Toletum XI / Toledo XI
Provincial Council of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania; 675
The Eleventh Council of Toledo is considered a provincial one, the bishops who attended were from the Carthaginensia province. It was convened in Toledo in the fourth year of the reign of King Wamba on 7 November in 675 [Era 713] with 17 bishops personally in attendance. Two other bishops were represented by Deacons, lastly five Abbots were present. At the opening of the council three days fasting was observed - sub triduano dierum ieiunio. The bishops from Carthaginensia province gathered in the name of the Trinity in the Church of the Mother of the Lord, the Virgin Mary. The preciding Metropolitan was Quiricus of Toledo followed by bishops: Atanasius of Jática, Argemundus of Oreto, Iohannes of Bigastro, Godiscalco of Osma, Leander of Elche and Elotana, Palmacius of Urcitana, Concordius of Palencia, Eterius of Baza, Acisclus of Compluto, Felix of Denia, Rikila of Guadix, Rogatus of Baeza, Suintericus of Valencia, Memorius of Segorbe, Egica of Sigüenza, Gaudentius of Valeria, followed by two Deacons: Liberatus representing Bishop Sinduitti of Segovia, deacon Egila representing Bishop Mumulim of Carthaginensia. Five abbots who attended were: Iulianus of the monastery of St. Michael, Valderedus of the monastery of Leocadia, Gratinidus of the monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian, Absalio of the monastery of of the Holy Cross, and Florentius of the monastery of Santa Eulalia. The last signatory was the Archdeacon Gudila of the Church of Toledo. It was noted that the long exposition on the Trinity was founded upon the decisions of the Holy Fathers in the councils Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon where the roots of the false teaching of the heretics were condemned – Unde sacro huius instructionis archano sanctorum patrum Nicaeni scilicet et Constantinopolitani, Efeseni atque Calcidonensis conciliorum monita amplectentes per quae et radicitus haereticorum falsa concinnabula dextruuntur. What followed was a lengthy exegesis on each person of the Trinity; at the Holy Spirit the double procession / Filioque was professed again – Sed ab utrisque procedentem amborum esse Spiritum … qui tamen nec Patris tantum nec Filii tantum sed simul Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur … sed simul ab utrisque processisse monstratur … hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus missus ab utrisque sicut Filius creditur. In the second half of the seventh century the double procession of the Holy Spirit was a permanent fixture in the Creed and in its exegesis in Hispania. This profession of faith was proclaimed on the first day and the last day of the council by all present. It is at its core the Creed accompanied by clarifications of each article. In addition to the double procession they included a reference to the Homousion explaining that homo in Greek signifies one and ousia one substance – together they mean of one substance – hic etiam unius eum Patre substantiae creditur, propter quod et homousyon Patri dicitur, hoc est eiusdem cum Patre substantiae; homo enim graece unum, usia vero substantia dicitur, quod utrumque coniunctum sonat una substantia. This detailed on the Trinity, the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the uniqueness of Christ as Son of God and Redeemer would be useful to defend the faith against challenges to it in the long seven Muslim centuries that were about to unfold in Hispania. In addition to any Christian ‘heresies’ that might question the faith, as happened with Adoptionism. The bishops closed this section with a lose profession of the Apostles Creed exalting the one true Catholic Church to put an end to all heresy – Haec est confessionis nostrae fides exposita, per quam omnium haereticorum dogma perimitur. This Symbolum fidei was one of four issued in councils of Toledo IV, VI, and XVI, the one from Toledo XI enriched and expanded those of four and six thus making it important.
Even though the council canons are only fifteen, their text is longer than what is normally found in councils, where they tend to be pithy sometimes with little explanation. A summary is provided here for each and in the case of a few, additional commentary is warranted. Canon 1 laid out the rules of conduct during a council which apparently at times became unruly with outbursts of rude behavior by those in attendance. It was prohibited during sessions to shout, engage in vain private conversations, laughter, and expressing insults. Instead the bishops encouraged tempered speech and silence and only speaking in turn. Violators faced expulsion from the council and incurred denial of communion for three days. Canon 2 reminded Metropolitans not be remiss in the instruction of the bishops in the provinces. This would guarantee proper intruction of the faithful by grounding them firmly in the faith. Canon 3 is of great importance and is related to one of the main goals of the Fourth Council of Toledo (633); to have a uniform liturgy in the whole of Hispania. Here forty-two years later the bishops raised the issue again. They ruled that in any province there should be only one liturgical rite – Ut in una provincia diversitas officiorum non teneantur; it was left to the Metropolitans to enforce it. Canon 4 laid out some groundrules to deal with disagreements between bishops to prevent them from spiraling out of control. Canon 5 confronted abusive behavior of clergy – De conpescendis excessibus sacerdotum. This is a long canon that listed many abuses and respective punishments that depended on their severity. The expectation of clergy was to be above reproach before God and the Church. Canon 6 prohibited bishops from being party to cases where a person was punished with mutilation or sentenced to death, even if carried out by another person [civil authority]. If any bishop violated this expectation they were removed from ministry and kept in perpetual seclusion, presumably in a monastery. At the end of life, the sequestered bishop could not to be denied communion because the Lord “does not desire the death of a sinner but their conversion and life [eternal],” – cui tamen conmunio exeunti ex hac vita non neganda est propter Domini misericordiam, quae non vult peccatoris mortem sed ut convertatur et vivat. Canon 7 explained the process of rectors of the Church who were under accusation for any misdeed. It was not be done secretly rather in the open in the presence of three spiritual men as witnesses. The bishop who was in charge of hearing would impose the appropriate discipline and penances. Canon 8 prohibited all clergy from receiving any money or gift to obtain the sacraments, any bishop remiss in allowing the practice was excommunicated for two months. Presbyters for three months, deacons four months, and subdeacons and minor clergy were in addition subjected to corporal punishment. Canon 9 contiuned the same theme as in the previous canon but focused on simoniacal bishops. They were removed under strict penence for two years; after demonstrating repentance through satisfactory penintential tears they could be reinstated. Canon 10 stipulated that bishops and rectors of the Church promised they would live honorable lives. The bishops quoted a portion of a letter from Pope Leo I in support of this decision. Canon 11 ruled that any person who took communion from a bishop but did not consume it was considered guilty of sacrilege and was to be expelled from the Church. Exceptions was made of those who because of illness or mental instability rejected communion. If it was a believer they were perpetually denied the Eucharist, an unbeleiver received corporal punishment and expulsion. If after five years, however, through satisfactory penance they could be reintegrated to communion. Canon 12 recommended that persons on the very precipice of death should not be denied the sacrament of reconciliation. They cited as their authority again Pope Leo I who had previously recommended the same discipline. Canon 13 addressed clergy believed to be under demonic influence. They were suspended for a year from ministry until the bishop determined they were no longer under the sway of demonic influences. Canon 14 recommended that those who sang and sacrificed at the Mass should have a backup in the event that they became incapacitated in body or mind for whatever reason. Canon 15 recommended that every year a council should meet in the city of the Metropolitan. All bishops were expected to be present; however, if any was absent for no plausible reason, they suffered excommunication for a year. It was to be enforced in the entire province of Carthaginense. One exception for being in absentia is if at the same time they had to answer a summons of the king. The aim of this last canon was to establish a regular schedule for the convocation of councils annually to address the pastoral needs of the Church.
----------
QQ.: Vives/Marín Martínez/Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 344-369; Hispana edition is in: Martínez Diez/ Rodríguez, La Colección Canónica Hispana VI, 73-133; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium, 217-218.
Lit.: J. Madoz, Le symbole du XIe concile de Tolède: ses sources, sa date, sa valeur, Louvain 1938 (= SSL 19); Id., La Teología de la Trinidad en los Símbolos Toledanos, in: RET 4 (1944) 457–477; Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 382-391; R. L. Stocking, Bishops, Councils, and Consensus in the Visigothic Kingdom, 589-633, Ann Arbor (MI) 2000.
Alberto Ferreiro
April 2025
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Toletum XI / Toledo XI: Provincial Council of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania, 675", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], April 2025;
URL: http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/639.html
