Toletum XVI / Toledo XVI
General Council of the Visigothic Kingdom in Hispania; 693
This council is the third that met during the reign of King Egica on 2 of May 693 [Era 731] in the basilica Pretoriense of the Holy Apostles. The council was summoned in the aftermath of a failed attempted coup by Sisbertus, Archbishop of Toledo, who had the backing of some leading nobles who wanted to install a rival king Suniefred – known only from one coin – as the new permanent king. Egica obviously prevailed against the rebels and promptly called the council to secure his position and punish the traitors. Eleven canons were produced that were approved by 58 bishops, 5 abbots, 3 Vicars of bishops, and 16 illustrious nobles. Five of the bishops were Metropolitans from Carthaginensis, Baetica, Lusitania, Tarraconensis, and Gallaecia; only with Narbonensis absent for reasons explained below. Orlandis and Ramos-Lissón instruct us that the bishops represented 78.15% of the episcopate of Hispania, an impressive number indeed. They further pointed out that 25 bishops had Germanic surnames.
Egica presented to the bishops the customary tomus that contained the subject matter that bishops were expected to engage, he had prepared it by 25 April one week before the opening of the council. The king delivered a long speech to the bishops that prefaces what the eleven canons in more detail spoke to the main topics, the bishops expressed their approval and judgement in support of Egica. The bishops continued with a long proclamation of the Trinity based on the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, asking all present to give ascent, without any doubt, to the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, all other unnamed synods, and edicts of the Fathers. Anyone who refused to do so was considered embraced by the Devil and his companions who together would perish roaring fires of eternal damnation. In the profession of the Creed the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son, which had become standard in Hispania, we find here in the Filioque formula. What is extraordinary is that the Filioque was mentioned five times at this council. After these preliminaries the bishops settled down to issue the canons one by one.
The theme of Canon 1, De iudaeorum perfidia, was summarized in the tomus of the king, there the Jews had already been mentioned as being a menace to church and society. They recalled the laws that had been previously promulgated against them by Egica with the reminder that unconverted Jews were not allowed to do business with Christians. If they converted, however, they were from exempted from any of the fiscal penalties that were imposed upon Jews. The bishops used the image of good medical doctors [Church] that are called upon to help the sick [Jews] to recover from their illnesses to describe the situation. Egica was cast as the doctor who applied his admirable medicine to convert them to the Christian faith. Egica’s prior anti-Jewish legislation is lauded at the end of the canon.
Canon 2, De idolorum cultoribus, testifies to the persistent presence of idolatrous practices and beliefs but not in organized cults, those had long disappeared. The paganism beliefs were found as much in towns, it was not a unique problem of the rural areas, although there they survived with greater ease. The bishops attempted to combat these practices among laity and even clergy citing Paul and a précis from the Old Testament condemning idolatry. They were reminded that it was the work of the Devil who prowls about in the world seeking who to devour, summarizing Paul. Any bishop, presbyter, or judge who was remiss in extirpating idolatry in all its forms were subjected to one year of penance. Anyone else who opposed the efforts of bishops, presbyters, and judges in this effort were declared anathema. If they were a noble a fine of three pounds of gold was to be paid. If they were from the lower class, they suffered one hundred lashes and had their heads shaved – ac turpiter decalvabitur.
Canon 3, De sodomitis, on homosexual behavior opened by harkening to the fate of the sodomites in Sodom and Gomorrah who were consumed by fire from heaven as recalled by the prophet Isaiah 9:5. Guilty bishops, presbyters, and deacons were condemned to perpetual exile. Laity were removed from the Church, subjected to one-hundred lashes, their heads shaved - ac turpiter decalvati, and sent into perpetual exile. Restoration was possible for clergy with proper rigorous penance – length of time unspecified - otherwise not even on deathbed could they receive communion. This way of restoration was available to other offenders, without penance punishments were in effect perpetually.
Canon 4, De disperantibus, turned to the delicate and tragic situation of those who fell in despair after being jailed as a penance for offenses committed. During the incarceration some fell into despair to the point of attempted suicide by hanging or with a weapon or any other means. Although not mentioned in this canon, suicide had a stigma attached to it mainly because of Judas’s death at his own hand, the result of despair. Despair of this sort was seen as manifesting no trust and faith in God; thus, becoming vulnerable to the machinations of the Devil. To help the person in question, the bishops ordered them removed from the community of Catholics and denied the Body and Blood of Christ for two months, as a time of penance to help them recover the hope of salvation for having almost given their soul to the Devil out of despair.
In Canon 5, De reparatione ecclesiarum vel diversis aliis causis, the bishops needed to call attention to the challenge of reparation and maintenance of churches. It was pointed out that negligence was the consequence of monetary mismanagement by some bishops. They decreed that a third of the rents of the rural churches be dedicated to the repair of churches that had fallen into ruin. If those at that church rejected the third of the rent, they were still held responsible to repair the dilapidated church under the supervision of the bishop. If the rural churches were in good condition, the third of the rent could still be collected by the bishop and put to other uses. Bishops were not allowed to collect more than a third, however. On another related concern, presbyters were prohibited to attend to various churches at once. A church with more than ten servants could have a priest, if it fell below that it was to be integrated to another nearby church. This example reveals how small rural churches were. Abuse of this arrangement was punished with one month of excommunication, with restoration only if the offender promised at the end to obey the rules established.
The bread of the Eucharist is the object of consideration in Canon 6, De integra oblata et ex studio praeparata in sacrificio offerenda, to correct an abuse that had surfaced. In some regions of Hispania some priests, out of ignorance or temerity, used a whole large round loaf of bread, that was not clean, and made for common consumption. The bishops ruled that the bread should be clean, whole, and of small size. What was the bishops’ rational to impose these specific regulations? Requiring clean bread is of course to preserve its spiritual dignity and respect, and of course for reasons of hygiene. The words of Jesus when he took the bread, blessed it, and broke it are reproduced from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul in Acts. Jesus took a whole bread then broke it into smaller pieces, so it stands that a whole small bread is to be placed on the altar. Why small? After communion, the leftover bread would be placed in a small place to be consumed at the next liturgy. Also, a large loaf left over could cause stomach problems to the priest who was obliged to consume it having no place to store it. Reservation of the consecrated bread in a holy place/tabernacle in a church was still in development but spreading steadily. Violation of these guidelines would result in one year of excommunication.
Canon 7, De publicatione concilii, attended to the challenge of disseminating expeditiously the decisions of the councils to the people. It was established that within six months after a council, the bishop would call an assembly to make known its content. The public assembly was to be made up of abbots, presbyters, deacons, lesser clergy, and the people of the diocese, that way together they became informed. No one could claim ignorance of what the bishops had promulgated at a council. Anyone who ignored the decisions of the councils was excommunicated for two months.
One thing to keep in mind is that many decisions of the councils contained issues directly related to the monarchy, it was not just about ecclesiastical discipline. A good example is the subsequent canon below that transitioned to political matters affecting the monarchy. Canon 8, De munime prolis regiae, is a long one that concentrated on the well-being of the monarchy and the heirs, in this instance applying to Egica and his family. It asked for guaranteed protection for his children, future marriages, and grandchildren but curiously his wife was not mentioned openly. One innovation that was introduced was the requirement that every Friday prayers for the whole family should be said in all churches of the realm. The one exception in the liturgical calendar was on Good Friday. Harsh reprisals awaited anyone who was discovered plotting against the royal family.
Canon 9, De Sisiberto episcopo, was dedicated to the case of the rebellious archbishop Sisbertus. It condemned any layperson or bishop who had sworn fealty to the king then by perverted treason broke their oath. Sisbertus was to be expelled from the Catholic community through excommunication, stripped of all honors, all personal effects, and sent into perpetual exile. He could receive the Eucharist only at the end of life unless the king out of mercy pardoned him beforehand. The same punishments applied to all others who plotted with Sisbertus in the rebellion. One novelty in this canon that reaffirmed the condemnation of Sisbertus and his accomplices is that it names the other people besides Egica, presumably associated with the royal family, destined to be killed, for protection – they were, Frogellus, Theodomir, Liuvilanus, Luivogotona – likely widow of King Ervigius – and Tecla.
Canon 10, De his qui iuramenti sui profanatores extitisse noscuntur, continued with the theme of sworn oaths and their violation. The condemnation of treason was voiced in the strongest of terms with recommendations of severe punishments. Three times were traitors who conspired against the monarchy declared anathema Maranatha at the conclusion of the canon. They were furthermore described as sharing a place in perdition with Judas, at the coming of the Lord.
Canon 11, De gratiarum actione, was the last canon to close that aspect of the council. It followed the customary protocol of celebrating the Trinity with prayers dedicated to the well-being of the monarch. Egica is lauded for being a bastion of the faith, most serene and pious, and wishes were said for a long life of good works and that he be crowned by Jesus Christ in union with others already there [heaven].
After the eleven canons the Decretum iudicii ab universis editum was appended to the council text. It opened by recalling how in the Acts of the Apostles the traitor Judas had to be replaced to reconstitute the 12 eyewitnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The apostles chose Matthias after casting lots between he and Joseph called Barsabbas (surnamed Justus). The bishops likened Sisbertus to Judas, the bishops now had to find their own ‘Matthias’ to fill the vacancy in Toledo - to reestablish there the numerical unity. To accomplish this, they carried out a reshuffling of bishops to accomplish their task: they transferred the Archbishop of Seville, Felix, to Toledo and the Archbishop of Braga, Faustinus was sent to occupy the vacancy in Seville. Another bishop named Felix of Oporto was designated to become Bishop of Braga/Dumium. Sisbertus was perennially exiled and was allowed only to take communion on his deathbed. With these actions the bishops closed the rebellion of Sisbertus once and for all.
After this another declaration was attached, the Lex edita in confirmatione concilii, that closed the council. It is here where one is informed that a pestilence in the Narbonne prevented bishops from there to travel to Toledo for the council. They were encouraged to meet with their Metropolitan where the text of the council would be read and they could add their signatures of affirmation. A closing speech by King Egica directed at the bishops followed encouraging fidelity, condemning treasonous behavior, exhorting them to uphold the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) of his predecessor King Sisenand, notably Canon 75 - De commonitione plebis ne in principes delinquatur - on the sacredness of the monarchy and no doubt in the background the anti-Jewish legislation. Also, the case of Wamba when he named Theudemundus numerarius of Mérida as petitioned by Festus, Bishop of Mérida. Theudemundus and his descendants were freed of any culpability in the future. So ended the council, the list of all present or through Vicars are named with their respective titles.
----------
QQ.: Vives/Marín Martínez/Martínez Díez, Concilios Visigóticos e Hispano-Romanos, 482-521; Weckwerth, Clavis Conciliorvm, 224-226.
Lit.: Orlandis/Ramos-Lissón, Concilios de la España Romana y Visigoda, 496-507; Luís A. García Moreno, El fin del Reino visigodo. Decadencia y catástrofe. Contribución a su crítica, Madrid 1975; King, Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom.
Alberto Ferreiro
Juli 2025
Empfohlene Zitierweise:
Ferreiro, Alberto, "Toletum XVI / Toledo XVI: General Council of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania; 693", in: Lexikon der Konzilien [Online-Version], Juli 2025; URL:
http://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/646.html
