TRULLAN, COUNCIL. - In the autumn of 691 the emperor Justinian II convoked at Constantinople a Council, later called T. from the great domed hall (τροῦλος) where it assembled, or also πενθέκτη (Quinisext) because it was intended to supplement the legislative and disciplinary work of the Fifth (553) and Sixth (680) Ecumenical Councils. In the face of the ascendancy enjoyed by the Roman See in 680, the aim was to accentuate the central authority of the new Rome. For this reason certain customs are censured, not only of the Roman Church, but also of the Armenians, the Iberians and the Africans. Of the acts of the Council only the allocution of the Council to the Emperor and 102 canons with the signatures of the participants are preserved. Beneath the Emperor's signature a blank space is left for that of the Pope.
But Sergius I, despite the threats, refused to consent, and the punitive mission of the protospatharios Zaccaria ended with a clamorous triumph of the Pope. Deposed and mutilated, then restored to the throne, Justinian wished to know from John VII (705-707) which canons he did not approve. But the Pope, distrustful, sent back the acts without adding anything. Pope Constantine I (708-15), however, followed the imperial injunction to come to Constantinople, where he was received with all the the honors due. It may be inferred from the notice in the Liber Pontificalis that an understanding was reached leaving the Pope free as regards the West. Later Adrian I cited can. 82 against the Franks in defense of the cult of images. Finally John VIII, according to the testimony of Anastasius the Librarian, approved the canons, «exceptis illis qui rectae fidei, bonis moribus et consuetudinibus Ecclesiae Romanae opponuntur».
There were, however, contradictory testimonies as to the date of the Council, the number of participants, and its authority. The Greeks regarded it as ecumenical, the Latins held it to be spurious. In it were found the signatures of the three Eastern patriarchs, whereas those sees were vacant or, at least, their incumbents could not come to Constantinople. In the manuscripts there are no signatures of Roman legates, who according to the account of the Liber Pontificalis would have been present and, «deceived», would have subscribed. Canonists and polemicists have therefore regarded this Synod with great diffidence. Bede the Venerable calls it «reprobra», Paul the Deacon «synodus erratica», Binius «synodus erratica, conventus malignantium et synagoga diaboli», Baronius rejects it and explains the citation of Adrian I with the example of David, who made use of the sword of the impious Goliath. G. S. Assemani too, and many others, will have nothing to do with it.
Especially to be reproached in the Synod were the anti-Roman canons: can. 3 and 13 censure the practice of celibacy in force in the Roman Church; can. 36 renews what can. 3 of the Second and can. 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council had decreed concerning the rights of the see of the new Rome; can. 55 rejects the fast of Saturday; can. 67 prescribes abstinence from blood and from strangled animals, etc. But it cannot be denied that the majority of the canons is inspired by sound zeal and by the desire to reform abuses.
There are useful laws on the discipline of the clergy, of monasticism, on the duties of the laity; fundamental are the canons on the marriage of clerics (can. 3), on the age of ordinands (can. 14), on the matrimonial impediments of spiritual relationship (can. 53), and of affinity (can. 54). Can. 2 officially recognizes for the first time the Collection of the canons of the ecumenical and local councils, as well as of the Holy Fathers, which was to remain the basis of Byzantine canon law.
Bibliography6 works
Emilio Herman