Canonical Sources

THE ETHIOPIAN
ORTHODOX TEWAHIDO
CHURCH, HOLY
TRINITY THEOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
DISTANCE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION

MODULE ON

CANONICAL SOURCES

BY MEKONEN WORKINEH

Feruary, 2014/2022

Addis Ababa

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 1

 Canonical Sources

Chapter One

1.1. Definitions

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 2

 Canonical Sources

The Term Canon Law is used to designate the body of law constituted by
legitimate ecclesiastical authority for the proper organization and
government of the church as a visible society. In its essential notion ―law‖ is
common to all societies. The term Canon is used to designate the body of
law that is proper to the whole church. A single law of the church also is
popularly referred to as an ecclesiastical law, and the laws of the Code of
Canon Law are frequently referred to as the canons of the code.

The word ―Canon‖ is from the Greek kavov which meant a cane or reed.
(This is interestingly a Semitic word of similar sound and meaning from
which the Greek may drive.) In a culture where wood was scarce, a reed
would have been an excellent measuring stick. So in time the word kavov
came to designate more generally any straight rod or bar, especially a
straightedge or measure by which other lines might be tested. The word was
from classical time onward used in figurative sense to designate a norm and
rule. Rules of Grammar were called Canon.

1.2. The History and Development of Canon Law

Canon law has had a long history of development throughout the Christian
era. Not a static body of laws, it reflects social, political, economic, cultural
and ecclesiastical changes that have taken place in the past two millennia.
During the periods of social and cultural upheaval (disturbance) the church
has not remained unaffected by its environment. Thus, canon law may be
expected to be involved in the far reaching changes that have come to be
anticipated in the modern world.

Canon Law in the Christian Church has its basis in the Bible. While little of
this legislation is taken up in Christian institutions, its presence does
remind us that the people of God under the old covenant were an ordered
community ruled by law. God had revealed himself as holy and as having a
will for man. His people, by his call, were bound to that will. They were to be
holy. They were the people of the law. The New Testament in Acts 15
recounts the ―Jerusalem Council‖. Church leaders gathered to decide a
crucial issue involving theology, ethics, and discipline. The case was

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 3

 Canonical Sources

presented largely by citing what the Spirit had done in the church in
accepting Gentiles as fully the equal of those who had been Jews. The
decision was rendered in terms of combining audacity/boldness and
reticence/silence.

Canon law was born in communities that felt great ambivalence about the
relationship of law and faith. Custom governed early Christian communities,
not a body of written law. It was custom informed by oral traditions and
sacred scripture. Christians did not arrange their lives according to a
Christian law but according to the spiritual goals of the community and of
individual Christians. St Paul wrote to Roman Christians who knew and
lived under the law created by the Roman state and reminded them that
faith in Christ replaces secular law with a quest for salvation (Romans 7:1-
12 and 10:1-11). Law, he sharply reminded the Galatians, cannot make a
man worthy to God; only faith can bring life to the just man. The inherent
tension between the faith and conscience of the individual and the rigor of
law has never been and never will be completely resolved in religious law.
Christian communities lived without a comprehensive body of written law
for more than five centuries. Consequently, in the early Church, ―canon law‖
as a system of norms that governed the Church or even a large number of
Christian communities did not exist. This is not surprising. The Roman
state regulated religious practice and quite naturally legislated for the
Church after the Empire became Christian at the beginning of the fourth
century. The attitudes of the Christian emperors can be seen clearly in their
legislation. To take only the imperial statutes in Justinian’s Codex as a
guide, there are 41 imperial statutes dating between 313 and 399 that deal
with ecclesiastical discipline and practice.
The Roman emperors had exercised authority over Roma n religious
institutions, and it was only natural that Constantine would continue this
assertion of imperial authority. Gradually the Church in the West did begin
to conceive of itself as a corporate body that had the authority to produce
rules to govern itself and exercise a separate judicial role in society. That
"separation" of the church from the state would not begin in earnest until

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 4

 Canonical Sources

the second half of the eleventh century. Caesaropapism was the primary
norm followed by all early medieval Christian rulers. In the East the Roman
emperor who ruled over Greek Constantinople continued to legislate and
regulate ecclesiastical institutions until its collapse in 1453 A.D. Byzantine
canon law began to merge with civil law in the sixth century. The first legal
collections contained only ecclesiastical norms ((κανόνες; ―canons‖) or
secular norms (νόμοι; ―laws‖). In the late sixth and early seventh centuries
Byzantine canonists combined these two sources: these collections were
named ―nomokanons‖ (νομοκάνονες), although the name did not become
common until the eleventh century.
1.2.1. The Apostolic and Conciliar Age
In the first three centuries Christians drew their rules and norms from the
Gospels and sacred scripture. Some communities produced ―handbooks‖
that provided guidance for various aspects of Christian life. Only a few of
these have survived. One of the earliest was the Didaché that established
rules governing the liturgy, the sacraments, and lay practices like fasting.
The Didaché was probably written in Greek for a Syrian community. The
book purported to contain the teachings of the Twelve Apostles and dealt
with matters of liturgy and discipline. In the early third century (218 A.D.),
Hippolytus, is generally thought to have composed the Traditio apostolica,
another treatise in Greek that detailed the rites and practices of the Roman
Christian community. It contains instructions for the consecration of
bishops, priests, and deacons and for administering baptism. Slightly later
(ca. 230) an unknown author wrote Didascalia apostolorum for Christian
communities in Syria. It was written in Syriac and was incorporated into
later compilations, especially a work of the late fourth century, the Apostolic
Constitutions.
These very early Christian texts share several characteristics. Their
authority derived from their apostolic origins, not from ecclesiastical
institutions. They drew upon scripture and practice for their norms. Their
focus is Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine. They were intended to
serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy and, to some extent, for the
laity. These texts were not, however, a compilation of legal enactments.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 5

 Canonical Sources

Although Christians had the model and example of Roman law, early
Christian communities did not yet have institutional structures or a sense of
corporate identity that would have encouraged them to produced legal
norms governing themselves.
1.2.2. Canonical Norms in the New Testament
The most important window into the structures and customs of Christian
communities are the so-called Pastoral Epistles, 1Timothy and Titus. It is
most likely that the Apostle Paul did not write them. Their unknown author
used these letters as a vehicle to establish rules for early Christian
communities, and when he wrote he claimed Paul’s authority. At the
beginning of Titus (1:5) the author reminded Titus that he had left him
behind in Crete in order to correct those things that needed correcting. He
was to appoint elders (presbyteri) and bishops (episcopi) in each city to
govern the community. The elders should be married only once, their
children should be Christians, and they should not live in luxury or moral
turpitude. In Greek ―episkopos‖ was an overseer or steward. Greek authors
had used the word to describe males or females who functioned as
guardians and supervisors in the Greek household. There is no evidence
that women were ever "episkopoi" in the early Christian communities. The
English word ―steward‖ would probably best express its meaning. The
author of Titus listed the qualifications of an ―episkopos‖ as being humble,
kind, abstemious, peaceful, prudent, and hospitable (Titus 1:7-8). This list
of virtues was for the stewardship of small Christian communities that met
in households and that received missionaries from other communities from
time to time. The steward should also embrace and preach sound doctrine
(sana doctrina) (Titus 1:9).
1.3. The Sources of the Canons
1.3.1. Ecumenical and Local Councils
Canonical sources are synodic decisions by which the canons are
formulated. These are ecumenical and local councils.
a. Ecumenical Councils

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 6

 Canonical Sources

Ecumenical council is a council that is represented by churches across the

world. The numbers of ecumenical councils are different according to the
Christian sects as follows:
1. The Oriental Orthodox Churches to which the EOTC belongs=three
(The Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and Ephesus
(431)).
2. The Eastern Orthodox Churches that are known as Byzantine
Orthodox Churches=seven (The Councils of Nicaea (325),
Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Constantinople (553),
Constantinople (680-681) and Nicaea (787)).
3. The Roman catholic Church=twenty-one (The Councils of Nicaea
(325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Constantinople (553),
Constantinople (680-681) and Nicaea (787) and other fourteen
councils)
4. Old Roman Catholic Church=seven (The Councils of Nicaea (325),
Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Constantinople (553),
Constantinople (680-681) and Nicaea (787)).
5. Nestorian Church=two (The Councils of Nicaea (325) and
Constantinople (381).
b. Local Councils
Local council is a council that is conducted by the synod of the
autocephalous church. Almost all local councils are acceptable by all
ancient Christian denominations (Oriental, eastern and Roman Catholoc
churches). The numbers of local councils are recorded as follows:
a. The Synod of Ancra (314)-25 canons
b. The Synod of the Neo-Caesarea (314 upto 325)-15
c. The Synod of Gangra (340)-20 canons
d. The Synod of Antioch (341)-25 canons
e. The Synod of Laodocia (343-381)-70 canons
f. The Synod of Sardica (343)
g. The Synod of Constantinople (394)
h. The Synod of Cartagena that took place in different times (345-419)-
138 canons

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 7

 Canonical Sources

 Canons of the Council of Carthage to Investigate

Pelagianism (May 1, 418)-19 canons
i. The Synod of Hippo (393)

1.3.2. The Councils of the Holy Fathers

The councils of the Holy Fathers are formulated by the holy fathers. These
are the following:

a. Dionysius of Alexandria (247-265)-4 canons

b. Peter of Alexandria (300-311)-15 canons
c. Gregory of Neo-Caesarea (328-373)-11 canons
d. Basil the Great (370-378)-93 canons
e. Gregory of Nyssa (372-ca-395)-8 canon
f. Gregory the theologian (372-ca-390)-10 canon
g. Amphilochius of Iconium (374—400)-1canon
h. Timothy of Alexandria (381-385)-18 canons
i. Cyril of Alexandria (412-444)-5 canons
j. Theophilos of Alexandria (385-412)-11 canons
k. Gennadius of Constantinople (458-471)-1 canon
l. Cyprian of Carthage (248-258)-1 canon.

1.4. The 85 Apostolic Canons

1.4.1. Introduction

To affirm that the "Apostolic Canons" were a collection of canons made by

the Apostles would be about as sensible as to affirm that the "Psalterium
Davidicum" was a collection of his own psalms made by David, or that the
"Proverbs of Solomon" was a collection of proverbs made by Solomon.

Many of the Psalms had David for their composer; many of the Proverbs had
Solomon for their originator; but neither the book we call "The Psalter" nor
the book we call "The Proverbs" had David or Solomon for its compiler. the
matter contained in the one is largely, many think chiefly, of Davidic origin,
the matter contained in the oilier is no doubt Solomonic; and just so "The

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 8

 Canonical Sources

Apostolic Canons" may well be to a great extent of Apostolic origin,

committed to writing, some possibly by the Apostles themselves, others by
their immediate successors, who heard them at their mouth; and these at
so, he period not far removed from the date of the Nicene Council (A. D.
325), probably earlier than the Council of Antioch, were gathered together
into a code which has since then been somewhat enlarged and modified.
This is the view of the matter to which the general drift of the learned seems
to be moving, and it is substantially the view so ably defended by Bishop
Beveridge in his Synodicon, and in his remarkably learned and convincing
answer to his French opponent, entitled Codex Canonum Ecclesioe
Primitivoe vindicatus ac illustratus. (This last volume, together with the
"Preface to the Notes on the Apostolical Canons" has been reprinted in Vol.
XII. of Bishop Beveridge's Works in the "Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology."

In thus accepting in the main the old conclusions I am far from intending to
imply that more recent research has not shown some of the details of the
bishop's view to be erroneous. In brief, the proposition which seems to be
most tenable is that in the main the Apostolic Canons represent the very
early canon-law of the Church, that the canons which make up the
collection are of various dates, but that most of them are earlier than the
year 300, and that while it is not possible to say exactly when the collection,
as we now have it, was made, there is good reason for assigning it a date not
later than the middle of the fourth century. With regard to the name
"Apostolic Canons" there need be no more hesitation in applying it to these
canons than in calling Ignatius an "Apostolic Father," the adjective
necessarily meaning nothing more than that the canons set forth the
disciplinary principles which were given to the early Church by the Apostles,
just as we speak of the "Apostles' Creed."

While this is true there can be no question that in the East the Apostolic
Canons were very generally looked upon as a genuine work prepared by the
Holy Apostles. I proceed now to quote Bishop Hefele, but I have already (Cf.
Council in Trullo) expressed my own opinion that there is not contained in

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 9

 Canonical Sources

the Quinisext decree any absolute definition of what is technically known as

the "authenticity" of the Canons of the Apostles.

The Synod in Trullo being, as is well known, regarded as ecumenical by the

Greek Church, the authenticity of the eighty-five canons was decided in the
East for all future time. It was otherwise in the West. At the same period
that Dionysius Exiguus translated the collection question for Bishop
Stephen, Pope Gelasius promulgated his celebrated decree de libris non
recipiendis. Drey mentions it, but in a way which requires correction.
Following in this the usual opinion, he says that the Synod at Rome in
which Gelasius published this decree was held in 494; but we shall see
hereafter that this synod was held in 496. Also Drey considers himself
obliged to adopt another erroneous opinion, according to which Gelasius
declared in the same decree the Apostolic Canons to be apocryphal. This
opinion is to be maintained only so long as the usual text of this decree is
consulted, since the original text as it is given in the ancient manuscripts
does not contain the passage which mentions the Apostolic Canons. This
passage was certainly added subsequently, with many others, probably by
Pope Hormisdas (511-543) when he made a new edition of the decree of
Gelasius. As Dionysius Exiguus published his collection in all probability
subsequently to the publication of the decree of Gelasius, properly so called,
in 496, we can understand why this decree did not mention the Apostolical
Canons. Dionysius did not go to Rome while Gelasius was living, and did not
know him personally, as he himself says plainly in the Proefatio of his
collection of the papal decrees. It is hence also plain how it was that in
another collection of canons subsequently made by Dionysius, of which the
preface still remains to us, he does not insert the Apostolic Canons, but has
simply this remark: Quos non admisit uniniversalitas, ego quoque in hoc
opere proetermisi. Dionysius Exiguus in fact compiled this new collection at
a time when Pope Hormisdas had already explicitly declared the Apostolic
Canons to be apocryphal.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 10

 Canonical Sources

1.4.2. The Canons

1. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.

2. Let a presbyter, deacon, and the rest of the clergy, be oraldined by one
bishop.

3. (3. and 4.) If any bishop or presbyter offer any other things at the altar,
besides that which the Lord ordained for the sacrifice, as honey, or milk, or
strong-made drink instead of wine,[3] or birds, or any living things, or
vegetables, besides that which is ordained, let him be deposed. Excepting
only new ears of corn, and grapes at the suitable season. Neither is it
allowed to bring anything else to the altar at the time of the holy oblation,
excepting oil for the lamps, and incense.

4. (5) Let all other fruits be sent home as first-fruits for the bishops and
presbyters, but not offered at the altar. But the bishops and presbyters
should of course give a share of these things to the deacons, and the rest of
the clergy.

5. (6) Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under
pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and
if he persists, let him be deposed.

6. (7) Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, undertake worldly business;

otherwise let him be deposed.

7. (8) If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of
Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.

8 (9) If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one on the sacerdotal list,
when the offering is made, does not partake of it, let him declare the cause;
and if it be a reasonable one, let him be excused; but if he does not declare
it, let him be excommunicated, as being a cause of offence to the people, and
occasioning a suspicion against the offerer, as if he had not made the
offering properly.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 11

 Canonical Sources

9. (10) All the faithful who come in and hear the Scriptures, but do not stay
for the prayers and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated, as
causing disorder in the Church.

10. (11) If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an
excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.

11. (12) If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as if
he were a clergyman,[4] let him also be deposed.

12. and 13 (13) If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or
not to be received, shall go away, and be received in another city without
commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be
excommunicated. But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his
excommunication be lengthened.

14. A bishop is not to be allowed to leave his own parish, and pass over into
another, although he may be pressed by many to do so, unless there be
some proper cause constraining him. as if he can confer some greater
benefit upon the persons of that place in the word of godliness. And this
must be done not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many bishops,
and at their earnest exhortation

15. If any presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the list of the clergy, shall
leave his own parish, and go into another, and having entirely forsaken his
own, shall make his abode in the other parish without the permission of his
own bishop, we ordain that he shall no longer perform divine service; more
especially if his own bishop having exhorted him to return he has refused to
do so, and persists in his disorderly conduct. But let him communicate
there as a layman.

16. If, however, the bishop, with whom any such persons are staying, shall
disregard the command that they are to cease from performing divine
offices, and shall receive them as clergymen, let him be excommunicated, as
a teacher of disorder.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 12

 Canonical Sources

17. He who has been twice married after baptism, or who has had a
concubine, cannot become a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of
the sacerdotal list.

18. He who married a widow, or a divorced woman, or an harlot, or a

servant-maid, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or
any other of the sacerdotal list.

19. He who has married two sisters, or a niece, cannot become a clergyman.

20. If a clergyman becomes surety for any one, let him be deposed.

21. An eunuch, if he has been made so by the violence of men or [if his
virilia have been amputated in times of persecution, or if he has been born
so, if in other respects he is worthy, may be made a bishop.

22. He who has mutilated himself, cannot become a clergyman, for he is a

self-murderer, and an enemy to the workmanship of God.

23. If any man being a clergyman shall mutilate himself, let him be
deposed, for he is a self-murderer.

24. If a layman mutilate himself, let him be excommunicated for three years,
as practising against his own life.

25. (25 and 26) If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of

fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed, but let him not be
excommunicated; for the Scripture says, "thou shall not punish a man twice
for the same offence." In like manner the other clergy shall be subject to the
same proceeding.

26. (27) Of those who have been admitted to the clergy unmarried, we
ordain, that the readers and singers only may, if they will, marry.

27. (28) If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall strike any of the faithful who
have sinned, or of the unbelievers who have done wrong, with the intention
of frightening them, we command that he be deposed. For our Lord has by
no means taught us to do so, but, on the contrary, when he was smitten he

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 13

 Canonical Sources

smote not again, when he was reviled he reviled not again, when he suffered
he threatened not.

28. (29) If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, having been justly deposed
upon open accusations, shall dare to meddle with any of the divine offices
which had been intrusted to him, let him be altogether cut off from the
Church.

29. (30) If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall obtain possession of that
dignity by money, let both him and the person who ordained him be
deposed, and also altogether cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus
was by me Peter.

CANON 30. (31) If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of
the temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who
communicate with him.

31. (32) If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, shall collect a separate
congregation, and erect another altar, not having any grounds for
condemning the bishop with regard to religion or justice, let him be deposed
for his ambition; for he is a tyrant; in like manner also the rest of the clergy,
and as many as join him; and let laymen be excommunicated. Let this,
however, be done after a first, second, and third admonition from the
bishop.

32. (33) If any presbyter or deacon has been excommunicated by a bishop,

he may not be received into communion again by any other than by him
who excommunicated him, unless it happen that the bishop who
excommunicated him be dead.

33. (34) No foreign bishop, presbyter, or deacon, may be received without

commendatory letters; and when they are produced let the persons be
examined; and if they be preachers of godliness, let them be received.
Otherwise, although you supply them with what they need, you must not
receive them into communion, for many things are done surreptitiously.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 14

 Canonical Sources

34. (35) The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first
among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence
without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his
own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him
(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be
unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.[1]

35. (36) Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and
places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the
consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let
him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.

36. (37) If any person, having been ordained bishop, does not undertake the
ministry, and the care of the people committed to him, let him be
excommunicated until he does undertake it. In like manner a presbyter or
deacon· But if he has gone and has not been received, not of his own will
but from the perverseness of the people, let him continue bishop; and let the
clergy of the city be excommunicated, because they have not corrected the
disobedient people.

37. (38) Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year, and let them
examine amongst themselves the decrees concerning religion and settle the
ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred. One meeting to be
held in the fourth week of Pentecost [i.e., the fourth week after Easter], and
the other on the 12th day of the month Hyperberetaeus [i.e., October].

38. (39) Let the bishop have the care of all the goods of the Church, and let
him administer them as under the inspection of God. But he must not
alienate any of them or give the things which belong to God to his own
relations. If they be poor let him relieve them as poor; but let him not, under
that pretence, sell the goods of the Church.

39. (40) Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction
of the bishop; for he it is who is intrusted with the people of the Lord, and of
whom will be required the account of their souls.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 15

 Canonical Sources

40. (40. continued.) Let the private goods of the bishop, if he have any such,
and those of the Lord, be clearly distinguished, that the bishop may have
the power of leaving his own goods, when he dies, to whom he will, and how
he will, and that the bishop's own property may not be lost under pretence
of its being the property of the Church: for it may be that he has a wife, or
children, or relations, or servants; and it is just before God and man, that
neither should the Church suffer any loss through ignorance of the bishop's
own property, nor the bishop or his relations be injured under pretext of the
Church: nor that those who belong to him should be involved in contests,
and cast reproaches upon his death.

41. We ordain that the bishop have authority over the goods of the Church:
for if he is to be intrusted with the precious souls of men, much more are
temporal possessions to be intrusted to him. He is therefore to administer
them all of his own authority, and sup ply those who need, through the
presbyters and deacons, in the fear of God, and with all reverence. He may
also, if need be, take what is required for his own necessary wants, and for
the brethren to whom he has to show hospitality, so that he may not be in
any want. For the law of God has ordained, that they who wait at the altar
should be hourished of the altar. Neither does any soldier bear arms against
an enemy at his own cost.

42. If a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, is addicted to dice or drinking, let

him either give it over, or be deposed.

43. If a subdeacon, reader, or singer, commits the same things, let him
either give over, or be excommunicated. So also laymen.

44. Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who takes usury from those who
borrow of him, give up doing so, or be deposed.

45. Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics,
be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical
office, let him be deposed.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 16

 Canonical Sources

46. We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or
sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial,
or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

47. Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly
received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the
ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not
making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

49. If any layman put away his wife and marry another, or one who has
been divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated.

49. If any bishop or presbyter, contrary to the ordinance of the Lord, does
not baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three
Unoriginated Beings, or three Sons, or three Comforters, let him be deposed.

50. If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three
immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord,
let him be deposed. For the Lord said not, Baptize into my death, but, "Go,
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

51. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list,
abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint,
but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and
that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation,
let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like
manner a layman.

52. If any bishop or presbyter,[1] does not receive him who turns away from
his sin, but rejects him, let him be deposed; for he grieveth Christ who said,
"There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth."

53. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, does not on festival days partake of
flesh and wine, from an abhorrence of them, and not out of religious

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 17

 Canonical Sources

restraint, let him be deposed, as being seared in his own conscience, and
being the cause of offence to many.

54. If any of the clergy be found eating in a tavern, let him be

excommunicated, unless he has been constrained by necessity, on a
journey, to lodge in an inn.

55. If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed: for "thou shalt
not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

56. If any of the clergy insult a presbyter, or deacon, let him be

excommunicated.

57. If any of the clergy mock the lame, or the deaf, or the blind, or him who
is infirm in his legs, let him be [Link] like manner any of the
laity.

58. If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the people, and does not
instruct them in the way of godliness, let him be excommunicated, and if he
persists in his negligence and idleness, let him be deposed.

59. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when any of the clergy is in want,
does not supply him with what he needs, let him be excommunicated; but if
he persists, let him be deposed, as one who has killed his brother.

60. If any one reads publicly in the church the falsely inscribed[1] books of
impious men, as if they were holy Scripture, to the destruction of the people
and clergy, let him be deposed.

61. If any accusation be brought against a believer of fornication or

adultery, or any forbidden action, and he be convicted, let him not be
promoted to the clergy.

62. If any of the clergy, through fear of men, whether Jew, heathen, or
heretic, shall deny the name of Christ, let him be cast out. If he deny the
name of a clergyman, let him be deposed. If he repent, let him be received as
a layman.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 18

 Canonical Sources

63. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal order,
shall eat flesh, with the blood of the life thereof, or anything killed by beasts,
or that dies of itself, let him be deposed. For the law has forbidden this. If he
be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

64. If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or

heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be
excommunicated.[2]

65. If any clergyman shall strike anyone in a contest, and kill him with one
blow, let him be deposed for his violence. If a layman do so, let him be
excommunicated.

66. If any of the clergy be found fasting on the Lord's day, or on the
Sabbath,[3] excepting the one only, let him be [Link] a layman, let him
be excommunicated.

67. If anyone shall force and keep a virgin not espoused, let him be
excommunicated. And he may not take any other, but must retain her
whom he has chosen, though she be a poor person.

68. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall receive from anyone a second
ordination, let both the ordained and the ordainer be deposed; unless indeed
it be proved that he had his ordination from heretics; for those who have
been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot be either of the faithful or
of the clergy.

69. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast
the holy Quadragesimal fast of Easter, or the fourth day, or the day of
Preparation, let him be deposed, unless he be hindered by some bodily
infirmity. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

70. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps
fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of their
feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he be a
layman, let him be excommunicated.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 19

 Canonical Sources

71. If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a
synagogue of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be
excommunicated.

72. If any clergyman or layman takes away wax or oil from the holy Church,
let him be excommunicated, [and let him restore a fifth part more than he
took.][4]

73. Let no one convert to his own use any vessel of gold or silver, or any veil
which has been sanctified, for it is contrary to law; and if anyone be detected
doing so, let him be excommunicated.

74. If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he
must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is
convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when
he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time,
two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not
attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to
him.[1]] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let
the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he
may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.

75. An heretic is not to be received as witness against a bishop, neither only

one believer; for "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be
established."

76. A bishop must not out of favour to a brother or a son, or any other
relation, ordain whom he will to the episcopal dignity; for it is not right to
make heirs of the bishopric, giving the things of God to human affections.
Neither is it fitting to subject the Church of God to heirs. But if anyone shall
do so let the ordination be void, and the oradainer himself be punished with
excommunication.

77. If anyone be deprived of an eye, or lame of a leg, but in other respects be

worthy of a bishopric, he may be ordained, for the defect of the body does
not defile a man, but the pollution of the soul.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 20

 Canonical Sources

78. But if a man be deaf or blind, he may not be made a bishop, not indeed
as if he were thus defiled, but that the affairs of the Church may not be
hindered.

79. If anyone has a devil, let him not be made a clergyman, neither let him
pray with the faithful; but if he be freed, let him be received into
communion, and if he is worthy he may be ordained.

80. It is not allowed that a man who has come over from an heathen life,
and been baptized or who has been converted from an evil course of living,
should be immediately made a bishop, for it is not right that he who has not
been tried himself should be a teacher of others. Unless indeed this be done
upon a special manifestation of Divine grace in his favour.

81. We have said that a bishop or presbyter must not give himself to the
management of public affairs, but devote himself to ecclesiastical business.
Let him then be persuaded to do so, or let him be deposed, for no man can
serve two masters, according to the Lord's declaration.

82. We do not allow any servants to be promoted to the clergy without the
consent of their masters, [to the troubling of their houses.[2]] But if any
servant should appear worthy of receiving an order,[3] as our Onesimus
appeared, and his masters agree and liberate him, and send him out of their
house, he may be ordained.

83. If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall serve in the army, and wish to
retain both the Roman magistracy and the priestly office, let him be
deposed; for the things of Caesar belong to Caesar, and those of God to God.

84. Whosoever shall insult the King, or a ruler, contrary to what is right, let
him suffer punishment. If he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a
layman, excommunicated.

85. Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you,
both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one;

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 21

 Canonical Sources

of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the
book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read "of
Judith, one" ;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of
Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the
Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel,
one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons
the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the
New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John;
fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James,
and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me
Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be
published to all on account of the mystical things in them.

Chapter Two

The Ecumenical Councils

2.1. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea

2.1. 1. Introduction

This council opened on 19 June in the presence of the emperor, but it is

uncertain who presided over the sessions. In the extant lists of bishops
present, Ossius of Cordova, and the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius are
listed before the other names, but it is more likely that Eustathius of
Antioch or Alexander of Alexandria presided. (see Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J.)

The bold text in the profession of faith of the 318 fathers constitutes,
according to Tanner "The additions made by the council to an underlying
form of the creed", and that the underlying creed was most likely "derived
from the baptismal formula of Caesarea put forward by the bishop of that
city Eusebius" or that it "developed from an original form which existed in
Jerusalem or at any rate Palestine". "A direct descent from the creed of
Eusebius of Caesarea is manifestly out of the question."

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 22

 Canonical Sources

The figure of 318 given in the heading below is from Hilary of Poitier and is
the traditional one. Other numbers are Eusebius 250, Eustathius of Antioch
270., Athanasius about 300, Gelasius of Cyzicus at more than 300.

2.1. [Link] CANONS

1. If anyone in sickness has undergone surgery at the hands of physicians

or has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy. But if
anyone in good health has castrated himself, if he is enrolled among the
clergy he should be suspended, and in future no such man should be
promoted. But, as it is evident that this refers to those who are responsible
for the condition and presume to castrate themselves, so too if any have
been made eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters, but have been found
worthy, the canon admits such men to the clergy.

2. Since, either through necessity or through the importunate demands of

certain individuals, there have been many breaches of the church's canon,
with the result that men who have recently come from a pagan life to the
faith after a short catechumenate have been admitted at once to the
spiritual washing, and at the same time as their baptism have been
promoted to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it is agreed that it would be
well for nothing of the kind to occur in the future. For a catechumen needs
time and further probation after baptism, for the apostle's words are clear:
"Not a recent convert, or he may be puffed up and fall into the
condemnation and the snare of the devil". But if with the passage of time
some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is
convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the
clergy. If anyone contravenes these regulations, he will be liable to forfeit his
clerical status for acting in defiance of this great synod.

3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of

the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with
the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who
is above suspicion.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 23

 Canonical Sources

4. It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the

bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing
necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come
together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have
taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province
the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.

5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or the laity, who have been
excommunicated, the sentence is to be respected by the bishops of each
province according to the canon which forbids those expelled by some to be
admitted by others. But let an inquiry be held to ascertain whether anyone
has been expelled from the community because of pettiness or
quarrelsomeness or any such ill nature on the part of the bishop.
Accordingly, in order that there may be proper opportunity for inquiry into
the matter, it is agreed that it would be well for synods to be held each year
in each province twice a year, so that these inquiries may be conducted by
all the bishops of the province assembled together, and in this way by
general consent those who have offended against their own bishop may be
recognised by all to be reasonably excommunicated, until all the bishops in
common may decide to pronounce a more lenient sentence on these
persons. The synods shall be held at the following times: one before Lent, so
that, all pettiness being set aside, the gift offered to God may be
unblemished; the second after the season of autumn.

6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained,

according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these
places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.
Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the
churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if
anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great
synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or
three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all,
provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the
vote of the majority shall prevail.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 24

 Canonical Sources

7. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the
bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent
upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan.

8. Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars, and
who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic
church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the
clergy after receiving an imposition of hands. But before all this it is fitting
that they give a written undertaking that they will accept and follow the
decrees of the catholic church, namely that they will be in communion with
those who have entered into a second marriage and with those who have
lapsed in time of persecution and for whom a period [of penance] has been
fixed and an occasion [for reconciliation] allotted, so as in all things to follow
the decrees of the catholic and apostolic church. Accordingly, where all the
ordained in villages or cities have been found to be men of this kind alone,
those who are so found will remain in the clergy in the same rank; but when
some come over in places where there is a bishop or presbyter belonging to
the catholic church, it is evident that the bishop of the church will hold the
bishop's dignity, and that the one given the title and name of bishop among
the socalled Cathars will have the rank of presbyter, unless the bishop
thinks fit to let him share in the honour of the title. But if this does not meet
with his approval, the bishop will provide for him a place as chorepiscopus
or presbyter, so as to make his ordinary clerical status evident and so
prevent there being two bishops in the city.

9. If any have been promoted presbyters without examination, and then

upon investigation have confessed their sins, and if after their confession
men have imposed hands upon such people, being moved to act against the
canon, the canon does not admit these people, for the catholic church
vindicates only what is above reproach.

10. If any have been promoted to ordination through the ignorance of their
promoters or even with their connivance, this fact does not prejudice the
church's canon; for once discovered they are to be deposed.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 25

 Canonical Sources

11. Concerning those who have transgressed without necessity or the

confiscation of their property or without danger or anything of this nature,
as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees that,
though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they should be treated
mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful who genuinely repent shall
spend three years among the hearers, for seven years they shall be
prostrators, and for two years they shall take part with the people in the
prayers, though not in the offering.

12. Those who have been called by grace, have given evidence of first fervour
and have cast off their [military] belts, and afterwards have run back like
dogs to their own vomit, so that some have even paid money and recovered
their military status by bribes -- such persons shall spend ten years as
prostrators after a period of three years as hearers. In every case, however,
their disposition and the nature of their penitence should be examined. For
those who through their fear and tears and perseverance and good works
give evidence of their conversion by deeds and not by outward show, when
they have completed their appointed term as hearers, may properly take
part in the prayers, and the bishop is competent to decide even more
favourably in their regard. But those who have taken the matter lightly, and
have thought that the outward form of entering the church is all that is
required for their conversion, must complete their term to the full.

13. Concerning the departing, the ancient canon law is still to be maintained
namely that those who are departing are not to be deprived of their last,
most necessary viaticum. But if one whose life has been despaired of has
been admitted to communion and has shared in the offering and is found to
be numbered again among the living, he shall be among those who take part
in prayer only [here a variant reading in Les canons des conciles
oecumeniques adds "until the term fixed by this great ecumenical synod has
been completed"]. But as a general rule, in the case of anyone whatsoever
who is departing and seeks to share in the eucharist, the bishop upon
examining the matter shall give him a share in the offering.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 26

 Canonical Sources

14. Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, this holy and great synod
decrees that, after they have spent three years as hearers only, they shall
then be allowed to pray with the catechumens.

15. On account of the great disturbance and the factions which are caused,
it is decreed that the custom, if it is found to exist in some parts contrary to
the canon, shall be totally suppressed, so that neither bishops nor
presbyters nor deacons shall transfer from city to city. If after this decision
of this holy and great synod anyone shall attempt such a thing, or shall lend
himself to such a proceeding, the arrangement shall be totally annulled, and
he shall be restored to the church of which he was ordained bishop or
presbyter or deacon.

16. Any presbyters or deacons or in general anyone enrolled in any rank of

the clergy who depart from their church recklessly and without the fear of
God before their eyes or in ignorance of the church's canon, ought not by
any means to be received in another church, but all pressure must be
applied to them to induce them to return to their own dioceses, or if they
remain it is right that they should be excommunicated. But if anyone dares
to steal away one who belongs to another and to ordain him in his church
without the consent of the other's own bishop among whose clergy he was
enrolled before he departed, the ordination is to be null.

17. Since many enrolled [among the clergy] have been induced by greed and
avarice to forget the sacred text, "who does not put out his money at
interest", and to charge one per cent [a month] on loans, this holy and great
synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by
contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge [a flat rate
of] fifty per cent or in general to devise any other contrivance for the sake of
dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names
struck from the roll.

18. It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some
places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither
canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 27

 Canonical Sources

offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has
become known that some of the deacons now receive the Eucharist even
before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must
remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the
bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist
according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or
the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among
the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to
rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be
suspended from the diaconate.

19. Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic
church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally.
Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to
be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the
bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be
unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to
deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll,
the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been
granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that
they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity.

20. Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of
Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may
be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord
standing.

2.2. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople (381)

2.2.1. Introduction

In the year 380 the emperors Gratian and Theodosius I decided to convoke
this council to counter the Arians, and also to judge the case of Maximus
the Cynic, bishop of Constantinople. The council met in May of the following

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 28

 Canonical Sources

year. One hundred and fifty bishops took part, all of them eastern Orthodox,
since the Pneumatomachi party had left at the start.

After Maximus had been condemned, Meletius, bishop of Antioch, appointed

Gregory of Nazianzus as the lawful bishop of Constantinople and at first
presided over the council. Then on Meletius's sudden death, Gregory took
charge of the council up to the arrival of Acholius, who was to table Pope
Damasus's demands: namely, that Maximus should be expelled as an
interloper, and that the translation of bishops should be avoided. But when
Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, arrived he declared Gregory's appointment
invalid. Gregory resigned the episcopacy and Nectarius, after baptism and
consecration, was installed as bishop and presided over the council until its
closure.

No copy of the council's doctrinal decisions, entitled tomos kai

anathematismos engraphos (record of the tome and anathemas), has
survived. So what is presented here is the synodical letter of the synod of
Constantinople held in 382, which expounded these doctrinal decisions, as
the fathers witness, in summary form: namely, along the lines defined by
the council of Nicaea, the consubstantiality and coeternity of the three
divine persons against the Sabellians, Anomoeans, Arians and
Pneumatomachi, who thought that the divinity was divided into several
natures; and the enanthropesis (taking of humanity) of the Word, against
those who supposed that the Word had in no way taken a human soul. All
these matters were in close agreement with the tome that Pope Damasus
and a Roman council, held probably in 378, had sent to the East.

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of

Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no
mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of
Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have
endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute
the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted,

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 29

 Canonical Sources

an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called
Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene Creed.

All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common
title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the
council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it
out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time
onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original
simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan
creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of
Chalcedon.

The council of Constantinople enacted four disciplinary canons: against the

Arian heresy and its sects (can. 1), on limiting the power of bishops within
fixed boundaries (can. 2), on ranking the see of Constantinople second to
Rome in honour and dignity (can. 3), on the condemnation of Maximus and
his followers (can. 4). Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to
aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria. The two following
canons, 5 and 6, were framed at the synod which met in Constantinople in
382. The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of
Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch.

The council ended on 9 July 381, and on 30 July of the same year, at the
request of the council fathers, the emperor Theodosius ratified its decrees by
edict.

Already from 382 onwards, in the synodical letter of the synod which met at
Constantinople, the council of Constantinople was given the title of
"ecumenical". The word denotes a general and plenary council. But the
council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of
Nazianzus. In subsequent years it was hardly ever mentioned. In the end it
achieved its special status when the council of Chalcedon, at its second
session and in its definition of the faith, linked the form of the creed read
out at Constantinople with the Nicene form, as being a completely reliable
witness of the authentic faith. The fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 30

 Canonical Sources

authority of the canons -- at least as far as the eastern church was

concerned -- at their sixteenth session. The council's dogmatic authority in
the western church was made clear by words of Pope Gregory I: "I confess
that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople,
Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy
Gospel.

2.2.2. Perspective on the Number of the Canons

The number of canons drawn up by this synod is doubtful. The old Greek
codices and the Greek commentators of the Middle Ages, Zonaras and
Balsamon, enumerate seven; the old Latin translations--viz. the Prisca,
those by Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, as well as the Codex of Luna--only
recognize the first four canons of the Greek text, and the fact that they agree
in this point is the more important as they are wholly independent of each
other, and divide and arrange those canons of Constantinople which they do
acknowledge quite differently.

Because, however, in the Prisca the canons of Constantinople are only

placed after those of the fourth General Council, the Ballerini brothers
conclude that they were not contained at all in the oldest Greek collections
of canons, and were inserted after the Council of Chalcedon. But it was at
this very Council of Chalcedon that the first three canons of Constantinople
were read out word for word. As however, they were not separately
numbered, but were there read under the general title of Synodicon Synodi
Secundae, Fuchs concluded they were not originally in the form in which we
now possess them, but, without being divided into numbers, formed a larger
and unbroken decree, the contents of which were divided by later copyists
and translators into several different canons. And hence the very different
divisions of these canons in the Prisca, Dionysius, and Isidore may be
explained. The fact, however, that the old Latin translations all agree in only
giving the first four canons of the Greek text, seems to show that the oldest
Greek manuscripts, from which those translations were made, did not
contain the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and that these last did not properly

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 31

 Canonical Sources

belong to this Synod, but were later additions. To this must be added that
the old Greek Church-historians, in speaking of the affairs of the second
General Council, only mention those points which are contained in the first
four canons, and say nothing of what, according to the fifth, sixth, and
seventh canons, had also been decided at Constantinople. At the very least,
the seventh canon cannot have emanated from this Council, since in the
sixth century John Scholasticus did not receive it into his collection,
although he adopted the fifth and sixth. It is also missing in many other
collections; and in treating specially of this canon further on, we shall
endeavour to show the time and manner of its origin. But the fifth and sixth
canons probably belong to the Synod of Constantinople of the following year,
as Beveridge, the Ballerini, and others conjectured. The Greek scholiasts,
Zonaras and Balsamon, and later on Tillemont, Beveridge, Van Espen and
Herbst, have given more or less detailed commentaries on all these canons.

2.2.3. The Canons

1. THE Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice
in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy
shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomoeans,
the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi,
and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the
Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

2. THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside
of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of
Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt;
and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the
Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being
preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian
affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian
bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses
for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be
invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 32

 Canonical Sources

evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that
particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in
heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has
prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

3. THE Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of

honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

4. Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in

Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is
not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order
whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by
him, is declared to be invalid.

5. Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 382.

Vide. Introduction on the number of the Canons.)

In regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in Antioch

also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.

6. (Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 382.

Vide Introduction on the number of Canons.)

FORASMUCH as many wishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order,

do contentiously and slanderously fabricate charges against the orthodox
bishops who have the administration of the Churches, intending nothing
else than to stain the reputation of the priests and raise up disturbances
amongst the peaceful laity; therefore it seemed right to the Holy Synod of
Bishops assembled together in Constantinople, not to admit accusers
without examination; and neither to allow all persons whatsoever to bring
accusations against the rulers of the Church, nor, on the other hand, to
exclude all. If then, any one shall bring a private complaint against the
Bishop, that is, one relating to his own affairs, as, for example, that he has
been defrauded, or otherwise unjustly treated by him, in such accusations
no examination shall be made, either of the person or of the religion of the

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 33

 Canonical Sources

accuser; for it is by all means necessary that the conscience of the Bishop
should be free, and that he who says he has been wronged should meet with
righteous judgment, of whatever religion he may be. But if the charge
alleged against the Bishop be that of some ecclesiastical offence, then it is
necessary to examine carefully the persons of the accusers, so that, in the
first place, heretics may not be suffered to bring accusations touching
ecclesiastical matters against orthodox bishops. And by heretics we mean
both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom we ourselves have
since anathematized, and also those professing to hold the true faith who
have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles in
opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any who have been condemned
for faults and cast out of the Church, or excommunicated, whether of the
clergy or the laity, neither shall it be lawful for these to bring an accusation
against the bishop, until they have cleared away the charge against
themselves. In like manner, persons who are under previous accusations are
not to be permitted to bring charges against a bishop or any other
clergyman, until they shall have proved their own innocence of the
accusation brought against them. But if any, being neither heretics, nor
excommunicate, nor condemned, nor under previous accusation for alleged
faults, should declare that they have any ecclesiastical charge against the
bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first lay their charges before all the
Bishops of the Province, and before them prove the accusations, whatsoever
they may be, which they have brought against the bishop. And if the
comprovincials should be unable rightly to settle the charges brought
against the bishop, then the parties must betake themselves to a greater
synod of the bishops of that diocese called together for this purpose; and
they shall not produce their allegations before they have promised in writing
to undergo an equal penalty to be exacted from themselves, if, in the course
of the examination, they shall be proved to have slandered the accused
bishop. And if anyone, despising what has been decreed concerning these
things, shall presume to annoy the ears of the Emperor, or the courts of
temporal judges, or, to the dishonour of all the Bishops of his Province, shall
trouble an Ecumenical Synod, such an one shall by no means be admitted

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 34

 Canonical Sources

as an accuser; forasmuch as he has east contempt upon the Canons, and

brought reproach upon the order of the Church.

7. Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who
are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom:
Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call
themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and
Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their
errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first
sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils,
mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the
Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion,
and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach
the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and
[the partisans of] all other heresies--for there are many such here,
particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:--all
these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the
first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the
third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus
we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to
hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

2.3. The Canons of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431)

2.3.1. Introduction

The innovation of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, is known; how he

divided into two the person of Christ. Pope St. Celestine, watchful, according
to his office, over the affairs of the Church, had charged the blessed Cyril,
Bishop of Alexandria, to send him a certain report of the doctrine of
Nestorius, already in bad repute. Cyril declares this in his letter to
Nestorius; and so he writes to Celestine a complete account, and sets forth
the doctrines of Nestorius and his own; he sends him two letters from him
self to Nestorius, who likewise, by his own letters and explanations,

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 35

 Canonical Sources

endeavoured to draw Celestine to his side. Thus the holy Pontiff, having
been most fully informed by letters from both sides, is thus inquired of by
Cyril. "We have not confidently abstained from Communion with him
(Nestorius) before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold
your judgment that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate
with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine." And he adds, that his
judgment should be written to the other Bishops also, "that all with one
mind may hold firm in one sentence." Here is the Apostolic See manifestly
consulted by so great a man, presiding over the second, or at least the third,
Patriarchal See, and its judgment awaited; and nothing remained but that
Celestine, being duly consulted, should perform his Apostolic office. But how
he did this, the Acts have shewn. In those Acts he not only approves the
letters and doctrine of Cyril, but disapproves, too, the perverse dogma of
Nestorius, and that distinctly, because he was unwilling to call the blessed
Virgin Mother of God: and he decrees that he should be deprived of the
Episcopate and Communion unless, within ten days from the date of the
announcing of the sentence, he openly rejects this faithless innovation,
which endeavours to separate what Scripture joineth together--that is, the
Person of Christ. Here is the doctrine of Nestorius expressly disapproved,
and a sentence of the Roman Pontiff on a matter of Faith most clearly
pronounced under threat of deposition and excommunication: then, that
nothing be wanting, the holy Pope commits his authority to Cyril to carry
into execution that sentence "associating," he saith to Cyril, "the authority of
our See, and using our person, and place, with power." So to Cyril; so to
Nestorius himself; so to the clergy of Constantinople; so to John of Antioch,
then the Bishop of the third or fourth Patriarchal See; so to Juvenal, Bishop
of the Holy City, whom the Council of Nice had ordered to be especially
honoured: so he writes to the other Bishops also, that the sentence given
may be duly and in order made known to all. Cyril proceeds to execute his
office, and performs all that he had been commanded. He promulgates and
executes the decrees of Celestine; declares to Nestorius. that after the ten
days prescribed and set forth by Celestine, he would have no portion,

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 36

 Canonical Sources

intercourse, or place with the priesthood. Nothing evidently is wanting to the

Apostolical authority being most fully exercised.

2.3.2. The Canons

1. Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy Synod
and remained in their own district or city, for any reason, ecclesiastical or
personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were thereby decreed;
we, therefore, notify your holiness and charity that if any Metropolitan of a
Province, forsaking the holy and Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assembly
of the apostates, or shall join the same hereafter; or, if he has adopted, or
shall hereafter adopt, the doctrines of Celestius, he has no power in any way
to do anything in opposition to the bishops of the province, since he is
already cast forth from all ecclesiastical communion and made incapable of
exercising his ministry; but he shall himself be subject in all things to those
very bishops of the province and to the neighbouring orthodox
metropolitans, and shah be degraded from his episcopal rank.

2. IF any provincial bishops were not present at the holy Synod and have
joined or attempted to join the apostacy; or if, after subscribing the
deposition of Nestorius, they went back into the assembly of apostates;
these men, according to the decree of the holy Synod, are to be deposed
from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.

3. IF any of the city or country clergy have been inhibited by Nestorius or

his followers from the exercise of the priesthood, on account of their
orthodoxy, we have declared it just that these should be restored to their
proper rank. And in general we forbid all the clergy who adhere to the
Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod in any way to submit to the bishops who
have already apostatized or shall hereafter apostatize.

4. IF any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume
to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the
Holy Synod that these also should be deposed.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 37

 Canonical Sources

5. IF any have been condemned for evil practices by the holy Synod, or by
their own bishops; and if, with his usual lack of discrimination, Nestorius
(or his followers) has attempted, or shall hereafter attempt, uncanonically to
restore such persons to communion and to their former rank, we have
declared that they shall not be profited thereby/thus, but shall remain
deposed nevertheless.

6. LIKEWISE, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the orders in
each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synod decrees that,
if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutely forfeit their office; and,
if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.

7. WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is
unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different
(eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled
with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or

offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth,
whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever,
shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the
episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall
be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should

be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition
introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the
Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of
Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of
this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be
removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall
likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be
anathematized, as has been afore said.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 38

 Canonical Sources

8. OUR brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow
beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have
reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the
ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which
touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the
more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when
they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent
men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of
mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in
Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy,
without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers
and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of
their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other
dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops
shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very
beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if
anyone has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up;
lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly
honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without
knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every
province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to
it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom,
unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for
his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a
rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod
unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 39

 Canonical Sources

Chapter Three

Ecumenical Councils Accepted by Eastern Orthodox and Roman

Catholic Churches

3.1. The Council of Chalcedon (451)

3.1.1. Introduction

One hundred and fifteen (150) bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the
Emperor Mercian defined the two natures (divine and human) in Christ
against Eutychus, who was excommunicated. 30 canons were issued.

The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council of the

Christian church, convoked by Emperor Marcian. The council convened
in Chalcedon, Bithynia (modern day Turkey) from 8 October to 1 November
451. The council, attended by 520 bishops or their representatives, was the
largest and best-documented of the first seven ecumenical councils. The
principal purpose of the council was to re-assert the doctrine of the Council
of Ephesus against the heresy derivative of Eutyches and Nestorius. Such
heresies attempted to dismantle and separate Christ's divine nature from
his humanity (Nestorianism) and further, to limit Christ as solely divine in
nature (Monophysitism).

We all teach harmoniously [that he is] the same perfect in godhead, the
same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a
reasonable soul and body; homoousios with the Father in godhead, and the
same homoousios with us in manhood acknowledged in two natures without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

3.1.2. The Canons

1. We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly
fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.

2. If any bishop performs an ordination for money and puts the unsaleable
grace on sale, and ordains for money a bishop, a chorepiscopus, a presbyter
or a deacon or some other of those numbered among the clergy; or appoints

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 40

 Canonical Sources

a manager, a legal officer or a warden for money, or any other ecclesiastic at

all for personal sordid gain; led him who has attempted this and been
convicted stand to lose his personal rank; and let the person ordained profit
nothing from the ordination or appointment he has bought; but let him be
removed from the dignity or responsibility which he got for money. And if
anyone appears to have acted even as a go-between in such disgraceful and
unlawful dealings let him too, if he is a cleric, be demoted from his personal
rank, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be anathematised.

3. It has come to the notice of the sacred synod that some of those enrolled
in the clergy are, for sordid gain, acting as hired managers of other people's
property, and are involving themselves in worldly business, neglecting the
service of God, frequenting the houses of worldly persons and taking over
the handling of property out of avarice. So the sacred and great synod has
decreed that in future no one, whether a bishop, a cleric or a monk, should
either manage property or involve himself as an administrator of worldly
business, unless he is legally and unavoidably summoned to take care of
minors, or the local bishop appoints him to attend, out of fear of the Lord, to
ecclesiastical business or to orphans and unprovided widows and persons in
special need of ecclesiastical support. If in future anyone attempts to
transgress these decrees, he must be subject to ecclesiastical penalties.

4. Those who truly and sincerely live the monastic life should be accorded
appropriate recognition. But since there are some who don the monastic
habit and meddle with the churches and in civil matters, and circulate
indiscriminately in the cities and even are involved in founding monasteries
for themselves, it has been decided that no one is to build or found a
monastery or oratory anywhere against the will of the local bishop; and that
monks of each city and region are to be subject to the bishop, are to foster
peace and quiet, and attend solely to fasting and prayer, staying set apart in
their places. They are not to abandon their own monasteries and interfere,
or take part, in ecclesiastical or secular business unless they are perhaps
assigned to do so by the local bishop because of some urgent necessity. No
slave is to be taken into the monasteries to become a monk against the will

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 41

 Canonical Sources

of his own master. We have decreed that anyone who transgresses this
decision of ours is to be excommunicated, lest God's name be blasphemed.
However, it is for the local bishop to exercise the care and attention that the
monasteries need.

5. In the matter of bishops or clerics who move from city to city, it has been
decided that the canons issued by the holy fathers concerning them should
retain their proper force.

6. No one, whether presbyter or deacon or anyone at all who belongs to the

ecclesiastical order, is to be ordained without title, unless the one ordained
is specially assigned to a city or village church or to a martyr's shrine or a
monastery. The sacred synod has decreed that the ordination of those
ordained without title is null, and that they cannot operate anywhere,
because of the presumption of the one who ordained them.

7. We decree that those who have once joined the ranks of the clergy or have
become monks are not to depart on military service or for secular office.
Those who dare do this, and do not repent and return to what, in God, they
previously chose, are to be anathematised.

8. Clerics in charge of almshouses and monasteries and martyrs' shrines

are, in accordance with the tradition of the holy fathers, to remain under the
jurisdiction of the bishop in each city. They are not to be self-willed and
rebellious towards their own bishop. Those who dare to break a rule of this
kind in any way whatever, and are not obedient to their own bishop, are, if
they are clerics, to be subject to the canonical penalties; and if they are
monks or layfolk they are to be made excommunicate.

9. If any cleric has a case to bring against a cleric, let him not leave his own
bishop and take himself off to the secular courts, but let him first air the
problem before his own bishop, or at least, with the permission of the bishop
himself, before those whom both parties are willing to see act as arbiters of
their lawsuit. If anyone acts in a contrary fashion, let him be subject to
canonical penalties. If a cleric has a case to bring either against his own or

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 42

 Canonical Sources

against another bishop, let him bring the case to the synod of the province.
If a bishop or a cleric is in dispute with the metropolitan of the same
province, let him engage either the exarch of the diocese or the see of
imperial Constantinople, and let him bring his case before him.

10. A cleric is not allowed to be appointed to churches in two cities at the

same time: to the one where he was originally ordained, and to another more
important one to which he has betaken himself out of desire to increase a
baseless reputation. Those who do this are to be sent back to their own
church in which they were ordained at the beginning, and only there are
they to serve. But if some have already been transferred from one church to
another, they are not to take part in any of the affairs of their former
church, or of the martyrs' shrines or almshouses or hospices that come
under it. The sacred synod has decreed that those who, subsequent to this
decree of this great and universal synod, dare to do anything that is now
forbidden are to lose their personal rank.

11 We have decreed that, subject to examination, all paupers and needy

persons are to travel with ecclesiastical letters or letters of peace only, and
not of commendation, since it befits only reputable persons to be provided
with letters of commendation.

12. It has come to our notice that, contrary to the ecclesiastical regulations,
some have made approaches to the civil authorities and have divided one
province into two by official mandate, with the result that there are two
metropolitans in the same province. The sacred synod therefore decrees that
in future no bishop should dare do such a thing, since he who attempts it
stands to lose his proper station. Such places as have already been
honoured by imperial writ with the title of metropolis must treat it simply as
honorary, and that goes also for the bishop who is in charge of the church
there, without prejudice of course to the proper rights of the real metropolis.

13. Foreign clerics and readers without letters of commendation from their
own bishop are absolutely forbidden to serve in another city.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 43

 Canonical Sources

14. Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to
marry, the sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a
wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children,
and if they have already had the children baptised among heretics, they are
to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church. If they have not
been baptised, they may no longer have them baptised among heretics; nor
indeed marry them to a heretic or a Jew or a Greek, unless of course the
person who is to be married to the orthodox party promises to convert to the
orthodox faith. If anyone transgresses this decree of the sacred synod, let
him be subject to canonical penalty.

15. No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then
only after close scrutiny. If after receiving ordination and spending some
time in the ministry she despises God's grace and gets married, such a
person is to be anathematised along with her spouse.

16. It is not permitted for a virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord
God, or similarly for a monk, to contract marriage. If it is discovered that
they have done so, let them be made excommunicate. However, we have
decreed that the local bishop should have discretion to deal humanely with
them.

17. Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to
the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have
continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If,
however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or
should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring
the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by
their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the
diocese or by the see of Constantinople, as has already been said. If any city
has been newly erected, or is erected hereafter, by imperial decree, let the
arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes conform to the civil and public
regulations.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 44

 Canonical Sources

18. The crime of conspiracy or secret association is entirely prohibited even

by the laws of the land; so all the more properly is this forbidden in the
church of God. So if any clerics or monks are found to be either forming a
conspiracy or a secret society or hatching plots against bishops or fellow
clergy, let them lose their personal rank completely.

19. We have heard that in the provinces the synods of bishops prescribed by
canon law are not taking place, and that as a result many ecclesiastical
matters that need putting right are being neglected. So the sacred synod
decrees that in accordance with the canons of the fathers, the bishops in
each province are to foregather twice a year at a place approved by the
bishop of the metropolis and put any matters arising to rights. Bishops
failing to attend who enjoy good health and are free from all unavoidable
and necessary engagements, but stay at home in their own cities, are to be
fraternally rebuked.

20. As we have already decreed, clerics who are serving a church are not
permitted to join a church in another city, but are to be content with the one
in which they were originally authorised to minister, apart from those who
have been displaced from their own country and been forced to move to
another church. If subsequent to this decision any bishop receives a cleric
who belongs to another bishop, it is decreed that both the received and the
receiver are to be excommunicate until such time as the cleric who has
moved returns to his own church.

21. Clerics or layfolk who bring allegations against bishops or clerics are not
to be admitted to make their charges without more ado and before any
examination, but their reputation must first be investigated.

22. It is not permitted for clerics, following the death of their own bishop, to
seize the things that belong to him, as has been forbidden even by earlier
canons. Those who do this risk losing their personal rank.

23. It has come to the notice of the sacred synod that certain clerics and
monks who have no employment from their own bishop and have sometimes

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 45

 Canonical Sources

even been excommunicated by him, are frequenting imperial Constantinople

and spending long periods there causing disturbances, upsetting the
ecclesiastical establishment and ruining people's homes. So the sacred
synod decrees that such people are first to be warned by the public attorney
of the most holy Constantinopolitan church to get out of the imperial city;
and if they shamelessly persist in the same kinds of behaviour, they are to
be expelled by the same public attorney even against their will, and are to
betake themselves to their own places.

24. Monasteries once consecrated in accordance with the will of the bishop
are to remain monasteries in perpetuity, and the effects which belong to
them are reserved to the monastery, and they must not be turned into
secular hostelries. Those who allow this to happen are to be subject to the
canonical penalties.

25. According to our information, certain metropolitans are neglecting the

flocks entrusted to them and are delaying the ordination of bishops, so the
sacred synod has decided that the ordination of bishops should take place
within three months, unless the period of delay has been caused to be
extended by some unavoidable necessity. If a metropolitan fails to do this,
he is to be subject to ecclesiastical penalties. The income of the widowed
church is to be kept safe by the administrator of the said church.

26. According to our information, in some churches the bishops handle

church business without administrators; so it has been decided that every
church which has a bishop is also to have an administrator, drawn from its
own clergy, to administer ecclesiastical matters according to the mind of the
bishop concerned so that the church's administration may not go
unaudited, and that consequently the church's property is not dispersed
and the episcopate not exposed to serious criticism. If he does not comply
with this, he is to be subject to the divine canons.

27. The sacred synod decrees that those who carry off girls under pretext of
cohabitation, or who are accomplices or co-operate with those who carry

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 46

 Canonical Sources

them off, are to lose their personal rank if they are clerics, and are to be
anathematised if they are monks or lay folk.

28. (in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session but
rejected by the Pope] Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers
and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of
the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great
Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new
Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the
prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new
Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome,
since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most
devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new
Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial
power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome,
should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second
place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and
Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work
among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the
most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the
aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops
of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the
metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained
by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by
vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

29. [an extract from the minutes of the 19th session] The most eminent and
illustrious officials asked: What does the sacred synod advise in the case of
the bishops ordained by the most reverend Bishop Photius and removed by
the most reverend Bishop Eustathius and consigned to be priests after
losing the episcopacy? The most reverend Bishops Paschasinus and
Lucentius and the priest Bonifatius, representatives of the apostolic see of
Rome, replied: It is sacrilege to reduce a bishop to the rank of priest. But if
whatever cause there is for removing those persons from the exercise of

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 47

 Canonical Sources

episcopacy is just, they ought not to occupy the position even of a priest.
And if they have been removed from office and are without fault, they shall
be restored to the episcopal dignity. The most reverend archbishop of
Constantinople, Anatolius, replied: If those who are said to have descended
from the episcopal dignity to the rank of priest have been condemned on
what are reasonable grounds, they are clearly not worthy to hold even the
office of a priest. But if they have been demoted to the lower rank without
reasonable cause, then as long as they are seen to be innocent, they have
every right to resume the dignity and priesthood of the episcopacy.

30. [an extract from the minutes of the 4th session] The most eminent and
illustrious officials and the exalted assembly declared: Since the most
reverend bishops of Egypt have up to now put off subscribing to the letter of
the most holy Archbishop Leo, not because they are in opposition to the
catholic faith, but because they claim that it is customary in the Egyptian
diocese not to do such things in contravention of the will and ordinance of
their archbishop, and because they consider they should be given until the
ordination of the future bishop of the great city of Alexandria, we think it
reasonable and humane that, retaining their present rank in the imperial
city, they should be granted a moratorium until such time as an archbishop
of the great city of Alexandria is ordained. Most reverend Bishop
Paschasinus, representative of the apostolic see, said: If your authority
demands it, and you order that some measure of kindness be shown them,
let them give guarantees that they will not leave this city before Alexandria
receives its bishop. The most eminent and illustrious officials and the
exalted assembly replied: Let the resolution of the most holy Bishop
Paschasinus be upheld. So let the most reverend bishops of the Egyptians
maintain their present rank and, either providing guarantees if they can, or
pledging themselves on solemn oath, let them

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 48

 Canonical Sources

3.2. The Fifth Council of Constantine (553)

3.2.1. Introduction

The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven

ecumenical councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and
the Roman Catholic Church. It is also recognized by the Old Roman
Catholics and others. Constantinople II was convoked by the Byzantine
Emperor Justinian I under the presidency of Patriarch Eutychius of
Constantinople. It was held from 5 May to 2 June 553. Participants were
overwhelmingly Eastern bishops, only sixteen Western bishops were
present, including nine from Illyricum and seven from Africa, but none from
Italy, out of the 152 total.

The main work of the council was to confirm the condemnation issued by
edict in 551 by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters. These
were the Christological writings and ultimately the person of Theodore of
Mopsuestia (died 428), certain writings against Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve
Anathemas accepted at the Council of Ephesus, written by Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (died c. 466), and a letter written against Cyrillianism and the
Ephesian Council by Ibas of Edessa (died 457).

Justinian hoped that this would contribute to a reunion between the

Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians in the eastern provinces of the
Empire. Various attempts at reconciliation between these parties within the
Byzantine Empire were made by many emperors over the four centuries
following the Council of Ephesus, none of them successful. Some attempts
at reconciliation, such as this one, the condemnation of the Three Chapters
and the unprecedented posthumous anathematization of Theodore, who had
once been widely esteemed as a pillar of orthodoxy, causing
further schisms and heresies to arise in the process, such as the
aforementioned schism of the Three Chapters and the emergent semi-Non-
Chalcedonians compromises of monoenergism and monotheletism. These
propositions assert, respectively, that Christ possessed no human energy
but only a divine function or principle of operation (purposefully formulated

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 49

 Canonical Sources

in an equivocal and vague manner, and promulgated between 610 and 622
by the Emperor Heraclius under the advice of Patriarch Sergius I of
Constantinople) and that Christ possessed no human will but only a divine
will, "will" being understood to mean the desires and appetites in accord
with the nature (promulgated in 638 by the same and opposed most notably
by Maximus the Confessor).

3.3. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681)

3.3.1. Introduction

The Sixth Ecumenical Council met on November 7, 680, for its first session,
and ended its meetings, which are said to have been eighteen in number, on
September 16th of the next year. The number of bishops present was under
three hundred and the minutes of the last session have only 174 signatures
attached to them.

When the Emperor first summoned the council he had no intention that it
should be ecumenical. From the Sacras it appears that he had summoned
all the Metropolitans and bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and
had also informed the Archbishop of Antioch that he might send
Metropolitans and bishops. A long time before he had written to Pope Agatho
on the subject.

When the synod assembled however, it assumed at its first session the title
"Ecumenical," and all the five patriarchs were represented, Alexandria and
Jerusalem having sent deputies although they were at the time in the hands
of the infidel.

In this Council the Emperor presided in person surrounded by high court

officials. On his right sat the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch and
next to them the representative of the Patriarch of Alexandria. On the
Emperor's left were seated the representatives of the Pope. In the midst were
placed, as usual, the Holy Gospels. After the eleventh session however the
Emperor was no longer able to be present, but returned and presided at the
closing meeting.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 50

 Canonical Sources

[Link] Canons of the Council of Trullo (The Quinisext Council,

The Continuation of the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils)

3.3.3. Introduction

From the fact that the canons of the Council in Trullo are included in this
volume of the Decrees and Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils it
must not for an instant be supposed that it is intended thereby to affirm
that these canons have any ecumenical authority, or that the council by
which they were adopted can lay any claim to being ecumenical either in
view of its constitution or of the subsequent treatment by the Church of its
enactments.

It is true that it claimed at the time an ecumenical character, and styled

itself such in several of its canons it is true that in the mind of the Emperor
Justinian II., who summoned it, it was intended to have been ecumenical. It
is the that the Greeks at first declared it to be a continuation of the Sixth
Synod and that by this name they frequently denominate and quote its
canons. But it is also true that the West was not really represented at it at
all (as we shall see presently); that when the Emperor afterwards sent the
canons to the Pope to receive his signature, he absolutely refused to have
anything to do with them; and it is further true that they were never
practically observed by the West at all, and that even in the East their
authority was rather theoretical than real.

As the two last General Councils (in 553 and in 681)had not made any
Canons, the Orientals judged it suitable to supply them eleven years after
the Sixth Council, that is to say, the year 692, fifth indiction. For that
purpose the Emperor Justinian convoked a Council, at which 211 Bishops
attended, of whom the principal were the four Patriarchs, Paul of
Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of
Antioch. Next in the subscriptions are named John of Justinianopolis,
Cyriacus of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Basil of Gortyna in Crete, who says that
he represents the whole Council of the Roman Church, as he had said in
subscribing the Sixth Council. But it is certain otherwise that in this latter

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 51

 Canonical Sources

council there were present Legates of the Holy See. This council, like the
Sixth, (1) assembled in the dome of the palace called in Latin Trullus, which
name it has kept. It is also named in Latin Quinisextum, in Greek
Penthecton, as one might say, the fifth-sixth, to mark that it is only the
supplement of the two preceding Councils, though properly it is a distinct
one.

The intention was to make a body of discipline to serve thenceforth for the
whole Church, and it was distributed into 102 Canons.

3.4. The Seventh Ecumenical Councils (787)

3.4.1. Introduction

Gibbon thus describes the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian

Church: "The decrees were framed by the president (1) Tarasius, and ratified
by the acclamations and subscriptions of three hundred and fifty bishops.
They unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to
Scripture and reason, to the Fathers and councils of the Church; but they
hesitated whether that worship be relative or direct; whether the godhead
and the figure of Christ be entitled to the same mode of adoration.(2) Of this
second Nicene Council the acts are still extant; a curious monument of
superstition and ignorance, of falsehood and folly." (Decline and Fall,
chapter xlix.)

And this has been read as history, and has passed as such in the estimation
of the overwhelming majority of educated English-speaking people for
several generations, and yet it is a statement as full of absolute and
inexcusable errors as the passage in another part of the same work which
the late Bishop Lightfoot so unmercifully exposed, and which the most
recent editor, Bury, has taken pains to correct.

I do not know whether it is worthwhile to do so, but perhaps it may be as

well to state, that whatever may be his opinion of the truths of the
conclusions arrived at by the council, no impartial reader can fail to
recognize the profound learning (3) of the assembly, the singular acumen

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 52

 Canonical Sources

displayed in the arguments employed, and the remarkable freedom from

what Gibbon and many others would consider "superstition." So radical is
this that Gibbon would have noticed it had he read the acts of the synod he
is criticising (which we have good reason for believing that he never did).
There he would have found the Patriarch declaring that at that time the
venerable images worked no miracles, a statement that would be made by
no prelate of the Latin or Greek Church to-day, even in the light of the
nineteenth century.

As I have noted in the previous pages my task is not that of a

controversialist. To me at present it is a matter of no concern whether the
decision of the council is true or false. I shall therefore strictly confine
myself to two points 1. That the Council was Ecumenical. 2. What its
decision was; explaining the technical meaning of the Greek words employed
during this controversy and finally incorporated in the decree.

Chapter Four

The Ecumenical Councils Accepted by the Roman Catholic Churches

4.1. The Eighth Ecumenical Council (869)

Whatever may be the final verdict of history with regard to the Caroline
books, to the action of this Synod of Frankfort, and to the genuineness of
the account of the Convention of Paris, there can be no doubt with regard to
the position held by the Seventh of the Ecumenical Synods in all subsequent
conciliar action. In 869[2] was held at Constantinople what both the
Easterns and Westerns then considered to be the Eighth of the Ecumenical
Synods. Its chief concern was to restore peace and it thought to accomplish
this by taking the strongest position against Photius. At this Synod the
Second Council of Nice was accepted in the most explicit manner, not only
its teaching but also its rank and number.

4.2. The first Lateran Council (1123)

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 53

 Canonical Sources

The council was held at Rome under Pope Callistus II. About 900 bishops
and abbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay prices, of
investiture with ring and crosier to ecclesiastical benefices and dealt with
church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.

4.3. The Second Lateran Council (1139)

The council was held at Rome under Pope Innocent II with an attendance of
about 1000 prelates and Emperor Conard. Its object w

4.4. The third Lateran Council (1179)

As to put an end to the errors of Arnold of Berescia, the council took place
under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being emperor. There were 302
bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldensesand issued
numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.

4.5. The fourth Lateran Council (1215)

The council was held under Innocent III. There were present the patriarchs
of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800
abbots the primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged
creed (symbol) against the Albigenses, condemned the Trinitarian errors of
Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the
most importantcouncil of the Middle Ages, it makes the culminating point of
ecclesiastical life and papal powder.

4.6. The first Council of Lyons (1245)

The council was presided by Innocent IV. The patriarchs of Constantinople,

Antioch, and ZAquileia (Venice), generally, 140 bishops attended the
council. Moreover, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King of
France were some of the attendants of the council. It excommunicated and
deposed Emperor Frederick II and directed a new crusade, under the
command of St. Louis, against the Saracens and Mongols.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 54

 Canonical Sources

4.7. The Second Council of Lyon (1274)

Pope Gregory X, and together with other patriarchs of Antioch and

Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other
dignitaries conducted the council. It effected a temporary reunion of the
Greek Church with Rome. The word filioque was added to the symbol of
Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the
Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.

4.8. The Council of Vienne in France (1311-1313)

The council was held under the order of Clement V, who the first among the
Avignon Popes. The patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops (114
according to some authorities), and three kings—Philip IV of France, Edward
II of England, and James II of Aragon—were present. The synod dealt with
the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights Templars, the Fraticelli, the
Beghards, and the Beguines, with projects of a new crusade, the reformation
of the clergy, and the teaching of Oriental language in the universes.

4.9. The Council of Constance (1414-1418)

It was held during the great Schism of the west, with the object of ending
the divisions in the church. It only became legitimate when Gregory XI had
formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstances it succeeded in putting an
end to schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa
(1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful Pope
confirmed against Wyclif and Hus. This council is thus only ecumenical in
its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of
earlier sessions approved by Martin V.

4.10. The Council of Basle (1431)

Pope Eugene IV, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire were
the honourable attendants of the council. Its object was the religious

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 55

 Canonical Sources

pacification of Bohemia. Quarrels with the Pope having arisen, the council
was transferred first to Ferrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a
short-lived union with Greek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the
council’s definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only
ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session and of its decrees Eugene
IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of
Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did
not derogate from the rights of the Holy See.

4.11. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512 to 1517)

The council was held under Popes Julius II and Leo X, the emperor being
Maximilian I. 15 cardinals and about 80 archbishops and bishops took part
in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new crusade against the Turks
was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in
Germany caused by Luther.

4.12. The Council of Trent (1545-1563)

The council was presided under the five popes, Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus
II, Paul IV, and Pius IV, and under the emperors Charles V and Ferdinand.
There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33
archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160
doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors
promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of
the church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of
dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.

4.13. First Vatican Council (1869-1870)

The participants of the council were summoned to Vatican by Pius IX. It met
8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it
is still (19908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishops-princes, 49
cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29
generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the faith
and constitution of the church, the council decreed the infallibility of the

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 56

 Canonical Sources

Pope, as shepherd and teacher of all Christians on the earth; he defines a

doctrine concerning faith or moral to be held by the whole church.

4.14. Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

The council focused on the renewal of the Roman Catholic liturgy ―according
to the pristine norm of the fathers‖; pastoral decrees on nature of the
church and its relation to the modern world; restoration of a theology of
communion; promotion of scripture and biblical studies; ecumenical
progress towards reconciliation with other churches.

Chapter Five

The Local Councils

5.1. Councils of Carthage

The Councils of Carthage were church synods held during the 3rd, 4th, and
5th centuries in the city of Carthage in Africa. In May 251 a synod,
assembled under the presidency of Cyprian to consider the treatment of
the Lapsi, excommunicated Felicissimus and five other Novatian bishops
(Rigorists), and declared that the lapsi should be dealt with, not with
indiscriminate severity, but according to the degree of individual guilt. These
decisions were confirmed by a synod of Rome in the autumn of the same
year. Other Carthaginian synods concerning the lapsi were held in 252 and
254

Two synods, in 255 and 256, held under Cyprian, pronounced against the
validity of heretical baptism, thus taking direct issue with Stephen I, bishop
of Rome, who promptly repudiated them. A third synod in September 256,
possibly following the repudiation, unanimously reaffirmed the position of
the other two. Stephen's claims to authority as bishop of bishops were
sharply resented, and for some time the relations of the Roman and African
sees were severely strained.[2]

Around 345–348 under Gratus a synod of orthodox bishops, who had met to
record their gratitude for the effective official repression of the

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 57

 Canonical Sources

Circumcelliones (Donatists), declared against the rebaptism of any one who

had been baptized in the name of the Trinity, and adopted twelve canons of
clerical discipline.

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[5] met on 28 August

397. It reaffirmed the canons of Hippo from 393, and issued its own. One of
these gives a canon of the Bible. The primary source of information about
the third Council of Carthage comes from the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae
Africanae, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by various
church councils in Carthage during the fourth and fifth centuries. In one
section of this code the following paragraph concerning the canon of
Scripture appears.

The Conference of Carthage, held by the command of the

Emperor Honorius in 411 with a view to terminating the Donatist schism,
while not strictly a synod, was one of the most important assemblies in the
history of the African sees, and of the whole Catholic Church. It was
presided over by Marcellinus of Carthage who found in favour of the
orthodox party, which led to the violent suppression of the Donatists.

On 1 May 418 a minor synod (Augustine of Hippo called it A Council of

Africa), which assembled under the presidency of Aurelius, bishop of
Carthage, to take action concerning the errors of Caelestius, a disciple
of Pelagius, denounced the Pelagian doctrines of human nature, original sin,
grace, and perfectibility; and it fully approved the contrary views
of Augustine.[9]

The Canons made at this council are often called The Code of Canons of the
African Church. It was led by Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and attended by
217 bishops, which held two sessions, May 25 and 30.[11] "In the year 418-
19, all canons formerly made in sixteen councils held at Carthage, one at
Milevis, one at Hippo, that were approved of, were read, and received a new
sanction from a great number of bishops, then met in synod at Carthage.
This Collection is the Code of the African Church, which was always in
greatest repute in all Churches next after the Code of the Universal Church.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 58

 Canonical Sources

This code was of very great authority in the old English Churches, for many
of the Excerptions of Egbert were transcribed from it... these African Canons
are inserted into the Ancient Code both of the Eastern and Western
Churches. In total 138 Canons (counted as 135 in the Greek) were issued at
this council.

5.2. The Synod of Ancera (314)=(25 canons were written)

The Synod of Ancyra was an ecclesiastical council, or synod, convened

in Ancyra (modern-day Ankara, the capital of Turkey), the seat of the Roman
administration for the province of Galatia, in 314. The season was soon after
Easter; the year may be safely deduced from the fact that the first nine
canons are intended to repair havoc wreaked in the church by persecution,
which ceased after the overthrow of Maximinus II in 313.[1] Only about a
dozen bishops were present, nonetheless representing nearly every part
of Syria and Asia Minor. Either Vitalis, Bishop of Antioch, or Marcellus of
Ancyra presided, and possibly both were present, although the Libellus
Synodicus, also known as the Synodicon Vetus, assigns to the latter.

5.3. The Synod of the Neo-Caesarea (314-325)=(15 canons were written)

A synod held during the period of toleration for the Christians (313-c. 321)
in the reign of Licinius. The council’s canons deal mainly with moral
questions and indicate the ecclesiastical concern with sexual issues at this
time. Other canons deal with the catechumenate, with the age for ordination
to the priesthood (not below thirty), and with the status of
the chorepiscopi (country bishops).

5.4. The Council of Sardica (343)

The Council of Serdica, or Synod of Serdica[1] (also Sardica located in

modern day Sofia, Bulgaria), was a synod convened in 343 at Serdica in the
civil diocese of Dacia, by Emperors Constans I, augustus in the West,
and Constantius II, augustus in the East.[2][a] It attempted to resolve

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 59

 Canonical Sources

the Arian controversy, and was attended by about 170 bishops.[4][b] It was
convened by the two augusti at the request of Pope Julius I

The first ecumenical council (Nicaea I) canon 5 decreed that bishops should
convene in biannual synods within every province to act as a court of second
instance and review cases with excommunication sentences pronounced by
individual bishops.[6] But, there was no appeal to a court of final instance "if
an unjust sentence was imposed" by a provincial synod acting as a court of
second instance.[7] Nicaea I canon 5 "implied that" provincial synods "had an
acknowledged authority to" judge the acts of individual bishops of their
province.[8] Provincial synods' authority "was becoming well established in
the East" prior to the council of Serdica.[8] In 341, the Synod of
Antioch canons 14 and 15 "were designed both to augment the authority of
the provincial synod as a trial court and to ensure the integrity of its
operation.

Hosius presided over the council of about 170 bishops,[4][b] of whom about
90 were mostly of the Western Homoousian faction and about 80 were
mostly of the Eastern Eusebian faction.[17] It probably convened in 343.

5.5. The Council of Gangra (340)=(20 canons were written)

The Synod of Gangra was held in 340, at Gangra (in modern Turkey).
The synod condemned Manichaeans, and their practices. The
concluding canons of the synod condemned the Manichaeans for their
actions, and declared many of their practices anathematised.

Although merely a local synod, its decisions were later ratified by

the Council of Chalcedon, which is of immense importance in the
early history of Christianity (see also First seven Ecumenical Councils). Most
modern Christian groups, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern
Orthodox, accept the Council of Chalcedon's decisions, but some Eastern
Christians, including the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians, reject it.

5.6. The Synod of Antioch (341) =(25 canons were written)

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 60

 Canonical Sources

The council approved three creeds.[3] Whether or not the so-called "fourth
formula"[4] is to be ascribed to a continuation of this synod or to a
subsequent but distinct assembly of the same year, its aim is like that of the
first three; while repudiating certain Arian formulas it avoids the orthodox
term homoousios, fiercely advocated by Athanasius of Alexandria and
accepted by the First Council of Nicaea (Nicaea I). The somewhat colourless
compromise doubtless proceeded from the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia,
and proved not unacceptable to the more nearly orthodox members of the
synod.

The twenty-five canons adopted regulate the so-called metropolitan

constitution of the church. Ecclesiastical power is vested chiefly in
the metropolitan (later called archbishop), and the biannual provincial
synod (see Nicaea I, canon 5.), which he summons and over which he
presides. Consequently, the powers of country bishops (chorepiscopi) are
curtailed, and direct recourse to the emperor is forbidden. The sentence of
one judicatory is to be respected by other judicatories of equal rank; re-trial
may take place only before that authority to whom appeal regularly
lies.[5] Without due invitation, a bishop may not ordain, or in any other way
interfere with affairs lying outside his proper territory; nor may he appoint
his own successor. Penalties are set on the refusal to celebrate Easter in
accordance with the Nicaea I decree, as well as on leaving a church before
the service of the Eucharist is completed.

5.7. Council of Laodocia (343-381)=(70 canons were written)

The council took place soon after the conclusion of the war between
the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, waged by Emperor Julian.
Julian, the last Constantinian emperor, attempted a revival of paganism
and resumed discrimination against Christians. After his death in battle on
26 June 363, officers of the army elected the Christian Jovian as his
successor. Jovian, in a precarious position, far from supplies, ended the war
with Persia unfavorably for Rome. He was soon succeeded by Valentinian I,
who named his brother Valens Emperor of the East.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 61

 Canonical Sources

The 59th canon forbade the readings in church of uncanonical books. The
60th canon listed Canonical books, with the New Testament containing 26
books, omitting the Book of Revelation, and the Old Testament including the
22 books of the Hebrew Bible plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of
Jeremiah; but excluding all the deuterocanonical books proper. It is also
believed that they may have demonized the "Second Book of Enoch", which
led to its degeneration.

5.8. The Synod of Constantinople (394)

On September the twenty-ninth of the year 394, a magnificent church, dedicated to

SS. Peter and Paul, built by the munificence of Rufinus the Praetoreal prefect, and

situated at a place called "the Oaks," a suburb of Chalcedon, was consecrated. Most

scholars have adopted Tillemont's suggestion that this was the occasion which

brought the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to Constantinople, and that

occasion was taken advantage of to hold a synod with regard to the dispute as to the

see of Bostra. At this council, in accordance with the canon of the Second Ecumenical

Council, adopted only a dozen years before, Constantinople took the first place and

its bishop presided, but so strong was the hold of Alexandria that three centuries

afterwards the Quinisext Synod speaks of this council as held "under Nectarius and

Theophilus." In passing it may not be amiss to remark that St. Gregory of Nyssa and

Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Flavian were present at this council! Well may

Tillemont [499] exclaim, "It is remarkable to see Theophilus there with Flavian,

although they were not in communion with each other.

5.9. Synod of Hippo (393)

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo
Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church. Additional
synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426. Some were attended
by Augustine of Hippo.

The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time
a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 62

 Canonical Sources

corresponds closely to the modern Catholic canon while falling short of

the Eastern Orthodox canon. The canon list approved at Hippo included six
books later classed by Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by
Protestants as Apocrypha; but also included, as 'two books of Ezra', the Old
Latin books First Ezra and Second Ezra, of which only the latter would
subsequently be found in the Catholic canon.[1] The canon list was later
approved at the Council of Carthage (397) pending ratification by the
"Church across the sea", that is, the See of Rome. Previous councils had
approved similar, but slightly different, canons.

The council also reaffirmed the apostolic origin of the requirement of clerical
continence and reasserted it as a requirement for all the ordained, in
addition requiring that all members of a person's household must be
Christian before that person can be ordained.

Chapter Six

The Canons of the Holy Fathers

6.1. [Link] of Alexandria (247-265)=(wrote 4 canons)

6.1. 2. St. Gregory of Neo-Caesarea (328-373)=(wrote 15 canons)

6.1.3. St. Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria (300-311)=(wrote 15 canons)

6.1.4. St. Basil the Great (370-378)

Canon 1: So far as concerns the question of the Cathari, though it had been said previously
you did well to mention the subject, since it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in
each particular country because of their treating baptism differently. After having at that time
threshed out the matter concerning these men, it seems to me that there is nothing further to
say in regard to the Pepuzeni. According I was mazed to find that the matter had appealed to
great Dionysius in spite of his being canonical. For the older authorities had judged that
baptism acceptable which disregarded no point of the faith. Hence they have called some of
them heresies, and others schisms, and others again parasynagogues (i.e., conventicles).
Heresies is the name applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 63

 Canonical Sources

from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical
causes and, remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves.
Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or
bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned
for a misdemeanor held aloof from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim
to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving
the catholic Church — that is a parasynagogue. Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those
of the Manichees and Valentinians and Marcionists, and that of these Pepuzeni themselves,
for the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed best to
those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be
set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be
considered as still belonging to the Church; as for those, on the other hand, who were in
parasynagogues, if they have been improved by considerable repentance and are willing to
return, they are to be admitted again into the Church, so that often even those who departed in
orders with the insubordinates, provided that they manifest regret, may be admitted again to
the same rank. As touching the Pepuzeni, therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for
they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently blazoned
Montanus and Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comforter). They deserve to
be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are wont to deify themselves or others as
human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the Holy Spirit by comparing It to human
beings, according they are thus liable to everlasting condemnation, because of the fact that
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable (Matt. 12:31). What reason, then, is there
for approving their baptism, when they are baptizing in (the name of) the Father, the Son, and
Montanus and Priscilla? For persons have not been baptized who have been baptized in
names that have not been handed down to by the traditional teaching; so that if this fact has
escaped the notice of great Dionysius, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to guard against
imitating the mistake. For the absurdity is self-evident and perspicuous to all who have any
share at all of ability to reason even in a small way. As for the Cathari, they too are to be
classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities — those, I
mean, who form the party*of Cyprian and our own Firmilian — to class them all under one
head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning,
true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the
Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 64

 Canonical Sources

with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had
been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the
gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority
either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others,
after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them
should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they
should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. Inasmuch,
however, as it has seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of
extraordinary concession (or "economy") to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be
accepted. As for the case of the Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime,
since as though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to
anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run
counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely
prescribed as regards them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of
them appears to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however,
this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt
the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For
I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men
from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism. But if they keep
our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve
the Canons with exactitude. But let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join
on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus
be admitted to the Mysteries. I am aware that we have admitted to the chief seat of bishops
the brethren in the party of Zonius and Satorinus who used to belong to that class. So that we
are no longer able to distinguish those who were attached to that order from the Church, as
much as to say that as a result of the acceptance of the bishops we have ipso facto made it a
canonical obligation to allow them communion.
Canon 2: A woman that aborts deliberately is liable to trial as a murderess. This is not a
precise assertion of some figurative and inexpressible conception that passes current among
us. For here there is involved the question of providing justice for the infant to be born, but
also for the woman who has plotted against her own self. For in most cases the women die in
the course of such operations. But besides this there is to noted the fact that the destruction of
the embryo constitutes another murder, at least in the opinion of those who dare to do these

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 65

 Canonical Sources

things. It behooves us, however, not to extend their confession to the extreme limit of death,
but to admit them at the end of the moderate period of ten years, without specifying a definite
time, but adjusting the cure to the manner of penitence.
Canon 3: A Deacon who commits fornication after coming into the diaconate, shall be
ousted from the diaconate, to be sure, but yet after being expelled into the status of laymen,
he shall not be excluded from the right of communion. For it is an ancient Canon that those
who have forfeited their rank shall be subject to only this form of punishment, on the
principle, as I think, on following the original dictate of that law which says: "Thou shall not
take vengeance a second time for the same offense" (Nahum 1:9). (Note of Translator. —
This passage is quoted as it appears in the Septuagint, and is translated in conformity
therewith; in the A.V. and R.V. it is worded differently and conveys no such meaning). Also
for another reason, that those who are in the lay order and expelled from the status of the
faithful, may be taken back into the status from which they fell and which they forfeited,
whereas a Deacon sustains once for all a permanent sentence to deposition. On the ground,
therefore, that the diaconate cannot be given back to him, they took their stand upon this
punishment alone. So much for the matter of forms. On the whole, however, a truer remedy is
repudication of sin. So that one who has disregarded grace for the sake of pleasure of the
flesh may afford a perfect proof of his being cured by showing contrition of the heart and by
refraining from being submissive to any enslavement by observance of continence with
respect to pleasures of the flesh, by which he was destroyed. It behooves us, therefore, to
know both, namely, what strictness demands and what custom requires, but to follow the
form traditionally taught us in regard to those who do not deserve extreme treatment.
Canon 4. As regards trigamy and polygamy we have decreed the same Canon as in the case
of digamy (i.e., second marriage), analogously. For it is a year in the case of digamy, but two
years for the others. As for those who are guilty of trigamy (i.e., a third marriage), they are
excommunicated for the space of three years and often four years. For such a marriage is no
longer to be called a marriage, but polygamy, or rather mitigated fornication. Wherefore the
Lord told the Samaritaness who had had five husbands in succession, "and he whom thou
now hast is not thy husband" (John 4:18), as being no longer themselves worthy when they
have exceeded the measure of digamy to be called by the appellation of husband or wife. We
have taken to the custom of condemning trigamists to five years’ excommunication not on the
ground of any Canon but only on the ground of usage followed by those who have preceded
us. But it behooves us not to exclude them entirely from the Church, but instead to entitle

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 66

 Canonical Sources

them to listening in some two years or three, and thereafter to permit them to be co-standers,
though obliged to abstain from communion with that which is good (i.e., the Eucharist), and
then after exhibiting some fruit of repentance, let them be restored to the status of persons
entitled to communion.
Canon 5. Those of the heretics who repent when about to pass out must be admitted. They
are to be admitted, that is to say, not indiscriminately, but by testing whether they have
exhibited any proof of their having actually decided to repent and whether they have borne
any fruit in witness of their anxiety to be saved.
Canon 6. As regards fornication of Canonics, they are not to be accounted marriages, but
ought by every means available to be compelled to discontinue their intercourse. For this is
also advantageous to the Church for safety, and affords heretics no occasion to complain
against us on the ground that we are attracting to ourselves on account of our permitting them
to sin.
Canon 7. Sodomists and bestialists and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers and idolaters
deserve the same condemnation, so that whatever rule you have as regarding the others
observe it also in regard to these persons. But as for those who have been for thirty years
penitent for an act of impurity which they committed unwittingly, there is no ground for our
doubting that we ought to admit them. Both the fact of their ignorance renders them worthy
of pardon, and so do also the voluntary character of their confession, and the fact that they
have been exhibiting good intentions for such a long time, for they have surrendered
themselves to Satan for nearly a whole human generation, in order to be educated not to
indulge in shameful acts. So bid them to be admitted without fail, especially if they have shed
tears that move you to compassion, and are exhibiting a life that deserves sympathy.
Canon 8. Any man who uses an axe against his own spouse in a fit of anger, he is a
murderer. It is well that you reminded me, and it is worthy of your good sense, to speak about
these things at greater length. For there are many differences among voluntary and
involuntary acts. It is an entirely involuntary act and one that is remote from the mind of the
one commencing it, when one hurls a stone at a dog or tree, but happens to hit a human being.
For the impulse was for the wild beast to defend itself or to shake down the fruit, though it
automatically suffered the blow when it chanced to be going by, so that such an occurrence is
something involuntary. It is something involuntary, it must be conceded, also if anyone
wishing to bring a person to his senses should strike him with a strap or rod lightly enough,
but the person who was struck should die. For the intention here is to be seen in the fact that

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 67

 Canonical Sources

the one who did the deed wished to improve the sinner, not to take his life. Among
involuntary acts is likewise that one in which while defending oneself in a fight, one delivers
a blow unsparingly to vital parts with a stick or with his fist, so as to deal him a telling blow
without killing him altogether, but this approaches being in the nature of a voluntary act. For
a man who uses such an instrument in self-defense, or who inflicts a blow without spare, is
plainly guilty of failing to spare the person, owing to being under the sway of passion.
Likewise when one has used a heavy club or a stone too big for a man to handle, it is to be
classed among involuntary acts, because he wanted to do one thing, but happened to do
another; for he was led by anger to deliver such a blow as to slay the one hit, notwithstanding
that it was his endeavor to crush the person with the instrument perhaps, but not to kill him
outright. Anyone, however, that wields a sword or any other such instrument, has no excuse
whatever, and especially when he has hurled an axe at anybody. Nor is this astonishing when
one considers that it is plain that he did not strike a blow with his hand, so as to have the
measure of the blow on his person, but hurled it, so that the weight of the iron and the sharp
edge, and the momentum it acquired by traveling a long distance all caused the blow to be
necessarily destructive. An entirely involuntary act again, and one that admits of no doubt at
all, is one such as that of robbers, and that of military assaults. For these men slay others for
the sake of money, though they escape detection. Those engaged in wars are bent on slaying
and murderous deeds; they can neither be scared nor be sobered, but, on the contrary, are
openly bent on killing the adversaries as a matter of choice. And if perchance for some other
reason one mixes in a curious drug, but it kills, we class this as a voluntary act, such as
women often do when under the influence of a, desire to try to gain the affection of someone
by means of enchantments and defixions, and by giving them drugs befuddle their intellects.
Such women, therefore, who kill someone in any such manner, though actually having
desired to do something else than what they did, are nevertheless classed with willful
murderers, on account of the curious and forbidden nature of their contrivance. The same
may be said of women who bring about a miscarriage by giving drugs for this purpose, and
the women who take abortifacient poisons; they too are murderesses.
Canon 9. The decision of the Lord with respect to the order of the sense applies equally to
men and women so far as concerns the prohibition of divorce "except on ground of
fornication" (Matt. 5:31J and 19:7), Custom, however, will not have it thus, but in regard to
women it insists upon exactitude and stringency, seeing that the Apostle says that "he who
cleaves to a harlot is one body with her" (I Cor. 6:16), and that Jeremiah says that "If a

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 68

 Canonical Sources

woman goes with another man, she shall not return to her husband, but shall surely be
attainted" (Jer. 3:1); and again: "Whoever keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious" (Prov.
18:22, according to the Septuagint version, but not in the A.V. or R.V.). Custom, on the other
hand, commands that men who are guilty of adultery or of acts of fornication must be kept by
their wives; so that as regards a woman who is cohabiting with a man who has been left can
be accounted an adulteress. For the fault here lies in the woman who divorced her husband,
according to whatever reason she had for undoing the marriage. For whether it be that when
beaten she could not bear the blows, but ought rather to have exercised patience, or to obtain
a divorce from the man with whom she at the time was cohabiting, or whether it be that she
could not afford to lose the money, neither is this any excuse worthy considering. But if it
were on account of his living in a state of fornication, we have no such observance in
ecclesiastical usage, but neither is the wife of a faithless husband commanded to separate
from him, but, on the contrary, she has to stay with him owing to the fact that the issue of the
matter is unknown. “For what knowest thou, Ο wife, whether thou shalt save thy
husband?" (I Cor. 7:16). So that a woman who deserts her husband becomes an adulteress in
case she comes to another man. The man, on the other hand, whom she has left is pardonable,
and a woman who cohabits with him is not to be condemned. If, however, a man deserts his
wife and comes to another woman, he too becomes an adulterer because he is making her be
an adulteress; and the woman cohabiting with him is an adulteress, because she has taken
another woman’s husband for herself
Canon 10. As regards those who take an oath and swear not to deign to accept ordination but
repudiate their oath, let them not be compelled to commit perjury. For although there seems
to a certain Canon which does allow such things yet we have learned by experience that men
who act contrary to their oaths do not prosper. Moreover, it behooves us to take into
consideration also the species of oath, and the words of it, and the disposition with which
they have taken it, and the minute additions to the words, as if there be no comfort available
from anywhere, such persons must be allowed a free rein. As for the affair touching Severus,
however, or, more precisely speaking, the Presbyter whom he has ordained, some such
comfort seems to be provided by the laws (if it seems thus to you too}. Bid the Massadi to
submit that field which is subject to hire and to which man was proclaimed the heir. For then
neither will he disregard his oath by failing to depart from the region; and Longinus taking
Kyriakus along with him will not desolate the Church, nor will he even condemn his own
soul by delaying matters, and we shall be persuaded not to do anything contrary to the

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 69

 Canonical Sources

Canons, while treating Kyriakus as one who has sworn to remain with the Mindani, but has
accepted transposition. For a return shall amount to keeping the oath, but to subject him to
economy shall not be accounted to him as perjury, because of his not abiding by his oath, nor
leaving the Mindana for even a short time, but staying with them henceforth. As for Severus,
who offers the excuse of forgetfulness, we shall pardon him and say that the Knower of
hidden things will not overlook His own Church when she is being ravaged by such a, person
who has been acting uncanonically from the beginning, and has been practicing witchcraft (or
performing "defixions") contrary to the Gospels, teaching people to commit perjury, whereby
he was transposed, but now lying whereby he feigns forgetful-ness. Inasmuch, however, as
we are not judges of hearts, but merely judge from what we are told, we leave vengeance to
the Lord, while we ourselves shall admit him indiscriminately, giving him a pardonfor for get
fulness as a human weakness.
Canon 11. As for one that has committed an involuntary murder, he has fulfilled the
requirements of justice by a term of eleven years. For it is plain that in the case of the ones
assaulted we may observe the rules of Moses, and not deem one to have been murdered when
he has been knocked down by the blows he received but has been able to walk again with a,
stick (Exod. 21:18-19). But if he did not recover from the blows, and the man who struck had
no intention of killing him, we deem the assailant a murderer, to be sure, but an involuntary
murderer.
Canon 12. The Canon has unconditionally excluded from the service all digamists (i.e., men
that have married twice).
Canon 13. Our Fathers did not consider murders committed in the course of wars to be
classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men
fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse
them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean-handed.
Canon 14. If a person charging interest on money lent consents to distribute the ill-gotten
gain to the poor and to rid himself of the disease of avarice (here called "love of money"), he
is admissible to Holy Orders.
Canon 15. I marvel at your literal accuracy with regard to Scripture when you consider and
postulate that the wording of the explanation is forced which exhibits what is plainly
signified, and not the literal sense of the preposition under.1 What is signified has been
derived from a Hebrew expression. Since one must beware of idly passing over the problem
raised by a man inclined to inquiry, the fowl of the sky and the fish of the sea received the

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 70

 Canonical Sources

same genesis at the time of creation’, for both genera were brought forth out of the waters: as
for the reason, it is that the characteristic peculiarity of each of them is the same. For the one
kind of animals swim through the water, while the other kind float upon the air; accordingly,
they were mentioned in common, though the figure of speech, being used in connection with
fish inaptly, but quite properly in connection with all animals that live in water. For the fowl
of the sky have been made subject to man, and so have the fish of the sea, and not they alone,
but also all animals that traverse the paths of the sea. For not every aquatic animal is a fish, as
grampuses and whales and hammer-headed sharks and dolphins and seals, and in addition sea
horses (i.e., walruses) and sea dogs (i.e., seals of some kind) and sawfishes and swordfishes
(or jelly fishes) and scallops and all shellfish, not one of which is a fish; and all animals that
traverse the paths of the seas. Thus there are three sorts of such animals, namely, fowls of the
sky, fishes of the sea, and all aquatic animals distinguishable from fishes that also traverse the
paths of the seas.
Canon 16. Now Naaman was a great man not with the Lord, but with his lord, or master, that
is, was a man of powerful influence with the king of Syria (II Kings, 5:1). So pay strict
attention to what the Bible says and you will find thence the solution of your question.
Canon 17. You asked us about Bianor the Presbyter, whether he is admissible to the clericate
on account of the oath. I am aware that I myself have set forth already a certain common
definition regarding all those who together with him took an oath to the Clerics of the region
round Antioch, to the effect that they are to refrain from public speaking, but in private may
perform, the duties of Presbyters. This very same pronouncement also affords him permission
for his own service. For the priesthood is not those in Antioch, but that in Iconium, which, as
you yourself have sent to us notice, he wanted to exchange for Antioch in order to dwell
there. That man, then, is acceptable, when he is required by your reverence to repent of the
ease of the oath which he swore in regard to the faithful man, because of his being unable to
brook the annoyance of that slight danger.
Canon 18. As regarding lapsed virgins who had solemnly vowed themselves to living a
decent life consecrated to the Lord, but afterwards owing to their having fallen under the
sway of the passions of the flesh are disregarding their own conventions, it is true that our
Fathers, naively and meekly making allowances for the weaknesses of the lapsable, laid down
a law that they are to be admissible after a year, having treated the matter in the same vein as
that of digamists. But to me it seems, since the Church grows stronger by going forward with
the grace of Christ, and the battalion of virgins is nowadys proliferating, one ought to pay

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 71

 Canonical Sources

strict attention to what appears to be the real sense of the thought embodied in the Bible,
which it is possible to ascertain from the context. For widowhood is inferior to virginity.
Necessarily, therefore, the sin of widows is of altogether secondary gravity in comparison
with that of virgins. Let us see, therefore, what is written to Timothy by St. Paul: "But turn
down younger widows. For when they hoot at Christ, they want to get married, being
damnable because they have set aside their first faith" (I Tim. 5:11). If, therefore, a widow is
liable to severe damnation on the ground that she has set aside her faith in Christ, what must
we conclude as concerning a virgin, who is a bride of Christ and a sacred vessel dedicated to
the Lord? Though it is a great sin for even a slave woman who has given herself up to a
clandestine marriage to imbue the house with corruption and roundly insult the owner by her
wicked mode of life, yet it is far more offensive for a bride to become an adulteress, and to
have become guilty of dishonoring her union with the bridegroom, by giving herself up to
licentious pleasures of the body. Necessarily, therefore, the widow is condemned like a
corrupt slave, while the virgin incurs the damnation of an adulteress. Precisely, therefore, as
we call a man an adulterer who has intercourse with somebody else’s wife, and refuse to
admit him to communion until he has ceased indulging in the sin, so too, let it be said, we
shall be disposed to regard the man who has a virgin. But what needs to be premised to us
now is that the one called a virgin is one who has voluntarily tendered herself to the Lord and
has renounced matrimony, and has preferred a life of sanctitude. As for the vows, we approve
of them only then after she has reached the age of discretion. For it is not proper to regard
childish utterances on such subjects as altogether trustworthy and congruous, but only that
which has been averred after the age of sixteen or seventeen is to be considered the
trustworthy and congruous result of reasonings and after being further examined she is to be
enrolled among the virgins as a member of their class if it be found that she insists and begs
with supplications to be admitted as such; accordingly the vow of such a maiden is to be
sanctioned, and her disavowal thereof is indispensably to be punished. For parents and
brothers tender many maidens, and even before they have attained the proper age, not
because they have spontaneously striven after a life of celibacy, but because their parents or
brothers have been governed by considerations of convenience to themselves, which maidens
must not be readily accepted, until we investigate their own mind openly.
Canon 19. We are not cognizant of any vows of men, unless it be that some men have
enrolled themselves in the battalion of those who have adopted the monastic life, if they seem
to accept celibacy by silent agreement. Nevertheless, I deem it fitting that in their case too

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 72

 Canonical Sources

that should receive primary attention. They must be asked, and from them must be taken a
perspicuous vow, so that if any of them should by any chance return to a flesh-loving and
sensual life afterwards they shall be incurring the penalty attached to those who commit
fornication.
Canon 20. When women who are in a heresy have vowed virginity, but afterwards have
chosen matrimony instead of this, I do not deem it necessary to condemn these women.
For "what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law" (Rom. 3:19).
But those who have not thus far come under the yoke of Christ, and who do not recognize the
legislation of the Lord, so as to be admissible to the Church along with all Christians, are also
entitled to forgiveness for these mistakes as a consequence of their belief in Christ. And in
general things done during the catechumenical life do not entail responsibilities: these
persons, that is to say, are not accepted by the Church without baptism, so that the priorities
of generation in regard to them are something that is quite necessary.
Canon 21. If any man cohabiting with a woman fails afterwards to rest content with
inatrimony and falls into fornication, we judge such a man to be a fornicator, and we consider
him to deserve even more in the way of penances. We have not, however, any Canon by
which to task him with the charge of adultery if the sin is committed with a woman free from
marriage. For an adulteress, it says, being defiled shall be defiled (Jer. 3:1), and shall not
return to her husband. And "anyone who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious" (Prov.
18:22). One, however, who has committed fornication cannot be denied the right to cohabit
with his wife. So that a wife must accept her husband when he returns from fornication, but a
husband must send a defiled wife away from his home. The reason for these inconsistencies
is not easily to be found, but at any rate a custom to this effect has obtained prevalence.

Canon 22. As for those men who have taken wives by rapine, if the latter were taken way
from other men to whom they had been engaged, the men guilty of rapine shall not be
accepted before they have released the women in their possession and have restored them to
the authority of the men to whom they had been engaged; whether the latter men are willing
to take them back or insist upon refusing them. If. on the other hand, any man takes a woman
who is at leisure, she must be taken away from him and be restored to her kin, but may be
allowed to go free with the consent and approval of her kin, whether the latter be parents, or
brothers, or any other persons entrusted with the superintendence of the girl’s affairs. If they
choose to surrender her to the man in question, the marriage contract shall stand valid:, but if

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 73

 Canonical Sources

they refuse to do so, she shall not be taken from them by main force. As for the situation in
which a man possesses a woman as a result of defloration, whether this occurred in secret or
more openly and by violence, the penalty provided for fornication must be imposed of
necessity. But the first thing is that those men must be denied the right to prayers, and must
be compelled to join the weepers at the church door; a-nd the next thing is that they shall be
admitted to the right of listening; and the third thing is that they are to be accorded the relief
of penitence; and the fourth thing is that they shall be allowed to remain in church as co-
standers with the laity though (with the proviso of) abstaining from the offering, and are
afterwards to be permitted to communion of the good.
Canon 23. Concerning men who marry two sisters, or women who marry two brothers, a
little epistle has already been addressed to you, a copy of which we sent to your reverence.
But as for any man who has taken the wife of his own brother, he shall not be admitted before
he has relinquished her.
Canon 24. In case a widow has been enrolled among the number of privileged widows, that
is, a widow being helped by the Church, and she gets married, the Apostle states that she is to
be disregarded. As for a man who has become a widower, there is no law covering his case,
but the penance meted out to digamists is sufficient to be imposed upon such a man. As
touching a widow, however, who has attained to the age of sixty years, if she chooses again
to cohabit with a man, she shall not be deemed to deserve the privilege of partaking of
communion until she desists from the passion of impurity. If, however, we number her before
she is past sixty, the crime is ours, not the poor woman’s.
Canon 25. As for a man who keeps a woman as his wife after she has been ravaged by him,
he shall incur the penalty provided for ravagement, while the woman shall be pardoned.
Canon 26. Fornication is not matrimony, but is not even the beginning of matrimony. So that
if it be possible to separate persons joined in fornication, this would be the best course to
take. Rut if they insist upon marriage at all costs, let them pay the penalty for fornication, and
let them have their way, lest anything should happen that is still worse.
Canon 27. As touching a Presbyter who unwittingly has become involved in a lawless
marriage, I have prescribed that what ought to be done is to let him hold some share of the
see but abstain from all other activities. For a pardon is all that such a man is entitled to. But
to bless some other man with the task of taking care of his duties, would be inconsistent. For
a blessing is an impartation of sanctitude. But anyone who lacks this, owing to an unwitting
offense, how can he impart it to another^ Let him, therefore, not bless anyone either in public

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 74

 Canonical Sources

or in private, neither let him distribute the body of Christ round to others; neither let him
engage in any other liturgical service: but, contenting himself with the presidency, let him
weep along together with others and pray the Lord to forgive him his unwitting sin.
Canon 28. In my opinion it has appeared utterly ridiculous for anyone to vow to abstain from
the eating of pork. So please condescend to teach them to abstain from uneducated vows and
promises. As for the case in hand, the matter is one that is indifferent and allowable on any
score. "For no creature of God is to be refused when it is taken with thanks" (I Tim. 4:4). So
that the vow is ludicrous, and abstinence is unnecessary.
Canon 29. As for rulers, however, who swear to harm the persons they are ruling, it greatly
behooves them to heed their ways. Such heed is twofold: one point to be heeded is that they
must be taught not to take oaths too readily and offhand; another point is that they must not
persist in their bad judgments, so that when one has sworn in advance to harm another
person, let him show repentance for the impetuousness of the oath, yet let him not affirm his
own cunning under pretense of reverence. For it did not advantage even Herod when he kept
his oath, who allegedly in order to avoid perjuring himself became the murderer of the
Prophet. The taking of an oath, indeed, is forbidden once for all, but far more, of course, is
one to be condemned when it is taken for the doing of what is wrong or evil; so that the
person who takes an oath must change his attitude of mind, and not endeavor to effect the
performance of his unholy venture. For examine the absurdity more broadly. If anyone
should swear to gouge out the eyes of his brother, consider whether it would be right for him
to carry such an oath into effect; if anyone should swear to kill somebody; if anyone should
swear to transgress some commandment or other. "I have sworn and have set myself to keep
the judgments of thy righteousness" (not any sin). (Ps. 119:106). Precisely as it is incumbent
upon us to perform commandments with irrevocable resolves, so does it behoove us to annul
and destroy sin in all kinds of ways.
Canon 30. As touching wife-snatchers, we have no old Canon, but have ventured to express
our own opinion, which is that they and their abettors be condemned to exclusion from
prayers. But so far as concerns an elopement, the man is not responsible when there has been
no rape nor has any abduction marked the affair. A widow, on the other hand, being sui juris
and at liberty to follow, we need not concern ourselves about pretenses.
Canon 31. If, after her husband has departed and disappeared, before having made due
inquiry as to whether he is dead, any woman cohabits with another man, she is committing
adultery.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 75

 Canonical Sources

Canon 32. Clerics who commit the sin unto death, though they are degraded from their rank,
they are not to be excluded from the society of laymen. For "Thou shalt not exact vengeance
twice for the same offense"
Canon 33. As for any woman who conceives and brings forth on the way and fails to take
measures therefor, let her be liable to the penalty provided for a murderer.
Canon 34. As for women who have committed adultery and have confessed it out of
reverence or because they have been more or less conscience-stricken, our Fathers have
forbidden us to publish the fact, lest we afford some occasion for the death of the remorseful
one; but they ordered that such women are to stand without communion until they have
completed the term of their penitence.
Canon 35. In the case of a husband who has been deserted by his wife, the reason for the
abandonment must be looked into. If it appear that she has departed without a proportionate
cause, the husband is to be deemed to deserve pardon, and she to deserve a punitive sentence.
This pardon shall be given to him for the purpose of enabling him to commune with the
Church.
Canon 36. As touching the wives of soldiers who have disappeared, if they remarry they are
subject to the same provision as bears upon the case of the wives of men who have left the
country, when they refuse to await their return. Nevertheless, there is some reason for a
pardon here, because there is more reason to suspect death
Canon 37. After being deprived of another man’s wife, if a man marries, he shall be liable to
have charges brought against him in regard to the first case of adultery, but as regards the
second case he shall be exempt from charges.
Canon 38. Maidens who without the consent and advice of their father run after men are
guilty of fornication. But if the parents can be reconciled, the matter would seem to be
susceptible of remediation. But they are not to be restored to communion directly; they must,
on the contrary, be sentenced to three years.
Canon 39. A woman who lives with an adulterer is an adulteress all the time.
Canon 40. A woman who is in defiance of her lord yields herself to another man is guilty of
fornication. But she who thereafter contracts a public marriage becomes a wedded wife. So
that the first case is to be considered fornication, the second, matrimony. For the conventions
of persons under the
Canon 41. A woman in her widowhood who has control of herself and the right to cohabit is
not subject to criminal charges (if there is no man to disrupt the marriage], since St. Paul has

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 76

 Canonical Sources

said, "If the husband die, she is free to marry whomsoever she pleases, but only in the
Lord" (I Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:3).
Canon 42. Marriages entered into without the consent of those in authority are fornications.
If the father·, therefore, is alive, or the master, the contracting parties are by no means free
from responsibility until the lords nod approval of their cohabitation. For then the affair
receives the character of a marriage.
Canon 43. Whoever has given his neighbor a blow is a murderer, whether he started the fight
or was defending himself.
Canon 44. A Deaconess who has been fornicating with a Grecian is admissible to
communion, but to the offering she will be admissible in the seventh year, that is, if she lives
in chastity. But a Grecian who after belief again indulges in sacrilege is returning to his
vomit. We therefore no longer permit the body of the Deaconess to be put to carnal use, on
the ground that it has been consecrated.
Canon 45. If anyone who has received the name of Christian offers Christ an insult, his
appelation shall be of no benefit to him whatsoever.
Canon 46. A woman who unwittingly marries a man abandoned by his wife for a time and
who has afterwards been left by him on account of his former wife’s returning, has
committed fornication, albeit unwittingly. She shall not, therefore, be denied marriage,
though it were better that she remain single.
Canon 47. As for Encratites and Saccophori and Apotactites, they come under the same rule
as Novatians; for concerning the latter a Canon has been promulgated, even though different,
whereas nothing has been said therein as touching the former. Be that as it may, we rebaptize
such persons. If it be objected that what we are doing is forbidden as regards this practice of
rebaptism, precisely as in the case of present-day Romans, for the sake of economy, yet we
insist that our rule prevail, since, inasmuch and precisely as it is an offshoot of the
Marcionites, the heresy of those who abominate marriage, and who shun wine, and who call
God’s creation tainted. We therefore do not admit them into the Church unless they get
baptized with our baptism. For let them not say that they are baptized in Father and Son and
Holy Spirit who assume God to be a bad creator, in a manner vying with the Marcionites and
other heresies. So that if this pleases them more Bishops ought to adopt it, and thus establish
as a Canon, in order that anyone following shall be in no danger, and anyone replying by
citing it shall be deemed worthy of credence.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 77

 Canonical Sources

Canon 48. But the woman abandoned by her husband ought, in my opinion, to stay. For if
the Lord has said, that if any man leaves his wife except on grounds of fornication, he is
causing her to commit adultery (Matt. 5:32), since as a result of his calling her an adulteress
he has debarred her from communion with any other man. For how can a husband be
considered irresponsible as the cause of adultery, while the wife, deemed an adulteress by the
Lord on account of communion with another man. is so denominated?
Canon 49. Let deflorations performed in fulfillment of a need entail no responsibility, so that
even a slave girl if violated by her own master is free from responsibility.
Canon 50. There is no law as to third marriages, so that a third marriage is not subject to any
law. We look upon such things as defilements of the Church, but we do not bring them to
public trials, on the ground that they are preferable to lax fornication. J (c. III of Neocaesarea;
cc. IV, L, LXXX of Basil.).
Canon 51. As regards Clerics the Canons have been promulgated indiscriminately,
prescribing a single punishment for those who commit offenses of any kind, namely,
expulsion from the service, whether they be possessed of any rank or are simply awaiting one
in the service while unordained.

Canon 52. As touching a woman who fails to take due care of her offspring when she gives
birth to a child in the street or on the road, if though able to save it she treated it
contemptuously or scornfully, either thinking that she could thus cover up her sin, or
entertaining an utterly brutal and inhuman view of the matter, let her be judged as if held for
murder. But if she was unable to give the child proper attention and protection, and the
offspring died in consequence of lack of care and of needments, the mother is pardonable.
Canon 53. A widowed slave woman may not have committed any great offense by choosing
to marry a second time under pretense of ravishment, so that she ought not to be charged with
anything on account of this. For it is not pretenses that are to be judged, but the actual intent.
But it is plainly evident that the penalty for marrying a second time remains to her.
Canon 54. As respecting differences in cases of involuntary manslaughter I know that years
ago I sent your godliness an epistle, explaining the matter as far as we found it possible to do,
and I can say nothing more than what was asserted therein. It is permissible to your good
sense of judgment to increase the penalties or to relax them in accordance with the peculiarity
of attending circumstances.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 78

 Canonical Sources

Canon 55. As for those who resist robbers, if they themselves are outside of the Church, they
are to be excluded from communion with the good boon; but if they are Clerics, they are to
be deprived of their rank. For every man, it says, who takes to the sword shall die by the
sword (Matt. 26:52).
Canon 56. A man who has voluntarily slain anyone, and has thereafter regretted the deed and
has repented of it, shall be excluded from communion with the Fountain of Sanctity for
twenty years. The twenty years shall be allotted to him in the following manner, to wit: For
four years he must weep outside of the portal, standing upright beside the oratory, and
begging the faithful that enter to make a special prayer for him, while he confesses over and
over again the same transgression. After four years he is to be stationed among the audients
(or listeners), and for five years he shall be permitted to go out together with them. For seven
years he shall be permitted to go out together with the kneelers praying with them. Four years
more shall he spend together with the faithful, but shall not be permitted to participate in the
offering. When these years have been duly fulfilled, he shall partake of the Holy Elements.
Canon 57. A man who has killed anyone involuntarily shall remain excluded from the Holy
Elements for ten years. The ten years shall be allotted to him in the following manner, to wit:
For two years he shall keep weeping; for three years he shall spend his time listening, for four
years, kneeling; and for one year only he shall mark time as a co-stander; and henceforth he
shall be admitted to the Holies.
Canon 58. The sentence for a man guilty of having committed adultery is that he shall be
excluded from the Holy Elements for fifteen years. These fifteen years shall be allotted to
him in the following manner, to wit: For four years he shall keep weeping; for five years,
listening; for four years, kneeling; for two years, co-standing without Communion.

Canon 59. A fornicator shall remain excluded from the Holy Elements for seven years: two
weeping, and two joining the listeners, and two kneeling, and for one year only confined to
co-standing; and in the eighth year he shall be admitted to Communion.
Canon 60. As for any girl or woman who has vowed to remain a virgin, but has lapsed from
her vow, she shall do the time fixed for the sin of adultery with the economy allotted to her to
live by herself. The same penalty shall be meted out to persons who have vowed themselves
to monastic life, but have lapsed therefrom. (c. XVI of the 4th; c. XIX of Ancyra.).
Canon 61. Anyone who has stolen anything, provided he has repented of his own accord and
has accused himself of the theft, shall be excluded from the communion of the Holy Elements

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 79

 Canonical Sources

for one year only. But if he was detected, two years. The time shall be proportioned to him
between kneeling and co-standing and thereupon he shall be deemed to deserve to participate
in Communion.
Canon 62. As for any man who uncovers his nakedness in the midst of males, he shall be
allotted the time fixed for those transgressing in the act of adultery.
Canon 63. As for anyone who evinces his impiety by associating with irrational beasts, he
shall stand delinquent for the same length of time.
Canon 64. As for a perjurer, he shall be excluded from communion for ten years: two years
weeping; three listening, four kneeling; one year only co-standing; and shall then be deemed
worthy to partake of Communion.
65. As for anyone practicing incantation or sorcery, he shall be allotted the time of a
murderer, it being proportioned to him in such a manner as though he had convicted himself
of each sin for a year.
Canon 66. A grave-robber shall remain excluded from Communion for ten years.
Canon 67. Sexual intercourse between brother and sister shall be expiated by the sentence of
a murderer.
Canon 68. The conjugation in matrimony of human beings within the prohibited degrees, if it
be detected, shall be punished with the sentences of adulterers, on the ground that it falls in
the same class of sinful acts affecting human beings.
Canon 69. As for an Anagnost (or Lector), if he has had anything to do with his betrothed
before the wedding, after being suspended from duty for one year he shall be permitted to
read, though he shall forfeit his right to be advanced to any higher status; but if he has stolen
his wife without first betrothing her, i.e., by marrying her clandestinely, he shall be dismissed
from the ecclesiastical service. The same treatment shall be given to any other servant of the
Church.

Canon 70. If any Deacon has had his lips tainted, and has confessed to have sinned to this
extent, he shall be suspended from the liturgy. But he shall be allowed to partake of the Holy
Elements along with the rest of the Deacons. The same rule shall be applicable to Presbyters.
But if he be caught doing anything in excess of this, that is, any greater sin, no matter what
may be his rank, he shall be deposed from office.
Canon 71. As for one who has been aware of their having committed any of the aforesaid
sins, and has failed to confess it, but they have been detected or exposed, and convicted of it,

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 80

 Canonical Sources

he shall do the same time that is done by the perpetrator of the evils, and he himself shall be
subject to the same penalty.
Canon 72. Anyone who places himself in the hands of fortune-tellers or any other such
persons professing to foresee future events or to discover the whereabouts of lost property, of
persons in hiding, etc., he shall be sentenced to the same penalty as is prescribed for
murderers and shall do the same length of time and the same penances.
Canon 73. Whoever has denied Christ and has violated the Mystery of salvation ought to
weep throughout the rest of his life, and he owes the obligation as a debt to acknowledge and
confess the fact at the time when he is about to pass out of this life, when he shall be deemed
to deserve the right to partake of the Holy Elements, by faith in the kindness bestowed upon
human beings by God.
Canon 74. If, however, any man guilty of any of the sins mentioned in the foregoing should
become honest enough to confess them, he that is empowered by the kindness of God to
loose and to bind may, if he see fit to exercise greater kindness, mitigate any excessive
penalty imposed upon the one confessing his sin if he sees it to be excessive, by shortening
the sentences, and in doing so he does not become worthy of condemnation, seeing that the
history contained in the Holy Scriptures acquaints us with the fact that those who confess
their sins with the greater painfulness soon have God’s kindness bestowed upon them.
Canon 75. Let not anyone who has been attainted with his step-sister, whether on his father’s
side or on his mother’s side, be permitted to be present in any house of prayer, until he desists
from the unlawful and illicit practice. But after coming to realize the fearful sinfulness of it,
let him weep for three years at the door of the oratories while standing by them on the
outside, and entreating the people entering for prayer, so that any of them sympathizing with
him may beseech the Lord in his behalf with ectenes. Thereafter let him spend three more
years in listening only and hearing the Scripture and the teaching of the doctrine, but
excluded from and not allowed the privilege of praying. Afterwards, if indeed it is true that he
insisted upon it with tears and prostrated himself to the Lord with contrition of heart and
profound humility, let him be accorded the right to spend three more years in kneeling, and
then, if he exhibits fruits worthy of repentance, in the tenth year let him be admitted to prayer
with the faithful, but without the privilege of the offering, and after co-standing at prayer for
two years along with the faithful, then and thenceforth let him be deemed to be deserving of
the boon of Communion.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 81

 Canonical Sources

Canon 76. The same formula applies also in regard to those who take their own nymphs (i.e.,
sister-in-laws).

Canon 77. A man, however, who abandons his legally wedded wife, and marries another
woman, according to the Lord’s decision, is liable to the judgment of adultery. But it has
been ruled and regulated by our Fathers that such persons are to weep for a year, listen on the
side for two years, kneel for three years, in the seventh year co-stand together with the
faithful, and then be deemed worthy to participate in the offering, provided they repent with
remorseful tears. (Matt. 5:32; 19:7; Mark 10:11; and Luke 16:18).
Canon 78. Let the same formula hold also with regard to men taking two sisters to wife, even
though it be at different times.
Canon 79. Those who later attend upon their mother-in-law are subject to the same Canon as
those who attend upon their own sisters.
Canon 80. The Fathers passed over the question of polygamy in silence, as something bestial
and utterly foreign to the human race. But to us it presents itself as a worse sin than
fornication. Wherefore it is reasonable to make such persons amenable to the Canons, and
this means one year weeping and three years kneeling, then becoming admissible.
Canon 81. Since many persons during the incursion of the barbarians transgressed the faith
in God, by taking heathen oaths, and tasting of certain things offered to idols purporting to be
magical and then offered to them, these persons have already been dealt with economically
on the basis of laws and Canons formulated by the Fathers. For as regards those who
patiently endured the hardships resulting from necessitous tortures and, being unable to bear
the pain, were impelled to denial, let them stand inadmissible for three years, and continue
listening for two years, and after kneeling for three years let them become admissible to
communion. But as regards those who without there being any great necessity betrayed the
faith in God, and after touching the tables of the demons and swearing Grecian oaths, let
them be expelled for three years, and continue listening for two years, and after praying for
three years on their knees, and co-standing for another three years together with the faithful at
prayer, then let them be admitted to the boon of Communion.
Canon 82. As regards those who have committed perjury, if they broke their oaths as a result
of force and coercion, they are liable to milder sentences, so that after six years in any case
they are to be admissible. But as for those who betrayed their own faith without any
necessity, after weeping two years, and listening two years, and in the fifth year praying on

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 82

 Canonical Sources

their knees, and remaining for two more years without the offering, but admitted to
communion of prayer, and then after they have exhibited repentance worthy of the name, let
them be restored to the communion of the body of Christ.
Canon 83. Those resorting to divination and continuing the usages of the heathen nations, or
admitting certain persons into their homes with the view of discovering sorceries and
purification, let them fall under the Canon of six years, one year weeping, and one year
listening, and for three years co-standing among the faithful, then they shall be accepted.
Canon 84. We are writing all these things so that the fruits of repentance may be tested. For
we do not judge these matters in every case with reference to time, but are wont to pay more
attention to the manner of repentance. If they show themselves disinclined to give up their
own customs, desiring rather to be slaves to pleasures of the flesh, than to the Lord, and they
refuse to accept life lived in accordance with the Gospel, we have no common ground of
discourse with them. For we have been taught to hearken, when in the midst of disobedient
and gainsaying people, to the injunction that says "If you can save anything, save your own
soull" (Gen. 19:17).
Canon 85. Let us not, therefore, deign to perish along with such persons, but, filled with fear
of the heavy judgment, and keeping before our eyes the fearful day of the Lord’s retribution,
let us not willingly choose to perish for the sins of others, and along with them, For if the
terrible sufferings of the Lord had not chastened us, nor had such great and grievous blows
knocked some sense into us and brought us to realization of the fact that it was on account of
our iniquity that the Lord abandoned us, and delivered us into the hands of the barbarians,
and the people were led away as captives of their foes, and were delivered to dispersion,
because those who bore the name of Christ round the world dared to do these outlandish
things, if they neither became aware nor even understood that it was on account of these
things that the wrath of God overtook us, what common ground is left us to have words with
them** Nevertheless, we ought to protest to them night and day and publicly and privately;
but we ought to guard against being carried away by their cunning arguments and crafty
tricks, while we pray indeed to win them, and to have them rescued from the snare of the Evil
One: but if we are unable to accomplish this, let us make serious endeavors at least to save
our own souls from everlasting damnation.
Canon 86. To the elegant Encratites in respect to their formidable question asking why we do
not eat everything, let the answer to be given be that we abominate also our excrements. For
in respect of valuableness, vegetables are meat to us (Gen. 9:3), but in respect of discretion as

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 83

 Canonical Sources

touching our mercenary interests, as also in the case of vegetables, we separate what is
injurious or harmful from what is suitable and fit: seeing that even hemlock is a, vegetable,
precisely as a vulture too is meat, — yet no one that has any sense would eat hyoscyamus,
nor would he touch dog meat unless it were a matter of life and death, so that to eat it would
be no iniquity.
Canon 87. First, then, let it be said (which is also the most important thing to note) that the
custom amongst us which we have to propose in regard to such cases, having as it does the
force of a law, on account of the fact that the institutions were handed down to us by saintly
men. This may be described as follows. If anyone suffering from filth and overcome by it
should ever fall into the unlawful state of having married two sisters, this is not to be deemed
either a marriage nor may he be admitted to the congregation and membership of the Church
until they have first separated from each other. So that, though there was nothing further to
say, the custom sufficed to guard against the evil. But inasmuch as the writer of the letter by
employing a false and yet specious argument attempted to entail1 such a great disorder and
woe in life, it is necessary that not even we should refrain from deriving assistance from the
words, notwithstanding that in regard to facts that are extremely perspicuous the prejudice
obtaining among every community is more powerful than words. It has been written, it says,
in Leviticus: "Neither shall thou take her sister to wife, to make her jealous, to uncover her
nakedness in her presence, while she is still alive" (Lev. 18:18). It is plainly evident from
this, it says, that it is permissible to take a sister when her sister has died. As to this first thing
I shall ask permission to say is that whatever the Law says is said in the Law, since thus also
at least we should be subject to the Law’s requirements as to circumcision and the sabbath
and abstinence from certain foods (Rom. 3:19). For indeed we shall not lay upon ourselves a
yoke of slavery to the Law if we find anything to help us to enjoy ourselves in sensuality: if
anything included in the requirements of the Law appears to be too severe, too burdensome,
why then we shall have recourse to the freedom granted by Christ (Gal. 5:1). We have been
asked whether it is written to take to wife a sister of a sister. We have answered, what we are
sure of and what is true, that it is not written. But to infer a consequence by taking liberties
with what has been left unsaid is the part of a legislator, not of one merely reciting the law.
Since it is thus possible for anyone that wants to do so to find an excuse for taking to wife a
sister while the wife is still alive. For this very same fallacy will apply to that man too. For it
is written, it says: "Thou shalt not take … to make her jealous" (Lev., l.c.), as much as to say
that taking her without arousing jealousy is permissible. But anyone that advocates passion

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 84

 Canonical Sources

will consider the character of the sister to be devoid of jealousy. With the cause once
removed, on account of which the cohabitation with both of them was forbidden, what is
there to prevent taking the sister? But we shall insist that these things are not written, neither
has that point been settled; the meaning, on the other hand, of the sequence admits of points
alike. By merely referring back a little way from this passage to subsequent legislation would
have sufficed to disentangle the matter. For it is but natural that the Legislator could not
include every kind of sin, but was especially concerned to forbid those of the Egyptians,
whence He brought Israel away, and those of the Canaanites, to whom he took them. For the
passage I refer to runs thus: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, ye shall
not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I am taking you, ye shall not do:
neither shall ye walk in their ordinances" (Lev. 18:3). So that it is naturally evident that the
kind of sin prohibited was that of incurring the danger in those days of adopting the political
systems in vogue amongst the heathen nations, in which event they would not even have any
need of a legislator, but might rest content with the untutored custom of resorting to calumny
inspired by hatred, How, then, after forbidding the greater evil, could He have remained silent
in regard to the lesser? Since it seemed right to many of the flesh-lovers in those times to
cohabit with sisters while these were each of them alive in spite of the example of the
Patriarch. But what ought we to do? To do what is written, or to conform with that is nothing
but guesswork based on silenced It is immediately evident that father and son ought not to
use the same prostitute, yet no such thing is written in the laws. In the Prophet, however, it is
considered to deserve the utmost censure. For, he says, "and a man and his father will go in
unto the same maid" (Amos. 2:7). But how many other forms of impure passions the school
of demons invented, but Holy Writ does not even refer to, being averse to sullying its fair
character by naming shameful things, but merely alluding to them in general terms, as St.
Paul the Apostle says: "But fornication, and all other filth, or covetousness, let it not even be
named among you, as becometh saints" (Eph. 5:3), comprehending under the noun "filth" the
unspeakable doings of sodomy and those of females too, so that silence does not by any
means afford a license to lovers of pleasures. As for me, however, I say that the Legislator
did not even remain silent1 concerning these matters either, but in fact very vehemently
prohibited such things. For the passage saying: "None of you shall approach to anyone that is
near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness" (Lev. 18:6), comprehends also this kind of
familiarity. For what could be more nearly related, or near of kin, to man than his own wife,
or rather to say his own flesh "For they are no longer twain, but one flesh" (Matt. 19:6), so

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 85

 Canonical Sources

that through the wife her sister attains to a state of close familiarity with the husband. For just
as he must not take the mother of his wife, so must he not take her daughter either, because
he is not allowed to take either his own mother or his own daughter to wife. Thus he is not
allowed even to take a sister of his wife, because neither is he even allowed to take his own
sister to wife, and vice versa, neither is a woman permitted to cohabit with relatives of her
husband, for the rights of both and to both are held in common, by both side of the
relationship. To anyone wanting the marriage I will protest that "the fashion of this world is
passing away" (I Cor. 7:29, 31), and that "the time is short, leaving even those who have
wives as though they had none" (I Cor. 7:29, 31). If, on the other hand, he misunderstands the
passage saying "increase and multiply" (Gen. 1:28), will laugh at one who is unable to
distinguish times from legislations. The second marriage is meant to relieve people from the
necessity of fornication, not to serve as a passport to lechery. "If they cannot restrain their
passion, let them marry" (I Cor. 7:9), he says, but not, ‘let them break the law when they are
married.’ Those, on the other handy who disregard nature entirely, and devour the soul with a
passion for dishonoring women, again are compelled to distinguish the two sexes. To which
of the two sexes shall they ascribe the offspring? Shall they say that they are brothers and
sisters of each other, or that they are cousins? Make not, O man, the aunt a mother-in-law of
the infants, whose duty it is not even to nurse it in the capacity of a mother, you will only be
imbuing the latter implacably jealous. It is only hatred of mother-in-laws that arouses
animosity even after death. Rather might one say, in fact, that those who are foes in other
respects join hands in pouring peaceful libations to the dead, whereas mother-in-laws excite
hatred after death. To sum up. If anyone rushes into marriage by law, the whole inhabited
earth is opened to him; but if his zeal is the result of passion, it will only serve the more to
exclude him, "that everyone should know enough to keep his vessel in sanctitude and honor,
not in the lust of concupiscence" (I Thess. 4:4-5). Though I would fain say more, there is a
limit to the length of a letter. I prayerfully wish, and hope, however, either that our
admonition may prove stronger than the forces of passion, or that this frightful desecration
may not visit our country, but remain confined to the lands in which there was hardihood to
perpetrate it.
Canon 88. I received your letters with all longsuffering, and I marveled that, though able to
defend yourself briefly and readily by means of the facts, you insist upon discussing the
accusations and try to remedy the irremediable with small words. We were not the first nor
the only ones to lay down the law, 0 Gregory, prohibiting women from cohabiting with men;

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 86

 Canonical Sources

but please read the Canon promulgated by our Holy Fathers in the Council of Nicaea, which
explicitly prohibits them from being subintroductae (or "housekeepers"). The respectability
of celibacy consists in this, that it prevents association with women. So that, if anyone
professing it verbally does the things done by those who cohabit with women, it is plain that
he is forfeiting the respectability of virginity that resides in the appellation, and is not actually
abstaining from improprieties in the matter of sensual pleasure. You ought indeed to have
been so much the more ready to yield to our suggestion as you assert outright that you are
free from every bodily passion. For I am persuaded that neither a man of seventy years of age
would cohabit in a passionate fashion with a woman, nor have we with regard to any
supervening act ruled what we have ruled as due to any improper act, but because we have
been taught by the Apostle that "no one should put an obstacle or a stumbling-block in his
brother’s way" (Rom. 14:13). But we are aware that what has been done by others soundly
and sanely, will become to others an occasion for sinning. On this account we ordered you, in
pursuance of the injunction of the Holy Fathers, to separate from the hag. Why, then, are you
accusing the chorepiscopus and bringing up old enmities! Why are you blaming us for
lending ready ears to admission of the calumnies’! Cast her out of your house, therefore, and
settle her in a monastery. Let her remain with virgins, and find yourself male servants, to
prevent the name of God from being blasphemed on your account (Isa. 52; Rom. 2:24). Until
you have done these things, the myriads of protests you are writing in letters will avail you
naught, but, on the contrary, you will die suspended from duties and will have to give the
Lord an account for your own state of suspension and idleness. If, on the other hand, you
should dare, instead of correcting yourself, to oppose the Priesthood, you will be anathema to
all the laity, and any persons accepting you will become outlawed with respect to every
church.
Canon 89. I am exceedingly grieved to find that the Canons of the Fathers have been left
unheeded and all strictness in the churches has been cast to the winds; and I fear lest, when
this indifference has advanced a little more, the affairs of the Church will wind up in a state
of utter confusion. Take those serving the Church, in the olden days it was a custom
prevailing in the churches of God for persons tried and tested with all rigor to be admitted
and their upbringing was looked after with great concernment and diligence, unless they
turned out to be revilers, or drunkards, or ready to pick a fight, so as to instruct them in youth
and enable them to attain to a state of sanctitude, "without which no one shall see the
Lord" (Heb. 12:14). And accordingly this question was examined by Presbyters and Deacons

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 87

 Canonical Sources

living with them. They would report the matter to the Chorepiscopi, who in turn, having
access to the decisions arrived at by those who had testified truly to the facts, and having duly
notified the Bishop, would thus be free to enroll the servant in the battalion of the priestly
orders. But nowadays, first having thrust us aside, and without even condescending to report
to us, they have invested themselves with all the authority. Afterwards, treating the matter
with the utmost indolence, you have permitted Presbyters and Deacons to introduce unworthy
persons into the Church ad libitum, from an unexamined life, in obedience to efforts made in
their behalf, either by their relatives or as a result of friendship in some other respect. That is
why a great number of servants are to be found in every village, but not one deserving to
minister at the altar, as you yourselves bear witness, being at a loss for men in the voting
contests. Since, therefore, the matter has reached a stage of insufferable obnoxiousness,
especially now when the most of them are resorting to ecclesiastical service as a means of
escape from military service, I have necessarily come to the decision to renew the Canons of
the Fathers, and I request you in writing this letter to send me a copy of the record of those
enrolled in the service in each and every village, and by whom each of them was admitted
thereto, and in what state of life he is. Keep a copy of the record for yourselves, so as to be
able to judge your affairs on the basis of the reports available to you; and let no one
interpolate any spurious reports whenever he desires to do so. Thus, however, after the first
survey, if any other persons have been admitted by the Presbyters, let them be relegated to the
laity; but let a re-examination of them be made by you, and if they be found worthy let them
be admitted in pursuance of your decision to this effect. After you have cleansed the Church
by driving out the ones unworthy of her, henceforth begin examining and proving the worthy
ones before admitting them, but do not enroll any of them until you have referred them to us,
or else make up your minds that he will be a layman whom you have admitted to the service
without our consent and approval.
Canon 90. As touching the impropriety of the matter I am writing about, why it was
suspected at all and spoken about, has filled my soul with anguish, but lately it has appeared
to me incredible. Let the letter, therefore, about it be accepted by the one involved as a
remedy for himself; as for the one not involved, let it serve as a safeguard; and as regards
anyone who is indifferent, which I hope that no one among you will prove to be, let it serve
as a protest. But what is it that I am talking about! They say that some of you have been
taking money from the persons ordained, under the cloak of the name of piety. That is worse.
For if anyone does what is bad on the pretext that it is something good, he deserves double

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 88

 Canonical Sources

punishment; for that which is held to be nothing bad has been causing and has been useful in
the commission of sin, as who should say, it has been a good cooperator in this respect. Let
these things, if such is the case, be done no longer; but let the matter be corrected, since
otherwise it will become necessary to tell the one who accepts money that which was told by
the Apostle to the one wanting to give money for the avowed purpose of buying Holy
Spirit: "Thy money perish with thee" (Acts 8:20). For the one who wanted to buy because of
his lack is to be judged more lightly than one who wants to sell the gift of God. For a sale has
been made, and what you received gratis from God if you sell it will be stripped of its
gracious power as though it had been sold to Satan. For you are introducing a system of
trafficking in spiritual matters into the Church, where we have been entrusted with body and
blood of Christ. These things must not be done thus. As for the pretext, I can tell what that is:
they think that they are not sinning because they accept the money after the ordination, and
not at the same time that the ordination is carried out. But an acceptance is an acceptance no
matter when it is actualized. I therefore beg you to put aside this step, or rather this
expedition to Gehenna. Accordingly, do not soil your hands by taking such things, and
thereby render yourselves unworthy to perform the Holy Mysteries. Pardon me if first as
incredulous and afterwards as convinced I employ threats. If anyone after this letter of mine
shall do such a thing any more, he shall depart from the altars here and go in search of one
where the gift of God can be bought and sold. "For we and the churches of God have no such
custom" (I Cor. 11:16; I Tim. 6:10). I have one more thing to add, and I will stop. These
things are being done on account of avarice. Avarice is veritably the root of all evils and is
called idolatry (Col. 3:5). Prefer not, therefore, the idols to Christ for the sake of a little
money; nor, again, imitate Judas by betraying a second time the one crucified but once for us,
since the territories and the hands of those who accept these fruits shall be called Aceldama
(Matt. 27:5; Acts 1:19).
Canon 91. Of the dogmas and preachings kept safely in the Church, we have some from
written doctrine, and some from tradition handed down to us by the Apostles we have
received in mystery, both of which have the same validity and force as regards the piety (i.e.,
the religion); accordingly, no one gainsays these, at least no one that has any experience at all
in ecclesiastical matters. For if we should undertake to discard the unwritten traditions of
customs, on the score that they have no great force, we should unwittingly damage the
Gospel in vital parts, and should rather be left with preaching confined to the mere name.
Such a custom, for instance (to mention the first and most common one first), is that of

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 89

 Canonical Sources

sealing or stamping with the sign of the Cross those who have set their hopes in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Who has taught it in writing. That of turning towards the east when
praying — what writing has taught us to do this? The words uttered in the invocation
connected with the exhibition of the Eucharist (ineptly called by Roman Catholics "the
elevation of the Host") and of the chalice of the blessing, what Saint has bequeathed them to
us? For indeed we are not even content with these, which the Apostle or the Gospel has
mentioned, but we add other ones before and after them on the ground that they contribute
greatly to enhance the Mystery, which words we have received from unwritten teaching. We
bless the water of baptism and the oil of the anointment (or chrism), and in addition thereto
even the person being baptized, with reference to what documents? Is it not with reference to
silent and mystic tradition? But what else? What written word has taught us the use of the oil
in the anointment? And whence comes the idea of baptizing a person three times (in
succession)? But, in fact, whatever is connected with baptism, renouncing Satan and his
angels, from what Scripture is it? Is it not from this unpublished and confidential teaching
which our Fathers have kept as a guarded secret in unmeddlesome and incurious silence, they
having rightly enough taught to preserve the respectable parts of the Mysteries in silenced.
For when it comes to things which the uninitiated were not allowed even to lay eyes on, how
could the teaching thereof be expected to triumph if embodied in writing? And not to speak
of other things, this was the reason for unwritten tradition, as not having been thoroughly
studied, to render knowledge of the dogmas a distasteful subject to the majority of men
because of custom. For dogma is a thing that is quite different from preaching. For dogmas
can be slurred over in silence, but preaching has to be given publicity. Vagueness of
expression too is a sort of silence, much used in Scripture and rendering the sense of the
dogmas difficult to grasp for the convenience of those who happen to hit upon it. For the sake
of this it is that all of us look eastwards when engaged in prayers, few of us realize that in
doing so we are seeking after an ancient fatherland, called Paradise, which God planted in
Eden in the East (Gen. 2:8). And we stand up when praying on the first of the week, though
not all of us know the reason. For it is not only that it serves to remind us that when we have
risen from the dead together with Christ we ought to seek the things above, in the day of
resurrection of the grace given us, by standing at prayer we remind ourselves, but that it also
seems to serve in a way as a picture of the expected age. Wherefore being also the starting-
point of days, though not the first with Moses, yet it has been called the first (in Greek,
"one"). For, it says, "the evening and the morning were the first (in Greek, "one") day" (Gen.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 90

 Canonical Sources

1:5), on the ground that it returns again and again. The eighth, therefore, is also the first (or
"one"), especially as respects that really first and true eighth day, which the Psalmist too has
mentioned in some of the superscriptions of his Psalms (e.g., Ps. 6, Ps. 11), serving to exhibit
the state which is to succeed this period of time, the unceasing day, the anhesperous day, the
successorless day, the interminable and in-senescent age. Necessarily, therefore, the Church
educates her foster children to fulfill their obligations to pray therein while standing up, in
order by constantly reminding them of the deathless life to prevent them from neglecting the
provisions for the journey thither (otherwise known as the viatica). And every Pentecost is a
reminder of the expected resurrection in the age to come. For that one first day, being
multiplied seven times over, constitutes the seven weeks of the sacred Pentecost (meaning, in
Greek, "the Fiftieth Day"). For, by starting from the first (and in accordance with Greek
reckoning omitting this), one winds up on the same day, when one comes to the end after
counting fifty days evolved by running through the series (thus making forty-nine, or seven
weeks in all). Wherefore it is evident that it imitates even an age, precisely as in circular
motion by starting from the same points it arrives at the same points in the end, wherein the
laws of the Church have educated us to prefer the upright posture at prayer, thus transporting
our mind, so to speak, as a result of a vivid and perspicuous suggestion, from the present age
to the things to come in the future. And during each genuflection and straightening again we
are actually showing by deeds (i.e., by our actions) that it was through sin that we fell to the
earth, and that through the kindness of the One created us we have been called back to
heaven. In fact, a whole day would not suffice me to narrate the unwritten Mysteries of the
Church. I leave the rest unsaid. But out of what written works have we obtained the Creed
itself, the confession of the faith, the recital of a belief in a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit?
If it be from the tradition of baptism, as suggested by regard for the subtle consecution of
piety, as we are baptized, so ought we also to believe, and therefore deposit a confession
similar to the baptism. Let it be permitted to us in agreement with that same consecution to
render glory like faith. But if they insist upon discarding the mode of the doxology on the
ground that it is unwritten, let them cede us the confession of the other points in regard to the
faith of which we have enumerated the proofs in writing. Finally, seeing that there are so
many unwritten ones having such great force in regard to the mystery of the piety (i.e., of the
religion], will they not permit us one word come to us from the Fathers which we have come
across still remaining among the unperverted churches as a result of an unaffected custom,

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 91

 Canonical Sources

having no small reason for its existence, nor contributing any short adjuvance to the power of
the Mystery?
Canon 92. Moreover, as relating to the assertion that the Doxology containing the words
"together with the Spirit" is un-witnessed and unwritten, what we have to say is that if
nothing else that is unwritten is admissible, then let this not be admitted either; but if the most
of the mysteries are conveyed to us un-scripturally, let us accept this one too together with
numerous others. It is a usage that is Apostolical, I presume, to adhere to unwritten and
unscriptural traditions. For it says: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all
things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you" (I Cor. 11-2). And: "Hold on
to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether orally or through an epistle of ours" (II
Thess. 2:15), one of which indeed is the present one, which the first originators composed
and handed on to their successors, in due process of time and ever mindful of usage, and have
firmly rooted in the Churches by dint of long custom. If, therefore, we are at a loss to present
written evidence as though in a court of justice, but can produce a whole multitude of
witnesses, should we not receive an express permission from you. The way I look at the
matter is as follows: "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
established" (Deut. 19:15). But if, on the other hand, we have exhibited the facts to you
perspicuously for a long time, should we not accept you naturally enough to say that there is
no evidence to warrant our being put on trial. For how can it be denied that old doctrines are
awesome and entitled to veneration because of their hoary antiquity?
6.1.5. Saint Gregory of Nyssa (372-ca-395)=(wrote 8 canon)
6.1.6. Gregory the theologian (372-ca-390)=(wrote 10 canons)
6.1.7. Amphilochius of Iconium (374—400)=(wrote 1canons)
6.1.8. Timothy of Alexandria (381-385)=(wrote 18 canons)
6.1.9. Cyril of Alexandria (412-444)=(wrote 5 canons)
6.1.10. Theophilos of Alexandria (385-412)=( wrote 11 canons)
6.1.11. Gennadius of Constantinople (458-471)=(wrote 1 canons)
6.1.12. Cyprian of Carthage (248-258)=(wrote 1 canons)
Summary
The course is consisted of six chapters. The first chapter recounts about the definition of a
canon, its historical development and the sources of the canon. The second, third and the
fourth chapters include the ecumenical councils. The first three ecumenical councils are
accepted by all ancient churches (Oriental, Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches). The

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 92

 Canonical Sources

fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh councils which are recognised by only the Roman Catholic
and Eastern Orthodox Churches are the Councils of Chalcedon (451), Constantinople (553
and 680-681, and Nicaea (787) including the fourteen councils of the Roman Catholic
Church. Unlike the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church
accepts twenty-one councils as the ecumenical ones. Therefore it is possible to infer that the
church has thousands of articles of canons that were formulated through the last many years
(325-1965).
The fifth chapter contains the canons of the local councils that were formulated in various
times and places. These canons are almost accepted by all ancient churches as the sources of
ecclesiastical disciplines; among which the canons of Carthage are very large in number. The
last chapter recounts about the canons of the twelve Holy Fathers. Like the canons of the
local councils, the Father’s canons are acceptable almost by all ancient churches. Among
these canons, St. Basil’s are the numerous ones; they are nine-two in number. All of them are
written in module to be instances of holy fathers’ canons. The reason why all articles of the
canons of the father have not been included is avoiding being bulky.
Finally, the producer of the module seriously advises the distance students
to have deep knowledge on the sources of the canons from which the
canons of the EOTC derived.

By Mekonen Workineh, 2022 Page 93