Latin Provincial Synods of the Thirteenth Century as a means of promoting Ecclesiastical Discipline and Doctrinal Uniformity

NICHOLAS COUREAS I NIKOSIA This paper will deal with the two recorded provincial synods which took place in the latter half of the thirteenth century in the Roman ecclesiastical province of Cyprus, and will examine the statutes passed in them. The first of the two synods took place sometime after 1280 under Ranulf, the Latin of Nicosia. He is mentioned as Raphael in the synodal text, but Dr Christopher Schabel has convincingly argued that Raphael is not mentioned as archbishop in any of the papal letters on the succession to the archbishopric of Nicosia written between 1267 following the death of Archbishop Hugh and 1288, when Arch• bishop John of Ancona was appointed, and so "Raphael" is in all probability a scribal error for Ranulf'. The second provincial synod took place in 1298 under Archbishop Gerard of Langres. Attention will be focused on the issues of ecclesiastical discipline and doctrinal uniformity raised in the course of both synods, and the extent to which their rulings were inspired by the legatine decrees of Cardinal Peter of St Marcellus and Cardinal Eudes of Chateauroux, as well as by the decrees of Archbishop Hugh of Nicosia. The influence of Innocent IV's letter to Eudes on the rites and customs of the Greeks and the extent to which the synodal decrees of both provincial synods were implemented by both the Latin and Greek clergy of Cyprus will also be examined. In comparing both provincial synods it is important to note that the first of these, the synod of Archbishop Ranulf, passed rulings which had the specific purpose of instructing the Greek clergy on Cyprus, who had acknowledged the jurisdiction of both the papacy and the in Cyprus under the terms of the papal constitution known as the Bulla Cypria, promulgated in 12602• On account of this the rulings of this

1 See Les registres de Clement IV, I, ed. E. JORDAN, Paris 1898 [= BEFAR], n° 528; Les registres de Nicholas III, I, ed. J. GAY, Paris, 1898 (= BEFAR), no. 102 and Les registres de Nicholas IV, I, ed. E. LANGLOIS, Paris, 1886 (= BEFAR), nos. 388-394. 2 The Cartulary of the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom of Nicosia, eds. N. COUREAS - Chr. SCHABEL, Nicosia 1997 (= Texts and Studies in the History of Cyprus XXV),

IAHC 32 (2000) I Latin Provincial Synods ofthe Thirteenth Century 83

synod were influenced considerably by Pope Innocent IV's letter of March 1254 to Cardinal Eudes of Chateauroux, his legate in the East, in which the pope told him which rites and customs of the Greeks were permissible and which were not3. Archbishop Ranulf s constitutions were also in part influenced by the provisions of the Bulla Cypria, and were passed at some between 1278 and 1288, that is under Archbishop Ranulf, and before the appointment of Archbishop John of Ancona in 12884 • The constitutions passed at Archbishop Ranulfs provincial synod began by pointing out that differences in language and rite were permissible, but not differences in faith and doctrine. This position was taken from Canon 9 of the Fourth Lateran Council, an ecumenical council of the Ro• man held in 1214. This canon was also cited to justify the first ruling of the synod, which stated that the Greek bishops, unlike the Latin bishops who were ordained, were simply tolerated, and so should be aware of the limits of their jurisdiction and not overstep them5• This ruling by implication confirmed the provisions of the Bulla Cypria as well as those of the 1220 and 1223 agreements concluded on Cyprus by the representatives of the Latin Church and those of the crown and the nobility, and then confirmed by the papacy. According to these the four Greek bishops permitted for the Greek church of Cyprus were to be juris• dictionally subject to their Latin diocesans, namely the Latin archbishop of Nicosia and his three suffragan bishops of Paphos, Limassol and Fama• gusta6.

Archbishop Ranulfs constitutions Turning to the rulings passed at the provincial synod of Archbishop Ranulf, one notes that in the first ruling it was stated that fornication and adultery were mortal sins, something also stated as regards fornication in the fifteenth ruling of Pope Innocent's letter of 1254. The second ruling stated that theft was a sin leading to damnation and that stolen goods had to be restored, and it was stated that Greek confessors imposed a light sentence or none at all for this transgression, and did not urge the restitution of stolen goods. The third ruling, stating that there were seven

(henceforth as Cartulary), no. 78. 3 Ibd. no. 93. 4 Les registres de Nicholas IV (as note l), nos. 388-394; Cartulary (as note 2), no. 29. ~ Acta Alexandri IV, ed. T. HALUSKYNKYJ - M. WOJNAR, 1966 (= FCCO, III Ser. IV/2), 102-104. 6 Cartulary (as note 2), no. 78 and esp. pp. 197-198, and nos. 82-84.