Misplaced Pages

#417582

55-658: The other four, the first two with similar themes to the Constitutum Silvestri , are: The Constitutum Silvestri (Council of Sylvester), alternately known as one of the Synods of Rome ( Mansi refers to it as the Third Council of Rome), was a contrived meeting of Church bishops reported to have been convened by Pope Sylvester I (314-35) to deal with the issues of calculating the date for observing Easter each year and establishing canons for administering

110-632: A pallium . Based on this introduction, Caesarius later wrote to Symmachus for help with establishing his authority, which Symmachus eagerly gave, according to William Klingshirn, "to gather outside support for his primacy." Pope Symmachus provided money and clothing to the Catholic bishops of Africa and Sardinia who had been exiled by the rulers of the Arian Vandals . He also ransomed prisoners from upper Italy, and gave them gifts of aid. Despite Laurentius being classed as an antipope , it

165-508: A document which included a clause stating that the king already knew Symmachus was guilty, and thus the synod should assume guilt, hear the evidence, then pass sentence. More momentous was an attack by a mob on Pope Symmachus' party as he set out to make his appearance at the Synod: many of his supporters were injured and several—including the priests Gordianus and Dignissimus—killed. Symmachus retreated to St. Peter's and refused to come out, despite

220-611: A few years before the Symmachian affair, in the letters of Pope Gelasius . Professor Demacopoulos documents the concepts expressed in Epistle 10 ('the most assertive claim to Roman privilege in all of late antiquity!'), Epistle 26 ('most detailed articulation of Roman authority vis-à-vis other episcopal centers'), and to a lesser degree Epistle 27 ('only the Apostolic See has the authority to absolve another bishop') that fueled

275-495: A former Roman consul named Maximus—potentially Petronius Maximus who served his second consulship in 443 and the only Maximus listed for the period overlapping Sixtus and Valentinian—claimed 'it was illegal to pass sentence on a pope.' The other two forgeries reference issues unrelated to material contained within the Constitutum Silvestri . The Acts/Deeds of the Accusation against Polychronius, Bishop of Jerusalem narrate

330-656: A page from the Laurentian playbook, appropriated for their revised version (SK2) by creating their own Symmachian versions, SB and SA. Details on the Symmachian forgeries, including those which are not a part of the Constitutum Silvestri , can be found in Townsend and Wirbelauer. Townsend gives a brief summary in English, and Wirbelauer a detailed deconstruction of each in German: Conflicting references in

385-503: A series of trials, as detailed in the entries on the papacy of Symmachus regarding the ongoing dispute with Laurentius, and each forgery was meant to provide historical precedents to vindicate the pope during his current troubles. The initial two trials proved inconclusive, with the first being held in 501 in Ariminum—modern Rimini . The Symmachian forgeries were written by the pro-Symmachus faction, and therefore are favorable to

440-600: A situation from arising again. The remainder of the canons in the LK version of the fictitious Council of Sylvester, in keeping with the post-Nicene theme, mostly reiterate the Nicene canonical promulgations. However, in another stark difference to the Symmachian version, though it states Constantine called the Council, in the Laurentian version he did not sign off on the issued canons, he just approved them. Wirbelauer speculates that

495-400: A story that this fictional bishop had dared to claim that Jerusalem was the first See with himself as the bishop holding primacy over the others. The Acts/Deeds of Pope Liberius (after being exiled circa 355) dealt with the issues of baptism. The Constitutum Silvestri opens with a reference to Constantine's leprosy which had been cured by Sylvester with baptism, a story that builds upon

550-702: A synod, to be held at Rome on 1 March 499, which was attended by 72 bishops and all of the Roman clergy. Laurentius attended this synod. Afterwards he was assigned the diocesis of Nuceria in Campania . According to the account in the Liber Pontificalis , Symmachus bestowed the See on Laurentius "guided by sympathy", but the "Laurentian Fragment" states that Laurentius "was severely threatened and cajoled, and forcibly despatched" to Nuceria (now Nocera Inferiore , in

605-509: Is above his teacher".' At the fourth trial , the Synod of Palmaris, held on October 23 , 502 , a decision echoing the precedents created in the forgeries of Marcellino, Sixtus and Sylvester—'the first See is judged by none'—was made, and the bishops concluded that a pope can only be judged by God. This judgment would have long-lasting impacts on papal relations, both within the church to other clerics and with European monarchs, discussed below in

SECTION 10

#1732802361418

660-539: Is the first instance (retroactively attributed by the Symmachian forgeries) of the Vatican doctrine 'the first See is judged by none' ( prima sedes a nemine iudicatur ). Acts/Deeds in the Purification of Xystus (after 443): Pope Sixtus III (Xystus, 432-40) was denounced to Emperor Valentinian III (425-55) in a property dispute and accused of debasing a consecrated virgin. Valentinian called an assembly at which

715-563: The Aftermath section. Wirbelauer gives a summary of the contextual background on the Symmachian forgeries from pages 66-72, a summary of SK1 on pages 73-78, and the full text of SK1 from pages 228-247 in Latin (even) and German (odd). The concept utilized in the Symmachian forgeries in 501-02, that the pope is above judgment, was retroactively attributed to 303 and the trial of Pope Marcellinus. However, this idea made its first appearance only

770-517: The Constitutum Silvestri as SK1 (Silvester Konzil). The second revision, designated SK2, borrows elements from both SK1 and the pro-Laurentian Council of 275 Bishops , classified as LK (Laurentian Konzil). For example, the Laurentians forged two letters from the Council of Nicaea to Sylvester: the letter from the Council (LB) and Sylvester's answer (LA), which the Symmachian side then, stealing

825-682: The Constitutum Silvestri supposedly took place in 315 based on the similarities to the Council of the Twelve Jews used in the Acts of Sylvester . Francesco Scorza Barcellona makes the same connection to 315 in the entry for Sylvester in the Encyclopedia of the Popes (2000) . This would seem to be an unlikely assertion given the discrepancies in the day and month explicitly stated, in addition to

880-510: The Constitutum Silvestri , but in a stroke of rhetorical genius, they placed it shortly after the Council of Nicaea in 325. 'Some supporter of Laurentius, having read the Silvestri constitutum , chose the same method in answering it; but in doing this he pointed out to the assembled bishops that Symmachus, by holding Easter on the twenty-fifth of March, was running counter to the great council of Nicaea.' The Council of 275 Bishops opens, like

935-459: The Constitutum Silvestri , by stating that it was called by both Constantine and Sylvester, but no mention of leprosy and baptism was made. This subtle change gave the appearance that the pope, who had not attended this important council, had given his endorsement of the Nicene canons after the fact. Canon one gets straight to the point: 'Whatever is decided in Bithynia's Nicaea for the strength of

990-593: The Constitutum Silvestri , canon two moves on to the issue of the Easter calculation: 'It is prescribed to all bishops and priests that Easter should be celebrated from the 14th moon to the 21st, depending on how the Sunday shines.' Compare this with the Symmachian proclamation in both SK1 and SK2: 'he fixed April 22nd as a celebration.' Canon four, reflecting the fact that Theodoric , the Ostrogothic king, had called

1045-417: The Constitutum Silvestri , such as how many bishops attended, add to the conflation of the Constitutum Silvestri with the Council of 275 Bishops . The body of the text states 284 bishops ( ducentos octoginta quattuor episcopos ) attended the Constitutum Silvestri , but then the text goes on to list the attendees, which totals 275. The Council of 275 Bishops doesn't mention 284 in the text, nor does it list

1100-733: The Gothic King Theodoric the Great to arbitrate. He ruled that the one who was elected first and whose supporters were the most numerous should be recognized as pope. This was a purely political decision. An investigation favored Symmachus and his election was recognized as proper. However, an early document known as the "Laurentian Fragment" claims that Symmachus obtained the decision by paying bribes, while deacon Magnus Felix Ennodius of Milan later wrote that 400 solidi were distributed amongst influential personages, whom it would be indiscreet to name. Symmachus proceeded to call

1155-578: The Province of Salerno ). The synod also ordained that any cleric who sought to gain votes for a successor to the papacy during the lifetime of the pope, or who called conferences and held consultations for that purpose, should be deposed and excommunicated. In 501, the Senator Rufius Postumius Festus , a supporter of Laurentius, accused Symmachus of various crimes. The initial charge was that Symmachus celebrated Easter on

SECTION 20

#1732802361418

1210-506: The Constitutum Silvestri section below for a further discussion. More conflicting references began appearing as scholars started documenting the forgeries, which depended on what manuscript version they were working from and what access they had to clarifying information in their era. Presumably, Coustant (1654-1721) in his Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum (1721) started using the title of Council of 275 Bishops based on

1265-637: The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Mother Church of our holy 318 fellow Bishops, we affirm loudly and unanimously.' Interestingly, neither SK1 nor SK2 mention Nicaea which the consular dating puts before 325. Although, the associated letters of the SK2 revisions, SB and SA which mirror the Laurentian versions (LB and LA), do obviously refer to Nicaea and indicate the Symmachian faction used the same tactic of appropriating their opponents propaganda for their own purposes: (SK1 > LK/LB & LA > SB & SA). Like

1320-719: The Roman Synod III and served to provide the conclusion provided at Palmaris. A more productive achievement on the diplomatic front was to convince king Theodoric to intervene, conducted chiefly by two non-Roman supporters, the Milanese deacon Ennodius and the exiled deacon Dioscorus . At last Theodoric withdrew his support of Laurentius in 506, instructing Festus to hand over the Roman churches to Symmachus. In 513, Caesarius, bishop of Arles , visited Symmachus while being detained in Italy. This meeting led to Caesarius' receiving

1375-524: The attendees, it just states that 275 attended. A comparison of the three versions and related errors: Baths of Trajan (date) Baths of Trajan (date) changing usage in different sections of text Constantine & Prisco ( Crispus ) in their 3rd terms Paulinus & Julianus consuls Constantine 4th term & Prisco SK2: 4th term of Constantine & Licinius = 315, 1st term for Crispus = 318 Constantine's 8th & Constantine II's 4th = 329 See also notes for Mansi/Hefele See Dates in

1430-416: The authors of SK1 and SK2 were two different people, though the 'linguistic unity' across the five Symmachian forgeries indicates one person wrote them all, and that the authors of both versions worked in the 'Roman chancellery' despite Townsend's point on the shockingly bad Latin. Scholars speculate that Ennodius was the author of at least one of the Symmachian versions. One of the strongest attestations of

1485-535: The bishops assembled once again on 23 October 502 at a place known as Palma, and after reviewing the events of the previous two sessions decided that since the pope was the successor of Peter the Apostle , they could not pass judgment on him, and left the matter to God to decide. All who had abandoned communion with him were urged to reconcile with him, and that any clergy who celebrated mass in Rome without his consent in

1540-469: The case had already been decided before the evidence could be heard. Although the majority of the assembled bishops agreed with this, the Apostolic Visitor could not be made to withdraw without Theodoric's permission; this was not forthcoming. In response to this deadlock, rioting by the citizens of Rome increased, causing a number of bishops to flee Rome and the rest to petition Theodoric to move

1595-408: The charges Symmachus was facing. Townsend sums up the nature and intent of forgeries: . . . a forgery, is in most cases useless for the period to which it professes to belong, but it is often of great historical importance for the time in which it was actually written. If it does not give events as they really happened, it at least gives them as the writer would like them to have happened. Symmachus

1650-493: The confusion in discussing Sylvester's reply to the letter from the Council of Nicaea (SA), the Symmachian version that corresponds to the Laurentian Gaudeo promtam (LA). The dating clause refers to the supposed date the letter was written, rather than the date the council was held, which still would put it several years after Nicaea in 325. The five Symmachian forgeries dealt with issues confronting Symmachus during

1705-467: The confusion, the opponents of Symmachus reappropriated the Constitutum Silvestri and amended it in the service of their own political agenda, and is referred to by scholars as the Council of 275 Bishops . The most recent thorough scholarship on the Symmachian forgeries was done in German more than twenty-five years ago by Professor Eckhard Wirbelauer , who classifies the original pro-Symmachian version of

Constitutum Silvestri - Misplaced Pages Continue

1760-403: The decrees of Pope St. Symmachus. Regarding the Council of 275 Bishops , scholars think it may have been written by Dionysius Exiguus , or as Wirbelauer suggests, if not him then someone close to him. Townsend notes that the canons expressed in the Symmachian forgeries were not included by Dionysius in his collection compiled shortly after 502, which would make sense for him to exclude them if he

1815-426: The future should be punished as a schismatic. The resolutions were signed by 76 bishops, led by Laurentius of Milan and Peter of Ravenna. Despite the outcome of the synod, Laurentius returned to Rome, and for the next four years, according to the "Laurentian Fragment", he held its churches and ruled as pope with the support of the senator Festus. The struggle between the two factions was carried out on two fronts. One

1870-498: The legends contained within the Acts of Sylvester . Given that the story of Constantine being cured of leprosy by baptism do not emerge until decades after his death in 337, it would be impossible for this to be an accurate description of an actual event which occurred in his lifetime; further evidence of its fraudulent creation in the early sixth century. The Constitutum Silvestri issued eighteen canons—some sources state twenty given

1925-524: The number listed, and he was followed by Mansi (1692-1769) in his extensive chronicling of the Councils, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Vol.2, 1759), Hefele (1809-93) in his Conciliengeschichte (History of the Councils of the Church) which derived from Mansi, Duchesne (1843-1922) in his updated analysis of the Liber Pontificalis (1887), and Townsend. Mansi and Hefele perpetuate

1980-505: The principles put forth in SM, CS, and SX: the pope is above all others and therefore cannot himself be judged. Epistle 10: Epistle 26: 'The see of blessed Peter the Apostle…has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment.' Further, Wirbelauer also writes that 'SD II reformulates the rule already known from Gelasius (Ep. 15). Townsend notes that

2035-428: The requirement for seventy-two witnesses to convict a bishop. Canon eight states that priests who engage in sex must perform twelve years of penance—possibly a reference to one of the three charges against Symmachus for having improper relations with women. Canon eighteen prohibits a pope from designating his successor—something Symmachus had done following his contested election with Laurentius, allegedly to prevent such

2090-410: The rhetoric of the passage extends the violence to anyone who was a supporter of Symmachus, man or woman, cleric or layperson. It was unsafe for a cleric to walk about in Rome at night. At this point, the synod petitioned king Theodoric once again, asking permission to dissolve the meeting and return home. Theodoric replied, in a letter dated 1 October, that they must see the matter to a conclusion. So

2145-411: The role Ennodius played, comes from Pope Gregory VII himself who writes in principal twenty-three of his Dictatus papae , which specifically mentions the fictions surrounding Symmachus: The Roman Pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter, St. Ennodius Bishop of Pavia bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As it is contained in

2200-510: The synod opened in the Basilica of Santa Maria (Maggiore). It proved tumultuous. The session quickly deadlocked over the presence of a visiting bishop, Peter of Altina, who had been sent by Theoderic as Apostolic Visitor, at the request of Senators Festus and Probinus, the opponents of Symmachus. Symmachus argued that the presence of a visiting bishop implied the See of Rome was vacant, and the See could only be vacant if he were guilty—which meant

2255-515: The synod to Ravenna. King Theodoric refused their request to move the synod, ordering them instead to reconvene on 1 September. On 27 August the King wrote to the bishops that he was sending two of the Majores Domus nostrae , Gudila and Bedeulphus, to see to it that the synod assembled in safety and without fear. Upon reconvening, matters were no less acrimonious. First the accusers introduced

Constitutum Silvestri - Misplaced Pages Continue

2310-498: The synods to try Symmachus, states that clerics may not be tried in secular courts but only by the church—the Vatican still makes this claim today in regard to the global scandal of its priests sexually abusing minors, and only requiring that allegations be reported to superiors within the Church, and not to secular authority . However, unlike the Symmachian canons, no mention was made of pope's being above judgment, as in SM and SX, or of

2365-519: The text is divided into twenty chapters in most manuscripts, but the first two chapters are only narrative. As with the charges brought against Symmachus, two of the canons resolved the issues that dealt with Easter (canon 2) and accusations against a pope (canon 3), known as the Sylvestrian Accusatorial Canon: '. . . the supreme bishop should not be judged by anyone, since it is written ( Luke 6:40 ; Mathew 10:24 ): "No student

2420-425: The three pro-Laurentian forgeries, Quoniam omnia [LB – Wirbelauer classification], Gaudeo promtam [LA], and the Council (Assembly) of 275 Bishops [LK] are 'shorter and written in much better Latin' than the Symmachian forgeries, and while also focused on Sylvester, they are 'not favorable to Symmachus but to his accusers.' The pro-Laurentian faction reappropriated the idea of a council called by Sylvester used in

2475-412: The trials of clerics up to and including the pope. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the Constitutum Silvestri as there is more than one version, with significant differences, and multiple date references in the different versions and surviving manuscripts; these dating discrepancies are dealt with separately below, but the original version of the story most likely points to 324. Adding to

2530-429: The two other forgeries that directly relate to the Constitutum Silvestri : Acts/Deeds of Marcellino at the Council of Sinuessa (303): Pope Marcellinus (Marcellino, 296-304) supposedly admitted to making pagan sacrifices on the orders of Emperor Diocletian , but the Council 'declared that the pope had condemned himself, since no one had ever judged the pontiff, because the first see will not be judged by anyone.' This

2585-470: The urgings of deputations from the synod. The "Life of Symmachus", however, presents these killings as part of the street-fighting between the supporters of Senators Festus and Probinus on the one side, and Senator Faustus on the other. The attacks were directed particularly against clerics, including Dignissimus, a priest of San Pietro in Vincoli , and Gordianus, a priest of Santi Giovanni e Paolo , though

2640-543: The vastly different topics of discussion at each: Council of the Twelve Jews - 15 March in the year [315] Constantine and Licinius were in their fourth terms as consuls: Synod of Rome The Synod of Rome may refer to a number of synods or councils of the Roman Catholic Church, held in Rome . Some of these synods include: Pope Symmachus#Papacy Pope Symmachus (died 19 July 514)

2695-435: The wrong date . The king Theodoric summoned him to Ariminum to respond to the charge. The pope arrived only to discover a number of other charges, including unchastity and the misuse of church property, would also be brought against him. Symmachus panicked, fleeing from Ariminum in the middle of the night with only one companion. His flight proved to be a miscalculation, as it was regarded as an admission of guilt. Laurentius

2750-454: Was accused of celebrating Easter on the wrong date ('Symmachus had celebrated that festival in 501 on March 25, following the old Roman calendar'), misappropriation of Church property, and improper relations with women; it is debatable whether the charges were real or concocted by the Laurentian faction, but each of these three issues were covered independently in the forgeries covering Marcellino (SM), Sixtus (SX), and Sylvester (CS). Briefly, on

2805-625: Was baptised in Rome , where he became Archdeacon of the Roman Church under Pope Anastasius II (496–498). Symmachus was elected pope on 22 November 498 in the Constantinian basilica ( Saint John Lateran ). The archpriest of Santa Prassede , Laurentius , was elected pope on the same day at the Basilica of Saint Mary (presumably Saint Mary Major ) by a dissenting faction with Byzantine sympathies, who were supported by Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius . Both factions agreed to allow

SECTION 50

#1732802361418

2860-483: Was brought back to Rome by his supporters, but a sizeable group of the clergy, including most of the most senior clerics, withdrew from communion with him. A visiting bishop, Peter of Altinum , was appointed by Theodoric to celebrate Easter 502 and assume the administration of the See, pending the decision of a synod to be convened following Easter. Presided over by the other Italian metropolitans, Peter II of Ravenna, Laurentius of Milan , and Marcellianus of Aquileia,

2915-471: Was indeed the author of, or associated with the faction, that created the Laurentian forgeries. Professor Wirbelauer provides a side-by-side comparison of the Latin texts with German, and he puts the date of the Constitutum Silvestri (SK1 and SK2) at 324, while the Council of 275 Bishops deliberately used 325 as a means of retroactively providing Roman sanction for the Council of Nicaea, which Sylvester did not attend . Professor Tessa Canella suggests that

2970-583: Was the bishop of Rome from 22 November 498 to his death. His tenure was marked by a serious schism over who was elected pope by a majority of the Roman clergy. He was born on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia (then under Vandal rule), the son of Fortunatus; Jeffrey Richards notes that he was born a pagan, and "perhaps the rankest outsider" of all the Ostrogothic Popes , most of whom were members of aristocratic families. Symmachus

3025-479: Was through mob violence committed by supporters of each religious camp, and it is vividly described in the Liber Pontificalis . The other was through diplomacy, which produced a sheaf of forged documents, the so-called " Symmachian forgeries ", of judgments in ecclesiastical law to support Symmachus' claim that as pope he could not be called to account. The forgeries are speculated to have emerged during

#417582