Toletum XIII / Toledo XIII
General Council of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania; 683
The bishops and the assembled met in the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul on 4 November 683 (Era 721) over the course of nine days between the 4th and 13th in the fourth year of Ervigius’ reign. The council had an impressive number of attendees: 48 bishops, 16 abbots (12 as Vicars for bishops), 1 primicerius, and 26 palatine officials. In addition, 2 Vicars of bishops represented the Narbonne region, 4 bishops were Metropolitans from Toledo, Seville, Braga, and Mérida. A total of 29 bishops who could not attend in person were represented by Vicars. There are only thirteen canons, the last one comprising the customary closing prayers and benediction.
The council opened with Ervigius bringing in the tomus regio whose main goal was to grant clemency to of the opponents of Wamba; it was mainly motivated to diminish his own unstable political support. This was still a concern even after having been in power for three years; apparently much resentment against him still lingered after his controversial accession to the throne. Wamba who was sequestered in a monastery appears to still have supporters. A generous pardon was requested for all who participated in the rebellion led by the Duke Paul against Wamba in 673 accompanied by restoration of civil rights and return of confiscated goods. This agenda was elaborated in some canons of the council. This clemency extended to those who suffered under King Chintila. Even a tributary amnesty was offered for all taxes of the previous year with the one exception of those that had already been paid out. The recipients who received them had to deposit them into the treasury. Ervigius was intent on minimizing as much as possible any personal vendettas that could weaken his position. Coercion to obtain confessions and torture were forbidden, due process was to be followed to arrive at the guilt or innocence of the accused. This of course was intended to keep the dispensation of justice in the hands of the monarchy. Another norm that was requested and passed was the protection of the royal family after the death of the king and even preemptively. This was not the only time a council had promulgated these safeguards (e.g. Toledo V – 636, Toledo XVI – 693 [protection of royal descendants], and Toledo XVII – 694). Toledo XIII can be considered as one of the most politically oriented of the Toledan councils. After the reading of the tomus regio, the bishops led all to profess fealty to the Catholic faith by giving assent to the Trinity as contained in the Gospels, the teaching of the apostles, and expounded at the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon that is proclaimed in the ‘holy symbol’ by the faithful at every Mass – sacrosancti symboli …. quae in missarum solemnitatibus patula cunctorum adclamatur [fidelium] voce. The profession of the Creed at every Mass in all churches in Hispania, Gallia, and Gallaecia was introduced by King Reccared at the Third Council of Toledo (589), he said it should be done to be in conformity with the custom of the East – iuxta orientalium partium morem unanimiter clara voce sacratissimum fidei recenseant symbolum, it was reemphasized in Canon 2 of that same council – Ut in omnibus ecclesiis die dominica symbolum recitetur …. ut per omnes ecclesias Spaniae, Galliae vel Gallaeciae secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum. At Toledo XIII the Nicaean Creed was professed but the full text was not reproduced, only the opening words were recorded – Credimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, etc. The bishops stated that what followed in the council – the canons – were built upon a solid rock [the Creed] which is a perennial foundation of the true faith.
Canon 1 elaborated in detail the reintegration of those who previously rebelled with Duke Paul against Wamba and was extended to another under King Chintila. It was determined that anyone who sought to undermine this decree of the king was anathema. To what extent this clemency was out of the generosity of Ervigius is suspect, it seems an attempt to undermine any potential rebellion against his person and family by loyalists to Wamba. Canon 2 focused on persons in the royal retinue in the palace – palatines – and clergy, including bishops, accused of treason and intrigue against the king. It pronounced the judicial process of the accused to determine guilt or innocence. Inquiries using violence of any kind or confiscation of property before due process were forbidden. Confessions were not allowed to be extracted with torture. Any found guilty were punished according to existing laws. Canon 3 expounded on the forgiving of previous taxes of the people. All were reminded that it was all because of the generosity and tenderness of the religious King Ervigius – Et ideo religiosi principis nostri Ervigii regis affectus. Taxes from prior years up to the first year of Ervigius’ reign that applied to fiscal servants were pardoned. Taxes that have already been collected or not paid were to be deposited into public accounts. Canon 4 articulated the broad protection offered to Queen Liuvigoto, wife of Ervigius, their offspring, and those married to them. Anyone threatening their person or their property was subject to severe punishment. No one was permitted to plot to kill them, exile, tonsure, exile them to a monastery or seize their property. Some have interpreted that this canon and the next demonstrates that Ervigius considered his reign weak and precarious. The subject of Canon 5 was a continuation of enunciating protections of Liuvigoto in the event of becoming a widow. No man was permitted to seek matrimony from the widowed queen; it would be considered an adulterous relationship at the very least. The actual agenda here was to prevent enemies of the crown from taking it by forcing Liuvigoto into an unwanted marriage. Such men were shunned from the Christian community and turned over to the Devil to damnation and erased from the ‘Book of Life’ – et delectum de libro vitae. In Canon 6 Ervigius forbade servants and freedmen, excepting those who were already fiscal officials in charge of monetary matters – from being promoted to palatines. They also could not be administrators of the palace or serve as majordomos of the palace. Canon 7 confronted the strange situation where bishops and minor clergy retaliated against parishioners by refusing to offer them Mass. It seems these were motivated by grudges and resentments towards them that were not specified. They would strip the altar, remove liturgical vestments, ornamentation, and lamps – altaria nudantes sacratis vestibus exuunt, luminaria subtrahunt. The bishops reasoned that if there was severe punishment for those who committed homicide, how greater was the offense to disparage God in this way! Stringent penance was imposed on the offending clergy, who had to demonstrate before the Metropolitan genuine repentance. If it was ruled unsatisfactory, the penance was perpetual as well as the suspension from their ministry. Canon 8 sought to correct the apathy and nonchalant attitude of certain bishops who did not take urgent appointments of their Metropolitans and princes seriously. They were unacceptably late, making many excuses to justify it – necessariae evocate a principe vel metropolitano confinitimi sacerdotes venire differant, et diversis excusationibus agant, quibus implere quae iubentur omittant. The requests involved celebrating important high liturgies such as Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas. To participate in a tribunal, consecration of a bishop or business of the king. The only acceptable excuse for unacceptable delays was illness that had to be verified by a reliable witness, absent that testimony, excommunication was recommended for disobedience. Another exception is if the absence was caused by a natural disaster, flooding or a severe storm, which also needed verification of a witness – aut fluminum aut aerum procellosa. Canon 9 was a reaffirmation of the Twelfth Council of Toledo XII (681) celebrated in the first year of Ervigius’ reign. All the canons reaffirmed with a summary of their content. This council had not been accepted as having the weight of authority that Ervigius desired, so here it was validated as being binding in its decisions perpetually. A factor for this decision was most likely driven by the controversial circumstances when Ervigius gained the throne from Wamba thus casting doubt of his legitimacy and his first council. Any opponent to the canons on Toledo XII was declared excommunicated. Canon 10 addressed the situation of a bishop named Gaudentius of Valeria who received public penance while gravely ill, he recovered and did not know if he could legitimately continue in his ministerial duties while still observing the penance. His case was presented though a Vicar, an Abbot Vincent. The bishops in Toledo ruled in support of any penitent bishop to continue to offer the sacraments, so long as the offenses were not mortal sins; this applied to all bishops and presbyters in a similar situation. The bishops also included a sustained explanation on the efficacy of penance, its salutary effects on the soul and restorative qualities of the penitent with God. Canon 11 reveals that there were many instances where clergy and monks without authorization moved from diocese to diocese, they were in short, considered fugitives. It was expressly forbidden for any bishop to ordain, receive, or hide any clergy or monk not from their own jurisdiction belonging to another bishop. Once finding out about their illegitimate status they had eight days to turn them over to a judge. The fugitive was to be returned as soon as possible to their original diocese with the goods that they took. The bishop who received the fugitive was placed under excommunication equal to the length of time that the fugitive was under them. Any presbyter or deacon involved in receiving these fugitives were subjected to year long penance under the watch of the bishop. Fugitives who had recourse to appeals where they claimed that extenuating circumstances was the reason for their irregular status. Any potential punishment was delayed until their case was heard and ruled upon by the Metropolitan. Canon 12 explained the proper order of the appeals process when a member of the clergy or a monk litigated against their own bishop. There were three possible venues to resolve disputes: appeal to their own Metropolitan, to one of another province, and lastly the monarchy. The litigant who straightway appealed to the Metropolitan could not be excommunicated by their own bishop until the Metropolitan had delivered a judgement. If the bishop, nevertheless, excommunicated the litigant, the bishop would in turn suffer the excommunication. The condemned, furthermore, was absolved. These norms were to be observed by all Metropolitans. The litigant, however, if unable to get a hearing from their Metropolitan, they could appeal to those of other provinces. If this proved unsatisfactory, the king was a last resort of appeal to seek justice. Lastly, if the litigants had already been excommunicated prior to the appeals, they were to be considered in that state until it was determined whether their condemnation had been just or unjust. Canon 13 contains what had become customary in many councils, the closing prayer of thanksgiving, blessings, prayers for the monarch (Ervigius) wishing him a happy long life and closing by invoking the Trinity – Iesu Christo domino Deo et salvatore nostro, qui cum Deo Patre et Sancto Spiritu unus in Trinitate vivit et gloriatur Deus in secula seculorum. Amen. Appended to the council after all the signatories were two documents. The first, In nomine Domini Flavius Ervigius rex omnibus privatis sive fiscalibus populis that summarized the fiscal amnesty that was decreed at the council. The second titled, Lex in confirmatione concilii edita reprised in a concise statement all thirteen canons to underscore the essential content of each. This was followed with a declaration of the bishops the canons must be upheld in all provinces and should not be ignored. Anyone who violated them was threatened with prolonged excommunication and confiscation of a tenth of their goods [monies] that was deposited in the treasury. If they had no means to pay the fine, they were subjected to fifty lashings, but without incurring infamy.
----------
QQ.: Vives/Marín Martínez/Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 411-440; Hispana edition is in: Martínez Diez/Rodríguez. La Colección Canónica. VI, 217-274; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorvm, 220-221.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 422-434; Rachel L. Stocking, Bishops, Councils, and Consensus in the Visigothic Kingdom, 589-633, Ann Arbor (MI) 2000.
Alberto Ferreiro
Juni 2025
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Toletum XIII / Toledo XIII: General Council of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania; 683", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], Juni 2025; URL:
http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/642.html
