So-called First-and-Second Council

The Regional Council of Neocaesarea.

Prolegomena.

The holy and regional Council which was held in Neocaesarea, of Cappadocia, situated in the so-called Polemoniacus Pontus, according to Ptolemy and Pliny, convened in the year 315 after Christ, according to Dositheus and Milias, or, more to the point, in the same year, according to Dositheus and others, as the Council held in Ancyra, though not during the same season of the year, but a little later than the latter Council; but according to Milias, one year after the latter was held. It was attended, according to Dositheus (p. 876 of the Dodecabiblus), by twenty-three fathers, of whom the exarch was Vitalius, and who promulgated the present fifteen Canons concerning various matters,⁶⁴ these Canons being necessary to the good order and proper constitution, or state, of the Church. They were definitely confirmed by c. II of the 6th Ec. C., and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and by c. I of the 7th; and by reason of this confirmation they become invested, so to speak, with virtually ecumenical power.

Canons.

1. If a Presbyter gets married, he is displaced from orders;⁶⁵ but if he commit fornication or adultery, he must be ousted altogether, and be led to repentance.
Interpretation.

Since according to Ap. c. XXVI it is only Anagnosts (or Lectors) and Psalts (or Cantors) that are not deposed if they marry after ordination, therefore and on this account the present Canon decrees that if a presbyter, or, more explicitly speaking, a hieromonach (or monk-priest) marries after taking holy orders, he forfeits his rank, or, more explicitly speaking, he is deposed from office. But if he commits fornication or adultery, he is excommunicated from the Church entirely, and is assigned to the stations of the penitents, like laymen.⁶⁶ Read also Ap. c. XXV.

2. If a woman gets married to two brothers, let her be thrust out until her death; but, nevertheless, at the time of death if she decides to dissolve the marriage in case she recovers her health, for the sake of philanthropy she shall be allowed the benefit of repentance. But if the woman dies while so wedded, or the husband does, repentance will be difficult for the one who is left as survivor.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that in case one and the same woman takes two brothers as husbands (meaning one after the death of the other), and refuses to dissolve this illicit marriage, let her be excommunicated from the Church until her death. But if, when in danger of dying, she promise to sever the matrimonial relationship after getting well, then for the sake of philanthropy let her partake of the divine Mysteries, and after she recovers she shall be admitted to the stations of penitents.⁶⁷ But if the husband or wife die without dissolving this illegal, unlawful and illicit marriage, he or she can only with difficulty be admitted to penitence, in the case of whichever of the two parties survives, since true repentance is achieved by abstaining from the evil, whereas, how can the party who survives from such a marriage be expected or considered to repent truly, at a time when he or she has not actually succeeded in abstaining, or, in other words, has not yet voluntarily separated from the illicit marriage? For the fact that the surviving party did not acquiese in a separation before the death of the other shows, on the face of it, that he or she would be cohabiting with the dead party yet if the latter were still alive.⁶⁸ See also Ap. c. XIX.

3. As concerning those persons who become involved in a plurality of marriages, the length of sentence to which they are liable is clear as fixed, but their recantation and faith will avail to shorten the time.
Interpretation.

The present Canon says that the length of the sentence for polygamy, which is the same as saying for trigamy, is no secret, yet their repentance for the trigamy and the fervent faith they have in God may persuade their bishop or spiritual father to shorten the time of their penalty.⁶⁹

Concord.

In his c. IV St. Basil the Great excommunicates trigamists for five years from communion in the Mysteries, remarking that this five years’ excommunication is not derived from any canon of the fathers, but, on the contrary, from only the custom and practice of the older generations. So how did this fact escape the vigilance of St. Basil, who is renowned for his learning and great wisdom? For this Council was held before the time of St. Basil. But perhaps the fact is that the present Canon asserts the length of time for trigamists to be fixed and definite, not as a result of reference to any written Canon, but of taking consuetude into account, in agreement with St. Basil the Great. For inasmuch as that time was evident to all from common and prevalent custom, it was not at all necessary for it to be recorded here in writing. In his c. LXXX St. Basil declares that trigamy is a greater sin than fornication, while in his c. L he calls trigamy dirt and pollution of the Church.

4. If any man has felt a desire⁷⁰ for a woman and has conceived an intention to lie with her but this desire was not actualized, it appears that he was rescued by grace.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that in case any man becomes desirous of any woman in the course of sustaining an attack and impression upon his faculty of ratiocination; afterwards, following close upon the attack of this desire he makes an assent (for that is what the word “intention” denotes) and makes a serious endeavor to sleep with the woman he conceived a desire for, yet, in spite of this fact, this thought and intention, or assent, of his failed to be put into practice, not on account of any external obstacle, but because before copulation the man who had thus conceived the intention to do it came to his senses, as the saying goes, and almost instantly jumped away, and did not actually do the deed, according to Zonaras; that man, I say, appears to have been redeemed by divine grace from commission of the act of sin. Nevertheless, on account of the assent and endeavor which he made with a view to committing the sin, he ought to be penanced by the spiritual father, as Zonaras also says. That is why St. Basil the Great in his c. LXX takes to task any deacon who goes only so far as to kiss a woman, and who afterwards confesses the misdeed, and he makes him liable to suspension for a time from the liturgy. (Although, in reality, a kiss is not a mere simple assent, but is actually a part of an act.) As concerning attack, combination of assent, struggle, and captivation, or passion, see cc. II, III, IV, and V of the Faster, and the Footnote thereto; see in addition to these also Footnote 3 to c. XC of St. Basil.

5. If any catechumen who stands in the rank of catechumens, when he enters the Lord’s house, commits a sin,⁷¹ in case he is one of those who have to kneel, or bend their knees, let him join the listeners if he is no longer committing sins; but if even when placed among the listeners he continues committing sins, let him be thrust out.
Interpretation.

There used to be two classes of catechumens: one class was that of the more perfect, who stood at liturgy until the prayer of catechumens, which they listened to on bended knees, or rather while kneeling on their knees, the hand of the priest being laid upon them, and then they would leave church. The other class was that of the more imperfect, who as being new converts to the faith, listened only to the divine Scriptures, and after the reading of the Gospel, they would go out. So the present Canon says that in case one of the catechumens among the more perfect ones who were kneelers was sinning, let him be stationed farther below the catechumens who were listeners if he refrained from further sinning. But in case he sinned again even when stationed among listeners, let him be cast out from the narthex altogether, and let him be stationed among the weepers, outside the gate to the narthex. See c. XIV of the 1st, and the ichnograph of a temple at the end of this book.

6. As concerning a woman who is gravid, we decree that she ought to be illuminated whenever she so wishes. For in this case there is no intercommunion of the woman with the child, owing to the fact that every person possesses a will of his own which is shown in connection with his confession of faith.
Interpretation.

Inasmuch as the embryo in the womb is a part of the pregnant woman according to the second theme of the first chapter of the seventh title of the thirty-seventh book of the Basilica (in Photius, Title IV, ch. 10), some persons took it that a woman ought not to be baptized when pregnant, but only after she gave birth, lest, having been baptized first together with her, the embryo in her womb, when baptized again after being born, appear to be baptized twice, which would be unseemly. Hence, in opposition to those who say this,⁷² the present Canon decrees that a pregnant woman who is a catechumen may be baptized whenever she wishes, since she does not impart the illumination and baptism to the embryo in her womb, but, on the contrary, she alone is baptized. For in confessing that one is joining forces with Christ and renouncing the Devil, in baptism, and, speaking in general, whenever one gets baptized, he needs to show his own will, either through himself directly, as in the case of persons being baptized at an age when they are capable of rational speech, such as is that of this pregnant mother-to-be, or by means of a sponsor, as in the case of persons being baptized in their infancy,⁷³ but an embryo in the belly cannot show this will either through itself, not yet having developed a will of its own, nor through a sponsor, since it has not yet been born nor is it capable of being baptized.

7. No Presbyter is permitted to dine at the wedding of persons marrying a second time. For, if the plight of a digamist is one demanding repentance, what will be that of a presbyter who is lending his consent to the wedding by attending it!
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that no presbyter shall sit down and eat dinner at the wedding of a digamist, since the digamist is burdened with sin and under the penalty of a sentence. If, therefore, the priest should sit down and eat, he thereby shows that he is offering his good will and congratulations himself to the one who is burdened with sin and condemnation on account of that wedding.⁷⁴ For the first marriage, according to St. Gregory the Theologian, serves as the law. For there is but one conjugation, both of the wife to the husband and of the husband to the wife, laid down as legislation through the divine utterance and presence at the wedding held in Cana. That is why the parties to a first marriage, being uncondemned, are nuptially crowned and partake of the divine Mysteries (and see the Footnote to c. XIII of the 6th). But the second marriage is a concession. For use of it is allowed only as a matter of concession and accomodation. Because even though St. Paul did say concerning widows, “but if they cannot remain continent, let them marry” (1 Cor. 7:9), St. Chrysostom, in interpreting this passage, declares that St. Paul said this by way of permission, and not by way of command (cf. 1 Cor. 7:6) — in the same manner, that is to say, in which he permitted persons married for the first time in their life to indulge in frequent intercourse on account of their incontinence). But if he did say it by way of permission, it is manifest that such a marriage is neither reasonable nor free from condemnation, but that it is under condemnation and is in the nature of a sin. Hence according to c. IV of St. Basil the parties to such a marriage are barred from the divine Mysteries for a year or two, while, according to c. II of Nicephorus, they are not even entitled to a nuptial coronation. That is why God-bearing Ignatius said in his epistle to the Antiochenes: “One woman to any one man, not many women to any one man, was given in creation.” Clement of Alexandria (otherwise known as Clement Stromateus) says: “One who marries a second time is not sinning according to the covenant (or testament), but he is not fulfilling the demands of evangelical perfection. It does him heavenly glory if he keeps the marriage tie sundered by death untainted by gladly obeying the economy.”

8. When the wife of a layman commits adultery, if she has been convicted openly of this offense, that layman cannot enter the service. If, on the other hand, she commits adultery after his ordination, he must divorce her. But if he continues to live with her, he cannot retain possession of the office which has been placed in his hands.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that in case the wife of any layman commit adultery, and the fact is openly proved through persons who have the rights to lay charges against her (concerning whom see the Footnote to Ap. c. XLVIII), her husband cannot ascend to any priestly rank or hieratical degree. Likewise also in case the wife of one in holy orders commits adultery, this man in holy orders must divorce his wife who has been guilty of adultery if he wants to retain the advantage of being in holy orders. But if he insists on keeping this adulteress, he cannot at the same time keep also the advantage of being in holy orders too, but, on the contrary, must be deposed therefrom.⁷⁵ See also Ap. c. XXV.

9. If any Presbyter who has committed a bodily sin beforehand has been promoted, and confesses that he sinned before his ordination, let him not offer the oblation, but let him remain in other respects for the rest of his course. For most persons would forgive the other sins, and let the ordination go. But if he fails to confess but is openly proved guilty, let him have no authority to exercise that function on any account.
Interpretation.

In case any priest before entering holy orders has sinned in respect to his body, or, in other words, has had carnal intercourse, but after taking holy orders confesses himself (perhaps to his spiritual father or bishop) that he sinned before being ordained, the present Canon commands that such a person must not conduct sacred services (in which sacred services are included also the rest of the sacred functions of holy orders, according to Balsamon, in his interpretation of c. XXVI of the 6th), but let him retain the other privileges of priests, or, in other words, the external honor, the sitting-place, the standing-place, and the right to commune within the holy Bema, according to Zonaras and Balsamon. And he is to have the continued possession of these rights and privileges because of his other virtuousness, and especially because of the prompt repentance and confession which he made of his own accord (for if he be proved guilty by others, he cannot retain even these privileges, but, after being deposed from office, is thrown into the status of laymen, like a layman, according to Balsamon. See also c. XXI of the 6th and c. III of St. Basil. Nevertheless, it takes five witnesses to substantiate charges of fornication against a priest, Blastaris says, and see Ap. c. LXXV). These provisions cover the case in which a priest falls into carnal intercourse before attaining to holy orders. But if he sins only mentally, or, in other words, if he merely has an intention and impulse of the soul, or even employs ways and means of committing a sin, but did not actually commit it, the Canon says that these sins are absolved by the grace of ordination, and are not sufficient to warrant his being deposed from office. Nevertheless, it says this falteringly, by interposing the remark that most persons think so, and not that it does, itself. But if a priest before entering holy orders goes so far as to take hold of a woman’s hand, or kiss it, though ordination also absolves this too, according to Zonaras and others, and he is not to be deposed on account thereof (seeing that even after ordination a priest who falls into such temptations is not deposed from office, but is merely suspended, according to c. LXX of Basil). But if he sins more than taking a kiss, or, in other words, if he goes so far as to indulge in feeling the flesh and wallowing about the body, then he may be deposed, since ordination in itself does not absolve such a sin. For precisely as a deacon and a presbyter who commits a sin exceeding a kiss after ordination is liable to deposition from office, according to the same c. LXX of St. Basil, so and in like manner any man who has done such a thing before entering holy orders is thereby inhibited from becoming a priest; and consequently if after taking holy orders he confesses to such an act he is deposed from office likewise. The Canon makes all these provisions to cover the case in which a priest who has sinned confesses.⁷⁶ But if he fails to confess these things of his own accord, and he cannot otherwise be openly proved to have done these things, then he is to remain in office, or withdraw from holy orders, or continue exercising the functions thereof, since, according to the civil law, it is better for sins to remain unavenged (on the ground that they have not been proved, that is to say) than it would be for innocent persons to be unjustly chastised. See also c. IX of the First Ec. C.

10. Likewise if a Deacon falls into the same sin, let him keep the rank of servant.
Interpretation.

If a deacon falls into the sin of carnal intercourse before ordination and confesses it to a spiritual father after ordination, let him be deposed from his diaconate, and let him receive the rank of servant and cleric, of subdeacon, perhaps, or of anagnost (lector) or of psalt (cantor). And note that the Canon has not relegated him to the status of a layman, owing to the promptness he displayed in confessing his sin of his own accord. For if he be convicted by proof of having done such a thing, he shall not be allowed to remain in even the rank of cleric. Read c. IX of the 1st, and c. CXLI of Carthage.

11. Let no man be ordained a Presbyter before he is thirty years old, even though the man be worthy in every other respect, but let him be obliged to wait. For the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and commenced teaching in His thirtieth year.
Interpretation.

The Sixth Ec. C. borrowed this Canon verbatim and made it its c. XIV, and see its Interpretation there.⁷⁷

12. If a diseased person be illuminated, he cannot be promoted to a presbyter; for his faith and belief was not a result of his own will, but a result of necessity: unless perhaps on account of his diligence and faith thereafter and on account of a want of men.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that if any catechumen when well and in good health postponed holy baptism, but when he fell into danger of dying from an illness and became frightened, and for this reason got baptized, he is not to be made a priest. For it appears that he did not get baptized as a result of his own will and choice and preference, but in consequence of the necessity due to his illness (which is not right; for everyone ought to accept the exercise of Christianity pursuant to his own free choice and preference, according to c. CIX of Carthage); and that thitherto he had not wanted to be baptized, in order to live a free and pleasure-loving life, and not an Evangelical and Christian.⁷⁸ If, however, he should appear after baptism to be serious, endeavoring to do the divine commandments, and sure and solid in point of faith, and besides these considerations there exists also a shortage of men worthy of holy orders, then he may be made a priest.

Concord.

In agreement with the present Canon, c. XLVII of Laodicea decrees that men who receive baptism when ill are to be instructed in the elements of the faith after the illness is over. In the same vein c. LII of Carthage says that persons who are ill may be baptized when they of their own free will testify concerning themselves. And c. V of St. Basil prescribes that heretics who repent when they are at or near the end of their life are to be admitted (sc. to baptism in the Orthodox Church of Christ). But it is also to be noted that even c. V of Cyril allows catechumens to be baptized when they are about to die. That is why c. XXV of St. Nicephorus says (in paraphrase) that if any person who is ill persistently or insistently asks for holy baptism, he must receive it without delay, and not be deprived of the divine grace; likewise as regards the holy habit of monks, the same thing regarding the holy habit is said in agreement herewith by both Balsamon and Symeon of Thessalonica. And see the Footnote to c. XXV of Nicephorus; see also Ap. c. LXXX.

13. Village Presbyters cannot offer in the Lord’s house of a city if a bishop or a city presbyter is present, nor moreover can he give bread in prayer, nor a cup. But if they are absent, and he is called alone to prayer, he may give.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that priests of villages (or of small towns) cannot conduct a liturgy in the church of a real and large city, and especially when the bishop or a priest of the city is present; but neither can they give bread and a cup in prayer — i.e., neither can they administer communion to Christians in a city during Liturgy. But if the bishop and the priests of the city should happen to be absent, and a priest of a village (or small town) be called to conduct prayer, then he can also administer communion to those there without prejudice. For no one is ordained absolutely: but, on the contrary, each person must stay in whatever he has been called to, according to the Apostle.

14. Auxiliary Bishops, though belonging to the type of the seventy, are honored with the right to offer, in view of their diligence in regard to the poor.
Interpretation.

Bishops belong to the type of the twelve Apostles, since they too, like the twelve Apostles, impart to others by means of the Mysteries, and especially by means of ordination of those in holy orders, the grace of the All-holy Spirit. But auxiliary bishops, according to this Canon, belong to the type of the seventy Apostles, since they too, like the seventy,⁷⁹ cannot impart the grace of the Holy Spirit by ordaining presbyters or deacons, whom they cannot ordain; yet there is nothing to prevent their performing priestly duties and being honored, for the diligence they show in distributing the proceeds of their churches to poor brethren. But if auxiliary bishops have an obligation to distribute and pass out to the poor the income and money of churches, regular bishops have a still greater obligation to do so. See also the Footnote to c. VIII of the 1st.

15. There ought to be seven Deacons, even though the city be a quite large one. Ye may convince yourselves by referring to the book of the Acts.
Interpretation.

This Canon was improved by the Sixth Ec. C. in its c. XVI. Accordingly, whatever we said in our Interpretation of the latter holds also with respect to the interpretation of this Canon, for which, therefore, see that one.