The council in Trullo (692): the canons (2 of 5)

It should not, however, be forgotten that although this is true with regard to Pope Innocent II. in 1139, it is also true that in 530 the Emperor Justinian declared null and void all marriages contracted by clerics in Holy Orders, and the children of such marriages to be spurious (spurii).

The reader will be interested in reading the answer on this point made by King Henry VIII. to the letter sent him by the German ambassadors.  I can here give but a part translated into English.  “Although the Church from the beginning admitted married men, as priests and bishops, who were without crime, the husband of one wife, (out of the necessity of the times, as sufficient other suitable men could not be found as would suffice for the teaching of the world) yet Paul himself chose the celibate Timothy; but if anyone came unmarried to the priesthood and afterwards took a wife, he was always deposed from the priesthood, according to the canon of the Council of Neocæsarea which was before that of Nice.  So, too, in the Council of Chalcedon, in the first canon of which all former canons are confirmed, it is established that a deaconess, if she give herself over to marriage, shall remain under anathema, and a virgin who had dedicated herself to God and a monk who join themselves in marriage, shall remain excommunicated.…No Apostolic canon nor the Council of Nice contain anything similar to what you assert, viz.:  that priests once ordained can marry afterwards.  And with this statement agrees the Sixth Synod, in which it was decreed that if any of the clergy should wish to lead a wife, he should do so before receiving the Subdiaconate, since afterwards it was by no means lawful; nor was there given in the Sixth Synod any liberty to priests of leading wives after their priesting, as you assert.  Therefore from the beginning of the newborn Church it is clearly seen that at no time it was permitted to a priest to lead a wife after his priesting, and nowhere, where this was attempted, was it done with impunity, but the culprit was deposed from his priesthood.”

Canon VII

Since we have learned that in some churches deacons hold ecclesiastical offices, and that hereby some of them with arrogancy and license sit daringly before the presbyters:  we have determined that a deacon, even if in an office of dignity, that is to say, in whatever ecclesiastical office he may be, is not to have his seat before a presbyter, except he is acting as representative of his own patriarch or metropolitan in another city under another superior, for then he shall be honoured as filling his place.  But if anyone, possessed with a tyrannical audacity, shall have dared to do such a thing, let him be ejected from his peculiar rank and be last of all of the order in whose list he is in his own church; our Lord admonishing us that we are not to delight in taking the chief seats, according to the doctrine which is found in the holy Evangelist Luke, as put forth by our Lord and God himself.  For to those who were called he taught this parable:  “When ye are bidden by anyone to a marriage sit not down in the highest room lest a more honourable man than thou shall have been bidden by him; and he who bade thee and him come and say to thee:  Give this man place, and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.  But when thou art bidden, sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who bade thee cometh he may say to thee, Friend go up higher:  then thou shalt have worship in the presence of them that sit with thee.  For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”  But the same thing also shall be observed in the remaining sacred orders; seeing that we know that spiritual things are to be preferred to worldly dignity.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VII.

A deacon in the execution of his office, if he shall have occasion to sit in the presence of presbyters, shall take the lowest place unless he be the representative of the Patriarch or bishop.

Balsamon, Zonaras, and following them Van Espen point out that this canon is a relaxation of the XVIII. Canon of Nice which punishes presumptuous deacons not only with loss of rank in their grade, but also with expulsion from their ministry.

Van Espen well remarks that the Fathers of this synod had in mind not only the preservation of the distinction between deacons and presbyters, but also between those in ecclesiastical orders and those enjoying secular dignities with regard to ecclesiastical matters, but who were not to gain there from ecclesiastical precedence.  This is what is meant by the last clause of the canon.

Beveridge gives a list of these quasi ecclesiastical dignitaries as follows:  Magnus Œconomus, Magno Sacello Præpositus, Magnus Vasorum Custos, Chartophylax, Parvo Sacello Præpositus, Primus Defensor.

Canon VIII

Since we desire that in every point the things which have been decreed by our holy fathers may also be established and confirmed, we hereby renew the canon which orders that synods of the bishops of each province be held every year where the bishop of the metropolis shall deem best.  But since on account of the incursions of barbarians and certain other incidental causes, those who preside over the churches cannot hold synods twice a year, it seems right that by all means once a year—on account of ecclesiastical questions which are likely to arise—a synod of the aforesaid bishops should be holden in every province, between the holy feast of Easter and October, as has been said above, in the place which the Metropolitan shall have deemed most fitting.  And let such bishops as do not attend, when they are at home in their own cities and are in good health, and free from all unavoidable and necessary business, be fraternally reproved.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VIII.

Whenever it is impossible to hold two synods a year, one at least shall be celebrated, between Easter and the month of October.

This canon under the name of the “Sixth Synod” is referred to in Canon VI. of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (II. Nice), and the bishops of Quinisext are called “Fathers.”

Van Espen.

What at first was only allowed on account of necessity, little by little passed into general law, and at last was received as law, that once a year there was to be a meeting of the provincial synod.

Canon IX

Let no cleric be permitted to keep a “public house.”  For if it be not permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it and to carry on a trade which is unlawful for him.  But if he shall have done any such thing, either let him desist or be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon IX.

If clerics are forbidden to enter public houses, much more are they forbidden to keep them.  Let them either give them up or be deposed.

Compare with this canon liv. of the Apostolic Canons; xxiv. of Laodicea; and xliij. of the Synod of Carthage.

Canon X

A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives usury, or what is called hecatostæ, let him desist or be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon X.

A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who takes usury shall be deposed unless he stops doing so.

See notes on canon XVI. of Nice, and the Excursus thereto appended.

Canon XI

Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XI.

Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused.  Whoever even calls in Jews as physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed.

Van Espen.

Theodore Balsamon is of opinion that this canon does not forbid the eating of unleavened bread; but that what is intended is the keeping of feasts in a Jewish fashion, or in sacrifices to use unleavened bread (azymes), and this, says Balsamon, on account of the Latins who celebrate their feasts with azymes.

Canon lxix. [i.e., lxx.] of those commonly called Apostolic forbids the observance of festivals with the Jews; and declares it to be unlawful to receive manuscula from them, but by this canon all familiar intercourse with them is forbidden.

While there can be no doubt that in all the Trullan canons there is an undercurrent of hostility to the West, yet in this canon I can see no such spirit, and I think it has been read into it by the greater bitterness of later times.  This seems the more certain from the fact that there is nothing new whatever in the provision with respect to the passover bread, vide canons of Laodicea xxxvij. and xxxviij.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa xxviij., can. xiii.

Canon XII

Moreover this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people.  Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us,—it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur.  And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach.  For the divine Apostle says:  “Do all to the glory of God, give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God, even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many, that they may be saved.  Be ye imitators of me even as I also am of Christ.”  But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XII.

Although it has been decreed that wives are not to be cast forth, nevertheless that we may counsel for the better, we give command that no one ordained a bishop shall any longer live with his wife.

Aristenus.

The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon to cast forth his wife under pretext of piety; and assigns penalties for any that shall do so, and if he will not amend he is to be deposed.  But this canon on the other hand does not permit a bishop even to live with his wife after his consecration.  But by this change no contempt is meant to be poured out upon what had been established by Apostolic authority, but it was made through care for the people’s health and for leading on to better things, and for fear that the sacerdotal estate might suffer some wrong.

Van Espen.

(In Can. vi. Apost.)

In the time of this canon [of the Apostles so called] not only presbyters and deacons, but bishops also, it is clear, were allowed by Eastern custom to have their wives; and Zonaras and Balsamon note that even until the Sixth Council, commonly called in Trullo bishops were allowed to have their wives.

(The same on this canon.)

But not only do they command [in this canon] that bishops after their consecration no longer have commerce with their own wives, but further, they prohibit them even to presume to live with them.

Zonaras.

When the faith first was born and came forth into the world, the Apostles treated with greater softness and indulgence those who embraced the truth, which as yet was not scattered far and wide, nor did they exact from them perfection in all respects, but made great allowances for their weakness and for the inveterate force of the customs with which they were surrounded, both among the heathen and among the Jews.  But now, when far and wide our religion has been propagated, more strenuous efforts were made to enforce those things which pertain to a higher and holier life, as our angelical worship increased day by day, and to insist on by law a life of continence to those who were elevated to the episcopate, so that not only they should abstain from their wives, but that they should have them no longer as bed-fellows; and not only that they no longer admit them as sharers of their bed, but they do not allow them even to stop under the same roof or in the house.

Canon XIII

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.  Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife.  Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife:  lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith:  “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;” and the Apostle saith, “Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled;” and again, “Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed.”  But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration].  So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer.  For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain from God what they ask in sincerity.

If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed.  In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XIII.

Although the Romans wish that everyone ordained deacon or presbyter should put away his wife, we wish the marriages of deacons and presbyters to continue valid and firm.

Fleury.

(H. E., Livre XL., chap. 1.)

What is said in this canon, that the council of Carthage orders priests to abstain from their wives at prescribed periods, is a misunderstanding of the decree, caused either by malice or by ignorance.  This canon is one of those adopted by the Fifth Council of Carthage held in the year 400, and it is decreed that subdeacons, deacons; priests, and bishops shall abstain from their wives, following the ancient statutes, and shall be as though they had them not.  The Greek version of this canon has rendered the Latin words priora statuta by these, idious horous, which may mean “fixed times”:  for the translator read, following another codex, propria for priora.  Be this as it may, the Fathers of the Trullan council supposed that this obliged the clergy only to continence at certain fixed times, and were not willing to see that it included bishops as well.

Van Espen.

Although the Latin Church does not disapprove, as contrary to the law of the Gospel the discipline of the Greeks which allows the use of marriage to presbyters and deacons, provided it was contracted before ordination; yet never has it approved this canon which with too great zeal condemns the opposite custom, and rashly assigns great errors to the Roman Church.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXXI., c. xiij.

Antonius Augustinus in his proposed emendations of Gratian says (Lib. I. dial. de emend. Grat. c. 8.):  “This canon can in no way be received; for it is written in opposition to the celibacy of the Latin priests, and openly is against the Roman Church.”  But to me the note which Gratian appends seems much more learned and true:  “This however must be understood as of local application; for the Eastern Church, to which the VI. Synod prescribed this rule, did not receive a vow of chastity from the ministers of the altar.”  It may be well to note here that by the opinion of most Latin casuists the obligation to chastity among the Roman clergy rests upon the vow and not upon any law of the Church binding thereto.  This evidently was the opinion of Gratian.

Canon XIV

Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back.  For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty.  In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.

A presbyter thirty years of age, a deacon twenty-five, and a deaconess forty.

Compare Canon XI. of Neocæsarea.

It may be interesting to note here that by the law of the Roman Communion the canonical ages are as follows:

A subdeacon must have completed his twenty-first year, a deacon his twenty-second, a priest his twenty-fourth, and a bishop his thirtieth.  None of the inferior clergy can hold a simple benefice before he has begun his fourteenth year.  Ecclesiastical dignities, such as Cathedral canonries, cannot be conferred on any who have not finished the twenty-second year.  A benefice to which is attached a cure of souls can be given only to one who is over twenty-four, and a diocese only to one who has completed his thirtieth year.  (Vide Ferraris, Bibliotheca Prompta.)

In the Anglican Communion the ages are, in England, for a bishop “fully thirty years of age,” for a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-three:  and in the United States, for a bishop thirty years of age, for a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-one.

Canon XV

A subdeacon is not to be ordained under twenty years of age.  And if any one in any grade of the priesthood shall have been ordained contrary to the prescribed time let him be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XV.

Those shall be chosen as Subdeacons who are twenty years of age.

This age seems first to have been fixed by the Second Council of Toledo (circa, a.d. 535) in its first canon.

Canon XVI

Since the book of the Acts tells us that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the synod of Neocæsarea in the canons which it put forth determined that there ought to be canonically only seven deacons, even if the city be very large, in accordance with the book of the Acts; we, having fitted the mind of the fathers to the Apostles’ words, find that they spoke not of those men who ministered at the Mysteries but in the administration which pertains to the serving of tables.  For the book of the Acts reads as follows:  “In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring dissension of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations.  And the Twelve called the multitude of the disciples with them and said, It is not meet for us to leave the word of God and serve tables.  Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.  But we will give ourselves continually unto prayer and unto the ministry of the word.  And the saying pleased the whole multitude:  and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:  whom they set before the Apostles.”

John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Church, interpreting these words, proceeds thus:  “It is a remarkable fact that the multitude was not divided in its choice of the men, and that the Apostles were not rejected by them.  But we must learn what sort of rank they had, and what ordination they received.  Was it that of deacons?  But this office did not yet exist in the churches.  But was it the dispensation of a presbyter?  But there was not as yet any bishop, but only Apostles, whence I think it is clear and manifest that neither of deacons nor of presbyters was there then the name.”

But on this account therefore we also announce that the aforesaid seven deacons are not to be understood as deacons who served at the Mysteries, according to the teaching before set forth, but that they were those to whom a dispensation was entrusted for the common benefit of those that were gathered together, who to us in this also were a type of philanthropy and zeal towards those who are in need.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XVI.

Whoever affirms that the number of deacons should be seven according to the saying of the Acts, should know that the reference in that passage is not to Deacons of the Mysteries but to such as serve tables.

Van Espen here reminds us that this is, as Zonaras calls attention to in his scholion on this place, a correction rather than an interpretation of the XV Canon of Neocæsarea, and Balsamon also says the same.  The only interest that the matter possesses is that a canon which had been received by the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) should receive such treatment from such an assembly as the Synod in Trullo.

Canon XVII

Since clerics of different churches have left their own churches in which they were ordained and betaken themselves to other bishops, and without the consent of their own bishop have been settled in other churches, and thus they have proved themselves to be insolent and disobedient; we decree that from the month of January of the past IV Indiction no cleric, of whatsoever grade he be, shall have power, without letters dimissory of his own bishop, to be registered in the clergy list of another church.  Whoever in future shall not have observed this rule, but shall have brought disgrace upon himself as well as on the bishop who ordained him, let him be deposed together with him who also received him.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII.

Whoever receives and ordains a wandering cleric shall be deposed together with him thus wickedly ordained.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXI., Quæst., ii. can. j.

Canon XVIII

Those clerics who in consequence of a barbaric incursion or on account of any other circumstance have gone abroad, we order to return again to their churches after the cause has passed away, or when the incursion of the barbarians is at an end.  Nor are they to leave them for long without cause.  If anyone shall not have returned according to the direction of this present canon—let him be cut off until he shall return to his own church.  And the same shall be the punishment of the bishop who received him.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XVIII.

Whoever has emigrated on account of an invasion of the barbarians, shall return to the Church to whose clergy he belongs as soon as the incursion ceases.  But if he shall not do so, he shall be cut off together with him to whom he has gone.

Balsamon.

The Fathers are worthy of great praise.  For having regard to the honour of the ecclesiastical order and of each bishop, they have decreed that clergymen, who from just and valid causes have gone forth without letters dimissory from those who ordained them, should return to their own clergy soon as the cause which drove them forth ceases; and that they should not be enrolled on the clergy list of any other church.  But whosoever cannot be persuaded to return is to be cut off, as well as the bishop who detains him.  But someone will say, If a bishop who does such a thing is cut off by his Metropolitan; and likewise if a Metropolitan spurns this canon he is punished by the Patriarch.  But if an autocephalous archbishop or a Patriarch other than the Patriarch of Constantinople (for he has a faculty for doing so) should be convicted of a breach of this Canon, by whom would he be cut off?  I suppose by the Supreme Pontiff (οἴομαι οὖν παρά τοῦ μείζονος ἀρχιερέως).

Canon XIX

It behoves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord’s days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers.  And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting.  For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XIX.

The prelates of the Church, especially upon Lord’s days, shall teach doctrine.

Van Espen.

How great an obligation of preaching rests upon bishops, the successors of the Apostles, is evident from the words of St. Paul, “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach” (1 Cor. i. 17), and his chief adjuration to Timothy though Jesus Christ and his coming, was “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. ii. 4.).  For this reason the fathers formerly called the episcopate the preaching-office (officium predicationis), as is evident from the profession of Adelbert Morinensis, and the form of profession of a future Archbishop.  Both of these will be found in Labbe, appendix to Tom. VIII., of his Concilia.

Council of Trent.

(Sess. V., c. 2.)

The preaching of the Gospel is the chief work of bishops.

Convocation of Canterbury, a.d. 1571.

(Cardwell.  Synodalia, Vol. I., p. 126.)

The clergy will be careful to teach nothing in their sermons to be religiously held and believed by the people except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and Ancient Bishops have collected out of the same.

Council of Trent.

(Sess. IV.)

No one shall dare to interpret the Holy Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Canon XX

It shall not be lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city which does not belong to him.  If any shall have been observed doing this, let him cease from his episcopate, but let him discharge the office of a presbyter.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XX.

The bishop of one city shall not teach publicly in another.  If he shall be shown to have dose so he shall be deprived of the episcopate and shall perform the functions of a presbyter.

The meaning of this canon is most obscure.  Balsamon and Zonaras think that the Bishop is not to be deposed from his Episcopate, but only shorn of his right of executing the Episcopal functions, so that he will virtually be reduced to a presbyter.  Aristenus, on the other hand, considers the deposition to be real and that this canon creates an exception to Canon XXIX. of Chalcedon.

Canon XXI

Those who have become guilty of crimes against the canons, and on this account subject to complete and perpetual deposition, are degraded to the condition of layman.  If, however, keeping conversion continually before their eyes, they willingly deplore the sin on account of which they fell from grace, and made themselves aliens therefrom, they may still cut their hair after the manner of clerics.  But if they are not willing to submit themselves to this canon, they must wear their hair as laymen, as being those who have preferred the communion of the world to the celestial life.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXI.

Whoever is already deposed and reduced to the lay estate, if he shall repent, let him continue deposed but be shorn.  But if otherwise, he must let his hair grow.

Beveridge wishes to read “who have become canonically guilty of crimes,” substituting κανονικῶς for κανονικοῖς, in accordance with the Bodleian and Amerbachian codices.

Canon XXII

Those who are ordained for money, whether bishops or of any rank whatever, and not by examination and choice of life, we order to be deposed as well as those also who ordained them.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXII.

Whoever is ordained for pay shall be deposed together with his ordainer.

Van Espen.

The present canon orders to be deposed not only the one simoniacally ordained, but also his ordainer, ordering that ordinations should take place on account, not of money, but of the excellence of the examination stood by the candidate and on account of his uprightness of life.  And it evidently takes it for granted that, where money has been used, examination, excellence of life, and consideration of merit enter but little into the matter, or at least are paid no attention to.

Canon XXIII

That no one, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when giving the immaculate Communion, shall exact from him who communicates fees of any kind.  For grace is not to be sold, nor do we give the sanctification of the Holy Spirit for money; but to those who are worthy of the gift it is to be communicated in all simplicity.  But if any of those enrolled among the clergy make demands on those he communicates let him be deposed, as an imitator of the error and wickedness of Simon.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIII.

Whoever shall demand an obolus or anything else for giving the spotless communion shall be deposed.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars. II., Causa I., Quæst. I., can. 100, attributed to the VI. Synod.  Ivo reads, “From the Sixth Synod, III. Constantinople.”

Canon XXIV

No one who is on the priestly catalogue nor any monk is allowed to take part in horse-races or to assist at theatrical representations. But if any clergyman be called to a marriage, as soon as the games begin let him rise up and go out, for so it is ordered by the doctrine of our fathers. And if any one shall be convicted of such an offence let him cease therefrom or be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIV.

A clergyman or monk shall be deposed who goes to horse-races, or does not leave nuptials before the players are brought in.

Van Espen.

Scarcely ever were these plays exhibited without the introduction of something contrary to honesty and chastity.  As Lupus here notes, the word “obscene” has its derivation from these “scenic” representations.

Rightly therefore has it been forbidden by the sacred canons that the clergy should witness any such plays.

In the second part of this canon by the words “ordered by the doctrine of our fathers,” the Synod understands the doctrine of the fathers of the synod of Laodicea, which in its canon liv. condemned the same abuse.

Compare the canon given in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXXIV. can. xix.

Canon XXV

Moreover we renew the canon which orders that country (ἀγροικικὰς) parishes and those which are in the provinces (ἐγχωρίους) shall remain subject to the bishops who had possession of them; especially if for thirty years they had administered them without opposition.  But if within thirty years there had been or should be any controversy on the point, it is lawful for those who think themselves injured to refer the matter to the provincial synod.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXV.

Rural and out of town parishes held for thirty years may be retained.  But within that time there may be a controversy.

Compare notes on canon XVII. of Chalcedon.

Canon XXVI

If a presbyter has through ignorance contracted an illegal marriage, while he still retains the right to his place, as we have defined in the sacred canons, yet he must abstain from all sacerdotal work.  For it is sufficient if to such an one indulgence is granted.  For he is unfit to bless another who needs to take care of his own wounds, for blessing is the imparting of sanctification.  But how can he impart this to another who does not possess it himself through a sin of ignorance?  Neither then in public nor in private can he bless nor distribute to others the body of Christ, [nor perform any other ministry]; but being content with his seat of honour let him lament to the Lord that his sin of ignorance may be remitted.  For it is manifest that the nefarious marriage must be dissolved, neither can the man have any intercourse with her on account of whom he is deprived of the execution of his priesthood.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVI.

A priest who has fallen into an illicit marriage and been deposed, may still have his seat, but only when he abstains for the future from his wickedness.

Aristenus.

If any presbyter before his ordination had married a widow, or a harlot, or an actress, or any other woman such as are forbidden, in ignorance, he shall cease from his priesthood but shall still have his place among the presbyters.  But such an illegitimate marriage, on account of which he was deprived of the Sacred Ministry, must be dissolved.