Who is able to sit in Judgement?

 Capilla de La Santa Cruz, Cangas de Onis, Asturias, Spain.

Being built over a dolmen, it is an example of the Christianisation of a pagan site.

A comment by  Ana Maria C.M. Jorge perhaps points us in the right direction:-
"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)". (1)

This being so, the denunciation sent to the Bishop of Rome by Ithacius and Hydatius would be given a high value by the hierarchy, and when Priscillian and his companions arrived in Rome they were ignored by Damasus. The same thing happened in Milan when they presented themselves at the residence of Bishop Ambrose. That both Ambrose and Damasus refused to meet the Priscillianist party must be seen as being of primary importance!

Why would the two senior bishops of the Catholic church refuse to greet their brother bishops who had travelled so far to meet them? It is this first rejection of the Priscillianists in Italy that sets the tone for all future developments.

Jorge again:-
"The Bishop of Milan always refused to support Priscillian’s cause and thought that the man himself was not entirely pure. He went further when he addressed himself to Treves, to the Emperor Maximus, to protest against this “party” (see Ambrose of Milan 1968: 214-215. See also Escribano Paño 1988: 314-315 and 395-399)." (2)

On the obtaining of a rescipt by Hydatius (Bishop of  Mérida) from the Emperor Gratian, Conti has a telling comment:-
 "It is extremely likely that 'Gratian's pronouncement authorised Hydatius to identify the guilty parties' (Burrus, The Making, 54), so that he could actually charge Priscillian and his supporters with being Manichaean and ask for their banishment. At the same time, Hydatius was able to gain the support of Ambrose by falsely accusing Priscillian and his followers." (3)

Here we have Conti expressing what an unbiased reader of the history of Priscillian and his Tractates should feel. False accusations by some of bishops of Lusitania (4) were accepted as the true picture by both Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. There does not seem to have been any questioning of the veracity of the denunciations, even at the trials of Priscillian and his companions. There may have been a number of reasons for this attitude:-

1) Ambrose in Milan, and to a lesser extent Damasus in Rome, were living in the province of a "Junior" emperor, Valentinian II, who held his position due to the goodwill of his half-brother Gratian. Once Gratian had shown his opposition to the Priscillianists at the request of Hydatius et el, then Ambrose would be reluctant to go against that decision. 
 
2) The Arian controversy was still giving the Catholic bishops grief! The mother of Valentinian II (and presumably the boy emperor himself) was a staunch Arian living in Milan. She made repeated requests to Ambrose to allow a basilica to be set aside for Arian worship. With this kind of pressure it is understandable that the news of a 'new heresy' in Spain was met with dismay.

3) It is likely that Priscillian was consecrated bishop by Instantius and Salvianus, two bishops only, acting without the authority of the Metropolitan. This was against the Nicene rulings regarding the consent of the Metropolitan and the requirement of a minimum of three bishops for  consecration. (4)

4) The complaint of the objectors seems to have been based on the fact that, when Priscillian was still a layman, Instantius and Salvianus had been condemned together with him by the judgement of the bishops (at Saragosa). (5)

5) The comment by Ambrose regarding the fact that he "thought the man himself was not entirely pure." may have been influenced by the women travelling in the entourage of Priscillian. Severus represents ". . . the ladies as an abandoned company of loose females".(6) This was probably the reaction of the orthodox Italian bishops when Priscillian sought audience.

Whatever the reason for this rejection of the Priscillianists by the bishops in Italy, it led to the eventual trial and death of Priscillian and his companions - lamented after the event by Ambrose!. (see next blog). I regard this as the saddest part of the whole saga. There was an opportunity for one of the recognised great "doctors" of the Church to meet with, and discuss possible developments, with the charismatic leader of a large number of Christian believers. This led to the development of a separatist church movement and schism in Northern Spain and Gaul for years to come.   


(1) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge.
(2) Opp. Cit. Quoting  "Ambrose of Milan (1968)". Epistula 30 (24). In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. O. Faller. Vol. 82 . Wien: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 214-215.
(3) Conti, p.272.     N.B. The whole of the 'Commentary' by Conti on Tractate II is well worth reading!
(4) South west Spain and Portugal with its capital at Mérida. Hydatius of Mérida and Ithacius of Ossonuba (modern Faro in Portugal) were the bitterest enemies of the Priscillianist movement.
(4) Chadwick. p. 33.
(5) Sulpicius Severus, Chron.ii.47.4. This was of course denied by Priscillian in Tractate II, see previous blog posts.
(6) Chadwick. p.37. giving Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii 46.6 in his footnotes.