Canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council. Nicaea.

On the Council

Zonara. The holy and first Ecumenical Council was held during the reign of Constantine the Great, when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. He uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and said that He is not of one essence with God the Father, but is a creature—and that there was a time when He was not. This Arius the holy Council deposed and anathematized, together with those who shared his opinions, and it established the dogma that the Son is of one essence with the Father and is true God and Master, and Lord, and Creator of all that has been created, and not a creature nor a creation. This Nicene Council is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although various local councils had taken place before it, since it is the first of the ecumenical councils, it is placed before the others that occurred earlier, that is, the Antiochian one against Paul of Samosata, which assembled under the emperor Aurelian; the one at Ancyra, at which there was an investigation concerning those who had denied the faith during the times of persecution and afterwards repented—as to how they should be received; and the one at Neocaesarea, at which rules were established concerning church order.

Valsamon. This holy and first Ecumenical Council was held during the reign of Constantine the Great (in the tenth year of his reign), when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. He uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and said that He is not of one essence with God the Father, but is a creature, and that there was a time when He was not. This Arius the holy Council deposed and anathematized, together with those who shared his opinions, and it established the dogma that the Son is of one essence with the Father and is true God and Master, and Lord, and Creator of all that has been created, and not a creature nor a creation. This Nicene Council is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although various local councils had taken place before it, since it is the first of the ecumenical councils, it is placed before the others that occurred earlier, that is, the Antiochian one against Paul of Samosata, and those at Ancyra and Neocaesarea.

Slavic Kormchaya. The Holy Ecumenical First Council that was in Nicaea took place during the reign of Constantine the Great. Three hundred Fathers assembled against the impious Arius, who blasphemed the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; him the holy Fathers anathematized. And they set forth the rules established here. The rules of the First Council are twenty.

Canon 1. If any, in sickness, have had their members removed by physicians, or have been castrated by barbarians: let such a one remain in the clergy. But if any, being in health, have castrated themselves: such a one, even if he has been enrolled in the clergy, ought to be excluded, and from now on none such ought to be promoted. But just as it is clear that this is said concerning those who act with intent and dare to castrate themselves, so on the other hand, if any have been castrated by barbarians or by their masters, but are otherwise found worthy: the canon admits such persons to the clergy.

Zonara. Various rules of the Holy Apostles and civil laws prescribe the same as this present canon. But even after these rules, this matter was often treated with neglect—some who had castrated themselves were promoted to the clergy, while others who had been forcibly castrated by others were not promoted. Therefore the Fathers of this Council set forth the present canon, prescribing the same as the Apostolic Rules and the laws: that is, not to accept into the clergy or advance to the priesthood those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to castration or have made themselves eunuchs with their own hands; and if they had previously been enrolled in the clergy, to depose them from it. But for those who have been injured by others and deprived of their generative members, if they are found worthy of the priesthood, not to forbid their promotion on this account. And one who has castrated himself is understood not only as he who has cut off this member with his own hands, but also he who voluntarily and without compulsion submits himself to castration. This is explained more fully in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Apostolic Rules.

Aristen. Eunuchs may be received into the clergy, but those who have castrated themselves may not be received. It is said also in the Apostolic Rules, namely the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, that one worthy of the priesthood is not forbidden to enter the clergy if he has been castrated involuntarily; but one who has voluntarily castrated himself, as being a murderer of himself, ought not to be received into the clergy at all, and if he is a cleric, he ought to be deposed. Such is also the meaning of this present canon.

Valsamon. The divine Apostolic Rules, the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, have sufficiently taught us how we ought to deal with those who have cut off their own generative organs. In agreement with them, this present canon prescribes not to accept into the clergy or advance to the priesthood those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to castration or have made themselves eunuchs with their own hands, and if they had previously been enrolled in the clergy, to depose them from it; but for those who have been injured by others and deprived of their generative members, if they are found worthy, not to forbid the priesthood on this account. Add also the 8th rule of the council that was held in the church of the Holy Apostles and is called the First-and-Second. When explaining the Apostolic Rules, we wrote that one who castrates himself after ordination due to illness is subject to punishment. But since this present canon says: “If any, in sickness, have had their members removed by physicians: let such a one remain in the clergy,” and then: “But if any, being in health, have castrated themselves: such a one, even if he has been enrolled in the clergy, ought to be excluded,” some have said that one who is castrated due to illness after entering the clergy is not subject to punishment. We reply that this canon is considering those who were castrated not after receiving the priesthood, but before receiving the priesthood, though doubt about them arose only after they had received the priesthood. And if anyone should still object and wish that indulgence be shown to one castrated due to illness after receiving the priesthood, let him hear how the 142nd Novel of Justinian shuts his mouth; it is placed in book 60, title 51, last chapter, and is also included in chapter 14 of title one of the present collection. We say this in the case where someone is castrated after receiving the priesthood without the knowledge of the church; for if someone is castrated with the church’s permission after entering the clergy, he will not, in my opinion, be subject to condemnation—although I have not known any of the ordained to be permitted to be castrated because of illness, even though many have requested this of the Synod, both at the time when I held the office of chartophylax and afterwards, during the patriarchate, out of fear that the performance of this treatment is connected with danger.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let eunuchs be received into the clerical order. But those who cut off their own generative members are not to be received.

Interpretation. Concerning this, it is said in the Apostolic Rules, the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th: to a eunuch worthy of the priesthood, it is not forbidden to enter the clerical order, if he was castrated not by his own will. But if anyone by his own will cuts off his own generative member, such a one is not to be received into the clerical order at all, as having become a murderer of himself. But if he, being a cleric, does such a thing, they command that he be deposed. This canon, therefore, has the same meaning.

Canon 2. Since, due to necessity or other human motives, many things have occurred contrary to the church rule—so that persons who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith, and have been catechumens for only a short time, are soon brought to the spiritual bath; and immediately after baptism they are advanced to the episcopate or presbyterate—it has therefore been deemed good that henceforth nothing of this kind should take place. For a catechumen needs time, and after baptism further testing. For the Apostolic writing is clear, which saith: Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the judgment and the snare of the devil. But if, as time goes on, some psychic sin should be found in a person, and he is convicted by two or three witnesses: let such a one be excluded from the clergy. And he who acts contrary to this, as one daring to resist the great Council, puts himself in danger of exclusion from the clergy.

Zonara. The eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles also determines that one who has come from a pagan life, or has turned from a vicious way of life, should not immediately be made a bishop. And the great Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, prescribing what sort of person should be advanced to the episcopate, says that he should not be a novice (1 Tim. 3:6). Therefore these Fathers also determine that, just as one coming to the faith should not be baptized immediately if he has not been sufficiently instructed in the faith, so one who has been baptized should not immediately be enrolled in the clergy, because he has not yet given proof of what he is like in faith and in life. But if he is enrolled in the clergy and, after testing, appears blameless, yet as time passes he is convicted of some psychic sin, the Fathers prescribe that such a one be excluded from the clergy. A difficulty arises—what is meant by psychic sin, and why only psychic sins are mentioned, but not bodily ones, especially when bodily sins more often lead to the deposition of those who fall into them, while psychic sins do so less frequently. Some say that the Holy Fathers who set forth this rule called every sin that harms the soul a psychic sin. Others call psychic sins those that arise from psychic passions, such as pride, arrogance, and disobedience; for these sins too, if not healed, lead to deposition. This is clear from the example of the so-called Novatians; for they did not err in dogma, but out of pride, calling themselves pure, they did not receive those who had fallen during persecutions, even if they repented, and they had no communion with the digamists; therefore they were cut off from communion with the faithful for their pride and hatred of brethren. So if they were cut off from the church for these sins, how will one remain undeposed who out of pride does not obey his bishop and remains uncorrected? And the fifth rule of the Holy Apostles commands that those who put away their wives under the pretext of piety be excommunicated, and if they remain unyielding, deposed. And the thirty-sixth Apostolic rule prescribes that those called by the election of bishops to the primacy but not accepting this service be excommunicated until they accept it—so that if they do not accept, they remain excommunicated for life, and those excommunicated for life differ in nothing from the deposed. I think it better to say that every sin can justly be called psychic, since it has its beginning in the corruption of the psychic powers. For if what is observed in the soul is divided into three powers—the power of the mind, the power of desire, and the power of irritation—then from each power virtues and vices usually arise: the former when we use these powers rightly and as they were implanted in us by the Creator, the latter when we misuse them. Thus, the virtue and perfection of the power of the mind is piety, thoughts befitting the divine, infallible distinction between good and evil, and what one should choose and what avoid; deviation from this is evil and sin. The virtue of the power of desire consists in loving what is truly worthy of love—I mean the divine nature—and loving deeds that can draw us near to Him. Deviation from this and turning to earthly things is sin arising from the power of desire. Similarly, the virtue of the power of irritation consists in resisting evil and being hostile to it, opposing fleshly lusts, striving against sin even unto blood, and fighting for right doctrine and virtue, according to the word of David: I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved (Ps. 118:158). And the vice arising from this power consists in anger against one’s neighbor, hatred, inclination to quarrels, and grudges. Thus, if, as has been said, sins arise from the psychic powers, the Holy Fathers rightly called sins psychic, following also the great Paul, who saith: There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44), and calls natural the body that is governed by the soul and subject to it, that serves its natural powers, that gives itself to anger and lust, that cleaves to earthly things, and thinks of nothing beyond the earthly.

Aristen. Those coming from a pagan life should not soon be advanced to presbyters, for a novice, not tested over a certain time, turns out bad. And if after ordination it is discovered that someone has sinned, whether before or after the ordination, such a one should also be excluded from the clergy. This rule says the same as the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles, namely, that a recent convert should not immediately be made a bishop or presbyter, lest as a novice he fall into the snare of the devil and incur judgment. According to the eleventh (tenth) rule of the Sardican council, such a one should remain in each degree—that is, the degree of reader, subdeacon, and so on—for at least one year, and thus, if found worthy of divine priesthood, he may be honored with the highest honor. But on the other hand, if anyone after ordination is found to have sinned, he loses his rank.

Valsamon. From the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles we have learned that neither one coming to the church from a pagan life nor one turning from a vicious way of life is immediately made a bishop. Read what is written there. And this present rule adds that such a one is not immediately made a presbyter either, and that no unbeliever is admitted to baptism before sufficient instruction in the faith, because time is needed for testing in this. The rule commands that one who acts otherwise be deposed. And since the rule punishes psychic sins that are discovered after baptism, some have asked what psychic sins are and why the rule mentioned psychic sins but not bodily ones. Some said that psychic sins are those born from psychic passions, such as pride, disobedience, and the like; for these too lead to deposition, as for example the heresy of the Novatians and improper abstinence from marriage and eating meat according to the fifth rule of the Holy Apostles and other rules. But I say that every sin harming the soul is called psychic, even if it begins from bodily or psychic impulse. For this reason the church calls all sins psychic falls, and the rule mentioned only psychic sins because bodily ones are included in them. And concerning the fact that one baptized and enrolled in the clergy is not punished for fornication or murder committed before baptism, read the twentieth rule of Saint Basil and the commentaries on it, and the seventeenth rule of the Holy Apostles.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 2 (Nikon 63). One coming from a pagan life should not soon be made a presbyter. For if not tested over time, a newly planted one is bad. And if anyone after presbyteral ordination is convicted of former sins, let him cease from service.

Interpretation. Like the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles, this rule also says that it is not fitting to make a novice soon a bishop or presbyter, lest as newly planted he fall blindly into transgression and into the snare of the devil. Therefore such a one, according to the tenth rule of the council in Sardica, must first pass through all the degrees—that is, be made reader, then subdeacon, and deacon, and presbyter, and remain in such for the time of one year. And thus if he appears worthy of the episcopate, let him enjoy greater honor—that is, let him be bishop. And likewise if before ordination he sins in any of the said sins, and concealing it is ordained, and after ordination is convicted in that sin, let him be deprived of his rank.

Canon 3. The great Council has absolutely laid down that neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon, nor anyone at all in the clergy, should be permitted to have a woman living with him in the house, except mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who are beyond all suspicion.

Zonara. This rule desires that the ordained be blameless and that no one have even a pretext for suspicion against them. Therefore it forbids all the ordained to live together with women except the persons mentioned. And this is forbidden not only to the aforesaid (that is, ordained) persons, but to all in the clergy. And Basil the Great, in his epistle to Gregory the presbyter, mentions this rule and commands him to remove from himself the woman living with him. “But if,” he says, “without correcting yourself, you dare to touch the sacred ministry, you will be anathema before all the people.” And the fifth rule of the ecumenical Trullan council establishes the same, adding the following: “Let the same be observed also by eunuchs, guarding themselves from reproach. And those who transgress the rule, if they are clergy, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated.” The same as these sacred canons is enacted by the novel placed in the third book of the Basilics. And the eighteenth chapter of the seventh council does not allow a bishop or abbot to enter even country houses where women serve, unless the women are removed from there while the bishop or abbot is present. And the nineteenth rule of the Ancyran council says at the end: “To virgins who join in dwelling with certain men as with brothers, we have forbidden this.”

Aristen. No one should have a woman living with him, except mother, sister, and persons who remove all suspicion. Except for persons who cannot give any suspicion of unchastity—that is, mother, sister, aunt, and the like—this present rule does not allow any other person to live together with any of the ordained, nor do the fifth rule of the sixth Trullan council, the eighteenth and twenty-second rules of the second Nicene council, and Basil the Great allow this; the latter prescribed to the presbyter Gregory to separate from the woman living with him, even though he was seventy years old and it could not be thought that he lived with her passionately.

Valsamon. Concerning subintroduced women, read chapter 14 of title 8 of the present collection, and what is contained in it, and from the 123rd novel of Justinian cited there you will learn that clerics, after admonition, who do not separate from women living with them—of whatever kind they may be except the persons indicated in this present rule—are subject to deposition; and bishops, if found at any time living with any woman whatever, are deposed for this. And note this. Concerning subintroduced women there have been many discussions at different times; some said that an introduced or subintroduced woman is one brought in place of a lawful wife and living with someone in fornication; others said that a subintroduced woman is any woman living with someone who is completely unrelated, even if free from suspicion; and this seems much more correct. For this reason, they say, Basil the Great, in his epistle to the presbyter Gregory, urges this priest to remove the woman living with him and does not determine that he should be deposed for this, as one undeniably and manifestly sinning.

Slavic Kormchaya. For priests and deacons and other church clerics, let no other women be kept in their houses, except mother and sister and aunt (Nikon 33). The great council has utterly forbidden that it is not fitting for bishop, presbyter, deacon, nor any cleric to keep any other woman in his house: but only mother, or sister, or aunt; for these three persons are beyond all reproach.

Interpretation. The rule commands that priests be sinless and have no occasion for sinful reproach. And since some think that this is not said to them, therefore it has been forbidden to all the ordained not to live in their house with other women except the aforesaid persons—that is, mother, and sister, and aunt; for these three persons alone escape all reproach. And not only to the ordained—that is, bishops, or presbyters, or deacons—but to other clerics this has been forbidden. And the great Basil, sending to Gregory the presbyter, mentioned this rule, commanding him to separate—that is, to expel from the house—the wife living with him. But if, he says, without correcting yourself, you dare to serve, be thou accursed by all people. And the fifth rule of the Trullan palace, of the sixth ecumenical council, commands likewise, adding this: Let eunuchs also observe this, taking care to live blamelessly. But those who transgress the rule, if they are clerics, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated. And in the third books of the imperial laws lies a new command that likewise enjoins the same as the sacred rules. And the eighteenth rule of the seventh council does not at all allow a bishop or abbot to come to any court where women are serving, unless the women utterly depart from there beforehand and remain outside until the bishop or abbot departs from them. And the nineteenth rule of the council in Ancyra says at the end: To virgins coming together with certain men as with brothers, we have forbidden this.

Book of Rules. Since the aim of this rule is to guard sacred persons from suspicion, the prohibition laid down in it should apply to those presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons who have no wives; for the presence of a wife with her husband removes suspicion from another female person living with a married man.

Canon 4. It is most fitting that a bishop be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is inconvenient, either due to pressing necessity or because of the length of the journey: at least three should assemble in one place, and those absent should signify their consent by letters; and then the ordination should be performed. But to confirm such actions in each province belongs to the metropolitan.

Zonara. This present canon appears to contradict the first rule of the Holy Apostles; for that one prescribes that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops, while this one requires three, with the consent and agreement of the absent expressed through letters. But they do not contradict each other. For the rule of the Holy Apostles calls ordination the consecration and laying on of hands, while the rule of this Council calls appointment and ordination the election, and determines that the election of a hierarch should not take place otherwise than if three hierarchs come together, having the consent of the absent expressed in letters, in which they testify that they too will follow the election to be performed by the three bishops assembled together. And after the election, the confirmation of it—that is, the final decision, laying on of hands, and consecration—the canon assigns to the metropolitan of the province, so that he confirms the election. And he confirms it when, of the elected, he ordains one whom he himself chooses, together with the other two or three bishops, according to the Apostolic rule.

Aristen. A bishop is ordained by all the bishops of the province. But if not, at least by three, with the consent of the others to the election expressed through letters, and the metropolitan should have the authority to confirm. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops according to the first rule of the Holy Apostles, but he is elected by at least three, if perhaps all the bishops of the province cannot be present due to pressing need or length of journey. However, even the absent ones must express their agreement with the present bishops who are performing the election through letters. And the metropolitan has authority after the election to choose one of the three elected, whomever he wishes.

Valsamon. Here it speaks of how to appoint—that is, elect—a bishop. In ancient times, elections of hierarchs were performed in assemblies of citizens. But this was not pleasing to the divine Fathers, lest the life of those being ordained be subjected to the judgments of worldly people; and therefore they determined that a bishop should be elected by the provincial bishops of each province. And if this is difficult for some well-founded reason or because of the length of journey, the election should not take place otherwise than if three provincial bishops assemble together, having the consent of the absent expressed in written opinions. The ordination of him—that is, the consecration—the Holy Fathers assigned as an honor to the first, that is, the metropolitan, and not only the ordination but also the confirmation of the election. For therefore the one who is to perform the cheirotonia, of the three elected, points out one whom he himself wants, and it is not necessarily the one placed first who is indicated, and then the others. Such is the essence of the canon. Some metropolitans who performed the election of their bishops in the imperial city with three foreign bishops or even their own, without turning to the other bishops of their province, when asked why they do so, used for their aid the thirteenth rule of the Carthaginian council. Read what is written in that canon, and the nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council. This happens when the metropolitan has many bishops in his province. But if, as with many metropolitans, there is one provincial bishop or two, then of necessity the election must be with the actual provincial ones present and with foreign bishops.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop is ordained by all the bishops in the province. But if not, nevertheless by three. And the others having agreed by writing, the metropolitan should have authority.

Interpretation. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops, according to the first rule of the Holy Apostles; however, he is ordained by three if all the bishops in the province cannot come, either because of pressing need or because of the length of the journey; however, they must. And even if they do not come, they must agree by letter to the election with the bishops who have come and are judging and electing, with two or three elected. And then the metropolitan has authority to ordain one of the three elected as bishop, whomever he wishes.

Canon 5. Concerning those whom the bishops in each diocese have removed from church communion—whether they belong to the clergy or to the rank of laity—the rule should be observed in judgment, by which it is established that those excommunicated by some should not be received by others. However, let it be investigated whether they have fallen under excommunication due to pettiness, or contention, or some similar displeasure of the bishop. And so, in order that proper investigation of this may take place, it has been deemed good that in each province there should be councils twice a year: so that all the bishops of the province, assembling together, may investigate such disputes; and thus those who are verifiably shown to have acted unjustly against the bishop may justly be deemed by all unworthy of communion, until the assembly of bishops sees fit to pronounce a more lenient decision concerning them. And the councils should be held, one before the forty days (Great Lent), so that, with all displeasure set aside, a pure gift may be offered to God; and the other around the autumn season.

Zonara. Various rules of the Holy Apostles also prescribe that no one should receive those excommunicated by their own bishops. But since it happens that some are excommunicated unjustly—perhaps out of anger and pettiness on the part of the one excommunicating, or out of some bias, which it also calls displeasure—therefore the sacred Fathers set forth this present canon, commanding that excommunications be subjected to investigation, of course when the excommunicated complain against those who excommunicated them, claiming they were excommunicated unjustly; and the investigation to be by the bishops of the province—either all or the greater part of them, in case some cannot appear at the council with the others, perhaps due to illness, or necessary absence, or some other unavoidable reason. And the Holy Fathers determined that councils be held in each province twice a year, as also laid down by the rules of the Holy Apostles. But the Holy Apostles commanded one of the councils to be in the fourth week of Pentecost, and the other in the month of Hyperberetaeus—that is, October. But the holy Fathers of this Council changed the time, determining instead of the fourth week of Pentecost that the council be before the forty days (Great Lent), and they gave this reason: so that, they say, all displeasure may cease. For one who considers himself wrongly excommunicated will of course complain against the one who excommunicated him; and the one who excommunicated, hearing that the excommunicated does not accept the penance meekly but murmurs against him, will not relate to him impartially. And when they are thus disposed toward each other, how can a gift be offered purely to God? Therefore one council was arranged to be before the forty days, and the other in autumn; and October is an autumn month. At these councils the holy Fathers established to investigate complaints of this kind. And those verifiably and indubitably shown to be unjust (for it is characteristic of one subjected to penance to deny the sin in which the bishop accuses him) will justly—that is, rightly—be deprived of communion by all, until the assembly of bishops sees fit to pronounce something more philanthropic concerning them. But perhaps someone will say: why does the canon assign the decision about the excommunicated not to the one who excommunicated, but to the assembly of bishops? I think this is said for the case when the one who excommunicated persists and does not wish in time to release the person from the penance, or if the one who excommunicated perhaps dies without releasing the one subjected to penance. For then it should be permitted to the council, if it sees that the time of penance is sufficient and the repentance of the one subjected to penance corresponds to the sin, to pronounce a decision about him and release the person from the penance, even if his bishop has not softened and remains unyielding, even if he has already ended his life. The thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles and this present one command councils to be twice a year, while the eighth rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council, renewing this enactment, determines that in each province there be a council once a year from Pascha until the end of October, in the place that the hierarch of the metropolis shall appoint. And for bishops who do not come to the council, though they are in health and in their cities and have no other reasonable and unavoidable occupation, to express censure brotherly or subject them to light penance. Nowadays the matter of these councils is entirely neglected, so that they never take place. Concerning the penance for those not appearing at councils, read the seventy-sixth (eighty-seventh) rule of the Carthaginian council.

Aristen. Those excommunicated by some should not be received by others, unless the excommunication was due to pettiness, or contention, or something similar. Therefore it has been deemed good that councils be held twice a year in each province, one before the forty days (Great Lent), the other around autumn. According to the parable, he who inflicted the wound should also provide the healing. Therefore one excommunicated by his own bishop should not be received by others in such a way—without investigation and without examination—but the reason for the excommunication should be examined, whether the excommunication was pronounced justly, or not due to pettiness—that is, out of anger of the bishop—or contention, or some other displeasure of the bishop. And so, lest the excommunicated be excommunicated arbitrarily, nor the bishops excommunicating them be disregarded if other bishops receive the excommunicated without investigation, this holy Council deemed it good that in each province there be a council twice a year, so that by the common opinion of all the bishops of the same province every church question and every dispute may be resolved, as also the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles prescribes. However, as we wrote there also, the eighth rule of the sixth Trullan council and the sixth of the second Nicene, taking into account the difficulties of the assembling bishops and the lack of necessities for travel, established that a council be held in each province once a year, where the bishop of the metropolis shall decide, between the feast of holy Pascha and the month of October.

Valsamon. It was determined that those excommunicated by some bishops and not absolved should not be received by others. But since it is characteristic of the excommunicated to say that he was excommunicated unjustly, or it may happen that the one who excommunicated dies, this canon commands (as other canons also determined) that all bishops assemble twice a year to the first among them, at which time doubts about those deprived of communion and other church questions are resolved. Displeasure is here called bias. However, what is contained in this present canon about annual councils we do not expound here in detail, because it is no longer in force, and because by the eighth rule of the Trullan council, as well as by the novel of Justinian—that is, chapters 20 and 21 of title 1 of book 3 of the Basilics—it is determined that bishops assemble once. Add these chapters. Seek also the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles and the fourteenth rule of the Sardican council. Read also chapter 8 of title 8 of the present collection.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 5 (Nikon 63). One bound by his own bishop should not be received by another without cause. Those excommunicated by their own bishops should not be received by others. However, unless the excommunication was due to pettiness, or some contention, or something similar of that kind. For this reason it was commanded that a council be held twice a year in each province. The first before the forty days of the holy and great fast, the second around the fruit season.

Interpretation. It is fitting, according to the parabolic word, that he who wounded a person should also heal him. Likewise, one who has received the command of excommunication from his own bishop should not fittingly be received by another without testing and without seeking the cause; but the cause of the excommunication should be examined, lest perhaps the excommunication was not justly imposed on him, but out of pettiness—that is, out of episcopal anger—or out of some contention, or for another such cause done by the passionate will of the bishop; and passionate will is to say: you did not do this for me, therefore be excommunicated. But so that neither the excommunicated are excommunicated without fitting cause, nor the bishops excommunicating them are offended when other bishops receive such without testing: for this reason the Holy Council commanded that a council be held twice a year in each province, so that by the common will of all the bishops of that province every question, and church examination, and every contradiction may be resolved; and the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles commands. However, as we wrote there, the eighth rule of the sixth council in the Trullan palace, and the sixth rule of the seventh council which assembled the second time in Nicaea, because of the scarcity of necessities that the assembling bishops wish to have for travel, commanded a council once a year, where the metropolitan shall choose. And the time of the council is between the feast of holy Pascha and the month of October. For that is the month around the fruit season.

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs be maintained, those accepted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these. Since this is also customary for the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch, and in other provinces, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved. In general, let this be clearly known: If anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Council has determined that such a one should not be a bishop. But if the common election of all is reasonable and in accordance with church rule, yet two or three oppose it out of contentiousness: let the opinion of the greater number of electors prevail.

Zonara. The canon desires that the ancient customs retain their force, as later canons and civil laws also determine. Thus, the canon establishes that the Alexandrian bishop should have primacy over the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Antiochian over the bishops of the provinces subject to him—that is, Syria and Coelesyria, both Cilicias, and Mesopotamia; and that other bishops should have authority over the regions subject to them, just as custom has granted authority to the presiding bishop of the Roman church over the western regions. And the canon desires that these bishops in their provinces have such great privileges that it issues a general enactment: nothing pertaining to church administration should be done without them, the greatest and most important of which is the ordination of bishops. Thus, the canon says: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, such a one should not be a bishop. For although in ancient times the assembly of city citizens elected the bishop, even then after the election they reported about him to the metropolitan, and it was confirmed by him; and the one whom he approved was deemed worthy of ordination. Then the canon adds that if, in an election conducted according to the rules, the greater part is in agreement and of one mind, but two or three oppose out of contentiousness and not for a well-founded reason, and resist the others, the election of the greater number of electors should have force. The same is prescribed by civil laws in monetary matters. The nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council prescribes the same concerning the opposition of bishops.

Aristen. The Alexandrian bishop should have authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Roman over the provinces subject to Rome; and the Antiochian and the others over their own. If anyone is advanced to bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, let him not be a bishop. But if three oppose the election of the greater number, which is conducted according to rule, their opinion should not have force. Each patriarch should be content with his own privileges, and none of them should seize another province that was not from the beginning and originally under his authority, for this is the arrogance of worldly power. But the bishops of each province should recognize their first—that is, the bishop presiding in the metropolis—and not elect a bishop without his consent; and if they elect someone without his consent, such a one should not be a bishop. But if the bishops, assembled with the metropolitan’s consent to perform the election, do not all come to the same mind, but some out of contentiousness begin to speak against it, then the judgment and election of the majority should prevail. And the opinion of those who oppose should not be heeded. Seek also the eighth rule of the Ephesian council, the thirty-fourth Apostolic rule, the second and third rules of the Antiochian council, and the third rule of the Sardican council.

Valsamon. This sixth canon and the seventh determine that, according to ancient customs, four patriarchs should be honored with distinction—that is, the Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochian, and Jerusalem (concerning the Constantinopolitan will be explained in other canons)—and that the Alexandrian should have primacy over the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; similarly the Antiochian over the provinces of Syria, Coelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both Cilicias; and the Jerusalem over the provinces in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia—because, it says, the Roman bishop also has primacy over the western provinces. Thus the canons desire that patriarchs have primacy over the metropolises subject to them, and metropolitans in turn over the bishops subject to them, so that the bishops subject to them do nothing exceeding their authority without them. For therefore the canons also command that one advanced to bishop without the consent of the first should not be a bishop, adding that when an election has been conducted according to the rules but some oppose, the opinion of the greater number of electors should prevail, according to the laws. When this is so determined, someone asked: this canon determines that in all matters the opinion of the greater number should prevail, but the new enactment of our sovereign and holy emperor, lord Manuel Comnenus, issued in the month of July, fourteenth indiction, year 6674, among other things literally determines the following: if not all agree, but some dissent from the majority, or the votes are equally divided, in such a case the opinion of those with whom the presiding judge agrees should have the advantage. Which should be followed? Some said that in church matters one should not follow the novel, and therefore the ancient enactments and canons set forth in agreement with them should have force in these matters; but others on the contrary asserted that the novel was issued for the whole world and for every matter, and is a general enactment. But it seems to me that the rules of this novel have no place in relation to church elections and church matters, lest canonical election be overturned through it. Seek also the nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council. The Jerusalem patriarch is called bishop of Aelia because the city of Jerusalem was once called Salim and Jebus, and after King Solomon built in it the famous divine temple and sanctuary, it was called Jerusalem. Then the Jerusalem people were taken captive by the Babylonians and the city destroyed to the ground. When the Roman emperor Aelius Hadrian rebuilt it, it was called Aelia after his name. By the common name, the city of Jerusalem itself and the whole region subject to it is called Palestine. Some asked: what does the word of the canon mean: “let him have the consequence of honor, with preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis”? And they received in answer that the metropolis in Palestine was Caesarea, and the Jerusalem church was once its episcopal see. Thus the canon desires that the rights of the metropolis be preserved for it, although Aelia has been separated from it and its bishop has received honor because of the saving sufferings of Christ. Seek also from the acts of the fourth council, act 8, and learn that, by agreement of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, it was deemed good that the Antiochian have the two Phoenicias and Arabia, and the Jerusalem the three Palestines; and then it was so determined, but now a change of circumstances has, by custom, altered this also.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let the Alexandrian bishop have authority over Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. And let the Roman bishop have authority over those under Rome. And the Antiochian and the others over their own. But if any bishop is ordained apart from the will of the metropolitan, let him not be bishop, since the canons command that many judges be for the election of a bishop. But if certain three speak against, let them not be heeded.

Interpretation. Each patriarch should have authority over his own boundaries. And let none of them seize another province that was not from above and from the beginning under his hand, for this is the pride of worldly power. It is fitting for the bishops of each province to know and honor their elder—that is, the bishop in the metropolis—and not to elect a bishop without his will. But if they elect someone without his will, such a one should not be bishop. But if, having assembled according to the metropolitan’s will to make judgment and election, they do not come to one will, but some, having fallen into contention, begin to speak against, let the judgment and election of the greater number prevail. And let the opinion of those who oppose not be heeded. And for this seek also the eighth rule of the third council in Ephesus, the thirty-fourth rule of the Holy Apostles, the ninth rule of the council in Antioch, the third rule of the second ecumenical council in Constantinople, and the third rule of the council in Sardica.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop residing in Jerusalem should be honored: let him have the consequence of honor, with preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis.

Zonara. Just as the preceding canon granted privileges in their provinces to the Alexandrian and Antiochian bishops, so this present canon awarded the bishop of Aelia honor in his own province, and determined that for the city of Jerusalem, which is called Aelia, its own dignity be preserved, as presiding over the cities of Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia. For both in ancient times and now this whole region was called and is called Palestine. And the city in the most ancient time was called Salim and Jebus, and afterwards was named Jerusalem. After it was taken by the Romans and destroyed to the ground, the Roman emperor Hadrian, restoring the city, named it Aelia after his own name; for he was called Aelius Hadrian; thus he named it. Some say that the canon called the metropolis Caesarea, namely Caesarea of Palestine, which in ancient times was called Strato’s Tower.

Aristen. Let the bishop of Aelia have honor, with preservation of the dignity of the metropolis. The one hundred twenty-third novel, found in title one of book one, names the bishop of Jerusalem, who is called Aelia, patriarch. Thus, according to this canon, honor as patriarch should be rendered to the bishop of Aelia. But since Caesarea is the first metropolis of Palestine and the holy city, this patriarch should have his honor, and for Caesarea the metropolis (to which he was formerly subject) its own dignity should be preserved. Seek also the twelfth rule of the Chalcedonian council.

Valsamon. This present canon has been explained in the commentary on the preceding sixth canon.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let the bishop of Aelia be honored, with the rank of the Palestinian metropolis remaining intact.

Interpretation. The one hundred and twenty-third new command, lying in the first section of the first imperial books, names the bishop of Jerusalem (for Aelia is called Jerusalem) patriarch. It is fitting, therefore, according to this canon, that the bishop of Aelia—that is, Jerusalem—be honored with patriarchal distinction: since Caesarea, said to be Strato’s, is the first metropolis of Palestine, and under it is the holy city. It is fitting, therefore, for the patriarch of Aelia to have his honor, and for the rank of the Caesarean metropolis to remain intact and preserved, and to have its own dignity, under which the holy city was. And for this seek the twelfth rule of the fourth council in Chalcedon. And why the canon called the holy city Aelia: from ancient times it was called Salim, and afterwards was called Jebus; later it was named Jerusalem. But when the Romans came and plundered and razed it, and afterwards the Roman emperor Hadrian, called Aelius, built the city, he did not name it Jerusalem again, but after his own name called it Aelia.

Canon 8. Concerning those who once called themselves Cathari, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church: it has pleased the holy and great Council that, after the laying on of hands upon them, they remain in the clergy. But before all else, it is necessary that they make a written profession that they will join and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church—that is, that they will be in church communion both with digamists and with those who lapsed during the persecution, for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed. It is necessary that they follow in all things the decrees of the Catholic Church. Thus, wherever—whether in villages or in cities—all those found in the clergy prove to have been ordained from among them alone: let them remain in the same rank. But if, where there is a bishop of the Catholic Church, some of them come to the Church: it is clear that the bishop of the orthodox Church will hold the episcopal dignity; while the one called bishop among the so-called Cathari will have the honor of a presbyter—unless the local bishop should see fit that he also share in the honor of the episcopal title. But if this is not pleasing to him: then, to provide an apparent enrollment of such a one in the clergy, he shall devise for him a place either as chorepiscopus or as presbyter, so that there may not be two bishops in the city.

Zonara. The Cathari are the Novatians; and Novatian was a presbyter of the Roman church who did not receive the repentant among those who had lapsed during the persecution and did not enter into communion with digamists. Therefore, although he did not err in matters of faith, for his lack of mercy and hatred of brethren he was excommunicated and anathematized by the council held in Rome under Cornelius, pope of Rome, during the reign of Decius, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. Thus, this canon determines that adherents of his heresy, when they convert to the church, should be received with a written profession that they will observe the dogmas of the catholic church and will receive those who denied Christ under compulsion, and will arrange for them according to the times appointed for the penance of the lapsed (for this is the meaning of the words: “for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed”), and that they will be in communion with digamists. If they have been ordained as bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, those joining the church from among them remain in the clergy, in their ranks, if in the churches where they were ordained there are no others. Since they erred not by deviation from the faith, but by hatred of brethren and refusal to allow penance for the lapsed who converted, therefore the Council accepted their ordinations and determined that they should remain in their ranks, provided there is no bishop in the catholic church of that city. But if they are in such a church where there is a bishop or presbyter, this bishop should hold the dignity and name of the episcopate, while the one named bishop among the Cathari should have the honor either of presbyter or even of chorepiscopus, so that he may be counted together in the list of the clergy and not excluded from it—unless the bishop of the catholic church, out of indulgence, wishes him to have the name and honor of bishop; but even then he should not act as a bishop, so that there may not be two bishops in one and the same city.

Aristen. The so-called Cathari who join the church must first profess that they will obey the ordinances of the church, and will have communion with digamists, and will show indulgence to the lapsed. And thus those found to have been ordained should remain in their rank—that is, the true (that is, orthodox) bishop should be bishop, and the bishop among the Cathari should be either chorepiscopus or enjoy the honor either of presbyter or of bishop, for there should not be two bishops in one church. Of those coming to the holy, divine, catholic, and Apostolic Church, some are baptized, others are anointed with chrism, and others only anathematize their own and every other heresy. Those deceived by Novatian and named by him Cathari, since they do not accept the penance of those who have sinned and forbid second marriage, if they come to the church and profess that they will receive digamists and show indulgence to those who sinned but repented, and in general follow all the church dogmas and anathematize their heresy and others—they should be received and anointed with the one holy chrism. And if some of them are bishops or chorepiscopi, they again remain in the same dignity, provided that in the same city there is no other bishop of the catholic church ordained before their conversion. For the one who was from the beginning rightly bishop should have the preeminent honor, and he alone should occupy the episcopal throne; because there should not be two bishops in one city; while the one called bishop among the Cathari should have presbyteral honor, or, if it pleases the bishop, let him have even the name of bishop, but he should not exercise any episcopal right.

Valsamon. This Novatian was a presbyter of the Roman church, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. When there was a persecution and many lapsed out of fear of death but afterwards repented, he, puffed up by the demon, did not wish to receive them and had no communion with digamists, as if zealous for chastity. Those who thought in agreement with him are called Novatians, and in mockery Cathari. At the council held in Rome under Cornelius, pope of the Roman church, during the reign of Decius, Novatian was anathematized, as well as those holding his heresy. Therefore the canon says that if any of them with pure repentance leave their former evil and bind themselves to preserve the dogmas of the catholic church, such a one should be received. And if they are clerics, they should necessarily retain their ranks, for they err not in matters of faith but are condemned for hatred of brethren. If they hold episcopal dignity, and in the region where they were cut off there are other (orthodox) bishops, they should not exercise anything episcopal, but it will lie with the (orthodox) bishop whether they have the mere name of bishop or are called by another name; and when there are no local bishops, they should perform episcopal duties also. The expression: “for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed” is used concerning those who lapsed during the persecution and concerning digamists. And clerics, after reception into the church, may be enrolled in the clergy to which they were previously ordained, but only when no other clerics have been appointed in their place; and if such are present somewhere, the same should be done with them as is written above concerning bishops. Perhaps someone will ask: if some of them wish to be advanced to a higher rank, will this present canon hinder this, which at the beginning says: “it has pleased the holy Council that after the laying on of hands upon them they remain in the clergy,” or may they freely receive higher ranks? Resolution. In the eightieth Apostolic rule and in the second rule of this present Council it is established that even complete unbelievers receive ranks of the priesthood. Thus, why should Novatians, called also Cathari, who as has been said have no errors in relation to the faith but are condemned for lack of compassion, not be able to receive higher ranks? And that they remain in the clergy, I think this is determined especially concerning them. For probably some said that they should be received, but only as simple laymen and not exercise the rights belonging to their former ranks. This was not accepted by the Council, but it was laid down to restore them to their ranks. With the name of restoration is connected also the rule of advancement to higher ranks.

Slavic Kormchaya. Heretics called Cathari who come to the catholic church must first profess that they obey the church laws, and have communion with digamists, and forgive those who sin. And if in some city there is a true bishop of that city, and also from these so-called Cathari another bishop or presbyter has been ordained, let him remain in his rank. But nevertheless the one ordained bishop from the Cathari should have honor as presbyter; or if the bishop of that city wishes, let him give him a bishopric somewhere in a village; for it is not possible for two bishops to be in one city.

Interpretation. Of heretics coming to the holy divine catholic Apostolic Church, some are fully baptized; others are only anointed with chrism; and others only curse their own and all other heresies. These called Cathari were deceived into such a heresy by Novatian, presbyter of the Roman church; from him they were also named Cathari, for this reason: because they do not accept the penance of those converting from sins. And they utterly forbid marrying a second time. And digamists they do not at all receive into communion. And such, if they come to the holy catholic Apostolic Church and profess to receive digamists into communion and not to revile second marriage, and to forgive sins to those who sin and repent; and simply to say, following all church commands, having cursed their heresy and all others—let them be received, and only anointed with the holy chrism. But if some of them are bishops, let them again remain in their rank, only if in that city no bishop of the catholic church is found: for such a one will be honored who was from the beginning the true bishop, and he alone sits on the episcopal throne. The one called bishop from the Cathari should be honored as presbyter: since it is not fitting for two bishops to be in one city. But if it pleases the bishop of that city, as we said, let him command him to be called bishop: but let him not touch any episcopal matter. But if he wishes, let him appoint him bishop somewhere in a village.

Book of Rules. The heretics who called themselves Cathari were followers of Novatian, presbyter of the Roman church, who taught that the lapsed during the persecution should not be received in penance, and digamists never received into church communion, and in these proud and unphilanthropic judgments placed the purity of their society.

Canon 9. If any have been advanced to presbyters without examination, or though upon examination they confessed their sins, yet contrary to the rule men proceeded and laid hands upon them: the canon does not admit such to holy ministry. For the Catholic Church unfailingly requires blamelessness.

Zonara. The canon desires that those advanced to the priesthood be blameless and pure from faults that hinder ordination, and that their life and conduct be examined. But if some perhaps are advanced to the rank of priesthood without examination, or when they confessed their shortcomings but the ordainers contrary to the rule ordain them—of such the canon establishes that they should not be admitted, and that there is no benefit for them from the unlawful ordination; for they should be subject to deposition.

Aristen. Those ordained without examination, if afterwards they are convicted of having truly sinned, should be removed from sacred ministry. If anyone having sinned concealed the sin and without examination was advanced to the rank of bishop or presbyter, and if after ordination he is convicted of having sinned, such a one should be removed from the priesthood.

Valsamon. The impediments to receiving the priesthood are various; among them is fornication. Thus, if anyone is condemned as having fallen into the sin of fornication, whether before ordination or after, such a one is deposed. Therefore, the canon says, for one ordained without examination or though having confessed his sin before ordination yet ordained contrary to the rules, there is no benefit from the ordination; but upon inquiry he is deposed. For some said that just as baptism makes a baptized person new, so priesthood blots out sins committed before the priesthood; but this is not accepted in the canons.

Slavic Kormchaya (Nikon 13). Those ordained without examination and after ordination convicted of former sins should cease.

Interpretation. If anyone having sinned and not confessed such sins to a spiritual father—sins that forbid him from the priesthood—and concealing it, and without examination is advanced to the presbyteral or episcopal rank. But if after ordination he is convicted of having committed such a sin, let him be deprived of the priesthood.

source