- Status
P
peter26
Guest
In the event that some form of council was called with the membership restricted, the fairest thing would seem to be to ensure representation roughly proportional to the proportion of the world’s Catholics in that country/part of the world and thus ensure that every part of the world is adequately represented. It would seem fair that all Eastern Churches are represented, but not equally 50% East 50% West, as there are far more Western Catholics than Eastern. I would also hope that someone would be invited to represent the Ordinariates.
T
twf
Guest
I think this is why we will continue to see regular Synods hosted in Rome but not a true ecumenical council for a long while.
T
twf
Guest
Father,
Could we dive a little into the OP’s point regarding the historical anomalies where restrictions did seem to be in place? I am not familiar with the specifics, but if the King of France did indeed have “veto” over who could attend the Council of Vienne, why would it still be regarded as a valid ecumenical council? (Rather than some other category of synod).
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Historical anomalies are just that: anomalies.
Given the circumstances of the time, the Church was not free to conduct a Council without interference from the secular government. That doesn’t mean that secular interference is welcome or desired. Indeed, given the time period, it would have been impossible to conduct an ecumenical council without some form of interference from the secular powers.
We can still regard those councils as valid ecumenical councils because the Church did her best to conduct those councils.
Even today, if a pope were to call an ecumenical council, he would already know ahead of time, that there would be some bishops unable to attend because of political restrictions. I rather doubt that a nation like communist China would release bishops from prison to allow them to attend an ecumenical council (although one could always hope and always apply diplomatic methods). Likewise, there will always be a few bishops unable to travel for health reasons. These situations are unavoidable. Nevertheless, the absence of a few bishops would not negate the fact that it would be an ecumenical council.
A good parallel example here is the election of a new pope. Until very recently (the mid 20th century), we’ve always had some degree of secular interference in papal elections. That doesn’t mean that those previous elections were invalid. On the other hand, it would be an invalid election if a number of Cardinals were to gather and intentionally exclude eligible Cardinal-electors from the process.
What the OP is asking about is a situation where a pope intentionally excludes a significant portion of the College of Bishops–such a situation could never be, by its very nature, an ecumenical council.
With regard to the possibility of a secular veto: that would not, all by itself, negate an ecumenical council. For one thing, we don’t know if any such veto was ever exercised (the records of the Council of Vienne have been lost to history). Even if it was, it’s likely that the secular power would veto a political decision rather than one dealing directly with the faith (likely, but not impossible).
With regard to the 2nd Council of Lyon: I have not looked extensively into this subject, but some quick searches seemed to indicate that more bishops arrived than were anticipated, and therefore the space was inadequate for the numbers. Those bishops were allowed to excuse themselves. This is a very different situation from a pope intentionally excluding those bishops from the very beginning. Of course, the Church has learned lessons from that event, and today, no pope would actually convene an ecumenical council to occur in a place that would be too small to house all the bishops.
In a certain sense, we can say that historical anomalies of the past were mistakes (like assuming that too few bishops would bother to arrive). The Church can learn from those mistakes, and the statutes for an ecumenical council can evolve. We now understand that in order for a gathering of bishops to be numbered as as ecumenical council, every bishop (every one who is a member of the College) must have the potential to participate. ** Once we understand that, we cannot go backwards**. We might, at some future date, even further refine the definition of an ecumenical council. Who knows what the future might hold? But what we cannot do is to reverse ourselves and say that what was in the past vincible ignorance, can now be an intentional omission.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I did a quick search.
The 2012 Olympics had 10,768 athletes. That doesn’t count the coaches, trainers, staff, families, visitors, or anyone else. That’s only the athletes.
In the 2012 Presidential election, the 2 major parties had their conventions.
D 5554 delegates attended
R 2286 delegates attended
The Paul VI Audience Hall at the Vatican (which was built after Vatican II) can seat 6,300 people at one time.
Keep in mind that the bishops do not have to be all in the same room for every single moment of the Council. Even at Vatican II, they only came together as a whole for (relatively) brief periods.
In 2013, an average of over 51,000 people attended the outdoor papal audiences. That’s 51,000 people at one time. If we assume that just 10% of them were tourists (which is probably very low indeed) then that means that the city of Rome can easily handle 5,000 visitors on any given day. magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2015/08/27/anche-in-vaticano-e-recessione-i-numeri-della-prefettura/
The city of Rome itself has over 44,000 hotel rooms and over 87,000 beds (some bishops might actually want to have a roommate). scribd.com/doc/17890728/Presenze-Turisti-Roma-marzo-2009
That is only hotels within the city limits. It doesn’t count those nearby the city.
Finding a place to accommodate about 5,000 Catholic bishops doesn’t seem too difficult.
There’s no doubt that a ecumenical council would require a lot of logistics—none whatsoever.
Still, I don’t think that an ecumenical council, attended by 5,100 bishops would be beyond the capacity of Rome.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Father David is quite correct in what he writes. The Nervi Hall, as one option, could seat the bishops – although the present seating and its arrangement is not particularly comfortable.
During Vatican II, many council fathers and the periti were accommodated in various houses of Religious (of which there are MANY) as well as the seminaries and national colleges in Rome and in the environs of Rome. That would happen again.
Finding accommodation for the bishops to attend Vatican III would really not be as problematic as people unfamiliar with Rome tend to think it would be.
P
Peter_J
Guest
From an Eastern pov, that would seem like a bit of a farce.
T
twf
Guest
Of course, the Pope could convene a synod of representatives from each Church sui iuris and legislate, in advanced, that whatever document the synod draws up will be binding on the Church universal…would perhaps have the same practical end result as an ecumenical council (in terms of disciplinary matters), but without the same level of solemn magisterial teaching authority.
W
Wandile
Guest
Father
How can it be impossible when it has happened already? On more than one occasion?
W
Wandile
Guest
Thank you father.
This is the first time your properly addressed my objection on the quite common historical anomalies… So every bishop must be invited but if it turns out later that it is not possible, then you are allowed to restrict attendance? Like what happened at Lyons?
W
Wandile
Guest
Interesting, why do you say this?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
NO. Again, NO.
No one is (or would be) allowed to “restrict attendance” in a way that excludes bishops.
In order to have an ecumenical council, now or in the future, such a council must be open to all bishops of the Church.
If a pope were to intentionally exclude a portion of the College of Bishops then such a meeting would not meet the definition of an ecumenical council.*
*The term “College of Bishops” means all validly ordained bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the rest of the College, including the Roman Pontiff, and who are not individually impeded by law (such as the excommunicated or those who are no longer in possession of their mental faculties). This is a brief definition for purposes of this thread. Entire books have been written on the more precise meaning of that term.
W
Wandile
Guest
Father, please calm down
You’ve totally misunderstood me
I acknowledged the fact that it is open to all bishops but if at a later time it become too much or something makes it unable for the bishops to all be accommodated, just like Lyon, some bishops can be turned away… Or else I see a historical inconsistency
I’m not talking about the pope picking and choosing who he wants. I’m talking about maybe some 4000 bishops arrive and lets say for some odd reason it appears none more can be hosted. Can the remaining 1100 be turned away like at the 2nd Council of Lyons?
This is exactly what happened at Lyons II and it was still ecumenical. Nevermind the other occasions restriction has happened and the councils were still called ecumenical… There historical precedence for this.
But even more… At Lyons II the prelates were specifically invited and the church still took up uninvited prelates until it became too much. Due to the great number of attendees, those who had come to Lyon without being specifically summoned were given “leave to depart with the blessing of God”
F
FrDavid96
Guest
You keep insisting that bishops can be turned away. They cannot be. One more time, if that were to happen, it would not be an ecumenical council.Father, please calm down
You’ve totally misunderstood me
I acknowledged the fact that it is open to all bishops but if at a later time it become too much or something makes it unable for the bishops to all be accommodated, just like Lyon, some bishops can be turned away…
I’ve addressed that issue.
What part of the word “no” do you not understand?
The answer to your question is “no.” The answer will not, nor can it, change. It is “no” regardless of how many times you repeat the question.
The bishops were not refused access at Lyon. They were given leave to depart if they chose. I’ve already said that there’s a difference, but you keep ignoring that.
I’ve also addressed the issue that the doctrine of ecumenical councils has evolved over the last 1700 years. We cannot go backwards and un-learn what the Church has already decided definitively.
It won’t matter how many times you keep repeating about 2Lyon.
There is no such thing as an ecumenical council unless the entire College of Bishops is invited to attend.
I cannot help but wonder: why you you seem to think that by repeating the same question over and over again, the answer will somehow change from “no” to “yes”?
P
Peter_J
Guest
The Second Council of Lyons was added to th list of ecumenical councils in the mid-sixteenth century, almost three centuries after it happened.
W
Wandile
Guest
Well sorry if I disagree. But I feel your answers are severely wanting.
Prove this
I have never read this anywhere. I know they were sent home. Who would willingly turn away after traveling such long distances??
I’m open to correction provided you bring evidence
I don’t think anything was wrong with the past as you seem to see it. I think they just acknowledged their limits. They would have accommodated everyone if they could. After all that’s the goal of all such ecumenical councils. Nothing has changed. And the oast cant be ignored because the past is from where we get our faith.
I will keep asking until it is sufficiently proven. Your answer have various flaws and when I point them out you just dismiss then as errors from the past. That’s way too convenient.
Well the last begs to differ. 2 councils show that there is such councils that can be called ecumenical and have limited attendance.
Hmm I could reply in kind but I will not go down that hole. That behaviour is unbecoming of both of us.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The Anglicans just had a Synod, the Ugandan bishop left after day 2 because the Episcopalians didn’t repent and his local church said that without repentance he is not to meet with them. He went home after traveling such a long distance to Lambeth.Who would willingly turn away after traveling such long distances??
By the choice of the bishop called, not to attend, or by prevention from the Pope?
W
Wandile
Guest
This is not the same. Back then they didn’t have aeroplanes to travel with in luxury conditions where home is on the other side of the world but can be reached in a matter of hours.
Back then it took months of travel in hard terrain, terrible conditions and nevermind poor health and how expensive it was to travel such long distances (way more than a plane ticket today). In those days willingly turning back, from a council you wish to attend after spending crazy amounts of money, time and energy, was almost insane.
The latter.
The Pope specifically gave invites to attend. However, the council was open even the uninvited but when it became too overwhelming, the pope declared that those who were present without being specifically summoned were given “leave to depart with the blessing of God” .
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I am leaving this discussion to Father David, since he has indicated the correct answer.
I will simply point out that there is a real danger when someone reads, for example, primary source documents without a thorough understanding, in this case, of ecclesiology which places the document in context and which allows isolated events to be seen in the mind of the Church. That is why the formation of a theologian is a years long process that also involves interdisciplinary study and never something that can occur in isolation or by independent effort.
In the instance at hand, one cannot extrapolate from a historical event that given X occurred, it would be legitimate to do thus and so. Such an approach fails to reference the Church’s self-understanding of these matters. Such an approach is not the mind of the Church and such a method of proceeding is invalid…as Father David has indicated.
I will simply point out that there is a real danger when someone reads, for example, primary source documents without a thorough understanding, in this case, of ecclesiology which places the document in context and which allows isolated events to be seen in the mind of the Church. That is why the formation of a theologian is a years long process that also involves interdisciplinary study and never something that can occur in isolation or by independent effort.
In the instance at hand, one cannot extrapolate from a historical event that given X occurred, it would be legitimate to do thus and so. Such an approach fails to reference the Church’s self-understanding of these matters. Such an approach is not the mind of the Church and such a method of proceeding is invalid…as Father David has indicated.
- Status