PLESSIS
165
PLESSIS
to a certain extent, emergency synods, and though
they were generally composed of the bishops of Italy,
yet bishops of other ecclesiastical provinces took part
in them. Pope Martin I held such a council in 649,
and Pope Agatho in 680. These synods were imitated
by the patriarchs of Constantinople who convoked,
on special occasions, a synodus endemousa, at which
were present bishops from various provinces of the
Greek world who happened to be sojourning in the
imperial city, or were summoned to give counsel to
the emperor or the patriarch concerning matters that
required special episcopal consultation. Still further
narrowed down to our present idea of plenary councils
are the synods convoked in the Prankish and West-
Gothic kingdoms from the end of the sixth century,
and designated national councils. The bishops in
these synods were not gathered together because
they belonged to certain ecclesiastical provinces, but
because they were under the same civil government,
and consequently had common interests which con-
cerned the kingdom in which they lived or the people
over whom they ruled.
II. As ecclesiastical jurisdiction is necessary for the person who presides over a plenary or national synod, this name has been refused to the assemblies of the bishops of France, which met without papal authori- zation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These comilia cleri Gallicani were not really plenary councils. The more noted among them were those held at Paris in 1681 and 1682 (Collect. Lacens., I, 793 sq.). Convocations of ecclesiastics (Asseinblees du Clerge) were frequent in France before the Revo- lution of 1789. They consisted of certain bishops deputed by the various ecclesiastical provinces of the kingdom, and of priests elected by their equals from the same provinces, to dehberate on the temporal affairs of the French churches, and more particularly on the assistance, generally monetary, to be accorded to the Government. After the establishment of the empire, Napoleon I held a great convention of bishops at Paris, and is said to have been much incensed because Pius VII did not designate it a national council (Coll. Lacens., VI, 1024). Simila,rly, mere congresses of bishops, even of a whole nation, who meet to discuss common ecclesiastical affairs, with- out adhering to synodal forms, are not to be called national or plenary Councils, because no one having the proper jurisdiction has formally summoned them to a canonical synod. Such episcopal conventions have been jjraised by the Holy See, because they showed unity among the bi.shops and zeal for assert- ing the rights of the Church and the progress of the Catholic cause in their midst, in accordance with the sacred canons (Coll. Lacens., V, 1336), but, as the requisite legal forms and proper hierarchical authority are wanting, these congresses of bishops do not con- stitute a plenary council, no matter how full the representation of episcopal dignitaries may be.
III. A plenary or national council may not be convoked or celebrated without the authority of the Apostolic See, as was solemnly and repeatedly declared by Pius IX (Coll. Lacens., V, 995, 1336). This has always been the practice in the Church, if not explicitly, at least from the fact that recourse could always be had to the Holy See against decisions of such councils. Now, however, ex-press and special papal authorization is required. He who presides over the council must have the necessary jurisdiction, which is accorded by special Apostolic delegation. In the United States, the presidency of such synods has always been accorded by the Holy See to the archbishops of Baltimore. In their case, a papal delegation is nec- essary, for although they have a precedence of honour over all the other American metropolitans, yet they liave no primatial or patriarchal jurisdiction. It is not uncommon for the pope to send from Rome a special delegate to preside over plenary councils.
IV. Summons to a national or plenary council is to
be sent to all archbishops and bishops of the nation,
and they are obUged to appear, unless prevented by a
canonical hindrance; to all administrators of dioceses
sede plena or vacua, and to vicars capitular sede vacanle;
to vicars Apostolic possessed of episcopal jurisdiction;
to the representatives of cathedral chapters, to abbots
having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. In the United
States, custom has sanctioned the summoning of auxil-
iary, coadjutor, and \asiting bishops; provincials of
religious orders; all mitred abbots; rectors of major
seminaries, as well as priests to serve as theologians
and canonists.
V. Only those who have a right to a summons have also a right to cast a decisive vote in councils. The others may give only a consultive vote. The fathers may, however, empower auxiliary, coadjutor, and visiting bishops, as well as procurators of absent bishops to cast a decisive vote. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore allowed a decisive vote also to a general of a religious congregation, because this was done at the Vatican Council. At the latter council, however, such vote was granted only to generals of regular orders, but not to those of religious congre- gations (Nilles, part I, p. 127). At Baltimore, a decisive vote was refused to abbots of a single monas- tery, but conferred on arch-abbots.
VI. In particular councils, the subject-matter to be treated is what concerns discipline, the reformation of abuses, the repression of crimes, and the progress of the Catholic cause. In former times, such councils often condemned incipient heresies and opinions con- trary to sound morals, but their decisions became dogmatic only after solemn confirmation by the Apostolic See. Thus, the Councils of Milevis and Carthage condemned Pelagianism, and the Council of Orange (Arausicanum) Semipelagianism. Such latitude is not allowed to modern .synods, and the Fathers are warned, moreover, that they are not to restrict opinions which are tolerated by the Catholic Church.
VII. Decrees of plenary councils must be sub- mitted, before promulgation, for the confirmation, or rather recognition and revision of the Holy See. Such recognition does not imply an approval of all the regulations submitted by the council, and still less of all the assertions contained in the synodal acts. Many things are merely tolerated by the Apostolic Sec for the time being. The submission to Rome is mainly for the correction of what is too severe or inaccurate in the decrees. Bishops have the power of relaxing decrees of a plenary council in particular cases in their own dioceses, unless the council was confirmed in forma specifica at Rome. In like manner, when no specific confirmation of the decrees has been accorded, it is lawful to appeal from these councils. In modern times, it is not usual for the Holy See to confirm councils in forma specifica, but only to accord them the necessary recognition. If, conse- quently, anything be found in their acts contrary to the common law of the Church, it would have no binding force unless a special apostolic derogation were made in its favour. Mere recognition and revi- sion would not suffice.
Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I (New York, 1895) Nilles, Commentaria in Cone. Plen. Bait. ///(Innsbruck, 1888) Craisson, Manuale Totius Juris Canonici, III (Paria, 1899) Bouix. De Concilia (Paris, 1884).
WiLLi.wi H. W. Fanning.
Plessis, JasEPH-OcTAVE, Bishop of Quebec, b. at Montreal, 3 March, 1763; d. at Quebec, 4 Dec, 1822. He studied classics at Montreal and philosophy at Quebec, was appointed in 1783 secretary to Bishop Briand, and was ordained priest in 1786. In 1797 he was named vicar-general and chosen for coadjutor. The bulls having been delayed by the imprisonment and death of Pius VII, Plessis was only consecrntcd in
