Sources of Church Canons in Ancient Orthodoxy #

Archpriest Vadim Korovin

Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His Church, of which He Himself is both the Cornerstone and the Head, and He summoned all nations “unto the marriage feast” in this Church.

The word Church means “assembly.” The Church of God, as defined by Saint Arseny of the Urals, is “the voluntary reception and retention of divine grace by rational and free beings [that is, God’s angels and mankind], through which these rational and free beings, as far as is possible for them, are united with God; and being united with Him, they are also gathered together into one… Angels and men who voluntarily receive divine grace in the reverence of the Lord their God—these constitute the Church of God.”¹

The Church consists of two parts: the earthly part, which is “pilgrimaging,” and the Heavenly part.² The earthly Church is often called the “militant” Church, because it stands against the wiles of the devil on earth; the Heavenly Church is called “triumphant,” for it consists of those who have conquered the devil—both angels and the souls of the saints, with Christ Himself at their head.

A key attribute of the Church is its unity—not only unity among people on earth, but also unity of faith between the earthly and Heavenly parts. If any segment of the earthly Church alters the faith, it thereby severs its unity of faith with the Heavenly Church and falls away from it and from the Head of the Church. As the holy Apostle Jude says: “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the [Holy] Spirit” (Jude, verse 19). Thus, those who separate themselves from the unity of the faith are deprived of the saving grace of the Holy Ghost.

The unity of Christ’s Church, as an essential characteristic of it, is itself indestructible. However, those who refuse to preserve the unity of the faith fall away from it.

The necessity of unity of faith for those who dwell within the Church stems from the foremost commandment of God—love for God. And the second commandment, “like unto it”—love for one’s neighbor (that is, for mankind)—dictates the need not only to preserve the true faith of Christ, but also to uphold Christian relations among the members of the earthly part of the Church.

Man is endowed by God with free will—that is, the capacity to choose between good and evil (good being everything in accordance with the will of God, and evil everything contrary to it). Likewise, the law of conscience is implanted in the soul of man, commanding him to do good and to shun evil.

But fallen human nature in Adam tends to use this freedom of will toward evil, which separates man from God. Christ, however, calls us to true freedom—the freedom from sin, the freedom of true love for God and neighbor. Holy Baptism (as the death of the old man and the rebirth of the new in Christ) and Chrismation (as the seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost), according to the teaching of the Church, not only cleanse the Christian from former sins, but also impart strength for the struggle against new temptations.

Yet due to weakness and inattention, even a baptized person inevitably falls into sin—whether by his own will or by the devil’s temptation—so that the inner law of conscience alone is often insufficient to preserve him from sin. There is also a need for external ordinances, which serve as a kind of bridle to restrain us from the gravest evils, which are soul-destroying. From ancient times, both civil and religious laws have served such a purpose. In the Church of Christ, there are likewise such ordinances, called canonical rules.

Moreover, the earthly Church is a community composed of people differing in temperament, character, political, scientific, and other views—often with diverse interests and aspirations. In order that this community not descend into chaos, common rules and ecclesiastical governance are necessary. Canonical rules were established precisely to regulate these aspects of the life of the Church on earth.

Church canons also define certain dogmas of the faith, the canonical composition of Holy Scripture, the authoritative list of foundational canonical rules, the relationship between the earthly Church and state authority, and many other aspects of the life of the “militant” and “pilgrimaging” Church on earth.

What is Church Law, and is it important to know Church rules? #

Church law—derived from the word pravý (right, correct)—is the collection of norms binding upon all Christians concerning the Orthodox confession of faith, proper conduct, the correct performance of the sacraments, and more. These norms are primarily set forth in the Church rules (canons).

A canon (in Slavonic, pravilo, “rule”) is a term originally from the Greek, referring to an instrument used to correct or straighten uneven surfaces of materials or objects. The holy Fathers adopted this word to refer to ecclesiastical legislative prescriptions intended to direct and correct various aspects of life and activity, both of the individual Christian and of the earthly Church as a whole. In other words, canon law is the internal legislation of the earthly portion of Christ’s Church, distinct from civil law.

In addition to the “canonical matters,” the ancient canonists also include in Church law the “Gospel commandments”—that is, “those things which are prescribed to us in the Gospel, such as to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and not to put away one’s wife, except for the cause of fornication; and others like them” (Zonaras and Valsamon, in their commentary on the 6th canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).

Furthermore, regarding those matters for which there is no written law (rules), a longstanding pious custom holds the force of law (see the 87th canon of St. Basil the Great, and the commentaries of John Zonaras and Theodore Valsamon; also Alphabetical Syntagma of Matthew Vlastar, Section E, ch. 2).

Church law, although it encompasses not only canons but also divine commandments and pious customs maintained within the Church, is still often referred to simply as “canon law” (likely because the canonical rules make up its largest portion).

At the time when the norms of Church law were being formed, the Roman Empire already had a developed system of civil law, and some of its principles influenced ecclesiastical canons—especially after Christianity was declared the state religion. Thus, for a certain historical period, Church law became a component of Roman legislation; civil laws influenced Church canons, and the Church’s canon law likewise exerted influence on norms of civil law.

Today, the earthly Church is separated from the state. Each of its geographic branches is subject to the civil laws of the country in which it operates, but it retains Church law as its internal order. Civil legislation continues to diverge from the principles of Roman law, and therefore one may say that Church law is the last living remnant of classical Roman law. According to Saint John Chrysostom, when “the Roman authority falls,” chaos will reign among men, and the final Antichrist will come to rule the world. This “Roman authority” may be understood as Roman law. If that is so, then by preserving and fulfilling the canonical rules, Christians resist the coming chaos and the appearance of “the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3). Conversely, those Christians who treat the Church rules with contempt, who deem them unnecessary or outdated, who teach and encourage others not to follow them—are they not committing a grievous sin thereby (cf. Matt. 5:19)? And in their blind recklessness, are they not hastening apocalyptic woes upon the world and calling forth the coming of the “beast”?..

The Church rules safeguard every Christian—from the simplest layman to the highest-ranking hierarch—from the perdition of the soul. They preserve the earthly Church from division and scandal, from chaos and the calamities that come with it.

As the eminent ancient canonists write, the Church rules are inspired by the Divine Spirit (see the 1st Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). They are one of the manifestations of the Creator’s divine love for His creation.

Just as traffic regulations exist not for the sake of penalties and punishments, but to prevent bodily harm and death, so the Church’s canons are given to instruct us and guide us on the right path—so that we may avoid eternal spiritual destruction.

And just as only those who have studied traffic laws are permitted to sit behind the wheel of a passenger bus—lest through ignorance of the rules both the driver and passengers perish—so too must the pastors of the Church be men who possess sufficient knowledge of the canons, lest they themselves perish and also destroy the flock entrusted to them.

Thus, the God-inspired trumpets of the Holy Spirit—the holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council—proclaimed at the very outset of their decrees:

“For those who have received the dignity of the priesthood, the written rules and decrees serve as testimony and guidance. Willingly receiving them, we sing with the God-speaking David, saying unto the Lord our God: I have rejoiced in the way of Thy testimonies, as much as in all riches; and also: Thou hast commanded righteousness in Thy testimonies forever: give me understanding, and I shall live.

And if the prophetic voice commands us to keep God’s testimonies forever and to live in them, it is clear that these are firm and unshakable. For the God-seer Moses also says: Thou shalt not add to these, nor take away from them. And the divine Apostle Peter, exalting them, cries aloud: Which things the angels desire to look into. Likewise Paul declares: Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Since this is faithful and has been testified unto us, we rejoice in it as one who has found great treasure, and we accept the divine canons with delight, holding fast to the entire and unshakable authority of these decrees—those set forth by the all-laudable Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, by the holy Ecumenical Councils, by local councils assembled to issue such decrees, and by our holy Fathers. For they were all enlightened by the one and same Spirit and have established what is profitable.

Those whom they anathematize, we also anathematize; those whom they cast out, we also cast out; those whom they excommunicate, we likewise excommunicate; those whom they subject to penance, we also subject to penance. For the divine Apostle Paul, who was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words, clearly proclaims: Let your manner be without covetousness; be content with such things as ye have.”

What are the sources of Church law? #

As can be seen from the foregoing, Church law has, in the most general sense, one principal source: the divine will, expressed by the grace of the Holy Ghost through the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition of the Church.

Human cooperation, as manifested in pious customs, holds secondary and subordinate significance—and is only accepted as valid when it conforms to (and does not contradict) the divine will as expressed through the decrees of the God-inspired Holy Councils or the saints guided by the Spirit of God. Oftentimes, long-standing pious customs were directly enshrined as written norms of Church law—that is, they became part of either conciliar decrees or the rules of the Holy Fathers.

But if some long-standing custom contradicts their decrees, then it is nothing more than a “long-entrenched error” (St. Cyprian, Hieromartyr and Bishop of Carthage. Works, vol. 1. Kiev, 1891, p. 357).

The same applies to the decrees of civil authorities. They may be received by the Church and even included in collections of canon law—but only on the condition that they do not contradict Holy Scripture and Tradition, including the canons of the Church.³

Man is endowed by God with the gift of creativity. This gift can benefit the Church of God even if the one bearing it is not a saint—or even not a member of the Church at all (for example, a heretic). Thus, certain Church customs were either adopted from heretics and adapted for the good of Christians (for instance, processions were invented by the Arians and were later sanctioned in the Orthodox Church by Saint John Chrysostom), or were introduced by heretical patriarchs but not rejected by the Church (for example, the custom of blessing kutia on Theodore Saturday was instituted by the Arianizing Patriarch Eudoxius but was not repudiated by the Orthodox), or were established by hierarchs who were not saints in their manner of life, yet whose enactments were deemed proper and beneficial. For instance, Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, was unstable in the faith, resentful, and vengeful; by his order, there were mass killings of desert-dwelling ascetics, and he also campaigned for the deposition of Saint John Chrysostom. Though his entourage referred to him as a saint, the Church does not recognize him as such. Nonetheless, the rules he composed were accepted by the Church at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, because in content they were found to be just and beneficial.

The sources of Church law may be divided into written sources (Holy Scripture, Church canons, and some civil laws approved by the Church) and unwritten sources (pious customs).

They are also divided into those properly ecclesiastical in origin and those borrowed from civil acts.

We shall now consider, with God’s help, the main available written sources of Church law preserved in the Old Rite tradition.

Written Sources of Church Law #

The principal written sources of Church law in the Old Rite tradition include:

• Holy Scripture, primarily the New Testament, and also those parts of the Old Testament whose provisions remain relevant under Christianity;

• The numerous canonical decrees adopted by:

  • the holy Apostles,

  • the holy Fathers,

  • the Ecumenical and Local Councils,

  • the Councils of the Russian Church prior to the Schism of the 17th century,

  • and the conciliar decisions of the Old Rite Church after the Schism.

It is important to note that the ancient rules often contain expressions that are obscure to the modern reader, refer to unfamiliar concepts, or mention little-known events from early Church history. In order to interpret these rules correctly, it is essential to use the commentaries (interpretations) written by authoritative and universally recognized Orthodox canonists of antiquity, such as:

• the monk John Zonaras,

• the deacon Alexios Aristenos,

• Theodore Valsamon, Patriarch of Antioch,

• the hieromonk Matthew Vlastar (the Nomocanonist),

• St. Nikon, abbot of the Black Mountain Monastery,

• Constantine Harmenopoulos, the Thessalonian canonist and judge (nomophylax),
  and others.

The importance of knowing the writings of these interpreters is stated explicitly in the Nomocanon (the collection of canonical rules) included in the Great Potrebnik:

“Those who desire to understand more perfectly and to know the canons must acquire the books of all the canons—namely, the book of the venerable John Zonaras, who interpreted the canons of both Ecumenical and Local Councils and of the Holy Fathers; and the book of the most blessed Theodore Valsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, who interpreted all the canons more fully; likewise the Nomocanon of the Orthodox and blessed Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople; and the book of the venerable hieromonk Matthew, who wisely collected and compiled the rules according to their categories—this book is exceedingly necessary; also the book of canons compiled by Archdeacon Alexios; and the book of Sebastos Constantine Harmenopoulos, nomophylax and judge of Thessalonica; and also the epistles of the blessed Nikon.

Furthermore, let every man know that it is not permitted, not only for priests but even for bishops, to act contrary to the canons: on this matter read the deliberations of Saint Ignatius and Saint Theodore the Studite. And let no bishop, priest, or spiritual father be ordained who has not acquired these books and is not instructed from them [mark this well, O priest!]”
(cf. Preface to the Nomocanon in the Great Potrebnik)

In other words, the Nomocanon explicitly commands that no one be ordained to holy orders unless he possesses and studies the books of these interpreters and systematizers of Church rules.

In our further discussion, we shall not address separately the apostolic and other canons, their historical origins, scholarly debates about authorship, and similar matters—these are theoretically important and of interest, but we leave them to the inquisitive reader for independent study. Far more beneficial for the soul, in our view, is a different task: to describe the most important and presently accessible books that contain these canons and their interpretations.

Setting aside Holy Scripture (which, as the holy Fathers teach, must also be studied with patristic commentaries—for otherwise, in the apt words of the venerable Vincent of Lérins, “as many heads, so many opinions”⁴), we shall concern ourselves only with those written sources which contain the actual ecclesiastical canons and their interpretations.

And so, let us proceed to examine the most authoritative and accessible books that serve as sources of canon law in the Old Rite tradition.

The Kormchaya Book of Moscow Patriarch Iosif. Volume 1 #

The most well-known and authoritative canonical publication in pre-schism Rus’ was the so-called Kormchaya Book. Its name is derived from the word kormchiy, meaning “helmsman” or “pilot of a ship.” Just as the helmsman, standing at the helm, steers the vessel’s course, so too must Church canons guide the earthly Church and all her children toward salvation.

In the Old Orthodox tradition, two editions of the Kormchaya are used: the Iosifovskaya Kormchaya of 1650–1652 (an extremely rare book, reprinted in 1912–1913 in two volumes as an appendix to the Old Orthodox journal Church) and the Nikonovskaya Kormchaya (the same book, with no alterations to the text of the canons themselves, but lacking the preface and supplemented at the beginning and end with various historical materials; it was published by Patriarch Nikon during the early period of his patriarchate, prior to his anathemas against the Old Orthodox). It was this latter edition and its reprints that were typically used by Old Orthodox Christians in the post-schism period. Today, however, the Iosifovskaya Kormchaya, reprinted several times from the 1913 edition, is the most accessible for practical use. What follows is a description of the contents of the Iosifovskaya Kormchaya.

Let us begin, then, with a description of the contents of this book (its first volume):

1. [Leaves 1–4, pp. 15–22] “Preface” on the necessity of observing Church canons and on the inadmissibility of neglecting them. Originally composed for the Stryatin edition of 1604, it was reprinted in a new redaction in the Iosifovskaya Kormchaya. In the Nikonovskaya Kormchaya, these leaves were removed entirely, so that its pagination begins with leaf 5.

2. [Leaves 5–21, pp. 23–55] “Account of the Holy and Great Seven Ecumenical Councils and Nine Local Ones: Where and When Each Was Convened.”
   This chapter contains a brief historical overview of the Ecumenical and Local Holy Councils convened in the first millennium after the Nativity of Christ, whose canons were incorporated into the Kormchaya, along with an enumeration of the heresies against which these councils were gathered. The chronology of these councils is given according to the “from Adam” reckoning of years.

3. [Leaf 21 verso – Leaf 23 verso, pp. 56–60] “Preface of the One Who Gathered the Holy Canons into Fourteen Titles.”
   The collection mentioned in the heading—known as the Syntagma of Fourteen Titles—was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (erroneously called “Byzantium” in modern usage) in the second half of the 7th century A.D.; the canons included in it were confirmed as universally binding at the Sixth Ecumenical (Trullan) Council. This preface introduces the following chapters and speaks of the importance and divine pleasingness of the sacred canons, as well as of the alignment between them and the civil laws of the empire.

4. [Leaves 24–25, pp. 61–63] “Another Preface by the Compiler of the Canons Following the Fifth, and Adding Those of the Sixth and Seventh, along with Those of the Apostles and Former Holy Fathers’ Councils.” This is a later text explaining the need to expand the ancient compilation (the syntagma) of canons.

5. [Leaf 25 recto and verso, pp. 63–64] “From the Commandments of the Holy Fathers, Concerning the Keeping of the Sacred Canons.”
   Due to the significance of this small supplementary chapter, we present its text in full:

“With all strength and might, archbishops and bishops are bound to keep vigil over the sanctified canons of divine rules. For it is firmly entrusted to them to preserve them, so that nothing of them may be transgressed, passed over through forgetfulness, or neglected through omission—for on that Day all shall be sought out amid torment. For those who preserve the sacred canons are granted the aid of the Master and God. But those who transgress them cast themselves into final condemnation. When the divine canons are not observed, various transgressions arise from this—and from that also the wrath of God descends upon us, along with many punishments and the Last Judgment. Responsible for all this are the hierarchs who do not keep watch nor guard the vineyard, which is the Church, but allow it to be harmed out of some passion or out of an unreasoning lack of fear of the Most High, even though they swore to preserve it, and to uphold the judgments of the law and the righteousness of God. Bitter is the judgment upon such men, and they shall be repaid according to their deeds.”

In the margin there is a note: “The wrath of God does not tarry upon those who do not observe the canons of the holy apostles and God-bearing fathers.”

It is precisely to avoid this wrath of God that the holy canons were established.

6. [Leaves 26–55, pp. 65–124] “Titles of the Canons Compiled and Thematically Arranged by Chapter Titles.”
   This is a detailed thematic index of the sacred canons, divided into 14 “sections” (or “facets”), each subdivided by chapters according to topic. The actual texts of the canons are not included in this section—only references to their numbers are provided. The full texts of the canons appear in the subsequent chapters of the Kormchaya.

7. [Leaves 56–60, pp. 125–133] “Table of Contents of the Nomocanon, That Is, the Canon Law: of the Holy Apostles, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and Other Local Ones, and of Certain Holy Fathers Who Issued Rules Individually; and the Order in Which They Appear; and Which Council or Saint Issued How Many Canons.”
   This section serves as a table of contents for the subsequent body of the Kormchaya, listing the leaf numbers on which the canons of the Holy Apostles, the Councils, and the Holy Fathers are located, as well as civil laws and other canonical materials.

8. [Leaves 1 (from here begins a second foliation) – 24, pp. 135–182] “Chapter 1. Presentation of the Apostolic and Patristic Canons, with Commentary by the Deacon Alexios and the Law-Keeper Aristinos. Canons of the Holy Apostles.”
   Here begin the actual sacred canons. It should be noted that in the various Slavonic Kormchaya compilations, these canons appear in the recension of the ancient Greek Synopsis, compiled by Stephen of Ephesus and later reworked in the 10th century by the Venerable Simeon Metaphrastes. The canons in the Synopsis were presented in an abbreviated, concise form, and it was in this form that they were incorporated into the Kormchaya. The canons in the Kormchaya are accompanied by interpretations drawn from commentaries on the Synopsis, compiled by the well-known 12th-century Constantinopolitan canonist Deacon Alexios Aristinos, who served as oikonomos of the Great Church (Hagia Sophia). Some key points of the canons are also briefly noted in the margins of the Kormchaya. For instance, beside the 50th canon of the Holy Apostles, there is a note: “In holy baptism, the baptized are to be immersed, not sprinkled.”

9. [Leaves 25–26 verso, pp. 183–186] “Of the Holy Apostle Paul, Seventeen Ecclesiastical Canons. Chapter 2.”
   This text, as well as the following “Canons of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul” and “Canons of All Twelve Holy Apostles,” are fragments from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions, handed down through the Holy Hieromartyr Clement, bishop of ancient Rome. The Apostolic Constitutions (“Clementine Books”) were excluded from the universally accepted body of canons, but were not forbidden for reading, as clarified by the Council of Constantinople under Patriarch Nicholas in the 19th response to the questions of the monk John: “As for the commandments of the glorious and all-laudable Apostles, written down by Clement, they should be honored, though not read publicly, on account of the weakness—that is, lack of understanding—of many.” (Kormchaya, leaf 582 recto and verso.) Thus, these canons are not rejected by the Church, and these three chapters of the Kormchaya are considered authoritative sources of ecclesiastical law. This chapter contains a total of 17 canons. They are presented without commentary.

10. [Leaves 27–29, pp. 187–192] “Of Both the Holy and Chief Apostles Peter and Paul, Seventeen Canons. Chapter 3.”

11. [Leaf 30 recto and verso, pp. 193–194] “Of All the Holy Apostles Together, Two Canons. Chapter 4.”

12. [Leaves 31–41, pp. 195–215] “The Holy Ecumenical First Council Held in Nicaea… Chapter 5.”
    This section contains a brief history of the First Ecumenical Council and its twenty canons, along with commentary by Aristinos. Among all the canons of this Holy Council, special attention is given to the 8th canon, which commands that heretics of the second rank, upon joining the Orthodox Church, be retained in the sacred orders they held in their heretical communities—whether as bishops, priests, or other clerics. This canon provided a canonical basis for the Old Orthodox (Old Believer) clergy, after the Nikonian Schism, to receive into the Church priests and other clerics who had been ordained in the New Rite Church, preserving their rank. In this way, the Old Orthodox priesthood was maintained until 1846, when Metropolitan Ambrose of Bosnia-Sarajevo was received into the Church in his existing rank, thereby restoring the episcopate among the Old Orthodox.

13. [Leaf 41 verso – Leaf 51 verso, pp. 216–236] “Canons of the Holy Local Council Held in Ancyra: Twenty-Five Canons. Chapter 6.”
    This section contains a brief history of the Council of Ancyra and presents its 25 canons, each accompanied by the commentary of Aristinos.

14. [Leaves 52–57, pp. 237–247] “Canons of the Holy Council in New Caesarea. Chapter 7.”
    This chapter presents the history and 15 canons of the Holy Local Council of Neocaesarea, with commentaries by Aristinos.

15. [Leaf 57 verso – Leaf 61 verso, pp. 248–256] “Of the Holy Local Council in Gangra: Twenty Canons. Chapter 8.”
    Here are presented the historical background and 20 canons of the Local Council of Gangra. The interpretation of all these canons is given as a single text by Aristinos and is placed separately after the canons (on leaf 59 verso, or p. 252).

16. [Leaf 61 verso – Leaf 71 verso, pp. 257–276] “Of the Holy Local Council of Antioch in Syria: Twenty-Five Canons. Chapter 9.”
    This section includes the history of two councils held in Antioch of Syria, a letter from the second council to the bishops of all regions, and 25 canons contained in that letter. Each canon is followed by commentary by Alexios Aristinos.

17. [Leaves 72–84 verso, pp. 277–302] “The Holy Local Council in Laodicea of Phrygia… Chapter 10.”
    This chapter contains 58 canons of the Local Council of Laodicea, all with commentaries by Aristinos.

18. [Leaves 85–88 verso, pp. 303–310] “The Second Holy Ecumenical Council. Chapter 11.”
    This chapter outlines the history of the Second Ecumenical Council, its epistle to Emperor Theodosius the Great, and its 8 canons, accompanied by commentaries from Aristinos. Special attention is drawn to the 7th canon of this Holy Council, which decrees that a range of heretics—including the Novatians (also mentioned in the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council)—are to be received into the Church through a renunciation of their heresies and chrismation. Thus, combining the provisions of both these canons, it must be concluded that Novatian clergy, once received into the Church by the “second rite” (chrismation), retained in Orthodoxy the sacred ranks they had held in the Novatian heresy—whether bishop, priest, or other cleric. Therefore, Old Orthodox priests, when receiving priests and deacons from the Nikonian Church (who were equated in rank with the ancient Novatians), rightly considered them to be valid priests and deacons.

19. [Leaves 89–92, pp. 311–317] “Canons of the Holy Third Ecumenical Council, Held in Ephesus… Chapter 12.”
    This chapter presents a brief history of the Third Ecumenical Council and its 9 canons, with commentary by Alexios Aristinos. For the Old Orthodox during the 17th-century Schism, the 3rd canon of this Council held great significance. It declares that any bishop, priest, or deacon who was “deposed” by heretical bishops for confessing the Orthodox Christian faith must remain in his clerical rank.

20. [Leaves 93–106 verso, pp. 319–346] “Canons of the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council, Held in Chalcedon: Thirty Canons. Chapter 13.”
    This section contains a brief history of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and its 30 canons, explained by Aristinos. Of perennial importance for the Church is the Council’s first canon, which states: “Let the canons of the Holy Fathers, issued at each of the councils, be held firmly even to this day.” The continuity of Church Tradition is the foundation of Orthodoxy.

21. [Leaves 107–115 verso, pp. 347–364] “Of the Holy Local Council Held in Sardica, That Is, in Sredets: Twenty-One Canons. Chapter 14.”
    This chapter presents the brief history and 21 canons of the Local Sardican Council, each with interpretation by Aristinos.

22. [Leaves 116–172, pp. 365–477] “Of the Holy Local Council Held in Carthage: 138 Canons. Chapter 15.”
    The content of this chapter follows the same structure as the previous ones. It should be noted that there are differing counts of the canons of the Council of Carthage. In the Book of Canons with Commentaries (which, God willing, will be discussed below), the number of canons is 147, plus two epistles of the Council; but in the Kormchaya, the number is 138 (some canons are combined under a single number, and two abbreviated epistles are included among the canons as such). Among the important rulings of this Council is Canon 12 (by both counts), which reads: “A bishop who is accused of some offense must not be judged by fewer than twelve bishops. A presbyter is to be judged by six, and a deacon by three.” Commentary: “If it is not possible for all to assemble, still no fewer than twelve bishops must judge the bishop. For a presbyter—six bishops and his own metropolitan. For a deacon—three bishops and his own diocesan.”
    In other words, the required quorum to judge a bishop is twelve bishops (including the primate, as stated in the rule of the Holy Council of Constantinople), six bishops and the primate to judge a presbyter, and three bishops and the diocesan bishop to judge a deacon. If this quorum is lacking, the decision of such a trial is invalid. This should not be forgotten in contemporary church court proceedings.

23. [Leaf 172 verso – 173, pp. 478–479] “That Which Was Done in the City of Constantinople, Concerning Agapius and Gavadias… Chapter 16.”
    This Holy Local Council of Constantinople was convened during the reign of Emperor Arcadius (394 A.D. by modern reckoning), under the presidency of St. Nectarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, regarding the unlawful deposition of Bishop Gavadias (also written Vagadias) of Bostra by only two bishops, who installed Agapius in his place. The Council issued a single canon forbidding two or three bishops from judging and deposing a fellow bishop.
    This chapter provides a brief history of the Council, the text of the canon (in the Synopsis recension), and Aristinos’s commentary.

24. [Leaf 173 verso – 173.2 verso, pp. 480–482] “The Fifth Holy Ecumenical Council.”
    This is an insertion into the Kormchaya, providing an account of the history of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Apparently, this text was originally omitted in the typesetting. The Fifth Ecumenical Council did not issue any canons, and therefore may not have originally been intended to be included in the Kormchaya.

25. [Leaf 173 verso – 207 verso, pp. 483–550] “Canons of the Sixth Holy Ecumenical Council, Held in Constantinople in the Trullan Hall, That Is, in the Emperor’s Palace: 102 Canons. Chapter 65.”
    This chapter contains a preface about the history of both the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself and the Trullan Council that followed shortly thereafter. The Sixth Council, convened against the heresy of the Monothelites, did not issue its own canons; however, not long afterward, a subsequent Council was held in the “Trullan Hall” with nearly the same membership, and it produced 102 canons.
    The significance of this Council lies in the fact that it reaffirmed the validity of previously issued canons of the holy apostles, the holy fathers, the Local and Ecumenical Councils—thereby compiling a collection of universally binding Church rules. The canons are presented here in the concise form found in the Synopsis, with commentaries by Alexios Aristinos.
    Among them, special attention should be given to the 72nd canon, which is sadly forgotten today by some Christians and even clergymen. It states that marriages between Orthodox and heretics are not permitted, and if such a marriage has taken place and the non-Orthodox party does not convert to Orthodoxy, then the marriage must be dissolved. However, if both spouses were non-Orthodox at the time of marriage, and later one of them embraces Orthodoxy while the other does not, then—according to the command of the holy Apostle Paul—that marriage is not to be dissolved.
    Unfortunately, due to ignorance of this holy canon, there have been painful family tragedies in our time: a priest may compel someone baptized from another faith to divorce his or her spouse and marry someone “Orthodox.” This leads to sorrowful consequences for the couple, alienation of the non-Orthodox spouse from Orthodoxy, and blasphemy against the Church. The children of such dissolved marriages also suffer, and are often lost to the Church.
    One must also remember the 96th canon of this Holy Council, which excludes from communion those who alter their God-given appearance—by dyeing or bleaching their hair, or by creating elaborate hairstyles. The commentaries on this canon (in the so-called “Threefold Commentary Kormchaya” and in the “Alphabetical Syntagma”) explain that the same judgment applies to men who shave, trim, or otherwise mutilate their beards. Old Believers were often mocked by the Nikonians for their insistence on keeping beards, but this insistence is rooted in the holy canons and ancient Christian tradition.
    Sadly, this fidelity to the canons and tradition is being eroded in recent decades under worldly influence. One may now see not only laymen who have distanced themselves from the Church, but even some (God-fearing?) clergymen walking around with trimmed beards, entering the Holy Altar, and receiving Communion. Yet the Church, in many of her conciliar canons, calls such persons to active repentance—that is, to correction and renunciation of this sin.

26. [Leaves 208 – 217 verso, pp. 551–570]
    “Canons of the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second in Nicaea: 22 Canons. Chapter 18.”
    In this chapter no separate history is given regarding the convocation of this Holy Council (which was assembled against the iconoclast heresy); only its canons, along with Aristinos’s commentaries, are set forth. A brief history of the Council is provided in the commentary on its first canon. Special attention is to be paid to this particular canon of the Holy Council:

“The holy canons, which we kiss (i.e., receive) and hold fast—those of the Holy Apostles, of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as well as those of the Local Councils, and also of our Holy Fathers—are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Those who curse them, who denounce them, who depose them, who erase them, and who excommunicate them, we likewise curse, denounce, depose, erase, and excommunicate.”

In an unusual departure from common practice, the compilers of the Kormchaya included not only an abbreviated version of this canon but also its full version, thereby emphasizing its importance for the Church. They render it thus:

“Translation: Those who, having received the priestly (see Nikon 1, word 63) order, and with the knowledge and governance of the canonical commandments, accept these with gladness of heart, with the Theophany of David we sing to the Lord and speak to God [as in Psalm 118]: ‘Delighting in Your testimonies, as in abundant riches; You have commanded justice, O Lord, Your testimonies enlighten me and I shall live; and forever the prophetic voice enjoins the keeping of God’s commandments, and to live by them.’ Manifestly, they remain unshakable and immovable [note: ‘in that which is proper for keeping the divine rules in all respects’], as Moses, the Seer of God, declared: nothing may be added to them, and nothing may be taken from them. And the divine Peter, extolling them, exclaims: ‘In them the angels long to behold.’ And Paul declares: ‘If even an angel should preach to you more faithfully, let him be accursed.’ Thus, these that exist and bear witness to us rejoicing in them—even if one should find much profit, we firmly establish the sweet divine canons and affirm their completeness and immovability, having been enjoined by the holy Spirit-bearing, praiseworthy Apostles, and the six holy Ecumenical Councils, and the Local Councils assembled, under the command of our Holy Fathers. For, all of them, having been illumined by the same Holy Spirit, were decreed for our benefit. And those who delivered them to the curse, we curse; those who deposed them, we depose; those who prohibited them—we prohibit; those who excommunicated them—we excommunicate. They have not an avaricious, materialistic character, but are content with what is, and, having ascended to the Third Heaven and heard the unutterable words, the divine Apostle Paul manifests [Timothy 287].”

The continuity and immutability of the Church’s Tradition is a fundamental principle of Orthodoxy. This continuity and immutability are manifest, among other ways, in the preservation of the holy canons—which were established under the inspiration of “the One and the Same Holy Spirit.” It is said that the Church venerates its sacred canons at least as much as the Gospel.

In recent times, as love for God and neighbor has greatly diminished, voices are increasingly raised proclaiming the “obsolescence” of the holy canons, and their “non-obligatory” character. Some even dare to claim that the canons hinder love for one’s neighbor. To these detractors we wish to ask: do you believe that the Holy Spirit abandoned Christ’s Church in ancient times, so that she created “inhuman” canons? Or do you suppose that God is unmerciful, and therefore gave allegedly “harsh” commandments through the instructions of His servants? Cease in your blasphemy, and do not be seduced by “the vanities of this present age,” lest you perish along with them and be consigned yourselves to the dwelling of darkness.

It is worthwhile to note several canons of this Holy Council. For example, the 4th canon forbids bishops from demanding money from their subordinate bishops, priests, or monks, as well as from excommunicating or prohibiting them not on the basis of the proven guilt provided for by the divine canons but rather on account of their own passions (personal bitterness), or from closing churches so that liturgies are not celebrated there. This canon recalls the command of the Holy Apostle Peter: “Shepherd the flock of God not with an eagerness for money, nor as for a disgraceful gain, but with sincere care: not as one having dominion over the flock, but as one serving it” ([1 Peter 5:2–3]).

There is no doubt that unjustified dismissal of priests by bishops from serving in their churches—thus leaving these churches in a “priestless” state, without the regular celebration of the Divine Liturgy—is subject to judgment under this very canon.

Also noteworthy is the 15th canon of this Holy Council, along with its commentary, which permits a priest to earn his livelihood by his own labor if the church to which he is assigned is too poor to support a rector.

In recent decades there have been instances—in certain Old Believer communities—where bishops have prohibited priests on the ground that they combined sacred service with “worldly” labor. This canon does not permit such prohibitions.

27. [Leaves 218 – 221 verso, pp. 571–578]
    “Canons of the First and Second Councils Held in Constantinople, in the Church of the Holy Apostles: 17 Canons. Chapter 19.”

This chapter contains brief historical information about the so-called First-Second, or Double, Local Council, as well as its 17 canons.

The canons of this Council deal with ecclesiastical discipline concerning monks, abbots, clerics, and bishops. For example, Canon 3 excommunicates an abbot who fails to search for and return to his monastery those monks who have left it.

Canons 13–15 of this Holy Council concern schisms that arise when clerics or bishops separate from their hierarchs or patriarchs out of pride rather than in response to impiety or heresy on the part of their ruling bishops. However, if someone withdraws from their bishop “not due to sinful accusation, but because of his heresy, which is contrary to the decisions of the councils and the teachings of the holy fathers, such persons are worthy of honor and reception as Orthodox.”

The full text of the canon explains that such individuals “have condemned not true bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and did not disrupt the unity of the Church by schism, but strove to preserve the Church from schisms and divisions.”

On this basis, Old Orthodox pastors and lay Christians had every canonical right to reject obedience to Nikon’s innovations. Furthermore, the 31st Canon of the Holy Apostles also allows clerics to separate from their ruling bishops in cases of offenses against piety or justice—specifically when bishops become “oppressors” (as found in the Syntagma in Church Slavonic, Compilation C, ch. 12):
“Clerics may separate from their bishops… if they are proven in judgment [Slav. ‘poznaiut’] to be impious or unjust [‘offenders’].”

A translation from the Greek at the end of the 18th century puts it this way:
“Clerics are not to be accused for separating from or abandoning their bishops, if they have exposed them for impiety and injustice.”
(Manuscript of the Russian State Library, Collection 171.3, Archival unit 170, fol. 297 verso).

Likewise, in the modern Greek translation of the 31st Apostolic Canon:
“If a presbyter, disregarding his bishop, begins to gather assemblies separately and establishes another altar, having found nothing in the bishop contrary to piety or justice, let him be deposed.”
(Pedalion, vol. 1, Yekaterinburg, 2019, p. 238).

Thus, the separation of some Old Believers from Patriarch Nikon was entirely legitimate even at the beginning of his patriarchate, when he committed manifest injustices in the Church—persecuting those zealous for piety, expelling priests, banning them from serving, and depriving them of clerical rank on invented pretexts.

On the other hand, if a bishop wavers in Orthodoxy—preaching heresy at one time, then again presenting himself as Orthodox—the interpreters of the sacred canons say that separation from such a bishop is premature. If he ultimately reaffirms Orthodoxy, those who separated from him will be subject to punishment according to the canons. (See the commentary of Theodore Valsamon on the 15th Canon of the Double Council.)
Therefore, if a bishop once held a heretical opinion but later rejected it and confessed the Orthodox teaching on that same point, it is not permissible to separate from him for his former error.

28. [Leaves 222–223, pp. 579–581]
    “Three Canons of the Council Held in Constantinople, in the Most Renowned Church of Divine Wisdom, That Is, the Holy Sophia, Confirmed by the Seventh Council. Chapter 20.”

This section includes three canons from a Local Council held in Constantinople in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia. These canons address matters of ecclesiastical judicial discipline, including:

• The removal of episcopal rank upon a bishop’s reception of the Great Schema (monastic tonsure);

• The prohibition against secular authorities imprisoning or physically punishing a bishop without proper cause.

29. [Leaves 218 – 249 verso, pp. 571–634]
    “Of St. Basil the Great, from the Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and to Diodorus, and to Certain Other Persons: 91 Canons. Chapter 21.”

This chapter of the Kormchaya presents the 91st rule of St. Basil the Great, accompanied by the commentaries of Alexios Aristinos. This canon addresses various aspects of Church life, the observance of written and unwritten Tradition, penances (epitimia) for sins, and much more.

Let us draw attention to several important elements of these canons.

Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great reflects on the three categories of clerics and laity who have either broken communion with the Church or were outside of it from the beginning. According to St. Basil’s classification, these are:

• Heretics,

• Schismatics, and

• Illegitimate assemblies (in modern categorization: first-, second-, and third-rank heretics, along with sectarians).

Heretics are those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity. Upon entering the Church of Christ, they must be baptized, as their baptism and sacraments are not recognized by the Church.

Schismatics (second-rank heretics) believe in the Trinity but distort parts of the faith. The Church has ruled to receive them by the “second rite”: that is, through a renunciation of heresies and chrismation (without baptism), and with recognition of their marriages and sacred orders (such as ordinations) received in their schismatic confession.

Third-rank heretics and sectarians (“illegitimate gatherings,” or sub-churchers) are received into the Church through repentance alone—without re-baptism or chrismation. These include, for instance, those who, having been deposed for certain sins (bishops or priests), did not submit to Church rulings but instead “avenged themselves lord-like,” founding separate churches and claiming ecclesiastical authority. Even if they were deposed before or after their separation, all their sacraments—baptism, marriage, and ordination—are accepted without repetition upon reconciliation with the Church.

A classical example of this is the decision of an Ecumenical Council concerning Meletius, a schismatic bishop of Alexandria. He had been deposed for offering sacrifice to idols, yet resisted Church authority, seized the Alexandrian see, and ordained numerous bishops and clergy. When he and his followers were received back into the Church, the Council decreed that they should be received in their existing orders, and Meletius himself was received as a bishop (though with limitations), for the sake of Church peace.
Thus, sacraments performed in schism—even by clergy forbidden to serve or formally deposed—are accepted by the Church upon reconciliation, for the grace of ordination cannot be destroyed by temporal or even lifetime prohibitions, which themselves may later be reconsidered.

Of special significance to the Old Orthodox are Canons 90 and 91 of St. Basil the Great (in some counts these are considered a single canon under number 91), which speak about the written and unwritten Traditions of the Church. St. Basil emphasizes the need to preserve not only those parts of Tradition recorded in Scripture but also the unwritten traditions passed down in the Church:

“Many and great are the things the Church possesses from unwritten Tradition: the first is the signing of the forehead with the sign of the cross; then the custom of facing East during prayer; the words spoken over the bread of the Eucharist; the blessing of the chalice; the sanctification of the water in baptism; the use of anointing oil; the blessing of the baptized themselves—and many other such things, which we have received not from Scripture but through tradition, as mysteries. It is not fitting to expose them in writing, for the sake of the unlearned: for there is a difference between what is commanded and what is preached. Some are handed down in silence; others are openly proclaimed.”

It is worth noting that St. Maximus the Greek likewise calls the sign of the cross an “apostolic secret tradition,” and this teaching is repeated by the holy fathers of the Stoglav Council. Even the 18th-century Neo-Greek canonist Nicodemus notes in his commentary on the Greek Kormchaya (Pedalion):

“The ancient Christians formed their fingers differently for making the sign of the cross than the moderns do. They used only two fingers—the middle and the index—as described by St. Peter of Damascus (Philokalia, p. 642). The whole hand symbolized the one Hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers His two natures.”
(Pedalion, Vol. 4, Yekaterinburg, 2019, p. 194).

It is significant that these very words from the 18th-century Greek Kormchaya, read by Metropolitan Ambrose of Bosnia and Sarajevo, along with his study of other canons and Church history, led him to the conviction of the truth of the Old Orthodox Church—and to his joining it in 1846.

30. [Leaves 250–251, pp. 635–637]
    “Of the Same St. Basil, On the Duration of Penance for Sinners: 26 Canons, in Summary. Chapter 22.”

This chapter in the Kormchaya presents a summary of penances for various sins, formatted as 22 canons. These specify periods of excommunication from Communion for grave sins. For example:

• Deliberate abortion – 10 years of exclusion from Communion;

• Voluntary murder – 20 years;

• Involuntary manslaughter – 12 years;

• Adultery – 15 years;
  — and so on.

These rules are presented without commentary, as they are a digest compiled from other canons.

31. [Leaf 251 verso – 252, pp. 637–639]
    “Of the Same St. Basil, Concerning the Number and Nature of the Degrees of Penance, That Is, of Prohibitions. Chapter 23.”

This chapter of the Kormchaya lists the four degrees of excommunication (epitimia) for grave sins, as practiced in the ancient Church: weeping, hearing, prostration, standing with the faithful.

The chapter explains the nature of each of these categories of repentance and specifies the places within the church building where penitents of each class were to stand during the common prayer.

32. [Leaves 252–254, pp. 639–643]
    “Of the Same St. Basil, To a Presbyter, Concerning Divine Service, and Communion, and the Negligent in Matters of Prohibition. Chapter 24.”

This chapter of the Kormchaya presents a pastoral exhortation by St. Basil the Great to priests concerning how they ought to approach Holy Communion themselves and how to administer it to the worthy. It addresses the days of the week on which it was customary for priests to communicate, and denounces those who dare to receive Communion while under a ban.

33. [Leaves 254 – 259 verso, pp. 643–654]
    “Of the Same St. Basil, Letter to Gregory the Theologian, Concerning the Monastic Life. Chapter 25.”

Chapter 25 of the Kormchaya Book contains a spiritual exhortation by St. Basil the Great on the proper life of monastics.

34. [Leaf 259 verso – 260 verso, pp. 654–656]
    “Of St. Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Concerning the Proper Conclusion of the Fast on Great Saturday. Chapter 26.”

Great Saturday is the only Saturday of the year on which the Church’s ustav (rule) prescribes strict fasting (complete abstention from food) and full prostrations. This chapter discusses the time when this strict fast may be relaxed—namely, in the evening of Great Saturday, when fasting food is permitted.

The chapter also includes four canons of St. Dionysius:

1. That those excommunicated from Communion, if at the point of death, must without fail be granted Communion of the Holy Mysteries—regardless of the severity of their sins (sadly, some spiritual fathers today are unaware of this canon and substitute Theophany water for the Body and Blood, which is wholly inadmissible);

2. That women experiencing monthly bleeding should not enter the church or partake of Communion;

3. That spouses should abstain from relations for the sake of prayer;

4. That nocturnal emissions should be considered cause for temporary abstention.

5. [Leaf 259 verso – 262 verso, pp. 656–659]
   “Of St. Peter of Alexandria, Hieromartyr, Concerning Those Who Fell During Persecutions and Afterwards Repented. 14 Canons. Chapter 27.”

The canons of St. Peter, Hieromartyr of Alexandria, concern degrees of penance for those who fell away from the faith during times of persecution—especially those who voluntarily renounced Christ or sacrificed to idols. Such cases are judged more severely than those who yielded under duress or threat of death.

Canon 14 explains why Christians fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, and why on Sundays all prostrations are omitted.

36. [Leaves 262 – 263 verso, pp. 659–662]
    “Of St. Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, Wonderworker, Concerning Those Who Were Taken in the Invasions of the Barbarians. Chapter 28.”

Chapter 28 of the Kormchaya includes 13 canons of St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, relating to Christians who were captured by “barbarians” (pagan peoples who did not offer sacrifices to idols) and later returned to the Christian empire. Topics include:

• That such persons are not to be condemned for having eaten food given by unbelievers;

• That women violated by barbarians through force are not guilty if their previous lives were chaste;

• That looters during barbarian invasions are to be rebuked;

• That one must not keep found property but must return it to its rightful owner.

Canon 10 stipulates that Christians who revealed the homes of fellow Christians to the barbarians for attacks are to be excommunicated until judged by a synod. This canon also applies to Christians who, in states hostile to Christianity, betray their fellow believers to hostile authorities or non-Christian persecutors.

37. [Leaf 263 verso – 265, pp. 662–665]
    “Of St. Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, To the Monk Ammon, Concerning Those Who Are Troubled in the Night. Chapter 29.”

This chapter contains three canonical texts:

1. On defilement during sleep;

2. “To Rufianus” – on those who renounced Christ during persecutions;

3. “Concerning the Authorized Books from the Tenth Festal Letter” – a listing of canonical books of Holy Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments.

4. [Leaves 265 – 266 verso, pp. 665–668]
   “Of St. Gregory the Theologian, from His Words Concerning the Same Books [of Holy Scripture]. Chapter 30.”

This chapter includes two key texts:

1. A poetic composition by St. Gregory the Theologian regarding the canon of books of Holy Scripture;

2. A similar list of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, “Of St. Amphilochius, to Seleucius.”

3. [Leaves 266 – 269 verso, pp. 668–674]
   “Of St. Gregory of Nyssa, to Litonius, Bishop of Melitene: A Rule and Preface.”

This chapter contains a preface discussing the three faculties of the human soul and the methods of their “correction,” followed by 8 canons concerning:

• those who renounce the faith and later repent,

• those who consult magicians,

• fornication,

• murder,

• usury (interest-taking),

• grave-diggers,

• sacrilege (theft of items consecrated for worship).

Canon 5 requires that those previously excommunicated be communed if they are at the point of death. If they recover, they must return to the penance until the appointed term.

The chapter concludes by stating that, in every sin, the spiritual father should give greater attention to the sincerity and depth of repentance than to the predetermined duration of excommunication.

40. [Leaf 269 verso – 270 verso, pp. 674–676]
    “Of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria, One of the 108 Holy Fathers Who Assembled in Constantinople Against Macedonius. This Timothy Had as His Successor Theophilus. 15 Canons. Chapter 32.”

This chapter presents the canons of St. Timothy of Alexandria, which cover diverse topics:

• concerning those who have communicated before baptism,

• on the demon-possessed,

• on baptizing catechumens who are sick and have lost reason,

• on abstinence from marital relations the night before receiving Communion,

• on postponing baptism for a catechumen woman experiencing menstrual bleeding,

• on forbidding heretics to enter the church during services unless they promise to renounce their heresy,

• on forbidding clergy to perform weddings for unlawful unions,

• on defilement in dreams,

• on discernment in abstaining from marital relations,

• on abstinence from marital relations on Saturdays and Sundays,

• on forbidding commemoration of suicides (except those who perished in mental derangement),

• on prohibiting divorce on the grounds of the wife’s madness if the groom was aware of it before marriage.

Two canons concern fasting during Holy Week:

• Canon 7 allows a woman who has given birth to eat food with oil and drink wine on the day of childbirth;

• Canon 9 grants the same allowance to one who is “weakened unto the end” by illness.
  (It is noted that the Nomocanon does not allow meat or dairy during fasting days even to the dying—only fish and oil.)

41. [Leaf 270 verso – 272 verso, pp. 676–680]
    “Of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, Proclamation for the Theophany, When It Falls on a Sunday. 14 Canons. Chapter 33.”

This chapter presents the canons of Theophilus of Alexandria. While he is not recognized as a saint—having committed many acts of injustice—the Church considered these particular canons beneficial and included them in the canonical tradition.

The rules address various subjects:

• relaxing the Theophany Eve fast on Saturday evening,

• clergy ordained by Arians,

• a priest committing violence against a woman who had left her husband,

• priests involved in unlawful marriages either before or after baptism,

• the need to investigate accusations against church functionaries rather than believing rumors,

• prohibition of ordaining clergy without witnesses or in secret,

• forbidding catechumens from eating sanctified prosphora,

• re-election of an economos if all the clergy complain about him,

• church support for widows and strangers,

• the possibility of ordaining converts from heresy into the ranks of clergy, and so forth.

42. [Leaves 272 verso – 274, pp. 680–683]
    “Of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, from the Letter to Domnus: 5 Canons, and Other Chapters from His Letters to Eulogius of Alexandria. Chapter 34.”

The canons of St. Cyril of Alexandria cover various ecclesiastical matters, notably:

• the need for formal judicial investigation of accusations against bishops, rather than deposing them without trial;

• restoring property unjustly taken from them;

• prohibition of a bishop renouncing his diocese;

• investigation of the moral integrity of candidates for ordination;

• urgency in baptizing and communing dying catechumens.

Additional appendices include:

1. To Deacon Maximus — that converts from heresy should not be reproached for former sins after baptism;

2. To Gennadius the Archimandrite — that one should flee from those who scandalize, lest one perish with them;

3. From the Letter to Eulogius of Alexandria — that no one may unsettle the canons of the Holy Church:

   “If anyone disturbs what has been corrected and established by the God-bearing Fathers, this is not to be called an act of economy, but a transgression and violation of divine commandments, and impiety toward God.”

4. [Leaves 274 – 275 verso, pp. 683–686]
   “Of the Same [Cyril], Concerning the Right Faith: Chapters Against Nestorius. Chapter 35.”

This chapter contains a theological work by St. Cyril of Alexandria, composed against the heresy of Nestorius, which was condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council. It is presented in the form of 11 canons or theses, without accompanying commentaries.

44. [Leaves 276–293, pp. 687–721]
    “From the Decrees of the Divine Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, That Ordination to Sacred Orders Must Not Be for Money. Chapter 36.”

At the beginning of this chapter of the Kormchaya, three canonical texts are presented:

1. “Of our holy father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a letter to the bishops under his authority, that they should not appoint clergy for money.”

2. “Of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Holy Council assembled with him, a circular letter to all the most holy metropolitans and to the Pope of Rome, concerning the prohibition of monetary ordinations.”

3. “A letter of Tarasius, most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, New Rome, to Adrian, Pope of Old Rome, on the same subject.”

In the last letter, the following notes in the margins of the Kormchaya are noteworthy:

• “Let bishops and priests who oppose this be rebuked.”

• “This applies not only to bishops but to every priest: for though a priest is not one who appoints others, as the bishop does, yet he possesses complete priesthood.”

This latter phrase was often employed by Old Believer apologists in polemics against Nikonian missionaries, to prove that a priest could receive ordination from a heretical bishop just as a bishop could, since the priest also possesses “complete priesthood,” the only distinction being that he lacks the authority to ordain others.

In the same letter, St. Tarasius cites the 29th Canon of the Holy Apostles, which prescribes deposition and excommunication from the Church for simoniacs (those who buy or sell ordination), and refers to Acts 8 (the story of Simon the Sorcerer). He then includes the account from 4 Kings (2 Kings) 5, where Gehazi was punished for accepting payment after the prophet Elisha healed Naaman. Additional references are made to various Church Fathers who strictly forbid ordination for money, and to the Gospel account of Christ expelling the money changers from the Temple.

45. [Leaf 293 verso, p. 722]
    “From the Letter of the Council of Constantinople to Martyrius, Bishop of Antioch, on How to Receive Heretics Who Come to the Catholic Church. Chapter 37.”

This final chapter of the Kormchaya contains a letter from an unknown Council of Constantinople to Martyrius of Alexandria (dating to 461–465 AD by civil reckoning), which outlines the practice of receiving converts from various heresies into the Catholic (Orthodox) Church.

This chapter was interpreted by Nikonian missionaries and priestless Old Believers (bespopovtsy) to mean that, in second-rank receptions (i.e., from less severe heresies), clerical ordinations were not retained by those converting to Orthodoxy. However, this interpretation by heterodox commentators is refuted by numerous canonical sources, including:

• the 8th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council with its commentaries,

• the 7th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council with its commentaries,

• the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council,

• and other canonical authorities.

This chapter concludes Volume 1 of the Kormchaya Book according to the 1912 edition. And so, not to fatigue the reader with excessive length, we now take a pause in the presentation.

The Kormchaya Book of Patriarch Joseph of Moscow. Volume 2 #

Let us continue our review of the chapters of the 17th-century Josephite Kormchaya.

46. [Folios 294 and verso, pp. 723–724] “The Great Chapters of the Church, that is to say, of Holy Sophia, sealed with the golden seal of Emperor Justinian, concerning slaves fleeing to the church. Chapter 28.”

This section contains six canons regarding slaves and their masters, as well as “disputes” involving deacons and presbyters with others.

This chapter holds purely historical significance.

47. [Folios 294 verso – 295 verso, pp. 724–726] “Of Demetrius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, concerning the Jacobites and the Hancitzaroi. Chapter 39.”

This chapter discusses the heresies of the Monophysites, Nestorians, and Messalians (i.e., Bogomils).

48. [Folios 295 verso – 296 verso, pp. 726–728] “Of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, to the Archbishop of Benevento: this was during the patriarchate of Alexios of Constantinople. Chapter 40.”

This epistle of the holy hieromartyr Peter (presented in summary form) speaks of the five patriarchs of the ancient Church and of the inadmissibility of celebrating the Divine Liturgy with unleavened bread instead of leavened. Included is also a fragment from “Leontius, Archbishop of Bulgaria, from three epistles on the same unleavened bread, from the first epistle.”

49. [Folios 296 verso – 300, pp. 728–735] “The epistle of the Blessed Nilus the Black-Robed to Hariclius the presbyter, who harshly reproaches sinners and says that confession with the lips is not sufficient for repentance unless accompanied by ascetic deeds. Chapter 41.”

This epistle denounces excessive severity in punishment for sins and proclaims God’s compassion toward penitent sinners. A paraphrase from the prophecy of Ezekiel is cited: “The blood of the lost I will require at the hand of the shepherd.” The author insists that a shepherd should not, through excessive punishment, drive people into the abyss of despair, whereby they might lose their souls. He also recalls the heresy of the Novatians, condemned by the First Ecumenical Council, who rejected repentance for sins committed after baptism. Scripture is cited (concerning the publican, the penitent Nebuchadnezzar) to show that verbal repentance alone has brought about the forgiveness of sins from God, along with many other arguments in favor of accepting verbal confession without overly harsh penances upon the sinner.

50. [Folios 300 verso – 333 verso, pp. 736–802] “From the scroll of the divine new commandments, which are part of the sacred legacy of Emperor Justinian. Various commandments, concordant in nature with the divine and sacred canons, and lending strength through their abundance. We have set for them a certain order and number, so that the sought-for chapter might readily be found: for, as has been said, they are compiled from diverse commandments, just as it is written, here combined with conciliar canons and the present commandments and chapters. Chapter 42.”

Here is placed, first, a table of contents (87 chapters) with a brief summary of the themes of the canons, compiled from various edicts of the pious Emperor Justinian. These legislative materials are then presented in the form of canons. These canons correspond to the previously published sacred canons of the Church, reinforce their authority by means of state endorsement, and clarify certain important aspects of proper legal and ecclesiastical practice.

Special attention should be paid to some of the chapters of this “Scroll of New Commandments of Emperor Justinian.”

Chapter 1 serves as a preamble to the subsequent chapters. It declares that both the priesthood and the monarchy (i.e., secular authority) originate from a single divine source, and that the priesthood must remain blameless in order to have boldness in praying to God for the people and the rulers.

Chapter 2 concerns the worthiness of those chosen to be bishops.

Chapter 4 prohibits the ordination of illiterate individuals into the clergy.

Chapter 6 forbids the establishment of monasteries without the blessing of the local bishop.

Chapter 7 mandates a three-year trial period (novitiate) for candidates for monastic tonsure.

Chapters 8–11 address the property of those entering monastic life and the inheritance thereof after their death.

Chapter 17 forbids converting monastic buildings into ordinary dwellings.

Chapter 20 prohibits enrolling more people into the lower clergy than the traditionally established number, for such excess strains the church treasury and hinders the Church’s care for the poor.

Chapter 25 commands that if a Christian bequeaths funds for the construction of a church or other God-pleasing institution, the building must be completed within five years under the care of the local bishop and city prince.

Chapter 27 forbids private individuals from building churches unless they first allocate capital to support the clergy and provide for church needs (such as oil, wax, and wine), so that the churches do not stand unused and fall into ruin.

Chapter 28 sets strict requirements for episcopal candidates, including a minimum of 15 years in monastic life and a minimum age of 35. If a candidate is chosen from among high-ranking officials, he must first serve as a lower clergyman for three months, studying the sacred canons and the order of church services before being ordained.

The election of a bishop is to be made from among three worthy candidates. However, if three cannot be found, then one worthy candidate suffices (Chapter 29).

Chapter 30 commands that if the council of bishops fails to elect a bishop to a vacant see within six months, the patriarch shall appoint one.

Chapter 31 states that if an accusation is made against a candidate for bishop regarding his unworthiness, ordination must be delayed until the accusation is investigated. If the accusation is substantiated, ordination is cancelled; if the accusation proves false, the candidate is ordained, and the slanderer (either for failing to prove the accusation or for recanting) is subject to exile and imprisonment under civil law. Chapter 44 applies the same procedure to accusations brought against candidates for ordination into any clerical rank.

Chapter 32 prohibits simony—that is, ordination in exchange for money—while permitting the collection of a fee (to cover the expenses of episcopal services) not exceeding 20 litra (about 655 grams of silver) in places where this is customary.
(Note: The Stoglav Council of 1551 set the following ordination fees in the Russian Church: for ordaining a priest from among the lower clergy—1 Moscow ruble; for ordaining a deacon—half a ruble, plus a blessed grivna from both. Ordination of a deacon to the priesthood carried the same fee as that for a deacon. See: Stoglav, Chapters 87–89.)

This same chapter also outlines the fees for ordinations performed not by the local bishop but by a metropolitan or patriarch (30 litra of silver), as well as the fees associated with the patriarch’s visit to a church and those of his entourage, and so forth.

Chapter 33 specifies that if the candidate for bishop is under the authority (guardianship) of his father, he is released from that authority upon ordination.

Chapter 39 forbids bishops and presbyters from excommunicating any Christian before his guilt, as prescribed by the sacred canons, is established. If this rule is violated, the higher-ranking bishop is to restore the one who was excommunicated and excommunicate the offending clergyman for a term determined for him.

Chapter 43 sets the minimum age for ordination to the ranks of the clergy: priest – 30 years, deacon – 25, subdeacon – 20, and reader – 15 years.

Chapter 45 prohibits ordaining a man as subdeacon or deacon unless he is married or vows to remain celibate. If any bishop dares to violate this, the chapter commands that such a bishop be deposed.

Chapter 46 orders that a subdeacon, deacon, or priest who marries after ordination be deposed from the clergy and transferred to the category of lay taxpayers.

Chapter 48 commands that a reader who has entered into a second marriage, or married a widow or a divorced woman, or entered into a marriage forbidden by the canons, must not be elevated to a higher clerical rank. If he has already been elevated, he is to be deposed.

Chapter 53 decrees that priests and deacons who bear false witness in civil cases are to be suspended from serving for three years and confined to a monastery for correction. If they bear false witness in matters of sin (i.e., in ecclesiastical court), they are to be deposed from holy orders and handed over for civil punishment. If lower clergy are found guilty of perjury in any matter, they are likewise to be deposed and handed over to civil authorities.

Chapter 58 commands that if a priest or lower clergyman has an accusation against his diocesan bishop, he must appeal to the metropolitan or patriarch, who must judge the matter according to ecclesiastical canons.

Chapter 59 forbids compelling anyone to swear an oath during the investigation of accusations brought against him.

Chapter 71 forbids any lower clergyman who is unmarried from keeping a woman in his home, except for his mother, daughter, sister, or similar female relatives who are beyond suspicion. If, after two warnings from the bishop, the clergyman does not remove the unrelated woman from his home, or if a fornication with her is proven, the clergyman is to be deposed and assigned to the class of lay taxpayers.

Chapter 72 addresses the same issue but applies specifically to bishops. It forbids them from keeping even close female relatives in their homes. Whoever disobeys this rule is subject to deposition.

Chapter 74 condemns anyone who, during the Divine Liturgy or another church service, enters the church and “causes offense” to the bishop, priest, or other clergy and church servants: such a person is to be handed over for civil punishment and imprisoned. But if someone disrupts the Divine Liturgy and the Holy Communion, he is to be sentenced to beheading.

In our time, such a punishment is clearly no longer applicable, but it is evident that such a crime must still be punished by excommunication from the Church.

Chapter 75 forbids “ordinary persons” from conducting processions of the Cross without the participation of a bishop or priest.

Chapter 77 forbids an abbot from tonsuring into monasticism anyone unknown to him for a period of three years. If during those three years no claims are brought against the individual by creditors or in property disputes, the abbot may then tonsure him into monasticism. A person known to the abbot and free from accusations or claims may be tonsured earlier than the three-year period.

Chapter 80 discusses the procedure for the division of property belonging to a person entering a monastery between him and his children, whereby the postulant’s own share becomes the property of the monastery.

Chapter 82 forbids relatives from depriving those who have taken monastic tonsure of their rightful inheritance.

Chapter 83 prohibits parents from removing their children from monasteries after they have been tonsured into the monastic habit.

Chapter 84 states that if a monk leaves his monastery and then joins another, all property acquired after his departure from the first monastery is to be transferred to the original monastery. However, if he leaves the monastery and begins to live as a layman, he is to be returned to the monastery, and all of his property is likewise to be given over to that same monastery.

51. [Folios 334 – 348 verso, pp. 803–832] “New commandment of the pious Emperor Alexios Komnenos. Chapter 43.”

This law explains the procedure for investigating cases in which those who have fallen into slavery claim to have been born to free parents from nations which, according to the law, are not subject to enslavement. The law also forbids masters from marrying off their slaves without the sacrament of Church marriage. The need for such a prohibition arose because masters feared that marrying their slaves in church might be seen as an acknowledgment that those slaves were entitled to freedom.

Following this, another law of Emperor Alexios Komnenos is appended, establishing the minimum marriage age as 15 for males and 13 for females. According to the law, betrothal constitutes the beginning of marriage, and breaking a betrothal vow is regarded as adultery. Betrothal is to be performed with sacred prayers, not merely according to human customs.

Another law of the same emperor forbids the dissolution of betrothals that have been performed with liturgical prayers.

52. [Folios 349 – 362 verso, pp. 833–860] “From the various titla, that is, divisions of Emperor Justinian’s laws, various chapters chosen… Chapter 44.”

This chapter presents rules on various ecclesiastical matters, compiled from different legislative acts of Emperor Justinian.

“Chapter 9 of the First Division” states that if anyone accuses a person chosen for ordination to a clerical rank of a sin that canonically bars ordination, the matter must be investigated within three months. If the accusation proves false, the slandered individual is to be ordained, and the false accuser is to be deprived of holy orders (if he has them), or punished under civil law (if he does not). But if ordination is carried out without an investigation, then both the ordained man and the bishop who ordained him are to be deposed.

“From Chapter 11”: If the townspeople do not elect a new bishop within six months after the death of the previous one, the patriarch must appoint a bishop by his own decision, “preserving his soul from condemnation.”

“From the Second Division … Chapter 1”: If someone bequeaths his property to Christ without specifying a particular church, then upon his death it is to be used to feed the poor. But if he designates a specific church, the property is to be transferred to that church. If he names captives as his heirs, then the bishop or city governor is to use the inheritance for their ransom.

“Chapter 2”: Sacred vessels may not be sold or pawned, except in cases where it is necessary to ransom captives. But if there is great need in a bishopric and there is an excess of precious vessels, then, with permission from the higher-ranking bishop, they may be sold, melted into bullion, or exchanged in order to relieve the bishopric’s debt and avoid the sale of immovable property.

“From the Ninth Division … Chapter 2”: A heretic, even if he is a high official, may not bear witness against an Orthodox believer, neither in church nor in civil court.

“Chapter 9”: If a bishop or presbyter excommunicates someone without canonical cause, the excommunication is to be lifted by a higher-ranking hierarch, and the one who unjustly imposed the excommunication is himself to be suspended for a period determined by that hierarch.

“From the Tenth Division, Chapter 1”: The steward (oikonomos) must report annually to the bishop concerning income and expenditures. If he dies before resolving his accounts, the debt is to be collected from his heirs.

“Chapter 5”: Any property acquired by a bishop after his ordination belongs to the Church and cannot be bequeathed to others.

“From the First Ten Divisions … Chapter 3”: Novices in a monastery, during their three-year probation, are to wear secular clothing and study the Holy Scriptures.

“From the Thirteenth Division, Chapter 3”: Wives of soldiers or other men who have gone missing cannot remarry unless reliable witnesses testify under oath on the Gospel that they personally saw the husband dead, with this testimony written and signed. If a woman is misled and enters into a second marriage, and her first husband is later found to be alive, he has the right to take back his wife if he so wishes.

“Chapter 4” lays out the conditions under which a man may divorce his wife, keeping the bridal gifts and the children of that marriage:

1. If the wife knows of a conspiracy against the emperor and does not tell her husband (this was punishable by death);

2. If she is accused and proven guilty of adultery;

3. If she attempts or prepares to murder her husband by poison or other means;

4. If she knows someone intends to harm or kill her husband and fails to inform him;

5. If she drinks with other men in a tavern or bathes with them without her husband’s permission;

6. If she spends the night outside the home without his consent (except in her parents’ house), unless he himself drove her out.

A wife may divorce her husband, keeping the bridal gifts and children born of the marriage, in the following cases:

1. If the husband conspires against the emperor or knows of such a plot and does not report it (punishable by death under civil law);

2. If the husband plots or is complicit in an attempt on her life, or knows of such and does not inform her or protect her by law;

3. If he accuses her of adultery but cannot prove it (in which case he must return the bridal gifts and give her two-thirds of his property);

4. If he openly cohabits with another woman in his house or in the same city and continues despite being admonished;

5. If for three years the husband “cannot be with his wife” (due to illness or refusal to share the marital bed);

6. If the husband is taken captive and no news of his survival is received for more than five years.

Also, if one of the spouses takes monastic vows, the other is permitted to remarry.

This chapter contains many additional provisions covering various other situations.

53. [Folios 363 – 371 verso, pp. 724–878] “Selections from the Law given by God through Moses to the Israelites, beginning with justice and judgment. Fifty chapters. Chapter 45.”

This section presents Old Testament commandments concerning judicial proceedings: not to accept rumors as evidence, not to show favoritism in judgment, not to condemn the innocent, not to justify the guilty, and so forth. The Ten Commandments given to Moses on the tablets (Exodus, ch. 20) are also presented.

Additionally, other Old Testament statutes are listed: the prohibition against blaspheming the name of God, honoring elders, forbidding punishment of children for their parents’ sins and vice versa, prohibitions against cursing or striking one’s father or mother, against withholding wages from the poor or hired workers, against oppressing widows and orphans, against falsifying weights and measures, regarding the inheritance of the deceased, and prohibitions of usury, sodomy, and so on.

54. [Folios 372 – 377 verso, pp. 879–890] “The Civil Law for the People by Emperor Constantine the Great. Chapter 46.”

“Chapter 2” states that no judgment may be rendered without witnesses. The accuser must provide witnesses; otherwise, he is to be subjected to the same punishment he sought for the accused.

A witness must be a God-fearing man, trusted by the community, not engaged in enmity, deceit, or defilement, and must not have any disputes with the person against whom he testifies. He must testify solely out of the fear of God and love of truth. The number of witnesses required is: no fewer than 11 for serious accusations, at least 7 for less serious cases, and at least 3 for minor matters. Fewer than this is not accepted. Each witness swears an oath and is warned that bearing false witness will subject him to the same penalty demanded by the accuser. If a person is ever found guilty of false witness, he must never be accepted as a witness again in his lifetime. The same applies to anyone proven to have violated God’s Law, lived like an animal, or broken an oath.

A monk who commits fornication is to be excommunicated for 15 years.

A godfather and godmother who marry one another are to be separated and excommunicated from Communion for 15 years, fasting with dry foods (Chapter 7).

The same punishment applies to anyone who marries his goddaughter or fornicates with a married woman (Chapter 8).

Incestuous marriages are to be dissolved (Chapter 13).

A man who has two wives and leaves one is to be excommunicated for 7 years (Chapter 14).

An arsonist who sets fire to another person’s house is to be excommunicated for 12 years (Chapter 16).

Parents and children, or slaves and masters, may not testify against one another; only a free person may be accepted as a witness (Chapter 19).

“Hearsay witnesses do not testify,” that is, those who say, “I heard from so-and-so that this person sinned.” Even if a prince testifies by hearsay, such testimony is inadmissible (Chapter 21).

Chapter 32 speaks of the indissolubility of Christian marriage, except for lawful causes. One additional cause mentioned, apart from those previously listed, is leprosy in one of the spouses. The same chapter states that polygamy and close-kin marriages, permitted under the Old Law, are entirely forbidden in Christianity, and that anyone who denies this is worthy of a curse.

55. [Folios 378 verso – 399 verso, pp. 891–914] “Of Nikita the monk, presbyter of the Studion Monastery, called Stethatos, to the Latins concerning unleavened bread” [Chapter 47].

This is a text written by the renowned 11th-century Greek theologian and hieromonk of the Studion Monastery, Nikitas Stethatos, concerning the differences between the Orthodox faith and customs and those of the Latins (i.e., Roman Catholics). Topics include the illegitimacy of celebrating the Divine Liturgy with unleavened bread, fasting on Saturdays, enforced celibacy for priests, shaving of the beard, curling and dyeing of hair. The date of Christ’s Mystical Supper is also specified: two days before the 14th day of the first month, in the year 5534 from Adam.

56. [Folios 400 verso – 403, pp. 915–921] “On the Franks and Other Latins. Chapter 48.”

This chapter discusses the peoples of Western Europe who profess the “Latin faith,” describing their heresies and church customs. Among other things, it condemns the Latin practice of celebrating three or four Liturgies on the same altar in a single day. In total, this chapter lists 27 differences between the Latins and the Orthodox.

57. [Folios 404 – 493 verso, pp. 923–1100] “Various Chapters of Civil Law, in Forty Divisions. Chapter 49.”

This chapter of the Kormchaya presents civil legal statutes on various topics, arranged according to “divisions” (грани):

• On the agreement of betrothal

• On the pledges of betrothal

• On betrothal gifts

• On the institution of marriage by agreement

• On the public announcement of marriage

• On premarital gifts

• On forbidden marriages

• On correcting the dowry

• On the restitution of the dowry and its weight

• On gifts between husband and wife

• On the dissolution of marriage and its causes

• On gifts

• On the return of gifts

• On sale and purchase

• On planting (i.e., establishing estates or vineyards)

• On debt and pledge

• On leases (rental agreements)

• On deposit (leaving goods in trust)

• On forming a partnership (co-ownership of property)

• On dissolution (of a partnership)

• On wills for heirs

• On the wills of those under the authority of their parents

• On the wills of freedmen

• On the wills of bishops and monks

• On revocation of a will

• On emancipation of those under authority

• On witnesses

• On the ordination of bishops and presbyters

• On codicils, i.e., additions to wills

• On female heirs

• On guardianship (management of a ward’s property)

• On division (of inherited property)

• On disinheritance

• On the manumission of slaves

• On gifts made in a will, during life, or posthumously

• On custodians (trustees, guardians)

• On how creditors may pursue heirs of deceased debtors

• On building new houses, repairing old ones, and other property matters

• On punishments

• On division of spoils (e.g., war booty)

58. [Folios 494 – 520 verso, pp. 1101–1154] “The Headings of Laws by Emperor Leo the Wise and Constantine the Faithful, Concerning Betrothal Agreements, Marriages, and Other Various Causes. Chapter 50.”

The civil laws presented in this chapter, compiled from the imperial legislation of Leo the Wise and Constantine, are divided into “beginnings” or “sections” (зачатки):

• On the agreement of betrothal, on dissolutions, and on the betrothal of orphans and those who repent

• On lawful and forbidden marriages, as mentioned in the first and second writings, and their dissolutions

• On the writing of appendices to marriage contracts, both wrongful and rightful

• On obedience and the simple written marriage agreement

• On wills

• On goods acquired separately by soldiers, which they may bequeath even when it is forbidden; and on clergy, imperial aides (khaltularii), and others serving in the military

• On degrees of kinship, and on natural heirs who do not leave a will

• On orphans left behind, and their guardians

• On manumission, written and unwritten

• On sale and purchase, documented and undocumented

• On all types of loans, written or unwritten, made on land or sea, and on lost pledges

• On all forms of pledge

• On leases, written or unwritten

• On faithful and unfaithful witnesses, and on improper acceptance of witnesses, including those who previously resided far away

• On lawful and unlawful dissolution (of agreements)

• On the division of spoils

59. [Folios 521 verso – 552, pp. 1154–1217] “On the Mystery of Matrimony, that is, of Lawful Marriage. Chapter 51.”

At the beginning of this article, it is stated that the parish priest must conduct a marriage inquiry concerning the bride and groom who wish to be married: whether there are any canonical impediments to the marriage, whether they are related (either by blood or spiritual kinship), whether they enter into marriage of their own free will, whether they have reached the legal age for marriage, whether they are Orthodox Christians, and whether they know the Creed, the chief prayers, and the commandments of God. It is specified that the wedding should take place in the parish where the groom resides (except in regions where it is customary to marry in the bride’s parish). The priest must exercise particular caution when approached for marriage by outsiders from other areas, persons without a fixed residence, or women wishing to remarry whose husbands are soldiers, captives, or wanderers.

Before betrothal and marriage, the priest must announce the couple’s intention publicly on three feast days after the Divine Liturgy, so that anyone who knows of an impediment to the union may inform the priest. If the bride and groom live in different parishes, this announcement must be made in both churches. If any impediment is reported, an investigation must be conducted, with the participation of two or three witnesses. In difficult cases, the priest must seek a ruling from the bishop. Without such investigation, a priest is forbidden to perform either betrothal or marriage. If, after the investigation, the marriage is not concluded within two months, the inquiry must be repeated—unless the bishop gives other instructions.

Betrothal and marriage are to be performed either by the parish priest or by another priest acting on his authority.

The priest must instruct the betrothed not to live together before marriage and not to engage in marital relations. Before the wedding, the bride and groom are to make confession and, if possible, prepare for Holy Communion with fasting and prayer. The wedding should take place before noon, directly after the Divine Liturgy or the Hours.

This chapter also lists the days of the year on which weddings are forbidden and commands that wedding feasts be conducted piously—without drunkenness, dancing, or indecent songs.

Next follows a “Summary on Blood Kinship”, which outlines the degrees of consanguinity and which degrees are permitted or prohibited for marriage, with accompanying genealogical charts.

Following this is the “Summary on Affinity,” that is, kinship arising from the relatives of the husband and the relatives of the wife. It details which degrees of such kinship allow or forbid marriage, also with charts of specific examples.

This is followed by a section “On Threefold Kinship,” which addresses more complex family relations, again with permitted and forbidden degrees of marriage and practical diagrams.

Then comes the section “On Spiritual Kinship from Holy Baptism,” which explains that there exists spiritual kinship between a godparent (the one who receives the child from the baptismal font) and the godchild, which extends in a direct line to the eighth degree, within which marriages are prohibited. Similar spiritual kinship also arises between co-godparents. The section includes specific charts indicating which cases of “godparent” kinship permit or forbid marriage.

The next section, titled “On Adoption,” discusses kinship arising from adoption by means of priestly prayers, and the impediments to marriage that result from it. It also states the unlawfulness and invalidity of “brother-making” (i.e., ceremonial “blood brotherhood”), which does not create any real kinship and does not impede marriage.

The chapter continues with excerpts “On Forbidden Marriages” from the works of Matthew Vlastar and Constantine Harmenopoulos, and includes “The Response of the Holy Patriarch of Antioch, Lord Theodore Valsamon,” on marital matters.

60. [Folios 552 verso – 567, pp. 1218–1249] “On Unlawful Marriages, that is, on Incest. Chapter 52.”

This chapter concerns the absolute inadmissibility of entering into marriage within close degrees of kinship. It includes the “Synodal Scroll on Unlawful Marriages” of the Council of Constantinople, presided over by Patriarch Sisinnius on February 21, in the year 6509 from Adam (which corresponds to 1001 AD in the modern calendar). Appended to this conciliar decree are examples of specific kinship situations, the “Epistle of the Patriarch” concerning certain cases of forbidden marriages, and the “Ustav on Marriages”—a regulatory guideline on prohibited unions.

61. [Folios 567 verso – 576 verso, pp. 1250–1268] “An Exposition, or Recollection, of the Former Church Reconciliation under Constantine and Romanus—one reigning as emperor, the other honored with the dignity of emperor as his father. Chapter 53.”

This chapter contains the “Scroll of Union”—the decree of the Constantinopolitan Council of Union held in the year 920 according to the civil calendar.
The background to the council is as follows. Emperor Leo VI, called the Wise or the Philosopher, having remained childless after three marriages, entered into a fourth marriage. Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic excommunicated the emperor from the Church. In response, the emperor convened a council of bishops in 907, which, under imperial pressure and in violation of canonical order, permitted him to marry a fourth time. Patriarch Nicholas and his supporters refused to participate in the unlawful council. That council declared the patriarch deposed and elevated the elderly hierarch Euthymius to the throne of Constantinople.

The majority of Greek bishops, headed by the lawful Patriarch Nicholas, did not recognize the decisions of this council and severed communion with the new patriarch Euthymius. Thus began a prolonged schism in the Church of Constantinople, which lasted at least 90 years.

After Emperor Leo’s death, Patriarch Euthymius was deposed, and St. Nicholas the Mystic was restored to the patriarchal throne. Euthymius and his supporters continued to condemn Nicholas’s followers and remained in schism. For many years, Patriarch Nicholas exhorted the Euthymians toward reconciliation. Finally, in the year 920, both parties gathered in Constantinople for a joint council, which came to be known as the Council of Union. The council restored ecclesiastical unity, anathematized anyone who would teach the lawfulness of a fourth marriage or slander the Church by saying that it acknowledges a fourth marriage as lawful.

All bishops from both sides of the conflict were confirmed in their ranks, despite having previously anathematized one another. Only a very small faction of “Eustathians” refused to recognize the council, but by the end of the century, they had faded into obscurity. Later, in 995, under Patriarch Nicholas Chrysoberges, the Church of Constantinople declared eternal memory for both Patriarch Nicholas the Mystic and Patriarch Euthymius, and for all the hierarchs from both sides of the schism.

In the 1940s, St. Gerontius (Lakomkin) wrote that the Council of Union—with its reconciliation, mutual recognition of hierarchs, and proclamation of eternal memory for the deceased on both sides—should serve as a model for overcoming the schism between the Belokrinitsky and Beglopopovtsy hierarchies, namely: mutual recognition, forgiveness of all grievances, and proclamation of eternal memory for the departed from both sides of the former division.

Thus, this chapter of the Kormchaya contains the Tomos, or Scroll, of the Council of Union of 920. It proclaims the inadmissibility of a fourth marriage, assigns penances for second and third marriages, and offers further guidance on matrimonial law. Additionally, the council emphasizes the necessity of unwavering adherence to the canons of the Holy Church and ecclesiastical Tradition as a whole. Marginal notes in the Kormchaya include the following:
“He is a thief and a robber who speaks not from the Scriptures”;
“See: when the holy churches are at peace without disturbance, all good things are granted by God”;
“Because of transgressions of the commandments of the Lord, all evils come upon us.”

62. [Folios 577 – 582 verso, pp. 1269–1280] “Ecclesiastical Chapters, Canonical Questions and Answers of the Holy Council Held During the Days of the Most Reverend and Ecumenical Patriarch Nicholas of Constantinople, the Inquiry of John, Monk and Hesychast on the Holy Mountain, and the Monks with Him. Chapter 54.”

This chapter addresses various canonical and liturgical questions:

• On the Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout the year (a strict rule is presented, though in the Russian Church a different rule has long been observed, allowing relaxation on certain feast days and liturgical seasons).

• On non-ordained monks entering the Holy Altar (permitted for lighting candles and maintaining cleanliness).

• On making prostrations on Saturdays.

• On the Dormition Fast.

• On unworthily ordained clergy.

• On giving Communion to the demon-possessed.

• On how to properly consume leftover prosphora from the Liturgy.

• On whether one may relax the Wednesday and Friday fast on the eve of a feast of the Lord (answer: no).

• On monks who leave the monastery where they received tonsure.

• On whether a dying abbot may appoint his own successor and bind him with a threat of excommunication if he leaves the abbacy (answer: no; such an oath is unlawful).

• On an illiterate elder-monk, ignorant of the canons, who was hearing confessions and allowing priests who had committed mortal sins to serve (this is a grave scandal and a danger to souls).

• On whether a priest deposed for sins or one who has renounced his priesthood due to sin may perform priestly functions (he may not).

• On whether a priest who voluntarily ceased to serve may hear confessions (he may not).

• On whether a simple monk without holy orders may hear confessions and grant absolution (he may not).

• On the meaning of “defilement by the mouth” (refers to fornication).

• On the meaning of “lesser blessing” (a consecrated prosphoron).

• On whether someone excommunicated from Holy Communion may receive the antidoron (answer: no).

• On whether it is permissible to accept prosphora for the Liturgy from those excommunicated from Communion.

• On whether it is proper to read the Life of St. Niphon and the books of Clement (the Life of Niphon is declared apocryphal and forbidden; the Apostolic Constitutions, attributed to Clement, are to be honored, but not read publicly because of the weakness and lack of understanding of many).

• On whether the canons of St. John the Faster should be used (these canons greatly shorten the period of excommunication if the penitent is zealous in ascetic works such as strict fasting and prostrations; they were beneficial to the truly zealous, but very harmful to the negligent).

63. [Folios 583 – 586 verso, pp. 1281–1288] “Responses of the Most Blessed Metropolitan Nikita of Heraclea to Questions Posed to Him by Constantine of Pamphylia. Chapter 55.”

This chapter contains a series of canonical questions and the authoritative responses to them.

Among them:

• If a husband, being away for three years, takes a concubine, his wife is not permitted to remarry, and the husband must leave the concubine and return to his lawful wife.

• If a groom, immediately after the wedding and before consummating the marriage, commits fornication with his bride’s mother, the marriage is not annulled, but the mother-in-law must be sent to live in a distant location (both bear the penance of adultery).

• If a prostitute, even under oath, accuses a priest of fathering her child but produces no credible witnesses, she is not to be believed.

• A priest who is not tonsured into the great schema should not tonsure another into it.

• A bishop who is tonsured into the great schema must relinquish his episcopal office, and likewise a priest or deacon.

• A hieromonk may not go to a foreign place and tonsure unknown (unexamined) persons into monasticism; if he does, he is to be deposed.

• A spiritual child of a hieromonk may receive monastic tonsure from another hieromonk—this is not a sin.

• A man who was mistakenly ordained as a priest while bearing an unconfessed grave sin, and then later confesses it, must be deposed.

• A child born from the second marriage of both parents (or from adultery) may be ordained, for he does not bear the guilt of his parents.

• A church custodian accused of embezzling church books and items, if he does not confess, must be convicted by witnesses in court and is to lose his office.

64. [Folios 587 – 594 verso, pp. 1289–1304] “Testament of St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Concerning Those Who Have Denied the Faith and Been Defiled in Various Ways and at Various Ages. Chapter 56.”

This chapter of the Kormchaya treats of several categories of Christians who, after baptism, fell away from the faith in Christ, and the periods of repentance required of them. It also outlines a unified means of returning to the Church—through the sacrament of chrismation (anointing with holy myrrh).

• First category: Baptized children who were taken captive by unbelievers and, due to youth, ignorance, or lack of Christian upbringing, fell into paganism or a first-degree heresy. These are received into the Church after the immediate performance of purification prayers, and on the eighth day they receive chrismation.

• Second category: Youths, adults, elders, or clergy who denied the faith after suffering torture. These are received mercifully after six years of repentance, including fasting and diligent prayer (saying “Lord, have mercy” one hundred times daily), along with a certain number of prostrations. For the eight days prior to reception, they undergo purification prayers. On the eighth day, they are anointed with holy chrism and then receive Holy Communion each day for eight days during the Divine Liturgy.

• Third category: Those who voluntarily renounced the faith—considered the gravest offense. They are assigned a ten-year period of repentance, during which they must abstain from meat, cheese, eggs, and wine, perform 100 prostrations daily (if young and healthy), and recite 200 “Lord, have mercy” prayers. They then undergo the purification prayers and receive chrismation on the eighth day, followed by eight days of daily Communion.

The chapter also notes that a spiritual father, when assigning a penance (epitimia), must consider not only the sin but also the person’s age, gender, spiritual maturity, health, clerical rank, and other personal circumstances, and measure the penance accordingly.

If someone has become so habituated to sin that they are unable to receive Communion for many years, the chapter recommends giving such a person Communion after Great Lent—if they have at least refrained from sin during the fast.

It also discusses the four degrees of penance (excommunication) according to St. Basil the Great, and provides other pastoral instructions for spiritual fathers.

65. [Fol. 595–596, pp. 1305–1307] “Canon concerning priests who do not vest in all the sacred garments, whether out of ignorance, pride, or sloth. Chapter 57.”

This instruction is taken from the Life of Saint John the Merciful, who forbade priests under his jurisdiction to wear the phelonion without the sticharion, including during Vespers, Matins, and processions—thus requiring service to be conducted in full vestments.

Note: The Stoglav Council quoted this rule, but interpreted it in a paradoxical manner, apparently conforming to the long-established custom whereby Vespers, Panikhida, Small Compline, Midnight Office, and Matins in parish churches were served in phelonion and epitrachelion, while the Divine Liturgy, the Great Blessing of Waters, Baptism, and Matrimony were served in full vestments; whereas in monastic churches, vesting followed the monastic ustav, according to which a hieromonk in a men’s monastery serves most of the time without vestments, donning the epitrachelion occasionally for prayers, the phelonion for censing and entrance through the Royal Doors, and serving the Divine Liturgy only in full vestments (cf. Stoglav, Chapter 15, and directives found in handwritten and early printed service books). Likewise, the Tserkovnoye oko (Church Eye) ustav prescribes that at certain moments of the service, priests are to vest in epitrachelion and phelonion, rather than full vestments.

66. [Fol. 596 verso – 598, pp. 1308–1311] “Canons of Saint Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, the Confessor, and the holy fathers with him, concerning ecclesiastical order.”

Saint Nikephoros the Confessor, who suffered under the Iconoclast heretics, delivered these canons to the Church.

Since they are now rarely recalled, we briefly summarize their content:

• If the antimension is washed by mistake, it is not defiled nor does it lose its consecration.

• A man who has entered into a second marriage is not crowned (with the rite of first marriage) and must bear an epitimia of two years’ exclusion from Communion; a third marriage entails five years.

• One who, out of necessity (such as bad weather), sleeps in the church narthex is not condemned, but one who abuses this and lingers beyond necessity is expelled and bears epitimia.

• If the Feast of the Annunciation falls on Great Thursday or Great Friday, oil and wine may be consumed.

• A hieromonk-abbot may ordain a reader or subdeacon for his own monastery.

• Fornicators are not to be ordained, even if they live virtuously thereafter.

• The sick may receive Communion even after having eaten.

• It is permissible to light one lamp or take one particle from the prosphora for two or three people during the proskomedia.

• The Liturgy cannot be celebrated without the zeon (hot water), except in cases of great necessity.

• If a monk who renounced monasticism later repents, he is not to be given a second monastic tonsure, but simply reclothed in the monastic garments.

• Nuns are not permitted to enter the holy altar for cleaning or lighting lamps. Note: Other copies of this canon say the opposite—that in a women’s monastery, nuns are indeed to do this.

• During Great Lent, monks and nuns, even those engaged in heavy labor, are not to eat twice a day or consume wine and oil.

• A monk may leave his monastery for three reasons: if the abbot is a heretic; if women are allowed entry into the monastery; or if lay children are being educated in the coenobitic monastery—since such things should not take place in the monastery.

• A nun who has been raped by barbarians or lawless men, if her former life was blameless, is barred from Communion for 40 days; if her life was blameworthy, she bears the epitimia of adultery (15 years).

• One who, in jest or under threat of military conscription, puts on monastic clothing without authorization and later removes it, is excluded from Communion for 40 days.

• An abbot may not remove a monk’s cowl or expel him from the monastery.

• A gravely ill person requesting monastic tonsure should be tonsured immediately.

• A hieromonk may not serve without wearing the mantle. Note: The short mantle must be worn under the sticharion by the hieromonk, according to the Ustav of the Vetka Church.

• One excommunicated from the Mysteries for secret sins must not be excluded from standing with the faithful.

• The same applies to adulterers, sodomites, and murderers whose sins are not known to the public. They are commanded to remain in church until the Liturgy of the Faithful, and then to leave with the catechumens. If their sin is known to others, they are excommunicated according to the canons for specific periods and must not even stand with the catechumens.

• A monk who abandons monasticism, marries, and eats meat, if he does not repent and return to monasticism, is subject to anathema or forced confinement in a monastery.

• Even one who has sinned in fornication only once may not be ordained, even if he raises the dead by his prayer.

• One who publicly and shamelessly commits fornication is to be excommunicated and not even permitted to share a meal.

67. [Fol. 598 verso – 601, pp. 1312–1317] “Responses of John, Most Holy Bishop of Kitrion, to the Most Holy Bishop of Dyrrhachium, Kavásilas. Chapter 59.”

These well-known canonical responses of Saint John of Kitrion are included in various collections of canons, including the book of Constantine Sevastos Armenopoulos, and in the Slavonic manuscripts of the Alphabetical Syntagma by Matthew Vlastar. The responses are formulated in the style of canonical rules.

• Rule 1 explains the nature of antimensions: they are consecrated according to the rite of church consecration and are laid down for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in places where there is no consecrated altar (e.g., in military campaigns, on ships, etc.). The antimension, like the holy myron, is not restricted to the boundaries of the diocese in which it was consecrated, but may be sent, as needed, to other locations.

• Rule 2 commands that Christians should abstain from marital relations on Sundays and during Great Lent.

• Rule 3 states that if a metropolitan serves in the church of a bishop subject to him, then at the Liturgy the metropolitan does not commemorate the name of that bishop, but only the patriarch.

• Rule 4: Instruments used to repair sacred vessels are not to be destroyed, but cleansed with fire, after which they may be used as ordinary tools.

• Rule 5: It is fitting to light candles and lamps and to burn incense both in church and at graves for the departed. The oil used in church lamps must be pure olive oil—pressed from olives—not from other fruits or seeds.

• Rule 6: In consecrated churches where relics of saints have been deposited, it is not proper to bury the dead; burial should be done in chapels lacking a consecrated altar.

• Rule 7: One who vomits after receiving Communion due to drunkenness should be severely punished; if it is due to illness, the punishment should be milder.

• Rule 8: On the degrees of punishment for priests who spill the Holy Gifts—both before and after consecration.

68. [Fol. 601 verso – 606, pp. 1318–1327] “On ordination, that is, the episcopal laying-on of hands over a newly ordained priest, extracted from the canons of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers. When the newly consecrated priest departs to his appointed parish from the cathedral church, then the bishop instructs him and reads to him this scroll, laying it in the altar, upon the holy table, and bids him take from the altar a memory of this instruction and holy ordination. Chapter 60.”

This is a very important instruction that every priest should know. It is lamentable that today the custom of handing this “scroll” to the priest after ordination is nearly forgotten.

This instruction speaks of the importance of studying the Law of the Lord and the sacred canons, and of the necessity for the spiritual shepherd to read them frequently, so as to save both himself and his flock. The pastor must fulfill the Law of God not only in word but also in deed, being an example to the faithful.

It speaks of the priest’s clothing: it should be long, down to the ankles, austere, without bright colors or worldly adornment. The priest must avoid gambling and shameful occupations.

It instructs on reverence for the holy altar, who may and may not enter it, and the maintenance of purity in the church and sanctuary. Nothing unrelated to worship should be placed upon the holy table apart from the Gospel and the Holy Mysteries.

One must not concelebrate with those who are excommunicated, nor give Communion to the unworthy. Secular conversations should not be allowed in church.

One must not accept offerings in the sanctuary from unbelievers and heretics, thieves, robbers or looters, from merciless officials, tavern-keepers, usurers, perjurers, slanderers, false witnesses, sorcerers and diviners, actors, those in enmity, or those who torment their subordinates with hunger and beatings—unless they repent and begin to amend their ways.

During the proskomedia, the priest should commemorate his spiritual children, “knowing their lives.” Spiritual children should be instructed in the Law of God, and if they commit grave sins, they must be barred from Communion and given penances. Those who do not obey and continue sinning shamelessly are to be excommunicated and cast away until they correct themselves. One who was excommunicated by another confessor should not be accepted without resolution.

To the poor, the sick, women in labor, and the dying, the priest must go to perform the required rites, even without being asked—for the sake of Christ.

At baptism, the priest should immediately give Communion; likewise to every dying person, but not to one who is already dead. If someone dies without Communion because of the priest’s negligence, “their punishment shall be demanded of thee.”

The priest must obey and honor the bishop, and attend councils for the correction of Church affairs. He must not be slothful in service, in good works, or in preaching. And God shall make worthy of the life to come all who fulfill these things.

69. [Fol. 606–609, pp. 1327–1333] “Correct Responses of Timothy, Most Holy Archbishop of Alexandria. Chapter 61.”

The first response concerns those coming to Orthodoxy from heresy (of the second or third degree): such persons are not to be baptized again, but their baptism performed in heresy is to be accepted—so as not to drive them away from Orthodoxy on account of requiring rebaptism—since even through the laying on of a presbyter’s hands and prayer the Holy Spirit certainly descends.
Note: This response was often quoted by Old Orthodox nachetchiki (experts in canon law) in disputes with the priestless factions (bespopovtsy), who denied the validity of receiving heretics without a second baptism.

The second response: if someone, rinsing their mouth before Communion, accidentally swallows water, it does not hinder them from approaching the Holy Mysteries.

The third response: if the Holy Gifts somehow spoil (e.g., become moldy)—which ought never to occur!—then they must be consumed by the priest with sweet wine, not burned or thrown into a river.

The fourth response: even if we hear the word of God but do deeds unworthy of it, we must rebuke ourselves, and this self-accusation is considered “a part of salvation.”

The fifth response: human thoughts are judged by God according to the development of the person’s mind: for some, beginning from age twelve; for others, later.

The sixth response: if one experiences a nocturnal emission before Communion, and it occurs due to lust provoked by a woman, he should not commune; but if it happens without lust, as a temptation from the devil, he should commune—so that the enemy does not continue using such snares to keep him from the Holy Mysteries.
Additional note: An excerpt is added here from the book of St. Nikon of the Black Mountain, which clarifies that this refers to laymen; a monk, however, should not commune after such defilement under any circumstances. Also cited are the canons of St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Canons 3, 4) and Timothy of Alexandria (Canons 5, 11, 12, 13).
Then follows the response of St. Barsanuphius, who recommends that, after such defilement, one should approach the Mysteries with heartfelt contrition and prayer—like the woman with the issue of blood who approached Christ. A monk, in such a case, should confess his sin even to a fellow brother (not a young one, lest he be scandalized) and ask his prayers. He should also pray himself using a rule of 49 full prostrations, each accompanied by the prayer: “I have sinned, O Lord, forgive me for Thy holy name’s sake”.
(If illness or the rules of a feast or Sunday prevent full prostrations, then the same prayer should be recited 70 times without prostrations.)

70. [Fol. 609–613 verso, pp. 1339–1342] “The Prohibitions of the Holy and Great Basil Concerning Monks. Chapter 62.”

This section contains instructions on epitimias (penances) for monks for various sins and disciplinary offenses, organized in the form of 74 canons.

71. [Fol. 614–615, pp. 1343–1345] “The Canons of the Same Saint Basil Concerning Nuns. Chapter 63.”

This chapter of the Kormchaya presents 20 canons specifically addressing the conduct and discipline of nuns.

72. [Fol. 615 verso – 616, pp. 1346–1347] “Various Prohibitions at the Refectory from the Holy Fathers. Chapter 64.”

Here are listed 16 canons regulating the behavior of monks during monastic meals in the refectory.

73. [Fol. 616 verso – 618, pp. 1348–1351] “Of the Same Measure, From the New Law, Concerning Monks.”

This chapter offers an exhortation to monks concerning the pious and godly monastic life, continuing in the spirit of the preceding chapters.

74. [Fol. 618–619, pp. 1351–1353] “On the Robes of Aaron and the Image of the Schema, and on the Sticharion, and the Belt, and the Sub-garment, and the Ephod, and the Four-cornered Robe, and the Fringe, and the Miter. Chapter 66.”

This chapter gives a Christian interpretation of the symbolism of the vestments of the Old Testament priesthood, linking each article of clothing to spiritual truths and New Testament realities.

75. [Fol. 619–620 verso, pp. 1353–1357] “Understanding the Concordance of Both Laws: of the Priesthood of Christ and the Image of the Schema. Chapter 67.”

This section discusses how the rites and vestments of the Old Testament foreshadowed the coming of Christ in the flesh and the events of the Gospel. Numerous examples of such typology are presented to demonstrate the harmony between the Old and New Covenants.

76. [Fol. 621–622 verso, pp. 1357–1360] “Account of the Mantle of the Patriarch, and of the Metropolitan, and of the Archbishop, and What the Titles ‘Patriarch,’ ‘Metropolitan,’ ‘Archbishop,’ ‘Bishop,’ ‘Archimandrite,’ ‘Abbot,’ ‘Protopriest,’ ‘Protodeacon,’ ‘Presbyter,’ and ‘Deacon’ Mean. Chapter 68.”

The title itself clearly conveys the content of this chapter of the Kormchaya.

77. [Fol. 622 verso – 633 verso, pp. 1360–1382] “Questions of Saint Anastasios of Sinai Concerning Various Matters. Chapter 69.”

This section provides responses on the topics of worthy and unworthy reception of the Holy Mysteries; on whether virtuous Jews and Greeks (i.e., pagans) will be saved; on the required duration of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (which must include time, good deeds, fasting, and tears); on what sin renders our prayers displeasing to God (namely, pride and vindictiveness); on what constitutes true humility; on the necessity of repentance, even if a person falls repeatedly into sin; on the meaning of the Gospel phrase, “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness” (i.e., to give unrighteously gained possessions to the poor); on whether alms given reluctantly or out of compulsion are accepted by God (they are, but not in the same way as pure and willing offerings); on whether God accepts the repentance of someone who has sinned for a long time but sincerely promises to sin no more and then dies shortly thereafter (He does); on why, in our time, there are not as many signs and miracles as in ancient days; on the meaning of the phrase, “God is not the author of evil”; on what sin is most dangerous and most difficult to be forgiven (a prolonged and malicious habitual sin); on how a person can know whether God has forgiven his sins; and on whether the Divinity suffered at the Crucifixion of Christ (it did not).

78. [Fol. 634–637, pp. 1383–1389] “Of Timothy the Presbyter of the Great Church and Keeper of the Vessels of the Most Pure God-bearer in Chalkoprateia, on the Distinctions Among Those Coming from Heresies to Our Most Pious Faith. Chapter 70.”

This is a very important chapter in the Kormchaya for the Old Orthodox tradition, explaining that all heresies are divided into three categories.
The first category includes those who, upon joining the Church, must be baptized, because their baptism and other sacraments are invalid.
The second category includes those who are accepted with their existing baptism and sacraments, provided they anathematize the heresy and receive chrismation.
The third category includes those received into the Church without either rebaptism or chrismation, but through a simple renunciation of heresy and cleansing prayers, acknowledging the sacraments performed over them within the heresy.

Under this schema, clergy of the Nikonian (post-reform) Church were accepted into the Old Orthodox Church of Christ according to the second order—through chrismation, in their existing rank. This permitted the Old Orthodox priesthood to be preserved during a period when the Church temporarily lacked the physical presence of bishops.

79. [Fol. 637–641 verso, pp. 1389–1398] “From the First Book of Venerable Nikon, Abbot of the Black Mountain, from the Sixty-Third Discourse, and from the Preface to the Second Book: A Pronouncement Concerning the Divine Canons from the God-Bearing Councils, and Especially the Holy Fathers, for the One and the Same Holy Spirit Was at Work in the Local and Ecumenical Councils, and Christians Are to Keep These Divine Canons Even to the End of the Age. Chapter 71.”

This final chapter of the Kormchaya Book contains excerpts from the writings of Venerable Nikon of the Black Mountain. He writes that all the sacred canons were written by the holy apostles and fathers, and by the holy councils of the Church—not according to human wisdom, but by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, those who do not wish to fulfill them bring great ruin upon themselves. To alter or annul these canons is lawlessness, for even the Apostle Paul declares anathema on anyone who preaches a gospel different from what was delivered.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council confirms the previously accepted canons and affirms their necessity: “If anyone is found diminishing or beginning to forbid any of the aforementioned canons, he shall be subject to the same penalty prescribed by that very canon and shall be healed by the very punishment befitting his transgression.”

Quotations are also cited from the Scroll of the Council of Union:
“All things newly made or to be made hereafter apart from the ecclesiastical tradition, instruction, and example of the saints and ever-memorable fathers—anathema.”
And:
“To those who despise the divine fathers of our Church—those who established the Church and adorned the Christian way of life and guided us to godly reverence—anathema.”
And further:
“The council that follows the previous holy councils is holy; but that which does not follow them is unholy, defiled, and rejected.”

This point is extremely important. In Church history, there have been many false and heretical councils that attempted to abolish the rulings of Orthodox councils and introduce unlawful innovations. The Church rejected such gatherings as unholy and impure because they did not follow the previous holy councils. In contrast, Orthodox councils (e.g., the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils) explicitly affirmed that they accepted and upheld the decisions and canons of the earlier holy councils. In this way, the continuity of Church Tradition is preserved from generation to generation.

At the end of the chapter, a quotation is given from Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria:
“If anyone dares to unsettle anything established by the God-bearing Fathers, let this no longer be called economy, but rather a transgression of the commandment and impiety before God.”

The text of the Kormchaya concludes with a citation from the book of Venerable Nikon of the Black Mountain:
“And these canons, as we have said, are like civil laws, which declare: ‘He is a heretic and subject to the laws against heresy who even in the least deviates from the Orthodox faith. The first commandment, third clause of the New (Laws), declares that all who are not in communion with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church are heretics.’”

80. [Fol. 642–647, pp. 1399 verso – 1408] “Description of This Book Called the Kormchaya, and to Beloved Readers.”

This is the final section of the Josephite Kormchaya, describing who compiled and published the book, for what purpose, and at what time.

81. [Fol. 648–679 verso, pp. 1411–1474] “Alphabetical Catalogue, That Is, an Index of the Most Noteworthy Matters in This Book Called the Kormchaya.”

This is the reference section of the Kormchaya, presented in the form of an alphabetical topical index.

Following this is a table of contents printed in civil script (in the edition of P.P. Ryabushinsky).

Thus concludes our overview of the most important and authoritative of all written sources of ecclesiastical law in the Old Orthodox tradition—the Kormchaya Book. Knowledge of its canons is essential for every bishop, priest, deacon, and indeed for every Christian.

This book (in reprint editions) can be freely purchased in church bookstores or found in digital form online, which we highly recommend for every God-loving reader who wishes to study it firsthand.

In the following chapters of our review, with God’s help, we will briefly examine several other canonical books held in high regard in the Old Orthodox Church. These either explain the canons of the Kormchaya or contain additional ecclesiastical rulings complementary to it.

The Great Potrebnik #

The holy and divine book called the Great Potrebnik (Potrebnik Velikii) was printed during the leadership of the Russian Church by the most holy Patriarchs Filaret (in 1624) and Ioasaph (in 1639), with their blessing. It contains the most important rites and prayers, including the orders for the founding and consecration of a church, baptism, chrismation, confession, unction, burial, monastic tonsure, ordination of clergy, prayers for the blessing of a home and a well, prayers during fasting and for release from fasts, the rite of communion with great agiasma, and much more.

The 1639 edition of the Great Potrebnik is the most widespread among the Old Believers, and therefore it is this edition that we will examine. In addition to church rites and prayers, it also includes important canonical enactments that deserve the reader’s attention. These include: the “Conciliar Statement of the Most Holy Kyr Filaret, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus, and the holy episcopal council gathered with him, on how and whom to baptize coming from heresies” (chapter 70); the “second rite” for receiving those who have renounced faith in Christ and are repenting (chapters 75–78); the “third rite” for receiving those who prayed together with heretics and are repenting (chapter 80); and the “Rules of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers in brief, which is the Nomocanon” (chapter 86).

Let us proceed, then, to a brief review of these chapters from the Great Potrebnik.

The Conciliar Statement of the Most Holy Patriarch Filaret (Chapter 70 of the Great Potrebnik) #

This important ecclesiastical-canonical document is dated December 4, 7129 from Adam (1620 AD in the modern calendar). The council, chaired by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus Filaret, was devoted to the question of how to admit various foreigners calling themselves Orthodox to prayer in Orthodox churches. During that period of Russian history, following the Time of Troubles, many people from Polish and Lithuanian territories (“Belarusians”) were arriving in the capital of the Muscovite state. Due to the spread of the Latin and Uniate heresies, it became necessary to examine each of these newcomers’ baptism and faith, for church rules forbid Orthodox believers from praying together with non-Orthodox and the unbaptized.

In the western Rus’ lands, papal influence and Latin-Roman customs were growing stronger, among which was affusion (pouring) baptism, without immersion in water. The Russian Church, in accordance with the 50th Apostolic Canon, recognized as lawful and valid only triple immersion baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and did not consider Latin-style pouring baptism to be true baptism. Both the Vladimir Council in the 13th century and the Stoglav Council in 1551, along with other ecclesiastical enactments, forbade the use of Latin “sprinkling” baptism.

The council under Patriarch Filaret thoroughly examined the Latin-Roman customs that contradicted Orthodox Tradition, as well as the heretical innovations, and decreed that both Latinizers and those baptized by Uniates should be received into the Orthodox Church by full baptism, for their baptism “is not baptism, but rather defilement.”

Concerning the “Belarusians,” that is, “those coming from the Kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania into the Orthodox faith of our Greek rite, into the domain of the Muscovite state, and desiring to be united with us as Christians,” the council decreed that an investigation should be conducted to determine whether each should be baptized or chrismated, and how they should be received in order to be joined to the enlightened Christians.

The conciliar ruling laid out criteria for receiving such “Belarusians” in one way or another. The priest must thoroughly question the person and any witnesses he brings (if any), asking where and into what faith he was baptized, how the baptism was performed, whether he was anointed with oil and chrism (since Latins do not anoint during baptism), whether the priest who baptized him prays for the Roman Pope, and so forth. If there is no testimony about the individual’s personal baptism, but the local baptismal practices of his native region are known, then those general practices are accepted in place of specific witness.

If it is determined that the person is of the Orthodox faith, baptized by triple immersion, and anointed with oil and chrism, and the priest who baptized him prays for Orthodox patriarchs, then such a one is to be received as Orthodox.

But if the person says he was baptized into the Orthodox faith, yet their baptism involved pouring, then the Council ruled that he must be rebaptized by immersion.

If he says he was baptized by immersion but was not anointed with oil or chrism, then he should not be rebaptized, but the missing anointing should be supplied.

If he says he was baptized by immersion and anointed with both oil and chrism, but the priest who baptized him prays for the Roman Pope (i.e., is a Uniate), then such a person coming from the Uniates should be fully baptized and anointed with oil and chrism—apparently because Uniate clergy received ordination from unbaptized Latin bishops.

Let us note that the Old Believer Christians, when receiving into the communion of the Church those who come from other confessions (especially from the New Rite), inquire carefully about the proper form of their baptism, and re-baptize by immersion all those who had been baptized by pouring. In the 17th–19th centuries, when the New Ritualists did not practice immersion in only eight Russian provinces, those born in those provinces were baptized anew by Old Believer priests upon joining from the Nikonian church, whereas those born elsewhere were received from heresy through chrismation.

We should also note that when Metropolitan Ambrose of blessed memory joined the Old Believers from the Greek New-Rite hierarchy, he was received in accordance with this same conciliar decree. They investigated both with him personally and in the region where he was baptized to determine how baptism was performed there—whether by triple immersion or Latin-style pouring. The Metropolitan testified that he was baptized by immersion and produced Greek canonical books that forbade affusion. Observations of Greek baptisms also confirmed his account, which made it possible to receive him with his prior baptism, and thus “in the existing rank” of Metropolitan.

This remains the current practice among the Old Believers. A question now arises for serious consideration: whether the practice of receiving clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate ought to be revised, considering that today the overwhelming majority of its bishops and priests most likely have not been baptized by immersion. There is an opinion that they should be received in the same manner as those baptized by Uniate clergy. However, resolving this issue requires conciliar review by the Church.

Instructions of the Great Potrebnik Regarding the Reception of Those Who Renounced Faith in Christ and Repented (Chapters 75–78) #

Those who renounced faith in Christ and embraced a heresy of the first rank are not to be re-baptized upon returning to the Church of Christ, but rather are to be anointed with holy chrism, following the fulfillment of a prescribed penance (epitimia). The Great Potrebnik, in agreement with the canonical rules, distinguishes various degrees of guilt in those who denied Christ, assigning a fitting penance of repentance for each case.

In general, it should be noted that Christians who were properly baptized—even if they later fell away from Christ into a heresy of the first rank (such as paganism, Islam, Manichaeism, etc.) or into complete unbelief—are not to be re-baptized. The general principle for receiving the fallen is this: those who fell into unbelief or heresy of the first rank are received through repentance, renunciation of the heresy, and chrismation (that is, by the second rite); those who fell into heresies of the second or third rank (or into ecclesiastical schism) are received through repentance, renunciation of the heresy (or schism), and cleansing prayers (that is, by the third rite). Anyone who does not know whether he was baptized in infancy, and who comes to Orthodoxy (for example, returning from pagan captivity), must be baptized without any doubt.

Let us now return to the Great Potrebnik. It prescribes the following procedure for restoring to the Church of Christ by chrismation those who have renounced Christ:

• If a child is taken captive by non-believers and, out of fear or ignorance or lack of instruction, is converted to a non-Christian faith, then upon returning to the Church of Christ, he must renounce the heresy, receive cleansing prayers, and be given by the priest a rule of seven days of fasting and prayer. After this, he receives the sacraments of chrismation and Holy Communion. During the following seven days, he is not to wash or eat meat, and on the eighth day, the holy chrism is washed off according to the Church rite.

• If a person of full understanding (a youth, adult, or elder) has denied Christ under torture, he is received in much the same way, but his penance lasts not seven but forty days. An additional cleansing prayer is also prescribed for him.

• If someone has voluntarily, without coercion, denied Christ, the Great Potrebnik commands such a person to fast for two years, abstaining from meat, dairy, eggs, and wine, and to perform daily 100 or 200 full prostrations (these are to be assigned by the priest with consideration for the penitent’s health and strength). After completing this penance, the renunciation of heresy and cleansing prayers are performed (three special prayers are to be read daily over the penitent for seven days), and only then is chrismation and Holy Communion administered (at the spiritual father’s discretion). It should be noted that according to the 11th canon of the Nomocanon included in the Great Potrebnik, such persons (those who voluntarily denied Christ) are to be admitted to Holy Communion only at the hour of death.

The second rite (through renunciation of heresy and chrismation) is prescribed by the Great Potrebnik for those baptized in a heresy of the second rank, with the renunciation of heresy being outlined in Chapter 79.

“The Third Rite” in the Great Potrebnik (Chapter 80) is prescribed for those who were baptized in Orthodoxy but, for one reason or another, “associated” with various heretics—eating and drinking with them, participating in their prayer—but without actually converting to their faith. For such a person, the Potrebnik prescribes renunciation of the heresy with which he was mingled, repentance, and cleansing prayers, followed by reception of the Holy Mysteries according to the discretion of his spiritual father.

Nomocanon in the Great Potrebnik (Chapter 86) #

This section is effectively an appendix to the Great Potrebnik, and even has its own separate foliation.

The “Nomocanon in Brief” is believed to have been composed on the Holy Mountain of Athos at the beginning of the 15th century. It was later translated by Orthodox Serbs into Church Slavonic, and that translation—after some editorial refinement—was printed by the Orthodox in Kiev in 1620, 1624, and 1629, and later in Lviv in 1646.

From the second Kiev edition, the Nomocanon was reprinted in Moscow in 1639 with some editorial adjustments, during the patriarchate of His Holiness Ioasaph, and appended to the Great Potrebnik of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret.

The history of the Nomocanon in Brief was studied by 19th-century ecclesiastical historians (such as A. S. Pavlov and others), and the interested reader may consult their works independently. We will now offer a brief overview of the contents of this important canonical source for the Russian Church.

The Nomocanon begins with a Preface, which speaks of the multiplication of sins in the world and the spiritual danger of ignorant confessors for their flocks. It emphasizes the importance of knowing the Church canons and the penances (epitimias) they prescribe for sins in order to foster correct spiritual discipline and healing of souls. The preface lists canonical books by Orthodox writers that confessors should possess and study, and states that this Nomocanon in Brief summarizes the content of those books.

The text of the Nomocanon begins with an instruction on what a spiritual father (duchovnik) ought to be: learned in the Holy Scriptures, humble, virtuous, constantly praying to God for help in guiding his flock, a living example of righteousness for all. The Nomocanon warns:

“Take heed unto thyself, O spiritual father! For if even one sheep perishes due to thy negligence, it shall be required at thy hand. Take heed to what Saint John Chrysostom says in his Homily 3 on Acts: If even one person leaves without receiving the Holy Mysteries, has not the bishop or presbyter utterly overthrown his own salvation? The destruction of a single soul bears such weight that no word can convey its magnitude!”

The text then discusses the inadmissibility of communion for the unworthy (those living in unrepented grave sins).

It also states that, during confession, the spiritual father must not ask the penitent for the names of those with whom he sinned, but only their rank or station—“for this would be like Judas’ betrayal.”

Communing someone who has been formally suspended from Communion due to sins is likewise equated with a “Judas sin.”

The period of penance is to be counted from the moment the person actually ceased committing the sin. If during the appointed period of penance the person falls again into the same sin, the term is extended.

The text then outlines how long penances may be shortened depending on the zeal of the penitent:

• If the person is devout and voluntarily offers a certain number of full prostrations (zemnye poklony) each day and night, one year of the penance may be shortened.

• If he gives alms according to his ability—another year.

• If he fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays—another year.

• If he refrains from meat on Mondays—another year.

• If he also refrains from dairy and eggs on Mondays—another year.

• If he performs some other good work—another year.

• If the sinner is under 30 years old—another year.

• If under 20—even greater reduction may be granted.

But if the penitent refuses to undertake these ascetic efforts, he must fulfill the full term of the penance as laid out in the canons (folio 8).

The Nomocanon then quotes St. John the Faster, who states that such leniencies are granted only for extended penances. For instance, a 15-year penance may be reduced to three years if the penitent keeps a diet of dry-eating (sukhoyadenie) throughout those three years, along with many daily prostrations—excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and major feasts.

Penance for fornication may be reduced from 7 to 4 years, but under no circumstance should it be shortened further.

If a sinner wishes to enter the monastic life, the penance is reduced by one third; if he enters the Great Schema, the penance is halved. However, if he sins again after tonsure, the penance is imposed in full (folio 9).

A woman who intentionally causes the death of the child in her womb is excommunicated as a murderer.

If a miscarriage occurs due to illness, she is barred from Communion for one year (folio 9 verso).

If a woman prevents conception by means of herbs or sorcery, upon ceasing this sin, she is to be excommunicated for 6 years.

If a woman leads another into fornication, she is excommunicated as a harlot.

A woman who is under penance may not prepare prosphora (the liturgical bread for the Eucharist) (folio 10).

Episcopal Authority in Applying Penances #

The next section (folios 10–11) teaches that bishops and priests have the authority to either reduce or lengthen penances depending on the spiritual and physical condition of the penitent.

If the penitent is unwilling to amend his life and does not obey his spiritual father, the Nomocanon instructs the confessor to abandon such a spiritual child, citing the words of St. Basil the Great:

“If anyone says, ‘I will stubbornly keep to my own ways and not cease from sinning,’ with such people we ought to have no communion whatsoever. For we hear from Scripture: ‘By saving others, save thy own soul.’ Take heed that thou destroy not thyself by associating with the unrepentant” (folio 11 recto and verso).

Though spiritual fathers are granted the right to reduce penances, they must not abuse this authority. The Nomocanon recounts a historical example of improper leniency:
In the time of His Holiness Patriarch Luke of Constantinople, a certain soldier committed deliberate murder. A certain bishop imposed a very brief excommunication on him and soon after permitted him to partake of Holy Communion. The council of bishops overturned this decision, declaring:

“It is not proper to bind with cobwebs what ought to be bound with three cords.”
The soldier was excommunicated for the proper duration, and the bishop who had indulged him was temporarily suspended from serving (folio 12).

Further Warnings Against Abuse of Leniency #

As a further warning against the misuse of shortened penances, the response of His Holiness Nicholas, Patriarch of Constantinople, is cited. When asked whether the canons of St. John the Faster ought to be amended, he replied:

“These canons, having received much indulgence, have destroyed many; but those who are wise in understanding ought to follow them rightly.”

Ancient Rules on Degrees of Repentance #

Following this (folios 12 verso to 13), ancient rules are presented regarding the degrees of repentance for those excommunicated from the Holy Mysteries and the prescribed durations for each stage.

Afterward, the text again repeats the degrees by which penance may be reduced, based on the zeal and earnestness of the penitent.

Then follows a pristiazhanie—an additional note for spiritual fathers concerning what should be taken into account when imposing penances:

• Quantity of sins: “He who sinned much, must suffer much.”

• Quality of sin: “Let opposite things be cured by opposites—gluttony, for example, by abstinence, and so forth.”

• Duration of sin: “He who sinned long, must be punished long.”

• Above all: “The desire and free will of the penitent must be closely observed.”

The Penitential Nomocanon, or Law Code (Folio 15 Onward) #

Following all these preparatory teachings comes the actual penitential Nomocanon, or Zakonopravil’nik, containing the rules drawn from the Holy Apostles, from St. Basil the Great, and from the holy councils. It includes over 200 concise canons.

Many of these canons assign penances for various sins. Several of them are particularly noteworthy.

In the 13th and subsequent canons, it is stated that sorcerers are to be excommunicated for 20 years—equal to the punishment for murderers. Those are called sorcerers who in their magic invoke Psalms, prayers, the names of holy martyrs, or even the name of the Most Holy God-bearer.

If anyone mixes poison into food with the intent to kill—whether at another’s request (i.e., euthanasia) or to create a “love potion”—they are to receive the same penance as a deliberate murderer.

Divination, including the making or wearing of amulets or talismans, or visiting fortune tellers and soothsayers, is punished by 6 years of excommunication. The same applies to those who, out of superstition, dig up corpses they believe to be vampires (vourdalaki, wurdulacs) and burn them.

Priests who do such things are to be deposed, even if they use the Gospel or Church relics in their divinations.

Canon 24: An adulterer is barred from Holy Communion for 15 years.

Canons 25–27: Sodomites, bestialists, and those who commit indecent acts with birds are excommunicated for 15 years. It is worth noting that the Kormchaya includes an alternative grading of penances for bestialists and similar offenders, depending on their age, which may result in longer terms.

Canon 28: A fornicator is excommunicated for 7 years.

If a priest commits any of these acts, or turns to sorcery, or commits sodomy with his wife, he is to be deposed from the priesthood (Canon 29).

Canon 30: One who commits fornication with his sister—whether full or half—is excommunicated for 20 years. (A variant penance from Matthew the Confessor states 15 years for full sister, and 12 for half-sister.)

Canon 31: Fornication with a daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, or the mother of one’s mother-in-law is punished with 20 years of excommunication.

Canons 32–33: Fornication with one’s brother’s fiancée or with the sister of one’s mother-in-law results in 10 years of excommunication.

Canon 34: With a first cousin—9 years.

Canon 35: With the mother of one’s godmother—11 years.

Canons 36 & 39: With one’s godmother, stepmother, or half-sister from the same father—20 years.

Canon 37: With one’s wife’s sister—11 years.

Canon 38 (implied): With two sisters (or a woman with two brothers)—11 years.

Canon 40: Corruption of a young girl (under 12 years old) is punished with 12 years of excommunication.

If a man commits sodomy with his wife, he is subject to 15 years of excommunication. The same applies to the wife if she consents; if she was forced, her punishment is lighter. The same rule applies for sodomy with another man’s wife (Canon 41).

Canon 42: Perjury is healed by 10 years of excommunication.

Canon 43: If the oath was made under duress, the penance is 6 years. A false witness is likewise excommunicated for 6 years.

Canon 44: A priest who swears an oath, even under compulsion, is to be deposed.

Canon 45: A thief who repents voluntarily is excommunicated for 1 year; if exposed unwillingly, 2 years.

Canon 46 (implied): One who shelters thieves is excommunicated for 1 year.

Canon 47: A bandit or one who shelters bandits is to receive the same penance as a voluntary murderer—20 years of excommunication.

Canon 48: A grave robber is to be excommunicated for 10 years, or must fast with dry-eating (strict abstinence) for 1 year and perform 200 full prostrations daily.

Canon 49: A church thief (sacrilege—one who steals holy objects from the church) is excommunicated for 15 years.

Canon 50: One who enters into a second marriage is excommunicated from Holy Communion for 1 or 2 years.

Canon 51: One who enters a third marriage before the age of 40, and has no children from previous marriages, is excommunicated for 4 years. If he is over 40 or has children from earlier marriages, a third marriage is forbidden.

Canon 52: A marriage between an Orthodox Christian and a non-Orthodox is unlawful and must be dissolved unless the non-Orthodox party converts to Orthodoxy. Whoever disobeys this rule is excommunicated from the Church.

Canon 53: If a priest knowingly blesses a prohibited marriage (within forbidden degrees of kinship, spiritual kinship, or before the canonical age—i.e., the groom under 15, the bride under 13), such a marriage is invalid, and the priest is deposed from the priesthood.

Note: This canon does not permit replacing the dissolution of an unlawful marriage and the deposition of a priest with a minor penance, such as abstaining from meat for a year or fasting on Mondays. Those who now cite in defense of such marriages Canon 43 of the Brief (Penitential) Nomocanon of Saint Arseny of the Urals are mistaken. First, Saint Arseny does not present this as a rule but merely as his personal opinion. Second, he references folio 562 (incorrectly marked as 568 in modern editions) of the Kormchaya, which states that although a marriage in the seventh degree of kinship is not permitted, if it has been contracted through ignorance, it need not be dissolved, but a two-year penance is to be imposed (abstaining from meat and from wine on Wednesdays and Fridays, receiving Communion only on major feasts). However, this practice was abolished centuries ago by conciliar decision, as confirmed by Church historians and the renowned canonist Matthew Vlastar (Syntagma, Section V, Chapter 8, “On the Seventh Degree of Consanguinity”). Therefore, all marriages contracted within any forbidden degree of kinship are to be dissolved without exception, and those guilty must then fulfill a penance (Conciliar Decree of His Holiness Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges).

If a man commits fornication with his betrothed fiancée before their wedding, he is excommunicated from Holy Communion for 1 year and may not be ordained in the future (Canon 54).

If the groom fornicates with the mother of his fiancée before marriage, he bears the penance of a fornicator, and marriage to that fiancée is forbidden (for this is incest). If the act occurred after the wedding, the marriage is not dissolved, but those guilty of adultery are excommunicated for 15 years (Canon 55). Saint Nikita of Heraclea commands that the mother-in-law who seduced her son-in-law be exiled to a distant place (Kormchaya, folio 583 verso).

A priest who dances and sings at a wedding feast is to be deposed; a layman is excommunicated until repentance (Canon 56). If mockery or vulgar jesting begins at a wedding banquet, the priest must immediately depart (Canon 57).

One who commits masturbation (manual fornication) alone is to undergo 40 days of dry fasting, performing 100 full prostrations daily (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and great feasts), or one year with 50 daily prostrations (Canon 58). A monk receives 60 days of dry fasting (Canon 61). If two persons commit such an act together, the punishment is doubled: two years of excommunication and 50 full prostrations daily (Canon 59).

If masturbation occurred before ordination, the penance must be fulfilled, after which the person may be ordained. If it occurs after ordination, and is done out of ignorance, the offender bears a one-year penance with suspension from serving. If it is done knowingly, he is to be deposed (Canon 60).

A wife during her menstrual cycle may not enter the church, receive Communion, or have marital relations with her husband for up to 7 days. At other times, spouses should not deprive one another, except during reception of the Holy Mysteries or the consumption of antidoron on Sundays and feast days—and only by mutual consent (Canon 63).

If a woman gives birth during Holy Week, she may eat vegetable oil and drink wine on that day (Canon 64).

Laypeople are not to enter the Holy Altar (except for the Orthodox emperor, when he offers precious gifts at the altar during the liturgy). A nun in a women’s monastery may enter for the purpose of cleaning the altar and fulfilling the duties of a sexton (Canon 65).

Canon 66 states that if a nun or other woman is subjected to rape, her previous conduct should be considered when assigning a penance: if she had lived irreproachably, she is to be excommunicated for 14 days of dry fasting or 1 year; but if she was previously promiscuous, she is excommunicated as a fornicator. If a female slave is raped by her master against her will, she is not punished; but if by mutual consent, she is excommunicated as a fornicator.

The same canon commands that one who commits fornication with the wife of a priest or deacon is to be excommunicated for 18 years.

If parents fail to baptize a sick infant and the child dies unbaptized, they are excommunicated for 3 years and must perform 200 full prostrations daily. If they brought the child to a priest for baptism, but the priest did not baptize the child and the child died, the priest is excommunicated for the same term with the same prostrations (Canon 67).

A woman who accidentally suffocates her infant in her sleep is excommunicated for 7 years (Canon 68).

If a woman, through her own negligence, gives birth on the road and the child dies, she is punished as a murderer. But if it happened due to great necessity or mental deficiency, she is not excommunicated (Canons 69, 70).

A woman who kills her unborn child with poison is excommunicated for 10 years, and so is the person who gave her the poison (Canons 71, 72). The same penalty applies to those who abandon their children at crossroads or in other public places (Canon 73).

If a miscarriage occurs involuntarily (due to illness or accidental injury), the woman is excommunicated from Communion for 1 year (Canon 74).

A woman who gives her infant magical concoctions to treat illness is excommunicated for 1 year (Canon 75).

The following canons (Canons 76–118) concern monks and nuns, their tonsure, relations with abbots, and related matters. Due to the small number of monastics among today’s Old Believers, these canons are left for private study by those interested. We shall only highlight a few that pertain not only to monastics.

Canon 87: If a monk or priest fails to read the First, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours, he is unworthy to eat on that day.

A monk who is illiterate or lacks books is to recite the Jesus Prayer on the vervitsa (ladder rope): 10 ropes for Midnight Office, 10 for Matins, 10 for the Third and Sixth Hours, 10 for the Ninth Hour with Vespers, 10 for Compline—totaling 50 vervitsas (without prostrations) for the full cycle of services. For his cell rule, he performs 300 full prostrations (a schemamonk — 600) (Canon 87).

A hieromonk who has taken the Great Schema may continue to serve the Divine Liturgy, but a bishop, upon taking the Great Schema, is to withdraw from all episcopal and priestly functions (Canon 90).

The following canons concern spiritual fatherhood and the relationships between clergy and laity.

A spiritual father does not have the right to overturn the penance given by another spiritual father: he who has bound, must also loose (Canon 119).

If a confessor reveals a sin disclosed to him in confession, he is forbidden to serve for two years, may receive Communion only once per month, and must perform 100 full prostrations daily (Canon 120).

This same canon also forbids bishops from excommunicating anyone from Holy Communion for actions not covered by the holy canons. Violation results in a one-year suspension from service.

Canon 121 of the Nomocanon declares that a layman may not reproach a priest, forbid him, slander him, or accuse him to his face—even if the accusation is true. If a commoner dares to do this, “let him be anathema, and let him be cast out from the Church, for he is cut off from the Holy Trinity and shall be sent to the place of Judas. For it is written: ‘Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.’ Likewise, he who dishonors the superior shall suffer the same.”

This canon (121) includes a reference to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, evidently because it represents a generalized compilation of Canons 18 and 21 of that Council, which address those who slander clergy and thereby cause disturbances and schisms in the Church, as well as those who conspire against clergy. This same rule has long been known from other sources and holds authority in the Church of Christ. There is no doubt that this Nomocanon canon concerns ecclesiastical rebels who publicly slander superiors and other clergy with the intent of having them deposed or removed from office, which according to Canon 18 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council results in excommunication from the Church. Therefore, those who label this canon “spurious” or “not based on the canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council” are mistaken. Equally mistaken are those who contrast it with Canon 126 of the Nomocanon, which excommunicates a layman for one year for insulting a priest, and for three years if he strikes him—even if the priest forgives him. Canon 121 clearly concerns those who conspire to remove a priest from his position and pronounces them excommunicated indefinitely (anathema), whereas Canon 126 pertains to personal quarrels between a layman and a priest, which are considered less dangerous to ecclesiastical order.

Canon 123 of the Nomocanon commands that one who harbors irreconcilable hatred toward a fellow Christian must not enter the church for prayer, and no prosphora is to be offered on his behalf at the Proskomedia until he is reconciled, “for his prayer is reckoned as a curse and a sin.” The offender must make 50 full prostrations daily until reconciliation.

Canon 124 forbids a layman who is in enmity with another to receive Communion at the Liturgy. A priest who serves the Liturgy while harboring hatred is suspended from service for 60 days.

One who curses or rebukes his neighbor must first be reconciled and fast for three days with dry-eating before approaching the Holy Mysteries (Canon 125).

Canon 126 states that if two people are at enmity and one dies unreconciled, the surviving party must be excommunicated for one year and, for 40 days, go to his brother’s grave and say: “Forgive me, brother, and may God forgive thee.”

Canon 128 forbids children from mistreating their parents. The bishop is granted discretion to assign penance appropriate to the case.

Canon 129 states that one who divides his inheritance unequally among his children is excommunicated from both Communion and ecclesiastical fellowship until he corrects the matter.

Canon 130 excommunicates a parent who disinherits a child that has entered the monastic life.

Canons 131, 132, and 133 prescribe two years of excommunication for laypeople and deposition for clergy if they eat blood, strangled animals, or carrion (i.e., animals killed by wild beasts), as well as for those who eat meat or dairy during Great Lent or on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year (except during the fast-free weeks and Great Feasts), or for those who either attend pagan or heretical festivals and eat their offerings, or accept sacrificial food from them.

Canon 134 forbids Christians to seek medical treatment from Jewish doctors or from other heretics, sorcerers, diviners, shamans, etc., or to bathe with them for healing purposes. A priest who does so is deposed, and a layman is excommunicated.

Canon 135 states that if a priest hunts wild game or traps birds, he is suspended from serving for 3 months.

Canon 136 excommunicates, for a time, any clergyman or layman who takes wax or oil from the church for personal use.

Canon 137 declares that a bishop or cleric who engages in usury and refuses to abandon this sinful trade is to be deposed; monks are to be excommunicated (Canon 138).

Canon 139 mandates the deposition of a priest who is habitually drunken, vomits from overdrinking, or engages in commercial leasing of estates (i.e., taking possession of other people’s property for gain—see Canon 3 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).

Canon 140 states that a priest who demands a gold coin or anything else as payment for administering the Holy Mysteries is to be deposed.

If a Christian, after receiving Holy Communion, vomits due to drunkenness, he is excommunicated from Communion for 40 days and must read Psalm 50 daily (Canon 143).

If any Christian enters a Jewish synagogue or a heretical temple to pray, he is to be deposed if he is a priest, and excommunicated if a layman (Canon 152).

Whoever prays with an excommunicated person—even outside of church or the home—shall himself be excommunicated (Canon 154).

Holy Unction (the sacrament of anointing the sick) must not be used as a substitute for penance (excommunication for grave sins) and is only to be performed over the sick (Canon 160).

A dying person may receive Communion even after eating, provided they have confessed (Canon 163).

Canon 166 states that commemorations of the departed are not to be held during the Twelve Days of Christmas (the feast period after the Nativity of Christ), nor throughout the Forty Days of Lent (except on Saturdays, according to the Ustav), nor during Bright Week, nor on Sundays or great feasts—except for the 40th day after death.

Precious vessels and veils donated by Christians to the church must not be taken for personal use (Canon 167).

Feasting is not permitted in churches (Canon 168).

In church, one must not shout while singing, but sing quietly and with compunction (Canon 171).

Canon 174 forbids Christians from altering their appearance (i.e., adorning themselves).

A person who dies by suicide is not to be buried with the Church rite or commemorated unless he died in a state of mental derangement (Canon 175).

A known and shameless fornicator or adulterer is not to be admitted to communal prayer in church, and alms or prosphora from such a person are not to be accepted until he abandons his sin (Canon 176). Likewise, one who has contracted a marriage within a forbidden degree of kinship is excommunicated from Communion for 15 years after the marriage is dissolved (Canon 177). One who enters into a fourth marriage receives an eight-year penance after dissolving such an unlawful union (Canon 178).

One who has contracted a second marriage may not be ordained to any clerical rank (Canon 179).

Canons 180–185 and 189–196 list sins that bar a man from ordination or result in the deposition of those already ordained.

Canon 199 instructs on the proper order of triple immersion in the sacrament of baptism and forbids anyone other than the priest from putting his hand in the font (including the sponsor).

Canon 200 orders the deposition of a priest who does not baptize with three immersions: first in the name of the Father, second of the Son, and third of the Holy Ghost.

If someone was taken captive by pagans in infancy and does not know whether he was baptized, or for any other reason does not know whether he was baptized as a child, such a person must be baptized (Canon 201).

Turkish (Muslim) children baptized not out of faith but superstition (e.g., to remove a foul odor), if they later wish to become Christians, must be baptized (Canon 202).

Canon 203 states that if someone who is not a priest falsely claims to be one and performs a baptism, those baptized by him must be fully baptized again—not merely have the rite completed. However, if a monk, deacon, or layman, without pretending to be a priest, performs a baptism in an emergency (such as a sick child or a dying adult) in the absence of a priest, the baptism is accepted. This question is discussed in more detail later in the Nomocanon, but for continuity, we shall summarize it here:

If, out of necessity, a layman or monk baptizes someone, and the baptized person dies before being brought to a priest, then “the divine grace completes him.” But if he survives, the priest should then place him again in the font, perform the prayers and chrismation according to the usual rite (folio 67 recto and verso). This describes the abbreviated rite of completion for a baptism performed out of necessity by a layman: the full rite of baptism is performed except for the immersion (which was already done). Instead, the person is simply placed into the font with consecrated water and then removed, after which chrismation is performed and the rest of the baptismal rite is completed.

A priest must not perform baptism after eating, except in cases of great necessity (Canon 205)—for example, if a dying person requests baptism.

If a priest becomes the godfather of his own child, he must divorce his wife, who has become his kuma (spiritual kin through baptism) (Canon 208). The same applies to lay spouses who become kumy—that is, if one or both become godparents to their own child, or if both become godparents to the same child not their own. If they dare to continue living together as husband and wife, they are excommunicated for 17 years, with dry fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays and 100 small prostrations (metania) daily. Any priest who absolves them without imposing penance is to be anathematized (folio 49 verso).

Marriages are forbidden between the godchildren of a single godparent and among their descendants up to the eighth degree of kinship (folio 50).

Confession for boys and girls should begin from the age of seven (folio 50).

If a bishop, clergyman, or layman does not fast during the Holy Forty Days (Great Lent), or on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year (except the gravely ill), then the clergyman must be deposed, and the layman excommunicated. Christians are not to receive Communion from a priest who does not fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (Canons 213, 214). One who does not fast on those days “crucifies the Lord, as did the Jews,” according to Saint Athanasius the Great. Only on those feast days and weeks specified by the Church Ustav is it permitted not to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (Canon 215).

Canon 224 defines which days of the year fasting on Wednesday and Friday may be relaxed.

Canon 225 states that those who live righteously and observe the prescribed fasts—including those of Wednesday and Friday—should receive the Most Pure Mysteries on Great Pascha, on the Nativity of Christ, and on the feasts of the Holy Apostles and the God-bearer. But anyone who fails to fast during the Nativity Fast, the Apostles’ Fast, or the Dormition Fast of the Most Holy God-bearer “is not to be received into the church, nor his children.”

A public and notorious fornicator, once he repents and ceases from sin, must spend two years among the “weepers” during divine services (outside the church, asking those entering to pray for him); two years among the “listeners” (standing in the back with the catechumens without participating in visible prayers, and exiting the church with them during the Liturgy); two years among the “prostrators” (lying face-down in the center of the church during the Liturgy and mourning his sins); one year among the “faithful” (praying with all the faithful but not communing); and only in the eighth year is he admitted to Holy Communion. For women, if the fornication is not publicly known, they remain among the faithful but do not commune for all seven years (Canon 225).

After these numbered canons follows a section titled “Various Headings Collected from Another Nomocanon, Concerning the Mysteries of the Saints.” It provides solutions to difficult questions of priestly practice and liturgical conduct.

It states that if a priest was unworthily ordained, or if he, after ordination, commits a mortal sin for which the canons prescribe deposition, then until he is deposed, all his priestly acts and sacraments remain valid—for it is not he who sanctifies, but God working through him as an instrument. Yet woe to that instrument which works against the will of God. Such a priest has no salvation, and his repentance is not accepted by God until he ceases to serve (folios 56–57).

If anyone dares, without any ordination, to declare himself a priest or bishop, he is likened to the devil who transforms himself into an angel of light. Such a man is accountable not only for his own sins but also for the destruction of all whom he misled through his blasphemous counterfeit sacraments—for those ordained by him are not truly ordained, and those baptized by him are not truly baptized (folio 57 and verso).

“Censures (excommunications) unjustly imposed—not according to the holy canons—are not bound by God, even if pronounced by a bishop; how much more so if imposed by one of lesser rank, as Saint Dionysius declares. He who, by an unjudging sentence and an unrestrained heart, excommunicates someone from among the faithful—such a person not only does not affect the excommunicated, but the sentence returns upon his own head, as the holy councils proclaim. Only those excommunications are bound which are imposed in accordance with divine canons and laws, not according to personal will. For one who unjustly imposes punishment is himself excommunicated and must himself be subject to the punishment, as the divine and holy canons declare.

Likewise, the great Apostle Peter said to Clement: ‘Thou shalt bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed.’ And the holy Patriarch Nicholas, appointed by God, declares: ‘Bishops have the authority to forbid and to loose, just as the holy council has defined, for they have received from God the power to bind and loose.’ But if a bishop forbids someone contrary to God’s will, God does not follow him, and such a censure is found to be unjust and therefore ineffective… For God forbids and punishes what has been unjustly bound” (folios 63–63.2).

In accordance with this, all excommunications, censures, depositions, and anathemas unjustly imposed by New Rite bishops upon Old Believer clergy and laity—because of their refusal to submit to Nikon’s unlawful innovations—are null and void before God, and the curses have fallen back upon the heads of those who pronounced them.

On folios 68 verso to 70, the canon of Saint John the Almsgiver is summarized—concerning priests “who do not vest in the sacred garments”—which was previously examined in the review of the Kormchaya.

A priest under the age of 40 should not hear confessions, “for the devil rejoices in him and wounds him daily,” meaning he can be easily tempted and inflamed by sin, which is dangerous for his soul (folio 71 recto and verso).

Confession before a spiritually experienced monk is not forbidden; however, it is not a sacramental absolution, but only spiritual counsel, for the authority to absolve sins has been given by God to bishops and priests (folios 71 verso to 72).

There follow many additional canons for monastics, which we again leave for independent study.

If the eve (forefeast) of a Lord’s feast falls on a Wednesday or Friday, then on that Wednesday or Friday evening (after Vespers) the fast is not to be broken because of the next day’s feast (folio 81). From this it follows that those are mistaken who think that after Vespers one may begin to eat according to the next day’s rule rather than the current day’s. The rule for food is to be followed according to the calendar day, not the liturgical day.

Those who falsify weights or measures in trade to deceive their neighbor are anathematized (excommunicated), and after repentance are excommunicated for four years with dry fasting and prostrations; the same applies to usurers (folio 85 verso).

In church singing, unruly shouting and polyphony—meaning partesny (polyphonic Western-style) singing—is forbidden (folios 86 verso and 87 verso).

On folios 88–89, there is an instruction to the spiritual father, teaching that during confession and in assigning a penance (epitimia) to the penitent, it is necessary to investigate and take into account eight important factors:

1. The person of the sinner — his age, maturity, and understanding;

2. The nature of the sin — its gravity, habitualness, whether the penitent’s family or close circle are also affected by this sin, etc.;

3. The place where the sin was committed — whether in a sacred place or an ordinary one;

4. With whom the sin was committed — whether others were led into sin by his example, persuasion, or bribery;

5. The number of occurrences — how many times the sin was committed, and whether the sinner has become accustomed to it;

6. The cause or occasion of the sin — whether it happened through weakness, passion, or ignorance;

7. The manner in which the sin was committed — whether it was a natural or unnatural sin, committed deliberately or accidentally; in the case of murder, whether the person killed with his own hands or by means of a weapon (e.g., a stick, sword, etc.);

8. The time of the sin — whether it was during a fast, on a feast day, during the day or night, or during a church service.

All these must be carefully examined by the spiritual father in order to rightly discern the condition of the penitent’s soul, so that the epitimia may be given for salvation, and not for the ruin of both the confessor and the one confessing.

On the verso of folio 89 and beyond, a prayer is provided which is read by a bishop when elevating a priest to the rank of dukhovnik (confessor). In the ancient Greek Church, not all priests were spiritual fathers—only those upon whom such an episcopal prayer had been performed.

The Nomocanon appended to the Great Potrebnik concludes with a note from the staff of the Moscow Print Yard, stating that they were unaware whether the writings of the Greek commentators on Church canons, named at the beginning of the Nomocanon (such as John Zonaras, Theodore Valsamon, Patriarch Photius, Alexius Aristen, and Matthew the Confessor), existed in Great Russia. Therefore, before publication, they carefully compared this Nomocanon with the sacred canons and other holy books.

With this, we conclude the review of the Nomocanon and proceed to examine other authoritative sources of Church law within Old Belief. In relation to the Kormchaya and the Nomocanon, these sources hold secondary significance, and so their overview will be briefer.

“A Short Nomocanon” by St. Arseny of the Urals #

In the 1890s, St. Arseny of the Urals compiled and published by hectograph a revised version of the Order of Confession (Chin Ispovedi), appending to it a work of his own composition titled A Short Nomocanon. He explained this initiative in his Explanation submitted to the Holy Synod of Old Orthodox Bishops in 1898:

“I wrote the Order of Confession solely so that priests would find it easier to impose penances (epitimias) in accordance with the holy church canons, and so that they would be acquainted with all these canons which prescribe suspension or excommunication for sins. Therefore, I based all the questions in it on the sacred canons contained in the Kormchaya and Nomocanon, and generally accepted by the Church, and I presented those very canons, albeit in abridged form. Thus, this Order of Confession serves as a kind of guide for various inquiries and to clarify obscure passages in certain early printed service books (Trebniks). Such is the purpose and intent of the aforementioned Order of Confession, which I wrote at the request of Bishop Kirill of Nizhny Novgorod.”

Thus, The Short Nomocanon of St. Arseny is a reference tool concerning penances assigned for various sins confessed by a Christian to their spiritual father. The confession questions in this book contain references to article (canon) numbers in the Short Nomocanon, allowing the priest to immediately correlate confessed sins with the appropriate canonical penalties.

This work of St. Arseny is therefore to be understood as a reference aid, not as a canonically adopted book of the Church. This is especially important given that the Council of Bishops in 1898 forbade its general adoption within the Russian Church.

Earlier, in Chapter 7 of this work, an example was given of a mistaken article (“Rule 43”) from this book. (This error arose for historical reasons: the Slavonic Kormchaya had not been timely edited in the chapter On Unlawful Marriages, and retained a dispensation granted by the Synod under Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges in April 1168 for those who had unknowingly married within the seventh degree of kinship. This dispensation had been annulled and banned for use by the Council. It was precisely this annulled and prohibited regulation, accidentally left in the Kormchaya, that St. Arseny cited in the given chapter, supposing that such a penitential order could be used in cases where a marriage was only one degree short of being lawful. In reality, the conciliar ruling forbids such leniencies, deprives of rank the priest who officiated such a marriage, and dissolves the marriage itself.) In all other respects, the Short Nomocanon appears to us fully consistent with the canonical rules, and thus may be used profitably as a reference guide—provided one keeps in mind the error in “Rule 43.”

The book was reprinted in 2009 through the efforts of His Grace Bishop Siluyan of Novosibirsk and All Siberia, and is presently available to readers.

The “Three-Commentary Kormchaya” #

The meaning of ancient Church canons is often difficult for the modern reader to grasp—both due to the linguistic complexity and because they describe historical realities from the first millennium after the Nativity of Christ. Frequently, when reading the Kormchaya (Book of Canons), people interpret the canons arbitrarily, such that, as St. Vincent of Lerins observed, “as many minds, so many interpretations.”

For a correct understanding of Church canons, it is essential to know their commonly accepted interpretations. The most authoritative among the commentators are the ancient Greek canonists: the monk John Zonaras, Patriarch Theodore Valsamon of Antioch, and the deacon Alexios Aristenos. Their writings were long inaccessible to Russian readers, and it was only in the second half of the 19th century that enthusiasts from the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment prepared and published, in several volumes, the canonical rules (in the translation and arrangement found in the official Book of Rules of the Synod of the state Church), including the Greek original texts of the canons and Russian translations of the commentaries by the three aforementioned canonists. Also included were translations of those canons from the ancient Greek Synopsis of Rules (a compendium of abridged canons), along with the interpretations found therein, as well as the text of the canons from the Kormchaya (with its associated commentaries).

This book was well received by Old Orthodox scholars (nachetchiki), who actively began using it in debates with the Nikonian missionaries.

It has one shortcoming: the official translation of the canons, published by the Synod, in some nuances obscures the true meaning of the canons. However, this is easily corrected, as the accurate Greek original of the canons is provided, along with proper and unaltered commentaries. The canons themselves may be taken from the Kormchaya (which presents them in the abridged form of the Synopsis). Furthermore, a new, commendable translation of the canons from Greek has recently been made, included in a reprint of the Greek Kormchaya, and may be used to clarify any flaws in the Synodal translation of the full text.

The “Alphabetical Syntagma” of Matthew Vlastar #

This book is a practical and accessible compilation of Church law, composed in 1335 by the eminent canonist of the Orthodox Church, Matthew Vlastar (also known as Matthew the Lawgiver). The book gathers not only the canons of the ancient Ecumenical and Local Councils but also the decrees of more recent Constantinopolitan Councils and pious emperors, along with commentaries from earlier canonists (Alexios Aristenos, John Zonaras, Theodore Valsamon), whose interpretations are sometimes quoted verbatim in the text.

Thematic chapters are grouped into larger sections (called syntagmata), arranged alphabetically by the Greek alphabet—thus making this canonical work resemble an encyclopedia of Church law.

Slavonic translations of this book are known in manuscripts dating from the 14th century. In 1908, through the efforts of the well-known Old Believer figure and collector P. A. Ovchinnikov, a Church Slavonic translation of the Syntagma was published in the city of Balakhna under the title A Collection of Patristic Canons by Matthew Vlastar, Known as the Lawgiver, based on an ancient manuscript.

The first Russian-language edition of this book was printed in 1889, translated by the New Rite priest Nikolai Ilyinsky. This version is also usable, though one must keep in mind: first, it contains the Synodal edition of the canons, and thus shares the same minor faults as the Three-Commentary Kormchaya; and second, it includes notes drawn from the Synod of the New Rite Church, which are not authoritative for Old Orthodox Christians and should not be taken into consideration—especially where they contradict the ancient Orthodox canons. The Russian translation was reprinted by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1996.

A Church Slavonic version of this text is not presently available online, but the Russian translation may be found on the website “Nasha Vera” (in the “Library” section), as well as on many other websites.

The Alphabetical Syntagma by Matthew Vlastar is an exceptionally convenient book for the study of Church law in its full scope and in the interconnection of various canonical norms and the civil laws of the pious emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. Because it was composed relatively late, it takes into account sources that were not included in the Slavonic Kormchaya, which was compiled primarily in the 13th century.

The Collection of Divine and Sacred Canons by Constantine Sevastos Armenopoulos – Book One #

Another canonical book, published from an ancient manuscript in Church Slavonic by P. A. Ovchinnikov in Balakhna in 1908, is titled The Collection of Divine and Sacred Canons by the Most Honorable Lawgiver and Judge of Thessalonica, Lord Constantine Sevastos Armenopoulos. In everyday use, it is more commonly referred to simply as the Book of Armenopoulos, or just Armenopoulos.

The author of this canonical compilation was the well-known jurist and expert in both civil and ecclesiastical law, Constantine Armenopoulos (also rendered Armenopul or Garmenopul), who lived in Thessalonica during the 14th century (1320 – c. 1385). He held one of the highest judicial offices in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. His primary legal work was the Hexabiblos (“Six Books”), in which he presented civil and some ecclesiastical laws. This work remained authoritative even after the fall of the Empire, such that its laws continued to be observed by the Greek population of the Ottoman Empire and were later incorporated into the civil codes of Bessarabia and of the independent Greek state.

From this it is clear that Armenopoulos held high authority as both a civil jurist and a knowledgeable interpreter of Church law. His presentation of Church canons was composed as a separate work under the original title Abridgment of the Divine and Sacred Canons, also called the Epitome. It is this book that is the subject of the present chapter in our survey of canonical sources within Old Orthodoxy. This book enjoyed great authority among Old Orthodox Christians and was frequently used by Old Believer polemicists in defending the faith during debates with New Rite missionaries.

A digital file of this book may be downloaded from the “Library” section of the Nasha Vera website.

Contents of the Book:
“Foreword” (leaf 1). This introductory section provides a concise history of the formation of Church law—from the times of the holy apostles, through the Ecumenical and Local Councils. It lists the holy fathers who composed the commonly accepted canons. The author also gives the number of canons issued by the holy apostles, by each Council, and by each of the Church fathers.

BOOK I. “On Bishops” #

A. “Section 1” (leaves 3–10) #

“On Their Election and Consecration. Title One”
This section describes in detail the process of electing and consecrating bishops. It specifies that a bishop should not be appointed to a small settlement where the presence of a priest suffices. A bishop is not to be appointed in a city where there is already a living bishop who has not renounced his office—even if he is currently suspended—until that suspension is confirmed by the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal.

“Who May and May Not Become a Bishop. Title Two”
This chapter enumerates the qualifications required of candidates for the episcopate at their ordination. For instance, a newly baptized individual or someone who has lived a disreputable life cannot be consecrated bishop. A deaf or blind person cannot be elevated to the episcopacy, but one blind in one eye or deaf in one ear may be. One who does not know the Psalter, the Holy Scriptures, and the canons of the Church is not eligible to become a bishop, and so on. It also states that in lands without their own bishops (such as among the “barbarian nations”), bishops are consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is considered equal in dignity to the Roman Pope “because of the transfer of the scepter,” i.e., due to the imperial capital’s relocation from Rome to Constantinople.

“What a Bishop Ought to Do. Title Three”
Here it is stated that a bishop governs all the affairs of his diocese but must not spend church funds on his relatives, unless they are truly poor. The bishop’s personal property and the property of the diocese must be clearly distinguished so that the Church suffers no loss. Each diocese must have an economos (steward) chosen from among its clergy; if the bishop neglects this, he is liable to suspension. The bishop must always—especially on Sundays—teach the people from the Holy Scriptures, and so forth.

“What a Bishop Ought to Do. Title Four”
This chapter outlines that a bishop must not transfer to another see without a conciliar decision; must not preach in another bishop’s diocese; must not ordain for money (except for the established fees covering service costs); must not extort money from his clergy under threat of suspension or closure of churches; must not leave the bounds of his diocese for more than three weeks; must not leave his property to heretics or pagans as heirs—even if they are his relatives; must not testify concerning sins disclosed to him in confession; must not ordain his own successor, etc.

“Who May and May Not Bring Accusations Against a Bishop, and How to Judge the Accused. Title Five”
This section discusses that accusations concerning material grievances may be brought against a bishop even by non-believers, but ecclesiastical accusations may only be brought by faithful Christians of blameless life who are not under ecclesiastical censure themselves. Accusations are not accepted based on the testimony of a single witness. A bishop is to be judged by no fewer than twelve bishops, a priest by no fewer than six, and a deacon by no fewer than three, in addition to their own metropolitan, and so on.

“On Dioceses. Title Six”
This chapter treats of the rights of bishops within the territories of their dioceses.

“On Synods and Thrones. Title Seven”
Here it is prescribed that each diocese must convene an annual synod, and it is specified which hierarch is to preside over such synods.

“The Nearby Cases. Title Eight”
This chapter presents precedents from conciliar decisions concerning bishops who were accused.

B. “Section 2” — fols. 10 verso – 16 #

This section contains various canons regarding the clergy (priests, deacons, and others).

“On Priests, and Deacons, and Subdeacons, and Their Ordination; Who May and May Not Be Ordained. Title One”
This chapter presents the rules for ordaining priests, deacons, and lower clergy: the canonical requirements for ordination, the minimum age for ordination (30 for a priest, 25 for a deacon, 20 for a subdeacon—those ordained younger than these ages are to be deposed), the prohibition against ordaining a cleric without specifying the church or monastery to which he is assigned, and other such matters.

“What a Priest May Offer and What He May Not Offer. Title Two”
This chapter states that if a priest brings as an offering to the altar “instead of wine, sikera” (i.e., a non-grape wine such as mead or other fermented beverage), or birds, animals, or fruits (except for new fruits intended for blessing, olive oil, or incense), he is to be deposed from his office. (It is also noted that offering chemical oils instead of olive oil, or paraffin in place of beeswax, is likewise impermissible.) Also liable to deposition are those who celebrate the Eucharist using water instead of wine, or wine without the addition of water.

“What a Priest Ought and Ought Not to Do. Title Three”
This chapter lays out moral and disciplinary expectations for the life and conduct of priests and other clergy. A priest is forbidden to cast out his wife under the pretext of pursuing continence; to hold public office; to serve as a guarantor; to disdain wine and meat (except as a voluntary ascetic struggle); to pray with the deposed; to strike either the faithful or unbelievers (even by order); to pray with heretics; to accept baptism performed by heretics of the first degree; to rebaptize those who were baptized by true priests; to insult the crippled or poor; to read heretical books in church; to harbor women in his home other than his wife, mother, aunt, or other unquestionably respectable female relatives; to marry after ordination; to administer the Eucharist to a dead body; to attend wedding feasts of those entering a second marriage; to enter taverns or restaurants; to practice magic or witchcraft, etc.
A priest suspended by his bishop must appeal to the metropolitan of the province. Priests are judged by six bishops along with a seventh, their diocesan bishop; deacons, by three bishops and a fourth diocesan; other clergy (such as subdeacons and lower orders), by their own diocesan bishop alone, and so on.

“On Deacons. Title Four”
This chapter in the Book of Armenopoulos recapitulates canons relating to the ministry of deacons: a deacon must not administer the Eucharist to a priest or to himself during the Liturgy; he must not marry after ordination; a deacon who repents of fornication is removed from diaconal service but is not barred from communion, and so forth.

“On Subdeacons and Exorcists. Title Five”
Here it is stated that a subdeacon does not wear the deacon’s orarion (stole), does not distribute the bread, does not bless the chalice; that exorcists (those who cast out unclean spirits) must be ordained to that rank by a bishop, and so forth.

“Supplementary. Title Six”
This chapter includes miscellaneous provisions: the Divine Liturgy must not be celebrated without an antimension; heretics must not be present in the church during the Liturgy (unless they have declared their intent to repent); antimensia and holy chrism may be freely transferred from one diocese to another; if an antimension is mistakenly washed, it does not lose its consecration; if the Feast of the Annunciation of the Most Holy God-bearer falls on Holy Thursday or Great Friday, the fast may be relaxed to allow wine and fish; for the dying who are comatose and completely unable to swallow, it is permitted to anoint their lips and tongue with the Blood of the Lord, which is counted to them as communion (if they are able to swallow, actual communion is to be administered); throughout the entire Holy Forty Days of Great Lent, the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great are celebrated on Saturdays, Sundays, and the Feast of the Annunciation, and on other days only the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is served; no offering (at the proskomedia) is to be made for suicides, except those who killed themselves in a fit of madness; between kathismas at Morning Office, edifying readings should be included; if a priest officiates a wedding during Great Lent out of ignorance, he is temporarily suspended; if he does so knowingly, he is deposed (though the marriage itself is not annulled), and so forth.

C. “Section Three” — fols. 16 verso – 20 verso #

1. “Which Persons May and May Not Be Admitted to Clerical Ranks. Title One”
   This chapter presents several canons concerning the worthiness of candidates for clerical orders. For instance, a man who has taken as wives two sisters or a niece is disqualified from ordination; a man who has castrated himself cannot be ordained (exceptions are made for those who were castrated involuntarily or by physicians for medical reasons); one who is demon-possessed cannot be ordained until he is completely delivered; no one may be ordained as a cleric in two cities; in Constantinople, a cleric is forbidden from serving in two churches, though in other regions this is permitted “because of the scarcity of men.”

2. “What a Cleric Ought and Ought Not to Do. Title Two”
   This chapter contains rules on the service and life of lower-ranking clerics. For example, if a cleric moves to another diocese without permission, he is not to serve liturgically, especially if his own bishop calls him back to service and he disobeys (a bishop who receives such a cleric without the consent of his diocesan bishop—except in time of war or urgent necessity—is subject to suspension). A cleric may not serve as a guarantor. A reader must not be ordained before the age of 18 (or, according to other sources, before 15). A cleric must not eat in taverns or public eateries except in urgent circumstances (e.g., while traveling far). A cleric who reviles a bishop is to be deposed; if he reviles a priest or deacon, he is to be suspended. A cleric who renounces his office is to be deposed and, upon repentance, received as a layman. A cleric may not designate heretics as his heirs, even if they are his relatives. A cleric must not wear ornate garments or use perfumes. Clergy are forbidden to earn shameful income (from taverns, perfumery, etc.). A cleric must not attend horse races, musical entertainments, or improper games at wedding feasts. A lower-ranking cleric may be ordained by the abbot of a monastery (for that monastery) or by a chorepiskopos with the bishop’s blessing. Readers and singers do not wear the orarion. Clerics who have vowed virginity must not enter the homes of widows or maidens without the permission of the bishop or a priest—and even then only in the presence of other clerics or reputable Christians, and so on.

3. “Who May and May Not Bring Accusations Against a Cleric. Title Four”
   This chapter states that those excommunicated from the Holy Mysteries, Jews, or anyone previously exposed as a false witness may not be received as valid accusers of clerics.

4. “Supplementary. Title Five”
   This chapter concerns the reception of heretical clergy and bishops into the Church in their existing rank, received in heresy (specifically of the second order: Novatians, Donatists), after their repentance and union with the Orthodox Church.

D. “Section Four” — fols. 21–23 #

1. “On Monks and Monasteries: When and How a Monk May Enter the Monastic Life. Title One”
   This chapter presents canons on the duration of the monastic trial period (obedience) and the rite of tonsure into the monastic state.

2. “What Monks Ought and Ought Not to Do. Title Two”
   This chapter discusses the duties of monks toward their bishop, abbot, and monastery; the right of a monk, in the absence of a priest, to baptize one who is dying or gravely ill; the one-year obedience period required for a monk before entering reclusion; the prohibition against monks partaking of food together with women, even relatives; the prohibition against monks serving as godparents at baptisms or as wedding sponsors (kumy), and other similar matters.

3. “On Monasteries. Title Three”
   This chapter prohibits the construction of a church or the founding of a monastery without the bishop’s blessing; affirms the necessity of appointing an economos (steward) in every diocese (if the bishop neglects this, he is subject to suspension, and the patriarch may appoint one in his place); forbids ordination into the clergy or acceptance into monastic life for money; prohibits mixed-gender (male-female) monasteries; forbids monks from lodging in women’s monasteries and nuns from staying overnight in men’s monasteries, and so forth.

E. “Section Five” — fol. 23 verso #

1. “On the Laity. Title One”
   This chapter lists the names of second-rank heretical sects from whom baptism is accepted, and who are received into the Church through renunciation of heresy and chrismation (Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Tetradites, Apollinarians, and others). The children of Hagarenes (Muslims), baptized in infancy not by faith but out of parental superstition (“so the child would not smell bad”), must be baptized upon conversion to the Church, according to a conciliar decree. Paulicians must be baptized, and their clergy, if found worthy, must be ordained anew. Baptism from first-rank heretics is not accepted; baptism from schismatics (second rank) and those of the “sub-church” (third rank) is accepted.
   There follow further rules concerning the baptism of Jews, the baptism of catechumens on Holy Saturday, the necessity of chrismation with baptism, the obligation for those baptized in sickness to be taught the faith after recovery, and that if a person does not know whether they were baptized in infancy, they should be baptized. In cases of necessity, where there is no priest present, an infant who is gravely ill may be baptized by the father or another Orthodox Christian. If a priest hastily baptizes a dying infant, there is no need to repeat the omitted prayers prior to immersion. If a gravely ill person cannot speak but shows in another way a desire to be baptized, then baptism is to be performed. If a catechumen unknowingly receives Holy Communion, he is to be baptized immediately, for he has been chosen by God. If a catechumen is possessed by a demon, he is not baptized unless he is near death; a catechumen who becomes mentally ill through sickness may be baptized without hindrance, and so forth.

2. “What Laypeople Ought and Ought Not to Do. Title Two”
   This chapter states that Christians who do not engage in prayer and do not receive Communion are excommunicated from the Church; likewise those who pray with the excommunicated or bring oil to Jewish or heretical assemblies; also those who steal wax or oil from churches or use sacred vessels for profane purposes.
   A layperson who communicates himself while a priest or deacon is present in the city is excommunicated for seven days. A layperson who preaches the faith in church is excommunicated for forty days. A layperson who defaces or cuts sacred books is excommunicated for one year.
   No layperson, except the emperor, may enter the altar area. A believer who marries a non-believer must either dissolve the marriage or be excommunicated (but if they married before baptism and he desires to remain with her, they are not to separate, following the apostolic command; however, if the husband for many years urges her to embrace piety and she resists, separation is permitted, following the precedent of Theodosius, the imperial trumpeter, who was lawfully divorced by order of the patriarch in a similar case).
   A cross drawn on the ground must be erased to prevent it from being trampled, and the person who made it is excommunicated. Christ must not be depicted as a lamb on icons, for He took human flesh. Indecent drawings or images, regardless of the surface, must be destroyed, and those who create them are to be excommunicated.
   Communion at the Liturgy is not to be received in precious vessels but in the hands, crossed in the form of a cross, for man is the most precious creation of God (this canon was in force before the use of the spoon).
   It is not proper to eat or spread bedding in churches; nor is it proper to set up taverns or sell food or goods in the narthex.
   One who swears pagan oaths is excommunicated. A layperson who strikes a bishop without cause is to be anathematized.
   One who turns to the graves or temples of heretical martyrs is excommunicated until repentance.
   Believers must not celebrate feasts with Jews or heretics, must not accept unleavened bread from them, nor pray together with them.
   A Christian must not dance or leap at wedding banquets.
   An actor who has repented and embraced righteous living must not be encouraged by anyone to return to his former occupation.
   A wife must wait at least five years for a missing husband.
   No one should appoint as witness a relative under the age of fourteen.
   Spouses may abstain from one another by mutual agreement for the sake of prayer, and after relations on the same day, must not receive Communion.
   After a nocturnal emission, a Christian should examine his conscience, and if no lustful cause is found, may receive Communion (but according to John the Faster, he should refrain for one day, recite Psalm 50, and perform 49 prostrations).
   One guilty of malakia (masturbation) is excommunicated for forty days, observing a dry fast and performing 100 prostrations daily (or for one year without dry fasting, with 50 prostrations daily, according to the Nomocanon).
   One who kisses his wife and experiences emission (not in sleep) is excommunicated for seven days with 49 prostrations daily.
   Spouses must abstain from conjugal relations on Saturdays and Sundays, devoting those days to prayer.
   A mentally ill person (not demon-possessed) may receive Communion on Sundays if he does not behave improperly during the service.
   A vow not to eat pork is considered laughable and invalid.
   A Christian who, by his deeds, denies Christ has no right to bear the name of Christian, and so forth.

   source