THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO (THE QUINISEXT COUNCIL)
THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO;
OFTEN CALLED
THE QUINISEXT COUNCIL,
A.D. 692.
Elenchus.
Introductory Note.
The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Excursus to Canon VI., On the Marriage of the Clergy.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
From the fact that the canons of the Council in Trullo are included in
this volume of the Decrees and Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils it must not
for an instant be supposed that it is intended thereby to affirm that these
canons have any ecumenical authority, or that the council by which they were
adopted can lay any claim to being ecumenical either in view of its constitution or
of the subsequent treatment by the Church of its enactments.
It is true that it claimed at the time an ecumenical character, and styled
itself such in several of its canons, it is true that in the mind of the
Emperor Justinian II., who summoned it, it was intended to have been ecumenical. It
is the that the Greeks at first declared it to be a continuation of the Sixth
Synod and that by this name they frequently denominate and quote its canons. But
it is also true that the West was not really represented at it at all (as we
shall see presently); that when the Emperor afterwards sent the canons to the
Pope to receive his signature, he absolutely refused to have anything to do with
them; and it is further true that they were never practically observed by the
West at all, and that even in the East their authority was rather theoretical
than real.
(Fleury. Histoire Ecclesiastique, Livre XL., Chap. xlix.)
As the two last General Councils (in 553 and in 681)had not made any
Canons, the Orientals judged it suitable to supply them eleven years after the Sixth
Council, that is to say, the year 692, fifth indiction. For that purpose the
Emperor Justinian convoked a Council, at which 211 Bishops attended, of whom the
principal were the four Patriarchs, Paul of Constantinople, Peter of
Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch. Next in the subscriptions are
named John of Justinianopolis, Cyriacus of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Basil of
Gortyna in Crete, who says that he represents the whole Council of the Roman Church,
as he had said in subscribing the Sixth Council. But it is certain otherwise
that in this latter council there were present Legates of the Holy See. This
council, like the Sixth, (1) assembled in the dome of the palace called in Latin
Trullus, which name it has kept. It is also named in Latin Quinisextum, in Greek
Penthecton, as one might say, the fifth-sixth, to mark that it is only the
supplement of the two preceding Councils, though properly it is a distinct one.
The intention was to make a body of discipline to serve thenceforth for
the whole Church, and it was distributed into 102 Canons.
To this statement by Fleury some additions must be made. First, with
regard to the date of the synod. This is not so certain as would appear at first
sight. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople
asserted that, "four or five years after the sixth Ecumenical Council the same
bishops, in a new assembly under Justinian II. had published the [Trullan]
Canons mentioned," and this assertion the Seventh Council appears to have accepted
as true, if we understand the sixth session aright. Now were this statement
true, the date would be probably 686, but this is impossible by the words of the
council itself, where we find mention made of the fifteenth of January of the
past 4th indiction, or the year of the world, 6109. To make this agree at all,
scholars tell us that for iv. must be read xiv. But the rest of the statement is
equally erroneous, the bishops were not the same, as can readily be seen by
comparing the subscriptions to the Acts. The year of the world 6109 is certainly
wrong, and so other scholars would read 6199, but here a division takes place,
for some reckon by the Constantinopolitan era, and so fix the date at 691, and
others following the Alexandrian era fix it at 706. But this last is certainly
wrong, for the canons were sent for signature to Pope Sergius, who died as
early as 701. Hefele's conclusion is as follows:
(Hefele. Hist. of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 222.)
The year 6199 of the Constantinopolitan era coincides with the year 691
after Christ and the IVth Indiction ran from September 1, 690, to August 31, 691.
If then, our Synod, in canon iij., speaks of the 15th of January in the past
Indiction IV., it means January 691; but it belongs itself, to the Vth
Indiction, i.e., it was opened after September 1, 691, and before September 1, 692.
As this is not a history of the Councils but a collection of their decrees
and canons with illustrative notes, the only other point to be considered is
the reception these canons met with.
The decrees were signed first by the Emperor, the next place was left
vacant for the Pope, then followed the subscriptions of the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, the whole number being 211, bishops
or representatives of bishops. It is not quite certain whether any of the
Patriarchs were present except Paul of Constantinople; but taking it all in all the
probability is in favour of their presence. (1) Blank places were left for the
bishops of Thessalonica, Sardinia, Ravenna and Corinth. The Archbishop of
Gortyna in Crete added to his signature the phrase "Holding the place of the holy
Church of Rome in every synod." He had in the same way signed the decrees of III.
Constantinople, Crete belonging to the Roman Patriarchate; as to whether his
delegation on the part of the Roman Synod continued or was merely made to
continue by his own volition we have no information. The ridiculous blunder of
Balsamon must be noted here, who asserts that the bishops whose names are missing and
for which blank places were left, had actually signed.
Pope Sergius refused to sign the decrees when they were sent to him,
rejected them as "lacking authority" (invalidi) and described them as containing
"novel errors." With the efforts to extort his signature we have no concern
further than to state that they signally failed. Later on, in the time of Pope
Constantine, a middle course seems to have been adopted, a course subsequently in the
ninth century thus expressed by Pope John VIII., "he accepted all those canons
which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of
Rome," a truly notable statement! Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly
recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople
and attributes them to the Sixth Synod. "All the holy six synods I receive with
all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among
which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by
the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images." Here the
reference is unmistakably to the Trullan Canon LXXXII. Hefele's summing up of the
whole matter is as follows:
(Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 242.)
That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons to
the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit,
cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially
pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon;
but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See.
Thus far Hefele, but it seems that Gratian's statement on the subject in
the Decretum should not be omitted here. (Pars I. Dist. XVI., c. v.)
"Canon V. The Sixth Synod is confirmed by the authority of Hadrian. "I
receive the Sixth Synod with all its canons.
"Gratian. There is a doubt whether it set forth canons but this is easily
removed by examnining the fourth session of the VIIth [VIth by mistake, vide
Roman Correctors' note] Synod. "For Peter the Bp. of Nicomedia says: "C. VI. The
Sixth Synod wrote canons.
"I have a book containing the canons of the holy Sixth Synod. The
Patriarch said: 1. Some are scandalized through their ignorance of these canons,
saying: Did the Sixth Synod make any canons? Let them know then that the Sixth Holy
Synod was gathered together under Constantine against those who said there is
one operation and one will in Christ, in which the holy Fathers anathematized
these as heretics and explained the orthodox faith.
"II. Pars 2. And the synod was dissolved in the XIVth year of
Constantine. After four or five years the same holy Fathers met together under Justinian,
the son of Constantine, and promulgated the aforementioned canons, of which let
no one have any doubt. For they who under Constantine were in synod, these
same bishops under Justinian subscribed to all these canons. For it was fitting
that a Universal Synod should promulgate ecclesiastical canons. Item: 3. The
Holy Sixth Synod after it promulgated its definition against the Monothelites, the
emperor Constantine who had summoned it, dying soon after, and Justinian his
son reigning in his stead, the same holy synod divinely inspired again met at
Constantinople four or five years afterwards, and promulgated one hundred and two
canons for the correction of the Church.
"Gratian. From this therefore it may be gathered that the Sixth Synod was
twice assembled: the first time under Constantine and then passed no canons;
the second time under Justinian his son, and promulgated the aforesaid canons."
Upon this passage of Gratian's the Roman Correctors have a long and
interesting note, with quotations from Anastasius, which should be read with care by
the student but is too long to cite here.
I close with some eminently wise remarks by Prof. Michaud.
(E. Michaud, Discussion sur lea Sept Conciles (Ecumeniques, p. 272.)
Upon the canons of this council we must remark:
1. That save its acceptance of the dogmatic decisions of the six
Ecumenical Councils, which is contained in the first canon, tiffs council had an
exclusively disciplinary character; and consequently if it should be admitted by the
particular churches, these would always remain, on account of their autonomy,
judges of the fitness or non-suitability of the practical application of these
decisions.
2. That the Easterns have never pretended to impose this code upon the
practice of the Western Churches, especially as they themselves do not practise
everywhere the hundred and two canons mentioned. All they wished to do was to
maintain the ancient discipline against the abuses and evil innovations of the
Roman Church, and to make her pause upon the dangerous course in which she was
already beginning to enter.
3. That if among these canons, some do not apply to the actual present
state of society, e.g., the 8th, 10th, 11th, etc.; if others, framed in a spirit
of transition between the then Eastern customs and those of Rome, do not appear
as logical nor as wise as one might desire, e.g., the 6th, 12th, 48th, etc.,
nevertheless on the other hand, many of them are marked with the most profound
sagacity.
THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1135 et seqq.)
CANON I.
THAT order is best of all which makes every word and act begin and end in
God. Wherefore that piety may be clearly set forth by us and that the Church of
which Christ is the foundation may be continually increased and advanced, and
that it may be exalted above the cedars of Lebanon; now therefore we, by divine
grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that the faith set forth by the
God-chosen Apostles who themselves had both seen and were ministers of the
Word, shall be preserved without any innovation, unchanged and inviolate.
Moreover the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed
fathers who were assembled at Nice under Constantine our Emperor, against the
impious Arius, and the gentile diversity of deity or rather (to speak accurately)
multitude of gods taught by him, who by the unanimous acknowledgment of the
faithful revealed and declared to us the consubstantiality of the Three Persons
comprehended in the Divine Nature, not suffering this faith to lie hidden under the
bushel of ignorance, but openly teaching the faithful to adore with one
worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, confuting and scattering to the
winds the opinion of different grades, and demolishing and overturning the puerile
toyings fabricated out of sand by the heretics against orthodoxy.
Likewise also we confirm that faith which was set forth by the one hundred
and fifty fathers who in the time of Theoriesins the Elder, our Emperor,
assembled in this imperial city, accepting their decisions with regard to the Holy
Ghost in assertion of his godhead, and expelling the profane Macedonius
(together with all previous enemies of the truth) as one who dared to judge Him to be a
servant who is Lord, and who wished to divide, like a robber, the inseparable
unity, so that there might be no perfect mystery of our faith.
And together with this odious and detestable contender against the truth,
we condemn Apollinaris, priest of the same iniquity, who impiously belched
forth that the Lord assumed a body unendowed with a soul, (1) thence also inferring
that his salvation wrought for us was imperfect.
Moreover what things were set forth by the two hundred God-bearing fathers
in the city of Ephesus in the days of Theodosius our Emperor, the son of
Arcadius; these doctrines we assent to as the unbroken strength of piety, teaching
that Christ the incarnate Son of God is one; and declaring that she who bare him
without human seed was the immaculate Ever-Virgin, glorifying her as literally
and in very truth the Mother of God. We condemn as foreign to the divine
scheme the absurd division of Nestorius, who teaches that the one Christ consists of
a man separately and of the Godhead separately and renews the Jewish impiety.
Moreover we confirm that faith which at Chalcedon, the Metropolis, was set
forth in accordance with orthodoxy by the six hundred and thirty God-approved
fathers in the time of Marcian, who was our Emperor, which handed down with a
great and mighty voice, even unto the ends of the earth, that the one Christ,
the son of God, is of two natures, and must be glorified (2) in these two
natures, and which cast forth from the sacred precincts of the Church as a black
pestilence to be avoided, Eutyches, babbling stupidly and inanely, and teaching that
the great mystery of the incarnation (<greek>oikonwmias</greek>) was perfected
in thought only. And together with him also Nestorius and Dioseorus of whom
the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the
confusion [of the two natures in the one Christ], both of whom fell away from the
divergence of their impiety to a common depth of perdition and denial of God.
Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one
hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in
the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to
those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore
of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and
Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the
circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations]
to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the
resurrection of the dead. Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by
Theodoret against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed
Cyril, and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas.
Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which
first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor,
of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the
fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet that which was written
for the security of future generations. This council taught that we should openly
profess our faith that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there
are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and condemned
by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people
that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to
wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius,
Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city; Macarius, who
was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and the insane
Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion of the body of Christ our God.
And, to say so once for all, we decree that the faith shall stand firm and
remain unsullied until the end of the world as well as the writings divinely
handed down and the teachings of all those who have beautified and adorned the
Church of God and were lights in the world, having embraced the word of life.
And we reject and anathematize those whom they rejected and anathematized, as
being enemies of the truth, and as insane ragers against God, and as lifters up of
iniquity.
But if any one at all shall not observe and embrace the aforesaid pious
decrees, and teach and preach in accordance therewith, but shall attempt to set
himself in opposition thereto, let him be anathema, according to the decree
already promulgated by the up-proved holy and blessed Fathers, and let him be cast
out and stricken off as an alien from the number of Christians. For our decrees
add nothing to the things previously defined, nor do they take anything away,
nor have we any such power.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I. is
No innovation upon the faith of the Apostles to be allowed. The faith of
the Nicene fathers is perfect, which overthrows through the homousion the
doctrines of Arius who introduced degrees into the Godhead.
The Synod held under Theodosius the great shall be held inviolate, which
deposed Macedonius who asserted that the Holy Ghost was a servant.
The two hundred who under Theodosius the Younger assembled at Ephesus are
to be reversed for they expelled Nestorius who asserted that the Lord was man
and God separately (<greek>idikws</greek>).
Those who assembled at Chalcedon in the time of Marcion are to be
celebrated with eternal remembrance, who deposed Eutyches. who dared to say that the
great mystery was accomplished only in image, as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus,
observing equal things in an opposite direction.
One hundred and sixty-five were assembled in the imperial city by
Justinian, who anathematized Origen, for teaching periods (<greek>periodous</greek>) of
bodies and souls, and Theodoret who dared to set himself up to oppose the
Twelve Chapters of Cyril.
At Constantinople a Synod was collected tinder Constantine which rejected
Honorius of Rome and Sergius, prelate of Constantinople, for teaching one will
and one operation.
ARISTENUS.
The fifth was held in the time of Justinian the Great at Constantinople
against the crazy (<greek>parafrons</greek>) Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, who
remodelled the Greek figments, and stupidly said that the same bodies they had
joined with them would not rise again; and that Paradise was not subject to the
appreciation of the sense, and that it was not from God, and that Adam was not
formed in flesh, and that there would be an end of punishment, and a restitution
of the devils to their pristine state, and other innumerable insane
blasphemies.
CANON II.
IT has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons,
received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also
handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this
time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of
disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the
Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly through the agency of those who
erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary
to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and
beauty of the divine decrees in their present form. We therefore reject these
Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the
most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and
cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal
likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed
Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those
at Ancyra, further those at Neocaesarea and likewise those at Gangra, and
besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise
the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who
assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and
blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of
Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under
its bishop Nectarins and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the
Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the
great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of
Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocaesarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of
Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of
Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop
of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria;
of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this
heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop
of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which
has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the
custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress or
disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set
forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should
any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the
afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that
canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.
Whatever additions have been made through guile by the heterodox in the
Apostolic Constitutions edited by Clement, shall be cut out.
This canon defines what canons are to be understood as having received the
sanction of ecumenical authority, and since these canons of the Council in
Trullo were received at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in its first canon as the
canons of the Sixth Ecumenical (of which the Quinisext claimed to be a
legitimate continuation) there can be no doubt that all these canons enumerated in this
canon are set forth for the guidance of the Church.
With regard to what councils are intended: there is difficulty only in two
particulars, viz., the "Council of Constantinople under Nectarius and
Theophilus,"(1) and the "Council under Cyprian;" the former must be the Council of 394,
and the latter is usually considered to be the III. Synod of Carthage, A.D.
257.
FLEURY.
(H.E. Liv. xl., chap. xlix.)
The Council of Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus of Alexandria
must be that held in 394, at the dedication of Ruffinus's Church; but we have
not its canons. ... "The canon published by St. Cyprian for the African Church
alone." It is difficult to understand what canon is referred to unless it is
the preface to the council of St. Cyprian where he says that no one should
pretend to be bishop of bishops, or to oblige his colleagues to obey him by
tyrannical fear.
It will be noticed that while the canon is most careful to mention the
exact number of Apostolic canons it received, thus deciding in favour of the
larger code, it is equally careful not to assign them an Apostolic origin, but
merely to say that they had come down to them "in the name of" the Apostles. In the
face of this it is strange to find Balsamon saying, "Through this canon their
mouth is stopped who say that 85 canons were not set forth by the holy
Apostles;" what the council did settle, so far as its authority went, was the number not
the authorship of the canons. This, I think, is all that Balsamon intended to
assert, but his words might easily be quoted as having a different meaning.
This canon is found, in part, in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XVI, c. VII.
CANON III.
SINCE our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and
ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in
the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they
may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who
is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence:
and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been
branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose
to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of
this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so
blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God
requires, that neither gentleness fall into licence, nor severity into harshness;
especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree,
that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin
up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction,
the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to
canonical deposition: but that they who are involved in this disorder of a second
marriage, but before our decree have acknowledged what is fitting, and have cut
off their sin, and have put far from them this strange and illegitimate
connexion, or they whose wives by second marriage are already dead, or who have turned
to repentance of their own accord, having learnt continence, and having quickly
forgotten their former iniquities, whether they be presbyters or deacons, these
we have determined should cease from all priestly ministrations or exercise,
being under punishment for a certain time, but should retain the honour of their
seat and station, being satisfied with their seat before the laity and begging
with tears from the Lord that the transgression of their ignorance be pardoned
them: for unfitting it were that he should bless another who has to tend his
own wounds. But those who have been married to one wife, if she was a widow, and
likewise those who after their ordination have unlawfully entered into one
marriage that is, presbyters, and deacons, and subdeacons, being debarred for some
short time from sacred ministration, and censured, shall be restored again to
their proper rank, never advancing to any further rank, their unlawful marriage
being openly dissolved. This we decree to hold good only in the case of those
that are involved in the aforesaid faults up to the fifteenth (as was said) of
the month of January, of the fourth Indiction, decreeing from the present time,
and renewing the Canon which declares, that he who has been joined in two
marriages after his baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be bishop, or
presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list; in like manner, that he who has
taken a widow, or a divorced person, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress,
cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.
Priests who shall have contracted second marriages and will not give them
up are to be deposed. But those who leave off the wickedness, let them cease
for a fixed period. For he that is himself wounded does not bless. But who are
implicated in nefarious marriage and who after ordination have contracted
marriage, after a definite time they shall be restored to their grade, provided they
remain without offence, having plainly brown off the marriage. But if after it
shall have been prohibited by this decree they attempt to do so they shall
remain deposed.
ZONARAS.
What things pertain to this third canon are only adapted to the time in
which the canon was passed; and afterwards are of no force at all. But what
things the Fathers wished to be binding on posterity are contained in the
seventeenth and eighteenth canons of the holy Apostles, which as having been neglected
during the course of time this synod wished to renew.
VAN ESPEN.
It is clear from this canon that the Emperor very especially intended that
the indulgence which the Church of Constantinople extended to its presbyters
and deacons in allowing them the use of marriage entered into before ordination,
should not be allowed to go any further, nor to be an occasion for the
violation of that truly Apostolic canon, "The bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon
must be the husband of one wife." I. Tim. iii. 2.
For never did the Constantinopolitan nor any other Eastern Church allow by
canon a digamist (or a man successively the husband of many wives) to be
advanced to the order of presbyter or deacon, or to use any second marriage.
ANTONIO PEREIRA.
(Tentativa Theologica. [Eng. trans.] III. Principle, p. 79.)
In the same manner a second marriage always, and everywhere, incapacitated
the clergy for Holy Orders and the Episcopate. This appears from St. Paul, 1
Tim. Chap. iii., and Titus, Chap. i., and it was expressly enacted by the
sixteenth of the Apostolical Canons, renewed by the Popes Siricius, Innocent and Leo
the Great, and may be gathered from the ancient fathers and councils generally
received in the Church.
Nevertheless we know from Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, that many bishops
remarkable for their learning and sanctity, frequently dispensed with this
Apostolical law; as Alexander of Antioch, Acacius of Berea, Prayline of Jerusalem,
Proclus of Constantinople, and others, by whose example Theodoret defends his own
conduct in the case of Irenaaeus, in ordaining him Archbishop of Tyre,
although he had been twice married. But what is more surprising in this matter is
that, notwithstanding the eleventh Decretal of Siricius, and the twelfth of
Innocentius the First, that they who had either been twice married, or had married
widows, were incapable of ordination, and ought to be deposed; the Council of
Toledo, Canon 3, and the First Council of Orange, Canon 25, both dispensed with
these Pontifical laws. The first, in order that those who had married widows might
remain in holy orders; the second, that such as had twice married might be
promoted to the order of subdeacon. Socrates also observes that although it was a
general law not to admit catechumens to orders, the bishops of Alexandria were
in the habit of promoting such to the order of readers and singers.
FLEURY.
(H. E., Liv. XL., chap. 1.)
These canons of the Council of Trullo have served ever since to the Greeks
and to all the Christians of the East as the universal rule with regard to
clerical continence,and they have been now in full force for a thousand years.
That is to say, It is not permitted to men who are clerics in Holy Orders to marry
after their ordination. Bishops must keep perfect continence, whether before
their consecration they are married or not. Priests, deacons, and subdeacons
already married can keep their wives and live with them, except on the days they
are to approach the holy mysteries.
CANON IV.
IF any bishop, presbyter, deacon, sub-deacon, lector, cantor, or
door-keeper has had intercourse with a woman dedicated to God, let him be deposed, as
one who has corrupted a spouse of Christ, but if a layman let him be cut off.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
A cleric coupled to a spouse of God shall be deposed In the case of a
layman he shall be cut off.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa XXVII., Q. I., c. vj.
A layman ravishing a nun, by secular law was punished by death. Balsamon
gives the reference thus: V Cap. primi tit. iiij. lib. Basilic. or cxxiij. Novel.
CANON V.
LET none of those who are on the priestly list possess any woman or maid
servant, beyond those who are enumerated in the canon as being persons free from
suspicion, preserving himself hereby from being implicated in any blame. But
if anyone transgresses our decree let him be deposed. And let eunuchs also
observe the same rule, that by foresight they may be free of censure. But those who
transgress, let them be deposed, if indeed they are clerics; but if laymen let
them be excommunicated.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
A priest, even if a eunuch, shall not have in his house a maid or other
woman except those on whom no suspicion can light.
See Canon III., of First Ecumenical Council at Nice. This canon adds
Eunuchs.
CANON VI.
SINCE it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are
advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also,
maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any
subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if
he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter
the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is
ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.
If any ordained person contracts matrimony, let him be deposed. If he
wishes to be married he should become so before his ordination.
Aristenus points out how this canon annuls the tenth canon of Ancyra,
which allows a deacon and even a presbyter to marry after ordination and continue
in his ministry, provided at the time of his ordination he had in the presence
of witnesses declared his inability to remain chaste or his desire to marry.
This present canon follows the XXVIth of the Apostolic canons.
The last clause of this canon, limited in its application to subdeacons,
is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist.
XXXII., c. vi.
EXCURSUS ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE CLERGY.
On this subject there is a popular misconception which must first be
removed. In the popular mind to-day there is no distinction between "a married
clergy" being allowed, and "the marriage of the clergy" being allowed; even
theological writers who have attained some repute have confused these two things in the
most unfortunate and perplexing fashion. It will suffice to mention as an
instance of this Bp. Harold Browne in his book on the XXXIX. Articles, in which not
only is the confusion above spoken of made, but the very blunder is used for
controversial purposes, to back up and support by the authority of the ancient
Church in the East (which allowed a married clergy) the practice of the
Nestorians and of the modern Church of England, both of which tolerate the marriage of
the clergy, a thing which the ancient Church abhorred and punished with
deposition.
I cannot better express the doctrine and practice of the ancient Church in
the East than by quoting the words of the Rev. John Fulton in the Introduction
to the Third Edition of his Index Canonum.(1) He says: "Marriage was no
impediment to ordination even as a Bishop; and Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, equally
with other men, were forbidden to put away their wives under pretext of
religion. The case was different when a man was unmarried at the time of his
ordination. Then he was held to have given himself wholly to God in the office of the
Holy Ministry, and he was forbidden to take back from his offering that measure
of his cares and his affections which must necessarily be given to the
maintenance and nurture of his family. In short, the married man might be ordained, but
with a few exceptions no man was allowed to marry after ordination." In his
"Digest" sub voce" Celibacy" he gives the earliest canon law on the subject as
follows: "None of the clergy, except readers and singers may marry after
ordination (Ap. Can. xxvi.); but deacons may marry, if at their ordination they have
declared an intention to do so (Ancyra x.). A priest who marries is to be deposed
(Neocaesarea i.). A deaconess who marries is to be anathematized (Chal. xv.);
a monk or dedicated virgin who marries, is to be excommunicated (Chal. xvi.).
Those who break their vows of celibacy are to fulfil the penance of digamists
(Ancyra xix.)."(2)
We may then take it for a general principle that in no part of the ancient
Church was a priest allowed to contract holy matrimony; and in no place was he
allowed to exercise his priesthood afterwards, if he should dare to enter into
such a relation with a woman. As I have so often remarked it is not my place
to approve or disapprove this law of the Church, my duty is the much simpler one
of tracing historically what the law was and what it is in the East and West
to-day. The Reformers considered that in this, as in most other matters, these
venerable churches had made a mistake, but neither the maintenance nor the
disproof of this opinion in any way concerns me, so far as this volume is concerned.
All that is necessary for me to do is to affirm that if a priest were at any
time to attempt to marry, he would be attempting to do that which from the
earliest times of which we have any record, no priest has ever been allowed to do,
but which always has been punished as a gross sin of immorality.
In tracing the history of this subject, the only time during which any
real difficulty presents itself is the first three centuries, after that all is
much clearer, and my duty is simply to lay the undisputed facts of the case
before the reader.
We begin then with the debatable ground. And first with regard to the
Lord, "the great High Priest of our profession," of course there can be no doubt
that he set the example, or--if any think that he was not a pattern for the
priests of his Church to follow--at least lived the life, of celibacy. When we come
to the question of what was the practice of his first followers in this matter,
there would likewise seem to be but little if any reasonable doubt. For while
of the Apostles we have it recorded only of Peter that he was a married man, we
have it also expressly recorded that in his case, as in that of all the rest
who had "forsaken all" to follow him, the Lord himself said, "Every one that
hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands, for my name's sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall
inherit eternal life."(1)
There can be no doubt that St. Paul in his epistles allows and even
contemplates the probability that those admitted to the ranks of the clergy will have
been already married, but distinctly says that they must have been the
"husband of one wife,"(2) by which all antiquity and every commentator of gravity
recognizes that digamists are cut off from the possibility of ordination, but there
is nothing to imply that the marital connexion was to be continued after
ordination. For a thorough treatment of this whole subject from the ancient and
Patristic point of view, the reader is referred to St. Jerome.(3)
The next stage in our progress is marked by the so-called Apostolical
Canons. Now for those who hold that these canons had directly or indirectly the
Apostles for their author, or that as we have them now they are all of even
sub-Apostolic date, the matter becomes more simple, for while indeed these canons do
not expressly set forth the law subsequently formulated for the East, they
certainly seem to be not inconsistent therewith, but rather to look that way,
especially Canons V. and LI. But few will be found willing to support so extreme an
hypothesis, and while indeed many scholars are of opinion that most of the
canons of the collection we style "Apostolical," are ante-Nicene, yet they will not
be recognized as of more value than as so many mirrors, displaying what was at
their date considered pure discipline. It is abundantly clear that the fathers
in council in Trullo thought the discipline they were setting forth to be the
original discipline of the Church in the matter, and the discipline of the West
an innovation, but that such was really the case seems far from certain.
Thomassinus treats this point with much learning, and I shall cite some of the
authorities he brings forward. Of these the most important is Epiphanius, who as a
Greek would be certain to give the tradition of the East, had there been any
such tradition known in his time. I give the three great passages.
"It is evident that those from the priesthood are chiefly taken from the
order of virgins, or if not from virgins, at least from monks; or if not from
the order of monks, then they are wont to be made priests who keep themselves
from their wives, or who are widows after a single marriage. But he that has been
entangled by a second marriage is not admitted to priesthood in the Church,
even if he be continent from his wife, or be a widower. Anyone of this sort is
rejected from the grade of bishop, presbyter, deacon, or subdeacon. The order of
reader, however, can be chosen from all the orders these grades can be chosen
from, that is to say from virgins, monks, the continent, widowers, and they who
are bound by honest marriage. Moreover, if necessity so compel, even digamists
may be lectors, for such is not a priest, etc., etc."(4)
"Christ taught us by an example that the priestly work and ornaments
should be communicated to those who shall have preserved their continency after a
single marriage, or shall have persevered in virginity. And this the Apostles
thereafter honestly and piously decreed, through the ecclesiastical canon of the
priesthood."(5)
"Nay, moreover, he that still uses marriage, and begets children, even
though the husband of but one wife, is by no means admitted by the Church to the
order of deacon, presbyter, bishop, or subdeacon. But for all this, he who shall
have kept himself from the commerce of his one wife, or has been deprived of
her, may be ordained, and this is most usually the case in those places where
the ecclesiastical canons are most accurately observed."(1)
Nor is the weight of this evidence lessened, but much increased, by the
acknowledgment of the same father that in some places in his days the celibate
life was not observed by such priests as had wives, for he explains that such a
state of things had come about "not from following the authority of the canons,
but through the neglect of men, which is wont at certain periods to be the
case."(2)
The witness of the Western Fathers although so absolutely and indisputably
clear is not so conclusive as to the East, and yet one passage from St. Jerome
should be quoted. "The Virgin Christ and the Virgin Mary dedicated the
virginity of both sexes. The Apostles were chosen when either virgins or continent
after marriage, and bishops, presbyters, and deacons are chosen either when
virgins, or widowers, or at least continent forever after the priesthood."(3)
It would be out of place to enter into any detailed argument upon the
force of these passages, but I shall lay before the reader the summing up of the
whole matter by a weighty recent writer of the Ultramontane Roman School.
"Is the celibate an Apostolic ordinance? Bickel affirmed that it is, and
Funk denied it in 1878. To-day [1896] canonists commonly admit that one cannot
prove the existence of any formal precept, either divine or apostolic, which
imposes the celibate upon the clergy, and that all the texts, whether taken out of
Holy Scripture or from the Fathers, on this subject contain merely a counsel,
and not a command." "In the Fourth Century a great number of councils forbade
bishops, priests, and deacons to live in the use of marriage with their lawful
wives. ... But there does not appear to have been any disposition to declare by
law as invalid the marriages of clerics in Holy Orders. In the Fifth and Sixth
Centuries the law of the celibate was observed by all the Churches of the West,
thanks to the Councils and to the Popes." "In the Seventh and down to the end
of the Tenth Century,(4) as a matter of fact the law of celibacy was little
observed in a great part of the Western Church, but as a matter of law the Roman
Pontiffs and the Councils were constant in their proclamation of its
obligation." By the canonical practice of the unreformed West, the reception of Holy
Orders is an impedimentum dirimens matrimonii, which renders any marriage
subsequently contracted not only illicit but absolutely null. On this diriment impediment
the same Roman Catholic writer says: "The diriment impediment of Holy Orders
is of ecclesiastical obligation and not of divine, and consequently the Church
can dispense it. This is the present teaching which is in opposition to that of
the old schools."
"There is no question of the nullity of the marriages contracted by
clerics before 1139. At the Council of the Lateran of that year, Innocent II.
declared that these marriages contracted in contempt of the ecclesiastical law are not
true marriages in his eyes. His successors do not seem to have insisted much
upon this new diriment impediment, although it was attacked most vigorously by
the offending clergymen; but the School of Bologna, the authority of which was
then undisputed, openly declared for the nullity of the marriages contracted by
clerics in Holy Orders. Thus it is that this point of law has been settled
rather by teaching, than by any precise text, or by any law of a known date."(5)
It should not, however, be forgotten that although this is true with
regard to Pope Innocent Il. in 1139, it is also true that in 530 the Emperor
Justinian declared null and void all marriages contracted by clerics in Holy Orders,
and the children of such marriages to be spurious (spurii).
The reader will be interested in reading the answer on this point made by
King Henry VIII. to the letter sent him by the German ambassadors.(1) I can
here give but a part translated into English. "Although the Church from the
beginning admitted married men, as priests and bishops, who were without crime, the
husband of one wife, (out of the necessity of the times, as sufficient other
suitable men could not be found as would suffice for the teaching of the world)
yet Paul himself chose the celibate Timothy; but if anyone came unmarried to the
priesthood and afterwards took a wife, he was always deposed from the
priesthood, according to the canon of the Council of Neocaesarea which was before that
of Nice. So, too, in the Council of Chalcedon, in the first canon of which all
former canons are confirmed, it is established that a deaconess, if she give
herself over to marriage, shall remain under anathema, and a virgin who had
dedicated herself to God and a monk who join themselves in marriage, shall remain
excommunicated. ... No Apostolic canon nor the Council of Nice contain anything
similar to what you assert, viz.: that priests once ordained can marry
afterwards. And with this statement agrees the Sixth Synod, in which it was decreed that
if any of the clergy should wish to lead a wife, he should do so before
receiving the Subdiaconate, since afterwards it was by no means lawful; nor was there
given in the Sixth Synod any liberty to priests of leading wives after their
priesting, as you assert. Therefore from the beginning of the newborn Church it
is clearly seen that at no time it was permitted to a priest to lead a wife
after his priesting, and nowhere, where this was attempted, was it done with
impunity, but the culprit was deposed from his priesthood."
CANON VII.
SINCE we have learned that in some churches deacons hold ecclesiastical
offices, and that hereby some of them with arrogancy and license sit daringly
before the presbyters: we have determined that a deacon, even if in an office of
dignity, that is to say, in whatever ecclesiastical office he may be, is not to
have his seat before a presbyter, except he is acting as representative of his
own patriarch or metropolitan in another city under another superior, for then
he shall be honoured as filling his place. But if anyone, possessed with a
tyrannical audacity, shall have dared to do such a thing, let him be ejected from
his peculiar rank and be last of all of the order in whose list he is in his own
church; our Lord admonishing us that we are not to delight in taking the chief
seats, according to the doctrine which is found in the holy Evangelist Luke,
as put forth by our Lord and God himself. For to those who were called he taught
this parable: "When ye are bidden by anyone to a marriage sit not down in the
highest room lest a more honourable man than thou shall have been bidden by
him; and he who bade thee and him come and say to thee: Give this man place, and
thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, sit
down in the lowest place, so that when he who bade thee cometh he may say to thee,
Friend go up higher: then thou shalt have worship in the presence of them that
sit with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted." But the same thing also shall be observed in
the remaining sacred orders; seeing that we know that spiritual things are to be
preferred to worldly dignity.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.
A deacon in the execution of his office, if he shall have occasion to sit
in the presence of presbyters, shall take the lowest place unless he be the
representative of the Patriarch or bishop.
Balsamon, Zonaras, and following them Van Espen point out that this canon
is a relaxation of the XVIII. Canon of Nice which punishes presumptuous deacons
not only with loss of rank in their grade, but also with expulsion from their
ministry.
Van Espen well remarks that the Fathers of this synod had in mind not only
the prescreation of the distinction between deacons and presbyters, but also
between those in ecclesiastical orders and those enjoying secular dignities with
regard to ecclesiastical matters, but who were not to gain there from
ecclesiastical precedence. This is what is meant by the last clause of the canon.
Beveridge gives a list of these quasi ecclesiastical dignitaries as
follows: Magnus (Economus, Magno Sacello Praepositus, Magnus Vasorum Custos,
Chartophylax, Parvo Sacello Praepositus, Primus Defensor.
CANON VlII.
SINCE we desire that in every point the things which have been decreed by
our holy fathers may also be established and confirmed, we hereby renew the
canon which orders that synods of the bishops of each province be held every year
where the bishop of the metropolis shall deem best. But since on account of the
incursions of barbarians and certain other incidental causes, those who
preside over the churches cannot hold synods twice a year, it seems right that by all
means once a year--on account of ecclesiastical questions which are likely to
arise--a synod of the aforesaid bishops should be holden in every province,
between the holy feast of Easter and October, as has been said above, in the place
which the Metropolitan shall have deemed most fitting. And let such bishops as
do not attend, when they are at home in their own cities and are in good
health, and free from all unavoidable and necessary business, be fraternally
reproved.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.
Whenever it is impossible to hold two synods a year, one at least shall be
celebrated, between er and the month of October.
This canon under file name of the "Sixth Synod" is referred to in Canon
VI. of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (II. Nice), and the bishops of Quinisext
are called "Fathers."
VAN ESPEN.
What at first was only allowed on account of necessity, little by little
passed into general law, and at last was received as law, that once a year there
was to be a meeting of the provincial synod.
CANON IX.
Let no cleric be permitted to keep a "public house?" For if it be not
permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it and to
carry on a trade which is unlawful for him. But if he shall have done any such
thing, either let him desist or be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX.
If clerics are forbidden to enter public houses, much more are they
forbidden to keep them. Let them either give them up or be deposed.
Compare with this canon liv. of the Apostolic Canons; xxiv. of Laodicea;
and xliij. of the Synod of Carthage.(1)
CANON X.
A BISHOP, or presbyter, or deacon who receives usury, or what is called
hecatostoe, let him desist or be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X.
A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who takes usury shall be deposed unless he
stops doing so.
See notes on canon XVI. of Nice, and the Excursus thereto appended.
CANON XI.
LET no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread
of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in
illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall
take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman
let him be cut off.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI.
Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused. Whoever even calls in Jews as
physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed.
VAN ESPEN.
Theodore Balsamon is of opinion that this canon does not forbid the eating
of unleavened bread; but that what is intended is the keeping of feasts in a
Jewish fashion, or in sacrifices to use unleavened bread (azymes), and this,
says Balsamon, on account of the Latins who celebrate their feasts with azymes.
Canon lxix. [i.e., lxx.] of those commonly called Apostolic forbids the
observance of festivals with the Jews; and declares it to be unlawful to receive
manuscula from them, but by this canon all familiar intercourse with them is
forbidden.
While there can be no doubt that in all the Trullan canons there is an
undercurrent of hostility to the West, yet in this canon I can see no such spirit,
and I think it has been read into it by the greater bitterness of later times.
This seems the more certain from the fact that there is nothing new whatever
in the provision with respect to the passover bread, vide canons of Laodicea
xxxvij. and xxxviij.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa xxviij., can. xiii.(1)
CANON XII.
MOREOVER this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya and
in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to
live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and
offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all filings
tend to the good of file flock placed in our harris and committed to us,--it
has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And
we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by
Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their
advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any
reproach. For the divine Apostle says: "Do all to the glory of God, give none
offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God, even as I
please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit but the profit of
many, that they may be saved. Be ye imitators of me even as I also am of Christ."
But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XII.
Although it has been decreed that wives are not to be cast forth,
nevertheless that we may counsellor the better, we give command that no one ordained a
bishop shall any longer live with his wife.
ARISTENUS.
The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon to
cast forth his wife under pretext of piety; and assigns penalties for any that
shall do so, and if he will not amend he is to be deposed. But this canon on
the other hand does not permit a bishop even to live with his wife after his
consecration. But by this change no contempt is meant to be poured out upon what
had been established by Apostolic authority, but it was made through care for the
people's health and for leading on to better things, and for fear that the
sacerdotal estate might suffer some wrong.
VAN ESPEN.
([In Can. vi. Apost.)
In the time of this canon [of the Apostles so called] not only presbyters
and deacons, but bishops also, it is clear, were allowed by Eastern custom to
have their wives;and Zonaras and Balsamon note that even until the Sixth
Council, commonly called in Trullo bishops were allowed to have their wives.
(The same on this canon.)
But not only do they command [in this, canon] that bishops after their
consecration no longer have commerce with their own wives, but further, they
prohibit them even to presume to live with them.
ZONARAS.
When the faith first was born and came forth into the world, the Apostles
treated with greater softness and indulgence those who embraced the truth,
which as yet was not scattered far and wide, nor did they exact from them
perfection in all respects, but made great allowances for their weakness and for the
inveterate force of the customs with which they were surrounded, both among the
heathen and among the Jews. But now, when far and wide our religion has been
propagated, more strenuous efforts were made to enforce those things which pertain
to a higher and holier life, as our angelical worship increased day by day, and
to insist on by law a life of continence to those who were elevated to the
episcopate, so that not only they should abstain from their wives, but that they
should have them no longer as bed-fellows; and not only that they no longer
admit them as sharers of their bed, but they do not allow them even to stop under
the same roof or in the house.
CANON XIII.
SINCE we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that
those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should
promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule
and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who
are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their
union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a
convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained
subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from
admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it
be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from
lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage
constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God
hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage
is honourable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? seek
not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care
for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy
Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts
according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down
through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain,
knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and
prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be
absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able
to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.
If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to
deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or
subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In
like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed
his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let
him be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII.
Although the Romans wish that everyone ordained deacon or presbyter should
put away his wife, we wish the marriages of deacons and presbyters to
continue valid and firm.
FLEURY.
(H.E., Livre XL., chap. 1.)
What is said in this canon, that the council of Carthage orders priests to
abstain from their wives at prescribed periods, is a misunderstanding of the
decree, caused either by malice or by ignorance. This canon is one of those
adopted by the Fifth Council of Carthage held in the year 400, and it is decreed
that subdeacons, deacons; priests, and bishops shall abstain from their wives,
following the ancient statutes, and shah be as though they had them not. The
Greek version of this canon has rendered the Latin words priora statuta by these,
idious horous, which may mean "fixed times": for the translator read, following
another codex, propria for priora. Be this as it may, the Fathers of the
Trullan council supposed that this obliged the clergy only to continence at certain
fixed times, and were not willing to see that it included bishops as well.
VAN ESPEN.
Although the Latin Church does not disapprove,(1) as contrary to the law
of the Gospel the discipline of the Greeks which allows the use of marriage to
presbyters and deacons, provided it was contracted before ordination; yet never
has it approved this canon which with too great zeal condemns the opposite
custom, and rashly assigns great errors to the Roman Church.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. XXXI., c. xiij.
Antonius Augustinus in his proposed emendations of Gratian says (Lib. I.
dial. de emend. Grat. c. 8.): "This canon can in no way be received; for it is
written in opposition to the celibacy of the Latin priests, and openly is
against the Roman Church." But to me the note which Gratian appends seems much more
learned and true: "This however must be understood as of local application; for
the Eastern Church, to which the VI. Synod prescribed this rule, did not
receive a vow of chastity from the ministers of the altar." It may be well to note
here that by the opinion of most Latin casuists the obligation to chastity among
the Roman clergy rests upon the vow and not upon any law of the Church binding
thereto. This evidently was the opinion of Gratian.
CANON XIV.
LET the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this
particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age,
even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus
Christ was baptized and beg.an to teach when he was thirty. In like manner let no
deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is
forty.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON
A presbyter thirty years of age, a deacon twenty-five, and a deaconess
forty.
Compare Canon XI. of Neocaesarea.
It may be interesting to note here that by the law of the Roman Communion
the canonical ages are as follows:
A subdeacon must have completed his twenty-first year, a deacon his
twenty-second, a priest his twenty-fourth, and a bishop his thirtieth. None of the
inferior clergy can hold a simple benefice before he has begun his fourteenth
year. Ecclesiastical dignities, such as Cathedral canonries, cannot be conferred
on any who have not finished the twenty-second year. A benefice to which is
attached a cure of souls can be given only to one who is over twenty-four, and a
diocese only to one who has completed his thirtieth year. (Vide Ferraris,
Bibliotheca Prompta.)
In the Anglican Communion the ages are, in England, for a bishop "fully
thirty years of age," for a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-three:(2)
and in the United States, for a bishop thirty years of age, for a priest
twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-one.
CANON XV.
A SUBDEACON is not to be ordained under twenty years of age. And if any
one in any grade of the priesthood shall have been ordained contrary to the
prescribed time let him be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV.
Those shall be chosen as Subdeacons who are twenty years of age.
This age seems first to have been fixed by the Second Council of Toledo(1)
(circa, A.D. 535) in its first canon.
CANON XVI.
SINCE the book of the Acts tells us that seven deacons were appointed by
the Apostles, and the synod of Neocaesarea in the canons which it put forth
determined that there ought to be canonically only seven deacons, even if the city
be very large, in accordance with the book of the Acts; we, having fitted the
mind of the fathers to the Apostles' words, find that they spoke not of those
men who ministered at the Mysteries but in the administration which pertains to
the serving of tables. For the book of the Acts reads as follows: "In those
days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring
dissension of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected
in the daily ministrations. And the Twelve called the multitude of the
disciples with them and said, It is not meet for us to leave the word of God and serve
tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good
report full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this
business. But we will give ourselves continually unto prayer and unto the ministry of
the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen a
man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor,
and Timon, and Parmends, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set
before the Apostles."
John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Church, interpreting these words,
proceeds thus: "It is a remarkable fact that the multitude was not divided in its
choice of the men, and that the Apostles were not rejected by them. But we must
learn what sort of rank they had, and what ordination they received. Was it that
of deacons? But this office did not yet exist in the churches. But was it fine
dispensation of a presbyter? But there was not as yet any bishop, but only
Apostles, whence I think it is clear and manifest that neither of deacons nor of
presbyters was there then the name."(2)
But on this account therefore we also announce that the aforesaid seven
deacons are not to be understood as deacons who served at the Mysteries,
according to the teaching before set forth, but that they were those to whom a
dispensation was entrusted for the common benefit of those that were gathered together,
who to us in this also were a type of philanthropy and zeal towards those who
are in need.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI.
Whoever affirms that the number of deacons should be seven according to
the saying of the Acts, should know that the reference in that passage is not to
Deacons of the Mysteries but to such as serve tables.
Van Espen here reminds us that this is, as Zonaras calls attention to in
Iris scholion on this place, a correction rather than an interpretation of the
XVth Canon of Neocaesarea, and Balsamon also says the same. The only interest
that the matter possesses is that a canon which had been received by the Fourth
Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) should receive such treatment from such an
assembly as the Synod in Trullo.
CANON XVII.
SINCE clerics of different churches have left their own churches in which
they were ordained and betaken themselves to other bishops, and without the
consent of their own bishop have been settled in other churches, and thus they
have proved themselves to be insolent and disobedient; we decree that from the
month of January of the past IVth Indiction no cleric, of whatsoever grade he be,
shall have power, without letters dimissory of his own bishop, to be registered
in the clergy list of another church. Whoever in future shall not have
observed this rule, but shall have brought disgrace upon himself as well as on the
bishop who ordained him, let him be deposed together with him who also received
him.
NOTES.
ANClENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII.
Whoever receives and ordains a wandering cleric shall be deposed together
with him thus wickedly ordained.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa XXI., Quaest., ii. can. j.
CANON XVIII.
THOSE clerics who in consequence of a barbaric incursion or on account of
any other circumstance have gone abroad, we order to return again to their
churches after the cause has passed away, or when the incursion of the barbarians
is at an end. Nor are they to leave them for long without cause. If anyone shall
not have returned according to the direction of this present canon--let him be
cut off until he shall return to his own church. And the same shall be the
punishment of the bishop who received him.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIII.
Whoever has emigrated on account of an invasion of the barbarians, shall
return to the Church to whose clergy he belongs as soon as the incursion ceases.
But if he shall not do so, he shall be cut off together with him to whom he
has gone.
BALSAMON.
The Fathers are worthy of great praise. For having regard to the honour of
the ecclesiastical order and of each bishop, they have decreed that clergymen,
who from just and valid causes have gone forth without letters dimissory from
those who ordained them, should return to their own clergy soon as the cause
which drove them forth ceases; and that they should not be enrolled on the clergy
list of any other church. But whosoever cannot be persuaded to return is to be
cut off, as well as the bishop who detains him. But someone will say, If a
bishop who does such a thing is cut off by his Metropolitan; and likewise if a
Metropolitan spurns this canon he is punished by the Patriarch. But if an
autocephalous archbishop or a Patriarch other than the Patriarch of Constantinople (for
he has a faculty for doing so) should be convicted of a breach of this Canon,
by whom would he be cut off? I suppose by the Supreme Pontiff(1)
(<greek>oiomai</greek> <greek>oun</greek> <greek>para</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>meixo</greek>-<greek>nos</greek> <greek>arkierews</greek>).
CANON XIX.
IT behoves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially
on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right
religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the
truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the
tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture
shall have been raised, let them not interpret it. otherwise than as the lights
and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let
them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through
their lack of skill(2) they may have departed from what was fitting. For
through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of
what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will
remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying
their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and
work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX.
The prelates of the Church, especially upon Lord's days, shall teach
doctrine.
VAN ESPEN.
How great an obligation of preaching rests upon bishops, the successors of
the Apostles, is evident from the words of St. Paul, "Christ sent me not to
baptize but to preach" (1 Cor. i., 17), and his chief adjuration to Timothy
though Jesus Christ and his coming, was "Preach the Word" (2 Tim. ii. 4.) For this
reason the fathers formerly called the episcopate the preaching-office (officium
predicationis), as is evident from the profession of Adelbert Morinensis, and
the form of profession of a future Archbishop. Both of these will be found in
Labbe, appendix to Tom. VIII., of his Concilia.
COUNCIL OF TRENT.
(Sess. V., c. 2.)
The preaching of the Gospel is the chief work of bishops.
CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY, A.D. 1571.
(Cardwell. Synodalia, Vol. I., p. 126.)
The clergy will be careful to teach nothing in their sermons to be
religiously held and believed by the people except what is agreeable to the doctrine
of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and Ancient Bishops
have collected out of the same.(1)
COUNCIL OF TRENT.
(Sess. IV.)
No one shall dare to interpret the Holy Scripture contrary to the
unanimous consent of the fathers.
CANON XX.
IT shall not be lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city which
does not belong to him. If any shall have been observed doing this, let him cease
from his episcopate, but let him discharge the office of a presbyter.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX
The bishop of one city shall not teach publicly in another. If he shall be
shown to have dose so he shall be deprived of the episcopate and shall perform
the functions of a presbyter.
The meaning of this canon is most obscure. Balsamon and Zonaras think that
the Bishop is not to be deposed from his Episcopate, but only shorn of his
right of executing the Episcopal functions, so that he will virtually be reduced
to a presbyter. Ariseanus, on the other hand, considers the deposition to be
real and that this canon creates an exception to Canon XXIX. of Chalcedon.
CANON XXI.
THOSE who have become guilty of crimes against the canons, and on this
account subject to complete and perpetual deposition, are degraded to the
condition of layman. If, however, keeping conversion continually before their eyes,
they willingly deplore the sin on account of which they fell from grace, and made
themselves aliens therefrom, they may still cut their hair after the manner of
clerics. But if they are not willing to submit themselves to this canon, they
must wear their hair as laymen, as being those who have preferred the communion
of the world to the celestial life.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI.
Whoever is already deposed and reduced to the lay estate, if he shall
repent, let him continue deposed but be shorn. But if otherwise, he must let his
hair grow.
Beveridge wishes to read who have become canonically guilty of crimes,"
substituting <greek>kanonikps</greek> for <greek>kanonikois</greek>, in
accordance with the Bodleian and Amerbachian codices.
CANON XXII.
THOSE who are ordained for money, whether bishops or of any rank whatever,
and not by examination and choice of life, we order to be deposed as well as
those also who ordained them.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII.
Whoever is ordained for pay shall be deposed together with his ordainer.
VAN ESPEN.
The present canon orders to be deposed not only the one simoniacally
ordained, but also his ordainer, ordering that ordinations should take place on
account, not of money, but of the excellence of the examination stood by the
candidate and on account of his uprightness of life. And it evidently takes it for
granted that, where money has been used, examination, excellence of life, and
consideration of merit enter but little into the matter, or at least are paid no
attention to.
CANON XXIII.
THAT no one, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when giving the
immaculate Communion, shall exact from him who communicates fees of any kind. For
grace is not to be sold, nor do we give the sanctification of the Holy Spirit for
money; but to those who are worthy of the gift it is to be communicated in all
simplicity. But if any of those enrolled among the clergy make demands on those
he communicates let him be deposed, as an imitator of the error and wickedness
of Simon.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIII.
Whoever shall demand an obolus or anything else for giving the spotless
communion shall be deposed.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decreturn,
Pars. II., Causa I., Quaest. I., can. 100, attributed to the VI. Synod. Ivo reads,
"From the Sixth Synod, III. Constantinople."
CANON XXIV.
No one who is on the priestly catalogue nor any monk is allowed to take
part in horse-races or to assist at theatrical representations. But if any
clergyman be called to a marriage, as soon as the games begin let him rise up and go
out, for so it is ordered by the doctrine of our fathers. And if any one shall
be convicted of such an offence let him cease therefrom or be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV.
A clergyman or monk shall be deposed who goes to horse-races, or does not
leave nuptials before the players are brought in.
VAN ESPEN.
Scarcely ever were these plays exhibited without the introduction of
something contrary to honesty and chastity. As Lupus here notes, the word "obscene"
has its derivation from these "scenic" representations.
Rightly therefore has it been forbidden by the sacred canons that the
clergy should witness any such plays.
In the second part of this canon by the words "ordered by the doctrine of
our fathers," the Synod understands the doctrine of the fathers of the synod of
Laodicea, which in its canon liv. condemned the same abuse.
Compare the canon given in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XXXIV. can. xix.
CANON XXV.
MOREOVER we renew the canon which orders that country
(<greek>agroikikas</greek>) parishes and those which are in the provinces
(<greek>egkwrious</greek>) shall remain subject to the bishops who had possession of them; especially if
for thirty years they had administered them without opposition. But if within
thirty years there had been or should be any controversy on the point, it is
lawful for those who think themselves injured to refer the matter to the
provincial synod.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV
Rural and out of town parishes held for thirty years may be retained. But
within that time there may be a controversy.
Compare notes on canon XVII. of Chalcedon.
CANON XXVI.
IF a presbyter has through ignorance contracted an illegal marriage, while
he still retains the fight to his place, as we have defined in the sacred
canons, yet he must abstain from all sacerdotal work. For it is sufficient if to
such an one indulgence is granted. For he is until to bless another who needs to
take care of his own wounds, for blessing is the imparting of sanctification.
But how can he impart this to another who does not possess it himself through a
sin of ignorance? Neither then in public nor in private can he bless nor
distribute to others the body of Christ, [nor perform any other ministry]; but being
content with his seat of honour let him lament to the Lord that his sin of
ignorance may be remitted. For it is manifest that the nefarious marriage must be
dissolved, neither can the man have any intercourse with her on account of whom
he is deprived of the execution of his priesthood.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVI.
A priest who has fallen into an illicit marriage and been deposed, may
still have his seat, but only when he abstains for the future from his wickedness.
ARISTENUS.
If any presbyter before his ordination had married a widow, or a harlot,
or an actress, or any other woman such as are forbidden, in ignorance, he shall
cease from his priesthood but shall still have his place among the presbyters.
But such an illegitimate marriage, on account of which he was deprived of the
Sacred Ministry, must be dissolved.
VAN ESPEN.
The sacred canon to which the Synod here refers is number xxvij. of St.
Basil in his Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius.
CANON XXVII.
NONE of those who are in the catalogue of the clergy shall wear clothes
unsuited to them, either while still living in town or when on a journey: but
they shall wear such clothes as are assigned to those who belong to the clergy.
And if any one shall violate this canon, he shall be cut off for one week.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVII.
A clergyman must not wear an unsuitable dress either when travelling or
when at home. Should he do so, he shall be cut off for one week.
CANON XXVIII.
SINCE we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the
altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers joined
this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed both to the
people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this for the future,
but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the quickening of their
souls and for the remission of their sins. But with regard to the offering of
grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them apart [from the offering of
the oblation] and distribute them to such as seek them as an act of
thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits by which our bodies are increased and
fed according to his divine decree. And if any cleric shall violate this decree
let him be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVIII.
Grapes are by some joined with the unbloody sacrifice. It is hereby
decreed that no one shall for the future dare to do this.
VAN ESPEN.
Similar blessings of fruit, and particularly of grapes, are found in more
recent rituals as well as in the ancient Greek Euchologions and the Latin
Rituales. In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory will be found a benediction of grapes
on the feast of St. Sixtus.
Cardinal Bona says (De Rob. Liturg, Lib. lI., cap. xiv.), that immediately
before the words Semper bona creas, sanctificas, etc., if new fruits or any
other things adapted to human use were to be blessed, they were wont in former
times to be placed before the altar, and there to be blessed by the priest; and
when the benediction was ended with the accustomed words "Through Christ our
Lord," there was added the following prayer: "Perquem haec omnia, etc.," which
words are not so much to be referred to the body and blood of Christ, as to the
things to be blessed, which God continually creates by renewing, and we ask that
they may be sanctified by his benediction to our use.
But in after ages when the fervour of the faithful had grown cold, that
the mass might not be too long, they were separated and yet the prayer remained
which, as said to-day over the consecrated species alone, can hardly be
understood.
This canon is found in a shortened form in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Pars. III. De Consecrat., Dist. II., can. vj.
Compare Canon of the Apostles number iv.
CANON XXIX.
A CANON of the Synod of Carthage says that the holy mysteries of the altar
are not to be performed but by men who are fasting, except on one day in the
year on which the Supper of the Lord is celebrated. At that time, on account
perhaps of certain occasions in those places useful to the Church, even the holy
Fathers themselves made use of this dispensation. But since nothing leads us to
abandon exact observance, we decree that the Apostolic and Patristic tradition
shall be followed; and define that it is not right to break the fast on the
fifth feria of the last week of Lent, and thus to do dishonour to the whole of
Lent.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIX.
Some of the Fathers after they had supped on the day of the Divine Supper
made the offering.(1) However, it has seemed good to the synod that this should
not be done, and that the fast should not be broken upon the fifth feria(2) of
the last week of Lent, and so the whole of Lent be dishonoured.
Zonaras remarks that the "Apostolic and Patristic tradition" is a
reference to canon lxix. of the Apostolic Canons and to canon 1. of Laodicea. See notes
on this last canon.
CANON XXX.
WILLING to do all things for the edification of the Church, we have
determined to take care even of priests who are in barbarian churches. Wherefore if
they think that they ought to exceed the Apostolic Canon concerning the not
putting away of a wife on the pretext of piety and religion, and to do beyond that
which is commanded, and therefore abstain by agreement with their wives from
cohabitation, we decree they ought no longer to live with them in any way, so
that hereby they may afford us a perfect demonstration of their promise. But we
have conceded this to them on no other ground than their narrowness, and foreign
and unsettled manners.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXX.
Those priests who are in churches among the barbarians, if with consent
they have abstained from commerce with their wives shall never afterwards have
any commerce with them in any way.
FLEURY.
(Hist. Eccl., Liv. XL., chap. 1.)
"Priests who are among the barbarians," that is to say, it would seem, in
Italy and in the other countries of the Latin rite. "Their narrowness and
foreign and unsettled manners," that is to say that according to them it is an
imperfection to aspire after perfect continence.
I do not think that this explanation of Fleury's can be sustained, and it
would seem that Van Espen is more near the truth when he says: "Some priests in
barbarous countries thought they should abstain after the Latin custom even
from wives taken before ordination. And although this was contrary to the
discipline of the Greeks, and also to Canon V. of the Apostles, nevertheless the
Fathers thought it might be tolerated, provided such priests should also not live
any longer with their wives." There seems no reason to introduce anti-Roman
bitterness where it is not already found.
CANON XXXI.
CLERICS who in oratories which are in houses offer the Holy Mysteries or
baptize, we decree ought to do this with the consent of the bishop of the place.
Wherefore if any cleric shall not have so done, let him be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXI.
Thou mayest not offer in an oratory in a private house without the consent
of the bishop.
On this whole subject the reader is referred to the curious and most
interesting volume published by Venantius Monaldini of Venice, in 1765. I cannot
better give its scope than by copying out its title in full. Commentarius
Theologico-canonico-criticus De ecclcsiis, earum reverentia, et asylo atque
concordia sacerdotii, et imperii, auctore Josepho Aloysio Assemani. Accesserunt
tractatus el. virorum D. Josephi de Benis, De Oratoriis Publicis; ac. R.P. Fortunati
a Brixia De Oratoriis Domesticis, in supplementum celeberrimi operis Joannis
Baptistae Gattico De Oratoriis Domesticis, et usu altaris portatilis.
CANON XXXII.
SINCE it has come to our knowledge that in the region of Armenia they
offer wine only on the Holy Table, those who celebrate, the unbloody sacrifice not
mixing water with it, adducing, as authority thereof, John Chrysostom, a doctor
of the Church, who says in his interpretation of the Gospel according to St.
Matthew:
"And wherefore did he not drink water after he was risen again, but wine?
To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy. For since there are certain who
use water in the Mysteries to shew that both when he delivered the mysteries
he had given wine and that when he had risen and was setting before them a mere
meal without raysteries, he used wine, 'of the fruit,' saith he, 'of the vine.'
But a vine produces wine, not water."(1) And from this they think the doctor
overthrows the admixture of water in the holy sacrifice. Now, lest on the point
from this time forward they be held in ignorance, we open out the orthodox
opinion of the Father. For since there was an ancient and wicked heresy of the
Hydroparastatae (i.e., of those who offered water), who instead of wine used water
in their sacrifice, this divine, confuting the detestable teaching of such a
heresy, and showing that it is directly opposed to Apostolic tradition, asserted
that which has just been quoted. For to his own church, where the pastoral
administration had been given him, he ordered that water mixed with wine should be
used at the unbloody sacrifice, so as to shew forth the mingling of the blood
and water which for the life of the whole world and for the redemption of its
sins, was poured forth from the precious side of Christ our Redeemer; and
moreover in every church where spiritual light has shined this divinely given order is
observed.
For also James, the brother, according to the flesh, of Christ our God, to
whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the
Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the
world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in
writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with
water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these
express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of
the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine
mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy
action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not
offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as
imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been
handed down.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXII.
Chrysostom, when overthrowing the heresy of the Hydroparastatae, says:
"When the Lord suffered and rose again he used wine." The Armenians, laying hold
on this, offer wine alone, not understanding that Chrysostom himself, and Basil,
and James used wine mixed with water; and left the tradition that we should so
make the offering. If, therefore, any one shall offer wine alone, or water
alone, and not the mixed [chalice] let him be deposed.
VAN ESPEN.
Justin Martyr in his Second Apology, Ambrose, or whoever was the author of
the books on the Sacraments (Lib. v., cap. i.), Augustine and many others make
mention of this rite, and above all St. Cyprian, who wrote a long epistle on
the subject to Cecilius, and seeking the reason of the ceremony as a setting
forth of the union of the people, represented by the water, with Christ, figured
by the wine.
Another signification of this rite St. Augustine indicates in his sermon
to Neophytes, saying: "Take this in bread, which hung upon the Cross: Take this
in the cup which poured forth from the side," that is to say blood and water.
Cardinal Bona (De Rebus Liturgies, Lib. II., cap. ix., n. 3 and 4) refers
to many ancient rituals in which a similar prayer is used to that found in the
Ambrosian rite, which says as the water is poured in: "Out of the side of
Christ there flowed forth blood and water together. In the name of the Father, etc."
Bona further notes that "The Greeks twice mingle water with the wine, once
cold water, when in the prothesis they are preparing the Holy Gifts, and the
Priest pierces the bread with the holy spear, and says, "One of the soldiers with a
lance opened his side, and immediately there flowed forth blood and water," and
the deacon pours in wine and water. From this it is evident that the Greeks
agree with St. Augustine's explanation.
For the second time the Greeks mix "hot water after consecration and
immediately before communion, the deacon begging from the priest a blessing upon the
warm water; and he blesses it in these words: 'Blessed be :the fervour of thy
Saints, now and ever and to the ages of age;. Amen.' Then the deacon pours the
water into the chalice, saying: 'The fervour of faith, full of the Holy
Spirit.' " So Cardinal Bona as above. The third reason of this rite is assumed by
some from the fact that Christ is believed thus to have instituted this sacrament
at the last supper; and this the synod seems to intimate in the present canon
when it says "as the Lord himself delivered."
In this case the Greeks suppose that this rite was also handed down by the
Apostles, and this is evident from their citing the Liturgy of St. James,
which they believed to be a genuine work of his.
CANON XXXIII.
SINCE we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are
appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in this Jewish
customs); and some of those who are even untonsured are appointed to succeed
cantors and readers of the divine law, we decree that henceforth it shall not be
lawful for those who wish to bring any one into the clergy, to pay regard to
the descent of him who is to be ordained; but let them examine whether they are
worthy (according to the decrees set forth in the holy canons) to be placed on
the list of the clergy, so that they may be ecclesiastically promoted, whether
they are of priestly descent or not; moreover, let them not permit any one at
all to read in the ambo, according to the order of those enrolled in the clergy,
unless such an one have received the priestly tonsure and the canonical
benediction of his own pastor; but if any one shall have been observed to act
contrary to these directions, let him be cut off.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIII.
Whoever is worthy of the priesthood should be ordained whether he is
sprung of a priestly line or no. And he that has been blessed untonsured shalt not
read the Holy Scriptures at the ambo.
VAN ESPEN.
Here not obscurely does the canon join the clerical tonsure received from
the bishop with the office of Reader, so much so that he that has been tonsured
by the bishop is thought to have received at the same time the tonsure and the
order of lector.
CANON XXXIV.
BUT in future, since the priestly canon openly sets this forth, that the
crime of conspiracy or secret society is forbidden by external laws, but much
more ought it to be prohibited in the Church; we also hasten to observe that if
any clerics or monks are found either conspiring or entering secret societies,
or devising anything against bishops or clergymen, they shall be altogether
deprived of their rank.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIV.
If clerics or monks enter into conspiracies or fraternities, or plots
against the bishop or their fellow clerics, they shall be cast out of their grade.
This is but a renewal of Canon xviij. of Chalcedon, which see with the
notes.
CANON XXXV.
IT shall be lawful for no Metropolitan on the death of a bishop of his
province to appropriate or sell the private property of the deceased, or that of
the widowed church: but these are to be in the custody of the clergy of the
diocese over which he presided until the election of another bishop, unless in the
said church there are no clergymen left. For then the Metropolitan shall
protect the property without diminution, handing over everything to the bishop when
he is appointed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXV.
When the bishop is dead the clergy shall guard his goods. If, however, no
clergyman remains, the Metropolitan shall take charge of them until another be
ordained.
Compare Canon xxii. of Chalcedon. This canon extends the prohibition to
Metropolitans as well.
ARISTENUS.
Neither the clergy nor metropolitan after the death of the bishop are
allowed to carry off his goods, but all should be guarded by the clergy themselves,
until another bishop is chosen. But if by chance no clergyman is left in that
church, the metropolitan is to keep all the possessions undiminished and to
return them to the future bishop.
CANON XXXVI.
RENEWING the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected
and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that
the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome,
and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be
second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria,
then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVI.
Let the throne of Constantinople be next after that of Rome, and enjoy
equal privileges. After it Alexandria, then Antioch, and then Jerusalem.
BALSAMON.
The Fathers here speak of the Second and Third canons of the Second Synod
[i.e. I. Constantinople] and of canon xxviij. of the Fourth Synod [i.e.
Chalcedon]. And read what we have said on these canons.
ARISTENUS.
We have explained the third canon of the Synod of Constantinople and the
twenty-eighth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon as meaning, when asserting that
the bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal privileges after the Roman
bishop, that he should be placed second from the Roman in point of time. So here too
this preposition "after" denotes time but not honour. For after many years this
throne of Constantinople obtained equal privileges with the Roman Church;
because it was honoured by the presence of the Emperor and of the Senate.
On this opinion of Aristenus's the reader is referred to the notes on
Canon iij. of I. Constantinople.
JUSTINIAN.
(Novella CXXXI., Cap. ij.)
We command that according to the definitions of the Four Councils the most
holy Pope of Old Rome shall be first of all the priests. But the most blessed
Archbishop of Constantinople, which is New Rome, shall have the second place
after the Holy Apostolic See of Old Rome.
This canon, in a mutilated form, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Diet. XXII., c. vj.
CANON XXXVII.
SINCE at different times there have been invasions of barbarians, and
therefore very many cities have been subjected to the infidels, so that the bishop
of a city may not be able, after he has been ordained, to take possession of
his see, and to be settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to perform and
manage for it the ordinations and all things which by custom appertain to the
bishop: we, preserving honour and veneration for the priesthood, and in no wise
wishing to employ the Gentile injury to the ruin of ecclesiastical rights, have
decreed that those who have been ordained thus, and on account of the aforesaid
cause have not been settled in their sees, without any prejudice from this thing
may be kept [in good standing] and that they may canonically perform the
ordination of the different clerics and use the authority of their office according to
the defined limits, and that whatever administration proceeds from them may be
valid and legitimate. For the exercise of his office shall not be
circumscribed by a season of necessity when the exact observance of law is circumscribed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVII.
A bishop who, on account of the incursions of the barbarians, is not set
in his throne, shall have his own chair of state, and shall ordain, and shall
enjoy most firmly all the rights of the priesthood.
By Canon XVIII. of Antioch the principle of this canon was enunciated,
that when a bishop did not take possession of his see because he could not do so,
he was not to be held responsible or to lose any of his episcopal rights and
powers, in that case the impossibility arose from the insubordination of the
people, in this from the diocese being in the hands of the barbarians.
It has been commonly thought that the Bishops in partibus infidelium had
their origin in the state of things calling for this canon.
CANON XXXVIII.
THE canon which was made by the Fathers we also observe, which thus
decreed: If any city be renewed by imperial authority, or shah have been renewed, let
the order of things ecclesiastical follow the civil and public models.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVIII.
If any city is or shall be renewed by the Emperor, the ecclesiastical
order shall follow the political and public example.
VAN ESPEN.
The canon of the Fathers which the Synod wishes observed is XVII of
Chalcedon, the notes on which see.
Here it must be noted that by "civil and public models" is signified the
"pragmatic" or imperial letters, by which the emperors granted to newly raised
up or re-edified towns the privilege of other cities, or else annexed them to
some Province.
CANON XXXIX.
SINCE our brother and fellow-worker, John, bishop of the island of Cyprus,
together with his people in the province of the Hellespont, both on account of
barbarian incursions, and that they may be freed from servitude of the
heathen, and may be subject alone to the sceptres of most Christian rule, have
emigrated from the said island, by the providence of file philanthropic God, and the
labour of our Christ-loving and pious Empress; we determine that the privileges
which were conceded by the divine fathers who first at Ephesus assembled, are
to be preserved without any innovations, viz.: that new Justinianopolis shall
have the rights of Constantinople and whoever is constituted the pious and most
religious bishop thereof shall take precedence of all the bishops of the
province of the Hellespont, and be elected [?] by his own bishops according to ancient
custom. For tim customs which obtain in each church our divine Fathers also
took pains should be maintained, the existing bishop of the city of Cyzicus being
subject to the metropolitan of the aforesaid Justinianopolis, for the
imitation of all the rest of the bishops who are under the aforesaid beloved of God
metropolitan John, by whom, as custom demands, even the bishop of the very city of
Cyzicus shall be ordained.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIX.
The new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople, and its
prelate shall rule over all the bishops the Hellespont to whom he has gone, and
he shall be ordained by his own bishop: as the fathers of Ephesus decreed.
HEFELE.
Hitherto the bishop of Cyzicus was metropolitan of the province of the
Hellespont. Now he too is to be subject to the bishop of New-Justinianopolis.
What, however, is meant by "the right of Constantinople"? It was impossible that
the Synod should place the bishop of Justinianopolis in equal dignity with the
patriarch of Constantinople. But they probably meant to say: "The rights which
the bishop of Constantinople has hitherto exercised over the province of the
Hellespont, as chief metropolitan, fall now to the bishop of New-Justinianopolis."
Or perhaps we should read, instead of Constantinople
K<greek>wnstantinewn</greek> <greek>polews</greek>, as the Amerbachian MS. has it, and translate: "The
same rights which Constantia (the metropolis of Cyprus) possessed, New
Justinianopolis shall henceforth have." The latter is the more probable.
VAN ESPEN.
To understand this canon it must be remembered that the Metropolis of
Cyprus, which was formerly called Constantia, when restored by the Emperor
Justinian was called by his name, New Justinianopolis.
CANON XL.
SINCE to cleave to God by retiring from the noise and turmoil of life is
very beneficial, it behoves us not without examination to admit before the
proper time those who choose the monastic life, but to observe respecting them the
limit handed down by our fathers, in order that we may then admit a profession
of the life according to God as for ever firm, and the result of knowledge and
judgment after years of discretion have been reached. He therefore who is about
to submit to the yoke of monastic life should not be less than ten years of
age, the examination of the matter depending on the decision of the bishop,
whether he considers a longer time more conducive for his entrance and establishment
in the monastic life. For although the great Basil in his holy canons decreed
that she who willingly offers to God and embraces virginity, if she has
completed her seventeenth year, is to be entered in the order of virgins: nevertheless,
having followed the example respecting widows and deaconesses, analogy and
proportion being considered, we have admitted at the said time those who have
chosen the monastic life. For it is written in the divine Apostle that a widow is
to be elected in the church at sixty years old: but the sacred canons have
decreed that a deaconess shall be ordained at forty, since they saw that the Church
by divine grace had gone forth more powerful and robust and was advancing still
further, and they saw the firmness and stability of the faithful in observing
the divine commandments. Wherefore we also, since we most rightly comprehend
the matter, appoint the benediction of grace to him who is about to enter the
struggle according to God, even as impressing speedily a certain seal upon him,
hereupon introducing him to the not-long-to-be-hesitated-over and declined, or
rather inciting him even to the choice and determination of good.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XL.
A monk must be ten years old. Even if the Divine Basil thought the one
shorn should be over seventeen. But although the Apostle ordains that a widow to
be espoused to the Church must be sixty, yet the Fathers say a Deaconess is to
be ordained at forty, the Church in the meanwhile having become stronger; so we
place the seal on a monk at an earlier age.
ARISTENUS.
The eighteenth canon of Basil the Great orders that she who offers herself
to the Lord and renounces marriage, ought to be over sixteen or even seventeen
years of age: so that her promise may be firm and that if she violates it she
may suffer the due penalties. For, says he, children's voices are not to be
thought of any value in such matters. But the present canon admits him who is not
less than ten years and desires to be a monk, but entrusts the determination
of the exact time to the judgment of the hegumenos, whether he thinks it more
advantageous to increase the age-requirement for the entering and being
established in the married life. But the canon lessens the time defined by Basil the
Great, because the Fathers thought that the Church by divine grace had grown
stronger since then, and was going on more and more, and that the faithful seemed
firmer and more stable for the observance of the divine commandments. And for
the same reason, viz, that the Church was growing better, the sacred canons had
lessened the age of deaconesses, and fixed it at forty years, although the
Apostle himself orders that no widow is to be chosen into the Church under sixty
years of age.
CANON XLI.
THOSE who in town or in villages wish to go away into cloisters, and take
heed for themselves apart, before they enter a monastery and practise the
anchorite's life,(1) should for the space of three years in the fear of God submit
to the Superior of the house, and fulfil obedience in all things, as is right,
thus shewing forth their choice of this life and that they embrace it willingly
and with their whole hearts; they are then to be examined by the superior
(<greek>proedros</greek>) of the place; and then to bear bravely outside the
cloister one year more, so that their purpose may be fully manifested. For by this
they will shew fully and perfectly that they are not catching at vain glory, but
that they are pursuing the life of solitude because of its inherent beauty and
honour. After the completion of such a period, if they remain in the same
intention in their choice of the life, they are to be enclosed, and no longer is it
lawful for them to go out of such a house when they so desire, unless they be
induced to do so for the common advantage, or other pressing necessity urging on
to death; and then only with the blessing of the bishop of that place.
And those who, without the above-mentioned causes, venture forth of their
convents, are first of all to be shut up in the said convent even against their
wills, and then are to cure themselves with fasting and other afflictions,
knowing how it is written that "no one who has put his hand to the plough and has
looked back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven."
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLI.
Whoever is about to enter a cloister, let him live for three years in a
monastery, and before he is shut up let him spend one year more, and so let him
be shut up. And he shall not then go forth unless death or the common good
demands.
VAN ESPEN.
This canon, so far as it sets forth the necessity of probation before
admission to the Anchorite life, synods in after-years frequently approved, taught
as they were by experience how perilous a matter it is to admit without
sufficient probation to this solitary life and state of separation from the common
intercourse with his fellow men. Vide the Synod of Vannes (about A.D. 465) canon
vij., of Agde chap. lxxviij., of Orleans the First can. xxij., of Frankfort can.
xij., of Toledo the Seventh can. v., and the Capitular of Charlemagne To
monks, Chap. ij.
CANON XLII.
THOSE who are called Eremites and are clothed in black robes, and with
long hair go about cities and associate with the worldly both men and women and
bring odium upon their profession--we decree that if they will receive the habit
of other monks and wear their hair cut short, they may be shut up in a
monastery and numbered among the brothers; but if they do not choose to do this, they
are to be expelled from the cities and forced to live in the desert
(<greek>erhmous</greek>) from whence also they derive their name.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLII.
An eremite dressed in black vesture and not having his hair cut, unless he
has his hair cut shall be expelled the city and be shut up in his monastery.
It may not be irreverent to remark that this species of impostors always
has been common in the East, and many examples will be found of the dervishes in
the Arabian Nights and other Eastern tales. The "vagabond" monks of the West
also became a great nuisance as well as a scandal in the Middle Ages. The reader
will find interesting instances of Spanish deceivers of the same sort in "Gil
Blas" and other Spanish romances.
CANON XLIII.
IT is lawful for every Christian to choose the life of religious
discipline, and setting aside the troublous surgings of the affairs of this life to
enter a monastery, and to be shaven in the fashion of a monk, without regard to
what faults he may have previously committed. For God our Saviour says: "Whose
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out."
As therefore the monastic method of life engraves upon us as on a tablet
the life of penitence, we receive(1) whoever approaches it(2) sincerely; nor is
any custom to be allowed to hinder him from fulfilling his intention.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIII.
Whoever flees from the surging billows of life and desires to enter a
monastery, shall be allowed to do so.
ZONARAS.
The greatness or the number of a man's sins ought not to make him lose
hope of propitiating the divinity by his penitence, if he turns his eyes to the
divine mercy. This is what the canon asserts, and affirms that everyone, no
matter how wicked and nefarious his life may have been, may embrace monastic
discipline, which inscribes, as on a tablet,(3) to us a life of penitence. For as a
tablet describes to us what is inscribed upon it, so the monastic profession
writes and inscribes upon us penitence, so that it remains for ever.
CANON XLIV.
A MONK convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of
matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators,
according to the canons.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIV.
A monk joined in marriage or committing fornication shall pay the penalty
of a fornicator.
The punishment here seems too light, so that Balsamon thinks that this
canon only refers to such monks as freely confess their sin and desist from it,
remaining in their monasteries; and that the sterner penalties assigned to
unchaste religious by other synods (notably Chalcedon, can. xvj., and Ancyra, can.
xix.) are for such as do not confess their faults but are after some time
convicted of them.
ARISTENUS.
The monk will receive the same punishment whether he be a fornicator or
has joined himself with a woman for the communion of marriage.
VAN ESPEN.
It is very likely from this canon that the Monastic vow at the time of
this Synod was not yet an impedimentum dirimens of matrimony, for nothing is said
about the dissolution of the marriage contracted by a monk although he had
gravely sinned in violating his faith pledged to God.
CANON XLV.
WHEREAS we understand that in some monasteries of women those who are
about to be clothed with the sacred habit are first adorned in silks and garments
of all kinds, and also with gold and jewels, by those who bring them thither,
and that they thus approach the altar and are there stripped of such a display of
wealth, and that immediately thereafter the blessing of their habit takes
place, and they are clothed with the black robe; we decree that henceforth this
shall not be done. For it is not lawful for her who has already of her own free
will put away every delight of life, and has embraced that method of life which
is according to God, and has confirmed it with strong and stable reasons, and so
has come to the monastery, to recall to memory the things which they had
already forgotten, things of this world which perisheth and passeth away. For thus
they raise in themselves doubts, and are disturbed in their souls, like the
tossing waves, turning hither and thither. Moreover, they should not give bodily
evidence of heaviness of heart by weeping, but if a few tears drop from their
eyes, as is like enough to be the case, they may be supposed by those who see them
to have flowed <greek>mh</greek> <greek>mallon</greek> on account of their
affection (<greek>diaqesews</greek>, affectionem) for the ascetic struggle rather
than (<greek>h</greek>) because they are quitting the world and worldly things.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLV.
Parents shall not deck out in silks a daughter who has chosen the monastic
life, and thus clothe her, for this is a recalling to her mind the world she
is leaving.
This canon is at the present day constantly broken at the profession of
Carmelites.
CANON XLVI.
THOSE women who choose the ascetic life and are settled in monasteries may
by no means go forth of them. If, however, any inexorable necessity compels
them, let them do so with the blessing and permission of her who is mother
superior; and even then they must not go forth alone, but with some old women who are
eminent in the monastery, and at the command of the lady superior. But it is
not at all permitted that they should stop outside.
And men also who follow the monastic life let them on urgent necessity go
forth with the blessing of him to whom the rule is entrusted.
Wherefore, those who transgress that which is now decreed by us, whether
they be men or women, are to be subjected to suitable punishments.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVI.
A nun shall not go out of her convent without the consent of her superior,
nor shall she go alone but with an older one of the order. It is in no case
permitted to her to spend the night outside. The same is the case with a monk; he
cannot go out of the monastery without the consent of the superior.
CANON XLVII.
No woman may sleep in a monastery of men, nor any man in a monastery of
women. For it behoves the faithful to be without offence and to give no scandal,
and to order their lives decorously and honestly and acceptably to God. But if
any one shall have done this, whether he be cleric or layman, let him be cut
off.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVII.
It is not allowed that a woman should sleep in a convent of men, nor a man
in a monastery of women.
The ground covered by this canon is also found in Justinian's Code, Book
xliv., Of Bishops and Clergy. Vide also Novella cxxxiii., chap. v.
VAN ESPEN.
From the whole context of Justinian's law it is manifest that Justinian
here is condemning "double monasteries," in which both men and women dwelt. And
he wishes such to be separated, the men from the women, and e contra the women
from the men, and that each should dwell in separate monasteries.
The reader may be reminded of some curious double religious houses in
England for men and women, of which sometimes a woman was the superior of both.
CANON XLVIII.
THE wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be
separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and
consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance
from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop's provision. And
if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVIII.
She who is separated from one about to be consecrated bishop, shall enter
a monastery after his ordination, situated at a distance from the See city, and
she shall be provided for by the bishop.
CANON XLIX.
RENEWING also the holy canon, we decree that the monasteries which have
been once consecrated by the Episcopal will, are always to remain monasteries,
and the things which belong to them are to be preserved to the monastery, and
they cannot any more be secular abodes nor be given by any one to seculars. But if
anything of this kind has been done already, we declare it to be null; and
those who hereafter attempt to do so are to be subjected to canonical penalties.