Hilarus, bishop, to Ascanius and all the bishops of the province of Tarraconensis.
After We received the letters of your charity, in which you sought to curb the presumptions of Bishop Silvanus of the Church of Calaguris, and again asked that the wholly illicit desires of the people of Barcinona be confirmed: letters were also presented to Us from the honorable men and possessors of Turiasso, Cascantum, Calaguris, Virgilia, Tricio, Legio, and Civitas, with various subscriptions, through which they offered excuses for what your complaint had alleged against Silvanus. But though their defense was most just, their own case was not without fault — since it was clear that priests had been ordained in several cities without the knowledge of Our brother and fellow bishop Ascanius, the metropolitan. Since, therefore, whatever has been alleged by either side appears tainted with every manner of irregularity, and having considered the necessity of the times, We decree by this reasoning that what has been done belongs to pardon — provided that henceforth nothing be attempted against the precepts of the blessed Apostle, nothing against the constitutions of the Nicene canons.
Chapter I: No Bishop May Be Ordained Without the Knowledge and Consent of the Metropolitan
This, then, first of all, in accordance with the rules of the same Fathers, We will to be observed: that no bishop be consecrated without the knowledge and consent of Our brother Ascanius, the metropolitan — since the ancient order has held this, and the authority of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers has defined it. Whoever raises his hands against this acknowledges himself unworthy of their fellowship, having resisted their precepts.
Chapter II: No Bishop May Transfer From His Own Church to Another; Hilarius Has Judged the Case According to the Decrees of His Predecessors
In contempt of these, the provision forbidding any bishop from presuming to transfer from his own church to another is also disregarded by a proud spirit. This is what Irenaeus the bishop, with your most improper connivance — and, more grievously, with your own endorsement — attempts to have confirmed, you who seek to have it strengthened by Our authority, yet who are shown to be greatly inflamed with indignation over these same illicit acts. Having therefore read your letters in the assembly of brothers gathered for the celebration of Our anniversary, We have pronounced judgment on the ordination of bishops according to the statutes of the canons and the decrees of Our predecessors, and you will learn what has been decided from the text of the proceedings We have sent along with this letter.
Chapter III: Irenaeus Is Removed From Barcinona and Returned to His Own Church; Ascanius Is to Ordain a Replacement
With Irenaeus therefore removed from the Church of Barcinona and sent back to his own, calm by priestly moderation the desires which, through ignorance of the ecclesiastical laws, seek to obtain what is not permitted. Let a bishop from Barcinona’s own clergy be ordained without delay — one whom you especially, brother Ascanius, ought to choose and are fitting to consecrate. Lest, if such a thing happens again, Our precept will not fail to rebound as a rebuke falling chiefly on your name — since We will have learned that something has been committed to the injury of God, from whom the grace of priestly dignities especially comes. Nor should the episcopal honor be considered a hereditary right, since it is conferred upon us solely by the benevolence of our God through Christ.
Chapter IV: The Bishops Ordained Without Metropolitan Knowledge Are Conditionally Confirmed
We therefore confirm the bishops now ordained — who, though promoted without your knowledge, deserved along with their consecrators to be removed — on this condition: that none be the husband of a widow, and that each have entered the marriage and vows of a single virgin, as the legal constitutions command, saying: The priest shall take a virgin as wife — not a widow, not a divorced woman (Lev. 21:14; Ezek. 44:22); and as the blessed Apostle Paul, teacher of the Gentiles, did not fail to prescribe concerning those who desire to become priests, saying: A man of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2). By the tenor of this judgment you ought to be so instructed, dearest brothers, that among other things to be guarded, you strive to observe above all what you know to be commanded before all else. Among these, care must also be taken that two bishops not serve in one church simultaneously; and that no one unlettered, or lacking any bodily member, or from among the penitents, be permitted to approach the sacred ministry at all. Do not suppose that the petitions of the people have such weight that, when you seek to comply with them, you abandon the will of our God, who forbids us to sin. His indignation is provoked more gravely when illicit things are done through those who are supposed to be interpreters of His mercy.
Chapter V: If Irenaeus Refuses to Return, He Will Be Removed From Episcopal Fellowship
That all things may be corrected according to what We have written, We have sent this letter through Our subdeacon Trajan. If Irenaeus the bishop, setting aside the ambition of his impropriety, refuses to return to his own church, let him know that what is granted to him not by judgment but by humanity will result in his removal from episcopal fellowship. May God keep you safe, dearest brothers.
Given on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the consulship of Basiliscus and Hermericus, most illustrious men.
Footnotes
- ↩ The 318 Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea (325). Hilarius grounds the metropolitan’s ordination right in the Nicene canons — but the enforcement of those canons is his. It is Hilarius who decrees what the Nicene standard requires and who makes the metropolitan’s consent a binding condition of valid ordination in the province. The canonical rule is ancient; the jurisdictional act enforcing it is the pope’s.
- ↩ The Latin natalis mei festivitas — “the celebration of my birthday” — refers not to Hilarius’s biological birthday but to the anniversary of his election and ordination as bishop of Rome, which was celebrated annually with a gathering of bishops and presbyters. The apparatus note identifies this as diem ordinationis sive electionis — “the day of ordination or election” — and notes that it was customary for multiple bishops to gather at Rome each year for this solemnity, at which the pope would deliver sermons and conduct business. Leo delivered several of his anniversary sermons at precisely these occasions.
- ↩ The phrase prædecessorum meorum decreta — “the decrees of my predecessors” — is Hilarius’s explicit invocation of the chain of papal authority. He does not ground his ruling solely in the Nicene canons or in general tradition; he names the decrees of his predecessors as a distinct and parallel source of binding law. The predecessors in question include at minimum Leo, whose Gallic rulings on metropolitan rights and ordination procedure (Letters X and XI) established precisely the standards Hilarius is now enforcing. The claim is identical in structure to Leo’s own practice of citing Innocent, Siricius, and Damasus: the office continues through its occupants, and each pope’s decrees are part of a continuous chain of authority.
- ↩ The threat of removal from episcopali consortio — “episcopal fellowship” — is the same communion-threat mechanism Leo employed against Hilary of Arles in Letter X (exsors apostolicæ communionis). In both cases, the penalty is framed as exclusion from the communion that the Roman bishop controls: compliance with the papal ruling is the condition of continued fellowship. The threat is conditional — Hilarius leaves room for Irenaeus to comply — but the jurisdiction to exclude is stated without qualification.
- ↩ December 30, 465 — the same consular year as Letter I and the Roman synod at which the Tarraconensis letters were read. The letter is dispatched through the subdeacon Trajan, who serves as the Apostolic See’s agent for the enforcement of these decrees in Spain.
Historical Commentary