Chalcedon: the canons (3 of 3)

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXXV., C. ij.

Canon XXVI

Forasmuch as we have heard that in certain churches the bishops managed the church-business without stewards, it has seemed good that every church having a bishop shall have also a steward from among its own clergy, who shall manage the church business under the sanction of his own bishop; that so the administration of the church may not be without a witness; and that thus the goods of the church may not be squandered, nor reproach be brought upon the priesthood; and if he [i.e., the Bishop] will not do this, he shall be subjected to the divine canons.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVI.

The Œconomus in all churches must be chosen from the clergy.  And the bishop who neglects to do this is not without blame.

Bright.

As the stream of offerings became fuller, the work of dispensing them became more complex, until the archdeacons could no longer find time for it, and it was committed to a special officer called “œconomus” or steward (Bingham, iii, 12, 1; Transl. of Fleury, iii., 120).  So the Council of Gangra, in the middle of the fourth century, forbids the church offerings to be disposed of without consent of the bishop or of the person appointed, εἰς οἰκονομίαν εὐποιϊασ (canon viij.); and St. Basil mentions the œconomi of his own church (Epist., xxiij. 1), and the “ταμίαι of the sacred goods” of his brother’s at Nyssa (ib., 225).  And although Gregory Nazianzen took credit to himself for declining to appoint a “stranger” to make an estimate of the property which of right belonged to the church of Constantinople, and in fact, with a strange confusion between personal and official obligations, gave the go-by to the whole question (Carm. de Vita sua, 1479 ff.), his successor, Nectarius, being a man of business, took care to appoint a “church-steward”; and Chrysostom, on coming to the see, examined his accounts, and found much superfluous expenditure (Palladius, Dial, p. 19).  Theophilus of Alexandria compelled two of the Tall Brothers to undertake the οἰκονομία of the Alexandrian church (Soc., vi. 7); and in one of his extant directions observes that the clergy of Lyco wish for another “œconomus,” and that the bishop has consented, in order that the church-funds may be properly spent (Mansi, iii., 1257).  At Hippo St. Augustine had a “præpositus domus” who acted as Church-steward (Possidius, Vit. August., xxiv.).  Isidore of Pelusium denounces Martinianus as a fraudulent “œconomus,” and requests Cyril to appoint an upright one (Epist. ii., 127), and in another letter urges him to put a stop to the dishonest greed of those who acted as stewards of the same church (ib., v. 79).  The records of the Council of Ephesus mention the “œconomus” of Constantinople, the “œconomus” of Ephesus (Mansi, iv., 1228–1398), and, the “œconomus” of Philadelphia.  According to an extant letter of Cyril, the “œconomi” of Perrha in Syria were mistrusted by the clergy, who wished to get rid of them “and appoint others by their own authority” (ib., vii., 321).  Ibas of Edessa had been complained of for his administration of church property; he was accused, e.g., of secreting a jewelled chalice, and bestowing the church revenues, and gold and silver crosses, on his brother and cousins; he ultimately undertook to appoint “œconomi” after the model of Antioch (Mansi, vii., 201).  Proterius, afterwards patriarch of Alexandria and a martyr for Chalcedonian orthodoxy, was “œconomus” under Dioscorus (ib., iv., 1017), as was John Talaia, a man accused of bribery, under his successor (Evag., iii., 12).  There may have been many cases in which there was no “œconomus,” or in which the management was in the hands of private agents of the bishop, in whom the Church could put no confidence; and the Council, having alluded to the office of “œconomus” in canons ij. and xxv., now observes that some bishops had been managing their church property without “œconomi,” and thereupon resolves “that every church which has a bishop shall also have an œconomus” from among its own clergy, to administer the property of the church under the direction of its own bishop; so that the administration of the church property may not be unattested, and thereby waste ensue, and the episcopate incur reproach.”  Any bishop who should neglect to appoint such an officer should be punishable under “the divine” (or sacred) “canons.”

Nearly three years after the Council, Leo saw reason for requesting Marcian not to allow civil judges, “novo exemplo,” to audit the accounts of “the œconomi of the church of Constantinople,” which ought, “secundum traditum morem,” to be examined by the bishop alone (Epist. cxxxvij. 2).  In after days the “great steward” of St. Sophia was always a deacon; he was a conspicuous figure at the Patriarch’s celebrations, standing on the right of the altar, vested in alb and stole, and holding the sacred fan (ῥιπίδιον); his duty was to enter all incomings and outgoings of the church’s revenue in a charterlary, and exhibit it quarterly, or half yearly, to the patriarchs; and he governed the church during a vacancy of the see (Eucholog., pp. 268, 275).  In the West, Isidore of Seville describes the duties of the “œconomus”; he has to see to the repair and building of churches, the care of church lands, the cultivation of vineyards, the payment of clerical stipends, of doles to the widows and the poor, and of food and clothing to church servants, and even the carrying on of church law suits,—all “cum jussu et arbitrio sui episcopi” (Ep. to Leudefred, Op. ii., 520); and before Isidore’s death the IV Council of Toledo refers to this canon, and orders the bishops to appoint “from their own clergy those whom the Greeks call œconomi, hoc est, qui vici episcoporum res ecclesiasticas tractant (canon xlviij., Mansi, x, 631).  There was an officer named “œconomus” in the old Irish monasteries; see Reeves’ edition of Adamnan, p. 47.

This Canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa XVI., Q. VII, Canon xxi., and again in Pars I., Dist. LXXXIX., c. iv.

Canon XXVII

The holy Synod has decreed that those who forcibly carry off women under pretence of marriage, and the aiders or abettors of such ravishers, shall be degraded if clergymen, and if laymen be anathematized.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVII.

If a clergyman elope with a woman, let him be expelled from the Church.  If a layman, let him be anathema.  The same shall be the lot of any that assist him.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXXVI., Q. II., canon j.

In many old collections this is the last canon of this Council, e.g., Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore, the Prisca, the Greek by John of Antioch, and the Arabic by Joseph Ægyptius.  The reader familiar with the subject will have but little difficulty in explaining to his own satisfaction the omission of canon xxviij. in these instances.

Canon XXVIII

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.  And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII.

The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire.  For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.

Van Espen.

It is certain that this canon was expressly renewed by canon xxxvi. of the Council of Trullo and from that time has been numbered by the Greeks among the canons; and at last it was acknowledged by some Latin collectors also, and was placed by Gratian in his Decretum, although clearly with a different sense.  (Pars I., Dist. xxii., C. vj.)

Bright.

Here is a great addition to the canon of 381, so ingeniously linked on to it as to seem at first sight a part of it.  The words καὶ ὥστε are meant to suggest that what follows is in fact involved in what has preceded:  whereas a new point of departure is here taken, and instead of a mere “honorary pre-eminence” the bishop of Constantinople acquires a vast jurisdiction, the independent authority of three exarchs being annulled in order to make him patriarch.  Previously he had προεδρία now he gains προστασία.  As we have seen, a series of aggrandizements in fact had prepared for this aggrandizement in law; and various metropolitans of Asia Minor expressed their contentment at seeing it effected.  “It is, indeed, more than probable that the self-assertion of Rome excited the jealousy of her rival of the East,” and thus “Eastern bishops secretly felt that the cause of Constantinople was theirs” (Gore’s Leo the Great, p. 120); but the gratification of Constantinople ambition was not the less, in a canonical sense, a novelty, and the attempt to enfold it in the authority of the Council of 381 was rather astute than candid.  The true plea, whatever might be its value, was that the Council had to deal with a fait accompli, which it was wise at once to legalize and to regulate; that the “boundaries of the respective exarchates…were ecclesiastical arrangements made with a view to the general good and peace of the Church, and liable to vary with the dispensations to which the Church was providentially subjected,” so that “by confirming the ἐκ πολλοῦ κρατῆσαν ἔθος in regard to the ordination of certain metropolitans (see Ep. of Council to Leo, Leon. Epist. xcviij., 4), “they were acting in the spirit, while violating the letter, of the ever-famous rule of Nicæa, τὰ αρχεῖα ἔθη κρατείτο (cp. Newman, Transl. of Fleury, iii., 407).  It is observable that Aristenus and Symeon, Logothetes reckon this decree as a XXIX canon (Justellus, ii., 694, 720).

After the renewal of this canon by the Council of Trullo, Gratian adds “The VIII Synod held under Pope Hadrian II., canon xxj.”  (Decretum Pars I., Dist. xxij., C. vij.)  “We define that no secular power shall hereafter dishonour anyone of these who rule our patriarchal sees, or attempt to move them from their proper throne, but shall judge them worthy of all reverence and honour; chiefly the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and then the Patriarch of Constantinople, and then those of Alexandria, and Antioch, and Jerusalem.”

Some Greek codices have the following heading to this canon.

“Decree of the same holy Synod published on account of the privileges of the throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople.”

Tillemont.

This canon seems to recognise no particular authority in the Church of Rome, save what the Fathers had granted it, as the seat of the empire.  And it attributes in plain words as much to Constantinople as to Rome, with the exception of the first place.  Nevertheless I do not observe that the Popes took up a thing so injurious to their dignity, and of so dangerous a consequence to the whole Church.  For what Lupus quotes of St. Leo’s lxxviij. (civ.) letter, refers rather to Alexandria and to Antioch, than to Rome.  St. Leo is contented to destroy the foundation on which they built the elevation of Constantinople, maintaining that a thing so entirely ecclesiastical as the episcopate ought not to be regulated by the temporal dignity of cities, which, nevertheless, has been almost always followed in the establishment of the metropolis, according to the Council of Nicea.

St. Leo also complains that the Council of Chalcedon broke the decrees of the Council of Nice, the practice of antiquity, and the rights of Metropolitans.  Certainly it was an odious innovation to see a Bishop made the chief, not of one department but of three; for which no example could be found save in the authority which the Popes took over Illyricum, where, however, they did not claim the power to ordain any Bishop.

Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII

Among the bishops who gave their answers at the last session to the question whether their subscription to the canons was voluntary or forced was Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, an Asiatic bishop who said that he had read the Constantinopolitan canon to “the holy pope of Rome in presence of clerics of Constantinople, and that he had accepted it” (L. and C., Conc., iv. 815).  But quite possibly this evidence is of little value.  But what is more to the point is that the Papal legates most probably had already at this very council recognized the right of Constantinople to rank immediately after Rome.  For at the very first session when the Acts of the Latrocinium were read, it was found that to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was given only the fifth place.  Against this the bishop protested and asked, “Why did not Flavian receive his position?” and the papal legate Paschasinus answered:  “We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth.”  It would seem to be in vain to attempt to escape the force of these words by comparing with them the statement made in the last session, in a moment of heat and indignation, by Lucentius the papal legate, that the canons of Constantinople were not found among those of the Roman Code.  It may well be that this statement was true, and yet it does not in any way lessen the importance of the fact that at the first session (a very different thing from the sixteenth) Paschasinus had admitted that Constantinople enjoyed the second place.  It would seem that Quesnel has proved his point, notwithstanding the attempts of the Ballerini to counteract and overthrow his arguments.

It would be the height of absurdity for any one to attempt to deny that the canon of Constantinople was entirely in force and practical execution, as far of those most interested were concerned, long before the meeting of the council of Chalcedon, and in 394, only thirteen years after the adoption of the canon, we find the bishop of Constantinople presiding at a synod at which both the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Antioch were present.

St. Leo made, in connexion with this matter, some statements which perhaps need not be commented upon, but should certainly not be forgotten.  In his epistle to Anatolius (no. cvi.) in speaking of the third canon of Constantinople he says:  “That document of certain bishops has never been brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.”  And in writing to the Empress (Ep. cv., ad Pulch.) he makes the following statement, strangely contrary to what she at least knew to be the fact, “To this concession a long course of years has given no effect!”

We need not stop to consider the question why Leo rejected the xxviij canon of Chalcedon.  It is certain that he rejected it and those who wish to see the motive of this rejection considered at length are referred to Quesnel and to the Ballerini; the former affirming that it was because of its encroachments upon the prerogatives of his own see, the latter urging that it was only out of his zeal for the keeping in full force of the Nicene decree.

Leo can never be charged with weakness.  His rejection of the canon was absolute and unequivocal.  In writing to the Emperor he says that Anatolius only got the See of Constantinople by his consent, that he should behave himself modestly, and that there is no way he can make of Constantinople “an Apostolic See,” and adds that “only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith” he has “abstained from annulling this ordination” (Ep. civ.).

To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence:  “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).

The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviii canon.

The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons.  This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).

Leo never gave over his opposition, although the breach was made up between him and Anatolius by an apparently insincere letter on the part of the latter (Ep. cxxxii.).  Leo’s successors followed his example in rejecting the canons, both the IIId of Constantinople and the XXVIII of Chalcedon, but as M. l’abbé Duchesne so admirably says:  “Mais leur voix fut peu écoutée; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mais de pure cérémonie.”  But Justinian acknowledged the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian rank of Constantinople in his CXXXI Novel. (cap. j.), and the Synod in Trullo in canon xxxvj. renewed exactly canon xxviij. of Chalcedon.  Moreover the Seventh Ecumenical with the approval of the Papal Legates gave a general sanction to all the canons accepted by the Trullan Synod.  And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople’s rank as immediately after Rome, but this was while Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins!  Subsequently at Florence the second rank, in accordance with the canons of I. Constantinople and of Chalcedon (which had been annulled by Leo) was given to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time” (Ep. cvi.), was set at nought by Leo’s successor in the Apostolic See.

From the Acts of the same Holy Synod concerning Photius, Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus.

The most magnificent and glorious judges said:

What is determined by the Holy Synod [in the matter of the Bishops ordained by the most religious Bishop Photius, but removed by the most religious Bishop Eustathius and ordered to be Presbyters after (having held) the Episcopate]?

The most religious Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the Priest Boniface, representatives of the Church of Rome, said:

Canon XXX.

Canon XXIX.

It is sacrilege to degrade a bishop to the rank of a presbyter; but, if they are for just cause removed from episcopal functions, neither ought they to have the position of a Presbyter; and if they have been displaced without any charge, they shall be restored to their episcopal dignity.

And Anatolius, the most reverend Archbishop of Constantinople, said:  If those who are alleged to have been removed from the episcopal dignity to the order of presbyter, have indeed been condemned for any sufficient causes, clearly they are not worthy of the honour of a presbyter.  But if they have been forced down into the lower rank without just cause, they are worthy, if they appear guiltless, to receive again both the dignity and priesthood of the Episcopate.

And all the most reverend Bishops cried out:

The judgment of the Fathers is right.  We all say the same.  The Fathers have righteously decided.  Let the sentence of the Archbishops prevail.

And the most magnificent and glorious judges said:

Let the pleasure of the Holy Synod be established for all time.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIX.

He is sacrilegious who degrades a bishop to the rank of a presbyter.  For he that is guilty of crime is unworthy of the priesthood.  But he that was deposed without cause, let him be [still] bishop.

What precedes and follows the so-called canon is abbreviated from the IV Session of the Council (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 550).  I have followed a usual Greek method of printing it.

Hefele.

This so-called canon is nothing but a verbal copy of a passage from the minutes of the fourth session in the matter of Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus.  Moreover, it does not possess the peculiar form which we find in all the genuine canons of Chalcedon, and in almost all ecclesiastical canons in general; on the contrary, there adheres to it a portion of the debate, of which it is a fragment, in which Anatolius is introduced as speaking.  Besides it is wanting in all the old Greek, as well as in the Latin collections of canons, and in those of John of Antioch and of Photius, and has only been appended to the twenty-eight genuine canons of Chalcedon from the fact that a later transcriber thought fit to add to the genuine canons the general and important principle contained in the place in question of the fourth session.  Accordingly, this so-called canon is certainly an ecclesiastical rule declared at Chalcedon, and in so far a κανών, but it was not added as a canon proper to the other twenty-eight by the Synod.

From the Fourth Session of the same Holy Synod, having reference to the matter of the Egyptian Bishops.

The most magnificent and glorious judges, and the whole Senate, said:

Canon XXXI

Since the most religious bishops of Egypt have postponed for the present their subscription to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo, not because they oppose the Catholic Faith, but because they declare that it is the custom in the Egyptian diocese to do no such thing without the consent and order of their Archbishop, and ask to be excused until the ordination of the new bishop of the metropolis of Alexandria, it has seemed to us reasonable and kind that this concession should be made to them, they remaining in their official habit in the imperial city until the Archbishop of the Metropolis of Alexandria shall have been ordained.

And the most religious Bishop Paschasinus, representative of the Apostolic throne for Rome], said:

If your authority suggests and commands that any indulgence be shewn to them, let them give securities that they will not depart from this city until the city of Alexandria receives a Bishop.

And the most magnificent and glorious judges, and the whole Senate, said:

Let the sentence of the most holy Paschasinus be confirmed.

And therefore let them [i.e., the most religious Bishops of the Egyptians] remain in their official habit, either giving securities, if they can, or being bound by the obligation of an oath.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXX.

It is the custom of the Egyptians that none subscribe without the permission of their Archbishop.  Wherefore they are not to be blamed who did not subscribe the Epistle of the holy Leo until an Archbishop had been appointed for them.

As in the case of the last so-called “canon” I have followed a usual Greek method, the wording departs but little from that of the acts (Vide L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 517).

Hefele.

This paragraph, like the previous one, is not a proper canon, but a verbal repetition of a proposal made in the fourth session by the imperial commissioners, improved by the legate Paschasinus, and approved by the Synod.  Moreover, this so-called canon is not found in the ancient collections, and was probably added to the twenty-eight canons in the same manner and for the same reasons as the preceding.

Bright.

The council could insist with all plainness on the duty of hearing before condemning (see on Canon XXIX.); yet on this occasion bishop after bishop gave vent to harsh unfeeling absolutism, the only excuse for which consists in the fact that the outrages of the Latrocinium were fresh in their minds, and that three of the Egyptian supplicants, whom they were so eager to terrify or crush, had actually supported Dioscorus on the tragical August 8, 449.  It was not in human nature to forget this; but the result is a blot on the history of the Council of Chalcedon.