Toletum II / Toledo II
Provincial Council in Ostrogothic/ Visigothic Hispania; 527/531
This council is one of five that convened while the Visigoths in Hispania were under the regency of the Ostrogoths in Italy ruled by King Theoderic of Italy from 516 to 546. The other councils were in Tarragona, Gerona (Girona), Barcelona, Lérida (Lleida), and Valencia (València). This is known as the ‘intermediate’ Ostrogothic period up to King Theudis. In 549 King Agila after being overthrown by Athanagild, the latter emerged as sole Visigothic ruler of Hispania and Septimania. In 554 he designated Toledo as the sedes regia of an independent Visigothic kingdom. The bishops listed here as signatories in Toledo are Montanus of Toledo, Pancarius, Canonius, Paulus, Domicianus, Martianus (Toledo), Nibridius (Egara - Terrassa), and Justus of Urgel. Only six actually attended, Nibridius of Egara and Justus of Urgell arrived later and approved the canons. Martianus, who was an exiled bishop, attended without intervening; nevertheless, he too gave his assent – ob causam fidei catholicae in Toletana urbe exilio deputatus … interfui, relegi et subscripsi die et anno quo supra. As regards the date when the council met, one redaction puts it at 527, it is an error in the collection Hispana of when Amalaric (reg. 526-531) commenced his reign. The fifth year of Amalaric does not correspond to 527, it does with 531, most scholars accept this letter date as the correct one. The bishops gathered in Toledo on 17 May in the fifth year of the reign of King Amalaric in 531. Amalaric was assassinated that same year of 531 by the Arian Theudis (reg. 531-548) who then ruled until his death in 548 – he permitted the provincial councils of Barcelona I (540), Lérida (546), and Valencia (546) to meet. Montanus on behalf of the bishops at the end of the canons expressed his appreciation to King Amalaric for this generosity – gratias agimus omnipotenti Deo, deinde domino glorioso Amalarico regi divinam clementiam postulantes. The bishops promulgated five canons to which was appended two letters of Montanus, the presiding bishop. The first was addressed to all of the bishops and the second specifically to Turibius of Astorga, a bishop of profound influence, who was deeply involved in opposing Priscillianism. The two letters coupled with an entry in the De Viris Illustribus (cap. 2) of Ildephonsus of Toledo provide us with all that know about Montanus’s biography. The first letter was directed at presbyters and bishops mainly addressing a variety of themes. He did this with a creative exegesis of the prophet Ezekiel and the book of Numbers. He also mentions the sect of the Priscillianists that continued to be a concern in Hispania. It was recommended that they read the books of Turibius of Astorga that he sent to Pope Leo the Great (440-461) to expose the filthy heresy – in quibus hanc sordidam haeresim explanavit – to the pontiff and to solicit his judgement of the sect’s alleged teachings. The second letter was sent exclusively to Turibius regarding issues of jurisdiction and discipline in the province of Palencia and the municipalities of Segovia, Buitrago, and Coca. Once again here, the efforts of Turibius to eradicate Priscillianism and idolatry were lauded by Montanus.
The canons are prefaced with a short statement of the bishops recalling previous ancient canons and decisions of the Fathers. Adding that if any prior canons had fallen into neglect over time, their authority and relevance were to be restored for the enrichment of the faith. The canons of this council were intended to do just that.
Canon 1 touched on the challenge of celibacy and chastity as it applied to clergy or aspirants to its ranks. The Greek and Latin churches went their separate ways on the requirement of clerical celibacy. It was up for discussion from the earliest beginnings of Christianity, the entire Visigothic era, the Middle Ages, and right to this day in the Catholic Church. This canon identified a specific issue that required guidance and clarification. It concerned children that had been consecrated to the clergy in their infancy without stating the precise age. The bishops proposed some guidelines. Once the child was tonsured, instruction of the faith was given under the oversight of the bishop. At age eighteen a choice was to be made between the consecrated life or marriage. Those who chose continence or celibacy at the age of twenty were elevated to the subdiaconate. If they reached the age of twenty-five without any lapses or scandals they were received into the diaconate with the approval of the bishop. Those who chose marriage, if the couple agreed to embrace continence, the male could pursue clerical ranks. Deacons who violated the vow of celibacy by getting married or having illicit relations were considered guilty of sacrilege and were excommunicated. One can easily imagine that overseeing these kinds of arrangements was an immense challenge.
Canon 2 confronted a problem that surfaced now and then in the councils: clergy who decided to leave the church that they were instructed in for another without the consent of the bishop. It takes little imagination to see how disruptive this could be to the ecclesial order with clergy moving about at will. It was also decreed that any bishop who knowingly accepted such clergy and hiding it from the original bishop was guilty of scandal against his brother bishop for taking in someone who had been nurtured from infancy by the original bishop. Nothing is said what punishment was incurred by the guilty; for sure the clergyman had to return to the original church where he was brought up in the faith.
Canon 3 legislated on the co-habitation of clergy with women – from the subdiaconate upward – a situation that appears in various councils. The bishops acknowledged that what they decreed was found in the ancient canons – decrevimus quod nec antiqua concilia in universis pene canonibus siluerunt. The norms established were straightforward: they were not to live with any woman, whether freeborn, emancipated, or female slave in their domicile – habeat mulierem vel ingenuam vel libertam aut ancillam. Whatever chores they were performing were to be assigned to the mother or sisters or a woman closely related to the family. If family members were not available, the women were to be placed in a separate home and under no circumstance could they enter into his home. The reason is plain to see; it was to prevent clergy from falling into carnal relations or give occasion to rumors about their lack of moral integrity. Violators were expelled from the clergy, excommunicated, and it was forbidden for anyone to socialize with them. It was not stated for how long the discipline was in effect or what the path to restoration might be.
Canon 4 legislated on what to do with church property after a clergyman died. It was to prevent those who were determined to make the property of a diocese under their care inheritance of their family. The bishops here singled out as an example a vegetable orchard or a vineyard on church owned property – agella vel viniolas in terras ecclesiae. It was allowed the clergy to have them until their death. At that time, however, it reverted to the Church and could not be handed to heirs or friends of the deceased. The bishop on the other hand had the right to donate to the heirs as he saw appropriate for their service to the Church. This problem of clergy aggrandizing their wealth through church goods and passing it on to heirs was a perpetual challenge. Many are the cases of bishops and abbots becoming wealthy by owning vast estates which also obtained them political power.
Canon 5 attended to the scandalous behavior of any man who intended to or did marry a woman who was a relative – De his qui proximis suis se copulant, ut a comunione Christi separentur. The bishops quoted loosely from the book of Leviticus 18: 6, 29 to condemn it, “None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the Lord” (6) and “Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people.” (29). The measure of punishment was to be determined on how close the woman in question was related to the man. The time of excommunication and banishment from the Church would be determined accordingly.
It was also announced as a postscript that a future council would be convened in the church of Montanus who was to send out at the opportune time letters of invitation to his brother bishops. They did not forget to thank King Amalaric (Arian) for permitting a meeting of bishops (Catholic) under his rule. In this interim it appears that the Arian rulers of Hispania had no concerns to allow Catholic bishops to meet. That soon changed under the less tolerant Visigothic King Leovigild, an ardent Arian.
----------
QQ.: Vives/Marín Martínez/Gonzalo Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos 42-52; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum 197-198.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 114-120. G. Barrett, The Second Council of Toledo (527/531): Introduction and Annotated Translation, in: Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Sources, ser. 4, vol. 2, Leeds 2026, 1-31. S. Iranzo Abellán, Montano de Toledo, pp. 43-45 and Id., Toribio de Astorga, pp. 82-84, in: Codoñer Merino, La Hispania Visigótica y Mozárabe. Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church.
Alberto Ferreiro
Juni 2026
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, Toletum II / Toledo II: Provincial Council in Ostrogothic/ Visigothic Hispania; 527/531, in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], Juni 2024; URL: https://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/606.html
