RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Councils and Synods
the Nicene formula was the result of his urgency, and he recognized it as binding in law, imposing penalties on those who refused to subscribe it; he himself promulgated the decision as to the Easter celebration, and imposed its observance on the bishops. Thus, though the Nicene council was theoretically a meeting of the catholic episcopate, and the authority attributed to all synods might be supposed to belong to it in a preeminent degree, it was really not an organ of the self-government of the Church, but an aid to its government by the secular ruler. The following ecumenical councils were modeled on this and bore the same character. The decision to convoke them originated at the court, and was always carried out by the secular authority. They met under the presidency, or at least in the presence, of imperial commissaries. Their decisions were submitted to the emperor before publication, as occurred in the case of the dogmatic decree of Chalcedon (Mansi, Concilia, vii. 117, 136). He might either confirm their decrees, as at Chalcedon (Mansi, vii. 476) and Constantinople (Mansi, xi. 697, 724), or refuse his assent, as at Ephesus (Mansi, iv. 1377). Their dependence upon the court increased, until Constantius could say with brutal frankness at the Synod of Milan, "What I will, let that be considered a canon " (Athanasius, " History of tha Arians," xxxiii.). The detailed history of the several ecumenical councils will he found in other articles (see the name of the place of meeting). Roman Catholic historians number eight in this early period: Nicaea I., 325; Constantinople I., 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Constantinople II., 553; Constantinople III., 680; Nicsa II., 787; Constantinople IV., 869. But this enumeration is not historically justifiable. Apart from the facts that the Constantinopolitan council of 381 represented only the Eastern Empire [and that of 869 is rejected by the Eastern Church], those of Sardica 342, Ephesus 449, and Constantinople 754 have just as much right to the title of ecumenical, nor was confirmation lacking to the decrees of the two latter. Their omission can only be based upon the fact that later development took a direction opposite to their conclusions. The importance of the ecumenical councils lies in their legislative activity, especially in regard to doctrine, which usually furnished the reason for their convocation. They dealt also with many questions of ecclesiastical organization and private morality; but their action as a supreme judicial tribunal is comparatively unimportant. Their excommunications were always the consequences of their dogmatic decrees, which ^vere considered infallible from the conception of the episcopate as endowed with the charisma verilatis*
The synodal system underwent a new development in the Teutonic nationalities which arose on
*The list of ecumenical councils as accepted by the Roman Utholic Church is as follows: 1. Nicjea I., 325; 2. Constantinople I., 381; 3. Ephesus, 431; 4. Chalcedon, 451; 5. Constantinople II., 553; 6. Constantinople III. (First Trullan), W()-681; 7. Nicaea II., 787; 8. Constantinople IV., 869; 9, Lateran I., 1123; 10. Lateran II., 1139; 11. Lateran III., |1'9; 12. Lateran IV., 1215; 13. Lyons I., 1245; 14. Lyons 1274; 15, Vienne, 1311-12; 16. Constance, 1414-18;
the ruins of the Roman Empire. The old division of ecclesiastical provinces had much less importance now than of old; the larger unit of church life above the diocese was not the metropolitan jurisdiction but the national Church,
4. Teutonic and the former disappeared entirely
Synods of for a time in the Prankish kingdom.
the Early Moreover, at the beginning of the Middle Middle Ages the diocese was no longer Ages. a town community governed by the bishop with a united presbytery about him, but an extended territory divided into a large number of coordinate parishes. The relation of the king, again, to the Church was important. Though not carrying such unlimited power as the emperors had possessed, it was sufficiently analogous to theirs for the provincial synod to lose much of its earlier importance, and to become a merely occasional gathering. This was especially the case in the Prankish kingdom, where in the Merovingian period only a few such synods are heard of, and the acts of only one are extant. Boniface asserted in 742 that no synod had been held for more than eighty years; but neither his efforts nor those of Charlemagne availed to alter the situation materially. The case was the same in England; the ancient provisions were not forgotten, but simply not followed.
Provincial synods were most frequent in Spain, as long as the Visigoths were Arian (Tarragona 516, Gerunda 517, Lerida 524, Valencia 524, Toledo 527, Barcelona 540). The place of the provincial synods was taken by national councils. The first of these in the Prankish kingdom was called by Clovis at Orleans in 511, and they never ceased to be held during the Merovingian period, either for the whole kingdom or one of its divisions. They were distinguished from provincial synods by being not regularly recurring assemblies, but meetings summoned or at least sanctioned by the king for a special purpose. Their decisions did not necessarily require royal confirmation, but the kings felt themselves at liberty to alter or abrogate them, especially when they overstepped the bounds of spiritual administration. After the middle of the seventh century they met in the presence of the king or his representative. The Burgundian kingdom also had its national synods (Epaon 517; Lyons 517). It is significant that in Spain they begin with the conversion of Recared (Toledo 589, 597, 633, 636, 638, etc.), and seem at once to have taken the place of the provincial synods. A peculiarity here was that the magnates of the kingdom and the royal officials were considered members. Only in England did the national council fail to acquire importance. This system lasted, unchanged in essentials, through the whole first half of the Middle Ages. The extension of the empire under Charle-
17. Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-42; 18. Lateran V., 1512- 1517; 19. Trent, 1545-63; 20. Vatican, 1869-70. The first seven of these are accepted by the Greeks, the others rejected; they also accept the Second Trullan Council or Quinisextum, 692 (rejected by the West), considering it a continuation of the First Trullan or Third Constantinople. The eighth general council of the Greeks was held in Constantinople in 879 and rejected by the Latins (see Photius).
Oouncils and Synods