De decretis Eutychiano adscriptis

Concerning the Decrees Ascribed to Eutychianus. (Taken from D. Coustant.) ARGUMENT. — 1. Two decrees. How Baronius proves the first decree. — 2. How the second might be proved. — 3. The antiquity of the dalmatic in the Church. 4, 5. The beginning of this use is wrongly attributed to Sylvester. — 6–15. While the epistles are forged by Isidore. Ten decrees ascribed to Eutychianus. In the Liber Pontificalis, Eutychianus is said to have decreed “that fruits, beans, and grapes be blessed upon the altar,” and also “that whoever among the faithful buried a martyr should on no account bury him without a dalmatic or a purple colobium.” But what is falsely proclaimed in this book concerning other pontiffs, and specifically concerning Eutychianus, detracts from their authority. However, Baronius admits and approves both. And he judges that the first was opportunely issued by this pope to fortify the faithful against the nascent heresy of Manichaeus, which cursed fruits and other corporeal things as created from the principle of evil. Moreover, in favor of his opinion, he cites the Apostolic Canons 3 and 5, which, however, especially according to the interpretation of Dionysius Exiguus, seem rather to oppose him. For the canon provides that it is not permitted to offer at the altar anything except new ears of grain and grapes, and oil for lights and incense. Hence it must at least be conceded that these canons forbid that beans, which the published decree of Eutychianus orders to be blessed on the altar, be offered on the altar. Then the canon decrees…

5. That all other fruits (or all remaining produce) be sent to the house, and that firstfruits be directed to the bishop and presbyters, and not be offered at the altar. Here we hear that what the decree of Eutychianus orders to be offered at the altar is forbidden by these canons. As for the other decree, the same father of the Annals proves that its use was introduced from that time under the pretext of religion, not only toward martyrs but also toward sacred ministers, both from Book IV of the Dialogues of Pope Saint Gregory, chapter 40, where he relates that the dalmatic of the deacon Paschasius was placed upon his bier, and from the acts of the Roman synod held in the year [ ], in which the same pope first states: "The custom has grown beyond merit among the rulers of this see, that when their bodies are carried for burial, they are covered with dalmatics, and the people tear apart these same dalmatics for distribution out of reverence for sanctity." Then that modest pope forbids that custom with these words: "By the present decree I establish that the bier on which the body of the Roman pontiff is carried for burial shall be covered with no covering." And at the same time he indicates whence that custom arose, when he adds among these things, "since there are many veils from the sacred bodies of the apostles and martyrs," etc.

As if to say, "This honor, which was rightly paid to the bodies of the apostles and martyrs, was undeservedly transferred to those whose sanctity is not equal." But that Eutychianus might decree this honor for the martyrs, a reason can be devised: that the Manichaeans rejected the veneration of the holy martyrs no differently than idolatry. Nor is it to be denied that the words "colobium" and "dalmaticae" are ancient. In the Life of St. Cyprian written by Pontius we read: "And when he (Cyprian) had taken off his dalmatic, and handed it to the deacons, he stood in a linen garment." An ancient author, Questions of the Old and New Testament, in Augustine, Appendix, vol. III, ch. 49, thus expostulates with the deacons of the Roman church: "As if today deacons are not vested in dalmaticae just as bishops are." He notes that the use of dalmaticae is proper to bishops, and that it was usurped by Roman deacons through arrogance. Cyprian, bishop of Toulon, also writes in the Life of St. Caesarius, bishop of Arles, that at the very time when Pope Symmachus "had specially granted the privilege of the pallium to adorn Caesarius, he also made his deacons stand out in their attire with dalmaticae after the model of the Roman church." Gregory testifies, in Book IX, epistle 107, that Aregius requested that permission to use dalmaticae be granted to himself and his archdeacon. He did not permit this "as a novelty, inconsiderately and suddenly," but later, in granting it, he even sent those same dalmaticae to him through the work of Abbot Cyriacus.

In the library of Fleury, this is read from Pope Zacharias writing to Austrobertus, bishop of Vienne: "We have sent a dalmatic for your uses, so that, because your church received the doctrine of the faith and the custom of the priestly habit from this see, it may also receive from it the adornment of honor." From this it can be gathered what credence is to be given to the widely circulated Anastasius writing about Silvester: "And this he decrees, that deacons should use dalmatics in church," especially if this decree is understood to be said not only about Roman deacons but about any deacons whatsoever. Hence also is refuted what others say, that the use of dalmatics was first introduced into the church by Silvester, whereas previously priests used colobia; or what is narrated in the Life of Silvester published by Combefis, namely that Euphrosynus, bishop of Pamphylia, coming to Rome, brought with him the colobium of St. James, the brother of the Lord, and, having celebrated the sacred rites clothed in it, it was from this that Roman priests came to use colobia, but later, for the sake of covering the bareness of the arms, the colobia were changed into dalmatics; or what Anselm of Lucca, cited by Du Cange, hands down: "From St. Silvester and his presbyters the use of colobia took its beginning, and Mark and Julius and Liberius used them in order. After these, however, the colobia were changed into dalmatics." From which it would follow that not Silvester, but Damasus, should be said to have first introduced the use of dalmatics into the church.

But also what I said about Cyprian's dalmatic from his Life written by Pontius persuades that its use in the Church is older than both Damasus and Silvester: just as from the testimonies soon adduced it is established that the use of the same colobia was commonly believed to be more recent. Colobia, however, just like dalmatics, were ankle-length tunics. Dalmatics differed from tunics and colobia in this, that dalmatics had wide sleeves, tunics had tight sleeves, and colobia had either no sleeves or short ones. Concerning colobia with short sleeves, we have that passage of Cassian, On the Habit of Monks, ch. 5: "They also put on linen colobia, which scarcely reach the beginnings of the elbows, and leave the rest of the hands bare." Dorotheus, however, a teacher, asks why the colobium of monks lacks sleeves, when that of all others is sleeved. The same author also adds: "Our colobium has a purple sign," and again asks: "What does the purple sign mean?" and answers: "Each one serving as a soldier has purple on his cloak." And this reason indeed can be applied to the decree which we are considering, whereby it is provided that no one should bury a martyr without a purple colobium. For this reason, I have not regretted discussing these matters a little more fully, since from this light shines forth for proving either the truth or the falsehood of some decrees.

In the adulterine editions of the councils, two letters of Eutychianus, which came from the workshop of Isidorus Mercator, together with the other products of the same workshop, will be published from the clouds; another ten decrees, collected from various compilations of canons, are subjoined. And first, indeed, from Gratian, Part II, Question 3, Chapter 91, it is thus reported: "If any bishop or abbot orders his presbyter or monk to sing masses for heretics (other collectors add 'for the dead'), it is not lawful and it is not expedient for them to obey." But this is a certain slender portion of a larger decree, which Anselm, Book II, or the German manuscript, Chapter 117; Burchard, Book XIX, Chapter 105; and Ivo, Part 13, Chapter, likewise attributed to Eutychianus, present in this manner: If anyone has given or received communion from the hand of a heretic, and does not know that the Catholic Church contradicts it, afterwards understanding, let him do penance for one year. But if he knows and has neglected it, and afterwards has done penance, let him do penance for ten years: others judge seven; and more leniently others, let him do penance for five. If anyone has permitted a heretic to celebrate his mass in a Catholic church, and does not know, let him do penance for forty days. If out of reverence for him, let him do penance for one year. If for the condemnation of the Catholic Church and the custom of the Romans, let him be cast out of the Church as a heretic, unless he has penance: if he has it, let him do penance for ten years.

If he has withdrawn from the Catholic Church into a gathering of heretics, and has persuaded others, and afterwards has done penance, let him do penance for twelve years: four years (according to Anselm, three) outside the church, and six (according to the same, seven) among the hearers, and two more years still outside communion. Concerning those who are twice in the canon, it is said that in the tenth year they receive communion without the offering. If a bishop or abbot orders his monk to sing masses for dead heretics (these are words cited by Gratian), it is not lawful and it is not expedient to obey them. If it happens to a priest where he has sung mass, and another has recited the names of the dead, and has named heretics together with Catholics, if he has understood after the mass, let him do penance for a week; if he has done it frequently, let him do penance for a whole year. If, however, someone has ordered a mass for the death of a heretic, so that he has kept his relics there for the sake of his religion, and he does not know the difference of the Catholic faith, and afterwards has understood and has done penance, he ought to burn the relics there with fire, and do penance for one year. But if he knew and neglected it, moved by penance, let him do penance for ten years. If someone has departed from the Catholic faith without any necessity, and afterwards has received penance with his whole heart, let him do penance for three years outside the church, that is among the hearers, according to the Council of Nicaea (Canon 11), for seven years in the churches among the penitents, and for two years still outside communion. In a German manuscript.

We read next in the collection of Anselm: "Let him do penance for three years outside the church, one year among the hearers, according to the Nicene Council"; which had at first been acceptable, because the hearers entered the church and there heard the readings and sermons together with the other faithful. But the praised Nicene Council does not permit this reading, to whose words the compiler of this decree rashly added the words "outside the church." Moreover, the repeated mention of the name "Mass" in this decree and other things that smell of a period more recent than Eutychianus plainly betray the falsity of its inscription, as does the cited Nicene Council, which was celebrated forty-two years after the death of Eutychianus. Nor indeed is Gratian consistent with himself: for he ascribes a greater part of the same decree to Julius in XXIV, quaest. 1, c. 41. Except for the variations which we have noted in the margin, the whole is copied from chapter 2 of the Penitential attributed to Jerome.

Another: "Nevertheless also," etc., by which an abbess is forbidden to veil a virgin or a widow, is taken from Gratian, XX, quaest. 2, cap. 3, and also found in Burchard, book VIII, cap. 17, and Ivo, part 7, cap. 38, as it is cited from the decrees of Eutychianus, cap. 13. But it is from the Sixth Council of Paris, in the year it was held, book I, cap. 43. A third: "It is also to be preached that the faithful should avoid perjury," etc., is taken from Gratian, XXII, quaest. 1, cap. 17, who indeed followed the earlier collectors of canons, Anselm, book II, according to a German manuscript, cap. 58, Burchard, book III, cap. [blank], Ivo, part 12, cap. 71, among whom it is likewise cited as from the decrees of Eutychianus, cap. 26. Yet it pertains to Theodulf, bishop of Orléans, cap. 26, in Sirmond, vol. II of the Gallic Councils, p. 217. To this is subjoined a fourth: "If anyone has committed mutilations of limbs and burnings of houses, or has ordered them to be done, or has consented to the doer, until he has made amends for these things legally and amicably before the bishop of the city and other citizens, let him know himself to be deprived of the Church. But if after a second and third summons he has not amended all the things of which he is accused, let him be separated from the whole fellowship of Christians as a heathen and a publican." Although Gratian, XXIII, quaest. 8, cap. 31, after Ivo, part 13, cap. 40, and Burchard, book XI, cap. 30, attributes this to Eutychianus, it nevertheless seems to be of more recent law.

Fifth: "If a gentile man has dismissed his gentile wife before baptism"; and sixth: "In a similar manner, if one of the married persons is baptized and the other is a gentile," Gratian, XXVIII, quaest. 1, c., and it supplies. Burchard, book XI, c. 60, and also Ivo, part 8, c. 196, had anticipated this. Both are described from the Penitential of Theodore of Canterbury, c. 45, as may be seen in Petil, vol. I, p. ii, and Dachenus, Spicilegium, vol. ix. What is described in the seventh place from Gratian, XXXV, quaest. 6, c. 7, concerning the synodal oath, whose beginning is: "A bishop, sitting in synod, after a suitable exhortation, ought to summon into the midst seven from the people of his parish, or more, as he shall see fit, more mature, more honest, and more truthful men, etc." is for the same reason also referred to in Anselm, book VI, according to a German manuscript, c. 146. It also exists in Burchard, book I, c. 92, as if from the decrees of Pope Eutychianus, c. 9. But in this latter, chapters are subjoined concerning which, as if by the precept of the same Eutychianus, those who have previously bound themselves by a synodal oath are to be interrogated. Moreover, all those collectors agree in this formula of the oath, by which, "with the relics of the Saints having been brought," it is required of the swearer that he "neither for the sake of love, nor for the sake of fear, nor for the sake of reward, nor for the sake of kinship, in any way conceal from the bishop, or his emissary whom he has ordered to inquire into this, whenever he shall have questioned you concerning this.

So help you God, and these relics of the Saints. Similar to this is that formula of interrogation found in Gratian, ibid., c. 5, related in this manner: "Concerning that kinship which they say exists between that N. and that N., his spouse, whatever you know or have heard about it from your neighbors, or from your older relatives, which you will conceal from your bishop, or from his envoy whom he has ordered to investigate this, by no device, neither for love, nor for fear, nor for reward, nor because of consanguinity, whenever he questions you about this. So help you God, and these relics of the Saints." However, this last formula (which is also anepigraphic in Burchard, book VII, c. 25, and in Ivo, p. 9, c. 61; for it does not pertain, as the Pithou brothers thought, to the citation of Gregory from the Roman council prefixed to the earlier decrees) is cited by Gratian as from the Roman Ordinal. It is therefore probable that the earlier decree is also repeated from the same Ordinal.

It must be admitted, however, that this custom was introduced into the Roman Church only in later centuries, and that in it, as also in the East, at least up to the sixth century, this practice obtained: that those about to give testimony would touch the Gospels placed before them, with no mention made of sacred relics. Proof of this is provided by the letter of Pope Vigilius, no. [—], and of Pelagius I, fragment 44, to Decoratus; the acts of the Synod of Mopsuestia inserted into the acts of the Fifth General Council; and the Sixth General Council, act. 14, p. 977. Moreover, the prescription for using the above formula, or for swearing upon relics, is found in Baluze, vol. I, Capitularies, in Capitulary IV of the year 803, or in the Lex Ripuaria, cap. 57, p. 398, and in Sirmond, vol. II, Concilia Galliae, p. 246, in these words: "Every oath shall be sworn in church or upon relics; and what is to be sworn in church shall be sworn either with six chosen men, or, if there must be twelve, with as many as can be found; and he shall swear thus: 'So help you God, and those Saints whose relics these are, that you speak the truth.'" The same prescription and usage can be seen in the aforementioned Baluze, p. 60, in the Capitulary II of King Dagobert of the year 630, or in the Lex Alamannorum, cap. [—].

7, where it is decreed: "These oaths must be sworn, so that those swearing place their hands upon the capsa, and he alone for whom the case is required speaks only the words, and places his hand upon the hands of all, so that God or those relics may aid him, etc." See the Council of Frankfurt celebrated in the year [blank], canon 9, where the custom of swearing either by touching the Gospels or by having relics placed before one is indicated. That decree: "The great evil of drunkenness," which has been published from the sixteen books, book XIV, chapter i, and which we encounter in Burchard, book XVI, chapter 2, and Ivo, part XIII, chapter 71, is from the Council of Mainz celebrated in the year [blank], canon 46. What is subjoined to this: "Bishops and ministers of God ought not to indulge excessively in feasting and drunkenness," as if described from the same books, ibid., chapter 3, similarly Burchard, book XVI, chapter 3, and Ivo, part XIII, chapter 70, present it, and it pertains no more to Eutychianus, but to the second Council of Reims, held in the year [blank], of which it is canon 18.

Lastly: It must be observed by us, which is prescribed to the ministers of God concerning with whom it is lawful for them to dine, taken from the sixteenth book, book 14, chapter 10, and for the same reason cited by Burchard, book 16, chapter 10, and by Ivo, part 11, chapter 78, is chapter 13 of the Capitulary of Theodulf, bishop of Orléans.