Canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (In Trullo, 691-2), 75–102
Canon 75
Those who come to churches for the purpose of singing, we desire that they not use unrestrained shouting, nor force nature into shrieking, nor bring forth anything that is not consonant with and befitting the church, but that they offer with the utmost attention and contrition songs to God, who sees what is hidden; for the sacred word also taught the sons of Israel to be reverent (III …
Laodicea 15.
— On church singing this canon prescribes three things. In the first place, that unrestrained shouting must not be used in singing, nor must nature be forced into shrieking in church. This was always recommended to Christians from the earliest centuries of the Church. Cyprian, in one of his sermons, notes that Christians, when they gather in assembly for prayer to God, must always observe the utmost reverence and maintain proper order, and must not offer their prayers to God with unrestrained shouting and artificial vocal effects, nor by much speaking and crying out ask of God what they desire; for God does not hear the voice of our mouths, but of our heart, nor does He attend to our shouting, but to what is in our thoughts. In support of this Cyprian adduces a multitude of passages of Holy Scripture. Unrestrained shouting and artificial production of the voice are neither consonant with the spirit of the Church, nor becoming to the Church—and this is what is mentioned in the second place in this canon. The fathers and teachers of the Church have always opposed this. Chrysostom, in one of his sermons, reminding his hearers how the things heard and seen in the theatres darken a man’s mind, laments how that which is heard in the theatres has begun to be introduced into the church, and how, by the unnatural exclamations observed in church during singing, only the spirit of man can be dissipated—and he asks: to what end is such forced shouting, and to what end that violent straining of the ear which produces sounds expressing nothing faithful? Is this not, indeed, the work of actresses and singers on the stage? How can amusements be mingled with singing, by which God and the angels are to be glorified? Jerome, in commenting on the words of the Apostle Paul that one ought to sing to the Lord with the heart (Eph. 5:19), addresses the youth who sing in church, and instructs them that one ought to sing to God not so much with the throat as with the heart; the throat and mouth in church ought not to be as in a tragedy, nor ought theatrical melodies and songs to be heard in church, but Holy Scripture ought to be expressed and made known with reverence.[1] Even though the singing in church may not be the most melodious, yet, joined with good deeds, it is pleasing to God. The servant of Christ must sing so that the words he utters may be pleasing, not his voice—so that thereby he may drive out the evil spirit of the former Saul from those in whom, as once in Saul, an evil spirit dwells, and so that this evil spirit may not take up residence in those who turn the house of God into a public theatre. Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, laments that in his time whatever is most bizarre and unnatural on the theatrical stage and in the most immoral songs, all of this was being sought to be introduced into the churches and into church singing.[2] And, alas, is not the same thing observed today in many churches, and is not much of the so-called church note-singing today more befitting the theatre than the church? The third thing this canon prescribes is that songs must be offered to God with the utmost attention and a contrite heart, for God sees what is hidden, and because Holy Scripture also recommends reverence (III 15, 31 [illegible]), and the Apostle Paul commands that one ought to sing to the Lord with the heart rather than merely with the mouth (Eph. 5:19).[3][4][5]
Canon 76
Preserving due reverence toward the church, it is not permitted to set up within the sacred precincts a tavern or any place for eating, nor to undertake any other kind of trade; for our Savior and God, instructing us by His own manner of life in the flesh, commanded that we not make His Father’s house a house of merchandise; He scattered the coins of the money-changers and drove out those who made the holy place a place of public commerce. And whoever is caught in this transgression, let him be excommunicated.
Ap. 73; Trullo 74, 91.
— The purpose of this canon is that the holy temple and everything around the temple be kept free of profanation, and in particular of anything pertaining to tavern-keeping or trading, in accordance with the Savior’s teaching that His Father’s house ought not to be turned into a house of merchandise (John 2:16), for it is a house of prayer (Matt. 21:13). This canon does not speak of the temple itself and of those who might presume to carry on such business within the temple, for that is already forbidden in itself, but speaks of the sacred precincts (ἔνδον τῶν ἱερῶν περιβόλων, intra sanctos ambitus), within which this is forbidden, since, in Balsamon’s words in his commentary on this canon, it would never occur to anyone to set up a tavern or any trade in the holy temple itself.[6] And the sacred precincts comprise, in Zonaras’ words in his commentary on this canon, everything that surrounds the holy temples (αἱ τῶν θείων ναῶν ἅπασαι περιοχαί, omnia sanctorum templorum saepta), and in the first place that space before the church on the western side, which was called the propylaeum or proaulion (paperti, atrium), and where these tavern-keeping and trading businesses were chiefly carried on. To this belong also the churchyards around churches, which are likewise called sacred precincts, and in which the aforesaid businesses must be strictly forbidden.
Canon 77
Sacred ministers, or clerics, or monks, are not permitted to bathe together with women in the bath-house; nor, likewise, any other Christian layman; for this is the first reproach on the part of the pagans. And whoever is caught in this, let him, if he is a cleric, be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.
Laodicea 30.
— The Trullan council repeats in this canon the ordinance of canon 30 of the Council of Laodicea. In our commentary on that Laodicean canon we spoke of this indecency, which was still observed even in the seventh century. Here a corresponding penalty is added for those who transgress this ordinance: deposition is prescribed for a cleric (εἰ κληρικὸς ᾖ) and excommunication for a layman (εἰ δὲ λαϊκός), and likewise for a monk (ἀσκηταῖς), according to Zonaras’ commentary on this canon.
It is important in this Trullan canon how the persons of the church body, or members of the Church, are distinguished, namely: sacred ministers (ἱερατικοί), clerics (κληρικοί), monks (ἀσκηταί), and laymen (λαϊκοί).[7] The first—that is, the sacred ministers and clerics—together compose the clergy (κλῆρος); the second, the monks, are distinguished in the canons (IV Ecum. 2; Trullo 81; VII Ecum. 5, 9, 13, etc.) from the members of the clergy; the third, laymen, are distinguished again both from the members of the clergy and from the monks. This is the basic canonical division among the members of the Church of Christ.
The first compose a distinct order (τάξις) and are called by the common name clerics (Ap. 18, 51; I Ecum. 17; Trullo 5, etc.), and are enrolled in the κατάλογος τῶν κληρικῶν (Ap. 15), thus composing the κατάλογος ἱερατικός (Ap. 51). They are divided among themselves into those who have received consecration within the altar (ἐντὸς τοῦ βήματος) by cheirotonia, and those who have received consecration to church service outside the altar (ἐκτὸς τοῦ βήματος) by cheirothesia. To the first—that is, to those consecrated by cheirotonia—belong: bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and they are called by the common name sacred ministers (ἱερατικοί); to the second belong: subdeacons, readers, and cantors (Ap. 69), and also the former door-keepers (πυλωροί, θυρωροί, Trullo 4) and exorcists (ἐξορκισταί, ἐφορκισταί, Antioch 10, Laodicea 26), and they are called either simply clerics, as in this Trullan canon (77), or church servants (ὑπηρέται).
Monks (ἀσκηταί, μοναχοί) compose again a distinct order in the Church, and are distinguished from laymen by their vows, while from the clergy they are distinguished insofar as they are not consecrated to any of the hierarchical degrees. If, however, they have received consecration to some hierarchical degree (IV Ecum. 6), then they are already reckoned into the κατάλογος τῶν κληρικῶν, and belong to the clergy.
Laymen (λαϊκοί) are divided into full members of the Church, who are then called πιστοί (the faithful), and catechumens (κατηχούμενοι), who are being prepared to become members of the Church (I Ecum. 14).
Canon 78
Those who are being enlightened must be instructed in the faith, and on the fifth day of every week must give account of it to the bishop, or to the presbyters.
I Ecum. 2, 14; Trullo 96; Laodicea 19, 46.
— On catechumens we have spoken in general in the commentary on canon 14 of the I Ecumenical Council. This Trullan canon repeats canon 46 of the Council of Laodicea, and in the commentary on that Laodicean canon we say as much as is needed for grasping the sense of this Trullan canon.[8]
Canon 79
Confessing the divine birth-giving of the Virgin, which was without birth-pangs, in that it came about without seed, and teaching this to the whole flock, we consider deserving of correction those who out of ignorance do something that ought not to be done. Since, then, some are found who, after the day of the holy Nativity of Christ our God, prepare special loaves of wheaten flour and distribute them among themselves, as if in honor of the birth-pangs of the immaculate Virgin Mother, we ordain that the faithful must henceforth do nothing of the kind. For this is no honor to the Virgin, who in a manner that cannot be grasped by mind or word gave birth in the flesh to the Word, when her giving-birth, which cannot be described, is defined and imagined as with ordinary women. And whoever is found in the future acting thus, let him, if he is a cleric, be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.
— This canon speaks of a superstitious custom that existed regarding a form of honor which some thought they were rendering, in a particular manner, to the Most Holy Mother of God, and it condemns that custom, threatening clerics with deposition and laymen with excommunication, should any henceforth follow that custom.
Canon 80
A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other who belongs to the clergy, and likewise a layman, who has no unavoidable business or necessity requiring that he remain absent from his church for a long time, but who dwells in the city and does not come to church for three Sundays running over three weeks—if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be removed from communion.
Ap. 8, 9; Trullo 66; Antioch 2; Sardica 11.
— By this canon the Trullan council repeats canon 11 of the Council of Sardica, in the commentary on which (the Sardican canon) we dwell at greater length on the ordinance of that same canon. Archimandrite Ioann, in his commentary on this Trullan canon, addresses those who for a long time will not come to church, and says: “By voluntarily absenting themselves from the church, they excommunicate themselves from the church, and the church excommunication which the canons impose upon them is nothing but the deserved proclamation of such people as estranged from the church, from which they had already estranged themselves beforehand; and together with this they deprive themselves also of all those benefits which, in communion with the church, they themselves did not wish to have”—and he adduces from the works of John Chrysostom the following passage: “How can we not grieve for those who rarely turn to, and seldom approach, the holy church, that common mother of all? What business can you name that would be more pressing than this? What gathering can be more useful than the gathering of the church? Or what hinders you from doing this? There are seven days in the week; of these seven days God has not divided them with us in such a way as to keep more for Himself and give less to us; nor did He even split them in half—He did not take three and give three, but left you six days, and kept only one for Himself. And yet you will not, even on that one day, refrain from earthly business, but, like the sacrilegious, so also do you deal with that day, snatching it away and spending it on earthly business, even though you know that it is a holy day, appointed for the hearing of spiritual teaching. But why do I speak of the whole day? What the widow did in the giving of alms (Mark 12:42 and following), do you also in respect of the time within the day. She laid down two mites and earned great mercy from God; spend you also two hours for God, and you will bring into your house the profit of many days. Will you not, then, take care not to lose the labors of many years, because you will not refrain from earthly business for even a small part of a day! If you come here only once or twice a year, then tell me, what can we teach you regarding the soul, the body, immortality, the kingdom of heaven, torment, hell, God’s long-suffering, repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, higher and lower things, human nature, angels, the snares of demons, the cunning of the devil, morals, doctrines, the true faith, impious heresies? And all this, and much more besides, a Christian must know, and must be able to answer concerning all of it when asked. Yet of all this you cannot know even the smallest part, when you come here only once, and that in passing, and only when there is some feast, and not because your soul is reverently disposed.”
Canon 81
Since we have learned that in some places, in the thrice-holy hymn, they add, as if by way of supplement, after the words ‘Holy Immortal,’ the words ‘who was crucified for us, have mercy on us’—and that the holy fathers before us, as being inconsonant with piety, rejected this from the hymn, together with the impious heretic who devised these words—we too, confirming what the holy fathers before us piously established, deliver to anathema those who, after this ordinance, shall receive these same words in the churches, or in any other way add them to the thrice-holy hymn. And if he who transgresses what has been established belongs to the clergy, we command that he be deprived of the priestly dignity; and if he is a layman or a monk, that he be excommunicated.
— This canon, like several others of this council (28, 33, 55, 99), is directed against the Armenians, who were adding to the thrice-holy hymn (ἐν τῷ τρισαγίῳ ὕμνῳ) the words ‘who was crucified for us’ (ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς).
The Trisagion hymn was introduced into the order of the Liturgy in the fifth century, during the patriarchate of Proclus of Constantinople (434–447). Its origin is ascribed to a certain wondrous event in Constantinople. Namely—it is said that during the reign of Theodosius the Younger, in the year 446, there was a great earthquake, which is said to have lasted, with short intervals, for four months, and during which a great many of the largest buildings in Constantinople were destroyed, so that the people of Constantinople were compelled to take refuge in the open fields around the city. To propitiate God, public supplications and processions were arranged. During one of these processions a child was suddenly and wondrously lifted up into the air, and heard the angels singing: ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. When the child came down to earth and told of the miracle, all present at once began, together with the patriarch, to sing this hymn, and the earthquake ceased. So the tradition relates.[9] According to others, the origin of the Trisagion hymn belongs to a much earlier period, and it only became better known and was introduced into public worship in the fifth century. However that may be, it is in any case historically known that at the first session of the IV Ecumenical Council, after the deposition of Dioscorus, this hymn was sung by the fathers gathered at the council, and that from that time—that is, from the middle of the fifth century—it has been preserved everywhere in the Orthodox Church. The fathers of the Trullan council likewise acknowledge the sanctity of this hymn in this canon (81) of theirs.
After the Council of Chalcedon, when Monophysitism had been solemnly condemned, the Trisagion hymn was subjected to corruption. Namely, the aforementioned words were added to it: ‘who was crucified for us,’ by which the Orthodox teaching was contradicted and the Monophysite teaching regarding the second Person of the Holy Trinity was reinforced. This was done by Peter the Fuller (otherwise Gnapheus) in the second half of the fifth century. This Gnapheus was a monk of Constantinople and a strict adherent of Monophysitism.[10] For this he was banished from Constantinople. Having won the favor of Zeno, the emperor’s son-in-law, he went with Zeno to Antioch, and there allied himself with certain Apollinarians and formed a strong party against the Orthodox patriarch of Antioch, Martyrius, whom he finally compelled to abandon the see of Antioch, upon which he himself, with the help of his adherents, took his place.[11] Having become patriarch, Gnapheus, in order the more firmly to establish Monophysitism in the church of Antioch, commanded that those words be added to the Trisagion hymn, and that with this addition the same hymn be sung. — In its Orthodox form the Trisagion hymn is addressed to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity, but Gnapheus, by that addition, wished to refer this hymn only to the second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son; he wished, namely, to strengthen the Monophysite teaching, according to which in Christ there was but one nature, the divine, into which the human nature had, as it were, been dissolved, so that, accordingly, it was the divinity in Jesus Christ that both suffered and performed all the other human acts, while the body in Christ was but an apparent phenomenon. By the addition to the Trisagion hymn of the words ‘who was crucified for us,’ the Monophysite thought was expressed, namely, that it was the divinity that was crucified and suffered in Christ, and not the humanity.[12] By such a teaching, not only was the dogma of the IV Ecumenical Council offended, but the old heresies of the second and third centuries were revived (the heresies of the Patripassians, the Noetians, and the Sabellians), and the whole Orthodox teaching on the Persons of the Holy Trinity was overturned.[13] Gnapheus’s teaching was already condemned in the year 471 at a council in Antioch, and the same Gnapheus was deposed and banished; this was thereafter confirmed at a council in Rome in the year 485.[14]
The fathers of the Trullan council, by this canon (81) of theirs, confirm all that had until then been established regarding the Trisagion hymn, condemn as contrary to piety that addition to the same hymn, proclaim Peter the Fuller, who devised that addition, an impious heretic, and, as had already been done at Orthodox councils before, deliver to anathema (ἀναθεματίζομεν) also everyone who presumes to accept that addition and to recite the Trisagion hymn with that addition.
It is further stated in the canon that a sacred person who transgresses what is here ordained is to be deprived of the priesthood, while a layman, or a monk (of course not a hieromonk), is to be excommunicated. On this Balsamon observes that it is not altogether clear how the canon could mention, together with the anathema, both deposition and excommunication—and he thinks, quite reasonably besides, that by this the fathers wished to leave it to the competent bishop to act according to his own discretion in such circumstances: namely, to depose or excommunicate whoever accepts that addition, but who at once also abandons that addition; while whoever will not abandon it, but obstinately holds to it, him the bishop shall deliver to anathema—that is, not only deprive him of the priesthood and of church communion, but also expel him from the church, so that he may not spread his heresy among others.[15]
Canon 82
In some depictions of the holy icons, a lamb is portrayed, at which the Forerunner points with his finger, and which has been taken as a symbol of grace, showing forth to us in advance, through the Law, the true Lamb, Christ our God. But although we honor the ancient images and shadows that have been handed down to the Church as symbols and figures of the truth, we nevertheless give preference to grace and truth, recognizing it as the fulfillment of the Law. In order, then, that what has been accomplished may be set before the eyes of all through the art of painting as well, we ordain that henceforth, instead of the ancient lamb, the figure of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be set upon the icons according to His human nature, so that thereby, contemplating the humility of God the Word, we may be moved to remember His life in the flesh, His sufferings, and His saving death, and the redemption of the world that was accomplished through Him.
— This canon was issued against a custom that existed in some churches, according to which, instead of the countenance of Jesus Christ, they painted on the icons the lamb of which John the Baptist speaks. The reason for which this custom is condemned is set forth in the canon itself.[16]
Canon 83
Let no one give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead; for it is written: Take, eat (Matt. 26:26), but the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat.
I Ecum. 13; Carthage 7, 18; Gregory of Nyssa 2, 93; Timothy of Alexandria 3, 16.
— This canon was already issued in the year 393, at the Council of Hippo, under the presidency of Aurelius, archbishop of Carthage, and forms the second half of canon 5 of that council. The same canon is found under no. 18 among the canons of the Council of Carthage of the year 419. In the commentary on canon 18 of Carthage we say as much as is needed on this subject.
Canon 84
Following the canonical institutions of the fathers, we ordain also with regard to children: whenever reliable witnesses cannot be found who can prove that they have indeed been baptized, and they themselves, on account of their age, are not able to answer accurately whether the mystery was granted to them, they are to be baptized without any hesitation on this account, lest such uncertainty deprive them of cleansing by so great a sanctification.
Ap. 49, 50; II Ecum. 7; Carthage 45, 48, 72, 110; Basil the Great 1, 91.
— The Trullan council repeats, in this canon of theirs, canon 7 of the Council of Carthage of 13 September of the year 401, which canon is found under no. 72 among the canons of the Council of Carthage of the year 419. The commentary on that canon (72) of Carthage serves also as the commentary on this canon 84 of Trullo.
Canon 85
It has been handed down to us in writing that every word is established firm when there are two or three witnesses. We ordain, therefore, that slaves who are freed by their masters are to receive the honor of freedom before three witnesses, who by their presence will give lawful force to the manumission and will attest to what has been done.
Ap. 15; I Ecum. 2; Carthage 64, 82, 129, 131, 132; Theophilus of Alexandria 9.
— This canon concerns a matter that had significance at a time when slavery still existed, but today the same canon has no object.
Canon 86
We ordain that those who gather souls for evil and keep harlots, if they are clerics, are to be excommunicated and deposed, and if they are laymen, are to be excommunicated.
Ap. 25; Neocaesarea 1; Basil the Great 3, 9, 32, 51, 59, 70.
— This canon is clear and needs no commentary. This vile trade—the keeping of harlots—is forbidden to every layman and was subject to penalty even under the Greco-Roman civil laws; all the more, then, must it be forbidden to sacred persons, to whom, should they unfortunately be caught in it, this canon prescribes the gravest church penalties—not only deposition from office, but excommunication as well, the same as for simony.
Canon 87
She who leaves her husband and goes to another is an adulteress, according to the holy and divine Basil, who adduced the following from the prophecy of Jeremiah: if she becomes the wife of another husband, let her not return to her own husband, but, being defiled, let her remain defiled (Jer. 3:1); and again: whoever keeps an adulteress is senseless and impious (Prov. 18:23). If, then, it becomes known that a wife has left her husband without cause, then he (the husband) is worthy of indulgence, and the wife of punishment; and the indulgence to the husband shall consist in this, that he may remain in communion with the church. But whoever leaves the wife to whom he is lawfully bound, and takes another, is, by the word of the Lord (Luke 16:18), liable to condemnation for adultery; and it has been canonically established by our fathers that such persons must weep for one year, be hearers for two years, be kneelers for three years, and stand with the faithful in the seventh year, provided that throughout this time they have repented with tears.
Ap. 48; Trullo 93, 98; Ancyra 20; Carthage 102; Basil the Great 9, 21, 31, 35, 36, 46, 48, 77, 80.
— By the definition of marriage in Roman law, and likewise in church law, marriage is a union and partnership of husband and wife for the whole of life (conjunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vitae—the union and partnership of husband and wife for their whole life).[17] This is the exact expression that makes up the symbolic teaching of our Orthodox Church.[18] Accordingly, whoever has entered into a lawful marriage, and that marriage has not been dissolved by the death of one spouse or by some lawful cause, cannot contract a new marriage with another person. And whoever does this—that is, whoever of his own will dissolves the lawful marriage bond, so that the husband leaves his lawful wife, or the wife leaves her lawful husband, and the husband or wife enters into a marital union with another person—is liable to the prescribed penalty, and that second marriage is void. This is what this canon (87) of Trullo speaks of, repeating in substance canons 9, 35, and 77 of Basil the Great, and confirming the other canons issued on this subject up to the end of the seventh century. The canon proclaims, namely, an adulteress of the wife who without cause (ἀλόγως, praeter rationem) leaves her husband and goes to another, and likewise proclaims an adulterer the husband who leaves his wife and takes another, and subjects the guilty parties to the penalty prescribed for adulterers, namely a seven-year public penance.[19] And a priest who should bless such a second marriage, knowing that a lawful marriage exists and that it has not been lawfully dissolved, is subject to deposition.[20]
We have already said, in the commentary on Apostolic canon 48, that a marriage which has been lawfully contracted (iustum matrimonium) cannot be dissolved so long as husband and wife are alive and the marriage answers to its purpose. The marriage bond between two persons lawfully married can be dissolved only by death, or by such a cause as itself contradicts the church’s concept of the indissolubility of marriage and destroys its moral or religious foundation—and which is likewise death, only in another form. Where there is no death, or no such cause resembling death, the lawful marriage can never, and by no means, be dissolved. What gave occasion for the issuing of the aforementioned Apostolic canon against the wilful dissolution of marriage is the very same thing that occasioned this canon (87) of Trullo.
The institution of marriage is as old as mankind itself, and the corresponding legislation on questions both of the contracting and of the dissolving of marriage was established in the world long before Christianity would appear. The Church, then, when it began to concern itself with marriage, could only reform the institution of marriage in a certain direction, but could not transform it at its root; it could only exert a moral influence upon the existing legal provisions regarding marriage and upon the relations between spouses. On account of the dissoluteness of Roman social life at the time of the appearance of Christianity, the Roman civil laws on marriage in general, and on divorce in particular, were very far removed from that moral concept of marriage which is implanted by nature in the human heart. Repudium—that is, the dissolution of the marriage bond—was left entirely to the will of the spouses, who availed themselves of it whenever, for personal reasons, it suited their purposes. Conjugal love (coniugalis affectio) was the first condition of marriage, and as soon as that love disappeared, either party had the right to make use of repudium, either by both spouses agreeing together on the divorce, or by one of them sending the other a notice of repudium, whereupon the marriage was thereby already dissolved.[21] The Roman laws of this period paid little heed to this matter, and the freedom of divorce met with no legal hindrance, being limited only by the personal moral feeling of the spouses concerned. The later laws, issued to check the incessant divorces, were powerless in the face of the general dissoluteness of Roman society. Unilateral divorce—that is, a declaration by one spouse dissolving the marriage—was for the most part abolished; but divorce by mutual consent (divortium ex consensu) continued to exist, and stood under the protection of the law.[22] Having entered into union with the state, the Church had to devote all its strength to re-establishing, amid this general social dissoluteness, its own correct standpoint on the institution of marriage, and to securing its sanctity now through the joint action of church and civil legislation. Its first concern in this was to abolish that law by which husband and wife could separate by mutual agreement, the husband then marrying another woman and the wife marrying another man. The canonical teaching of the Church against this mutual divorce was established already in the earliest times of the Church.[23] It took the Church, however, several centuries of struggle and effort before it succeeded in getting the civil Greco-Roman legislation, too, to forbid such divorce. Up to Justinian, individual emperors had prescribed in their laws for what causes a marriage might be dissolved, but there was as yet no law at all against divorce by mutual consent between husband and wife.[24] Justinian himself, in the first years of his reign, recognized by law that every marriage could be dissolved when husband and wife agreed together on it[25]; and only later, by two separate laws, did he forbid this, and ordain that a marriage might be dissolved only for certain specified causes, and that only after a judicial decision on the matter.[26] A few years later, the emperor Justin again restored the old law, that a marriage might be dissolved by consent (κατὰ συναίνεσιν, consensu).[27] It then took another three centuries before the standpoint of church law regarding the freedom of divorce was finally established in the civil Greco-Roman legislation.[28] After that period (the ninth century), a marriage could be dissolved only for precisely defined causes, and that by the competent authority. Divorce by mutual consent was permitted only for some higher, good reason (εὔλογος αἰτία), namely when the spouses aspired to a more perfect life, which, according to the teaching of the Church, consisted in monastic asceticism. Thanks to the Church’s efforts, Greco-Roman legislation also determined for what particular causes a marriage might be dissolved. Death—whether physical, moral, or religious—alone can dissolve the marriage bond between husband and wife. On the basis of the Gospel’s teaching on this matter, church legislation issued the corresponding canonical provisions as to what acts are to be regarded as the basis for adjudging one, another, or a third kind of death. Having established these criteria for itself, the Church, given the joint ecclesiastical-civil character of the institution of marriage, had to strive to have the civil legislation adopt the same criteria. Constantine the Great, in agreement with the bishops, issued in the year 331 a law by which he forbade divorce altogether, except for adultery (adulterium) and such transgressions on the part of husband or wife as entail death or lifelong penal servitude.[29] The emperors who succeeded him, down to Justinian, issued now stricter, now milder laws on divorce.[30] Justinian, by one of his Novels (in the year 542), put an end to the vacillations that had until then existed on this matter, and established the basic rule for future times as to when, and for what causes, a lawfully contracted marriage might be dissolved.[31] He prescribes, namely, that this may be: a) when such a transgression on the part of husband or wife is established as entails the penalty of death; b) when husband or wife falls into such a condition as may be considered equivalent to physical death; c) when adultery is shown to have occurred in the marriage, or such an act as gives grounds for it to be judged as adultery; d) when the necessary physical condition for marriage is absent; and e) when husband or wife wish to dedicate themselves to the ascetic life. By this Novel, and thereafter by another (in the year 556), every divorce is condemned that is not declared on the basis of one of the enumerated causes and that is not carried out by a proper judicial process, and it is ordained that in such a case husband or wife are to be sent to a monastery for life, and all their property is to be divided among their heirs and the monasteries; while those who declare an unlawful divorce are to be subjected to corporal punishment and sent into exile.[32] Since the provisions of that first Novel of Justinian’s (542) on the grounds for divorce are entirely consonant with the corresponding provisions of Orthodox church law, and since the Novel itself was issued in agreement with, and at the instance of, the then patriarch of Constantinople, Mennas (536–552), that same Novel was already incorporated into the first redaction of the basic canonical collection of the Orthodox Church, namely into the Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles,[33] which was, as we know, later, in the tenth century, proclaimed as the collection binding for the whole Church. By this the provisions of that Novel obtained formal authority in the Orthodox Church, and became decisive for the church authority in all divorce proceedings.[34] The other individual causes mentioned in the Greco-Roman legislation and in the church practice of later centuries are nothing but a more detailed application of what is contained in the aforementioned Novel of Justinian.[35]
In order that a divorce be pronounced on the basis of a cause recognized by the Orthodox Church, the canons prescribe: 1) that the cause be examined by a lawful process—why the husband has left, or wishes to leave, the wife, or the wife the husband, and wishes to dissolve the marriage—and if that cause is not lawful and does not fall among the causes for divorce established by law, then the spouses must be reunited, and the guilty party is subjected to church penance (Basil the Great 35); 2) if, upon examination, the guilt of one of the spouses is proved—that is, if the existence of a lawful ground for divorce is proved—the wife may nonetheless remain in the marriage bond with her husband, if he is willing to live with her, nor may the wife reject the husband who has committed the offense, if he has repented (Basil the Great 9, 21); 3) the marriage is declared finally dissolved only when the guilt has been publicly proved by a court, and when the offended husband (or wife) does not consent to continue living with the wife (or husband) who was the cause of the divorce; and 4) the person who is not guilty, and who was wronged by the other’s transgression, remains in full church communion and is recognized as having the right to enter into a new marriage with another person (Trullo 93).[36]
Canon 88
Let no one bring any animal into the precinct of the holy temple, except in the case when some traveler, compelled by great necessity, and having no lodging or inn, turns aside into such a precinct; for if the animal were not brought into the precinct, it might perish by chance, and the person in question, having lost the animal and thus being unable to continue his journey, would expose himself to the danger of death; and we know that the sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), and therefore one must by every means take care for the salvation and safety of man. But whoever is found to have, as aforesaid, brought an animal into the precinct of the temple without necessity, let him, if he is a cleric, be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.
— The purpose of this canon, as of canon 76 of the same council, is to preserve the holy temple, and the precincts around the temple, from profanation, all of which is considered sacred; and it subjects to deposition the cleric, and to excommunication the layman, who presumes to bring an animal into the precinct of the holy temple (ἔνδον ἱεροῦ ναοῦ). But the Trullan fathers make this prohibition subject to love of neighbor, and, recalling what is said in Holy Scripture against the Pharisaic zealots for the sabbath—that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27)—they permit that an animal may exceptionally be brought into the precinct of the temple, when, on account of severe weather, this proves genuinely necessary and serves thereby to save a man’s life from death.
Canon 89
The faithful, who have spent the days of the saving Passion with a contrite heart in fasting and prayer, ought to conclude the fast around midnight of the great Sabbath, for the divine evangelists Matthew and Luke, the one by the words ‘late on the sabbath day’ (Matt. 28:1), and the other by the words ‘very early’ (Luke 24:1), indicate to us the depth of night.
(Ap. 51, 53, 66; IV Ecum. 16; Trullo 13, 55; Ancyra 14; Gangra 18, 21; Laodicea 29, 49, 51).
— On when the fast of the great Sabbath ought to be concluded, Dionysius of Alexandria speaks in detail in his epistle to Bishop Basilides—in other words, in his canon 1—and it is that canon of Dionysius that the Trullan council briefly repeats in this canon of theirs.
Canon 90
We have canonically received from our God-bearing fathers that one ought not to kneel on Sundays, thereby rendering honor to the Resurrection of Christ. That we may not, then, remain in ignorance as to how this is to be observed, we clearly declare to the faithful that from the Sabbath, after the evening entrance of the priest into the sanctuary, according to established custom, no one is to kneel until the following Sunday evening, and then, after the evening entrance, kneeling begins again, and prayers are offered up to the Lord; for, regarding the night after the Sabbath as the forerunner of the Resurrection of our Savior, from that time we spiritually begin the hymns, and carry the feast over from darkness into light, and thus celebrate the Resurrection for the whole night and day.
Ap. 66; I Ecum. 20; Trullo 66; Gangra 18; Laodicea 29; Peter of Alexandria 15; Basil the Great 91; Theophilus of Alexandria 1.
— This canon repeats the canons issued in earlier centuries on the point that one ought not to kneel in church on Sundays, and it determines from what hour on the Sabbath until what hour on Sunday one ought to pray standing.
Canon 91
Women who give drugs to procure abortion, and who take poisons that kill the fetus, we subject to the penalty for murderers.
— An ordinance on this matter had already been issued by the Council of Ancyra at the beginning of the fourth century, in its canon 21; and in the commentary on that canon of Ancyra we speak of the subject of this Trullan canon.
Canon 92
Regarding those who abduct women under pretext of marriage, or take part in this, or assist the abductors, the holy council ordains that they be cast down from their rank, if they are clerics, and if they are laymen, that they be delivered to anathema.
Ap. 67; IV Ecum. 27; Basil the Great 30, 36, 42.
— This canon repeats canon 27 of the IV Ecumenical Council, and the commentary on that canon serves also as the commentary on this Trullan canon.
Canon 93
A wife whose husband has gone on a journey, and of whom nothing is known for a long time, and who, without waiting to obtain certainty of his death, remarries with another man, has committed adultery. Under the same judgment fall also the wives of soldiers, who marry because they have no news of their husbands, as well as those who, when their husbands are away on campaign, will not wait for their return. Some indulgence in this case can be had only when it is held with a certain reliability that the husband has died. But she who, out of ignorance, has married a man whose wife had left him, and who is afterward put away by that same man because his first wife has returned to him—although she has fallen into fornication, yet since this happened through ignorance, marriage is not forbidden to her; it is better, however, if she remains as she is. But if, after some time, the soldier returns whose wife had, on account of his long absence, gone to another man, that soldier may, if he wishes, take his wife back again; and let forgiveness be granted to her, in view of her ignorance, and likewise to this other man who had joined himself to that woman in a second marriage.
Basil the Great 31, 36, 46.
— With some additions, canons 31, 36, and 46 of Basil the Great are here repeated word for word. It speaks, namely: a) of a wife whose husband goes on a journey, and of whom nothing is known for a long time, and she remarries without waiting to obtain certainty of the death of her first husband; b) the same matter regarding the wife of a soldier of whom it is not known whether he is alive; and c) of a woman who, out of ignorance, marries someone whose lawful wife had left him during a period, and that lawful wife of his then returns to him, and he puts away this second wife.
In the first case—that is, when the wife of a man who has gone on a journey, and of whom nothing has been known for a long time, and to whom she was lawfully married, enters, without waiting to obtain reliable assurance of his death, into marriage with another man—such a wife, according to this Trullan canon, which repeats canon 31 of Basil the Great, is liable to condemnation as an adulteress, and this second marriage is considered void. A second marriage is thus forbidden altogether to the wife (and likewise to the husband) so long as it is not known with certainty that her first lawful husband has died.
In the second case—namely, when the wife of a soldier wishes to enter into a new marriage because there has been no news of him for a long time as to whether he is alive—this Trullan canon, repeating canon 36 of Basil the Great, determines in substance the same as for the first case. It permits here only some indulgence toward such a wife, since it can be held with greater reliability that her first husband, the soldier, has died than in the first case. The canon permits, then, that such a wife may marry a second time, if a considerable time has passed with no news at all of the first husband, and when the presumption of death is sufficiently grounded. The question of how much time the wife of a soldier had to wait, after the last news that her husband was alive, before she might remarry, was determined by civil legislation. By one law of Constantine the Great, the wife in such a case had to wait until four years had passed.[37] Justinian issued a different law on this matter, and ordained that the wife of a soldier might marry a second time only when it could be held with sufficient reliability that her husband had fallen, and when the competent military authority issued a certificate to that effect—and even then, not immediately after this certificate, but only after a year had passed.[38] This ordinance of Justinian’s was likewise adopted into church practice. This Trullan canon (93) foresees the case where the soldier, believed to have fallen, should return, and his wife should have remarried; and it determines that in that case her first husband is free, if he wishes, to take her back again as his wife; the sin (of having remarried without waiting for his return) is forgiven her, in view of her ignorance, as the canon says—that is, because she held in good faith that her first husband had died, and in that good faith married another man; forgiveness is granted likewise to this other man, who had, in good faith, entered with her into an unlawful marriage. It is understood, of course, that this second, new marriage is of itself dissolved in such a case; and this marriage is dissolved also if the first husband of that wife does not wish to take her back again and continue married life with her; in which case she is considered a divorced woman, and is forbidden ever again to live in marriage.
This canon also recalls canon 46 of Basil the Great, on a woman who marries, out of ignorance, a man whose first wife is still living. It would happen that someone whose wife had left him for a time would deceitfully entice some woman and marry her, and then, when his first wife returned to him, he would put away this second wife. This second marriage, in such a case, is to be dissolved as unlawful, and the first marriage again takes force. Regarding the husband who committed such a deception, the canon says nothing, but it is understood of itself that he must be subject to public penance, for he has committed adultery; and regarding this second woman, who was deceitfully enticed into an unlawful marriage, since she fell into sin through ignorance (κατ’ ἄγνοιαν, per ignorantiam), the canon permits that she may enter into a new marriage, although it immediately adds that it would be better if she remained as she is (κάλλιον δέ, ἐὰν μείνῃ οὕτως)—that is, unmarried, since she has, even if through ignorance, lost her good reputation before society.[39]
Canon 94
Those who swear pagan oaths, the canon subjects to penalties, and we ordain excommunication for such persons.
Ap. 25; Basil the Great 10, 17, 28, 29, 64, 81, 82.
— On the oath in general we have spoken in the commentary on Apostolic canon 25; and specifically on this matter, and on the pagan oaths (ἑλληνικοὺς ὅρκους, Gentilium sacramenta) which this canon mentions, we speak in the commentaries on canons 81 and 82 of Basil the Great.
Canon 95
Those who turn from heresy to Orthodoxy, and are numbered among those who are being saved out of heretics, we receive according to the following rite and manner: Arians, Macedonians, Novatians who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodecimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarists—once they have submitted a written statement of their own and anathematize every heresy that does not teach as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God teaches—we receive by sealing them, that is, by anointing with holy chrism the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, and as we seal them we say: ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ As regards the followers of the Paulianists, who afterward turn to the catholic Church, it has been established that they must in every case be rebaptized. But the Eunomians, who baptize with a single immersion, and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who confess the Son-Fatherhood and commit other misdeeds, and all the other heretics—for here there are many of them, especially those who come from the region of Galatia—all these, when they wish to join Orthodoxy, we receive as pagans: we make them Christians on the first day, catechumens on the second, then on the third day we exorcise them with a threefold breathing upon the face and into the ears, and then, after instructing them in the truths of the faith and taking care that they remain long in the church and hear the Holy Scripture, we baptize them. In the same way also the Manichaeans, and the Valentinians, and the Marcionites, and those who come from similar heresies, we receive as pagans, baptizing them anew. But the Nestorians, Eutychians, Severians, and the others from similar heresies must submit a written statement and deliver to anathema their heresy, and likewise Nestorius, and Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies and those who think as they do, and all the other heresies, and only then may they become partakers of the holy communion.
(I Ecum. 8, 19; II Ecum. 1, 7; Laodicea 7, 8; Carthage 6, 57, 126; Basil the Great 1, 5, 47).
— This canon prescribes how the various heretics are to be received into the Orthodox Church, and here first of all are mentioned those heretics spoken of in canons 8 and 19 of the I Ecumenical Council and canons 1 and 7 of the II Ecumenical Council, concerning whom we have already said what is needed in our commentaries on those canons. Thereafter this Trullan canon (95) further mentions the heretics: Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Severians. The first three are Gnostic heresies of the second and third centuries, which, as can be seen, still had adherents even in the seventh century; and since in these heresies the very foundation of Christianity was denied, this canon accordingly ordains that those who pass from these heresies into the Orthodox Church must be received as pagans—that is, they must first be subjected to catechesis and then baptized.[40] The other heretics the canon mentions—Nestorians and Eutychians, and likewise Severians (who are, moreover, nothing other than an offshoot of Eutychianism)—may, by the ordinance of this canon, be received even without new baptism, provided only that they anathematize their heresies and solemnly confess the Orthodox creed; and the canon so determines regarding them because in the teaching of these heretics there was nothing contrary to the very foundation of Christianity, and because they accepted and recognized all the mysteries of the Orthodox Church.[41]
By this canon of the Trullan council, that divergence was leveled which had chiefly existed in the earliest centuries among individual local churches as to how the various heretics and schismatics were to be received into the Church, and at the same time a single norm for the future was established, by the voice of the ecumenical Church, in this matter. According to the prescription of this canon, non-Orthodox persons, when they turn to Orthodoxy, are received according to how far they diverge from Orthodox teaching, and are either baptized, or only chrismated, or are received after repenting and confessing the Orthodox faith. In this the Trullan council, moreover, only confirmed and gave the character of universal obligation for the whole Church to a church practice that already existed; for we have, already from the fifth century, a testimony that this was the practice of the Church when various non-Orthodox persons were received into the Church. Timothy, presbyter of the church of Constantinople, wrote in that century to his fellow-minister John entirely in the sense of this Trullan canon. According to the Kormchaya, Timothy writes thus: ‘We find three orders of those who come to the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church… the first order being of those requiring holy baptism; the second, of those not to be baptized, but anointed with holy chrism; and the third, neither to be baptized nor anointed, but who fervently curse their own heresy’—and thereafter he mentions in turn all the non-Orthodox, according to which order each is to be received. These three orders of receiving non-Orthodox persons into the Church are valid and have full force even today in our Orthodox Church. By the first order the Church receives those heretics who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, who do not recognize baptism, or who do not perform it according to the Lord’s commandment; by the second order—that is, by chrismation—are received (besides the heretics mentioned in the canon) all those who have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but who do not have lawful priesthood and do not recognize the mystery of chrismation—and these today are all the Protestants; likewise, Roman Catholics and Armenians are received by chrismation, if they have not been chrismated in their own church before turning to Orthodoxy; by the third order—that is, without baptism and without chrismation, but only by renouncing their former belief and confessing the Orthodox belief—are received (besides the heretics mentioned in the canon) all Roman Catholics and Armenians who have been chrismated in their own church.[42][43]
In a note in the commentary on canon 7 of the II Ecumenical Council we have said that, according to the present practice of the Greek Church, every Roman Catholic must be baptized when he passes over to the Orthodox Church. This rests on the decision (ὅρος) of the Council of Constantinople of 1756, under the Patriarch Cyril V, which decision was signed, besides Cyril V, also by Matthew, patriarch of Alexandria, and Parthenius, patriarch of Jerusalem. It reads: ‘Among the many means by which we are accounted worthy of salvation, the first is baptism, which God delivered to the holy apostles… Since for three years now the question has been raised whether the baptism of heretics who turn to us is to be recognized—which baptism is performed contrary to the tradition of the holy apostles and the divine fathers, and likewise contrary to the custom and institution of the catholic and apostolic Church—we, who by God’s grace have been raised in the Orthodox Church, holding to the canons of the holy apostles and the divine fathers, and recognizing our holy catholic and apostolic Church alone, and its mysteries, among which is divine baptism, and accordingly regarding what takes place among heretics, and what is not done as the Holy Spirit commanded the apostles and as the Church of Christ does today, as contrary to all apostolic tradition and as the product of depraved men—by common judgment we reject every heretical baptism, and all those heretics who turn to us we receive as unconsecrated and unbaptized, and thereby we follow, in the first place, our Lord Jesus Christ, who commanded His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; then we follow the holy, divine apostles, who established that baptism must be by three immersions, naming, at each immersion, one name of the Holy Trinity; further we follow the holy and equal-to-the-apostles Dionysius, who says that the one to be baptized, once stripped of all his clothing, is to be baptized in a font in which the water and oil have been consecrated, invoking the three hypostases of the blessed Godhead, and is immediately to be anointed with the God-worked chrism, and to be accounted worthy of the saving Eucharist; finally we follow the Second and the Penthekte Ecumenical Councils, which ordained that all those who turn to Orthodoxy who were not baptized by three immersions, with the name of one divine hypostasis invoked at each immersion, but who were baptized in some other manner, are to be considered unbaptized. Holding, then, to these holy and divine institutions, we consider the baptism of heretics worthy of condemnation and to be rejected, for it is not consonant with, but contrary to, the apostolic divine institution, and is nothing else, as the holy Ambrose and the great Athanasius say, than a useless washing, which sanctifies the person in no way, nor serves in the least to cleanse a man from sin; and those who have been unbaptizedly baptized by heretics, when they turn to the Orthodox faith, we receive as unbaptized, and without any fear we baptize them according to the apostolic and conciliar canons, on which the holy apostolic and catholic Church of Christ, the common mother of us all, is firmly founded. And by this our common judgment and written declaration we confirm this your decision, consonant with the apostolic and conciliar institutions, and we ratify it with our signatures.’
In this synodal decision Roman Catholics are not expressly mentioned, nor is it said that their baptism ought to be rejected and they baptized when they pass over to the Orthodox Church; but this is clearly evident from all that is said, and how it is said, in the decision. And we know, moreover, that the Greek Church, in judging Roman Catholics according to canon 1 of Basil the Great, has for several centuries now considered the Roman Church heretical—among other things, on account of the corruption of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the form of baptism—similar to the Eunomians, and that accordingly this synodal decision has Roman Catholics chiefly in view, ordaining that they are to be baptized when they turn to Orthodoxy. In the Pedalion, moreover, all this is clearly set out, and precisely in the sense of this decision. There it is said: ‘The baptism of the Latins is only falsely called by that name; it is no baptism (βάπτισμα) at all, but only a mere sprinkling (ἀλλὰ ῥάντισμα μόνον ψιλόν). Accordingly we do not say that we rebaptize the Latins, but that we baptize them.’ ‘The Latins are unbaptized (οἱ Λατῖνοι εἶναι ἀβάπτιστοι), for they do not perform three immersions at baptism, as has been handed down to the Orthodox Church from the very beginning by the holy apostles.’[44] The aforesaid synodal decision is in full force even today throughout the whole Greek Church. How this is to be judged from a strictly canonical point of view we have said in the commentaries on Apostolic canons 47 and 50 and on canon 7 of the II Ecumenical Council.[45]
Canon 96
Those who through baptism have put on Christ have thereby promised that they will imitate His manner of life in the flesh. Therefore, to those who by artificial braiding adorn and arrange the hair on their head, to the harm of others who look upon them and are thereby enticed, their weak souls being ensnared—to them we offer a fatherly remedy through a deserved penalty, instructing them and exhorting them to live wisely, and, having put away the deceit and vanity that proceed from matter, to direct their mind always toward a trustworthy and blessed life, and to dwell in purity and righteousness in the fear of God, and to draw near to God, as far as possible, by an exemplary manner of life, and to adorn the inner man, rather than the outer, with virtues and with good and blameless conduct, and to keep in themselves no remnant whatsoever of the adversary’s wickedness. And whoever acts contrary to this canon, let him be excommunicated.
— The Trullan council in this canon turns its attention to the outward life of Christians, and since through baptism they became followers of Christ and thereby promised to imitate His manner of life in the flesh, this canon ordains, under threat of excommunication, that every Christian must avoid all vanity and outward adornment, and must, by a humble life and exemplary conduct, draw as near to God as possible.
Canon 97
Whoever, either by living with a woman or by some other means, thoughtlessly turns holy places into common places, and busies himself around them without due regard, and dwells in them with such irreverence, we command that such persons be driven out even from those places within the holy temples that are set aside for the catechumens. And whoever does not abide by this, let him, if he is a cleric, be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.
— By ‘holy places’ (ἱεροὺς τόπους) this canon does not mean the churches themselves, but the buildings that stood around the church, among which the chief were the places for the catechumens, ‘for,’ Zonaras observes in his commentary on this canon, ‘no one will be so bold as to live together with a woman within the church itself.’[46] It happened, at the time of this council, that some took up residence in the buildings that stood alongside the church and in the places set aside for the catechumens, and there conducted themselves quite disgracefully and allowed themselves certain things unbecoming to holy places. Against this profanation of holy places this canon was issued, ordaining that such persons be driven out of these places—and whoever does not submit to this ordinance, let him, if he is a cleric, be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. In this same sense, and against the profanation of holy places, corresponding legal ordinances were also issued by the civil Greco-Roman legislation.
Canon 98
Whoever takes for cohabitation in marriage a woman who is betrothed to another, while her betrothed is still alive, let him be liable to condemnation for adultery.
Ancyra 11; Basil the Great 22, 69.
— Betrothal (μνηστεία, обрученје, sponsalia) is the mutual promise of a man and a woman that they will enter into marriage.[47] Betrothal, which today is prescribed by the Church before the marriage rite, was taken over from Roman law.[48] Under that law, betrothal was regularly performed as soon as it was decided that a marriage should be contracted; but for the marriage itself it had no juridical significance, for although it might be beyond all doubt that, after the betrothal was made, the marriage would also be contracted, and although the promise had been made mutually and before witnesses, still the betrothed persons were not yet absolutely bound to keep that promise and to marry, but each remained free to withdraw the given promise and to enter into marriage with another person. This was the logical consequence of that basic teaching of old Roman law, that a marriage too could be dissolved as soon as one party wished it. Moreover, whoever entered into a new betrothal without formally declaring that he renounced the former one was, by law, liable to infamy, and besides, if gifts had also been exchanged at the betrothal, the person in question had to return twice as much as he had received, and had no right to demand back his own gift.[49]
Just as the Church required of its faithful that marriage could be contracted only with its blessing, so it required the same also regarding betrothal; and just as it subjected marriage itself to its own jurisdiction, so likewise it subjected betrothal to that same jurisdiction. The freedom of Roman law to withdraw at will from a betrothal promise was, from the very beginning of the Church’s legislative activity, restricted by the Church, which by its blessing of betrothal gave it a morally binding character similar to that possessed by marriage itself. In the canons of Basil the Great we already find the thought expressed that a betrothal must be strictly kept and is binding on whoever makes it; and the Trullan council, by this canon of theirs, prescribes the penalty for adultery for anyone who marries a woman who is betrothed to another, while her betrothed is still alive.[50] This ordinance of the Trullan council thereafter passed, in substance, into the Greco-Roman civil legal codes as well. This strictness regarding betrothal was mitigated by the emperor Leo the Wise, who, by two of his laws, prescribed that only those persons could be betrothed who had reached the age established by law for marriage, so that the promises they made at betrothal might be firmer and less exposed to the danger of being broken, and at the same time he ordained that betrothal must be just as firmly binding as the marriage bond, and could be dissolved only for such causes as would also dissolve a marriage.[51] This was thereafter confirmed by a special law of the emperor Alexios I Komnenos, having regard to a certain synodal ordinance under the Patriarch John VIII Xiphilinos, according to which kinship, and the marital impediment arising from kinship, was to be considered at betrothal in the same way as at marriage.[52][53] Whoever had been betrothed according to the church rite, if his betrothed died and he then married another, was considered to be in a second marriage, as if he had been married to the first betrothed.[54]
Having adopted the betrothal of Roman law into church life, the Church gave, in that betrothal, its blessing to that promise (sponsalia) which is mentioned in the definition of betrothal in Roman law, and by such a blessing this promise became holy, as one made before God and received by God. In this sense betrothal is the beginning of marriage itself, for in it already exists that necessary condition which makes up the essence of marriage itself, namely, the mutual consent of a man and a woman to a shared life. For this reason, both the Old Testament and the New Testament law regard a betrothed woman as the wife of her betrothed. Moses calls ‘the wife of his neighbor’ a maiden who was betrothed to a man (Deut. 22:23–24); and in the Gospel the most holy Virgin, who was only betrothed to Joseph, is called his ‘wife,’ and he her ‘husband’ (Matt. 1:18–20). And that whoever should marry a betrothed maiden, while her betrothed is still alive, is to be branded not merely as a fornicator but as an adulterer, we already see from this canon (98) of the Trullan council.[55]
As for the length of time between betrothal and marriage, nothing precise is determined either in church or in civil legislation.[56] This was left to the will of the betrothed parties, who generally allowed some time to pass between the betrothal and the marriage rite, following in this the prescription of the laws then in force, that the two could not be performed at one and the same time, since these are two things distinct in their essence.[57] Later, in order to avoid the cases spoken of in this canon of ours, it was established that betrothal should be performed together with the marriage rite.[58]
Canon 99
As we have learned, in the region of Armenia it also happens that some, after boiling portions of meat inside the holy altars, offer the pieces (of that meat) and distribute them to the priests according to Jewish custom. Therefore, guarding the purity of the Church, we ordain that no priest shall receive appointed portions of meat from those who make such offerings, but let them be content with whatever the one making the offering is pleased to give, and let the offering itself be made outside the church; and whoever does not do so shall be excommunicated.
(Ap. 3; Trullo 32, 33, 56; Carthage, 37).
— This canon is directed against a custom that prevailed in the church among the Armenians. According to the text of the canon, as we have translated it from the Athenian Syntagma, it appears that among the Armenians, first, they boiled meat inside the holy altars, and second, they brought pieces of that meat and distributed them to the priests. This stands in the text thus: ὡς τινὲς ἔνδον ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς θυσιαστηρίοις μέλη κρεῶν ἕψοντες, προσάγουσιν ἀφαιρέματα τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἰουδαϊκῶς ἀπονέμοντες—and in Beveridge’s translation: quod quidam intus in sacris altaribus carnium membra coquentes offerunt sacerdotibus judaice distribuentes;[59] and in the Russian Synodal edition: ‘that some, having boiled portions of meat within the consecrated altars, bring the portions and distribute them to the priests, according to Jewish custom.’[60] As can be seen, our translation is faithful.
Meanwhile, in Balsamon’s commentary on this canon it is written: ‘To boil portions of meat in the altars has been forbidden among Christians everywhere (πάντη) ever since the offering of animals in sacrifice ceased, and for that reason the Fathers did not find it necessary to say anything about it (that is, against it), and their ordinance concerns only the pieces of meat which those persons offered to the priests, since only that matter could still be subject to dispute.’[61]
According to this interpretation of Balsamon’s regarding that passage of the canon on the boiling of meat, the remark of Archim. Ioann is fully justified—namely, that the wording of that passage in the canon is not accurate, and that the words ‘within the holy altars’ (ἔνδον ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς θυσιαστηρίοις) should be referred not to the preceding words but to the words that follow: ‘offer the portions (of that meat)’ (προσάγουσιν ἀφαιρέματα)—and then the true sense of the canon emerges.
Neither among the Armenians nor among any other Christians,—Archim. Ioann further remarks,—has there ever existed the custom of boiling meat in the altar.
Accordingly, the general sense of the canon is as follows: the Armenians boiled meat in their homes and brought portions of the meat into the altar, distributing them to the priests according to Jewish custom. The Council condemns this custom and forbids bringing meat into the altar; and it likewise forbids priests from demanding portions of meat for themselves from the faithful, but rather these priests must be content with voluntary offerings, of whatever kind they may be, and must receive these offerings not in the church, but outside the church, as had long been canonically established.[62]
Canon 100
“Let thine eyes look right on,” and “above all that thou guardest, guard thine heart,” counsels Wisdom (Prov. 4, 23, 25), for the bodily senses easily convey their impressions to the soul. Therefore we forbid that, in whatever manner, images be hereafter painted, whether on panels or on anything else, which beguile the eyes and corrupt the mind, and which kindle the flame of unclean desire. And whoever dares to do this shall be excommunicated.
— This canon, like canon 96 of this Council, was issued in order to preserve the necessary modesty and Christian morality, and to restrain the bodily senses, which easily convey their impressions to the soul of man.
Canon 101
The divine Apostle, in a lofty voice, calls man—who was created in the image of God—the body and temple of Christ. And since man, through the Savior’s saving Passion, has been made worthy of heavenly dignity, to eat and drink Christ, and by this has been set above every other sentient creature and in all things guided toward eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body through participation in divine grace—for this reason, whoever at the time of the Liturgy wishes to receive the most pure Body and, through communion, to become one with it, must fold his hands in the form of a cross, and so approach, and receive the communion of grace. For as to those who, instead of their hands, hold out certain vessels of gold or of some other material to receive the divine gift, and through these same vessels wish to be made worthy of the most pure communion, we by no means approve of this, for they give precedence to lifeless and subordinate matter over the image of God; and whoever is found distributing the most pure communion to those who hold out such vessels shall be excommunicated, both he and the one who holds out the vessels.
— ‘At the time of this Council,’ says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, ‘certain wealthy people, out of contempt for the poor, had made for themselves, of gold or of something else similar, certain vessels [illegible], and under the guise of piety and fear of God used these vessels in place of their hands to receive, at the time of holy communion, the most pure Body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. At first perhaps some devised this out of piety, thinking that a hand which touches certain unseemly and unworthy objects is not worthy to touch the Body of Christ. But in the course of time this piety turned to the harm of the soul, for those who did this flaunted their superiority over the poorer and their vanity. And since it seemed to the fathers of this Council that this was the cause of many scandals, this canon was accordingly issued.’ ‘I think,’ the same Balsamon says further, ‘that this canon censures those who, at the time of holy communion, flaunt their rank and their lineage, and on that account seek precedence.’ And as to the fact that laymen in Balsamon’s time (that is, in the twelfth century), just as today, were communed by the priests directly into the mouth, and not as this canon states, Balsamon observes that this is not because laymen are unworthy, but because true faith, the fear of God, and genuine piety have handed down this practice.[63]
Canon 102
Those who from God have received the power of binding and loosing must take into account the nature of the sin and the disposition of the one who has sinned, and accordingly apply such remedies as are needed for the particular malady, lest, by disregarding either of these, the sick man be deprived of salvation; for the sickness of sin is not uniform, but various and manifold, and puts forth many shoots of destruction, from which evil spreads widely and extends far, until it is checked by the physician’s care. For this reason, whoever occupies himself with the healing art with regard to the spirit must first discern the disposition of the sinner, and consider whether he inclines toward health, or, on the contrary, by his conduct draws sickness upon himself, and in what manner he meanwhile conducts his life; and if he does not resist the physician, and heals the wound of his soul by applying the prescribed remedies, then he ought, according to his deserts, to be granted mercy accordingly. For with God, and with him who has received the pastoral office, all care must be directed toward this: to bring back the lost sheep, and to apply the remedy to the one wounded by the serpent, so that it may not fall over the precipice of despair, nor be given free rein to a dissolute and thoughtless life, but rather that he must by every means—either by sharper and more constricting remedies, or by gentler and milder remedies—check the suffering and take care that the wound heal, taking into account in this the fruits of repentance, and wisely guiding the man who is called to heavenly enlightenment. And we must therefore know both of these—both what the highest law commands and what is bound by custom; and with regard to those who do not acknowledge the loftiness of repentance, the traditional institution must be followed, as the holy Basil teaches us.
(I Ecum. 12; Ancyra 2, 5, 7; Athanasius the Great, Epistle to Rufinianus; Basil the Great 2, 3, 74, 75, 84, 85; Gregory of Nyssa 4, 5, 7, 8).
— This canon prescribes how one must proceed and to what one must pay attention in imposing penalties upon those who transgress the canonical prescriptions of the Church. In particular, this canon gives instructions to church judges as to how they must carefully consider what penalties to impose for various transgressions, and how they are to deal with those who sincerely repent of the transgression committed, and how with those who are obstinate—setting before the judges’ eyes the purpose of the Church’s penalties, namely, that the sinner be brought back to the right path and become good.[64] According to the words of Zonaras and Balsamon in their commentary on this canon,[65] the Trullan fathers, by this canon, have in view the bishops, to whom they acknowledge full authority to impose penalties and to grant mercy, according to their own discernment and conscience, to anyone who shows himself worthy of mercy. Of this authority of bishops we have already spoken in the commentary on canon 12 of the First Ecumenical Council.