Apology and a Question re Church Councils

  • Thread starter Thread starter BarbaraTherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BarbaraTherese

Guest
Hi in the Water Cooler…
First I must apologize:o to any who may have posted into a thread I started or addressed me directly in any post or thread. I had major problems with my computer which would not switch on as well as a couple of problems asking my full attention here in Bethany. I hope to get back on deck soon and catch up with any post(s) that may ask an answer from me.

Secondly, I wonder if someone could explain to me the difference between a Council (we have had 21 apparently in our history inclucding Vatican 1 and 2) and a Vatican Council. While we have had 21 Councils, only two have been Vatican Councils, and I am wondering what the definitions are. I did do a search of the internet looking for the different definitions without success.

Good to be back!🙂
Regards Barb
Bethany, South Australia
3.9.05 10.19am
 
Hi Barb.

I don’t think there’s a distinction between the Vatican Councils and the rest. I’m under the impression that a council takes it’s name from the location of the meeting.

In Acts 15, you’ll read that the first council took place in Jeruselem to settle a question about the conversion of gentiles. Church historians refer to this council as the Council of Jeruselem. Other Councils similarly take there names from other cities, such as the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent.

My Catechism lists all the councils in order, and it appears that all of them are named for a city. This would explain why you have not been able to find a different definition for the Vatican Councils which both took place in Vatican City. Perhaps other posts will correct me if I’m wrong.

In Christ,
Mike
 
40.png
trustmc:
Hi Barb.

I don’t think there’s a distinction between the Vatican Councils and the rest. I’m under the impression that a council takes it’s name from the location of the meeting.

In Acts 15, you’ll read that the first council took place in Jeruselem to settle a question about the conversion of gentiles. Church historians refer to this council as the Council of Jeruselem. Other Councils similarly take there names from other cities, such as the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent.

My Catechism lists all the councils in order, and it appears that all of them are named for a city. This would explain why you have not been able to find a different definition for the Vatican Councils which both took place in Vatican City. Perhaps other posts will correct me if I’m wrong.

In Christ,
Mike
Click to expand...
Hello there Mike:) …well I spent a lot of time searching the internet to find the distinction for a Vatican Council…and on reading your Post the answer is obvious!!! I completely overlooked the obvious and not at all unusual! Thank you very much for any time you have spent to assist me.
Thanks very much for your response…I can put away the headache pills:whacky: and continue with researching and planning my essay!!!

Regards Barb smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_144_14.gif - Bethany in South Australia
 
The five Lateran councils also took place in Rome, in the Pope’s Lateran Palace, one hill over from the Vatican.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The five Lateran councils also took place in Rome, in the Pope’s Lateran Palace, one hill over from the Vatican.
Click to expand...
…oh dear - the obvious is not always correct obviously!!!..I’m hoping you may able to help me out then please Catholic2003 and tell me what a Lateran Council is…and what a Vatican Council is…surely there must be some sort of distinction? I am truly floundering with my History essay because I cannot even explain why Vatican2 was called The Second Vatican Council!!!..hence my opening paragraph would have very important info lacking. I know the first thing my teacher will ask: “But what is a Vatican Council - you have not stated this?”…

Hoping you can help me out…

Regards - Barb
I have started a thread on Vatican2…I’ll post my query into it, perhaps someone can tell me. If I can find out I’ll post the answer into this thread as well.
 
I thought that “Lateran” referred to a city, but apparently it does not. However, this does not mean that what I mentioned earlier isn’t true. The names of the councils still refer to their locations. The Lateran Councils refer to those that took place in the Lateran facilities according to Catholic2003, whereas the Vatican Councils took place at the Vatican facilities. For a quick verification, you may just want to ask your priest, or “ask an apologist” on this forum for a direct answer from Catholic Answers.
 
40.png
trustmc:
I thought that “Lateran” referred to a city, but apparently it does not.
Click to expand...
I used to think that as well, and I always wondered why the Pope never hosted any councils in Rome until Vatican I in 1869. Finally, I found out that the Lateran councils were also held in Rome, just at different papal facilities.
40.png
trustmc:
However, this does not mean that what I mentioned earlier isn’t true. The names of the councils still refer to their locations.
Click to expand...
Correct. I didn’t mean to throw a monkey wrench into the works here, but just to add a tidbit of information.
 
40.png
BarbaraTherese:
…oh dear - the obvious is not always correct obviously!!!..I’m hoping you may able to help me out then please Catholic2003 and tell me what a Lateran Council is…and what a Vatican Council is…surely there must be some sort of distinction? I am truly floundering with my History essay because I cannot even explain why Vatican2 was called The Second Vatican Council!!!..hence my opening paragraph would have very important info lacking. I know the first thing my teacher will ask: “But what is a Vatican Council - you have not stated this?”…

Hoping you can help me out…

Regards - Barb
Click to expand...
Sorry for confusing you when you already had the right answer.

An ecumenical council is when the Pope and the Bishops all get together to decide on important issues affecting the Church. Like the pope’s ex cathedra proclamations, ecumenical councils are also infallible, and represent the highest form of Church teaching. In the early days of the Church, the Pope just sent a representative, and then confirmed the council teachings afterwards.

There have been 21 ecumenical councils in the history of the Church, named after the location they were held in. If more than one council was held in a particular location, then they were numbered I, II, III, etc. The councils were:

  1. *]Nicaea I (325)
    *]Constantinople I (381)
    *]Ephesus (431)
    *]Chalcedon (451)
    *]Constantinople II (553)
    *]Constantinople III (680-681)
    *]Nicaea II (787)
    *]Constantinople IV (869)
    *]Lateran I (1123)
    *]Lateran II (1139)
    *]Lateran III (1179)
    *]Lateran IV (1215)
    *]Lyons I (1245)
    *]Lyons II (1274)
    *]Vienne (1311-1313)
    *]Constance (1414-1418)
    *]Basle/Ferrara/Florence (1431-1439)
    *]Lateran V (1512-1517)
    *]Trent (1545-1563)
    *]Vatican I (1869-1870)
    *]Vatican II (1962-1965)
 
The Pope’s Cathedral in Rome is actually the St. John Laternan, not St. Peter’s in the Vatican as many assume. For centuries, during the Middle Ages, the Popes resided at the Laternan, in the Laternan Palace, and not at the Vatican. So, the Laternan Councils were convened in Rome, at the Laternan, during a time when the Popes resided there. The two Vatican Councils were also convened at Rome, but took place at the Vatican, as the Popes had since moved from the Laternan to the Vatican.

In Christ,

Tyler
 
40.png
trustmc:
I thought that “Lateran” referred to a city, but apparently it does not. However, this does not mean that what I mentioned earlier isn’t true. The names of the councils still refer to their locations. The Lateran Councils refer to those that took place in the Lateran facilities according to Catholic2003, whereas the Vatican Councils took place at the Vatican facilities. For a quick verification, you may just want to ask your priest, or “ask an apologist” on this forum for a direct answer from Catholic Answers.
Click to expand...
Hi trustmc…thank you for the comments…I think you may be correct that Ask An Apologist may be the best forum to sort the matter out. I had no idea that the matter would be so (seemingly) difficult to answer. As for asking my scripture scholar priest…first I have to locate him and I try very hard not to bother him unless I have exhausted all else.

Barb
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Sorry for confusing you when you already had the right answer.

An ecumenical council is when the Pope and the Bishops all get together to decide on important issues affecting the Church. Like the pope’s ex cathedra proclamations, ecumenical councils are also infallible, and represent the highest form of Church teaching. In the early days of the Church, the Pope just sent a representative, and then confirmed the council teachings afterwards.

There have been 21 ecumenical councils in the history of the Church, named after the location they were held in. If more than one council was held in a particular location, then they were numbered I, II, III, etc. The councils were:

  1. *]Nicaea I (325)
    *]Constantinople I (381)
    *]Ephesus (431)
    *]Chalcedon (451)
    *]Constantinople II (553)
    *]Constantinople III (680-681)
    *]Nicaea II (787)
    *]Constantinople IV (869)
    *]Lateran I (1123)
    *]Lateran II (1139)
    *]Lateran III (1179)
    *]Lateran IV (1215)
    *]Lyons I (1245)
    *]Lyons II (1274)
    *]Vienne (1311-1313)
    *]Constance (1414-1418)
    *]Basle/Ferrara/Florence (1431-1439)
    *]Lateran V (1512-1517)
    *]Trent (1545-1563)
    *]Vatican I (1869-1870)
    *]Vatican II (1962-1965)
Click to expand...

  1. Hi again Catholic 2003…thanks heaps and heaps - I think I am getting somewhere. Thanks especially for the list of councils…and too for the definition of what ecumenical means and in terms a person like me can comprehend.
    You didn’t really confuse me (big smile:o ), I oft live in a state of confused - it’s a familiar drill!!!:tiphat:

    Barb
    PS I am getting so much invaluable information and opinions from CAF also the internet at times that it is a problem of creating some sort of filing system so I can find things!!!:whacky:
 
…my son has phoned and has arrived in Adelaide. Decided to go out for a few drinks with his mates…no surprise!..so 9pm will probably be more like 3am knowing my son!!!..

I was able to discover something for myself:D …surprise! surprise!..and thanks to all those who have helped me in my quandry…those who passed on the info that it refers to place the council was held are correct. Thanks heaps!..now I dont have to trouble our apologists… nor my scripture scholar priest. I really am very grateful.

Meaning of “Lateran” which I just discovered in the New Catholic Dictionary. It is titled The Lateran Palace apparently…….read on…………….

Link: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd04647.htm

“Papal edifice in Rome which takes its name from Plautius Lateranus, a Roman senator who suffered death under Nero, A.D. 66. It came into the possession of Maximian, who included it in the dowry of his daughter Fausta at the time of her marriage to Constantine the Great, 307. The latter gave it to Pope Miltiades, c. 313, who adopted part of it as the papal residence and part as a church dedicated to the Holy Saviour. The Lateran remained the papal residence for about 1000 years. It was destroyed by fire in the years 1307 and 1361, and during the pontificate of Sixtus V (1585-1590) the architect Fontana replaced the building with a smaller edifice. Pius IX established the Museum of Catacomb Inscriptions and Christian Antiquities in the Lateran Palace, 1854, under the guardianship of Cardinal Patrizi, Monsignor Castellani and Monsignor Tizzani, Father Marchi, S.J., and G. B. De Rossi. It was in the Hall of the Popes that the Roman Question was settled by The Lateran Treaty, 10 February 1929. Article 13 of the treaty secures the Lateran to the papacy as an extraterritorial possession. “

Barb
 
40.png
BarbaraTherese:
…

Meaning of “Lateran” which I just discovered in the New Catholic Dictionary. It is titled The Lateran Palace apparently…….read on…………….

Link: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd04647.htm

“Papal edifice in Rome which takes its name from Plautius Lateranus, a Roman senator who suffered death under Nero, A.D. 66. It came into the possession of Maximian, who included it in the dowry of his daughter Fausta at the time of her marriage to Constantine the Great, 307. The latter gave it to Pope Miltiades, c. 313, who adopted part of it as the papal residence and part as a church dedicated to the Holy Saviour. The Lateran remained the papal residence for about 1000 years. It was destroyed by fire in the years 1307 and 1361, and during the pontificate of Sixtus V (1585-1590) the architect Fontana replaced the building with a smaller edifice. Pius IX established the Museum of Catacomb Inscriptions and Christian Antiquities in the Lateran Palace, 1854, under the guardianship of Cardinal Patrizi, Monsignor Castellani and Monsignor Tizzani, Father Marchi, S.J., and G. B. De Rossi. It was in the Hall of the Popes that the **Roman Question was settled by The Lateran Treaty, 10 February 1929. **Article 13 of the treaty secures the Lateran to the papacy as an extraterritorial possession. “

Barb
Click to expand...
As quoted in my Post, I took the above from The New Catholic Dictionary and then went off to research what “The Roman Question” was all about and found a contradiction between what The New Catholic Dictionary had to say and what New Advent said. I’m wondering which is the more reliable?
I’m only posting this for information, when my head stops aching from concentration I’ll go over to Ask An Apoligist forum to sort it out for me and advise a reliable Catholic Dictionary and/or Encylopedia if both or either are questionable.

Here is what New Advent had to say which contradicts the above:

New Advent Encyclopedia

Papal States………………link: newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm

“The Roman question remains unsettled to the present day, since its solution by Italy has thus far been absolutely one-sided, besides having been brought about by violence. Without heeding the protests of the pope, Rome was declared the capital of Italy on 30 June, 1871. The radical elements, who were hostile to the Church and who had contributed so much to the unification of Italy, continued for the future also to hold the upper hand. Pope Pius IX by the Decree “Non expedit” of 29 February, 1868, had forbidden the Italian Catholics to participate in the political life and especially in the election of representatives of the Kingdom of Italy……………”

Barb
 
That’s because the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1908, if I’m not mistaken. This is simply a digital distibution of the same early 20th century work.
 
During the reign of Pius IX the Papal States(most of central Italy) were wrested away from the Papacy and included in the new nation of Italy with its capital near Rome. There was a continuing scuffle as to whether the Pope would keep Rome or the new state would get it.The next group of Popes(PiusX, Leo XIII, Benedict XV) became prisoners of the Vatican; they never left it to go into Rome proper. In 1929 I think PiusXI made a concordat with the new state, now headed by Mussolini, which gave the papacy the Vatican, a large sum of money, and I am not sure Castle Gandulfo (sp?). In this manner what was not settled from the mid 1800’s till 1929 was settled. Rome was now unquestionably a possesion of the Italian state. The 100 plus acres of the Vatican belonged to the Church. During those times church/state relations not only with Italy, but also liberal forms of government in other countries were troubled to say the least…
 
40.png
twf:
That’s because the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1908, if I’m not mistaken. This is simply a digital distibution of the same early 20th century work.
Click to expand...
Thanks heaps for that twf…since registering with CAF I have just learnt so much, so very much for which I am very grateful indeed.

Barb
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
During the reign of Pius IX the Papal States(most of central Italy) were wrested away from the Papacy and included in the new nation of Italy with its capital near Rome. There was a continuing scuffle as to whether the Pope would keep Rome or the new state would get it.The next group of Popes(PiusX, Leo XIII, Benedict XV) became prisoners of the Vatican; they never left it to go into Rome proper. In 1929 I think PiusXI made a concordat with the new state, now headed by Mussolini, which gave the papacy the Vatican, a large sum of money, and I am not sure Castle Gandulfo (sp?). In this manner what was not settled from the mid 1800’s till 1929 was settled. Rome was now unquestionably a possesion of the Italian state. The 100 plus acres of the Vatican belonged to the Church. During those times church/state relations not only with Italy, but also liberal forms of government in other countries were troubled to say the least…
Click to expand...
Hi there rwoehmke…and more invaluable info! Thanks very much indeed for your time and effort…

Barb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top