Narbonensis / Narbonne
Regional Council of the Visigothic Kingdom, 589
The statement Secundum quod sancta synodus announced by the bishops gathered at Narbonne in 589 soon after the historic Third Council of Toledo (589) are significant. They indicate that the purpose of this council was to carry out the mandates of Toledo III in Narbonne. Reccared with the bishops had ordered that all decisions agreed to in Toledo were to be taught and enforced in Hispania and Gallia. Of all the minor councils that met after the Third Council of Toledo, this one in Narbonne contains the most canons. It met in the fourth year of Reccared’s his reign on 1 of November, present were eight bishops representing Gallia: Migetius of Narbonne, Sedatius of Béziers, Benenatus of Elna – this bishop was a signatory at Toledo III, in the Narbonne text he does not appear in list of signatories at the end, but is named in the opening list of Gallic bishops – Voetius of Magalona, Pelagius of Nîmes, Tigridius of Agde, Sergius of Carcassonne, and Agripinus of Lodeve. The immediate attention of Reccared to attend to Narbonne has to do with events in that province immediately following the Third Council of Toledo. It is all well documented in Gregory of Tours’ Libri historiarum decem, John of Biclar’s Chronica, Isidore of Seville’s, Historia gothorum, and the Vitas Sanctorum Patrum Emeretensium who preserved the events. Reccared assumed power after his father Leovigild died in 586 and by 587 had become Catholic. The Third Council of Toledo was the climax, not the beginning of the full religious unification of Visigothic Hispania and southern Gallia. John of Biclar recounts the religious unity that Reccared had already accomplished by 587, all that was needed is to make it public. There are other important events in the Narbonne leading up to 589. Gregory of Tours, moreover, in Libri historiarum decem, IX.5 narrated a rebellion in Narbonne against Reccared the year before the Toledo council. Among the churchmen Bishop Athaloc an Arian resisted the efforts of Reccared to bring Narbonne fully into the religious unity of Hispania and Gallia. According to Gregory, his rebellion was easily dismantled because very few joined in the resistance. This uprising by Athaloc is also remembered in the Vitas sanctorum patrum Emeretensium. It is noteworthy that the Council of Narbonne did not mention the presence of any Arians repenting and converting as in Toledo. It confirms of Reccared’s successful subjugation of the region to the Catholic faith and the superficial presence of Arianism. John of Biclar, on the other hand, provides the chronology for the territorial and political conquest of Narbonne by Reccared that is echoed by Isidore of Seville and Gregory of Tours. Reccared dispatched Dux Claudius with scarcely three-hundred men to fight a superior army of Franks, 60,000 according to John of Biclar. He could not resist likening Claudius’ army to that of Gideon. Claudius’ victory confirmed that divine favor favored Reccared, it brought about control of the Narbonne and the surrounding territories. Isidore of Seville was more enthusiastic about the victory; he said it was the greatest victory the Goths ever experienced. Another uprising against Reccared in Mérida was easily suppressed. When the Third Council of Toledo met, the Narbonne was secure and Arianism was extinguished.
The bishops in their opening statement made clear that they were affirming everything ordered at Toledo. They also said that the Council of Narbonne was in full accord with the decrees of previous councils – ecumenical and provincial councils – and the Church Fathers. Notwithstanding these ambitious statements, the bishops lamented that they not been fulfilled it all; it was their duty at Narbonne to confirm the discipline of the Catholic faith. It was also the intention that the canons of this council act as a supplement to those of Toledo. There are fifteen canons that were issued at this council.
Canon 1 brought clarity on an issue affecting some clergy regarding their identity in contrast to secular authorities as expressed in the color of their vestments. Apparently, some clergy started wearing purple vestments in public thus displaying a misleading image of their status. Purple was reserved for secular authorities; it was not appropriate for clergy. To wear the purple violated Church discipline. Purple vestments undermined the dignity and humility of clergy. They reflect earthly transitory power; it is incompatible because clergy are a sign of the eternal kingdom. As bishops were forced by circumstance in the western late Roman Empire to assume some duties of secular authorities, the distinctions were sometimes blurred. The council fathers wanted to maintain the distinction between secular and ecclesial authorities.
Canon 2 ordered that psalms sung in the liturgy should be punctuated with a ‘Glory to God Omnipotent’ (Gloria dicatur omnipotenti Deo). If a psalm was longer, however, there should be a longer pause and at each the ‘Gloria to the Holy Trinity’ (Gloria Trinitatis Domino decantetur) sung. This is consistent with the Visigothic liturgy as it was developed more at the Fourth Council of Toledo (644), it emphasized the unity of the Trinity to counter Arian tendencies. Under Muslim rule it became as important in the Visigothic-Mozarab liturgy to counter the Muslim rejection of the Trinitarian doctrine of the Church.
Canon 3 sought to curb the interaction clergy could have in secular society. Appealing to the ancient canons, no member of the clergy, sub-deacons, deacons or presbyters was to sit or linger in public squares or engage in sustained conversation in that setting with secular people. Any clergy who violated this expectation was ordered shunned and deprived of their clerical office. If any persisted in such behavior, they lost their ministry and denied communion. The attempt to limit secular clergy from contact with the ‘world’ reflected a suspicious attitude; it was inherently evil, full of temptation where the Devil and his minions sought to destroy souls. Considering that secular clergy did not live in a monastic milieu, these efforts to shelter them were difficult to enforce and so likely had limited success.
Canon 4 engaged Goths, Romans, Syrians, Greeks, and Jews who were freemen (ingenuus) or servants (servus). Noteworthy, the Sueves were not mentioned as a separate people as they were at the Third Council of Toledo. It seems that the ruling Visigoths and the Church moved rapidly to erase any memory of a separate Suevic kingdom and people. This canon, however, was directed at those who were not keeping the Christian Sabbath on Sunday. For example, it was forbidden to yoke cattle unless it was necessary to move them for their well-being. If a freed man violated this norm, he paid six solidii (gold coins) to the count of the city. A servant, however, received 100 lashes. In Canon 15 in this same council the question of the Sabbath was taken up again.
Canon 5 was intended to prevent any conspiracies and plots by lower clergy and laity against bishops. It happened that at times prominent secular people used minor clergy to try to influence or weaken bishops and other clergy. Those caught engaging in these plots were punished severely, more so clergy. They were exiled to a monastery to do penance for a year to expunge their greed (superbiam) and pride to attain the humility of Christ. The bishops cited the Council of Nicaea as their authority. Unwanted subversive schemes by secular authorities remained a constant challenge across Christendom.
Canon 6 revisited the discipline meted out to clergy and laity who were sent to a monastery to perform penance. The bishops cited as their authority the orthodox fathers, left unnamed, who had previously issued decrees on the subject. The focus here was on Abbots whose duty was to confirm that penances were fulfilled. The canon suggests that Abbots showed favoritism to clergy or influential citizens sent to do penance by being lenient. The offending Abbots who undermined the penance were scolded for against the bishop’s will. One may suspect, although not explicitly stated, that bribes were not out of the question. Persistent offending Abbots were suspended for an unspecified period from their rank. The council bishops reminded the Abbots that persons sent to the monastery for penance were not to be given any special concessions.
Canons 7 and 8 revisited the problem of clergy of all ranks who plotted against the Church. Any caught in intrigues against the interests of the Church were expelled immediately from ministry. The council fathers, however, did not specify the length of the suspension or required penance for restoration. Canon 8 ruled that clergy, be they sub-deacon, deacon or presbyter, who defrauded a bishop, even unknowingly, of church property or buildings faced firm punishment. The offender was required to make restitution of all lost to the church where the offense occurred; in addition, they lost their ministry. The bishops, however, extended mercy to the offenders by imposing two years of penance. Once it was established that genuine repentance through tears and sorrow had been performed, they were restored to ministry.
In Canon 9 the bishops turned to an altogether different matter, the Jews. The first harsh restrictive measure is they were not allowed to have funeral processions openly in town with singing. Their deceased were to be taken straightway to the cemetery without any public ceremony; there they could bury them according to Jewish custom. Jews who violated the ordinance were fined up to six ounces of gold that was paid to the local city count (comiti civitatis). The harsh anti-Jewish legislation in Visigothic Hispania by the monarchy was frequent. In some cases, there was disagreement between Church and Monarchy on the treatment of Jews. This canon forbade public Jewish funeral processions not against Jewish cemeteries and burial customs. Nevertheless, it reveals the precarious and difficult situation that Jews faced under Visigothic rule, that was not exceptional but sadly quite the norm elsewhere outside of Hispania. In the post 589 councils under Reccared this is the only canon directed at Jews. At the Third Council of Toledo Jews were discussed in Canon 14, but not regarding Jewish funeral practices.
Canon 10 was an attempt to forbid clergy from moving from diocese to diocese without seeking the approval of the bishop. The recommendation was that clergy were to exercise their ministry only in the diocese where they were ordained in obedience to their bishop. Clergy who refused to follow lost their stipend and denied communion for a year. The measure was intended to accomplish two things: stabilize the local church and preserve the authority of the bishop.
Canon 11 sought to ameliorate the endemic problem of illiteracy among clergy that were unable to read. Those who were already ordained were required to attain literacy. Clergy whose marginal literacy prevented them from fulfilling their duties in the Church lost their pay until they acquired full literacy. The bishops ordered that clergy unwilling to acquire literacy or were not able to do so were sent to a monastery. The reason was practical, it was not possible for illiterate clergy to edify the people if they could not read Sacred Scripture. This does not undermine the fact that monasteries were centers of literacy, writing of original works, and transmission of culture. Monasteries did not become havens for illiterate clergy, they would have been an exception. Bishops ignorant of Sacred Scripture was dealt with in Canon 25 at the Fourth Council of Toledo (633).
Canon 12 issued a clarification on two problems: presbyters and deacons who left Mass early and the proper way to wear the Alb. The only legitimate reason given to leave Mass early was if there was the sudden onset of illness. In addition, it was stipulated that deacons, sub-deacons, and lectors were not permitted to remove the Alb until Mass ended. Punishment was meted out according to rank: presbyters were subjected to public shaming during Mass. Deacons were suspended from ministry and suffered loss of their stipend for an unspecified period. Lectors could expect an unspecified punishment; based on other canons it was likely lashes and penance.
Canon 13 stipulated that a sub-deacon and ostiarius should demonstrate proper rank and standing in the Church by lifting the curtains fort their superiors as they entered the church. Sub-deacons that did not observe this protocol were reprimanded. If for any reason they still refused to show this public respect, their stipend was withheld. An ostiarius, however, who continued to offend were subjected to a beating. The ostiarius became the subject of discussion again at the Council of Toledo of 597 in Canon 2. This canon in Narbonne shows that maintaining rank and order within the clergy and Holy Minor Orders was of paramount importance to the Church.
Canon 14 sought to eliminate the persistent recourse to magic and divination by the Catholic faithful. If any male or female diviners were discovered in homes of any Goth, Roman, Syrian, Greek or Jew; they suffered two consequences: expulsion from the Church and a fine of six ounces of gold that was paid to the local count. The Jews mentioned here were likely converts to the Catholic faith. Diviners who deceived the people through their false arts, whether free or servants, were punished with severe public flogging, sold as slaves, and the money from their sale was given to the poor. Previously in Canon 16 at the Third Council of Toledo it encouraged bishops, judges, and lords to prohibit idolatry and pursue its destruction in Hispania and Gallia. The Fourth Council of Toledo (633) revisited the problem of clergy who resorted to magic and divination.
Canon 15 is rather unique for its treatment of a hybrid pagan / Catholic practice that it intended to abolish. It seems that some Catholic faithful on the fifth day of the week – the day of Jupiter –, ceased to work; thus, treating it as a Sabbath. One problem is that this illicit ‘Sabbath’ shamed publicly Catholics who continued to work. The bishops declared that anyone who treated the day of Jupiter as a day of rest incurred excommunication. Offenders were required a full year of penance, almsgiving, and repentance to be reintegrated into the Church. Guilty servants, male or female, were punished with one hundred lashes, handed over to their owners, and forbidden to ever observe this illicit Sabbath. The bishops deferred to the Catholic owners to apply the discipline on their servants. Nothing was mentioned in the event if an owner failed to keep their servants compliant. Peculiar practices from the rural areas, and some vestiges of paganism continued to surface every now and then in the entire Visigothic era.
----------
QQ: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda 146-150; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium 203.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 229-232.
Alberto Ferreiro
Dezember 2024
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Narbonensis / Narbonne, Regional Council of the Visigothic Kingdom, 589", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], Dezember 2024; URL: http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/4301.html
