisted of about 250 Latin bishops. It decreed that a general council was superior to the pope", deposed one of the rival popes, obliged the other to relinquish his office, and elected a new pope. The only decrees of importance concerning religion are those condemning Wickliffe and Huss, and approving the administration of the eucharist in one kind only. In the eighth session (1415,) forty-five propositions taken from the writings of Wickliffe, were censured as heretical, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, and seditious". The first of these propositions was, that the substance of material bread remains in the sacrament of the altar, the second, that the accidents do not remain without a subject in the same sacrament. Amongst the other doctrines condemned are many very erroneous, and even absurd, positions; some however are not so, e. g. the 38th, a 66 et blasphemos, quosdam piarum aurium offensivos, nonnullos eorum temerarios et seditiosos." p. 302. They also condemned 260 other propositions selected by the University of Oxford, as heretical, seditious, erroneous, temerarious, scandalous, or insane. Ibid. Ipsa synodus in Spiritu Sancto congregata legitime, generale concilium faciens, ecclesiam catholicam militantem repræsen- Sessio viii. Harduin. t. viii. tans, potestatem a Christo immediate habet, cui quilibet cujuscumque status vel dignitatis, etiam si papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quæ pertinent ad fidem, et extirpationem dicti schismatis, et reformationem generalem ecclesiæ Dei in capite et in membris.". Sess. iv. Harduin. Conc. t. viii. p. 252. - b The decree of condemnation says, "quibus articulis examinatis, fuit repertum (prout in veritate est) aliquos et plures ex ipsis fuisse et esse notorie hæreticos, et a sanctis patribus dudum reprobatos; alios non catholicos, sed erroneos; alios scandalosos • Wickliffe certainly taught several serious errors. The Apology of the Confession of Augsburgh reckoned the Wickliffites as much in error as the Donatists. "Satis clare diximus ...... nos improbare Donatistas et Wicleffistas qui senserunt homines peccare accipientes sacramenta ab indignis in ecclesia. Apol. Conf. August. (iv.) "that the decretal epistles are apocryphal." This article is now generally received as true in the Roman obedience. The condemnation of these propositions in globo, without affixing any particular mark to each proposition, renders it impossible to affirm that the synod of Constance meant to condemn this or that particular proposition as heretical. They may have only judged the two first propositions scandalous, that is, likely to excite disturbance in the church; and propositions are scandalous at one time which are not so at another. The same observations apply to the condemnations of the thirty-nine propositions of Huss in the fifteenth session. In the thirteenth session (1415,) the synod made a decree that, "since it is necessary to believe firmly that the whole body and blood of Christ is contained in the species of bread; the custom of communicating in that species only having been long observed, should be regarded as a law which men should not reject or change according to their taste, without the authority of the churchd." The doctrine here somewhat crudely laid down by the synod of Constance, was derived from the doctrine of the real presence, combined with that of the indivisible unity of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; whence they concluded that where his flesh truly existed, there his whole body and blood could not be absent. Nor has this doctrine been at any time reprobated by our catholic churches: indeed it might perhaps be gathered from those words of our Liturgy, "He hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy sacrament," and from the words of the Article: "In no wise are they d Sess. xii. Harduin. Conc. t. viii. p. 381. |