So-called First-and-Second Council

Interpretation.

The voting as well as the sacred rite of the bishop which owes its efficacy to prayers ought to be performed by numerous bishops, according to the present Canon. But if, owing to some necessity or inconvenience, a large number of bishops cannot be assembled, three bishops at any rate ought to vote for and ordain the candidate for the episcopate, with the order and approval of the Metropolitan of the province, to whom they themselves and the candidate in question are subject. But if anyone among the bishops who have voted should agree orally and subscribe with his own hand to the belief that the candidate in question deserves and is worthy of the episcopate, but afterwards objects to his agreement and signature, asserting at the same time that the man is not worthy (perhaps because he has learned about some crime of his that would disqualify him for the prelacy), he himself has thereby deprived himself of the honor of the episcopate, or. more plainly speaking, he himself shall be deposed from office, provided, however, that he fails to prove the candidate to be guilty of the charge. See also Ap. c, I, c. IV of the First, and the end of c, VI of the same First EC. C.

14.¹⁸¹ It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone whatsoever among the Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or Clerics, is charged with any ecclesiastical or political crime in the Church, and, flouting the ecclesiastical court, resorts for justification to civil courts, even though a verdict be pronounced in his favor, he shall nevertheless lose his position. And this applies to the matter of the charges, as for the civil aspect of the case, he shall lose what he has won, if he tries to keep his position. (Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 1st; c. IX of the 4th; c. XII of Antioch; c. CXV of Carthage.).
Interpretation.

All men in holy orders and clerics, when they have any case or criminal charges that might subject them to deposition from office, or any civil case, which is one involving monetary damages, that is to say, the plaintiff as well as the defendant ought to have the case tried by the ecclesiastical court or tribunal of the Bishop or of the Metropolitan to whom they are subject, just as the present Canon decrees. If, however, anyone among them should hold the sacred tribunal in contempt or scorn its authority, and seek to clear himself of the charges against him by taking the case to civil and mundane courts, even though he be acquitted of the charges by them, he is to be deposed from office if the case be one of a criminal nature; but if the case is one involving money and he wins it, should he wish to retain his rank in holy orders and escape deposition from office, he has to forfeit the gain of money awarded to him by the civil courts. If he fail to waive his claim to that gain, let him be deposed from office owing to his having held the ecclesiastical court in contempt. Read also Ap. c. LXXIV, c. VI of the 1st, and c. IX of the 4th.

15. And this too it has pleased the Council to decree, that if an appeal be taken from any ecclesiastical judges whatsoever to other ecclesiastical judges exercising a higher authority, the former are not to sustain any injury whose verdict has been set aside, if they cannot be proved to have been motivated by malice or enmity, or to have been corrupted by some favor, in their trial of the case.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 1st; c. IX of the 4th.).

Interpretation.

If the clerics being tried appeal their case from lower to higher judges, orn a bishop, say, to a Metropolitan or to a Patriarch, and when the verdict of the lower judges is examined, it is annulled by the higher judges — if, I say, this actually happens, the present Canon decrees that those lower judges are not to suffer any detriment; provided, however,, that they are not proved to have arrived at their decision inimically, or on account of friendliness, or on account of some favor or a deal of some kind. For if any of these motives influenced their decision, they are subject to detrimental treatment in regard to their own honor. See also Ap. ce LXXIVS c. VI of the First, and c. IX of the Fourth.

16. But if by agreement and stipulation between the parties, the judges chosen be even fewer than the requisite number, no appeal therefrom shall lie.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 2nd; c. IX of the 4th; cc. XII, CV, CXI CXXXI of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

But if the men in holy orders and the clerics, including both the plaintiff and the defendant, choose referees to decide their case, then if the number of referees chosen be less than that required by the rules laid down above — in the case of a bishop twelve; in the case of presbyter six; and in the case of a deacon three — it is not thenceforth permissible for the parties to the trial to take an appeal and have their case reviewed by a higher court, but, on the contrary, they must rest content with the verdict of the referees whom they have chosen.

Concord.

Canon CV of this same Council, as well as the civil laws,¹⁸² are consistent herewith. But c. CXI of this present Council states that the Council nodded approval of the referees whom the bishops Maurentius and Sanctippus chose. Canon CXXXI of this Council decrees that any bishop that fails to obey the verdict of referees shall remain excluded from communion until he does obey. See also Ap. c. LXXIV, c. VI of the 1st, and c. IX of the 4th9

17. Care should be taken to see that the children of Priests shall not give any mundane spectacles, nor witness any. This, in fact, has ever been preached to all Christians, to the effect that wherever there are blasphemies they ought not to approach.

(Ap. ec. XLII, XLIII; cc. XXIV, LI, LXH, LXVI of the 6th; cc. XIII, LIV of Laodicea; c. LXX of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon commands that children of priests refrain from giving the exhibitions and plays that are staged in theaters and motion-picture shows with horse races and bull-fights and other contests with wild beasts and animals, when they themselves, that is to say, have control over the horses and other animals; but neither must they stand or sit and look at such spectacles when they are given by other persons.¹⁸³ Not only children of those in holy orders, however, but all Christians in common are and always have been taught not to go near theaters and motion-picture shows and the like, where many indecent things occur by means whereof the faith of Christians is blasphemed and insulted by infidels and disbelievers and other impious persons. See also c. XXIV of the 6th, as well as Ap. c. XLII.

18. It has pleased the Council to decree that Bishops, and Presbyters, and Deacons shall not become farmers or procurators, nor derive any profit from anything that is shameful and dishonorable. For they ought to take into consideration that which is written: “No one campaigning for God will entangle himself in worldly affair” (II Tim. 2:4).

(Ap. cc. VI, LXXXI, LXXXIII; cc. Ill, VII of the 4th; c. IX of the 6th; c. IX of the 7th; cc. XI, II of the lst-&-2nd.).

Interpretation.

Those in holy orders ought not to farm, i.e., rent real estate belonging to others, or become procurators, that is to say, more plainly speaking, caretakers and managers of worldly matters and mundane businesses of any kind (for the word cura is a Latin word signifying care and governing), as the present Canon decrees, nor ought they to take the proceeds from any undertaking that is shameful and dishonorable. A shameful occupation, for example, is that of being a whoremaster; a dishonorable occupation, on the other hand, is that of owning or keeping a tavern, or a perfume shop, or that of practicing Christian science and other modes of healing, and the like. For if according to St. Paul no soldier (in the army) meddles in other matters, in order to please his earthly king, how much more is it not true that no soldiers of God in holy orders ought to involve themselves in worldly cares, in order to please their heavenly King. Read also Ap. c. VI and c. IX of the 6th.

19. It has pleased the Council to decree that care should be taken to see that Anagnosts (or Readers), upon arriving at the age of puberty, either take a wife or choose to vow celibacy and continence.

(Ap. c. XXVI; c. XIV of the 4th; c. VI, XIV of the 6th; c. XXXIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that when Anagnosts arrive at the age of fourteen, they must be compelled either to take a wife for themselves or else to promise solemnly (i.e., to vow) to retain and maintain a state of virginity and of celibacy. But this Canon appears to have prevailed only in Africa, according to Zonaras, and not in any other regions.¹⁸⁴ See also Ap. c. XXVI.

20. It has pleased the Council to decree that if any Cleric lends or gives any money for the use of others, he shall receive the amount thereof in kind.

(Ap. c. XLIV; c. XVII of the 1st; c. X of the 6th; c. IV of Laodicea; c. V of Carthage; c. XIV of Basil.).

Interpretation.

This Canon, too, like c. V of the present C., forbids clerics to take interest on money; no matter how much money they may lend to others, they must take the same amount back; and if they lend any kind of goods other than money, such as, for instance, wheat or other grain, or legumes (i.e., peas, beans, lentils), or any other such thing, they must take back that same amount thereof, and not any more. Read also Ap. c. XLIV.

21. It has pleased the Council to decree that Deacons shall not be ordained before the age of twenty-five.

(c. XIV of the 6th.).

Interpretation.

Deacons ought not to be ordained, according to the present Canon, until they have become twenty-five years old. Read also c. XIV of the 6th.

22. It has pleased the Council to decree that Anagnosts must not bow down in adoration or pay obeisance to the people.

(c. XXXIII of the 6th; c. XIV of the 7th.).

Interpretation.

This Canon forbids Anagnosts, upon finishing the reading of the divine words, to turn and bow down to the people (in the church), since they ought to bow down only to bishops and priests and deacons, but not also the multitude of laymen, and especially during the time of their active service.

23. It has pleased the Council to decree that Mauritania Stifensis, on account of the vastness of its territory, has been permitted, as it requested, to have a Primate, or chief Bishop, of its own, with the consent of all the Primates of African provinces and of all the Bishoj^s thereof (as Primate of the Numidian territory assigned to him by the Council).
Interpretation.

This Canon, notwithstanding that it was a regional Canon, because of its saying that Mauritania was not to remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Numidia, on account of the vastness of the territory of the one as compared with the other, and the resulting difficulty of their bishops meeting together in a Council or Synod; but, on the contrary, it was allowed to have its own Metropolitan;¹⁸⁵ in spite of the fact that this Canon was a regional and “particular” Canon, it can be made a catholic and general Canon. For we learn from it that every other region covering a vast area, and consequently having portions at a great distance from other regions, ought to be allowed to have its own Metropolitan for the same reasons.

24.¹⁸⁶ It has pleased the Council to decree that when a Bishop or a Cleric is to be ordained, the decisions arrived at by the Councils as official pronouncements shall first be dinned into their ears, lest, when acting in accordance with the rules of the Council, they should come to repent.

(c. II of the 7th.).

Interpretation.

Anybody who is ordaining a bishop or a cleric ought, according to this Canon, before commencing the ordination proper, to tell them what has been laid down as rules and definitions by the holy Councils, Ecumenical as well as Regional, both as concerning the right faith and as concerning the right kind of life, and ecclesiastical decorum (or good order) and constitution (or established state), in order that by means of this teaching the candidates for ordination may learn the rules and definitions and Canons laid down by the Fathers of the Church, and when acting and living, both publicly and privately in accordance therewith, they may not repent like transgressors, if canonized (i.e., punished canonically) and Conciliarly reprimanded (or compelled to undergo ecclesiastical penalties) during the course of their present life, nor if chastised in the future life (since it is written,and in accordance with the definitions and rules of the Councils the real meaning of the words is clearer when expressed as follows: lest they repent, either in the present or in the future, if perchance they do anything contrary to the Canons and rules and definitions taught them, on the ground that they are sinning knowingly and wittingly). See also c. II of the 7th.

25. It has pleased the Council to decree that the Eucharist must not be administered to the bodies of the dying. For it has been written: “Take, eat” (Matt. 26:26), but the bodies of dead persons can neither take nor eat anything. And it is further pleased to decree that the ignorance of Presbyters must not cause persons already dying to be baptized.

(c. LXXXIII of the 6th EC. C.).

Interpretation.

The Sixth EC. C. borrowed its c. LXXXIII from the present Canon — that is to say, only as respects the prohibition of the administration of communion to dead persons. And see the Interpretation there. But the present Canon further decrees and prescribes that a priest must not baptize anyone unwittingly that has died and is dead,1 since dead persons can neither join forces with Christ nor renounce Satan, nor can they do anything else that is customarily required in connection with the rite of baptism. But as long as a person is still breathing he shall be allowed the right and be given the benefit of divine Baptism, according to Zonaras.

26. Care must be taken, in accordance with the Definitions of the Council held in Nicaea, with reference to ecclesiastical causes, to see that a Synod is convoked every year, to which all those occupying the chief seats of the provinces may send, legates or deputies, choosing two or as many as they wish of the Bishops of their own Synods to represent them; in order that the authority in the body assembled may be plenary: for it is noteworthy that such causes often grow old to the ruin of the laity.

(Ap. c. XXXVII; c. V of the 1st; c. XIX of the 4th; c. VIII of the 6th; c. VI of the 7th; c. XX of Antioch; cc. LXXXI, LXXXIV, LXXXV, CIV of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Lest ecclesiastical cases and irregularities grow old, and with the passage of time become inveterate, as they arise from time to time, to the injury of the laity, the present Canon decrees that a Synod, or local council, of bishops must be held every year, as c. V of the Nicene C. also prescribes to which Synod all the Metropolitans may send two or more bishops from their province as deputies, or legates, i.e., representatives to take their place at the meeting of the Synod; in order that the decisions arrived at by this Synod may have full authority, on the ground that all the Metropolitans joined in voting therefor. But in the minutes of the present Council it has been written that from Tripolis (Africa) a legate is to be sent to this annual Synod, owing to the scarcity of the bishops there. But Balsamon asserts that the sending of presbyters and of deacons as legates is not prohibited, as in fact was done at some Ecumenical Councils, to represent the Metropolitans. Read also Ap. c. XXXVII.

27. If any one of the Bishops is accused, let the accuser bring the matter before the chief bishops in his own territory; and let the accused one not be excluded from communion until he had had a chance to defend himself in the court of those selected to try him; after being summoned in writing, if he fail to answer on the day set for his trial, that is, within a period of one month from the day on which he appears to have received the summons, unless he shows true and cogent causes preventing him from answering to the charges laid against him, in which event he shall be given another entire month in which to present his defense. But after the second month let him not commune until he has shown himself clean. If, on the other hand, he refuse to answer to the whole annual Synod, in order to let his case be disposed of there, he himself shall be judged to have pronounced a verdict of condemnation against himself. During the time that he is not communing, let him not commune either in his own church or in the diocese. As for his accuser, if he does not fail to put in his appearance anywhere during the days that the matter is abroach, let him be in no wise prevented from communing. But if at any time he should disappear by withdrawing, let the Bishop be restored to communion, and let his accuser be denied communion. Nevertheless, he shall not be deprived of the right to prosecute the case and to bring the charges into court in support of his accusation if he can prove, within the time specified, that he had been unable, and not unwilling, to answer. At the same time it is plain that, when the charges are brought into the court of the Bishops, if the person of the accuser is in disrepute, he ought not to be allowed to present his accusation, unless the matter be one involving a personal affair of his own, and not an ecclesiastical matter, in which event he shall be allowed to present his claim.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 2nd; c. IX, XXI of the 4th; cc. XIV, XV of Antioch; c. IV of Sardica; cc. VIII, XII, XVI, XCVI, CV, CXXXI, CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, CXXXIX of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

When any bishop is accused of anything, his accuser must prove the truth of the accusation before the Metropolitan of the bishop in question, according to the present Canon; but the accused bishop ought not to be at once excluded from communion with his fellow bishops directly after the charges are filed, unless he fail to appear for trial within a month’s time after receiving the Metropolitan’s summons to attend the court. But if he prove that it was due to true causes, and not fictitious ones, but to a really unavoidable cause, that he be prevented from attending, he shall be allowed another month’s time. But if he fail to appear even within two months, he shall be excommunicated on account of his disobedience, until it has been proved that he is innocent of the accusation brought against him. If, on the other hand, he refuse to be tried either by the Metropolitan or by the Synod which assembles annually, he himself has condemned himself on account of his contumacy and contemptuous attitude. As long, however, as the accused bishop is under the penance of excommunication he ought not to join anyone in communion either in his own province or in any other. As for his accuser, as long as he stands upon his charges, he ought not to be excommunicated pending the outcome of his accusation. If, however, he furtively depart from the court, and cannot be found, then and in that event the accused bishop shall be relieved of the penance of exclusion from communion, while the accuser shall be excommunicated. If, nevertheless, he prove that it was not due to his will or contempt, but to some other reasonably good cause, that he failed to appear in court, he is not precluded from filing the accusation again. One thing is plainly evident, that if the accuser has a disparaged reputation or a dubious one, he ought not to be allowed to bring any charge against a bishop in regard to any ecclesiastical and religious matter. But as regards a matter of his own personal interests, relating to money and of a non-religious nature, he is to be allowed, no matter who he is. See Ap. c. LXXIV, c. VI of the 2nd, and c. IX of the 4th.

28. If Presbyters or Deacons be accused, the legal number of Bishops selected from the nearby locality, whom the accused demand, shall be empaneled — that is, in the case of a Presbyter six, of a Deacon three, together with the Bishop of the accused — to investigate their causes; the same form being observed in respect of days, and of postponements, and of examinations, and of persons, as between accusers and accused. As for the rest of the Clerics, the local Bishop alone shall hear and conclude their causes.

(c. IX of the 4th; c. IV of Antioch; cc, XII, XVI of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The preceding Canon related to accused bishops, while the present relates to presbyters and deacons, and it decrees that if they be accused, they are to choose — a presbyter six, and a deacon three — strange bishops from their nearby parts, and let their own bishop try their cases together with these bishops. The aforesaid form and Canon (i.e., XXVII) and the same examination of persons accusing them are to be observed. As for charges against other, lower clerics, their local bishop alone tries and decides them. Read also c. IX of the 4th, and cc. XII and XVI of the present C.

29. It has pleased the Council to decree that children of Clergymen shall not enter into a matrimonial union with heretics or heathen.

(c. XIV of the 4th; c. LXXII of the 6th; cc. X, XXXI of Laodicea.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon commands that children of men in holy orders and of clerics are not to marry women that are heretics or infidels. Read also c. XIV of the 4th.

30. It is decreed that Bishops and Clerics shall not leave any legacy to non-Orthodox Christians, even though these be blood relatives, nor shall Bishops or Clerics make such persons any gift of property of their own by bequest, as has been said.

(Ap. c. XL; cc. LXXXIX, CII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Consistently with the preceding Canon, the present Canon decrees respecting heathen and heretics that bishops and clerics, when dying, must not make non-Orthodox persons, whether infidels or heretics, co-heirs¹⁸⁷ with their relatives who are believers and belong to the Orthodox faith to their property in their will or testament, even though such infidels or heretics be blood relatives of theirs. This amounts to saying that bishops and clerics ought not to leave either an inheritance or a legacy, i.e., a gift, in their will to their heretical relatives. Nor even while alive ought they to give heretics goods or property of their own. In fact, even the civil laws prohibit Orthodox Christians from leaving any inheritance or legacy¹⁸⁸ to heretics. See also Ap. c. XL.

ι

31. Let Bishops not cross the sea except by express consent of the chief see of the same Bishop of any particular diocese, that is, unless by exception he receive from the primate himself the letter called dimissory, in due form, or, more explicitly, a parathesis, i.e., a commendation.

(Ap. cc. XII, XXXIII; cc. XI, XIII of the 4th; c. XVII of the 6th; cc. VI, VII, VIII, XI of Antioch; cc. XLI, XLII of Laodicea; cc. VII, VIII of Sardica; cc. XCVII, CXVI of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon forbids the bishops of Africa from going overseas that is to say, to Italy; and any other bishop from leaving his province and going to a remote region. These bishops ought rather to stay at home and wait upon their churches, and give daily attention to their flocks, i.e., to the laities entrusted to them. The only time they are allowed to depart is when they are equipped with letters obtained from the other bishops, properly and by way of exception from their primate the Metropolitan or patriarch, and called letters dimissory, giving express consent and declaring that their departure is necessary and that they are given dimission, i.e., leave to depart; or “in due form” stands for signed and commending and introducing them to those persons to whom they are going. See also the Interpretation and Footnote to Ap. c. XII.