So-called First-and-Second Council

15 As against bishops who build with money of injustice, St. Isidore writes as follows: “You are building, as they say, a church in Pelousion which is splendid in its appointments, but is constructed with wicked finances, funds representing money derived from ordinations, and acts of injustice, and abuses of others’ rights, and oppression of the indigent, and contributions of the poor. It is nothing else than building Zion with streams of blood, and Jerusalem with deeds of injustice. God has no need of sacrifices from aliens. Cease, therefore, building things and wronging people, lest the house prove to your conviction when it comes to God, by standing in mid-air and shouting against you eternal curses” (Epistle 37 to Bishop Eusebius). Habbakuk also says: “Woe to him who builds a city in blood” (2:12).

16 This parenthesis is neither found in the printed and published Canons, nor is even mentioned by Zonaras and Balsamon at all in their interpretation of this Canon. But it is found so worded in many manuscript codices, works of a hand trained in orthography and calligraphy.

17 It is plain that those who take these sacred things and utilize them for some common service for their own behoof or that of others, may be understood to be returning them to the temple again. For those who fail to return them, even though they be the ones who dedicated them, and lords of the temple, are condemned as sacrilegists, after the manner of Ananias and Sapphira.

18 Note that in other codices this sentence, to wit: “is both maintaining and teaching outright the decorum regulating conduct in actual life,” is not found.

19 See also c. I of Basil the Great, which merely chastises parasynagogists with tempo­rary suspension from holy orders.

20 Nevertheless Ap. c. XXXI holds the one separating free from any liability in case he knows him to be unjust.

21 From these words in the Canon it appears that one ought not to separate from his bishop, according to Balsamon, in case he entertains any heresy, but keeps it hidden away in secret. For it is possible that he may thereafter correct himself of his own accord.

22 Apparently the Canon says this with respect to St. Photius, on the ground that he served as Patriarch even while Patriarch Ignatius was still alive, as we said in the beginning, though there were plenty of other bishops and patriarchs who were ordained while their predecessors were still living; see Dositheus, page 123 in the Dodecabiblus. Such a thing, however, is unlawful, and contrary to the Canons, and ought not to be imitated.

23 So the first ordinance of Title I of the Novels, which ordinance is Justinian’s Novel 67, ought to be abrogated and annulled, according to Balsamon (in Photius, Title VIII, ch. 2), which decrees that a bishop shall be ousted from his bishopric if he absents himself from his province, not for more than six months, as the present Canon specifies, but for more than a year. The same observation applies also to the rescript of Manuel Comnenus which decrees that bishops who have been staying in a strange region for more than six months shall be ousted only from the foreign region, and not from their own province. Since, as we said in the beginning of this book, civil laws that conflict with the Canons ought to be abrogated and annulled, as they themselves actually assert. But ordinance seventh of Title I of the Novels decreeing that the steward in charge of the affairs of a bishopric ought not supply the expenses to a bishop who has been absent from his bishopric for a long time, possesses a claim to validity and force. I omit remarking that according to cc. XI and XII of Sardica and c. LXXX of the 6th, a bishop is allowed to stay away from his province for only three weeks.

24 Some persons have asked how long one must stay in each rank; and some have replied seven days, inferring this from the discourse of St. Gregory the Theologian concerning holy orders, but others have said three months, adducing evidence from Justinian’s Novel 122. But, strictly speaking, the length of time is indefinite, since the Council held in Sardica, according to its c. X, decreed, that is to say, it should be sufficiently long to prove or demonstrate both the faith and the gentlemanliness of manners and of ways, and the solidity of mind of the candidate for ordination. But it is further to be noted that the faith and the mind of some men is revealed or shown in a shorter length of time, and of other men in a longer length of time. So the period they need is also uncertain and cannot be known beforehand. The length of time, however, which ought to elapse in connection with each rank ought to be, not an exceedingly short interval, according to the same Sardican Canon, but even an exceedingly long interval.

25 What sort of bishops and Patriarchs were ordained from laymen may be seen from the following: Nectarius, Ambrose, Tarasius, Nicephorus, and sacred Photius himself who at that time present in the Council and with reference to whom alone it would appear that the Council decreed the present Canon. For even if divine Photius did do this with an aim to follow the example of Tarasius, and of Nicephorus, and of Ambrose, yet he was nevertheless blamed for it by the Romans. Of the men mentioned here, Tarasius, and Nicephorus, and Photius were promoted from laymen, while Nectarius and Ambrose were ordained even from catechumens, who, as soon as they had been baptized, received all the ranks of holy orders in succession. Nectarius was made patriarch of Constantinople by the Second Ecumenical Council. Ambrose, on the other hand, was made bishop of Milan by the clergy and laity of Milan. See also Dositheus in the preamble to the Volume of Joy (page 6), where he says that Photius wrote to Nicholas, the bishop of Rome, that it was he that acted to have this Canon adopted at the present Council, for the sake of agreement of the two Churches of Constantinople and of Rome, and in order to remove from the midst every stumbling-stone and scandal.

26 St. Mark of Ephesus spoke about this Council in discussing matters with Julian at the sixth convention of the Council held in Florence. But he speaks more clearly about it in his confession of faith thus: “In addition to the said seven Councils I accept and embrace also the one assembled after them in the reign of pious Basil, the Emperor of the Romans, and of the most holy Patriarch Photius, which has also been called the eighth ecumenical Council,” etc. (in “The Antipope,” page 172 and page 731 of the Dodecabiblus); yet, notwithstanding that this Council was commonly called the eighth ecumenical, yet it came to be called by all “The Council held in the time of Photius” (but it ought rather to have been called the Council held in behalf of Photius, since there were other Councils held in the time of Photius too, as we have said), owing to the fact that it issued no new definition concerning the faith, as the seven other ecumenical Councils did, as we stated in the Prolegomena to the First Ecum. Council.

27 For that is the number given in the minutes of the same Council contained in the seven Acts included in the second volume of the Conciliar Records (page 929). But others that there were 405, as does Dositheus, who adds also the twenty-two (or twenty-three) in Rome who signed the decree of restoration of sacred Photius.

28 Two of these men, Paul and Eugene, were in Constantinople already, having been sent there by Pope John, in regard to the province of Bulgaria. Peter, on the other hand, was sent at this time to the Council, and with him John sent a prelatic vesture to Photius, comprising an orarion, a sticharion, and sandals, as Beccus also bears witness.

29 The reason why the scandals rose in regard to Bulgaria may be stated in brief as follows. Emperor Michael, the son of Theophilus, after defeating the Bulgarians, with the spiritual help and labors of Ignatius and Photius, the Patriarchs, had his magistrates baptized. He named the first one of them Michael, after himself. So for this reason and because since times long past and from the beginning Bulgaria had been subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, who in turn was subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarchs of Constantinople sent an archbishop there. But Pope Nicholas, being envious, tried to get control of Bulgaria. But since Photius would not let him do so, but wrote to him that so far as concerned Bulgaria it belonged to the emperor. Having assembled a Council in Rome, the Pope then deposed and anathematized Photius, and excommunicated all persons communicating with him. To Bulgaria, on the other hand, he dispatched presbyters and had them anoint a second time those persons who had been anointed with chrism by the priests of Constantinople; and his presbyters also were teaching there that the Holy Spirit proceeds also out of the Son. Hence, assembling a Council in Constantinople, Photius retaliated by deposing Nicholas and welcoming in every region those whom Nicholas had excommunicated. But after Michael died and Nicholas too, and Photius had been ousted, Ignatius returned to the throne. But owing to the fact that he too refused to consent to let the Pope ordain in Bulgaria, Pope John, being offended at this, as the successor of Adrian, refused to sanction the Council held in Rome and Constantinople against Photius. But after Ignatius died, Photius returned to the throne of Constantinople; and in order to prove to the world that everything they had concocted against him was false, and in order to get the ungodly view which was being whispered to the West, but had been publicly proclaimed to Bulgaria, corrected, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit out of the Son, and in addition with the object of restoring the peace and union of the Churches and of the bishops, part of whom were called Ignatians and part Photians, he persuaded Emperor Basil to let him assemble the present Council, after he himself had written to Pope John VIII and made a libellus of faith to the rest of the Patriarchs. As regarding Bulgaria, however, since Pope John was again seeking control of that country, and did not want the patriarch of Constantinople to ordain in it, nor even to send an omophorion there, the fathers, having become thoroughly tired of the scandals, declared that this right belonged to the Emperor; and thus they were rid of the quarrels for the present. See concerning this fact page 1 of the second volume of the Octateuch in the chapter concerning commentators, and also see Dositheus in the Dodecabiblus. Otherwise. At the same time preachers of the Gospel were dispatched by the Patriarch Ignatius to the heathen in Bohemia, for which purpose he selected the two brothers from Thessalonica named Cyril and Methodius; and they succeeded in converting that race of people and their ruler to piety. In fact, Cyril became the first Bishop of Prague. The two brothers even invented the Slavonic alphabet, the letters of which are called on this account Cyrillic, though ignorantly called Illyrian by some persons. But the Popes of those times felt not a little envious of this God-pleasing work, as is to be seen from the history of them which is still preserved in the venerable Monastery of Chelantarius. But Andronicus the Younger, Emperor of Rome, in a chrysobullum of his, which he presented to the so-called Monastery of Xeropotamus, wrote that Paul, the son of Emperor Michael Rhangabe and brother of Patriarch Ignatius, converted the Serbian race to piety. Hence and in honor of him Krales of Serbia built the monastery called St. Paul (after the same Paul). It is also noteworthy that this divine Paul was a eunuch, as was also his brother Patriarch Ignatius, both of them having been castrated by the tyrant Leo Armenius.

30 Note concerning this Council that it pierced the hearts of the Westerners like a two-edged sword with its wonderful and splendid expositions and with the God-inspired definition which it drew up respecting the security of the holy creed; for no other Council has spoken forth and interpreted as it did the absurdities and improprieties which may result from the removal of anything or the addition of anything that might occur in connection with the holy Creed itself. Hence it is that in many different ways they strive to prove it false, employing for this purpose twenty-seven antitheses, which blessed Dositheus solves on page 730 of his Dodecabiblus; their allegation being that no such Council was ever held at all, but that, on the contrary, Photius fictioned it. They are driven to such hardihood by their madness due to the bitter censure to which they are subjected therein. But the light cannot be hidden; for besides the exegetes of the Canons, who are also most ancient ones, even Latin-minded Beccus himself mentions it, and has compiled even selections from its minutes. Moreover, and par excellence Joseph Bryennius, the wisest and most learned teacher arid theologian, who lived towards the end of our reign, in his discourse concerning the Trinity, recites in extenso the particulars concerning it, and finally says that up to his time its minutes were still being preserved in the great library with the signatures written by the hands of Peter, Paul, and Eugene, Pope John’s legates, in Latin. After these times, Mark of Ephcsus, numbered among the saints, at the sixth convention of the Council held in Florence, recommended it as a true and holy Council and even goes so far as to assert that from then, that is to say, from the time of that Council, down to the present time it is read in the great church of Constantinople in the following excerpt: “As for all that has been written and spoken against the most holy Patriarchs Ignatius and Photius, anathema.” And when Mark of Ephesus had said these things, Cardinal Julian, who was the one debating with Mark of Ephesus, found himself silenced, being unable to say anything in reply. Many of the Latins, too, bear witness to its authenticity: for instance, Ibas the bishop of Carnovia, and Gratian the monk. Nevertheless, the letters of Pope John suffice to serve instead of all other evidence, one of which is addressed to most holy Photius, another to the Augustuses. They are to be found in the minutes published by Vinius, on page 93 of Volume VIII. But what this Council loudly proclaimed concerning the Creed in its sixth and seventh Acts (we regretted having to omit them) is as follows: “As for the definition of the purest and noblest faith of the Christians which has come down to us from the fathers and the earliest times, we recognize and embrace it, and we herald it abroad to all men with a clarion voice, without taking anything away from, without adding anything to it, without altering anything in it, without forging or counterfeiting anything.” And again: “If therefore anyone should be led to such an extremity of madness as to dare, as has been said above, to set forth any other creed (or symbol) and to call it a definition, or to make and obtend any addition or subtraction in the one handed down to us by the holy and Ecumenical great Council held for the first time in Nicea, let him be anathema.” See also the rest of whatever this Council decreed regarding the Creed in the Footnote to c. VII of the 3rd.

31 Some persons would have it that monks who have become such from bishops, not those who have been deposed by conciliar verdict from office on account of any crimes they have committed; not those who have resigned on account of their unworthiness kept secret or even confessed in private to a spiritual father, but only those who have resigned on account of negligence or disinclination for affairs (which they did uncanonically, though they succeeded in actually doing it; and concerning which see the letter of the Third Ecum. C.), and not on account of any other unworthiness secret or open; and who, after resigning, became monks. As respecting these men, I say, some persons would have it that even after having become monks they can still perform the sacred rites and functions of a presbyter only. And they corro­borate their opinion first of all by citing the fact that the submissiveness symbolized by the monks’ habit and the presidency pertaining to the prelatical office are contrary one to the other, and on this account they repel each other. Accordingly, it is impos­sible for them to be united in one and the same man and at one and the same time, according to the present Canon. But the office of presbyter is no presidency; it is not opposed to subordination, and consequently it may be united with it in one and the same man. Secondly, because we see that presbyters even after becoming monks continue exercising the functions of a presbyter, and are not prevented from doing so by the morkish habit. And thirdly, because the Canons — c. XX of the 6th, c. XVIII of Ancyra, and c. VIII of the First, though lowering a bishop from episcopal supremacy, do not, in spite of this, prohibit him from performing the sacred func­tions of a presbyter. That is what they say. But Patriarch Nicholas, in his eighth Reply, insists that one who has voluntarily abdicated holy orders because his con­science hurt him must neither prefix the words “Blessed be God,” nor add the words “Christ the true God” in the dismissal; nor must he partake of communion within the Bema; nor ought he to incense with a censer, which is a function of the lower ranking deacons. Instead, he ought to be placed among the laity. Just as a priest who has abandoned the priesthood voluntarily cannot perform even the sacred functions of a deacon, so and in like manner a bishop who has resigned from the prelacy and has been lowered to the habit of a monk cannot perform even the duties of a presbyter. Even if he has no other sins to reprove his conscience, yet this unlawful resignation which he has submitted is enough to reprove him daily. I pass over the fact that demotion of a bishop to the rank of presbyter is called sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th; but c. XX of the 6th demotes a bishop to the honor of a presbyter for the purpose of preventing there being two bishops in one and the same city, in accordance with c. VIII of the 1st, and c. XII of the 4th; c. XVIII of Ancyra does this if a bishop who is in a foreign province is causing scandals and disturbances; and see Ap. cc. XXXV and XXXVI. In view of the fact that these Canons do not demote a bishop to presbyter in general, but only for certain reasons, let those who apply these Canons generally in this matter cease doing so. Not only have prelates who have voluntarily become monks no right to perform any priestly office or service, but not even prelates who have been tonsured for some special occasion, or on accourt of some illness or violence can perform the duties of the prelacy again, according to Balsamon (in his interpretation of c. III of Ancyra), if they but once accept that which has been done to them by force or violence (for tonsure in illness, owing to its not having been done by force or violence, is in every way and in any case valid). Wherefore Nicholas of Mouzalon, who served as bishop of Amycleion, after being made a monk forcibly by the civil authorities, in spite of his repeatedly and beggingly pleading to have this forcible tonsure over­looked, and to be allowed to perform again the duties of bishops, failed to get his request granted by the then Council (or Synod) and Patriarch Luke, but was denied his personal petition. Balsamon says, in fact, that even prelates who have put on the habit of a staurophore cannot perform the functions of a prelate, and much less can those who have become megaloschemes. He says that the reason why presbyters keep on performing the functions of holy orders even after becoming monks is that presbyters are not teachers proper, as are prelates. Hence the former are not de­barred by the fact that they are at the same time both presbyters and pupils, i.e., obedientiaries, according to the Reply 9 which the same Balsamon makes to Mark of Alexandria; whereas the latter are debarred, because, according to this Canon, learning (or pupilage) and teaching (or teachership) are contraries. That this Bal­samon is not doing right in dividing the habit of monks into that of staurophore and that of megaloscheme is to be seen by reference to the Footnote to c. XLIII of the 6th. But if prelates who have resigned but not on account of secret or open crimes of theirs cannot perform any function of holy orders after becoming monks, much less can those who have become such on account of crimes of theirs. See also the form for a canonical resignation at the end of this book.

32 This explains why God-bearing Ignatius wrote the following to the Smyrneans: “‘My son,’ he says, ‘honor God and the Emperor.’ But I say, honor God, on the one hand, as the Cause and Lord of all; but a Bishop, on the other hand, as a chief priest of God, wearing, as respects ruling, an image of God, and as respects officiating as a prelate, an image of Christ. And next after him it behooves one to honor also the Emperor. For there is no one that is superior to God, or that even remotely resembles Him, among all beings, nor in the Church is there anything greater than a Bishop consecrated to God for the sake of the salvation of the whole world. . . . He that honors a Bishop will be honored by God. In precisely the same way, therefore, will he that dishonors him be chastised by God . . . For the priesthood is the acme of all boons among men: whoever rages against it is not dishonoring a human being, but God, and Christ Jesus, the firstborn and only high priest by nature to God.” And Blastaris also says that “even though an accusation against a Bishop may be very reasonable, yet not even the highest magistrate can try him judicially, but, instead, must lay the accusation before the Synod which has the right to chastise sinning Bishops (and which first deposes them, and afterwards turns them over to the civil authorities, according to c. V of Antioch).” The Imperial laws, on the other hand, prescribe that whoever strikes a priest either while he is in a church or in a church procession shall be exiled.

33 Note that the same characteristics or peculiarities that differentiate ecumenical councils from regional councils, differentiate conversely regional councils from ecumenical councils; and see these characteristics in Footnote 1 to the Prolegomena to the First Council. A regional council differs from a so-called diocesan synod, or council, in that a diocesan synod is one that is held by a Bishop, or a Metropolitan, or a Patriarch, together with his own Clerics only, without Bishops, according to Dositheus (page 1015 of the Dodecabiblus) whereas a regional council is one held when a Metropolitan or Patriarch convenes with his own bishops or metropolitans, respectively, in one place, and, generally speaking, when the bishops of one or two provinces assemble in order to consider ecclesiastical cases and questions which have come up. The designation regional councils includes also the councils decreed by the Canons to be held every year and to be attended by the bishops of each province, since they too are held by the bishops, according to Ap. c. XXXVII, and the concord of the other Canons therewith.

34 One of the reasons why this Council was held is that a practice of rebaptism had begun in Africa previously pursuant to the doctrine of the Bishop of Carthage named Agrippinus, or, as others assert, that of Tertullian (as is plainly stated in the words which divine Cyprian wrote in the present canonical and conciliar letter to Jovian (a bishop) saying that “it is not a new Opinion and one recently established that we are citing, but one which has been tried and tested of yore with all accuracy by fathers who were our predecessors”). Another reason is that those times witnessed the appearance of Novatus, who, though a presbyter of Rome, became a schismatic because he taught that those who in time of persecution turned idolaters and afterwards repented were unacceptable as penitents unless they consented to be baptized from the start. Hence he was led by this cacodoxy of his to split off from the catholic Church, and a large part went with him. So there was some doubt concerning those persons, or, at any rate, as regarded those whom they baptized, as to whether they ought to be baptized later upon returning to the catholic Church. And on this account some bishops sent to divine Cyprian asking for a solution of the problem confronting them. So this Council, when assembled, decreed what is mentioned above. See Dositheus, page 53, of his Dodecabiblus.