Canons of the Council in Hagia Sophia (879)

Canon 1

The holy and Ecumenical council decrees that if any clergy, or laymen, or bishops from Italy, residing in Asia, or Europe, or Libya, have been excommunicated, or deposed, or anathematized by the most holy Pope John, the same shall be regarded as under that same degree of penalty also with Photius, the most holy patriarch of Constantinople—that is, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. And whatever clergy, or laymen, or persons of archiereus or priestly rank, Photius, our most holy patriarch, in whatsoever region, subjects to excommunication, or deposition, or anathema, let these be recognized as under the same sentence of penalty by the most holy Pope John also, and with him by the holy church of God of Rome. Nor shall anything new be introduced into the prerogatives which the most holy see of the Roman church, or its superior, holds, either now or in the future.[1]

(Ap. 12, 13, 82; I Ecum. 6; II Ecum. 3; IV Ecum. 28; Trullo 36; Antioch 6; Sardica 14; Carthage 11, 29).

— At the beginning of this canon, the council that issued this and the other canons calls itself Ecumenical (οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος, universalis synodus). By its composition, namely because all the local churches of the Christian world of that time were represented at this council, this council may be regarded as Ecumenical, just as it may also be called such by its principal subject, for which the council convened, namely the reconciliation of the Western church with the Eastern church. And in Western codices this council is called Ecumenical. It has not retained this name in history because of the circumstances that later arose between Rome and the Eastern church, and in the canonical collections of the Eastern church it occupies a place among the local councils, whose canons the whole Orthodox church accepts and recognizes.[2]

The reconciliation of which this canon speaks, and which reconciliation is confirmed by it, was brought about by Pope John VIII. The injustices which Rome had done to the patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, and to the whole Eastern church, Pope John wished to smooth over, and the interest of the Roman church impelled him not to leave his relatively small church separated from the great Eastern church, which stood wholly with Patriarch Photius. Under the authority of the Roman pope in the second half of the ninth century there were directly only 229 episcopal sees, and in indirect dependence there were a further 268 sees, in all 497 episcopal sees. Meanwhile in the East at the same time there were 1087, of which 656 were under the direct authority of the patriarch of Constantinople—thus under the patriarch of Constantinople alone there were 159 more episcopal sees than under the Roman pope; and counting together all 611 sees that were under both the direct and the indirect authority of the Roman pope, that is all 497 sees, we find in the East again more than twice that number of sees, namely 590 more episcopal sees than under the Roman pope. The interest of the Ecumenical church disposed Photius to forget all former injustices and to further the restoration of peace in the church, and this was now confirmed at this council by the unanimous voice of 383 bishops, gathered from the whole Christian world, who issued this canon.[3]

On account of the strained relations between the Roman and Constantinopolitan churches, beginning from the time of Pope Nicholas I, it happened that certain clergy condemned for various transgressions in one church found refuge in the other church, and such uncanonical conduct naturally could only strain these relations still further and stir up unrest between the two churches yet more. And since it was now desired to put an end to the unrest that had prevailed until then and to establish proper relations between the Roman and Constantinopolitan churches, it was established by this canon that those condemned by Patriarch Photius should be regarded as such also by Pope John, and conversely, that those whom John condemned for any transgressions should be regarded by Photius as likewise condemned. — As to the fact that individual popes before John had asserted certain rights over the whole church unknown before that time, this canon confirms the ordinances of earlier councils concerning the prerogatives of the Roman see, and that nothing new is to be introduced into these prerogatives, either now or ever—and what these prerogatives are is stated in canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and canon 36 of the council of Trullo. “But that was then,” says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, “when the Roman church had erred in nothing concerning the faith, and had not departed from us; but today we can no longer agree with her.”[4]

Canon 2

Since up to now certain hierarchs, having taken upon themselves the monastic order, have sought to remain still further at the height of the episcopate, and no attention has been paid to their so acting, this holy and Ecumenical council, intending to correct this negligence and to bring this disorderly practice into conformity with the church’s institutions, decrees that if any bishop or other person of hierarchical dignity wishes to give himself to the monastic life and to place himself in the position of penitence, he may no longer arrogate to himself the dignity of a hierarch. For the vows of a monk contain the duty of obedience and discipleship, not of teaching or presiding, and the person concerned promises not that he will be a shepherd of others, but that he himself will obey shepherds. For this reason, as has already been said, we establish that no one who is enrolled in the register of hierarchs and pastors may descend to the place of those who are led by pastors and who do penance. And whoever, after the proclamation and publication of this present ordinance, dares to do this, shall, having himself removed himself from the hierarchical rank, no longer be restored to his former dignity, which he has dishonored by his own act.

(IV Ecum. 4; Trullo 43; Protodeutera 5).

— As can be seen, certain bishops, who had become bishops from secular life or from among the unmarried (see the commentary on canon 12 of Trullo), used to take upon themselves the monastic order and consequently discharge the prescribed monastic vows. This council regards this as a disorderly practice (ἄτακτον πρᾶξιν) which had prevailed in the church through negligence (παρόραμα), and contrary to the church’s institutions, and points out how the monastic vows of obedience and discipleship cannot possibly be reconciled with the office of a bishop, who must be a teacher and a superior, and who must be a shepherd of others, and not, like a monk, always subject to shepherds and devoting his whole life solely to penance. And since every monk is unconditionally bound to fulfill the aforesaid monastic vows, and these vows are opposed to the position of a bishop in the church as the supreme teacher and chief shepherd, this canon of the council decrees that no bishop may take upon himself the monastic order and discharge monastic vows, thereby descending from the height of the hierarchy into the rank of those who for their whole life are led by shepherds and who do penance. Should any bishop do this, he ceases that very instant to be a bishop and can never again arrogate to himself the hierarchical dignity. And this canon has held good thereafter throughout the whole church, both Eastern and Western. Balsamon, in his commentary on canon 3 of the council of Ancyra, cites the case of the bishop of Amyclae (in Iconium) Nicholas Mouzalon, who was tonsured a monk by force of secular authority, and afterward long sought to be released from the monastic vows he had taken so that he might again exercise episcopal authority, and for this reason he appeared before the synod of Constantinople. Patriarch Luke (1156–1169), when he saw that Nicholas had come before the synod in episcopal vesture, rejected him from the synod, giving as his reason that this bishop might perhaps have been helped, had he waited for the synodal decision, but now, since he had of his own accord and against order removed his monastic habit, which he had put on even though by force, he could no longer be helped. This case shows us how strictly this canon was observed in the twelfth century. After the death of Patriarch Luke, Patriarch Michael III (1169–1177) granted the petition of Bishop Nicholas and restored to him his episcopal rights by a special synodal charter. — The same Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, raises the question of bishops who have come from the monastic state, and, acknowledging, as indeed he must, the force of this canon, says that this canon can apply to such bishops if they receive the great schema (μέγα σχῆμα), for then they must wholly cease to be bishops. This same thing is said also by canon 90 of the great Trebnik (Book of Needs).[5]

Canon 3

If any layman, carried away by self-will, despising the divine and imperial ordinances, and mocking the fearsome institutions and laws of the church, should dare, without cause or under a fabricated pretext, to strike or to imprison a bishop, let him be anathema.

(Ap. 55; IV Ecum. 18; Trullo 34).

— The immunity of the church and its ministers, and especially of bishops, was recognized by the civil authority as soon as that authority became Christian. Already from the year 313 there exists an ordinance of the emperor Constantine which proclaims exempt in the state the whole clergy (ἀπὸ πάντων ἀπαξαπλῶς τῶν λειτουργῶν), so that it might, without hindrance and freely, devote itself to the service of God. This immunity became ever greater with time, and the Greco-Roman emperors, so to speak, competed among themselves as to who would grant more privileges to the church and its ministers. Emperors were especially generous in this toward bishops. Among other things it was forbidden to the civil authority to summon bishops to court, to subject them to its own tribunals, still less to be able to punish them. An insult inflicted upon a bishop by the civil authority, even by chance, was regarded as an insult inflicted upon the church itself, and the perpetrator of that authority’s act was subjected to penalty. And this naturally had all the more to hold when a mere layman permitted himself such a thing; and the council in this canon of its own recalls precisely these laws of the civil authority concerning the immunity of the clergy, and especially of bishops. It cites also the divine laws. “Speak not evil of the ruler of thy people”—that is, of the bishop—commands holy Scripture (Acts 23:5; Ap. canon 55); and of the significance of the bishop in the church and in Christian society in general we have already spoken in several places in this our work (I, 43, 90, 125, 215, etc.). Concerning the honor which everyone must render to the bishop, Ignatius the God-bearer writes: “Honor God, as the Creator of all and the Lord; honor the bishop, as the chief of the priests, who is the image of God most high; as chief, he is the image of God, and as high priest the image of Christ… From the bishop, who is consecrated to God for the salvation of the whole world, there is nothing more exalted in the church… He who honors the bishop shall be honored also by God, and he who insults the bishop shall be punished by God.” — On the basis of the existing ordinances of the civil authority and the teaching of the church, the council issues this canon, and decrees that anathema (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω) be pronounced upon everyone who dares to strike (τύπτειν, verberare) or to imprison (φυλακίσαι, in custodiam tradere) a bishop. A terrible penalty, by which the guilty one is excommunicated not only from the church but from God Himself (κεχωρισμένος ἔστω τοῦ Θεοῦ) and becomes a portion of the devil (προσκληρούμενος τῷ διαβόλῳ). And this penalty is entirely justified, for if the laws of earthly princes proclaim that certain persons may not be touched by anyone at all, how much more must the priesthood of the King enjoy that same privilege, which bears upon itself a consecration proceeding from God, and which priesthood differs from all other men by its holy calling and portion. Priests, and especially bishops, are sacred persons, and to them apply the words of the Psalmist: “Touch not mine anointed” (Ps. 105:15 LXX / 104:15), and the prophetic words: “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of mine eye” (Zech. 2:8), so that the punishment of God must inescapably overtake everyone who dares to lay hands on the servant of God.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

In the canon it is stated that anathema falls upon one who dares to strike or imprison a bishop without cause, or under a fabricated pretext (χωρὶς αἰτίας ἢ καὶ συμπλασάμενος αἰτίαν). From these words—observes Balsamon in his commentary on this canon—one must not conclude that secular authorities have the right, for a justified cause (ἐξ εὐλόγου αἰτίας), to strike and imprison bishops; for from other canons and state laws it is learned that secular authorities have no right whatsoever to judge bishops, and that even a layman who might wish to strike or imprison a bishop, even if he had the most justified reason for it, and however great his power might be, must nonetheless be subject to penalty; nor can the justness of the reason ever excuse that layman, for only to councils belongs the right to be able to punish hierarchs. And the words in the canon, “without cause,” are set down for the sake of the anathema which is prescribed; so that if some secular authority does to a bishop what the canon speaks of, being convinced that the bishop deserves it on account of some grave transgression, then that authority is not subject to anathema, but to excommunication from holy communion; and to absolve him of that penalty, that is, to permit him again to be granted holy communion, belongs only to the highest spiritual authority of the diocese concerned, after undergoing a strict penance.[15]