Fourteenth Council of Toledo

The Fourteenth Council of Toledo first met on 14 November 684 under King Erwig. It was called in response to a letter from Pope Leo II directing the king, a Count Simplicius, and the recently deceased Quiricus, metropolitan of Toledo, to call a general council to confirm the decisions of the ecumenical Third Council of Constantinople against monothelitism. A regional synod held in Carthaginiensis with representatives of the metropolitans in attendance was not sufficient and Erwig subsequently called a general council, exactly a year and a day after the disbanding of the Thirteenth Council of Toledo (13 November 683). The council, due to bad weather and the recent travels to and from Toledo for the Thirteenth Council, was attended only by the bishops of Carthaginiensis, the metropolitans, and a bishop from each of the other provinces: Narbonensis, Tarraconensis, and Gallaecia. These provincial delegates would approve the decision of the Carthaginiensian synod and report it to their own provincial synods, for further approval.

The fourteenth council quickly approved the sixth ecumenical council and sent notice to the pope. It also issued a general warning to the people that such doctrinal matters were to be believed, not discussed. The bishops wrapped up their short business and closed the council on 20 November.

Sources
  • Thompson, E. A. The Goths in Spain. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1969.
gollark: Writing a bare metal microkernel in Haskell is not very practical.
gollark: > I never tried it. It's nice that it has these safety features but I prefer C++ still. > If I want to be sure that my program is free of bugs, I can write a formal specification and do a > correctness proof with the hoare calculus in some theorem proofer (People did that for the seL4 microkernel, which is free from bugs under some assumptions and used in satellites, nuclear power plants and such)Didn't doing that for seL4 require several hundred thousand lines of proof code?
gollark: Most countries have insanely convoluted tax law so I assume it's possible.
gollark: Hmm, so you need to obtain a hypercomputer of some sort to write your tax forms such that they cannot plausibly be checked?
gollark: What if it's somehow really easy to find *a* solution to something, but not specific ones, and hard to check the validity of a specific maybe-solution? Is that possible?
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.