Caesaraugustanum II / Zaragoza II
Regional Council of the Visigothic Kingdom, 592
The Second Council of Zaragoza on 1 November 592 in the seventh year of Reccared’s reign was permitted to transpire with the express permission of the king. Fourteen bishops were present: Artemius, Metropolitan Bishop of Tarragona, Sifronius, Stefanus, Iulianus, Simplicius, Asterius, Mumius, Liliolus, Magnus, Iohannes, Galanus, Iulianus, Antedius a deacon and Vicar of Bishop Gavinus, and Stefanus a deacon and Vicar of Bishop Aquilinus. Only in the case of Artemius, Metropolitan of the Province of Tarragona, is the bishopric named. Even though only three canons are recorded; they are of enormous importance because they address residual Arianism after the grand conversion in Toledo in 589. Orlandis and Ramos-Lissón pointed that the absence at the council of two Arian bishops who converted to the Catholic faith in Toledo in 589, Ugnas of Barcelona and Froisclo of Tortosa. Ugnas, the most distinguished among the Arian converts, was a signatory at the Third Council of Toledo. Equally unusual is that neither of them sent a Vicar to represent them as was customary. The canons touched upon three concerns: returning Arians, relics of Arians, and Arian churches.
Canon 1 legislated regarding Arian presbyters and deacons who returned to the Catholic faith. They were admonished to live chaste lives. The bishops imposed the requirement of re-ordination which they were to exercise with a pure and holy life as Catholics – acceptam denuo benedictionem presbiteratu(s) sancte et pure ministrare debeant. Presbyters who refused to submit to these expectations were removed from ministry, it applied to deacons too. It seems there was some resistance to these measures by some Arian presbyters and deacons to regain their good standing. As a side note at Toledo III the bishops proved to be more accommodating. At Zaragoza stricter measures to return to the Catholic faith were leveled at the Arians. Re-ordination had not been a requirement in Toledo, now it was. Re-baptism was not imposed either, as early as Pope Siricius in his decretal to Himerius of Tarragona he rejected re-baptism of heretics. In other words, Arian baptism was valid. This canon at Zaragoza reveals that seven years into Reccared’s reign and two years after the Third Council of Toledo the transition from Arian to Catholic Hispania was still a work in progress. These were not widespread challenges since Arianism at this stage had but scant presence in Hispania, so full re-integration did not take long.
Canon 2 attended to the challenge of what to do with relics venerated by Arians. There may have been among them the relics Arian martyrs whose status as such would not recognized by Catholics. On the other hand, there were far more relics that were venerated by Arians and Catholics alike. To resolve this question, the bishops recommended a method to authenticate the Catholic relics from Arian ones. Relics found in any former Arian churches were handed to Catholic bishops for validation. The bishops subjected Arian relics to a trial by fire to purify them and establish their catholicity. Anyone found hiding Arian relics for veneration by sidestepping this process were declared excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Canon 3 set its sights on Arian church buildings that were consecrated as Catholic by Arian bishops. These were Arian bishops who consecrated churches in the name of the Catholic faith before receiving the blessing (necdum benedictione) from a Catholic bishop. The consecration was ruled invalid; the solution was a simple one. Once the convert Arian bishop received the blessing from a Catholic bishop, he could proceed to re-consecrate the church as Catholic. The Third Council of Toledo had already ruled in Canon 9 that Arian churches and all their goods located in their respective dioceses were under the authority of Catholic bishops. In the Vives edition that we are using for the councils a letter entitled De fisco Barcinonensi does not appear as part of the Second Council of Zaragoza. Orlandis and Ramos Lissón, however, call attention that it is attached to the council text in the Codex Emilianensis, it is the singular document that contains the letter. They convincingly argue that it is contemporaneous to the council and should be included in the council minutes. The letter dates four days after the council convened on 1 of November. It follows up on the directives in Canon 18 of the Third Council of Toledo on fiscal matters of the Church. It was ordered that bishops and local lay officials should meet once a year to formulate a budget to avert monetary abuses. The letter was signed by 4 bishops: Artemius of Tarragona, Sofronius of Egara, Galanus of Ampurias, and John of Girona. Ugnas, the bishop of Barcelona, did not sign the letter, but as we observed above, he did not attend the council. The letter was addressed to the numerari of the city of Barcelona charged to manage the estate of Count Escipius. The fiscal policies dictated in the letter follow established norms of the late Roman Empire. What is likely, according to Orlandis and Ramos-Lissón, is that due to the infrequency of councils the efficacy and application of these well intended norms were minimal. To this it should be added is the low attendance of bishops in most of these minor councils.
----------
QQ: Vives/Marín Martínez/Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 154-155; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorum Occidentalium, 204.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 235-241; F.-M. Beltrán Torreira, El concilio de Zaragoza (592) y las últimas repercusiones de la crisis arriana en la Hispania visigoda, in: Espacio Tiempo y Forma 3 (1990) 41-48.
Alberto Ferreiro
Dezember 2024
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Caesaraugustanum II / Zaragoza II, Regional Council of the Visigothic Kingdom, 592", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], Dezember 2024; URL: http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/622.html
