So-called First-and-Second Council

The Council held in the Temple of Holy Wisdom.

Prolegomena.

The holy Council which was convoked in the righthand part of the catechumens’ quarters of the Great Church, otherwise known as the Temple of Holy Wisdom (Note of Translator. — The usual designation in English is “St. Sophia,” but this is egregiously erroneous), was held in the year 879 after Christ and in the thirteenth year of the reign of Basil the Macedonian.²⁶ It was attended by three hundred and eighty-three (383)²⁷ fathers, of whom the outstanding ones were: the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius; Peter the Presbyter, a cardinal and the legate of Pope John, together with Paul and Eugene;²⁸ Elias Presbyter, the legate of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theodosius; Cosmas Presbyter, the apocrisarius of Michael the Patriarch of Alexandria; Basil the Bishop of Martyroupolis and legate of Theodosius the Patriarch of Antioch. This Council was held mainly and chiefly in order to put a stop to the scandals which had arisen between the Easterners and the Westerners in regard to Bulgaria,²⁹ but in addition thereto for the purpose of effecting a union of the bishops who had split on account of the expulsion of Ignatius and the ordination of Photius. For this Council, after proclaiming the holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council to have been truly ecumenical, and classing it together with the other six Ecumenical Councils, and anathematizing all those who did not so class it (for there were some such persons in France) it recognized most holy Photius and proclaimed him the lawful and canonical Patriarch of Constantinople; and it outlawed and repudiated the Councils which had been held against Photius in ‘Rome and Constantinople. Having done these things, and in its sixth and seventh Acts having rightly and piously decreed that the holy Creed (or Symbol of Faith) should remain uninnovated and immutable forever, and having uttered horrible anathemas against any person that should dare to add anything thereto or to remove anything therefrom, it also issued the present three Canons in its fifth Act, which Canons are needed for the decorum and stabilization of the Church and which have been and are accepted by our entire Church as genuine, just as all the exegetes of the sacred Canons in common declare and affirm; and, indeed, the Nomocanon itself of Photius.³⁰

Canons.

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.

(Ap. cc. XII, XIII, XXXII; c. VI of Antioch; c. XIV of Sardica; cc. XI, XXXVII, CXLI.).

Interpretation.

In order to bring about a peaceful end to the many scandals and dissensions which had arisen at that time in the Eastern and the Western Church, as between Popes Nicholas and Adrian of Rome and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, the primary cause of which had been the province of Bulgaria, as we have said, the present Canon of this Council decrees that all the clerics and laymen and bishops that were excommunicated or deposed or anathematized by John the Pope of Rome, whether they be located in Europe or in Asia or in Africa, they are to be excommunicated and deposed and anathematized also by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople. And conversely, all such persons as have been excommunicated or deposed or anathematized in any region of the earth by the Patriarch of Constantinople, are to be excommunicated, deposed, and anathematized also by the Pope of Rome, without the privileges of the Church of the Romans, and of the Pope therein, being adversely affected, either now or in the future, this meaning, that is to say, that the Pope is to be first in the order of honor with respect to the other four Patriarchs. Nevertheless, these things were done at that time when the Church of the Romans had neither slipped from the faith nor had any quarrel with us Greeks. But now we have no union or communion with her, on account of the heretical dogmas to which she became attached. See also Ap. c. XXXII.

2. Though hitherto some bishops having descended to the habit of monks, have been forced nevertheless to remain in height of the prelacy, they have been overlooked when they did so. But, with this in mind, this holy and ecumenical Council, with a view to regulating this oversight, and readjusting this irregular practice to the ecclesiastical statutes, has decreed that if any bishop or anyone else with a prelatical office is desirous of descending to monastic life and of replenishing the region of penitence and of penance, let him no longer cherish any claim to prelatical dignity. For the monks’ conditions of subordination represent the relationship of pupilship, and not of teachership or of presidency; nor do they undertake to pastor others, but are to be content with being pastored. Wherefore, in accordance with what was said previously, we decree that none of those who are on the prelatical list and are enrolled pastors shall lower themselves to the level of the pastored and repentant. If anyone should dare to do so, after the delivery and discrimination of the decision hereby being pronounced, he having deprived himself of his prelatical rank, shall no longer have the right to return to his former status, which by actual deeds he has vitiated.
Interpretation.

The present Canon prohibits bishops and pastors from descending from the height of prelatical dignity and office to the lowness of the habit of monks (just as they are likewise forbidden to resign from their province, except only on account of canonical crimes they have to their discredit, preventing them from being in holy orders, and confessed by them to their spiritual father. For by resigning beforehand, they would have been enabled to descend to the rank of monks). But if anyone should dare to do so, after making this decision, let him no longer be able in any way whatsoever to retain the high office of the prelacy, or to perform any prelatical function; for first of all the agreement which monks enter into in connection with the habit are agreements of social subordination, or pupilship (or discipleship), and of repentance (or penitance), but not of authority and of teacherhood and of a life grounded in irreprehensibility, which are the merits of the office of bishop. These things, being contrary to one another, cannot be found united together in the same season. Secondly, the fact that the monks themselves have deprived themselves of the rank of the prelacy, and so it is not possible for them to recover again that which they forfeited by deeds or actual works. Notwithstanding that hitherto some bishops have been committing this impropriety, from now on, however, and henceforth let it not be done.³¹

3. If any layman, after becoming a man of authority, and conceiving a contempt for divine and imperial injunctions, and laughing to scorn the dread statutes and laws of the Church, shall dare to strike any bishop, or to imprison one, without reason or cause, or for a fictitious reason or cause, let such a one be anathema. (Ap. c. LV.)
Interpretation.

The world has never been free from evils. Accordingly, the opinion of that sage is true which says that most men are evil. For here, behold, you can see for yourselves proof of this in the fact that in older times bishops were beaten and imprisoned by laymen. What an outrage! That is why the present Canon commands that a layman be anathematized³² if after receiving authority and power, or after becoming the cause of his own mental (or psychical) death (for the Greek word, says the author, which is here translated into English as “a man of authority,” also signifies “self-murderer,” or one who is ordinarily called a suicide in English) he should show contempt for imperial orders and commands, at the same time laugh to scorn both the unwritten traditions and the written laws of the Church, and dare (for it is truly a piece of enormous daring and audacity for anyone to strike any bishop) to strike a bishop (or, more explicitly, not only the bishop, with the definite article, that is to say, the noted and official personage, but even the humblest, and poorest, and casual bishop), or to put him in prison, either without cause or on a false charge which he himself has trumped up. But what is an anathema? See the Prolegomena of the Council held in Gangra. Read also Ap. c. LV.