Barcinonense II / Barcelona II
Regional Council of the Visigothic Kingdom, 599
The Second Council of Barcelona (599) was called in the fourteenth year of Reccared’s reign; in the received text that we have it has only four canons. Twelve men are listed as having been present: ten of them were bishops, another one identified as a sinner, and another a minister of the Church in Zaragoza. They were all said to represent the province of Tarragona. We are further informed that they gathered in the Church of the Holy Cross in Barcelona. The bishops names and their episcopal Sees are acknowledged: Asiaticus – Metropolitan of Tarragona who presided, Ugnas – Bishop of Barcelona, Simplicius – Bishop of Urgel, Aquilinus – Bishop of Ausona, Julian – Bishop of Tortosa, Munius – Bishop of Calahorra, Froisclus – Bishop of Tortosa, Juan – a sinner from Girona, Maximus – a minister of the Church of Zaragoza, Amelius – Bishop of Lleida, Ilergius – Bishop of Egara. Of great interest, Bishops Ugnas and Froisclus were in the Third Council of Toledo as repentant Arians, at that council they appear as signatories in good standing. Here they surfaced again as Catholic bishops, apparently having not lost their episcopal standing.
Three of the canons addressed challenges that affected directly clergy; the fourth canon shifted its focus to consecrated women. In Canons 1 and 2 the bishops sought to cut off any potential corrupting influence of money on the clergy. The bishops dictated that when clergy were promoted, they were forbidden from accepting any gift involving money, this included bishops. They said that a simple blessing from a sub-deacon, deacon or presbyter was sufficient, this was based the bishops said on what Jesus preached, Freely you received, freely give (Matthew 10: 8). Canon 2 built upon the previous one. It was decreed when a presbyter received the chrism to confirm neophytes, money was not to be exchanged. The bishops explained it was to prevent soiling the blessing and grace of God. An additional warning was made that anyone seeking to buy and sell ecclesiastical ministries was in danger of inviting a death that flows from Simony. Canon 3 move to another topic; it enunciated the protocols for the promotion of clergy. Two forms for promotion to bishop had developed by that time: there was the canonical election by fellow clergy or direct appointment by the king (per sacra regalia). The canonical form already had a well-established place beginning with the Council of Nicaea (325) Canon 4; reaffirmed at the First Council of Toledo (400), and lastly the Capitula Martini of Martin of Braga that he introduced at the Second Council of Braga (572). This demonstrated that the bishops’ proposal was established on prior ancient canons and epistolary interventions. The bishops ordered that no secular person, notwithstanding the normal prescribed time, could aspire to promotion to bishop (summum sacerdotium), even if desired by regal, clerical, popular acclamation, or any bishop. There was an exception made, however, that if the secular person submitted to the prescribed time, according to the canons, and had testimony of an honest life and had successfully moved up the ranks of the clergy as prescribed by the same canons. At least two or three candidates chosen by the clergy and people, were presented to the Metropolitan Bishop and his auxiliary bishops, it was they who made the final selection. What is interesting is the actual method used to make the choice. After an unspecified time of fasting and prayer the final candidate was chosen by ‘drawing lots.’ Election by lots recalls the process that was used to select the Apostle Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1: 21-26). There is no evidence that this selection method by drawing lots became the usual procedure for electing clergy in the Visigothic Church. Canon 4 faced a completely different challenge that involved consecrated virgins. The bishops deliberated on secular virgins that embraced consecrated life, changed secular clothes for that of a consecrated virgin, took vows of chastity, but then changed their mind and broke them. Two situations were singled out: a virgin who freely chose to leave consecrated life to marry, with a bishop’s blessing; the other, a consecrated woman who in a moment of passion lost her virginity and then chose to live with that same man. The canon describes the loss of virginity here as a ‘violent rape.’ This is strong rhetorical language; it was obvious consensual sex since they wanted to marry the man. In both instances the bishops showed no leniency or sympathy, however. They pronounced them excommunicated and shunned from the Catholic community. For how long and what penances were required to return was not specified in the canon.
----------
QQ: Vives/Marín Martínez/Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 159-161; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium, 206.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 244-246.
Alberto Ferreiro
Dezember 2024
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Toletanum / Toledo III: National Council of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania, 589", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], Januar 2025; URL: http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/607.html
