II. THE CANONS OF THE SECOND SYNOD have a style quite different from those of the first, are not so simple,
6. No one may ordain a strange cleric without the concurrence of his bishop. Moreover, the bishop may not ordain anyone who has not first
promised to remain in his position.
Six other canons which, in the collection of Burchard of Worms are assigned to a Concilium Valentinum, without indication whether Valencia in Spain or Valence in France is meant, are in Mansi’s collection, t. 8, page 623.
SEC. 238. SYNOD AT CARTHAGE, A.D. 525.
After the death of the Vandal King Thrasamund (May 28, 523) his
successor Hilderic put an end to the protracted oppression of the Catholics, recalled the banished bishops, and, at the wish of the inhabitants of
Carthage, gave his consent that Boniface, who became afterwards so famous, should be elected bishop and primate, and should be consecrated in the Basilica of S. Agileus the Martyr. f334 In the sacristy of the same church Archbishop Boniface held his first Synod, which, as the Acts declare, began February 5, 525, and was attended by bishops from the most diverse dioceses of Africa. Their names, sixty in number, are found in the subscription of the minutes of the Synod, and there were also many deputies and representatives of their provinces. The bishops sat, beside and behind them stood the deacons. Boniface, as president, spoke first,
expressing his great joy at the Synod taking place, and at the restoration of liberty to the Church, i.e. at the end of the persecution. f335 Another bishop answered him (the minutes are here defective), spoke of the joy of all in having so excellent a president as Boniface, and besought him, for the advantage of the African Church, to procure for the canons their earlier respect, and to re-establish again the regulations of his lamented
predecessor Aurelius. f336 Thereupon the legitimation of the deputies sent from the different provinces took place; and Boniface first had his letter read which he had sent to the Primate f337 Missor of Numidia, in which he requested this metropolitan, who on account of age was himself unable to appear, to send three plenipotentiaries, and himself designated those whom he wished to be sent. He also declared in this letter that it was a principal business of the Council to bring down the pride of some bishops who wished to exalt themselves over such as had precedence of them, and, as it seems, even sought to get rid of their subordination to the archbishop of Carthage. f338 On this account it was necessary that the order of precedence among the African bishops should now be established by the Synod. He
also indicated to Missor, according to ancient custom, as he said, the day for the next Easter festival (May 30, 525). f339
To the question of the archbishop, whether deputies from Numidia were present, and had brought with them a letter from their primate, Bishop Florentius of Vicopacatum answered, in their name, in the affirmative, and requested that Missor’s letter might be read. The primate of Numidia expressed his sorrow at the disputes about precedency which had arisen, and at the wrongs which had been done to Boniface. He praises his patience and forbearance, but points out that thereby, and because Boniface had not been willing to settle the controversy himself, — a duty which was incumbent upon him, — the insolence of some had grown greater. Boniface, he said, had indicated three Numidian bishops whom Missor was to send as deputies to the Synod; but one of these, Marianus of Tullia, before the arrival of the letter, had on his own account set off for the Synod, and therefore Bishop Florentius had been appointed as the third deputy from Numidia. As he had no doubt that Januarius (also a Numidian bishop), the consecrator of Boniface, was present at the Synod, he had written to him and requested him, with the Numidian deputies, in the impending controversies, to give assistance to the side which was in the right. f340
Boniface had also addressed letters of invitation to the bishops of Asia Proconsularis and the province of Tripoli, which were now read. Deputies were present from these also, and also from Mauretania Caesariensis and Sitifensis. The Primate Liberatus of the province of Byzacene, on the contrary, in spite of repeated invitations, had not appeared, on which Boniface expressed himself very freely. On the following day the bishops requested that, in case he should not then appear, they should consult on the subject of his non-appearance, and the Numidian deputy, Bishop Felix, at the close of a very courteous speech, expressed the wish that Boniface should now settle to whom the rank next to him should belong. Appealing to the 19th canon of the Synod of Carthage of A.D. 418 (c. 127 in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae), Boniface explained that, according to the ancient practice of the proconsular province (Carthage), Numidia came next, and then Byzacene, etc. Whoever should venture to disturb this order should be deposed. Hereupon he caused to be read the Creed of Nicaea, and at the request of several, also a series of such ancient canons, chiefly of African Councils, as he considered specially suitable for the instruction of the newly appointed bishops; among them, at the express wish of the
Synod, those canons also which treated of the precedence and the privileges of the see of Carthage, or could be related to the subject. With this closed the session of the first day, late at night; and all the bishops present signed the minutes together with the documents, which had been read, embodied in them, the canons and the Nicene Creed. f341
On the next day, February 6, the bishops assembled again in the sacristy of the Church of S. Agileus, and Archbishop Boniface opened this second se#sion with the announcement: Everything which touched the African Church in general had been brought to an end yesterday, so that they could now pass on to special business, and settle any requests and representations of particular persons. The Deacon Gaudiosus now informed them that the Abbot Peter, with some older monks from his monastery, stood at the door and asked permission to appear before the Synod. When Boniface granted the request, the Abbot Peter presented in his own name and in the name of his monks an accusation in writing against Liberatus, the primate of the province of Byzacene, who had, at the numerous Synods held by him, endeavored to bring ruin upon their monastery, and had irregularly inflicted the heavier excommunication upon them. The assembled bishops were therefore requested to interest themselves in the monks, as they had never failed either in regard to the faith or in regard to good morals.
After the hearing of this memorial, which was embodied in the Acts, Archbishop Boniface expressed his displeasure with Liberatus, who had disquieted the monks, and had refused to recognize the privileges of the see of Carthage, and ordered the reading of all the letters relating to this controversy. The first of these, an earlier letter of Abbot Peter to
Archbishop Boniface, explained the nature of the special business. So long as there was no bishop at Carthage on account of the persecution, the monks had requested the primate of the province of Byzacene, who was near to them, to ordain one of their number as an ecclesiastic for the needs of the monastery. This was done, and from this Liberatus had now inferred that the monastery was subject to him, whilst it was only in the archbishop of Carthage that they recognized their spiritual superior.
The second document was the letter from Liberatus to Archbishop Boniface of Carthage, presented at the Synod of Junca, which has been mentioned above (sec. 236), and in which the assurance is given that full ecclesiastical liberty prevailed in the province of Byzacene. On this
followed, as third document, the answer which Boniface had then given to
Liberatus and to the Council of Junca. After a very courteous introduction, Liberatus is exhorted to put away everything which might interrupt the peace of the Church, and then it is definitely declared that it was impossible to agree with what had been brought back, by word of mouth, by the deputies from the Synod of Junca, or to alter the old Church laws (i.e. in reference to the rights of the see of Carthage). At the close the time for the next Easter festival (for A.D. 524) is given.
The fourth document is again a letter of Abbot Peter and his monks to Archbishop Boniface, composed probably about the same time, when the Synod of Junca had sent their deputies to Carthage with verbal messages (also in reference to the monastery in question). In this letter was set forth again the wrong done by Liberatus, and the principle asserted that the monastery whose monks were born in all parts of Africa, and also in lands beyond the sea, should not be subjected to one single bishop, nor the monks be treated by him as though they were his own clergy. Besides, Abbot Peter brought forward two passages from Augustine, a letter of the earlier primate of the province of Byzacene, and the decree of the Synod of Arles of the year 455 (on the dispute about jurisdiction between Bishop Theodore of Frejus and Abbot Faustus of Lerins) in proof that convents of monks and nuns were not subject to the nearest bishop, but had been free.
Here end the minutes of our Synod: the rest are wanting, and we know only, in addition, from a Lombardian Codex in the Vatican Library, that this decree was drawn up: That all monasteries for the future shall, as hitherto, a conditione clericorum omnibus modis, be free and independent.
f342 Some notes on the close of our Synod are also given by the universal Council of Carthage of A.D. 535. See below, sec. 248.
SEC. 239. SYNOD AT CARPENTRAS, A.D. 527.
In the subscription of Archbishop Caesarius of Arles, the President of the Synod of Carpentoractum in Gallia Narbonensis, this assembly is
expressly ascribed to the consulate of Mavortins, i.e. to the year 527 A.D. and the 6th of November. f343 Mansi (l.c. page 710) conjectured that it was originally put P. C. Mavortii, i.e. after the consulate of Mavortius, and then the year 528 would have been meant. His chief reasons are:
(a) The Synod of Carpentras ordained that in the following year, again on November 6, a new Synod should be held at Vaison. Since this
latter, as we shall see further on, decidedly belongs to the year 529, that of Carpentras must be assigned to 528.
(b) Moreover, in the year 528 the 6th of November fell upon a Monday (in the year 527, on the contrary, as we add, on a Saturday), f344 and it was the ancient practice to open Synods on a Monday and not on a Saturday (or to hold, for the Synod of Carpentras lasted scarcely longer than one day, as they drew up only one canon).
We hold these arguments to be lacking in force, since it was in no way the universal rule to open Synods on a Monday; on the contrary, the ancient ordinances on this point fix a definite day of the month, which might fall upon the most different days of the week (cf. c. 7 of the Synod of Macon,
A.D. 578). Moreover, we must not forget that many ecclesiastical assemblies were held, not at the time originally fixed, but often at a
considerably later time; and to suppose that this was the case at the Synod of Vaison is more probable than the violent altering of the date for that of Carpentras.
The only canon of this Synod has reference to the securing of the revenues of the rural churches, in opposition to the bishops. In this canon it is said:
A complaint has been made, that some bishops give up to the parishes only little, or nothing at all, of what the faithful have contributed to them.
Therefore it is decreed: If the church in the bishop’s city is sufficiently endowed, then anything which has been presented to the parishes must be expended for the clergy who serve in them, or for the repair of these churches. If however, the bishop’s church has too slender revenues, then there shall be left for the rural parishes and the maintenance of their buildings only so much as is sufficient; and the bishop may appropriate what is over for himself. Only he must not diminish the revenues (facultatula) f345 of the clergymen (in the parish) or the service of the church (so also the number of the clergy). Finally, it was decreed that, in the following year, on November 6, a Synod should again be held, and at Vaison.
These minutes are subscribed by sixteen bishops, Caesarius (of Arles) at their head, almost all with the addition Peccator, and without calling themselves bishops. Besides, the Synod addressed a letter to Bishop Agroecius of Antipolis (Antibes), who had appeared neither personally nor by a plenipotentiary, although he had been required to give an account of an ordination in which he had violated the third canon of the recent Synod
at Arles (sec. 237) which had been subscribed by his own representative.
For this reason he must not celebrate Mass for a year in accordance with the ordinance of Arles. This letter was also subscribed by all the sixteen bishops, this time with the addition of their title, but without naming their sees. f346
SEC. 240. SYNOD AT DOVIN, IN ARMENIA, A.D. 527.
The Theatine Clemens Galanus, celebrated for his protracted missionary activity in the East, as well as for his Historia Armena ecclesiastica et politica (1650), in this work gives an account of an Armenian Synod which the Catholicus Nerses of Aschtarag held, in the year 536, with ten bishops in the Armenian city Thevin (more correctly Dovin). At this Synod the doctrine of one nature in Christ was declared; the Council of Chalcedon, which the Armenians hitherto had recognized was rejected, and the Armenian schism begun.
This relation of Galanus was followed by all the older scholars, particularly by Pagi (ad ann. 535, n. 13)and Mansi (t. 8, page 871), until the famous Armenian national history by Tschamtschean appeared at Venice in the year 1785. In the second volume of this work †(page 237 sqq., and page 527) a very complete account of our Synod is given, and a quantity of older notices relating to it collected. It is shown that the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon in question did not proceed from this Synod, but from other Armenian Synods. So early as the year 491, at the Synod held at Walarschapat under the Catholicus Babgen, the opposition of the Armenians to the Chalcedonian faith had begun; whilst the schism was not completed until the year 596 by a later Synod at Dovin under the
Catholicus Abraham. Tschamtschean also removes our Synod to the year 527, and gives us the substance of thirty-eight canons there passed: f347 —
1. Gifts for priests must be brought into the church, and not into the