The Ghost of Synods Past: The Synod of Elvira

In 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian launched a brutal persecution of the Church. The persecution lasted for a decade, until Constantine extended toleration to Christians in the Edict of Milan.

Against this backdrop, nineteen bishops gathered for a synod in Elvira, a city in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica in what is now southern Spain. Over twenty priests were also present.

The Synod of Elvira—also known as the provincial Council of Elvira—was not a doctrinal gathering, but a disciplinary one. The Spanish bishops considered how to promote good order in the Church and how best to address grave sins committed by members of their flocks, especially against the First, Fifth, and Sixth Commandments.

Date and participants

“It is uncertain when the Synod of Elvira (today a suburb of Granada) took place,” according to Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (43rd edition, 2010). “From the synodal acts, only the opening day is certain: May 15.”

The French historian Father Louis Duchesne dated the synod to 300-303, on the eve of persecution. The Belgian historian Henri Grégoire placed the Synod in 309, during the persecution. Following in their footsteps, the New Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica propose the dates of 300-303 or 309. Denzinger notes that “the years 300-303 are accepted by most today (but others point to 306-312 and even the time of Sylvester I),” whose reign began in 314.

We know little about the synod fathers besides their names. Bishop Felix of Acci (now Guadix) presided. One synod father (Valerius of Saragossa) is a saint; he is among the holy men and women commemorated on January 22 in the current Roman Martyrology.

Bishop Hosius of Corduba (c. 256-359) was the most prominent synod father. In the first half of the fourth century, Hosius, along with the younger St. Athanasius, was one of the Church’s leading champions of Christological orthodoxy. Hosius figured prominently at the First Ecumenical of Council of Nicaea (325), which dogmatically defined that the Son of God is of the same essence (homoousios) as God the Father. Three decades later, Hosius, imprisoned and tortured at the age of 101 under the Arian Emperor Constantius II, signed an Arian doctrinal formula, but tearfully renounced the heresy on his deathbed, as St. John Henry Newman recounted in a moving passage of his Arians of the Fourth Century (Chapter IV, Section 3, n. 7).

Felix, St. Valerius, Hosius, and the other synod fathers at Elvira codified a rigorous penitential discipline. Anyone who believes that the early Church was a halcyon community filled with saintly disciples of Jesus Christ has only to read the synod’s eighty-one canons (Latin, English) to disabuse himself of the notion.

The Spanish bishops’ rigor was not an anomaly in the fourth-century Church. Decades after the Synod of Elvira, and over two thousand miles away, St. Basil the Great, citing canons laid down by earlier Fathers, discussed the penitential discipline of his time and place.

St. Basil wrote that penitents who had committed murder, sorcery, or incest were to be readmitted to Holy Communion only after a twenty-year period of penance:

The twenty years will be appointed for him as follows: for four he ought to weep, standing outside the door of the house of prayer, beseeching the faithful as they enter in to offer prayer in his behalf, and confessing his own sin. After four years he will be admitted among the hearers, and during five years will go out with them. During seven years he will go out with the kneelers, praying. During four years he will only stand with the faithful, and will not take part in the oblation. On the completion of this period he will be admitted to participation [in] the sacrament.

Different periods of penance were prescribed for different acts. St. Basil wrote that penitents who had committed adultery or homosexual acts were not to be admitted to Holy Communion until the completion of a fifteen-year period of penance; the same penalty was imposed on monks and consecrated virgins who had violated their vows. Penitents who had committed fornication were not to be admitted to Holy Communion until completion of a seven-year period of penance.

Permanent exclusion from Holy Communion

Like St. Basil, the bishops at Elvira prescribed different periods of penance, with attendant exclusion from Holy Communion, for different sins. They saw some post-baptismal sins as so grave as to merit lifelong deprivation of Holy Communion. Penitents who had committed certain sins thus had to undergo lifelong penance:

• entering a pagan temple and committing idolatry
• resuming one’s role as a pagan priest (flamen) and offering sacrifice to a deity (the synod fathers wrote that the flamen’s role could also entail murder and adultery)
• killing another person through sorcery
• committing a second act of adultery following readmission to Holy Communion after a first act
• abandoning one’s husband and living in adultery with another man
• knowing of the adultery of one’s wife and not separating from her (the bishops manifestly believed in a serious obligation to separate immediately from one’s wife upon becoming aware of her adultery)
• engaging in pandering or prostitution
• giving one’s daughter in marriage to a pagan priest
• marrying one’s stepdaughter—an act that the synod fathers recognized as incestuous
• the commission of usury by clergy, an act that also resulted in laicization
• persistence in usury by a layman who had already been absolved of a first act of usury
• abortion by a married woman following adultery: “she has doubled the wickedness”
• acting as a delator, when one’s act resulted in proscription or death
• sexually abusing a boy
• giving false testimony that led to another’s death
• lodging a false accusation against a bishop, priest, or deacon
• the violation of a vow of chastity by a consecrated virgin: she was deprived of Holy Communion for the rest of her life (unless she violated her vow only once: in that case, she could receive Holy Communion at the hour of death)
• the “scandal” and “unspeakable crime” of a bishop, priest, or deacon who has been discovered to have committed a sexual sin with another person: the bishop, priest, or deacon was permanently barred from Holy Communion

The bishops’ concern about clerical chastity was strict: men who had committed sexual sins with others as adolescents were not to be admitted to the subdiaconate, and subdeacons who were discovered to have done so were to be removed from the subdiaconate, “in order that they may not be promoted to a higher grade.”

Less stringent penalties

The bishops at the Synod of Elvira decreed lesser periods of penance for penitents who had committed other sins. Ten years’ deprivation of Holy Communion was decreed for

• apostasy (as long as the one returning to the Church had not also committed idolatry)
• leaving the Church for a heretical sect (by then, the Novatianist heresy and schism had spread throughout the Roman Empire). Those who left the Church as children were deemed not responsible for the act and could be readmitted to Holy Communion immediately.
• watching sacrifices to idols in the capitol building
• knowing of the adultery of one’s wife, continuing to live with her for a time, and then eventually separating from her (again, the bishops manifestly believed in a serious obligation to separate immediately from one’s wife upon becoming aware of her adultery)
• a penitent woman after she left the man with whom she had lived in adultery

The bishops decreed eight years’ deprivation of Holy Communion for a woman who intentionally beat to death her maidservant (or five years if she accidentally beat her to death); however, she could receive Holy Communion in the interval if she became gravely ill.

Five years’ deprivation of Holy Communion was decreed for

• the first act of adultery (the adulterous husband or wife could be given Communion sooner in case serious illness)
• parents who gave their daughter in marriage to a Jew, or to a heretic who had left the Catholic Church (giving one’s daughter in marriage to a pagan was also forbidden, but without a specified period of penance)
• a widow who, after her husband’s death, became intimate outside marriage with another man, but subsequently married him
• a maiden who lost her virginity and subsequently became intimate with other men before marriage (baptized young men who lost their virginity were barred from Holy Communion until marriage, as long as they completed the prescribed penance)
• a widower who married his deceased wife’s baptized sister (in case of illness, the penitent could be given Holy Communion before the end of the five years)
• acting as a delator, when one’s act resulted in a penalty less than proscription or death
• giving false testimony that led to a penalty less than death (if, however, the penitent explained himself satisfactorily, an assembly of clergy, the penalty could commute the penance to two years)

An unnamed period of penance was prescribed for the Christian husband who committed adultery with a Jewish or pagan woman; if the sin was exposed by someone else, the husband was to be deprived of Communion for five years.

Three years’ deprivation of Holy Communion was decreed for

• parents who retracted a betrothal agreement committing their child to a marriage—unless the groom or the bride had been found to have committed a “grave crime.” If, however, the groom and bride committed the grave crime together, the parents were bound to honor the betrothal agreement.
• matrons and their husbands who lent their clothing to give pomp to a secular procession
• deacons who confessed to having committed a “crime of death” (perhaps a mortal or capital crime) prior to ordination. If someone else exposed the deacon’s deed—that is, if the deacon did not first confess the deed voluntarily—the deacon was to be laicized and deprived of Holy Communion for five years.

Two years’ deprivation of Holy Communion for ex-pagan priests who continued to wear the wreath of their old office.

One year’s deprivation was decreed for

• a Christian maiden who lost her virginity to the man she subsequently married
• gambling (the synod fathers wrote that those who gambled on games of chance were to be denied Holy Communion)
• magistrates who assumed the one-year term of duumvir were to refrain from entering church during that year, perhaps because the office at times entailed the dedication of pagan temples

A “short” period of penance was imposed on those who missed Sunday Mass three times. An unnamed period of penance was given for resuming one’s role as a pagan priest (flamen), but not going so far as to offer sacrifice to a deity. (If, however, the penitent ex-flamen were to receive Holy Communion and subsequently commit adultery, he was to be deprived of Holy Communion for the rest of his life, “lest he seem to have made a mockery of Sunday Communion.”)

The bishops also addressed different scenarios related to abandonment, remarriage, and widowhood.

• Suppose a baptized wife abandoned her adulterous baptized husband: she was forbidden to remarry, and if she did, she was forbidden to receive Holy Communion while her first husband was alive, except in the case of grave illness.
• Suppose an unbaptized wife were abandoned by her catechumen husband, and she subsequently remarried: she was permitted to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
• Suppose an unbaptized husband were abandoned by his catechumen wife, and he subsequently remarried: he, too, was permitted to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. The catechumen wife who abandoned her unbaptized husband had to wait five years for baptism, unless she became seriously ill, in which case she could be baptized immediately.
• Suppose an unbaptized wife (woman A) who had been faithful to her catechumen husband (man A) were abandoned by him, and he married a baptized woman (woman B) who knew about the abandonment despite woman A’s fidelity: woman B could receive Holy Communion again only at the hour of death.
• Suppose a widow, after her husband’s death (man A), became intimate with a man outside of marriage (man B), and then married a different non-Christian man (man C). The widow was forbidden to receive Holy Communion for the rest of her life. If man C were a Christian man, however, she could receive Holy Communion again after ten years—unless a serious illness intervened, in which case she could receive Holy Communion sooner.

Clerical celibacy

The Synod of Elvira is most remembered today for its canon on clerical celibacy for bishops, priests, and deacons:

It has been determined that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever in truth does this, let him be expelled from the honor of the clerical office.

Consistent with this canon, the bishops discussed the homes of clerics, decreeing that “a bishop, or any other cleric at all, may only have with him either a sister or a virgin daughter dedicated to God; it has been determined that he by no means have a stranger.”

With no woman permitted to live with a cleric, apart from his sister or a daughter who was a consecrated virgin, it is reasonable to assume that married men were permitted to be ordained, but knew that they were expected to observe apostolic celibacy and live apart from their wives upon ordination.

Although she lived apart from her husband, the wife of a married cleric was expected to provide a good Christian example. If she committed adultery, the cleric who knew of her adultery was bound to “cast her out” immediately. If he failed to do so, he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion for the rest of his life: the bishops were concerned that otherwise, the wife’s adultery would “seem to proceed from [the cleric’s] teachings of wicked deeds.”

Judaism and paganism

Two centuries before the Synod of Elvira, the author of the Didache took it for granted that Christians fasted every Wednesday and Friday. The bishops at Elvira spoke of  “superimpositions” of fasting—whether of extended intensity or duration is uncertain.

These extended fasts were not to take place during July and August on account of weakness (presumably because of the very hot weather in southern Spain during the summer). An extended fast, however, was to take place every Saturday, “in order that error be corrected.” Perhaps the bishops, in emphasizing Saturday as a regular day of fasting, wished to encourage some members of their flocks to make a clean break with Jewish Sabbath customs.

If a desire to encourage a clean break with Judaism led to the imposition of Saturday fasting, then a similar desire for a clean break with paganism may have led the bishops to forbid pictures in churches, “lest what is worshiped and adored be depicted on walls.” It was not until 787—over four and a half centuries after the Synod of Elvira—that the Second Ecumenical of Nicaea would issue its solemn teaching on the veneration of sacred images.

Charioteers and dancers in pantomimes had to renounce their professions before baptism, again perhaps because of an association with paganism. Chariot racing was associated with pagan religious festivals; pantomimes, with mythological themes. Those who returned to these professions after baptism were to be cast out of the Church.

The synod fathers at Elvira admonished the faithful, as far as possible, not to have idols in their homes. If, however, the faithful feared violence from their servi—the word could mean “servants” or “slaves”—they were admonished to keep themselves pure from idolatry. If they failed to do so, they were to be reckoned as outside the Church

At the same time, Christians were not encouraged to destroy idols, as the destruction of idols “has not been written in the Gospel, nor will it be found that it was done under the apostles.” As a result, Christians who were slain after destroying idols were not to be venerated as martyrs.

Those who lit candles for the dead in a cemetery during the day were barred from ecclesial communion for an unspecified period of time, “for the saints’ spirits are not to be disquieted.” (Perhaps such candle lighting was associated with a pagan practice, such as the worship of Saturn.)

The bishops manifested their concern about paganism and Judaism in their canons about “possessors,” or landholders. Possessors who accepted as payment anything that had been sacrificed to idols had to undergo a five-year period of penance before they could again receive Holy Communion. The bishops forbade possessors, in thanking God for their crops, to ask Jews to bless them, “lest they make our blessing invalid and weak.” Such possessors were to be excommunicated if they continued to ask for Jewish blessings after being warned.

The synod fathers at Elvira went so far as to forbid any cleric or member of the faithful to eat food with Jews—and those who did so were to be barred from Communion in order “to be corrected.” Encyclopaedia Judaica comments, “These were the earliest canons of any church council directed against the Jews.”

Miscellaneous canons

At times, St. Paul worked as tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3); at least some of the Spanish bishops, priests, and deacons, too, worked to support themselves and their families. The bishops who gathered at Elvira decreed that bishops, priests, and deacons should remain in their own civil province as they conducted business: if they wished to conduct business elsewhere, “let them rather send a son or freedman, an employee, a friend, or whomever they want.”

Just as it was perceived as unseemly for clerics to be far away from their flocks on business, it was seen as unseemly for bishops to accept gifts from non-communicants—and thus they were forbidden to do so. To avoid the appearance of simony, the synod fathers also sought to put an end to the custom of the newly baptized placing coins for the priest in the baptismal shell.

The bishops were clearly concerned with the sacramental discipline of the Church and decreed that it fell to the bishop who prescribed the penance to readmit the penitent to Holy Communion. No other bishop could presume to readmit the penitent to Communion without permission of the local bishop; doing so endangered one’s episcopate.

Thus, if someone had “fallen by grave lapse into the ruin of death,” penance was to be done not in the presence of a priest, but of the bishop; in case of grave illness, a priest could distribute Holy Communion to the penitent, as could a deacon (if ordered by a priest).

The bishops expressed caution about baptisms and ordinations. Prospective converts who had lived a good life underwent a two-year catechumenate before baptism, though they could be baptized sooner if they fell seriously ill. The reception of a flamen into the Church was to be handled with care: he was to undergo a three-year catechumenate. A catechumen who had denounced a Christian to civil authorities had to wait five years for baptism. A female catechumen who committed adultery, conceived a child, and committed infanticide could be baptized only on her deathbed.

On the other hand, former prostitutes who had married could be received into the Church immediately, as could former catechumens who had not been attending church, but otherwise were living as Christians.

The synod fathers permitted laity to baptize others in some circumstances but counseled them to bring them to the bishop, perhaps for the Sacrament of Confirmation:

If people are traveling by sea in a foreign place or if there is no church in the neighborhood, a person of the faith who keeps his baptism sound and is not twice married, can baptize a catechumen placed in the exigency of sickness, on condition that, if he survives, he bring him to a bishop, in order that it may be made perfect by the imposition of the hand. (Translation by Roy J. Deferrari in Denzinger, 30th edition)

Similarly, if, in the absence of a priest, a deacon was entrusted with governance of a group of the faithful, he could baptize, but had to bring the newly baptized to the bishop “to perfect” the baptism through his blessing (perhaps the Sacrament of Confirmation). The newly baptized who died before receiving the bishop’s blessing were still considered justified by faith.

Flexibility in discipline was shown to those in danger of death. Pagans who were ill and wished to receive the laying on of hands—perhaps Confirmation, perhaps Anointing of the Sick—were permitted immediately to become Christians, as long as they had led at least a “partly honorable” life. Christian husbands who had often committed adultery and were in danger of death were to be sought out—presumably by the clergy—and were permitted to receive Communion if they were repentant. (Such husbands could never receive Communion again if they recovered from illness and subsequently committed adultery.)

The synod fathers of Elvira were cautious about whom to admit to Holy Communion and whom to ordain. The bishops knew their flocks, and those from elsewhere were required to show a letter of reference (presumably from another bishop) declaring that they were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist. Upon presenting this letter, potential communicants were to be questioned.

These letters sometimes described the laity as confessors, but “confessor” was an ambiguous term: a confessor could be someone who simply professed the Catholic faith or someone who survived persecution and torture without denying the faith. To avoid confusion, the bishops decided that those eligible to receive Holy Communion should be referred to as communicants, rather than confessors.

The bishops decided not to ordain men who had been baptized on far-off journeys to other provinces, as they scarcely knew their manner of life. Freedmen could not be ordained while their former masters were still alive. The bishops also decided not to ordain men who had come from a heresy—and, remarkably, to remove from the clergy any former heretics who had been ordained.

The synod fathers were also concerned about demonic possession. Those “vexed by unclean spirits” were allowed to be baptized at the moment of death; if already baptized, they were to be given Communion. An energumenus—a possessed person “agitated by an erratic spirit”—was not permitted to engage in ministry, nor even to have his “name recited at the altar” during Mass. In any case, they were not permitted to light oil-lamps publicly—and if they violated this discipline, they were to be barred from Communion for an unspecified period of time.

The synod fathers deplored the innovation that had arisen in some places of celebrating Pentecost forty days after Easter, rather than fifty. Citing the authority of Sacred Scripture, they ordered that the practice cease.

Priests were instructed not to wash the feet of the newly baptized. (At the time, the practice of foot washing was more broad than a liturgical rite on Holy Thursday.) Those who placed defamatory lampoons in churches were declared anathema.

The bishops forbade women to keep nighttime vigil in a cemetery, as “often under the pretense of prayer, they joyfully commit wicked deeds.” Women—whether catechumens or baptized—were also forbidden to have cinerarii (servants who curled others’ hair) or comati (long-haired men, presumably servants or slaves); baptized women who did so were to be denied Communion. Some commentators believe that the synod fathers were concerned that these situations could lead to adultery.

Laywomen were not permitted to write to other laity without their husbands’ signature as well. Nor was a woman permitted to receive a “letter of peace” addressed to her alone.

The legacy of Elvira

The Synod of Elvira was not an anomaly in the fourth century; on the contrary, the substance of some of its canons was incorporated into the canons of the Synod of Arles (314), the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), and the Synod of Sardica (343).

Closer to our own time, the Synod of Elvira’s canons have continued to inform the Church’s Magisterium. The synod’s canon on clerical celibacy was cited in encyclicals by Pope Pius XI (1935, n. 43) and Pope St. Paul VI (1967, n. 36) and in the Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests (1994, n. 59), as well as in reflections by Vatican cardinals in 2007 and 2011.

Pope St. John Paul II, in his apostolic letter on the Lord’s Day (1998, n. 47), cited the synod’s canon on Sunday Mass attendance. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cited Elvira’s canon against abortion in 1974 (n. 7). The Vatican’s 1998 norms on the diaconate refer to Elvira as well (n. 2).

In a 2004 document, the International Theological Commission referred to the synod’s treatment of the diaconate; in 2014, to the synod’s canons on usury; in 2020, to the synod’s canons on Baptism and Confirmation. In a 2005 reflection, the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations referred to the synod’s canon against pictures in churches.

The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity alluded to the synod’s penitential norms in a 2006 document. In 2017, the Third Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission described the synod as “enormously influential in shaping the faith of the universal Church.”

As influential as the Synod of Elvira may have been, its penitential rigor, though not an anomaly, did not endure. To those with a distant memory of Elvira, how lax St. Ambrose (over a thousand miles away in Milan) must have seemed in 390 when he readmitted Emperor Theodosius to Holy Communion only eight months after he ordered the massacre of civilians at Thessalonica. And to those with a distant memory of Elvira, how lax Bishop Valerius, nine hundred miles away in Hippo, must have seemed in 391 when he ordained to the priesthood a man who had taken and renounced concubines—the future St. Augustine.