is held to follow him. But to define matters of Faith pertains to the one who cannot err.

Secondly, even ifthe Pope were not the pastor of the whole Church, and could not define controversies about the Faith without a Council, still a Council of Greeks and Latins would not on that account be required, but a Council of some Bishops convened by the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient. For he is (at the very least) the Bishop ofthe first See, and without him Councils do not have any validity, but with him they do have, as Gelasius teaches at great length in his book on anathemas. For, the firmness ofCouncils does not come from the multitude and diversity ofthe Bishops, but from the connection with the See ofPeter, to whom it was said: I have prayedfor you that yourfaith may not fail (Luke 22:32); and various example bear witness to this. For example, the Council of Ariminum had 600 Bishops, part Greeks, part Latins, nevertheless, because the Roman Bishop opposed it, it has always been considered as erroneous by all, both Greeks and Latins. On the contrary, Council II with 150 Greek Bishops, and in which there were no Latins, because it was confirmed by Pope Damasus, by whom Ariminum had been rejected, has always been held in honor. We see, therefore, that the firmness of Councils comes from the See ofPeter.

Thirdly, even ifthe Pope were not the head of the whole Church, nor the Bishop of the first See, but only one Patriarch no greater than the others, still the Greeks could not complain bitterly because ofthat addition. For, it is a question either ofFaith, or ofa rite, that is, the Greeks do not want this addition either because it is false and contrary to the Faith, or because although it is true, it does not please them to have it in the Creed.

If it is a question about a rite, certainly just as there are many other different rites of the Greeks and Latins, and because ofthat there should not be a schism, so also this rite can be tolerated without a schism. Moreover, one Bishop can institute some rite in his own Church without the consent ofthe others; how much more then the whole nation of the Latins.

But if it is a question about the Faith: provincial or national Councils cannot define something in such a way that it must be immediately accepted by all; however, they can define, and others should not complain about it, but approve it, ifthey see the matter has been well defined, but ifnot then to convoke a larger Council. We know that this has been done often in the Church.

The Council of Antioch, composed of a few Bishops, condemned the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and many others in the whole world did not complain, but actually approved it, as is clear from Eusebius's History in book 7, last chapter. The Council of Constantinople, at which there were no Latins, condemned the heresy of Macedonius, and the Latins did not complain but gave their approval. The provincial Councils of Mileum and Carthage condemned the heresy of Pelagius, and no one caused a schism because he had not been invited. The Council of Ephesus condemned the heresy of Nestorius, before the Latins were present, whom the Pontiff Celestine had sent there; the Latins did not complain, but wanted to know what had been done; when they had learned about it they approved it. There are innumerable examples ofthis. The Greeks, therefore, cannot complain that the question was defined without them, especially since after that definition they were invited to general Councils, not once, nor twice, but often, and the

Toggle SidebarMagisterium AIMagisterium AI

Magisterium AI

Controversies of the Christian Faith (Disputationes de Controversiis)

Magisterium AI
Magisterium AI