Canons of the VII Ecumenical Councils

Interpretation.

Inasmuch as Cyprus, so far as concerned secular administration, was subject to the Duke of Antioch, and was wont to send it an army commander (or general), it came to pass that the Bishop of Antioch, in imitation of this secular and civil form and law, undertook to show authority over that same Cyprus, with regard to both the religious and the ecclesiastical administration, by ordaining the bishops in Cyprus extra-territorially and not as a matter of ancient custom. This, however, was a thing that was contrary to Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV. After receiving Archbishop Reginus of Constantia, which used to be called Salamis but is now known as Amochostos, and the bishops accompanying, namely, Zeno of Cyrene, and Evagrius of Solon, who in writing as well as viva voce reported these facts, the Council decrees by the present Canon that, in accordance with the Canons and in accordance with ancient custom,⁷⁸ the Metropolitans of Cyprus are themselves to ordain the bishops in Cyprus, and to be left unmolested and unconstrained by anyone else. But, making the Canon general and catholic, the Fathers of this Council add that this same rule shall hold also in regard to diocese (or administrations) and provinces everywhere else, to the end that no bishop be permitted to usurp and appropriate any other province that has not formerly and from the beginning been subject either to his authority or to that of his predecessors. If, nevertheless, anyone should appropriate it forcibly, he must return it, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, and in order that prelates, under the pretext of sacerdotalism, may not cloak a secret ambition and vainglorious yearning for secular or worldly authority, and hence becoming slaves to injustice lose little by little the freedom which the liberator of all men Jesus Christ has graciously given us with His own blood; it has appeared reasonable to this holy Ecumenical Council that the righteous and just privileges be kept clear and inviolable which formerly and from the beginning as a matter of ancient custom each province has been entitled to. Accordingly, each Metropolitan shall have permission to receive a transcript of the present Canon for security and confirmation of the privileges of his metropolis. If, on the other hand, anyone should come out with a form, i.e., a civil law or royal decree, contrary to the present Canon, it has appeared reasonable to all this holy Council for that civil law to remain invalid and ineffective.[78] Read also the Interpretations of Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV.

Letter of Third Council addressed to the sacred Synod in Pamphylia in favor of Eustathius.

    Seeing that the God-inspired Bible says, “Do everything heedfully” (Prov. 25:29 Seirach), those who have had the fortune to be admitted to holy orders ought indeed to give especial consideration to what is to be done in every case with all exactitude. For thus will they live through life with their affairs hopefully arranged and will be carried onward as though by a favorable wind to the goal which is the most desirable; and it seems that this argument is reasonable enough. Yet in the course of time a bitter and unendurable sorrow overwhelmed the mind and terribly muddled it, and failing to reap its expectations, it found little of benefit to comfort it in regard to the unjust circumstances of its plight. We have seen some such misfortune overtake most reverent and most godly Eustathius. For though he was indeed ordained canonically, as has been attested, yet, having been embarrassed, as he says, by some persons, and having met with unseemly circumstances, and owing to his being too much accustomed to idleness he got tired of the cares heaped upon him, and being unable to put up with the fear of incurring defamation as a result of developments, we know not how, he turned in an account. For, once having accepted the responsibility of sacerdotal cares, he ought to have kept on with spiritual staunchness and to have made every effort to discharge his duties even at the expense of much pain and perspiration voluntarily as one receiving remuneration. But since, once having failed to cope with the situation, he proved incapable, though rather as a result of idleness than of laziness and indolence, your godliness necessarily ordained our most reverent and most godly brother and fellow Bishop Theodore to take care of the church. For the position could not be left open and remain without anyone to look after the flocks of the Savior. But inasmuch as he came back weeping, not about losing the city or by way of quarreling over the fact that the church was turned over to the said most godly Bishop Theodore, but begging for the honor and title of bishop he had been enjoying up till then, we all felt sorry for him because of his being an old man, and deeming his tears a common ground of sympathy, we hastened to learn whether the man had suffered any legal deposition or had been charged by other persons with improprieties while muttering things to the detriment of his reputation, and, indeed, we learned that nothing of the sort had occurred, but that instead of any indictment being brought against him the man himself had submitted his resignation. Hence we could not blame your godliness for dutifully replacing him by the said most reverent Bishop Theodore. But since there is no strong reason to quarrel with his incapacity, we ought rather to have mercy on the old man, who had been away from his city and far from home for a long time, we have deemed just and have decreed without any argument that he should retain both the name of bishop and the honor and communion of the episcopate; but in such manner as not to permit him to perform ordinations nor to officiate in divine services in church on his own account, unless by any chance taken along or allowed to do so by a brother and fellow bishop, in pursuance of affection and love in Christ. But if you care to give him a better position of any kind, either now or hereafter, this will please the holy Council.

Interpretation.

This Eustathius, of whom the present letter speaks, was bishop of Pamphylia, a province in Attaleia. But after becoming engrossed in the cares and matters of the episcopate, and getting tired on account of his faintheartedness and inexperience in regard to the affairs and temptations of the episcopate, he tendered a written resignation. Hence the Synod there ordained another bishop in place of him. However, he afterwards came to this holy Ecumenical Council with tears in his eyes and begging, not for the episcopate which he had resigned, but to have the honor and name of a bishop. Feeling sorry for him and sympathizing with him on account of his advanced age and tears and the fact that he was far from home and hearth, and particularly because of the fact that his resignation had not been submitted after a threat of deposition for viciousness, not on account of his carelessness and indolence (for if such had been the case, of course the Council would not have been warranted in showing him mercy, nor would it have bestowed upon him the mere name of bishop), but because of his faintheartedness and incapacity for affairs, the Council decreed that he should have the title of bishop, or, in other words, the right to call himself a bishop, and the honor, or, in other words, the right to sit down with bishops, and the communion, or, in other words, the right to partake of communion along with them, and to officiate with them, and to assist in ordinations the other bishops, though not to perform any himself of his own accord, but only with the permission of the local bishop. In addition the Council says to the bishops of Pamphylia, that in case they should think of something better and higher to give to Eustathius, either now or hereafter, this will please the Council too. This means nothing else, according to the exegete Anonymus, than the possibility of their appointing him bishop in some vacant province.[79]

Notes

[77] Note that formerly and from the beginning as a matter of ancient custom Cyprus had been autocephalous in respect of ecclesiastical administration. This privilege was sanctioned as belonging to it both by Emperor Zeno and by Justinian II, surnamed Rhinotmetus (as having had his nose cut off). For in the times of Zeno, when the Monphysites called Eutychians had a free hand, owing to the fact that Peter Knapheus of Antioch was doing his utmost to gain control of the Cyprians, on the pretense that the Cyprians had received their faith and Christianity from Antioch, it came to pass that the bishop of Amochostos named Anthemitus discovered through revelation the sacred remains (or relics) of the Holy Apostle Barnabas underneath the underground roots of a carob tree, bearing upon his breast the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in Greek by Barnabas himself with his own hands, for two reasons, to wit: first, in order to shame the followers of Eutyches by means of that divine Gospel because of the fact that the latter affiims the true humanity of Christ, and His two natures; and secondly, in order to shut the mouth of Peter who had his eye on Cyprus. For divine Barnabas said to Anthemitus: “If the enemies assert that the throne of Antiocheia is an Apostolic one, tell them that so is Cyprus Apostolic because it has an Apostle in its ground.” Taking the Gospel with him, Anthemitus departed for Constantinople and went to Zeno, who rejoiced greatly when he beheld it with his own eyes, and, keeping it safely in his possession, he ordered it to be read every year on Good Friday (called in Greek “Great Friday”), according to the Chronicle of Joel. And not only did he appoint Acacius to consider the case of Cyprians and Antiochians (wherein, presenting the present Canon of the Third Ec. C., and the words of the Apostle, Anthemitus shamed the Antiochians), but he even made Amochostos an archdiocese free from any molestations attempted by the bishop of Antioch, according to Cyril the monk and Theodore the anagnost and Suidas. After renewing the decorations of that same Amochostos or Salamis, according to Balsamon, Justinian Rhinotmetus renamed it New Justiniana. Hence those who assert that it was a second Justiniana are mistaken. For Achris was the first to be called Justiniana; the second to be called Justinana was Ulpiana, some town that was situated in Dardania and was renewed and redecorated by Justinian, on which account c. XXXIX of the Sixth Ec. C. calls Cyprus New Justinianopolis. And, confirming the present Canon, it says for the Bishop of Cyzicus to preside over the whole province of the Hellespontians, too, and to ordain its bishop. But Chrysanthus (p. 84 of the Syntagmation) says that Carthage was the first autocephalous archdiocese; and Cyprus was the second, because this c. VIII of the 3rd had honored it as autocephalous even before Justinian, that is to say; the third was Achris, because it was honored as autocephalous during the reign of Justinian in the time of the Fifth Council; the fourth was lower Iberia, as having been honored in the time of Leo III (the Isaurian); the fifth was upper Iberia, as having been honored during the reign of Monomachus; the sixth was that of Pecius, as having been honored in the time of the emperors in Nicaea.

[78] See the commencement of this handbook in order to learn that civil laws conflicting with the Canons are invalid.

[79] Many have concluded from this letter that prelates are permitted to resign from their own province, but yet to retain the honor and activity of the prelacy. Such persons, however, are in error. Quite the contrary is rather to be inferred from the letter, according to Zonaras, Balsamon, and Blastaris. Thus, first of all, it is patent from the words of the letter that resignations ought not to occur. For it says, in paraphrase, that “once having been given the care of an episcopate, Eustathius ought to have borne it with spiritual courageousness, to have made every effort to cope with the troubles involved in the situation, and voluntarily to have endured the perspiration deserving reward in behalf of the episcopate.” This same inference may be drawn also from the surprise felt by the Council when it saw the written resignation of Eustathius. For if it had been customary and allowable for resignations to be offered, how could it have been astonished at such an event as though some new and strange thing had occurred; for it says, in paraphrase, “we do not know how and why he came to turn in an account in resignation of his office.” But this is confirmed also by the exarch of this Council Cyril (who appears, from the wording and phraseology of this letter, to have been the composer of it), who says in his c. III: “This thing is not agreeable to the Canons of the Church, that is to say, for prelates to offer written resignations. For, if they are worthy to officiate, let them do so, and not resign; but if they are unworthy, let them not evade the episcopate with a resignation, but as persons condemned for things they have been charged with by many outcries. This same conclusion may be inferred also from c. XVI of the lst-and-2nd. For, if that Canon deposes anyone that leaves his province for more than six months, and commands that another bishop be ordained in his stead, much more does it forbid anyone to resign his province altogether. Though that Canon does say for no one else to be ordained in the place of a living bishop unless the latter voluntarily resign his episcopate, yet it must be understood as implying that he is resigning on account of some professionally inhibitive and hidden reason. But further on this same Canon seems to correct even this. For it says for another bishop to be ordained after the cause of the living one be investigated and his deposition has been consummated.” Athanasius the Great, too, writes in his letter to Dracontius: “Before being installed as a bishop, a bishop lives for himself; but after being installed he no longer lives for himself, but for those Christians for whom he was installed in office.” But if they aver that St. Gregory the Theologian resigned, as is asserted also by Balsamon, let them learn that he did not resign an episcopate of his own, which was that of Sasima, but a strange episcopate, namely, that of Nazianzo, as he himself informs us. For in writing to St. Gregory of Nyssa he says: “Not of Nazianzo, but of Sasima we have been offered as candidates; though not without a little shamefacedness before the Father and the supplicants as strangers we have accepted the protection” (Note of Translator. — By “protection” is meant office). In writing to Philagrius, on the other hand, he says the following: “If it is dangerous, as you state, for one to leave his church, what church do you mean? If you mean our own, that of Sasima, that is to say, I too say the same thing, and the statement is correct. But if we have left the strange one, the one which has not been proclaimed to be connected with our name, that is to say, that of Nazianzo, we are exempt from responsibility. But if we are being held to account because we had charge of it for a while, there are plenty of others who will have to be held to account likewise, all those, in fact, who have had charge of strange provinces for a while.” As for the fact, first, that resignations are not allowable, this is plain from what has been said; and as for the fact, secondly, that those resigning (especially as a result of laziness and indolence) must not be permitted to retain the honor of a bishop and the name and activity, this too is evident from this letter. For it says, in paraphrase, that “Eustathius came to the Council, begging for the honor and title of bishop. But if he is begging for these things, it is evident that he resigned them along with his resignation from the province; and as having resigned them he no longer possessed them; and justly so.” For the name bishop is not absolute, but relative. For a bishop must be the bishop of an episcopate. Whoever, therefore, has resigned his episcopate, evidently ought not even to be called a bishop (unless it be with the modification “former” or “formerly”), according to Blastaris and Zonaras. But if he ought not to bear the name of bishop, much more ought he not to enjoy either the honor or the activity of a bishop. For the honor and activity of the bishop are bestowed as a prize and reward by Ap. c. XXXVI as well as c. XVIII of Antioch, not upon the one resigning his province, but upon the one who goes indeed to his province, but on account of the withdrawal and disorder of the laity, he does not accept it. Hence in the case of those who resign from their province without any calamitous reason, and go to other provinces where there is greater profit and more money to be made, Synesius as well as Theophilus want no one to admit them to the altar, and not to call them to the presidency, but, when they enter the church, to ignore them like so many cattle occupying public scats of authority. That is why c. I of St. Cyril says that Bishop Peter “either ought to have the functions of a bishop, or, if he is not worthy to preside over the sacrificial altar, neither ought he to be honored with the name of bishop.” But what am I saying that those resigning ought not to have the honor and title of bishop? Why, they ought even to be excommunicated in case they fail to accept the protection of the flock which has been entrusted to them, in accordance with the above Canons, Ap. c. XXXVI and c. XVII of Antioch, until such time as they decide to take it in hand. For this reason it is amazing that this 3rd Ec. C. did not reprimand the bishops in Pamphylia for failing to force Eustathius to accept the Church entrusted to him, but, instead of him, ordaining someone else. It appears, however, from the words of the letter that the bishops in Pamphylia wrangled a good deal about the inactivity of Eustathius, and that they opposed him and sought to coerce him. For it said, “there is no strong reason to quarrel with his incapacity.” Finally, when they saw that he could not be persuaded, and that the flock of Christ had been without a protector for a long time (that the time was long is evident from the use of the verb “remain” contained in the letter), they ordained Theodore in his stead. But if anyone should ask why the Council should have given Eustathius the honor and title and activity of a bishop at all, we answer that it did so mainly and primarily because, as we said, it was not because of any viciousness or negligence on his part, but solely because of his faintheartedness that he submitted this unreasonable resignation, on account of which, had Theodore not been ordained so soon, the Council certainly would have tried to compel him to take back his province, on the ground that he had no canonical excuse for not doing so. Incidentally the Council did this when it sympathized with his tears and his old age. Canon X of Peter the martyr, too, does not consider it reasonable for men to remain in the ministry after they leave the flock of the Lord and go of their own accord to martyrdom, and first deny, and then struggle again, and finally confess the faith. Note also the further observation that in case a prelate wishing to resign from his province offers the pretext that he is unworthy, he must not be listened to, unless he be proved to be unworthy of the prelacy. For it is one thing for one not to be worthy, in a negative sense, and another thing for one to be unworthy, in a privative sense. For any man is unworthy of the prelacy who has committed canonical offenses and has been deprived of worthiness on that account. For, according to philosophers, privations come second after habits. Wherefore he ought to be deposed. But one is not worthy not only who is guilty of such canonical offenses, but also one who is not guilty of such offenses, but rather to say who is virtuous and saintly, yet who as respecting the magnitude and sublimity of the gift of the prelacy is not really worthy, as St. Basil the Great expresses it, and as divine Chrysostom says in his liturgies, in the prayer of the cherubic hymn, which prayer includes the following words: “No one addicted to carnal desires and pleasures is worthy to approach and to come near, or to minister, unto Thee, O King of glory. For serving Thee is something great and fearful even to the heavenly powers themselves.” On this account, as Balsamon says in his commentary on c. XVI of the lst-&-2nd, the resignation of Theodoulos of Makre, though accepted without examination by Patriarch Luke, yet, when thereafter examined synodically by Patriarch Michael of Anchialos, it was not accepted, but, on the contrary, was rejected because it stated that he was resigning the episcopate, not as unworthy, but as not worthy. For every unworthy person may be described as not worthy, but it is not conversely true that whoever is not worthy is also unworthy. For anyone that asserts himself to be unworthy becomes self-condemned, whereas anyone that says that he is not worthy ought rather to be praised as being humble-minded. Accordingly, in order to finish this Footnote, I may say that there is no excuse for a prelate’s resigning from his province, excepting only this, that he has been involved in offenses that inhibit the exercise of prelatical functions, either hidden and undisclosed offenses only confessed to a father confessor, or plainly evident, and consequently not deposed by the Council. For at that time being rebuked by his own conscience, he has a good excuse for resigning the prelacy at the same time, and no one can prevent it. Such a person, in fact, is not prevented from becoming a monk. See also c. II of St. Sohpia, and especially c. Ill of Cyril, and the testimony of Chrysostom contained in the footnote; and the commentary on c. XXVI of the 6th and the Footnote thereto, and the Footnote to c. IX of the First Ec. C. See also the form for a canonical resignation at the end of this Handbook.