Bracara Augusta I / Braga I (Bracara Augusta)
Provincial Council of the Suevic Kingdom in Gallaecia; 561
The First Council of Braga met in the Suevic Kingdom of Gallaecia in 561 at a time when the Roman Empire had long receded in the Western provinces. The two main Germanic tribes, Sueves and Visigoths, settled in the Iberian Peninsula. Both of these tribes sought territorial hegemony, political domination, and unity in religious faith. The Sueves converted permanently to the Catholic faith in the 550s while the Visigoths remained Arian until their official conversion to the Catholic faith in 589; it was at the center of their deep division and hostility. The Sueves entered the Iberian Peninsula in 409 eventually forging out a kingdom in Gallaecia establishing their sedes regiae in Bracara Augusta (Braga), the old Roman provincial capital. The kingdom of the Sueves, however, was permanently conquered and assimilated to the Visigothic one by King Leovigild in 585 who was an ardent Arian intent on converting the Sueves out of the Catholic faith. He never accomplished it having died in 586, three years later his eldest son King Reccared abjured Arianism and publicly proclaimed the Catholic faith at the Third Council of Toledo (589). While Leovigild succeeded in the territorial conquest, he failed in the religious re-conversion of the Sueves to Arianism.
At the Braga council of 561 eight bishops and an unspecified number of presbyters, deacons, and dignitaries were in attendance. We are not told the place where they met in the city. For some of them we can identify their respective bishoprics, others remain unknown to us: Lucretius of Braga, Andreas of Iria Flavia, Martin of Braga, Cottus (?) Ildericus (?) – his name is of germanic origin – Lucetius of Coimbra, Timotheus (?) and Maliosus [Mahiloc] most likely of Britonia [Britonensis]. He appears again at the Second Council of Braga (572) as Bishop Mahiloc [Mailoc] of Britonia, a See located in the northeast of Gallaecia near present-day Mondoñedo, is of great interest because his name is of Celtic origin.
The conversion of the Sueves undoubtedly was the work of many but key writers singled out Martin of Braga (c. 520 - c. 579) as being the major catalyst. Martin was a native of the Roman province of Pannonia Secunda; his long fascinating journey westward from the East – via Palestine, Rome, and Gallia [Tours] – ended in Gallaecia. He was hailed as the most outstanding bishop of sixth century Gallaecia and beyond in the West, even though at this juncture in 561 he had not yet been elevated to Metropolitan. Tributes to his great learning, holiness, and zeal for the faith are found in writings of Venantius Fortunatus, Gregory of Tours, and in the seventh century in Isidore of Seville. Isidore of Seville, Gregory of Tours, and Venantius of Fortunatus unanimously talk about his great knowledge of both sacred and profane writers. Venantius in Poems V, 1 and 2 for example recalls his knowledge of Greek philosophy and other sages of the Roman and Greek intellectual elite. This explains why Gregory of Tours in Libri historiarum V, 37 in a moment of enthusiasm said that Martin was ‘second to none’ in his learning. Isidore wrote in his De viris illustribus 22, without any titles, that Martin wrote other works including abundant letters, that unfortunately are not extant. Martin cultivated a close relationship with four successive Sueve monarchs spanning from 550 to 579; it secured his position within the Church and enabled him to wield great influence at the court. His preaching was mainly against Arianism and paganism, not Priscillianism, even though Braga I (561) had that heresy as the main one that it opposed. In addition, according to Isidore of Seville, Martin founded an extensive network on churches and monasteries throughout Gallaecia. This activity eventually earned him the title of ‘Apostle’ to the Sueves in Venantius Fortunatus’ poem in honor of Martin.
At Braga I (561) Martin of Braga exercised a modest role having not yet risen to the upper echelons of the Church in Gallaecia, Lucretius the Metropolitan Bishop and others set the agenda of the council. They believed that a pressing issue needed to be confronted again, the possibility of still pervasive Priscillianism. It is rather amazing that 161 years after the First Council of Toledo (400), Priscillianism still at the grassroots continued to inspire a robust following. The council opened on 1 May 599 [Era] 561 of the Christian era, in the third year of the reign of the Suevic king Ariamir, in the city of Bracara Augusta (Braga), the sedes regia of Gallaecia. The presiding bishop of the council Lucretius exulted that after long time of not being authorized to have a formal council in Gallaecia, they were now permitted to do so – Diu est, sanctissimi fratres, quia secundum instituta venerabilium canonum et decreta catholicae et apostolicae disciplinae desiderabamus sacerdotalem inter nos fieri debere conventum. The reason for the prohibition is that the Sueves had gone through an Arian phase where Catholic bishops were forbidden to call an official council, they assuredly met privately unofficially. Having converted permanently to the Catholic they were granted permission to have a formal council. What we are not able to explain adequately is why it took them almost a full decade or more to meet in council, the conversion to the Catholic faith had occurred in the mid-550s or even before. Lucretius directed accolades at King Ariamir for allowing them to assemble – Nunc igitur quoniam ob tantum nobis huius congregationis diem gloriosissimus atque piissimus filius noster adspirante sibi Domino regali praecepto concessit… . He said what was foremost were matters touching the Catholic faith, then making public the canons [errors of heresy], and lastly disciplinary canons mostly aimed at the clergy to correct inconsistencies. These were the result of ignorance or lack of proper pastoral guidance. Lucretius addressing the assembly offered a preface to the seventeen alleged errors of Priscillianism. It was at this moment where he revisited a letter of Pope Leo I to Turibius of Astorga and an alleged council of 447 whose decisions were sent to then Balconius of Braga. Turibius had asked the pope to offer his opinion regarding some teachings of the Priscillianists. It is prudent to bear in mind that the pope received a one-side view of these teachings from a hostile source. Lucretius then added that they had in hand these documents. As a matter of record Hydatius in his Chronicle, ch. 135 briefly mentioned the exchange between Pope Leo I and Turibius but did not record that the council that the pope desired ever convened, in an official form. Readers are urged to consult the entry in this Lexikon on the Council of Toledo I (400) where more details are located. Of note is that Lucretius spoke several times of Priscillianism as a pestilent heresy that surfaced some time back and was condemned in all provinces of Hispania – nam licet iam olim Priscillianae haeresis contagio Spaniarum provintiis detecta sit et damnata. He added that it had also been denounced in the past by the See of the Apostle Peter [in this case alluding specifically to Pope Leo I] – abominata iam olim a sede beatissimi Petri apostoli et damnatae Priscillianae haeresis figmenta cognoscant. Leo I was not the sole bishop of Rome to censure them as heretics, so had popes Siricius, Innocent I, Damasus, and Vigilius. Lucretius proceeded to read audibly the formula of faith – lectum est exemplar fidei cum capitulis suis – to which he said that for the sake of time and space it was not appended to the conciliar acts. The bishops explained why they were revisiting Priscillianism; it was a precautionary measure in case there were still any of the less erudite clergy, monks or laity who might still believe or defend the errors of Priscillian. Those found guilty were to be amputated from the body of the Catholic church – tamquam vere putre membrum continuo de corpore abscidatur catholicae ecclesiae.
The bishops led by Lucretius then issued the seventeen supplementary alleged errors of the Priscillianist, to add to the eighteen previously disseminated at Toledo I (400). This is what should be considered as the third phase of the development of the anti-Priscillianist agenda. The charges against the group increased in scope and numbers as many claiming to know something about their teachings circulated accusations against them, much of it being nothing more than rumor mongering. Priscillianists were charged in the seventeen canons of adopting and propagating teachings of major heresies, identified by sect or founder: Sabellianism (Canon 1), Gnosticism (Canon 2), Paul of Samosata (Canon 3), Photinus (Canon 3), Cerdon (Canon 4), Marcion (Canon 4), Mani (Canon 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14,), by implication Nicolatians (Canon 15), astrology (Canon 9, 10), and paganism (Canon 9). Even though Priscillianist were accused of holding to a defective Trinitarian and Christological theology (Canon 1, 2, 3, 4), strikingly absent is the charge of Arianism. It was the one heresy that posed the most serious challenge in Hispania where its presence was the last bastion of this ancient heresy. Some heresy was attributed solely to Priscillian: souls that sinned prior to being born were cast down to earth in human bodies (Canon 6), the Devil created some creatures and controls natural phenomenon such as drought, tempests, lightning, and thunder (Canon 8), astral influence on humans has been noted (Canon 9, 10), cohabitation with women other than their mother, sister, aunt, or close relation (Canon 15), fasting the Thursday before Easter known as the Coena Domini at the incorrect hour (Canon 16), and prohibition of reading and defending any writings of Priscillian or Dictinius, before his conversion, or any other writings of heretics falsely named after the names of the patriarchs, prophets or apostles was anathema (Canon 17). As impressive as these canons might sound, none of these accusations have any validity, they are clearly refuted or wholly absent in the Tractates of Priscillian and followers that were written in the fourth century. Priscillian was most definitely not a Manichaean or a Gnostic, nor did he practice magic. Priscillian did not fall into any full material heresy, his ideas are at times difficult to discern and are on the outer edges of orthodoxy at times, but that is true of many Church Fathers in good standing. There may have been individual followers who held to some of these beliefs, but we can say emphatically that Priscillian and his close circle did not. We find the same situation among those who called themselves Catholic who believed and practiced all manner of things that was not taught officially by the Church. This is hardly unusual in the history of the development of doctrine. The bishops in Braga relied heavily on what they were told about Priscillianism by others who were hostile opponents with personal vendettas in most cases.
Lucretius after the pronouncement of the seventeen anathemas spoke once again calling for unanimity of condemnation to which the bishops agreed. They next set forth the twenty-two mostly clerical disciplinary canons based on the ancient canons of the general councils directed at the clergy to correct abuses and irregularities and foster unity of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. They had in hand the letter written 29 June 538 by Pope Vigilius (537-555) to Profuturus of Braga which they chose to not reproduce and affix to the council text; it was read to the assembly. There are a few canons that need to be highlighted as they are relevant to the prior Priscillianist canons. In Canon 3 where it was ruled that the greeting Dominus vobiscum should be said by presbyters and bishops alike and the people respond Et cum Spititu tuo as is custom of the Apostolic tradition and retained in the East. Priscillianists were accused of perversely changing it – sicut et ab ipsis apostolis traditum omnis retinet Oriens et non sicut Priscilliana pravitas permutavit. Canon 14 revisited the topic of Canon 14 of the anti-Priscillianist canons on meat abstention, accusing them of doing so inspired by Manichaean beliefs. Canon 12 on extra canonical scriptures that forbade use of any alternative to the Psalms or the New and Old Testaments to be sung at Mass for sure had the Priscillianist in mind without naming them. – Item placuit, ut extra psalmos vel canonicarum scribturarum novi et veteri Testamenti nicil poetice conpositum in ecclesia psallatur, sicut et sancti praecipiunt canones. Priscillian never claimed to sing other than the Psalms but he did not deny reading select New Testament Apocrypha – not anything Gnostic. He wrote an impressive defense in the Tractatus III: Liber de Fide et de Apocryphis, while never advocating their being added to the Canon. He thought that only those well grounded in the faith should read them.
The remaining disciplinary canons treat of a variety of topics, too many to go over all of them, but we can draw some conclusions of the Church in Suevic Gallaecia. The number of bishops in attendance while small – only eight – the council reveals a proactive episcopate offering much needed pastoral guidance. The sacraments, liturgy, and clergy stand out in their guidance. In this what was considered the remotest region in Hispania – finis terrae – it had nevertheless a fully engaged episcopate. Other evidence points to contacts with neighboring Gaul, the Visigothic kingdom, and even with distant Constantinople. The Second Council of Braga (572) will offer more confirmation of this network within and without Gallaecia.
----------
QQ.: Vives/Marín Martinez/ Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 65-77; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium, 193-194. Cl. W. Barlow, Martini Episcopi Bracarensis Opera Omnia. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, 12. New Haven: Yale University Press 1950, commentary, 80-103 and text 105-115.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda 138-150; J. Freire Camaniel, Gallaecia: Antigüedad, intensidad y organización de su cristianismo (Siglos I-VII), A Coruña 2013, 254-337. A. Ferreiro, Epistolae Plenae, The Correspondence of the Bishops of Hispania with the Bishops of Rome (Third through Seventh Centuries), Leiden 2020, 108-113, 260-291. Id., Priscillian and Nicolaism, in: VigChr 52 (1998) 382-392; Id., De prohibitione carnis: Meat Abstention and the Priscillianists, in: ZAC 11 (2007 [2008]) 464-478; Id., “The Condemnation of Priscillian’s use of non-Canonical Books and his Defense in Tractatus III: Liber de Fide et de Apocryphis, in: Vox Patrum 86 (2023) 51-74; Id., Did Priscillian have a Manichaean View of Creation? in: Synodalis consonantia. FS Grohe 105-116; A. Prieto Prieto, El marco político-religioso de los Concilios Bracarenses I y II, 33-91; G. Martínez Diez, Los Concilios suevos de Braga en las colecciones canónicas de los siglos VI-XII, in: El Concilio de Braga y la función de la legislación particular en la Iglesia, Salamanca 1975, 92-105.
Alberto Ferreiro
November 2024
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, Bracharense / Braga I: Provincial Council of the Suevic Kingdom in Gallaecia; 561, in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], November 2024; URL: http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/4295.html