A 22nd Ecumenical Council and representation

[Wandile]

If the Pope Called for another ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, what would you want the representation rules of churches to be?

Would you :

1. Like Vatican II, have all bishops from all the sui juris attend the council and have all 5000 bishops of the world present
2. The East and the West secure equal representation. So for example a total of 1000 bishops are invited to the council, 500 from the east and 500 from the west
3. Each church invites as many bishops as they want to attend the council
4. Any other proposal you may think of…

 

[Wandile]

If the Pope Called for another ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, what would you want the representation rules of churches to be?

Would you :

1. Like Vatican II, have all bishops from all the sui juris attend the council and have all 5000 bishops of the world present
2. The East and the West secure equal representation. So for example a total of 1000 bishops are invited to the council, 500 from the Eastern Catholics and 500 from the West
3. Each church invites as many bishops as they want to attend the council
4. Any other proposal you may think of…

 

[Brendan]

IIRC, by the nature of an Eccumenical Council, every bishop, by right, may attend.

So restricting which bishops can, or cannot attend, is not an option.

 

[pianistclare]

The Pope can call any Council he wishes, It doesn’t necessarily have to be an ecumenical council.
At any rate, I doubt he will consult me.

 

[Joe_5859]

IIRC, by the nature of an Eccumenical Council, every bishop, by right, may attend.

So restricting which bishops can, or cannot attend, is not an option.

Right. Then it would just be a synod, not a truly ecumenical council.

 

[Wandile]

IIRC, by the nature of an Eccumenical Council, every bishop, by right, may attend.

So restricting which bishops can, or cannot attend, is not an option.

Actually, restriction of people who may attend can and has happened. It is done for practical reasons like maybe the host city not being able to host all possible members.

 

[Wandile]

Right. Then it would just be a synod, not a truly ecumenical council.

Actually it is ecumenical regardless of who is allowed to attend. Its just needs to be confirmed as an ecumenical council by the Pope for it to be ecumenical. In theory he could call an ecumenical council and invite only 12 bishops and it would be ecumenical. The only requirement is that it must be recognised as such. The number of participants is immaterial

 

[RyanBlack]

Actually it is ecumenical regardless of who is allowed to attend. Its just needs to be confirmed as an ecumenical council by the Pope for it to be ecumenical. In theory he could call an ecumenical council and invite only 12 bishops and it would be ecumenical. The only requirement is that it must be recognised as such. The number of participants is immaterial

For a pope to convoke an ecumenical council and only invite particular bishops would involve setting aside canon law. A pope could do that; but to do so would be to deny bishops what canon law specifically states is both a right and duty of a bishop, viz., “to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.” I cannot imagine any pope would deny bishops participation in an ecumenical council apart from extremely exceptional circumstances.

 

[Wandile]

For a pope to convoke an ecumenical council and only invite particular bishops would involve setting aside canon law. A pope could do that; but to do so would be to deny bishops what canon law specifically states is both a right and duty of a bishop, viz., “to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.” I cannot imagine any pope would deny bishops participation in an ecumenical council apart from extremely exceptional circumstances.

Like I said, it is done for practical reasons. The goal is to have all bishops attend but today with 5100 bishops, that is just not possible. Even in the past, at various ecumenical councils, invites were limited due to the inability to host all possible attendees. The goal of my post was just to highlight the fact that restriction can happen and has happened.

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually it is ecumenical regardless of who is allowed to attend. Its just needs to be confirmed as an ecumenical council by the Pope for it to be ecumenical. In theory he could call an ecumenical council and invite only 12 bishops and it would be ecumenical. The only requirement is that it must be recognised as such. The number of participants is immaterial

That is not the Church’s definition of an Ecumenical Council.

By definition, an Ecumenical Council must be open to all bishops of the Church (excluding only the excommunicated, suspended, schismatic).

The pope can call a council or synod and invite only a limited participation by bishops. When he does this, it is (again, by definition) not an Ecumenical Council.

The 2 words, council and synod, actually mean the same thing although we use them differently in English simply as a linguistic tool to differentiate between types.

 

[Wandile]

Could somebody please answer the original question?

In the event that the Pope does restrict attendance…

 

[FrDavid96]

Could somebody please answer the original question?

In the event that the Pope does restrict attendance…

That IS the answer to the question.

The Pope cannot call an Ecumenical Council without allowing all legitimate bishops the opportunity to attend. That cannot be, by the very definition of the term, an Ecumenical Council.

The question is a non-sequitur.

 

[Wandile]

That is not the Church’s definition of an Ecumenical Council.

By definition, an Ecumenical Council must be open to all bishops of the Church (excluding only the excommunicated, suspended, schismatic).

The pope can call a council or synod and invite only a limited participation by bishops. When he does this, it is (again, by definition) not an Ecumenical Council.

The 2 words, council and synod, actually mean the same thing although we use them differently in English simply as a linguistic tool to differentiate between types.

Thank you Father, my post might have been flawed but there was a simple point I was trying to make.

The goal of my post was just to highlight the fact that restriction can happen and has happened.

 

[Wandile]

That IS the answer to the question.

The Pope cannot call an Ecumenical Council without allowing all legitimate bishops the opportunity to attend. That cannot be, by the very definition of the term, an Ecumenical Council.

The question is a non-sequitur.

But it has happened before… On more than than one occasion.
One example that comes to mind is the Second Council of Lyon

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you Father, my post might have been flawed but there was a simple point I was trying to make.

The goal of my post was just to highlight the fact that restriction can happen and has happened.

Well, then your point is simply wrong.

 

[FrDavid96]

But it has happened before… On more than than one occasions.
One example that come to mind is the Second Council of Lyon

Well, if you want an answer to a question, please ask the question itself instead of some kind of roundabout reasoning.

If you want to know why 2Lyon can be numbered among the Ecumenical Councils, then ask that question, please.

 

[Wandile]

Well, if you want an answer to a question, please ask the question itself instead of some kind of roundabout reasoning.

If you want to know why 2Lyon can be numbered among the Ecumenical Councils, then ask that question, please.

No I know why its ecumenical… I’m very familiar with the ecumenical councils having read the acts of some of them and the historical climate behind their convocations

My question is perfectly worded and as much as I respect your opinion and answers, I have shown proof of the fact that restriction of attendees can happen. So my question is completely valid. My question is contained in the first post.

Another example is that at the council of Vienne only a number of bishops were invited after the King of France, Philip the Fair, had cleared their names

 

[twf]

No I know why its ecumenical… I’m very familiar with the ecumenical councils having read the acts of some of them and the historical climate behind their convocations

My question is perfectly worded and as much as I respect your opinion and answers, I have shown proof of the fact that restriction of attendees can happen. So my question is completely valid. My question is contained in the first post.

Another example is that at the council of Vienne only a number of bishops were invited after the King of France, Philip the Fair, had cleared their names

I think theologians would consider such historical anomalies abuses at best. As Father alluded to, an Ecumenical Council by its very nature is a solemn exercise of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church…it is the voice of the entire college of bishops and thus to deliberately exclude bishops would be theologically suspect.

 

[Wandile]

I think theologians would consider such historical anomalies abuses at best. As Father alluded to, an Ecumenical Council by its very nature is a solemn exercise of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church…it is the voice of the entire college of bishops and thus to deliberately exclude bishops would be theologically suspect.

Even for practical reasons? Like the host city and the Church not having the funds nor the space to accommodate all 5100 bishops? Vatican II with its 2600 bishops already pushed the church to its limits…

 

[FrDavid96]

No I know why its ecumenical… I’m very familiar with the ecumenical councils having read the acts of some of them and the historical climate behind their convocations

My question is perfectly worded and as much as I respect your opinion and answers, I have shown proof of the fact that restriction of attendees can happen. So my question is completely valid. My question is contained in the first post.

Another example is that at the council of Vienne only a number of bishops were invited after the King of France, Philip the Fair, had cleared their names

No, you most certainly do not understand it.

Your question does not make any sense.

I am trying to explain it to you, but you obviously have no interest in actually understanding the topic at hand.

You are like a person who asks “can the pope bless holy water without using any water?”

It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the question, the very definitions of the words you are using make the question itself non-sensical.