So-called First-and-Second Council

48. It is decreed that the holy rites of the altar shall not be performed except by fasting men, with the exception of a single day in the year on which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. But if during the late afternoon any men have died, whether Bishops or other persons, and a parathesis (or commendation) is made for them, let it be done with prayers alone, if those making it be found to have eaten a breakfast.

(Ap. c. LXIX; cc. XLIX, L, LI, LIT of Laodicea; cc. VIII, X of Tim.; cc. XXIX, LXXXIX of the 6th; c. I of Dionysius.).

Interpretation.

The first part of the present Canon, which specifies that during the day called (in Greek) Great Thursday (but in English commonly known as Maundy Thursday), is corrected and cited verbatim in Canon XXIX of the 6th, and see the Interpretation of it there. The remaining part of the Canon appears to have been something like this. Whenever someone died it was the custom on that day for a liturgy to be celebrated, perhaps in order to commemorate the deceased person. So then this Canon says that if any bishops or laymen died in the late afternoon, and those priests who were about to make the commendation by means of commemorative services to effect the reconciliation of the souls of the deceased with God happened not to be fasting, but, on the contrary, to have eaten a meal, let the sacred liturgy be dispensed with and omitted, and instead thereof let the parathesis of their funeral songs or what is now commonly called the parastasimon, be substituted.

49. It is decreed that Bishops or Clerics must not banquet in church, unless it should happen that while passing through they have to put up there as guests. Even laymen must be prevented as far as possible from holding such banquets.

(cc. LXXIV, LXXVI, LXXXVIII of the 6th; c. XXVII of Laodicea; c. XI of Gangra.).

Interpretation.

Bishops and clerics must not hold banquets inside churches, according to the injunction of the present Canon, except only that they may eat in them in case they happen to be compelled to be in a strange region and have no place to put up in for the night or for the time being. But even laymen ought to be prevented from holding such banquets in church. Read also c. LXXIV of the 6th.

50. If is decreed that penances be fixed in respect to time by judgment of Bishops in accordance with the difference in sinful deeds. But no Presbyter may release a penitent from his penance without the consent and approval of the Bishop, except if necessity drive him to do so in the absence of the Bishop. As for any penitent whose offense is public knowledge and noised about, as one agitating the whole church, let the (Bishop’s) hand be laid upon him before the apse.

(Ap. c. XXXIX; cc. VI, VII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Inasmuch as the Lord granted the Apostles the right to bind and to loose, while bishops have the type, or formal aspect, of Apostles, the present Canon on this account commands that according to the differing character of sinful deeds (see c. XII of the First EC. C., and especially c. CII of the 6th) the bishop must fix the duration of the penance which penitents have to do, or, more explicitly speaking, he must specify how long they are to remain under sentence bound. No presbyter, on the other hand, may release, or free, a penitent from the sentence imposed upon him, without the consent and express permission of the bishop, excepting only if the penitent be in danger of death and the bishop is not present, but, on the contrary, is absent far away. But if anyone is guilty of a public sin, or, in other words, one committed in a public place (for that is what this Latin word, translated in the Greek text as “publikon” denotes), and noised abroad, so that owing to its heinous character the evil provokes all Christians, either to imitate it or to talk about it — if, I say, any such sinner should repent, let the hand of the bishop be laid upon him, or, with his consent and approval, that of a priest, not inside the church as is done in the case of other penitents (see c. LXXV of the present C.), but outside the apse, i.e., the porch (propylaeum) and narthex (just as it was laid also upon those returning from heresies) — of c. VII of the 2nd — in order that they may stand weeping outside the court of the church, since such persons because of their sinning publicly and openly, are not considered to be even confessed sinners. For what is called confession is a disclosure or revelation of a secret or hidden sin. But how are these persons to be considered to have confessed their sin which was already common knowledge? Read also Ap. c. XXXIX and c. VII of the present C.

51. It is decreed that sacred virgins when separated from their fathers by whom they were being watched over shall be entrusted to the care and protection of the chastest women at the instance of the Bishop, or when he is absent at that of the Presbyter, or are to be allowed to watch over one another while dwelling together under the same roof, lest by wandering about anywhere and everywhere they injure the reputation of the Church.

(cc. Ill, XIX of the 1st; c. XVI of the 4th; cc. VI, CXXXV of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The consecrated girls mentioned in c. VI of the present C. are these same ones who are called sacred virgins in the present Canon, which decrees that since they have been deprived of the provident care and constant vigilance of their carnal father, and have been consecrated to God, as having vowed themselves to a life of virginity, they must, at the instance of the bishop, or when he is away at the instance of the priest, be consigned to chaste and modest women, to dwell together with them, and to be trained in virtuousness, or if they cannot stay with them to dwell at any rate all together with one another, in order that one may observe and watch over the other, lest by going about here and there in a disorderly manner they induce disbelievers to form bad opinions about the Church, or, more precisely speaking, about the aggregate of the faithful. See also cc. Ill and XIX of the First EC. C., and c. XVI of the 4th EC. C.

52. It is decreed that as regards persons who are ill and unable to reply in their own behalf, they are then to be baptized when of their own free will ana choice they may give testimony about themselves at their risk.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that if while persons are catechumens they suffer an impediment of speech owing to some illness and in consequence when asked whether they wish to be baptized they are unable to give an articulate reply because of their illness, then, I say, they shall be baptized when they themselves shall indicate of their own accord that they wish to be baptized and at their own risk ask for holy baptism, if, that is to say they do not retain a belief that they are in danger. It is thus that the Canon is interpreted by Zonaras, Balsamon, Aristenus, and Armenopoulos (section V. caption 6). But I like better the interpretation given to this Canon by the Anonymous Expositor, who says that persons unable to reply with their own mouth in sacred answers customarily made in the matter of divine baptism are to be baptized only then when sponsors seeking to have them, baptized and answering in their behalf solemnly testify that they undertake the risk if later those sick persons were unwilling of their own accord to undergo baptism;¹⁹⁹ though if before their illness they asked to be baptized, but for some reason postponed the matter, they ought to be baptized even if unable at this time to reply, according to Zonaras. Read also c. XII of Neocaesarea.

53. It is decreed that grace or absolution shall not be denied to actors and mimes, and to other such persons or to apostates, when they repent and return to God.

(Ap. c. LII; c. LXXII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Neither those persons who set up stages and tents and in them play various roles or parts, nor those who mimic at times slaves or servants, and at other times generals or other army officers, and even women or other persons, nor any other such players and dancers, and jugglers, nor even those persons who have denied Christ, ought, according to this Canon, to be refused by a bishop or a confessor when they repent and return to God; on the contrary, accepting all on an equal footing, he ought to give them grace, that is to say, more plainly speaking, remission of sins, which is accorded by the grace of God, and absolution, or, more explicitly speak-ing, release of them from suitable penances whereby God becomes reconciled with them. Read also Ap. c. LII.

54. Let it be permissible furthermore to have the sufferings of the Martyrs read (in church) whenever their anniversaries are being celebrated.

(Ap. c. LXXXV; cc. LI, LX of Laodicea; c. XXXII of Carthage; letter No. 39 of Athanasius; St. Gregory the Theologian in his Epics; and c. Amphilochius.).

Interpretation.

Since the present Council also appointed, in its c. XXXII, the books to be read in church in the way of canonical Scriptures, it now prescribes in the present Canon that in addition thereto it is permissible for the synaxaria to be read in church, which contain narratives of the sufferings of the Martyrs of Christ, when the memory of each Martyr is being celebrated. See also Ap. c. LXXXV.

55. It has pleased the Council to move that we ask our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplicianus concerning only the infants that are being baptized by the Donatists, as to whether this, which they did not do as a result of any intention of their own, but through the error of their parents, might prevent them from being advanced to the ministry of the holy altar when as a result of their own soterial intention and choice they may return to the Church of God.

(cc. LXVI, LXXV, LXXVI, CXC, C, CI, CII, CIII, CX, CXXVIII, CXXIX of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

In the present Canon this Council decides to ask their fellow bishops in Italy how they ought to treat infants baptized by the Donatists,²⁰⁰ and whether these children ought to be made priests when they have the baptism of heretics and return to Orthodoxy upon coming of age and attaining to knowledge. In its c. LXVI it decrees that these children be received into Orthodoxy by the laying on of the hand of the bishop or priest and anathematization of the error of the Donatists, without being rebaptized; and if they exhibit a good life both in public and in private, they are to be made clerics. But in its c. LXXV it states that they deemed it best to treat the Donatists mildly and peaceably, with a view to inducing them to embrace the truth. In c. LXXVI it asks the rulers of Africa to make an investigation respecting the churches of the Orthodox which were in the hands of the Maximiniasts, who belonged to the heresy of Donatus. In its c. LXXVII it accepts those among the Donatists who have been ordained and their ordinations (even though these have not been accepted by the Council concerning them which was held in Italy), especially on account of the dearth of priests in Africa, and for many other reasons. In c. LXXVIII it decrees that legates be sent to the Donatists to invite them to unite with the catholic church and make peace. Moreover, in c. XCIX it decrees that every bishop too must talk with the leaders of the Donatists in his own province concerning such a union. In c. C it seeks help and an alliance from the emperors as against the Donatists, just as the chief captain (mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles) helped St. Paul. In c. CI it asks the same persons (i.e., the emperors aforesaid) to confirm the law of Emperor Theodosius also with regard to the Donatists, which law provides that any persons ordaining heretics, or ordained by them, or allowing them to officiate, shall be fined in the sum of ten pounds of gold. In c. CII it seeks to have the law renewed and to have it enforced as against the Donatists which decreed that heretics were not to receive any inheritance or any gift. In c. CIII it wants to have letters of thanks sent to the effect that a union with the Donatists was achieved in Carthage. And lastly in c. CX it decrees that bishops and laymen returning from the Donatists are welcome, and that if any laymen among them wish after their return to have their former bishops, they are not to be denied this privilege. In its cc. CXXVIII and CXXIX concerning territories it defines those held by the Donatists, whether before the laws of the Emperors or after those laws.

56. As concerning the faith of the Council held in Nicaea as exhibited in its tractate we have learned that it is true that as concerns the rule that the holies are not to be administered after breakfast, in order that they be offered (only) by persons fasting, as is becoming, this was affirmed at that time.

(c. XXIX of the 6th; c. XLVIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Tractate, or tractatum in Latin, denotes a resolution and objective, according to Zonaras, but according to Balsamon²⁰¹ it signifies a trial (or test) and examination. The present Canon, therefore, says that in the course of the examination and trial concerning faith which the First Council held, we have learned that this too was affirmed and established, to wit, that the holy Mysteries are not to be offered, or, more explicitly speaking, priests are not to celebrate liturgy after eating, but (only) when fasting. This, however, is not to be found in the Canons of the First EC. C. See also c. XXIX of the 6th.

57. It is decreed that it is not permissible for persons to be rebaptized, or to be reordained, or for Bishops to move from one see to another. Accordingly, it is further decreed that the one who refused to obey the mild reminder offered him by Your Holiness, and to let the unpardonable error be corrected, shall be .forthwith deprived of office with the aid of the civil authority, and, if the form of procedure has been kept, he shall not be accorded a trial by the Council.

(Ap. cc. XIV, XXVII, XLVII, LXVIII; c. IX of the lst-&-2nd; c. V of Antioch; cc. LXII, LXXVI, LXXXIII, XCIX, C, CVI, CVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon commands that neither persons baptized by Orthodox ecclesiastics shall not be baptized a second time, in accordance with Ap. c. XLVII, nor shall those ordained by Orthodox prelates be ordained a second time, in accordance with Ap. c. LXVIII, nor shall bishops change from one province to another, in accordance with Ap. c. XIV. Read these Canons in conjunction with the rest of the Canons cited in the parallel references. But since a certain bishop by the name of Cresconius left his own episcopate and intruded upon an alien episcopate, known as Beken (also spelled Becken), and though for this reason many times ordered to leave it he refused, the present Canon decrees that, on the ground that he refused to obey and to correct this unpardonable evil, he is to be ousted from the alien church with the civil power of the magistrates. If, however the form of procedure has been kept in regard to him, or, in other words, if he was reminded in accordance with the Canons and remained contumacious, he is to be expelled first from the Council of the bishops, and be deposed from office, and afterwards when thus deposed, as then being a layman, he shall be turned over to the magistrate. See also all the Ap. cc. cited in the margin.

58. The ancient form shall be kept, in order that not less than three of the Bishops required for ordination shall suffice.

(Ap. c. I; c. IV of the 1st; c. Ill of the 7th; c. XIX of Antioch; c. XIII of Carthage; the memoirs concerning Love and Bagad.).

Interpretation.

The old Canon of the Apostles and of the subsequent Councils must be kept, and especially c. IV of the First EC. C., which this Council promises in its c. I to follow, just as the present Canon decrees that fewer than three bishops shall not ordain another bishop by the rite of sacred prayers.²⁰² See also Ap. c. I.

59. It is decreed that if at any time we proceed to choose a Bishop and some objection should arise, since such contingencies have been dealt with among us, it is overbold for only three persons to be required for the purpose of purifying one about to be ordained, but to the said number let there be added one and two; and in the presence of the laity for whom he is to be ordained let the persons objecting to him be investigated first, for later the evidence against him shall be weighed: and when he proves clean in public sight, may he then be ordained.

(Ap. c. LXI; c. II of the 6th; c. CXXXVIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

This Canon is a continuation of the one above. For it says that if three bishops are enough for an ordination, these same three may choose and elect the one who is to become a bishop (and see c. IV of the First EC. C.). But if any objection is raised by others in the way of accusations against the candidate (as such eventualities have often been dealt with, or, more explicitly speaking, investigated by us), those three persons alone ought not to judge and acquit him, but, besides them, one or two other bishops ought to be added. And first before the laity with respect to whom the candidate is to be ordained they ought to scrutinize the persons of the accusers as to what sort of reputation they have (concerning which see Ap c. LXXIV); and if they turn out to be free from aspersions, then let the accusations made by them be examined; and after the candidate appears clean from the accusations before the eyes of the laity, let him then be ordained a bishop. Read also Ap. c. LXI.

60. It is decreed that every year we are to convene together for the purpose of discussion, and, when we have met together, then shall the day of holy Easter be published through the legates who are attending the Council.

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

Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees nothing else than that a Council must be held every year for the purpose of examining ecclesiastical matters, and that from, this Council through the legates of bishops, in attendance at the Council, all persons are to be notified as to what day of the year that of holy Easter²⁰³ happens to fall on. See also Ap. c. XXXVII, but more especially Ap. c. VII.

61. We ought to visit every province during the time of the Council.

(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. XXVI, LX, LXXXI, LXXXIV, LXXXV of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Furthermore even the present Canon commands that during the time of this annual Council, or Synod, every province should be visited, or, more explicitly speaking that there should be an examination and investigation concerning the matters arising therein, the legates in the Council going personally to each of the provinces and looking them over. See also Ap. c. XXXIV.

62. In many Councils it has been laid down a rule to a sacerdotal congress, in order that the multitudes in the dioceses possessed by the Bishops but never having had a Bishop of their own except by consent of the Bishop by whom they have been possessed ever since the beginning, shall not receive rectors of their own, that is, bishops, because some persons, to speak plainly, who have obtained a certain tyrannical power shun the communion of their brethren. But after they have become lost to shame, as though to some old tyranny, they set up a claim to lordship for themselves-, while many of the Presbyters, being puffed up and stupid, lift their necks up against their own Bishops, rousing the multitude with banquets and malignant conspiracies to favor their self-appointment as rectors in an irregular manner. We ought, therefore, by all means to strive to prevent these persons from keeping a hold on such dioceses, or even their own churches which have wrongly or unrightfully come into their hands, and in order that they may be publicly dispossessed thereof authoritatively, and be ousted from office with the very seat of the ones acting as primates.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that the multitudes of those Christians who originally and in the very beginning had no separate bishop in their town shall not be allowed to have one (whom it calls a rector, on the ground that he directs the faithful to faith and virtue), without the consent and express permission of the bishop who originally and in the very beginning had charge of them. But since many bishops seeking to make themselves bishops over such towns that are without a bishop shun the communion of their fellow bishops and brethren (under whom, it appears, such towns were), and after being discountenanced, and having their viciousness exposed, they seek with violence and tyranny to gain control over such towns on the alleged ground that they have a right thereto due to an old custom. But also because many presbyters rise up against their bishops, and incite the multitude with the banquets they provide, and the bad recommendations they offer, to try to make these presbyters bishops of their own, on the pretense that they are drawn to them by an irregular and unlawful love. On account of these persons, therefore, it says, the Councils ought to strive so far as possible to prevent these wrongly governed points from being kept and even from occurring in the future. Moreover, from those towns which such persons have gained control of in a tyrannical manner they must be expelled openly and with the authority of the magistrates and with that of the Metropolitans or Patriarchs. Or else one may take the word “dioceses” to mean that those persons who have succeeded in becoming bishops by such means and in such a tyrannical manner ought not only to be ousted from the towns which they have grabbed like robbers, but also from their former dioceses. But it is quite evident that persons thus ousted are also deposed from office, in accordance with c. LVII of the present C. Read also Ap. cc. XXVII, XXXI, XXXIV, and c. VI of Sardica.

63. It is decreed that no Bishop shall appropriate another’s Cleric contrary to the wishes of his former Bishop. But if any Bishop should do so nevertheless, let him not commune any longer with others.

(Ap. c XV; cc. XV, XVI of the 1st; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; cc. XVII, XVIII of the 6th; c. XV of the 7th; c. Ill of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI, XIX of Sardica; c. XCVIII 01 of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon commands that no bishop is to be allowed to take a strange cleric as his own, i.e., to take advantage of his services, without the consent and approval and a letter dimissory (Ap. c. XII) of his own bishop. If any bishop fails to observe this rule, let him not continue to commune with others. This may be taken in two different senses, to wit: either that he is not to appropriate that cleric belonging to another bishop, but, on the contrary, to compel him to return to his church; or else that he must not be admitted to communion by the other bishops, which is to say, he is to be excluded from communion.²⁰⁴ See also Ap. c. XV.

64. There has always been attached to this throne the authority to ordain a Bishop in accordance with the desire of each church from anywhere it wished and as to any name suggested to it. But good will demands moderation of the authority, so as to satisfy the person of each and every Bishop. Wherefore if anyone be found having but a single Presbyter and him suited for the episcopate, he must give that very one to ordination. Anyone, on the other hand, that has several Clerics must spare one of them to be ordained by that Bishop.

(Ap. cc. XV, XVI.).