0I\{NIATEMPUS HABEI\IT

Miscellanea theologicaVincentio Myszoi

quadragesimum annumlaboris scientifici celebranti

ab amicis, soclalibusdiscipulisque oblata

ks Antoni Reginek, *of.x13;;t'iyx,1;rk, t{§. Andrzej ZądIo

Księgarnia św. JackaKatovrice 2009

grze-:hów,

spóŁvatelitia,

Ks. Leszek MisiarczykUniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie

THE DECREE OF CONCILIUM NICAENUM

^ND CONCILIaM CARTHAGINENSE QaARTUM SCILICET

S TATU TA E C C L E S IAE ANTI QaA GENADII MASSILIENSISIN MEDIEYAL PONTIFICAL OF PŁOCK

INTRODUCTION

In the research on texts of patristic epoch, studies on various forms of trans-mission of those texts in the following centuries play a significant role. It is knownthat the writings of Church Fathers have survived until present times basically intwo ways - rewritten in extenso in a manuscripts and codices, which later becamethe basis both for Migne's editions and contemporary critical ones (CCL, CCG,CCEL, SCh), as well as cited in ońer later texts. This second way of transmis-sion is particularly impońant when the case is about council and synodal textsof patristic epoch, since they very often became the basis for Church legislationboth in medievai period and the later one. Such situation is seen in the famousPontifical of Płock, in which we can find cited one of decrees of the Council ofNice and other of the 4th Carthaginian Synod, which acfually comes from Galiaand has been passed by Genadius of Marseille. Thus, the Pontifical of Płock of12'h century can constitute an impońant historical source for the reconstruction ofthe texts of decrees included in it themselves, as well as for confirmation of theauthenticity of its transmission in the later compilations of council and synodaltexts. However, before moving on to detailed comparative analyses of the canonsin question, it is worth to mention the most important issues connectedwith Pon-tifical of Płocł briefly.

PONTIFICAL OF PŁOCK

Until l94l, Pontifical of Płock was placed in Capitulum Library then in the

Diocesal Museum and then in the Library of Theological Seminary (since 1929),

from where it was finally taken away during the Second World War. At present,

it can be found in Bayerische Staatsbibliotek in Munchen. After discovering theplace of its stay and giving access of it to researchers, it was prepared for printingby Fr. A. Godleś and edited by Płockie Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne under the title

Bo1-

Ia

l94 KS. LESZEK MISIARCZYK

Pontifical of Płock of 12ń century. Studium liturgiczno-żródłoznawcze. EĘcjatelcstu, Płock 1986'.

Pontifical is a liturgical book made for the use of the Bishop and the Church ofPłock, since it was defined in such way on page2I1 as ,,Liber ęcclesie plocensis".As regards its content, Pontifcal is not an orderly text and both descriptions ofservices done by the bishop, presbyter and other liturgical regulations tend to mixthroughout it. A. GodleŚ, after conducting a comparative analysis betw een Pontificalof płock and pontifical of Durand, pontifical of the Roman curia of 13th centuryPontifical of Rome of 12th century andRomąn-German Pontifical,came to a conc-lusion that, due to significant similarities in descriptions of ceremonies, it belongsto the type of the Roman-German pontifical. The proof for this can be the lack ofan orderly content of Pontifical, popular in medieval period such as benedictionesepiscopales sollemnes and so called ordo romanus antiques de reliquis anni totiusfficiis ac ministeriis. pontifical of płock wouid have been, then, a copy of theprototype of Roman-cennan pontifical created in scriptorium in Mogunce in theyears 950-96ll63, whose later copies of manuscńpts con§titute fourbasic groups:German, Italian, French and English. A. Podleś claims that the codex of Płock isnot a direct copy of any manuscript from all of the four mentioned groups, buta copy of still another French or Italian manuscriptz.

Paleographic data, such as the characteristic traits of Latin Roman minuscule,with ornaments of initials, lining some pages with lead chisel and lack of folioand paging, as well as the content of the codex, that is, the ceremonial of choosihga bishop by the cłergy and lay people, and some notes dating to 12'h century provethe date of the lŻth century as the time when the codex could have been created3.The most probable places for its creation are: Płock, where in 12'h century the ca-thedral or the cloister of St. Wojciech (Adalberrus) were the places of the writers'activity, or the land of Moza in northern France, which can be confirmed by thesimilariĘ of the font in other codices preserved in Płock, which swely came fromthose centers, such as The Bible of Płock, The Gospel according to St. Mark orthę Collection of Gospels.

A very important tip indicating the purpose of the codęx can be found in thetext of the oath sworn by a bishop e|ect: Ego N., sancta illi ecclesie a vestrą pa-ternitate consecrandus episcopus, puro corde, verafde, promitto Deo et SancteRomane Ecclesie et domino pape, et specialiter sancta Gneznensi ecclesie, etbeąto Petro, et sąncto Adalberto, et tibi domino arciepiscopo meo et successori-

l In the presentation of Pontifcal I am ref'erring Lo Ihe Introdttction by the rext ecjitor Rev.A. Godleś.

: See: A. Pod\ęs, Introdttction, in'. Pont_ufikał Płocki z ,YII yviektt. Stttdittm !ittlrsic:llo-źródlo-:nąwcze. Edvcja łelrstu, Płock l986, p. 34.

3 See ibidem, p.38.

]

]ii

ł

1

THE DECREE OF CONCILI{IM NICAEN|JM

bus tuis, veram obedienciąm etfdelem subiectionem. Ad synodum tuam vocatus,sine dilatione veniam, ad consecrationem confratrum nostrorum pro iussu tuooccurram, nisi detinear infrmitate, vel alia canonica necessitate. Si quandoquevisitaveris Parrochiam meam, te pate rut seniorem suscipiam, et in nuncios tuis teipsum recognoscam. Festivitatibus sancta Gneznesis ecclesie, si iusseris curabointeresse, et tue pąternitati vita comite in omni bono obedire. Et oc iuro per Deumet per hoc sacrum evangeliumo.Apart from the oath of fidelity to sancte RomaneEcclesie... et domino pape, it is worth to notice the words of obedience towardsthe Church of Gnesno specialiter sancta Gneznesi ecclesie... et sancto Adalbertoet tibi domino archiepiscopo meo et successoribus tuis..., as well as readiness tofollow the celebrations of this Church festivitatibus sancte Gneznesis ecclesie,si iusseris curabo interesse. The oath of obedience of such type to the bishop orarchbishop of the oldest bishop's seat in the counĘ was given in that period, asA. podleś notices, by German and French bishops, but does not appear in polishpontificais such as pontifcal of cracow of ll'h century or pontifical of JohnRzeszowski. The fact of its presenceinPontifical of Płockproves that it was writtenespecially for poland by order of a bishop from metropolis of Gnesno, and, due tothe fact that the metropolis of Gnesno enclosed all Polish dioceses, theoreticallythe codex could have belonged to any of them. Researchers'trials to attribute it toGnesno or Poznań are not convincing, since the list ofbooks in cathedral library ofGnesno does not contain any pontificals and there are no references to Poznań inthe text either. Howeveą there are fwo references to Płock with the descriptions ofthe ceremonY of giving ordinations or services to ostiariuses, lecturers, exorcists,acoiYtes, since the text claims that they are ordained ad titulum sancte plocensisecclesie (48) and in the annex from l5'h century liber ecclesie plocensis (211v).The analYsis of A. Podleś, not yet questioned by other researchers, leads to theconclusion that the codex ,,was written by order ofthe bishop ofPłock and belongedto Płock from the very beginning"s. There is much evidence that it was preparedby order of bishop Alexander of Malonne (1129-|156) or bishop Wemer (L156-II72).The latter one brought relics of St. Sigmund from Aquizgran to Płock inl i57, and if it was him to have ordered the preparation of the codex, St. Sigmundwould undoubtedly have been placed in the litany to all saints. The lack of hisname shows that the codex was ordered rather by bishop Malonne, the proof ofwhich can be the presence in the litany to all saints names such as St. Gerthrudeof Nivelles, worshipped in Alexander's homeland, and St. Catherine, as wel1 asthe lack of the name of st. wojciech (Adalbertus), which would have surely beenadded by the bishop of polish ongins. The oath given by the bishops of płock tothe archbishop of Gnesno fitted perfectly in the situation of the church in poland

195

ifucja

rch ofnsis".lns ofo mixtificalnturyconc-longsrck ofiones|otiuslf the:n theJup§:rck is;, but

cule,foliolsingIrove

ited3.

e ca-iters'

rńefrom"k or

t theI pa-,ncte

e, etłori-

Rev.

ódło-] Cfr. A. Podleś (ed.) Ponry,fkat Plocki z X]I wieku..., p. 49.5 See: A. Podleś, Introduclion, in: ibidem, p. 40.

l96 KS. LESZEK MISIARCZYK

at that time. which wished to be independent from the metropolis of Magdeburgat all cost. Pope Innocentus II in 1 133 declared the dependence ofPolish bishopstiom the mefropolitan bishop of Magdeburg, and since bishop Alexander had beenconsecrated by archbishop of Gnesno, at the same time he demanded the oath ofobedience to his person. Thus, the text of the oath, as well as the whole codexwouldn't have been an abstract normative document, but rather a record of the

real situation of the Church in Płock in the second half of the 12'h century in thisway being normative for futurę generations.

PATRISTIC TEXTS IN PONTIFICAL OF PŁOCK

Among many texts referred to in Pontifical oJ'Płock, we may find t,łlo datingback to the patristic epoch. Both texts appear in the first part of the codex, entitledordo ąd exąminandum electum episcopum.It is an important trait, because it showsthat in 12t century in Poland, or even in the whole Europe, the rite of exposinga candidate for the function of a bishop to a public examination and consecrationofa new bishop was based on ancient councii and synodal texts ofthe Church,dating back to 4'h and 5ń cenfirry. Further, as we will see, the council and synodaltexts of the patristic epoch included in of 12'h century with only a few changesprove that the Church cared greatly to keep the faithfui record of such type of the

texts for furure generations.

CONCILIUM CARTHAGINENSE QUARTUM SCILICET STATI]TA ECCLESIAEANTIQUA BY GENADIUS OF MARSEILLE

The first synodal text quoted tn Pontifical of Płock is defined as the decree ofthe 4'h Carthaginian Synod from the year 398 and refers just to the public exami-nation of the candidate for the function of a bishop. Although tn Pontifical it isdefined as Concilium Africanorum IIIIor, the content of the quoted decree showsclearly that it is exactly about The Canon (Capitulum) II of this 4'h CarthaginianSynod of the year 398. However, the problem is that more exact studies on thistext presented briefly by the ęditors of the 149ń volume of Corpus Christianorum,Series Latina (CCL) proved that, even if majority editors of the council and sy-nodal texts (Merlin 1524,I,81; Crabbe- 1558,I,256; Surius -1567,I,511; Bini- 1618, iI. 105; Labbe-Cossart- 167I,II, i196; Hordouin - 1725,I,957; Coleti- 17ż8-1733, II, 1433; Mansi - I759-1798, III, 945 - VII, 893; Gonzales (PL 84,

199) usuatly define it as the 4ń Carthaginian Synod, today it cannot be doubtedthat the case is about a Gallic synod and not an African one6, Acta of this Synod

6 See: Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vot. 149, Concilia Africae anno 345-525, ed.

Ch. Munier.Tumhoult 1974,p.343: .,Sub inscriptione Concilii Carthaginensis quarti, ab episcopis du-

centis quattorudecim, era 436 (-- 398), habiti editors conciliorum quoddam documentum adferunt,

.:t

]i

i

THE DECREE OF CONCILIUM NICAENUM

can be found in Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, and Ch. Munier proved that the workitself had been written by Genadius of Marseille7. Editors of 149'h volume of CCLgive the information that the text of new edition is based on the Spanish review,since it had been the one to influence the canon law in the medieval period most

significantly, and they place the Gallic and Italian one in the critical apparatuss.

The fact that the text comes fuom Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua canbe clearly provedby the fact that Mansi, in his edition of the text of the 4th Carthaginian Synodintroduces the canon about the examination of a bishop we are interested in with

the words statuta ecclesiae antiqua docentg, probably repeating after an earliermanuscript in this way. For the purpose of a better presentation, the canon of the

slłrod preserved in Pontffical of Płock will be compared synoptically with the

edition il Corpus Christianorum:

|91

eburgshopsl beenath of;odexof then this

iatingrtitled;hows,osing

rationturch,nodalangeS

of the

SIAE

ree ofxami-l/ it is;hows

Jiniann this)rum,rd sy-;Bini]oleti,L 84,ubtediynod

25, ed.pis du-[erunt,

pontifical of plock

Statuta ecclesiastica docent, quiepiscopus ordinandus est. ante exami-nefur, si natura prudens est, si docibilis,si monbus temperatus. si vita casrus. si

sobńus. si semper suis negociis vacans.

si humilis, si affabilis, si misericors, si

linerarus. si in lege Domini construcfus.si in scripturarum sensibus caufus, si indogmaribus ecclesiasticis exercitatus.et ante omnia si fidei documenta verbis

Corpus Christianorum, vol. 149

Qui episcopus ordinandus est, antea

examinetur; igitur si natura prudens est,

si docibilis, si moribus temperatus, si

sericors, si litteratus. si in lege Dominiinstructus, si in Scripturarum sensibuscautus, si in dogmatibus ecclesiasti-cis exercitatus, et ante omnia, si fideidocumenta verbis simplicibus asserat,

vita castus, si sobńus, si semper suis I

negotiis, si hominibus affabilis, si mi- |

cuius originem gallicam, non autem africanam, fuissę nemo est qui dubitet. Facile enim fuit, post

peńtissimas inquisitions fratrum Belleńni, Rev. Maassen, G. Mońn, B. Botte, fonts, rationem com-ponendi, finem collectionis explanare, quam Gennadium presbYerum Massiliensem, circa annum

475 descrippisse conieci".I am vary grateful to Rev. prof. M. Starowieyski who indicated me that so-callęd Concilium

Carthaginense Quartum istobe identified with one of the Gallic synods which text has been collectedby Gendius of Marseille in Sfunn Ecclesiae Antiqua.

7 See: Ch. Munier, Les Statuta Ecclesiąe Antiqua,Pańs 1960.8 See: CCL, vol. 149, p. 343: ,,Textus heic praebeturrecenionis hispanicae, quae maximum in-

fluxum in ius canonicum condendum Medii aevi obtinuit; revera in Concordantiam discordantiumcanonum Magistri Gratiani nonaginta canones huius sylloges (de centum quatfuor) transierunt,

quonrm maxima pars ex recensione hispanica, saepe a Pseudo-Isidoro retractata, venit. Lectoremad apparatum plenum editionis no§trae remittere liceat, ubi recensio gallica praefetur; recensionemitaiicam, fratrum Belleńni studio confectam, in PL 56, 103 invenies".

9 G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Concilliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 3, Paris-Leipzig 1901,

p, 950.

lq8 KS. LESZEK }4ISlAlt("ZYI(

simolicibus asserit. id est patrum et Fi-liuln et Spiritum SŁrnctum Ltnunr Deulnesse confi rmans. totamc]r_re Trinitatisdeitrtem et consllbstanciaiem et coes-senciaiem et coeternalem et coon]ni-potentem predicans. singulas quasqLlein Trinitate personas pienłlm Deumet iotas tres personas unum Deum. siincarnationen divinam non in patre etsolritu sancto sed in Filio tantum cre-dat. Ltt qui erat in divinitate Dei PatrisFiiiLrs. ipse fieret in homine horninisiIatrls fi]iLis. Deus veruS ex Prtre tt,, c:".Is :1' -1r r +1 ll-]atfe CarTBIn e:, lnalrisi,isceribus ]labens et animam humanalni,rtionabilem. Si simLrl in eo ambe natllreid esl Delts et i]olxo. una persona. unLlSFliiLls. ul-tus Christlls. unus Dominus.cieator ęt aLtctor et rector. cttm patre etSpiriru Satrcto, omnium creatllrarulr"l

id est Patreln et FiliLrm et Spiritum sanc-[tllll. LlnLl[l Deun esse confirmans. tclta-tllclLle Trin itate deitatem coessentialen-l

' et consubstantiaIeln et coaeternaiemet coornnipotentem praedicans: si sin-gulam quamql}e rn Trinitate personampienum Deunr et lotes tres personas

' uIltlln Deum_ si incrmatlonem divinalnnon in Patre neclue in Spiritir sanctotactam. sed in Fiiio lantum credat. utqui erat jn Civ,initate Dei Patrls Filius.ipse fieret in ilorrrirle hominis matrishiiLis. DeLrs \:eills L.x Patre. homo verusa)i lnatfe. cerneIrl :x mirtris visceribusilabens et ln illluIn httlnenam rerion3-lellr. silllu] itl co. ltt rltrittsque ll3turlcicj cst. horno et Deus. Llna persona. unusi]iiiłrs. tlllus C]lristus. un[ls Dolninus.e!'eettlrtl,iIIn,)lnni[lln .lui]c SLlnt el ]uC-tor :r Jtlrnilltis Ji jreltor cLttn Pltrc er

,.,ill,niS j1.1.ic i,eStlręCli()nc. e i \ era lnirnaefcsLllT1l]tione. in qua l,eniet iLrcjicirre,l,ivos ct 1l]ortllos. (]uaerendum etiamlb co. si Norli ct Veter-is Testanlenti. iclrSl. ]e,riS et prophetantln el apostolorumil1-1 utn eulncjelIqLle crcdat 3LlCtorenlDeut-t,l. si diaoolus llon per conciitionem.led per lrbiiriLtln lrelus sit in:rltrs. Qu-aerenciltm etiarrr ab eo. si credat IluiusqLlan'] gestalT}uS et non alterius carnisresLtrrectiollelr-t. si credat iLrdiciumilltuIuIn it recepturos sinsuios pro hisquae in l-iac carne gesserunt. vel poenas.

' .re] oraemia. si nuptias non improbet.si secunda matrinronia ntln damnet.si carnium perceptionem non culpet.si paenitentibus reconciliatis commu-

utle SLlnt, qLlI PaSSLlS est vera carnis SpiritLr scnc|.', ()lniliLllll e feeturerun]. c-itll)iSjiUllc, l)1łlt'li1115 !'Sl VCr3 cr;rluris sLl i til55łlś,iil ,crll irrnis Dltsslonc. lnOrtutlSiIorie, sLrrrerir vera camis Sue resuf- l't'ra cilri]orir.'.,i ,-t.,lu,aa" ,aruaa""it r,ar"iect]one et veia allitne resLlmptione- inqtll , clliet ;u.l it.lrl-c i ir tls et ln()ntloS.(]uerenduIn ecialrl ab eo. si Novi etVeterls Testarnenti. id est legis. pro-piletarirln et apostoiorulTl LtnLlm eundelncrecjat _}utorell Deltm: si diaboIus nonper condicioI]em. sed per rrbitriuinilrclus sit maius.Querenrlum eciertn abec. si credat huius qiLam gestamus etnonalterius canlis resttrrectionem; si credatiLrciicluln futurum et receptllros singu-los pro his. que in lrac carne gesserunt"vel penas vei ,sioriam: si nuptias nonimprobet. si secunda matrimonia nondrmpnet: si in brprisrno otnnia peccJte.id est tarn iilud crlgirlalecontractltI-n.quanr iili que voluntarie admissa sit.

nteet. si in baptislno tlrnnia peccata.

tm Sanc-nS, tota-)ntialem3rnalemi; Si sin-)rSonamlerSonas

divinamt sancto:edat, uts Filius,s matris1o VeruS

sceribusrationa-naturae

na, unusominus,t et auc-Patre et

rum, quimortuuS:xit verar animaeiudicarem etiamnenti, iditolorumrctoremitionem,.lus. Qu-lat huiusts carnisldicium; pro hisl poenas,

nprobet,damnet,t culpet,commu-pęccata,

THE DECREE OF CONCILIUM NICAENUM

cum his omnibus examinatus, fueritinventus et plene instructus, tunc cumconsensu (f. 5) clericorum et laicorumet conventu tocius provincie episco-ponjm, maximeque metropolitani velauctoritate ve1 presencia, ordineturepiscopus, suscipiens in nomine Christiepiscopatum, non sue delectationi nec

suis motibus, sed sanctorum patrum

id est tam illud originale contractumquam illa quae voluntariae admissasunt, dimittantur, si extra Ecclesiarncatholicam nuilus salvetur.

diffinicionibus acquiescens. In cuius

requiratur, quam sancti Patres exemplo I,I

Salvatoris in praelegendis episcopisconstitueruntll,

It is worth to stop over some diffęrences belween the text deliveredby Pontificaland the text of the Synod itself for a while and try to explain their nature. Whencomparing both versions, we need to ręmember about a vęry important methodo-iogical principle: in such type of historic research usually the version passed bycollection of council or synodal documents seems to be more credible. On the otherhand, we know that Pontifical of Płock was created for the liturgical use, so bynature some of the texts presented in it were just for the liturgical needs. Anyway,there is no doubt that Pontifical is the source of record of texts we are interestedin, which is especially precious for reconstruction of transmission of patristic texts

in medieval sources. A detailed comparative study would have to take into accountthe whole manuscńpt tradition concerning the extracts we are interested in, in orderto judge the value of their record in Pontifical properly. Unfornrnately, we cannot

deal with this here and therefore we will only signal some gęneraI similarities anddifferences between the two versions.

Let us start from the claim that in prevailing part the text of the decree inPontifical and in Corpus Christianorurn is the same. Most changes include, cha-racteristic for medieval Latin, substitrrting t wtth c,like in eciam instead of etiam,

dimittantur; si extra Ecclesiamcam nullus salvetur.

oridnatione ecianr etas requiritur, quamsancti Patres exemplo Salvatoris, in pre-

eligendis episcopis constituerunt | 0.

l0 A. Podleś (ed,), Pontyfkał Plocki : XII wieku..., p.ll See: Corpus Christianonlm, Series Latina, vol.

Ch. Munier, Tumhoult l914, p.343,344.

cum in his omnibus examinatus in-ventus fuerit plene instructus, tuncconsensu clericorum et laicorum ex co-nventu totius provinciae episcoporum,maximeque metropolitani vel auctori-tate vel praesentia ordinetur episcopus,suscepto in nomine Christi episcopatu,non suae dilectioni nec suis moribussed his Patrum diffinitionibus adcquie-scens; in cuius oridnatione etiam aetas

49,50.l49: Concilia Africae anno 345-525. ed.

KS. LESZEK MISIARCZYK

leaving out diphtongs, like in provincie instead of provinciae, omitting a in ąntea,

Changes in grammatical forms from sil to esl, from asserat to asserit, acquiescens

to adcquiescens weręprobably triggered by the fact that it is a normative text qu-

oted after some other sources, which often lead to such Ępe of change_ Changes

of the verb form based on the same core, |ike surrexitto resurrexit or rationalem

to rationabilem, as well as changing the order of the terms consubstantialm et

coessentialem et coeternalem, canalso be found. The version in Pontifical clearlY

begins with referęnce to the Church nofins: Statuta ecclesiastica docent.It is not,

however, the exact title of the work assigned to Genadius of Marseille Statuta

Ecclesiae Antiqua, as in the edition by Mansi, but the author of Pontifical is aware

of the fact that the ęarlier church tradition was referred to. Quotation of the decree

after Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua coming from Gallia, even if somebody would

question the fact that Genadius of Marseille was the author of this work, cleariY

ńo*, Gallic influence on the medieval legislation of the Church in Poland and

in the diocese of Płock, as well as confirms the creation of Pontifical bY order ofa bishop with Gallic ońgins.

The version in Corpus Christianorum in the expression si in lege Domini in-

structus is undoubtedly more correct than a clear mistake of the copying man inpontifical,where the expression stands as si in lege Domini constructus, as well as

damnetinsteadof dampnel. Furthęr, we can sęe the change of singtlam quamque in

Trinitate personam plenum Deum to singulas quasque in Trinitate personas PlełlumDeum in pontifica\.In the latter version of the text single words are missing, which

give precise information that the incarnation was caused by the intervention of the

Hoiy Spińt {factam) and that Jesus Christ, as a human being (homo), was born ofa woman. in the CCL version the expressi on omnium creoturarum is used twice,

and also as creaturarum omnium, whl\e Pontifical quotes it only once, We can

get the impression that it is the CCL which repeats the expression unnecessarilY,

rather than Pontifical which omits it. Finally, ambe nature replacing utriusquae

naturae can be easily explained by changes in medieval Latin. ExPressions such

as si cranium perceptionem non culpet, si paenitentibus reconciliatis communicet

are also missing form Pontifical, but it would be difficult, Without more exact

comparative research, to settle the question whether they werę omitted or added in

the manuscript tradition, on which CCL is based. It cannot be excluded that ńeywere of significant importance duńng the controversies in the 4ń of 5'b century

when the Church disputed with manichaeism, or with the issue of lapsi, both of

which were considered unimportant in 12'h cennrry and, therefore omitted by the

author of pontffical. If manichaeism and the issue of lapsi truly constituted the

background for these expressions, then it would be the trace of controversies

which were characteristic to the Church in Northem Africa, which would, then,

prove that the origins of these forms couid have been found in that geographic

area. Genadius of Marseille, if he truly is the author of Statuta Ecclesie Antiqua,

could have gathered various nofins of the Church in the 4e and 5e century, also

.=i

,.tł:

THE DECREE OF CONCILIUM NICAENUM 20I

tn antea.uiescenstext qu-3hangesionalemtialm et/ clearly[t is not,Statuta

.s aware: decree,wouldclearly

md andlrder of

nini in-man inwell asnque inilenumwhich

t ofthercrn oftwice,Ve canlsarily,§quaes suchunicetexact

ded inf theyntury,oth ofly the:d theersiesthen,aphic'iqua,

, also

the African ones. It cannot be excluded that a trace of the A&ican origins wouldhave remainęd in this way in pontffical of płock, which clearly defines it as thedecree of thę 4'h Carthaginian Synod.

To sum up, we can claim that the text of the decree mostly reflects the onewhich was Publishedin Corpus Christianorun. This proves the particular care ofthe Church of Patristic epoch and medięval peńod uto,rt th" exact kansmissionof important texts concerning legislation and discipline of the church. still fuI_ther, as it was written earlieą the rite of public examination of the candidate forthe function of a bishop in poland, and probably also in Europe in the medievalperiod, was based on principles defined by the church in the patristic epoch andremained basically unchanged until the 12e century.

CONCILIUM NICAENUM

_ The second part quoted in pontifical of płock is the 4ń canon of the council

of Nice from 325, which concerns the consecration of a bishop. As we know,decrees of that first Ecumenical Council were initially written in Greek language,and the tradition of translations into Latin has its long and complicated hisiorlilr.The oldest Latin translation, though probably only o} the credó, was done quiteearly, already by Hillary of poitiers, and can be found in the extracts of his histo_rical works Probably dating from the year 35613. other extracts were translatedby Hillary in his work De synodis of the year 359, Lucypherius of Cagliaris in Denon parcendo in Deum deliquentibu.s of the year 355-360, Gregory of Elvira inhis workDe fide orthodoxa contra arianos of 360, incommentaiius in symbolumby anonymous author from the year 375-380 or Nicetas Romesianus in Rątionefdei wńtten in years 380-466. The most popular, both in patristic epoch and laterin medieval times was the translation of Dionysius Exijuus, which became thebasis of contemporary critical editions of the Latin u"..ion of the decrees of theCouncil ofNice, such as the edition by G.Alberigo and others (edd.), ConciliorumOecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna l973. For better estimation of the value of therecord of the decree of the 4'h canon of council of Nice in pontifical of plock letus Present its comPilation with the translation of Dionysius Exiguus and the Greektext of the council:

|] See: G, Alberigo et aIii (edd.), Conciliontm Oecrłnenicorttm Decreta, tsologna l973,p.91-94.13 ldem, P, 93: ,,Verso latina omnium antiquissima est Hilary Pictaviensi in fiagmento ex operahistońco quod anno 356 editum videtur''.

202 KS. LESZEK MISIARCZYK

Concilium Nicaenum- versio graeca (Jo-hannes Scholasticus)

l'Ynó nóor,ly rcu}tatuołuttóv ćnioronoy

'Eniorconou npdorircer1s.ti),totu;rŁu órró r&vtuvttó v tł's ć rap7i uqżl voról av rul iotuołut.ei 6Ł 6uoxeplq eią ro0toi| 6Lti rcatenećyouocud,vd.yrcąv fi 6Lri pfrrcosó6o0, ćĘrinautoq tpeiq ćnitó łótó ouuayopćuouq,oupr|riQou ytvolpćvuvrtul tóv ctrróvtoy rcaLouvT LOe p.ć vuv ó r.dypullp"rituv, trire rilvy<upotovtuv no teio0cl. la

I Concilium Nicaenum- versio latina@ionisius Exiguus)

De ordinatione epi-Scoponrm

Episcopum convenitmaxime quidemab omni-bus qui sunt in provinciaepiscopis ordinari. Siautem hoc difficile fuerit,aut propter instantemnecessitatem aut propteritineris longitudinem:modis omnibus tamęntribus in id ipsum conve-nientibus et absentibusepiscopis pariter decęr-nentibus et per scriptaconsentientibus func or-dinatio celebrefur.i5

Pontifical of Płock- versio latinał

Ex concilio Nicenoqualiter ordinefur

Episcoporum convenitmaxime quidem ab om-nibus, qui sunt in provin-cia, episcopis ordinari. Siautem hoc difficile fuerit,aut propter instantemnecessitatem aut propteritineris 1ongitudinem,tribus tamen omnimodisin idipsum convenienti-bus et absentibus quoquepari modo decernentibuset per scripta consenci-entibus tunc ordinaciocelebretur.l6

Let us stop for a while on these three versions of the text of the 4th canon. It isworth noticingthatpontifical refersto the first ecumenical council of the churchof 325 which, as it can be seen, was still an authority in disciplinary issues alsoin medieval peńod, even if its leading subject *u, ń. n"r"ry orerianism, andnot disciplinary solutions of the church. Furthermore, it is sufrrising that almostthe whole text of the 4'h canon (only its last sentence was omitted) is quoted inpontifical almost as exactly as in the Latin translation of the decree. The change,in the initial Verse, of the singular, both in Greek ('Eniorcorroujand Latin versions(episcopum) into plural episcoporum in pontifcal proves that this rule becamegeneral in 12'h century.and was obligatory in consecration of all bishops. It cannotbe excluded that the title of the Laiin translation of the 4ń canon itself was theą|a The Council of Nice, Cano1 IY in: c. Alberigo et alii (edd.), Conciliorum oecumenicorumDecreta,.Bologna 1973,p. 7. See also: A. Baron - H.'Pi.t.us riaal,'orńń"r|'Soborów Powszech-nYch, Tel<st grecki, łaciński, Polski(Documents of Councils Ecumenical. Greek, Latin ąnd polishłext), vol. 1, Krakow 2001, p. 28.15 The Council of Nice, Cazoł.IV, in: G. Alberigo et alii (edd.), Conciliontm oecumenicorunlDecreta, Bologna 1973, p.7. See also: A. Baron, H.'Pi"t us (ed,d), Dokumenty Soborów Powszech-nych..., p.28.|6 A. Podleś (ed.), PonĘfkał Płocki, p, 50.

f Płockrał

o NicenoLetul

l convenitem ab om-tinprovin-ordinari. si§cile fuerit,instantemaut propter;itudinem,lmnimodislnvenienti-)uS quoqueernentibusconsenci-ordinacio

Canon. It is'the Churchissues also

ianism, andthat almost.s quoted inlhe change,tin versionsule becamels. It cannotelf was the

cumenicontmjw powszech-

in and polish

cumenicoruntiw powszech-

TIIE DECREE OF CONCILIUM N(CAENUM

inspiration for Pontifical, since it contains plural form (De ordinatione episcopo-

rum), whl|ethe Greek one keeps the singular form. We would, then, deal with the

tendency of universalisation of the Nicene rule already on the Stage of its Latin

translation by Dionysius Exiguus. The second minor change concerns the order of

the expressions: the Latin translation of the decree is modis omnibus tamen tribus

in id ipsum,and in Pontifical it stands as tribus tamen omnimodis in idipsum,The

difference, as can be seen, is exactly about the order of various words and does

not change the sense of the sentence itself. And, finally, the third difference: in

absentibus episcopis Pontifical omits the last word and changes partier into quoque

pari nlodo. Here, also, the difference is about the form rather than about the sense

of the expression itself. Howeveą fbr the history of the legislation of the Church,

it is not the form of the record that is important, but, above all, the content of the

4,h canon of the Nice itself, since it orders the bishop to be consecrated by all pro-

vinciai bishops. However, if such order would have encountered some difficulties

due to an urgent need or distance, the Council recommends to gather at least three

bishops in one place, with written consent of the absęnt ones and then to make the

consecration. Metropolitan bishop only confirms this eiection for the candidate of

a bislrop. Schatz believes that the 4'h Canon, conceming the election of a new bishoP

not oniy by one bishop, but by all bishops of province oą in case of difficulties,

at least by three of them, but with the wriften consent of all the absent ones and

the final approval of the metropolitan bishop, was directed against tendencies of

some metropolitan bishops to fill bishops'capitals with their i'avourites on their

own. Ordaining a new bishop should have, then, always be a collective act, This

ordeą which later was applied only to consecration of bishops and has survived

in such tbrm until now, initially referred to the whole process of the election ofa candidate for a bishop. which comprised both the examination of a candidate,

his canonical election, and the sacrament of bishop's consecration itself ? A good

example of separation of the exam and canonical election of a bishoP since the

very moment of consecration is justPontifcal of Płock,where the exam had been

taken earlier on the basis of the acts ofthe aforementioned 4'h Carthaginian SYnod,

whereas the rule of presence of three bishops for the consecration had been taken

form the Council of Nice. The order of consecration of a new bishop by at least

three others is a very old practice of the Church, which had appeared in the 20'h

Canon of Council of Arles from the year 314 at the earliest,. De his qui usurpant

sibi soli debere episcopum ordinare, placuit ut nullus hoc sibi praesumat, nisi

assumptis sibi aliis septem episcopis; sit amen non poterit septem, infra tres non

audeat ordinare|8. such order has been confirmed by the council of Nice, requir-

l7 See: K. Schatz, Allgemeine Konzilien - Brennpttnkte der Kirchengescl'tichte, Paderborn 1997,

polish transIat ion Sobory Pows:echne. Plmky :,vrotne w historii KOściola, KrakOw 200 l , P, 30,

|8 Cottncil of ArLes 20, in: A, Baron, H. Pietras (edd.), S;łnodi et Collectiones Legum, voI. 1'.Actct

SynodaLia ab anno 5a ad anntłnl J81, Kraków 2006, pp, 13-73*,

204 KS. LESZEK MISIARCZYK

ing Presence of all or at least three bishops of province with a written consent ofthe absent ones. Similarly, the Council ofAntioch ofthe year 34l (canon20) requiresPresence of all Provincial bishops, and if it would be difficutt to achieve, it is neceisaryto gather most ofthem, or, at least expressing their opinions in wri ti1nglg .Later Apostotic

9Yo.^ } demand presence of tlro or three bishops for the election of a new bishop('Eniorcotoq totvuv lhb ćnr.orcóncov xel,pomveLo0o 6rn fi tpLóv)2o, similarly asApoi-to I ic Cons titutions W,ża,I (' En, lorconou & npoorriiooo vęv XęLpoTove io0ar lnb,i ro,ćnrcrcóncly ff rb 1o0u LLAarrov

'Tb 6l;0) ival,27,2('Eniorconoq inó rpLrlu i) oóo

ĆnrcrconcoY 1elpotoueio0o)2'. We can see, therefore, that separation of election of abishop from the moment of his consecration was done quite early, since not onl y Apos-tolic Canons,butalsoApostolic Constittltions,daingbackto the 4fr-6'h centuryrelatethe order ofpresence of two or three bishops only to the moment of consecration.

we could see that the text of the canon of the council of Nice of the year 325,which concerned the rules for consecration of a new bishop remained basicallyunchanged, which fact is confirmed by pontifical of płockof the 12ń century un-til medieval peńod. Rules defined during the Council of Nice of the year izS toconsecrate a new bishoP by all provincial bishops, and, ifdue to various reasonsit would not be possible, to gather in one place at least three bishops equippedwith written consents of the absent ones and to make consecration then, remained,unchanged until the 12'h century and with some minor changes until presenttimes. It confirms, once again, great care of the church of the patristic epóch andmedieval period about the faithful transmission of a iegislative and disciplinarytexts for future generations.

19 See: ibidem, p. l40-140*.10 Apostolic Canons |, in: ibidem, p. ż73-273*.2| See'. Apostolic Constitutions III, 20, l , in: ibit]em,p. 96-96* i p.256-256* . See also: Apostolic

Constitutions VIII, 4, 6.

l-]

ii.

,_ -!

,,.: ii]