So-called First-and-Second Council

The Second Regional Council of Constantinople.

Prolegomena.

This holy regional Council convened in Constantinople after the holy and Ecumenical Second Council, in the year 394, according to Dositheus and the Collection of the Councils made by Milias, during the reign of Arcadius and Honorius. Among those attending it were three Patriarchs, namely, Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Flavian of Antioch; and seventeen other bishops by name, and various others unnamed, together with the entire priesthood, all of them seated in the illuminatory (i.e., baptistery) of the Great Church. The reason for this meeting was the case of two bishops, Agapius and Bagadius, who were both seeking to be bishops in the episcopate of Bostra, and, indeed, the fact that matters had come to such a pass that Bagadius had been deposed by only two bishops, who had also died about that time when the Council was being held. Hence this Council decreed the present two Canons concerning this matter, which Canons are requisite for and necessary to the good order and the constitution of the Church. They are confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and by c. I of the 7th; and definitely by c. II of the 6th (for this is the C. concerning which c. II of the 6th says the following: “Further and in addition to all these those now again convened in this God-guarded and imperial capital city in the time of Nectarius the president of this imperial city, and of Theophilus who became Archbishop of Alexandria.”); and by virtue of this confirmation they have acquired a force which in a way is ecumenical. This Council, on the other hand, is styled “Memoirs transacted in Constantinople concerning Agapius and Bagadius, each of whom were claiming the episcopate of Bostra.” It is contained in the Pandects wrongly following the Council held in Carthage. That is why we, following the years in which they were held, as we did in the case of other regional Councils, have placed it here before the one held in Carthage.

Canons.

1. We enact that it shall not be permissible for a Bishop to be ordained by two, conformably to the Nicene Council.

(Ap. c. I.).

Interpretation.

Since the holy and Ecumenical First Council enacted in its c. IV that three bishops must without fail meet together and ordain a bishop, having followed the second decree of Ap. c. I, in like manner the present holy Council decrees that no bishop can be ordained by only two bishops. And see Ap. c. I.

2. We enact that hereafter that a responsible Bishop when being tried can be deposed neither by three nor much less by two, but only by vote of a larger Council, and if possible of all the provincials, just as the Apostolic Canons also decreed, in order that the condemnation of one deserving to be deposed may be shown by a vote of the majority, in the presence of the one being tried, with greater accuracy.

(Ap. c. LXXIV.).

Interpretation.

Since, as we said before, Bishop Bagadius was deposed illegally by only two bishops, the present Council nullifies this and says that hereafter and henceforth a responsible bishop ought not to be deposed from office either by two bishops or by three, but, on the contrary, by a Council of most of the bishops, and if it be possible of all the bishops of the province, just as Ap. c. LXXIV also decrees, in order that by a vote of the majority the deposition of such a bishop may be decided upon more accurately. He must be present too when he is being tried and judged, and not be condemned in his absence. See also Ap. c. LXXIV.

The Regional Council of Carthage.

Prolegomena.

The holy regional¹⁶⁶ Council¹⁶⁷ which assembled in Carthage¹⁶⁸ in the year 418 or 419 after Christ, in the twelfth year of the consulship of Emperor Honorius in Rome, and in the eighth year of Emperor Theodosius the Little, according to the secretum of the Church Faustus. The Fathers who distinguished themselves most at this Council were Bishop Aurelius, who presided over all the bishops of Carthage (and who is called a Pope in many places in the minutes of the same C. by the Fathers); Valentinus of the first seat of the country of Numidia; Augustinus the bishop of Hippona and legate of the province of Numidia; and the rest of the legates of all the provinces of Africa. The number of these, according to the minutes of the C. was 217, but according to Photius 225, and according to others 214. But there were present at this C. also legates of the bishop of Rome Zosimus, the names of whom were Faustinus, bishop of Picenum of the Pontetine Church of Italy, and Philip and Asellus, the presbyters. This Council, be it said, was held primarily in order to take action against Pelagius and Celestius his disciple,¹⁶⁹ and against Donatus;¹⁷⁰ and secondarily also to take action against Apiarius the presbyter of Sicca.¹⁷¹ It lasted six whole years. For beginning in the year 418, it finished in the year 424. It so happened that during this period three Popes held office in Rome, namely, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestius (although in the minutes of this Council a fourth Pope, Anastasius, is mentioned; and see its c. LXVI). So after the many examinations and tractaisms which it held, it also promulgated one hundred and forty-one Canons relating to the good order and constitution of the Church; they are those which follow,¹⁷² sealed and confirmed definitely and by name in c. II of the holy Sixth Ecumenical Council, but generally and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th, and by c. I of the 7th. Its c. LXXXIX is cited verbatim by the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council; and by virtue of this confirmation they have acquired a force which is in a way ecumenical.

Canons.

1.¹⁷³ True copies of the rules laid down are being kept by us thus, which our Fathers at that time brought back with them from the Nicene Council, of which the form is preserved, in what we have laid down as rules in the following, which, having been duly confirmed and sanctioned, shall be kept.
Interpretation.

Since both the confession of the faith, or what is commonly called the Creed, and the twenty Canons adopted at the holy and Ecumenical First Council held in Nicaea were read at the present Council, this first Canon thereof decrees that these things that were read there are identically like the copies thereof extant in Africa, and the tenors, or exact copies, of the above-mentioned confession of the faith and Canons, which the African Fathers who attended that first Council at that time brought back with them to Africa. For, it would appear, there were present there at the Council also bishops from Africa.¹⁷⁴ So if the rules which we have laid down, or, in other words, whatever enactments have been adopted by our Council (and especially as concerning the right of appeal of presbyters and deacons, on account of their having, as we said, doubts about which they wrote to the bishops of Constantinople and of Alexandria to send them authentic and true copies, or tenors, of the records of the Council held in Nicaea, which, it would seem, had not yet been sent), or are going to be enacted, adhere to the form and procedure of the First EC. C., they will remain stringently effective and invariable.

2. God willing, the ecclesiastical faith handed down through us must be confessed first and foremost in this glorious convention with the same (or a like) confession, and next to that the ecclesiastical order must be kept (or preserved] with the consent of each and of all together. By way of lending assurance to the mind of our brethren and fellow Bishops who have been newly ordained the following remarks have to be added, which we have received from the Fathers stringently formulated, so that, as respecting the Trinity, that is, the unity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we have it ‘well established in our intellects, with no perceptible difference whatever in that unity, and, just as we have learned, so shall we teach these beliefs to the peoples of God.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that at this Council first and foremost it is necessary that the orthodox faith preached by all the Church shall be proclaimed, which faith is handed down to other peoples through the agency of the bishops with the same or a like confession as the First EC. C. and all the subsequent Church confessed it, or with a like and equal, or, in other words, a common and consonant confession by all those attending the Council. Next thereafter it has to be proclaimed that the arrangement and the Canons of the Church ought to be kept both by each individual bishop separately and by all the bishops together. With a view to assuring and informing the newly-ordained bishops concisely as to that belief they ought to entertain respecting the Holy Trinity, or, more precisely speaking, that they must have impressed upon their intellects the tenet that the three persons of the Holy Trinity, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are united in respect of their essence, and glory, and power, and all the other specific qualities of their essence, without having any difference whatever in respect thereof, and that, just as they themselves have learned and believe, so must they also teach the Christian laity.

3. It has been decided that as regards these three ranks which have been conjoined by a certain bond of chastity and of sacerdocy (I am referring particularly to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons), as befits devout Bishops and Priests of God, and Levites, and those ministering to divine institutions, they must be continent in all things, so as to be able to obtain whatever in general they ask God for, in order that we too may likewise keep what has been handed down through the Apostles and has been held ever since the early days.

(Ap. c. V; cc. XII, XIII, XXX, XLVIII of the 6th; c. IV of Gangra; cc. IV, XIX, XXXIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The continence which the present Canon requires bishops, priests, and deacons to maintain is that they shall make a promise when they are being ordained that they will never have any carnal intercourse with their wives, by agreement with the latter, but, on the contrary, will remain continent, or, more explicitly speaking, will hold aloof from them after the manner of virgins, as is made plain by the following c. IV of the present Council, and, moreover, by c. XXX of the 6th, in order, it says, that by means of this perpetual continence and purity, which ought to be found in the servants of the bloodless sacrifice which has been consecrated to God, and by means of the continence which appertains to all other evils, they may be able to secure from God their requests, or petitions, in behalf of the salvation of the laity in the capacity of mediators between God and men; and in order that they themselves may likewise keep, or observe, the tradition which has been handed down through, the Apostles¹⁷⁵ and has prevailed from early times (or ancient times), which is the same as saying both written and unwritten traditions, according to Balsamori and Zonaras. The Sixth EC. C., on the other hand, referring the continence of those in holy orders which is specified in the present Canon to an obedience to Christ, and making this local custom an Ecumenical Canon, has taken it, in its c. XIII, for the continence which those in holy orders ought to maintain in the time of their incumbency. It required only bishops to abstain from their wives perpetually after the manner of virgins. Read its cc. XII and XIII, as well as Ap. c. V.

4. It is decided that Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and all men who handle sacred articles, being guardians of sobriety, must abstain from women.

(Ap. c. V; cc. XII, XIII, XXX, XLVIII of the 6th; c. IV of Gangra; cc. Ill, XIII, XXXIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

And this Canon likewise decrees that bishops, priests, and deacons, and indeed those men who handle sacred articles, or, more expressly speaking, subdeacons (according to c. XXXIII of this same C.), must abstain entirely from carnal intercourse with their wives by agreement with the latter. This custom, being prevalent in Rome, according to c. XIII of the 6th, was carried from Rome into Africa by the legates of the bishop of Rome. For the man who offered this Canon to this Council was none other than Faustinus, the bishop of Picenum in the Potentine province of Italy and also legate of the bishop of Rome, as may be seen in the minutes of this Council. Read cc. XII and XIII of the 6th, and Ap. c. V.

5. As regards the cupidity of greed, which is the mother of all evils, no one doubts that it must be checked, in order to prevent its misappropriating things belonging to others, and to prevent anyone from transgressing the rules of the Fathers for the sake of profit, and to preclude any Cleric’s getting (monetary) interest from anything in any manner whatever. Accordingly, the remarks newly made, being obscure and on the whole elusive, are being duly considered by us and will be properly enunciated. However, in regard to what the divine Writ has most expressly declared to be the law, there is no need of deliberation, but rather of obsequence. For by the same token what is reprehensible among laymen ought much more to be condemned among Clergymen. (Ap. c. XLIV; c. XVII of the 1st; c. X of the 6th; c. XX of Carthage; c. IV of Laodicea; c. Ill of Gregory the Miracle-worker; c. XIV of Basil.).
Interpretation.

As a prelude to commanding that clerics are not to charge interest, the present Canon begins more generally and more climatically (or ascensively) with greed, which is the mother of all evils, and by consequence also of interest on loans, by saying that this sort of sin ought to be prohibited, to prevent anyone, with the specious making of loans, which is a bad and improper use, from taking away the alien profits of borrowers; and to prevent any cleric from having a right to charge interest for money or for anything else whatsoever that he might lend and for the sake of that profit transgress the Canons of the Fathers which prohibit the charging of interest. Accordingly, as for what has been newly suggested to the Council, being obscure and vague, it shall be considered by us and be decided.¹⁷⁶ But in regard to those matters concerning which the divine Bible and the sacred Canons lay down the law, plainly prohibiting even laymen from charging interest as well as clerics, we ourselves ought not to make any decision other than to obey; for if even laymen are condemned by the divine Bible and the Canons for charging interest, clerics are still more to be condemned for doing so. Read also Ap. c. XLIV and c. Ill of Gregory Thaumaturgus (i.e., the Miracle-working saint).

6. The application of chrism and the consecration of virgin girls shall not be done by Presbyters; nor shall it be permissible for a Presbyter to reconcile anyone at a public liturgy. This is the decision of all of us.

(Ap. c. XXXIX; cc. VII, L, LI, CXXXV of Carthage; cc. I, III, X, IX of the First EC. C.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon prohibits a priest from doing three things: the preparation of holy myron¹⁷⁷ from odoriferous ingredients; the consecration to God, by means of prayers, of those virgin girls who, upon separating from their parents, in accordance with c. LI of the present Council, agree to remain virgins;¹⁷⁸ and remission of the penalty for a sin to a penitent, and thereafter through communion of the Mysteries the reconciliation of him with God, to whom he had become an enemy through sin, making him stand with the faithful, and celebrating the Liturgy openly — i.e., praying along with them, joining in communion, and worshiping God by means of hymns (for praying to God and glorifying Him in hymns is called worship). For these three functions have to be exercised by a bishop, and most assuredly the preparation of holy myron. By permission of the bishop even a presbyter can reconcile penitents, though. And read Ap. c. XXXIX, and c. XIX of the First EC. C.

7. If anybody is in danger and demands to have recourse to the sacred altar for reconciliation when the Bishop is absent, the Presbyter naturally ought to ask the Bishop, and then allow the one in danger to have recourse thereto, in accordance with the Bishop’s orders.

(Ap. c. XXXIX; cc. VI and L of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Since the above Canon said vaguely that a presbyter is not to absolve penitents from penances, but only a bishop, to whom the right has been given to reprobate sinners, the present Canon accordingly prescribes that if any penitent is in danger of dying and asks to commune, but the bishop is not present, the presbyter must ask the bishop about this matter (as to whether the illness, that is to say, is too dangerous for any delay), and then permit him to commune. If, on the other hand, the bishop is away and the person ill is in danger of dying and cannot procrastinate, the presbyter may pardon the sick person even without orders of the bishop, according to c. L of this same Council (see also the history of Dionysius cited in the Footnote to c. XII of the First), so that he may not be deprived of the most necessary viaticum for that fearful departure — divine Communion, I mean- in accordance with the same c. XII of the First.

8. There are many men not of good character who think that they have a right to bring charges against the Fathers and Bishops on any grounds. Such men must not be given credence.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 6th; c. XXI of the 4th; cc. XXVII, CXXXVII, CXXXVIII CXXXIX of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The meaning of the present Canon is none other than that no credence is to be given to men of bad reputation and not leading a good life who accuse bishops of anything in criminal and ecclesiastical cases. It calls bishops fathers on the score that they regenerate, or rebeget, the faithful through the process of teaching; and especially through the process of administering the Mysteries, in accordance with the fact that, according to Cyril of Alexandria, the pupils of prophets are called sons, or children, of prophets.

9. It is provided that if any Bishop or Presbyter admits to communion men who have been expelled from the Church on account of charges deservedly brought against them, he too shall be deemed guilty of the same crime together with those who have been condemned by canonical decision of their own Bishop.

(Ap. cc. X, XI, XII, XXXII; cc. II, VI of Antioch; c. I of Holy Wisdom.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that if any bishop or presbyter communicates with those who have been excommunicated from the Church by their own bishop, or who have been deposed from office, or who have even been anathematized with justice and in accordance with what the charges against them warrant, they who have admitted such persons are themselves to suffer the same excommunication or deposition or anathematization as those persons. And see Ap. cc. X, XI, and XXXII.

10. If any Presbyter that has been condemned by his own Bishop peradventure for having become inflated with pride and arrogance conceives ibat he ought to offer the elements to God separately or presumes to erect another altar in defiance of the ecclesiastical organization, let such person be anathema.

(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XIII, XIV, XV of the lst-&-2nd; c. V of Antioch; cc. XI, LXII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

If by any chance any priest accused of anything in regard to his life (i.e., of not living rightly) should reach such an excessive degree of pride and arrogance as to apostatize from his own bishop when accused by him of this delinquency, and to perform sacred functions alone and by himself, or to set up a new altar and church, without the permission of his bishop, let such a person be anathematized. For this which he is doing is contrary to the constitution of the Church, which wants priests to be subject to the bishops; and it is also contrary to the faith, seeing that as a result of such conduct infidels blaspheme and ridicule our faith when they see those in holy orders misconducting themselves; and, broadly speaking, because this which he is doing causes a schism in the Church. Read also Ap. c. XXXI.

11. If any Presbyter be denounced for his conduct or behavior, such a one should notify neighboring Bishops, in order that they may give the matter a hearing, and through them he may become reconciled with his own bishop. If he fail to do so, but instead, what is to be deprecated, being inflated with superciliousness, he should separate himself from the communion of his own bishop, and while at odds wtih him should create a schism along with any other persons, and offer sacrifice to God, let such a person be considered anathema, and let him lose his own position, it being assumed that he has never had any just complaint against the Bishop.

(Ap. cc. XXXI, XXXII; c. V of the 1st; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XIII, XIV, XV of the lst-&-2nd; cc. V, VI of Antioch; c. VI of Gangra; c. LXII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon is united with the one preceding it above. For it says that a presbyter who separates himself from his bishop is to be anathematized; that is to say, more explicitly speaking, he is to be deposed from office unless he first makes known the matter of which he is accused by his bishop to neighboring bishops residing near by, in order that through them he may be conciliated with his own bishop, if on account of pride he shows contempt for him and apostatizes. In addition, however, to these regulations, an investigation must be made as to whether by any chance the presbyter is avoiding the communion of his bishop on account of a just complaint and justifiable charges. Read also Ap. cc. XXXI and XXXII.

12. If any Bishop fall liable to any charges, which is to be deprecated, and an emergency arises due to the fact that not many can convene, lest he be left exposed to such charges, these may be heard by twelve Bishops’, or in the case of a Presbyter, by six Bishops besides his own; or in the case of a Deacon, by three.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 2nd; c. IX of the 4th; c. IV of Antioch; cc. XVI, XXVIII, CV, CXVIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

When a bishop is accused of anything, it has been ruled in c. IV of Antioch that he is to be tried by the Synod of the province. But if it should be found difficult to assemble many bishops, the present Canon commands that his case is to be tried by twelve bishops and his own,¹⁷⁹ lest the accused bishop remain exposed to the charges involved in the accusation brought against him — that is to say, more plainly speaking, in order that he may not be treated with contempt by his laity on the ground that he is subject to an accusation and has not been acquitted. As for charges brought against a presbyter, their case may be tried by six foreign bishops and their own. As for charges against a deacon, they may be heard by three¹⁸⁰ bishops arid their own. Read also Ap. c. LXXIV and c. VI of the 2nd and c, IX of the 4th.

13. Numerous Bishops having been assembled, they shall ordain a Bishop. But if necessary three Bishops, no matter in what region they be, at the order of the chief Bishop, shall ordain a Bishop. And if anyone in any particular ordination objects to his own assentation, or to his own signature or act of subscribing thereto, he shall deprive himself of the honor.

(Ap. c. I; cc. IV, VI of the 1st; c. Ill of the 7th; c. XIX of Antioch; the Memoirs concerning Love and Bagad., or, more expressly speaking, Canon I of the regional Council held in Constantinople.).