The Church Fathers Library

Library › Anonymous works

Canons of the Second Council of Orléans

Concilium Aurelianense II

Written in 533, in Aurelianum (Cenabum), now Orléans, France.

Rules of a Frankish council against simony and on church order; the English is Hefele's summary.

Canons · first written in Latin

Translated by William R. Clark (1895). C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 4, English translation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895) Public domain. Source and rights

About this text (1 note)

- Orléans 2: ecf:record:e33a18a4-01dc-4839-9cea-0a894624f098, 0533_Canons_of_Orleans_II_Hefele.txt

How we know the date and place
Date written sure
C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 4 (English tr. 1895), sec. 247 (this is the corpus text)
June 533.
Place written sure
C. J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 4 (English tr. 1895), sec. 247 (this is the corpus text)

1,187 words. 21 sections.

Contents
  1. Opening
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. 13
  15. 14
  16. 15
  17. 16
  18. 17
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21

Opening

§ opening›

SEC. 247. Second Synod at Orleans, A.D. 533.

In the preface to the minutes of their Synod, the bishops who were present at the second Synod of Orleans declare that they had come together at the command of the glorious Kings, in order to take measures for the observance of the Catholic law. By that expression they understand the yet living sons of Chlodwig (Clovis) the Great, Childebert I., Chlotar (Lothaire) I., and Theoderic I.

A still closer indication of the time is contained in the subscription of the president of the Synod, Archbishop Honoratus of Bourges (Biturica), since it bears date, Die ix, Kal. Julias anno xxii. domni Childeberti regis. This means June 23, 533, as King Chlodwig died in November 5 II.1 From what has been said it may be seen, that we have here before us a kind of Prankish national Synod, since archbishops and bishops were present from the most different kingdoms and provinces. In the whole there were twenty- six prelates, and five priests as representatives of absent bishops. Besides Archbishop Honoratus of Bourges, who presided, we meet besides the Metropolitans Injuriosus of Tours, Flavius of Eouen, Aspasius of Eauze (Elosensis), and Julian of Vienne. Another archbishop was represented by the priest Orbatus. The following bishops also subscribed : — Leontius of Orleans, Eleutherius of Auxerre, Chronopius of Perigueux (Petricorium, in the province of Bordeaux, whose metropolitan was not present), Lupicinus of Angouleme (Ecolisma or Icolisma, also in the province of Bordeaux), Agrippinus of Autun (Civitas j&duorum, in the province of Lyons, whose metropolitan was not present), Otherius of Chartres (Carnutum), Eumerius of Nantes, Amelius of Paris, Sustratius of Cahors, Perpetuus of Avranches, Praesidius of Convenae (now S. Bertrand on the Garonne, in the province Elusa or Eauze), Passivius of Seez (Sagi), Proculcianus of Ausch (Auscii), and Lauto of Coutances

1 Cf. Pagi, ad ann. 514, n. 7-9, and ad ann. 536, n. 17. Baronius (ad ann. 514, n. 21, and 536, n. 124), Binius in Mansi (t. viii. p. 840), and Mansi (I.e.), by mistake transpose the death of Chlodwig to the year 514, and therefore our Synod to the year 536. Cf. the third Synod of Orleans (sec. 251, below), where the twenty-seventh year of Childebert is declared to be identical with the fourth year after the consulate of Paulinus the younger, i.e., with the year 538.

186 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.

(Coiistantid). Seven bishops : Importunus, Callistus, Marcus, Eusebius, Clarentius, Innocent, and Marcellus, did not append the names of their sees. The representatives of the absent, beside Orbatus already named, were the priests Asclepius for Bishop Adelphius of Poitiers (instead of Eauracensi we should read Ratiatensi, i.e. Pictaviensi, as Sirmond remarked), Lawrence for Bishop Gallus of Clermont in Auvergne, Eledius for Bishop Sebastius, and Prsesidonius for Bishop Artemius. The sees of the last two are not named.1

The Synod drew up twenty-one canons as follows : —

1

‹§ 1›

1. No bishop must be absent from the Council or from the consecration of a bishop (in his province).

2

‹§ 2›

2. A provincial Council shall be held annually.

3

‹§ 3›

3. No bishop must receive anything for the consecration of another bishop, or of any other cleric.

4

‹§ 4›

4. If anyone has obtained the priesthood for money, he must be deposed.

5

‹§ 5›

5. If a bishop is invited to bury a colleague, he must not seek to free himself by false subterfuges. He must demand nothing but his expenses for his trouble.

6

‹§ 6›

6. When he comes to the burial, he must call the priests, enter with them the church house (the bishop's residence), take an inventory of all that is there, and intrust some responsible person with the care of it.

7

‹§ 7›

7. In regard to the ordination of a metropolitan, the manner which has gone out of use shall be re-established. After the metropolitan has been elected by the com- provincial bishops, the clergy (of his diocese) and (vel)2 the laity, he shall be ordained by all the assembled bishops.

8

‹§ 8›

8. If a deacon is brought into captivity, and during this time marries, he must, after his return, be deposed from all ministry in the Church. Yet, if he has done penance for his offence, he may again receive the communion.

9

‹§ 9›

9. No priest may, without permission of the bishop, live

1 Archbishops and bishops subscribed after one another, without regard to the rank of the churches. So at the Synod of Clermont, A.D. 535. Cf. Remi Ceillier, I.e. t. xvi. p. 712.

2 In later Latin vel is often used. Cf. Du Cange, Glossar. s.v. vel.

SECOND SYNOD AT ORLEANS, A.D. 533. 187

with people of the world. If he nevertheless does so, he must be excluded ab officii communione.1

10

‹§ 10›

10. No one must marry his stepmother.

11

‹§ 11›

11. Matrimonial contracts (matrimonia contracta),i$. sick- ness happens, may not be given up at the will (of the parties).

12

‹§ 12›

12. If anyone has made a vow to sing, or to drink, or to do anything else improper in the church, he must not keep it ; for by such vows God is rather offended than pleased by their observance.2

13

‹§ 13›

13. Abbots, martyrarii,3 monks, and priests must exhibit no apostolia (letters of peace).

14

‹§ 14›

14. Clerics who neglect their office, and do not come to church when duty requires, must be deprived of the dignity of their office.

15

‹§ 15›

15. For those who are executed for any crime oblationes defmictorum may be allowed, but not for suicides.

16

‹§ 16›

16. No one must be ordained priest or deacon, if he has no education, or does not understand how to baptize.

17

‹§ 17›

17. Women who, in opposition to the canons (sec. 231), have received the benediction as deaconesses, if they marry again, must be excommunicated. If, at the admonition of the bishop, they give up such a union, they may, after undergoing penance, be admitted to communion again,

1 8. To no woman must henceforth the lenedictio diaconalis be given, because of the weakness of the sex.

19

‹§ 19›

19. No Christian must marry a Jewess, and conversely. If any such union has been accomplished, it must be dissolved on pain of excommunication.

20

‹§ 20›

20. Catholics who return to the worship of idols or eat food offered to idols, must be dismissed from Church member- ship. So also with those who eat of animals which have died, or which have been killed by other animals.

1 The expression communio ojficii I have found nowhere else, not even in Du Cange, and none of those who treat of this Synod has given an explanation of it. It certainly means : such an one shall not be excommunicated, but from the exercise of the priestly office ; he shall have no more part in priestly functions.

2 These were pagan and superstitious vows.

3 The martyrarius is the custos martyrii, i.e. the church of a martyr. Cf. Du Cange, s.v. Afartyrarius ; and Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, under Apostolium and Martyrium.

188 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.

21

‹§ 21

21. Abbots who despise the prescriptions of the bishops, must not be allowed at communion. Bishops, however, who do iiot regard these canons, must know that they will be responsible before God and their brethren.1