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 the beginning of the 4th century. Although not ecumenical, it was of notable importance in ecclesiastical discipline because of the subject matter of its decisions, some of which opened the way to a particular disciplinary direction in the West; besides the historical interest, which it has as documentation of the spread of Christianity in Spain. The reason for the convocation is unknown; but from an internal examination of the canons it is deduced that the reasons were disciplinary and not dogmatic. Two cities named E. existed in the imperial era: Cauco-Illiberia in the province of Narbonensis, and Illiberia in Baetica (Andalusia), not far from present-day Granada: it was probably in the latter that the Council took place, which was held on 15 May of the years 300-303 according to L. Duchesne and E. Göller; 306-12 according to H. Koch. And present there were 10 bishops (a single codex reports the number 43), and 26 priests plus the deacons.
The acts have come down to us in numerous codices whose authenticity is beyond question: and they give us a kind of collection of penitential canons (81) of the Church of Spain, some of which severely punish certain sins. Against those guilty of qualified idolatry (cans. 1-2), of sorcery (can. 6), against divorced women and concubines without any mitigating circumstance (can. 8), against repeat offenders in sins of the senses, procurers (can. 12), parents who marry their daughters to idolatrous priests (can. 17), the woman who destroys a life in germ (can. 63) and various other kinds of offenders, the Council pronounces the sentence «placuit eos nec in finem accipere Communionem», words indicating, according to the now common opinion, the denial of absolution.
This rather rigid disciplinary direction, which moreover links up with the primitive 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), indeed even of Novatianism (J. J. Herzog). The accusation, however, seems undeserved, if one refers back to the conceptions of the primitive discipline of the Church. And as for Novatianism, it is enough to consider that rather than denying the Church, in certain cases, the right to forgive, which is characteristic of the Novatianists, the fathers of E. grant it after suitable penance. A certain difficulty, on the other hand, is really presented by the words of can. 36: «placuit picturus 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 mockery by the pagans, one must agree that the canon is the reflection of a local rigorism, which also dreaded the distant danger of idolatry.
In the conciliar canons mention is made of the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation (cans. 38, 77) and of the indissolubility of Marriage (can. 6). But the Council above all has novelties in the legislation concerning the manner of life of clerics, who must not be chosen from people little known in the Church for which they are ordained (can. 24), must not demand rewards for the administration of Baptism (can. 48) or practice usury (can. 20); they must moderate themselves in the exercise of commerce (can. 19) and above all must not keep strange women in their homes (can. 27) and are obliged, from the simple cleric upward, to celibacy (can. 33). This last canon is the first trace of celibacy (v.) obligatory for the clergy in ecclesiastical legislation.
