History of ecumenical councils of the first millennium

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council

67. Divine Scripture has commanded us to "abstain from blood, and strangled flesh, and fornication" (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. ch. 17 and 18:13; Acts 15:28–29). We therefore suitably penance those who on account of their dainty stomach eat the blood of any animal after they have rendered it eatable by some art. If, therefore, anyone from now on should attempt to eat the blood of any animal, in any way whatsoever, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

The present Canon commands that no Christian eat the blood of any animal, no matter in what manner or by what art it may have been prepared, and even though it be mixed with other foods, whether these be "suntzukia" or any other things. For the divine Scripture of the Old Testament, and especially that of the New expressly commanded Christians to abstain from blood, from strangled meats, and from fornication (and from things sacrificed to idols). If a clergyman should eat this, let him be deposed from office; but if a layman do so, let him be excommunicated. Read also Ap. c. LXIII.

The 85 canons of apostles

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council

68. As regards the fact that it is not permissible for anyone to destroy, or to cut up, or to turn over to book stores or to so-called druggists, or anyone else whatsoever for destruction any of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, or of our holy and eminent Preachers and Teachers, unless it be completely useless because of having been damaged by bookworms or water or in some other way. Anyone caught doing such a thing from now on, let him be excommunicated for a year. Likewise anyone buying such books, unless he keeps them for his own use and benefit, nor should he give them away to others to keep, but who attempts to destroy them, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation.

It is not permissible, says the present Canon, for anyone to destroy or to cut up books of the Old and New Testaments, and of the eminent teachers, or, in other words, of those who have been approved and accepted after tests (for many books have been written, but have been rejected and disapproved); nor must he give these away to book stores, or to persons who extinguish or otherwise destroy books, or to those selling drugs and perfumes, or to anyone else to destroy or make away with them — except only if they have been entirely eaten up by worms, or have rotted and have become illegible from having become too old to be read. As for anyone who might do such a thing, let him be excommunicated for a year. Likewise let him be excommunicated who buys such books, not in order to benefit himself by reading them, nor in order to give them to anyone else to have the benefit of them, but in order to spoil them or to destroy them.

The 85 canons of apostles

 

[Daniel Marsh]

There looks like there are some errors in the translations.

"
CANON LXVIII.

IT is unlawful for anyone to corrupt or cut up a book of the Old or New Testament or of our holy and approved preachers and teachers, or to give them up to the traders in books or to those who are called perfumers, or to hand it over for destruction to any other like persons: unless to be sure it has been rendered useless either by bookworms, or by water, or in some other way. He who henceforth shall be observed to do such a thing shall be cut off for one year. Likewise also he who buys such books (unless he keeps them for his own use, or gives them to another for his benefit to be preserved) and has attempted to corrupt them, let him be cut off.

NOTES."

Quinisext Council - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

A little background:

"

History​

The Quinisext Council was convened in 692 by Justinian II in Constantinople. It is often referred to as the Council in Trullo because the sessions were held in the same domed room where the Sixth Council was conducted. Both the Fifth and the Sixth Councils had adjourned without drawing up disciplinary canons. The 692 council was convened with the intention to complete the work of the earlier councils in this respect, and it was from this aspect that it took the name Quinisext, i.e. Fifth-Sixth Council. (Latin:Concilium Quinisextum, Koine Greek: Πενθέκτη Σύνοδος - Penthekte Synodos)."

Quinisext Council - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

Above is for informational purposes only.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

There looks like there are some errors in the translations.

"
CANON LXVIII.

IT is unlawful for anyone to corrupt or cut up a book of the Old or New Testament or of our holy and approved preachers and teachers, or to give them up to the traders in books or to those who are called perfumers, or to hand it over for destruction to any other like persons: unless to be sure it has been rendered useless either by bookworms, or by water, or in some other way. He who henceforth shall be observed to do such a thing shall be cut off for one year. Likewise also he who buys such books (unless he keeps them for his own use, or gives them to another for his benefit to be preserved) and has attempted to corrupt them, let him be cut off.

NOTES."

Quinisext Council - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

A little background:

"

History​

The Quinisext Council was convened in 692 by Justinian II in Constantinople. It is often referred to as the Council in Trullo because the sessions were held in the same domed room where the Sixth Council was conducted. Both the Fifth and the Sixth Councils had adjourned without drawing up disciplinary canons. The 692 council was convened with the intention to complete the work of the earlier councils in this respect, and it was from this aspect that it took the name Quinisext, i.e. Fifth-Sixth Council. (Latin:Concilium Quinisextum, Koine Greek: Πενθέκτη Σύνοδος - Penthekte Synodos)."

Quinisext Council - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

Above is for informational purposes only.

Thank you. I know English a little. Therefore, I do not see all errors. But the main thing is clear: the books of the Bible (Old and New Testament) are forbidden to be destroyed, damaged or traded for profit.

 

[Eriugena]

Emperor Constantine the Great proposed to the Council that the word "consubstantial" be introduced into the text of the Creed, which he often heard in the speeches of bishops.

Great subject by the way!

I would suggest the influence of Bishop Hosius Of Córdoba should not be overlooked, as he was a theological adviser to the Emperor.

Hosius attended the Council of Elvira (c. 300) and from 312 to 326 was ecclesiastical adviser at the court of Constantine, who in 324 sent him as imperial emissary to the East to settle the Arian dispute. Hosius convoked a synod at Alexandria of Egyptian bishops and another at Antioch of Syrian bishops, at both of which Arius and his followers were condemned.

Possibly prompted by Hosius(?) Constantine then summoned a council at Nicaea, at which Hosius was influential in securing the inclusion of the key word homoousios (consubstantial).

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Great subject by the way!

I would suggest the influence of Bishop Hosius Of Córdoba should not be overlooked, as he was a theological adviser to the Emperor.

Hosius attended the Council of Elvira (c. 300) and from 312 to 326 was ecclesiastical adviser at the court of Constantine, who in 324 sent him as imperial emissary to the East to settle the Arian dispute. Hosius convoked a synod at Alexandria of Egyptian bishops and another at Antioch of Syrian bishops, at both of which Arius and his followers were condemned.

Possibly prompted by Hosius(?) Constantine then summoned a council at Nicaea, at which Hosius was influential in securing the inclusion of the key word homoousios (consubstantial).

The topic is so vast that it is impossible to fit it even in a doctoral dissertation. Even more than that, during his earthly life, no person is able to exhaust this topic. Therefore, I give only an extract from the most important.

Regarding the influence of any one person, the Ecumenical Councils are good because: 1) they were in a period when grace was still especially strong and many had the gift of prophecy; for example, a bishop is going to a cathedral, and in his diocese there are dozens of monks who have the gift of prophecy, like the apostles, and they all say the same thing; and the bishops listened to the prophets from their flock; 2) The Orthodox Church focuses more on the holy fathers who lived in the East of the Roman Empire (St. Nicholas the world of Lycia, St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, St. Athanasius the Great and others); 3) then there was an amazing agreement of the holy fathers on the issues being decided at these councils; even those holy fathers who either were not at the council due to remoteness, or lived later, agreed with them in their writings; the vast majority of patristic writings are interconnected and agree, although they were written at great distances, in different languages and even in different centuries (St. Basil the Great - 4th century, St. John Chrysostom - 5th century, St. Isaac the Syrian - 6th century, St. John of the Ladder - 7th century, and so on).

 

[Eriugena]

The topic is so vast that it is impossible to fit it even in a doctoral dissertation. Even more than that, during his earthly life, no person is able to exhaust this topic. Therefore, I give only an extract from the most important.

True. I did not mean to criticise, only point out as a matter of interest.

Regarding the influence of any one person ...

Well as the saying goes 'Athanasius contra mundum' – the poor man was exiled on numerous occasions as the political favour swung between Nicean and Arianism.
Athanasius certainly had a job on his hands to answer the doubts of many of the bishops attending Nicaea – many were uncertain that he was going too far.

... and in his diocese there are dozens of monks who have the gift of prophecy, like the apostles, and they all say the same thing; and the bishops listened to the prophets from their flock ...

I do not disagree, but there was also dissent, and monastic communities were not immune from error, nor monks free of persecution for following the true faith. I am thinking of Origen in the first instance, and the later 'errors' ascribed to him but more likely the preaching of zealous monks who tragically lacked his more discerning understanding, and St Maximos – St Maximus the Confessor as we know him in the west – as who was persecuted for defending Pope Martin I and the orthodox faith.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

True. I did not mean to criticise, only point out as a matter of interest.

Well as the saying goes 'Athanasius contra mundum' – the poor man was exiled on numerous occasions as the political favour swung between Nicean and Arianism.
Athanasius certainly had a job on his hands to answer the doubts of many of the bishops attending Nicaea – many were uncertain that he was going too far.


I do not disagree, but there was also dissent, and monastic communities were not immune from error, nor monks free of persecution for following the true faith. I am thinking of Origen in the first instance, and the later 'errors' ascribed to him but more likely the preaching of zealous monks who tragically lacked his more discerning understanding, and St Maximos – St Maximus the Confessor as we know him in the west – as who was persecuted for defending Pope Martin I and the orthodox faith.

Saint Athanasius was a great confessor of the Orthodox Christian faith. The Arian heresy (like the modern organization of Jehovah's Witnesses) subverted all Christian teaching. If Jesus Christ was not God, then this assumption offends the Virgin Mary, and makes Jesus Christ himself a liar. By God's permission, Satan gave the Arians to gain political power for a time and severely persecuted the Christians. Since St. Athanasius was a bishop, he could not hide and secretly confess Christianity. He chose to suffer but confess the truth.

Origen at first wrote wise things. But when he gained great popularity, he began to overly trust his own thoughts, not comparing them with the thoughts of the whole Church. Thus he fell into heresy on account of self-confidence. Of course, not all monks possessed the truth. But Jesus Christ said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Those who had good fruits were recognized by the Church as saints.

Maximus the Confessor is also one of the confessors who fought against heresy. Heresies often arose first in the East, then penetrated to the West. Therefore, during the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the West was Orthodox and the Pope Martin helped defend the Orthodox faith. Maximus the Confessor was a fighter against the heresy of Monophylitism and was supported by the Pope Martin. Both of them suffered for the truth in the 7th century. Saint Maximus was arrested and escorted to the capital of Byzantium around the year 653, approximately at the same time as Saint Pope Martin. The latter was convicted and sentenced to exile in the Crimea, where he died under the weight of punishment. In 662, Maximus the Confessor was severely scourged, his tongue was cut off, his right hand was cut off, he was taken to the square and began to be led around it like a villain, shouting and mocking. After this outrage, Maxim was sent into exile. When they reached the territory of Georgia, the sufferer was undressed and his last property was taken from him. Then he was imprisoned in the fortress of Schimari. On August 13, the true warrior of Christ reposed and departed for the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council

70. Let it not be permissible for women to talk during Holy Mass, but in accordance with the words of Paul the Apostle, "let your women remain silent. For it has not been permitted them to talk, but to obey, as the law directs. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home."

"As in all churches of the saints," says Paul the Apostle, "in the churches let your women remain silent. For it has not been permitted them to talk but to obey, as the law directs. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home" (1 Cor. 14:33–35.)

"Let the women learn quietly with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be quiet. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived became at fault. But she shall be saved through child-bearing, if they abide in faith and love and sanctity with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:11–15).

​

Interpretation.​

According to the words of this Canon and according to the words of St. Paul, women are prohibited from teaching either in holy temples (churches) or outside thereof, for St. Paul does not mean by "church" the temple itself, but a "congregation of people" anywhere; and still more are they prohibited from chanting either in a choir of their own or along with men.

"For it is a shame for women to talk in church" (1 Cor. 14:35). This means that women should keep silent in church, and out of church wherever there is a congregation of people. The fact that the word talk is used here, and not the word speak, controverts and overthrows the allegation put forward by some persons that only teaching is forbidden to women but not chanting; for talk includes any sort of vocal utterance, and not merely articulate speech. In fact, women are not allowed to let their voice be heard at all within the sacred temple of the church. They may, of course, sing and chant in their hearts praises and blessings to God, but not with their lips.

Before God formed Eve, He said: "It is not good that man should be alone; let us make for him a helper meet for him" (Gen. 2:18). This means that woman was created, not to rule man, but to help him and to be ruled by him. Woman is a teacher of every virtue by word and deed within her own province at home; but she is not allowed even to speak or sing within the sacred precincts of the church. Woman’s job is to bear children and rear them in the belief and love of God, to uphold the sanctity and sobriety of marriage, and to shun adultery as a thing that is odious to God. By so doing she will be saved, and not otherwise; by leaving this path and failing in these duties, she invites perdition.


"If anyone think himself a prophet or a spiritual agent, let him acknowledge that what I write unto you are commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant" (1 Cor. 14:37–38). A true prophet or teacher or spiritual agent has the spirit of Christ and does not disagree with Christ’s Apostle; he easily discerns and believes that St. Paul’s commandments are commandments of Christ. Whoever, on the other hand, does not discern and believe this, yet thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual agent, is merely deluding himself; he is a false prophet lacking the spirit of Christ.

Teaching and chanting are inconsistent with the nature and destiny of a Christian woman, just as are the priesthood and the bishopric. Eve, the woman formed by God, was the first to teach Adam once, in Paradise, and she ruined everything; that is why women are forbidden to talk in churches. The greatest adornment of women is silence. Let their example be Mary, the New Woman and Child of God, who alone has the honor of having had her speech recorded in history and handed down in the ninth ode of the Church; this refers to her speech and that of Elizabeth. Therefore let Christian women emulate her. The ancient idolaters had priestesses to officiate at the altars and in the temples of idols, in which demons were worshiped; and hence it is that deluded heretics derived this impious custom of theirs of letting women teach and sing and govern in their churches. Shall we Orthodox Christians imitate them? By no means!

It is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (Book 7, ch. 30) that a council of bishops met in Antioch in the third century after Christ from various cities for the purpose of trying Paul the bishop of Samosat, who was rather a sophist and magician than a bishop and who, in addition to other heresies, had introduced a choir of women into the church of Antioch. That council addressed a letter to bishops Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria containing the following phrases: "Having suppressed the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ on the pretext that they are modern psalms and the writings of modern men, who is preparing women to chant to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of Easter whom one would shudder merely to listen to."

Women were never permitted to teach or to chant in the church along with the sacred cantors or in a choir of their own. Female choirs are an unexampled innovation involving many perils and capable of leading to many scandals, for woman’s voice is more attractive and more pathetic than man’s. The appearance of women in the church choir constitutes a stumbling block; for the eyes and ears of the congregation are at once turned to them, and, becoming intoxicated with the sight and sound of the highstrung melodramatic voices of women, they are languorously effeminated in mind and rendered incapable of enjoying the modest and contrite songs of the Church; thus the church choir gradually becomes transformed into a theatrical chorus!

Canon LXXV of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod decrees the following with reference to church choirs: "It is our wish that those who come to church to chant should neither employ disorderly yelling and strain their natural voices to scream, nor recite anything inappropriate and not suited to a church, but that they should offer such psalmodies with great care contrition to God, who listens and looks on in secret." "The children of Israel shall be reverent," saith the sacred saying (Lev. 15:31).

The holy liturgy and sacred hymnody presented in church has the purpose of offering prayers to propitiate God for our sins. Whoever prays and supplicates should be of humble and contrite mind; yelling indicates rudeness and irreverence of mind. But voices and faces of female choirs and the psalmody of European quartets represent a theatrical mind rather than a modest ecclesiastical mind. What is it that is unsuited to the church? Effeminate songs (melodies) and trills (which means the same thing as the warbles of old) and an excessive variety of tones that inclines to whorish songs, Zonaras, an interpreter of the Canons, says.

The children of Israel after Christ are the pious Christians, who should be imbued with fear of God and reverence while within the church. God is not pleased with variety of melodies and voices, but with contrition and repentance of the heart. This is easily understood when we remember that man is pleased to listen to melodies and to look at pretty faces, whereas God looks into man’s soul in the depths of the heart and delights in its reverence, which is manifested by humbleness of behavior.

The 85 canons of apostles

​

 

[Daniel Marsh]

this is worth reading​

​

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide ...​

David W. Bercot ·

 

[ValeriyK2022]

this is worth reading​

​

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide ...​

David W. Bercot ·

Thank you!

 

[Phoneman-777]

Even during the life of the apostles, the first heresy appeared. This was the heresy of the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans were heretics, representing a branch of the Gnostics and distinguished by depravity. Откровение ап. Иоанна Богослова, Глава 2, стих 6

In Revelation 2:6 Jesus commends the disciples in the city of Ephesus for "hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans," which our Lord then states He also hates. Later, in verse 15, He declares His displeasure with the saints in Pergamum because "you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans." In Ephesus this group was quickly turned away, which elicited the commendation of the ascended Christ. In Pergamum, however, the Nicolaitans were seemingly welcomed, and even embraced, thus incurring our Lord's condemnation.

What was it about this group that caused them to be so detestable in the sight of the Lord, and also in the sight of the church at Ephesus?

Apparently, they were very similar to the Balaamites of the OT, in that they committed acts of immorality (fornication) and they ate meat that had been offered to idols. In Rev. 2:14-15 the Lord makes this connection plain: "You have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit acts of immorality. You also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans."

It is also likely that Jezebel, whom Jesus condemns in the epistle to Thyatira, was a member of the Nicolaitans, for Rev. 2:20 says, "she teaches and leads my bond-servants astray, so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols." These are the same offenses earlier condemned as practices of the Nicolaitans.

The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles states that "those who are falsely called Nicolaitans, are impudent in uncleanness." Tertullian (with regard to marriage) says, "The Nicolaitans, in their maintenance of lust and luxury, destroy the happiness of sanctity." Irenaeus writes, "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence," and teach "it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Ignatius brands them as "lovers of pleasure, and given to slanderous speeches." He also says that they "affirm that unlawful unions are a good thing, and place the highest happiness in pleasure."

A question which comes immediately to mind at this point is: How could a group of individuals in the early church hold to such beliefs and practices and still profess to be followers of Jesus Christ?! Would they not see the inconsistency? The answer apparently is that, like Balaam, they were self-deceived and self-deluded. This caused them to gloss over their obvious wickedness, and to dress it up so as to make it more acceptable to both themselves and those around them. Contributing to this state of self-deception is the fact that they may also have been misinterpreting a passage from one of the epistles of Paul --- "ALL things are lawful for me" (1 Cor. 6:12).

The Nicolaitans

You're speaking in terms of symptoms - but what is the disease? The term "Nicolatians" means "ruler over the people" which God never intended to have in His church, yet, history tells us was an unfortunate development. These "rulers" drove out true believers into the rocks and mountains, while they ruled for 1,260 years before themselves receiving a "deadly wound", as foretold by John:

"And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."

 

[Phoneman-777]

this is worth reading​

​

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide ...​

David W. Bercot ·

I don't have a copy. Does the author elaborate on what was their eschatological school of thought - Historicism, Futurism, or Preterism?

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

72. Let no Orthodox man be allowed to contract a marriage with a heretical woman, nor moreover let any Orthodox woman be married to a heretical man. But if it should be discovered that any such thing is done by any one of the Christians, no matter who, let the marriage be deemed void, and let the lawless marriage tie be dissolved. For it is not right to mix things immiscible, nor to let a wolf get tangled up with a sheep, and the lot of sinners get tangled up with the portion of Christ. If, therefore, anyone violates the rules we have made let him be excommunicated. But in case persons who happen to be still in the state of unbelief (i.e., infidels) and to be not yet admitted to the fold of the Orthodox have joined themselves to each other by lawful marriage, then and in that event, the one of them having chosen the good start by running to the light of truth, while the other, on the contrary, has been held down by the bond of delusion for having failed to welcome the choice of gazing at the divine rays (whether it be that an infidel woman has looked with favor upon a man who is a believer, or vice versa an infidel man upon a woman who is a believer), let them not be separated, in accordance with the divine Apostle: "For the infidel husband is sanctified by the wife, and the infidel wife by the husband" (1 Cor. 7:14).

(c. XIV of the 4th.)

​

Interpretation.​

The present Canon declares that it is not permissible for an Orthodox man to marry a heretical woman, or for an Orthodox woman to get married to a heretical man. But if anyone should do this, the marriage is to be void, and this unlawful matrimonial tie is to be sundered. For no wolf should ever be united with a sheep, and the lot of sinners and heretics with the portion of Christ and of Orthodox Christians. Whoever transgresses the present Canon, let him be excommunicated. If, however, both parties were married while infidels in infidelity and community of religion, but afterwards one party believed in Christ, while the other remained in the darkness of infidelity, though the infidel party is still pleased to cohabit with the believing party, let the couple not be separated, as St. Paul says, and indeed even St. Basil’s c. IX. For one thing, because the infidel husband becomes sanctified by living with his believing wife, or the infidel wife by living with her believing husband. And for another thing, because perhaps as a result of such cohabitation the other party may be led to piety. "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?" demands the same St. Paul, "or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save they wife?" (1 Cor. 7:16). See also c. XIV of the 4th.

The 85 canons of apostles

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

77. That those who have been admitted to the priesthood, or clerics, or ascetics ought not to bathe in public baths with women, nor ought any Christian layman do so. For this is the first thing heathen find to condemn. In case, however, anyone be caught in the act of committing this impropriety, if he is a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.​

Interpretation.​

The present Canon is word for word c. XXX of the Council held in Laodicea, except only for the penance. It says, then, that those in major holy orders, or clergymen admitted to the Holy Bema, or monks and ascetics, or in general any Christian layman ought not to bathe in a public bath together with women; since this impropriety in the eyes of heathen appears to be an offense of the first magnitude, and the greatest scandal as against Christians. But the Apostle commands us to become sentinels to the Jews and Greeks, and to the Church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). And if, as Zonaras says, merely meeting a woman in general on the street or at a house is enough to disturb the reasoning process, how can the mind of those men who are bathing together with women fail to be overwhelmed and moved to desire. But not even married couples ought to bathe together, according to Balsamon, either at a public bath, that is to say, or in the sea, or in a river. For they possess their bodies for the purpose of procreating children, and not in order to strip themselves and look at their ugly parts. The Canon adds that whoever appears to be doing this, if he is a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Concord.

The Apostolic Injunctions, Book 1, ch. 9, prohibit the bathing of a woman with a man. This disorderly act is also mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer. 30) and by Clement of Alexandria (Book 3, ch. 5, of his Pardagogus).

The 85 canons of apostles

Thus, it is forbidden for a Christian to swim in a pool, in a river or in the sea, if there are members of the opposite sex within sight of the human eye. It is forbidden to look at the undressed and to undress yourself when others can look.​

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

79. Confessing the divine childbirth to have resulted from the Virgin without confinement (i.e., childbed), as well as without its being induced by seed; and preaching to all the flock, we require those who have done anything that was not proper to submit to correction. Hence, in view of the fact that after the holy birthday of Christ our God some persons are shown to be boiling fine flour (called in Greek semidalis) and giving thereof to one another, on the pretext of paying honor to the alleged puerperium of the All-intemerate Parthenometor (i.e., the perfectly immaculate Virgin Mother), we decree that nothing of the kind shall be done by the faithful. For this is no honor to the Virgin, at any rate, who gave birth to the Logos in the flesh who is incapable of being spatially bounded and whose birth was beyond the mind and reason of man, from common knowledge and our own experience to define and subscribe to the events attending Her ineffable childbirth. Henceforth, therefore, in case anyone should be caught in the act of doing this, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

​

Interpretation.​

Inasmuch as some Christians, actuated by their lack of positive knowledge, on the second day after Christmas boiled fine flour and other foodstuffs, which they ate and gave one another to eat, doing this for the sake of allegedly honoring the puerperium of the Theotoke (just as it is the custom to do in the case of other women who gave birth to children in a natural manner). On this account and for this reason the present Canon decrees that hereafter such a thing shall not be done by Christians. For by such a custom to liken the inexplicable childbirth of the Ever-Virgin to the common and humble birth of us human beings cannot be considered any honor to Her, who beyond the conceivability of man’s mind and reason gave birth in the flesh to the God Logos, who cannot be bounded spatially; on the contrary, it is rather a dishonor. For just as we confess the Conception of the Theotoke to have been seedless and to have resulted from action of the Holy Spirit, so and in like manner we also join in confessing Her childbirth to have been one above every accompaniment of any confinement due to what is commonly called childbed, which consists in giving birth to an infant with the accompanying pangs of childbirth and is followed by a flux of blood, according to Zonaras. Whoever should do this, if he be a Cleric, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Jesus Christ was born without childbirth. This is now called teleportation. Whoever does not believe in this is excommunicated from the Church and is not a Christian.​

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

80. In case any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else on the list of the Clergy, or any layman, without any graver necessity or any particular difficulty compelling him to absent himself from his own church for a very long time, fails to attend church on Sundays for three consecutive weeks, while living in the city, if he be a Cleric, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be removed from Communion.​

The 85 canons of apostles

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

84. Closely following the Fathers’ institutions, we decree also as concerning infants, whenever there can be found no reliable witnesses who can state beyond a doubt that they have been duly baptized, and neither are they themselves owing to their infancy able to give any information at all in reply to questions respecting the mystagogical rite administered to them, they must be baptized without putting any obstacle in the way, lest any such hesitation may deprive them of such purifying sanctification.​

Interpretation.​

This Canon too is likewise word for word c. LXXX of Carthage, decreeing that whenever no witnesses can be found to testify that infants have been baptized (perhaps because they were captured by barbarians and abducted to distant regions, and were thereafter redeemed from captivity by Christians), nor can they themselves give any information that they have been baptized, owing to infancy, or, more explicitly speaking, owing to the infantile age at which they were baptized. Such infants, I say, ought to be baptized without any hindrance, lest any doubt as to whether they have been baptized or not result in depriving them of the purification effected through and by virtue of the bath. And see the Footnote to Ap. c. XLVII.

The 85 canons of apostles

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

87. A woman who has abandoned her husband is an adulteress if she has betaken herself to another man, according to sacred and divine Basil, who most excellently and aptly extracted this item of knowledge from the prophecy of Jeremiah, which says that "if a wife transfers herself to another man, she shall not return to her husband, but by polluting herself she shall remain polluted" (Jer. 3:1); and again, "Whosoever hath an adulteress (as his wife), is foolish and impious" (Prov. 18:22). If, therefore, a woman appears to have departed from her husband without a good reason, the man deserves to be pardoned, while the woman deserves a penance. The pardon shall be given to him so that he may have communion with the Church. Any husband, however, who abandons his lawful wife, and takes another, according to the Lord’s decision, is subject to the judgment attached to adultery. It has been canonically decreed by our Fathers that such men shall serve a year as weepers, two years as listeners, three years as kneelers, and during the seventh year shall stand together with the faithful, and thus be deemed worthy to partake of the prosphora if indeed they verily repent with tears.

​

Interpretation.​

The present Canon is composed of three Canons of St. Basil the Great. Thus, the commencement of this Canon is gleaned from c. IX of Basil. It says in effect that any wife who leaves her husband and takes another is an adulteress, just as divine Basil wisely concluded both from the prophecy of Jeremiah which says in effect that if a wife takes another man, she can no longer return to her first husband (without his wanting her, that is to say, according to Zonaras), since she has become polluted: and from the Proverbs of Solomon, who says that any man is impious and wanting in sense who keeps his wife in his house after she has been adulterously employed by another man. The rest of this Canon is gleaned from c. XXXV of St. Basil. It says: If, therefore, it should appear that a wife has departed from her husband without a good reason and cause (which means without the reason based on fornication; so that from this it is easy to understand by contradistinction that a wife may with good reason leave her husband: but no other occasion is a good reason except the reason of fornication or adultery), the husband deserves to be pardoned on the ground that he has afforded no just cause for this unreasonable departure of his wife, and he can take another wife. But the wife, on the contrary, deserves the penances attached to the commission of adultery, on the ground that she has become the cause of this departure. The pardon which the husband shall receive because thereof is that he may stand along with the faithful in the church and not be excommunicated, though he is not entitled to partake of the divine Mysteries. The rest of this Canon is word for word c. LXXVII of St. Basil the Great. It says: He, however, who (except on grounds of fornication) leaves his lawful wife and takes another is subject to the penance attached to adultery, in accordance with the Lord’s decision, which says: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save on account of fornication, is causing her to commit adultery." By concession, however, if he repent with tears, such a man and his likes are canonized by the Fathers (assembled, that is to say, in Ancyra, in their c. XX; and by St. Basil the Great, in his c. LXXVII) to abstain from Communion for seven years, passing two of them with the weepers, two with the listeners, three with the kneelers, and during seventh year standing together with the co-standers, or consistentes, and thus acquiring the right to commune. Read also the Interpretation and Footnote of Ap. c. XLVIII, and c. XX of Ancyra.

The 85 canons of apostles

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

100. "Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence" (Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensations of the body can easily foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.

(No interpretation of this Canon is in the Greek edition.)

Concord.

Inasmuch as some men were wont to paint or draw on walls and boards lascivious pictures, such as women stark naked or bathing or being kissed by men, and other such shameful scenes, which deceive the eyes of beholders and excite the mind and heart to carnal desires, therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that no such pictures shall by any means whatsoever be painted or drawn or sketched. If anyone should make any such pictures, let him be excommunicated, since all the five senses of the body, and especially the first and royalest one, the eyesight, is easily led to impress the pictures of those things which it sees into the soul. That is why Solomon recommends that our eyes look aright at things that are fine and good and beautiful, and that everyone of us keep his mind and heart away from the shameful objects of the senses.​