Canons of the 3rd Ecumenical Council. Ephesus

About the Council

The holy and ecumenical third council was held under Emperor Theodosius the Younger, when two hundred fathers gathered in Ephesus against Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, who called Christ a mere man and taught that the Son of God was united with him by favor toward him. Therefore, he did not allow the Holy Virgin to be called God-bearer, but called her Christ-bearer. The holy fathers subjected him to deposition and anathema.

Slavic Kormchaya. The third ecumenical holy council was held in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, with two hundred holy fathers gathered in Ephesus against the accursed Nestorius, who spoke of Christ our God as a mere man, preaching that the Son of God was united to him by love: therefore, he did not wish to call the Holy Virgin God-bearer, but Christ-bearer. The holy fathers deposed him and cursed him. At that same council, they also set forth nine rules.

The writing of the holy fathers of this council to all the faithful. The holy ecumenical great council gathered in Ephesus, by the command of the pious emperor Theodosius, to all those in all regions and cities, and to bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and all the people: when we had gathered, according to the pious writing, that is, according to the command of our pious emperor, in the metropolis of Ephesus, some withdrew from us, numbering thirty and a few more, who have no authority in church communion, as they lack lordship in the priesthood, being able to do some harm or benefit, since some of them had been deposed: thus, bearing in themselves all the thinking of Nestorius and Celestine, and not having repented openly of this, since they did not wish with us to condemn and curse Nestorius. By the common command of the holy council, it made them aliens to all church communion, and took away from them all action, that is, priestly authority, by which they could harm or benefit anyone.

Canon 1. Since it was necessary that those not present at the holy council, and remaining in their own place or city, for some reason, either ecclesiastical or bodily, should not remain without knowledge of what was decreed at it: we inform your holiness and charity that if any provincial metropolitan, having withdrawn from the holy and ecumenical council, has joined the apostate assembly, or hereafter joins it, or has accepted or accepts Celestine’s thinking, such a one can in no way do anything against the bishops of his province, as he is henceforth already rejected by the council from all church communion and rendered inactive. But he will also be subject to examination by those very bishops of the province and the surrounding metropolitans who think orthodoxly, for his complete deposition from the episcopal rank.

Zonara. When the sacred fathers gathered in Ephesus, after the investigations conducted concerning the impious doctrines introduced by Nestorius, under the presidency at the council of the orthodox fathers of Saint Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who also held the place of Celestine, pope of Old Rome, with the assistance to Saint Cyril of Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, Nestorius, patriarch of New Rome and the imperial city, was condemned and deposed by the definition of the sacred fathers. But three days later, John the patriarch of Antioch and many bishops who arrived with him, whose leaders were Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, and Ibas bishop of Edessa, being grieved that the fathers of the council had not awaited their arrival, expressed censure regarding the deposition of Nestorius, and subjected Saint Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus to deposition. At the same time, Theodoret also issued another twelve chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of Nestorius’s impiety and for the confirmation of the orthodox faith, for the destruction and refutation of those. In like manner, Ibas also composed an epistle. As a result, great discord arose among them, so that the fathers of the council subjected these hierarchs to deposition, as agreeing with opinions similar to those of Nestorius. Therefore, on account of these circumstances, the present rule was set forth, by which the bishops of the dioceses who were not present at the council are informed of the conciliar condemnation of the patriarch of Antioch and the others, and that those possessing hierarchical rights who thought or will think in accordance with Nestorius should do nothing against bishops or laymen.

Aristen. If a metropolitan who was not present at the council holds or will hold to Celestine’s teaching, he is deposed.

Valsamon. After the deposition of Nestorius, John the patriarch of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, and Ibas bishop of Edessa, and others. And since the deposition had taken place in their absence, they expressed censure of what had occurred, and without foundation deposed Saint Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who presided at the council and who also held the place of Celestine, pope of Rome, and together with him Memnon bishop of Ephesus. Meanwhile, Theodoret composed another twelve chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of Nestorius’s impiety, for the destruction and refutation of those. In like manner, Ibas also composed an epistle. But all this the Fourth Council rejected as impious. And the fathers of the Third Council themselves, learning of what had been done by John the patriarch of Antioch and the others against Saint Cyril and those of like mind with him—these latter, as unjustly deposed, they restored; but John and the thirty bishops of like mind with him they declared deprived of all church communion, as having accepted the impious teaching of Nestorius and Celestius. Therefore, the rule determines that, since it was necessary for some of the bishops, absent for valid reasons, not to remain in ignorance of what had occurred, all should know that if any bishop has joined or joins the apostate assembly, that is, the side of John of Antioch and Celestius, such a one will be deposed, and nowhere should he perform anything priestly; but all the surrounding metropolitans and bishops will consider him rejected, as already deprived of the episcopal degree. Such is the content of this rule. And you, if you find in some copies a scribe’s error concerning Celestius (for instead of Celestius, Celestine is mentioned), do not accept what is written in that way as correct; for Celestine pope of Rome was orthodox, as said above, but Celestius was of like mind with Nestorius, that is, a heretic.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any metropolitan or bishop, having left and not come to the council, wishes to think in Celestine’s manner or does think so, let him be rejected and cast out from the church.

Canon 2. But if any diocesan bishops were not present at the holy council, and have taken part in the apostasy or attempt to take part; or, having signed the deposition of Nestorius, have gone over to the apostate assembly: such ones, according to the will of the holy council, are to be completely alien to the priesthood and deposed from their degree.

Zonara. When John of Antioch, and Theodoret and Ibas, as said, opposed the teaching accepted by the assembly of fathers, some other bishops also joined them—some from those not present at the council, others from those who were present and confirmed with their own signatures the definition concerning the deposition of Nestorius. Therefore, the present rule discusses these and decrees that they are deprived of the priesthood. This should be understood properly of bishops; but the expression “deposed from their degree” should be referred to clerics, for they are on degrees, and priests have a greater degree or dignity, deacons a lesser, and the others in order.

Aristen. And a bishop who agrees and is of like mind with Nestorius is excommunicated from the church.

Valsamon. The content of the present second rule is explained in the first rule, for that speaks of one and the same thing with this. But this rule adds that those who signed under the deposition of Nestorius but afterward joined the side of John of Antioch are also considered deposed. And as for the rule mentioning at the end alienation from the priesthood and deposition from the degree, say that alienation from the priesthood refers to bishops, but deposition from the degree to clerics, to whom degrees properly belong, so that clerics who have joined the side of the apostates in any way are subject to deposition. Nevertheless, the first rule, speaking at the end about bishops, also calls the episcopate a degree.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop thinks in the same way as Nestorius and is of one mind with him, let him be rejected.

Canon 3. If any of those belonging to the clergy in each city or village have been forbidden the priesthood by Nestorius and his accomplices for orthodox thinking: we have given such ones the right to receive back their degree. In general, we command that members of the clergy who are of one mind with the orthodox and ecumenical council in no way be subject to bishops who have apostatized or are apostatizing from orthodoxy.

Zonara. Nestorius, being, as said, patriarch of Constantinople, excommunicated some clerics who thought not in agreement with him; the bishops of like mind with him did the same in other cities. Therefore, those who were forbidden the priesthood for disagreement with the impiety of Nestorius and his like-minded ones, the holy council by the present rule has restored to their degrees, and has determined that orthodox clerics in no way be subject to bishops of like mind with Nestorius, neither as clerics nor as those simply being ordained and thus subject to bishops, or obliged to give them a fixed tribute.

Aristen. Whoever was forbidden the priesthood by Nestorius must necessarily perform priestly functions, but whoever was received by him is not consecrated.

Valsamon. Without doubt, some orthodox clerics did not think as Nestorius or the bishops of like mind with him thought, and for this were excommunicated. Therefore, this rule restores such ones to their degrees and adds that not only they preserve their ranks, but all clerics of such bishops in no way submit to them as apostates.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop or presbyter or deacon was deprived of the priesthood by Nestorius, he is most holy. But whomever he received, that one is not consecrated.

Canon 4. If any of the clergy apostatize and dare, either privately or publicly, to hold to the thinking of Nestorius or Celestine: the holy council has judged it righteous for these also to be deposed from the sacred order.

Zonara. This rule also discusses clerics of like mind with the heretics and says that in any case—whether they hold incorrect opinions personally and only for themselves, or publicly teach all and preach—the holy council has judged it righteous (instead of: judged it just and decreed) that they be deposed. And Celestine was of like mind with Nestorius.

Aristen. If some of the clerics were of like mind with Celestine or Nestorius, they should be deposed.

Valsamon. This rule is similar to those preceding it; for it says that clerics who thought in accordance with Nestorius or Celestius—whether they preached their teaching to others or not—are deposed. And the expression “has judged it righteous” is set down instead of: decreed it just.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any clerics think the commands of Celestine’s and Nestorius’s heresy, let them be deposed.

Canon 5. If certain ones have been condemned by the holy council, or by their own bishops, for unseemly deeds; and Nestorius, and those of like mind with him, contrary to the rules, according to his entirely arbitrary action in all things, has attempted or attempts to restore to them communion with the church, or the degree of the priesthood: we have judged it righteous that this be of no benefit to them, and that they remain nonetheless deposed from the sacred order.

Zonara. Some clerics, convicted of crimes for which they are subject to deposition and deprivation of their own degrees, were deposed and excommunicated. But Nestorius, as patriarch, contrary to the rules, received such ones arbitrarily, that is, without discernment, making no distinction between the forbidden and the not forbidden, and gave them communion or degree. Therefore, the fathers decreed that such ones receive no benefit, that is, that the action contrary to the rules brings them no advantage, and judged it righteous, that is, considered it just, that they nonetheless remain deposed, or judged it righteous, that is, imposed the penalty that they be deposed. For the expression “judged it righteous” is taken instead of “punished.” Hence we also say “those justifications there,” that is, the future punishments.

Aristen. To one condemned by a bishop and received by Nestorius, there is no benefit from this. Some metropolitans separated from those gathered at the council in Ephesus and accepted the teaching of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople—this worshipper of man and impious one, of like mind with the Jews—and of Celestius, bishop of Rome; and others left the council and did not wish to vote against these unhallowed and impious bishops, but rather adhered to them and defended them. Therefore, for this reason the holy council determined that those who adhere to Nestorius and Celestius and hold that heresy and think thus should be excluded from the Christian society and excommunicated from the church, and that bishops and presbyters whom Nestorius or Celestius had deprived of the priesthood, because they thought and believed rightly, should again receive their rank; likewise, on the contrary, those who were deposed by their own bishops for certain evil deeds, and were received and justified by Nestorius or Celestius, were unholy and again to be deposed.

Valsamon. You know that metropolitans and bishops can judge their clerics and sometimes subject them to excommunication or even deposition. Therefore, since Nestorius and those of like mind with him, contrary to the rules, received some such ones (that is, excommunicated) into communion, or even restored them to their former degrees, in order to draw them to themselves in this way; the present rule says that clerics receive no benefit for themselves from this, but remain deposed or even excommunicated. The expression “judged it righteous” is here set down instead of: “the council decreed it just.”

Slavic Kormchaya. If any cleric, having been condemned by his own bishop and received by Nestorius, even that one is again not received and unfit.

Interpretation of the five previously mentioned rules. When the holy fathers gathered at the council in Ephesus, and certain metropolitans separated from the orthodox and held heretical commands of the impious Nestorius, bishop of the city of Constantine—this one who believed in a man and thought like the Jews—and of Celestine, bishop of Rome. Certain bishops also remained away and did not come to the council and did not wish to condemn or curse these unhallowed and impious bishops, but rather championed and aided them. For this reason, therefore, the holy council commanded that those aiding Nestorius and Celestine, and holding that heresy and thinking thus, be cast out from the rank and expelled from the church; but bishops and presbyters whom Nestorius and Celestine had deposed from the priesthood, because they thought rightly and believed, should again receive their rank. Likewise again, those who had been deposed by their own bishops for certain evil deeds, and were received and justified by Nestorius and Celestine, are again not holy: and immediately let them be deposed.

Canon 6. Likewise, if certain ones should wish, in any way whatsoever, to disturb what has been done concerning each of them by the holy council in Ephesus, the holy council has determined that such ones, if they are bishops or belong to the clergy, be completely deprived of their degree; but if laymen: be excommunicated from church communion.

Zonara. The preceding rules gave decrees particularly concerning those who were of like mind with the apostates and opposed the council and accepted Nestorius’s false teaching. But this present rule condemns in general all those who attempt to pervert anything in what was accepted at the holy council, and subjects the consecrated to deposition, and imposes excommunication on laymen. This was in Ephesus. But when the hierarchs began to act against one another, and division occurred among them, then the emperor summoned all to the imperial city, reconciled and made peace. And Theodoret confessed that the chapters written by him he had composed in a spirit of enmity, rejected them, accepted the conciliar definitions, and agreed to the deposition of Nestorius, both he himself and the others. This rule was enacted by the council after the impious symbol set forth by Nestorius had been brought to the council and read, as well as the symbol of the three hundred eighteen fathers who were at the first council.

Aristen. A layman opposing the council is deprived of communion, and a cleric is also excommunicated from the church. Whoever again subjects to discussion, or entirely disturbs what was done by the council held in Ephesus, that one, if a bishop or cleric, must be completely deprived of his degree; but if a layman, must be excommunicated from church communion.

Valsamon. This rule is clear, for it determines that those who disturb what was done at the council held in Ephesus, if clerics, are deposed, but if laymen, are excommunicated from church communion. But the seventh rule says that laymen thinking contrary to the dogma (of Ephesus) are subject to anathema. Do not think there is contradiction here; for there is a great difference between contradicting and doubting something about any matter. Therefore, one doubting concerning what has already been established on good grounds must be excommunicated; but one opposing it, as thinking contrary, must be subjected to anathema.

Slavic Kormchaya. A worldly man is without communion who opposes the council. But if a cleric, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. What the holy fathers at the council in Ephesus commanded and ordered, if anyone attempts to pervert this or entirely add to it: if he is a bishop or cleric, let him utterly fall from his degree: but if he is a worldly man, let him be excommunicated.

Canon 7. After the reading of this, the holy council determined: that it be permitted to no one to pronounce, or write, or compose a different faith, other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicaea with the Holy Ghost. But those who dare to compose a different faith, or to present, or to offer it to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth, whether from heathenism, or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: such ones, if they are bishops or belong to the clergy, shall be aliens—bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy; but if laymen: shall be given over to anathema. In like manner: if bishops, or clerics, or laymen are found either thinking or teaching what is contained in the exposition presented by the presbyter Charisius concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten Son of God, or the abominable and perverted dogmas of Nestorius, which are also appended hereto: they shall be subject to the judgment of this holy and ecumenical council, that is, a bishop shall be alien to the episcopate and shall be deposed; a cleric likewise shall be deposed from the clergy; but if a layman: shall be given over to anathema, as has been said.

Zonara. The impious Nestorius not only taught others his godless opinions and openly preached them, but, to greater boldness, set forth also a symbol containing in clear expressions all his evil thoughts and blasphemies concerning the incarnation of the Son and Word of God. This symbol, presented to the council by the presbyter Charisius, and read, was condemned as full of impiety. And the divine fathers determined that the symbol composed at the first council should retain force, and all that is set forth in it; but that no one compose or devise another faith. But if anyone should dare, to those coming to the knowledge of the truth from the Greeks, or from the Jews, or from heretics, to offer another faith, that is, to teach and instruct in opinions perverted and alien to the teaching of the holy fathers, such ones, if bishops or clerics, the divine fathers command to deprive of the episcopate or service in the clergy, that is, to depose, but if laymen, to give over to anathema. In like manner also those who think in accordance with Nestorius, and accept or even teach the blasphemous opinions contained in the symbol composed by Nestorius—which says that the Son and Word of God did not take flesh from the Holy Virgin, but that Christ is a mere man, and that the Son of God and Word was united with him by favor; which divides Christ and God into two Sons and into two hypostases, and calls the Holy Virgin not God-bearer but Christ-bearer—the sacred council determined to subject to the same penalties, whether they be bishops, or clerics, or laymen, that is, to depose the consecrated, and to give laymen over to anathema.

Aristen. A bishop preaching a different faith besides the Nicene is deprived of the episcopate, and a layman is even expelled from the church. Whoever, besides the faith composed by the holy fathers assembled in Nicaea—that is, I believe in one God—adds some other impious composition for the corruption and destruction of those turning to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism, or Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: if a layman, must be given over to anathema; but if a bishop or cleric, must be deprived of the episcopate and service in the clergy.

Valsamon. After the definition enacted concerning the dogma confirmed by the holy council held in Ephesus had been read before all, and likewise the holy symbol set forth at the first council had been read, this rule was pronounced, and it was determined that no one compose another faith; but if anyone dares, to those coming to the knowledge of the truth from the Greeks, or Jews, or from other heretics, to offer another faith; then, when these are bishops and clerics, they must be deposed, but when laymen, must be given over to anathema. The same must be with those who accept Nestorius’s opinions and teach them to others. And since one presbyter named Charisius, having accepted the impious opinions of Nestorius, brought some exposition of Nestorius’s writings, and this exposition was condemned as impious, the rule determines that those who think in accordance with the content of this exposition or teach it are subject to the same penalties.

Slavic Kormchaya. Whoever adds another to the Nicene faith, a bishop is indeed alien to the episcopate: but a worldly man is rejected.

Interpretation. Whoever beyond the faith which the holy fathers of Nicaea, having assembled, set forth—that is, I believe in one God—if anyone adds some other impious composition for the corruption and destruction of those turning from the Greeks, or from the Jews, or from another heresy to the knowledge of the truth: if he is a bishop or cleric, let him be expelled from the episcopate and deposed from the rank. Book of Rules. Before this at the council, the Nicene Symbol was read, and the corrupted exposition of the Symbol presented to the council by the presbyter Charisius of Philadelphia.

Canon 8. The matter, contrary to the ecclesiastical decrees and the rules of the holy Apostles, being newly introduced and encroaching upon the freedom of all, was announced by the most God-loving fellow bishop Rheginus, and the most reverent bishops of the province of Cyprus who are with him, Zeno and Evagrius. Therefore, since common maladies require stronger remedy, as bringing greater harm, and especially if there was no ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Antioch should perform ordinations in Cyprus, as the most reverent men who came to the holy council have informed us both in writing and orally; let those who preside over the holy churches of Cyprus have the freedom, without claim upon them and without constraint upon them, according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to the ancient custom, to perform the ordinations of the most reverent bishops by themselves. The same is to be observed also in the other provinces and everywhere in the dioceses: so that none of the most God-loving bishops extend authority over another diocese which from the beginning and at first was not under his hand or that of his predecessors: but if anyone has extended it and has forcibly subjected some diocese to himself, let him restore it: lest the rules of the fathers be transgressed, lest under the pretext of sacred ministry the arrogance of worldly power creep in; and lest we lose little by little, imperceptibly, that freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, granted us by His own blood. And thus it seems good to the holy and ecumenical council that every diocese preserve purely and without constraint the rights belonging to it from the beginning, according to the custom established from ancient times. Each metropolitan, for his own assurance, may freely take a copy of this decree. But if anyone produces a decree contrary to what is now determined: it seems good to the whole holy and ecumenical council that it be invalid.

Zonara. The hierarch of the church of Antioch was drawing to himself the ordinations of the Cypriot bishops, perhaps because in ancient times the island of Cyprus was under the authority of the governor of Antioch; for from the governor of Antioch a military commander was sent there. Therefore, some of the Cypriot bishops came to this council and explained orally, and at the same time presented a written complaint, that the bishop of Antioch, according to ancient custom, had no right to ordain Cypriot bishops. Therefore, the council, taking into account the coming or arrival of these bishops, determined that the Cypriot bishops, without claim upon them and without constraint upon them, should have the former right according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to the ancient custom. For the thirty-fifth rule of the holy Apostles and the third of the council of Antioch command that bishops not dare to perform ordinations in dioceses not subject to them; otherwise, what they have done is invalid, and they themselves are deposed. And the sixth and seventh rules of the first ecumenical council prescribe that hierarchs preserve ancient customs. Following these rules, the venerable fathers of this council also determined that the Cypriot bishops themselves perform the ordination of bishops on this island, and that the same be everywhere, and that no bishop appropriate to himself a diocese which formerly, or from ancient times and from the beginning, was not under the authority of him and his predecessors. But if anyone, they say, has appropriated to himself a diocese not belonging to him, he must restore it to the one who suffered violence and from whom it was taken, lest the rules be transgressed, and lest hierarchs, having sacred ministry as pretext and covering themselves with it as with some veil, be carried away by the vainglory of worldly power that enters into them, and lest we, being in slavish dependence on what has no right, be deprived of the freedom which the Lord granted us, having shed His blood for the freedom of men. Therefore, the holy council determined that, according to ancient custom, the rights belonging to each diocese be preserved, and gave permission to metropolitans to take copies of this definition; but if, it says, a decree or some writing is produced that enacts and determines something else, and not what is now determined—such is to be invalid.

Aristen. Let the rights belonging to each diocese be preserved purely and without constraint. But whoever introduces a decree contrary to them, such a decree is void. Those bishops who have subjected to their authority another diocese which from the beginning and at first was not subject to them, or have seized some privilege of another episcopal see, will acquire for themselves through this no lawful right; but they must again be returned to those bishops who have right over them. Because the rights of each diocese must belong to it purely and without constraint, and the arrogance of worldly power must not creep in under the pretext of sacred ministry. But the one who introduces another decree, not in agreement and contrary to what is here determined, will gain no benefit for himself from it.

Valsamon. Before the separation of great Antioch from the Roman empire, the emperor sent a governor to it, and he sent a military commander to the island of Cyprus, as subject to Antioch. But the bishops were governed and ordained by themselves. Therefore, when the then bishop of Antioch attempted, as it appears, to perform ordinations in the Cypriot churches under the pretext that the governor of Antioch sends a military commander to the island, the Cypriot bishops reported this to the council of Ephesus. And the council, taking into account their coming or arrival, determined that the Cypriot bishops, according to the rules and ancient custom, be ordained by themselves, as this, it says, must be also in the other provinces and dioceses; for no bishop can appropriate to himself another diocese not subject to him from ancient times, but on the contrary, even those who do something such and who forcibly and arbitrarily retain a foreign province must restore it, lest the rules be transgressed, and under the pretext of sacred ministry, the arrogance of worldly power or vainglory be manifested in hierarchs. The council also determined that each metropolitan take a copy of this rule for his own security, and that no other written decree or imperial command contrary to this rule have force, if anyone produces such. Read also the second rule of the Second council, the twenty-eighth of the Fourth council, the thirty-ninth of the Sixth council, and what is written in them; and you will learn how the churches located in the Roman empire were subjected to the throne of Constantinople, with the exception of some.

Slavic Kormchaya. In each province, for the bishop who is there, and those under it, let the rights be preserved purely and immovably. But if anyone introduces contrary to this statute, he labors in vain.

Interpretation. Whatever a bishop from another province has taken away and taken under his own hands, which was not under them from the beginning, whether a village, or vineyard, or land, or anything else which they have seized from another episcopal see, let them make nothing of it their own, nor retain it, but let them restore it soon to the episcopal see under which it was before: for it is fitting to keep purely and immovably what belongs to each province under it: lest the arrogance of worldly power enter into them with the pretext of hierarchal office. But if anyone introduces another statute, speaking against and opposing what is commanded at this council, he will accomplish nothing, but labors in vain.

The Epistle of the Same Holy and Ecumenical Third Council to the Sacred Synod of Pamphylia Concerning Eustathius, Formerly Their Metropolitan

Since the divinely inspired Scripture saith: Do all things with counsel; it is especially fitting for those who have received the lot of sacred ministry to examine with all precision everything that ought to be done. For with those who desire to conduct their life in this manner, it follows that they are found in a secure position, and are borne along as by a favorable wind in the direction of their desires. This saying is most plausible. Yet sometimes it happens that bitter and intolerable grief, weighing upon the mind, greatly disturbs it, turns it aside from striving toward what is due, and disposes it, as though toward something beneficial, to look upon what is in its essence unfavorable. Something of this kind we have observed to have befallen the most reverent and most pious bishop Eustathius. He was ordained, as has been attested, according to the ecclesiastical rules. But having been disturbed by certain matters, as he relates, and having fallen into unexpected circumstances, afterward, through excessive inactivity, wearied by the struggle with the cares that burdened him, and unable to repel the accusations of his opponents, in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation of his diocese. For to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it fast with spiritual fortitude, as it were to arm himself for labors, and willingly to endure the sweat that promises recompense. But since he once showed himself remiss—though this occurred in him more through inactivity than through negligence and sloth—your piety of necessity ordained the most reverent and most pious brother and fellow bishop of ours, Theodore, for the governance of the church: for it was not fitting that it should be widowed, and that the flock of the Saviour should be without a leader. And since he came with tears, not contesting the city or the church against the aforementioned most pious bishop Theodore, but seeking only the honor and title of bishop: we all felt deep compassion for this elder, and counting his tears as common to us all, hastened to inquire whether he had undergone lawful deposition, or had only been accused by certain persons in some improper actions, who had obscured his good repute. And we learned that nothing of the kind had been done by him, but especially that the renunciation of his diocese was charged against him as fault. Therefore, we do not blame your piety for duly installing in his place the aforementioned most reverent bishop Theodore. But since it is not fitting to reproach greatly the inactivity of this man, but rather it was needful to show mercy to the elder who had dwelt for so long a time outside the city in which he was born and outside his paternal home; we have judged it righteous and determined: that without any contradiction he have the name, and the honor of bishop, and communion; with this alone, that he neither ordain, nor occupy a church, nor perform sacred ministry on his own authority, but only when either the brother and fellow bishop invites him to do so with himself, or, if it should happen, permits him, out of good disposition and love in Christ. But if a more favorable counsel concerning him be resolved, now or hereafter: this also will be pleasing to the holy council.

Zonara. Eustathius, of whom this epistle speaks, was bishop of Pamphylia. And Pamphylia is the diocese of Attalia. Therefore, the named man, having fallen into misfortunes, and through faintheartedness and inactivity having renounced the governance of his episcopal see, presented also a written abdication from the episcopate. Although another was ordained in his place there, yet Eustathius came with tears to this sacred council, and did not demand for himself the restoration of the city or the church, nor did he dispute about them with the one ordained after him, but sought the name and honor of bishop, that is, he wished to be called bishop and to have honor in the thrones and other such things that belong to a bishop. Therefore, the sacred council says: we felt deep compassion for the elder, counted his tears as common to us, and conducted an inquiry to learn whether this man had been deposed according to the rules, perhaps as a result of accusations by someone in some improper actions. But when we learned that nothing of the kind had occurred with him, but that he had renounced the episcopate, and therefore ought to lose it for inactivity, we judged that the inactivity of this man should not be reproached, that is, his incapacity for affairs, but considered that it was better to show mercy to the elder who had long been deprived of his homeland and paternal home. Therefore, we determined and judged it righteous that he have the name of the episcopate, and honor, and communion—that is, the right to enter within the altar and to communicate; but that he himself neither perform sacred ministry nor ordain, unless invited by another bishop to concelebrate with him or to joint ordination, or unless he receive commission from the bishop of that province to perform something of the kind. And we, says the council, have granted him this; but if you resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel, either now or hereafter—that is, grant him some greater rights or privileges—this also will be pleasing to us. From this conciliar condescension, some think to draw the conclusion that bishops are given the right to renounce their churches while retaining the hierarchate. But I think that from this rather the opposite follows, namely, that in antiquity those renouncing the episcopate were deprived of everything they had until then, and after renunciation had no hierarchical right whatever, and were not called bishops. For if it was the custom that one who renounced preserved hierarchical rights, then why precisely did Eustathius come with tears to the sacred council and ask to be called bishop and to have the honor of bishop, and why did the council write about this to the synod of Pamphylia? Therefore, from this epistle it is revealed that complete renunciation by hierarchs from the episcopate was subject to condemnation and did not exist at that time, for in the epistle it is said that “wearied by cares through excessive inactivity, in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation. For to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it fast with spiritual fortitude, as it were to arm himself for labors, and willingly to endure the sweat that promises recompense.” Therefore, that there was no custom then to present renunciations from churches—this is evident from what the council wrote: “in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation.” For it is characteristic only of those to whom the matter appears strange and who are perplexed to say: we know not how this or that happened; but if the matter were customary, there would be no perplexity. The addition: “for to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it” and so forth makes clear that renunciation from hierarchical cares is not permitted, but rather forbidden and condemned. For if even those only at first called to pastoral service for the people, in case of disobedience to those electing them, are subject to excommunication according to the thirty-sixth rule of the holy Apostles until they accept the service, and according to the seventeenth rule of the council of Antioch; then how can those ordained and having accepted leadership over the people be received without peril when they refuse and renounce the service entrusted to them by divine grace? How will such ones not be subject to penalties, but have the distinction of being called bishops and receiving hierarchical honor? This the council of Antioch granted as a privilege to one ordained for some place but not accepted by the people there, not through his own fault but through the disorder and malice of the people, as is said in the eighteenth rule of that council. And the letter of the said epistle shows that all this was condescension to the faintheartedness of Eustathius and his excessive grief. For in the epistle it is said that when he came and with tears asked for this and that, we all felt deep compassion for the elder and counted his tears as common to us all; and a little further: “but since it is not fitting to reproach greatly the inactivity of this man, but rather it was needful to show mercy to the elder” and so forth. Therefore, from this it is evident that the fathers of the council, moved by the tears and deep old age of this man, and fearing lest from excessive sorrow something happen to him, showed the condescension that they showed, but did not set this as a law nor prescribe that it be so in the future. For they certainly knew the rules and would not have determined anything contrary to the apostolic rules and the decrees of the holy fathers before them, nor would they have allowed those wishing both to renounce and to enjoy hierarchical privileges after renunciation. For how could those do this who think that one having once taken upon himself hierarchical care must hold it with spiritual fortitude, and what follows therefrom? But that they did all this, being moved by the tears of that elder—this is revealed both from many other expressions in the epistle and from the following written words: “but if you resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel, this also will be pleasing to the holy council”; they so pitied this man, being moved by his tears and misfortune, that they even encouraged others to mercy toward him and called them to compassion. But if this conciliar epistle is taken as a rule and not as condescension shown to this Eustathius; then why, to those who have renounced their churches and the hierarchate itself, in the case that they again come and weep, are not given both the name of the episcopate and hierarchical rights and honor? Because such a one appears to have once renounced everything and to be deprived of everything, as is evident from the words of the fathers of the council: “we conducted an inquiry to learn whether he had undergone lawful deposition, or had only been accused in some improper actions. And we learned that nothing of the kind had been done by him, but especially that the renunciation was charged against Eustathius as fault.” Therefore, just as if he had been convicted in some improper action, exactly so through renunciation he appears deprived of all episcopal rights, so that he even seems to the council deposed. Nevertheless, the council, inclined by his tears, determined what is contained in the epistle. Therefore, to those who take the epistle as a rule and decree, it will not seem strange at all that those intending to renounce the governance of affairs and the hierarchate itself (which, in their opinion, are separated one from the other) again accept both and appropriate to themselves the title of bishop, and sacred ministry, and honor. Consequently, those who make use of this epistle as a rule and think that it gives bishops the right to renounce their churches while retaining the hierarchate for themselves reason not in accordance with the mind of these venerable fathers. Those concluding thus also contradict another rule. For the council of the six hundred thirty holy fathers held in Chalcedon, in its sixth rule, decreed: “absolutely no one is to be ordained either presbyter or deacon, nor into any degree of the ecclesiastical order, otherwise than with appointment of the one ordained precisely to an urban church, or rural, or to a martyr’s shrine, or to a monastery; but those ordained without precise appointment (the council determined) their ordination is to be accounted invalid, and nowhere to allow them to serve, to the shame of the one who ordained them.” Therefore, if those having a lesser degree without precise appointment are not admitted to ordination, but even if ordained remain inactive, and such a matter seemed so improper that even the ordainer is accounted worthy of shame; then how can one having a greater, or rather the highest of all ranks, become a bishop without appointment and without name, and be called bishop, and be honored with hierarchical rights? For every hierarch at ordination is appointed to some city and is named bishop of it. Therefore, one who has left the city to which he was appointed, and renounced performing sacred ministry in it and watching over the flock of the Great Shepherd therein, how will he henceforth be called bishop, and over whom will he watch? For the name of bishop designates his work and activity; and he who has ceased the activity has thereby lost the name. But he who cannot be called bishop, can he take part in any right of the priesthood, can he enjoy hierarchical privilege and honor? How will he even be named among hierarchs who has no clergy under his authority and does not rule over the consecrated? But to whom the name of hierarchy does not truly belong, to him neither does the activity belong; for one not participating in the name much less ought to participate in the work. Therefore, in conclusion, no one ought to be allowed to renounce the episcopal service laid upon him, except one who declares himself unworthy of the priesthood. But if anyone gives proof that the one renouncing did not receive the episcopate in a fully canonical manner; then the one renouncing, together with presenting the renunciation, ought to be deprived of all priestly rank and every right pertaining to the hierarchate. That renunciation ought not to be allowed is clearly evident also from the third chapter of the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus, where it is said: “but besides this, it is not in accord with ecclesiastical decrees that certain sacred ministers present a written renunciation” and so forth. Seek also what is written in the tenth rule of the holy hieromartyr Peter, archbishop of Alexandria.

Aristen. Eustathius, who ought to have borne the labors of the episcopate with fortitude (for thus every bishop must do), turned his back and faintheartedly renounced it. In his stead Theodore was ordained; but he, with tears and shame, asks for the honor of the episcopate. The one ordained in his stead is guiltless, precisely because instead of accusation he has Eustathius’s renunciation. This bishop Eustathius, through inactivity and being unable to govern the affairs of the church, and to struggle with the cares coming upon him and to withstand them, renounced the governance of affairs, and another was ordained in his stead. Afterward he came to the council held in Ephesus and did not ask for the restoration of the episcopate to himself (for if he had asked this, he would not even have been heard, since he had once renounced it, and another had been ordained in his place); but he sought episcopal honor and communion. And he was acknowledged in this without any contradiction, so that it was permitted him both to be called bishop, and to have honor and throne, and to perform sacred ministry only not on his own authority, but when he receives permission from the brother and fellow bishop out of good disposition and love in Christ. Out of compassion, the fathers of this council proposed to the synod of Pamphylia, to which Eustathius also belonged, to resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel either now or hereafter. This meant—either to receive him into a vacant church, or otherwise to deal with him in some way.

Valsamon. Pamphylia is the diocese of Attalia. And when one Eustathius, who was bishop in it, renounced the episcopate in writing because of certain disturbances and administrative circumstances, but afterward again asked with tears to have only the honor and title of bishop, the holy council was moved by this and, through the present epistle sent to the synod of Pamphylia, determined that the elder be deemed worthy of mercy, and that Theodore, installed as bishop in Pamphylia, remain bishop again, but Eustathius, as not deposed but having renounced through inactivity, have, by condescension, what he sought—that is, the name and honor of bishop, and communion, that is, the right to communicate within the altar; but that he perform nothing episcopal unless there be permission for this from the local bishop. For the council did not consider it just to reproach the inactivity of this man, that is, his incapacity for affairs. On the basis of such content of the epistle, some say that by this epistle hierarchs are given the right to renounce the thrones of churches but to preserve the hierarchate; for, they say, if this were not possible, the council would not have allowed Eustathius to have the name and honor of bishop and, with the consent of the local bishop, to perform sacred ministry. But this, as I think, is unjust. For what was determined by the fathers was determined by condescension; and what is determined by condescension for some useful purpose ought not to be brought forward as an example and retained for the future as a rule. Otherwise, when the epistle itself does not say that Eustathius renounced the performance of episcopal service and retained the priesthood (for he would not have asked to receive what he had); but speaks only of his having renounced the episcopate, and when the fathers did not determine that what was allowed out of compassion in relation to Eustathius has force also for subsequent time—then on what basis do they divide the indivisible and elevate to law what is not contained in the epistle? And I think that this condescension was allowed not without prudence. For when the rules and the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus determine that no one of the priests present written renunciations (because if, they say, they are worthy of service, they must remain in it, but if unworthy, they must not depart through renunciation, but when they are condemned according to the matters); then how can anyone say that the council of Ephesus, and especially the great Cyril who presided over it, made a determination contrary to himself and the other fathers? But as the renunciation of Eustathius, as it seems, was not firm but wavered in some parts; therefore the holy council, by condescension, inclined to such a determination. And that the renunciation of Eustathius was such is revealed also from the epistle itself, in which it is said: “in a manner we know not how Eustathius presented a written renunciation” and as though the acceptance of this renunciation is presented as strange. For if it were unshakable in all things, Eustathius would not have been given the right either to be called bishop or to perform sacred ministry, so that the condescension given in the present epistle is not universal. This is revealed also from what the fathers wrote, that it would be pleasing to the council if from the side of the local bishops there were also some other more favorable counsel concerning this elder. Say further: since the council of Chalcedon determines that absolutely no one be ordained without appointment; then a bishop retaining only the priesthood, as some say, hierarch of what priests will be called, or whom will he teach? Over whom will he exercise episcopate? Absolutely over no one. Therefore, that priesthood alone cannot be retained and preserve force. Seek also the ninth rule of Saint Peter, archbishop of Alexandria.

Slavic Kormchaya. From the epistle of the same council to the bishops in Pamphylia. This is the ninth rule. It is fitting for Eustathius to endure in the episcopate firmly. For this is due to every bishop, but he, turning his shoulders, renounced it harmfully: but Theodore was installed in his place, and he, weeping and beseeching, asking for honor, is guiltless. But the one installed in his place, having clearly his renunciation, is without sin.

Interpretation. This Eustathius, bishop of Pamphylia—and Pamphylia is the province of Italy—being weak and unable to govern ecclesiastical matters, and to manage and direct the cares coming upon him, renounced the governance of ecclesiastical matters, that is, to abandon the episcopate by writing, and another was installed in his place, by name Theodore. And afterward he came to the council of Ephesus, beseeching and bowing, not wishing to receive the episcopate again. For if he had asked for the episcopate again, they would not have listened to him, having once renounced it, and another already installed in his place in it, but asking to have episcopal honor and communion: and he was justified in it by the holy council without any contradiction, so that he might both be called bishop, and have hierarchal honor and seat, and serve and ordain presbyters and deacons, not by his own lordship nor by his own will when he wishes, but when some brother bishop commands him to serve in his church or to ordain someone, out of good disposition and for the sake of love in Christ. But by the mercy of the fathers of this holy council, they added this word to the synod in Pamphylia, saying: but if you accomplish something better concerning him, either now or hereafter: this is, either to introduce him into a vacant church not having a bishop, or in some other way to grant aid to him by gift.

source