CANONS OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE
The synod at Carthage was held during the reigns of Honorius in old Rome and Theodosius the Younger in Constantinople, with two hundred and seventeen divine Fathers A from Africa and the regions subject to it gathered at Carthage. Carthage is a part of Carchedon, and Carchedon is a province of Africa; Africa is divided into many parts, one of which is Carchedon. Furthermore, legates sent from the Pope of Rome also assembled with the Fathers at this synod. For they called the Roman throne an Apostolic see, because Peter, the prince of the apostles, flourished there and established Linus as the first high priest in it. B This synod was presided over by Aurelius, bishop of the Church at Carthage—whom they also called pope—and by Valentinus, of the first see of the Numidian region; and by other bishops from the two Numidias, from Byzacena, Mauritania Caesariensis, and Tripolis of the Proconsular province; for these too are parts of Africa. The legates of the Roman Church were Faustinus, bishop of Picenum in the province of Italy, and Philip and Asellus, presbyters of the Church of Potentia. Moreover, other legates from the said provinces of Africa.
were present, filling the places of those who could not come to the synod. Hence, the name of "legates" A (that is, "keepers of the place") was derived, from the verb *tenere*, which is to watch over, or to fill the places of those who send them. B
Aurelius the bishop said:
"After the day fixed for the synod, as you remember, most blessed brethren, many things were sought while we awaited our brethren who have now come to the present synod as legates; and it is necessary for these to be entered into the acts. Therefore, it remains for us to send up thanks to our Lord concerning the gathering of such an assembly, so that this {might include} the copies of the Nicene synod, which we now have and which have been established by the Fathers, and in part what {has been added} here by those who preceded us."Guill. Beveregius's notes:
Picenum is a city of Italy; it is also called in the feminine, *Picena*, like *Arimenum* and *Arimenus*; the inhabitant is *Picenus* and *Arimenus*, as *canon*, *Acanus*. C *Picentia* is a city of Italy; it is called also *Potentia*; the citizen is *Potentinus*, just as *Picentia*, *Picentus*, *Picentinus*. It must be known that there are eight parts of Africa. The first is that which Alexandria, and the Pentapolis of Libya, and the so-called desert of Tripolitana serve to complete. The second is Byzacium. The third is that of Carthage, which is called Proconsularis, that is, Anthypatica. Then there are two Numidias, ancient and new. Then three Mauritanias: Caesariensis, also called Caesariana from its metropolis of that name, Caesarea; Sitifensis, whose metropolis is Sitifensa; and Tingitana, which has as its metropolis Tingi. D Yet in the explanation of Psalm 36 by the divine Augustine, only five parts or provinces are ascribed to the African diocese: he states them to be for the most holy brethren and colleagues throughout all of Africa, that is, throughout the proconsular province, Numidia, Mauritania, Byzacium, and Tripolis. August. in Ps. 36. An equal number are also recounted in the canons of this council. Elsewhere Mauritania is divided into two parts; wherefore Rufius Festus counts six provinces there; for the whole of Africa, he says, is made of six provinces, namely that where Carthage is (Proconsularis), Numidia, Byzacium, Tripolis, and the two Mauritanias. Ruf. Fest. in his *Breviary*. So also in the *Notitia Imperii*, where Mauritania is distributed into Sitifensis and Caesariensis, just as in the preface to these canons, in which six are also numbered. Thus also Numidia was later divided into two provinces, as the previously mentioned scholiast, Matthew Blastares, Balsamon, Zonaras, and others assert. Furthermore, geographers testify that Mauritania was later divided into three provinces, Caesariensis, Sitifensis, and Tingitana; and for this reason the scholiast not ineptly handed down that the whole African diocese consisted of eight parts or provinces. But we shall soon say more concerning the ancient division of Africa. In the edition of Zonaras, after these words, a certain *Preface to the Canons* is found, with these words: "After the consulship of the most glorious emperors, Honorius for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth time, Augusti, on the eighth day before the Kalends of June, in Carthage, in the secretary's office of the basilica of Faustus, while Pope Aurelius, together with Valentius of the first see of the Numidian province, and Faustinus from Picenum of the Potentia Church, legate of the Church of Rome, and also various other legates of the African provinces, that is, of the two Numidias, Byzacena, Mauritania Sitifensis, and Caesariana, and Tripolitana, were present; and with Vincentius Colusianus, Fortunatianus Neapolitana, and the remaining bishops of the Anthypatica province, two hundred and seventeen in number; and also Philip and Asellus, presbyters, as legates of the Church of Rome: these things also pleased them, the deacons attending." This is indeed the preface of the council itself to its acts and decrees, but it is not contained in any of the codices of Balsamon, nor even in the Amerbachian codex of Zonaras; but the things that are read in it, Balsamon and Zonaras have inserted into a common preface for both, to the canons expounded by them; which preface of theirs ends with these words, and does not allow for other matter to be placed between it and the words following, which were spoken by Aurelius.A and that those things also which have been brought forward here from those who have preceded us, who have confirmed the same synod, and according to the same rule concerning all the ranks of the clergy even to the lowest, ordained for salvation, be brought into the midst. By the whole synod it was said: Let them be brought forward.
Daniel the notary read: "The profession of faith of the synod of Nicaea, or the things defined, are as follows." And while he was speaking, Faustinus, bishop of Picenum, of the Potentine people, of the province of Italy, legate of the Roman Church, said: "Some things have been committed to us by the apostolic see to be treated of in writing, as we have mentioned in the acts above, that is to say, concerning the canons made at Nicaea, that both their decree and custom should be kept: B since some things are observed by ordinance and canon; but other things have been shaped by custom. Concerning these, therefore, let us inquire first, if it pleases your beatitude; and afterwards let the rest, which have been acted upon or begun, be confirmed and ordained: so that you may be able to show as much to the apostolic see by your written replies, and declare to the same venerable pope that we have diligently taken note of them; although the chapters of the actions have already been inserted into the deeds. Concerning these things, therefore, as I have said before, what it pleases your love and beatitude that we should do, we ought. Let the C commonitorium therefore come into the midst, that you may be able to know what is contained in it, so that a response may be given to each point."
Aurelius said: "Let the commonitorium be brought forward, which our brothers and fellow-ministers recently showed in the acts, and the rest consequently, both what has been done and what is to be done."
BALS. Bishop Aurelius, indeed, beginning his discourse, said that thanks must be given to the Lord God for the meeting of the Fathers, that those things which were examined and decreed by the Fathers who met at Nicaea, which we have from the Fathers before us, and which the Fathers who preceded us confirmed—that is, held to be valid—and whatever they ordained concerning all those who D are enrolled in the clergy, be brought into the midst.
Guill. Beveregii notes.
...and in the old glossaries of legal terms: where it is also added, *Commonitorium*, a letter sent with an injunction. In this sense this word is used by Justinian, saying, (Justin. Novell. 128, cap. 17), and by Anastasius in (the life of) Gregory II: "He commanded that those not converted to the catholic faith should be exiled from the priestly office by *rescriptis commonitoriis*." In the Theodosian Code: "Instructed by the competent *commonitoriis* and mandates." (1. 1, C. Th. de Curiosis). Thus this word is used everywhere for letters or epistles, by which any nuncio or legate has set down whatever he is to do.A Faustinus said: “We have been commissioned by the Pope to deal with certain matters for investigation, that is, for scrutiny and examination—for the Latins call a proposal and counsel a *tractatum*—and that the decree and custom of the Nicene canons be kept.” Having spoken of the decree and custom of the canons, he added that some things are held by rule and canon, others have been established by custom, and that even those things which have been tested and confirmed by time ought to prevail. Then we asked for the *commonitorium* to be brought forward, that is, the written memorandum of what was done and said (for it was the custom to write down in assemblies what was said, determined, and done). *Commonitorium* means the mandate of the Pope, by which he had commanded in writing what needed to be sought, so that they might know these things and nothing might escape them, which is the more likely meaning. For it is added: “Daniel the notary read the *commonitorium*, and what follows, to our brother Faustinus and to his sons Philip and Asellus, the presbyters.” B “The matters entrusted to you do not escape you; therefore, act in such a way, as if our presence were there—or rather, since our presence is in you—that you accomplish all things; especially since you possess this mandate of ours and the words…”
6 [Commentary by Beveridge]: The words, “The matters entrusted to you,” precede this in the Eton and Parisian codices of Balsamon's edition. But the word “Zosimus” is at least superfluous there. For what is mentioned here contains the *commonitorium* of Pope Zosimus of Rome to his legates, Faustinus, Philip, and Asellus, residing in the present synod; and therefore they pertain to the superscription of that *commonitorium*, which in full had it thus. The *commonitorium* itself, therefore, begins from these words. But between these words and the others, in the Amerbachian codex, are inserted things which it is necessary to record here. They are as follows: “He proposed a question concerning the bishops who are condemned by the synod of their own province, and he introduced a canon saying: ‘It is our pleasure that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of his own province have gathered together and judged him and deposed him from his rank,’ and what this canon subsequently constitutes concerning appeals; which canon he who cited it asserted to be of the first Nicene synod. Others, however, rightly asserted that it was not found among the canons gathered by the Fathers at Nicaea, saying that this is not a canon of the Nicene synod, but the fifth C of the synod of Sardica. A controversy having been stirred up, they demanded that it should be written to the patriarchs, namely, of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, so that they might send to them the transcripts of the things enacted and decreed in the Nicene synod, confirmed by their own signature. Afterwards a question arose concerning appeals made by clerics who appeal from the sentence of their own bishops. And Bishop Osius said: ‘What still troubles me, I ought not to omit. If any bishop, being perhaps prone to anger—which he ought not to be—should quickly or violently be moved against his own presbyter or deacon, and should desire to exclude him from his church,’ and what follows in that canon, which is set forth there as the fourteenth canon of the synod of Sardica. Furthermore, when the said canon had been read, Bishop Augustine said: ‘We profess that we will observe this also, saving a more diligent examination of the Nicene synod.’ And the whole synod said: ‘All things which have been decreed by the Nicene synod are pleasing to us all.’” Concerning these things, however, the most illustrious man, Joannes Rudolphus Wetstenius, who transcribed them from the Amerbachian manuscript, rightly observed that they do not differ in substance from what follows, except that perhaps the person who compiled both commentaries gave one of them here as condensed by Zonaras. After these, in the same codex, there follows this scholium of Zonaras, which begins—when this is finished, it is repeated—Bishop Zosimus said: “The matters entrusted to you.” D
have the warrants and the steps of the canons, which we have inserted into the present commonitory for greater confirmation. For this is what the brethren who were at the Nicene synod said when they voted concerning the appeal of bishops: It pleased that if a bishop be accused, and the bishops of his own province have gathered and judged, and have deposed him from his rank, and he appears to make an appeal and to flee for refuge to the B most blessed bishop of Rome, and he himself wishes to hear him, and considers the justice of the matter to be such that a re-examination should be made, he will deign to write to the bishops who are in the neighboring province, that they themselves may diligently inquire into all things and conclude the matter according to the truth. Therefore, if anyone asks for his case to be heard again, and by his own petition moves the bishop of Rome to send a presbyter from his own side, it shall be in his power—the bishop of Rome’s—to do what he wishes and what he deems appropriate. And if he decides that some should be sent, so that they may judge in the presence of the bishops, having the authority of him who sent them, it shall be at his judgment. But if he thinks the bishops are sufficient to put an end to the matter, he shall do what seems best to his most wise counsel.”
ARIST.
If bishops have deposed a bishop, if he makes an appeal to the bishop of Rome, he must be heard kindly, the bishop of Rome writing or commanding.This canon also gives, as does the fourth canon of the synod of Sardica, C power to the bishop of Rome, when a deposed bishop approaches him, either to send his own presbyters, and to maintain with the bishops, in accordance with the appeal, the deposition brought by them against the bishop who made the appeal; or to write to the bishops neighboring the province, and through them to have the affairs of the Church maintained.
And these things having been read, Alypius, bishop of the Church of Tagaste, legate of the Numidian province, said: “Regarding this, we have already written back in the previous letters of our synod, and we profess that we will observe what was decreed by the synod of Nicaea; yet it still moves me that, while we consult the old D copies of this Nicene synod, we some-how do not find these things therein at all. Whence we ask your reverence, most holy Pope Aurelius, since the authentic copies of the synod of Nicaea are said to be in Constantinople, that you deign to send some persons with letters from your holiness; and not only to that most holy brother of ours, the bishop of Constantinople, but also to the venerable priests of Alexandria and Antioch, who may send us the same synod with the sealing of their own letters, so that all doubt thereafter may be removed; since indeed we have not found these things, as our brother Faustinus has brought them. We, however, as I said before, profess that we will observe them for the time being, until complete and perfect copies arrive.”
A We ought also to request our most revered brother, the bishop of the Church of Rome, Boniface, that he also, in like manner, may deign to send to the aforementioned Churches some persons to bring the same copies, according to those things written by him. Now, however, we shall append to these acts the copies of the aforementioned Synod of Nicaea, which we possess.
Faustinus, legate of the Roman Church, said: “Your Holiness does no prejudice to the Church of Rome, whether concerning this heading or others, since our brother and fellow-minister Alypius has judged these canons to be doubtful. But deign to write these things to our most holy and blessed Pope, that he, inquiring into the integral canons with your Holiness, may treat of all these decrees. For it is sufficient that, just as your Holiness treats of them among yourselves, so he also may inquire into them by himself, lest any contention arise between the Churches; but rather that you may consult with fraternal affection, as he writes back what ought better to be observed.” B
Aurelius the bishop said: “Besides those things which we have proposed in the acts, it is necessary that we also fully signify in letters from our lowliness to our most holy brother and fellow-minister Boniface all that we are treating. Let us therefore learn from the mouths of all whether our course of action is pleasing to all.”
The whole synod said: “It pleases us.”
Novatus the bishop, legate of Mauretania Sitifensis, said: “We indeed remember that this *commonitorium* contains matters regarding presbyters, and furthermore regarding deacons, as to how they ought to be heard by their own bishops or by those who are neighboring; which we have by no means read in the Nicene Synod. Therefore your Holiness will command that it be read.” C
Aurelius the bishop said: “Let this also which is sought be read in our presence.”
Daniel the notary read: “Regarding the appeals of clerics, that is, of a lesser place, the response of the synod is certain; concerning which we think what you wish to do ought to be inserted, since it is said thus.”
Osius the bishop said: “That which still moves me I ought not to keep silent. If by chance any bishop who is irascible (which he ought not to be), moved quickly or even harshly against his own presbyter or deacon, wishes to separate him from his own church, care must be taken that he be not condemned without cause, or lose his communion; therefore let him who is cast out have the power of approaching neighboring [bishops], so that his case may be heard and more diligently examined. For to him who requests it, D a hearing is not to be denied; and that bishop who cast him out, whether justly or unjustly, must allow the matter to be discussed.
so that his verdict may be either confirmed or corrected, and so forth.
ARIST. A presbyter and deacon who has been suspended has the freedom to appeal to neighboring bishops. Furthermore, he who suspended him ought to bear with equanimity that which shall be confirmed.
This canon provides an occasion for confusion and scandals. For it is just and canonical for a cleric deposed by his own bishop to flee and appeal to the metropolitan of that province; but for a cleric who has been suspended to approach neighboring bishops when the metropolitan is absent, and to appoint them as examiners of a bishop who is not subject to them, is unreasonable and a cause of turmoil. For this reason, then, this canon is not to be held as universal or valid in other dioceses, but as local, for Carthage and Africa.
A And these things having been read, Augustine, bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: "We profess that we shall observe this, also, with the reservation of a more diligent investigation of the Nicene synod."
Aurelius the bishop said: "If this also pleases you, confirm it by the response of the affection of you all."
The whole synod answered: "All things that have been established by the Nicene synod are pleasing to us all."
Jucundus, bishop of the Church of Offetula, representative of the province of Byzacena, said: "What has been established by the Nicene synod can by no means be subverted by anyone."
Faustinus, bishop and representative of the Church of Rome, said: "Even now, based on the profession of your sanctity, partly that of the holy Alypius and partly that of our brother Jucundus, I believe that some things are invalidated, while others are confirmed; which ought not to be in doubt if the canons themselves are possessed. B Therefore, as is pleasing to us and to you, may your sanctity deign to refer the matter to the most holy and most venerable bishop of the Church of Rome, so that he himself may also be able to consider both matters, as the most holy Augustine has deigned to determine. For this also must be granted and kept silent: namely, concerning appeals of a lower rank. But if there is still doubt concerning this point, it is right for the bishop of the blessed see to decide if it can be admitted to be found in the canons."
BALS. When Faustinus, the representative of ancient Rome, had requested that certain ecclesiastical questions be discussed according to the mandate given to him by the Pope, Bishop Aurelius C permitted this to be done. And when Daniel the notary had begun to read the memorandum, the bishop said: “The bishop of the blessed [see] has the right to determine if this can be found in the canons.”
A Zosimus to the legates of Rome, saying that they are not unaware—that is, they are not ignorant—of what has been commanded to you by the apostolic throne, and that these things ought to be examined just as if the synod were taking place in Rome; for, through the presence of you, the legates, the business of the synod appears to be transacted there.
And immediately the fifth canon of the Synod of Sardica was brought forward, as if it were perhaps one of the Fathers of Nicaea. And when a doubt arose concerning whether this canon belonged to the Council of Nicaea, Bishop Alypius said that while it was necessary to observe it, yet because it is not found in the Greek books which contain what was done at the Council of Nicaea, “I entreat you, Aurelius, that a letter be written to the bishop of Constantinople, and to those of Alexandria and Antioch, so that the original records of the first synod which are there may be examined, by which this same canon might be confirmed and the doubt resolved. However, the things declared in it should be observed until the doubt is resolved.” The Pope of Rome also desired this same thing to be done. When these things had been said, Faustinus, legate of Rome, said that Alypius had said nothing absurd, for the Pope also desired the contention of the Churches to be resolved and cut off. B It therefore pleased Bishop Aurelius, as well as the whole synod, that this be done.
After these things were completed, it was asked by Navatus, bishop and legate of Mauritania, how and by whom clerics ought to be judged, and who might appeal from those judged by their own bishop. And a certain bishop named Osius responded: “I ought not to be silent about what still moves me,” and the rest of the fourteenth canon of the Synod of Sardica, which was also set forth there.
When these matters had thus been discussed, Augustine said that this canon ought to be observed, provided that meanwhile, by a more diligent inquiry or examination of the Synod of Nicaea, it should be established that it belongs to that synod. The remaining Fathers also said that what was decreed in the Council of Nicaea was pleasing to them all, and that it ought to be kept inviolate in the future. See also what has been written by us in the fifth canon of the Synod of Sardica. C
ARIST.
Since the written acts of the Council of Nicaea have not been found, let the Bishop of Rome deign to write to the Bishop of Constantinople and [the Bishop] of Alexandria, and receive them from there, and present them to us. DThe legates sent by the Pope of Rome to this synod, putting forward the canon issued by the Synod of Sardica concerning the fact that one who is deposed should go to the Bishop of Rome, as if it had been decreed by the Council of Nicaea, and demanding that the Fathers assembled in this synod confirm it as a canon of the Council of Nicaea; since these [Fathers], not holding in memory whether it was issued by the Council of Nicaea, and not having the acts done at Nicaea with them as signed and confirmed, said they were ignorant [of it], they judged it worthy that the Bishop of Rome write.
to the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Alexandria, and receive from them the canons enacted at Nicaea, A confirmed, and show them to them. Meanwhile, they wished to maintain such a canon until they should receive most true and certain copies of the Council of Nicaea; and it was placed by them in the first place here. After this, they were sent to them by the holy Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and Atticus, Archbishop of Constantinople, and they did not find in them a canon enacted allowing the sending of clerics of Rome, and through them to examine, on appeal, the depositions of bishops; they wrote to Celestine, the then-Pope of the city of Rome, not to wish to do so henceforth, and not to allow his clerics to be sent to examine the decisions and depositions of bishops, lest the smoky B pride of the world be brought into the Church of Christ.
Aurelius the Bishop said: "The copies of what was defined in the Council of Nicaea, which were long ago shown to your love by us, you now accept; but also that which was salutarily ordained by our fathers according to the form of the same council, and what has additionally been ordained by us, now [you permit] to be read and inserted into the acts."
The whole Synod said: "The copies of the faith and the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, which were long ago brought to us by Caecilianus, the predecessor of your holiness; furthermore, also those things which were subsequently enacted here, and now by common C consent have been decreed by us, let them remain inserted into these ecclesiastical acts; provided that your beatitude, as has been said before, deigns to write to the venerable bishops of the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, that they may send most true copies of the Council of Nicaea with the signature of their letters: so that, the truth being manifested, these articles, which our brother and co-bishop Faustinus and the fellow-presbyters Philippus and Asellus brought with them in the *commonitorium*, may be confirmed if found there or, if they are not found, we may, having convened another synod, inquire again about them."
ZONARAS. The aforementioned canon was put forward as belonging to the ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Therefore, D Bishop Augustine proposed that the canon be observed, provided that a more diligent search or examination of the Council of Nicaea was not meanwhile omitted, so that it might be observed if it truly belongs to that council; and the rest of the Fathers of the synod said that what had been defined in the Council of the Nicaeans was acceptable to all. Then the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea was read. Daniel, a notary of the Council of Nicaea, read the confession of faith and its decrees in the African synod.
A The confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit." The catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes those who say: "There was once when he was not," and "Before he was begotten he was not," and "He was made out of nothing," or who say that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or that he is changeable or mutable. B Similarly, the decrees of the Council of Nicaea in twenty chapters were read; then those things which were decreed in the synods of Africa are inscribed and recognized in the acts of those present.
CANON I. "Wherefore, the things that were established in the Council of Nicaea shall be observed in all respects."
Aurelius the bishop said: "These copies of the statutes, which our Fathers then brought back with them from the Council of Nicaea, are held by us in such a way that, keeping their pattern, the things which follow and are established by us may be observed and confirmed."
BALS. With the holy symbol having been read, just as it was composed in the first synod, and likewise the twenty canons of the same synod; and furthermore, those things which had been established in Africa; and with it being decided that the things which were acted upon and pronounced synodically must be kept inviolate, Aurelius said that the copies of those things which were established at Nicaea, brought hither by the African Fathers, are as they were read; and according to the sequence of these, it must be acted upon and decreed concerning those things that follow which ought to be spoken and confirmed, so that they may be kept for the future.
D ZUNAR. What Aurelius says is of this kind: "Among us," he says, "are the copies of those things which have now been read, which our Fathers—that is, the bishops who were before us—brought back at the time when the synod was gathered at Nicaea. For there were in that same synod, as is probable, African bishops as well. If they exist as they were read—for they were still in doubt about them, and therefore requested the patriarchs, as has been said, to send them copies confirmed by them—if those things also which have been established by us keep that pattern and agree with them, they shall be held as valid."
ARIST. A Exemplars of those things which were seen by the Nicene Fathers, and which our Fathers brought back with them from this synod, let them be observed. What was first handed down and sanctioned by the holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea, this present synod also confirms and orders to be observed.
CANON II
With God willing, the ecclesiastical faith in equal confession, handed down by us in this glorious assembly, is primarily to be confessed; next, the ecclesiastical order is to be preserved with the consent of each and of all together. But to confirm the minds of our brethren and co-bishops who have been recently ordained, it is necessary to add these things which we have received from the Fathers by a firm constitution: that is, the unity of the Trinity—of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—which is established to have no difference, we hold consecrated in our minds, and as we have learned, so shall we teach the peoples of God. Likewise, it was clearly stated by all the bishops who were recently promoted: "Thus we receive, thus we hold, thus we teach, following the evangelical faith together with your doctrine."BALS. The Fathers say that in this assembly, "First, we confess the ecclesiastical faith," that is, the one received by the Church of the faithful, which has been handed down through us, namely the bishops; "next, we resolve to preserve the ecclesiastical order," everyone of us consenting to this matter, and all together. C But to confirm the mind of our brethren and co-bishops recently ordained, it is necessary to add what we have received from our Fathers—that is, from the ancient bishops—by a firm disposition, or as a firm and secure canon. And they immediately add what they have received, namely concerning the Holy Trinity: that the Holy Trinity has no difference—that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not differ from one another in anything, setting aside, of course, the properties of each—but a unity is known in them; that is, the three persons are one in essence, and glory, and power. And thus, they say, "the faith consecrated in our minds"—that is, impressed and defined—"we acknowledge, D and thus we shall teach the peoples, just as we have been taught, following the evangelical doctrine."
ARIST. No difference is known or taught in the Holy Trinity according to the confirmation of those in Nicaea. Thus we have received, thus we think, to know or teach no difference in the Holy Trinity; but to recognize it as of the same essence, and of the same power, and of the same honor.
CANON III.
A Aurelius the bishop said: “When in a former synod the manner of continence and chastity was inquired into, it pleased that these three degrees, which are bound by a certain tie of chastity through their consecration (I mean bishops, presbyters, and deacons), just as it behooves the holy bishops and priests of God and Levites and those ministering to divine sacrifices, should be continent in all things; that they may be able to obtain what they plainly ask of God: that what was handed down by the apostles and observed by antiquity itself, we also should likewise observe.”BALS. This canon desires that those who handle the holy mysteries, that is to say, bishops, priests, and deacons, should exercise every virtue, and be continent not only through temperance, but in every deed and work. For thus, he says, they will be heard by God when praying for the people, and will truly show themselves to be keeping those things which were handed down by the holy apostles and by ancient, unwritten ecclesiastical custom. B
ZONAR. This canon discourses on the temperance and continence of those who have been initiated into the sacred rites, saying that three orders, which have bound themselves by their own profession to chastity—namely, bishops, presbyters, and Levites, that is to say, deacons, who minister to the divine consecrated things, or the bloodless sacrifice which is religiously offered to the Deity—ought to observe continence in all things. Nor should they be immoderate in one sole matter, and conversely employ no discernment in the rest of their lifestyle, but pursue temperance in all, that is, fulfill all the parts C of virtue, so that they may obtain the things which they ask of God, that is, simply, and without any trepidation or hesitation. For they are mediators between God and men, reconciling the Deity to other men and seeking salvation for the faithful and peace for the world. If, therefore, he says, they practice every kind of virtue, and thus speak boldly to God, they would obtain the very things they requested; but if they themselves are destitute of the power of speaking freely, how could they perform the office of an intercessor for others? Therefore, for this reason, we shall observe both what has been handed down by the apostles and what has been used up to now by the custom D of ancient time, that is, both those things which are established by written laws and those which have prevailed without writing through long and ancient custom.
ARIST. “Let a bishop, and a presbyter, and a deacon be chaste and continent.”
CANON IV.
“It pleases that a bishop and a presbyter and a deacon, and...”A all who handle holy things, be keepers of continence, and abstain from women.” B BALS. and ZONAR. The preceding canon discussed the continence of bishops, presbyters, and deacons; but this one concerns itself more specifically with chastity and abstinence from women. From these canons, and especially from the present one, the Romans and all who share their views hold that presbyters and deacons cannot legitimately be joined with their wives, but ought to remain devoid of marriage. But they are mistaken in this as they are in other matters. For the fifth canon of the holy Apostles says: “Let not a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon cast off his own wife under the pretext of piety.” And perhaps someone might say that even among us bishops do not have wives; but this was decreed by the Fathers of the so-called sixth synod, who say in canon 12: “We do not say this to oppose what was established by the Apostles, but out of care for salvation and the better progress of the people, and that no occasion for reproach be given to the priestly order.” The same synod C interprets this present canon in canon 13, saying: “It is required that presbyters, deacons, or subdeacons abstain from their own wives during the times when they are handling the holy mysteries,” and it adds: “If anyone dares to deprive presbyters or deacons or subdeacons of the union and society of a legitimate wife, let him be deposed.” The seventieth canon of this present synod also convicts those who think wrongly on this matter. For it says: “It pleased that bishops and presbyters and deacons, according to their own terms, also abstain from their own wives.” From whence it is shown that bishops, presbyters, and deacons lived with their wives. And the synod did not forbid them the conversation with them, except according to their own terms, that is, on the appointed days of each one’s turn of service.
Another interpretation.
D To abstain from women, not only those who are in holy orders and handle holy things should be keepers of chastity and abstain from women. It was said by all the bishops: “It pleases that all who stand at the altar, or serve thereon, observe chastity.” Hence it prevailed among the Romans that neither a presbyter nor a deacon should share in legitimate marriage; but this is refuted by the canons that follow. For this synod did not forbid the lawful marriage of presbyters and deacons, contradicting those who would concede the sacred, while the marriage still legitimately exists. But one may say that they do not say this absolutely, but that they wish them to abstain from their wives only during the time of the celebration of the liturgy and other holy ministries, which is pious and was previously ordained in general by the divine Paul, [index: entries preserved]A saying: But let each man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. And again: Let not spouses deprive themselves, unless perhaps by consent, when they are about to approach the prayer of holy communion. Furthermore, the priest Abiathar, when David and those with him asked to eat the loaves of proposition, first inquired whether they were clean from a woman. And what is proclaimed in the divine mystagogy, “Holy things for the holy,” has the same meaning. For those who are defiled by intercourse with a woman or otherwise are not holy; therefore, they ought not to communicate. From all this it is gathered that not even the spouses themselves, who have come together bodily, shall be held worthy of holy communion on that very day. That most holy patriarch, Lord Lucas, being questioned on this, pronounced synodically that those who are to be partakers of the divine sanctified things must abstain from bodily intercourse for three days B beforehand. Moreover, he also subjected to penalties those who, being newlyweds, come together on that same day after the holy communion. And read the memorandum made in the month of September of the second indiction. Read also from the canonical questions and answers of Timothy of Alexandria, the fifth and the twelfth, which teach that the faithful ought to abstain from intercourse with each other on the Saturday and the Sunday. He says also in the Mosaic book in Exodus these things: And the Lord said to Moses: Descend and testify to this people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, let them wash their garments, and let them be prepared for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will descend upon Mount Sinai before all the people. And again: And Moses descended from the mountain to the people, and sanctified them, and they washed their garments; and he said to the people: Be prepared for three days, and do not approach a woman.
ARIST. C And let them abstain from a wife, so that they may obtain what they seek.
This canon, and the twenty-fifth, when compared with the seventieth canon of the present synod, do not appear to require the bishop, presbyter, and deacon to dissolve their marriage and to abstain from their wives completely; but to refrain from them at the proper times—that is, when they are at leisure for prayer and fasting, and are performing the handling of the holy things. But the twelfth canon of the sixth synod in Trullo does not permit bishops to dwell with their own wives after the ordination to the episcopacy bestowed upon them has taken place, but to dissolve their union with them. This, however, does not introduce a contempt for marriage D or a subversion of what was apostolically ordained, but is for the sake of the salvation and the improvement of the people toward the better, and so that no occasion for criticizing the priestly constitution might be given. But the thirteenth canon of the same sixth synod accuses
the rule in the Roman Church as it is handed down, A namely that those who are to be ordained deacons or presbyters must profess that they will no longer be joined to their wives; and it commands that the legitimate marriages of holy men should not be dissolved, but remain firm, and that they should not depart one from the other; but only that they contain themselves from their wives at their own proper times, just as the Apostle handed down, and again come together.
CANON V
B ‹ The desire for greed, which no one doubts is the mother of all evils, must be restrained; so that no one may abuse the boundaries of others, nor that anyone for the sake of gain may overstep the boundaries of the Fathers; nor that it be permitted to any cleric whatsoever to accept interest from any source. And those matters recently brought forward, being obscure and totally hidden, when considered by us shall take their form. But concerning those matters about which divine Scripture most clearly established laws, it is not our duty to decree, but rather to follow them. For consequently, that which is blameworthy in laymen ought to be condemned much more in clerics. The whole synod said: ‹ No one has acted against the prophets, no one against the Gospels without danger. ›
BALS. The forty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles and the fourth of the synod of Laodicea forbid clerics from taking interest; but the seventeenth canon of the first synod subjects them to deposition. Therefore, the Fathers, calling these canons boundaries, and calling greed and the shameful gain of the acceptance of interest C by that name, decreed that the boundaries of the Fathers, that is, the canons, are not to be overstepped, and that interest is not to be accepted by a cleric from any matter whatsoever; namely, neither from money given as a loan, nor from grain lent, nor from any other thing. But they added that those things which are recently put forth, that is, decreed, are obscure and faint, being unknown. But concerning those things about which divine Scripture D established or legislated, it is not necessary to decree, but rather to follow what has been legislated. They called divine Scripture both the sacred canons and the sayings of Scripture, such as: "You shall not lend your money to your brother at interest"; and, "He has not put out his money at interest," and things of this kind. Then they establish how it is absurd and shameful for those who have been initiated into holy things to lend at interest; and they say that what is blameworthy in laymen, that is, to be censured and blamed, must consequently be condemned much more in clerics. To this the synod said: "No one has acted against the prophets, no one against the Gospel without danger"; that is, since lending at interest is prohibited in both the Old Testament (for they signified this by the prophets) and the New (which they showed through the Gospel), no one who does the things prohibited in them will escape danger.
He will be in danger regarding his own status, that is, he will be deposed. A
ZONARAS. Since this canon is intended to enact that clergy should not engage in usurious gain, it discourses first on avarice, and calls it the mother of all evils; it also defines that it should be restrained, that is, checked and amputated, so that one does not invade what belongs to others and abuse it. He termed "abuse" the illicit use of some thing. For even a use that is not illicit becomes so, if one pretends some honest cause while taking away the things of others. For those who lend at interest, as if those who are borrowing are supposedly being helped, affirm that they also share in the gain from the loan. And in another way, he says, one must check greed, so that no one, for the sake of gain, may overstep the boundaries of the Fathers, calling the sacred canons the boundaries of the Fathers. For the forty-fourth canon of the Apostles forbids those in sacred orders from lending at interest, and the seventeenth canon of the first B ecumenical synod punishes with deposition and condemns those examined under the canon who lend at interest. And the fourth canon of the synod of Laodicea dissuades those in holy orders from lending at interest. These canons, therefore, he called the boundaries of the Fathers. Let greed be cut off, he says, and so that it may not be permitted for any clergyman to receive interest from any thing whatsoever. For not only is money lent at interest, but also grain, wine, oil, and countless other types of things. And just as with coins interest is agreed to be paid, so also with these other goods. For if someone lends, for example, one hundred modii of grain, he agrees to receive back after a set time a number of modii beyond that, and so likewise with others. So that the canon might not be circumvented, with those in sacred orders not lending money at interest but doing this with goods, the Fathers added, "of any thing whatsoever." And those things that were newly brought up, that is, mentioned, they say, being obscure, that is to say, unclear, dark, and unknown, shall be settled—that is, defined by us as being considered—which even Divine Scripture has ordained, or rather legislated and appointed; concerning those things one must not deliberate—that is, judge—but rather follow and adhere to what has been C decreed. By the name "Divine Scripture" he meant both the sacred canons and the scriptural passages, such as that, "Thou shalt not lend thy money to thy brother at interest," and that, "He has not given his money at interest," and whatever else is found of this kind. Then they also construct the argument of how it is absurd and shameful for those in holy orders to lend at interest, and they say that what is reproachable among laymen—that is, blameworthy and subject to accusation—should consequently be condemned much more in the case of the clergy. To this the synod said: "No one has performed any deed against the prophets, nor against the Gospel, without danger." This is what I said: that since lending at interest is rejected both by the more ancient Scripture (for this was hinted at through the prophets) and by the new one (which He manifested through the Gospel), no one doing things prohibited in them will escape danger. He will be in danger regarding his own status; that is, he will be deposed. D
IN CAN. VI CONC. CARTHAG. 42
nobody against the prophets, nobody against the Gospels, has done so without danger, he announced. And this must indeed be accepted. For they say that it is forbidden to lend at interest, both by the Old Testament—which they demonstrated through the prophets—and by the New—which they wish to be understood by the Gospel; and that no one who has committed anything against these things is immune from danger: but it is resolved that they come into danger regarding their dignity, that is, that they be punished with deposition.
ARIST. A “What is reprehended in laymen, such as taking interest, is much more condemned in clerics.”
And the forty-second apostolic canon, and the seventeenth of the council of Nicaea, and the tenth of the sixth council in Trullo, render the presbyter or deacon who demands interest, and does not cease, liable to deposition. For if this, when done by laymen, is blameworthy, and brings upon them the reproach of shameful gain and avarice, and they are not even admitted to the priesthood unless they spend the unjust gain on the poor and promise no longer to fall into such a disease of love of money, according to the fourteenth canon of the great Basil: B much more will it be under condemnation in clerics.
CANON VI.
B “We remember that it was established in prior synods that chrism, or the reconciliation of penitents, or the consecration of virgins and of temples, should not be done by presbyters. But if anyone is found doing this, what ought to be determined concerning him?” Aurelius the bishop said: “Your dignity has heard what was brought forward by our brother and fellow-minister, Fortunatus: what do you say to these things?” It was said by all the bishops: C “The preparation of chrism, and the consecration of virgins, should not be done by presbyters: nor is it permitted for a presbyter to reconcile anyone to a public mystery of the sacred thing; this pleases all.”
BALS. The preparation of chrism is that of the holy ointment. This perhaps is the reason for the Roman observance: for it holds among them. But the consecration of virgins is also overlooked, even if not by all. But perhaps he does not call the preparation of chrism the anointing of those recently illuminated, D but the ritual act itself of the holy ointment. This has everywhere prevailed, as not able or dared to be performed by any presbyter. Observe also that it is not permitted for a presbyter to grant pardon to a penitent, nor to absolve one who is subject to penance, without the opinion of the local bishop. May a secular priest, with episcopal permission, rightly receive the confessions of certain men, or not? The divine canons, which entrust the confession of reconciliation to priests with episcopal exhortation, are much older than Saint Pachomius, who was deemed worthy to see the habit of the monks through an angelic vision. For this reason he does not even mention monks anywhere, but simply presbyters: therefore, by episcopal judgment, the right of confession will be effectively granted to secular priests, and through this, the reconciliation of the penitents.
A For the spiritual physician reconciles them with God through repentance and the conversion to what is better. The consecration of maidens is not the [alt-version omitted] ordination of deaconesses by the laying on of hands; rather, it was the custom for maidens professing virginity to be brought to the church, and the bishops would consecrate them by prayers, as having been dedicated to God, and they would concern themselves with their protection, as is declared by the 44th canon of the present synod. The synod has forbidden this to be done by presbyters, just as it also forbade the consecration of temples, and has given the power for these to the bishops. But to reconcile B through a public sacred ministry is of this nature: those who have been penalized and are barred from the church are not permitted to stand with the faithful, but they are not forbidden to praise God by themselves. When, however, they are released from the penalty, then they stand with the faithful, and publicly, that is to say openly, they praise God together with the congregation. Read also the 43rd canon of the present synod; and do not let the 52nd apostolic canon be contrary to you, which says that bishops and presbyters ought to receive those who repent. But say that these presbyters receive the penitents at the urging of the bishops. Wherefore note that ordained monks who receive the confessions of men without episcopal authorization act wrongly; acting much more wrongly are those who are not ordained. For the latter cannot perform such a thing even with episcopal urging. For this reason, a synodal note C was issued upon the petition of the venerable monastery of Evergetis, to the effect that, since the Rule of the monastery decrees that he who is its superior at any given time is to receive the confessions of the monks, and it is not permitted for one who is not ordained to receive confessions, it necessarily follows that the superior must be a priest. But superiors, as we have often said, are sometimes laymen. For even women are placed in charge of monasteries, but they do not hear the confessions of men. With things standing thus, some say that, since the consecration of maidens is performed by bishops, it shall not be permitted for a superior of a monastery who is ordained, or for a monk who is simply a priest, to shear any monk without episcopal authorization. For the consecration of maidens and the tonsure of monks are the same thing. D To me, however, it seems that priest-superiors may perform the tonsure without any hindrance, even without episcopal authorization. For if the fourteenth canon of the Seventh Synod permits the superior to confer even the office of reader in his own monastery, much more has it permitted him to perform the tonsure. And read what is written in that same fourteenth canon. But those monks who are simply priests are obliged to perform tonsures with the knowledge of the bishop because of the present canon; unless, perhaps, someone...
should wish this to be done by the sole will of the monk-priest, by long-standing custom which has prevailed up to the present day in place of law and canon. A
ZONARAS. The preparation of chrism is the consecration of holy oil by a mystical rite of ceremonies. The reconciliation of penitents occurs when someone who has confessed a crime, after having acted among the penitents and paid the penalty, is absolved from the penalty for the future. For as if this person has perhaps already suffered sufficient punishment, or has fulfilled the appointed time, and has demonstrated a repentance proportional to the crime, he is released from the penalty and is permitted to stand with the faithful, or even to partake of the holy mysteries. For the high priest, as it were, reconciles him to God through repentance, and thus establishes him with the faithful in the Church, and deems him worthy of the holy mysteries; or even, if the time of repentance is still being indulged, he is reconciled, as when, for instance, his life is in danger, as the following canon says concerning this. B The consecration of virgins is not the same as the laying on of hands for deaconesses; but it was the custom for young women who confessed virginity and promised purity to be presented in the churches, and the bishops would consecrate them by prayers, as having been dedicated to God, and they would see to their conduct and upbringing after they had been separated from their parents, as the 44th canon of the present synod indicates. The synod, therefore, forbade these things to be done by presbyters. For it is by high priests that the holy chrism is prepared and sanctified, and the reconciliation of penitents is performed. For to those to whom it is given to bind, to them also has been given the power to loose. And there is need of accurate discernment to know if one who has sinned has repented from the soul and sufficiently, for which the presbyter might perhaps not be competent. And the consecration of virgins is ordained to be performed by high priests, so that having knowledge that they have been consecrated, each of the bishops may take care of their conduct and protection. C But to reconcile for "public ministry" means the following: Those who are under penalty and are barred from the church are not permitted to stand in the assemblies with the faithful; but they are not prevented from praising God and praying to Him by themselves; but when they are loosed from the penalty, then they stand with the faithful and minister publicly, that is, with the assembly of the faithful, with the multitude, meaning that they openly praise the divine and worship God. For "to minister" is taken here as meaning worship and praise. D
ARISTENUS. "And the preparation of chrism, that is, the preparation of ointment, the consecration of virgins, and the reconciliation of someone for public ministry, should not be done by presbyters." The preparation and perfection of the holy chrism, and the consecration of virgins, and the perfect reconciliation of those who are doing penance, so that they may publicly stand with the faithful and of the divine
A participation of the sacraments, it is not permitted for a presbyter to perform; but these things must be done by the bishop.
CANON VII.
• If any one who is in danger asks to be reconciled to the holy altars, the bishop being absent, the presbyter should rightfully ask the bishop, and thus reconcile the one in danger according to his command. We ought to confirm this matter with a saving counsel. The synod said: It suffices that your holiness has deigned to assist us in accordance with necessity.BALS. That it is not permitted for priests to hear the confessions of men and to remit sins without episcopal authorization is also clearly demonstrated from the present canon. For it says: If anyone is in danger of death and has asked to be reconciled—that is, that it be permitted to him that after confession he may be a participant in the divine sacraments—(but the bishop is absent), the priest cannot reconcile him, but must ask the bishop, who holds the place of the apostle and has received from God the power to bind and to loose, and perform the reconciliation at his urging, if it be expeditious for the inquiry to be made. For if the bishop is far away and death is imminent, reconciliation will be given by the priest even without the questioning of the bishop, according to the canon of the present synod. If, therefore, B the priest does not even grant a final reconciliation without episcopal authorization, as one who does not have the power to bind and to loose, much more will he not receive the confession of one who is healthy. Since these things are so, and since the 6th canon does not declare what ought to be done to a priest who, without the permission of the bishop, has heard confessions, according to the inquiry of Fortunatus, and since the present canon also decrees nothing concerning this, some have said that the punishment of the one who has transgressed the canon is left to the judgment of the bishop. But that most holy patriarch Lord Michael, who was supreme among philosophers, said that such a priest ought to be deposed, according to the canons which decree that those who exercise anything priestly beyond their province, and the transgressors of the canons, are to be deposed.
C ZONAR. Here too the canon declares the faculty of judging to reside with the bishops. For if, he says, anyone is in danger of life from illness or from another cause, having been subjected to penances, and is kept far from the holy altar, and he asks to be reconciled to the holy altars—that is, to be admitted to divine communion in the absence of the bishop—the presbyter, the canon says, must consult the bishop and reconcile the one who is in danger according to his command. Rightly, however, was the power of releasing from penalties adjudged to the bishops, as much for the reason already explained as because that statement of the words properly befits the high priests, in whose possession is the authority of binding and loosing. Moreover, even the monks who at this time receive confessions, D if they are not authorized by a high priest to receive confessions, neither