S

ST ALBAN’S (429). [Concilium Verulamiense.] Held in 429, by St Germanus, Bishop Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop Troyes, against the Pelagian heresy. The authors of this detestable heresy, writes Constantius, came to the council glittering with pomp and fine dresses, and surrounded by their partisans. An immense concourse of people, men, women, and children, were assembled; leave was given to the Pelagians to speak first, which they did, and at much length. After which, the venerable bishops poured forth, in answer, the torrent of their eloquence, supporting their own assertions by divine testimonies. Their opponents testified by their silence that they could not withstand them; and the assembled multitude with loud shouts proclaimed the victory of the Catholics.—Mar. Mer. p. 233. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 3.

ST PETERSBURG (1721). Held early in the year 1721, by order of Peter the Great. Stephen, the guardian of the patriarchal throne (during the vacancy of the patriarchate), Silvester of Smolensko, Pachomius of Voronege, Theophanes of Pskoff, Pitirim of Nijgorod, Barlaam of Tvet, Aaron of Carelia, Theodosius, the Archimandrite of Nevsky Lavra, and five other archimandrites, being present, besides seven of the highest civil dignitaries. In this council the patriarchate of Moscow was destroyed, and a standing council, styled “the Most Holy Governing Synod,” established, having authority over the whole Russian Church, and the supreme right of jurisdiction over all spiritual persons (except in capital cases). To its administration were committed all the estates of bishops and monasteries, and all such matters as the election of bishops, questions of heresy and schism, of marriage and divorce, &c., were referred to its jurisdiction. Stephen was appointed the president of the synod.

The regulation relating to the formation, &c., of the synod having been read in the council, it was, after the Czar’s signature, confirmed by the hands of all the ecclesiastics present; subsequently it was subscribed by all the bishops, archimandrites, and hegumens of the first rank in the Russian Church, and was recognised by all the eastern patriarchs.—Mouravieff (Blackmore’s ed.) p. 283.

ST QUENTIN (1233). [Concilium apud St Quintinum.] Held in 1233, in the matter of Milo, Bishop of Beauvais, who complained of the infraction of his rights by the King of France.—(See C. of NOYON, 1233.) Tom. xi. Conc. p. 445.

ST TIBERIUS (907). [Concilium apud St Tiberium.] See BARCELONA, 906.

ST TIBERIUS (1389). Held July 26th, 1389, by Dom. John Picorlati, Vicar of the Archbishop of Narbonne, and the proctors of the Bishops of the Province. Seventeen canons were drawn up and a list of grievances which the Church endured at the hands of the civil authorities, prepared for presentation to the Pope, with a prayer that he would use his influence to remove them. Amongst them, it is said that where a married clerk was found still preserving his clerical dress and tonsure, if he were cited before the Ecclesiastical Courts, immediately letters were obtained from the king’s court directing him to be restored and to appear before the civil courts.—Mart., Thes. Anec., tom. 4. col. 341.

SALERNO (1596). [Concilium Salernense.] Held in 1596, by the Archbishop Marius. The acts of the council are contained in twenty-nine chapters.

2. Orders that both the secular clergy and the regulars shall, within four months, deliver to the bishop’s deputy a catalogue of their books, in order that those of evil tendency may be destroyed; forbids all scenic representations of our Lord’s actions and of those of the saints.

3. Orders that the Christian doctrine be sedulously taught by curates and schoolmasters.

6. Relates to the veneration of saints and relics.

7. Relates to the extirpation of superstition.

9. Treats of the proper condition of churches and of their ornaments.

20. Relates to the proper celebration of divine service.

27. Condemns usury.—Mansi. Supp. tom. v.

SALZBURG (806). [Concilium Salisburgense.] Held about 806, in which the fourfold division of tithe was ordered, viz., one part for the bishop, another for the clerks, the third for the poor, and the fourth for the repair of churches.

SALZBURG (1274). Held in 1274, by Frederick, Archbishop of Salzburg, and legate, who presided over his suffragans. The decrees of Lyons made in this year, and those of Vienna, A.D. 1267, were confirmed, and twenty-four canons published.

1, 2, and 3, relate to the duties of abbots.

4. Forbids them to wear the pontifical vestments, to bless the sacred vestments and vessels, to grant indulgences, &c.

7. Is directed against pluralities.

8. Orders residence.

10. Provides for the proper maintenance of vicars.

11. Renews the canons relating to the ecclesiastical dress and tonsure.

12 and 13. Suspend those of the clergy who are convicted of frequenting taverns and gambling-houses, and order bishops to send to prison those priests who, although excommunicated or suspended, persist in officiating at the holy office.

16. Forbids to give alms to wandering scholars.

17. Abolishes the sport practised by ecclesiastics in their churches, called “the Boy Bishop.”

22. Orders a total cessation of divine service throughout the province, in case of the violent seizure of a bishop by any layman.

23. Forbids investiture at the hands of laymen.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 998.

SALZBURG (1281). Held in 1281, by the same prelate, with seven of his suffragans. Eighteen canons were published, most of which relate to the regulars, and are intended to repress divers abuses; amongst other things complained of, it was stated that the Benedictine monks did not wear their proper dress, nor hold triennial chapters, as ordered by Gregory IX.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1150.

SALZBURG (1291). Held in 1291, to consider upon the best means of succouring the Holy Land. It was resolved to advise the pope to unite the templars, hospitallers, and Teutonic knights.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1358.

SALZBURG (1310). Two councils were held here in the year 1310. In the first it was agreed, in answer to the petition of the pope, Clement V., to grant pecuniary assistance to the Roman see for two years. In the second, Conrad, the archbishop, presiding, four canons were published, of which the third forbids clerks to practise the trade of joculators and buffoons.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1513.

SALZBURG (1386). Held in January 1386, by the Archbishop Pilgrim, legate, assisted by three bishops, and the deputies of some who were absent. Seventeen canons were published.

1. Orders that in every church in the diocese the use of the cathedral church shall be followed.

5. Orders ecclesiastics to observe modesty in dress.

8. Forbids the begging friars to preach, or hear confession.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 2061.

SALZBURG (1418). Held in 1418, by Everard, Archbishop of Salzburg, and legate, for the re-establishment of discipline, which had been almost entirely lost sight of during the schism. The tenets of Wicliff and Huss were anathematised. Many ancient canons were confirmed, and thirty-four others published, making altogether fifty-nine.

1. Condemns the error of those who teach that a priest, or other ecclesiastic, having cure of souls, being in a state of mortal sin, can neither absolve nor consecrate; and declares that it is false to say that neither a bishop nor a curate can absolve a priest from the sin of fornication, on account of the vow of chastity.

2. Orders the holding of provincial councils.

6. Excludes bastards of priests and deacons from holy orders.

8. Orders rectors of churches to give vicars a sufficient maintenance.

9. Forbids to impose an interdict without weighty cause.

11. Forbids the chaplains of persons of rank to celebrate mass in private chapels, and orders them to attend at synods.

15. Regulates the method of dealing with those persons whom curates may be afraid of citing.

19. Orders that all clerks, before taking possession of a benefice, shall take an oath that they have not been guilty of simony in order to obtain it.

24. Orders a service to be said for a deceased bishop in every church of his diocese.

28. Orders curates to teach their parishioners the right form of baptism, in order that they may, in case of need, be able to baptise.

31. Excommunicates those who dare to inter bodies in churchyards during an interdict.

32. Enacts penalties against the Wicliffites and Hussites.

34. Commands, under pain of excommunication, all lay men having wives, daughters, or other women under their rule, to prohibit them the wearing of dresses of excessive length, and all unnecessary female ornaments.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 308.

SANTIAGO, see COMPOSTELLA.

SARAGOSSA (380). [Concilium Cæsar-Augustanum.] Held in 380, by the Bishops of Aquitaine and Spain against the Priscillianists, a sect whose leader, Priscillianus, a Spaniard, had been instructed by a man called Marcus, a native of Memphis, in Egypt, and a disciple of the Manichæans. The tenets of the Priscillianists were a mixture of those of the Gnostics, Manichæans, Arians and Sabellians, and abounded with all sorts of impurity and errors the most gross. In their notions with respect to the blessed Trinity they agreed with the Sabellians, holding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be but One Person; with Paul of Samosata and Photinus, they maintained that our Lord Jesus Christ had no existence before His birth of the Virgin; with Marcion and Manichæus (or Manes), they refused to allow that He really took to Himself the human nature. They declared that the devil came forth from chaos or darkness, and that he owed his origin to no one; that he was the principle of evil, that he was the master of the thunder and lightning, storms, &c.; that the soul of men partook of the Divine nature, but that for sin committed in heaven, they were given over upon earth into the hands of the princes and powers of the air, who had shut them up in bodies. These princes and powers were the devils, to whom, therefore, they attributed the formation of man.

They abhorred the use of marriage, forbade to eat the flesh of certain animals, and denied the resurrection of the body, &c.

Their external bearing was quiet and modest, but they are said to have been very corrupt. St Augustine calls Priscillianus an impious wretch, condemned for heresy and many horrible crimes. Their mysteries were as infamous as those of the Manichæans.

About the year 379 this sect, according to Prosper of Aquitaine, was formed, and assumed the name of its author. Some bishops allowed themselves to be carried away by it, and, amongst others, Instantius and Salvianus. Idacius, however, Bishop of Merida, took up the cause of the Church with great zeal; but, wanting in prudence, and hurrying on matters too far against Instantius and the others, he rather increased the evil than diminished it. At last, however, after several disputations between Idacius and the Priscillianists, the Bishops of Aquitaine assembled with those of Spain in 380, and the case of the Priscillianists was brought before them. What passed in the council is not correctly known, but it is certain that the heretics did not dare to present themselves, and to abide by the judgment of the bishops; they were, nevertheless, condemned; the Bishops Instantius and Salvianus, together with Priscillianus and Elpidus, laymen, by name. Hyginus, Bishop of Cordova, after furiously opposing the heresy, had become perverted, was also excommunicated. Ithacius, Bishop of Ossanoba, received instructions to publish the decree of the bishops everywhere. He executed this commission with prudence and moderation, until the heretics so far exceeded all bounds that Instantius and Salvianus consecrated Priscillian Bishop of Avila. He then joined with Idacius in his fury against them, and so far exceeded the bounds of right and justice, that he was condemned at Bordeaux, Milan, and Turin.

There is but a fragment of the acts of this council left to us; in it we find the names of twelve bishops, with eight canons enacted on the 4th October.

1. Condemns women who attended the meetings of men unknown to them, under pretext of learning, or who held assemblies amongst themselves to instruct other women.

2. Condemns those who fast on Sundays, and who absent themselves from church during Lent, in order to retire into the mountains or other places.

3. Condemns to perpetual anathema those who are convicted of not having eaten the sacrament of the Lord’s Body given to them in church.

4. Forbids any to be absent from church from the eighth day before Christmas to Epiphany.

5. Separates from church-communion bishops who have dared to receive persons excommunicated by the bishops of the Synod.

6. Forbids clerks, under pain of being separated from the Church, to leave their ministry for the sake of entering the monastic state.

7. Is directed against those who assume the title of doctor without right.

8. Forbids to permit the veil to virgins under forty years of age, and without the bishop’s permission.—(See the 4th canon of the Council of CARTHAGE, A.D. 397. See C. BORDEAUX, A.D. 384, and MILAN 390.) Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1009.

SARAGOSSA (592). Held November 1, 592. Twelve bishops and two deacons, the deputies of absent bishops, all of the province of Tarragona, were present; Artemius, Archbishop of Tarragona, presiding. Three canons relating to the converted Arians were made.

It is enacted by the first that such Arian priests and deacons as were proved to be sound in the faith, and of good character, might be admitted to serve again after having received the benediction.

The second directs that relics found with the Arians shall be carried to the bishop, and proved by fire, to ascertain whether they be genuine.

The third enacts that churches consecrated by Arian bishops before they have received the benediction, shall be consecrated afresh.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1600.

SARAGOSSA (691). Held in November 691, under Waldefred or Valderedus, Bishop of Saragossa. Five canons were published.

1. Forbids bishops to consecrate churches except on Sundays.

2. Directs bishops to consult the primate annually as to the time of celebrating Easter.

5. Orders that the widows of kings shall at once take the veil, and lead a religious life, to avoid the insults and want of respect to which they are subjected by remaining in the world.—(See C. TOLEDO, A.D. 683.)—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1311. Esp. Sag. tom. xxx. p. 243.

SARDICA (347). [Concilium Sardicense.] Held in May 347, by order of the Emperors Constantius and Constans, whom Athanasius, persecuted by the Eusebians (who had just intruded Gregory into the see of Alexandria), had petitioned to convoke a council. Bishops from all quarters attended—viz., from Spain, Gaul, Britain, Italy, Africa, Macedonia, Palestine, Cappadocia, Pontus, Cilicia, the Thebaid, Syria, Thrace, Mesopotamia, &c.; in all, from forty-eight provinces. The number of Catholic bishops present is not correctly known. Those from the West amounted probably to about one hundred.

Hosius of Cordova is supposed to have presided. The other bishops of eminence present were Protogenes of Sardica, Maximus of Jerusalem, Paphnutius, Protasius of Milan, Severus of Ravenna, Lucillus of Verona, Verissimus of Lyons, Vincentius of Capua, Januarius of Beneventum, Maximinus (or Maximus) of Treves, Euphratas of Cologne, Gratus of Carthage, St Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepius of Gaza. Julius the Pope sent as his representatives two priests, Archidamus and Philoxenus, and a deacon. On the oriental side there were about eighty bishops, almost all of them of the Eusebian party. The chief amongst them were Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias, Stephen of Antioch, Acacius of Cesarea, in Palestine, Ursacius of Singidon, Valens of Mursa, Maris of Chalcedon, &c.

St Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepius of Gaza, were at the head of those who appeared to make complaint against the Eusebians. There were also multitudes of persons who came either to urge their own or the complaints of their relations and friends, who, through the machinations of the Eusebians, had been either exiled or put to death. Great indignation was also expressed concerning the forged letters circulated by the Eusebians. Theognis appears to have been guilty of doing this, in order to prejudice the emperors against St Athanasius.

The Eusebians, when they understood that matters would be freely discussed in the council, and that no military or other influence would be brought to bear on it, came there with reluctance, and still more so when they found persons arriving from all parts, with proofs of their violence and excess.

Perceiving their inability to defend either their conduct or their doctrine in such an assembly, they came to the resolution not to appear at all; and upon their arrival at Sardica, they took up their abode in the palace, where they kept themselves close, and forcibly prevented any of their party from attending the council. Two of them, however, Macarius of Palestine and Asterias of Arabia, escaped from this restraint, and made their way to the assembly, where they laid open the scheme of the Eusebians, and the threats which they held out to those of their party who were well intentioned.

The fathers in council having already admitted St Athanasius and the other accused parties, the Eusebians, who wanted a pretext for retiring, declared that they could take no part in the proceedings unless St Athanasius were excluded, together with Marcellus of Ancyra, and several others. These proposals were rejected by the council, with the declaration, that they could not treat as guilty, men who had been already pronounced innocent by the judgment of the council at Rome, and who had the testimony of eighty Egyptian bishops in their favour.

This reasoning, however, had little effect upon the Eusebians, who for several days persisted in their demand, during which the orthodox party pressed them to prove their accusations, saying that, by keeping back, they did, in fact, condemn themselves. They continued, however, on one plea or another to absent themselves. During the time, however, they were not idle; but kept up the formalities of a synod, in which they pretended to condemn and depose St Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepius, and others, including Pope Julius. They further drew up a confession of faith, orthodox in all respects except the omission of the word “consubstantial”; and, lastly, published a synodical epistle in the name of the Sardican Council. According to Socrates, this pseudo-synod was held at Philippolis after their departure from Sardica. However this may be, they resolved to leave the latter place, and, in order to have some pretext wherewith to colour their withdrawal, they pleaded that, in consequence of the victory which the emperor had lately won over the Persians, it was necessary that they should proceed to him at once to testify their joy. This ridiculous excuse, of course, was not accepted by the council, which, by letter, informed them that they must, first of all, clear themselves of the charges brought against them, and that otherwise they would be declared guilty; this threat added wings to their flight, and, by their precipitate retreat in the night, they afforded the strongest proof of their guilt.

The council then proceeded to treat of matters of faith, and declared that it was unnecessary to reagitate the question, and that they were satisfied with the creed of Nicea. After this, Anthanasius and the other accused parties were introduced to prove their innocence, and the conduct of the Eusebians was put in its right light. The complaints urged on all sides against them were examined; the most important was that which charged them with communicating with the Arians who had been condemned at Nicea. The charge brought against Athanasius of having caused the death of Arsenius was best refuted by the proof that he still lived, and he is even by some said to have been actually present in the council.

The falsehood of the story of the broken chalice was as easily proved by the testimony of various witnesses from Alexandria, and by that of eighty Egyptian bishops in their letter to Pope Julius. The issue of the examination was, that the fathers confirmed St Athanasius in the communion of the Church. They also declared to be innocent four Alexandrian priests, whom the Eusebians had compelled to flee for their lives.

This done, the case of Marcellus of Ancyra, accused by the Eusebians of favouring the heresy of Paul of Samosata, was taken in hand. Marcellus appeared in person to justify himself; his accusers limited their accusation to his book. The council, therefore, after examining it, and after the context had been read, together with the passages condensed by the Eusebians, declared that the passages alluded to had been maliciously quoted as containing the sentiments of Marcellus, whereas, in fact, they were merely put in the way of question in the course of his argument, which went to prove the exact opposite to those questions. Accordingly, he was pronounced innocent, and confirmed in his bishopric. Asclepius (or Asclepas) of Gaza was also acquitted of the false charges alleged against him.

The Council then proceeded to inflict penalties upon the most guilty of the heretical party. The consecrations of Gregory and Basil were annulled, and themselves declared to be neither bishops nor Christians. Those persons whom they had deposed were pronounced innocent, and the usurpers to whom their churches had been given were, in their turn, deposed; these last were Quintianus of Gaza, Acacius of Cesarea, Narcissus of Hierapolis, George of Laodicea, Menophantes of Ephesus, Ursaces of Singedunum, Valens of Myrsa, Stephen of Antioch, and Theodorus of Heraclea. The last three formed the commission sent into the Mareotis against St Athanasius: they were sentenced to be anathematised, to be deprived of communion, and to be entirely separated from the Church. They also condemned Photinus and his heresy.—(See C. SIRMIUM, 349.)

Then the fathers addressed a letter to the emperors, entreating them to set at liberty those who still groaned under oppression, and to forbid the civil authorities from in any way interfering against the Catholics. They wrote, besides, an epistle to Pope Julius, and a synodical letter to all the bishops of the Church, in which they exhorted them to subscribe to their judgment, and to refuse communion with or receive letters from those intruded bishops, whom they had deposed and excommunicated. They bid them to “charge their people that no one hold communion with them, for there is no communion of light with darkness.” In this letter they speak of the Arian heresy as the heresy of Eusebius, and they declare those persons to have obtained the glory of martyrdom who fell under the Eusebian persecution. Twenty-one canons (or twenty, according to the Greek text) were also drawn up in this council, but these canons were signed only by the bishops present, and were not included in the synodical letter, which latter was subsequently signed by the bishops of the Church generally, and came, therefore, to be regarded as œcumenical. These canons were not drawn up, as was usual, in the form of laws, but are rather propositions put by Hosius or some other bishop to the assembly, and approved unanimously.

1. Is conceived in these terms:—“Hosius, the bishop, said that an evil custom and pernicious abuse required to be abolished, by forbidding bishops to be promoted from one see to another; the cause of their doing so being well understood; for as it had never been seen that a bishop left a large bishopric to take a lesser one, it appeared clearly that avarice and ambition were the motives for these translations. Wherefore,” he added, “if you desire to inflict a heavier punishment upon those who offend in this manner, they must be separated from lay-communion.” And all the fathers answered, “And so we would have it.”

2. Declares that the same punishment, continued even to death, shall be inflicted upon those who pretend, in extenuation, that they have been invited to take charge of their second bishopric by the faithful who were members of it. “Because,” says Hosius, “these persons may have been persuaded to make the request by bribery and the hope of future remuneration.”

3. Hosius made two propositions: first, that no bishop should be permitted to enter another province unless called to assist at some judgment; and, secondly, that for the honour of St Peter’s memory, it be ordered that, if a bishop, condemned in his own province, maintained his innocence, his judges might write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, in order that he might determine whether the bishop’s cause required a fresh hearing; that, if he and the judges whom he should nominate agreed in deeming a new trial requisite, it should be entered upon at once; but if not, the original sentence should stand good.

4. Bishop Gaudentius submitted to the council an addition to the last canon, to the effect, that care should be taken that the bishop so condemned in the provincial synod, and appealing to Rome, should not be deprived of his see, nor a successor be appointed, until the cause should be entirely concluded by the pope.

5. Declares that in a case in which one bishop only shall remain in a province, and he shall neglect to consecrate another, if requisite, the bishops of any neighbouring province may come and represent his duty to him; and then, if he shall persist in refusing to join with them in consecrating a bishop over those who require one, they shall themselves proceed without him to the consecration.

6. Forbids to consecrate a bishop for a small place where a priest suffices, for fear of lowering the episcopal dignity.

7 Hosius proposed, that in the case of a bishop condemned by the synod of his province, and appealing to Rome, if the Bishop of Rome should decide that it was necessary to have a new trial, it should be lawful for him either to delegate the cause to the bishops bordering upon the diocese of the accused bishop, or to send legates to the spot to take cognisance of the question.

8. Forbids any bishop to go to court except he be called thither by letters from the emperor.

9. Declares that any bishop having a petition to present to the emperor for the poor of his Church shall, instead of going himself, send his deacon.

10. Requires the aforesaid deacon, before setting out on his journey, to address the metropolitan, acquainting him with the object of his journey, &c., in order that from the metropolitan he may receive letters of recommendation.

11. Directs those who thus proceed to Rome to present themselves to the Bishop of Rome, that after having examined their business, he may, if he shall judge it expedient to do so, write to the court on their behalf.

12. Gaudentius proposed, further, that any bishop, through whose territory a clerk thus travelling to Rome should pass, should have authority to interrogate him, and if he found that he had not observed the regulations of the council, to exclude him from his communion. This also the council approved; but, at the suggestion of Hosius, it was settled that, before they began to act upon this rule, time should be allowed to enable the bishops to become acquainted with these canons.

13. Hosius proposed that if a lay person (not a lawyer, or one holding any charge) were required to be elevated to the episcopate, he should first be obliged to serve for a considerable period of time the offices of reader, deacon, and priest.

14. Hosius also proposed that it should not be lawful for any bishop to remain for more than three weeks away from his diocese.

15. The foregoing canon was relaxed in favour of those possessing property out of their dioceses, whose business might compel them to remain away for more than three weeks. However, at the end of that period they were ordered to cease from attending the great church of the town at which they were, and to be contented with assisting the priest at mass in some inferior church.

16. Forbids any bishop to give the holy communion to a priest, deacon, or clerk excommunicated by his own bishop.

17. Provides that, in order to hinder acts of oppression on the part of hasty and choleric bishops, any priest or deacon condemned by a bishop shall have leave to appeal to the judgment of the bishops of the province.

18. In consequence of the remonstrance of Bishop Januarius, it was ordered that no bishop should entice away the clerks of another bishop, in order to ordain them for his own diocese.

19. Declares such ordinations to be null and void, and that the bishop so ordaining shall be punished.

20. Ætius, Bishop of Thessalonica, having certified to the council that many strangers, priests, and deacons, pleased with their abode at Thessalonica, continued there for a very long period, it was ordered that the above canons made for the case of absent bishops, should have force against these particular persons.

21. Allowed a bishop driven out of his own diocese for defending the discipline or faith of the Church, to abide in that of another bishop until he should be restored to his own.

According to the Preface of Dionysius Exiguus, these canons were written in Latin; and many learned writers consider the Greek copy to be a version, and not the original.

The canons of Sardica have been received by the whole Church.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 623.

SATALA (372 or 373). A synod was held under St Basil of Cæsarea, who convened a synod of Armenian bishops, when he remonstrated with them against their indifference, and gave them rules for the due care of things neglected and disordered through their neglect.—P. Councils, 257.

SAUMUR (1253). [Concilium Salmuriense, or apud Salmurum.] Held in 1253, in the abbey of St Florentius, by Peter de Lamballe, Archbishop of Tours, and the bishops of his province. Thirty-two canons were published.

1. Directs that the canonical hours be duly said in all cathedrals and college churches.

3. Directs that the corporals be washed by the priests or deacons in their surplices, in a vessel perfectly clean and reserved for that purpose, and that the first water, at the least, be poured down the piscina; also that the altar linen, and that of the priests, be washed by some respectable woman apart from all other things; states that, in some churches of the province the church linen was found to be dirty and torn.

19. Orders that, if need be, the bishop shall compel abbots to restore the original number of monks in their monasteries.

27. Forbids clandestine marriages, and suspends for three years those of the clergy who have been present at them.

29. Forbids bishops to apply to their own use any part of the revenue of parochial churches.

30. Forbids clerks to leave any legacy to their bastards or mistresses, and declares all such legacies null and void.

32. Orders, under pain of excommunication, to observe all canons made by the Archbishop of Tours.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 707.

SAUMUR (1276). Held August 31st, 1276, by John de Monsoreau, Archbishop of Tours, and the bishops of his province. Fourteen canons were published.

1. Orders that a light be always kept burning in all churches.

3. Forbids all pluralities of benefices with cure of souls without the bishop’s dispensation.

7. Forbids monks to have places in several different monasteries.—Tom. xi. Conc. p.1011.

SAUMUR (1294). Held in 1294, under Renaud de Montbason, Archbishop of Tours. Five regulations were drawn up.

1. Orders all ecclesiastics and monks to wear a suitable dress, and forbids them to wear colours.

2. Prescribes the condition upon which absolution may be given to the dying.

4. Forbids archdeacons and archpriests to send ecclesiastics about the country to receive confessions.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1395.

SAUMUR (1315). Held May 9th, 1315, by Geoffry de la Haie, Archbishop of Tours, who presided. Four canons were published.

1. For the preservation of Church property.

2. Against those who disturbed the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

3. Forbids archdeacons, &c., to take anything from those whom they examined for holy orders.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1617.

SAVONIERES, in LORRAINE (859). [Concilium ad Saponarias, also called Concilium Tullense.] Held in 859, in the presence of Charles the Bald, King of France, and his two nephews, Lothaire and Charles, sons of the Emperor Lothaire. Bishops from twelve provinces attended, and thirteen canons were published.

2. Orders union amongst bishops, and the holding of synods.

6. Refers to the case of Venilon, Archbishop of Sens.

8. Refers to the affairs of the Breton bishops, and forbids them to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours, their metropolitan.

10. Declares that the first six canons of Valence, upon the subject of grace, were read in the council, and that the bishops were divided in opinion concerning them; also that sixteen canons (including the above-mentioned six of Valence), drawn up fifteen days before at Langres, and the four canons of Quiercy against Gothescalcus, were read, but no synodical decision was obtained. Hincmar against Gothescalcus and Remigius of Lyons, in his favour, quarrelled, and the matter was finally referred to another council.—(See Cave. Art. Remigius, vol. ii. p. 42.)

13. Sets forth an agreement entered into by the bishops present, that during their lifetime they should each celebrate a mass for the other once a week, and that, after the death of any of them, certain specified prayers and masses should be said by the survivors.—(See C. of TOUSI, 859.) Tom. viii. Conc. p. 674.

SAVOY (1661). Conference of the Savoy. See Collier, ii. 877; Wheatley, &c.

SCHIRACHAVAN (862). A synod was held in 862 at Schirachavan in Armenia, by the Catholic Zacharias, before Ascint Pacratides, Prince of Armenia, in which the question of a re-union with the Catholic Church was discussed, and canons published, establishing the true faith.—(See Galanus Lib. 3.—Or., Christ., tom. i. p. 1393.)

SCOTLAND (1187). [Concilium ad castellum Puellarum.] Held by the Legate Cardinal Vivian, in which he suspended Christianus, Bishop of Whithorn (Candida Casa), for refusing to attend the council; this last, however, according to Hovenden, “feared not the suspension, being defended by the power of Roger, Archbishop of York, whose suffragan he was.”—Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 486.

SEDEN (1267). [Concilium Sedenense.] Held on the 1st November 1267, by Henry, Archbishop of Embrun. Twelve canons were published.

1. Of diligence in punishing heretics.

5. That no canon in minor orders may claim to vote in the chapter.

6. Orders prebendantes to serve their prebends in person, upon pain of losing the fruits.

8 and 9. Forbid lay persons to usurp tithe and to impede the episcopal jurisdiction.

12. Of the punishment of those who carry any ecclesiastical or secular canon before a Civil Court.—Mart., Thes. Anec, tom. iv. col. 185.

SELEUCIA, in SYRIA (now Suadiah) (359). Held September 27, 359, in the church of St Tecla, by order of the Emperor Constantius. One hundred and sixty bishops were present, of whom about one hundred and five were semi-Arians, forty Anomæans, and thirteen Catholics; amongst these was St Hilary of Poitiers, who for four years had been banished into Phrygia. Amongst the semi-Arians were George of Laodicea, Silvanus of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, and Eustachius of Sebaste. The Anomæans formed the party of Acacius of Cesarea. The thirteen Catholic bishops, who probably came from Egypt, alone maintained the consubstantiality of the Word. Leonas, the imperial questor, had orders to attend the deliberations of the assembly.

The bishops forming the party of Acacius, anxious to avoid any inquiry into the several accusations and complaints which they were aware would be brought against them, insisted that first of all the questions relating to the faith should be examined; and, after some discussion, they gained their point; whereupon, in the very first sitting, they openly renounced the council and the creed of Nicea, and maintained that the Son was of a substance different from that of the Father. These impieties, however, were not endured by the semi-Arians, who formed the largest body in the council; they made no other objection to the creed of Nicea than the use of the word “consubstantial,” which they declared to be obscure; hence vehement disputes arose between the two parties, which ended in the Acacians leaving the assembly, disgusted with its decision, viz., that the formulary drawn up at Antioch in 341 should be adhered to.

In the second sitting, the formulary of Antioch was confirmed by the semi-Arians, who were alone in the council. The Acacians, however, drew up a new formulary, full of contradictions, condemning at the same moment both the similarity of substance and the contrary.

In the third sitting the dispute was continued, Leonas having been deputed by the Acacians to attend for them, and to deliver their formulary of faith.

In the fourth the Acacians declared that they believed the likeness of the Son to the Father to consist in a likeness of will only, and not of essence; the others, on the contrary, maintained a likeness of essence also; and after much warm altercation no decision was arrived at.

In the fifth sitting the Acacians were summoned to attend to examine the case of St Cyril, who appealed from the judgment of Acacius, by whom he had been deposed; they, however, refused either to attend or to come to any agreement concerning the faith. After having summoned them repeatedly to appear and to reply to the accusations brought against them, the council proceeded to depose Acacius, Eudoxius of Antioch, George of Alexandria, and several others. They then reduced to the communion of their own respective churches, Asterius, Eusebius, and five others, until such time as they should disprove the accusations brought against them. Another bishop was elected to the see of Antioch. The sentence of the council was not, however, carried into effect, the deposed bishops having interest enough at court to prejudice the emperor in their favour.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 804.

SELEUCIA (about 362). A synod of Macedonians, called together by Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, rejected the Acacians and the creed of Ariminum, and approved that of Antioch confirmed at Seleucia.—Soz. xiv., p. 228.

SELEUCIA (410). Held in 410, in order to re-establish ecclesiastical discipline in Persia and Mesopotamia. Twenty-seven canons were made.

1. Orders prayers to be made for princes.

2. Contains a profession of faith agreeing with that of Nicea.

3. Orders that the consecration of a bishop be performed by three bishops at the least.

5. Excludes from every ministration priests and deacons who do not observe strict continence.

6. Ordains the same thing with respect to clerks guilty of usury.

7. Excommunicates all who have dealings with enchanters, &c.

10. Directs that priests and other clerks shall eat in a place distinct from the poor.

11. Orders that their sleeping rooms also shall be separate.

15 and 16. Ordain that there shall be but one archdeacon in each diocese, who shall act as the arm and tongue of the bishop, to publish and execute his will.

20. Permits the archdeacon to celebrate the Holy Eucharist in the absence of the bishop, and gives him power to punish deacons under certain circumstances.

25. Forbids bishops to ordain priests and deacons anywhere save before the altar.—Mansi, Supp., tom. i. col. 285.

SELINGSTAD near Mayence (1022). [Concilium Salegunstadiense.] Held in August 1022, by the Emperor Henry; Aribo, Archbishop of Mayence, presiding. Twenty canons were published.

3. Forbids the celebration of marriages from Advent to the octave of the Epiphany, from Septuagesima to the octave of Easter, during the fourteen days preceding the feast of St John the Baptist, and on fast days and vigils.

4. Forbids a priest having drunk anything after cockcrow in summer to say mass on the following day; allows of cases of necessity in winter.

6. States that complaints had been made of the conduct of some very foolish priests, who were in the habit of throwing the corporal into a fire, for the sake of extinguishing it, and strictly prohibits it.

9. Forbids talking in church or in the church porch.

10. Forbids lay persons, and particularly matrons, to hear daily the gospel, “In principio erat Verbum,” and particular masses, such as the mass of the Holy Trinity or of St Michael. The canon seems to imply that this had been done, not out of devotion, but for purposes of divination.

16. Forbids any person to go to Rome without first obtaining the permission of his bishop or his deputy.

18. Notices the folly of those who, being guilty of some crimes, despise the penance imposed upon them by their own priests, and trust to obtaining a plenary absolution from the Roman pontiff, and declares that such indulgence shall not be granted to them; but that, in future, they shall first fulfil the penance imposed, and then go to Rome if they choose it, having first obtained leave from their own bishop.

After the canons follows an appendix concerning the manner of celebrating a council.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 844.

SENLIS (873). [Concilium Silvanectense.] Held in 873, by the bishops of the provinces of Sens and Rheims, in which Carloman, the son of King Charles the Bald, was brought to judgment, deposed from every ecclesiastical dignity, and reduced to lay-communion, on account of his treasonable and other evil practices.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 257.

SENLIS (1235). Held November 14, 1235, by the Archbishop of Rheims and six of his suffragans, who put the whole of the king’s domains within the province of Rheims under an interdict.—(See C. of COMPIEGNE, A.D. 1235.)

SENLIS (1310). Held in 1310, by Philip de Marigni, Archbishop of Sens. Nine templars were condemned and burned, denying, in the hour of death, their previous confession of guilt, which had been extorted from them by torture.—Dubois, Hist. Paris, p. 551.

SENLIS (1315). Held in 1315 or 1316, by Robert de Courtenay, Archbishop of Rheims and his suffragans, in which Pierre de Latilly, Bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne (accused by Louis Hutin of the death of Philip le Bel, and of another murder, and imprisoned), demanded his liberty and the restitution of his property. Subsequently he was entirely justified of the charge, and was left in quiet possession of his bishopric. He died in 1372.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1623.

SENLIS (1326). Held in 1326, by William de Brie, Archbishop of Rheims, with seven of his suffragans (present either in person or by deputy). Seven canons were made.

1. Lays down the proper forms to be observed in holding councils.

4. Declares excommunicated persons to be incapable of suing at law, of defending themselves, and of giving evidence.

5. Excommunicates those who violate the asylum afforded by churches, either by dragging away forcibly those who have taken refuge there, or by refusing them nourishment.

6. Against clandestine marriages.

7. Against those who impeded ecclesiastical jurisdiction.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1768.

SENS (1140). [Concilium Senonense.] Held in 1140. Amongst those present were Louis VII., Samson of Rheims, and Henry of Sens. In this council St Bernard charged Abelard, who was present, with his errors, accusing him of making degrees in the Trinity, as Arius had done; of preferring free-will to grace, with Pelagius; and of dividing Jesus Christ, with Nestorius; he produced extracts taken from his works, and called upon Abelard either to deny having written them, or to prove their truth, or to retract them. Abelard, instead of defending himself, appealed to Rome; whereupon the bishops present contented themselves with condemning his doctrine, passing no sentence upon him personally, out of deference to Innocentius II., to whom Samson and three of the bishops wrote, requesting his concurrence in their judgment. The pope condemned Abelard in the same year, and, in his answer to the letter of the bishops, declared that he concurred with them in the sentence they had passed, and that he had imposed perpetual silence upon Abelard. The latter published an apology, in which he confessed the sound Catholic faith, declared that he desisted from his appeal, and retracted all that he had written contrary to the truth. He died, in the end, in the monastery of Clugny, after ten years of retreat and penitence.—(See C. of SOISSONS, 1121.) Tom. x. Conc. p. 1018.

SENS (1199). Held in 1199, by the legate Peter, against the Poplicans (or Populicani), a sect of Manichæans (the author of which, called Terricus, was burnt). An investigation was made into the cases of those who were accused of this heresy; amongst others, the Dean of Nevers, and Raynaldus, Abbot of St Martin, were charged with it; the latter was deposed, being found guilty, not only of this heresy, but of two other errors, viz., that of the Stercoranists and of that of the Origenists, who taught that all men will at last be saved; both of them appealed from the decision of the council to the pope.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 3.

SENS (1256). Regnauld, Bishop of Paris, and other bishops addressed a letter to Pope Alexander IV., in favour of William de St Amour, who had been excommunicated and deprived by that pontiff for his opposition to the Dominicans and support of the rights of the University of Paris. Alexander refused to listen to their remonstrances.

SENS (1320). Held in May 1320, by William de Melun, Archbishop of Sens. Four statutes were published.

1. Enacts that the bishops should grant an indulgence of forty days to those persons who would fast on the vigil of the feast of the Holy Sacrament.

2. Directs that places in which clerks were forcibly detained should be laid under an interdict.

4. Condemns those priests who dressed themselves improperly, such as in red, green, yellow, or white boots, &c., and wore beards and long hair.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1680.

SENS (1485). Held in 1485, by Tristan de Salazar, Archbishop of Sens, in which the constitutions published by his predecessor, Louis, in a council held A.D. 1460, were confirmed. Amongst other matters treated of were the following, viz., the celebration of the holy office, the reform of the clergy and of the monks, the duties of laymen towards the Church, &c.; also it is enacted that canons shall be considered to have been absent who are not present at nocturn, before the end of the “Venite,” at the other hours before the first Psalm, and at mass before the end of the last “Kyrie;” most of these regulations were taken from the canons of Basle, and Lateran, and from the Pragmatic.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1721, Append.

SENS (1528). See C. of PARIS, 1528.

SEVILLE (590). [Concilium Hispalense.] Held November 4, 590, composed of eight bishops; St Leander, Bishop of Seville, presiding. It was decided that the donations and alienations of Church property made by the Bishop Gaudentius were uncanonical and void; also, authority was given to the lay judges to separate the clergy from their wives or mistresses.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1588.

SEVILLE (618 or 619). Held in November 618, by St Isidore, the archbishop, at the head of seven other bishops, against the Acephalists, who denied the two natures in one person. Various regulations, chiefly relating to the particular circumstances of their Church, were also drawn up. All the acts of the council are contained in thirteen chapters.

1. Theodulphus, Bishop of Malaga, having complained of the conduct of the bishops of his neighbourhood, who, during the confusion consequent upon the war, had appropriated to themselves much of his territory, it was ordered that all should be restored to him.

4. Forbids the ordination of clerks who had married widows, and declares such to be void.

5. Orders the deposition of a priest and two deacons, ordained under the following circumstances:—The bishop, who laboured under an affection of the eyes, had merely laid his hands upon them, whilst a priest pronounced the benediction.

6. Forbids a bishop of his mere will and pleasure to depose a priest.

7. Relates to the conduct of Agapius, Bishop of Cordova, who, being little skilled in ecclesiastical discipline, had granted permission to certain priests to erect altars and consecrate churches, in the absence of the bishop. The council forbids all such proceedings for the future.

10 and 11. Confirm the recent establishment of certain monasteries in the province of Betica, and forbid the bishops, under pain of excommunication, to take possession of their property; also allows monks to take charge of property appertaining to nunneries, upon condition that they dwell in distinct houses, and abstain from all familiar intercourse with the nuns.

13 and 14. Assert the doctrine of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ united in one person.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1663.

SICILY (366). [Concilium Siculum.] Held in 366, by Eustathius, Bishop of Sebastia, and the Oriental deputies, who, in a council of the bishops of the country, confirmed the faith as settled at Nicea, and nullified the proceedings at Ariminum; the use of the term “consubstantial” was approved, and the bishops drew up a synodal letter after the form given by Pope Liberius in his reply to a synodal letter of the Synod of Lampsacus.—(See C. TYANA.) Tom. ii. Conc. p. 830.

SIDE in PAMPHYLIA (383 or 390). A council was held here in 383 or 390, at which the Massaliani were condemned under Amphilochius of Iconium.—Baron. 383, xxxix.

SIENNA (1423). [Concilium Senense.] Held first at Pavia, and subsequently translated to Sienna, in 1423. This council lasted till the 26th of February 1424, and many sessions were held. Amongst the acts is a decree against the heresies previously condemned at Constance, and against all aiding and abetting the Wickliffites and Hussites. Indulgence was granted to their persecutors. The question of a reunion with the Greek Church was also debated, and its further consideration postponed. It was determined that everything relating to the Reformation of the Church should be referred to the council about to be held at Basle.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 365.

SIGEDIN (367). A council of the Anomæans, among whom were Ursacius and Valens, Gaius and Paul, was held here, from which an epistle was written to Germinius, Bishop of Mursa, threatening him with some penalty if he did not declare himself to be also an Anomæan. His answer declared that he held Jesus Christ to be like to the Father in all things, except that the Father was Unbegotten.

SIRMIUM (351). The first synod of Sirmium was held in 351, against Photinus, bishop of that see. His heresy was similar to that of Paul of Samosata; he denied the existence of our Lord before His birth of the Virgin, and maintained that He was merely man; but admitted that the Holy Spirit descended into Him, and that He might in a subordinate sense be called the Son of God. After having been condemned in the Council of Milan in 347, he betook himself to Constantius, and demanded a fresh hearing before judges to be appointed by the Emperor; this was granted to him, and he pleaded his cause against Basil of Ancyra in the presence of certain judges, all laymen nominated by the Emperor. He was, however, again condemned in the Synod of Rome, A.D. 349; an information of the decree against him having been forwarded into the East, the Oriental bishops met at Sirmium in this year, to confirm the act of condemnation, and to pass sentence or deposition upon Photinus, which was accordingly done. There seems to be some question about the orthodoxy of the bishops who composed this council, as they drew up a formulary of faith, which is denounced by St Athanasius as erroneous. St Hilary, however, commends it as Catholic. It is not to be confounded with the confession which Hosius of Cordova was, by threats and violence, compelled to sign in a subsequent council, held in 357, from which the words οὐσία, ὀμούσιον, were rejected.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 729. Pagi in Bar., A.D. 351, note xii. Cave’s Apostolici, p. 406.

SIRMIUM (357). Held by order and in the presence of the Emperor Constantius, who was at the time in Sirmium, at the instigation of the Arian bishops, who having drawn up a new formulary of faith, rejecting the words οὐσία, ὀμοοισία, and ὀμοιοσία, in which the Father was declared to be greater than the Son, endeavoured to force the Catholic bishops to subscribe it, and especially Hosius of Cordova. The old man, yielding to torture and imprisonment, at last consented, and signed the confession of faith; but Athanasius testifies that before his death he anathematised the Arian heresy.—Cave’s Apostolici.

SIS (1307). Held at Sis, in Armenia Minor, in 1307, by Constantine, Archbishop of Cesarea, the King Leo II. and Haython, his father, together with thirty-five bishops, seventeen heads of monasteries, and many doctors being present. In this synod, a letter written by Gregory VIII., the last patriarch, to King Leo (Haython?), praying him to call a council and put an end to the schism from the Catholic Church, was read, and various decrees were drawn up and signed. Constantine was also elected Catholic of the Armenians in this synod. Many of the Armenians refused to receive its decrees.—Or., Christ., tom. i. p. 1405.

SOISSONS (744). [Concilium Suessionense.] Held March 3, 744, by order of Pepin. Twenty-three bishops were present. The heretic Adelbert was condemned in this council; and ten canons were published.

1. Recognises the Nicene creed.

4. Forbids fornication, perjury, and false witness, to the laity; orders all priests to submit to their bishop, to render an account to him every year of their conduct, to receive him when making his visitations, and to obtain from him the holy rite and chrism.

5. Forbids to receive strange clerks.

6. Directs bishops to take all possible measures for the extirpation of paganism.

7. Orders that the crosses which Adelbert had set up in his diocese should be burnt.

8. Forbids clerks to retain any women in their houses, except their mother, sister, or niece.

9. Forbids lay persons to retain in their houses women consecrated to God; forbids them also to marry the wife of another man in his lifetime, for that no man may put away his wife except for adultery.—(See C. of ROME, 745.) Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1552.

SOISSONS (853). Held April 26, 853, in the monastery of St Medard, under Hincmar of Rheims, composed of twenty-six bishops from five provinces. The king, Charles the Bald, was present during the deliberations of the council, which lasted through eight sessions. Thirty canons were published.

1. Recapitulates and confirms the judgment pronounced against Ebbo and the clerks whom he had ordained; also confirms the elevation of Hincmar to his see.

2. Relates to the case of Heriman, Bishop of Nevers, at the time out of his mind, whose church was committed to the care of his archbishop.

4. Orders Amaulry, Archbishop of Tours, to take charge of the bishopric of Mans, the bishop, Aldricus, being afflicted with paralysis, having addressed a letter to the synod for assistance, asking for their prayers during his life and after his decease.

7. Orders that the king be requested to send commissioners, who should re-establish divine service in the monasteries.

Mansi adds three other canons.—Supp. tom. i. col. 929, Tom. viii. Conc. p. 79.

SOISSONS (866). Held August 18, 866, by order of Charles; thirty-five bishops attended. The clerks ordained by Ebbo, and who had been deposed in the council of 853, were, by indulgence, re-established. Vulgude, one of the number, was, in this same year, consecrated Archbishop of Bourges.—Hincm., Opusc., 18. Tom. viii. Conc. p. 808.

SOISSONS (909). See C. of TROSBY, A.D. 909.

SOISSONS (1092). Held in 1092 or 1093, by Raynaldus, Archbishop of Rheims, against Roscelin the Tritheist. Fulco, Bishop of Beauvais, attended in behalf of Anselm, Abbot of Bee (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), whom Roscelin, both in private and in his writings, had falsely charged with holding the same opinions as himself, viz. that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were three distinct beings, existing separately, and that it might be said that there were three Gods, were not the expression harsh, and contrary to the phraseology in use. Being questioned before the assembly, he explained his views, and abjured the heresy imputed to him; but no sooner was the council dissolved, than he recanted, declaring that he had made his abjuration before the synod merely through fear of being assassinated by the ignorant populace unless he did so. Upon this Anselm wrote his tract “De Incarnatione,” which he dedicated to Urban II. Subsequently, Roscelin, finding himself regarded by all Catholics as a heretic, and avoided, betook himself to Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, imploring his assistance, and abjuring again all his errors. At last he died, in retreat, in Aquitaine.—Pagi in Baron. A.D. 1094. Tom. x. Conc. p. 484.

SOISSONS (1115). Held in 1115, by Conon, Bishop of Præneste. From this council deputies were sent to the Carthusians, entreating and commanding them to send back into his diocese Godfrey, Bishop of Amiens, who had retired amongst them. This command was executed in the beginning of Lent. Another council was held in the same year at Rheims, upon the same subject by the legate Conan.—(See C. of BEAUVAIS, 1114.) Tom. x. Conc. p. 801.

SOISSONS (1121). Held in February 1121, by Conon, Bishop of Præneste, and legate. In this council, Abelard was compelled to burn his book upon the subject of the Blessed Trinity, and was desired to make a confession of faith; he accordingly, with many tears and much difficulty, read the creed of St Athanasius; he was then sent to the monastery of St Medard, at Soissons, and subsequently to that of St Denys.—(See C of SENS, 1140.) Tom. x. Conc. p. 885.

SOISSONS (1456). Held July 11, 1456, by John, Archbishop of Rheims, who presided. The execution of the decrees of Basle was ordered, and the acts of the assembly of Bourges were confirmed, several other canons were enacted, which relate, amongst other things, to the dress of bishops, the approval of confessors, the preaching of indulgences, &c.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1396.

STRIGONIA, or GRAN in HUNGARY (1114). Held in 1114, by Lawrence, the archbishop. Sixty-five canons were published.

2. Orders that the epistle and gospel be explained every Sunday to the people in large Churches; in small parishes the creed and the Lord’s prayer.

3. Orders that in all large churches there shall be clerks of every degree.

4. Orders that the people shall come to the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist at Easter and Christmas; the clerks at all the great festivals.

6. Orders that ignorant priests shall be deposed.

10. Enacts a penalty for not calling in the priest in time of dangerous sickness; in case of death, the penalty to be enforced against the wife or relations of the deceased; or, if he have none, against his agent and two of the old persons of the place in which he lived.

11. Forbids to raise to the episcopate a married man, unless with the wife’s consent.

15. Forbids bishops and priests to keep slaves.

17. Forbids to consecrate a church which is not endowed.

18. Forbids to ordain a clerk without a title.

27. Directs that the bishop shall regulate the nourishment and manner of life to be observed by canons according to their rule.

28. Declares that the children of persons who have voluntarily embraced a canonical life may not lay claim to their property without their consent.

32. Forbids deacons and priests to marry after ordination.

37. Directs that abbots shall be seldom absent from their houses, and then only for a short time, and after notice given to the bishop.

38. Forbids abbots to use the episcopal ornaments, and denies to them the power of preaching, hearing confessions, and baptising.

39. Forbids to confer holy orders upon monks.

46. Directs that nothing be said or sung in church but what has been ordered in synod.

47 and 48. Relate to drunkenness among ecclesiastics.

49. Relates to the same vice amongst the laity.

50. Directs that in every city the bishop shall have two houses for the incarceration of penitents.

53. Directs that a woman thrice deserting her husband shall, if noble, be put to penance, without any hope of ever being restored to him; if a woman of low degree, be sold as a slave. Also orders that a husband slandering his wife, by accusing her of adultery, shall suffer the same punishment. Orders the same penalties against a husband deserting his wife from motives of hatred and aversion; and gives liberty to the wife in such case to marry another.

54. Deposes any clerk marrying a second time, or marrying a widow or divorced woman.

55. Appears to allow of priests who have married twice exercising their office, if their wives consent to separate from them.

59. Forbids clerks to keep taverns, or to practise usury; deposes those who drink at taverns without sufficient cause.

61. Forbids Jews to keep any Christian servants.—Mansi, Supp., tom. ii. col. 283, &c.

SUFFETUM (528). [Concilium Suffetanum.] Held in 528, at which St Fulgentius was present. Bishop Quodvult-Deus (who had disputed the point of precedency with him at the Council of Junga in Africa), at his request, presided.

SUTRI (near ROME) (1046). [Concilium Sutrinum.] Held in December 1046, by Henry the Black, King of Germany, to put an end to the schism which disturbed the Church. Three claimants existed to the papacy, viz., Benedict IX., Gregory VI., and Sylvester the Third. The first and third of these were deposed. Gregory VI. was invited to this council, and came, hoping to be recognised as sole pontiff; but finding various difficulties and obstacles in the way, he renounced the papacy, stripped himself of his ornaments, and gave back the pastoral staff, after having held the papal chair about twenty months.

After the council, Henry, accompanied by the prelates who had been present, came to Rome, and, by common consent of the Romans and Germans, Suidger was elected pope, who took the name of Clement II., and was consecrated on Christmas Day.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 943. Baronius, A.D. 1046.

SYNNADA (516). [Concilium Synnadense.] Held about 230, or, according to some, in 256, upon the subject of Cataphrygian baptism. Baptism received out of the Church was declared to be null and void.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 760.