TRULLANO, COUNCIL OF. — In the autumn of 691, the Emperor Justinian II convened a Council in Constantinople, later called the Trullan Council from the great domed hall (τρούλλος) where it met, or also the Quinisext Council because it was intended to supplement the disciplinary legislation of the Fifth (553) and Sixth (680) Ecumenical Councils. In response to the growing influence of the Roman See after 680, it was desired to emphasize the central authority of the New Rome. For this reason, certain usages were censured, not only of the Roman Church but also of the Armenians, Iberians, and Africans. Only the allocution of the Council to the Emperor and 102 canons with the signatures of the participants have been preserved. Under the Emperor’s signature, space was left blank for that of the Pope.
However, Sergius I, despite threats, refused to consent, and the punitive mission of the protospatharios Zacharias ended in a resounding triumph for the Pope. Deposed and mutilated, then restored to the throne, Justinian sought to learn from John VII (705–707) which canons he did not approve. But the distrustful Pope returned the acts without adding anything. Pope Constantine I (708–715), however, complied with the imperial summons to come to Constantinople, where he was received with all due honors. From the notice in the Liber Pontificalis, it may be inferred that an understanding was reached that left the Pope free with regard to the West. Later, Adrian I cited canon 82 against the Franks in defense of the veneration of images. Finally, John VIII, according to the testimony of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, approved the canons, “except those which are opposed to the right faith, good morals, and the customs of the Roman Church.”
There were, however, contradictory testimonies regarding the date of the Council, the number of participants, and its authority. The Greeks regarded it as ecumenical, while the Latins considered it spurious. The signatures of the three Eastern patriarchs were found among the acts, though these sees were vacant or, at least, their incumbents could not come to Constantinople. No signatures of Roman legates are found in the manuscripts, though according to the Liber Pontificalis they were present and, having been “deceived,” affixed their names. Canonists and polemicists have therefore viewed this Synod with great suspicion. Bede the Venerable calls it “reprobus,” Paul the Deacon “a synod of error,” Binito “a synod of error,” a “wicked assembly,” a “synagogue of Abano”; Baronius rejects it and explains Adrian I’s citation by the example of David, who used the sword of the ungodly Goliath. Even G. S. Assemani and many others reject it outright.
What was especially objectionable in the Synod were its anti-Roman canons: canons 3 and 13 censure the Roman Church’s practice of clerical celibacy; canon 36 reiterates what canons 3 of the Second and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Councils had decreed regarding the rights of the See of the New Rome; canon 55 rejects the fast of Saturday; canon 67 prescribes abstinence from blood and from animals that have been suffocated, etc. Yet it cannot be denied that the majority of the canons are inspired by sound zeal and a desire to reform abuses.
There are useful laws on clerical discipline, monasticism, and the duties of the laity; fundamental are the canons on the marriage of clerics (can. 3), the age of candidates for ordination (can. 14), impediments to marriage arising from spiritual kinship (can. 53), and from affinity (can. 54). Canon 2 officially recognizes for the first time the Collection of Canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils, as well as of the Holy Fathers, which would remain the basis of Byzantine canon law.