Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 787)

Canon 1

To those who have received the priestly dignity, the promulgated canonical institutions serve for testimony and guidance, which we too gladly accept, and together with the God-inspired David praise the Lord God, saying: ‘I rejoice at the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches’ (Ps. 118, 14), and: ‘Thou hast declared thy righteousness and thy testimonies forever; give me understanding and I shall live’ (Ps. 118, 138, 144). And if the prophetic voice commands us to keep God’s testimonies forever and to live according to them, it is clear that they must remain firm and immovable, for the God-seer Moses likewise says: ‘Ye shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it’ (Deut. 12, 32). And the divine apostle Peter, glorying in them, loudly declares: ‘which things the angels desire to look into’ (1 Pet. 1, 12). Paul, moreover, says: ‘though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed’ (Gal. 1, 8). And since all this is so, and thus has been bequeathed to us, glorying in it, as one who has found rich spoil, we gladly accept in their entirety, and as immovable, confirm those things which the divine canons establish—which have been issued by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the all-glorious apostles, and thereafter by the six holy ecumenical councils, and by those councils which gathered locally for the purpose of issuing such canons, and finally by our holy fathers. For all of these, enlightened by one and the same Spirit, established what was useful; and whom they deliver to anathema, the same we too anathematize; and whom they depose, the same we too depose; and whom they excommunicate, the same we too excommunicate; and whom, finally, they subject to penance, the same we too subject to penance. For: ‘be not covetous; be content with such things as ye have’ (Heb. 13, 5), loudly declares the divine apostle Paul, who was caught up to the third heaven, and heard the words spoken there.

(IV Ecum. 1; Trullo 2; Carthage 1; Protodeutera 10).

— By this canon it is ordained that all who have received priestly rank must know and sacredly keep the ordinances of all the canons which have been issued by lawful ecclesiastical authority, and must learn from these canons how they are to conduct themselves and how they are to govern the people entrusted to them. This is expressed by the opening words of the canon, that the canonical institutions are to serve the sacred persons for testimony and guidance (μαρτύρια τε καὶ κατορθώματα, testimonia et ad recte se gerendum).¹ For this reason this Council not only mentions the relevant canons, but commands that they must be kept forever and must always remain firm and immovable (ἀχράδαντα καὶ ἀσάλευτα). And these canons are: a) the apostolic canons, b) the canons of the six ecumenical councils, c) the canons of the local councils, and d) the canons of the holy fathers. Namely: the 80 apostolic canons, then the canons issued at the first four ecumenical councils and at the Council in Trullo, which met in 691–692 and whose task it was to supplement what had not been done at the fifth (553) and sixth (680) ecumenical councils regarding the issuing of canons—that is, to issue the relevant canons, for which reason this Trullan council is also called the Penthekte, or the Fifth-Sixth, or even the Sixth Ecumenical Council—further, the canons of those local councils and of those holy fathers which are enumerated in canon 2 of the Trullan Council. And that the fathers of this (Seventh Ecumenical) Council, in this their canon, understood precisely those canons which were confirmed at the Trullan Council, is attested by the president of the same (Seventh) Council, Patriarch Tarasius, in his address at the fourth session of the Council.[1]

To all these canons this Council acknowledges equal authority, for the authors of these canons were likewise all enlightened by one and the same Spirit. Concerning the importance and significance of all the aforementioned canons, we have said what is needful in the commentary on canon 2 of the Trullan Council.

Canon 2

Since, glorifying God, we promise Him: ‘I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word’ (Ps. 118, 16), it is salutary for all Christians to keep this, and especially for those who receive the priestly dignity. For this reason we ordain that everyone who is to be appointed to the episcopal degree must by all means know the Psalter, so that he may thereby also instruct all his clergy to be taught from it. Accordingly, everyone who is to be appointed bishop must be diligently examined by the metropolitan, whether he has a ready and capable mind to read thoughtfully, and not merely superficially, the holy canons, and the holy Gospel, and the book of the divine Apostle, and all divine Scripture, and likewise, whether he will act according to God’s commandments, and whether he will instruct the people entrusted to him. For the substance of our hierarchy consists of the God-given words, that is, the right knowledge of the divine books, as the great Dionysius has said. But if, upon examination, it is observed that the person in question wavers in knowledge, and does not give full assurance that he will act and teach as is required, let him not be ordained, for God has said through the prophets: ‘thou hast rejected knowledge, and I will reject thee, that thou shalt not perform the priestly office for me’ (Hosea 4, 6).

(Ap. 58, 80; I Ecum. 2; Trullo 19; Laodicea 12; Sardica 10; Carthage 18).

— This canon prescribes that only he may be appointed bishop who is well versed in Holy Scripture and in the canons, and concerning whom assurance is obtained that he will be capable also of teaching others. In our commentary on apostolic canons 58 and 80 we spoke in general about what knowledge a bishop must have, in order to be worthy of his high office. In this canon that is developed more fully, and a precise rule is established. It establishes, namely, that a candidate for the episcopate must show that he has a thorough knowledge of Holy Scripture[2], and likewise of canon law[3]. With regard to the first, the canon points out the reason, namely that the substance (οὐσία) of the sacred hierarchy consists of the God-given words, that is, the true knowledge (ἀληθινὴ ἐπιστήμη) of the divine books[4], and among these books it mentions the Gospel and the apostolic books and all divine Scripture, and in particular also the Psalter. The canon mentions the Psalter, says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, so that the bishop may be capable of instructing also the people to be sanctified in the mysteries[5]. In ancient Christian times it was the custom for not only sacred persons but also laymen to learn by heart certain chosen psalms, and even the entire Psalter, and these psalms were sung together not only in the churches, but also during various labors[6]. The Psalms of David were the people’s most beloved song, by which they were inspired and nourished piety within themselves. This the priests and bishops made use of for the benefit of the Church and the salvation of men, and on every occasion they expounded the Psalms and drew from them instruction for conduct in the spirit of the Christian Church. In the course of time this fell into neglect, and the people were left without this good spiritual nourishment which the Psalter provided. And this came about mainly through the fault of the priests themselves. This Council of Nicaea turned its attention to this, and, in order to restore the good old custom in this respect, ordains that, besides the knowledge of Holy Scripture which a bishop must have for his general office, he must especially know the Psalter well, and must communicate this knowledge for the instruction of the clergy under him as well, so that they might again make the Psalter beloved to the people, as before, and the people might again receive from the Psalms that spiritual nourishment which they once received from them.

With regard to canon law, the canon notes the bishop’s duty to govern well the Church entrusted to him, and this he will be able to do only if he knows all the canons thoughtfully, and not merely superficially (ἐρευνητικῶς καὶ οὐ παροδευτικῶς). To prove that a given candidate for the episcopate knows Holy Scripture and canon law as required, and is therefore worthy of episcopal ordination, the canon ordains that this candidate must be subjected to a special examination before the competent metropolitan. And the canon further ordains that the metropolitan must do this diligently (ἀσφαλῶς), that is, he must use every care to examine the candidate thoroughly in every respect, lest the Church and the people be exposed to danger, should an unworthy person be appointed bishop. In this connection the canon instructs the metropolitan that in examining the candidate he must not confine himself simply to whether the candidate has a general knowledge of Holy Scripture and the canons, but must pay careful attention to whether he has ‘a ready and capable mind’ to penetrate into the substance of Holy Scripture and the canons, and to apply from them, thoughtfully, what he needs according to the needs of the people who will be entrusted to his pastoral care. He must be capable, says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon regarding the candidate for the episcopate, of penetrating deeply into the spirit of Holy Scripture and the holy canons, so that he knows the sense of every word and is able to teach the people entrusted to him and is ready to answer whenever anyone asks him about it. And once the metropolitan is convinced of the candidate’s sufficient knowledge for the episcopate, the canon further recommends that in the examination he pay attention also to whether this candidate, as bishop, will act according to God’s commandments and whether he will instruct the people; that is, Zonaras further observes, it is not enough for him to show that he knows Holy Scripture and the canons, but one must be assured that he will act and live in accordance with God’s commandments and will teach this to the people entrusted to him, for the substance of our hierarchy consists of the God-given words, that is, the right and exact knowledge of the divine Scripture. When the metropolitan is fully assured of all this at the examination, then he may permit the candidate to receive episcopal ordination. In the contrary case, if the metropolitan observes—the canon adds—that the candidate wavers, that is, that he is not entirely firm in knowledge, and does not give reliable assurance that he will act according to the prescriptions of Holy Scripture and the holy canons and will not be capable of teaching the people, then let him not be ordained (μὴ χειροτονείσθω), for he is not worthy of the episcopate.

Canon 3

Every election of a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, which is made by means of secular authorities, shall be void, according to the canon which says: ‘If any bishop, making use of secular rulers, obtains a church through them, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and likewise all who communicate with him.’[7][8] For he who is to be advanced to the episcopate must be chosen by bishops, as has been ordained by the holy fathers at Nicaea in the canon which says: ‘A bishop ought to be appointed, above all, by all the bishops in the province; but if this is difficult, either on account of some pressing necessity or on account of the length of the journey, let at least three come together in one place, and let the absent also give their vote, consenting through letters, and then let the ordination take place; but the confirmation of all this shall belong, in each province, to the metropolitan.’

(Ap. 30; I Ecum. 4; Antioch 19, 23; Laodicea 12, 13; Sardica 6; Constantinople 1; Carthage 13, 49, 50).

— This canon repeats word for word, first, apostolic canon 30, and then canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council; the commentaries on those canons serve also as the commentary on this canon.

Canon 4

The preacher of truth, the divine apostle Paul, laying down as a kind of rule for the Ephesian presbyters, or rather for the whole priesthood, thus resolutely says to them: ‘I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. I have shewed you all things, that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember that it is more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts 20, 33, 35). For this reason we too, who have been taught by him, ordain that a bishop shall by no means, out of vile greed for gain, and under the pretended pretext of certain sins, seek out gold, or silver, or anything else from the bishops, or clergy, or monks subject to him; for the Apostle says: ‘the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Cor. 6, 9), and: ‘the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children’ (2 Cor. 12, 14). And whoever is found—because he wishes to extort gold or something else, or on account of some passion of his own—forbidding church service and excommunicating one of his own clergy, or closing the venerable temple, so that in it there be no divine service, and thereby turns his folly against senseless things, such a one is himself senseless, and shall be subjected to that to which he wished to subject others, and his malice shall return upon his own head (Ps. 7, 17), as a transgressor of God’s commandment and of the apostolic institutions. For Peter also, the chief of the apostles, commands: ‘Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, and according to God; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock; and when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away’ (1 Pet. 5, 2, 3, 4).

(Ap. 29; IV Ecum. 2; Trullo 22, 23; VII Ecum. 5, 15, 19; Laodicea 19; Sardica 2; Basil the Great 90; Gelasius’ Epistle; Tarasius’ Epistle).

— This canon is issued against those bishops who, out of vile greed for gain, and under invented pretexts, seek out money or something else from other bishops, clergy, or monks subject to them, and it condemns this as simony, adducing the relevant passages of Holy Scripture in which this hellish passion is branded. On simony in the narrower sense, that is, on ordaining for money, we have spoken in the commentaries on apostolic canon 29 and canon 2 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. In this canon two other kinds of simony are mentioned: namely, when a bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch, seized by the passion of avarice, in order to gain money for himself, either—1. forbids church service or excommunicates some clergyman subject to him. That the prohibition of divine service or the excommunication of a clergyman may take place only after a lawful trial is spoken of by countless canons (Ap. 74 and its parallel canons), just as there are many canons which condemn a bishop for partiality in judgment (I Ecum. 5 and its parallel canons). All the more severe condemnation must a bishop incur when he abuses his authority over the clergy subject to him, and subjects an innocent clergyman, guilty of nothing, to trial and condemns him, solely in order to extort money or something else from him under the pretext of granting him absolution. ‘He who presides in a given church,’ says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, ‘ought, according to the canon (κατὰ κανόνα), to punish the bishop, or clergyman, or monk subject to him when they err, and not to abandon canonical inquiry for the sake of vile greed for gain (διὰ τὸ αἰσχροκερδές). The canon commands the hierarchs not to lord it over their clergy, that is, not to regard them as their slaves and servants, but to guide and correct them without any partiality or violence.’ Acting otherwise, the hierarchs would transgress the precept of Holy Scripture which this canon also cites, and which tells them that they must feed the flock of God not by force—that is, not guided by earthly things or by the passion of avarice—but willingly and according to God: namely, moved by love for God and neighbor, which love prompts us to do everything honestly and with good will, and not for unrighteous gain, but from a good heart; nor as though lording it over the clergy, but that they must be, in everything, examples to the flock; and if they act and conduct themselves thus, when the Chief Shepherd appears they will receive the crown of glory that will never fade (1 Pet. 5, 2, 3, 4).

2. The second kind of simony of which this canon speaks is that some bishops, again out of vile greed for gain, ordained that, in the name of some penalty which they themselves invented but which could not be justified by anything, churches in certain places be closed, and forbade the holy service to be celebrated in them. By this, the canon says, they merely turned their folly against senseless things, and thereby deprived a great number of people of prayer and the holy sacrifice. What the canon speaks of here would be a kind of, which developed widely in the West in the second half of the Middle Ages, and which, as it appears, some bishops in the East arbitrarily wished to impose on individual places even as early as the eighth century. Against this disorder this canon speaks and condemns the guilty in the words of the seventh Psalm, that the malice of such bishops shall return upon their own head.

Canon 5

It is a sin unto death, when some sin and refuse to amend themselves; and worse than this is when some, by cunning conduct, rise up against piety and truth, having regard rather to mammon than to obedience to God, and neglecting His canons and institutions. In such men the Lord God does not dwell, so long as they do not submit and come to their senses from their evil, and for this reason they must approach God in a special manner and, with a contrite heart, entreat Him to remit and forgive their sin, and not exalt themselves because of their unlawful giving. For the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart (Ps. 33, 18-19).[9] Accordingly, those who boast that they have been appointed to the service of the Church because they gave gold, and place their hope in this evil custom, which alienates from both God and the priesthood, and who shamelessly and openly, with disgraceful words, dishonor those who were chosen by the Holy Spirit on account of their virtuous life and were appointed to the service of the Church without paying gold—such persons who do this must first be reduced to the lowest rank of their order; and if they remain obstinate they must be corrected by penance. And if anyone is found to have done this at the very time of ordination, let him be dealt with according to the apostolic canon, which says: ‘If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, obtains this dignity by money, let him be deposed, both he and the one who ordained him, and let him be altogether cut off from communion, as Simon Magus was by me, Peter’; and likewise also according to another canon of our holy fathers at Chalcedon, which says: ‘If any bishop performs an ordination for money, and turns the grace which cannot be sold into an object of sale, and for money appoints a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone else numbered among the clergy, or out of vile greed for gain advances for money an oeconomus, or an ekdikos, or a paramonarios, or anyone else enumerated in the canon, and if this is proven to have truly been done, let him be deposed from his rank; and let the one who was appointed by such means derive no benefit from the purchased ordination or advancement, but let him be regarded as not having the dignity or office which he obtained with money. And whoever has also been a go-between in such a shameful and unlawful trade—if he is a clergyman, let him be deposed from his rank; if he is a layman or a monk, let him be anathema.’

(Ap. 29; IV Ecum. 2; Trullo 22, 23; VII Ecum. 4, 15, 19; Laodicea 12; Sardica 2; Basil the Great 90; Tarasius’ Epistle; Gelasius’ Epistle).

— Again a new kind of simony, against which this canon speaks. There were some from wealthier families who, before entering the clergy, had made a gift of money to one or another church, as their pious offering and gift to God. Having become clergymen, they forgot the piety with which they had made the gift, but instead pointed to it as some merit of their own before other clergymen, who without paying money, but by their own merits, had received their church rank, and openly disparaged these latter, demanding precedence for themselves in the Church over them. This created disorder in the Church, and against this disorder this canon was issued. At the outset the canon cites the words from the first epistle of the apostle John (5, 16), that it is a sin unto death when some sin and do not repent. It then goes on to speak of an even worse evil, as this indeed is—namely, pride and insolent conduct after the sin has been committed; and the sin, in this case, according to the words of the canon, is that obedience to God is forgotten and His canons and institutions are neglected, while mammon is served. In such men, the canon says, there is no Lord God, so long as they remain obstinate in sin, but they must approach God in a special manner and with a contrite heart pray for forgiveness. Only thus will those who wished to flaunt their merits before poorer but more deserving clergymen—merely because they had made some contribution to the church—be able to obtain forgiveness even from the Church. In any case, the canon ordains that, for their boasting, such persons are to be reduced to the lowest rank of their order—that is, to be the most junior among their equals in rank—so that thereby they may atone for the sin of pride and, through humility, obtain the mercy of the Church. If they remain obstinate in pride, the canon commands that they be subjected to a deserved penance, and this, according to the words of Balsamon, at the discretion of the competent bishop. And if anyone has resorted to this at the very time of ordination, then the canon prescribes that the general canons on simony be applied—these being, in the first place, apostolic canon 29 and canon 2 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which canons are repeated word for word in this (fifth) canon.

Canon 6

Since there is a canon which says: twice every year there ought to be, in every province, canonical inquiries by an assembly of bishops[10][11] — but on account of the difficulties, and because the bishops who had to come to the assembly did not always have what was needed for travel, the holy fathers of the Sixth Council ordained that, in any case and without any excuse, there must be a council once a year, in order to set right what has been disturbed—this same canon we too repeat. And if any secular official is found to forbid this, let him be excommunicated. But the metropolitan who neglects this, and is not prevented by some force or necessity, or by another justified reason, shall be subject to punishment according to the canons. And when a council is assembled for canonical and evangelical matters, the assembled bishops must, with special care and diligence, strive that the divine and life-giving commandments of God be kept; for he who keeps them has great reward (Ps. 18, 12), and: for the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life (Prov. 6, 23), and: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Ps. 18, 9). And the metropolitan shall demand nothing of what the bishop brings with him, neither cattle nor anything else; for if it is proven that he has done this, he shall have to restore it fourfold.

(Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 19; Trullo 8; Antioch 20; Carthage 95).

— This canon repeats the ordinance of canon 8 of the Trullan Council, by which the older norm of holding metropolitan councils twice each year (σύνοδον κατ’ ἐκάστην ἐπαρχίαν, Ap. 37, I Ecum. 5, Antioch 20, IV Ecum. 19) was changed, and it was established that these councils be held once a year in every metropolitan province. Of this we have spoken in the commentaries on apostolic canon 37 and the aforementioned canons of the ecumenical councils. From this canon it must be concluded that the secular authorities of that time frequently hindered the holding of these councils. Meanwhile, according to the canonical ordinances of the Church, the said authorities had no right whatsoever in this matter, but the right of convoking councils was exclusively the right of the ecclesiastical authority, which was acknowledged to the Church even by the older Greco-Roman civil legislation[12]. In accordance with these canonical ordinances, this canon likewise ordains that every secular official (whoever he may be) who forbids the holding of the said councils shall be excommunicated (ἀφοριζέσθω). The right and duty of convoking these councils belongs to the metropolitan (Antioch 20); should the metropolitan neglect this duty of his without some external force or necessity, or without some justified reason for it, he shall, according to this canon, be subject to canonical punishment (τοῖς κανονικοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις ὑποκείσθω), which shall be determined for him by the council of the competent bishops. At such councils, the canon prescribes, canonical and evangelical matters are to be discussed (περὶ κανονικῶν καὶ εὐαγγελικῶν ζητημάτων). Zonaras and Balsamon, in their commentary on this canon, refer to the first—that is, canonical matters—everything concerning judgment, the administration of church property, the election of clergy, and the like; and to the second—that is, evangelical matters—everything concerning the faith and the performance of the sacraments and other commandments of God. Since the chief task of the said councils, according to the words of this canon, is that the divine and life-giving commandments of God be kept, the canon accordingly prescribes that the bishops assembled at the council, with special care and diligence (μελέτῃ καὶ φροντίδι), must see to it that these commandments be everywhere exactly kept—namely, as Zonaras explains, whether in every single episcopal district everything is being fulfilled according to the prescription, and whether people everywhere live in accordance with God’s commandments. Finally, the canon adds the reminder to the metropolitans concerned that, when these councils take place, they must demand nothing in the name of some reward for their trouble from the bishops subject to them; and if they do this and take something from these bishops, they are obliged to restore it fourfold. If, however, some bishop should wish to present his metropolitan with something of his own good will, he is not forbidden to do so, says Balsamon, concluding his commentary on this canon.

Canon 7

The divine apostle Paul has said: some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after[13][14][15][16] (1 Tim. 5, 24). Thus, upon sins already committed, other sins follow after them. So too, upon the impious heresy of the slanderers of Christianity [the iconoclasts], other impieties followed. And just as they removed the images of the venerable icons from the church, so also they abandoned certain other customs, which must be restored, and again given force according to the written and unwritten law. For this reason, if any venerable temples have been consecrated without the holy relics of martyrs, we ordain that relics be placed in them with the customary prayer. And whoever consecrates a temple without holy relics shall be deposed, for he has transgressed the tradition of the Church.

(Да. 51; IV Ecum. 4; Trullo 31; Antioch 5; Carthage 83).

— As is known, this Council was held against the iconoclasts[17]. At the penultimate session the dogma on the veneration of holy icons was issued, and the main point of the iconoclast heresy was condemned. But the iconoclasts did not confine their persecution to the holy icons alone, but extended it also to other objects of Christian piety, for, as this canon says, once certain sins have been committed, other sins follow after them of themselves. Having cast the holy icons out of the churches, the heretics likewise ordained that the relics of the holy martyrs also be cast out of the churches—and especially the relics that lay at the foundation of every church, beneath the holy altar—and the heretical bishops in question consecrated all new churches without the deposition of holy relics. This impious act the fathers of this Council call contrary to the written and unwritten law (τὴν ἔγγραφον καὶ ἄγραφον θεσμοθεσίαν) and an offense against the traditions of the Church (τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς παραδόσεις), and they condemn this act and command that what was impiously cast out of the church by the heretics be restored and that the tradition of the Church be given force again—and in particular, that at the consecration of every church the holy relics of martyrs must be deposited beneath the holy altar, and that every bishop who allows himself to consecrate a church without holy relics must be deposed.

The custom of depositing the relics of martyrs at the consecration of churches—in other words, of offering the bloodless sacrifice only upon such a board or slab beneath which relics lie—this custom is founded, in truth, both on the written and on the unwritten law, as this canon states. In the Holy Scripture of the New Testament there is contained an indirect ordinance concerning this. The apostle John speaks of the souls of the martyrs which are found beneath the heavenly altar (Rev. 6, 9), and by this already gives a pattern for earthly altars, and marks the bond which must exist between the sacrifice of the holy martyrs and the eternal sacrifice of Christ the Savior. In the sense of this mystical bond between the holy martyrs and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, already from the very beginning of the Christian Church the Eucharistic sacrifice was regularly offered at the graves of martyrs, or at least where there was a part of a martyr’s holy body—martyrs’ relics. What had been introduced in the Church according to the pattern of Holy Scripture, and what was preserved through the ages of persecution, later passed into the positive law of the Church. At a council held at Carthage in the year 401 a strict canon was established, that every church must be destroyed if it is not found that either the body or the relics of a martyr have been deposited in it (Carthage 83). Ambrose of Milan refused to consecrate a certain church until martyrs’ relics had been brought to him, so that he might lay them in its foundation. John Chrysostom, in one of his homilies, points to the sublimity of the significance that the bloodless sacrifice is offered upon the relics of martyrs, and regards this as an ecclesiastical law, unconditionally binding upon everyone.

Just as holy relics are deposited at the consecration of a church, so must this also be done at the consecration of an antimension. Of the significance of the antimension we have spoken in the commentary on Trullo canon 31. Antimensia, just like churches, only a bishop has the right to consecrate, and this consecration of an antimension is in every respect similar to the consecration of a church itself. In a certain church which, for some reason, could not be consecrated in person by a bishop, or in a house-chapel, the antimension takes the place of the episcopal consecration, and thereby that church or house-chapel becomes a sanctuary for the Eucharistic sacrifice in exactly the same way as such a sanctuary is a church that has been consecrated by a bishop.

Canon 8

Since some, straying from the Jewish faith, have contrived to mock Christ our God, feigning to be Christians, while secretly denying Him, and covertly keeping the Sabbath and doing other things that are Jewish[18][19][20] — we ordain that such persons shall be received neither into communion, nor to prayer, nor into the church, but let them openly remain, according to their own confession, Jews; nor should their children be baptized, nor should they be granted the right to purchase slaves, or to possess anything. But if any of them turns with sincere faith and confesses it with his whole heart, having renounced the customs and practices of his former religion, so that thereby he may also expose others and lead them to the right path—such a one alone is to be received, and he and his children are to be baptized, and care must be taken that he remain far from Jewish customs. If those in question do not act thus, they must by no means be received.

(Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; Trullo 11, 84; Antioch 1; Laodicea 29, 37, 38).

— There were, as it appears, some Jews who, for personal reasons, converted to the Christian faith, but without sincere conviction, and merely pretended to be Christians, while in reality secretly holding to their former religion. These Jews did this mostly, according to the words of Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, because they were subject to trial for various offenses, and in order to escape condemnation or to avoid paying debts, they turned to Christianity. But another cause of such an apparent conversion to Christianity was that, as a result of a law of the Emperor Leo the Isaurian (717–741), the Jews were compelled to be baptized, and thus were forced by fear to accept the Christian faith. And this was already contrary to the spirit of Christianity, which condemns the coercion of man’s conscience and, in general, condemns every kind of religious proselytism[21][22]. Whether it was for one or another of the aforementioned reasons that the Jews converted to Christianity, the fact was that this conversion of theirs produced scandal in the Church, for they secretly reviled the Christian faith, kept the Sabbath, and did everything as before, as Jews. Against this scandal this canon was issued, which ordains that such Jews are not to be regarded as Christians, nor are any rights, whether ecclesiastical or civil, to be granted them, nor are their children to be baptized.

Concerning this last point—that is, that even the children of such apparently converted Jews are not to be baptized—Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, observes that the Turks (Ἀγαρηνοί) too did something similar to the Jews, and would bring their children to be baptized by Christian priests, regarding baptism not as a sacrament, but as a kind of bodily remedy (ὡς θεραπείαν σωματικήν). In his commentary on Trullo canon 84, Balsamon explains how this practice arose among the Turks. In the time of Patriarch Luke (1156–1169), certain Turks came to Constantinople, declaring before the patriarchal council that they were Christians, since in childhood they had been baptized in their own land by Christian priests. When asked how this could be, since they followed the law of Muhammad, they answered that it was their custom (συνήθειά ἐστι) to have their children baptized by Orthodox priests (παρὰ ὀρθοδόξων ἱερέων), and this because they believed that an evil spirit dwells in every newborn child and that it stinks like a dog (κατὰ κύνας ὄζειν) until it receives Christian baptism; from which the council concluded that this baptism, which the infidels seek from Christians, they do not seek from a good and Orthodox intention, but for a bodily remedy, and not as a means which cleanses from every stain of the soul and enlightens and sanctifies man, but as a kind of remedy or charm (ὡς φαρμακείαν ἢ ἐπῳδήν). Such a baptism the patriarchal council could of course not recognize as valid, and it ordered that all these Turks be baptized anew, if they so wished. That council based its decision on the analogy of this (eighth) canon of our Council.

Having issued an ordinance against those who accept the Christian faith only in appearance, this canon prescribes how one is to proceed with Jews who genuinely wish to convert to Christianity, namely: they must show sincere faith and confess it from the heart, and solemnly condemn the customs and practices of their former faith, promising that they will never again hold to those customs and practices and that they will sacredly keep the Christian teaching and live by it[23]. If they do this, then only can they, and their children, be granted baptism. If they do not do this, the canon forbids baptizing them.

Canon 9

All the childish fables, and senseless games, and false writings which were composed against the venerable icons, must be handed over to the bishopric of Constantinople, to be kept together with the other heretical books. And if anyone is found concealing them, let him be deposed if he is a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, and let him be excommunicated if he is a layman or a monk.

(Ap. 60; Trullo 69; ao. 59).

— The iconoclasts, defending their position against the Orthodox and endeavoring to prove that the veneration of holy icons was, as they claimed, idolatry, wrote many books, which the fathers of this Council call false writings (ψευδοσυγγράμματα), for they contained false teaching within them, and they describe these writings as childish fables and senseless games. In the Greek text this last word is denoted by a term [illegible], which Beveridge translates as ‘ludibria.’ The fathers of the Council used this word in order thereby more strongly to underscore the senselessness of the iconoclast teaching and the content of the iconoclast books. This same word is taken from the pagan cult of Bacchus (ὁ Βάκχος, Bacchus) and the women who played the chief part in it (βάκχαι, bacchae). Zonaras says the following about this in his commentary on this canon: ‘The bacchae formed a chorus of frenzied dancing women around Bacchus; and Bacchus was regarded among the pagans as the god who patronized drunkenness and who himself became drunk and raved. Accordingly, just as the bacchae, when seized by frenzy, did nothing rational but only whirled about senselessly, so too, in the words of the fathers of this Council, those who composed those writings against the holy icons were moved to do so under the influence of frenzy and folly, and not in a sound state of mind.’

For such false writings the canon ordains that they must all be gathered up wherever they may be found and handed over to the bishopric of Constantinople (τῷ ἐπισκοπείῳ), where they shall be kept together with the other heretical books. This ‘episkopeion,’ according to the words of Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, denotes in this canon the patriarchal chartophylakion (χαρτοφυλακεῖον), that is, a department within the building of the patriarch’s residence, which stood under the administration and oversight of the Great Chartophylax. Trullo canon 68 ordains that books of anti-religious and immoral content are to be burned; but this canon ordains only that such books be collected and kept in the patriarchal bishopric (chartophylakion). Balsamon writes on this occasion: ‘It amounts to the same thing whether one burns the impious books of the heretics or deposits them in the bishopric of Constantinople, for just as no one can read books that have been burned, so too no one can do so when they are deposited in that hidden place where no one can even see them; accordingly, whoever burns the books written by the iconoclasts, and thus does not hand them over to the Constantinopolitan bishopric, does not fall under the condemnation of this (ninth) canon, for by doing so he has in no way acted contrary to the canon.’

Whoever refuses to hand over the false books but keeps them concealed in his possession, whatever his intention may be—the canon ordains that he be deposed, if he belongs to the clergy, and that he be excommunicated, if he is a layman or a monk. Of the spiritual censorship which must watch over and prevent the publication of anti-religious and immoral books, we have spoken in the commentary on the aforementioned (63rd) Trullo canon.

Canon 10

Since some clerics, evading the ordinance of the canons, abandon their parish and flee into other parishes—and this is especially observed in this God-preserved and imperial city—and settle with secular dignitaries, performing the holy service in their private chapels, such clerics, without the consent of their own bishop and of the bishop of Constantinople, must not be received into any house or church; and whoever does this, and persists obstinately in it, let him be deposed. If, however, some clerics do this with the consent of the aforementioned prelates, in such a case these clerics must not take upon themselves secular and civil business, since this is forbidden them by the divine canons. And whoever is found undertaking such business in the households of the so-called great men must either cease, or be deposed. In any case it is better for him to go and teach the children and the members of his household, and to read to them the holy books, for it was for this that he received the priesthood.

(Ap. 6, 15, 20, 58, 81, 83; I Ecum. 2, 15, 16; IV Ecum. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 59, 64; Antioch 3, 13, 16, 21; Laodicea 19; Sardica 1, 2, 3, 12, 15, 16; Carthage 16, 48, 54, 65, 71, 80, 90, 121, 123; Protodeutera 11).

— This canon repeats a multitude of earlier canonical ordinances, of which we have here cited only a part among the parallel canons[24][25][24]. In the main, by the precise observation of Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, two unlawful acts (ἄθεσμα) are forbidden here: first, that clerics belonging to another see may not move from one place to another and come to Constantinople, nor settle with secular dignitaries and serve in their private chapels, without the knowledge of their own bishop, from whom they have fled, and without the knowledge of the bishop of Constantinople, into whose province they have fled; and whoever acts contrary to this ordinance is to be deposed. Second, even if some clerics obtain the relevant permission from their own bishop and from the bishop of Constantinople to serve in the private chapels of various secular persons in Constantinople, they nevertheless must not take upon themselves secular and civil business, nor occupy themselves with such business; and if anyone is found doing so, let him either cease, or be deposed. After this ordinance, the canon gives a very significant reminder to priests as to what they ought to occupy themselves with after church service; it reminds them, namely, of their teaching duty, for the sake of which they received the priesthood (εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην ἐκληρώσαντο).

Of the duty of priests to be teachers of the people many canons speak, and among other canons we have spoken of this in the commentary on apostolic canon 98. In the book ‘On the Duties of Parish Priests’ an ample chapter is devoted to this, and there everything concerning this priestly duty is set forth in the greatest detail, on the basis of Holy Scripture, the canons of the Church, and the teaching of the Fathers of the Church. In particular, this canon mentions the duty of the priest to teach children and the young. On this the aforementioned book writes “The duty of instructing children rests chiefly upon the presbyter… This instruction must consist in the exposition of the catechism, in which first of all the children are reminded of baptism and of the vows given at it: whom they renounced, to whom they were joined, what they received from the heavenly Father for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ—the remission of sins; that they bound themselves to devote their life to the holy service of God, put on the new man, that is, received new inclinations and powers of grace, an enlightened understanding in the mind of God, of virtue and of true human blessedness, and in the heart love and fervor toward God and assurance of the great love of the heavenly Father…; this must be diligently instilled in them in their young years, so as not to allow evil inclinations to grow strong in them, but rather to awaken love of virtue and of a God-pleasing life; for the age of childhood, like an earthen vessel, will ever give forth the odor of whatever it is filled with, good or evil.” Concerning the time when the priest is to do this, the same book says: “A presbyter will act in a manner befitting his calling if on every Sunday afternoon he orders the young children to gather in the church or school, and there instructs them.”[26] By this important ordinance of our canon concerning the priestly duty to teach the young, and the manner in which it is set forth in the canon, two fundamental canonical ideas are shown to us: 1, that the instruction of the young in matters of faith and morals must be entirely entrusted to the priesthood, for whom this is the first and chief duty, so that priests, by virtue of this their duty, will also be best able to instruct the young; 2, that the priesthood, besides the celebration of divine service, must occupy itself with theological literature and devote all its care to becoming as good a teacher of faith and morals among the people as possible. Accordingly, this canon condemns, on the one hand, every tendency to take the instruction of the young in faith and morals out of the hands of the priesthood and entrust that instruction to laymen, and, on the other hand, it likewise condemns a priesthood which neglects this instruction and instead occupies itself with other business, which by no means accords with its office and with which only laymen ought to occupy themselves.

Canon 11

As we are bound to keep all the divine canons inviolate , we must by all means keep inviolate also that which commands that there be an oeconomus in every church. And it is good if every metropolitan appoints an oeconomus in his own church; if not, the bishop of Constantinople shall have the authority to appoint an oeconomus in that church. The metropolitans shall do likewise if the bishops subject to them refuse to appoint oeconomi in their churches. And this same rule is to be observed also with regard to monasteries.

(Ap. 38, 41; IV Ecum. 25, 26; Trullo 35; VII Ecum. 83; Protodeutera 7; Theophilus of Alexandria 10; Cyril of Alexandria 2).

— The canon (κανών) mentioned in this canon is canon 26 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which ordains that at every episcopal church there must be an oeconomus, who shall administer the church’s property. In the commentary on that canon we have set out what is needful on this subject. This (eleventh) canon addresses the fact that in some episcopal, and even metropolitan, churches there was no oeconomus, and it ordains that the ordinance of the Fourth Ecumenical Council on this must in every way be kept inviolate (ἀπαρασαλεύτῳ τρόπῳ). And if certain metropolitans or bishops should refuse themselves to appoint oeconomi in their churches, or abbots in their monasteries, in such a case the canon grants the relevant right to the higher authorities to do this by their own authority—namely: to the patriarch of Constantinople, to appoint the person who shall be oeconomus in the metropolitan church subject to him; to the metropolitan, in the episcopal church subject to him; and to the bishop, in the monastery subject to him.

In the aforementioned canon (26) of the Fourth Ecumenical Council it is stated that every church must choose its oeconomus from its own clergy (ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου κλήρου). This canon confirms that, adding the same ordinance also for monasteries, so that the monastic oeconomus, too, must be chosen from among the brethren of the monastery, from among the monks of the given monastery. On this question, Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, says that a certain bishop was accused of having a layman administer the property of the bishopric, and that some justified this on the ground that this canon does not say that only clergymen must be oeconomi, and that therefore laymen too may administer the property of churches. To this Balsamon observes what we have just said, namely, that this canon is nothing other than a confirmation of canon 26 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and that accordingly only a member of the clergy of the given church, and by no means a layman, may administer church property—and passing on to speak of the same question with regard to monasteries, he says: ‘no one, not even one who is out of his mind (κἂν παραφρονῇ, etiamsi desipiat), would say that laymen could administer monastic property.’[27]

Canon 12

Any bishop or abbot who is found ceding lands belonging to the bishopric or monastery to secular authority, or handing them over to any other person: such a transfer shall be void, in accordance with the canon of the holy apostles, which says: ‘Let the bishop have charge of all church affairs, and administer them, as one observed by God; he must not appropriate any of these things to himself, nor give as gifts to his relatives what belongs to God; if they are poor, let him assist them as the poor, but let not church property be squandered under this pretext.’ Even if it is claimed that the land causes loss and that no benefit at all is derived from it, even in such a case the land must not be handed over to local authorities, but to clerics or farmers. And if, in this matter, they resort to some wicked stratagem, and the landowner buys back the land from the cleric or farmer, in such a case too the sale shall be void, but everything must be restored to the bishopric or monastery; and the bishop, or abbot, who does this, shall be expelled—the bishop from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery, as persons who mercilessly squander what they themselves did not acquire.

(Ap. 38, 39, 40, 41, 73; IV Ecum. 24, 25; Trullo 49; VII Ecum. 11, 13; Ancyra 15; Antioch 24, 25; Carthage 26, 33; Cyril of Alexandria 9; Theophilus of Alexandria 10).

— The supreme administrator of church property in a given diocese is the bishop. This is acknowledged to him by many canons, and in particular by apostolic canon 38, which is cited word for word in this (twelfth) canon. How the bishop is to administer this property is prescribed in that same apostolic canon and in its parallel canons, which we have cited in their proper places. According to these canonical ordinances, for bad administration of church property, and likewise for every loss which the church suffers in its possessions, it is the bishop, in the first place, who is responsible. Under the bishop’s oversight, monastic property is entrusted, according to the canons, to the abbot of the monastery in question, and the abbot is responsible for everything concerning that administration (together, of course, with the monastic brotherhood) and for every loss to which monastic property is subject (IV Ecum. 4, 8, and others). Accordingly, in speaking of the preservation of church and monastic property, this canon mentions the bishop and the abbot, who are lawfully called to take care of the preservation of church and monastic property.

In this canon only lands (ἀγρός, field, plot) belonging to churches or monasteries are mentioned, which the bishops and abbots are to preserve. But the property of churches and monasteries consists, besides lands, also of all other movable things which a church or monastery may possess (Ap. 70; Ancyra 15; Cyril of Alexandria 2). Accordingly, when this canon speaks of the preservation of what belongs to churches and monasteries, both immovable and movable things (κινητὰ καὶ ἀκίνητα) are to be understood. And with regard to these, whether immovable or movable, the canon ordains that every bishop and abbot must preserve them and take care that they always remain in the possession of the given church or monastery, and must not, under any condition whatsoever, cede them into the possession of secular authorities, or hand them over to any other private persons, since such a transfer can never have any validity (ἄκυρον εἶναι τὴν ἔκδοσιν, invalidam esse traditionem).

At the time of iconoclasm, before this Council, the secular authorities had become so strengthened through iconoclasm, to the detriment of the ecclesiastical authorities, that these secular authorities themselves appointed the highest church dignitaries and themselves determined even bishops for the churches in question and abbots for monasteries. The ecclesiastical authority, under the iconoclast rulers, was deprived of almost all its rights, which rights the state authority had in the main appropriated to itself. In this, among other things, consisted the struggle between the iconoclasts and the Church, which worked with all its strength to preserve its freedom and authority—which, in the end, it achieved at this (Seventh Ecumenical) Council. Under the arbitrary rule of the iconoclast secular authorities, there were nonetheless, among the clergy, some ambitious individuals who wished to obtain from these authorities certain higher positions in the church hierarchy, and in order to achieve this, they turned to these same authorities and, by promising gifts, succeeded in their intention. Having become bishops or abbots by this purely simoniacal means, these ambitious men wished to fulfill their promise, and so, from church or monastic property, made gifts to their patrons, to the detriment of the church or monastery. And against this kind of misdeed this canon was drawn up, which, with regard to the inviolability of church property, invokes and cites the legal norm that had been in force from the beginning of the Church (Ap. 38).

Those who, by such simoniacal means, arrived at the episcopate or the abbacy, would justify themselves on the ground that certain lands which they had given away to others yielded no benefit at all; and this canon condemns this too, and ordains that even in such a case the lands must not be handed over into the hands of secular authorities, but that in that case the lands must be ceded to the clerics who wish to buy them, or to farmers, as persons who work the land and belong among the poor and needy, so that church land, which had been given for the sake of holy alms, might again pass either into the hands of sacred persons or be of use to a poor man. These same ambitious men also used another cunning device to carry out their misdeed, namely: they would sell some church or monastic land to some cleric or farmer for a small price, and then that landowner, to whom they were bound by their simoniacal obligations, would buy back that land—of course for a small price—and so harm would again come to the church or the monastery, only by another means. The fathers of the Council learned of this, and they ordain that not even in that case shall the sale be valid (καὶ οὕτως ἄκυρος ἔσται ἡ πρᾶσις), but everything must again be restored to the church or the monastery.

This ordinance, that church and monastic property must be preserved intact—an ordinance already contained in several older canons—was also adopted by the Orthodox Greco-Roman civil legislation, and it always held good as one of the strictest laws. In view of this, and especially in view of the circumstances that led the fathers of this Council to repeat the existing ordinances on this subject, in their canon they rebuke those who wish mercilessly to squander what they did not themselves acquire, and they ordain a severe penalty: the bishop who does this shall be expelled (ἐκδιώκεσθαι, exdicebetur) from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery.

Canon 13

On account of the misfortune which, because of our sins, has occurred in the churches, many holy temples, and bishoprics, and monasteries have been plundered by certain men and turned into common lodging-houses. In view of this, if the persons in whose possession these are found declare that they will restore everything, so that it be brought back to its former state, this is good and fitting; but if they will not, we command that such persons be deposed, if they are of the priestly rank[28][29] — and, if they are monks or laymen, that they be excommunicated, for all who act thus have already been condemned by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and are appointed to that place where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9, 44), and because they have set themselves against the voice of the Lord, who says: make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise (John 2, 16).

(IV Ecum. 4, 24; Trullo 49; Protodeutera 1; Cyril of Alexandria 2).

— The misfortune (συμφορά) which this canon mentions as having occurred in the Church on account of our sins is iconoclasm, which was the cause of much evil for the Orthodox. It was above all during the time of iconoclasm that Orthodox bishops, priests, and monks were persecuted, so that many of them were compelled to abandon their churches and monasteries and flee into the deserts. As a result, many churches and monasteries remained deserted, and various persons appropriated them to themselves and turned them into common lodging-houses (καταγώγια). History records that the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, the iconoclast, ordered that Orthodox monasteries be used as military barracks. When the unhappy age of iconoclasm had passed, the fathers of the Council, by this canon of theirs, ordain that those holy places which had been unlawfully taken from the Church must be restored to the Church and brought back to their former state. If the persons concerned will not cede them willingly, then this must be done by force; and, moreover, the canon ordains that such godless usurpers, who await eternal condemnation, be deposed, if they are sacred persons, and, if they are laymen or monks, that they be excommunicated. By this, the ordinance of canon 24 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and canon 49 of the Trullan Council is repeated.

Canon 14

That order must prevail in the priesthood is known to everyone; and that careful attention be paid to the advancements of the clergy is especially pleasing to God. But since we see that some who received the tonsure of a reader in childhood, and upon whom a bishop has not laid hands, read at the church service from the ambo, thereby acting contrary to the canons[30] — we command that this shall no longer be so in future. And let this same rule apply also to monks. But it is permitted to every abbot to ordain a reader—but only within his own monastery—provided, moreover, that the abbot himself was ordained to the office of abbot by a bishop, and, of course, provided he is himself a presbyter. Likewise, according to ancient custom, chorepiscopi too may, with the bishop’s consent, ordain readers.

(Trullo 14, 15, 21, 33; Laodicea 15).

— In accordance with the ordinance of canon 15 of the Council of Laodicea, subsequently confirmed by canon 33 of the Trullan Council, no one may read or chant from the ambo in church unless he has been deemed worthy of clerical tonsure and has, according to the canons, received the blessing of his own bishop, or, otherwise, without cheirothesia (ἐκτὸς χειροθεσίας). Meanwhile, at the time of this Council it happened that some read and chanted from the ambo without having been deemed worthy of the prescribed cheirothesia by the competent bishop, but did so simply on the ground that they had been received as children to serve in the church, and as such wore their hair and clothing as clerics do. This the fathers of the Council now forbid, since it is contrary to the canons (ἀκανονίστως), and they ordain that the canons already existing on this matter must hold (Trullo 33 and Laodicea 15). And since it may be difficult for a bishop to ordain readers for every church in the diocese, this canon permits chorepiscopi and abbots also to do this. Of chorepiscopi, the canon says that they may ordain readers with the consent of the bishop (κατ’ ἐπιτροπὴν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου). Of abbots the canon does not say this, but, according to the words of Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, abbots are acknowledged to have the right to ordain readers without restriction (ἀπαρατηρήτως) [Ath. Synt. II, 618.] — except that this right may be exercised by an abbot exclusively within his own monastery, and only if he holds the rank of presbyter and was lawfully ordained to the abbacy by his own bishop.

‘The first degree of holy orders is that of reader,’ so it is written in the rite of the ordination of a reader. Accordingly, and also according to the sense of this (fourteenth) canon, whoever has once been lawfully ordained a reader becomes, from that moment, a member of the clergy in question, in full canonical dependence upon the competent diocesan bishop, and such a one no longer has the right of his own accord to withdraw from that clergy and pass over to the clergy of another diocese, still less may such a reader pass over into the laity; and should he do so, the competent bishop has the authority to compel him by force to return to the clergy which he entered by his own good will and by the prayer of the Church. ‘What is more,’ Balsamon observes in his commentary on this canon, ‘even one who has only put on the black garment with his bishop’s blessing, with the intention of entering the clergy, can no longer take off that garment, for he has openly declared his intention to consecrate himself to God, and can no longer break his vow to God and mock the sacred order, as actresses do.’

Canon 15

A cleric shall henceforth not be assigned to two churches, for this savors of trading and vile greed for gain, and is contrary to church custom. And we have heard from the very word of the Lord, that: no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other (Matt. 6, 24). For this reason, everyone, according to the apostolic word: let him abide in the same calling wherein he was called (1 Cor. 7, 20), and let him attend to one church. For everything that is done in church affairs out of vile greed for gain is contrary to God; but in order to provide for the needs of this life, there exist various trades, and by means of such a trade, whoever wishes may earn what is necessary for the body; for the Apostle says: these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me (Acts 20, 34). And let this be so in this God-preserved city; but in other places, on account of a lack of men, an exception may be permitted.

(Ap. 14, 15; I Ecum. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18, 31; VII Ecum. 10; Antioch 3; Sardica 15, 16; Carthage 54, 90).

— By this canon, in the main, canons 10 and 20 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council are repeated, that every sacred person may serve at only one church. It happened that certain bishops did not strictly adhere to these canons, and gave one or another priest two churches (in the narrower sense, today’s parishes) to serve; and, as appears from the sense of this canon, the priests in question would obtain this from the bishop by pleading their poor economic condition and the meager income they had from one church, and thus the necessity of increasing their income for their support by serving a second church as well. Of this the canon says that it savors of trading and vile greed for gain and is uncanonical, and it ordains that this must cease altogether, and that every priest is to attend to only one church. Taking into account the circumstance that, in reality, some priest cannot live on the income of one church and provide for his own needs and those of his family, the canon notes, for such a case, that there exist also other trades with which a priest may occupy himself, and let him, by means of such a trade, take care to earn what he needs for his livelihood, following in this the example of the apostle Paul (Acts 20, 34). Moreover, this canon issues its ordinance with regard to Constantinople and the multitude of priests living there; but for other places, where there are not enough priests, the canon states that an exception may be permitted, and thus that a priest may be entrusted with serving two churches as well—but only when this is required by the need of the church and when it is not done for the sake of earthly calculation.

Canon 16

All luxury and adornment of the body is contrary to the priestly office and rank. For this reason, bishops or clerics who adorn themselves with resplendent and luxurious garments must be corrected; and if they remain obstinate, let them be subjected to punishment. Likewise also those who anoint themselves with fragrant ointments. And since the root of bitterness, which grows up high (Heb. 12, 15)—that is, the heresy of the slanderers of the Christians—has defiled the catholic Church, and those who joined themselves to that heresy not only abhor painted icons, but have also cast away all piety, hating those who live in a holy and pious manner, so that upon them has been fulfilled what is written: godliness is an abomination to the sinner (Sirach 1, 25)—therefore, those who are found mocking those who wear plain and modest clothing must be corrected by penance. For from the most ancient times every sacred person has always been content with plain and modest clothing, for ‘everything that is used not out of necessity, but for adornment, falls under the reproach of vanity,’ as the great Basil says; nor did they wear garments of many colors woven of silk, nor did they sew onto the edges of their garments ornaments of various colors [Ath. Synt. II, 691.], for they had heard the voice of God, that: they which wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses (Matt. 11, 8).

— The iconoclasts endeavored not only to destroy the holy icons in the Christian Church, but also wished to overthrow all church discipline and everything of piety in the Church. Among other things, they mocked those sacred persons who, according to the canons (Trullo 27), wore the prescribed priestly garb, which was plain and modest, permitting their own (iconoclast clergy) to wear luxurious garb, more resembling that of laymen. This, of course, was quickly taken up by all who were possessed by vanity, and it passed from the iconoclast clergy also to Orthodox sacred persons, so that there were many bishops and other clerics who neglected the prescribed dress and adorned themselves with resplendent and luxurious silken garments, and, what is more, even anointed themselves with various fragrant ointments, like the most refined laymen. Since this was contrary to canonical prescriptions and to the general spirit of Christian piety, the fathers of this Council emphasize in this canon that all luxury and adornment of the body is contrary to the priestly office, and that from the most ancient times of the Church priests had always been content with plain and modest clothing, recalling the words of Basil the Great, that everything used not out of necessity, but for adornment, falls under the reproach of vanity—and they prescribe that all who do not obey the ordinance of this canon, but remain obstinate in evil habit, be subjected to canonical punishment. On the basis of this canon, Patriarch Tarasius, president of the Council, issued an ordinance for the clergy of Constantinople as to how everyone must dress[31].

The ordinance of this canon did not seem to please everyone, particularly those sacred persons who lived in cities, nor did they always strictly follow it, so that in the twelfth century Balsamon found it necessary to draw attention to this in his commentary on this canon[32]. Those who were fond of adorning themselves with resplendent and luxurious garments maintained that this canon had been issued on account of the dissoluteness of the clergy of that time, but that the ordinance of that same canon could no longer hold good now (in the twelfth century), when, by the grace of God, every order and piety reigns in the Church, and when clerics, even if they wear resplendent garments, do so only in honor of God. But to this Balsamon observes that those who speak thus do not speak well (μὴ καλῶς), for this canon is universal (καθολικὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κανών), and its ordinance must hold good for all ages (εἰς αἰῶνας ἀτενῆ), and those who conduct themselves contrary to this must be duly punished, until they amend themselves.

Canon 17

Some monks, possessed by a desire to command and, renouncing obedience, leave their monasteries and undertake to build separate houses of prayer, without having what is needed to complete them. Let the local bishop, therefore, forbid everyone from doing this. But if some monk has everything necessary to complete the construction, in such a case he is obliged to carry out his intention to the end. And let this same rule apply also to laymen and to clerics.

(IV Ecum. 4, 8; Trullo 41, 42, 46; Protodeutera 1).

— Already Basil the Great, in his monastic canons, warmly recommended the common monastic life, and that existing monasteries not be divided without necessity, but that effort be made to keep them as they are, and, if the number of brethren increases, that cells then be added[33]. From this canon it appears that this recommendation of Basil’s was not always observed, and that some monks, for whom the vow of obedience they had taken was burdensome, possessed by a desire to command for themselves, abandoned their monasteries, and undertook on their own to build new monasteries, or, as this canon puts it, ‘houses of prayer’ (εὐκτηρίους οἴκους), without having what was necessary to complete and then maintain them, and as a result disorders occurred in the Church. This canon forestalls these disorders, and commands the competent bishops to forbid this henceforth. Arbitrary action in this matter was subject to canonical punishment, and only with the express consent of the bishop and his blessing could a new monastery be built (Trullo 4; Protodeutera 1). This canon further conditions the bishop’s consent on the person who wishes to found a monastery showing that he has all the necessary means for this and will therefore be capable of completing the building once begun. So the canon states; and the Greco-Roman civil legislation determined in detail everything else concerning the founding of new monasteries as well. Among other things, it was determined that, since there must be at least (τὸ ἐλάχιστον) three monks in a monastery, whoever wishes to found a monastery must be obliged to provide, if not more, then at least as much as is needed for the church to be built and for him and three monks to be able to be maintained. What is prescribed here for monks, when they wish to found a monastery, must hold strictly also for clerics and for laymen, should they, in their piety, wish to found a monastery.

Canon 18

Be not a stumbling-block even to outsiders (1 Cor. 10:32), says the divine Apostle. But the dwelling of women in episcopal residences or in monasteries becomes an occasion for every suspicion. Wherefore, whoever is found keeping a bondwoman, or a free woman, in an episcopal residence or a monastery to perform some service there, let him be punished; and if he remains obstinate, let him be deposed. And if it happen that women dwell also in the suburban dependencies, and the bishop or the abbot must halt there in passing,—in the presence of the bishop or the abbot (and of monks generally) let no woman perform any service at that time, but let her withdraw to another place until the bishop or abbot departs, so that there be no occasion for reproach.

(Ap. 5, 26; I Ecum. 3; Trullo 5, 12, 13, 47, 48; VII Ecum. 20, 22; Ancyra 19; Carthage 3, 4, 25, 38, 70; Basil the Great 88).

— Many canons speak of this, that persons in holy orders must not keep with them women of whom any suspicion might be entertained, and likewise that monks must not have any dealings with women (see the parallel canons). This canon touches on the fact that in its time it was observed that various women were living in episcopal residences (σὺν ἐπισκοπείοις, i.e. in episcopal houses, in the bishops’ own dwellings) and in monasteries, and were performing certain services there; and, recalling the words of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, that they ought to be no stumbling-block, not only to their own, but not even to outsiders (1 Cor. 10:32), that is, not only to the faithful, but even to those who do not belong to Christianity, and pointing out how it becomes an occasion for every suspicion that bishops and monks dwell together with women in episcopal residences and monasteries, it ordains that this must henceforth in no wise be. And whoever is found in this, let him be subjected to canonical punishment [34], and if he remains obstinate let him be deposed. What ordinances of the civil legislature existed on this matter, issued long before this council, we have mentioned in the commentary on the 3rd canon of the First Ecumenical Council. — Not only, then, must there be no woman whatsoever in episcopal residences and monasteries under any circumstances, but this canon further forbids bishops and monks even to meet with women when they are on a journey and turn aside into an episcopal or monastic dependency,—and it ordains that in the presence of the bishop or the abbot (and of monks generally) no woman is to perform any service, but must withdraw from the house until they depart, while the necessary service is to be rendered by men, and all this, in the words of the canon, so that there be no occasion for reproach against the sacerdotal order (διὰ τὸ ἀνεπίληπτον, ut omnis reprehensionis occasio vitetur).

Canon 19

The vice of avarice has so mastered the administrators of the churches, that some, even among those called pious men and women, forgetting the commandment of the Lord, have gone astray and accept gold from those who enter upon the priestly office or the monastic life. And it comes to pass, as the great Basil says, that “whatever has a bad beginning, all the rest must also be rejected”; for God and mammon cannot be served together (Matt. 6:24). Whoever therefore is found doing this, if he be a bishop, or an abbot, or any other of the sacerdotal order, let him cease, or let him be deposed, in accordance with the second canon of the holy Council of Chalcedon. And if it be an abbess, let her be driven out of the monastery, and handed over to another monastery for penance. The same applies also to an abbot who does not have the priestly ordination. As for what parents give to their children as a dowry, so to speak, or in respect of their own possessions which the persons concerned bring, declaring that they bring them to be dedicated to God, we ordain that this must remain with the monastery, whether the persons concerned remain in it or depart from it, provided there be no fault in the matter on the part of the superior.

(Ap. 29; IV Ecum. 2; Trullo 22, 23; VII Ecum. 4, 5, 15; Laodicea 12; Sardica 2; Basil the Great 90; Gennadius’ Encyclical; Tarasius’ Encyclical).

— And again a canon against that dreadful evil which has plagued the church for so many ages in every possible way, against simony. This canon speaks of the reception of such persons into the clergy or into a monastery for money, and, appealing to the 2nd canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, it ordains that a bishop or other cleric who receives someone into the clergy for money, or an abbot who receives someone into a monastery for money, must cease to do so, otherwise he is to be deposed. If an abbess does this, or likewise an abbot who does not have priestly ordination, the canon prescribes that such an abbess, and likewise such an abbot, be driven out of the monastery and sent to another monastery for penance. Zonaras draws attention to an apparent contradiction concerning the punishment of simonists between the 2nd canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and this canon, for the former ordains that both he who ordained someone for money, and he who was so ordained, are to be deposed at once (αὐτίκα), whereas this canon ordains that he who receives someone into the clergy for money is to be deposed only if he persists obstinately in it. This apparent contradiction is entirely resolved, for at first glance there does indeed appear to be a contradiction between those two canons,—and Zonaras resolves it, quite soundly, by pointing out that the former canon (of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) speaks of the very act of ordination, namely, when someone ordains another for money, whereas this (the 19th) canon does not speak of that, but of the reception into the clergy of persons who have already been ordained (ὁ χειροτονημένους).47 Having condemned the reception of anyone into a monastery for money, the canon recognizes the propriety of a case where someone brings something to a monastery on entering it as a brother, or where parents give something in the name of a dowry (δίκην προικῶν) to their sons when these become monks, and the persons concerned make their offering to the monastery by a declaration that they offer it to God.[35] In respect of such an offering the canon ordains that it must remain in the full ownership of the monastery, even should those for whom, or by whom, the offering was made, later leave it, provided there be no fault in the matter on the part of the superior.[36]

Canon 20

We ordain that henceforth there shall be no double monastery, for this becomes to many an occasion of stumbling and offense. Should any wish, together with their kin, to renounce the world and follow the monastic life, let the men go to a men’s monastery, and let the women enter a women’s monastery; for thus God is pleased. As for the double monasteries which have existed until now, let the canon of our holy father Basil be observed, and let action be taken according to his institution: in one monastery monks and nuns must not dwell together, for cohabitation gives occasion to fornication. A monk is to be forbidden to converse with a nun whenever he wishes, nor is a nun to converse alone with a monk; nor is a monk to sleep in a women’s monastery, nor is a nun to eat alone with him. And when necessary supplies for living are brought by men to the nuns, these are to be received outside the gate by the abbess of the women’s monastery together with some elderly nun. And should it happen that a monk desires to see some kinswoman of his, let him speak with her in the presence of the abbess, briefly and in few words, and then let him depart from her promptly.

— By Basil the Great there had already been established in detail, in his own time, everything concerning the ordering of monasteries and the life both of monks and of nuns, and in particular concerning what the relation between monks and nuns must be, and that in one monastery monks and nuns cannot dwell together.1 These prescriptions of Basil the Great are recalled by the fathers of the council in this canon, and they ordain that these prescriptions must be strictly observed. The fathers had meanwhile observed that double monasteries (διπλὰ μοναστήρια) existed here and there, and that this becomes to many an occasion of stumbling and offense, and they therefore ordain that such monasteries must cease to exist altogether,—thereby renewing in this the old prescriptions of Justinian’s legislation,56 which had been received by the church and had in it the force of law. These double monasteries, in the opinion of some, are not to be understood in the sense that monks dwelt together with nuns, but that they lived close to one another, so that they could hear each other when speaking; there were two monasteries side by side, and they were regarded as one monastery.[37][38] On this Balsamon remarks that this is not evident from the canon itself, nor are these monasteries called double for that reason, but they are so called because at one time monks and nuns had lived in one and the same monastery, and this canon forbids that entirely, for it serves only as an occasion of stumbling.

Canon 21

A monk (or a nun) must not leave his (or her) monastery and go to another. Should this happen, hospitality is to be shown to him, but he is not to be received without the consent of his abbot.

(IV Ecum. 4; VII Ecum. 19; Carthage 80; Protodeutera 2, 3, 4).

— Monks must remain permanently in the monastery in which they renounced the world and received the monastic habit. This is prescribed by the well-known monastic rules of Basil the Great, and it was likewise established at the Fourth Ecumenical Council (canon 4). Accordingly, this canon too ordains that no monk, nor nun, may leave his or her monastery and pass over to another. And if any monk (or nun) does this, and goes to some other monastery, the canon says that hospitality is to be shown to him, so that he not be compelled to turn to laypeople and dwell among people who live carelessly, but he is by no means to be received into the brotherhood of this other monastery. This can occur only in such a case where the lawful superior, the abbot, has released the monk (or nun) in question from his own monastery, and where that abbot has issued him a written permission for it. — The prescription of this canon must not, moreover, be understood in the sense that a single abbot is personally empowered to dismiss some brother from his own monastery, or to receive into the monastery a brother of another monastery, without any further responsibility; rather, this canon must be taken together with other existing canons, which ordain that every monk, from the abbot down to the youngest brother, is in unconditional dependence on the diocesan bishop,—and accordingly, the permission of some abbot to release a brother from his monastery, or to receive into the brotherhood a monk from another monastery, has legal force only when that abbot has acted with the knowledge and permission of the diocesan bishop, who is the absolute superior in everything and over everything pertaining as much to the monasteries as to all the monks.

Canon 22

To dedicate everything to God and not be a slave of one’s own desires is a great thing. For if you eat, or if you drink, says the divine Apostle, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). And Christ our God, in His Gospels, commanded that the very beginnings of sins be cut off. For not only is adultery itself punished by Him, but the very movement of the mind toward the commission of adultery is condemned by Him, according to His word: whoever has looked upon a woman with desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:28); from which we too must learn to purify our thoughts; for, although all things are lawful, not all things are profitable (1 Cor. 10:23), as the apostolic word teaches us. It is necessary for every man to eat, in order to live; and for those who live in marriage and with children, and who are of the secular estate, it is nothing reprehensible if men and women eat together, provided only they offer praise to Him who gives food; but one must not eat amid any theatrical customs, or with satanic refrains, or with musical and lascivious wrigglings, upon which falls the prophetic rebuke, which speaks thus: woe to those who drink wine to the sound of harps and psalteries, and do not look upon the works of the Lord nor consider the work of His hands (Isaiah 5:12). Should there be such persons among Christians, let them be corrected; and if not, in their regard let that be observed which has been established by the canons before us. And as for those whose life is solitary, who have promised the Lord God to bear the labor of the monastic life, let them, as such, sit alone and keep silence (Lam. 3:28). Nor is it fitting even for those who have chosen the priestly life to eat alone with women, except perhaps with some God-fearing and devout men and women, so that even this common table may lead to spiritual edification. The same is to be observed also with kinsfolk. But should it happen that a monk or a priest, on a journey, has not brought with him what he needs, and out of necessity must turn aside either to an inn or to someone’s house,—he may freely do this, for he is compelled by need, but always with due reverence.

(Ap. 42, 43, 54; I Ecum. 3; Trullo 5, 9, 47, 48, 62; VII Ecum. 18, 20; Ancyra 19; Laodicea 24; Carthage 40, 60; Basil the Great 88).

— At the beginning of this canon the fathers of this council set forth two things. The first is that one must dedicate everything to God and not be a slave of one’s own desires, for Holy Scripture teaches that whether we eat or drink, we must do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), that is, whatever work a man undertakes, he must always keep God and the eternal judgment before his eyes. The canon then recalls how Jesus Christ, in His Gospels, commanded that man must strive to destroy in himself even the very seed of sin, for not only is adultery punished by Him, but He condemns the very movement of thought toward the commission of adultery (Matt. 5:28), and accordingly we must learn to purify even our very thoughts, that is, we must strive, the moment any thought is conceived and before it grows strong, to direct it in such a way that we do not fall into any evil. And in order that we may purify our thoughts and forestall any incidental evil, we must also take good care of the manner in which we do this, having regard to our free will, for although all things are lawful, not all things are profitable to us (1 Cor. 10:23). And since impure and depraved thoughts are most commonly generated in the intercourse of men with women, especially at eating and drinking, the fathers of this council dwell on this in particular in this canon, speaking first of laypeople, of Christians in general, then of monks, and lastly of priests. — The fathers acknowledge first of all that it is necessary for every man to eat in order to live; and, so that in this necessary act evil and depraved thoughts may be avoided, the fathers declare, with regard to laypeople, that for those who live in marriage and have children it is nothing reprehensible if men and women eat together, provided only that in doing so they always take care to offer praise to God, who gives food, and accordingly, by this their canon, the fathers forbid people to eat amid any theatrical customs or satanic refrains, and with musical and lascivious wrigglings. How much the passions are aroused at such feasts, and how much a path to fornication is thereby smoothed, is self-evident, and therefore the canon, in the strict sense, calls such things satanic, since Satan himself alone could have devised them, and to them the canon attaches the corresponding words of Holy Scripture (Isaiah 5:12). And, setting this before Christians, the canon ordains that all those who by misfortune are found guilty in this be corrected, and, should they refuse to be corrected, that they then be subjected to canonical punishments. — As for the monks, who have chosen a quiet and solitary life and who have vowed to God to bear the monastic labor, the canon recalls the words of Holy Scripture, let them sit alone and keep silence (Lam. 3:28), that is, let them abide solitary and quietly in their monasteries and shun worldly intercourse, especially where there are women, taking care and striving to fulfil the monastic rules as exactly and as fully as possible, and thereby to perfect themselves for eternal life. — Lastly the canon turns to the priests, who, even though they have not taken the monastic vow, must nevertheless by good example lead the way for laypeople in everything, and it says that it is not fitting even for them to eat alone with women, except perhaps with some God-fearing and devout men and women, so that this common table too may lead to spiritual edification. This the canon prescribes for unmarried priests;2 the same likewise holds for married priests, whose wives and children the canon comprehends under “kinsfolk” (συγγενῶν). — The fathers of this council foresee the case that a monk or a priest may be found on a journey, and, having nothing with him needed for food, be compelled to turn aside to an inn or to someone’s house; and in such a case this canon permits him to do this freely, for he is compelled by need, but he must nevertheless always have regard to piety and to his office.