Canons of Blessed Dionysius of Alexandria

Canon 1

You have sent, most faithful and most learned son of mine, to ask me at what hour one ought to end the fast before the day of Pascha, for, you say, some brethren maintain that this ought to be done when the cock crows, and others, that it ought to be in the evening: the brethren who are in Rome, as you say, wait for the cock’s crow, while those who are here, you have said, do this earlier. You now wish that an exact time and a fully measured hour be established, but this is both difficult and uncertain. For that after the time of the resurrection of our Lord one ought to begin the celebration and rejoicing, and until then hold souls in humility by fasting—of this all speak in agreement. But according to what you have written to me, you have shown quite soundly, and according to the sense of the divine evangelists, that there is found among them nothing precisely determined as to the hour at which the Lord arose; for the evangelists have not written alike concerning those who came to the tomb at various times, but only said that all found the Lord already risen: late on the sabbath (28:1), as Matthew says; in the morning, while it was yet dark (20:1), as John writes; at early dawn (24:1), as Luke says; very early, when the sun had risen (16:2), as Mark says. But exactly when he arose, none of them has expressly stated; but that those who came to the tomb late on the sabbath, when the first day of the sabbath was dawning, and did not find him already lying in it—this is quite plain. But we must by no means hold here either that the evangelists are discordant, or that one contradicts the other; for even if there appears some slight difference in their account on this question, and although they express themselves variously as to the exact hour, while agreeing in general that in that very night the light of the world, our Lord, shone forth—we must nonetheless, with piety and with faith, endeavor to bring into harmony what they have said. Thus, what Matthew has said stands as follows: Late on the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre, and at once there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat upon it, and his countenance was like lightning and his raiment white as snow, and for fear of him the keepers trembled and became as dead men; and the angel answering said to the women: Fear not, I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified; he is not here, he is risen, as he said (28:1–6). What is said, “late,” some might think, by the common use of the word, means the evening of the sabbath, but those who understand this more carefully will say that it is not so, but that it was already deep night, for “late” denotes slowness and a long stretch of time; and that the evangelist speaks of night, not of day, is confirmed by the addition, “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” And they came, but not yet bearing spices, as the others say, but to see the sepulchre, and found that there had been an earthquake, and an angel sitting upon the stone, and heard from him: He is not here, he is risen. So too John says likewise: The first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre in the morning, while it was yet dark, and saw the stone taken away from the tomb (20:1); according to him, then, she went “while it was yet dark.” Luke again says: On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment, but on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, but they found the stone rolled away from the tomb (23:56; 24:1–2). “At early dawn” perhaps signifies the morning dawn, which was just beginning to appear on the first day of the week, since the sabbath had already fully passed with all its night, and the second day was beginning, when the women came who had been carrying spices and myrrh with them; and this clearly shows that he had risen long before. Mark also follows this same account, saying: They had bought spices, that they might come and anoint him; and very early on the first day of the week they came to the sepulchre when the sun had risen (16:1–2); “very early,” then, he too says, for it is the same as “at early dawn,” and he adds, “when the sun had risen.” Thus, this signifies that the women set out and undertook their journey at early dawn, and very early; but on the way and around the tomb they were delayed until sunrise, and then the young man in the white robe said to them: He is risen, he is not here (Mark 16:6). — Since this is so, we now answer those who inquire minutely as to the precise hour, or half hour, or quarter hour, at which one ought to begin one’s rejoicing over the resurrection of our Lord from the dead; and those who are overly hasty and cease fasting even before midnight we reprove as careless and immoderate, as those who cut short a course almost completed, as that learned man says: “it is no small matter in life if anything at all is lacking.” But we commend as noble and diligent those who delay and hold out longest, and abstain until the fourth watch, in which our Savior, walking upon the sea, appeared to many. Nor do we much blame those who cease between this time and that, whether by their own inclination, or because they could not hold out further; for not all keep the six fasting days equally and in the same manner, but some, remaining without food, omit them all, others two, others three, others four, and others not one. But upon those who have labored much in prolonging the days without food, but have thereby grown weak and nearly exhausted, indulgence should be shown, even if they eat something a little early. But as for those who not only have not omitted a single day without food, but have not fasted at all, and indeed have spent the first four days indulgently, but when they came to the last two days, and only on those two days, Friday and Saturday, have gone without food, and by this alone already consider that they have done something great and excellent—such persons, even if they hold out until the dawn, I do not judge to have accomplished a labor equal to that of those who have exerted themselves for many days. And this I have written as I myself understand the matter, and as my counsel.

(Ap. 66; Trullo 89).

— This 1st canon, together with the following three, makes up the epistle of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Basilides, bishop of Pentapolis (in Libya), who had asked Dionysius to clarify for him the questions in question, of which this epistle speaks. — This canon (1) of Dionysius served as the basis for canon 89 of the council of Trullo, which explains this canon of Dionysius in detail.

Canon 2

As to women, when they are in their courses, whether it is permitted to them, while in such a state, to enter the house of God, I consider it superfluous even to ask; for I do not think that they themselves, if they are faithful and pious, being in such a state, would dare to approach the holy table, or to receive the body and blood of Christ. For even she who for twelve years had an issue of blood did not, in order to be healed, touch Christ himself, but only the hem of his garment. But to pray, whatever state one may be in, and however disposed, and to remember the Lord and to ask his help, is always without reproach; but it must be forbidden to enter into the holy of holies for everyone who is not wholly pure both in soul and in body.

— The matter concerns women when they have their customary monthly issue of blood, and this canon forbids them to enter the church while in such a state, and forbids them all the more to commune, until they are wholly pure in body. We have not translated the word aphedron literally, for it does not properly signify merely the monthly issue of blood (ἡ τῶν ἐμμήνων ῥύσις, sanguinis menstrui fluxus), but, according to Zonaras’s commentary on this canon, the word is taken from Jewish custom, namely, that Jewish women, when they have their monthly issue of blood, sit apart and have no dealing with anyone until seven days have passed, and from this the word ἐν ἀφέδρῳ arose, which shows that women in such a state separate themselves from sitting (ὑπὸ τῆς ἕδρας) with the rest, as unclean (ὡς ἐκαθάρτους).[1]

Canon 3

But those who live in marriage must themselves be their own judges; for they have heard Paul, who writes, that they ought to abstain from one another by agreement for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer, and afterward come together again (1 Cor. 7:4).

(Trullo 13; Carthage 3, 4, 25; Timothy of Alexandria 5, 13).

— For the ordinance of this canon Dionysius appeals to the Apostle Paul, that by agreement (ἐκ συμφώνου) husband and wife must abstain from bodily union when it is time for prayer; if they do not do this, let their own conscience be their judge.[2]

Canon 4

As for those who have had an involuntary nocturnal emission, let them also listen to their own conscience, and let them examine themselves, whether they have any doubt about this, or not; for as the Apostle says concerning food, that he who doubts is condemned if he eats (Rom. 14:23), so too in this matter, let everyone who approaches God have a clean conscience, and act according to his own best understanding.

These questions you have put to us out of respect for us (and by no means because they were unknown to you, beloved), that you might thereby dispose us to be, as indeed we are, of one mind and one spirit with you. And I, then, not as a teacher, but most simply, as indeed befits us when we speak among ourselves, have set before you my opinion; but do you now, my most discerning son, judge for yourself concerning the same, and write to me whether you perhaps find something even more fitting and better, or whether you consider that it should remain thus. I wish you, my beloved son, to be well, serving the Lord in peace.

(Athanasius the Great 1; Timothy of Alexandria 12).

— The involuntary nocturnal emission of which this canon speaks is to be understood as the emission of semen (σπέρματος). In canon 1 of Athanasius the Great, that is, in his epistle to Ammon, this is called φυσικὴ ἔκκρισις (naturalis excretio), and there this is discussed at greater length. One should compare on this Zonaras’s ‘chapter against those who consider the natural discharge of seed a defilement,’ and likewise canonical answer 10 of Balsamon.[3][4]

The second half of this canon is the conclusion of Dionysius’s epistle to bishop Basilides.