The Council in Trullo

David-John Williams

The Council in Trullo 

The Council in Trullo (691-692) met in the domed hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople, the same palace that had hosted the Sixth Ecumenical Council eleven years earlier. The Council was convened by Emperor Justinian II (685-695, 705-711). According to tradition, forty-three hierarchs among those who participated had also attended and signed the acts of the Sixth Council.[1] More recent scholarship on the earliest extant copy of the subscription list of the Acts of the Council puts the total number of episcopal signatures at 226, that is 227 including the Emperor’s.[2] The Council drew up 102 disciplinary canons that were intended to supply what the previous two Ecumenical Councils omitted.

The Council has been treated by commentators mainly in two ways; the first interpretation and until recently the most common opinion in the West is that the council was effectively an exclusively Eastern local Synod. The implication of this approach is that the canons of the Council do not have ecumenical authority. The argument against Trullo’s ecumenical character is based primarily upon the so-called ‘anti-Roman’ canons 6,13, 36, 52 and 55 which contradict the established practices of the Roman (Latin) Church regarding clerical celibacy and fasting. These canons were repeated countless times in anti-Latin literature when the Byzantine and Roman Churches came into conflict. The first reference to Canons 13 and 55 are found in Patriarch Photius’ Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, written in response to the Latinising Roman missionaries in recently converted Orthodox Bulgaria.[3] Patriarch Michael Cerularios also made reference to Canon 23 of the “Sixth Synod”, meaning Trullo when he anathematized the papal legates of 1054.[4] Both Photius and Cerularios refer to the Council as ecumenical. Based upon these canons and their supposed reserved or partial reception, most western commentators have treated the Council with suspicion or have left it out of Latin canonical collections.[5]

The second position is that the Council was a continuation of the Fifth Council (or Second Council of Constantinople) summoned by Justinian I in 553, and the Sixth Council (or Third Council of Constantinople) convened by Constantine IV in the same domed hall eleven years earlier (680-681) and that its canons are ecumenically binding. For this reason the Council in Trullo is also known as the ‘Fifth-Sixth Council’ (Πενθέκτη Σύνοδος and Concilium Quinisextum or simply Quinisext and Penthektē).[6] The latter position is held by the Orthodox Church that has consistently referred to the canons pronounced in Trullo as those of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Those present at the Council clearly viewed it as a continuation of the work of the previous two Councils that had pronounced on Christological theology but did not produce any canons.[7] As the logos prosphōnētikos in the Trullo explicitly states, the fathers were “brought together since the last two councils drew up no canons”.[8] The predominant reasons for the western resistance to the Council are the content of the canons themselves and the supposed lack of western representation at the Council. The lack of western participation in councils held in Byzantium was nothing new, neither was it unusual for there to be resistance to the ratification of the acts of a council. The Second Ecumenical Council of 381 was only officially accepted by the papacy in 517, no less than 136 years after its conclusion.

The dubious representation of the Church of Rome at the Council in Trullo concerns the person and authority of Basil Bishop of Gortinae (Crete). This same Basil had represented the Roman Council of 679 to the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. His signature is found in the Acts along with the addendum as locum tenens of the synod of the Holy Roman Church (τὸν τόπον ἐπέχων πάσης τῆς συνόδου τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ῥώμης).[9] Attributing Roman participation in the Council to Basil is problematic and contested. Haldon argues that papal legates were present though not invited to the Council and that their signatures were repudiated by Pope Sergios (687-701). Ohme asserts that there was no official western representation at all and that Basil of Gortinae had no authority to represent the Church of Rome.[10] Roman Catholic historian Laurent stated that the Acts were signed by the “regular apocrisiarii of the pope at Constantinople and that the canons are applicable to the Universal Church”.[11] The primary source regarding the western reception of Trullo are the Vitae of Popes Sergius (687-701), John VII (705-707), Constantine I (708-15) and Gregory II (715-31) in Liber Pontificalis.[12] This important source recounts several failed attempts of Emperor Justinian II (685)-(695, 705-711) to gain official Roman recognition of the canons including an account of a botched abduction of Pope Sergius, who refused to have the canons read publicly and explicitly rejected them as invalid.[13] Likewise, Pope John VII refused to hold the local synod that Justinian II had requested to discuss and confirm the canons. It was not until the visit of John’s successor, Constantine I to Byzantium that an agreement was reached between Rome and Constantinople. What the compromise consisted of is open to speculation, but there is no evidence that Justinian II accepted a rejection of problematic canons by Constantine I. The Liber Pontificalis has Constantine accepting all of the canons and furthermore requiring that the ecumenical councils be represented on church walls in Rome.[14] Constantine I was present at the first session of the Sixth Council. A Greek of the so-called “Byzantine papacy”, familiar with the Byzantine liturgical rite, Constantine I had also previously served as Leo II’s (682-683) apocrisiarius in Constantinople.[15]

Ohme argues convincingly that the primary reason for the Western resistance to the Council was not the canonical material itself but the ranking of bishoprics that were still contested between Rome and Constantinople in the subscription list.[16] As noted earlier, the canons of the Council were drawn up in advance of its convocation and were therefore not discussed at the council so much as submitted for approval. Ohme’s argument assumes the position that there were no papal legates or apocrisiarii at the Council, and is based upon the manuscript tradition which lacks Western signatures. He does not consider the so-called anti-Roman canons or the repetition of the equal privileges of Constantinople with old Rome given by Canon 28 of Chalcedon in Canon 36 of Trullo to be problematic. Some of the canons had their roots in pre-existing civil law issued by Emperor Justinian I (527-565) and the incorporation of universal Roman law demonstrates the canons were intended for the whole Roman state. The Church of Rome did accept the canons de facto through the Papal legates of Pope Nicholas I (858-867), who at the Third Council of Constantinople (861) signed the Acts of the Council and received all of the canons of the Sixth Council. Since the Sixth Council (680-681) issued no canonical legislation the canons referenced at The Third Council of Constantinople (861) can only have referred to the Trullan canons. We can also judge from the attempts made by Justinian II to gain the acceptance of the council by the Roman Church that Trullo was never meant to be a local synod. There are 45 extant manuscripts containing the signatures of the four eastern patriarchs and the emperor, followed by a blank space for the pope’s signature, which should have been placed directly after that of the emperor. Though the absence of the papal signature clearly shows that he was neither present nor represented by a legate, the fact that a place was reserved in the Acts for this to be added shows that Justinian intended on gaining an ecumenical consensus albeit without discussion.

The Council’s ecumenicity was affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787).  The Second Council of Nicaea not only received all of the canons of the Sixth Council but made direct references to its canons.  The 8^th Canon of Trullo amended the 5^th of The First Council of Nicaea (325) and the 19^th of The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), reducing the necessary metropolitan synods held each year from two to one and was confirmed in the 6^th canon of the Second Council of Nicaea.[17] Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople (784-806), who presided over the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), wrote in his encyclical to the eastern patriarchs that the Sixth Council could not be considered Ecumenical without its canons nor any other council thus lacking.[18] Both Photius and Cerularios refer to the Council as ecumenical when referencing it in their anti-Latin statements. The “anti-Roman” canons and their supposed reserved or partial reception has caused most Western commentators to treat the Council with suspicion. Many have omitted the Canons from Latin canonical collections.[19] The question of the applicability of the Canons to the Western Church is intimately tied to the ecumenicity of the Council. The understanding of the applicability of the canons in the West is something that has yet to be fully realized. Pope Hadrian I (772-795) received “the sixth sacred council with all its canons which have been promulgated according to divine law”.[20]  Hadrian also referred to the 82^nd canon of Trullo regarding the depiction of Christ as a lamb as a canon of the 6^th council. Later, in 880 the Council in Trullo was formally ratified at the reconciliation Council in Constantinople.

The Trullan canons were therefore accepted variously as a second session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council or a supplement to it in both East and West. For example Gratian (12^th Century) included 16 canons of the Council in Trullo in his Decretum.[21] The Western canons and councils referenced by Trullo are limited to Carthage and Sardica. The use of the Council of Carthage (400) to criticize the Roman tradition of a celibate priesthood may be interpreted as bringing in a western Council solely for this purpose. Carthage is however referenced in four other canons unrelated to the practice of the Church of Rome.[22] There has been, however, a certain revitalization and rapprochement regarding the Council by Catholic theologians.[23] Trullo has also been referenced by Popes Paul VI (1963-1978) and John Paul II. (1978- 2005)[24] The publication of the volume The Council in Trullo Revisited, edited by George Nedungatt and Michael Featherstone in the series Kanonika (vol. 6) of the Pontificio Istituto Orientale (Rome, 1995), has been an invaluable contribution to the study of the Council shedding light to the historical, theological, canonical and ecclesiastical background. Undoubtedly, the canonical inheritance of the previous councils that Trullo codified along with its significant impact on Byzantine orthopraxis and civil law make it a highly influential council.[25]

---

[1] Nikodemos the Hagiorites, The Pedalion, trans. D. Cummings (New York, 1983).

[2] R. Flogaus, ‘Das Concilium Quinisextum (691/692). Neue Erkenntnisse über ein umstrittenes Konzil und seine teilnehmer’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102/1 (2009), 25-64.

[3]  Regarding Canon 13 cf. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, eds. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink, Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, vol. 1 (Teubner: Leipzig, 1983) pp. 39-53: ‘There is a canon of the regional synod of Gangra that anathematises those who do not recognise married priests. This was confirmed by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned those who require that priests and deacons cease to cohabit with their lawful wives after their ordination. Such a custom was being introduced even then by the Church of Old Rome. That Synod reminded the Church of Old Rome of the evangelical teaching and of the canon and polity of the Apostles, and ordered it not to insult the holy institution of Christian marriage established by God Himself’. Regarding Canon 55 cf. ibid.: ‘The first error of the Westerners was to compel the faithful to fast on Saturdays. (I mention this seemingly small point because the least departure from Tradition can lead to a scorning of every dogma of our Faith. They introduced fasting on Saturdays, although that is prohibited by the 64th Apostolic Canon which states: “If some cleric is found fasting on Sundays or Saturdays except the one Great Saturday before Pascha, let him be removed from the ranks of the clergy, and if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated”. Similarly, by the 56th canon of the holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod which states: “Since we have learnt that in the city of Old Rome some, during the Great Fast, in opposition to the ecclesiastical order handed down to us, keep the fast even on Saturdays, the holy Ecumenical Synod orders that in the Church of Old Rome the Apostolic Canon which prohibits fasting on Saturdays and Sundays is to be followed exactly”.

[4] Michael Cerularius, Anathematization of Papal Legation, ed. C. Will, Acta et Scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saec. XI composita extant, (Leipzig and Marpurg, 1861; repr. 1968), p. 66; trans. D. J. Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes (Chicago, 1984), p. 210.

[5] G. Nedungatt, ‘Ecumenism and the Canon of the Councils’, Theological Studies 71.3 (2010), 651-676.

[6] G. Fritz, ‘Quinisexte (Concile ou in Trullo)’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. XIII.2 (Paris, 1937), col. 1597.

[7] For a comprehensive examination of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils see A. Grillermier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604) (London, 1995).

[8] G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone eds,  The Council in Trullo Revisited, The Council in Trullo Revisited (Rome, 1995), p. 54.

[9] Mansi, J. D. ed. (cont. I.B Martin and L. Petit), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio ..., 53 vols (Florence and Venice, 1759-1928; repr. Graz, 1960-1961), vol. 11, p. 981.

[10] H. Ohme, ‘Sources of the Greek Canon Law to the Quinisext Council (691/2)’, in The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500, eds W. Hartmann and K. Pennington (Washington D.C., 2012), p. 79.

[11] V. Laurent, ‘L’œuvre canonique du concile in Trullo (691-692), source primaire du droit de l’Église orientale’, Revue des études byzantines 23 (1965), 25.

[12] Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2 vols (Paris, 1886-1892).

[13] Liber Pontificalis, vol. 1, p. 373.

[14] S. Salaville, ‘L’iconographie des “Sept Conciles Oecumeniques”’, Echos d’Orient 29 (1926), 146.

[15] M. Sherwood, Constantinople II et Constantinople III (Paris, 1974), p. 245.

[16] Ohme, ‘Sources’, p. 83.

[17] Mansi, vol. 13, p. 41.

[18] Ibid.

[19] G. Nedungatt, ‘Ecumenism and the Canon of the Councils’, Theological Studies 71.3 (2010), 651-676.

[20] Mansi, vol. 13, p. 982.

[21] Gratian, Decretum, Dist. XVI, c. 6: ‘Sexta synodus bis congregata est: primo, sub Constantino, et nullos canones constituit; secundo, sub Justiniano filio eius, et praefatos canones promulgavit’.

[22]  Canons 2, 9, 29, 84.

[23] For example Taft and Nedugatt.

[24] Regarding the legitimacy of married priesthood in the Byzantine rite see Paul VI, Sacerdotalis caelibatus, 24 June 1967, in Acta apostolicae sedis 59 (1967) pp. 657–59, cited by G. Nedungatt, ‘Ecumenism and the Canon of the Councils’, Theological Studies 71.3 (2010), 651-676.

[25] E. Freshfied trans., A Manual of Roman Law: The "Ecloga" (Cambridge, 1926), pp. 108-112; repr. D. J. Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes (Chicago, 1984), p. 78. The Ecloga (726) of Leo III on sexual crimes (717-41) is made up of seven laws, five of which are clearly based on the Trullan canons. Law 3: ‘A person who has carnal knowledge of a nun shall, upon the footing that he is debauching the Church of God, have his nose slit, because he committed wicked adultery with her who belonged to the Church; and she on her side must take heed lest similar punishment be reserved to her’; Canon 4. Law 4: ‘Anyone who, intending to take in marriage a woman who is his goddaughter in Salvation-bringing baptism, has carnal knowledge of her without marrying her, and being found guilty' of' the offence shall, after being exiled, be condemned to the same punishment meted out for other adultery, that is to say, both the man and the woman shall have their noses slit’; Cannons 53-54. Law 6: ‘Persons committing incest, parents and children, children and parents, brothers and sisters, shall be punished capitally with the sword. Those in other relationships who corrupt one another carnally, that is father and daughter-in-law, son and stepmother, father-in-law and daughter-in-law, brother and his brother's wife, uncle and niece, nephew and aunt, shall have their noses slit. And likewise he who has carnal knowledge with two sisters and even cousins’; Canon 54. Law 7: ‘If a woman is carnally known and, becoming pregnant, tries to produce a miscarriage [abortion], she shall be whipped and exiled; Canon 91.