Bracarense (Bracara Augusta) III / Braga III
Provincial Council of the Visigothic Kingdom in Hispania; 675
Much had changed in Gallaecia by the time this Braga council of 675 transpired. The Kingdom of the Sueves that had lasted for about 150 years was permanently destroyed and assimilated by the Arian Visigothic King Leovigild in 585. One thing that was not achieved by Leovigild was to expunge their Catholic faith replacing it with Arianism. He tried but de died within a year of the conquest, the Catholic faith had been firmly established since the sixth century by St. Martin of Braga. Now under Visigothic rule, apparently Gallaecia had enough autonomy to host its own council in Braga. The Third Council of Braga of 675 convened by order of King Wamba; this was the last council of Braga before the Muslim conquest. It was modest in size, only eight bishops were present, and eight canons were issued. All eight bishops were from Gallaecia: Leudigisus of Braga [Julian], Genitivus of Tuy, Froaricus of Oporto, Isidorus of Astorga, Bela of Britania, Hilarius of Ourense, Rectogenis of Lugo and Ildulfus of [Félix] Iria. Their main concerns were errors spread by unnamed people needing to be extirpated from the Church. The bishops confidently proclaimed that all gathered had not been corrupted by schismatic errors; they demonstrated their unity by professing the Creed. The canons that dealt with liturgical aberrations were not associated with any alleged lingering Arianism or Priscillianism. They were, however, considered anomalies that needed correction. They seem to have been inspired by rural customs reflecting lingering pagan customs or perhaps even by ignorance of some clergy.
Canon 1 addressed a unique situation on the celebration of the Eucharist, it was considered serious enough to consider it as being in schism with the Divine Will and apostolic teaching. The proper manner of using bread, wine and water in the liturgy had long been addressed in early Christian conciliar legislation. It had been clarified again at the Second Council of Braga (572). The abuse singled out at the Third Council of Braga was the substitution of wine with milk, or whole grapes, and offering the bread soaked in wine intinction; all were declared illicit. The only mixing of the elements considered licit was that of wine and water. The bishops recalled that Christ blessed and used only bread and wine, not milk. Around the year 500 we have notice of a letter of John the Deacon to Senarius on the use of milk with honey with the wine for catechumens of any age receiving first communion. The milk, however, was not intended to substitute the wine as was being done in Gallaecia. Therefore, in Gallaecia, the bishops permitted only the use of bread and wine for the Eucharist. Taking the Eucharist by intinction became the common form in the Orthodox churches by the tenth century; here it was rejected as having no biblical justification. When Christ gave the bread and wine of communion to the disciples it was not by dipping the bread into the chalice. The only disciple that did receive it by intinction was the betrayer Judas Iscariot. The bishops, however, noted that it was not the same sacramental bread and wine given to the other disciples after Judas departed to betray Christ. Offering whole grapes from a vine in place of wine added greater confusion and deviated further from the form that Christ expressly gave to the Church. The bishops explained why it was legitimate and desirable that the wine of the chalice and water be mixed as prescribed by a “doctor” of the Church whose name was not given. The water represents the people of God and the wine the blood of Christ. When the water and wine are mixed in the chalice it is a sacramental expression of the people united with Christ and his sacrifice. The wine is the blood of Christ, and it is not contingent on the people or the water to be so; on the other hand, the water without the wine means that the people are without Christ. The bishops grounded their teaching by appealing to the copious and abundant testimony of the Church Fathers and the ancient Councils. The use of milk instead of wine or whole grapes and the intinction in the Eucharist is at that time totally unknown and unprecedented as noted by Carmen Codoñer (p. 118). Some controversy in the early Church about substituting the wine for water was provoked by a group called the Aquarii that was condemned heretical by St. Augustine. The use of grapes is not found in any of the patristic heresiologies or any sources, it seems to be a unique aberration in Gallaecia. Incidentally, at Braga the bishops never called these anomalous Eucharistic practices heretical or even pagan. In Canon 2 the bishops censured the abuse of liturgical vases and patens; they were also being used for normal meals. The scandal, according to the bishops, was that the vessels reserved for the sacred mysteries were used to eat meat. It was believed that consumption of meat was inappropriate for clergy since it allegedly provoked aggression and increased libido. The bishops imposed a severe punishment: clergy lost rank and ministry, a layperson suffered perpetual excommunication, and religious were deposed from ministry. The bishops, to prevent more abuses of sacred objects, included liturgical vestments, veils, and sacred utensils that could not be sold or given away. The same punishment applied for their abuse. Canon 3 dictated that wearing the stole was an ancient custom that was conferred on clergy at ordination by a bishop. The Eucharist could not be offered without wearing it. The stole was to be folded to make a cross on the chest; failure to comply incurred excommunication. The stole in the form a cross was to accentuate the priestly role of the clergy and the sacrifice of the Eucharist. The bishops also ordered that only clergy could prepare the Eucharist at the altar and only they offer it to the people. The stole, moreover, visually emphasized the distinction of laity and clergy. Canon 4 turned to an issue that surfaced time and again in Hispania that was not exclusive to Gallaecia. Some clergy were living with women that were not directly related to them. This resulted many times in sexual indiscretions, offspring, and even secret marriages. The bishops permitted clergy to live with women but under strict criteria as established by canonical discipline. Clergy, for example, could live only with their mothers, not sisters or other female relatives, much less unrelated women. Violation of this canonical discipline brought about mild consequences, only six months of penance. Canon 5 addressed a curious abuse of relics that was used by some bishops to aggrandize themselves. Some bishops wore relics around their necks during martyrs’ feasts, while carried on the shoulders of alb wearing deacons in public processions. This practice was condemned as promoting abuse of their rank and worse a fraud against God. The detestable abuse, moreover, camouflaged vanity under the guise of sanctity. The bishops decreed that the “Ark of the Lord” – the reliquary – should be carried by the deacons on their shoulders as prescribed by the ancient law. The bishops were to lead the procession of relics on foot to all holy churches for veneration. Noncompliant bishops were prohibited from celebrating the Eucharist and declared in a state of sin. Canon 6 confronted bishops who abused their minor clergy. Presbyters, abbots, and deacons were not to be subjected to beatings except for grave or mortal sins; harsh measures were not dignified of a bishop. Excessive discipline did not bring about repression of vice; on the contrary, it resulted in loss of respect of the bishop. Bishops who persisted were declared excommunicated and exiled. Canon 7 attended to the persistent problem of buying and selling of ecclesial positions, known as Simony. The bishops ordered that any gifts could not be offered or accepted before or after an ordination. They cited the Council of Chalcedon that stipulated loss of rank as the appropriate punishment. Canon 8 continued the subject of the potential corrupting influence of money. Here it was abuse of material goods of the church by rectores ecclesiae. Some were accumulating personal wealth from money designated to the church where they served. The rectors’ exploitation of servants included increasing unnecessarily their rents. The bishops ruled that any financial losses were to be paid back by the offending rectors. Any money lost by a rector that was spent on the church was reimbursed from the coffers of the church after validation of the loss. In closing, the council wished King Wamba a healthy and long life with an invocation of the Holy Trinity.
----------
QQ.: Vives/Marín Martínez/Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 370-379; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium, 218.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Historia de los Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 391-395; A. Ferreiro, The See of Dumium/Braga before and under Visigothic Rule, in: Evphrosyne 45 (2017) 97-115. – References to Braga III are in this volumen: El Concilio de Braga y la función de la legislación particular en la Iglesia (XIV Semana Internacional de Derecho Canónico, Braga 1975), Salamanca, 1975; C. Codoñer, Notas sobre el III Concilio de Braga, in: BrAug 21 (1967) 117-122.
Alberto Ferreiro
April 2025
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Bracharense III / Braga III: Provincial Council of the Visigothic Kingdom in Hispania; 675", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], April 2025; URL: http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/640.html
