Canons of Saint Nicholas of Constantinople
Canon 1
Question. May a monk enter the holy sanctuary, since this is forbidden by the 33rd canon of the holy Council in Trullo, which does not permit any monk who has not been ordained (as a reader) to chant or read from the ambo; and likewise the 15th and 21st canons of Laodicea and the 14th canon of the Second Council of Nicaea?
Answer. It is forbidden for a monk who has not been ordained to perform the office of reader from the ambo; but out of respect for the monastic order, I do not think one should forbid a monk who is free of every transgression from entering the sanctuary in order to light candles or lamps.
(Trullo 33, 69; VII Ecum. 14; Laodicea 15, 19, 21, 44)
— Like all the rest, we translate these canons of Patriarch Nicholas of Constantinople as well from the Athenian Syntagma. In that collection these canons, or canonical responses, are presented, as we have noted (I, 38), in a recension different from the other collections, and there are also fewer of these responses than in other collections. Perhaps the more accurate number of these responses (17) is that in Gedeon’s Κανονικαὶ διατάξεις, with which number our Kormchaia’s also agrees (though not in the recension of the responses themselves). In any case it seemed to us better founded to follow the Athenian collection here too, all the more since it agrees with Beveridge’s edition, and in the main also with the Pedalion. Under which numbers these canons of Nicholas are found in the Kormchaia we have already noted (I, 38), for anyone who wishes to compare them.
We have mentioned this canon of Nicholas in our commentary on the 69th canon of Trullo and the 15th canon of Patriarch Nicephorus; and to understand it more precisely, one should compare the commentaries on the other parallel canons as well.
Canon 2
Question. Is it not permitted to kneel on Saturday, just as it is not permitted on Sunday and throughout Pentecost?
Answer. This is not forbidden by the canon; but many do not kneel, because one does not fast on Saturday.
(Ap. 66; I Ecum. 20; Trullo 55, 66, 90; Gangra 18; Laodicea 29; Peter of Alex. 15; Basil the Great 91; Theophilus of Alex. 1)
— Because in the canons, with regard to fasting, Saturday is placed on the same footing as Sunday (Apostolic canon 66), many argued that if one may not fast on Saturday, then one may also not kneel in church on that day, just as this is not permitted on Sunday (I Ecum. 20). This canon states that there is no canonical prohibition against kneeling on Saturday, and thus those who do so do not sin.
Canon 3
Question. Should the fast of the month of August be kept?
Answer. Formerly one fasted at that time; but this fast was moved so that it would not coincide with the pagan fasts that occurred at that time. In any case, many still keep this fast even now.
— Balsamon dealt with the subject of this canon several times. He speaks of it in his commentary on this canon, then in his 65th canonical response to Mark of Alexandria[1], and again in a special epistle to the Antiochenes concerning the fasts that must be kept every year[2]. The question of the Dormition fast, as can be seen from this canon, was a disputed one. Balsamon mentions the council of Constantinople under Patriarch Luke (1156–1169), and says that at that council some argued that this fast need not be kept, since it had been moved to another time, as this response of Nicholas states; others, on the contrary, argued that it should be kept, since the response itself states that in earlier times this same fast was kept by all, and that it was only later moved—though when and where this was done, the response does not say. Patriarch Luke, together with the other bishops at the council, insisted that this fast must be kept without any excuse, and in confirmation of his view he cited the well-known tomos of union of the year 920, in which it is stated that one in a third marriage may approach the holy mysteries three times a year—namely at Easter, the Dormition, and Christmas—since one regularly fasts before these feasts. When his opponents, in turn, argued that it is nowhere specified how many days that fast should last, the patriarch pointed out that even though nothing is set down in writing about this fast, just as none about the Christmas fast, we must nonetheless follow the unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, and begin the Dormition fast on August 1 and the Christmas fast on November 15. This ordinance of Patriarch Luke passed into general use in the Orthodox Eastern Church, and it is in accordance with this ordinance that this canon of Nicholas is to be understood.
Canon 4
Question. Should one possessed by a demon be given holy communion, since St Timothy, when asked the corresponding questions, answered one way, the Holy Apostles another way, and later authorities yet another way?
Answer. If someone is afflicted by black bile, so that he appears to be possessed, communion should not be denied him; but if he is truly possessed, he can in no way be deemed worthy of the holy mystery, for light has nothing in common with darkness.
(Ap. 79; Trullo 60; Timothy of Alex. 2, 3, 4, 14)
Canon 5
Question. May a priest eat, without any restriction and as he pleases, whatever is brought to the church—that is, the prosphora and wine—and may he eat the prosphora as ordinary bread; and if a large quantity of it has accumulated, what is he to do with it?
Answer. The portions of the prosphora offered on the altar may in no way be eaten as ordinary bread; rather they are to be eaten only in the church, until all of it is used; but whatever remains of the other prosphora should be eaten separately, by itself, and in no way together with milk, or cheese, or eggs, or fish.
Canon 6
Question. If some monk, wherever he received his tonsure, is troubled by something that offends his soul and wishes to withdraw from the monastery, and the superior for this subjects him to punishment—what should that monk then do: disregard his trouble, or the punishment?
Answer. He should tell the superior what troubles him, and if manifest danger threatens him from it, let him withdraw, and let him disregard the punishment.
(IV Ecum. 4; VII Ecum. 19, 21; Carthage 18; Protodeutera 2, 3, 4)
— To clarify the sense of this canon, one should chiefly compare the ordinances of the 3rd and 4th canons of the Protodeutera Council concerning when monks may leave their monasteries. The statement in this canon that a monk may disregard a punishment imposed on him by the abbot should not be understood as meaning that the monk may release himself from a punishment imposed by the competent monastic superior; rather, the person concerned, in the case mentioned by this canon, having withdrawn from the monastery, will be obliged to present himself to the diocesan bishop concerned, who will judge the whole matter and, at his own discretion, release him from the obligation to remain in the monastery—for this was precisely the substance of the punishment to which he had been subjected by the abbot, denoted in the canon by the word δεσμός (vinculum, ‘bond’).
Canon 7
Question. An abbot, at his death, appoints another in his place, binding him under obligation not to withdraw; but this man, recognizing his own incapacity, withdraws—what is now to be done about that obligation?
Answer. The obligation is senseless, and therefore without any force, and the one who was bound will be released when he comes to the bishop and tells him everything about himself.
— Some abbot, at his death, wishes to leave his abbatial authority to a certain monastic brother who is agreeable to him, and to confirm this wish, he binds that brother in writing or even by oath (for that is what δεσμός, ‘bond,’ means in this canon) that he will indeed accept the abbacy, and that if he should chance to refuse it, he must be subject to canonical punishment. That abbot dies, and the brother he designated accepts the abbacy in accordance with the obligation; but after some time this new abbot notices that he is not fit for administration and renounces the abbacy. This was the substance of the question; and the answer given in this canon is that the ordinance of the former abbot is without foundation, and therefore senseless, as is the obligation to which the new abbot submitted himself. But since that obligation nonetheless existed, perhaps in writing or under oath, it needed also to be formally stripped of its force, and the canon leaves it to the authority of the competent diocesan bishop to do this by his own right.
Canon 8
Question. A priest who has been deposed on account of some transgression, or who has voluntarily abandoned the priesthood, and who has afterward himself confessed his guilt—may such a priest say ‘Blessed is the kingdom,’ or ‘God be merciful to us,’ or ‘Christ is risen,’ or cense with a censer, or commune within the sanctuary?
Answer. He may not, for he is already numbered among the laity.
(IV Ecum. 7, 14; Trullo 21, 26; Neocaesarea 9; Carthage 36; Protodeutera 16; Basil the Great 3, 27; Cyril of Alex. 3)
— See our commentary on the 21st canon of Trullo, which serves also as a commentary on this canon; and the general basis for this canon is the 27th canon of Basil the Great and the 9th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea.
Canon 9
Question. What does it mean when St Basil says, in the minor penances: ‘Let him be kept from the blessing, according to the measure of his fall’?
Answer. It means to deprive someone of that blessing which is given in church.
— The ecclesiastical blessings mentioned here are the blessings given by bishops or presbyters, either as a prayer or to strengthen the faithful people with God’s help; and accordingly the sinner concerned is deprived of these blessings to a greater or lesser degree, according to the sin into which he has fallen. The ‘minor penances’ are those which Basil prescribed for lesser sins, and which, among the general penances prescribed by Basil, are found between canons 11 and 60 (according to the Medici edition).
Canon 10
Question. May one to whom holy communion is forbidden eat of the prosphora offered on the altar?
Answer. In the Life of St Theodore of Sykeon we find that this is forbidden to such persons.
(Ap. 3, 4, 38, 41; Gangra 7, 8; Laodicea 14; Carthage 37)
— St Theodore of Sykeon, whose Life is mentioned here—in which it is said that no one unworthy of holy communion may receive even the antidoron in church—was archimandrite of several monasteries in Galatia and bishop of Anastasioupolis. He was glorified by many miracles and died in the year 613.
Canon 11
Question. Should such persons be subjected to penances according to the canonical code of the Faster?
Answer. This canonical code, by its great leniency, has ruined many; and therefore let those who know what is good, and depart from it, take care to amend themselves.
— We have mentioned this canon in our commentary on the 3rd canon of John the Faster[3], and we have seen that, despite this whole harsh judgment concerning the Faster’s canonical code, it nevertheless passed into general use throughout the entire Eastern Church, and it is mainly on the basis of this code that the Nomocanon in our great Trebnik is composed.[4]