Canons of the 2nd Ecumenical Council. Constantinople.

On the Council

Zonara and Valsamon. The holy and ecumenical Second Council was held under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, in Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers assembled against the Spirit-fighters, and they set forth the following rules.

Slavic Kormchaya. The holy ecumenical Second Council was held under the Tsar Theodosius the Great, in the city of Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered from various places against Macedonius the Spirit-fighter. And they set forth rules, eight in number. The proclamation of that holy council to the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great, to which they appended the rules set forth by them.

To the God-loving and pious Tsar Theodosius, the holy council of bishops who have assembled in the city of Constantinople from various provinces: The beginning of our writing to thy piety is thanksgiving to God, who hath shewn the kingdom of thy piety for the common peace of the churches and the establishment of the sound faith. Rendering therefore due thanksgiving unto God with diligence, we send also in writing to thy piety the things done at the Holy Council. For having assembled in the city of Constantinople according to the letter of thy piety, first we renewed our mutual union, and then we briefly set forth rules. And we confirmed the faith of the holy fathers which was at Nicaea, and we anathematized the heresies that had arisen against it. To these also we ordained clear rules concerning the good order of the holy churches, which we have appended to this our letter. We now pray thy meekness to confirm by a letter of thy piety the judgment of the holy [council]. For as by the letters summoning us thou hast honoured the church, so also seal thou the end of the things done at the council. And may the Lord stablish thy kingdom in peace and righteousness, and add unto thee the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom to thy earthly dominion. May God grant thee health and shining in all good things to the whole world, by the prayers of the saints, as a king truly pious and God-loving.

These rules were set forth in the city of Constantinople, by the grace of God, by the bishops assembled, one hundred and fifty, from various provinces, by the command of the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great.

Canon 1. The Holy Fathers assembled in Constantinople decreed: Let the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea in Bithynia not be abrogated, but let it remain inviolate; and let every heresy be anathematized, and specifically the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Spirit-fighters, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians.

Zonara. The Second Council was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son; the present rule also calls them Semi-Arians, for they held half of the Arian heresy. The latter taught that the Son and the Spirit are of another essence than the Father and are creatures; but the Spirit-fighters thought soundly about the Son, while they taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, that He is created and does not have the divine nature. Those also were called Semi-Arians who regarded both the Son and the Spirit as creatures, but added: “We think that they came into being not in the same way as the other creatures, but in some other manner; and we say this so that it may not be thought that through generation the Father was subject to suffering”; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial but like in essence to the Father. This Second Council, by the present rule, confirmed the orthodox faith proclaimed by the Holy Fathers who were at Nicaea, and decreed that every heresy be anathematized, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus; but he thought the same as Arius, and even worse and more evil things; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servile, and in no way like the Father. He also re-baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head downward while turning their feet upward, and at baptism performing a single immersion. And concerning future punishment and hell he spoke absurdly, that this is not true, but was said as a threat for intimidation. They were also called Eudoxians after a certain Eudoxius who shared in the Eunomian heresy, who, having been bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness whatsoever to the Father in essence. The Council decrees that the Sabellians also be anathematized, who received their name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, and who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged the three hypostases of the one essence and Godhead into one person, and honoured in the Trinity one person with three names, saying that one and the same sometimes appeared as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit, transforming Himself and at different times assuming different forms. In like manner the Council anathematizes the heresy of the Marcellians, which received its name from the heresiarch Marcellus, who came from Ancyra in Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Sabellius. Likewise it anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only Spirit; and concerning the Word he thought that it is some divine command uttered by the mouth, serving God for the accomplishment of all things, like some mechanical instrument; and concerning Christ he preached that He is a mere man who received the Word of God, not as having essence, but as proceeding from the mouth—and taught that He received the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata said many other great absurdities, whom the Antiochian council deposed. Together with the others the Council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was bishop in Laodicea of Syria, and taught blasphemously concerning the dispensation of salvation; for he said that the Son of God, although He assumed from the Holy Theotokos an animate body, did so without a mind, since the Godhead took the place of the mind, and he thought that the soul of the Lord does not have reason; and thus he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Saviour has one nature.

Aristen. The Nicene faith must be firmly preserved, and heresies must be subject to anathema.

Valsamon. The present holy Second Council was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son; the present rule also calls them Semi-Arians, for they held half of the Arian heresy. The latter taught that the Son and the Spirit are creatures and of another essence than the Father; but the Spirit-fighters thought soundly about the Son, while they taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, that He is created and does not have the divine nature. Those also were called Semi-Arians who regarded both the Son and the Spirit as creatures, but added: “We think that they came into being not in the same way as the other creatures, but in some other manner; and we say this so that it may not be thought that through generation the Father was subject to suffering”; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial but like in essence to the Father. This Second Council, by the present rule, confirmed the orthodox faith proclaimed by the fathers who were at Nicaea, and decreed that every heresy be anathematized, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus, but he thought the same as Arius, and even worse and more evil things; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servile, and in no way like the Father. He also re-baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head downward while turning their feet upward, and at baptism performing a single immersion. And concerning future punishment and hell he spoke absurdly, that this is not true, but was said as a threat for intimidation. They were also called Eudoxians after a certain Eudoxius who shared in the Eunomian heresy, who, having been bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness whatsoever to the Father in essence. The Council decrees that the Sabellians also be anathematized, who received their name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, and who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged the three hypostases of the one essence and Godhead into one person, and honoured in the Holy Trinity one person with three names, saying that one and the same sometimes appeared as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit, transforming Himself and at different times assuming different forms. In like manner the Council anathematizes the heresy of the Marcellians, which received its name from the heresiarch Marcellus, who came from Ancyra in Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Sabellius. Likewise it anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only Spirit; and concerning the Word he thought that it is some divine command uttered by the mouth, serving God for the accomplishment of all things, like some mechanical instrument; and concerning Christ he preached that He is a mere man who received the Word of God, not as having essence, but as proceeding from the mouth—and taught that He received the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata said many other great absurdities, whom the Antiochian council deposed. Together with the others the Council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was bishop in Laodicea of Syria, and taught blasphemously concerning the dispensation of salvation; for he said that the Son of God, although He assumed from the Holy Theotokos an animate body, did so without a mind, since the Godhead took the place of the mind, and he thought that the soul of the Lord does not have reason; and thus he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Saviour has one nature.

Slavic Kormchaya. The faith of the holy fathers at Nicaea must be firmly held and remain. But the things spoken and written against it by heretics, and the heretics, shall be accursed. This rule is clear.

Canon 2. The bishops of the dioceses must not extend their authority over the churches beyond the limits of their own diocese, and must not confound the churches; but, according to the rules, the bishop of Alexandria must manage only the churches of Egypt; the bishops of the East must govern only in the East, while preserving the privileges of the Church of Antioch recognized by the Nicene rules; likewise the bishops of the Asian diocese must govern only in Asia; the bishops of Pontus must have in their charge only the affairs of the Pontic diocese; the Thracians only Thrace. Without being invited, bishops must not go beyond the limits of their own diocese for ordination or any other ecclesiastical administration. While preserving the above-described rule concerning ecclesiastical dioceses, it is clear that the affairs of each diocese will be ordered by the council of the same diocese, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian nations must be administered according to the custom of the fathers that has prevailed until now.

Zonara. Both the holy Apostles and afterwards the divine fathers took much care that there might be good order and peace in the churches. For the Apostles in their fourteenth rule laid down that it is not permitted for a bishop to cross into the diocese of another, leaving his own. And the fathers assembled at the First Council in Nicaea, in their sixth and seventh rules, ordained that the ancient customs be preserved—and that each throne manage the dioceses belonging to it. This same thing the present rule also determines, and commands that a bishop not extend his authority beyond his own diocese, that is, beyond the eparchy belonging to him, over churches outside his diocese, that is, those situated beyond the limits assigned to each (designating by the expression “extend authority” such things as a predatory and disorderly invasion), and not enter the diocese of another. The expression “beyond the limits of their own diocese” means that a bishop cannot perform any hierarchical administration without being invited; but he may if he is invited and receives commission for this from many bishops, according to the indicated Apostolic rule. The rule ordains that the affairs of ecclesiastical administration in each eparchy—such as elections, ordinations, and the resolution of questions concerning excommunications, penances, and the like—be managed by the council of each diocese. And since even among the barbarian nations there then existed churches of the faithful, where perhaps there were few bishops so that there were not enough of them to form a council, or it was necessary for someone distinguished by eloquence to visit frequently the dioceses of other bishops in order to instruct those turning to the faith and establish them in it; therefore the holy council permitted that in the future also they act in accordance with the custom that had been established among them up to that time.

Aristen. No bishop of another diocese must confound the churches by performing ordinations and elevations to thrones in foreign churches. But in the churches that are among the pagans, the custom of the fathers must be preserved.

In many rules it is said that a bishop must not intrude into a foreign episcopate; but each must remain within his own limits, not cross beyond his boundary into another’s, and not confound the churches. But in the churches among the pagans, in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, according to the sixth rule of the Nicene Council, the ancient customs must be preserved.

Valsamon. The sixth and seventh rules of the First Council established which dioceses must be subject to the pope of Rome, the bishop of Alexandria, the Antiochian, and the Jerusalemite. And the present rule determines that the bishops of Asia, the Pontic diocese, Thrace, and others manage affairs within their own limits, and that none of them has authority to act outside his limit and confound the rights of the churches. But if necessity requires that some bishop from his own diocese cross into another for ordination or for some other blessed reason, then he must not intrude into it disorderly and, so to speak, predatorily, but with the permission of the local bishop. And inasmuch as even then among the barbarian nations there existed churches of the faithful, where perhaps they did not ordain many bishops so that there were enough of them to form a council, or perhaps it was necessary for those distinguished by eloquence to visit frequently such eparchies of other bishops in order to establish those turning to the faith: therefore the holy council permitted that in the future also they be guided by such a custom, in view of the necessity of this matter, although it is not according to the rules. Thus, note from the present rule that in antiquity all the metropolitans of the eparchies were independent (autocephalous) and were ordained by their own councils. But this was changed by the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council, which ordained that the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, and also certain others indicated in that rule, be ordained by the patriarch of Constantinople and subject to him. But if you find other independent (autocephalous) churches, such as the Bulgarian, Cypriot, and Iberian, do not be surprised at this. The archbishop of the Bulgarians was honoured by the Emperor Justinian: read his 131st novella, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, Title 3, Chapter 1, placed in the commentary on Chapter 5, Title 1 of the present collection. The archbishop of Cyprus was honoured by the Third Council: read the eighth rule of that council and the thirty-ninth rule of the Sixth Council. And the archbishop of the Iberians was honoured by a decree of the Antiochian Council. They say that in the days of Lord Peter, the most holy patriarch of Theoupolis, that is, great Antioch, there was a conciliar decree that the Iberian church, which was then subject to the patriarch of Antioch, be free and independent (autocephalous). And Sicily, which not many years ago was subject to the throne of Constantinople, is now torn away from it by the hands of tyrants. And I pray that it also be restored to its former rights, through the intercession of our God-guided sovereign, as a certain captive daughter to her free mother. To attach, for the sake of better administration, to some churches other churches that are in the power of pagans is, as is fitting, permitted by the present rule. And recently the Constantinopolitan synod gave the church of Ancyra to the metropolitan of Nazianzus, and to various other hierarchs other churches were given. And to some was granted even the right to sit on the episcopal throne in the holy altar of the attached church.

Slavic Kormchaya. For the sake of limits, let no one confound the church, nor ordain a presbyter or bishop; but the churches of God that are among the nations must hold the custom of the holy fathers.

Interpretation. In many rules it is said that it is not fitting for a bishop to intrude upon a foreign episcopate, but each must remain within his own limits and ordain within his own limits. A bishop, therefore, presbyters and deacons. Likewise also a metropolitan his bishops in his own diocese; let them not leap beyond their own limits and confound the churches. But the churches of God that are among foreign-speaking peoples, which are in Egypt, and Libya, and in Pentapolis, must hold the ancient fatherly custom, as the sixth rule of the First Ecumenical Council which was in Nicaea ordains.

Canon 3. The bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome.

Zonara. After in the preceding rule prescriptions were given concerning the other patriarchal thrones, this rule mentioned also the throne of Constantinople and ordained that it have the prerogatives of honour, that is, primacy or superiority, as New Rome and the city of the emperor, after the bishop of Rome. Some thought that the preposition “after” signifies not a diminution of honour but a comparatively later appearance of this establishment. For although Byzantium was an ancient city and had independent government; yet under Severus, the Roman emperor, it was besieged by the Romans and for three years withstood war, and finally was taken due to lack of necessities for those enclosed in it. Its walls were destroyed, civil rights taken away, and it was subjected to the Perinthians. Perinthus is Heraclea: therefore the ordination of the patriarch was granted to the bishop of Heraclea, since he ordained the bishop of Byzantium. Afterwards the great city was built by Constantine the Great, named after him, and called New Rome. Therefore some said that the preposition “after” signifies time, and not diminution of honour before old Rome. To confirm their opinion they make use of the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council, in which mention is made of the present rule and it is added: “the same also we decree concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of Constantinople, New Rome. For to the throne of old Rome the Fathers fittingly gave prerogatives because that was the imperial city. Following the same consideration, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops granted equal prerogatives to the most holy throne of New Rome, rightly judging that the city which received the honour of being the city of the emperor and the senate, and having equal prerogatives with old imperial Rome, should be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs like that one, and be second after it.” Thus, they say, if they grant it equal honours, how can one think that the preposition “after” signifies subordination? But the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, Title 3, gives grounds to understand these rules otherwise, as they were also understood by this emperor. In it it is said: “We decree, in accordance with the definitions of the holy councils, that the most holy pope of old Rome be the first of all priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, occupy the second rank after the Apostolic throne of old Rome, and have prerogative of honour before all others.” Thus, from this it is clearly seen that the preposition “after” signifies diminution and lessening. For otherwise it would be impossible to preserve the precedence of honour in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that, when the names of their primates are proclaimed, one occupy the first place and the other the second, and in the cathedrae when they come together, and in subscriptions when there is need. Thus, that explanation of the preposition “after” according to which this preposition indicates only time and not diminution is forced and does not proceed from a right and good thought. And the thirty-sixth rule of the Trullan Council clearly shows that the preposition “after” designates diminution, when it says that the throne of Constantinople is reckoned second after the throne of old Rome, and then adds: “and after it let the throne of Alexandria be reckoned, then the Antiochian, and after this the throne of Jerusalem.”

Aristen. The bishop of Constantinople has been honoured with honour after the bishop of Rome.

Equal prerogatives and equal honour with the bishop of Rome must the bishop of Constantinople also have, as also in the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council this rule was understood, because this city is New Rome and received honour to be the city of the emperor and the senate. For the preposition “after” here designates not honour but time, just as if someone said: after much time the bishop of Constantinople also received equal honour with the bishop of Rome.

Valsamon. The city of Byzantium did not have the honour of an archbishopric, but its bishop in antiquity was ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea. History relates that the city of Byzantium, although it had independent government, was besieged by the Roman emperor Severus and subjected to the Perinthians; and Perinthus is Heraclea. But when Constantine the Great transferred to this city the scepters of the Roman empire, it was renamed Constantinople and New Rome and queen of all cities. Therefore the Holy Fathers of the Second Council ordained that its bishop have prerogatives of honour after the bishop of old Rome, because this is New Rome. When this was ordained in this way, some understood the preposition “after” not in the sense of diminution of honour but accepted it only in the meaning of later time, making use, to confirm their opinion, also of the twenty-eighth rule of the Fourth Council, in which it is said: equal prerogatives with the most holy throne of old Rome to have the throne of Constantinople, which is second after it. But do thou read the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, in Title 3, and placed in the scholion on Chapter 5, Title 1 of the present collection, and the thirty-sixth rule of the Trullan Council, in which it is said that the Constantinopolitan throne is second. Seek also the first chapter of Title 8 of the present collection: there we have placed various laws concerning the prerogatives of old and New Rome and the written decree of the holy great Constantine given to holy Sylvester, the then pope of Rome, concerning the prerogatives granted to the church of old Rome. And that now the most holy patriarch of Constantinople is ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea—this derives its beginning from nothing else than that the city of Byzantium, as said above, was subjected to the Perinthians, that is, the Heracleans. Note also by what it is proved that the bishop of Heraclea has the right to ordain the patriarch of Constantinople. In the chronicle of Scylitzes it is said that the patriarch Stephen the Syncellus, brother of the emperor Leo the Wise, was ordained by the bishop of Caesarea, because before that time the bishop of Heraclea had died. We know that also in the reign of Isaac Angelus a certain Leontius, monk from the mountain of holy Auxentius, for the same reason was ordained patriarch of Constantinople by Demetrius, bishop of Caesarea. Note that the throne of Constantinople was honoured with honour by the Second Council—and read Chapter 7 of Title 1 of the present collection and what is written in it.

Slavic Kormchaya. The bishop of the city of Constantine is honoured after the Roman.

Interpretation. Of the same primacy and of the same honour which the bishop of Rome has, the bishop of the city of Constantine also partakes and is likewise honoured, as the twenty-eighth rule of the Council in Chalcedon likewise ordains for this rule. Inasmuch as the city of Constantine is New Rome and was honoured for the sake of the empire and the boyars, for the emperor and the boyars moved there from Rome; and what the rule said, he is honoured after the Roman, does not speak of this as though the Roman were to have greater honour and after him the city of Constantine to be honoured, but this is said concerning the indication of time. Just as if someone had said that after many years the bishop of the city of Constantine will be made worthy of equal honour with the bishop of Rome.

Canon 4. Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder he caused in Constantinople: Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, nor are those ordained by him to any degree of the clergy; and what was done for him and what was done by him—all is void.

Zonara. This Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called Cynics because of their insolence, audacity, and shamelessness. Having come to the great father Gregory the Theologian and been catechized, he was baptized. Afterwards he was enrolled in the clergy and brought completely close to this holy father, so that he even shared meals with him. But desiring the episcopal throne in Constantinople, he sent money to Alexandria and summoned bishops from there who were to ordain him as bishop of Constantinople, with the assistance of one of those closest to the Theologian. When they were already in the church, however, before the completion of the ordination, the faithful learned of it and drove them out. But even after being expelled they did not desist, but withdrawing to the house of a certain musician, there they ordained Maximus, although he gained no benefit from this wickedness, for he was unable to accomplish anything. Thus, by the present rule he was excluded from the church by the holy fathers assembled at the Second Council, who decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not clerics. And finally, when it became known that he held Apollinarian opinions, he was anathematized. The Theologian mentions him in one of his discourses that are not read in the churches.

Aristen. Maximus the Cynic is not a bishop, and everyone ordained by him into the clergy has no priesthood.

For he caused division in the church and filled it with disturbance and disorder, appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and in everything without dispute showing indulgence to those in error, provided only that they held wrong dogmas, according to the word of the great Gregory in theology. Thus, Maximus himself must be deprived of the episcopate, and those ordained by him to any degree of the clergy are deprived of priesthood.

Valsamon. The content of this fourth rule concerns a particular case and does not require interpretation. From history it is known that this Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called Cynics because of their insolence, audacity, and shamelessness. Having come to the great father Gregory the Theologian and been catechized, he was baptized, enrolled in the clergy, and brought close to him. But desiring the patriarchal throne in Constantinople, he made efforts to obtain ordination through money which he sent to the Alexandrian bishops. When these bishops came to Constantinople and attempted to do as Maximus wished, the faithful drove them from the church. But after this they withdrew to the house of a certain musician and there ordained Maximus contrary to the rules. Thus, this holy council excluded him from the church and decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not clerics of any degree. This Maximus, when afterwards it became known that he held Apollinarian opinions, was anathematized. It is written about him in the life of saint Gregory the Theologian, composed by his disciple Gregory; the Theologian also mentions him in one of his discourses that are not read in the churches.

Slavic Kormchaya. Maximus, called the Cynic, is alien from the bishops, and in every way not sacred is whoever was received by him into the clergy.

Interpretation. This Maximus the Cynic is said to be senseless; he tore the church of God and filled it with much tumult and clamour. Appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and ready to forgive all sins to those sinning, for the sole reason that they impiously transgress the commandments. As the great theologian Gregory says, this Maximus must be alien from the episcopate, and all ordained by him—presbyters and deacons and the other clergy—alien from consecration.

Canon 5. Concerning the tome of the Westerners: we accept also those in Antioch who confess the single Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Zonara. The Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having fallen into Arianism, sought to overthrow the First Council. The pope of old Rome informed Constans, the brother of Constantius, about this. Constans in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not cease disturbing the right faith. As a result of this, both emperors agreed that a council be convened and that it judge concerning the Nicene definitions. Thus, in Sardica three hundred and forty-one bishops assembled, who also set forth a definition affirming the holy creed of the Nicene fathers and excluding those who thought otherwise. This very definition the Second Council calls the “tome of the Westerners,” and accepts those who accepted this tome in Antioch. The council calls the bishops assembled in Sardica Westerners. Sardica is called Triaditza. The council called the definition the “tome of the Westerners” because Western bishops alone set it forth: for seventy Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council if the holy Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great did not depart from the assembly. And when the Westerners did not permit this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the council. Therefore the Westerners alone confirmed the Nicene definition, anathematized the heresy of the Anomoeans, and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note from what is related here that the Sardican Council was before the Second Council.

Aristen. The tome of the Westerners, which affirms the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, must be accepted. It is clear.

Valsamon. This rule also is particular. From history it is known that the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having fallen into Arianism, sought to overthrow the First Council. Constans, his brother, who ruled the western parts of the empire, learning of this, in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not cease disturbing the right faith. As a result of this the emperors agreed that in Sardica, or Triaditza, bishops assemble and judge concerning the dogmas set forth in Nicaea. Upon the assembly of three hundred and forty-one bishops, the holy creed of the Nicene fathers was confirmed, and those who did not think thus were anathematized. This definition, accepted also by the Antiochenes, the Second Council calls the “tome of the Westerners”; and it called it the “tome of the Westerners” because Western bishops alone set it forth: for seventy Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council if the holy Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great did not depart from the assembly. And when the Westerners did not permit this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the council. Therefore the Westerners alone confirmed the Nicene definition, anathematized the heresy of the Anomoeans, and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note from what is related here that the Sardican Council was before the Second Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. The decree of the Western bishops, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial and confess one Godhead. For having set this forth they wrote it on a tome, and let it be acceptable to all.

Book of Rules. Here is meant the tome of the Western Bishops, containing the decree of the Sardican Council, by which the Nicene Creed was recognized and confirmed.

Canon 6. Since many, desiring to bring confusion and to overthrow ecclesiastical good order, inimically and slanderously invent certain charges against orthodox bishops who govern the churches, with no other intent than to tarnish the good reputation of the priests and to produce disturbance among the peaceful people; for this reason the holy Council of bishops assembled in Constantinople deemed it good: not to admit accusers without investigation, nor to allow everyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, but also not to forbid all. But if someone brings against a bishop a certain personal, that is, private complaint, such as in a claim concerning property, or in some other injustice suffered from him: in such accusations, neither the person of the accuser nor his faith is to be taken into consideration. It is fitting in every way that the conscience of the bishop be free, and that he who declares himself wronged obtain justice, whatever faith he may be of. But if the charge brought against the bishop be ecclesiastical: then it is fitting to examine the person of the accuser. And first, not to allow heretics to bring accusations against orthodox bishops concerning ecclesiastical matters. And we call heretics both those who have long ago been declared alien to the Church, and those who afterwards were anathematized by us; besides these also those who although they pretend as if they confess our faith soundly, but who have separated and gather assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops. Further, if certain ones belonging to the Church, for certain offences, have previously been condemned and cast out or excommunicated, either from the clergy or from the rank of the laity: these also are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they clear themselves of the charge to which they themselves have fallen subject. Likewise also accusations against a bishop or against others of the clergy from those who themselves have previously been subject to denunciation may be accepted not before they indisputably show their innocence against the accusations brought against them. But if certain ones are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from the communion of the Church, nor condemned, nor previously accused of any crimes, say that they have something to denounce against a bishop concerning ecclesiastical matters: such the holy Council commands first to present their accusations to all the bishops of the diocese, and before them to prove with evidence their denunciations against the bishop who has come under charge. But if the bishops of the united eparchies, beyond expectation, are not able to restore order concerning the accusations brought against the bishop: then the accusers are to approach a greater council of the bishops of the great diocese convened for this reason; but they may not insist on their accusation before they have in writing placed themselves under the risk of the same punishment as the accused, if, in the course of the proceedings, they are found to be slandering the accused bishop. But if someone, despising the decision made after preliminary inquiry, dares either to trouble the ears of the emperor, or the courts of secular rulers, or to disturb an ecumenical council, to the insult of the honour of all the bishops of the diocese: such a one is by no means to be received with his complaint, as having insulted the canons and violated ecclesiastical good order.

Zonara. Here the divine Fathers lay down whom one must accept as accusers of a bishop or clerics, and who must not be accepted, and they say that if someone presents against a bishop a private matter, accusing him, for example, of injustice, that is, of taking immovable or movable property, or of offence, or something of that kind; then the accuser must be accepted—whoever he may be, even if he be unbelieving, or a heretic, or excommunicated, or even completely cut off from the catholic church. For all who declare themselves wronged, of whatever confession or condition they may be, must be admitted and must obtain justice. The fathers spoke of a private matter in distinction from matters of crimes or public matters. Private are called matters concerning monetary loss; and matters of crimes (criminal) are those which cause harm to the rights of the state of the accused; therefore the holy fathers added: but if the charge brought against the bishop be ecclesiastical, that is, such as, for example, would subject him to deprivation of priesthood, such as sacrilege, or ordination for money, or performing some episcopal action in another’s diocese without the knowledge of the local bishop, and the like; in such a case a careful examination must be made of the person of the accuser, and if he is a heretic, he is not to be accepted. It calls heretics all who think not in accordance with the orthodox faith, whether long ago or recently they were excluded from the church, whether they hold ancient or new heresies. And not only those erring concerning the sound faith does the rule not admit to accusation of a bishop in a crime, but also those separated from their bishops and gathering assemblies against them, although they appeared orthodox. Schismatics, according to the rule of Basil the Great, are those who have divided in opinions concerning certain ecclesiastical subjects and questions admitting of healing. In like manner the rule does not admit those who for certain offences have been cast out from the church or deprived of communion. By those cast out one must understand those completely cut off from the church; and those temporarily excommunicated the divine Fathers designated by the word: excommunicated, whether such be clerics or laity: and such cannot be admitted to accusation of bishops or clerics until they remove the charge against themselves and place themselves beyond accusation. The rule commands not to admit to accusation of bishops or clerics such persons who themselves are under some accusation concerning the rights of their state, if they do not prove their innocence in the crimes alleged against them. But if the accuser is hindered by none of the aforesaid causes, but they prove blameless in all respects; then, if the accused is a bishop, the bishops of that eparchy, assembling, must hear the accusation, and either decide the matter, or, if they cannot decide, must refer to a greater council, and by greater council the rule calls the bishops of the whole diocese. By eparchy, for example, one must understand Adrianople or Philippopolis and the bishops in the vicinity of these cities, and by diocese the whole of Thrace or Macedonia. Thus, when the bishops of the eparchy are not able to correct the accused, then the rule ordains that the bishops of the diocese assemble and resolve the accusations against the bishop. But if the accused be a cleric, the accuser must present the accusation to the bishop to whom he is subject, and if the matter is not decided by him, then further proceed as said above. Herein the sacred fathers, following civil law, ordained that the one initiating the case not present the accusation before the accuser in writing certifies that he, in case he does not prove the accusation, himself is subject to the same punishment which the accused would suffer if the accusation against him were proved. Having ordained this, the divine fathers added that he who does not observe this conciliar rule, but either appeals to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical council, must not be admitted to accusation at all, as having dishonoured the bishops of the diocese, insulted the canons, and violated the good order of the church.

Aristen. Even one of evil faith may accuse a bishop in a monetary matter. But if the accusation be ecclesiastical, he cannot present it. Nor can anyone else present an accusation if previously he himself has fallen under condemnation: neither can one deprived of communion, cast out, accused of something, until they clear themselves. But one orthodox, in communion, not condemned and not under accusation, may accuse. The accusation must be presented to the diocesan bishops; and if they are not able to resolve it, the accusers must appeal to a greater council, and may be heard only when they give a written undertaking to suffer the same punishment to which the accused is liable. Whoever without observing this appeals to the emperor and troubles him is subject to excommunication.

Concerning persons who accuse bishops or clerics, an examination must be made: whether this is a heretic, or condemned, or excommunicated, or deprived of communion, or accused by others of crimes and not yet proved clear of the accusation; and if the accusers prove to be such, they are not to be admitted to accusation. But if one bringing an ecclesiastical complaint against a bishop is orthodox and of blameless life and in communion; then he must be accepted and must present his offence before all the bishops in authority. And if they perhaps are not able to render a decision concerning the offences alleged against the bishop, then the accuser must appeal to a greater council, having first given a written undertaking that he must subject himself to the same punishment if convicted of slander, and only then present the accusation. Whoever acts not in accordance with this, and in accusing a bishop troubles the emperor or appeals with accusation to the courts of secular authorities, from such the accusation must not be accepted. But a heretic, if he suffers wrong from a bishop, may without hindrance present accusation against him.

Valsamon. Note the present rule for those initiating judicial proceedings concerning crimes (criminal) against bishops and other sacred ministers. Read also the 129th (143–145) rule of the Carthaginian Council and the laws placed in the commentary on this rule; and you will learn from the present rule and from them to whom it is forbidden to initiate proceedings concerning crimes against sacred persons.

Our enemy Satan has never ceased to defile with slander the intentions of good men, and especially of bishops. Therefore the fathers ordained that every person, honest or dishonest, faithful or unfaithful, having against a bishop a private matter, that is, monetary, is admitted to present a complaint and obtains justice in the competent court. But in a matter of crime or in some ecclesiastical question subjecting the bishop to deposition or penance, he is brought to trial only when the person of the accuser is first subjected to examination. For to heretics the right to accuse a bishop is not given at all. And those excommunicated or previously subject to some accusation cannot initiate accusation against a bishop or cleric until they themselves clear themselves of the accusation. But even when the accuser is such, the rule wishes that a bishop or cleric be brought to trial not simply and haphazardly, but with all lawful precaution and with a written undertaking or agreement to suffer the same punishment if he does not prove the accusation alleged by him. The accusation of a bishop or cleric is presented first to the metropolitan; but if the local council cannot decide the matter, then, according to the rule, a greater council must hear the matter. Whoever acts not in accordance with it, but appeals either to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical council, is not admitted to accusation, as an insulter of the canons and violator of ecclesiastical good order. The rule called private matters monetary matters in distinction from matters of crimes, which are called public because they are initiated by anyone from the people, which does not happen in monetary complaints, since such are initiated only by him who has a claim. And when you hear that the present rule calls heretics also those who pretend as if they confess our faith soundly but who have separated and gather assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops, do not think that you contradict the second rule of Basil the Great, which does not call schismatics heretics, but say that the present rule calls heretics such schismatics who think completely contrary but by pretence appear orthodox, in reality being heretics; while the rule of saint Basil speaks of other schismatics who in reality are orthodox but under pretext of some ecclesiastical misunderstanding have separated, through self-conceit, from the wholeness of the brotherhood. Read the said rule of the holy father. From the last words of the present rule, in which it is said that one acting not in accordance with the rule must not be accepted with accusation, as an insulter of the canons, some strove to conclude that such a one is also subject to deprivation of honour. But it seems to me that from this it does not follow that one acting thus contrary to order is subject to condemnation for insult and consequently to deprivation of honour and after this to deposition, on the basis of the rule which says: “what is clearly said harms, what is implied does not harm”; otherwise how would he be subject to punishment at the discretion of the judge? When one bishop was brought on a criminal matter to the holy Constantinopolitan synod and appealed against the judgment of his metropolitan and his council, by force of the present rule; then some said that if the metropolitan present at the council wishes his bishop to be judged at a great council, let him be judged before him; while others objected that the judgment over him is not in the power of the metropolitan but belongs to the council consisting with him, and that for a bishop it is far more advantageous to be judged by his own council and not to be brought to another council—and for this there is no need even of the metropolitan’s permission. Still others said that the rule speaks of an ecumenical council, while the great Constantinopolitan synod or council is not ecumenical, and therefore the content of the rule has no place in the present matter. But it seems to me that although the synod in Constantinople is not an ecumenical council, since the other patriarchs are not present at it, yet it is greater than all synods, and its archbishop is called ecumenical patriarch—and the advantage belongs not to the metropolitan but to the bishop or cleric brought to his trial. Therefore none of them will suffer harm from the metropolitan permission by force of the law which says: what is done by some serves neither to the benefit nor to the harm of others.

Slavic Kormchaya. Even one of evil faith, if wronged, may speak against a bishop. But if it be concerning an ecclesiastical offence, he may not speak. Nor may anyone else speak who previously has been found in defamations. Nor may one cast out from communion or accused of anything speak, until he lays aside his own. But one of right faith, and in communion, and unknown in defamations, and not accused, may speak, and must show the offence to those in authority. But if they cannot correct it, let him go to a greater council. And without a writing saying, I will suffer this if I speak falsely, let it not be heard. One coming to the church beyond these and making clamour is cast out.

Interpretation. It is fitting to examine the persons and lives of those slandering and speaking against a bishop or cleric, that such be not a heretic, or known in some defamation, or cast out from the church, or from communion, or accused by others of sins and not yet having justified himself of his fault. And if such be the slanderers, do not accept them to accusation of a bishop. But if he be of right faith and of blameless life and a communicant of the catholic church, who brings an ecclesiastical charge against a bishop, let him be accepted and let him declare his offence before all the bishops in authority. But if they cannot correct the offences alleged against the bishop, let him who speaks slanders against the bishop approach a greater council, and let him give to the first council a document, having written on it that if I am convicted of lying in slandering the bishop, I will suffer this or that punishment, and thus it will be established, and he will be assured concerning his declaration. But if he does not do thus, but coming to the emperor and making clamour speaking against a bishop, or comes concerning this to the tribunals of secular boyars, such a one is not accepted to slander a bishop. But a heretic if wronged by a bishop, it is not forbidden him to speak against him and to obtain justice.

Canon 7. Those joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved from among the heretics we accept according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians and Novatians, who call themselves pure and better, the Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, when they give written statements and anathematize every heresy that does not think as the holy God’s Catholic and Apostolic Church thinks, we accept by sealing, that is, by anointing with holy chrism first the forehead, then the eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and in sealing them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. But Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, called Phrygians here, and Sabellians, who hold the opinion of son-fatherhood and do other intolerable things, and all other heretics (for there are many such here, especially those coming out of the country of Galatia), all who from among them wish to be joined to Orthodoxy we accept as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second catechumens, then on the third we exorcise them with threefold blowing upon the face and upon the ears: and thus we catechize them and cause them to sojourn in the church and to hear the Scriptures, and then we baptize them.

Zonara. The present rule teaches how those coming from heresies to the right faith must be received. Certain of such it prescribes not to rebaptize, but to require from them written statements, that is, written testimonies in which their opinions are anathematized, their impiety condemned, and anathema pronounced upon every heresy. To such belong: the Arians, and Macedonians, and Novatians, who call themselves Pure, whose heresies we have defined earlier; and the Sabbatians, whose leader was a certain Sabbatius, who himself was a presbyter in the heresy of Novatus, but had something more than he, and surpassed the teacher of the heresy in malice, and celebrated together with the Jews; and the Fourteen-day observers, who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day it happens to become full; and they celebrate it then in fasting and vigil; and the Apollinarians. These heretics are not rebaptized, because concerning holy baptism they differ in nothing from us, but are baptized in the same way as the orthodox. Thus, each of them, anathematizing his own heresy in particular and every heresy in general, is anointed with holy chrism, and performs the rest according to the rule. But those subject to rebaptism are the Eunomians and Sabellians, whose heresies we have already explained, and the Montanists, who received their name from a certain Montanus, and were called also Phrygians either because the leader of their heresy was a Phrygian, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia, and there many were seduced into it. This Montanus called himself the Comforter, and the two women accompanying him, Priscilla and Maximilla, he called prophetesses. The Montanists were also called Pepuzians, because they considered Pepuza, a village in Phrygia, a divine place, and named it Jerusalem. They commanded marriages to be dissolved, taught abstinence from food, perverted Pascha, united and merged the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixing the blood of a pierced infant with flour and making bread from this—they offered it and communed from it. Thus, these and all other heretics the sacred fathers ordained to baptize: for they either did not receive divine baptism, or, having received it wrongly, received it not according to the ordinance of the orthodox church; therefore the holy fathers regard them as if unbaptized from the beginning. For this is what the expression means: “we accept them as pagans.” Then the rule enumerates the actions performed over them, and that they are first catechized and taught our divine mysteries, then baptized.

Aristen. Rule 7. Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites, Arian, Novatian, Macedonian, Sabbatian, and Apollinarian must be received with written statements, after anointing with chrism all the organs of sense.

They, having given written statements and anathematizing every heresy, are received through anointing only with holy chrism the eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth, and forehead. And in sealing them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rule 8. Eunomians baptized with one immersion, Sabellians, and Phrygians must be received as pagans.

They are both baptized and anointed with chrism, because they are received as pagans, and for a sufficient time before baptism they remain in the state of catechumens and hear the divine scriptures.

Valsamon. This rule divides heretics coming to the church into two classes: and certain it commands to anoint with chrism, with the condition that they first anathematize every heresy and promise to believe as the holy church of God thinks; and others it ordains to baptize properly. And to the first, who must be only anointed with chrism, the rule assigns the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, and Novatians, called also Pure, whose heresies we explained in the first rule of this Second Council. The Novatians were called also Sabbatians after a certain presbyter Sabbatius, who observed the sabbath according to the Jewish custom; they are also called left-handed, because they abhor the left hand and do not allow themselves to receive anything with this hand. Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites are called those who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day this happens, which is characteristic of the Jewish religion. They are also called Tetradites because, celebrating Pascha, they do not break the fast but fast, as we do on Wednesdays; and this they do according to the Jewish custom. For these, after celebrating Pascha, fast the whole seven days, eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread, according to the prescription of the old law. And those subject to rebaptism, according to the rule, are the Eunomians, baptized with one immersion, and the Montanists, so called after a certain Montanus, who named himself the Comforter and through two evil women, Priscilla and Maximilla, uttered false prophecies. To them are assigned the Sabellians, so called after a certain Sabellius, who, among certain other absurdities, said also that one and the same is Father, one and the same Son, one and the same Holy Spirit, so that in one hypostasis three names, as in a man body, soul, and spirit, or in the sun three actions: sphericity, light, and heat. The Montanists are called Phrygians either after some heresiarch Phrygian, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia. Besides this they are called Pepuzians after the village of Pepuza, honoured by them as Jerusalem. They dissolve marriages as abominable, fast a strange fast, pervert Pascha; unite and merge the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixing with flour the blood of a pierced infant and preparing bread from this, make an offering from it. And this is so. But if some orthodox becomes a Montanist or Sabellian and receives the baptism of heretics or does not receive it, must such a one be anointed with chrism or rebaptized, like the other Montanists? Seek concerning this the nineteenth rule of the First Council and the forty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles. And from the present rule note that all who are baptized with one immersion are rebaptized.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 7. Fourteen-day observers, who are also called Wednesday-observers, and Arians, and Novatians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Apollinarians, having given a writing, are acceptable, anointing only all the senses.

Interpretation. All these are heretics: and when they approach the catholic church and having written their heresy and read it before all and cursed it, and with it all heresies, let them be accepted: only anointing with holy chrism the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth; and when we sign them with chrism, saying thus: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. And they are called Wednesday-observers because on Wednesday they eat meat, and on Saturday they fast. These are named Fourteen-day observers because on the fourteenth day of the moon they celebrate Pascha.

Rule 8. (Of the Holy Apostles 50). Baptism not in three immersions is not baptism. Those baptized with one immersion, Eunomians, and Sabellians, and Phrygians, shall be accepted as Hellenes.

Interpretation. And these are heretics who are baptized with one immersion and not three, as the orthodox: these if they approach the catholic church shall be accepted as pagans, and before baptism for a sufficient time are instructed, and let them listen to the divine scriptures, and afterwards are fully baptized and anointed; thus we accept them as Hellenes. On the first day indeed we make them Christians. On the second we make them catechumens, that they be instructed in the faith. On the third day we perform exorcism and blowing thrice upon the face and ears. And thus we instruct them and command them to spend sufficient time in the church and listen to the divine scriptures, and then we baptize them. But before all this let them curse their heresy with a writing, and all others as also the previously named heretics.

source