The Teaching of Priscillian - 3

The Roman Walls of Lugo (Galicia)  



The Porta do Carme (Puerta Mina) - One of the Roman gateways through the walls of Lugo

Question 4 - "What was Priscillian's attitude to ordaining clergy (bishops) with an itinerant ministry?" (i.e. not having a defined 'See')

Ana Maria C.M. Jorge (1) says "As to the issue of episcopal ordinations, after Priscillian’s death, Hydatius of Chaves (2) tells us that at the beginning of the 5th century there was a very unusual situation in the neighboring province of Galicia: increasing numbers of bishops without specific seats, and conflict between an established hierarchy and an itinerant one – in other words, a confrontation between two different visions of the episcopate [see Díaz y Díaz 1983: 93  - (3)]".

The answer to Question 3 (see previous post) has a direct bearing on the issue of ordinations. If the small rural community churches were to be fully self-contained within the 'Catholic Church' and have a regular celebration of the Eucharist, then an ordained 'local' ministry would be needful. As we saw in the previous blog, the trend within the 'orthodox' church seems to have been for a concentration of church ministry within towns and cities. Small rural communities appear to have been left outside any heirarchical organisation.

This has been a problem for the Christian church down the ages! The evangelisation of remote areas, even today, often depends on lay evangelists. The 'control' and 'organisation' of such churches by the bishop / priest in the nearest town, often many miles distant, appears to leave a lot to be desired. The ethos of these small village churches is based on meetings within the home of one of the leading Christian families, with worship being led by the 'elder of the household'.
                               
A 'familial based church' still does not fit easily into our western, european based, church order!

In the Priscillianist churches the answer to the oversight of small rural Christian communities would seem to have been a proliferation of intinerant bishops / priests. They appear to have been independent of the heirachical structure and not answerable to the diocesan bishop based in the city. 

Again -  Ana Maria C. M. Jorge says:-
"The Council of Toledo in 400 sufficed in its own right to reveal the problems from which the Hispanian churches were suffering at around the turn of the century. We should recall that in general terms the Council sought to ensure orthodoxy in Hispania by admitting the credo and discipline established by the Council of Nicaea. . . . . . What was really at stake was the hierarchical model of the church that had been emphasized at Nicaea, which was opposed to any other concept of Christian life, and particularly to any organization of the church by the community. [see Escribano Paño 1995: 271 - ]."(4)

Priscillian's teachings and practices seem to have been incompatible with the organization of the heirachical church as it was then established. His teachings were at odds with the lifestyle of many of the bishops of his day. As we have seen, even S. Severus in his condemnation of Priscillian, has to admit that Ithacius was a man "without weight, without any touch of holiness; talkative, impudent, given to high living, much enjoying the pleasures of the stomach and a gormandizer". (5) If this was an example of the standard of life in the leadership of the Church at that time, then Priscillian would have had widespread support among the ordinary people of his day.

"What Priscillian wanted was to reform the church. He thought that the separation of men and women was not inevitable and that the fundamental thing was to seek out the traditional practices of Christian asceticism" (Mayeur 1995: 415 et seq.).(6)

And finally :-  "We should note that the confrontation between town and country also became a part of the process by which Priscillian and his entourage made Christianity an established part of culture. The fact is that it seems that, thanks to Priscillianist practices, Christianity spread out into the rural areas, which were still within the towns’ sphere of influence." (7)

With the evidence we have, it would appear that either Priscillian himself, or his followers soon after his martyrdom, ordained clergy to an itinerant ministry in the countryside. This would be in keeping with what we have already learned of his beliefs and practices and would be necessary for the independence of the Priscillianist churches.


After a brief summary we will move on to a consideration of the theological beliefs of Priscillian, as revealed in his writings.


(1) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge. The Lusitanian Episcopate in the 4th Century: Priscillian of Ávila and the Tensions Between Bishops.  Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)

(2) Hydatius of Chaves (Chronicle 1974: 104)

(3) - This quote is from - Díaz y Díaz, M. C. (1983). L'expansion du christianisme et les tensions épiscopales dans la Péninsule ibérique. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 6: 84-94.

(4) Escribano Paño, M. V. (1995). Cristianización y lideranzo en la Lusitania tardía. In IV Reunió de Arqueología (Paleo)Cristiana Hispànica. Barcelona: Ed. Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 267-275. Quoted in Jorge. opp.cit.

(5) Sulplicius Severus quoted in Chadwick opp.cit. p.149

(6) Mayeur, J. M. dir. (1995). Histoire du christianisme: Naisssance d’une chrétienté (415 ff.). Vol. 2. Desclée. Quoted in Jorge. opp.cit.

(7) Jorge. opp.cit.

The Teaching of Priscillian - 2

Wayside shrine at La Vega, Asturias; on the Camino de Santiago  (The Way of St. James)

Question 3 - "On what basis were the Priscillianist churches organised? Hierarchical or Familial?" (1)

The relationship between Jesus and His followers is portrayed in the Gospels as 'familial'. "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother". (2) And the instruction given by Jesus to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection -  " go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (3)

The early records of the Christian Church as shown in the letters of St. Paul (4) give an outline of the development of an incipient hierarchical order. Over a period of some 150 years, this moved the infant church from being a series of meetings held in the homes of 'patrons' e.g. Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16 vv.3-5) and Nympha at Laodicea (Colossians 4 v.15) to an organised structure with presbyter / bishops and deacons.

It would seem that there was a fairly rapid transition from small groups meeting for prayer and teaching in the homes of individuals, to a form modeled along the lines of the Jewish Synagogue or the Roman 'school hall'. This would inevitably lead to a more centralised organisation with one 'bishop' having oversight of the church groups in a town or city.
It is suggested that this move away from the 'church in the household' to the 'church of the area', from a 'religion of the private space of a household' to the 'religion of the public sphere of a temple', (5) led to the exclusion of women from leadership. The traditional role and influence of women in Greek and Roman culture was within the household. This meant that she could (and did) have a responsibility and role in the church meetings 'in her house'.
When the church meetings moved into the public sphere there were tensions regarding the role of women - see l Corinthians chapter 11. Toriesen summarises this as "The good woman who stayed at home was chaste; the public woman was, by definition, loose." (6) 

With this background, we can look again at the accusations brought against the Priscillianists, recorded in the canons of the Council of Saragossa A.D.380 (7):-
(i) Women attending Bible-readings in the houses of men to whom they are unrelated.
(ii) Fasting on Sundays and withdrawal from the worship of the church during Lent and Advent.
(iv) Recession into cells and mountain retreats.
(viii) The title of 'teacher' being granted to unauthorised persons. (presumably laymen).

Along with the comment about Priscillian's women companions  as  "an abandoned company of loose females" (8) it would appear that the customary worship of the Priscillianists was in the private sphere. Within the Familial security of a 'house-church' women could, and did, play a full part. - There is the possibility that (viii) above was a condemnation, not only of 'lay-teachers and preachers' but also of women taking that role!
In the paper by Ana Maria C.M. Jorge, she says :- "One of the accusations leveled at Priscillian was that he led the Christians of the towns to go to isolated villae in the country. "(9)

To summarise:- All the evidence on the early development of the Priscillianists show it to be a house-church movement, outside the control and supervision of the hierarchical leadership of the 'catholic' church. This  would, of necessity, be condemned by the diocesan bishops, who were concerned to  defend their positions of power.

The basis on which the Priscillianist churches were organised would appear to be Familial.
               

(1) This question is asked byVirginia Burrus:-  "Was the church a "political" community in which relationships between individuals were sharply delineated by the hierarchical ranks of office and gender? Or was it a "familiar" social body in which relationships were ordered by the more fluid hierarchies of birth, material resources, experience, education, or personal gifts of insight or eloquence?"
 Virginia Burrus. "The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy". University of California Press 1995.
(2) Matthew 12, verses 46 -50
(3) John 20, verse 17
(4) e.g. 1 Thessalonians is usually dated to about A.D.52 through to 2 Timothy dated to about A.D.67
(5) Karen Jo Toriesen "When women were priests" Harper Collins 1995. p. 37
(6) Toriesen. p. 143
(7) C.H.Turner Eccles. occid.momument iuris antiqu. i. 417 - 24 
(8)  Sulpicius Severus. Chron ll 48.1
(9) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge. The Lusitanian Episcopate in the 4th Century: Priscillian of Ávila and the Tensions Between Bishops
     Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)

The Teaching of Priscillian -1

The Chi-Rho symbol of Christ, carved in one of the stones at the Roman Villa at Chedworth in Gloucestershire U.K. Dating back to the 4th Century A.D.

My first  two "Homework" questions are essential to everything that follows:

Question 1 - "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"

Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"

In trying to give an answer to these and other questions, I depend on the translations from the original Latin texts and some comments from the following authors. These are well known and respected theologians and, while differing on some details, agree on the importance and reliability of the documents in question.

Henry Chadwick (died 2008) was a leading academic and researcher on the early Church and its relation to ancient society.  His monograph "Priscillian of Ávila, The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church" (1) is still the definitive text on the history of Priscillian.

Marco Conti is Professor and Lecturer on Latin Literature, Patristics and History of Religion at three Universities in Rome.   

Question 1- "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"
Although there are some who would question (or even deny) Priscillian's authorship of Tractates I and II, both Conti and Chadwick are in little doubt that the Apology (Tractate I) and the Letter to Damasus (Tractate II) are the work of the Bishop of Ávila. There is some debate about the context and dating of the Apology (Tractate I), which do not in fact detract in any way from the importance of this summary of Priscillianist belief.
In fact the Apology places far more emphasis on what the Priscillianists do NOT believe, than on stating details of what they do. It was written to the "most blessed priests" (para. 5, 75, 195, etc.). One of the Councils of Bishops who had met to consider the teachings of Priscillian being the obvious recipient.

V. Burrus says:- The most likely context for the Apology is, however, the conflict at Merida after the Council of Saragossa and before Priscillian's ordination, and the most likely author is Priscillian himself. The treatise was therefore probably composed earlier than the Letter to Damasus and may be the work referred to at the end of that letter. (2)

The internal evidence in Tractate I is quite clear that the author is a well born citizen of good social standing (para. 15 - 20 and 194 - 200). He has been accused by Ithacius of "magic enchantments" (para. 380)

Tractate II is the petition addressed by Priscillian, as leader of his group, to Pope Damasus. This effectively dates it to the period between the rescript of Gratian (an Imperial edict obtained by bishop Hydatius stating that the heretics must not only leave their churches and cities but be banished from all countries) and Priscillian's visit to Rome A.D.381 -382. (3)

Taking the internal evidence and the historical details given by Severus and the Canons of the Council of Saragossa, the conclusion reached by Conti and Chadwick would appear to be correct. The author of Tractates I and II is Priscillian, one-time Bishop of Ávila. 

Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"
The answer to this may depend more on pre-conceived ideas and 'gut feeling' than on written evidence!
That there can be no "half-way house" between our total rejection of the Tractates as the truth about Priscillianist belief, and their being a false presentation built on lies with intent to deceive, is obvious. There are however some testimonies on which we can call.
The quality and loyalty of the friends of Priscillian must say something about his integrity and the deep impression his teaching, and lifestyle, had on his close associates. The fact that, included among those condemned with him, were Bishops of long time good standing within their own dioceses speaks for itself. They would have known the basis of the Priscillianist teachings, and would certainly have known if they were heretical.
The bishops Instantius and Salvianus (whose sees are not recorded) were the consecrating bishops at Ávila in 381 A.D. According to Severus they had "bound themselves to Priscillian by an oath".(4) Bishop Instantius was exiled to the Isles of Scilley at the trial in Trier, where Priscillian and others were subject to questioning by torture. (As already noted, Bishop Salvianus died during the visit to Rome and Milan).

Bishop Hyginus of Cordoba had quietly remained in the background but was accused of being sympathetic to the heretics and was also exiled. Remember, the loyalty of these and others to their leader is probably best expressed by that un-named cleric at the Council of Toledo (A.D.400) where he cried out '"of his own accord, not under interrogation" that Priscillian was catholic and a holy martyr who had been orthodox to the end and had suffered persecution at the hands of the Bishops'.(5)

If Priscillian was deliberately lying about his beliefs and those of his group, then those standing trial with him, his long term friends and fellow clergy would have known. It seems far more likely that they were firm in their belief, seeing in it nothing unacceptable to the "faith once delivered to the saints".

Taking as the answer "yes" to Question 1 and the answer that "Priscillian was telling the truth" (with a certain reticence) to Question  2, we can now move on in the next blog to the second set of questions on the beliefs and practices of the Priscillianists.

(1) Oxford Press 1976
(2) Burrus Virginia  The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy
University of California Press, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
© 1995 The Regents of the University of California.    p. 56.
(3) Chadwick p.35 and Severus. Chron.ii.47.6
(4) Chadwick p. 20 - quoting Severus Chron.ii.46.1 ff
(5) Chadwick p. 184 - 5 citing the Acts of the Council of Toledo.

The Texts attributed to Priscillian

Most scholars are agreed that Priscillian is the author of some writings which are still extant. Among these are:-
A codex (Mp. th. Q.3) now in the library of the University of Würzburg.
Usually known as The Würzburg Tractates. (1)

Canons on the 14 Pauline Epistles which are included in 22 different manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate with an introduction by Priscillian himself. Unfortunately we only have a version expurgated and reworked by an unknown bishop calling himself 'Peregrinus'. He clearly states in his introduction, preceding that of Priscillian, that he has removed all possible heretical content and ideas, and that the "work [is] restored to the right doctrine". (2) 

A Fragment quoted in Orosius. This is a supposed quote from the teaching of Priscillian quoted in the Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum which was sent by Orosius from Spain to Augustine in Hippo in the year 416 A.D. (3). Chadwick gives a good exposition of this in Priscillian pp.191 - 4

There are two other documents which reflect Priscillianist teaching and theology but their style and inelegant phraseology set them apart from the elegance of the Tractates and most scholars accept that their author(s) were other than Priscillian.
 These are "On the Trinity of the Catholic Faith" extant in a single document in the Bibliotheque de Laon (4) and the "Prologues of the Monarchians" found in a number of manuscripts of Jerome's Vulgate.(5)

We are fortunate that Marco Conti has given us an excellent translation of all these works in the form of a diglot with the English translation facing the original Latin text. with this we are able to read the words of Priscillian himself, and perhaps form our own judgement on the heretical nature of his teaching and practice.
 
(1) Marco Conti. Priscillian of Ávila - The Complete Works. Oxford Early Christian Texts 2010 (1st Edition) pp. 14 - 17 and pp. 32 - 163
(2) Conti. p. 17 - 19 and p.165 - ff.
(3) Conti. p. 19 and pp. 210 - 211
(4) Conti. pp. 19 - 20 and pp. 212 - 249
(5) Conti. pp. 20 -21 and pp. 250 - 257

The Martyrs of Trier

 

A 'Cruciero'. One of the Stations of the Cross on Mount Pedrouso, Santiago de Compostela.

Before we look at the "Homework Questions" and the possible teachings of Priscillian, we need to give a brief account of the after effects of his trial and execution.

The final sentence on Priscillian was confirmed by the Emperor Maximus while St. Martin was absent from Trier on other business -Severus does not give the reason. However, on the return of Martin, Maximus rescinded the order for the "witch- hunt" in Northern Spain and recalled his tribunes. This was apparently a "quid pro quo" to persuade Martin to take part in the consecration of Felix.(1)

Martin, along with Ambrose and other bishops condemned Ithacius for taking what was essentially a church matter to a secular court. This condemnation went as far as declaring illegal the consecration of Felix as bishop of Trier in 387A.D., because Ithacius was one of the consecrating bishops! The schism caused by this division sadly affected the Christian Church in Gaul for years to come, with Christians taking sides and supporting rival groups. (2)

Upon the defeat and execution of Maximus by the Emperor of the East, Theodosius, the Pricillianist church in Galicia found a new freedom. They obtained permission to bring back the mortal remains of 'The Martyrs of Trier', and there was a resurgence in the teachings of the founder of the movement, 'Saint Priscillian'. (3) Chadwick speculates that Santiago de Compostela (4) may have been the site of Priscillian's shrine which was certainly somewhere in Galicia. (5)

At a synod in c. 390, Ithacius was canonically deposed from his see for the bringing of an accusation on a capital charge. Hydatius of Mérida resigned before sentence could be given and both he and Ithacius shared excommunication and a sentence of exile.(6)

In parts of Spain, especially in Galicia, Priscillian was celebrated as a martyr. However at the Council of Toledo (A.D. 400) the four priscillianist bishops who would not recant were excommunicated and deprived of their sees. At the Council one of the clergy of the recalcitrant bishops cried out ' "of his own accord, not under interrogation", that Priscillian was a catholic and a holy martyr who had been orthodox to the end and had suffered perscution at the hands of the bishops'. (7)

By the time of the second Council of Bracara (Braga) in 572, Arianism in the Sueve kingdom of northern Spain was a thing of the past. There is little reference to Priscillianism in the canons of the Council. One of the few late references to the heresy is in a letter of Braulio, bishop of Saragossa from A.D.631 - 651. (8).  By this time Priscillianism was a spent force probably only surviving as a folk memory in the rural population in Galicia.


(1) S. Severus. Chron ii.50.4 in Chadwick - p. 146
(2) Babut. Martin of Tours pp.163-4 and the letter of Maximus to Pope Siricius in Avell. XL (CSEL 35)
(3) S. Severus. Chron. ii.51. 5-8 and Prosper. Chron. min.i.460
(4) Chadwick - p.233
(5) Prosper. Chron.min.i.460
(6) Prosper. Chron. ad ann 389 (Chron. min. i.462)
(7) Chadwick - p.184
(8) Braulio. Ep.44 (PL 80.693D)