The council in Trullo (692): the canons (3 of 5)

The sacred canon to which the Synod here refers is number xxvij. of St. Basil in his Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius.

Canon XXVII

None of those who are in the catalogue of the clergy shall wear clothes unsuited to them, either while still living in town or when on a journey:  but they shall wear such clothes as are assigned to those who belong to the clergy.  And if any one shall violate this canon, he shall be cut off for one week.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVII.

A clergyman must not wear an unsuitable dress either when travelling or when at home.  Should he do so, he shall be cut off for one week.

Canon XXVIII

Since we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers joined this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed both to the people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this for the future, but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the quickening of their souls and for the remission of their sins.  But with regard to the offering of grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them apart [from the offering of the oblation] and distribute them to such as seek them as an act of thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits by which our bodies are increased and fed according to his divine decree.  And if any cleric shall violate this decree let him be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII.

Grapes are by some joined with the unbloody sacrifice.  It is hereby decreed that no one shall for the future dare to do this.

Van Espen.

Similar blessings of fruit, and particularly of grapes, are found in more recent rituals as well as in the ancient Greek Euchologions and the Latin Rituales.  In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory will be found a benediction of grapes on the feast of St. Sixtus.

Cardinal Bona says (De Rob. Liturg., Lib. II., cap. xiv.), that immediately before the words Semper bona creas, sanctificas, etc., if new fruits or any other things adapted to human use were to be blessed, they were wont in former times to be placed before the altar, and there to be blessed by the priest; and when the benediction was ended with the accustomed words “Through Christ our Lord,” there was added the following prayer:  “Perquem hæc omnia, etc.,” which words are not so much to be referred to the body and blood of Christ, as to the things to be blessed, which God continually creates by renewing, and we ask that they may be sanctified by his benediction to our use.

But in after ages when the fervour of the faithful had grown cold, that the mass might not be too long, they were separated and yet the prayer remained which, as said to-day over the consecrated species alone, can hardly be understood.

This canon is found in a shortened form in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars. III. De Consecrat., Dist. II., can. vj.

Compare Canon of the Apostles number iv.

Canon XXIX

A canon of the Synod of Carthage says that the holy mysteries of the altar are not to be performed but by men who are fasting, except on one day in the year on which the Supper of the Lord is celebrated.  At that time, on account perhaps of certain occasions in those places useful to the Church, even the holy Fathers themselves made use of this dispensation.  But since nothing leads us to abandon exact observance, we decree that the Apostolic and Patristic tradition shall be followed; and define that it is not right to break the fast on the fifth feria of the last week of Lent, and thus to do dishonour to the whole of Lent.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIX.

Some of the Fathers after they had supped on the day of the Divine Supper made the offering.  However, it has seemed good to the synod that this should not be done, and that the fast should not be broken upon the fifth feria of the last week of Lent, and so the whole of Lent be dishonoured.

Zonaras remarks that the “Apostolic and Patristic tradition” is a reference to canon lxix. of the Apostolic Canons and to canon l. of Laodicea.  See notes on this last canon.

Canon XXX

Willing to do all things for the edification of the Church, we have determined to take care even of priests who are in barbarian churches.  Wherefore if they think that they ought to exceed the Apostolic Canon concerning the not putting away of a wife on the pretext of piety and religion, and to do beyond that which is commanded, and therefore abstain by agreement with their wives from cohabitation, we decree they ought no longer to live with them in any way, so that hereby they may afford us a perfect demonstration of their promise.  But we have conceded this to them on no other ground than their narrowness, and foreign and unsettled manners.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXX.

Those priests who are in churches among the barbarians, if with consent they have abstained from commerce with their wives shall never afterwards have any commerce with them in any way.

Fleury.

(Hist. Eccl., Liv. XL., chap. l.)

“Priests who are among the barbarians,” that is to say, it would seem, in Italy and in the other countries of the Latin rite.  “Their narrowness and foreign and unsettled manners,” that is to say that according to them it is an imperfection to aspire after perfect continence.

I do not think that this explanation of Fleury’s can be sustained, and it would seem that Van Espen is more near the truth when he says:  “Some priests in barbarous countries thought they should abstain after the Latin custom even from wives taken before ordination.  And although this was contrary to the discipline of the Greeks, and also to Canon V. of the Apostles, nevertheless the Fathers thought it might be tolerated, provided such priests should also not live any longer with their wives.”  There seems no reason to introduce anti-Roman bitterness where it is not already found.

Canon XXXI

Clerics who in oratories which are in houses offer the Holy Mysteries or baptize, we decree ought to do this with the consent of the bishop of the place.  Wherefore if any cleric shall not have so done, let him be deposed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXI.

Thou mayest not offer in an oratory in a private house without the consent of the bishop.

On this whole subject the reader is referred to the curious and most interesting volume published by Venantius Monaldini of Venice, in 1765.  I cannot better give its scope than by copying out its title in full.

Commentarius Theologico-canonico-criticus De ecclesiis, earum reverentia, et asylo atque concordia sacerdotii, et imperii, auctore Josepho Aloysio Assemani.  Accesserunt tractatus cl. virorum D. Josephi de Bonis, De Oratoriis Publicis; ac. R.P. Fortunati a Brixia De Oratoriis Domesticis, in supplementum celeberrimi operis Joannis Baptistæ Gattico De Oratoriis Domesticis, et usu altaris portatilis.

Canon XXXII

Since it has come to our knowledge that in the region of Armenia they offer wine only on the Holy Table, those who celebrate the unbloody sacrifice not mixing water with it, adducing, as authority thereof, John Chrysostom, a doctor of the Church, who says in his interpretation of the Gospel according to St. Matthew:

“And wherefore did he not drink water after he was risen again, but wine?  To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy.  For since there are certain who use water in the Mysteries to shew that both when he delivered the mysteries he had given wine and that when he had risen and was setting before them a mere meal without mysteries, he used wine, ‘of the fruit,’ saith he, ‘of the vine.’  But a vine produces wine, not water.”  And from this they think the doctor overthrows the admixture of water in the holy sacrifice.  Now, lest on the point from this time forward they be held in ignorance, we open out the orthodox opinion of the Father.  For since there was an ancient and wicked heresy of the Hydroparastatæ (i.e., of those who offered water), who instead of wine used water in their sacrifice, this divine, confuting the detestable teaching of such a heresy, and showing that it is directly opposed to Apostolic tradition, asserted that which has just been quoted.  For to his own church, where the pastoral administration had been given him, he ordered that water mixed with wine should be used at the unbloody sacrifice, so as to shew forth the mingling of the blood and water which for the life of the whole world and for the redemption of its sins, was poured forth from the precious side of Christ our Redeemer; and moreover in every church where spiritual light has shined this divinely given order is observed.

For also James, the brother, according to the flesh, of Christ our God, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Cæsarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine.  And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms:  “That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water.”  Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXII.

Chrysostom, when overthrowing the heresy of the Hydroparastatæ, says:  “When the Lord suffered and rose again he used wine.”  The Armenians, laying hold on this, offer wine alone, not understanding that Chrysostom himself, and Basil, and James used wine mixed with water; and left the tradition that we should so make the offering.  If, therefore, any one shall offer wine alone, or water alone, and not the mixed [chalice] let him be deposed.

Van Espen.

Justin Martyr in his Second Apology, Ambrose, or whoever was the author of the books on the Sacraments (Lib. v., cap. i.), Augustine and many others make mention of this rite, and above all St. Cyprian, who wrote a long epistle on the subject to Cecilius, and seeking the reason of the ceremony as a setting forth of the union of the people, represented by the water, with Christ, figured by the wine.

Another signification of this rite St. Augustine indicates in his sermon to Neophytes, saying:  “Take this in bread, which hung upon the Cross:  Take this in the cup which poured forth from the side,” that is to say blood and water.

Cardinal Bona (De Rebus Liturgicis, Lib. II., cap. ix., n. 3 and 4) refers to many ancient rituals in which a similar prayer is used to that found in the Ambrosian rite, which says as the water is poured in:  “Out of the side of Christ there flowed forth blood and water together.  In the name of the Father, etc.”  Bona further notes that “The Greeks twice mingle water with the wine, once cold water, when in the prothesis they are preparing the Holy Gifts, and the Priest pierces the bread with the holy spear, and says, “One of the soldiers with a lance opened his side, and immediately there flowed forth blood and water,” and the deacon pours in wine and water.  From this it is evident that the Greeks agree with St. Augustine’s explanation.

For the second time the Greeks mix “hot water after consecration and immediately before communion, the deacon begging from the priest a blessing upon the warm water; and he blesses it in these words:  ‘Blessed be the fervour of thy Saints, now and ever and to the ages of ages.  Amen.’  Then the deacon pours the water into the chalice, saying:  ‘The fervour of faith, full of the Holy Spirit.’”  So Cardinal Bona as above.

The third reason of this rite is assumed by some from the fact that Christ is believed thus to have instituted this sacrament at the last supper; and this the synod seems to intimate in the present canon when it says “as the Lord himself delivered.”

In this case the Greeks suppose that this rite was also handed down by the Apostles, and this is evident from their citing the Liturgy of St. James, which they believed to be a genuine work of his.

Canon XXXIII

Since we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in this Jewish customs); and some of those who are even untonsured are appointed to succeed cantors and readers of the divine law, we decree that henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring any one into the clergy, to pay regard to the descent of him who is to be ordained; but let them examine whether they are worthy (according to the decrees set forth in the holy canons) to be placed on the list of the clergy, so that they may be ecclesiastically promoted, whether they are of priestly descent or not; moreover, let them not permit any one at all to read in the ambo, according to the order of those enrolled in the clergy, unless such an one have received the priestly tonsure and the canonical benediction of his own pastor; but if any one shall have been observed to act contrary to these directions, let him be cut off.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIII.

Whoever is worthy of the priesthood should be ordained whether he is sprung of a priestly line or no.  And he that has been blessed untonsured shall not read the Holy Scriptures at the ambo.

Van Espen.

Here not obscurely does the canon join the clerical tonsure received from the bishop with the office of Reader, so much so that he that has been tonsured by the bishop is thought to have received at the same time the tonsure and the order of lector.

Canon XXXIV

But in future, since the priestly canon openly sets this forth, that the crime of conspiracy or secret society is forbidden by external laws, but much more ought it to be prohibited in the Church; we also hasten to observe that if any clerics or monks are found either conspiring or entering secret societies, or devising anything against bishops or clergymen, they shall be altogether deprived of their rank.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIV.

If clerics or monks enter into conspiracies or fraternities, or plots against the bishop or their fellow clerics, they shall be cast out of their grade.

This is but a renewal of Canon xviij. of Chalcedon, which see with the notes.

Canon XXXV

It shall be lawful for no Metropolitan on the death of a bishop of his province to appropriate or sell the private property of the deceased, or that of the widowed church:  but these are to be in the custody of the clergy of the diocese over which he presided until the election of another bishop, unless in the said church there are no clergymen left.  For then the Metropolitan shall protect the property without diminution, handing over everything to the bishop when he is appointed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXV.

When the bishop is dead the clergy shall guard his goods.  If, however, no clergyman remains, the Metropolitan shall take charge of them until another be ordained.

Compare Canon xxii. of Chalcedon. This canon extends the prohibition to Metropolitans as well.

Aristenus.

Neither the clergy nor metropolitan after the death of the bishop are allowed to carry off his goods, but all should be guarded by the clergy themselves, until another bishop is chosen.  But if by chance no clergyman is left in that church, the metropolitan is to keep all the possessions undiminished and to return them to the future bishop.

Canon XXXVI

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it.  After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXVI.

Let the throne of Constantinople be next after that of Rome, and enjoy equal privileges.  After it Alexandria, then Antioch, and then Jerusalem.

Balsamon.

The Fathers here speak of the Second and Third canons of the Second Synod [i.e. I. Constantinople] and of canon xxviij. of the Fourth Synod [i.e. Chalcedon].  And read what we have said on these canons.

Aristenus.

We have explained the third canon of the Synod of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon as meaning, when asserting that the bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal privileges after the Roman bishop, that he should be placed second from the Roman in point of time.  So here too this preposition “after” denotes time but not honour.  For after many years this throne of Constantinople obtained equal privileges with the Roman Church; because it was honoured by the presence of the Emperor and of the Senate.

On this opinion of Aristenus’s the reader is referred to the notes on Canon iij. of I. Constantinople.

Justinian.

(Novella CXXXI., Cap. ij.)

We command that according to the definitions of the Four Councils the most holy Pope of Old Rome shall be first of all the priests.  But the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, which is New Rome, shall have the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of Old Rome.

This canon, in a mutilated form, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXII., c. vj.

Canon XXXVII

Since at different times there have been invasions of barbarians, and therefore very many cities have been subjected to the infidels, so that the bishop of a city may not be able, after he has been ordained, to take possession of his see, and to be settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to perform and manage for it the ordinations and all things which by custom appertain to the bishop:  we, preserving honour and veneration for the priesthood, and in no wise wishing to employ the Gentile injury to the ruin of ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that those who have been ordained thus, and on account of the aforesaid cause have not been settled in their sees, without any prejudice from this thing may be kept [in good standing] and that they may canonically perform the ordination of the different clerics and use the authority of their office according to the defined limits, and that whatever administration proceeds from them may be valid and legitimate.  For the exercise of his office shall not be circumscribed by a season of necessity when the exact observance of law is circumscribed.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXVII.

A bishop who, on account of the incursions of the barbarians, is not set in his throne, shall have his own chair of state, and shall ordain, and shall enjoy most firmly all the rights of the priesthood.

By Canon XVIII. of Antioch the principle of this canon was enunciated, that when a bishop did not take possession of his see because he could not do so, he was not to be held responsible or to lose any of his episcopal rights and powers, in that case the impossibility arose from the insubordination of the people, in this from the diocese being in the hands of the barbarians.

It has been commonly thought that the Bishops in partibus infidelium had their origin in the state of things calling for this canon.

Canon XXXVIII

The canon which was made by the Fathers we also observe, which thus decreed:  If any city be renewed by imperial authority, or shall have been renewed, let the order of things ecclesiastical follow the civil and public models.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXVIII.

If any city is or shall be renewed by the Emperor, the ecclesiastical order shall follow the political and public example.

Van Espen.

The canon of the Fathers which the Synod wishes observed is XVII of Chalcedon, the notes on which see.

Here it must be noted that by “civil and public models” is signified the “pragmatic” or imperial letters, by which the emperors granted to newly raised up or re-edified towns the privilege of other cities, or else annexed them to some Province.

Canon XXXIX

Since our brother and fellow-worker, John, bishop of the island of Cyprus, together with his people in the province of the Hellespont, both on account of barbarian incursions, and that they may be freed from servitude of the heathen, and may be subject alone to the sceptres of most Christian rule, have emigrated from the said island, by the providence of the philanthropic God, and the labour of our Christ-loving and pious Empress; we determine that the privileges which were conceded by the divine fathers who first at Ephesus assembled, are to be preserved without any innovations, viz.:  that new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople and whoever is constituted the pious and most religious bishop thereof shall take precedence of all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont, and be elected [?] by his own bishops according to ancient custom.  For the customs which obtain in each church our divine Fathers also took pains should be maintained, the existing bishop of the city of Cyzicus being subject to the metropolitan of the aforesaid Justinianopolis, for the imitation of all the rest of the bishops who are under the aforesaid beloved of God metropolitan John, by whom, as custom demands, even the bishop of the very city of Cyzicus shall be ordained.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIX.

The new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople, and its prelate shall rule over all the bishops of the Hellespont to whom he has gone, and he shall be ordained by his own bishop:  as the fathers of Ephesus decreed.

Hefele.

Hitherto the bishop of Cyzicus was metropolitan of the province of the Hellespont.  Now he too is to be subject to the bishop of New-Justinianopolis.  What, however, is meant by “the right of Constantinople”?  It was impossible that the Synod should place the bishop of Justinianopolis in equal dignity with the patriarch of Constantinople.  But they probably meant to say:  “The rights which the bishop of Constantinople has hitherto exercised over the province of the Hellespont, as chief metropolitan, fall now to the bishop of New-Justinianopolis.”  Or perhaps we should read, instead of Constantinople Κωνσταντινέων πόλεως, as the Amerbachian ms. has it, and translate:  “The same rights which Constantia (the metropolis of Cyprus) possessed, New Justinianopolis shall henceforth have.”  The latter is the more probable.

Van Espen.

To understand this canon it must be remembered that the Metropolis of Cyprus, which was formerly called Constantia, when restored by the Emperor Justinian was called by his name, New Justinianopolis.

Canon XL

Since to cleave to God by retiring from the noise and turmoil of life is very beneficial, it behoves us not without examination to admit before the proper time those who choose the monastic life, but to observe respecting them the limit handed down by our fathers, in order that we may then admit a profession of the life according to God as for ever firm, and the result of knowledge and judgment after years of discretion have been reached.  He therefore who is about to submit to the yoke of monastic life should not be less than ten years of age, the examination of the matter depending on the decision of the bishop, whether he considers a longer time more conducive for his entrance and establishment in the monastic life.  For although the great Basil in his holy canons decreed that she who willingly offers to God and embraces virginity, if she has completed her seventeenth year, is to be entered in the order of virgins:  nevertheless, having followed the example respecting widows and deaconesses, analogy and proportion being considered, we have admitted at the said time those who have chosen the monastic life.  For it is written in the divine Apostle that a widow is to be elected in the church at sixty years old:  but the sacred canons have decreed that a deaconess shall be ordained at forty, since they saw that the Church by divine grace had gone forth more powerful and robust and was advancing still further, and they saw the firmness and stability of the faithful in observing the divine commandments.  Wherefore we also, since we most rightly comprehend the matter, appoint the benediction of grace to him who is about to enter the struggle according to God, even as impressing speedily a certain seal upon him, hereupon introducing him to the not-long-to-be-hesitated-over and declined, or rather inciting him even to the choice and determination of good.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XL.

A monk must be ten years old.  Even if the Divine Basil thought the one shorn should be over seventeen.  But although the Apostle ordains that a widow to be espoused to the Church must be sixty, yet the Fathers say a Deaconess is to be ordained at forty, the Church in the meanwhile having become stronger; so we place the seal on a monk at an earlier age.

Aristenus.

The eighteenth canon of Basil the Great orders that she who offers herself to the Lord and renounces marriage, ought to be over sixteen or even seventeen years of age:  so that her promise may be firm and that if she violates it she may suffer the due penalties.  For, says he, children’s voices are not to be thought of any value in such matters.  But the present canon admits him who is not less than ten years and desires to be a monk, but entrusts the determination of the exact time to the judgment of the hegumenos, whether he thinks it more advantageous to increase the age-requirement for the entering and being established in the married life.  But the canon lessens the time defined by Basil the Great, because the Fathers thought that the Church by divine grace had grown stronger since then, and was going on more and more, and that the faithful seemed firmer and more stable for the observance of the divine commandments.  And for the same reason, viz., that the Church was growing better, the sacred canons had lessened the age of deaconesses, and fixed it at forty years, although the Apostle himself orders that no widow is to be chosen into the Church under sixty years of age.

Canon XLI

Those who in town or in villages wish to go away into cloisters, and take heed for themselves apart, before they enter a monastery and practise the anchorite’s life, should for the space of three years in the fear of God submit to the Superior of the house, and fulfil obedience in all things, as is right, thus shewing forth their choice of this life and that they embrace it willingly and with their whole hearts; they are then to be examined by the superior (προέδρος) of the place; and then to bear bravely outside the cloister one year more, so that their purpose may be fully manifested.  For by this they will shew fully and perfectly that they are not catching at vain glory, but that they are pursuing the life of solitude because of its inherent beauty and honour.  After the completion of such a period, if they remain in the same intention in their choice of the life, they are to be enclosed, and no longer is it lawful for them to go out of such a house when they so desire, unless they be induced to do so for the common advantage, or other pressing necessity urging on to death; and then only with the blessing of the bishop of that place.

And those who, without the above-mentioned causes, venture forth of their convents, are first of all to be shut up in the said convent even against their wills, and then are to cure themselves with fasting and other afflictions, knowing how it is written that “no one who has put his hand to the plough and has looked back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven.”

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XLI.

Whoever is about to enter a cloister, let him live for three years in a monastery, and before he is shut up let him spend one year more, and so let him be shut up.  And he shall not then go forth unless death or the common good demands.

Van Espen.

This canon, so far as it sets forth the necessity of probation before admission to the Anchorite life, synods in after-years frequently approved, taught as they were by experience how perilous a matter it is to admit without sufficient probation to this solitary life and state of separation from the common intercourse with his fellow men.  Vide the Synod of Vannes (about a.d. 465) canon vij., of Agde chap. lxxviij., of Orleans the First can. xxij., of Frankfort can. xij., of Toledo the Seventh can. v., and the Capitular of Charlemagne To monks, Chap. ij.

Canon XLII

Those who are called Eremites and are clothed in black robes, and with long hair go about cities and associate with the worldly both men and women and bring odium upon their profession—we decree that if they will receive the habit of other monks and wear their hair cut short, they may be shut up in a monastery and numbered among the brothers; but if they do not choose to do this, they are to be expelled from the cities and forced to live in the desert (ἐρήμους) from whence also they derive their name.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XLII.

An eremite dressed in black vesture and not having his hair cut, unless he has his hair cut shall be expelled the city and be shut up in his monastery.

It may not be irreverent to remark that this species of impostors always has been common in the East, and many examples will be found of the dervishes in the Arabian Nights and other Eastern tales.  The “vagabond” monks of the West also became a great nuisance as well as a scandal in the Middle Ages.  The reader will find interesting instances of Spanish deceivers of the same sort in “Gil Blas” and other Spanish romances.

Canon XLIII

It is lawful for every Christian to choose the life of religious discipline, and setting aside the troublous surgings of the affairs of this life to enter a monastery, and to be shaven in the fashion of a monk, without regard to what faults he may have previously committed.  For God our Saviour says:  “Whose cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.”

As therefore the monastic method of life engraves upon us as on a tablet the life of penitence, we receive whoever approaches it sincerely; nor is any custom to be allowed to hinder him from fulfilling his intention.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XLIII.

Whoever flees from the surging billows of life and desires to enter a monastery, shall be allowed to do so.

Zonaras.

The greatness or the number of a man’s sins ought not to make him lose hope of propitiating the divinity by his penitence, if he turns his eyes to the divine mercy.  This is what the canon asserts, and affirms that everyone, no matter how wicked and nefarious his life may have been, may embrace monastic discipline, which inscribes, as on a tablet, to us a life of penitence.  For as a tablet describes to us what is inscribed upon it, so the monastic profession writes and inscribes upon us penitence, so that it remains for ever.

Canon XLIV

A monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators, according to the canons.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XLIV.

A monk joined in marriage or committing fornication shall pay the penalty of a fornicator.

The punishment here seems too light, so that Balsamon thinks that this canon only refers to such monks as freely confess their sin and desist from it, remaining in their monasteries; and that the sterner penalties assigned to unchaste religious by other synods (notably Chalcedon, can. xvj., and Ancyra, can. xix.) are for such as do not confess their faults but are after some time convicted of them.

Aristenus.

The monk will receive the same punishment whether he be a fornicator or has joined himself with a woman for the communion of marriage.

Van Espen.

It is very likely from this canon that the Monastic vow at the time of this Synod was not yet an impedimentum dirimens of matrimony, for nothing is said about the dissolution of the marriage contracted by a monk although he had gravely sinned in violating his faith pledged to God.

Canon XLV

Whereas we understand that in some monasteries of women those who are about to be clothed with the sacred habit are first adorned in silks and garments of all kinds, and also with gold and jewels, by those who bring them thither, and that they thus approach the altar and are there stripped of such a display of wealth, and that immediately thereafter the blessing of their habit takes place, and they are clothed with the black robe; we decree that henceforth this shall not be done.  For it is not lawful for her who has already of her own free will put away every delight of life, and has embraced that method of life which is according to God, and has confirmed it with strong and stable reasons, and so has come to the monastery, to recall to memory the things which they had already forgotten, things of this world which perisheth and passeth away.  For thus they raise in themselves doubts, and are disturbed in their souls, like the tossing waves, turning hither and thither.  Moreover, they should not give bodily evidence of heaviness of heart by weeping, but if a few tears drop from their eyes, as is like enough to be the case, they may be supposed by those who see them to have flowed μὴ μᾶλλον on account of their affection (διαθέσεως, affectionem) for the ascetic struggle rather than (ἢ) because they are quitting the world and worldly things.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon XLV.

Parents shall not deck out in silks a daughter who has chosen the monastic life, and thus clothe her, for this is a recalling to her mind the world she is leaving.