So-called First-and-Second Council

The Regional Council of Gangra.

Prolegomena.

The holy and regional Council which was held in Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia, situated in Asia Minor, according to Pliny, Strabo, and Stephanus, convened in A.D. 340.⁸⁰ It was attended by thirteen bishops, whose names were the following, as found in the letter which the same Council sent to the co-functionaries in Armenia; namely: Eusebius, Aelianus, Eugenius, Olympius, Bithynicus, Gregory, Philetus, Pappus, Eulalius, Hypatius, Proaeresius, Basil, and Basus. The Council was convoked against a certain bishop of Sebasteia, Armenia, named Eustathius,⁸¹ and his disciples, who held and taught others these heretical views which are mentioned in every Canon of the present Council. Hence, after excommunicating and anathematizing those heretics these fathers, as shown from their said letter to Armenia, issued the present Canons,⁸² wherein they proceed to condemn and to anathematize⁸³ every one of their heretical views. These Canons, however, are definitely confirmed by c. II of the 6th, and indefinitely by c. LI of the 4th and c. I of the 7th; and in virtue of this confirmation they have acquired an ecumenical, in a way, force.

Canons.

1. If anyone disparages marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman sleeping with her husband, notwithstanding that she is faithful and reverent, as though she could not enter the Kingdom, let him be anathema.

(Ap. cc. V, LI; c. XIII of the 6th; cc. I, IV, IX, XIV of Gangra.)

Interpretation.

Just as the Manichees earlier, and other heretics, had traduced lawful marriage,⁸⁴ so did the disciples of vile Eustathius later, concerning whom the divine Apostle said prophetically that “in the latter times some persons will depart from the faith, in the role of liars, of persons with a seared conscience, of persons forbidding marriage” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). For this reason the present Canon anathematizes such persons as disparage marriage and loathe a Christian and reverent wife as unclean who sleeps with her Christian husband, alleging that on account of this carnal mingling she cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. See also Ap. cc. V and LI.

2. If anyone criticize adversely a person eating meat (without blood, and such as is not meat that has been sacrificed to idols or strangled) with reverence and faith, as though he had no hope of partaking, let him be anathema.

(Ap. cc. LI, LXIII; c. LXVII of the 6th; c. XIV of Anc.; c. LXXX of Basil.)

Interpretation.

The Apostle also prophesied that this would be asserted by the adherents of Eustathius, who criticized adversely those who eat meat, for he says following the above passage: “to abstain from foods which God hath created to be partaken of.” For this reason the present Canon anathematizes such persons as condemn a person who eats meat (except blood and that sacrificed to idols or strangled) with enjoyment and faith, and who assert that he has no hope of salvation because he eats it. See also Ap. cc. LI and LXIII.

3. If anyone, on the pretext of godliness, teach a slave to scorn his master, and to leave his service, and not to afford his services to his own master with favor and all honor, let him be anathema.

(c. LXXXII of the 4th; c. LXXXV of the 6th; cc. LXXIII, XC of Carthage; cc. XL, XLII of Basil.)

Interpretation.

Since the Apostle says in writing to Timothy (1 Tim. 6:1-2): “Let all slaves that are under a yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor ... And they that have believing masters, let them not scorn them, because they are brethren; but rather render, them service”; and to Titus (2:9): “(Exhort) slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things.” Since, I repeat, the Apostle says these things, whereas the Eustathians taught the contrary, therefore and on this account the present Canon, following the Apostolic teaching, anathematizes such persons as taught that slaves should scorn their masters, and leave off serving them with all love and honor. Read also Ap. c. LXXXII.

4. If anyone discriminates against a married Presbyter, on the ground that he ought not to partake of the offering when that Presbyter is conducting the Liturgy, let him be anathema.

(Ap. c. V; cc. XIII, XLVIII of the 6th; cc. IV, XXXIII of Carthage.)

Interpretation.

The present Canon anathematizes the Eustathians and all the rest who discriminate and are inclined to fight shy of partaking of the divine Mysteries from a married priest, on the allegation that such a priest ought not to officiate at Liturgy on account of his marriage. Read also Ap. c. V.

5. If anyone teach that the Lord’s house is contemptible, and that so are the synaxeis (or gatherings) therein, let him be anathema.

(c. LXXX of the 6th; cc. XX, XXI of Gangra; ec. XI, XII of Sardica.)

Interpretation.

The present Canon anathematizes the Eustathians who used to teach the laity to shun the church and to scorn the gatherings of Christians which were held in it, on the alleged ground that one may pray anywhere, because St. Paul the Apostle said for us to pray in every place (1 Tim. 2:8). So he did, but not for us to refrain from going to the sacred churches; on the contrary, he said so in order to keep us from circumscribing prayer only to the vicinity of Jerusalem, as St. Basil the Great interprets it (Ques. 8 concerning baptism). See also c. LXXX of the 6th.

6. If anyone conducts a church of his own apart from the Church, and, scorning the Church, wishes to perform the functions of the Church, without a presbyter’s helping with the approval and consent of a bishop, let him be anathema.

(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XII, XIII, XIV, XV cf the lst-and-2nd; c. V of Antioch; cc. X, XI, LXII of Carthage.)

Interpretation.

Since the Eustathians used to hold unauthorized private gatherings, besides the common assemblies of the faithful which were held in church, and, scorning the church of God, their presbyters would perform sacred services separately without the consent and permission of the local bishop, therefore the present Canon anathematizes them and their like, on the ground that they were creating a schism. Read also Ap. c. XXXI.

7. If anyone wants to take or to give ecclesiastical fruits or produce outside the church against the advice of the bishop, or of the persons in whose hands such things have been placed, and do not want to act with his consent and approval, let him be anathema.

(Ap. c. XXXVIII.)

Interpretation.

In addition to the other improprieties of which the Eustathians were guilty, they used to take also the fruits that were customarily offered to the churches, and distribute them amongst themselves, under the pretense that they themselves were holy persons. Hence the present Canon anathematizes such persons as take or give such fruits without the consent and approval of the bishop, or of the steward managing the affairs of the church.⁸⁵ Read also Ap. c. XXXVIII.

8. If anyone gives or takes any fruit or produce, except the bishop or the man appointed to act as steward of almonry, let both the giver and the taker be anathema.

(Ap. c. XXXVIII.)

Interpretation.

Interpretation of the present Canon is needless, since it has the same meaning and effect as the foregoing Canon, the Interpretation of which is sufficient for this one too. See also Ap. c. XXXVIII.

9. If anyone should remain a virgin or observe continence as if, abominating marriage,⁸⁶ he had become an anchorite, and not for the good standard and holy feature of virginity, let him be anathema.

(Ap. cc. V and LI.)

Interpretation.

Virginity and sobriety (or chastity) are a good thing, true enough, but only when they are practiced for the sake of the good itself and for the sanctification resulting from them. If, however, anyone remains a virgin or keeps sober (i.e., stays chaste), not for this reason, but because he abhors marriage as being unclean and tainted, as did the Eustathians, he is anathematized by the present Canon. See also Ap. cc. V and LI.

10. If anyone leading a life of virginity for the Lord should regard married persons superciliously, let him be anathema.
Interpretation.

This Canon too anathematizes those who remain virgins for love of the Lord, but who maintain a proud attitude as regards those who are united in lawful marriage, as did the Eustathians. See also Ap. cc. V and LI.

11. If anyone should scorn those who hold love-feasts (or agapae) in good faith, and who invite their brethren to ‘join them for honor of the Lord, and should refuse to respond to the invitations, for the sake of vilifying the affair, let him be anathema.

(c. LXXIV of the 6th; c. XXVII of Laodicea; c. XLIX of Carthage.)

Interpretation.

The Christians of that time were accustomed, after partaking of the divine Mysteries, to hold so-called agapae, or love-feasts, i.e., banquets for brotherly love and for the honor of the Lord to invite the poor brethren to a free dinner. Hence the present Canon anathematizes those who refuse to attend such banquets (“affairs,” that is to say, held, not with an improper propensity, but for the honor and faith of the Lord, and for love cherished for poor brethren. And not inside of the church, for this was prohibited; but outside of the church), but proudly disparage them and try to vilify them, as did the Eustathians, it would appear. Read also c. LXXIV of the 6th.

12. If any of the menfolk uses a wrapper for the sake of supposedly ascetic exercise, and as if endowed with righteousness by this he should regard disdainfully those men who are wearing robes called beri and using the common dress which is in vogue, let him be anathema.

(c. XXVII of the 6th; c. XVII of the 7th; c. XXI of Gangra.)

Interpretation.

The Eustathians used to teach their disciples among other things to wear ragged and poor overcoats, not for the sake of truly ascetic exercise, but for pretended sake of asceticism, in order that by feigning to be holy and righteous men, they might be glorified by the masses, and disparage those who with reverence and fear of God (not, that is to say, to be proud of these things in the face of those who lacked them, nor for the sake of carnal love, or for the sake of stultification and adornment of the human body) are wearing robes, or, more explicitly speaking, silk garments,⁸⁷ and using those clothes which are common and usual to all men. For this reason the present Canon anathematizes those men and their like on the ground that they are exalting themselves above their brethren. See also c. XXVII of the 6th.

13. If for the sake of supposedly ascetic exercise any woman change apparel, and instead of the usual and customary women’s apparel, she dons men’s apparel, let her be anathema.

(c. LXII of the 6th.)

Interpretation.

Many women taught by the Eustathians used to doff clothing appropriate and suitable for women, and to don men’s clothing, on the presumption that this would enable them to become justified and to become sainted. For this reason the present Canon anathematizes women who do this for the sake of supposed and pretended ascetic exercise, and not for the sake of true and veritable ascetic exercise.⁸⁸ See c. LXII of the 6th.

14. If any woman should abandon her husband and wish to depart, because she abominates marriage, let her be anathema.

(Ap. cc. V, LI; c. XIII of the 6th; c. XX of Gangra.)

Interpretation.

This too was a doctrine of the Eustathians, the idea, that is to say, that women might leave their husbands, and conversely that men might leave their wives, and depart, on the ground that they had an abhorrence of marriage. Hence the present Canon condemned those who do this to the anathema.⁸⁹ See also Ap. cc. V and LI.

15. If anyone should abandon his own children, or fail to devote himself to feeding his children, and fail, as far as depends on them, to bring them up to be godly and to have respect for God, but, under the pretext of ascetic exercise, should neglect them, let him be anathema.

(c. XLII of Carthage.)

Interpretation.

If it is true that irrational animals, including even wild beasts and lions, take care of their cubs and their children, how much more ought rational human beings to nurture them! That is why divine Paul says in one place, “But if anyone provide not for his own dependents, and especially for those of his own household, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8), and in another place, “Ye fathers, bring up your children in the education and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). And again with reference to the widow he asks whether she has brought up children and fed them, and with reference to elderly and old women he says for them to educate the young women to love their husbands and their children (Titus 2:4). But the heretic Eustathius and those who sided with him, not listening to these Apostolic commandments, used to teach parents to abandon their children and go in for asceticism. Hence the present Canon anathematizes those parents who desert their children and fail to feed them, and who teach them neither godliness and respect for God nor virtue. Canon XLII of Carthage, on the other hand, decrees that no cleric shall emancipate his children (i.e., allow them to act as their own masters) before they are convinced that this way or that way of theirs is a good one, and their age can discern what ought to be done. See also the Footnote to c. VI of the lst-&-2nd.

16. If any children of parents, especially of faithful ones, should depart, on the pretext of godliness, and should fail to pay due honor to their parents, godliness, that is to say, being preferred with them, i.e., among them, let them be anathema.
Interpretation.

Not only are parents obliged to look after their children, but children too have an obligation to look after their parents, to whom they ought to pay due honor. But taking care of the aged is also a kind of honor, and so is feeding those ill on account of old age and in want. In saying “especially of faithful ones,” the present Canon means that children ought not to depart from their parents even when the latter are infidels or heretics if they are not trying to incite them to unbelief or heresy. For this reason it also anathematizes those children who leave their parents unprovided for, and fail to honor them or to take care of them in old age on the pretext of godliness and virtue. If parents, however, who are infidels or heretics incite their children to unbelief and heresy, or, even though they are believers they nevertheless are preventing them or prohibiting them from living according to Christ and from being virtuous, and are inciting them to acts that are harmful to the soul and improper,⁹⁰ then and in that case children ought to prefer godliness and virtue to carnal parents, which amounts to saying that they ought to leave them without hating them, and take their departure. See also the Footnote to c. VI of the lst-&-2nd, and c. XX of the 6th.

17. If any woman for the sake of supposedly ascetic exercise cuts off her hair, which God gave her to remind her of the fact that she is subject to the will of her husband, let her be anathema, on the ground that she has disobeyed the injunction to be obedient.
Interpretation.

In writing to the Corinthians St. Paul says: “The head of the wife is the husband” (1 Cor. 11:3) — because Eve was taken out of Adam, and he became the cause of her becoming a woman). And further below he goes on to say that if a woman does not cover her head, let her cut off her hair. But if it is shameful for a woman to cut off her hair or to shave herself, why, then let her cover her head. (Ibid. 11:6). And again: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory and an honor to her” (paraphrasing ibid. 11:15). But Eustathius and his disciples used to teach women to cut off their hair on the alleged ground that they would thus be doing something godly and virtuous; the dolts failing to understand that this doctrine of theirs is opposed even to nature herself, seeing that she has never produced a woman that was bald-headed and without hair, as she has some men. For this reason the present Canon anathematizes any woman who cuts off her hair for the sake of appearing and feigning to be engaged in ascetic exercise, which hair God gave her to remind her of the fact that she is under the rulership and subject to the will of her husband, since by so doing she is disregarding and transgressing the commandment, or injunction, to be submissive.⁹¹ And the Fathers took this from St. Paul, who says that a wife must have an authority upon her head, or, more explicitly speaking, a sign of her husband’s authority, and of her subjection to her husband, which is the natural cover of hair, and the external cover of headkerchiefs.

18. If anyone for the sake of supposedly ascetic exercise should fast on Sunday, let him be anathema.

(Ap. c. LXIV.)

Interpretation.

The Eustathians also fasted on Sundays, and taught the others to fast on Sunday too,⁹² which one ought not to do, since the Lord resurrected Himself on that day, and together with Himself resurrected also the human nature. Wherefore we ought to be glad, and ought rather to thank God, and not to fast, as we do on lenten days, seeing that fasting is a sign of grief and of contrition, and not of joy. Hence the present Canon anathematizes anyone who for the sake of supposedly and feignedly ascetic exercise fasts on Sunday. Read also Ap. c. LXIV.

19. If any of those persons who engage in ascetic exercise without any bodily need of it should pride themselves on this, and should break the fasts handed down to the commonalty and kept by the Church, under the hallucination⁹³ that their reasoning in this matter is perfect, let them be anathema.

(Ap. c. LXIX.)

Interpretation.

The Eustathians used to do everything contrary to the divine Canons and traditions, fasting on Sundays and meat days, but breaking fast days. For this reason the present Canon anathematizes them and their like who pride themselves on the alleged claim that they have become perfect, and who, without having any bodily need or weakness of illness great enough to warrant it, break the fasts handed down to the community and kept by the entire congregation, or aggregate, of the Christians. As for the expression “under the hallucination that their reasoning in this matter is perfect,” this denotes that the reason why they break the fasts is that in their heart there is to be found such a reasoning and assumption that they have attained to perfection, and that consequently they need not henceforth fast, as we have said — which notion was also a belief of the Eustathians, and of the Massalians, and of the heretical Bogomiles; or else with a scornful thought or reasoning they annul and break the fasts. Read also the Interpretation of Ap. c. LXIX.

20. If anyone should find fault with the synaxeis, or gatherings, in honor of Martyrs, or with the liturgies conducted thereat, and the commemorations of them, owing to his being imbued with a proud disposition and overcome with a loathing, let him be anathema.

(c. LXXX of the 6th; cc. V, XXI of Gangra; cc. XI, XII of Sardica.)

Interpretation.

This too was a doctrine of the Eustathians in addition to their other views, namely: to have a contempt for the places and temples in which were enshrined the holy relics of Martyrs, and to dispraise liturgies and gatherings of the faithful held there, and to loathe them. For this reason the present Canon anathematizes them and their like; all those, that is to say, who, out of pride, deem the commemorations of Martyrs abominable and loathsome, as well as the gatherings and festivities of the faithful held in connection therewith, seeing that they are held in honor of God, the Lord of the Martyrs, and of the holy Martyrs. Read also c. LXXX of the 6th.

21. We state these things, not by way of cutting off from the Church of God persons wishing to exercise themselves ascetically in accordance with the Scriptures, but those who take the matter of ascetic exercises as something to be proud of, and who regard those living and conducting themselves in an easier manner disdainfully, and who introduce novelties that are contrary to the Scriptures and the Ecclesiastical Canons. For the fact is that we admire virtue with humility and welcome continence with modesty and godliness, and esteem anachoretic departures from mundane affairs with humility, and honor modest cohabitation of matrimony, and do not despise wealth with justice and with the doing of good. And we praise frugality and cheapness of garments, worn solely for protection of the body and plainly made; whereas we abhor loose and outworn fashions in dress. And we honor the houses of God, and we embrace the meetings that occur therein as holy and beneficial; though we do not confine piety to the houses, but honor every place that is built in the name of God. And we consider the congregation in the church of God to be a benefit to the public. And felicitate those brethren who do good to the poor in accordance with the traditions of the Church by way of supererogation. And, concisely speaking, we prayerfully hope that all the things will be done in the Church and in church that have been handed down traditionally by the divine Scriptures and the Apostolic traditions.

(Ap. cc. LI, LIII; cc. XXVII, LXXX of the 6th; c. XVI of the 7th; cc. V, XX of Gangra.)

Interpretation.

In view of the fact that the fathers of this Council forbade certain things which appear to be virtuous, such as, for instance, the maintenance of virginity and shunning of marriage, refraining from fasting on meat days, and other similar habits, therefore and on this account in their present last Canon they vindicate themselves by saying in explanation thereof (that): we have decreed these things, not to discourage those Christians who like to exercise themselves according to the Canons and the divine Scriptures in God, but in order to correct those persons who employ themselves in ascetic exercises with a feeling of pride, and who lift up their heads in disdain against the others, and who are wont to invent modernistic or new-fashioned notions in regard to the Canons of the Church. For we too praise virginity that is maintained with humility, and continence that is practiced with humility; and we honor modest matrimony; and we do not scorn wealth that is accompanied by justice and almsgiving.⁹⁴ We eulogize poor garments that are made solely for the purpose of protecting and supplying the needs of the body without any aim at adornment; but as for soft clothes worn by way of adornment, we abhor and hate them. We praise the churches of God, and the gatherings of the faithful held therein, as holy and of distinct benefit to their souls. Not that we circumscribe all piety and adoration of God in churches, but because we honor temples built in the name of God, regardless of their location. Also, as respecting the extraordinary benefactions and alms that are bestowed through the agency of the church upon poverty-striken brethren, in accordance with the traditions of the fathers, we felicitate those bestowing them. In a word, we prayerfully hope and beg God that everything that has been prescribed by the divine Scriptures and the traditions of the Apostles may be carried out in His churches and in regard to His Christians. Read also Ap. c. LI and cc. XXVII and LXXX of the 6th, and the Footnote to Ap. c. LI.