ELVIRA, COUNCIL OF. — The first council of Spain and perhaps the first of the national councils in general, held toward the end of the 3rd or at the beginning of the 4th century. Although not ecumenical, it had notable importance in ecclesiastical discipline for the subject matter of its decrees, some of which opened the way to a particular disciplinary trend in the West; in addition to its historical interest, which serves as documentation of the spread of Christianity in Spain. The reason for its convocation is not clear; but from an internal examination of the canons, it is deduced that they were motivated by disciplinary rather than dogmatic concerns. There were two cities named E. in the imperial period: Cauco-Ilbieris in the Narbonese province and Illiberis in Baetica (Andalusia), not far from present-day Granada: the Council was probably held in the latter, on 15 May of the years 300-303 according to L. Duchesne and E. Göller; 306-12 according to H. Koch. There were present 19 bishops (a single revised codex gives the number as 43), 26 priests, and deacons.
The acts have been transmitted in numerous codices whose authenticity is beyond question: they provide us with a kind of collection of penitential canons (81) of the Church of Spain, some of which severely censure certain sins, such as qualified idolatry (can. 1-2), maleficium (can. 6), against divorced women and concubines without any consideration (can. 8), against recidivists in sins of the flesh, lections (can. 12), parents who marry their daughters to idolatrous priests (can. 17), those who suppress life in general (can. 63), and other various kinds of offenders. The Council pronounces the sentence: «plauit eos nec in finem accipere Communione», words indicating, according to the common opinion today, the denial of absolution.
This rather rigid disciplinary trend, which moreover connects with the early history of the administration of the Sacrament of Penance and of the so-called irremissible sins, has led some historians to accuse the Fathers of E. of excessive rigorism (B. Gams), even of Novatianism (J. J. Herzog). The accusation, however, seems unfounded if one refers to the conceptions of early Church discipline. As for Novatianism, it suffices to consider that instead of denying the Church, in certain cases, the right to forgive—which is proper to the Novatians—the Fathers of E. grant it after due penance. A certain difficulty, however, is presented by the words of can. 36: «plauit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere». And if one does not accept the explanation of G. B. De Rossi, according to which the Council had the sole purpose of preventing profanations or ridicule by pagans, one must agree that the canon reflects a local rigorism that perceived even the distant danger of idolatry.
The conciliar canons mention the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation (can. 38, 77) and the indissolubility of Marriage (can. 9). But the Council also introduced novelties in the legislation regarding the life of clerics, who were not to be chosen from among those little known in the Church for which they were ordained (can. 24), were not to demand recompense for the administration of Baptism (can. 48) or engage in usury (can. 20); they were to moderate their involvement in commerce (can. 19) and above all were not to keep unrelated women in their homes (can. 27). From the simple cleric upward, they were bound to celibacy (can. 33). This last canon is the first trace of the obligation of celibacy (v.) for the clergy in ecclesiastical legislation.