Sources of the Greek Canon Law

to the Quinisext Council (692):

Councils and Church Fathers

by

Heinz Ohme

2.1 Index of Abbreviations                                                            

2.2 Introduction: The Organization of the Material and the Most Important Editions

2.3 Canons of Synods

            Canons of the Apostles                                                     

            Synod of Nicaea (325)                                                      

            Synod of Ankyra (314)                                                     

            Synod of Neokaisareia (315/319)                                       

            Synod of Gangra                                                               

            Synod of Antioch                                                              

            Synod of Laodikeia                                                            

            Synod of Constantinople (381)                                         

            Synod of Ephesus (431)                                                    

            Synod of Chalcedon (451)                                                  

            Synod of Serdica (341)                                                     

            Synod of Carthage (419)                                                   

            Synod of Constantinople (394)                                         

            Synod of Constantinople (692) (Quinisext Council)          

2.4 Canons of the Fathers

            Origin and Content                                                             

            Dionysios of Alexandria                                                   

            Peter of Alexandria                                                           

            Gregory Thaumaturgos (Wonderworker)                          

            Athanasios of Alexandria                                                   

            Basil the Great                                                                    

            Gregory of Nyssa                                                               

            Gregory of Nazianzos                                                         

            Amphilochios of Ikonion                                                   

            Timothy of Alexandria                                                       

            Theophilos of Alexandria                                                   

            Cyril of Alexandria                                                            

            Gennadios of Constantinople                                            

            Cyprian of Carthage                                                           

22.2 Introduction: The Organization of the Material and the Most Important Editions

a) Concerning organization. It is usual to organize the canonical material of Byzantine canon law into four groups: 1. canons of the Apostles; 2. canons of ecumenical synods; 3. canons of local synods; 4. canons of the Fathers. This organization is found in most of the editions available today. It was first found in c. 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), and it has been generally followed in the Orthodox Church in the second millennium. Its characteristic is a systematic organization of the material under dogmatic rubrics, which is demonstrated in the placing of the Canons of the Apostles, but particularly in the canons of ecumenical synods as well as local synods.

            An exposition primarily interested in the history of the sources cannot adopt this organization without modification, since it is already rendered dubious by the pseudoepigraphic character of the Canons of the Apostles as well as by the historical problem of regarding the Constantinople synods of 381 and 692 as ‘Ecumenical Councils'. The most problematic aspect of the systematic approach is the fact that it ignores the development and coming-into-being of the ‘Ecumenical Council’ as an institution which only reaches full maturity in the eighth century. For earlier centuries this concept cannot be applied as a valid historical distinction.

            I have decided not to present the material in this essay in a strictly chronological order. For example, the tradition of treating the earliest synods of the church as a block in the sequence: Ankyra, Neokaisareia, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodikeia, will collapse, since Antioch would have to be placed before Gangra. It is more significant, however, that such a historicizing chronological order would lose the weighting of the canonical material in the early church as well as the process of formation which is clarified by the traditional order. The overwhelming significance of the synod of Nicaea (325), whose canons were also of central importance, would thus be obscured, and decisions that became significant only later, such as the canons of Carthage (258), Constantinople (394), and Carthage (419) would receive prior treatment. Such a chronological treatment would in fact produce an ahistoric ordering.

            This portion of the History of Medieval Canon Law treats the sources of canonical material of Byzantine canon law down to the so-called Quinisext Council (692). Although it is known that this council did not bring the development of canon law in the Byzantine East to a close, this terminus is justified both historically and in terms of substance. C. 2 of the Trullanum constitutes an apex and milestone for the canon law of the early church and its further development in the Greek East. It is this canon which first listed and authorized the canons of the apostles, the synods and the Fathers, hence the whole of the law applicable until then. One may speak here of the first synodical codification, and the canon is of basic importance for Orthodoxy.

            The model for c. 2 of the Quinisext was the canonical collection Syntagma XIV titulorum, which originated in Constantinople at the end of the sixth century. The canon not only adopts the canonical material developed there, but also adopts the organization found in the second part of the Syntagma. The canon constitutes, so to speak, its synodal recognition. Although there the Canons of the Apostles are already placed at the very beginning, the further order is still entirely in keeping with the subsequent development of this corpus canonum. This is particularly the case with the synodal canons, which are not organized in the manner they would be later. Rather, the oldest corpus contained the synods of Nicaea, Ankyra, Neokaisareia, Gangra, Antioch, Laodikeia, and Constantinople (381). Then come the synods of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Serdica; finally Carthage (419) and Constantinople (394) are followed by the Canons of the Fathers. This generic division appears to preserve the best ordering according to historical criteria, and for that reason it is the order that will be observed in the following exposition. It will not be possible to treat the Canons of the Apostles as a category in their own right. Rather, they will be treated as synodal canons, which in fact they are.

b) The Most Important Editions. The edition by P.-P. Joannou published in 1962 in Grottaferrata by the ‘Pontifica Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale’ should be mentioned first. It is the only one of the currently accessible textual editions which can be called a critical edition. The foundation of Joannou's text is the edition of the Synogoga of John Scholastikos by V.N. Beneševič. Since the Synogoga comes to an end with Chalcedon and the Canons of the Fathers are represented only by Basil, and he only in an incomplete form, Joannou supplied the missing parts. For this he used the manuscript tradition of synodal acts and the Fathers of the Church, particularly exploiting the many canonical collection manuscripts. He was committed to the systematic treatment of the material in sequence, though, in places, he supplemented the material in an often arbitrary manner. In Joannou's introductions he always feels compelled to represent the Roman Catholic position, and for that reason he saw his way clear to accept the canons of the synod of Constantinople of 869, which are not preserved in any Byzantine collection, as ‘canons of the Eighth Ecumenical Synod’.

            The most widely distributed edition among Orthodox canon lawyers is the Syntagma, edited by G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles from 1852 to 1859 in six volumes. It may be described as the textus receptus or ‘Vulgate’ of Byzantine canon law. Volumes 1 to 4 consist of an edition of the Syntagma XIV titulorum in the form ca. 883, the ‘Nomokanon of Photius’, with parallel printed commentaries of Byzantine canonists of the twelfth century: J. Zonaras, T. Balsamon, and A. Aristenos. The textual basis is the editio princeps of the Trebizond Codex of 1311, against which Rhalles-Potles collated all editions appearing until 1852. Volume 5 contains synodal decisions and Διατάξεις of the patriarchs of Constantinople as well as a collection of novellae of Byzantine emperors, and volume 6 contains the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares.

            The textual edition of H.S. Alivisatos, κανόνες is a short handbook or study edition in a single volume. Alivisatos prints the text of vols. 2 to 4 of Rhalles-Potles without the commentaries of canonists or the critical apparatus. In the place of Rhalles-Potles vols. 5 and 6, he added a section (part 4) with documents from Greece's ‘more recent legislation in ecclesiastical law’ from this century.

            Together with the Syntagma of Rhalles-Potles, the so-called Pedalion of Nikodemos Hagiorites (1749-1809) enjoys the widest distribution among the Orthodox. It consists of a collection for Orthodox clergy put together at the end of the eighteenth century out of kanonika and nomika hitherto available only in manuscript. Its selection of later canonical texts has been criticized up to the present day. The Pedalion was edited with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch Neophytos VII (1789-94, 1798-1801), so that it has a certain official character. The first edition appeared in Leipzig in 1800. On the basis of the third edition of 1864 appearing in Zante/Zakynthos, nine printings have appeared. Alongside the edition itself, the special contribution of Nikodemos is his translation of each canon into the vernacular (̔Ερμηνείαι), as well as his cross-references to other decisions of similar content (Συμφωνίαι).

            The textual edition of F. Lauchert of 1896 is still being used. Lauchert offers the synodal canons without the Canons of the Fathers. He orders his material chronologically and mixes canons of the Latin West with those of the Greek East. As the texts are reprints of earlier editions, mostly from Mansi and Bruns, the text offered by Lauchert thus has to be compared with more recent editions. The same applies to the even-older edition of Cardinal J.B. Pitra, which was presented as a critical edition, though it has seldom been positively reviewed.

2.3 Canons of Synods

The Canons of the Apostles

Editions: Joannou, CSP 1-53; Funk, Didascalia 1.564-92; M. Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques 3 (SC 336; Paris 1987) 275-309; Lauchert 1-13 (repr. Mansi); Rhalles-Potles 2.1-112; Pedalion 1-117; Alivisatos, κανόνες 135-156; Pitra 1.13-36; versio latina: EOMIA 1.9-32; Versiones: see G. Bardy, DDC 2.1294.

Translations: English: Rudder 1-154; NPNF 14.591-601; German: F. Boxler, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, ed. O. Bardenhewer (1911-; 1st ed. Kempten 1874) 317-33; French: Joannou, CSP 1-53; M. Metzger, Les Constitutions Apostoliques 3 (SC 336; Paris 1987) 275-309.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Canons apostoliques', DDC 2.1288-95; P.F. Bradshaw, ‘Kirchenordnungen I. Altkirchliche', TRE 18 (1990) 662-670; J.S. von Drey, Neue Untersuchungen über die Constitutionen und Kanones der Apostel (Tübingen 1832) 203-419; F.X. Funk, Die apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg 1891; repr. Frankfurt 1970) 180-206; H. Leclercq, ‘Canons Apostoliques', DACL 2 (1925) 1910-50; M. Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques 1-3 (SC 320, 329, 336; Paris 1985-87) 3.9-13; M. Metzger, ‘Konstitutionen (Pseudo-Apostolische)', TRE 19 (1991) 540-4; P. Nautin, ‘The 85 Apostolic Canons', EEC 62; Ohme, Kanon 485-497; B. Steimer, Vertex Traditionis. Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63; Berlin/New York 1992) 87-94, 114-33; C.H. Turner, ‘Notes on the Apostolic Constitutions', JTS 16 (1914-15) 54-61, 523-38; JTS 31 (1930) 128-41; C.H. Turner, ‘A Primitive Edition of the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons', JTS 15 (1914) 53-65; E. Schwartz, Über die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen (Strasbourg 1910); A. Spagnolo and C.H. Turner, ‘A Fragment of an Unknown Latin Version of the Apostolic Constitutions', JTS 13 (1912) 49ff.

1. The Canons of the Apostles are a collection of 85 canons. They are included at the end of book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions as Chapter 47. The short epilogue (8.48) describes them in the direct speech of the apostles as their ‘canons’ for the bishops. Hence the Apostolic Constitutions as a whole have the appearance of a conciliar document with canonical decrees passed by the apostolic council in Jerusalem (6.14.1). An historical evaluation of the Canons of the Apostles can only take place in the context of the Apostolic Constitutions. The general consensus in evaluating this work, developed by modern research and completely settling the older controversies which had arisen after its publication in the sixteenth century, is based essentially on the research of F.S. von Drey, F.X. Funk, E. Schwartz and C.H. Turner. M. Metzger added a new edition to that of Funk in 1985-87, essentially confirming the state of research.

            According to this research, the Apostolic Constitutions are a pseudoepigraphic compilation consisting of the following elements: 1. A collection of the three older church ordinances, the Didache, the Didaskalia, and the Traditio apostolica (Const. 7, 1-6, 8); 2. Insertion of liturgical prayer formulas and conciliar traditions into the above; 3. Insertion of extracts and citations, particularly from the Holy Scriptures and the pseudo-Clementine literature; 4. Direct interpolations by the compiler himself. The unity of the entire Apostolic Constitutions, including the Canons of the Apostles, is no longer in doubt. It is probably not the work of a single editor or compiler but rather the joint product of a ‘workshop’. The land of origin is Syria, more precisely probably Antioch in the period around 380.

2. The unity of the Apostolic Constitutions and the Canons of the Apostles is confirmed by the fact — as close inspection shows— that the Canons of the Apostles also is a compilation of older material, particularly from the synods of Antioch (328), Laodikeia, and Nicaea (325), from which at least 28 canons have been taken. The dependence of the Canons of the Apostles on the canons of Antioch in particular cannot any longer be doubted, since the corresponding canons are excerpts from those of Antioch, and they follow them in order, with corresponding gaps.

            This is the case with the following canons (with the corresponding canons of Antioch in parentheses): canons 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the duty of clergy to take Holy Communion, the presence of the faithful at the anaphora and the ban on common prayer with excommunicates and those deposed from office (c. 2); c. 13 on the ban of receiving excommunicates into other congregations (c. 6); c. 14 on the ban against bishops changing dioceses (canons 18, 21); canons 15 and 16 on the rights of clerics who leave their congregations (c. 3); c. 29 on deposed clerics (c. 4); c. 32 on separating priests and deacons (c. 5); c. 33 on the reacceptance of excommunicated priests and deacons (c. 6); c. 34 on the reception of alien clerics (canons 7, 8); c. 35 on the rights of the metropolitan (c. 9); c. 36 on the ban on consecrating outside one's own diocese (canons 13, 22); c. 37 on the refusal of office by clerics and the rejection of a bishop by the congregation (canons 17, 18); c. 38 about the two eparchial synods every year (c. 20); canons 39 to 41 on church property and the private property of the bishop (canons 24 and 25); and c. 76 on the ban on designating one's successor (c. 23).

            So far as the synod of Laodikeia is concerned, the following derivations can be established: the ban by c. 45 of praying with heretics or conceding to their clerical functions has a parallel in canons 9, 33, and 34; canons 70 and 71, banning sharing fasting, festivals or gifts with Jews, taking oil into their sanctuaries or lighting lamps (C. Laod. 37-39).

            Besides Antioch and Laodikeia, some individual canons of Nicaea (325) appear to be sources of the Canons of the Apostles: canons 21 to 24 concerning eunuchs in the clergy and on self-mutilation (C. Nic. 1); c. 80 forbidding neophites in episcopal office (C. Nic. 2) and c. 44 banning the taking of usury by clerics (C. Nic. 17).

            The final piece of evidence indicating a direct connection to the Apostolic Constitutions is the fact that about twenty of the canons are taken directly from the Apostolic Constitutions. Here the passages of the Apostolic Constitutions in the Apostolic Canons are all interpolations of the compiler. Canons 42 and 43 treating the private property of bishops, clerical gambling and drinking are taken from the Didaskalia.

            Interpolations in the Apostolic Constitutions are sources of the following canons: canons 1 and 2 on the number of consecrators (3.20); c. 7 on the necessity for clerics to be free of worldly cares (2.6); c. 8 on the distinction of Easter and Passover (5.17); c. 17 on the second marriage after baptism as a hindrance to ordination (2.2, 6.17); c. 18 on particular marriages as hindrances to ordination (6.17); c. 20, that clerics should not guarantee loans (2.6); c. 27 on the ban on marriage after higher orders (6.17); c. 34 on the mode of receiving alien clerics (2.58, 7.28); c. 46 against heretical baptism (6.15); c. 47 on rebaptism (6.15); c. 49 on the formula of baptism (6.10, 11, 26); c. 51 on the ban on the asceticism of clerics out of disgust (6.8, 10, 11, 26); c. 52 on the reception of penitent sinners (2.10-20); c. 53 on deposing clerics who practice asceticism on festival days (5.20); c. 60 banning the books of the godless in the divine service (6.16); c. 64 banning praying in the synagogues of Jews and heretics (2.61); c. 66 on the ban on fasting on Saturdays and Sundays (5.20); c. 79, that one possessed cannot become a cleric before being healed (8.32), and many others.

            The other canons deal with decisions on the following themes: forbidden offerings (canons 3-5); bans on divorce of married clergy under the pretext of piety (c. 6); forbidden degrees of relationship for the second marriage of clerics (c. 19); deposing clerics does not lead automatically to excommunication (canons 25, 26); use of force by clerics against sinners leads to deposing (c. 28); simony (canons 30, 31); gambling and drunkenness of clerics (canons 42, 43); ban on lay divorce with the intent of remarriage (c. 48); necessity of threefold submersion in baptism (c. 50); drunkenness of clerics (c. 54); harrassment of clerics (canons 55, 56) and of the disabled (c. 57); neglect of official duties and cares (canons 58, 59); moral impediments for entering the clerical order (c. 61); apostacy of clerics (c. 62); ban on unbled meat (c. 63); clerics as killers (c. 65); abduction with intent to marry (c. 67); ban on second marriage (c. 68); non-observance of fasting times by clerics (c. 69); removal and misuse of the instruments of divine service (canons 72, 73); complaint proceedings against bishops (c. 74); requirements of the witnesses for such proceedings (c. 75); physical impediments for episcopal ordination (canons 77, 78); ban on political activities by bishops (c. 81); slaves in the episcopal office (c. 82); ban on war service for clerics (c. 83); lèse-majesté (c. 84); index of the canonical Holy Scriptures, including the Apostolic Constitutions.

            The content of the canons has little internal unity and barely any internal order. It is suprising, however, that out of the 85 canons, 76 deal with the clergy, and laymen are almost totally ignored. One can thus speak of the Canons of the Apostles as a selection and compilation of ecclesiastical discipline for clerics.

            The numeration of the canons in the manuscripts is diverse. Since the oldest text, the Fragmentum Veronense, lacks all numeration, it is to be assumed this was also lacking in the Greek original. The question remains open whether the compiler had a collection of older conciliar material before him, or whether he knew these decisions in isolation. The earliest canonical collections are believed to have arisen in the period of Constantinople I, about 381 (see below).

3. Hence, the Canons of the Apostles may be regarded as representing the literary type of pseudo-apostolic church orders of the early church; and together with the Apostolic Constitutions they may even be regarded as the apex of the genre. Their uniqueness appears to lie in the fact that actual canonical decisions of ecclesiastical synods are clothed with the claim of apostolic origin through literary fiction. The Apostolic Constitutions are, in fact, the last example of this genre within the imperial church, where they are soon to be definitively replaced by synodal canons. It is only in the separated churches in Syria and Egypt that they continued to be relevant. Hence the Canons of the Apostles, as a portion of the Apostolic Constitutions, like all church orders of the earliest period, fill a legislative vacuum in the formation of ecclesiastical institutions by collating, actualizing, and propagating the old normative texts and traditions. The author of the Apostolic Constitutions wanted to unify ecclesiastical norms in order to fight the plethora of local traditions and particularism that had been characteristic of the fourth-century conciliar legislation. The compiler naturally made an evaluation in the course of his selection. Despite the unavoidable contradictions among various parts of the Apostolic Constitutions, the Canons of the Apostles are a good measure for what the compiler held to be absolutely binding and what he knew best from his own context.

4. The earliest indication of the use of the Canons of the Apostles appears in an extract from the acts of the synod of Constantinople of 29 September 394 (see below), where Nektarios of Constantinople refers to the ‘apostolic canons’ on the question of condemning a bishop. According to these ‘apostolic canons', a bishop could not be deposed by two or three other bishops, but only through the vote of a larger synod of the corresponding eparchy. This shows a knowledge of C. App. 74, which regulates in detail the deposition of a bishop after three summonses by a synod, and which is among the most-cited canons in the councils of the fifth century. However, as J.S. von Drey and J.W. Bickell have shown, we cannot assume, as some historians have, that when the phrases κανὼν ἀποστολικός or ἐκκλησιαστικός or ἀρχαος are used in the sources that they are references to these collections of canons. Rather references in texts before 394 that contain these phrases should be understood to mean that a canon rested on an ecclesiastical norm or practice dating from the time of the apostles.

            When Dionysius Exiguus translated a collection of canons from Greek into Latin for Bishop Stephanus of Salona, he placed the first 50 Canons of the Apostles at the head. In his praefatio, he remarked that many have doubted the apostolic origin of the canons in his own time.

Incipiunt regule ecclesiastice sanctorum apostolorum, prolate per Clementem, Ecclesie romane pontificem, quae ex graecis exemplaribus in ordine primo ponuntur, quibus quamplurimi quidem consensum non prebuere facile et tamen postea quaedam constituta pontificum ex ipsis canonibus adsumpta esse videntur.

            This appears conceivable in Greek as well as in Latin regions, since it appears that a Latin translation existed of the Apostolic Constitutions, including the Canons of the Apostles, even before Dionysius‘ translation. What cannot be answered to this day is why Dionysius only translated the first 50 canons. It is unlikely that he broke off the translation because the subsequent canons contradicted Roman practice (such as c. 66), since that may also be said of some canons of the first part (such as canons 46 and 47). Neither is it convincing to say he knew of only 50 canons, since the older Latin translation presents all 85 canons. E. Schwartz has declared that the gloss to c. 50 was the reason Dionysius broke off his translation, since, to him, the gloss was heretical.

            In 496 Pope Gelasius issued his decree De libris non recipiendis (see below), in which the formula, Liber qui appellatur Canones apostolorum, apocryphus was inserted under Pope Hormisdas (514-23). In the second collection of canons that Dionysius compiled during Hormisdas’ pontificate, he did not include the Canons of the Apostles. In his praefatio to Hormisdas, Dionysius declared that he had included canons in the volume which had been received by the entire church. Since the first collection received more weight in later times, the Canons of the Apostles entered the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and finally were excerpted in the Decretum of Gratian.

            In the East the use of the Canons of the Apostles can be traced in the councils of the fifth century. John Scholastikos received all 85 canons in his Synogoga without any doubt about their authority. He pointed out that the canons had long been found in older collections. The Canons of the Apostles were included in Justinian's Novellae 6 and 137. Consequently they had been confirmed by secular law, and their texts can be found in the Corpus iuris civilis. The council fathers of the Quinisext Council (692) underlined the great importance of the Canons of the Apostles in the East by placing them before Nicaea in the list of authorities, ‘canonizing’ their apostolic origin. The norms of the Canons of the Apostles were now declared βεβαίους and ἀσφαλες. Even the Apostolic Constitutions were declared to be of apostolic origin because of being mentioned in C. App. 85, even though having been partly falsified by the ‘heterodox.'

The Synod of Nicaea (325)

Editions: Joannou, CCO 23-41; Lauchert 37-43; Alivisatos, κανόνες 25-33; Rhalles-Potles 2.113-64; Pitra 1.427-35; Versiones: ClavisG 8520-7.

Translations: English: Tanner 6-19; NPNF 14.1-58; German: Wohlmuth 6-19; Ortiz de Urbina 288-93; French: Joannou, CCO 23-41; G. Fritz, ‘Nicée (Ier Concile de)', DThC 11 (1931) 408-16.

Literature: H.C. Brennecke, ‘Nicäa I', TRE 24 (1994) 429-441 (literature); Beck, Kirche 44 (literature); A.E. Burn, The Council of Nicaea (London 1925); G. Cereti, ‘The reconciliation of remarried divorces according to canon 8 of the Council of Nicaea', Studies in Canon Law presented to P.J.M. Huizing, ed by J.H. Provost, Leuven 1991, 193-207; H. Chadwick, ‘Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea', Harvard Theological Review 53 (1960) 171-95; H. Crouzel, ‘Les digamoi visés par le Concile de Nicée dans son canon 8', Augustinianum 18 (1978) 533-46; B.E. Daley, ‘Position and patronage in the early church. The original meaning of “primacy of honour“', JThS. N.S. 44 (1993) 529-553; Th.G. Elliot, Constantine‘s preparations for the Council of Nicaea, JRH 17 (1992) 127-137; G. Fritz, ‘Nicée (Ier Concile de)', DthC 11 (1931) 399-417; K. Girardet, ‘Der Vorsitzende des Konzils von Nicaea (325). Kaiser Konstantin d. Gr.', Klassisches Altertum, Spätantike und frühes Christentum. FS A. Lippold, ed. by K. Dietz, Würzburg 1993, 331-360; Hefele-Leclercq 1.1.503-619 , 1.2.1182-1202; W. Huber, Passa und Ostern (Supplement to ZNW 35; Berlin 1969); C. Kannengiesser, ‘Nicaea’, EEC 595; G. Larentzakis, ‘Das Osterfestdatum nach dem I. ökumenischen Konzil von Nikaia (325)', ZThK 101 (1979) 67-78; P. L'Huiller, ‘Ecclesiology in the Canons of the First Nicene Council’, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 27 (1983) 119-31; Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; K. Lübeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgange des vierten Jahrhunderts (Münster 1901); R. Macina, ‘Pour éclaire le terme digamoi’, Revue des sciences religieuses 61 (1987) 54-73; J. Meyendorff, ‘One Bishop in One City (canon 8)’, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 5 (1961) 54-62; K. Müller, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Verfassung der alten Kirche. V. Die Kanones 4-7 von Nizäa’, Abh. Akad. Berlin 3 (1922) 21-7; Ohme, Kanon 352-378; Ortiz de Urbina; V. Peri, ‘Lo stato degli studi intorno alla origine della quaresima’, Aevum 34 (1960) 525-55; Schwartz, ‘Kanonensammlungen’ 203-20; J. v.d. Speeten, ‘Le dossier de Nicée dans la Quesnelliana’, Sacris erudiri 28 (1985) 383-450; BISA.

1. The 20 canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), together with its creed, a synodal letter to the Church of Alexandria, and the list of episcopal subscribers are the sole surviving direct sources for the decrees and negotiations of this council. The council was accorded preeminent importance by the late fourth century. It became the foundation of the future development of ecclesiastical doctrine, as well as the exemplary expression of imperial power in an ecclesiastical synod.

            The question of whether minutes of the proceedings of Nicaea once existed and were lost at an early date cannot be definitively answered. In any case, it is not to be overlooked that there never was a single literary reference to the existence of such minutes, not even in the earliest accounts of the council.

            After Emperor Constantine had won sole rulership in 324, he called the council in accordance with the model of the council of Arles (314), and it opened on 20 May 325 or in June in the hall of the palace of Nicaea. The reported number of participating bishops varies from 250 to over 300. Alongside the bishops of the East, who were most concerned, a few from the West were also invited, for this was to be an imperial synod, an ‘ecumenical’ council.

2. The tasks at hand did not consist solely of settling the Arian conflict, but also of settling schismatic developments in the Church of Egypt, called the Meletian Schism, as well as of regulating questions of order for the entire church and of establishing a common date for Easter.

            The Synod of Arles had already called for a unified date for the Easter festival in its c. 1. The Nicaean decision to celebrate Easter henceforth on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring separated Easter from the Jewish calculation of Passover, which had been altered in the course of time that avoided the vernal equinox. This calculation of the Easter feast has been observed in principle to the present day. The decisions only survive in the writing of Emperor Constantine dedicated to this theme, ‘To the churches', as well as in the epistula synodica to the Church of Alexandria. It is surprising that no formal decree of the synod has survived. The ‘discovery’ of such a ‘decree’ by J.B. Pitra and his edition of it, has to be viewed skeptically. It is no more than another summary of the decision made in Nicaea. This text is already to be found in the Synagoge of Fifty Titles by John Scholastikos, but it cannot be described as a formal ‘conciliar decree’ either in form or style. At the same time it is clear that the Easter decision of the synod was not included among the 20 canons, where it would appear at first glance to belong.

3. In the same way, the conciliatory decision of the council on the Egyptian Meletians did not find a place in the canons. It has only been preserved to us in the synodal letter to the Church of Alexandria. The thirty-three bishops so far consecrated by Melitios of Lycopolis, as well as the five priests and three deacons, were permitted to remain in their offices and places after a laying-on of hands, though they remained lower in rank than the ‘Catholic’ clerics. Bishops were to be without the right of electing or nominating clergy. They could, nonetheless, take the place of Catholic bishops on the death of incumbents. Melitios alone lost his right to consecrate. The synod made similar decisions about the ‘Cathars’ or Novatians in c. 8, parties which included several bishops of the synod.

            The mildness of these decisions becomes clear if one compares them with c. 19 on the reintegration of the ‘Paulianists', in which the entire clergy, from bishops to deaconesses, who had adhered to the teachings of Paul of Samosata, had to be rebaptized and ordained again. The offer to the Meletians appears even milder than c. 8, in which no prospect is given to Cathar bishops of recovering their cathedra when the sees became free again. The will of the emperor to ensure peace in the Church in the East stood behind these decisions.

4. Theodoret of Cyrrhus († ca. 466) reports that after the anathematization of the Arians, the bishops regathered and passed 20 ‘laws on the organization of ecclesiastical life’ (περὶ τς ἐκκλησιαστικς πολιτείας νόμους ἔγραψαν εἴκοσι). Gelasios of Cyzicus after 475 also presents the text of all 20 canons (ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς κανόνας εἴκοσιν) without varying from the content or sequence of what is found in Greek canonical collections. Rufinus included the 20 canons in Latin summaries in his Ecclesiastical History, dividing canons 6 and 8 in two, hence producing 22 canons. Hence the oldest historians of the church not only confirm the great significance attributed to the canons of Nicaea from the earliest times, but also their number. In Syrian, Arabic, and Ethiopian traditions, these 20 canons grew through the addition of a great number of other canonical norms. This can be seen as a sign of the great authority attributed to the Nicaean Council and all of its decrees which it enjoyed from the end of the fourth century in all of Christendom. In the Roman tradition, doubtless for similar reasons, the canons of Serdica were passed on under the name of the Nicaenum (see below).

            Of great historical importance were those canons which initiated a new organization of ecclesiastical leadership and adminstration in parallel with the secular reorganization of the empire carried through by Diocletian (284-305). Under threat of excommunication, canons 15 and 16 intended to bind the entire clergy to the parish congregation, called the paroikia (c. 16), ‘for which they were ordained', excluding any autonomous movement from one episcopal parish to another as well as any enticement, a practice which is incidentally described as virtually universal. Both canons illustrate the ancient Christian bond of ordination to a certain local church, which is the paroikia of the bishop. The new ecclesiastical structures are formulated in canons 4 to 7. Episcopal congregations are formed into ecclesiastical provincial associations geographically corresponding to secular Imperial provinces (both of them use the same descriptive term, ἐπαρχία), headed by the bishop of the provincial capital or metropolis, as the ‘metropolitan'. Hence c. 4 rules that episcopal elections must be attended by all the bishops of a province. Three bishops suffice for consecration, but those three must have the written approval of the others. The metropolitan must confirm the decision and consecration (canons 4, 6). C. 5 institutes the provincial synod as the supreme ecclesiastic court of appeal which must be held twice a year. C. 6 establishes the foundation for the patriarchal system, which is further elaborated at Constantinople in 381 and finally stabilized in the sixth century. In this canon, the Church of Alexandria is referred to the situation in Rome, and special regulations are also made for Antioch. In this way ‘the old customs’ and privileges (πρεσβεα) are confirmed, according to which these churches have jurisdiction and influence reaching across provincial boundaries. C. 7 confirms to the bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem) a position of priority of honour (ἀκολουθία τς τιμς), despite the rights of the metropolitan see of Kaisareia.

            It must not be overlooked that these canons for restructuring the church resulted from conditions prevalent in the Eastern Empire, but which did not necessarily prevail in the West, ‘where, for example, the synods of African provinces encompassed considerably larger units’. It is in this light that we should understand the varied reception of the canons of Nicaea, as well as the variation in their Latin translations.

            The following canons deal with the dignity, way of life, and hierarchical order of the clergy: c. 1 excludes from the clergy those who have willingly made themselves eunuchs, but not those who had this done against their will or for reasons of illness. C. 2 opposes any consecration of neophytes, and c. 3 forbids clerics to live together with a woman in sexual abstinence. C. 9 requires an examination in advance of any consecration of a priest. If it is omitted and any impediment makes itself known after the consecration, such candidates will not be allowed to function, despite their consecration. C. 10 confirms the ban on consecrating those who have lapsed, and even a consecration which has taken place does not prejudice this. Clerics who practise usury are to be deposed (c. 17). C. 18 regulates the hierarchical rank and sequence of the higher clergy: bishop, priest, deacon, weighted particularly to the disadvantage of the deacon.

            Canons 11 to 14 deal with regulations of public penance: for those who lapsed under the persecution of Licinius (canons 11, 12); guaranteeing communion of penitents in articulo mortis (c. 13); for sinful catechumens (c. 14). In order not to erase the separation from the penitent ‘kneelers', the synod finally ruled in c. 20 that the faithful should celebrate the divine service while standing.

The Synod of Ankyra (314)

Editions: R.B. Rackham, ‘The Text of the Canons of Ancyra’, Studia biblica et ecclesiastica (Oxford 1891) III 139-216; Joannou, CSP 56-73; Lauchert 29-34 (= Rackham); Mansi 2.515-34; Pitra, 1.441-8; Alivisatos, κανόνες 157-64; Rhalles-Potles 3.20-69; Pedalion 371-85; Versiones: ClavisG 8501.

Translations: English: Rudder, 489-503; NPNF 14.63-72; German: Hefele 1.219-42; French: Joannou.

Literature: Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 1.1.298-326; Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; X. LeBachelet, ‘Ancyra (Concile de)', DThC 1 (1923) 1173-7; J. Lebon, ‘Sur un concile de Césarée’, Le Muséon 51 (1938) 89-132; Ohme, Kanon 329-334; S. Parvis, ‘The Canons of Ancyra and Caesarea (314)’, JThS. N.S. 52 (2001) 625-636; BISA.

1. When Emperor Maximinus Daia took his own life following his defeat by Licinius in July 313, the last bastion of persecution of the church since Diocletian in the eastern imperial district of the Tetrarchy fell. Eusebios reports that in this period, after the Edict of Toleration issued by Licinius in Nicomedia on 13 June 313 many synods were held in the East once more. Among these can be numbered the synod of Ankyra, the metropolis of Galatia.

            Its dating can be determined by the presidency of Bishop Vitalis of Antioch (see below), who died in 319, but particularly from c. 6 on sacrificati who had fallen away as a result of the mere threat of punishment and who had asked to return to the church ‘at the time of the synod’. They were to be received from now until next Easter into the penitential rank of ‘hearers.’ Then they had to spend five more years as penitential ‘kneelers’ and ‘fellow- standers'. The earliest possible Pentecost, the usual date for a synod, would be 314. This earliest possible date has high probability, since the question of dealing with lapsi and the regulation of their potential recovery to the church was such a concern to the council (canons 1-9, 12).

            Along with the 25 canons of the synod, the Latin tradition preserves three lists of bishops attributed to the council. These vary between 12 and 18 participants. The Ballerinis showed long ago that the list has anachronistic provincial boundaries, so that it must have been amended later. The lists given in the Prisca and the Isidoriana have no provincial titles attributed to bishops, but they were added later to the collection of Dionysius. Still, the lists are not necessarily inauthentic, since most participants can be attributed to the period and were also at Nicaea in 325. Just as is the case with the synod of Neokaisareia, Vitalis of Antioch held first place and should be seen as the president. The so-called Libellus synodicus attributes the presidency to Markellos of Ankyra, who was one of the participants, but it is unlikely that he presided. It is striking, however, that the participants come from the sphere of influence of the Church of Antioch in Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. This was hence not a local synod in the strictest sense, but rather a general synod of the churches in the imperial dioecesis Oriens.

2. The oldest preserved version of the Greek text with 25 canons dates to the ninth and tenth centuries. For that reason the translations, particularly the Latin tradition, are especially significant.

            Beyond the decisions concerning lapsi (canons 1-9, 12), no further system is to be discerned in the ordering of the material. Canons regulated the position of lapsed priests and deacons (canons 1 and 2), as well as the rules of return for those who had been compelled to participate in sacrifices or sacrificial banquets. Distinction was made between those who participated in sacrifices with public confession (c. 3), passive participation (c. 4), and participation in tears and mourning (c. 5). C. 6 dealt with participation in sacrifice in response to a simple threat of punishment. Canon 7 discussed those who participated in sacrificial banquets but who did not eat the sacrificial meat; while c. 8 treated repeated sacrifice, c. 9 complete apostasy, and c. 12 sacrificing during one's period as a catechumen.

            Questions treating the clergy are dealt with by the following canons: deacons are to declare at the time of their election whether they intend eventually to marry (c. 10); chorepiscopi are forbidden to ordain without special license (c. 13); a principled rejection of the eating of meat leads to deposing (c. 14). Further canons dealt with the sale of ecclesiastical property during a vacancy of the see (c. 15), the duties and status of bishops-elect who are not accepted in their parishes (c. 18), and the breaking of an oath of chastity (c. 19).

            The other decisions deal with the following themes: abducting betrothed girls (c. 11); sex with animals (canons 16 and 17); adultery (c. 20); abortion (c. 21); murder (c. 22); manslaughter (c. 23); magic (c. 24); and lastly the special case of the seduction of a future sister-in-law by the bridegroom, resulting in the girl's death.

            The canons as a whole have great importance for the history of the institution of penance in the early church. They are among the earliest evidence for the three-step system of penance, which eventually even became a four-step system (canons 4-9, 16-17, 20-25). The text and interpretation of c. 13 are in dispute concerning the practical functions of chorepiscopi, who are first mentioned here.

            J. Lebon has defended the thesis that canons 20 to 25 were originally passed by a synod in Kaisareia of Cappadocia in the same year, whose list of participants later was switched with that of the Synod of Neokaisareia.

The Synod of Neokaisareia (between 315 and 319)

Editions: Joannou, CSP 75-82; Mansi 2.539-43; Lauchert 35-6; Pitra 1.451-4; Alivisatos, κανόνες 166-9; Pedalion 385-95; Rhalles-Potles 3.70-95; Versiones: ClavisG 8504.

Translations: English: Rudder, 507-19; NPNF 14.79-88; German: Hefele 1.242-51; French: Joannou, CSP 75-82.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Néocésarée’, DDC 6.995-7; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 1.326-334; Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; BISA; C. Nardi, ‘Neocaesarea’, EEC 585.

            In the Greek collections of canons, the decisions of the synod of Neokaisareia, the metropolis of Pontos Polemoniakos, always follows the synod of Ankyra. The fact that this also indicates a temporal sequence is shown by the lemma of the Greek manuscripts of the canons, which dates the synod between that of Ankyra and Nicaea. It also fits that the problem of lapsi obviously no longer played a role, in contrast to Ankyra. It is hence likely that some time has passed since 313.

            Other than the 15 canons, there survives from this council in the Latin tradition a list of bishops with 17 to 20 names, of which 6 are also found on the lists for Ankyra, and several are on the Nicaean list, too. One can thus assume that the synods were close together in time. As is the case with Ankyra, the first place is held by Vitalis of Antioch, who died around 319. Here as well the participants come from churches of Antioch's sphere of influence in Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. J. Lebon attributes this list of bishops to a council in Caesarea in Cappadocia in 314.

            The decisions of the synod do not show any internal principle of organization; they are briefly formulated and deal with the following themes: priests cannot marry after ordination (c. 1); marriage with a sister-in-law will lead to expulsion (c. 2); c. 3 deals with penance for bigamy (i.e. second and further marriages); sins of thought are not subject to penance (c. 4); c. 5 formulates penance for catechumens; pregnant women are not to be excluded from baptism (c. 6); c. 7 orders that priests cannot take part in weddings of bigamists; c. 8 specifies the impact of a wife's adultery on a clerical husband; priests who sinned physically before ordination should not perform the Eucharist, and deacons in such circumstances can only be servants of the church (canons 9, 10); the minimum age for priests is 30 years (c. 11); delaying baptism until an illness excludes a person from the priestly office (c. 12); canons 13 and 14 deal with restricting the functions of a countryside priest (ἐπιχώριοι πρεσβύτεροι) and chorepiscopi; c. 15 restricts the number of deacons in one town to seven.

            The canons have particular importance for the development of the system of penance; the interpretation of c. 5 is in dispute in that context.

The Synod of Gangra (ca. 340-342)

Editions: Joannou, CSP 85-99; Lauchert 79-83; Alivisatos, κανόνες 207-16; Pitra, 1.487-92; Pedalion 398-405; Rhalles-Potles 3.96-121; Latin: EOMIA 2.145-214; Versiones: ClavisG 8553-54.

Translations: English: Rudder 523-31; NPNF 14.91-103; German: Hefele 1.780-88; French: Joannou, CSP 85-99.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Gangres’, DDC 5 (1953) 935-8; T.D. Barnes, ‘The Date of the Council of Gangra’, JTS 40 (1989) 121-24; J. de Churruca, ‘L'anathème du concile de Gangres contre ceux qui sous prétexte de Christianisme incite les esclaves à quitter leurs maîtres’, RHD 60 (1982) 261-78; J. Gribomont, ‘Eustathe de Sébaste’, DSp 4.2 (1961) 1708-12; idem, ‘Le monachisme au IV^e siècle en Asie Mineure: de Gangres au messalianisme’, Studia Patristica 2 (TU 64; Berlin 1957) 400-15; W.D. Hauschild, ‘Eustathius von Sebaste’, TRE 10 (1982) 547-50; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 1.2.1029-45; Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; A. Laniado, ‘Note sur la datation conservée en Syriaque du concile de Gangres’, OCP 61 (1995) 195-199; F. Loofs, Eustathius von Sebaste und die Chronologie der Basilius-Briefe (Halle 1898) 79-90; BISA.

            Greek collections of canons transmit the entire epistula synodica of the synod of Gangra, the metropolis of the province of Paphlagonia. Following the name of the addressee and of the sender, as well as a description of the motivation for the meeting of the synod, there follow the 20 so-called ‘canons'. The epilogue, often designated c. 21, closes the synodal communiqué. It is directed to the bishops ‘in Armenia’ and signed by 13 bishops. However, since their sees are not given, certain identification is possible only with difficulty. The synod was convened because of practices contrary to the norms of the church taken ‘by those around Eustathios’ as well as ‘by him personally’ (ὑπὸ τούτων αὐτν τν περὶ Εὐστάθιον; ὑπ’ αὐτο). The offense described agrees with the content of the 20 decisions following. These are all anathemas in form and content, all formulated according to the scheme, ‘Εἴ τις ... ἀνάθεμα ἔστω'. Errors and abuses of the anchorite-ascetic movement are condemned here. This evidence demonstrates that Eustathios is the same person as Eustathios of Sebaste, an identification that had already been made by Sokrates and Sozomenos. These canons reflect the background of the ascetic movement of ‘Eustathians’, particularly in the imperial diocese of Pontos. The epilogue emphasized that the synod was not condemning asceticism, enkrateia or parthenia, which are extensively praised and approved, but only the arrogance connected with them.

            Sokrates and Sozomen had already differed in their dating of the synod. The former places it after the synod of Constantinople in 360, the latter before ‘the synod of Antioch.’ The agreement of these dates with those given by Basil the Great on the life of Eustathios (epp. 244, 263) and their internal agreement, as well as the possibility of completely identifying the 13 bishops in the temporal context of the synod of Serdica, lead to a dating of ‘circa 340-42'. The definitive conclusions of F. Loofs on this are thoroughly convincing.

            The anathemas are aimed against the following practices: 1. The condemnation of the marital union as an impediment to salvation; 2. the condemnation of the eating of meat as an impediment to salvation; 3. the promotion of the flight of slaves to become anchorites; 4. avoiding religious services of married priests; 5. contempt of the house of God and congregational worship; 6. the holding of private religious services; 7. reception of ecclesiastical incomes; 8. payment and receipt of such gifts without permission by the bishop; 9. asceticism in contempt of marriage; 10. vaunting themselves over the married; 11. condemnation of agape; 12. high valuation of the costume of the ascetic class; 13. the wearing of men's clothing by women on grounds of asceticism; 14. abandonment of husbands on the grounds of anchorism and contempt of marriage; 15. and 16. the abandonment of children and parents on the pretext of asceticism; 17. tonsure of women; 18. fasting on Sundays; 19. increase beyond the general fasts of the church; 20. contempt of religious services on behalf of the martyrs.

            The influence of these canons was considerable. Seven translations have survived from the early church (see above, versiones); almost all of these rules passed into the Decretum Gratiani.

The Synod of Antioch (ca. 330)

Editions: Joannou, CSP 104-26; Lauchert 43-50; Pitra 1.454-67; Pedalion 406-19; Rhalles-Potles 3.122-70; Alivisatos, κανόνες 171-81; Versiones: ClavisG 8535-6.

Translations: English: Rudder 534-49; NPNF 14.104-22; German: Hefele 1.513ff.; French: Joannou, CSP 104-26.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Antioche (Concile et canons d')’, DDC 1.589-98; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 1.702-33; H. Hess, The Canons of the Council of Sardica (Oxford 1958) 2.145-50; Ohme, Kanon 391-399; E. Schwartz, ‘Athanasius, VIII’ 216-230; M. Simonetti, ‘Antioch. II. Councils’, EEC 48-9; BISA.

1. The 25 canons of the synod of Antioch belong to the oldest part of the Greek canonical collections, which normally form a solid traditional block in the sequence of Ankyra, Neokaisareia, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodikeia. Even the oldest Syrian and Latin translations attribute these canons to the synod of dedication (in encaeniis) held at Antioch in 341. This dating already appears as a solid tradition in 403-404 at the time of the affair of the deposing of John Chrysostom, since the Antiochene c. 4 asserted by his detractors from the entourage around Theophilos of Alexandria was attacked by Chrysostom's partisans to be invalid, since it had been approved by an ‘Arian synod’ directed against Athanasios. It appears that this argument was not disputed by the other side. Pope Innocent I (402-417) adopted this argument in his own defense of John Chrysostom, and when Palladios describes the affair in his Vita of John composed in 408, he believes that this canon had been suspended by the synod of Serdica, since it had been directed against Athanasios and Markellos. This situation only becomes understandable when one assumes that the canons of Antioch were already established parts of Greek canonical collections by the end of the fourth century. In these collections the canons were attributed to the synod in encaeniis and were cited from such a collection by Chrysostom’s enemies. The historical argument made by adherents of the patriarch of Constantinople appears not to have had a chance in opposition to this factitious authority. To the present day there are those who attribute the canons to the synod of 341.

            The Ballerinis were the first to take a decisive stand against this dating, which was later reinforced, particularly by E. Schwartz. The following facts speak against the synod in encaeniis: 1. The surviving list of participants and subscribers shows that their roughly 30 participants were also members of the synod of Nicaea in 325, so that the two synods had to be seen as closely related in time; 2. 97 bishops took part in the synod of 341; 3. the synod was not under the presidency of the bishop of Antioch, but under that of Eusebios of Caesarea. Eusebios, however, presided only over the synod of Antioch of about 330, which gathered for the election of a new bishop after the fall of Eustathios. The ‘Antioch Schism’ which arose as a result of this episode, with its confusions, formed the historical background reflected in the canonical decisions. The connection of these canons with the synod in encaeniis points to the period before 380, when this council was held in greater regard than that of Nicaea in the homoiic imperial church.

2. Canon 1 renewed the Nicaean decision on the festival of Easter and threatened those who keep the Easter festival according to Jewish usage with excommunication. C. 2 excommunicated those who attend the service of God‘s Word but do not participate in the communal prayers and do not participate in the eucharist. They also must not share hospitality with excommunicated persons. Those excommunicated, according to c. 6, can only be received back by their own bishop or by a synod.

            The majority of the canons rendered decisions concerning the relationship of priests to their bishops and of bishops to their metropolitans. Hence, priests should not abandon their congregations, on threat of being deposed (c. 3). Deposed clerics who continue to perform their duties squander by that act any chance of being restored (c. 4), and whoever establishes schismatic neighbouring congregations is to be deposed; if he persists, secular authority will enforce the sanction (c. 5). No stranger is to be received without a letter of peace (c. 7), but such letters are not to be issued by countryside priests (c. 8).

            Bishops who undertake to consecrate in another‘s district without permission are to be deposed (canons 13 and 22). If bishops after consecration do not take up their duties in the district designated for them, they are excommunicated (c. 17). C. 21 renews the Nicaean ban on the translation of bishops, and c. 23 forbids the designation of successors.

            Several canons regulate the procedure for deposing bishops. If the provincial synod is unable to come to a unanimous conclusion in such a case, the metropolitan is supposed to summon additional bishops from a neighboring eparchy (c. 14). If the conclusion is then unanimous, all further possibility of appeal is excluded (c. 15). If anyone, after being deposed, appeals to the emperor instead of to a larger synod, he loses all chance for restoration (c. 12). Any appeal to the emperor without the approval of the bishops or the metropolitan is forbidden (c. 11).

            The authority of the metropolitan is remarkably strengthened. C. 9 insists that all bishops restrict themselves to their districts, while the metropolitan is responsible for the entire province and enjoys precedence. A synod’s filling of vacant bishoprics (c. 16) and the consecration of bishops can both only take place in the presence of the metropolitan (c.19). He alone is to call the provincial synod, which meets twice a year (c. 20). Since these canons renewed or made the decisions of Nicaea more precise, it can be assumed that the prerogatives of metropolitans decreed there were not accepted easily. C. 10 finally restricted the rights of chorepiscopi, and canons 24 and 25 regulate the administration of ecclesiastical properties.

            It is to be remarked that the synod of Serdica (342) renewed some of the canons of Antioch, sharpening the penalties threatened there: cf. c. 21 with c. Serd. 1+2; c. 11 with c. Serd. 8; c. 6 with c. Serd. 16.

            At the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, at its twelfth session, c. Ant. 16 and 17 were passed as canons 95 and 96, with the qualification that they were ‘canons of the Holy Fathers‘, and at the fourth session the c. Ant. 4 and 5 were read out as canons 83 and 84. This numbering is an important piece of evidence of the existence of an official canonical collection, in which the canons were arranged in numerical sequence.

The Synod of Laodikeia (before 380)

Editions: Joannou, CSP 130-55; Lauchert 72-9; Pitra 1.495-504; Alivisatos, κανόνες 197-208; Pedalion 420-42; Rhalles-Potles 3.171-226; Versiones: ClavisG 8607.

Translations: English: NPNF 14. 123-34; Rudder 551-78; German: Hefele 1.746-77; French: Joannou, CSP 130-55.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Laodicée (Concile et canons de)’, DDC 6.338-43; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 1.2, 989-1028; C. Nardi, ‘Laodicea, Council of’, EEC 472-3; Ohme, Kanon 402-406; Schneemelcher, ‘Bibel III.’ 22-48; Schwartz, ‘Kanonensammlungen’ 190-4; Zahn, Geschichte 193-202; BISA.

            The synod of Laodikeia in Phrygia, with its 59 or 60 canons included in all old Greek canonical collections, presents almost insoluble puzzles concerning dating and historical context.

            A note is posted at the head of the text of the canons informing us that the ‘holy synod’ which gathered in Laodikeia in Phrygia Pacatiana, and whose participants were drawn from various provinces of the Asian (diocese) (ἐκ ... τς ̓Ασιανς), had issued the following decisions. There is no date, neither a synodal letter nor a subscription list survives to explain why these canons appeared so important to the oldest collections.

            The lemma of the Cod. Vindobonensis hist. gr. 7 (11th-12th cent.), ‘Κανόνες νθ’ τς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τς Φρυγίας συνελθόντων μακαρίων πατέρων συνόδου ἐπὶ το μεγάλου θεοδοσίου', which Joannou adopted in his edition, and the assertion resting on it in the Decretum Gratiani (D.15 c.11) that the canons had been passed by 32 bishops under the presidency of one Theodosios, remain vague. Theodoret is the first to mention it in his commentary on Colossians 2:18, written about 430, referring to the ban on prayers to angels by the synod of Laodikeia, using its c. 35 with its ban on the angel cult. Theodoret's assertion is the terminus ad quem, and the partition of Phrygia, which is admittedly not precisely dated, into Phrygia Salutaris and Phrygia Pacatiana about 325 is the terminus non ante.

            The decision of c. 7 about the recovery of heretics, specifically of Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans, without repetition of baptism, is surprising because of its mild treatment of the adherents of Photinus of Sirmium. He had often been condemned for his heretical doctrine of the Trinity, and he was deposed and banned in 351. The mention of him provides a further reference for dating, although it is precisely the Photinians who are lacking in the older Latin translations. A further temporal limit is drawn by the fact that the canons of Laodikeia were already contained in the corpus canonum assembled under homoian auspices in Antioch before 379. This dating is confirmed through internal evidence, including the lack of decisions on lapsi, the extensive description of forms of ecclesiastical organization, which bespeak a situation of peace, the mild treatment of sinners in c. 2, which contrasts with the strictness of the canons of Nicaea, and finally the liturgical references in canons 14 to 23 and 25 to 30.

2. The literary form of the 60 canons is surprising, since almost all consist of only a single brief sentence, giving the impression of a summary or a rubric. This practice also makes an impact on the style of the canons, since canons 1 to 19 begin with ‘Περὶ το...’ and canons 20 to 59 with ‘῞Οτι (οὐ) δε...'. Further, some canons are repeated in both of these stylistic forms, as is the case with the ban on marriage with heretics in canons 10 and 31, as well as the ban on visiting heretical cemeteries and places of martyrdom, in canons 9 and 34. Finally, canons 3, 4, 7, 8, and 20 are summaries of the Nicaean canons 2, 17, 8, 19, and 18. Thus, it would be easy to assume that the canons of Laodikeia are a comprehensive collection of the Phrygian canonical tradition, which was possibly composed by two successive synods in Laodikeia. E. Schwartz tried to explain the reception of the canons of Laodikeia into the Greek corpus canonum through its stress on the ranking of the clergy and its origins in the equally anti-Nicene diocese of Asia. ‘The epitomized form can be explained by the fact that it had been transcribed to order’.

3. Alongside the canons on heresy mentioned above (7, 9, 10, 31), c. 8 prescribes rebaptism for Montanists. C. 6 forbids heretics to set foot in orthodox churches, and canons 32 and 33 forbid persons to accept eulogiai from heretics or to pray with them.

            C. 1 allows a second marriage with a small penance. C. 11 bans the installation of presbytides, and c. 44 forbids women’s access to the altar. No neophytes were to be received into the clergy (c. 3), and clerics are not to take usury (c. 4). Consecrations are not to be performed in the presence of the unbaptized (c. 5), the election of bishops pertains to the metropolitan and the bishops of the province (c. 12) and not to the people (c. 13). Bishops are obligated to attend synods (c. 40). Canons 56 and 58 regulate further rights and duties of bishops, and c. 56 orders the establishment of periodeutes in the place of chorepiscopi. Canons 20, 21, 22, and 43 give decisions for deacons and subdeacons, canons 15 and 23 for lectors and cantors. C. 24 forbids the entire clergy from visiting bars, canons 41 and 42 forbid travel by clerics without permission and letter of the bishop. Canons 25 to 28 regulate liturgical rights and bans. Canons 29, 30, 36, 39, and 53 to 55 forbid the use of heathen or Jewish practices. Regulations on dealings with the consecrated elements of the eucharist (c. 14) and ordering the divine service (canons 16 to 19) are also passed. Questions of the practice of baptism are regulated by canons 45 to 48, rules for fasts by canons 49 to 52. Finally, c. 59 forbids the liturgical usage of ‘private psalms’ and uncanonical books. C. 60 names the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments; in the former, the books of Judith, Tobias, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus of Sirach, and Maccabees are missing, and in the latter, Revelations.

The Synod of Constantinople (381)

Editions: Joannou, CCO 45-8; Lauchert 84-87; Pitra 1.508-9; Alivisatos, κανόνες 35-9; Pedalion 155-65; Rhalles-Potles 2.165-91; Versiones: ClavisG 8600.

Translations: English: NPNF 14.171-86; Cummings, Rudder 202-20 and Tanner, Decrees 31-35; German: Wohlmuth, Dekrete 31-35; Ortiz de Urbina, 313-4; French: Joannou, CCO 45-8.

Literature: E. Chrysos, ‘Die Akten des Konzils von Konstantinopel I (381)’, Romanitas-Christianitas. Festschrift J. Straub zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. G. Wirth, et al. (Berlin-New York 1982) 426-35; G. Bardy, ‘Constantinople, concile de (381)’, DDC 4.424-28; C. Kannengiesser, ‘Constantinople II, Councils’, EEC 195-196; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 2.1.1-48; Ohme, Kanon 510-542; Ortiz de Urbina, 133-289 [German version] 231-5; Le II^e Concile Œcuménique (Études théologiques 2; Chambésy 1982); Ritter, Konzil; A.M. Ritter, ‘Das II. ökumenische Konzil und seine Rezeption: Stand der Forschung’, Le II^e Concile Œcuménique 43-62; A.M. Ritter, ‘Konstantinopel. Ökumenische Synoden. I. ökumenische Synode von 381’, TRE 19 (1991) 518-24; BISA.

1. Ordinarily, the Greek canonical collections attribute seven canons to the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. Of these, general consensus identifies canons 1 to 4 as authentic. This is because the old Latin translations in the Prisca, Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore, and the Codex of Lucca know only these first four canons, which are independently witnessed, since they divide the text differently. Further, the early historians only speak of the first four canons. Hence, canons 5 and 6 probably belong to the Constantinople synod of 382; c. 7, which is still missing in John Scholastikos and presents a discussion of the practice of Constantinople in the recovery of heretics, appears to be an excerpt from the letter of Patriarch Gennadios I of Constantinople to Martyrios of Antioch from the middle of the fifth century. All three canons were only later joined to the council of 381 in the course of the manuscript tradition.

2. Canons 1 to 4 constitute the actual decisions of the council which were presented to the Emperor Theodosios I for his confirmation at the final session on 9 July 381 by the bishops through the Logos Prosphonetikos, which has survived. The emperor responded to this request with his edict of 30 July 381. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which current research attributes to this council, but whose role at the council is still disputed, as well as the doctrinal tome, which has not survived, and can only be reconstructed using the synodal letter of the Constantinople synod of 382, are (in agreement with A.M. Ritter) not to be regarded as decisions of the council in the narrower sense.

            Any statements about the course of the council can only be based on a historical reconstruction, though one of high probability, since minutes not only do not survive, they were probably never even kept. In keeping with Ritter's reconstruction, the composition of the four canons can be understood in the context of the council as follows.

3. The regulation of the question of the bishop of Constantinople after the opening of the council in May 381, with the election of Gregory of Nazianzos, ended the affair surrounding the ‘cynic’ Maximos from Alexandria. He had been consecrated bishop of the imperial capital in 380 through a clandestine action supported by the Alexandrian bishop Peter. C. 4 declared this election to be invalid, as well as all of Maximos’ consecrations and actions. One must keep in mind this Alexandrian intervention into the affairs of the church of Constantinople to understand canons 2 and 3, which have the greatest historical importance among the canons of the council.

            Therefore, c. 2 forbids the bishops of an imperial diocese to intervene in the affairs of the bishops of another imperial diocese, to cross their boundaries without permission, or to undertake ordinations there. Specified were the five dioceses of the eastern half of the Empire: Aegyptus, Oriens, Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. This would leave untouched the competence of provincial synods regulated in Nicaea (see above), as well as responsibilities for the missionary churches outside the boundaries of the empire. C. 3 directs that the bishop of Constantinople should have ‘precedence in honour (πρεσβεα τς τιμς) (directly) behind the bishop of Rome’, ‘because this city is the new Rome’.

            In this manner the reordering of the ecclesiastical structure continued, based on the foundation of the constitution of the Roman Empire. While the council of Nicaea (see above) had created ecclesiastical provinces beyond the episcopal parochia (metropolitan districts), which were geographically congruent with the civil provinces, the council at Constantinople established larger districts that conformed to the boundaries of the imperial dioceses and that encompassed a number of metropolitan districts. These districts were autonomous.

            This was an important step toward the later Justinianic patriarchal order, although there is still no mention of patriarchs in this canon. The occasion for this reorganization was the experience that since Nicaea neither the emperor nor the various ecclesiastical parties had respected the rights and authority of provincial synods or metropolitans in the ecclesiastical squabbles. Yet c. 2, and even more c. 3, could be directed against the see of Alexandria, which traditionally had taken second place behind Rome and therefore the first place in the East. Now, however, not only the most important ally of the Roman Church in the East was downgraded for the benefit of ecclesiastically traditionless Constantinople, but it was also implied that even the precedence of Old Rome was only a ‘precedence of honour’ in analogy to the position of the imperial city and center of the Imperium Romanum. So, both canons are a fatal step toward an ever-deeper intermingling of the imperial church with the organization and administration of the empire.

            In the final phase of the council the fathers must have turned to composing the doctrinal tome, which has been lost, as well as the dogmatic c. 1, which constituted a summary of the tome’s doctrinal statements and anathemas. The canon restricts itself to confirming the ‘faith of the 318 Fathers’ of Nicaea and anathematizing the ‘Eunomians or Anhomoeans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachians, the Sabellians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, and the Apollinarians’. The formulation of these dogmatic decisions were additional to the doctrinal tome, and its loss can only be understood if c. 1 is meant as the doctrinal decision of the council. Through these decisions, the council put an end to all the trinitarian conflicts of the fourth century, which had brought the church the greatest confusion and distress for more than five decades.

4. One may only speak of a general recognition of the synod of Constantinople of 381 as the Second Ecumenical Council after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (see below). Its status as an ecumenical council was supported — at least in the West — by recognition of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (and hence implicitly of c. 1). However, c. 2 and especially c. 3 were not generally accepted in the Western Church. Pope Leo the Great lodged a vigorous protest against c. 3, and the council was not declared one of the four ecumenical councils until the time of Pope Hormisdas (514-23). Even the final Roman reception by Gregory the Great in his epistula synodica of February 591, did not include c. 3, which certainly led him at the same time to reject all the canons of 381. The Roman Church was only ready to accept c. 3 at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; that is, at a time when a Latin patriarch occupied the throne of Constantinople.

The Synod of Ephesus (431)

Editions: Joannou, CCO 57-65 (repr. Beneševič, Synogoga see below); ACO 1.1-3, 27-8 (c. 1-6); 1.1-7, 105-6 (c. 7); 1.1-7, 122 (c. 8); Lauchert 87-8; Pitra 1.522-34; Alivisatos, κανόνες 42-6; Rhalles-Potles 2.192-215; Pedalion 170-9; Versiones: ClavisG 8800; Gesta: ClavisG 8675-8802.

Translations: English: Rudder 221-40; NPNF 14.225-42; German: P.-T. Camelot, Ephesus und Chalkedon (Mainz 1963) 207-11; French: Joannou, CCO 57-65; A.-J. Festugière, Ephèse et Chalcédoine. Actes des conciles, Paris 1982.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Éphèse (Concile de 431)’ , DDC 5.362-4; P.-T. Camelot, Éphèse et Chalcédoine (Paris 1962; Ephesus und Chalkedon Mainz 1963); A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 1 (Freiburg 1979) 642-91; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 2.1.330-42; Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; J. Liebéart, ‘Éphèse (Concile d’ )’ , DHGE 15.561-74; J. Liebéart, ‘Ephesus, ökumenische Synode (431)’ , TRE 9 (1982) 753-5; L. I. Scipioni, Nestorio e il concilio di Efeso (Studia patristica Mediolanensia 1; Milan 1974); M. Simonetti, ‘Ephesus. II. Councils’, EEC 275; BISA.

            As a rule, Greek canonical collections preserve eight canons of the Third Ecumenical Council of 431 in Ephesus. These are, for the most part, decisions which the partial synod of the Cyrillian majority made at various sessions on questions of varying character.

            On 19 November 430, Emperor Theodosios II called the council to meet the following Pentecost, 7 June 431, to settle the Christological controversy which had raged between the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, Nestorios and Cyril since 428. In his sacra to the council, he informed it that no other question than the dogmatic one was to be discussed there. It was the responsibility of the imperial comes domesticorum, Kandidianos, to oversee this and to see to it that the synod proceeded in good order. Imperial intentions were, however, subverted by a majority of 154 bishops under Cyril, Memnon of Ephesus, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, who opened the synod over the protests of Kandidianos and 68 bishops on 22 June 431, even before the arrival of the bishops of the imperial diocese of Oriens under John of Antioch. The synod was initiated as a trial against the absent Nestorios, and his deposing and excommunication was already ordered at the first session. This ‘̓Απόφασις’ bears 197 signatures. In the strictest sense the synod did not issue any dogmatic horos nor a detailed description of the errors being condemned. One might see the confirmation of Cyril’s so-called second letter to Nestorios as a dogmatic statement, which was accepted by a majority of 125 votes, as well as the rejection of Nestorios’ second letter to Cyril by 35 votes.

            As soon as John of Antioch arrived on 26 June, he held a synod with the minority awaiting him, in which the deposing and excommunication of Cyril and Memnon was proclaimed in a ‘ψφος’ , excluding all who held communion with them. By this act the synod was split. Contrary to the emperor’s mandate (sacra) of 29 June to reopen the council in the presence of all bishops, Cyril’ s majority held second and third sessions on 10 and 11 July, after the arrival of the papal legates. In keeping with the directions of Pope Celestine, his legates approved the decision of 22 June with their signatures. On 16 and 17 July, the ‘Cyrillians’ held two further sessions in the presence of the legates, in order to respond to the depositions and excommunications by the synod of the ‘Orientals’ . These actiones 4 and 5 were trial proceedings against John of Antioch, leading to the deposition and excommunication of John and 33 other bishops. The letters to the emperor and to the pope as well as the epistula universalis of the majority synod are certainly to be attributed in time to this actio 5. This is because this ‘συνοδικὸν γράμμα’ , as it was named in the surviving address to the bishops of Epirus vetus ‘ to the bishops, priests, deacons and the entire people in every eparchy’ lists along with John the names of all 33 excommunicated and deposed bishops. In a second part, six specific rules are formulated on how to deal with adherents to Nestorios, and the synodal letter is concluded by a list of subscribers.

            These six decisions, taken from the letter without alteration, constitute what is called canons 1 to 6 of the Council of Ephesus. In the synodal letter itself or in other parts of the council acts, they are not described as canons. The first canon levels deposition and excommunication against all metropolitans who either attend the minority synod or have approved or approve the Pelagian, Caelestios (c. 1). Here for the first time the Eastern and Western Church condemn Pelagianism. Bishops who maintain communion with ‘apostacy’ should be deposed (c. 2), clerics deposed by Nestorios are returned to office (c. 3). Clerics who are adherents of Nestorios or Caelestios are to be deposed (c. 4), and clerics uncanonically restored to office by Nestorios and his adherents are to remain deposed (c. 5). Finally, all efforts against the decisions of the synod will lead to deposing for clerics, excommunication for lay persons.

            The acts of a further session are preserved in the Collectio Atheniensis, the so-called actio 6 of 22 July 431. These acts are incomplete and were probably gathered after the fact by Cyril. The emphasis is on the report of the priest and oikonomos of the church of Philadelphia, Charisios, about a creed of Constantinopolitan origins circulating in Lydia. This creed was being presented to clerics for their signature, and it was also used when Quartodecimans and Novatians were received back. Charisios had resisted signing it and had been excommunicated. Yet the creed was, in his view, heretical and Nestorian, which the council should decide. The decision on this constitutes c. 7 in the canonical collections, though it does not appear as a canon in the acts. It decrees the sole use of the pistis of the Nicene Fathers, the formula of 325, and directs that anyone using the ekthesis cited by Charisios would lie under the ‘απόφασις’ of the synod, hence under the 6 decisions already described.

            Collectio Atheniensis 81 preserves the protocol of actio 7 of the council, which constitutes the basis for the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus. The dating found there, 31 August, was a scribal error for 31 July. A petition (libellos) was read out from the Cypriot metropolitan Rheginos of Constantia, who was present with two other Cypriot bishops. The petition complained against the ban pronounced by the proconsul of Antioch, Dionysios, against the synod of Cyprus filling the vacant metropolitan see of Constantia before the synod in Ephesus decided whether this right pertained to the metropolitan of Antioch. Behind this lay a long history of efforts by the bishops of Antioch to assure themselves superior metropolitan rights over the island of Cyprus. The Cypriots had ignored the proconsul’s ban, and they elected Rheginos while asserting their traditional rights. The synod decided, on the basis of customary law in view of the Nicean canons 4 and 6, that the synod of Cyprus might henceforth install their own bishops. This decision, which is entered in the canonical collections as c. 8, ends the minutes and is not even designated there as a canon.

2. Between the gesta of actio 6 and the gesta de episcopis Cypriis, the Collectio Atheniensis preserves a resolution by the synod as well as two further decisions after the Cypriot affair which were not received into canonical collections, but which barely differ in form or content from the others. All three decisions are undated. The first is a horos against ‘Messalians or Euchites’ and regulates their return to the church on the basis of a synodal decision of Constantinople for Pamphylia and Lykaonia as well as on Alexandrian practice. According to it, clerics might remain in office if they condemned their own errors. Laymen were also admitted to communion under the same conditions. In contrary cases, clerics were to be deposed and excommunicated, and lay persons excommunicated. No Messalian was permitted to enter a monastery, and one of their writings, entitled Asketikon, was condemned.

            The second decision is also the horos to a petition (libellos) of two bishops of the province of Europa. Euprepios of Byze and Arkadiopolis and Cyril of Koila and Kallipolis express their anxiety that their metropolitan, Phritilas of Herakleia, the partisan of John of Antioch, was seeking to isolate them by trying to install new bishops for cities under them. The synod was to confirm the customary law of several poleis belonging to their sees, as was generally the case with any one see in Europe. The synod approved this request.

            The third text was a letter to the eparchial synod of Pamphylia on the matter of Bishop Eustathios, who had resigned his office but, with the agreement of his sucessor, asked to remain nominally as bishop. The synod ruled that he could retain the ὄνομα, τιμή, and κοινωνία of his episcopal position, but could act as a bishop only with the approval of his successor.

3. It is surprising that the 8 texts that later entered Greek canonical collections are never designated as ‘canons’ in the conciliar minutes. Even Sokrates, whose report on the council of Ephesus is remarkably short for a contemporary, mentions no canons. The oldest known Greek canonical collections also appear not to have received the canons of Ephesus. So, for example, they do not appear in the Syrian translation of the Greek corpus of 500/1 in Hieropolis/Mabbug (= British Museum Addit. 14528), although six canons of Chalcedon are found there. Dionysius Exiguus also knows nothing about them, so that he must have used a Greek model without these canons. The oldest Latin translation is taken from a translation of conciliar acts by the deacon Rusticus in the third quarter of the sixth century. It is not a matter of a translation of canons but rather of the conciliar acts. These canons have obviously not yet entered Latin canonical collections.

            The Ephesian decisions become valid as ‘canons’ only in the Synogoge of John Scholastikos in the middle of the sixth century. Yet their number and order was for a long time diverse, so that in the foreword to the Synogoge, 7, 6, and 8 canons are attributed to the synod of Ephesus in the manuscripts. The canons themselves are distributed into titloi 37, 38, 1, and 47. The decision on Cyprus cited in title 1 is designated as c. 6, but many manuscripts also say c. 7 or 8. In 545, when Emperor Justinian in his Novella 131.1 declared the canons of the ecumenical synods equal to laws, the canons of Ephesus were included.

The Synod of Chalcedon (451)

Sources: canons 1 to 27: ACO 2.1.2, 158-163 (354-9) (actio 7; c. 28: ACO 2.1.3, 88 (447) 28-94 (453), 32 (actio 17); c. 29: ACO 2.1.3, 108.11-21; 108.31—109.6; c. 30: ACO 2.1.2, 114.2-18; Joannou, CCO 69-97 (repr. Beneševič, Synagoga [canons 1 to 27]; Lauchert 89-97; Pitra 1.522-36; Rhalles-Potles 2.216-91; Alivisatos, κανόνες 49-60; Pedalion 185-211; Versiones: ClavisG 9008, 9018, 9015.

Translations: English: NPNF 14.267-288; Tanner 87-103; German: Wohlmuth 87-103; French: A.-J. Festugière, Actes du Concile de Chalcédoine sessions III-VI, Genf 1983; Joannou, CCO 69-97; Hefele-Leclercq 2.2.649-847, 767-828, 929-944.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Chalcédoine (Concile de)’ , DDC 3.287-292; W. Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils (2d ed. Oxford 1892) 123-210; Camelot, Éphèse et Chalcédoine; E. Chrysos; ‘Der sog. 28. Kanon von Chalcedon in der “Collectio Prisca“’, AHC 7 (1975) 109-117; B.E. Daley, ‘Position and patronage in the early church. The original meaning of “primacy of honour“’, JThS. N.S. 44 (1993) 529-553; R. Delmaire, ‘Les dignitaires laïcs au concile de Chalcédoine’, Byzantion 54 (1984) 141-175; A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon 3 (Würzburg 1951-54; 5th ed. 1979) 825-65; A. de Halleux, ‘Le décret chalcédoine sur les prérogatives de la Nouvelle Rome’, EThL 64 (1988) 288-323; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 2.2.649-847, 767-844; E. Herman, ‘Chalkedon und die Ausgestaltung des konstantinopolitanischen Primates’ , Das Konzil von Chalkedon 2.459-90; St.O. Horn, Petrou Kathedra, Paderborn 1982; P. L’Huillier, ‘Le décret du concile de Chalcédoine sur les prérogatives du siège de la très sainte église de Constantinople’, Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarchat russe en Europe Occidentale 27 (1979) 33-69; Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; T.O. Martin, ‘The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon: A Background Note’ , Das Konzil von Chalkedon 2.433-58; E. Schwartz, Der sechste nicaeanische Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon (Sitz. Akad. 27; 1930) 611-40; E. Schwartz, Aus den Akten des Konzils von Chalkedon (Abh. Akad. 32.2; Munich 1925); M. Simonetti, ‘Chalcedon. II. Council’ , EEC 159; L. Ueding, ‘Die Kanones von Chalkedon in ihrer Bedeutung für Mönchtum und Klerus’ , Das Konzil von Chalkedon 2.569-676; W. de Vries, ‘Die Struktur der Kirche gemäß dem Konzil von Chalkedon’, OCP 35 (1969) 63-122; L.R. Wickham, ‘Chalkedon’, TRE 7 (1981) 668-675; BISA.

1. With his sacra of May 451, Emperor Marcian called a synod for 1 September 451 in Nicaea to bring ecclesiastical concord to the dogmatic question of the unification of the divine and human in Jesus Christ. The conflict, underway since the dispute over Nestorios and the synod of Ephesus in 431, had broken out into open struggle in proceedings against the Archimandrite Eutyches (from 8 to 22 November 448) and his rehabilitation at the Ephesian ‘Robbers’ Council’ (8 to 22 August 449) by Dioskoros of Alexandria and Juvenal of Jerusalem. The Fourth Ecumenical Council was finally transferred from Nicaea to Chalcedon, in the immediate vicinity of the capital, and opened on 8 October 451. By its sixth session on 25 October, it achieved an agreement in the dogmatic question under the leadership of five legates of Pope Leo, but especially under the leadership of 19 leading imperial officials. The result of this agreement was the formulation of a doctrinal definition (horos), which preceded the deposing of Dioskoros and the annulment of the decisions of Ephesus of 449.

            At the sixth session, the doctrinal formula was confirmed by the emperor and endorsed by 452 bishops in his presence and in that of his wife, Pulcheria. At the end of the session Marcian asked the bishops not to leave Constantinople before all of the pending questions had been resolved. These questions were exclusively of a canon-law nature and would occupy the council for one more week. The emperor had already told the synodical members that he expected the resolution of three questions, since their regulation had to proceed ‘κανονικς’ and not through secular laws. For this purpose he had 3 pre-formulated kephalaia read out to the bishops at once. They were adopted in modified form as canons 4, 3, and 20 among the Chalcedonian canons.

            In the edition of the acts of Chalcedon by E. Schwartz, the material of the Greek minutes have been distributed into 17 actiones. This order goes back to the official first edition of the Greek acts prepared soon after 451, which is followed by the oldest of the three Latin translations, the so-called Versio antiqua. In this edition, it is clear that substantive topics took precedence over chronological order. E. Chrysos has particularly questioned the order of the canonical actiones 7 to 17 using extensive arguments. In keeping with the order of the Greek acts, the 27 canons of the council follow immediately on the order of the emperor already mentioned in what is called actio 7 on the same day (25 October). It is in fact a surprise that this actio 7 consists only of the words of the 27 canons without any element of the proceedings. In addition, with the close connection of the canons to the formal session of 25 October and the promulgation of the dogmatic horos it is difficult to understand why the emperor presented the three kephalaia and did not pass immediately to the promulgation of the canons. Yet the synod did not adopt the three kephalaia moved by the emperor without modification, but rather added to them, altered them, and passed them on their own. This took time, so that it was impossible to pass the canons immediately in keeping with the emperor’s desire. Marcian had also referred to the synod a number of pending disputes in which the persons affected had appealed to the emperor. It would only be logical, once the synod had resolved the disputes and the negotia privata, to move to the presentation of general rules as can be seen in the unusual opening formula of canons 3, 12, 19, and 23, ‘λθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν σύνοδον ὅτι...’ and similar. It appears mandatory, then, to place the promulgation of the canons after actio 15, on 30 or 31 October. Then discussions took place about the so-called c. 28.

            The Greek acts of actio 8 of 26 October bring an end to the debates between Maximos of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem on the region of jurisdiction of the two thrones. The two of them presented to the synod an agreement they had negotiated on 23 October, which was unanimously approved by the synod and which entered into the acts by the imperial commissioners as synodal ‘ἀπόφασις’ and ‘ψφος’ with validity for all time. Henceforth, only the provinces of Phoenicia I and II and Arabia would be subject to the see of Antioch, while the provinces of Palestina I to III were placed under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Jerusalem. There was no more talk about the rights of the metropolitan of Kaisareia in Palestine, which had still been expressly defended in c. 7 of Nicaea. With that, Juvenal had achieved the goal of autonomy for Jerusalem that he had been pursuing since Ephesus in 431. The decision of actio 8 could be said to be the foundational charter of the patriarchate of Jerusalem.

            In the course of actio 9 (also on 26 October), the case of Theodoret of Kyros was given a legally clear regulation. Although his deposing by Dioskoros in 449 had been rendered null and void by the annulling of the ‘Robbers’ Council’ , and he had taken a seat and vote as one of the synod participants at the first session, but this had taken place only under the loud protests of the Palestinians, Egyptians, and Illyrians. The council proceeded to order his reinstatement as bishop of Kyros after he anathematized Nestorios.

            The tenth and eleventh sessions on 26 and 27 October settled the case of Bishop Ibas of Edessa. During these sessions the records of the proceedings held against him in Tyre and Berytus were read out, though the use of the proceedings of the Latrocinium was rejected. Ibas was rehabilitated, the orthodoxy of his letter to Maris confirmed by the Roman legate, and his reinstatement as bishop of Edessa ordered after he had also explicitly anathematized Nestorios.

            In actiones 12 and 13 on 29 and 30 October, the legal dispute between the two bishops of Ephesus, Bassianos and Stephanos, was debated and both were ordered to be deposed.

            The dispute between the metropolitan of Bithynia, Eunomios of Nicomedia, and the bishop of Nicaea was the occasion for actio 14 on 30 October. The reason for this was the earlier elevation of Nicaea, which was ecclesiastically a suffragan of Nicomedia, to a (secular) metropolis by the emperors Valentinian and Valens and the ecclesiastical claims of the bishop that had arisen since. The council restricted the ecclesiastical rights of Nicaea and confirmed the metropolitan rights of Nicomedia. This decision was recorded in general terms in c. 12 (see below).

            Actio 15 of 31 October dealt with the effort of Bishop Sabinianos of Perre, deposed at Ephesus in 449, to obtain reinstatement. They did not come to a conclusion on this but referred the matter to Maximos of Antioch to be settled within 8 months.

2. The 27 canons of the council, under the title, ‘῞Οροι ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ ἐκφωνηθέντες παρὰ τς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικς συνόδου τς ἐν Χαλκεδόνι συναχθείσης’ , produce a plethora of new decisions on questions about the discipline of the clergy and of monasticism, about episcopal office, and about the structure of the church.

            At the head of the collection is a confirmation of all synodal canons enacted until then (c. 1).

            The canons on monasticism have special importance, since monasticism is given a legal standing as an institution and thus is integrated into the church. C. 4 is fundamental, which places the monastery under the control of the bishops, without whose approval no monastery can even be founded. The monastery was to be the sole place of residence for monasticism, which is committed to hesychia, fasting, and prayer. Without the permission of the bishop, the monk is not allowed to leave the house. Monks are to intervene neither in ecclesiastical nor in public matters. The demand for constancy and steadfastness is doubled, firstly by the ban on secularizing established houses and their property (c. 24), secondly by the threat to excommunicate virgins and monks who break their oath of voluntary celibacy (c. 16). An entire series of canons treated monks and clergy together. Hence c. 3 bans them from participating in any enterprise to make a profit, and c. 7 bans accepting worldly office or any military service. All clerics in charitable establishments, monasteries, or martyria are placed under the bishops (c. 8), and any conspiracy against bishops is threatened with the penalty of deposition (c. 18). C. 23 sharpens the residency requirement once more for both clerical groups, particularly forbidding them to live in Constantinople without permission.

            The following regulations deal with the discipline and order of the clerical estate, including the bishops: c. 5 confirms previous canons on the theme of translation, threatening non-observance with excommunication. C. 6 forbids absolute ordination, and c. 10 the possibility of being ordained to two churches. Canons 11 and 13 regulate the necessity and distinction of letters of recommendation and peace. Lectors and cantors are forbidden to marry heterodox wives (c. 14). Consecration as deaconess is only to be made beginning at the age of 40 (c. 15), and the estates of deceased bishops is protected against clerical claimants (c. 22). Complaints against bishops and clerics demand an investigation of the reputation of the plaintiff (c. 21).

            The following canons have their eye on the office of the bishop and his practice: any practice of simony is threatened with deposing (c. 2). Lobbying at court to have a metropolitan district divided in order to create new metropoleis is threatened with deposing, and metropoleis already created this way are declared ‘honorary metropoleis’ (c. 12). Countryside parishes should remain under the control of the bishop under whom they had been in the previous thirty years (c. 17). The duty of holding a provincial synod twice a year is reinforced (c. 19). Metropolitans have to complete the consecration of suffragans presented to them (c. 25) within three months, and every bishop has to transfer the financial administration to his oikonomos (c. 26).

            It is clear that the immediate experiences and conflicts of the previous years are in the background of many of these canons, such as the disputes with Eutyches and his monks in Constantinople, the rabble-rousing of Syrian monks by Barsaumas and his intervention in the Latrocinium, the intrigue of clergy from Edessa against Ibas, as well as the struggles between Nicaea and Nicomedia, or between Tyre and Berytos.

            Two further canons that regulate the instances of appeals of ecclesiastical cases constituted the bishop of Constantinople as the highest court of appeal and brought it into competition with the ‘exarchs’ of the imperial dioceses. This led to the legal establishment of the primacy of the see of Constantinople before the battle erupted over the so-called c. 28 at Chalcedon. Thus, c. 9 specifies that conflicts between clerics belong before the bishop, to the exclusion of all secular courts. In proceedings between clerics and bishops, the proper instance is the provincial synod, but in proceedings against metropolitans it can be either the exarchos of the diocese or the bishop of the capital city. C. 17 already applies this canon to a conflict over the jurisdictional subjection of rural congregations (see above). Hence, the archbishop of Constantinople receives the right to take the place of the superior metropolitans (‘exarchs’) of the three dioceses surrounding the capital city, Pontus, Asia, and Thracia (the metropolitans of Kaisareia in Cappadocia, Ephesus, and Heraclea), and so to judge, if the appellants turn to him. This regulation offers, along with the so-called c. 28, a consistent general picture. The canon reveals that the church had taken an essential step in the direction of the patriarchal constitution.

3. The Greek acts offer as actio 17 the minutes from a session on 30 October on the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople. The substance of these minutes consists of the reading out of a resolution on this matter passed by a synodal session the previous day, the so-called c. 28, with a subscription list of 185 bishops, who brought proxies for 23 more bishops.

            The resolution passes the following decisions: confirming c. 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381), the see of Constantinople-New Rome should receive the same privileges (τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεα) as those accruing to Old Rome, and Constantinople should take the second rank after Rome. The justification for the precedence of both thrones is the fact that both cities are imperial residences and seats of the Senate. The ecclesiastical rank of both cities should correspond to this secular rank. Further, in the future the metropolitans of the imperial dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia as well as bishops residing outside imperial territory should be consecrated by the patriarch of Constantinople. The suffragans in the named dioceses should henceforth only be consecrated by the metropolitans together with all eparchial bishops, after the archbishop of Constantinople had been informed of the election.

            In this way the exarchs of the dioceses named (see above) were deprived of their traditional rights. In any case, it appears that this canon only confirmed what had long been the practice. Yet the bishops of these dioceses resisted the implementation of the new law (see below). The Patriarch of Constantinople obtained a jurisdictional district equal to that of old Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and recently Jerusalem. Beyond that, Constantinople was to have a position of primacy in the East that was comparable to that of Rome in the West. This constitutional development in the church followed the structural logic of the secular state: with two emperors, two capitals, and two senates, the church would now have two heads.

            It is surprising that the first reading of the resolution was not taken into the minutes, and hence was not counted as a session. Further, the first reading appears not to have led to a final clarification, since a further session was needed on the following day for the same set of problems. E. Chrysos has convincingly shown that these minutes probably had been removed from the first edition of the Greek minutes because it included the votes of opponents and their arguments. These are still discernable in the minutes of actio 17 with the protests of Eusebios of Ankara and Thalassos of Kaisareia. Further, there must have been other Pontic bishops, so that many more synodal participants were present than the 185 in the subscription list.

            The papal legates certainly refused cooperation from the outset, on the grounds that they had no instructions. Beyond this there was the legal necessity of carrying out a voting procedure (ψφος) which implied a discussion of substance. This is the only possible explanation for the fact that together with the planned resolution, the minutes contain a subscription list as the result of a ‘ψφος’ . In keeping with that, this resolution was described by the bishops as a ‘ψφος’ , never as a ‘canon’ .

            Chrysos has gone on plausibly to explain that actio 16 contained in the Greek minutes, with the reading of the letter of Pope Leo to the synod, is bogus. The virtually unexplainable reading of this letter only at the end of the council and in a session held for it alone becomes comprehensible if one assumes that this letter stands in the place of the first reading of c. 28, with Leo‘s demand that the synod assures the canons and rights of the bishops after the restoration of ecclesiastical peace, which was to testify to the legitimate proceedings in the matter of Constantinople, even against the position of the legates. So, the lack of actio 16 in the entire Latin tradition can be explained. According to this, the first reading of c. 28 was to be put in the place of actio 16, and actio 17 was to be dated on 1 November.

            The legates now declared the entire resolution to be null and void, and they had their objection registered in the minutes. The synod hence turned to Pope Leo in its epistula synodica, asking for him to approve this ‘ψφος’ . The same was done by the emperor and Anatolios of Constantinople, who even described the decision as a restriction of his earlier rights. Leo refused his approval in letters to Marcian, Pulcheria, and Anatolios, as well as in his answer to the bishops. Anything in opposition to the canons of Nicaea was not acceptable; C. 6 of Nicaea had established a definitive ranking: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. Anatolios appeared to be satisfied with that, though that did not alter the de facto primacy of Constantinople in the East nor did it change Constantinople’s exercise of its rights.

            In keeping with this result, 27 canons were attributed to the council of Chalcedon even in the East until the second half of the sixth century. John Scholastikos in his Synogoge L titulorum around 550 only documents 27 canons. Only with the Syntagma XIV titulorum was the resolution included, together with two further decisions. All three were admittedly not designated ‘canons’ . They consisted of excerpts from the minutes of the session on the affair of Photius of Tyre and Eustathios of Berytus, as well as from actio 4. These texts declare the impossibility (sacrilege) of demoting a bishop to a priest, as well as the reluctance of Egyptian bishops to take a binding dogmatic position without the instruction of the archbishop of Alexandria, who still had to be elected. All 30 canons have been included in Byzantine ecclesiastical law ever since.

The Synod of Serdica (342)

Editions: EOMIA 1.2.442-560; Joannou, CSP 159-89; Lauchert 51-72; Pitra 1.468-83; Alivisatos, κανόνες 184-95; Rhalles-Potles 3.227-85; Pedalion 443-61; Versiones: ClavisG 8570.

Translations: English: Rudder 583-99; German: Hefele 1.556-607; French: Joannou, CSP 159-89.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Sardique (Concile de)’ , DThC 14 (1939) 1109-14; L.W. Barnard, ‘The Council of Serdica: Some Problems Re-Assessed’ , AHC 12 (1980) 1-25; L.W. Barnard, The Council of Serdica, 343 A.D. (Sofia 1983); H.C. Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II (PTS 26; Berlin 1984); H.C. Brennecke, ‘Rom und der dritte Kanon von Serdika (342)’ , ZRG Kan. (Rom.) Abt. 100 (1983) 15-45; E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 1 (Tübingen 1930) 131-65; Girardet, ‘Appellatio’ 98-127; K.M. Girardet, Kaisergericht und Bischofsgericht. Studien zu den Anfängen des Donatistenstreites (313-315) und zum Prozeß des Athanasius von Alexandrien (328-346) (Antiquitas, ser. 1, vol. 21); E. Heckrodt, Die Kanones von Sardika aus der Kirchengeschichte erläutert (Jenaer Historische Arbeiten 8; Bonn 1917); Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 1.2 p.737-823; H. Hess, The Canons of the Council of Sardica (Oxford 1958); Kaufhold, ‘Väterlisten’; Ohme, Kanon 408-449; E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius IX, (NGWG; Göttingen 1911) 409-522 (repr. Gesammelte Schriften 3 [Berlin 1959] 265-334); E. Schwartz, Der griechische Text der Kanones von Serdika (ZNW 30; Berlin 1931) 265-334; Schwartz, ‘Kanonensammlungen’ 208-20; H.J. Sieben, ‘Die sardicensischen Appellationskanones im Wandel der Geschichte’, ders.: Die Partikularsynode, Frankfurt/M. 1990, 193-228; M. Simonetti, ‘Serdica. II. Council’ , EEC 757; S. Troianos, ‘Der Apostolische Stuhl im früh- und mittelbyzantinischen kanonischen Recht’ , Il primato del vescovo di Roma nel primo millennio (Vatican City 1991) 245-59; C.H. Turner, ‘The Genuineness of the Sardican Canons’ , JTS 3 (1902) 370-97; J. Ulrich, Die Anfänge der abendländischen Rezeption des Nizänums (PTS 39; Berlin 1994); BISA.

1. The imperial synod in Serdica in the autumn of 342 constitutes the end of the first phase of the dispute begun by Arianism. Its failure was marked at the outset by the mutual anathemization of ecclesiastical leaders in the Eastern and Western Empire, and it would lead to the first schism between the Eastern and Western Church.

            Athanasios of Alexandria (295-373) had been deposed and excommunicated by the party of Eusebios of Nicomedia at the imperial synod of Tyre (335). After vain attempts to reverse this judgment, he had to flee from Egypt in 339 and turn to Pope Julius I (337-52), who summoned the oriental bishops in early 340 to a Roman synod on a set date to review the judgment of Tyre. The bishops rejected such a review, confirming their decision at the so-called ‘Synod in encaeniis’ in Antioch (341) and formulating their confession in the form of a new creed, coloured by Origenism. After an alliance of the two emperors, Constantius II and Constans, which was favorable to the West, the synod demanded by the Athanasian party was to be called for autumn 342. The place of meeting was Serdica, located near the border between the Eastern and Western Empires, where about 76 bishops from the East and 94 from the West gathered. The Western party stood under the leadership of the aged Ossius of Cordoba.

            The need for clarification had arisen in many matters: in the area of doctrine, since the Nicaean formulation of the trinitarian faith was not interpreted uniformly, and among other matters the anti-Arian spokesman of the Nicean synod, Markellos of Ankyra, had been excommunicated and deposed in the meantime by eastern synods (Constantinople, 336/7, and Antioch, 341). In the personal destinies of the leading representatives of the struggle against Arianism (Athanasios, Markellos, Eustathios of Antioch, and others), who had been excommunicated and deposed in the East, was united the question of the finality of such synodal judgments and the possibility for a renewed judgment of their cases along with the potential for participation by the state in the proceedings, leading to the state carrying out judgments through banishment. Finally, the Oriental party that had carried out the trial against the head of the Egyptian Church consisted primarily of representatives of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor, while, with the exception of the Meletians, the Egyptian church stood almost unanimously behind Athanasios.

            Correspondingly, the synodal letter of Serdica to Pope Julius set the three following points on the agenda: Tria fuerunt, quae tractanda erant.... ante omnia de sancta fide et de integritate ueritatis.... secunda de personis.... tertia uero quaestio, quae uere quaestio appellanda est.... H.C. Brennecke has presented a plausible case that interpreting the first point of the agenda in terms of Athanasios as a defense of the faith of Nicaea is unlikely, and that in the background of the planned discussion lay the doctrinal statements of Markellos, which would have been a precondition for the Eastern bishops and their involvement in the question of a synod as well as for their eventual appearance. The agenda was, however, changed by the Western bishops, who appeared first and who preferred to deal at the outset with the second point, de personis, thus following the action of the Roman synod earlier in the year and renewing communion with those who had been condemned. The Eastern bishops who had arrived demanded that the condemned had to be excluded, at least from these meetings. Their demand was rejected, so they departed the assembly and constituted their own synod in the city’s imperial palace. The prejudice of the Westerners had provoked this step. Behind it stood a fundamental question of law within the church. Could synodal judgments henceforth be seen as irreversible or could their validity be judged by their reception? Could the West reverse Eastern judgments without the consent of the original synodal judges?

            Hence, the council broke apart even before the beginning of actual discussions. Both rump synods met separately and anathematized the leaders of the other side. After the departure of the orientals, the Western bishops continued to meet, passing canons as well as a theological declaration against Eastern Origenism, which proved in the end not to be sustainable. Both synods also made diverging decisions for the next 50 or 30 years respectively on the calculation of Easter.

2. The canons in ecclesiastical law passed by the Westerners present problems in terms of numeration, form, and original language.

            The numbering of canons not only diverge between the Latin and Greek versions, but even for the Latin text there are various systems of numeration in the literature. The most widely distributed version is the numeration according to Dionysius Exiguus and the Prisca, according to which the text is divided into 21 canons with considerable variations. The Greek text brings 20 canons with great variations from the Latin version in the division of the material. Thus canons 10b, 12, and 18 are missing there, while in the Latin version the Greek canons 18 and 19 are missing. From this corpus and form of publication (see below), one can conclude ‘that the canons were not originally numbered at all, but formed a continuous record of synodical acts’ . C.H. Turner, in his critical edition of what he regards as the original Latin text, introduced yet another system of division, which has the advantage of placing together in one number all canons belonging together in terms of material (he thus arrives at 13 canons). But this numbering has not been adopted in the literature.

            The form of publication reveals that this canonical material was shaped under Western influence. The proof of this is that, though the canons of eastern synods of the fourth century normally have the ‘form of order’ ‘without preserving a trace of the discussion whose written product they are’ , the canons of Serdica appear as proposals the synod accepts, in the course of which extensive justifications, summaries, and proposals for amendments are given. Such a form of publication, presenting the canons as the result of discussion in which the connection with the minutes are preserved, is a distinguishing mark of African synods from the earliest times to the start of the fifth century. The stylistic characteristics of this minute-style include the proposal by a named participant framed as a question (N. N. episcopus dixit: ... si omnibus [hoc] placet) in discursive, informal diction, with the formula of approval added (placet; placere sibi; omnes episcopi dixerunt) with the acclamation of the whole. Hence the canons of Serdica are formed in groups (canons 1 to 2; 3, 4, and 7; 8 to 12; 14 and 15; 16 and 17) within the minutes of an occasionally-interrupted discussion. Canons 12, 18, and 19 can hardly be described as canons but rather as concurrent contributions to discussions. If one takes the 23 Latin and Greek canons as a group, ‘only thirteen may properly be classed as legislative acts; the other ten are dependent comments or resumés’ .

            Accepting the theses of P. Batiffol, A. Steinwenter, and H. Gelzer on the parallels between the discussion methods of the Roman Senate and the synods (relatio—sententia— acclamatio—senatus consultum), the canons of Serdica emerge, according to Hess’ analysis, as a reflection of this ‘parliamentary method’ . In view of this discovery one might well conclude that there were never more complete minutes of this council than what is preserved in the canons.

            There exists no direct historical evidence for the question thoroughly discussed in the older literature concerning the priority of the Latin or Greek text. Both of the forms of the text are well witnessed, yet each exhibits great differences not only in the order, but each also contains material lacking in the other and with differences which are significant in terms of content. All of the Latin versions of the text have a single common prototype, but the Greek manuscript versions also agree in their variations from the Latin text.

            Due to the work of C.H. Turner and E. Schwartz, it is today generally accepted that the Latin text is closer to the original. Schwartz saw the Greek version as a later translation. Due to the presence of canons 18 and 19, which are found only here, and the special references to the church of Thessalonike, Schwartz concluded that the Greek version was prepared in Thessalonike about 360 or later. The attempt by G.R. von Hankiewicz to establish the priority of the Greek text must be seen as outmoded.

            Still, the detailed investigation undertaken by H. Hess, renewing the thesis of the Ballerini assuming an originally double edition, does deserve respect. It is in fact surprising that the Greek text often gives a truer image of the debates. It must be added that among the synodal participants known for their origin, there are about 60 Greek-speakers and 33 Latin-speakers, so that there was a distribution of languages which was truly unique for the synods of the fourth century. While the language of proceedings under the presidency of Ossius was certainly Latin (all of the other synodal documents are composed in Latin), there still must have been a translation during the synod from Latin into Greek, which could be the cause of the unquestionable dependency of the Greek on the Latin text. Hence, according to Hess, the Greek version was a ‘set of minutes taken from the Latin debate by a bilingual scribe or, as is more likely, a verbatim record of the proposals as they were repeated by the interpreter’ .

3. In terms of content, the canons of Serdica deal almost exclusively with questions of the office of the bishop. In the course of this legislation, four major themes are addressed:

a. Translatio (Metathesis). One may hardly speak of an absolute ban on every translation of a bishop in the early church. Ecclesiastically-ordered transfers appear to have been common. The canonical ban on translation deals more with transfers made by oneself or in pursuit of one’s own interests. That is also the case with the decisions at Serdica, c.1 even threatening excommunication for this practice. The background for this appears to be the efforts of Valens of Mursa to win the see of Aquileia, as well as the switch of Eusebios of Nicomedia to the throne at Constantinople. Correspondingly, c. 2 punishes with excommunication any influencing of the election of a bishop. C. 3a belongs in this context, forbidding any visit by a bishop to another province without invitation. A bishop was not to spend more than three weeks in a city not his own (c. 14), and if he visited his own properties located in alien provinces, he is to return after three weeks (c. 15). Bishops who receive excommunicated clerics are to report before a synod (c. 16). Canons 18 and 19 oppose recruiting candidates for the clergy in a foreign episcopal district. C. 20 regulates the time foreign clergy could stay in Thessalonike, in analogy to c. 14. C. 21 finally makes a special rule for the length of residency by bishops deposed over a matter of faith. The translation rules of Serdica rely upon canons 15 and 16 of Nicaea.

b. Episcopal election. C. 5 deals with the case when a bishop is unwilling to participate in an ordination. The context and terms addressed are entirely different in the Greek and Latin versions. The Greek version appears to have been altered to fit later conditions. C. 13 opposes the practice of episcopal election in the case of the wealthy or of lawyers, in which case the preliminary levels of ordination are only performed pro forma. Both canons hearken back to canons 2 and 9 of Nicaea.

c. Appellatio. Without any doubt the so-called ‘appellation canons’ have in all times attracted the greatest interest, and they play a central role in the question of the historical anchoring of the primacy claims of the Roman papacy. Interest is directed primarily at canons 3 b+c, 4, 7, and less to c. 17, which foresees a chance of appeal by priests and deacons with the bishops of the neighbouring province, hence renewing c. 5 of Nicaea. In interpreting the canons first mentioned, what has been said of the form of publication should be recalled. One should not look at these three canons as decisions made entirely independently of one another, producing inevitable contradictions, but rather they must be seen as parts of a single resolution. Correspondingly, Turner has brought all of these together in his edition into a single ‘c. 3’.

            In Serdica the following procedure of appeal was established: 1. In a dispute between two bishops, no colleague from a neighbouring province may be called to judge. 2. A bishop who has been condemned by his colleagues within his own province may raise an objection against the judgment. 3. Those who carried out the proceeding (that is, his fellow provincials or the bishops of a neighbouring province) may send a report on the objection to the bishop of Rome. 4. The see of the condemned person may not be newly occupied in the interim. 5. The bishop of Rome, after the review of the case, has two possibilities: a) if he holds the judgment to be right, the judgment is final; b) if he does not receive the judgment, he can order a renovatio iudicii and designate bishops as judges. The new trial will take place before bishops from a neighbouring province. At the request of the condemned, the Roman bishop can send additional priests from his own congregation.

            By this the synod overturned previous legal practice, advocated by Orientals, in which synodal judgments were in principle beyond appeal. This corresponded to the understanding of synodal canons as immediately inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that they could not be reversed by the decisions of another synod. The canon of Serdica, however, created ‘an instance for the entire church which made possible a revocatio iudicii, which had hitherto not been possible according to the law of synods; this also created an instance which stood above the level of the province’ . The judgment of a synod over a bishop would, in the future, require the concurrence of the Roman bishop. Since the parallel to this procedure is not an appeal according to imperial law but rather to the decisions on the retractatio of lawsuits that had been completed through unappealable judgments, which could only be confirmed or retried through a supplicatio to the emperor, the bishop of Rome would not be described as an instance of appeal but as an instance of supplication.

            The notion that such rules are not based on the experience of the conflict over Athanasios, as E. Schwartz argued in retrospect, and that the purpose of the canons was only directed to the Western Empire, is generally rejected today.

d. Episcopal journeys to petition the court are to be regulated by canons 8 to 12 by hindering dubious and ambitious petitions, defining proper petitions, and clarifying the route along which one proceeds.

4. The history of the tradition of the canons of Serdica is rich in surprises. It is remarkable that the canons were seen and cited by the Roman church until Dionysius Exiguus as decisions of Nicaea. The case which was much discussed was that of the priest Apiarius from Sicca in Numidia, who appealed against his deposing in 417/8 to Pope Zosimus of Rome, whose legates cited the canons in question at the synod of Carthage in 419 (see below) as of Nicaea. These were, however, utterly unknown in Africa.

            The text of the canons appears to have been unknown outside of the Roman Church before the circulation of the first canonical collections. The practice of clothing other canons with the authority of Nicaea was common and by no means restricted to the decisions of Serdica. The Greek text is not contained in any Oriental canonical collection before the middle of the sixth century. It is first found in the Synogoge L titulorum of John Scholastikos and then in the Syntagma XIV titulorum. All later Greek versions depend on these two collections. No direct literary witnesses of an older Greek text are known.

The Synod of Carthage (419)

Sources: C. Munier, Concilia Africae A. 345-A. 525 (CCL 149; Turnhout 1974) 89-172: Codex Apiarii causae (canons 1-33 + Gesta de nomine Apiarii), 182-247: Excerpta ex registro ecclesiae Carthaginensis (c. 34-133); PL 67.181-230; Mansi 3.699-844; Joannou, CSP 197-436; Rhalles-Potles 3.286-624; Alivisatos, κανόνες 225-302; Pedalion 462-542.

Translations: English: NPNF 14.441-511; French: Joannou, CSP 197-436.

Literature: G. Bardy, ‘Afrique’ , DDC 1.288-307; F.L. Cross, ‘History and Fiction in the African Canons’, JTS 12 (1961) 227-47; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 2.1 p.196-211; Maassen, Geschichte 149-85; Munier, Concilia Africae 79-87, 98ff., 173-81; C. Munier, ‘Carthage. V. Councils’ , EEC 146-8; C. Munier, ‘Vers une édition nouvelle des Conciles africains (345-525)’ , Revue des Études Augustiniennes 18 (1972) 249-59; Ohme, Kanon 460-469; Schwartz, ‘Kanonensammlungen’ 231-55.

            The Greek translation of the acts of the African general synod of 25 and 30 May 419 as well as the canons later attributed to it belong equally to the corpus of Greek canonical collections. The occasion for discussions by the 217 synodal participants under the presidency of Bishop Aurelius of Carthage was the conflict with Roman claims to hear an appeal in the case of the priest Apiarius of Sicca. The acts which are preserved (Gesta de nomine Apiarii) , including the 33 Canones Apiarii causae, also survive intact in the Greek version. Canons 34 to 133 appear to be a probably private selection of African canonical material from the end of the fifth century. These Excerpta ex registro ecclesiae Carthaginiensis were passed on in the Latin tradition separately and were widely distributed. It was only with Dionysius Exiguus that they were incorporated into the acts of the synod of 419 in the second edition of his canonical collection as canons 34 to 133.

            In the Greek canonical collections, however, this identical body of acts with 133 canons is first found near the end of the sixth century in the Syntagma XIV titulorum. The Quinisext Council (692) confirmed these ‘canons of Carthage’ in its c. 2. The basis of the Greek translation, whose author and precise date are unknown, was probably the Dionysia secunda. This is vouched for particularly by the numeration, which is largely identical with Dionysius, as well as the ordering of the acts in the Greek tradition, and there is also a close literary dependency. It would be the sole example for the use of the Dionysian collections in the Greek East. It would be conceivable that there was an early translation by the imperial chancery for relations with the Latin Church in North Africa. Alongside that there appears to have been yet another translation, for the verbatim citation of c. 81 in the Epistula adversus Theodorum Mopsuestenum by the Emperor Justinian, about 550, offers a variant version.

The Synod of Constantinople (394)

Sources: Joannou, CSP 438-444; Beneševič, Syntagma 456-9; Pelagii diaconi ecclesiae Romanae, In defensione Trium Capitulorum, ed. R. Devreesse (Studi e Testi 57; Rome 1932) 9-11; Pitra, 2.162-5; Pedalion 461-2; Rhalles-Potles 3.625-8; ClavisG 8606.

Translations: English: Rudder 601ff.; NPNF 14.511-3; French: Joannou, CSP 438-44; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire (see below).

Literature: C. De Clercq, ‘Les conciles de Constantinople de 326 à 715’, Apollinaris 34 (1961) 345-368; L. Duchesne, ‘Le pape Sirice et le siège de Bostra’ , Annales de philosophie chrétienne 111 (1885) 280-4; Hefele-Leclercq 2.1 p.97-100; E. Honigmann, Trois mémoires posthumes d’ histoire et de géographie de l’ Orient Chrétien (Subsidia hagiographica 35; Brussels 1961) 3-48; BISA.

            It is only with the Syntagma XIV titulorum that Greek canonical collections transmit an excerpt of the proceedings from the acts of the Constantinople synod of 394. L. Duchesne (see above) discovered further fragments of these proceedings in a memorandum on the dispute over the Three Chapters by the later Pope Pelagius I (556-561) in the Cod. Aurelianensis 73 (70). Even when joined in proper sequence, the two parts appear only to constitute a fragment of a single session of the council.

            It is to be learned from the Greek excerpt of the proceedings that the synod had assembled in the baptistry of the ‘Church of Constantinople’ on 29 September 394 under the imperial colleagues Arkadios and Honorios, hence still under Theodosios I. Pelagius adds that this was done on the summons of the praefectus praetorio Rufinos on the occasion of the consecration of the Church of the Apostles which he had established. Hence this is a dedication synod similar to that of Antioch (341) and Tyre (335); in time it would be termed the ‘synod of Rufinos’ . Emperor Theodosios had placed Rufinos at the side of his son Arkadios as regent for the Eastern Empire.

            The proceedings cite 20 participants by name, in the first place Nektarios of Constantinople, Theophilos of Alexandria, and Flavian of Antioch, and among the others there are Gelasios of Kaisareia in Palestine, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochios of Ikonion and Theodore of Mopsuestia, all holders of metropolitan sees, as well as ‘various other bishops’ . Pelagius knows of 37 bishops in all. Since almost all oriental churches were represented, one might speak of a general council of the East. It had, however, not been called by the emperor.

            The occasion for the gathering was the schism arising before 381 in the Arabian ecclesiastical province. The former occupant of the metropolitan see of Bostra, Gabadius, disputed the legitimacy of the present metropolitan, Agapius. The minutes mention that Gabadius had been deposed by two bishops, since deceased, and that Agapius had been raised in his place. In Pelagius the names of Palladius and Cyril are found. Duchesne (see above) believes this latter name is Cyril of Jerusalem († 386).

            Pelagius goes on to report that both opponents appealed to Pope Siricius (384-99), who had referred them to Theophilos of Alexandria until the matter finally came before the synod of Constantinople. It is surprising that the case apparently was tried neither in Antioch nor in a synod of the diocese of Oriens. One can infer from that a greater independence, even insubordination, of the metropolitans there toward the see of Antioch. The long-enduring schism in Antioch in the fourth century makes this understandable. Duchesne has wanted to see in the appeal to Rome an application of the ‘appeal canons’ of Serdica (see above). Theophilos of Alexandria actually does play a leading role in the discussions.

            The entire proceeding documents ten votes by Nektarios, Arabianos of Ankyra, Theophilos, and Flavian. The result was that the synod, citing the council of Nicaea, forbids that a bishop be deposed or be consecrated by two bishops. This was only to be possible through the act of a larger provincial synod, ‘as the apostolic canons have ruled’ . Apparently this is a citation of c. App. 74. Nektarios passed the proposal of Theophilos in the form of a legal decision, to which the council gave its approval.

            The Greek manuscripts transmit their excerpt of the proceedings under the rubric of Κανών. Nikodemos Hagiorites (= Pedalion), who did not see this form of publication as proper for a ‘canon’ , took two substantive sentences beginning with ‘ὁρίζομεν’ and called them Κανών Α’ and Β’ (= the proposal of Nektarios).

The Synod of Constantinople, 692

(Quinisext Council)

Sources: Joannou, CCO 101-241 (Logos Prosphonetikos and canons); H. Ohme, ‘Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine Bischofsliste‘ (AKG 56), Berlin 1990 145-70 (subscription list); Kanonika 6, 41-186; Mansi 11.921-1006; Rhalles-Potles 2.295-554; Pitra 2.14-72; Lauchert 97-139; Pedalion 215-313; Alivisatos, κανόνες 69-117.

Translations: English: Kanonika 6, 41-186; NPNF 14.359-65; Rudder 283-413; French: Joannou, CCO 101-241.

Literature: G. Fritz, ‘Quinisexte (concile) ou in Trullo’ , DThC 13 (1937) 1581-97; Hefele-Leclercq Histoire 3.1 p.560-578; I.M. Konidaris, ‘Das Mönchtum im Spiegel der Penthekte’ , AHC 24 (1992) 273-85; P. Landau, ‘Überlieferung und Bedeutung der Kanones des Trullanischen Konzils im westlichen kanonischen Recht’, Kanonika 6, 215-227; V. Laurent, ‘L’œuvre canonique du Concile de Trullo (691-692). Source primaire du droit de l’église orientale’, REB 23 (1965) 7-41; G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone (ed.), ‘The Council in Trullo revisited ’, Kanonika 6 (1995); H. Ohme, ‚Das Quinisextum und seine Bischofsliste‘, (AKG 56), Berlin 1990; H. Ohme, ‘Das Quinisextum auf dem VII. ökumenischen Konzil’ , AHC 20 (1988) 326-44; H. Ohme, ‘Zum Konzilsbegriff des Concilium Quinisextum’ , AHC 24 (1992) 112-26; H. Ohme, ‘Das Concilium Quinisextum—Neue Einsichten zu einem umstrittenden Konzil’ , OCP 58 (1992) 367-400; J.-M. Sansterre, ‘Jean VII (705-707), idéologie pontificale et réalisme politique’ , Hommages à Ch. Delvoye, eds. L. Hadermann-Misquich and G. Raepsaet (Brussels 1982) 377-88; J.-M. Sansterre, ‘Le Pape Constantin I^er (708-715) et la politique religieuse des Empereurs Justinien II et Philippikos’, Archivum Hist. Pont. 22 (1984) 7-30; S.N. Troianos, ‘Die Wirkungsgeschichte des Trullanum (Quinisextum) in der byzantinischen Gesetzgebung’, AHC 24 (1992) 95-111; H.-J.Vogt, ‘Zur Ekklesiologie des Trullanums’, AHC 24 (1992) 127-144; BISA.

1. Emperor Justinian II (685-95, 705-11) called a synod in 691-692 which met in the domed hall (Trullos) of the imperial palace in Constantinople to fill the canonical gaps left by the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. Other than the Liber Pontificalis (see below), the sole source of information about this council consists of the conciliar acts. Other Greek and Latin sources for this period either do not waste a word on the council or mention it only in passing.

            Besides the canons and the episcopal subscription list, the acts include the address of the council fathers to the emperor, the so-called Logos Prosphonetikos. From this it can be learned that the emperor himself had taken the initiative for this synod; the bishops had gathered at his command, and the council had assembled as a ‘holy and ecumenical’ council. The motivation for bringing the council into being was also declared.

            The critical edition of the subscription list permits for the first time definitive statements on the number of participants. Out of 220 bishops, 183 came from the provinces of the patriarchate of Constantinople, 10 came from Illyricum orientale; the Alexandrian patriarch, 24 Antiochenes and 2 representatives of Jerusalem represented the three eastern patriachates. Six places were left open for later signatures. Beyond that the list reveals significant alterations in the hierarchical sequence of subscribers, and it provides an answer to the question of Roman participation. In addition there is the extremely unusual fact that the emperor signed in the first place, before the bishops. Here we appear to have an early attempt to promote at the level of a conciliar proceeding the incorporation of East Illyricum into the jurisdiction of Constantinople. The small ‘Western’ participation in the Trullan Council is not unique among councils, and the Quinisext is not the only one to be interpreted from this fact. The cause could only have been the generally altered circumstances in the Balkans which had arisen from the migrations in the course of the sixth and seventh centuries.

            The signature of the metropolitan of Crete, Basil of Gortyna, has been fondly seen in the Orthodox tradition since Balsamon as a sign of Roman participation at the Quinisext, even of its approval. But Basil was no Roman apocrisiarius; rather he had been co-opted into the Roman synodal delegation of 125 bishops in the course of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. He continued to use the style of signature he had developed there. He was also no papal legate and cannot have had a papal delegation of plenipotentiary powers. The Roman see was not represented at the Trullan Council through papal legates.

2. The 102 canons constitute the actual work of the council and in some ways the completion of the canon law of the early church. This was an attempt to reorder the spiritual and moral life of the church via ecclesiastical law, arising out of an emergency in which the Christian substance was being subjected to severe erosion. The disasters suffered by the Byzantine Empire in the course of the seventh century constitute the historical background.

      &#