Canons of the VII Ecumenical Councils

Interpretation.

The ones called Puritans here were the Novatians.[12] The man Novatian himself was a presbyter in the Church of the Romans who would not accept those who had renegaded in time of persecution, but had repented, nor would he give communion to persons that had married twice. He had also declared that after baptism a sinner could no longer have mercy bestowed upon him, according to Epiphanius, Haer. 59, and Augustine, Haer. 38. So, although this man did not err as respecting the dogmas of the faith, nor was he a heretic, but was instead a schismatic (or sectarian), according to c. I of St. Basil, yet, because of his hatred of brethren, and his being of an unsympathetic frame of mind, and proud, he was anathematized by the Council held in Rome in the time of Pope Cornelius, according to Eusebius, and by the councils held in Carthage in the time of Cyprian, and by the councils held against him in Antioch and in Italy. Those who adhered to his misbelief were called after him Novatians. These facts being assumed to be known, the present Canon asserts that in case any such Novatians join the catholic Church, it has appeared reasonable that they should have hands laid[13] upon them, and thus be received, and be allowed to remain in their clergy, those, that is to say, who really were clergymen in the habit (thus c. LXVI of Carthage accepted the Donatists with an imposition of the hands); nevertheless, they must confess in writing that they have to keep all dogmas of the catholic Church, that they will accept those who have married twice, and those who were forced by necessity to deny Christ, and that they will accomodate them, according to fixed times, with the Canon of repentance applicable to deniers; and thus, wherever they happen to be, whether in cities or in villages, they shall be left in the clergy and rank in which each of them found himself when he was ordained: that is to say, a bishop shall remain a bishop; a presbyter, a presbyter; and a deacon, a deacon. However, a bishop shall remain a bishop where there is no Orthodox bishop of the catholic Church. But if in the same church there is also an Orthodox bishop, the latter shall have the office and dignity, and all the business, and the name of bishop, while the bishop formerly a Novatian shall have only the honor of a presbyter, and the nominal title of bishop,[14] but he shall not perform any priestly act as a bishop, in order to avoid having this improper and absurd situation arise in which two bishops are officiating in one and the same city (concerning which see Ap. c. XXXV, and c. XVI of the lst-&-2nd;[15] in case, however, he refuses to be content with this arrangement, the Orthodox bishop must allow him to have a position as a chorepiscopus,[16] or as a presbyter, in order that he too may be numbered among those who are in holy orders and clergymen, and not appear to be wholly deprived of the clergy.

Notes

[12] Thus did they call themselves in accordance with their conceited way of thinking, as Eusebius states in his Book VI, ch. 43.

[13] The laying on of hands here is not ordination, as one might perhaps suppose, but it consists in the action of those in holy orders laying their hand on the heads of such heretics, and thus accepting them as penitents. For c. XLIX of Carthage also insists that penitents be accepted thus with laying on of hands, and not, of course, with any ordination. That my words are true is attested by the Seventh Ecum. C. For when this same Canon was read in the first act of the same Council, and it was asked how the expression “laying on of hands” was to be understood, most saintly Tarasius said that the phrase “laying on of hands” was employed here in the sense of blessing, and not with reference to any ordination. Hence spiritual fathers ought to learn from this Canon to lay their hands on the heads of penitents when they read to them the prayer for pardon, as c. XXXV of Carthage expressly says this. For such a laying on of hands is necessary to the mystery of repentance. Listen also to what the Apostles say in their Injunctions (Book II, ch. 18): “Accept a sinner when he weeps over his sin, and after laying a hand on him, let him remain thereafter in the flock.” And again (ibid., chapters 41 and 43): “Just as you accept an infidel after baptizing him, so shall you restore to the spiritual pasture as purified and clean a sinner after laying a hand upon him.” This laying on of hands serves him in lieu of baptism, since by imposition of the hands the Holy Spirit used to be bestowed upon believers. The custom of this imposition of hands in connection with the new grace came into prevalence from the old. For thus the high priest used to accept by imposition of hands the sacrifices of burnt offerings and those made on the score of sin. See also chapters 1 and 3 and 4 of Leviticus. Note, however, that it was by way of “economy” (or concession) that this Council accepted the Novatians, as St. Basil notes in his c. I. See also the Interpretation of c. VII of the 3rd, where c. XXXIX of the council held in Illyberia says that heretics are to be accepted by the process of laying on of hands.

[14] Just as Meletius, after being subjected to an examination, and judicial trial, was compelled by the first synod held in Lycos to continue life with the mere name of bishop; and thenceforth to ordain no one, either in a city or in a village (Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., Book X, ch. 14; and Socrates, Book X, ch. 9).

[15] In Book IV, ch. 14, of his Ecclesiastical History, when narrating the facts concerning Felix and Liberius, bishops of Rome, Sozomen states that after God had governed matters in this fashion, allowing Felix to die, that is to say, and He left Liberius by himself, in order to avoid having the throne of St. Peter dishonored by being occupied by two functionaries, which is a sign of discord and alien to the ecclesiastical Canon. St. Epiphanius, in his Haer. 68, states that Alexandria never had two bishops. And (Pope) Cornelius, the bishop of Rome, in writing to Phanius the bishop of Antioch, accuses Novatian of trying to make himself, and, in fact, of actually making himself, a bishop of Rome, when as a matter of fact Cornelius himself was the lawful bishop in that city. “How, then, is it,” he goes on to say, “that he did not know that there can be but one bishop in one church, and not two?”

[16] Because it is not permissible in a village or small city, where there is need of but one presbyter, to enthrone a bishop, lest the name of bishop be thus brought into disgrace, according to c. VI of Sardican. On this account in such small cities and villages and districts sparsely peopled it was the vogue to appoint a so-called chorepiscopus. So, according to c. X of Antioch, the chorepiscopus was appointed by the bishop of that city to which he was subject and to which his territory belonged. The same Canon also says that such a chorepiscopus may ordain anagnosts (readers or lectors), subdeacons, and oath-takers (i.e., catechists); but that he shall be deposed if he dare to ordain a presbyter or deacon without the consent of the bishop in the city, even though he has had the imposition of hands of a bishop. Canon VIII of the same council permits unaccused chorepiscopi to grant letters pacifical, i.e., dimissory, to those requesting them. Likewise c. XIII of Ancyra decrees that without the written authorization of a real bishop chorepiscopi have no right to ordain presbyters and deacons either in their own territory or in any other town. Canon XIV of Neocaesarea says that chorepiscopi, being in the nature of types of the seventy Apostles, officiate as assistant ministers and are honored on account of the interest they show in the poor by distributing among them the money collected in church. Moreover, c. XIV of the 7th says that it was an ancient custom for chorepiscopi to ordain anagnosts at the behest of the bishop. That is what c. LXXXIX of Basil, too, declares in his letter to chorepiscopi. These chorepiscopi, in fact, appear to be in some cases presbyters only, and in other cases to have had the imposition of hands of a bishop, as may be inferred from what is said in cc. VIII and X of Antioch. But there is a considerable difference between a bishop and a chorepiscopus. For a chorepiscopus is in charge of only one district; a bishop is the overseer of many districts. A chorepiscopus is appointed by the bishop to whom he is subject, whereas the bishop is appointed by the metropolitan. Accordingly, the chorepiscopus has to get written permission from his bishop for every ordination that he performs, whereas the latter executes each ordination on his own venture. So that the so-called chorepiscopi of today (i.e., as the term is now used in Greece), as not having these functions, possess a mere name, destitute of actuality.

previous | next