Canons of the VII Ecumenical Councils

Interpretation.

What the present Canon says may be stated as follows. Since many men wishing to confound the discipline and good order of the Church inimically slander Orthodox bishops, without accomplishing any other result than that of blackening the reputations of those in holy orders and disturbing the laity, on this account it has pleased this holy Council to decree that neither all accusers of Bishops be admitted nor again that all be excluded or refused admission. But if the charges are personal ones involving only financial loss, or, more specifically speaking, if anyone accuse a Bishop by complaining that he has treated him unjustly or greedily, by depriving him perhaps of some real or personal property, in such cases the person of the accuser must not be examined into, nor his religion; but, on the contrary, no matter what may be his religious views, he must have justice done to him in any circumstances. But if his accusations are of a criminal nature, such, that is to say, as might lower his ecclesiastical standing, as, for instance, sacrilege, the performance of sacred rites outside the confines of the parish, and the like, then and in that case the accusers ought to be examined, in the first place as to whether they are heretics, mistaken in doctrine, including both those who were anathematized by the Church long ago and those who have but now recently been anathematized by us. Secondly, as to whether they are schismatics[55] or not, or, more specifically speaking, whether or not they have separated from the Church on account of any curable habits, according to c. I of Basil the Great, and contrary to the Canons, or, in other words, the catholic Bishops who have been ordained in the Orthodox manner and in accordance with the Canons, while they themselves are congregating apart by themselves. Thirdly, whether they are entirely excommunicated from the Church for some misdeeds of theirs, or have been temporarily excommunicated from the clergymen or the laymen. As for those, however, who have already been accused by others, they are not to be permitted to accuse a Bishop or other clergymen until they prove themselves innocent of the crimes imputed to them. In case, however, those bringing these ecclesiastical and criminal accusations against a bishop happen to be free from all the above enumerated defects, the holy Council commands that these persons first present their indictments of the accused bishop before the synod of all the bishops of that particular province. But if the synod of the province cannot dispose of such a case of crimes, then the accusers may carry the matter up to the greater synod of the bishops of the Diocese,[56] and have the case terminate there. Because of the fact that in Book LX of the Basilica, Title XXVI, ch. 6, it is written that whosoever turns out to be a traitor and liar in the accusations which he makes, when it comes to the matter of punishment for this crime, shall receive that punishment which the accused one would have received if he had been found guilty, the present Canon pursuant to the civil law adds that provision that the accuser is not to commence a recital of his allegations unless he first gives a written promise to accept the same sentence and punishment as a rightly and truly and justly accused bishop would have to undergo, if it be proved that he accused him unjustly and falsely. Whoever scorns these regulations and affronts all the bishops of the Diocese, and should dare to appeal his case to the Emperor,[57] or to civil courts of secular authorities, or to appeal to an ecumenical council,[58] shall be completely estopped from lodging an information, seeing that he has insulted the Sacred Canons and has violated ecclesiastical discipline.

Concord

In much the same manner c. IX of the 4th decrees that when clergymen are at variance with one another and quarreling, they are liable to Canonical penances in case they leave their Bishop and resort to civil courts. Canon XIV of Carthage, on the other hand, says that any bishop or presbyter or deacon or clergyman shall forfeit his position in case he leaves an ecclesiastical court and goes to a civil court. But, besides this, c. XII of Antioch expressly decrees that if a presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or if a bishop deposed by a synod or council, does not resort to a greater synod or council of bishops, but, instead of doing so, annoys the emperor, he shall no longer have any right to submit an apology (i.e., enter a plea in his own defense) or any hope of restoration (sc. to his former ecclesiastical status). Canon XXXVI of Carthage excludes from communion clergymen and bishops that appeal their case to “peramatic” (a Greek word with a signification akin to “crossing” or “fording”), or what are more properly designated “hyperhorial” (a Greek word meaning about the same thing as the word extralimitary derived from the Latin, with reference to passing or going beyond the boundaries of a territory), tribunals, and not to the superiors of their own provinces. This very thing is what is decreed by c. CXXXIV of the same Council.[59] Note, however, that lower ecclesiastical judges are not penalized by the higher ones to whom the decision of a case is appealed, unless they be proved to have judged wrongly and unjustly either by way of favoring someone or because of enmity. See also Ap. c. LXXIV and c. IX of the 4th.

Notes

[55] That is why Athanasius the Great in his apology to the Emperor says the following: “My accusers are Meletians, who ought not to be believed at all, for they are schismatics, and have become enemies of the Church, not now, but from the time of blessed Peter the martyr.” As for why the Canon called all schismatics and dissenters “heretics,” see the second footnote to c. I of St. Basil the Great.

[56] The noun “diocese” in Greek is one of many different significations, even in relation to ecclesiastical matters. For, A) it signifies the episcopate and bishopric of each bishop at any time, according to c. LXII of Carth. B) the province of a Metropolitan, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th. C) the provinces of many Metropolitans lying in one diocese, according to this c. VI of the 6th. D) the parish of each Patriarch, as it is also called in many places in the records of the councils and synods, as in those of the council held in Ephesus, “the holy Synod of the Eastern diocese.” And E) the combined parishes of two or three Patriarchs taken together, as is said in the Seventh Council: “Of John and Thomas, the legates of the Eastern Diocese, or, more specifically, of Antioch and Jerusalem.” These facts having been thus stated, the phrase “The Synod of the Diocese” is never used in the first and second senses, but in the fourth and fifth senses it has been used most especially, both of old and even down to this day being in force. As for the third sense it was in force of old in accordance with the present Conciliar Canon and in accordance with cc. IX and XXVIII of the 4th, but after the Fourth Ec. C. such a synod ceased to be operative. That is why Justinian, in ordinance 29 of the fourth Title of Book I (Photius Title IX, ch. 6), does not mention it at all, wherein concerning differences between bishops and clergymen he says: “For whether a metropolitan alone or together with his synod tries the case of a bishop or clergyman” (which is the same as saying that if the synod of a province tries a case, the Patriarch of the diocese keeps his eye on it), whatever decisions he makes are valid, as though he had tried the cases from the start. For neither can the decisions of Patriarchs be appealed.” That which the Canon here calls a “synod of the diocese” is called the exarch of the diocese in cc. IX and XXVIII of the 4th, the exarch being another dignitary than the Patriarch, as we shall state in connection with the interpretation of those Canons. Note, however, that Macarius of Ancyra misexplained this c. VI when he said that this Council calls Patriarchs exarchs of the diocese, because he mentions only the Synod of the province the Synod of the diocese, and the ecumenical Synod (i.e., Council). But in order to make the matter clearer we must state that the Synod of a Diocese was the assembly, or convention, of the metropolitans of a single diocese together with their chief the Exarch. Now, however, that this sort of Synod has fallen into desuetude, the Synod of each particular Patriarch decides all the ecclesiastical cases of the metropolitans of the diocese subject to his jurisdiction, as though this Synod had become a greater one than the synod of the diocese, since the Patriarchs received full authority to ordain their own metropolitans in the Fourth Ec. C. — an authority which they did not thitherto possess in all its fullness and completeness, according to Dositheus, page 388. By adding in the present Canon that one has no right to take a case to an ecumenical council after it has been decided by the synod of the diocese, this Council has given us to understand that an ecumenical council is the final judge of all ecclesiastical matters, and is the one to which any appeal has to be carried, concerning which see the Preface to the First Ecum. C. in the first Footnote thereto.

[57] If it be objected that Balsamon asserts that an emperor can do anything and everything, and for this reason can also grant an external (i.e., non-ecclesiastical) judge to try the case of a bishop or of any clergymen in general, and according to a legal observation can convert an ecclesiastical court into a civil court, we reply that we admit that he can do everything that is licit and right, but not, however, anything that is illicit and unjust. Because according to Chrysostom (in his discourse on the fact that sin introduced three modes of slavery) laws are authoritative to rule even the rulers themselves (Note of Translator. — The meaning of this observation is that laws have an inherent authority to overrule even the rulers ruling a country, and even though the latter be absolute nionarchs.) For, according to the Apostle (sc. St. Paul), “no law is applicable to a righteous person” (1 Tim. 1:9) — (Note of Translator. — A correct translation of this passage requires almost perfect familiarity with the Greek language, which, of course, the translators of the English Versions of the Bible were far from possessing. Consequently it appears in both the King James and the Revised Versions so badly mistranslated that I have taken especial pains here to present the exact meaning of the original.) Read also the Interpretation of c. IX of the 4th in order to assure yourself that even the emperors themselves decree that ecclesiastical affairs are not to the decided by secular authorities. See also the Footnote to c. III of St. Sophia.

[58] Though Paul of Constantinople, and Athanasius together with Pope Julius did appeal to Constans and Constantius to have the Ecumenical Council convoked which is called the Sardican, to consider their case; and Chrysostom and Innocent appealed to Arcadius and Honorius to have an ecumenical council convoked to consider the case of Chrysostom, though, I say, these saints did appeal to an ecumenical council, they are not liable to the penalty of this Canon, for one thing, because, being Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs, they had no higher court than themselves to pass judgment upon them, and, for another thing, because they made this appeal as a matter of necessity, seeing that the Eusebians who were about to judge Athanasius locally, and those about to judge Chrysostom, were manifest enemies.

[59] It is written also in the ecclesiastical edict in Book I of the Code, Title IV, No. 29, that no one is to be allowed to try a clergyman before the Patriarch in the first instance, but before his bishop. If he has a suspicion against the bishop, let him bring his case up before the metropolitan. If the latter too is open to suspicion, three superiors in point of seniority of ordination must try the case along with him on behalf of the whole synod. If even this arrangement is not satisfactory, let the case be carried up to the Patriarch, and let his judgment stand as though he had tried the case in the first instance, since decisions of Patriarchs are not subject to appeal, or, in other words, to being carried up to any other higher tribunal (in view of the fact, it is well to explain, that one Patriarch cannot become a judge in regard to the decision of another Patriarch, according to Dositheus, p. 390. Concerning which see Footnote 1 to the Prolegomena of the First Ec. C.).