Canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (In Trullo, 691-2), 35–74

Canon 35

No metropolitan may, after the death of a bishop who was subject to his throne, take or appropriate to himself the possessions of that bishop or of his church; but let these possessions be under the oversight of the clergy of that church of which the deceased was the president, until another bishop be appointed—unless no cleric at all remain in that church, in which case the metropolitan shall keep those same possessions unharmed, and shall deliver them all to the new bishop when he is appointed.

Ap. 40; IV Ecum. 22, 25; Antioch 24; Carthage 22

— Canon 22 of the Council of Chalcedon threatens with deposition the clergy of the episcopal church concerned, if, after the death of their bishop, they do not guard, but plunder, the possessions that belonged to the deceased. It appears that what was thereby forbidden to the clergy was in fact being done by certain metropolitans. On this account, this canon forbids them to take or appropriate to themselves, after the death of a bishop subject to them, the possessions of the deceased bishop or of his church. Since, by the sense of Apostolic canon 34, the metropolitan is the head of the bishops subject to him, it was considered natural that, after the death of one of such bishops, the care of all the possessions that were the property of that bishop or of his church should fall to the metropolitan, and that as to the possessions that personally belonged to the deceased bishop, and of which he had, before his death, made no disposition, the metropolitan should have the right to dispose of them at his own will. In consequence of this headship in relation to their subject bishops, some metropolitans, in such circumstances, did indeed also appropriate to themselves the possessions left behind by one or another bishop. This canon, condemning such acts, ordains that the possessions remaining after the death of a bishop are to be under the oversight of the clergy of that church of which the deceased was president, and this until another bishop is appointed, to whom that same clergy must deliver everything according to an exact accounting. Should it happen that not a single cleric remain at the church that has become widowed, only then does the canon ordain that the metropolitan is to oversee the possessions left by the deceased bishop, but that he must in every case keep them unharmed, and afterward deliver them to the new bishop. The ordinance of this canon we find mentioned in the ἔνταλμα that is given to metropolitans and archbishops when they are appointed.[1] — Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, adduces the ordinance of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143–1180), by which no state official may interfere in the business that takes place at the handing-over and inventory of the possessions left after the death of a bishop, but this must be done independently and entirely on their own by the members of the clergy of the church concerned, and he threatens the severest penalties (corporal punishment, amputation of limbs, confiscation of property, and exile) against every state official who dares to transgress this imperial ordinance.[2]

Canon 36

Renewing what has been enacted by the hundred and fifty holy fathers gathered in this God-guarded and imperial city, and by the six hundred and thirty gathered at Chalcedon, we ordain that the throne of Constantinople enjoy equal privileges with the throne of elder Rome, and be exalted, in ecclesiastical affairs, as that throne is, being second after it; and after the throne of Constantinople let there be counted the throne of the great city of Alexandria, then the throne of Antioch, and after this the throne of Jerusalem.

— By this canon the order among the first thrones of the ecumenical Church is established, and, repeating, with respect to the throne of Constantinople, the ordinances of canon 3 of the II Ecumenical Council and canon 28 of the IV Ecumenical Council, it is ordained that first shall be the throne of Rome, second the throne of Constantinople, third the throne of Alexandria, fourth the throne of Antioch, and fifth the throne of Jerusalem. In the commentaries on canons 6 and 7 of the I Ecumenical Council, on canon 3 of the II Ecumenical Council, on canon 28 of the IV Ecumenical Council, and other parallel canons, we have said as much as is needed for the understanding of the ordinance of this canon. The bishops of all these five thrones are, as regards authority, entirely equal among themselves, but as regards honor (τῆς τιμῆς, honoris) and the order among their thrones, a fixed norm is established by this canon, and this on the basis of that general principle which the apostles themselves held, and which held good through all the centuries, namely, that the arrangement of church districts is to conform to the political arrangement (IV Ecum. 17), and that the importance and standing of one or another throne is determined by the importance, in the arrangement of the state, of the cities concerned in which those thrones are located.

Canon 37

Since, at various times, there have been barbarian invasions, and on account of these very many cities have been subjugated by lawless men, so that it was impossible for the president of one of such cities, once appointed, to take up his throne and there to establish his high-priestly abode, and, according to the confirmed custom, to perform ordinations and to do everything else that belongs to a bishop—we, taking care for the honor and respect of the priesthood, and taking heed that heathen insolence in no way bring harm to the rights of the church, establish that those bishops who have already been appointed, and who, on account of the aforesaid cause, have not been able to take possession of their thrones, shall on that account suffer no diminution, and let them, according to the canons, perform the ordinations of the various clergy, and enjoy the right of precedence according to their place, and let every high-priestly act of theirs be firm and lawful. For the necessity of the times, which hinders the exact preservation of rights, must not narrow the bounds of administration.

(Ap. 36; I Ecum. 16; III Ecum. 9; IV Ecum. 6, 29; Ancyra 18; Antioch 17, 18; Cyril of Alexandria 1, 2, 3).

— The Council of Antioch, by its 18th canon, had already established that a bishop, rightly elected and appointed, who does not go to the district assigned to him, and this not through his own fault, but either because the people are unwilling to receive him, or on account of some other cause not arising from himself (ἢ δι’ ἑτέραν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γενομένην), such a bishop has the right to retain his honor and office. By this Trullan canon this same thing is confirmed, and for a bishop whose city or district has been subjugated by unbelievers, so that he cannot on that account take up that throne and there establish his high-priestly abode, but must live in some other city, the canon ordains that such a bishop must nevertheless enjoy all those rights that he received with his ordination to the throne concerned; that he may, therefore, canonically ordain clergy, freely enjoy the right of precedence among bishops according to the importance and rank of his throne among the other thrones, and that every administrative act of his must be regarded as lawful and firm, exactly as if he were on his own throne. The canon adduces three reasons for this its ordinance: first, that it wishes the honor and respect of the priesthood to be preserved; second, that heathen insolence should in no way be allowed to cause harm to the canons of the Church; and third, that the circumstances and necessities of the times, which may temporarily halt the proper exercise of church rights, must not have any influence upon the established delimitation of the boundaries of the church districts concerned, and that, accordingly, as soon as those circumstances change and a normal state ensues, the former canonically established order must again be restored. A practical application of this we find already in canon 39 of this same council.[3]

Canon 38

We too acknowledge the canon that our fathers issued, which reads: “if a new city be founded, or should hereafter be founded, by imperial authority, in such a case let the arrangement of church affairs follow the arrangement of the state and the civil order.”

I Ecum. 4, 6, 7; II Ecum. 3; IV Ecum. 17, 28

— By this canon the concluding ordinance of canon 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council is repeated.

Canon 39

Since our brother and fellow-minister John, president of the island of Cyprus, together with his people, on account of the barbarian invasions, and in order to be freed from heathen bondage and to remain faithful to the scepter of the Christian state, has, by the providence of the man-loving God and by the effort of our Christ-loving and pious emperor, removed from the aforementioned island to the province of Hellespont, we accordingly establish that, free from every innovation, the privileges be preserved that were granted by the God-bearing fathers gathered in their time at Ephesus to the throne of the aforementioned man, so that the new Justinianopolis has the rights of Constantinople, and that the God-beloved bishop who is in it shall have precedence over all in the province of Hellespont, and that he shall be appointed by his own bishops, according to the ancient custom. And since our God-bearing fathers have established that the customs that are in each church are to be observed, let the bishop of the city of Cyzicus be subject to the president of the aforementioned Justinianopolis, after the example of all the other bishops who are under the authority of the aforementioned most God-beloved president John, from whom, should need require, the bishop of the city of Cyzicus itself will also be appointed.

(Ap. 34; I Ecum. 6, 7; II Ecum. 2, 3; III Ecum. 8; IV Ecum. 28; Trullo 36, 37; Antioch 9).

— In this canon we find an application of the principle expressed in the 37th canon of this council, namely, that if a bishop cannot, on account of external circumstances, remain upon his own throne, and is compelled to reside in another district, such a bishop nevertheless retains all the rights and privileges bound up with his throne. At the III Ecumenical Council, by its eighth canon, the self-governing status (autocephaly) of the church of Cyprus was recognized and legally proclaimed. In consequence of the Saracen invasion of Cyprus in the second half of the seventh century, the then president (πρόεδρος, praesul) of the island of Cyprus, Bishop John, in order to free himself and his people from heathen bondage and to shelter beneath the scepter of the Christian state, removed from Cyprus and crossed over into the province of Hellespont together with the bishops subject to him, his clergy, and his people—a province which, in church affairs, was dependent on the patriarch of Constantinople. The Council of Trullo, being unable, according to the general canonical order, to permit a superior bishop, and one who was moreover autocephalous, to be deprived of his rights and privileges on account of external circumstances and to be made subject to another metropolitan, ordains by this its canon that to the Cypriot president John, who has now crossed over into the Hellespont, all the rights and privileges recognized to him by the III Ecumenical Council must be fully preserved; and further, by this same canon, that the church district of the Hellespont, and the bishop of Cyzicus, who was the metropolitan of that same district, be placed in dependence upon the aforesaid John. And since the district of the Hellespont had suffered under the authority of the throne of Constantinople, this canon accordingly ordains that John, bishop of New Justinianopolis (that is, of the former Constantia, the chief city of the island of Cyprus), shall have the district of Hellespont in his own dependence, and that the right of Constantinople with respect to that district be now transferred to John of New Justinianopolis, who, should need require, will also appoint a metropolitan of Hellespont (at Cyzicus), just as belongs to autocephalous bishops.

That passage in this canon, that New Justinianopolis has the rights of Constantinople (τὸ δίκαιον τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Constantinopolis jus), has proved rather difficult to comprehend, for it seems impossible to allow that the Council of Trullo should have acknowledged New Justinianopolis to have, in every respect, rights and privileges equal to those of Constantinople itself.[4] In one old manuscript (codex Athanasianus), which Beveridge mentions in his notes on this canon, in place of τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως there stands τῆς Κωνσταντιέων πόλεως (Constantiensium civitas), and in that case the passage in question would read: “New Justinianopolis has the rights of the city of Constantia,” that is, of the chief city of the island of Cyprus, which was named New Justinianopolis by the Emperor Justinian, has the same rights that this city once had, when it was called Constantia and when the III Ecumenical Council acknowledged the bishop of Constantia, the chief city of Cyprus, as autocephalous.[5] On the interpretation set forth above, either reading, according to Beveridge’s note, may stand, namely: John, remaining in Hellespont, could exercise, in relation to the Cypriot bishops, the right of Constantia (that is, of the autocephalous bishop of the former Constantia, and then-current New Justinianopolis), while in relation to the bishops of Hellespont he could exercise the right of Constantinople (that is, of the throne of Constantinople).

This exceptional state of affairs for the Cypriot president lasted, moreover, only a short time, and we already find John’s successor in Cyprus itself, while the metropolitanate of Hellespont reverted to the throne of Constantinople.

Canon 40

Since it is most salutary to draw near to God by withdrawing from the tumult of life, we too must not receive without examination and precipitately those who choose the monastic life, but must observe in this matter the ordinance handed down to us by the fathers: namely, that the vow of a life according to God is to be received as already firm, as belonging to one who has become conscious and deliberate, only after the full unfolding of reason. Whoever, then, wishes to submit himself to the monastic yoke must be not younger than ten years from birth, it being left, moreover, as regards such a person, to the judgment of the ruling bishop of the church whether it does not appear that the time should still be prolonged before he is brought into the monastic life and confirmed in the same. For although the great Basil, in his holy canons, ordained that she who voluntarily dedicates herself to God and embraces virginity is to be received into the order of virgins upon completing seventeen years, yet we, following the ordinance that exists in this matter for widows and deaconesses, have proportionately established the aforesaid age for those who choose the monastic life. So too it was prescribed by the divine apostle that a widow is to be chosen in the church from sixty years, while the holy canons handed down that a deaconess is to be appointed from forty years, for it was seen that the church, by the grace of God, had become much stronger and more advanced, and that the faithful are firm and steadfast in the fulfillment of the divine commandments. And since we too have well grasped this, we accordingly establish that he who intends to begin his labors according to God must without delay be signed with the blessing of grace, as with a certain seal, so that we may thereby move him not to hesitate and delay for long, but on the contrary encourage him to choose well and to be confirmed in the same.

Protodeutera 5; Basil the Great 18, 24)

Basil the Great, in his 18th canon, ordains that the vow of virginity may be acknowledged once the person concerned has completed 16 or 17 years, and a vow made before those years he counts as “childish words.” This canon, however, says that whoever wishes to enter monastic life must have completed 10 years.[6] It recalls the canon and ordinance of Basil the Great on this matter, but observes that it determines otherwise because the church, by the grace of God, has become much stronger and more advanced, and because the faithful are firm and steadfast in the fulfillment of the divine commandments; in this connection it mentions the 15th canon of the IV Ecumenical Council concerning deaconesses, and says that although the Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 5:9) prescribed that she who is to be received into the service of the church must be 60 years old, yet the fathers of the aforementioned (IV Ecum.) Council established that deaconesses are appointed from 40 years. As for the years at which a given person is to be received into monasticism, the canon leaves it, moreover, to the competent bishop to judge and to act in the matter according to his own discretion.[7]

Canon 41

Those who wish, in cities or villages, to withdraw into enclosures and devote themselves to contemplation of themselves must first enter a monastery and train themselves in the solitary life, and for three full years be obedient, in the fear of God, to the head of the monastery, and in all things fulfill obedience as is fitting, so that in this manner they may make manifest their resolve toward such a life; during which they will be examined by the local bishop of the church, whether they devote themselves to such a life wholeheartedly and voluntarily. After this they must still spend one more year steadfastly outside the enclosure, so that their intention may be still more clearly shown, for only then will they give full assurance that they do not seek this solitude for the sake of empty glory, but for the sake of the true good alone. When this whole time has been completed, if those concerned have remained steadfast in the same resolve, let them enter the enclosure; but afterward they must by no means go out of the enclosure by their own will any longer, except only if the common good and assistance, or some other necessity threatening death, should call them to it—and even then only after the blessing of the local bishop. But those who dare to go out of these their dwellings without one of the aforementioned reasons must be compelled, even against their will, to return to the said enclosure, and meanwhile, through fasts and other strict measures, be brought into order, knowing, as it is written, that no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of heaven (Luke 9:62).

(IV Ecum. 4; Protodeutera 4)

The Trullan fathers did not regard as a reliable undertaking the practice of some who abandoned worldly life and gave themselves to the solitary life (εἰς τὸν χωρητικὸν βίον), shutting themselves up in small, narrow cells and becoming their own teachers (τὸ αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς εἶναι καθηγητάς), as Zonaras says in his interpretation of this canon. For this reason the canon commands that those who wish to give themselves over to such a life must first of all enter a monastery and spend three years in strict obedience, so as to prepare themselves there for the solitary life and to show that they have sincerely chosen such a life. After that the competent bishop will subject them to examination, and they will have to spend a year outside the monastery, so that the constancy of their resolve may be clearly demonstrated. And when in this way they have fully proven that they seek the solitary life out of love of virtue, and not for the sake of glory among men, then they may be permitted to enter the chosen place of solitude, but on the condition that they may no longer go out from that place thereafter, except only in a case where they are compelled to it by necessity, or for the sake of the people’s common good, or when danger of death threatens them; but even in such a case they may go out only with the consent and blessing of their competent bishop. Should they go out of their solitary dwellings on their own, the canon orders that they be forcibly brought back to their places and subjected to strict penances.

Canon 42

Regarding the so-called hermits, who go about the cities in black garments with long, unshorn hair on their heads, and consort with worldly men and women, thereby disgracing their vow, we ordain that these, after cutting their hair, if they wish to give themselves to the manner of life of the other monks, are to be assigned to a monastery and numbered among the brethren; if they will not do this, let them be driven altogether out of the cities, and let them live in the deserts from which they have taken their name.

(IV Ecum. 4; Protodeutera 4)

Regarding the hermits of whom it speaks here, Balsamon, in his interpretation of this canon, observes that many popular deceivers go about the cities in black garments and disheveled hair, hypocritically displaying their fasting and their nakedness for show, and thus deceive simpler people and offend the monastic vow. And some among these false hermits, moving about among laypeople and proclaiming all sorts of demonic teachings in the streets, present themselves as though they were praying for the people and preaching repentance; others say that they have come from the desert into the city by God’s command, to announce to people something that is going to happen, and, shamelessly extorting money, promise simple people some great goods.[8] This canon speaks of such false hermits, and orders that they be sent to a monastery, to live there like the other monks. If they will not go to a monastery to live there, then they must be driven out of the cities; let them go to the deserts, let them lead there such a life as they have falsely and thoughtlessly chosen for themselves.[9]

Canon 43

Every Christian may choose the ascetic life, and, freeing himself from the affairs of the turbulent life, enter a monastery and receive the monastic tonsure, without regard to any transgressions in which he may formerly have been caught; for our Savior has said: him who comes to me I will not cast out (John 6:37). And since the monastic life is a life of repentance, we approve of him who sincerely gives himself to it, nor can any former conduct hinder him from fulfilling his resolve.

(IV Ecum. 4; Protodeutera 2, 4)

This canon is clear. Some who, according to the words of Balsamon in his interpretation of this canon, wished to enter monasticism, were forbidden this entry on account of their disgraceful and dissolute life, or on account of some sin previously committed. This canon calls to mind the relevant words of the Savior, and establishes that no sin previously committed can be an obstacle to the person concerned giving himself to the penitential and ascetic life, such as the monastic life is.

Canon 44

A monk who is caught in fornication, or who takes a wife for the sake of marital union and cohabitation, is to be subjected to the penalties that are established for fornicators.

(IV Ecum. 16; Ancyra 19; Basil the Great 6, 18, 19, 60)

The 16th canon of the IV Ecumenical Council subjects to excommunication a monk who breaks the vow of virginity he has made, but gives the competent bishop authority to deal with such a person even more leniently. The 19th canon of the Council of Ancyra imposes on those who break the vow of virginity the penalty for digamists, namely one or two years of penance. Basil the Great, likewise, in his 60th canon, orders for such the same penalty as for adultery, that is, 15 years of penance. This canon, however, subjects them to the same penalty that is appointed for fornicators, that is, 7 years of penance.[10] According to Zonaras, in his interpretation of this canon, this canon must have legal force, since it was issued after the aforementioned canons.[11] This penalty is imposed in general on every monk who breaks the vow of virginity, whether he commits fornication with some woman, or enters into marriage. Such a penalty, moreover, according to Balsamon’s remark on this canon, is imposed on that monk who has committed fornication or entered into marriage, but who has afterward repented and returned to his former strict monastic life.[11] And that the marriage into which a certain monk has entered has no legal validity whatsoever, of this we have spoken in the interpretation of the 16th canon of the IV Ecumenical Council.

Canon 45

Since we have learned that in some women’s monasteries, when they bring in women who are to be found worthy of the monastic manner of life, they first put upon them silken and various other garments, and besides these, ornaments adorned with gold and precious stones, and that, after they thus approach the altar, they strip off from them all this rich clothing, and immediately over them is performed the rite of the blessing of the new life, and they are clothed in black raiment—we ordain that this shall no longer take place in future; for it is not right that she who has of her own will already forsaken every worldly festivity and embraced the manner of life according to God, and who has become confirmed in this by unwavering thoughts, and has thus come to the monastery, should through such perishable and transient adornment be again stirred by the memory of that which she had already forgotten, and that from this some wavering might perhaps arise in her, and her soul be troubled like waves that flood over and turn in every direction, so that, even if she sheds a tear, it will not thereby show the taste of heartfelt contrition; and even if, as is natural, some small tear should fall, those who observe this on such occasions will think that this tear did not flow so much from the devotion of these women to ascetic labor, as from the fact that they are leaving the world and what is in the world.

(Carthage 126)

This concerns true nuns, who dedicate themselves to monastic life; and since the custom mentioned in the canon had prevailed, this canon condemns that custom and ordains that it must no longer take place in future, for the reasons that are set forth with grounds in the canon.

Canon 46

Women who have chosen the ascetic life and have settled in a monastery are by no means to go out of the monastery any longer. If some unavoidable necessity should move them to it, let them do so with the blessing and consent of the superior, but even then not alone, but, by order of the abbess, together with some elder sister or with those who are foremost in the monastery. To spend the night outside the monastery, however, they may in no way do. Likewise, men who lead the monastic life may go out of the monastery when some urgent necessity arises, but only with the blessing of him to whom the administration is entrusted. Accordingly, whoever transgresses this ordinance, which we now issue, whether men or women, let them be subjected to the deserved penalties.

That no monk, nor nun, may go out of the monastery of his or her own will—this had been established already at the very beginning of the ordering of the monastic life,—and on account of abuses observed in this matter, the Trullan fathers issue this canon, ordaining that those who dare to transgress it be subjected to the corresponding penalties.

Canon 47

Neither may a woman sleep in a men’s monastery, nor a man in a women’s; for the faithful must be free from every disturbance and offense, and must direct their life toward decorous and comely service to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:35). And whoever disregards this, whether cleric or layman, let him be excommunicated.

This canon is clear, and its purpose is to keep monasteries free from every suspicion.

Canon 48

The wife of a man who is advanced to the episcopal dignity, after being separated beforehand from her husband by common consent, shall, once her husband has been appointed bishop, enter a monastery that is far from the bishop’s residence, and shall receive from the bishop whatever is necessary for her support. If it be found that such a woman is worthy, let her also be advanced to the dignity of deaconess.

(Ap. 5, 51; I Ecum. 3; IV Ecum. 15; Trullo 12, 14)

In the interpretation of the 12th canon of this council we have seen that it was established by law that a bishop may not have a wife, and we have also seen how, in the course of time, it became the general norm of the Orthodox Church that persons belonging to the monastic order be appointed bishops. Accordingly, the ordinance of this (48th) Trullan canon no longer has, in the strict sense, practical canonical force. Nevertheless it is necessary that this same canon be interpreted, because of its connection with the aforementioned (12th) Trullan canon, and in particular because in the 12th century it began to be argued, on the basis of precisely this 48th Trullan canon, sophistically interpreted, that the wife of an already ordained bishop may nonetheless live with her husband in the episcopal residence, and is not compelled to enter a monastery if she does not wish to—of which we have spoken in the interpretation of the 12th Trullan canon. Having established by their 12th canon that a bishop may not have a wife, the Trullan fathers, having regard to those who in their own time were still being chosen bishops from the secular clergy while their wives were living, ordain by this 48th canon that the person chosen from the secular clergy must be separated from his wife by mutual agreement, and that, once he has been ordained, the wife must enter a monastery that is far from the episcopal see—for, says Balsamon in his interpretation of this canon, if they were continually to see one another, this might recall to them their former mutual relations and common life, and stir up their love.[12] It is said in the canon that they (that is, the secular priest chosen for the episcopate and his wife) are to be separated by common consent (κατὰ κοινὴν συμφωνίαν), which, according to the text of the canon, may be verbal, and need not therefore be in writing, and that the wife, after the ordination (μετὰ τὴν χειροτονίαν) of her husband to the episcopate, is to enter a monastery. This separation, which, as can be seen, depended on the good will of the persons concerned and was not regulated by strict ordinances, gave occasion to all those irregularities of which we have spoken, and to which an end was put only by the Novel of the year 1187 of the Emperor Isaac Angelos. It was established, namely, that the said marital separation must be set forth by name and signed by husband and wife, that the wife must enter the monastery and be tonsured a nun as soon as this written separation is signed, that is, before the husband’s ordination, and that only when all this has been duly carried out may the person concerned be ordained. This same Novel also provided for the case in which the wife should be unwilling voluntarily to separate from her husband and be tonsured; and it was decreed and established that in that case the person concerned could no longer become bishop, but another was to be chosen in his place.[13] Dr. Чжман adduced from a Greek manuscript preserved in the Munich Court Library (Cod. Monac. gr. 62) supplementary material on this question from the canonical epistles of Archbishop Demetrios Chomatianos of the early 13th century. Namely—if the wife should not consent to marital separation from her husband within the appointed time, then her husband (who had been chosen bishop) must renounce the episcopate, and continue to live in marriage with his wife.[14] But if a metropolitan has ordained a married priest as bishop, relying on the promise of that priest’s wife that she would be tonsured a nun, and afterward that wife does not keep her promise, nor separates from her bishop-husband, in such a case the marriage must nonetheless cease to be valid, and that wife must be forcibly sent to a monastery and subjected to a penalty; just as the metropolitan and the bishop, too, must be subjected to the corresponding canonical penalty for their imprudence. Balsamon raises yet another question, namely, since according to the canons no one can be compelled to enter monasticism, why then should the wife of a chosen and ordained bishop, who is guilty of nothing, be shut up in a monastery? On this question Balsamon relates that it is the opinion of some that the wife of such a bishop must enter a monastery, because the canon says so, but since the canon does not also speak of her having to be tonsured a nun, she ought not to be compelled to this either, as other sinners are compelled to it, nor for the further reason that, according to the canon, she may be appointed to the dignity of deaconess, a dignity that laywomen have at times also received. Not sharing this opinion, the same Balsamon argues that she must of necessity be tonsured (ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὀφείλει… ἀποκείρεσθαι, in Latin: necessario tonderi), because she could have freely refused, before her husband’s ordination, to be divorced from him, in which case there would have been neither his ordination nor her monastic tonsure; but since she has, for the sake of her husband’s ordination, resolved upon the divorce, she must also be compelled to complete that divorce by her monastic tonsure, and this is not to be trifled with, since it is no matter for jest. For were she to remain in the monastery as a laywoman, that would be a punishment for her and not a benefaction, and would in no way be to the honor of the ordained man… Were it permitted to the wife of an ordained bishop to remain in the monastery as a laywoman, then that same wife could quite reasonably demand also to live outside the monastery, and it might be that she would even marry another husband, or even live together with her husband who had been ordained bishop—and this would already be unseemly and contrary to the intentions of the divine canons. It is said in the canon that the bishop must provide whatever is necessary for the support of his wife, from whom he has been separated and who has entered the monastery. According to Balsamon’s words, the bishop must provide this for her if she is in need (ἀναγκαία); if she is not in need, the bishop need give her nothing, since he himself may not spend anything superfluous on himself from the revenues of the bishopric. Finally, the canon adds, regarding the woman separated from the bishop, that she may be advanced to the office of deaconess, if only she is worthy of it.

Canon 49

Repeating also that holy canon, we ordain that ‘monasteries once consecrated with the consent of the bishop must remain monasteries forever, and the goods belonging to them are to be preserved for them, nor may they ever be turned into secular dwellings,’ nor may anyone hand them over to secular persons. If this has happened until now, we ordain that it can have no validity whatsoever. But whoever dares to do this henceforth shall be subjected to the penalties prescribed by the canons.

(IV Ecum. 4, 24; VII Ecum. 19)

From this canon it can be seen that the 24th canon of the IV Ecumenical Council was not being observed in the 7th century, and for this reason the Trullan fathers found it necessary to repeat that canon. The interpretation of that canon of the IV Ecumenical Council serves also as the interpretation of this canon.

Canon 50

No one, neither layman nor cleric, may henceforth play at dice; and whoever is caught doing this, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.[15]

(Ap. 42, 43)

This canon repeats Ap. 42 and 43, which forbid every layman, and still more a sacred person, from giving himself to games of chance.[15]

Canon 51

This holy and ecumenical council absolutely forbids that there be so-called mime performances and their shows, and further, hunting-spectacles, and dancing on the stage. And whoever violates this canon, and gives himself to any of what is forbidden, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

By the 24th canon of this council, sacred persons are forbidden, under threat of deposition, from attending theaters and watching the various theatrical performances, whereas this canon forbids in general that among Christians there be various mime performances, hunting-spectacles, and dancing on the stage, and threatens deposition to the cleric and excommunication to the layman who violates this canon. Zonaras, in his interpretation of this canon, gives the reason for this, recalling the loftiness of Christian morals, which are thereby offended.[16] The strictness of the gospel life requires that the faithful not live dissolutely and distractedly, but as befits saints; and for this reason this canon forbids everything that must necessarily distract the soul, weaken and unsettle its disposition, and provoke unreasoning laughter, as the performances of the mimes (τῶν μίμων) can do. And the hunting-spectacles (ἡ τῶν κυνηγεσίων θεωρία) consisted in this, that in the great cities various beasts, lions and bears, were kept, and at appointed times they were led out onto some open ground and set to fight against bulls, and sometimes even against men—for example, against war captives or convicts—and this served for the entertainment of the spectators. This canon forbids these spectacles as well, because they display a cruel heart in the spectators, who take pleasure in the misfortune of others. The canon also forbids dancing on the stage (τὰς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς ὀρχήσεις, in Scena saltationes), because this is unseemly, especially when women perform it, since it thereby only stirs up the passions of the spectators and incites them to lustfulness.

Canon 52

On all the days of the fast of the holy Forty Days, except Saturday and Sunday and the holy day of the Annunciation, let there be only the holy Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

(Ap. 66, 69; Laodicea 49, 50, 51, 52)

In the interpretation of the 69th apostolic canon we have seen the ordinance concerning fasting in the Forty Days, and in the interpretation of the 66th apostolic canon we have likewise seen the ordinance that one may not fast on Sunday and Saturday (except Great Saturday). On the basis of these apostolic canons, and especially in the sense of the ordinance of the 49th canon of the Council of Laodicea, the Trullan fathers in this canon ordain that on the days of the Forty Days (the great Paschal fast), as days of strict fasting, the full Liturgy may not be celebrated, but only the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (ἡ τῶν προηγιασμένων θεία λειτουργία). The fathers exclude from this the days of Saturday and Sunday and the day of the Annunciation, as days of joyful remembrance, when the Son of God took upon Himself human flesh. The reason for this ordinance of this Trullan canon, on the basis of medieval Greek commentators, is set out as follows by Archimandrite Ioann in his interpretation of the 49th canon of Laodicea: ‘Since the Forty Days is the time of general repentance and confession of sins for all Christians, the holy Church subjects all the faithful in this period to a kind of penance, which at other times it imposes only on some—namely, it grants them only the reading of prayers and holy Scripture, but does not allow them to perform the mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ. But for those weak in spirit and body, and in general so that our spirit might not be weakened by remaining for a long time without holy Communion, the Church preserves for us during the Great Fast the previously-consecrated Gifts, and permits the worthy to partake of them. There is also another reason for this institution. The offering of gifts in the mystery of the Eucharist shows that we draw near to God by grace through the redemptive death of Christ and the full satisfaction for our sins to divine justice. Meanwhile the Forty Days is a time of our heartfelt repentance, a time of our spiritual sorrow and contrition before God for the sins we have committed, despite all the means of salvation that have been abundantly granted us. And for this reason the Church does not consider it fitting, and in no way dares, in the contrition of spirit of those days, to celebrate the full Liturgy, lest sorrow be mixed with festivity, self-mortification with exaltation, but instead it consoles and strengthens itself only with the Gifts previously consecrated. Finally, according to the original, strict church statutes, on the days of the Great Fast it is forbidden to eat before the evening hour, while by the general norm of the Church one may eat only after the Liturgy; meanwhile it is forbidden to celebrate the Liturgy in the evening. Accordingly, so that the celebration of the Liturgy should not contradict the statute concerning fasting until the evening hour, it was established that during the weeks of the Forty Days the full Liturgy is not celebrated, but only the Presanctified Gifts are given together with the vespers service. This also explains why, during the Forty Days, Saturdays and Sundays are excluded from this general institution, as days of joyful remembrance from the Old and New Testament, and also the day of the Annunciation.’ On the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts itself, see in detail the ‘New Tablet’ (Novaya Skrizhal) of Archbishop Veniamin (Book II, Chapter X).

Canon 53

Since spiritual kinship is more important than kinship of the flesh, and we have learned that in various places some who receive children in holy and saving baptism afterward enter into marital cohabitation with the widowed mothers of those children, we ordain that nothing of this kind shall take place henceforth. And if any, after this canon, are found doing this, let them first withdraw from that unlawful cohabitation, and then let them be subjected to the penalties for fornicators.

This canon concerns spiritual kinship (πνευματικὴ συγγένεια, cognatio spiritualis), which arises between the one who held a certain child at baptism and that same child whom he held at baptism.[17] This spiritual kinship rests on the concept of the new birth of the one being baptized, and on the relationship into which he enters with his spiritual father, his godfather, who mediates in that new birth of his.[18] This relationship, with regard to the duty which the godfather assumes toward his godchild on the spiritual-educational side, taking the place of the natural father, was regarded as equal to the relationship between a father and his own child, and from this arose the notion of spiritual kinship, which, according to the words of this canon, is more important (μείζων) than kinship by blood.[19] This notion we find expressed in the Church from the most ancient times.[20] On the basis of this notion there arose subsequently also the marital impediment between godfather and godchild, and that an impediment all the stronger, since spiritual kinship, as we have seen, is more important than kinship by blood; and by analogy with kinship by blood, certain degrees of this spiritual kinship were determined, within which marriage is forbidden. This was established in the Church especially in the 5th century, when infant baptism became general, and when godparents at baptism were no longer, as before, only of the same sex as the godchild.[21] The first legal ordinance on this matter we find in civil legislation. The Emperor Justinian, by a law of October 1, 530, ordained that a godfather may not enter into marriage with his own godchild;[22] and this law, according to the well-founded remark of Dr. Zhishman on this, is nothing other than the old church canon, which had now only received imperial sanction.[23] The Trullan Council, confirming in any case what had been made law by the Emperor Justinian, establishes by this canon, under threat of penalty, that a godfather may not enter into marriage even with the widowed mother of his godchild, and thereby the canonical foundation of spiritual kinship, as an impediment to marriage, was laid. Marriage is thus canonically forbidden, in spiritual kinship, between godfather and godchild (first degree), and marriage between godfather and the widowed mother of the godchild (second degree). In the course of time, on the basis of that passage in this Trullan canon that spiritual kinship is more important than kinship by blood, marital impediments in spiritual kinship were developed, alongside church law, also by Greek civil legislation, up to those limits to which marriage was forbidden in kinship by blood—namely, up to and including the 7th degree.[24] But since neither in this Trullan canon nor in any other canon of the whole Church is any further degree of spiritual kinship, beyond the second degree, mentioned in which marriage would be forbidden, the prohibition or permission of marriages in further degrees is left to the respective legislation of the local churches and to the wisdom of the competent bishops.[25]

Canon 54

The divine Scripture teaches us: Thou shalt not approach any who is near of kin to thee, to uncover their nakedness (Lev. 18:6); and the God-bearing Basil, in his canons, has enumerated some forbidden marriages, while about very many he has kept silence, and by both he has done us a service. For, avoiding a multitude of shameful names, so as not to defile speech with words, he designated impurities by general terms, and thereby showed us in general the unlawful marriages. But since, on account of such silence, and because the irregular marriages that are forbidden could not be distinguished, nature itself became confounded, we have found it necessary to set forth this determination: that whoever enters into marital union with his female first cousin, or a father and a son with a mother and her daughter, or with two sisters who are maidens a father and his son, or two brothers with a mother and her daughter, or two brothers with two sisters—we ordain that all these are to be subjected to the canon of seven years’ penance, of course after they have separated from the unlawful cohabitation.

(Ap. 19; Trullo 26, 53; Neocaesarea 2; Basil the Great 23, 27, 68, 75, 76, 78, 79, 87; Timothy of Alexandria 11; Theophilus of Alexandria 5).

That kinship, as an impediment to marriage, arises from divine law, we have already seen in the interpretation of the 19th apostolic canon, where we also cited the relevant passages from Holy Scripture. This is confirmed also by the opening words of this Trullan canon. Holy Scripture calls it an abomination—a shame that defiles nature itself—when the purity of the natural bond among kindred is not preserved and when unnatural mixing of blood (incest) between persons bound by ties of kinship is permitted. This teaching of Holy Scripture is an expression of the fundamental laws of nature itself, which determines the mutual moral relations among persons in whom one blood flows, or in whom the blood of different families is united through the marriage of man and woman, who in marriage form one flesh (Gen. 2:24). Bodily unions among such persons, whether arising from one common ancestor (kinship in the strict sense, συγγένεια ἐξ αἵματος, cognatio carnalis) or arising through the marriage of a man and a woman from two families (affinity, ἐγχιστεία, adfinitas), would utterly overturn and destroy these moral relations, and the human race would be brought down to the level of animals, among which there exists only a difference of sex and a bond between the sexes, but no rational, moral relations whatsoever; whereas mankind is raised above the animals, among other things, by this—that the blood-tie among kinsmen is not merely a bodily bond, but a moral bond as well. Nature itself assigns to every member of a given kindred an established place within the general community, and thereby also determines the circle of kinship, in which every member, according to the place he occupies there, has his rights and duties toward the other members; and within that circle the same nature unites all members by the moral bond of love, mutual respect, and mutual assistance; and as this circle of kinship is expanded, by nature and by law, so also the spirit of that moral bond among people is expanded, gradually embracing whole tribes and generations, through which descendants are bound to their ancestors. In view of this, relations of kinship among particular persons have special significance in matters of marriage, in which kinship is both a natural consequence of marriages and, at the same time, a natural impediment to marriage in certain cases. By the law of Moses, apart from kinship in the direct line, marriage was forbidden (both in kinship by blood and in affinity) in collateral lines up to and including the third degree (Lev. 18:7ff, 20:11ff). But when Moses mentioned that degree of kinship, he did not thereby limit the prohibition of marriage to that degree alone, for he also expresses a general rule for this, when he says that no one may approach his kinswoman by blood, to uncover her nakedness (Lev. 18:6, 20:20). From this it can be seen that Moses mentioned only those degrees of kinship in which marriage must be unconditionally forbidden, while marriages in the remaining degrees he left to be governed by the general laws of nature, leaving it to the competent authorities, according to the circumstances of time and place, to decide whether they are to be forbidden or permitted. Accordingly, although Moses did not forbid marriages in degrees beyond the third, he did not expressly permit them either, and thus expressed neither an unconditional prohibition nor a permission of such marriages (compare canon 87 of Basil the Great). In the Christian Church, from the very beginning, we find that in kinship by blood (cognatio carnalis) marriage was forbidden in the 3rd degree of the collateral line (Ap. can. 19). Ambrose of Milan, in one of his letters, on the question whether a father may marry his son to his granddaughter by his daughter, born of different mothers, shows that in the first centuries marriage was forbidden not only among kinsmen of the direct line, but also among those of the collateral line, and that both by church and by civil laws the prohibition extended to first cousins, that is, to the 4th degree of the collateral line, and finally, that in marriages it was always taken care that there should not occur, through the union, a confusion of names (σύγχυσις τῶν ὀνομάτων, confusio nominum), that is, that the marriage should not disturb the names and natural kinship relations between two persons, so that older kinsmen should not take the place of younger ones, and younger ones not be placed in rights that do not belong to them by kinship, and thus occupy the place of their elders.[26] And this is confirmed also by Basil the Great in his canons, and particularly in canon 87. In this (87th) canon Basil the Great also tells us in what manner these concepts of kinship became established in the Church and how the corresponding canons on this were formed: ‘The first and most important thing that we must observe in such matters is the custom established among us, which has the force of law, since such ordinances have been handed down to us by holy men’; and having cited the relevant example on this, he adds: ‘even if nothing else at all could be adduced, it would be enough to follow custom, in order to keep oneself from evil.’ Accordingly, the canons on kinship, and particularly in relation to marriage, were established in the Church at first by tradition, which passed into custom, and in the constant practice of the Church acquired of itself the force of law. From other canons of Basil the Great, in which he speaks of marriages forbidden on account of kinship, it can be seen that in his time (4th century) the circle of kinship was sufficiently determined in relation to marriages, and that every marriage in a forbidden degree of kinship was punished as adultery, and was dissolved. But at the same time kinship and marriages were also subject to civil laws, and these laws, with regard to the degrees of kinship in which marriage was permitted or forbidden, did not always correspond to the church laws. In kinship of the direct line, the civil laws forbade every marriage unconditionally, both in the ascending and in the descending line.[27] And this was altogether natural, for it is neither physically nor morally possible that kinsmen of the ascending line should enter into marriage with kinsmen of the descending line—for example, a father with a daughter, a grandfather with a granddaughter, a great-grandfather with a great-granddaughter, and so on. The Church was entirely in agreement with this, and therefore concerning kinship in the direct line, in relation to marriage, there was never any doubt, nor were any special canons issued on this.[28] As regards collateral lines, the civil laws restricted the prohibition of marriage only to the nearest kinsmen, up to the 3rd degree; while marriage between first cousins, that is, between the children of brothers and sisters (thus the 4th degree), was permitted right up to the time of the Emperor Theodosius the Great, who forbade it,[29] but in Justinian’s Code we find this marriage again permitted, likewise in his Novels.[30] As can be seen, the civil laws were not constant with regard to marriages in collateral lines, but despite all this, the customs established in the Christian Church of themselves forbade such marriages, as the fathers of the Church of that time observe.[31] As regards affinity (adfinitas), the civil laws, recognizing in the direct line the kinsmen of the husband as kinsmen of the wife, and vice versa, did not permit marriage at all among these kinsmen, either in the ascending or the descending line, by that same principle which was adopted for kinship by blood. Even when a marriage had ceased, by death or by divorce, it was not permitted for the surviving spouse to marry the kinsmen of the other spouse in the direct line.[32] In the collateral line of affinity, marriage was permitted to one spouse with the kinsmen of the other spouse (after the latter’s death), and likewise among the kinsmen of the one and the other spouse. The Church, already on the basis of Old Testament precepts on this matter, could not restrict the permission of marriage to only these degrees of affinity; and we find express canons which determine in what degrees of affinity in the collateral line marriages must be forbidden (Ap. 19; Neocaesarea 2; Basil the Great 87). In agreement with the Church, the civil laws too soon forbade such marriages.[33] Such was the state of affairs regarding marriages forbidden on account of kinship by blood and affinity up to the 7th century. The indeterminacy in this respect of the relevant (87th) canon of Basil the Great, as well as of the existing civil laws, gave occasion, by Zonaras’s exact observation on this, for the Trullan Council to issue this its (54th) canon. The Trullan fathers, observing that nature itself was being confounded because the irregular marriages that were forbidden could not be distinguished, found it necessary to set forth a special canon on this matter, and determined, namely, in which degrees of kinship marriages must be forbidden, and this under threat of seven years’ penance for anyone found in such a marriage, and, of course, the dissolution of such a marriage.[34] With regard to kinship by blood, the canon forbids marriages in the 3rd degree, namely, that no one may take his brother’s daughter to wife. Of first cousins the canon makes no mention, and from this it may be concluded that, in the judgment of the Church, marriage among first cousins (4th degree) was not permitted, but neither was it dissolved if it had already been contracted. With regard to affinity, the canon forbids marriages of: a father and son with a mother and her daughter (2nd degree), a father and son with two sisters (3rd degree), a mother and her daughter with two brothers (3rd degree), and two brothers with two sisters (4th degree). The fourth degree of affinity is thus the limit up to which marriage is forbidden by this (54th) Trullan canon. And since after the Trullan Council no further canon of the whole Church was issued on this matter, it must and may be regarded that in affinity marriages are strictly canonically forbidden up to and including the 4th degree.[35] In the course of time, marriage in affinity was forbidden up to and including the 6th degree, by the ordinance of the synod of Constantinople of February 21, 997, under Patriarch Sisinnius;[36] and in kinship by blood up to and including the 7th degree, by the ordinance of the synod of Constantinople of April 11, 1166, under Patriarch Luke.[37]

Canon 55

Since we have understood that those who are in the city of Rome, alongside the holy fast of the Forty Days, also fast on their Saturdays, contrary to the church’s traditional ordinance, this holy council establishes that in the Roman church too the canon which says the following must remain in force unimpaired: ‘Whatever cleric is found fasting on the Lord’s day, or on Saturday (except one only), let him be deposed; and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.’

(Ap. 31, 39; IV Ecum. 8; Gangra 34; Laodicea 57; Carthage 7)

By Ap. can. 66, fasting on Saturday is forbidden (except Great Saturday). The fathers of the Trullan Council repeat this apostolic canon on the occasion of having learned that in the Roman church the ordinance of that same canon had been neglected, and that, contrary to the canon, they fast on Saturdays.

Canon 56

We have likewise understood that in the region of Armenia, and in other places, some eat eggs and cheese on the Saturdays and Sundays of the holy Forty Days. It is accordingly established also that, in the Church of God throughout the whole inhabited world, following one and the same order, the fast must be kept, and that in fasting one must abstain both from everything slaughtered, and likewise from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and offspring of that on which we are fed. And whoever does not observe this, if they are clerics, let them be deposed; if they are laymen, let them be excommunicated.

It is said that the Armenians held a particular view of their own regarding dairy foods, and considered that fish was richer than these foods, since fish is a true animal, while dairy foods are only the fluid of that which the animal eats, and accordingly they allowed themselves, on the Sundays and Saturdays of the great Paschal fast, to eat cheese and eggs, while abstaining on those days from eating fish.[38] Against this abuse the Trullan fathers rise up, issuing this canon, and subjecting clerics to deposition, and laymen to excommunication, who do not keep to the prescription of this canon.

Canon 57

Honey and milk must not be offered on the altar.

(Ap. 3; Trullo 28, 32, 99; Carthage 37)

This canon repeats the ordinance of the 3rd apostolic canon.

Canon 58

No one belonging to the order of laymen may commune himself with the holy mystery, when a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon is present. And whoever dares to do this, having acted contrary to what is established, let him be excommunicated for one week, that he may thereby be taught not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think (Rom. 12:3).

It is known that in the early times of the Church the faithful carried holy Communion to their own homes and communed themselves with their own hand; and this was done especially by monks who lived in solitude in the deserts.[39] But this was also the cause of many abuses, and it finally came to this, that laymen, on the basis of the old custom by which they could commune themselves at home with the Gifts consecrated in church, wished likewise to commune themselves in the church itself, where the sacred ministers were present and performed the holy mystery, to whom alone the right is recognized to give the faithful holy Communion, as Tertullian expressly testifies to us on this matter.[40] This Trullan canon has regard to this abuse, and inasmuch as it condemns laymen who wish, with their own hands, contrary to the church’s ordinances, to touch the holy mystery and commune themselves, so much the more does it condemn the presumption of laymen who wish to arrogate to themselves a right that in this respect belongs only to sacred persons; and for this it subjects them to the corresponding penance, that they may learn not to think of themselves more highly than Holy Scripture allows them to think with regard to the sanctity of the Church.

Canon 59

Baptism must in no way be performed in a house of prayer that is located within some private house; but those who wish to be made worthy of the most pure illumination must approach the catholic churches, and there receive that gift. And whoever is found not to observe what we ordain here, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

(Ap. 31; IV Ecum. 18; Trullo 31, 34; VII Ecum. 10; Gangra 6; Antioch 5; Laodicea 58; Carthage 10; Protodeutera 12)

Already in the 31st canon of this council we have seen that it is forbidden to baptize in houses of prayer located in various private houses, and that this could be done only with the express consent of the competent bishop to that effect. This canon repeats that prohibition and ordains that as a rule baptism may be performed publicly only in churches; and this so that it might be carried out in strict Orthodox fashion, and so that no one might, under some pretext, in any way violate the church’s prescriptions in the performance of so great and salvific a mystery. Whoever transgresses this canon is subjected to deposition, if he is a cleric, and to excommunication, if he is a layman. This penalty, moreover, must be understood conditionally, and in connection with the 31st canon of this council—applying if someone does this on his own authority, and without the permission of the competent bishop, for with the bishop’s permission both baptism may be performed and the holy Liturgy celebrated even in the domestic houses of prayer of which this canon speaks.

Canon 60

Since the apostle plainly declares that he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17), it is clear that whoever accustoms himself to the adversary becomes, by that communion, one with him. Accordingly, for those who feign that they are possessed by a demon, and, out of the malice of their habits, pretend to such behavior, we establish that they are to be punished in every way, and subjected to those same torments and labors to which those who are truly possessed by demons are rightly subjected, when they are to be freed from demonic influence.

(Ap. 19; Ancyra 24; Basil the Great 83)

This canon is directed against those deceivers who feigned to be demoniacs and, as such, wandered about the cities, and caused disorders; and, what is worst, according to Balsamon’s words in his interpretation of this canon, many guileless citizens were led astray, receiving them with open arms and regarding them as holy men.[41]

Canon 61

Those who resort to fortune-tellers, or to so-called soothsayers, or to other similar persons, in order to learn from them what they wish to have revealed, must, in accordance with what our fathers have already ordained regarding them, be subjected to the canon of six years’ penance. To the same penalty must be subjected also those who lead about she-bears or similar animals for entertainment, to the detriment of simple folk, and who, deceiving them, tell foolish tales about fortune, about fate, about genealogy, and a multitude of other such things; and likewise the so-called cloud-chasers, and those who occupy themselves with sorcery, who make amulets against enchantments, and fortune-tellers. And whoever persists obstinately in this, and will not turn away and desist from such harmful and pagan inventions, we ordain that they be altogether driven out of the Church, as the holy canons also require; for what fellowship has light with darkness, as the apostle says, or how is the church of God matched with idols, or what portion has the believer with the unbeliever, or how does Christ agree with Belial? (2 Cor. 6:14-16).

(Trullo 65; Ancyra 24; Laodicea 36; Basil the Great 7, 65, 42, 81, 83; Gregory of Nyssa 3)

Sorcery, fortune-telling, and all other similar deeds this canon condemns as a work of the devil, and condemns to six years’ penance every one who is found in this; and if the person concerned does not repent and remains obstinate in it, let him be altogether cut off from the Church. This the canon determines with regard to laymen. But if a priest is found in this—if he believes in sorcery, or himself practices sorcery and fortune-telling—of this the 36th canon of the Council of Laodicea speaks; and Balsamon, in his interpretation of this (61st) Trullan canon, says that such a priest must at once be deposed from the priestly order.[42] And since this is a betrayal of the faith, that priest must also be excluded from the Church, for by occupying himself with such affairs he has become, from a minister of the eternal God, a minister of the devil.

Canon 62

The so-called Kalends, Bota, Brumalia, and gatherings that take place on the first day of the month of March, we ordain that all this altogether cease among the faithful. Likewise we also condemn the public dances of women, as unseemly and capable of bringing much harm and ruin, and equally also the dances and rites which either men or women perform according to some ancient custom foreign to Christian life, in honor of the falsely-named gods of the pagans—ordaining that no man may put on women’s clothing, nor a woman such clothing as is proper to men; likewise they may not put on masks, whether comic, or satyric, or tragic, nor may the name of the hateful Dionysus (Bacchus) be invoked when the grapes are trodden in the vats, nor may laughter be stirred up when the wine is poured into the casks, nor may that be practiced, out of ignorance or vanity, which proceeds from demonic delusion. Accordingly, whoever henceforth dares, knowing this, to do any of the things mentioned above, we command that such persons be deposed, if they are clerics; and if they are laymen, that they be excommunicated.

This canon supplements the 24th canon of this council, which condemns as unbecoming for Christians the various pagan festivities, games, and buffooneries that were still being kept over from pagan times. What was the character of these and similar games, we have already said in the interpretation of the 24th Trullan canon. This (62nd) canon ordains that a sacred person who transgresses the ordinance of the canon be deposed, and a layman be excommunicated. And this was all the more deserving of condemnation, because, according to Balsamon’s words, Christians themselves had appropriated many of the pagan customs, especially at the gathering of the fruit of the vineyard, and on that occasion they even sang certain church hymns, thereby of course exposing that sanctity to profanation.[43]

Canon 63

Accounts of martyrs, which have been falsely composed by enemies of the truth, in order to diminish the honor of the martyrs of Christ and to lead into unbelief those who hear them, we command that such accounts must not be publicized in the churches, but must be burned; and those who receive them, or regard them as true, we deliver to anathema.

(Ap. 60; VII Ecum. 9; Laodicea 59)

False books, in which Christian truth was distorted, we find already from the early period of the Christian Church, as we have spoken of this in the interpretation of the 60th apostolic canon. In the 7th century the fathers of the Trullan Council observed that unbelievers, with the intention of exposing the deeds of Christians to ridicule, as Zonaras says in his interpretation of this canon, had written certain works full of absurdity and foolishness (ἄτοπα ἢ καὶ γελοῖα, plena absurditatis et ineptiarum), in which it was represented as though the holy martyrs had said and done such things, so as thereby to expose our faith to derision, and the holy martyrs to shame. Such writings the canon not only forbids to be read, but commands that they be burned, delivering to anathema, without exception, every one who keeps such writings and regards them as true. To prevent in general the publication and circulation of anti-religious and harmful books, similar to those of which this Trullan canon speaks, it was established already at the beginning of the 4th century that only those books might be read in church and used among the faithful which the competent church authority had examined and approved (compare Carthage canon 103, and the 39th festal epistle of Athanasius the Great). As an expression of this, there arose in the course of time a spiritual censorship, which existed at every major church, and the work of censorship was usually entrusted to a committee of expert and pious men, who reported on the books in question to the episcopal council, on which the chief judgment in this matter depended.[44][45] If some anti-religious book, harmful to Christian morals, saw the light of day surreptitiously, without the knowledge of the church authority, then the Church subjected that book to public condemnation and forbade, under threat of anathema, that such a book be read. The first example of this is given us by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which condemned and forbade the reading of one principal work of Arius, in which he attempted to justify his false teaching. [46][47] The Emperor Constantine, in accordance with the council’s decision, issued a special edict, by which all the books written by Arius and his followers were to be not only forbidden to be read, but also burned. The Emperor Arcadius did the same with the books of the Eunomians and the Montanists. [48] The same was done also with all the heretical books of the 5th century. [49] The burning of evil books was made law in the Church by this (63rd) Trullan canon. As for the surreptitious keeping of such books, after their public condemnation by the church authority, the VII Ecumenical Council, by its 9th canon, ordains excommunication from the Church, if this is done by a layman, and deposition, if this is done by a sacred person. [50]

Canon 64

A layman may not deliver discourses before the people, or teach, and thereby take upon himself the dignity of a teacher, but must submit to the ordinance which the Lord has handed down, and listen to those who have received the grace of the teaching word, and be instructed by them in divine things. For in one Church God has made the members various, according to the word of the apostle (1 Cor. 12:27), which word Gregory the Theologian, in interpreting it, shows how it must be understood: ‘Let us honor, brothers, this order, let us keep this order: let this one be the ear, and that one the tongue; this one the hand, and that one something else; let this one teach, and let this one be taught.’ And a little further on: ‘And let him who is taught, be taught in obedience; let him who distributes, distribute cheerfully; let him who serves, serve zealously; let us not all be tongue, which is the readiest member; nor all apostles; nor all prophets; nor let all of us interpret.’ And again afterward: ‘Why do you make yourself a shepherd, when you are a sheep? Why do you present yourself as the head, when you are a foot? Why do you strive to be a commander, when you are enrolled in the ranks of the soldiers?’ And in another place: ‘Wisdom commands: be not hasty with your words (Eccl. 5:2); do not vie with the rich, when you are poor; do not seek to be wiser than the wise (Prov. 23:4).’ And whoever is found to transgress this canon, let him be excommunicated for forty days.

(Trullo 33; VII Ecum. 14; Laodicea 15)

The dignity of teacher (ἀξίωμα διδασκαλικόν, docendi auctoritas), of which this canon speaks, is that authority to teach the people of the Lord and to interpret the divine dogmas, which by the grace of the all-holy Spirit has been given only (μόνοις) to the bishops and to those whom the bishops have empowered for this. [51] It concerns, then, here, in the strict sense, public preaching of dogmatic content. The right to deliver such sermons and to teach the people the truths of faith and morals, the Founder of the Church handed down to the apostles (Matt. 28:19), and these in turn handed down that right to their successors (Rom. 10:15; 1 Tim. 3:2). To no one else, therefore, by divine right, except bishops and priests empowered by them, is it permitted to deliver public sermons of dogmatic content. It must be supposed that at the time of this council some laymen were appropriating to themselves this ‘dignity of teacher’ and were delivering sermons of dogmatic content publicly in popular assemblies. The fathers of the Trullan Council turn their attention to this, and, appealing to the relevant passages of Holy Scripture, and especially to Gregory the Theologian’s interpretation of the relevant words of the apostle Paul from his epistle to the Corinthians, forbid laymen to preach publicly on dogmatic truths, since thereby the ‘ordinance which the Lord has handed down’ is overthrown—and whoever transgresses this canon is subjected to excommunication from holy Communion for forty days. [52] The words in this canon ‘before the people’ (δημοσίᾳ, publice) plainly show that the prohibition of which this canon speaks concerns public sermons, and specifically church sermons on matters of faith. Beyond this, then, laymen are not forbidden—‘nor can it be forbidden,’ as Zonaras says in his interpretation of this canon—to teach on matters of faith and to answer questions put to them on these matters. And that the Church has not only not forbidden this, but even in a certain sense has commanded it, can be seen from the instructions we find in the Trebnik for the newly married, or for godparents at baptism, that they should be teachers of faith and morals within their appointed limits. The Church has always received with gratitude, and the church hierarchy has never regarded as a violation of its rights, when individual learned and pious laymen devoted themselves to the elaboration of church learning in its various branches, when they, as teachers in schools, as heads of families, as administrators of various communal associations, endeavored that those in their charge should acquire Christian teaching and conduct themselves according to that teaching. Nor is this Trullan canon contradicted by that ancient custom, which exists even today, by which pious laymen devoted to the Church are permitted to deliver addresses at funeral services in church, or at the burial of the departed in cemeteries; for this same canon is directed against the arbitrary appropriation, on the part of laymen, of the ‘dignity of teacher’ and of church teaching in general—that is, of the right for laymen to preach publicly in church on an equal footing with sacred persons. In this matter, the only fully authorized teacher in the Church is the bishop, who by his episcopal authority empowers the persons concerned to be able to preach in church, and in general to deliver discourses. It lies within his unconditional authority to permit, or indeed to forbid, anyone whatsoever, without distinction, to deliver discourses in the performance of sacred rites, whether within the church or outside it, and to subject to his own prior censorship every discourse that is to be delivered publicly before the people. By virtue of this authority of his, the bishop is entitled—when it does not concern a violation of the ‘dignity of teacher,’ which is the exclusive property of the hierarchy—to permit even a pious layman to deliver an address at a funeral service or at the burial of the departed, if he finds that in the address in question, which must first be submitted to his censorship, there is nothing that would offend the sanctity of the Church and of the church rite concerned. Without such permission of the bishop, which must be granted separately each time, no layman has the right, nor may he, deliver any address either in church, or in general in a consecrated place (for example, a cemetery).[53]

Canon 65

We command that henceforth there shall cease the lighting of fires, which some do when there is a new moon before their workshops or houses, and then, according to some old custom, leap over them foolishly. And whoever does such a thing, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated; for it is written in the Fourth Book of Kingdoms: And Manasseh made his altar to the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord, and made his son to pass through the fire, and used enchantments, and dealt with sorcerers, and multiplied those who divine by the belly, and increased the diviners, and wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger (IV Kingdoms 21:5-6).

This canon too mentions one of those pagan customs of which several Trullan canons have already spoken. It was a custom among the pagans, and likewise among the Jews, to celebrate the day of the new moon, so as to spend the whole month happily, in their opinion. Concerning this custom among the Jews, this canon speaks in the words of Holy Scripture; and specifically concerning the Jewish new moons and their festivals, the Lord speaks through the mouth of Isaiah, that his soul hates them (Isa. 1:14). This custom consisted in this, that they lit fires before their workshops and houses, and leapt over them, thinking that they thereby, as it were, burned up all the misfortunes that might befall them, and that they would obtain good in place of that. This custom was also kept by some Christians in the time of the Trullan Council, and against this this canon was issued, which threatens deposition to the cleric, and excommunication to the layman, who should do such a thing.

Canon 66

From the holy day of the resurrection of Christ our God until the New Sunday, through the whole week, the faithful must spend their time continually in the holy churches in psalms and singing and spiritual songs, rejoicing in Christ and keeping festival, and must listen to readings from the divine Scripture and partake of the holy mysteries; for in this manner we too shall rise with Christ and be exalted together with Him. Let there therefore be on no account, in the days mentioned, either horse races, or any other popular games.

(Ap. 9; Trullo 24; Antioch 2; Carthage 61)

This canon takes into account the significance that the feast of Christ’s resurrection has always had in the Church, and the loftiness of the remembrance bound up with that feast, and likewise takes into account Bright Week, which the Church has regarded as a single Lord’s day and has kept festival equally with the first day of the feast of the resurrection. Thus it is, according to the church ordinance, even today in the Orthodox Church. The feast of the resurrection is the feast of our spiritual regeneration, and this feast must also be kept spiritually—namely, in that the faithful must come to church every day through Bright Week and take part in the church services, so as thereby to be united still more closely with Christ. This canon makes this into law—and since no earthly joys and amusements may be allowed to disturb the pure spiritual festivity of Christians, this canon also forbids that there be any public amusements and irregular merrymaking during Bright Week.[54]

Canon 67

The divine Scripture has commanded us that we must keep ourselves from blood, from what is strangled, and from fornication. Therefore, as is fitting, we subject to punishment those who, for the sake of their greedy belly, prepare by some artificial method for eating the blood of any animal whatsoever, and then eat it. Whoever, then, henceforth dares in any way whatsoever to eat the blood of an animal, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

(Ap. 63; Gangra 2)

Of what this canon speaks, the substance has already been stated in the 63rd apostolic canon. In the interpretation of that apostolic canon we mentioned the main basis for the prohibition to Christians of using the blood of an animal for food; and we also saw to what penalty those are subjected who transgress the ordinance of that canon, namely, deposition for sacred persons, and excommunication for laymen. This Trullan canon appoints the same penalty. According to Balsamon’s words in his interpretation of this canon, there were some who did not eat blood as such, but prepared soft foods out of other things mixed with blood, and said that they were thereby keeping the ordinance of Holy Scripture, since they did not eat plain blood by itself.[55][56] This canon removes such a mistaken interpretation of Holy Scripture, and condemns the use of animal blood for food, however it may have been prepared.

Canon 68

No one may corrupt or cut up the books of the Old and New Testament, and likewise those of our holy and recognized preachers and teachers, or hand them over to booksellers, or to those who are called sellers of ointments, or to anyone else, so that they be thereby lost; except in the case when, either from moths, or from water, or from something else, they can no longer be used. Whoever is found to do such a thing, let him be excommunicated for a year. In the same way, whoever buys such books, if he is unwilling either to keep them for his own benefit, or to give them to another as an act of charity and have them preserved, but instead dares to corrupt them, let him be excommunicated.

(Ap. 85; Trullo 2; Laodicea 60; Carthage 24; Athanasius the Great, on the feasts; Gregory the Theologian, on the books of Holy Scripture; Amphilochius, on the books of Holy Scripture)

The books of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament, and likewise the books of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church who are recognized by the Church, this canon commands to be kept as something sacred, and forbids, under threat of penalty, that they be corrupted or sold to merchants, so as to be used for purposes that are not holy.

Canon 69

Let it be forbidden to everyone belonging to the order of laymen to pass beyond the enclosure of the holy altar; and only to the authority and lordship of the emperor, when he wishes to offer gifts to the Creator, is this permitted, by a certain very ancient tradition. (Laodicea 19, 44) [57]

On account of the mystical character of the bloodless sacrifice, which is offered in the holy altar, it has been forbidden from the most ancient times of the Church for anyone who does not belong to the sacred order to enter the altar (θυσιαστήριον, βῆμα). ‘The altar is set apart for sacred persons alone’ (τὸ θυσιαστήριον μόνοις τοῖς ἱερωμένοις ἀφώρισται, altare solis sacratis hominibus destinatur)—this was the general canon of the whole Church, both Eastern and Western. The Trullan fathers now merely make this into law. In the 12th century the question was raised whether even a monk (of course, one who did not otherwise belong to the clergy) might enter the altar—and Patriarch Nicholas of Constantinople, in his 1st canonical response, expresses the opinion that a monk should not be forbidden to enter the altar, out of honor for the monastic habit (διὰ τὴν τοῦ μοναχικοῦ σχήματος σεμνότητα), but only then, when it is necessary to light candles or lamps.[58][59] From this it can already be seen how strictly the ordinance of this canon was observed; and this is instructive as to how strictly it must be observed today and always. The canon allows an exception to this only for the person of the emperor, and this by virtue of a certain very ancient tradition (κατά τινα ἀρχαιοτάτην παράδοσιν), when the emperor wishes to offer a gift to God. That this custom existed long before this council, and was thus ancient, is attested by the following words of the Emperor Theodosius the Younger, which are read in the acts of the III Ecumenical Council: ‘We, who are always surrounded by the lawful arms of the state, and to whom it is not fitting to be without armed men, when we must enter the church of God, leave our arms outside the church, and even remove the diadem of imperial majesty, and when we are to offer gifts, we enter the holy altar, and after the offering we go out again to resume what befits us.’ [60] Theodoret says the same of Theodosius the Great, that after he had undergone the public penance imposed on him by St. Ambrose, he entered the church, and afterward, when the time of the offering came, he too, according to custom, entered the holy altar to offer his gifts to God. [61] A similar testimony is given us also by Sozomen. This was preserved in the Orthodox Church through all subsequent ages, and emperors were always permitted to enter the holy altar, and to commune in the holy altar, as the anointed of God, on an equal footing with sacred persons.

Canon 70

Let it be forbidden to women, at the time of the divine Liturgy, to speak; but, according to the word of the apostle Paul: let them keep silence, for they are not permitted to speak, but to be in submission, as the law also says; and if they wish to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home (1 Cor. 14:34-35).

(Trullo 64; Laodicea 44)

This canon bases its own ordinance, that women must keep silence in church, upon the words of the apostle Paul. It happened, even in the more ancient period of the Church, that some women, dissatisfied with their subordinate position, made themselves conspicuous in public, appropriated to themselves certain offices that were proper only to men, and even wished to be teachers in the churches. This, as Tertullian testifies, was always sharply condemned. [62] According to Balsamon, in his interpretation of this canon, it seems that at the time of this council some women were doing the same thing as those against whom Tertullian rises up—they wished to interpret the daily readings from Holy Scripture in church and to give public answers on dogmatic questions. [63] This canon is directed against such an abuse, and absolutely forbids women to speak at the time of the holy Liturgy, that is, to preach and to perform in church the work of a teacher, which is proper only to men.[64] And this canon had all the more reason to forbid this to women, since this same council had already, by its 64th canon, forbidden the same thing to men, to laymen. But just as it was not forbidden to laymen to perform, outside the church, the work of teaching concerning the faith and Christian morals, so too this cannot be forbidden to pious women either. This conclusion is led to by the text of this very canon itself, where mention is made only of the prohibition to women to speak ‘at the time of the holy Liturgy,’ and nothing is said of any other prohibition. And that among women it was not only not condemned, but was even praised, when some of them instructed in the faith and Christian morals their family and neglected children in their own houses or in public charitable institutions, we have testimonies even from the time of John Chrysostom. And what once was, and what this canon does not forbid, can also be today, and the Church will receive with gratitude when pious women, in their families, in schools, and in various communal centers, perform, in the spirit of the Church, the work of a teacher.

Canon 71

Those who study the civil laws must not follow pagan customs, nor go to the theater, nor perform the so-called kylistra, nor dress in garments that are not in common use, and this neither at the time when they begin their studies, nor when they approach the end of the same, nor in general for as long as that study lasts. And whoever dares to do this, let him be excommunicated.

This canon, like several others of this council, is directed against pagan customs that were still being kept among Christians even in the time of this council, and specifically against those pagan customs that were followed by students of the legal sciences in the secular schools, and it forbids these customs under threat of excommunication. The substance and significance of this canon pertain to the time when the Trullan Council was held, that is, the 7th century, but, according to the well-founded observation of Archimandrite Ioann in his interpretation of this canon, this can also apply to every other age, for this canon demands a general strictness of morals, which befits Christian upbringing in all schools without distinction, whatever sciences may be taught in them.

Canon 72

Let it be forbidden for an Orthodox man to be joined with a heretical woman, and likewise for an Orthodox woman to be wed to a heretical man. If it be discovered that anyone has done such a thing, let the marriage be considered void, and the unlawful union dissolved; for that which cannot be mingled ought not to be mingled, nor the wolf be joined with the sheep, nor the portion of Christ with the lot of sinners. Whoever transgresses what we have established, let him be excommunicated. But if some, while still in unbelief and not yet numbered among the flock of the Orthodox, were joined in lawful marriage, and afterward one spouse, choosing the good part, turned to the light of truth, while the other remained fixed in error, unwilling to direct his eyes to the divine rays—if in such a case it be pleasing to the wife who does not confess the true faith to live with the husband who confesses the true faith, or conversely to the husband who does not confess the true faith to live with the wife who confesses the true faith, let them not be separated from one another, according to the divine Apostle: for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife who confesses the true faith, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband who confesses the true faith (1 Cor. 7:14).

IV Ecum. 14; Laodicea 10, 31; Carthage 21.

— This rule forbids Orthodox believers marriage with heretics. If such a marriage has been contracted—that is, if an Orthodox man has entered into marriage with a heretical woman, or conversely—then that marriage is to be considered unlawful, and is to be dissolved; for that would mean joining the wolf with the sheep, and the portion of Christ with the lot of sinners (τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μερίδι τὸν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν κλῆρον,). This is stated clearly and plainly.[65] And whoever transgresses the ordinance of this rule is excommunicated from the communion of the Church.[66] But, the rule adds, if two persons who did not yet belong to the Orthodox Church contracted a lawful marriage under the civil laws, and one of them thereafter turns to the Orthodox faith while the other remains in their former, non-Orthodox belief, and it is pleasing to them to continue living together in marriage, in such a case the rule permits that they not be separated (μὴ χωριζέσθωσαν)—that is, let the marriage remain in force; in this the rule appeals to the first epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. In granting this, the rule thereby permits, under defined circumstances, the possibility of so-called mixed marriages (μικτοὶ γάμοι, matrimonia mixta).

This possibility of mixed marriage in the Orthodox Church—in other words, the fact that the Orthodox Church tolerates mixed marriage in certain circumstances—rests upon the corresponding teaching of the Apostle Paul. At the beginning of the Christian Church, when pagans and Jews were accepting the Christian faith, it happened that one spouse would accept this faith while the other did not wish to do so, but remained in the former belief; and on the question whether in such a case the marriage should be dissolved or remain in force, the Apostle Paul, answering the Corinthians, writes: “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” (1 Cor. 7:12–16). As can be seen, the Apostle permits that in the Orthodox Church a mixed marriage may continue. But in order rightly to understand this, one must take into account that the Apostle leaves spouses of different faith in marriage, and thus recognizes the lawful existence of their marriage, only in such a case where this is desired by, and the non-believing spouse consents to it. The lawful existence of such a marriage is recognized, first, because the marriage was contracted before the spouse in question accepted the true faith, and the Orthodox Church, by its very spirit, cannot sunder family bonds or do violence to human feelings and free will within the bounds of morality, as the Apostle himself expresses in the words: “for God hath called us to peace”; it is recognized, further, because in the voluntary consent of the unbelieving spouse to continue living in marriage with the spouse who has accepted the true faith there lies sufficient assurance that the conversion of the spouse in question to the true faith was an act of free will and sincere intent, and at the same time that this may serve as a fit means and inducement for the other spouse also to accept the true faith, as the Apostle likewise says: “what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” At the same time, in this same answer the Apostle requires that in the married life of spouses of different faith the Orthodox faith must prevail—that is, that the Orthodox spouse must have not only full freedom in confessing his faith and in performing good works according to Christ’s teaching, but must also exercise a moral influence over the whole family life; for thereby, in the Apostle’s words, the mixed marriage itself will be “sanctified,” and the husband who does not have the true faith will be sanctified by the wife who confesses the true faith, and the wife who does not have the true faith will be sanctified by the husband who confesses the true faith; for otherwise, the Apostle adds, “your children would be unclean,” being the fruit only of a fleshly and unpurified union, whereas now, under the influence of the faith of Christ, which sanctifies all things, such children, even of a mixed marriage, are “holy.” And from this follows also that necessary condition attending the permission of mixed marriage: that children born of such a marriage must without fail be raised in the Orthodox faith. Finally, the Apostle concludes that the spouse who does not confess the true faith may freely “depart,” if he does not wish to live with the spouse who has accepted the Orthodox faith, and the latter then obtains full freedom to enter into a new marriage with an Orthodox person.

From what has now been said it is evident that the Apostle Paul, even though he permits mixed marriage, speaks only of such marriages as were contracted outside the Church of Christ, among persons who did not confess the teaching of Christ, and which become mixed as a consequence of one of the spouses accepting the faith of Christ. Of other mixed marriages—namely, of the possibility that an Orthodox person might enter into marriage with a person who does not confess the belief of the Orthodox Church—the Apostle Paul does not speak. And that Paul regarded such marriages as in themselves already forbidden is testified to us by the Church itself, which from the earliest times has condemned such marriages and considered them unlawful, wherever they happened to be contracted. Church legislation, moreover, beginning from the fourth century, strictly forbade the Orthodox to enter into marriage not only with pagans and Jews, but also with heretics. [67] The first canonical ordinance forbidding marriage with heretics was given to us in the year 343 by the Council of Laodicea (canon 31; compare also canon 10 of Laodicea and canon 21 of Carthage). [68] This present Trullan canon (72) confirms in this regard the church practice then prevailing and the relevant canonical ordinances forbidding the Orthodox to enter into marriage with heretics under threat of penalty, and permits an exception only under the circumstances of which the Apostle Paul speaks in the passage cited above.

On the basis of this Trullan canon (72) and other parallel canons, the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church on mixed marriages consists in the following: 1) mixed marriages of Orthodox Christians with persons of another faith—in particular with pagans, Jews, and heretics—are strictly forbidden by the Church; 2) mixed marriage is permitted only in such form as when, out of a marriage contracted outside the Orthodox Church—that is, in a non-Christian or heretical religious community—one spouse accepts the Orthodox faith while the other remains in the former belief, and when the spouse of the other faith in question wishes to remain in marriage with the spouse who has been converted to the Orthodox faith; 3) children born of such a mixed marriage must without fail be baptized and raised in the Christian, Orthodox faith; 4) if the spouse of the other faith does not wish to remain in marriage with the converted spouse, then the marriage is dissolved, and the Orthodox spouse is free to enter into a new marriage with an Orthodox person; 5) it is permitted for an Orthodox person to enter into marriage with a non-Orthodox person, if this non-Orthodox person promises to accept the Orthodox faith and immediately fulfills that promise. This is the strict canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church on this subject, and just as this teaching has held good throughout all the ages of the Orthodox Church, so it must hold good today and always.

Canon 73

Since salvation has been revealed to us by the life-giving Cross, we must devote all our care that fitting honor be paid to that by means of which we have been saved from the ancient fall. Accordingly, rendering to the venerable Cross veneration both in mind, and in word, and in feeling, we command that everywhere the images of the cross that some draw on the ground must be effaced, lest, when those who walk set their feet down, an insult be done to the sign of our victory. For this reason we ordain that all who henceforth draw on floors

— The Cross is the sign of our salvation, and this rule commands that fitting honor must be paid to that sign. The holy Cross would be deprived of that honor on our part, were we to draw and place it in such locations as are unbecoming to its divine significance, thereby exposing it to the risk of some accidental insult. It happened, at the time of this council, that some—wishing, apparently, to render the Cross ever greater honor, according to Zonaras’ commentary on this canon—drew the sign of the cross everywhere, even on the floors of houses. As a natural consequence of this latter practice, it happened that the cross would be walked upon and trodden underfoot. Against this indiscretion this Trullan canon was issued, which ordains that the images of the cross found on the floors of certain houses must at once be effaced, so that no insult be done, by the treading of feet, to the sign of our victory—and it forbids, under threat of excommunication, that images of the cross be drawn on floors in the future.

Canon 74

It is not permitted to hold, in places consecrated to the Lord, or in churches, the so-called agapes, nor to eat within the precincts of the temple, nor to spread out beds there. And whoever presumes to do this, let him either cease, or be excommunicated.

Gangra 11; Laodicea 27, 28; Carthage 42.

— On the agapes (love-feasts, tables of brotherly love) we have spoken in the commentary on canon 28 of the Council of Laodicea, which canon the fathers of the Trullan council merely repeat in this canon of theirs. The holding of agapes in churches had already been forbidden in the first half of the fourth century. But, as can be seen, they were still being held even in the seventh century, when the Trullan council was held, so that the same council found it necessary to repeat the old prohibition regarding agapes, threatening excommunication to anyone who should presume to act contrary to it.