Catholic Encyclopedia
Church Fathers
Classics Library
Church Documents
Prayer Requests
Ray of Hope
Social Doctrine

A Manual Of Councils Of The Holy Catholic Church -Rev. Edward H. Landon. M.A.

BADAM (1014). See C. HABAM, A.D. 1014.

BAMBERG (1011). [Concilium Bambergense.] Held May 6, 1011, by the Emperor St Henry for the dedication of the Church of Saints Peter and George. Forty-six bishops attended. Theodoric of Luxemburg was suspended from the exercise of his episcopal functions until he had cleared himself of the charge preferred against him, of having attained his see by unlawful means.—Tom. ix. Conc.

BARCELONA (599). [Concilium Barcinonense.] Held November 1, 599, in the church of the Holy Cross, at which twelve bishops of the province of Tarragona were present, Asiaticus of Tarragona presiding; they drew up four canons, of which the first two relate to the crime of simony; the third forbids the elevation of a lay person to a bishopric, the king’s mandate notwithstanding; the fourth condemns the marriage of virgins consecrated to the service of God, and of penitents of either sex.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1605.

BARCELONA (1068). Held in 1068, by the legate, Cardinal Hugo the White. Raymond, Count of the principality, being well inclined to do away with the use of the Gothic office within his dominions, according to the wish of Pope Alexander II. (being warmly urged to it by his wife, Adalmodis, a Frenchwoman), Hugo called together this council, at which all the bishops and abbots of the principality were present. They agreed unanimously to exchange the use of the Gothic office for the Roman; and further decreed that, in future, the clergy should live in perpetual continence, and that they should not be married, as had hitherto been permitted.—Pagi.

BARI (1097). [Concilium Barense.] Held in October 1097, by Pope Urban II., at the head of one hundred and eighty-three bishops. Here, the question of the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches was discussed. Amongst other things, the Greeks, endeavouring to prove, from the Holy Scriptures, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father only, were answered by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, who showed so clearly the truth of his procession from the Father and the Son, that the council pronounced anathema against all who should deny it; at his entreaty, moreover, the sentence of excommunication against William Rufus, his persecutor, was delayed.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 611.

BASLE (1431). [Concilium Basiliense.] Held in the year 1431. This council, convoked by Martin V. to assemble at Pavia, was transferred thence to Sienna, and afterwards from Sienna to Basle. Eugene IV., his successor, confirmed his injunction for the meeting of the council at Basle, and also the privilege which had been conferred upon the Cardinal Julian of presiding at it. The two principal objects of this council were the restoration of union between the Greek and Roman Churches, and the general reformation of the Church, both in its head and in its members, according to the plan suggested in the Council of Constance.

The council was opened on the 23rd of July. The bishops who attended were divided into four classes: each class was composed of cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, curates, and doctors, both secular and regular, as well in theology as in the canon law, taken indifferently from any nation or province; and in order that the numbers in each class might be kept the same, four persons were appointed, whose duty it was to distribute equally amongst them all new comers. Liberty was given to the classes to discuss the questions proposed to them, separately or together. They met in the chapter-house of the cathedral church, and there it was open to each member to say whatever he thought good upon the matter in debate, the conclusion arrived at being afterwards reported to the general council, which sat in the cathedral, and which passed the final judgment. As the Italian bishops were far more numerous than those from any other country, by a prudent regulation they were prevented from caballing together, and so hindering or retarding, by their numbers, that Church reform which was a chief object of the council. In the

First session, December 7, 1431, Cardinal Julian delivered an address, in which he exhorted those present to lead a pure and holy life, to have charity one towards another, and to labour together for the good of the Church. Then the decree of the Council of Constance, concerning the celebration of a general council after five and after seven years, was read, together with the bull of Martin V. convoking the council, in which he named Julian president, also the letter of Eugene IV. to the latter upon the subject; afterwards the six objects proposed in assembling the council were enumerated,—

1.              The extirpation of heresy.

2.              The reunion of all Christian persons with the Catholic Church.

3.              To afford instruction in the true faith.

4.              To appease the wars between Christian princes.

5.              To reform the Church in its head and in its members.

6.              To re-establish, as far as possible, the ancient discipline of the Church.

In this session the decrees of Constance against those who should trouble the council by secret intrigues or open violence, were renewed. Lastly, they made a decree to the effect that the holy Council of Basle was lawfully assembled, and that it was the duty of all prelates to attend it. In this session the notaries, promoters, and other officers of the council, were appointed.

In the interval between the first and second sessions, as it appeared that the pope was doing his utmost to dissolve the council, measures were taken to prevent him. The French bishops, in an assembly at Bourges, represented to Charles VII., that the council was lawfully convoked to Basle, and entreated him to prevail upon the pope to permit the council to proceed, and to allow the prelates of his kingdom to attend, which was done according to their request.

In the second session, held February 15 (14th—Martene), 1432, two decrees, made in the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance, were confirmed, and two new decrees enacted.

In the first it is declared, that the synod, being assembled in the name of the Holy Spirit, and representing the Church militant, derives its power directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, and that all persons, of whatever rank or dignity, not excepting the Roman pontiff himself, are bound to obey it in all matters relating to the faith, the extirpation of schism, and the general reform of the Church, both in its chief and in its members.

In the second decree, the council declares that any person, of whatsoever rank or condition, not excepting the pope, who shall refuse to obey the laws and decrees of this or of any other general council, shall be put to penance and punished.

The occasion of this decree was the news that Pope Eugene had issued a decree for the dissolution of the council, upon the pretext that the union of the Greek and Latin Churches required that the council should be delayed. Upon this subject Cardinal Julian wrote two letters to Eugene, to induce him not to dissolve the council; in them he entirely refutes the pretence of the pope, that the council was not lawfully called; he shows him that no one could gainsay the authority of the Council of Basle, without at the same time impugning that of the Council of Constance, which no one questioned, for in that case the deposition of John the Twenty-third would be uncanonical; and consequently, all subsequent elections to the papal chair null and void, including, necessarily, his own. He further shows him, that he had no power to dissolve the council, it having been already determined in the Council of Constance that the pope is subject to the decrees of a general council in all matters relating to the faith, the extinction of schism, and the reformation of the Church in its head and in its members; that, in consequence, the council being superior to the pope in these three cases, Eugene must submit to the council in the same.

The council, seconding the views of Julian, gave a synodal answer to the pope’s legates, in which they lay down the same principles, and support them by solid arguments, thus:—First, that no person can dispute the authority of the Church; or that all that she receives ought to be received by all the faithful; or that she alone enjoys the privilege of infallibility; therefore she alone can make laws binding universally upon all the faithful. Secondly, that œcumenical councils have an authority equal to that of the Church itself; because they, in fact, represent the Catholic Church, which derives its power directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, as is expressly declared by the Council of Constance; therefore œcumenical councils are infallible, since they are, in fact, the Church itself. Thirdly, that the pope, although the chief minister of the Church, is not above the whole mystical body, since the mystical body cannot err in matters of faith, whilst experience shows that the pope, albeit the head of the body, can err. Moreover, the Church, the mystical body, has on several occasions deposed popes when convicted of error in faith; whilst, on the contrary, no pope has ever pretended to excommunicate or condemn the Church as a body. These arguments had little effect upon Eugene, who persisted in his wish to dissolve the council, which, on its part, made it a duty to oppose its authority to that of the pope.

Decrees were also published in the second session, forbidding to hinder in any way those coming to or present at the council; and forbidding those present to leave it without leave.

In the third session, April 29, 1432, it was enacted (amongst other things), that the council lawfully assembled, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and having all the authority of an œcumenical council, did warn, entreat, implore, and require the Pope Eugene to revoke, absolutely and entirely, the decree which he had executed for the dissolution of the said council; and to present himself at it within three months, his health permitting, or to send accredited persons who might act in his name. In case he should neglect to comply with this requisition, the council further declared, that they would proceed to take measures for the welfare of the Church according as the Holy Spirit should dictate to them.

In the fourth session, June 20, 1432, a safe conduct was granted to such Bohemians as should be sent to the council, the council guaranteeing the safety of as many under two hundred as chose to attend. A letter was also written to congratulate them upon the resolution they had formed in the city of Ægra to send deputies to the council, which gave reason to hope for a speedy reunion. As the Pope Eugene was then sick, the council made a decree to the effect, that, in the event of a vacancy in the holy see, the cardinals should not proceed to the election anywhere save in the council itself; and, further, that during the sitting of the council, the pope should not be permitted to advance any one to the rank of cardinal, the number of these being already a burden upon the Church; that should he do so, notwithstanding this decree, the election should be considered null and void. Also, that no person should be excused from attending the council upon the plea of an oath or promise made to the pope, all such oaths and promises being declared to be not binding.

In the fifth session, August 9, 1432, three judges were appointed for the examination of questions relating to the faith, prior to the final judgment of the council, and three other bishops to take cognizance of all other matters brought before the council, not being matters of faith.

In the interval, between the fifth and sixth sessions, two congregations were held, in which audience was given to the four legates of the Pope Eugene—John, Archbishop of Tarentum; Andrew, Archbishop of Colosse (or Rhodes), Bertrand, Bishop of Maguelona, and Antonio de St Vitus. The Archbishop of Tarentum magnified the authority of the pope, pretending that he alone possessed the right to appoint the time, place, and celebrations of councils, and offering any place within the states of the Church that they might choose. The council, in reply, stated, that to wish to dissolve a council lawfully called, was, in fact, to desire to renew a schism in the Church; that those who acted so grieved the Holy Spirit, and drove Him from their heart, in breaking the only bond which can retain Him, viz., charity.

In the sixth session, September 6, 1432, as the pope had neither revoked the bull for the dissolution of the council, nor appeared in person nor by deputy, the promoters of the council required that he should be formally declared contumacious; after that the citation had been three times made at the door of the cathedral, but at the entreaty of the four legates this was deferred.

In the seventh session, November 6, 1432, the former decree of the council, made in the fourth session, concerning an election to the popedom in case of a vacancy, which enacted, that it should not be lawful for the cardinals to proceed to the election of a pope without the consent of the council, was renewed.

In the eighth session, December 18, 1432, it was agreed that the pope should be proceeded against canonically, in order to declare him contumacious, and to visit him with the canonical penalty; two months’ delay, however, being granted him within which to revoke his bull for the dissolution, but if at the end of that period he should still remain contumacious, that he should be at once proceeded against without further citation. A decree was made by which the council declared that since the holy Catholic Church is one (that being an article of faith), it is impossible that there can be, at the same time, more than one œcumenical council representing the holy Catholic Church; and, accordingly, that whilst the council continued its sitting at Basle, it was impossible that another should assemble elsewhere; that any such pretended council would be a schismatical assembly, and all persons present at it, ipso facto, excommunicated; and, if incumbents, deprived of their benefices.

The deputies being now arrived from the Bohemians, they presented to the council, on the 16th January 1433, four articles, by which they demanded,—First, the liberty to administer the holy Eucharist to all the faithful in both kinds. Secondly, that all mortal sin, and especially open sin, should be repressed, corrected, and punished, according to God’s law, by those to whom it belonged to do so. Thirdly, that the Word of God should be preached faithfully and freely by the priests and by such deacons as were fit for it. Fourthly, that it should not be permitted to the clergy to possess authority in temporal matters.

In these four points, they declared, were comprised all in which they differed from their Catholic brethren; and that if their wishes were so far acceded to, they were ready to return into union with the Church, and to obey their lawful superiors. These four articles having been examined in a congregation, it was decided to send deputies into Bohemia, viz., Philibert, Bishop of Constance; Peter of Augsburg; John de Polemar; Frederick Prasperger of Ratisbon; Ægidius Carlerius; Alexander Sparuc, an Englishman; &c., &c.

In the ninth session, January 22, 1433, the council, in order to testify their satisfaction at the conduct of the Emperor Sigismund, who, by his letters-patent, had declared to all his subjects that the holy council of Basle was under his protection, and that he would not permit its authority to be in any manner impugned, declared that whatever the pope might do against him should be considered null and void.

In a general congregation, held January 28, the legates proposed to the council twenty-eight articles containing the various false doctrines said to be held at the time in Bohemia. Amongst them were the following:—

1. That the substance of the bread and wine remained after consecration.

3. That Christ is not in the Sacrament by a real Corporeal Presence.

4. That water is not on any account to be mixed with the wine.

5. That the Sacraments of confirmation and extreme unction are useless.

6. That confession to the priest is unnecessary for a penitent.

10. That there is no purgatory after this life.

11. That prayer for the dead is vain.

12. That the saints are not to be prayed to, and that their suffrages cannot assist men.

13. That images and relics ought to be broken and burnt.

14. That the Church fasts and festivals are not to be observed.

17. That no one can be a civil magistrate or prelate whilst in mortal sin.

18. That the people may punish and depose their magistrates.

20. That all things happen by an absolute necessity.

23. That universities, studies, colleges, &c., are the introduction of the devil.

24. That no one need care for excommunication by a pope or bishop.

27. That the Holy Catholic Church is the whole body of the predestinated.

28. That ecclesiastical obedience is an unscriptural invention of the priests.

“The council also required the ambassadors of the Bohemians to reply to six queries, the last of which was, “Whether they held him to be a heretic whosoever should obstinately impugn these councils, viz., those of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, which the Universal Church holds in equal veneration with the four Gospels.”—Mart. Vet. Scrip., 8 250.

In the tenth session, February 19, 1433, the promoters of the council required that Pope Eugene should be declared contumacious, on account of his obstinacy, in not revoking the bull for the dissolution of the council. Some time was consumed in deliberating upon this point; fresh endeavours were made to persuade Eugene to concede, and the emperor united his entreaties to those of Julian. Other princes, amongst whom was the King of France, gave public tokens of their resolution to protect the council.

In the eleventh session, April 27, 1433, it was resolved, that if the pope should neglect to convoke a council every ten years, according to the decree made in the thirty-ninth session of the Council of Constance, the right of calling the council should devolve upon the bishops, without any obligation to demand permission of the pope. It was also declared, that the absolute prohibition to prorogue a council signified in these words—“nullatenus prorogetur,” by the Council of Constance, was binding upon the pope, and that, consequently, a council once assembled could neither be prorogued, transferred, nor interrupted by the pope, unless two-thirds of the fathers composing it should consent.

Eugene, however, was now willing to send legates to the council to preside at it in his name, but the council refused to admit them; because, as they stated, the pope had given to them such unlimited powers, that if they should think fit to object to any conclusion or enactment of the council, it would be thereby rendered null and void; whereas, the council maintained that not only the presidents but the pope himself was subject to the council. Besides, they maintained, the legates came rather to hold a new council than to confirm that which was actually sitting; since Eugene had refused to recognize it from the time of its assembling at Basle.

In the twelfth session, July 14, 1433, complaint was made of the bad faith of the pope, whose conduct tended to lower the authority of councils; by a decree, he was required to renounce within sixty days his design of transferring the council from Basle, upon pain of being pronounced contumacious. The election of prelates was declared to be free, as established by the holy apostles, and confirmed by the first council of Nicea; in consequence the pope was forbidden to reserve to himself the reversion to any ecclesiastical preferments beyond those which are contained in the rights of the Roman see, or which are situated in the lands dependent upon the Church of Rome; seeing that by reason of the vast increase of these reservations every day the right of election was in a fair way of being in the end annihilated. The same decree enjoins those to whom the privilege of electing belongs to make choice of fit persons, viz., persons of mature age, of good report, and already in holy orders. It further forbids all simoniacal elections, pronounces them absolutely void, and deprives of the right of voting at any future election those who have been guilty of such practices. It, moreover, exhorts princes to abstain from all interference in elections, and to do nothing to bar their freedom.

The Pope Eugene, irritated by these proceedings on the part of the council, issued a bull, annulling all their decrees against himself, and especially the first of this session.

In the thirteenth session, September 11, 1433, the promoters of the council demanded that Eugene should be declared contumacious, the two months’ grace granted to him having expired; however, at the solicitation of the Duke of Bavaria in the name of the emperor, the term was extended thirty days.

In the fourteenth session, November 6, 1433, the Emperor Sigismund was present in person: a new delay of three months was granted to the pope, on condition that he would within that time give in his adherence to the council, and revoke everything that he had done either for its dissolution or transfer, as well as against the decree of the twelfth session, and that by a distinct and unequivocal act, of which they drew up three forms for his use.

In the fifteenth session, November 25, 1433, the emperor was again present: various rules for the convocation of diocesan councils were drawn up; amongst others it was ruled that they should be assembled twice, or at the least once, in each year; that all present at them should be exhorted to lead a life suited to the holiness of their calling, to instruct the people on every Sunday and festival; to read the canons concerning the due administration of the sacraments, and to inform themselves concerning the lives and conduct of their clergy.

The Pope Eugene having, at the earnest solicitation of the emperor, promised to unite with the council, upon condition that they would revoke all their past acts against him, they were, on their part, anxious to make the most of his improved feeling towards them; accordingly, the ambassadors of the King of France and of the Duke of Burgundy, were sent to him to conclude the terms of accommodation which had been proposed. In the end, the pope chose four cardinals to preside with Julian at the council; he revoked all the bulls which he had issued for his dissolution, and published one according to the form sent him by the council. [Session xiv.] It was to the effect, that, although he had broken up the Council of Basle lawfully assembled, nevertheless, in order to appease the disorders which had arisen, he declared the council to have been lawfully continued from its commencement, and that it would be so to the end; that he approved of all that it had ordered and decided, and that he declared the bull for its dissolution, which he had issued, to be null and void; thus, as M. Bossuet observes, setting the council above himself, since, in obedience to his order, he revoked his own decree, made with all the authority of his see.

In the sixteenth session, February 5, 1434, the letters of Eugene approving of the council and revoking the dissolution which he had decreed, were read, the Emperor Sigismund being present. On the 24th of April, a congregation was held for the sake of incorporating the pope’s legates with the council.

In the seventeenth session, April 26, 1434, the legates were made to swear that they would labour faithfully to advance the honour of the council, and that they would observe all the decrees of the Council of Constance, especially those of the fourth and fifth sessions; it was further declared that they should not be permitted to preside, except upon the condition that they would admit their authority to be derived solely from the council, “without any co-active jurisdiction,” and would bind themselves to give their conclusions in strict conformity with the decisions of the council; and a decree was made to the effect, that in case the legates should refuse to pronounce what had been agreed upon by the council, the right of making the declaration should devolve upon the bishop who should sit next to them; for this reason that the laws passed in a general council derive their authority solely from the council itself, and that the right to preside and to pronounce the judgment of the council, which the legates of the pope asserted, is but honorary.

Alexander, in his eighth dissertation upon the Council of Basle, remarks, concerning this subject, that although the pope has greater authority than any one else in the council, presiding in person or by his legates, explaining its decrees, ordering their execution, &c., yet it by no means follows that the authority of an œcumenical council is so dependent upon him, that he can at will change or annul its decrees; that his authority has no force without the concurrence of all the other members of the council, and that the binding authority of the resolutions made in council by no means arises from the authority of the Roman pontiff, but depends solely upon the unanimous consent of the fathers present, the pope himself included. This is allowed by the Pope St Leo in his letter to the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, as Cardinal Cuza remarks in his third book, De Concord. Cath. c. 5.

In the eighteenth session, June 27, 1434, the emperor was not present, having left Basle. The fourth and fifth canons of Constance were renewed. John, Patriarch of Antioch, laid a paper before the council, tending to establish the authority of œcumenical councils and their superiority over the popes.

Between the eighteenth and nineteenth sessions, i.e., on the 30th July, a letter was received from John and Esaias, two Armenian bishops, concerning the union of the Churches of Rome and Armenia, which is given by Martene in his Vet. Script. Coll., 8. 640.

In the nineteenth session, September 7, 1434, the Greek ambassadors, whom the Emperor John Paleologus had sent, were present. Several matters in which they were concerned were discussed; various means were proposed to facilitate the holding a council of the two churches. It was determined to send legates to Constantinople, in order to induce the Greeks to agree to the city of Basle as the place of meeting, and to offer them money and four large ships to enable them to come there; and, moreover, two more armed ships for the defence of Constantinople against the Turks during the emperor’s absence. Also, a decree was made in which all ordinaries were exhorted to send fit persons to preach the word of God amongst the Jews and infidels, and that for this purpose there should be appointed in all universities two professors of the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and Chaldee languages.

In the twentieth session, January 22, 1435, the subject under consideration was the reformation of the Church in its head and in its members. A decree was directed against the incontinence of the clergy, viz., against those who were living openly in a state of concubinage, to the effect that such, upon conviction, should lose the fruits of their benefices for three months; should they refuse to obey, they were to be declared incapable of holding any benefice in future; should they relapse after having been restored, and after having given tokens of amendment, they were to be declared incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity, without hope of the sentence being revoked. The second decree referred to the case of excommunicated persons, and declared that no one, whoever he might be, should be shunned as excommunicated, even in the administration of the sacraments, on account of any general sentence or censure, but only when the sentence was directed against him individually, pronounced by a competent judge, and specially notified to him.

In the twenty-first session, June 9, 1435, a decree was made against the annates or first-fruits, the origin of which dates no further back than the time of Clement V. The council declared that, as far as the court of Rome is concerned, in the confirmation of elections, in all grants, collations, and presentations made by the laity, in investitures to all cathedral churches, and other dignities and benefices, no sort of remuneration whatever should be made on account of bulls, seals, or common first-fruits, notwithstanding any custom or privilege to the contrary whatsoever. In a word, the council absolutely forbad the payment of first-fruits under pain of incurring the penalties of simony; and it added, further, this clause, that if (which God forbid!) the Roman pontiff, who ought to set an example to all others of obedience to the decrees of œcumenical councils, should offend the Church by doing anything contrary to this present ordinance, he should be brought before a general council.

The pope remonstrated with the council on this subject, and declared that he was willing to abolish the first-fruits, if the council would bind itself to provide for the necessities of the holy see. To this the Cardinal Julian answered, that in the primitive ages of the Church the popes abounded in works of charity without receiving any such revenue as the first-fruits; that the council would provide for the wants of the holy see, if the pope, on his part, would observe the decrees of the council; that the intention of the decree against first-fruits was simply to put an end to simony. The third decree related “Pacificis possessoribus,” and enacts that those who have been in peaceable possession of a benefice for three years, having been inducted upon a lawful title, may not be disturbed in their possession. The fourth decree related to the celebration of divine service. It was ordered that service should be said at suitable and convenient hours; that notice should be given beforehand by the tolling of a bell; that the service should be chanted gravely and decorously, with proper pauses, &c.; that all persons should stand during the Gloria Patri, and should bow at the sacred name of Jesus. Several other decrees upon the same subjects were made.

In the twenty-second session, October 15, 1435, a book written by a Roman monk was condemned for containing certain propositions, which attributed to the human nature of our Lord what rightly belongs only to the Divine nature.

In the twenty-third session, March 25, 1436, several regulations were made relating to the election and the profession of faith of the sovereign pontiff. The council then, in order to put into execution the acts of the Council of Constance relating to the cardinals, proceeded to reduce their numbers to twenty-four; it also regulated the manner of their election, in order to secure its freedom. It declared to be null and void all promises of reversions to ecclesiastical preferments, mandates and reservations of benefices, made by the popes for their own profit. All these decrees were made in proper canonical form, and declared in open council.

In the twenty-fourth session, April 14, 1436, the legates of the pope urged the council, on the part of Eugene, to make selection, as soon as it could be done, of some other place in which to assemble, promising on his part sixty thousand crowns to defray the expenses of the Emperor of the Greeks and his suite, if they would make choice of a place which he could approve. They also complained bitterly of the decrees concerning elections and first-fruits. In answer to these complaints, it was stated that all had been done in order.

Between the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth sessions a congregation was held, at which as many as three hundred and fifty-seven prelates were present (as Panormitanus (Nicolo Tedeschi) declares in his history of the council), of whom many more than two-thirds signified their opinion that the council should continue at Basle, if such a course would be pleasing to the Greeks, but that if not, they should endeavour to make them consent to Avignon, or, as a last resource, have recourse to Savoy, which was one of the places which the Greeks themselves had named. In consequence of this determination, the council sent two deputies to Pope Eugene to entreat him earnestly to concur with them in the great work they had at heart, viz., the reunion of the Greek and Roman Churches. The deputies, upon their arrival at Rome, besought the pope to go in person to the council.

The legates of the pope, on the other side, used all their endeavours to sow dissensions amongst the fathers of the council, and to induce the majority to demand that the council for considering the matter of a reunion should be holden at Florence, or at Modena, or at some other city in Italy in which the pope was all-powerful; they had, however, no success, for although they gained over a few, more than two-thirds of those assembled held to the original decree.

In the twenty-fifth session, May 7, 1437, a decree was drawn up enacting that the œcumenical council, for considering the matter of the reunion of the Greek and Roman Churches, should be held either at Basle or at Avignon; and that all ecclesiastics should pay a tenth of their revenue to defray the needful expenses attending the holding of the council. It is undoubtedly true, that Basle was too far distant from the Greeks; but the fathers of the council, who had little faith in the pope, feared lest Eugene, under pretence of transferring, should endeavour a second time to dissolve it, or at least remove it to some place in which all liberty of deliberation would be taken away from them; they offered to consent to the transfer of the council from Basle to Avignon, or to some city in Savoy, because in that case they would have had the protection of France, which was favourable to them, and close at hand. Such was the ground of all the disputes between the pope and the council.

In this session two opinions divided the members of the council; one party, and that by far the most numerous, was for holding the council at Avignon, the other for transferring it to Florence; and, although in a minority, they, in concert with the pope’s legates, made a decree in the name of the council removing it to that city. Immediately Eugene confirmed this decree by a bull which transferred the council to Ferrara, and in order to prevent them from continuing to sit at Basle, he fitted out some galleys at Venice in opposition to those which the council were about to send in order to convey the Greeks. The Greek ambassadors embarking in these vessels, with three legates, whom the pope sent into the East, arrived at Constantinople before the deputies from the council; and in consequence, when the galleys of the council shortly after came, the Emperor of the Greeks refused to embark in them. The fathers at Basle, being informed of this conduct on the part of Eugene, resolved to oppose him with their whole power. The Cardinal Julian, however, withdrew from it in consequence of their refusal to follow his advice, which was to send legates to meet the Greeks who had arrived at Venice, and to endeavour to bring them to Basle.

In the twenty-sixth session, July 31, 1437, the council published a decree, in which, after enumerating all that they had done during six years for the reformation of the Church, and which Eugene had done all in his power to thwart, they summoned him to appear before them, either in person or by deputy, within sixty days. Eugene, however, far from submitting to the will of the council, published a bull for its translation or dissolution, forbidding the enactment of any synodal act within that city under the heaviest penalties after the expiration of thirty days, which time was to be employed in treating with the Bohemian ambassadors who were present at the council. At the same time, he summoned a council to Ferrara, to which he invited the whole of Christendom: this convocation was ill received in France, and the king, Charles VII., forbad the French bishops to attend.

In the twenty-seventh session, September 26, 1437, the creation of two cardinals by the pope, without the consent of the council, was declared to be null and void.

In the twenty-eighth session, October 1, 1437, the sixty days given to the pope in which to appear before the council having expired without any one appearing in his behalf, he was declared contumacious, and it was resolved that he should be proceeded against.

In the twenty-ninth session, October 12, 1437, the bull of the pope for the transfer of the council to Ferrara was refuted by strong arguments. It was shown that the city of Avignon was convenient for the reception of the Greeks, being near the sea, and moreover had been agreed to already both by the Greeks and Eugene, who had himself approved of fitting out galleys at Avignon, which should wait for the Greeks there, but had, nevertheless, without consulting the council, sent other galleys to Constantinople to anticipate those of the council; that this division could only serve to scandalise the Greeks and to foment the schism.

It was after this session that the pope held his council at Ferrara: and that Cardinal Julian, according to some, left this council.

In the thirtieth session, December 23, 1437, a decree was made upon the subject of the communion in both kinds; it was declared that none of the faithful (not being priests) are bound by any Divine precept to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under both kinds; that it may not be doubted that Jesus Christ is entire under each kind, and that the custom of granting to the laity the communion in one kind only is to be considered as a law, which no one may condemn or alter without the Church’s sanction.

In the thirty-first session, January 24, 1438, two decrees were made, one enacting that all causes ecclesiastical should be terminated on the spot, and forbidding an appeal to the pope, to the exclusion of the ordinary. The second revokes all promises of reversions to ecclesiastical preferments, either already given, or which might be given in future, permitting the pope to appoint to one benefice in churches where there are ten prebends, and to two in churches having fifty: it also enacts that there shall be a theological professor in every cathedral church, who shall be a canon either B.D. or D.D., having studied for ten years in some privileged university; that in every cathedral or collegiate church the third part of the prebends shall be given to graduates, either doctors, or licentiates, or bachelors in some faculty; that the curates of walled towns must have proceeded to the degree of M.A. at least; and that the benefices of regulars shall be given to regulars.

Further, the council declared the Pope Eugene contumacious, suspended him from the exercise of all jurisdiction either temporal or spiritual, and pronounced all that he should do to be null and void.

At this time the Cardinal of Arles presided.

In the thirty-second session, March 29, 1438, the council denounced the assembly at Ferrara as schismatical and not worthy to be called a council. At the same time, they annulled all that had been done there, and excommunicated Eugene and all who attended it. They drew up eight articles against Eugene, which declare it to be a Catholic verity that a general council is superior to a pope, and that it cannot be transferred or dissolved but with its own consent.

In the thirty-third session, May 16, 1439, only about twenty bishops and abbots were present, a great number of prelates having by degrees withdrawn from the council; their places, however, were supplied by their deputies—archdeacons, priors, doctors, &c., to the number of four hundred. They established by a decree, and as articles of faith, these three propositions: 1. That it is a Catholic verity that a general council has authority over the pope as well as all others. 2. That a general council, lawfully called, can neither be dissolved, nor transferred, nor prorogued by the pope’s authority without the consent of the council itself 3. That whosoever shall obstinately resist these verities is to be regarded as a heretic.

A general congregation was then held, in which they took measures for deposing the pope. In this year Panormitanus, the King of Sicily’s theologian and the most noted canonist of his time, composed his treatise concerning the authority of the Council of Basle; in which he endeavours to show, 1st, that the council was truly an œcumenical council; 2ndly, that it possessed the power of citing Eugene, and of proceeding against him; 3rdly, that the council had done nothing against him but what was just. However, he showed himself afterwards to be not a little changeable in his opinions.

In the thirty-fourth session, June 25, 1439, thirty-nine prelates were present, and three hundred ecclesiastics of the second order. Eugene was cited a second time, and declared to be contumacious: then they pronounced sentence of deposition against him, making use of the strongest possible terms. France, England, and Germany disapproved of this sentence.

In the thirty-fifth session, July 2, 1439, it was debated whether they should proceed at once to the election of a new pope, and it was finally resolved that they should wait for two months.

In the thirty-sixth session, September 17, 1439, a decree was made, by which the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin was declared to be a pious opinion, agreeable to the worship of the Church, to the Catholic faith, and to right reason; and it was ordered that the festival of the Conception should be celebrated on the 8th of December. The fathers of the council then drew up an apology for their conduct, in answer to a decree which Eugene had directed against them.

In the thirty-seventh session, October 24, 1439, it was resolved that the election of the future pope should take place in the council, and not elsewhere; that it should be made by the Cardinal of Arles and thirty-two prelates; and that it should be no election if two-thirds of them did not agree.

In the thirty-eighth session, October 30, 1439, the officers of the conclave were appointed; and on the fifth of November they elected Amedeus, Duke of Savoy, who was then in retirement in his solitude at Ripailles with his hermits.

In the thirty-ninth session, November 17, 1439, twenty-five deputies were sent to Amedeus to beg of him to consent to his election, which, with great unwillingness, he at last did, and took the name of Felix V. The council then ordered that he should be recognised as the pope by all the faithful.

In the fortieth session, February 26, 1440, the election of Amedeus was confirmed, and sentence of excommunication pronounced against all those who should refuse to recognise him.

In the forty-first session, July 23, 1440, the sentence of Eugene, declaring Felix and his party to be heretics, was condemned. On the day after this session Felix came in state to the council, and was there consecrated bishop by the Cardinal of Arles, and crowned pope with great solemnity. He gave his benediction to the people, and granted indulgences.

As Felix had no revenue wherewith to support his dignity, Eugene being in possession of the patrimony of St Peter, it was permitted him, by a decree of the forty-second session, held August 4, 1440, to exact, for the first five years of his pontificate, the fifth part of the revenue of all benefices, and during the five following the tenth part; and the members of the council endeavoured all in their power to cause the secular princes to recognise him.

Alphonso, King of Arragon, the Queen of Hungary, and the Dukes of Bavaria and Austria, amongst the European princes, recognised Felix, as also did the universities of Germany, Paris, and Cracow; but France, England, and Scotland, whilst they acknowledged the authority of the Council of Basle, continued to recognise Eugene as the lawful pope.

In the forty-third session, July 1, 1441, a decree was drawn up concerning the observance of the festival of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, July 2, but no mention was made of Felix in it, owing to his not having been recognised as pope by several princes.

In the forty-fourth session, August 9, 1441, a regulation was made providing for the security of the acts of the council, and of the persons who composed it.

In the forty-fifth and last session, held on May 16, 1443, it was determined that a general council should be held in the city of Lyons at the end of three years, to be a continuation of that of Basle.

The Council of Basle lasted twelve years, i.e., from the 19th of May 1431, to the same month, 1443. This council is regarded as œcumenical by the Gallican Church to the end of the twenty-fifth session: the Ultramontanes reject it altogether. And never having been recognised by the Eastern churches, it evidently has no ground to be considered as œcumenical. Pope Eugene dying four years after, Nicholas V. was elected in his stead, and recognised by the whole Church, whereupon Felix V. renounced the pontificate in 1449, and thus the schism ended.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 442–1429. See also the preface to Tom. 8 of Martene’s Vet. Scrip. Collectio.

BEAUGENCI (1104). [Concilium Balgenciacense.] Held in 1104, by the legate cardinal Richard, concerning the marriage of King Philip I. with Bertrade. They had promised to separate until the papal dispensation was obtained.

BEAUGENCI (1152). Held in 1152, or, according to the author of the Gallia Christiana, in 1154. In this synod the marriage of the king, Philip le jeune, and Eleanor, his wife, was, with the consent of the parties, declared null.

BEAUVAIS (845). [Concilium Bellovacense.] Held in April 845. Ten bishops were present. Hincmar was here elected to the archbishopric of Rheims, which had been vacant ten years. A sort of agreement (consisting of eight articles) was drawn up between Hincmar and Charles, the king, which the latter promised to observe religiously.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1811.

BEAUVAIS (1114). Held December 6, 1114, by Conon, legate and cardinal, assisted by the bishops of three provinces. Here, sentence of excommunication was passed upon the Emperor, Henry V., and Thomas Seigneur de Marle, accused of cruelty and robbery. Several decrees made by the later popes, for the preservation of Church property, and others relating to discipline, called for by the circumstances of the times, were renewed; also the case of certain heretics was discussed, whom the populace had burned at Soissons, without waiting for the sentence of the ecclesiastical court, fearing that it would be too lenient. The case of Godfrey, who had left his bishopric of Amiens, and retired to the monastery of Chartreuse, was deferred for consideration at a future council.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 797.

BEAUVAIS (1120). Held in October 1120, by the legate Conon and the bishops of three provinces. At this council, the canonization of Arnulphus, Bishop of Soissons, took place. The then bishop of Soissons, holding in his hand the book containing the life of Arnulphus, certified to the bishops present the truth of everything contained in it, and entreated them to examine it themselves, adding, “As for me, if it were in my power, and if it were in my diocese, his body should long ago have been taken out of the earth.” These words show that one of the forms of canonization in practice at that time, was to disinter the body of the saint. The day was then settled, with the abbot of Oudenbourg, on which the body of Arnulphus, which was buried in his monastery, should be raised from the ground, and this was accordingly done, on the 1st of May in the year following.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 882.

BECCANCELD (692). [Concilium Becanceldense.] Held in 692, by Wihtred, King of Kent, at Beccanceld, in Kent (probably Bapchild, near Sittingbourne). Besides the king, there were present, Brihtwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, Tobias of Rochester, and several abbots, abbesses, and “wise men.” The chief object of the council appears to have been to consult about the repairing of the churches in Kent, injured in the wars with, the West Saxons.

King Wihtred then, with his own mouth, renewed and confirmed the liberties, and privileges, and possessions of the Church in his kingdom, forbidding all future kings, and all aldermen and laymen, for ever, all dominion over the churches, and all things belonging to them. He further directed that, upon the death of any bishop, abbot, or abbess, the event should be immediately made known to the archbishop, and a worthy successor be chosen with his consent.—Johnson’s Ecc. Canons. Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1356.

BECCANCELD (796). Held about 796, by Athelard, Archbishop of Canterbury, in which the privileges granted to the churches by Wihtred and others were solemnly confirmed. This deed of confirmation is signed by the archbishop, twelve bishops, and twenty-three abbots.—Johnson’s Ecc. Canons. Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1148. Wilkin’s Conc., vol. i. p. 162.

BENEVENTO (1087). [Concilium Beneventanum.] Held in August 1087, by Victor III., in which the anti-pope Guibert was deposed and anathematized; also Hugo of Lyons, and Richard, Abbot of Marseilles, excommunicated, having refused to communicate with Victor. He thus expresses himself in the sentence: “We, therefore, with apostolical authority, command that you be careful to abstain from all communication whatever with them, since they, of their own act and deed, have deprived themselves of communion with the Church of Rome; for, as the blessed Ambrose writes, ‘Whosoever shall separate himself from the Church of Rome is to be treated as a heretic.’ ”

He also, with the unanimous consent of the council, forbad investitures, and decreed that if any one should accept of a bishopric or abbey at the hand of any lay person, he should in no way be regarded as bishop, or abbot, and should be excluded from the communion of the Roman Church; and in like manner, any emperor, king, duke, prince, count, &c., so giving any preferment, should be excommunicated.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 418.

BENEVENTO (1091). Held in 1091, under Urban II., in which many bishops and abbots are said to have been present, and the sentence of anathema against Guibert was renewed, and four canons drawn up, one of which forbids the election of any one to a bishopric who is not in holy orders.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 484.

BENINGDON (851). [Concilium Beningdonense.] Held in the year 851, by Ceolnath, Archbishop of Canterbury, by order of Bertulf, King of Mercia. The council was chiefly occupied in hearing and redressing the wrongs of the monks of Crowland in Lincolnshire.—Tom. Conc. viii.; Pettier, vol. i.

BERGHAMSTED (696). [Concilium Berghamstedense.] Held in 696, by Wihtred, King of Kent, who attended in person; there were also present, Brihtwald, “chief bishop of Britain,” and Tobias of Rochester, together with some of every order in the Church, and many laymen. Twenty-eight laws, called the “Dooms of King Wihtred,” were published:

1. Declares the Church to be free from taxes.

2. Inflicts a fine of fifty shillings for a breach of the protection of the Church or king.

3. and the three following, relate to sins of uncleanness.

7. Suspends from his ministration a priest guilty of conniving at fornication, neglecting to baptize the infirm, or of being drunk.

10. Fines the master eighty shillings, who shall make his slave work after sunset on Sunday till sunset on Monday.

11 and 12. Enact penalties against slaves and free servants who work on the Lord’s day.

13 and 14. Enact penalties against those who make offerings to devils.

15. Declares that if a man give flesh to his slave to eat on a fast-day, the slave shall be free.

17. Declares the word of the bishop and of the king to be valid without an oath.

18. Orders the heads of monasteries, priests, and deacons, to purge themselves on their own veracity, by saying before the altar, in their holy vestments, “I say the truth in Christ; I lie not.”

19–24. Relate to different cases of purgation.

28. Orders that a stranger, who leaves the road, and does not scream, or blow a horn, shall be considered as a thief.—Johnson, Ecc. Canon. Wilkins, vol. i. p. 60. Tom. vi. p. 1576.

BESIERS (356). [Concilium Biterrense.] St Hilary and other Gallican bishops had deposed and excommunicated Saturninus, Bishop of Arles, at Paris for many and monstrous crimes in addition to heresy, together with Ursacius and Valens. Subsequently Saturninus got together a council of Arian bishops, at which St Hilary took care to be present, bringing with him a writing containing a full exposure of Arianism which he desired to read lest the simplicity of the Orthodox bishops might be imposed upon by the craft and falsity of the Arians. The latter, however, refused to listen to him, and deceiving the Emperor Constantius by false charges, obtained his banishment into Phrygia.

BESIERS (1234). Held April 2, 1234, under the legate, John de Burnin, Archbishop of Vienne. Twenty-six canons were drawn up against the heretics, very similar to those which Raymond, Count of Toulouse, had published there on the 18th of February, in the same year. Every individual was enjoined, if opportunity offered, to seize upon the heretics, and to bring them before the bishop. Every curé was directed to keep a list of all persons in his parish suspected of heresy, and strictly to enforce the laws against those who should neglect to attend their church on festival days, upon pain of losing his benefice. The council further desired that the life, morals, and learning of those to be ordained should be carefully examined into; and, moreover, that they should have a patrimonial title of at least a hundred sols tournois (about fifty livres). Other of the canons relate to the dress and lives of the regulars. 23. Forbids to sell wine in the monasteries, or to introduce there players, and joculators, and whores. 22 and 24. Forbid to present laymen to benefices and prebends.—Fleury. Tom. xi. Conc. p. 452.

BESIERS (1246). Held on the 29th of April 1246, by William de la Broue, Archbishop of Narbonne, and eight other bishops. It was in this council that the Preaching Friars, Inquisitors for the provinces of Arles, Aix, and Embrun, established by order of the pope, demanded of the bishops advice concerning the mode of carrying their commission into effect. This occasioned a long regulation, containing thirty-seven articles, which, together with those of Narbonne in 1235, are the foundation of the course of proceeding observed since in the tribunals of the inquisition. Amongst other instructions, the brotherhood are directed as follows: “You will order all those who are conscious of the guilt of heresy, or who are aware of it in others, to appear before you in order to declare the truth, within a certain time, to be called the period of grace. They who obey this mandate will escape the penalty of death, or perpetual imprisonment, or banishment; or confiscation of property. After having made them take the oath, you will cause their depositions and confessions to be taken down by some public official, and you will order those who desire to return into the Church to make an abjuration of their past errors, and to promise to discover and pursue the heretics according to your orders.… As to those heretics who remain obstinate, you will make them publicly confess their errors, then you will condemn the guilty in the presence of the secular powers, and will give them over to their officers; you will condemn to perpetual imprisonment those heretics who have relapsed after their condemnation, fugitives who have returned, and those who have not come forward until the period of grace is expired.” Besides this constitution, forty-six canons were published. See C. NARBONNE, 1235.—Tom. xi. Conc. pp. 676 and 687.

BESIERS (1299). Held in 1299, by Ægidius, Archbishop of Narbonne, assisted by all his suffragans except those of Toulouse, Carcassona, and Usez (Uticensis), who sent proctors. Eight canons were published.

1. Forbids clerks to follow unworthy trades, such as butcher, currier, cobbler, &c. (See C. BOURGES, 1280.)

2. Orders all suffragan bishops to cause search to be made for the aiders and abettors of heretics.

4. Forbids the assemblies of the Beguini, who met together at night and followed new ceremonies and rites differing from the common rites observed by the faithful.

6. Orders the due celebration of the Feast of St Louis on the day after that of St Bartholomew.—Mart., Thes. Anec., t. 4. col. 225.

BESIERS (1310). Held in 1310, by the same archbishop and his suffragans. Twenty-one canons were made.

2. Orders that all persons promoted to the minor orders shall be able to read the Psalter and to sing the Antiphons and responses.

4. Orders that those to be made deacons, in addition to the acquirements necessary for the sub-diaconate, shall be able to read the Epistles, Homilies, and Gospels, intelligibly, and to construe them, “et construere competenter.”

5. Directs that those who are to be made priests shall be such as excel others in seriousness of life and knowledge of letters: and that they shall know, at least, the “Liber Sacramentorum,” “lectionarium,” “antiphonarium,” “baptismus” [probably the ritual containing the order of Baptism, &c.], the penitential Psalms, &c.

9. Against false witnesses.

13. Forbids monks and priests to practise surgery without the special licence of the bishop.

15. Forbids any one to expose any goods (except eatables) for sale on Sundays and Festivals, which are named.

16. Contains a monitory letter to the Chaplain of Besiers and other chaplains, curates, &c., of the diocese, bidding them instruct their people to obey the injunction in canon 15.

19. Directs that if a man, publicly excommunicated, “majori excommunicatione,” will not leave the church during the celebration of the Divine Office, he shall first be warned to do so by the celebrant; if he refuse to do so, the priest shall at once cease from his office, unless he has already begun the canon—in which case he shall continue till he has communicated, but all the congregation shall at once leave the church. In places where the church possesses temporal power, the offenders shall be compelled by force to leave the church.

20. Orders the priest not to treat any one as excommunicated merely on report, unless it be a notorious fact.—Mart., Thes. Anec., tom. iv. col. 227.

BESIERS (1351). Held by Peter, Archbishop of Narbonne, with five bishops and the proctors of others who were unable to attend. Twelve canons were published.

1. Grants to the truly penitent who bow the head at the name of Jesus (and who have previously confessed) an indulgence of ten days.

3. Orders prayers for the pope, the king, the queen, and the prelates. Grants forty days’ indulgence to those who do so.

7. That all in holy orders should abstain from meat on Saturdays. (See C. AVIGNON, 1337.)

8. Relates to the conduct of certain abandoned persons, who, pretending themselves to be priests and prelates, fulminated excommunications against those of the clergy who had excommunicated them for their sins.

9. Against those who offer violence to the bearers of letters on ecclesiastical matters.

11. That no canon or beneficed clerk shall dare to enter a Cathedral or Collegiate Church, during the Holy Office, without a fitting dress.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1918. Mart., Thes. Anec., tom. iv. col. 327.

BETHLEHEM (1672). Held at Bethlehem in March 1672, but commonly named the Council of Jerusalem. Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, at the suggestion of Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, in January 1672, two months previous to the actual assembling of the council at Jassy, prepared an encyclical letter, which was sent round to the various prelates for the approval and signature of those who should be unable to attend the council. It asserts, in the first place, the seven sacraments, and declares an unequivocal belief that the living body of our Lord Jesus Christ is invisibly present with a real presence in the blessed Eucharist, and that the bread is really and truly and properly changed into the very body of our Saviour Christ, and that it, the holy Eucharist, is offered up as a sacrifice for all Christians, both quick and dead.

It then asserts the doctrine of baptism, and the necessity of infant baptism; denies the doctrine of final perseverance, maintains the necessity of episcopacy to a Church, the superiority of virginity to matrimony, the infallibility of the Catholic Church, the invocation of saints, the use of images, and the necessity of fasting. With regard to the Apocrypha, the letter uses much the same language with our own articles, and so far differs from the subsequent decision of the council, which adds it to the canon of Scripture.

This letter received the signatures of forty-six metropolitans and bishops, including that of Dionysius.

In March the council assembled at Bethlehem, Dositheus of Jerusalem presiding. The first act of the fathers was an ineffectual attempt to exculpate Cyril Lucar from the charge of Calvinism brought against him, and to deny the authenticity of the confession attributed to him. They then proceed to declare that the confession, whoever was its author, was never that of the Greek Church, and they repeat and authenticate the synods of Constantinople and Jassy, concluding with a confession of faith founded on that of Peter Mogilas, though in many respects differing from it.

Art. 1. On the Trinity and the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone.

2. On the authority of the Church to interpret Holy Scriptures.

3. Against the doctrine of irrespective predestination.

4. Against those who call God the author of evil.

5. On the same; and on Divine Providence in turning evil into good.

6. On original sin.

7. On the incarnation and passion.

8. That there is but one Mediator, Jesus Christ, nevertheless, that the Church may and ought to have recourse to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin and other saints.

9. That faith working by love, i.e., by the fulfilment of the commandments, justifies.

10. That there is a visible Catholic Church; that episcopacy is essential to it, and that it is an order entirely distinct from the priesthood.

11. Of members of the Church living in sin.

12. Of the teaching of the Holy Ghost by the Fathers and by the œcumenical Church.

13. Of good works.

14. Of free will.

15. That there are seven sacraments.

16. Of the necessity of regeneration in baptism.

17. Of the Holy Eucharist; asserts the doctrine of transubstantiation, and condems consubstantiation.

18. Clearly admits the Latin doctrine of purgatory.

Finally, the fathers proceeded to answer the four questions of Cyril: the first two in the negative; as to the third, relating to the canon of Scripture, they admit the title of the apocryphal books to be considered as canonical; and in their answer to the fourth, they assent to the doctrine of the second council of Nicea, with regard to images. They conclude by a defence of Monachism.

The acts are signed by Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Nectarius, the Ex-Patriarch, seven other prelates, and the proxy of one absent, also by sixty-one other ecclesiastics; ten signed in Arabic, the rest in Greek; the date is March 20, 1672.—Neale’s History of the Oriental Church.

The Acts of this Synod were given by Dom. Ant. M. Fouqueret at Paris, with a Latin version in 1678 under the title, Synodus Hierosolymitana.

BOLOGNA (1317). [Concilium Bononiense.] Held in 1317 by Raynaldus, Archbishop of Ravenna, and eight of his suffragans. Twenty-four articles were published. In them allusion is made to the licentious life of the clergy, which rendered them an object of contempt to the people, and gave them a handle for usurping the property and rights of the Church. In canon 4 it was forbidden to the clergy to carry arms, and to enter any place of bad fame; it also minutely described the fashion and quality of their dress. In canon 12 it was forbidden to say any other mass during mass at the high altar (cum missa celebratur in nota),—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1655.

BORDEAUX (385.) [Concilium Burdegalense.] Held in 385, by order of the Emperor Maximus, against the Priscillianists. Instantius and Priscillianus were called upon for their defence. The former made out so bad a case for himself, that he was judged unworthy of the episcopate. Priscillianus, fearing the same treatment, ventured to appeal to the emperor from the council, which appeal the bishops weakly permitted, instead of proceeding at once to pass judgment upon him, as they ought to have done, or at least to have reserved the cause for the hearing of other bishops.

Priscillianus and the other accused parties were in consequence brought before the emperor at Treves, Idacius and Ithacius their accusers accompanying them. The zeal of these men, in endeavouring to bring the Priscillianists to judgment, would have been more commendable had it not urged them to carry matters to such an excess, that the lives of the accused parties were in the end forfeited: for the emperor, at the urgent request of Ithacius, and contrary to his promise made to St Martin, condemned Priscillianus and some of his followers to death. St Martin had before strongly urged Ithacius to desist from his violent accusations, and after this business refused to communicate with the Ithacians. Moreover, St Ambrose, the Pope Siricius, and the Council of Turin in 398, condemned the Ithacians, maintaining that it was far from the part of a bishop to be in any way instrumental in causing the death of heretics. St Ambrose in his writings also evinced his disgust at these cruelties, and the irregular condemnation of the Priscillianists.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1034. (See C. SARAGOSSA.)

BORDEAUX (1080). Held in 1080, in the month of October. Two legates, three archbishops, and several bishops were present. The notorious Berenger here, for the thirteenth and last time, gave account of his faith, either in confirmation of what he had declared at Rome in this same year, or to retract what he had just published in contradiction of that declaration. In the end he died in the communion of the Church, January 5, 1088, in his ninetieth year.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 381.

BORDEAUX (1255). Held on the 13th of April 1255. In it Gerard of Matemort, Archbishop of Bordeaux, published a constitution consisting of thirty articles. Amongst other things it is enacted, that all beneficed clergy and others having the cure of souls, shall be constantly in residence; that those persons who remain in a state of excommunication for forty days shall pay nine livres, or some other suitable fine; it is absolutely forbidden (canon 11) to absolve any one under excommunication, even at the point of death, if he, or some one for him, hath not made satisfaction to the party interested, the priest so absolving him to be bound for him. To such an extent had the abuse of excommunications been carried in that age, that it was a common case to excommunicate in execution of a judgment, or on account of some money debt remaining unpaid. The 5th article enjoins that the consecrated host shall not be given to children who are brought to communion on Easter day, but only bread which has been blessed. This appears to have been a relic of the ancient custom of giving the Holy Eucharist to children from the period of their baptism, which is still preserved in the Greek Church.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 738.

BORDEAUX (1583). Held in 1583, by Antoine, Archbishop of Bordeaux. Thirty-six regulations, relating to matters of faith, morals, and discipline, were drawn up, similar to those of the Council of Rheims in the same year. The last of these refers to the proper regulation of seminaries, and is divided into nine chapters, which enjoin, amongst other things, that they should be built in some open spot not far from the cathedral church; that mass and prayer should be said daily; that the members of the seminary should obey the superior and other officers; that they shall be modest in their behaviour, never eat out of the seminary, and never go out without leave; that all shall go to bed at nine, and rise at four in the morning, &c.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 944.

BORDEAUX (1624). Held in 1624, under Francis, Archbishop of Bordeaux, and cardinal. In this council twenty-two chapters, containing a large number of canons, were published, chiefly relating to discipline.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1632.

BOURGES (1031). [Concilium Bituricense.] Held in November 1031, under Aymo de Bourbon, Archbishop of Bourges. Twenty-five canons were published, the first of which orders the name of St Martial to be placed amongst those of the apostles. The third forbids bishops or their secretaries to take any money on account of ordination. The seventh orders all ecclesiastics to observe the tonsure, and to be shaved. The twelfth forbids the exacting of any fee for baptism, penance, or burials, but permits the voluntary offerings of the faithful upon these occasions to be accepted.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 864.

BOURGES (1225). Held November 30th, 1225, by the legate, the Cardinal of St Angelo, assisted by about one hundred French bishops. Here Raymond, Count of Toulouse, and his opponent, Amauri de Montfort (who claimed to be Count of Toulouse by virtue of grants from Innocent III., and from the king, which he pretended had been made to his father and himself), pleaded their cause, Raymond on his part humbly praying for absolution and promising to bring all his lands into obedience to the Roman Church, without, however, any decision being arrived at. The pope’s demand of two prebends in each abbey and cathedral church, and one prebend in every other conventual church throughout France, was rejected. When some few of the bishops appeared to be inclined to grant this, the deputies of the chapters boldly declared before the legate and all present, that the chapters which they represented would never, and under no circumstances, accede to the demand. After this the legate declared that the Pope had issued a commission for visiting all the abbeys of France and setting them in order, which greatly exasperated the bishops, who clearly saw that if such an act was permitted to pass unopposed their own lawful jurisdiction over the abbeys would be taken from them; they therefore unanimously declared that they would never, whilst they lived, consent to such an usurpation.—Chron. Turonense. Mart., Vet. Scrip., tom. v. col. 1067.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 291.

BOURGES (1276). Held September 13th, 1276, by Simon de Brie, cardinal and legate. Sixteen articles were published, tending chiefly to the maintenance of the jurisdiction and immunities of the Church, and the freedom of elections. Amongst other things, the laity were forbidden to make use of violence or threats, in order to obtain the removal of censures. Secular judges were forbidden to constrain ecclesiastics to appear before them, &c. The canons were sent by the cardinal to every one of the French bishops.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1017.

BOURGES (1280.) Held in April 1280. In this council it was ordered that the bishops or their officials should issue monitions, by name, to those clerks who exercised the following low trades, viz., those of blacksmith, cobbler, currier, and public-house keeper, also makers of weapons (macellarii) and those vestes virgatas continue publice portantes. Mart., Thes. Anec., tom iv. col. 191.

BOURGES (1286.) Held on the 19th September 1286, by Simon de Beaulieu, Archbishop of Bourges, assisted by three of his suffragans. Here a constitution, consisting of thirty-five articles, was published, reiterating and enforcing those of the preceding councils. Amongst other things, it was ordered that the ecclesiastical judges should annul all unlawful marriages, and separate the parties, whoever they might be; that every beneficed person who should continue for one year under excommunication, should be deprived of his benefice; that curates should keep a list of all the excommunicated persons in their parishes, and publicly denounce them every Sunday and festival; that they should warn their people to confess at least once in every year; that bows and all kinds of arms should be removed from churches; that all Sundays and festivals be properly kept, &c. Other canons relate to the regulars.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1246. Mart., Thes. Anec. tom. iv. col. 199 and 203.

BOURGES (1432.) See Council of BASLE, page 58.

BOURGES (1438.) Held in 1438. Convoked by King Charles VII., who presided; five archbishops, twenty-five bishops, and a large number of princes, lords, and ecclesiastics, being present. Pope Eugene IV. and the fathers of the Council of Basle, sent legates. In this council the celebrated Pragmatic Sanction was drawn up. The French clergy had previously addressed memorials on the subject to the Council of Basle, and the council, in answer to these memorials, had forwarded to the King of France various decrees tending to re-establish the freedom of the Church in elections, at the same time begging him to cause them to be received in his kingdom. These decrees form the basis of the Pragmatic Sanction, which contains twenty-three articles. This constitution, styled by some writers the rampart of the Gallican Church, takes from the popes very nearly the whole of the power which they possessed, of presenting to benefices, and of judging ecclesiastical causes within the kingdom.

The twenty-three articles of the Pragmatic Sanction were drawn up upon the decrees of the Council of Basle, hence the papal sanction of those decrees also approved twenty-one of those articles.

Art. 1. Relates to the authority of œcumenical councils.

2. Relates to the power and authority of the Council of Basle.

3. Relates to elections, and enjoins freedom of election, &c.

4. Abolishes all reservations of benefices, &c.

5. Relates to collations and benefices, and forbids expective graces, &c.

6. Relates to judgment and causes; orders that all causes [except the greater causes] which happen at places more than four days’ journey from Rome, shall be decided on the spot.

7. Relates to frivolous appeals, and confirms the decree of the 20th September of Basle.

8. Confirms the decree of the 21st session of Basle, “de pacificis possessoribus.”

9. Limits the number of cardinals (twenty-third decree of Basle).

10. Relates to the annates.

11. Contains regulations relating to divine service, and enjoins that the laudable customs of particular churches in France shall be observed.

12–19. Relate to the economy of cathedral Churches.

20. Relates to concubinary clerks.

21. Relates to excommunications.

22. Treats of interdicts.

23. Concerns the pope’s bulls and letters.

These articles were confirmed by the French parliament, July 13th, 1439; and the law so enacted was called the Pragmatic Sanction, and was observed in France up to the period of the concordat, which suppressed the chief part of it. During this interval the popes made vigorous attacks upon the Pragmatic Sanction, which were as vigorously resisted by the king, the parliament, and the bishops.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 1429.

BOURGES (1528.) Held by François de Tournon, Archbishop of Bourges, with his suffragans. Twenty-three decrees were made, of which the first five relate to the Lutherans, and the rest to matters of discipline. Curates are exhorted to instruct their parishioners, and in order to give more time for that purpose, they are directed to abridge the prayers made at sermon time. Provincial councils are directed to be held every three years, according to the decree of the Council of Constance. Bishops are ordered to visit their dioceses annually, in order that they may take due care of the sheep entrusted to them. The regulations of the Council of Constance and of the Pragmatic Sanction, concerning the residence of canons and other ministers, are confirmed; also that which directs that the psalms be chanted slowly, and with proper pauses. Curates are directed to explain to the people the commandments of God, the Gospel, and something out of the Epistle for the day. Pastors are enjoined to forbid penitents to reveal the nature of their penance, and themselves to observe secrecy, both as to what is revealed to them at confession, and also as to the penance they have imposed. No confraternity to be erected without the consent of the ordinary. It was further enacted that the bishops should have a discretionary power to retrench the number of festival days according as they should think best. That bishops should not grant letters dimissory, without having first examined the candidate for orders, and found him qualified; and then to those only who have a benefice or a patrimonial title. Further, that nuns shall not leave their monastery. Afterwards the council made various decrees concerning the jurisdiction and liberty of the clergy: the first is upon the subject of monitions; the second upon the residence of curates, that no dispensation for non-residence be granted without a full investigation of the reasons; the third respects cemeteries, which it orders to be kept enclosed and locked up.

After this, four-tenths for two years were voted to King Francis I., to make up the ransom of his two sons, then hostages at Madrid, to be levied on all the clergy, secular and regular.—Tom. xiv. Conc. p. 426.

BOURGES (1584). Held in September 1584. Forty-six chapters were published, each containing several canons (preceded by the confession of faith made by those present), 1. Relates to the worship and service of God; 2 and 3, of the faith and preaching; 4, of the abuse of Holy Scriptures, and orders that the Latin version of the Scriptures shall alone be used, and that bishops’ secretaries shall keep a list of prohibited books, which shall be shown annually to publishers; 5, of avoiding heretics; 6, of invocation of saints and of festivals; 7, of pilgrimages; 10 and 11, of relics and images; 12, of the celebration of the holy office, &c.; 16, of cemeteries; 17, of tradition; 18–28, of the sacraments; 31, of excommunication; 34, of canons and chapters; 35, of parish rectors, orders them to reside, and to say mass themselves; orders bishops to divide parishes which become too populous; where there is no parsonage-house, it directs the bishop to take care to provide one at the expense of the parishioners; 36, of benefices; 40, of witchcraft and incantations; 41 and 42, of simony, concubinary priests, &c.; 43, of hospitals; 45, of the laity, forbids them to sit with the clerks at Church, bids them to abstain from dances, plays, &c., also from the use of frizzled hair; 46, of synods.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1067,

BRAGA (560). Held about 560, by Lucretius, the metropolitan, assisted by seven other bishops, against the errors of the Priscillianists. They drew up twenty-two canons, mostly relating to ceremonies.

2. Forbids bishops in visitation to exact anything beyond the third of the revenue of each church for repairs, &c., except two crowns (duos solidos) pro honore Cathedræ. [This is the first mention of the Cathedraticum.]

3. Forbids the bishop to use any other salutation to the people than that which rests upon apostolical tradition, viz., Dominus vobiscum, to which the people shall answer, Et cum Spiritu tuo. (Previously, according to Alcuinus, it had been the custom for bishops to use the form Pax vobis, the other salutation, Dominus vobiscum, being confined to the priests.)

The seventh orders a tripartite division of the property of each Church; one for the bishop, another for the clergy, and the third for the repairs or lights of the Church, of which the archdeacon should give in an account to the bishop.

The ninth enjoins the deacons to wear the stole over the shoulder, and not to conceal it under the tunicle, in order to distinguish them from the sub-deacons.

The tenth directs that the sacred vessels be carried only by persons in holy orders.

The eleventh forbids the readers to chant in the Church in a secular dress, and to let their hair [or beard] grow.

The twelfth forbids the singing of any hymns in Church, save the Psalms, and passages taken from the Old or New Testament.

The thirteenth forbids laymen to enter the sacrarium, or chancel, in order to communicate.

The fourteenth orders clerks who are unwilling to eat flesh, to avoid the suspicion of Priscillianism, to be compelled to eat at least herbs boiled with meat.

The eighteenth forbids burials within the Church.

The twenty-first directs that the alms of the faithful shall be collected by a clerk, and distributed amongst the clergy once or twice a year.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 836.

BRAGA (572). Held in June 572, by St Martin, the Bishop, at the head of twelve bishops. In this council the four first œcumenical councils were acknowledged, but not the fifth, which was not yet recognised in Spain. Ten canons were drawn up.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 894.

BRAGA (675). Held probably in 675, in the time of King Wamba. Eight bishops were present, who drew up nine canons, in order to remedy certain abuses which had crept in.

The second forbids the offering of milk instead of wine, and also the dipping the bread in the wine at the Holy Eucharist.

The third forbids using the sacred vessels and ornaments of the Church for profane purposes.

The fourth forbids the priest to celebrate mass, or to receive the communion, without having the “orarium” or stole over both shoulders, and crossed upon his breast.

In some of these canons complaint is made of the conduct of the bishops, whom they accuse of augmenting their private estates at the expense of the Church.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 561.

BRAGA (1566). Held from September 8, 1566, to March 1567, by the Archbishop D. Bartholome de los Martires, who presided over the bishops of Coimbra, Viseo, Miranda, and Oporto. Regulations for the reformation of manners and the better order of divine service.—Florez, Esp. Sagrada, xxi. 189.

BRENTFORD (963). [Concilium Brandanfordense.] Held about the year 963, by King Edgar. Here the ordinances of King Edwin were annulled, and the property which he had usurped and plundered, restored to the Church and monasteries. Also St Dunstan was recalled from exile, and shortly afterwards preferred, successively, to the sees of Worcester and Canterbury.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 657. Wilkins’ Concilia, vol. i. p. 224.

BRESLAU (1268). [Concilium Uratislaviense.] Held in February 1268, by Guy, cardinal and legate, who there preached a crusade for the deliverance of the Holy Land; and succours were accordingly granted.—Conc. xi. Tom. 858.

BRESTIA. A Synod was held at Brest Litofsky, in Poland, in 1593 (others 1595), by command of Sigismund III., King of Poland, under Michael Ragosa, Metropolitan of Kieff, at which many of the Greek bishops of the province, to please the prince, declared for the supremacy of the pope, and signed a deed of union with the Roman Church.

Immediately afterwards an orthodox Synod was held here, at which Michael Ragosa was anathematised and deposed.

BRETAGNE (848). [Concilium Britanicum.] Held in 848, by order of the Duke of Bretagne, to put a check upon the practice, of which the bishops were guilty, of taking money for ordinations. St Convoyon, the founder and first abbot of the abbey of Redon, accompanied two bishops, who were sent to Rome upon this business. (See C. of ROME, 848.)

BREVY (519). Held in 513 or 519, at Brevy, now called Llandewy-Brevy, near Lampeter, in Cardiganshire, against the Pelagian heresy. St David attended, and at the close of the Synod, St Dubritius resigned his see to St David. The Synod allowed him to remove the see from Caerleon to Menevia. Ang.-Sacr., pt. 2. p. 638.

BRIONNE (1050). [Concilium Briotnense.] Held in 1050. This was rather a conference than a council; in it Beranger was silenced, and made to profess the Catholic faith.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1054.

BRISTOL (1216). [Concilium Bristoliense.] Held under the pope’s legate, on St Martin’s day, in 1216, upon matters relating to discipline. Eleven bishops of England and Wales were present, with others of the inferior clergy, and of the nobility who continued faithful to Henry III. The barons who opposed that monarch were excommunicated.—Wilkins’ Conc., vol i. p. 546.

BRIXEN (1080) (in the Tyrol). [Concilium Brixiense.] Held in 1080, by the Emperor, Henry IV. Cardinal Hugo the White, and thirty bishops were present. They maintained the rights of the emperor against Pope Gregory VII., who had excommunicated him; they proceeded so far as to depose Gregory, and to elect Guibert of Ravenna in his place, who took the name of Clement III.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 389.


BUDA (1279). [Concilium Budense.] Held on the 14th September 1279, by Philip, Bishop of Fermo, legate of the holy see. Sixty-nine canons were published, containing much the same regulations as others drawn up about that time, and showing that the Churches of Hungary and Poland were in great disorder. Eight of these canons relate to the dress and conduct of the clergy. The ninth forbids the clergy to sentence any one to corporal punishment, or to be present at the trial of capital causes. The thirteenth relates to the proper reverence to be observed during divine service; orders all clerks, whenever they pass the altar, the image of the Virgin, or the crucifix, and whenever they enter the choir for the holy office, to bow their heads; also forbids priests to sing the hours without their surplices. The sixteenth orders that all beneficed clergymen, having the care of souls, shall reside and discharge their duties in person, and not by a curate. The nineteenth relates to the attendance of all persons who have been cited at synods, and the proper vestments of the prelates present there. The twenty-second declares that it is not to be suffered that any one should serve at the altar or read the epistle without a surplice and cassock. The twenty-eighth declares that those persons only are to be admitted to preach who have either the pope’s or the bishop’s licence. Also treats of questors. The fifty-eighth excommunicated those secular powers which forbade appeals to the holy see.

It is also ordered, canon 33, that all the faithful should hear divine service, and especially mass, every Sunday and holyday in their own parish, and should not wander to any other Church.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1071.

BURGOS (1080). [Concilium Burgense.] Held in 1080 (according to others in 1076), by Cardinal Richard, legate. In this council the Roman office was substituted for the Gothic ritual, hitherto in use.

According to the Chronicle of Don Pelago (Esp. Sag., xiv. 472), Adefonsus, sixth King of Leon, requested Pope Gregory VII. to impose the Roman Office for the Mass, “Romanum Mysterium,” throughout his kingdom. The pope sent Cardinal Richardus, Abbot of Marseilles, who held this council in the 1123 era, i.e., A.D. 1085.—Tom. x. Conc. 1815.

Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com