THE SYNODS OF SARDICA AND PHILIPPOPOLIS
SECTION 64. THE SARDICAN CANONS
5. In case a bishop deposed by the first court appeals to Rome, his See may not be given to another until Rome has decided, that is, has either
appeal, or they would have been involved in the absurdity of two appeals to Rome, so that the Pope, having pronounced judgment in the second court, would have been again appealed to in the third court; thus the appeal would have been from the Pope to himself.
In order to avoid this, and not to abandon the meaning given by themselves to the fourth canon, it was necessary for them not to
recognize any actual appeal in the third canon. They were bent, however, on maintaining their explanation of the fourth canon, in order to gain some ground for the assertion that the Pope might also himself decide at Rome, since they, quite arbitrarily, interpreted the words already
mentioned at the end of the fourth canon, eja<n mh< oJ th~c JRwmai>wn epi>skopov, k.t.l., in this way. fa192
To sum up then, we obtain the following result from these three canons:
—
418 A.D.), appealed to these Sardican decrees, holding them to be Nicene, and calling them so; fa199 and
(2) that, as is well known, the Church discipline contained in the Sardican canons has in course of time been altered again, and the right of deposing a bishop, even in the first court, has been taken from the provincial synods, and entirely transferred to Rome as a causa major.
We meet with this mediaeval alteration of the Sardican discipline, which was occasioned by the circumstances of the age, for the first time, in the Hincmar quarrels of the ninth century, concerning Rothad of Soissons and Hincmar the younger of Laon, and it found its full expression in the pseudo-Isidorian decrees. fa200
CANON 6
FA201[Osiov ejpi>skopov ei+pen jEa<n sumbh~| ejn mia~| ejparci>a|, ejn h+|
plei~stoi ejpi>skopoi tugca>nousin, e[na ejpi>skopon ajpouei~nai, kajkei~nov kata> tina ajme>leian mh< boulhqh~| sunelqei~n kai<
suvaive>sai th~| katasta>sei tw~n ejpisko>pwn, ta< de< plh>qh suvaqroisqe>nta parakaloi~en gi>gnesqai th<n kata>stasin tou~
par j aujtw~n ejpixhtoume>nou ejpisko>pou crh< pro>teron ekei~non to<n enapomei>nanta ejpi>skopon ujpomimnh>s kesqai dia<gramma>twn tou~ ejxa>rcou th~v ejparciav le>gw dh< tou~ ejpisko>pou th~v
mhtropo>lewc, o[ti ajxioi~ ta< plh>qh poime>na aujtoi~v doqh~nai hJgou~mai kalw~v e]cein kai< tou~ton ejkde>cesqai, i[na parage>nhtai eij de< mh< dia< gramma>twn ajxiwqei<v parage>nhtai, mh>te mh<n ajntigra>foi, to< ijkano<n th~| boulh>sei tou~ plh>qouv crh< gene>sqai.
Crh< de< tai< metakalei~sqai kai< tou>v ajjpo> th~v plhsiocw>rou ejparci>av ejpisko>pouv pro<v th<n kata>stasin tou~ th~v
mhtropo>lewv ejposko>pou.
Mh< ejxei~nai de< ajplw~v kaqista~n ejpi>skopon ejn kw>mh| tini< h}
bracei>a| po>lei, h+|tini kai< ei+v mo>nov presbu>terov ejparkei~ oujk ajnagkai~on ga<r ejpisko>pouv ekei~se kaqi>stasqai, i[na mh<
kateuteli>xhtai to< tou~ ejpisko>pou o]noma kai< hJ aujqenti>a, ajll j oiJ th~v ejparci>av wJv proei~pon ejpi>skopoi ejn tau>taiv tai~v po>lesi kaqista~n ejpisko>pouv ojfei>lousin, e]nqa kai< pro>teron ejtu>gcanon gegono>tev ejpi>skopoi eij de< euJri>skoito ou[tw plhqu>nousa> tiv ejn polllw~| ajriqmw~| laou~ po>liv, wJv ajxi>an aujth<n kai< ejpiskoph~v
nomi>xesqai, lambane>tw eij pa~sn ajre<skei tou~to; ajpekrinanto pa>ntev jAre<skei.
“Osius episcopus dixit: Si contigerit, in una provincia, in qua plurimi fuerint episcopi, unum forte remanere episcopum, ille vero per negligentiam noluerit (ordinare) episcopum, et populi
convenerint, episcopi vicinae provinciae debent illum prius convenire episcopum, qui in ea provincia moratur, et ostendere, quod populi petant sibi rectorem, et hoc justum esse, ut et ipsi veniant, et cum ipso ordinent episcopum; quod si conventus literis tacuerit et dissimulaverit nihilque rescripserit, satisfaciendum esse populis, ut veniant ex vicina provincia episcopi et ordinent
episcopum.
“Licentia vero danda non est ordinandi episcopum aut in vico aliquo aut in modica civitate, cui sufficit unus presbyter, quia non est necesse ibi episcopum fieri, ne vilescat nomen episcopi et auctoritas. Non debent illi ex alia provincia invitati facere
episcopum, nisi aut in his civitatibus, quae episcopos habuerunt, aut si qua talis aut tam populosa est civitas, quae mereatur habere episcopum. Si hoc omnibus placet? Synodus respondit: Placet.”
This canon is divided into two parts, distinguished by Dionysius and others completely from each other; the first of which, in the Greek text, has quite a different meaning from the Latin. The Greek text supposes the case of a province where there are a great many bishops, of whom one remains behind, and from carelessness neglects to attend an election of a bishop in another part of the province where the people of the town desire a bishop. The question then is, Shall this wish be granted without delay, and the new bishop be appointed without awaiting the arrival of his absent colleague?
This the Synod forbids, probably because in the fourth Nicene canon the right of the bishops to take part in all episcopal elections in the province was already acknowledged. In order that this right of the absent bishop should not be prejudiced, the Synod orders that “before steps are taken as to the choice of a bishop for the vacant See, the exarch of the
province, i.e. the bishop of the metropolis, shall intimate by letter to the absent bishop that the people desire a pastor, that they shall wait a certain time to enable him to come; but if, after receiving this letter, he does not come or send any answer, the wishes of the people shall be complied
with.” Appended to this is the further rule, which is entirely omitted in the Latin, that “at the appointment of a metropolitan, the bishops of the neighbouring provinces shall also be invited;” probably in order to give greater solemnity to the act. fa202
The Latin text, which differs essentially, says: “If there is only one bishop left in a province where there were formerly many fa203 (for instance, in consequence of a pestilence or war), and he neglects to consecrate any other bishop, fa204 but the people have recourse to the bishops of the neighbouring province, fa205 in order through them to obtain other bishops, these bishops must place themselves in communication with the sole remaining bishop of that province, fa206 and represent to him that the people desire a shepherd and pastor; and then in union with him they shall consecrate a new bishop. If he, however, gives no answer to their letter, and thus refuses to take part in the consecration, they shall grant the wishes of the people, and perform it without him.”
In this way our Latin text is interpreted by Van Espen, Christianus Lupus, and others; and the latter adds that, according to Flodoard’s History of the Church of Rheims, fa207 the Gallican church also formerly acted upon the canon in this sense. fa208 This interpretation is also quite unmistakeably indicated in the text of the canon which Gratian received into the Corpus Juris. fa209
The meaning given to the canon by the old Greek scholiast Zonaras, occupies an intermediate place between the meaning of the Greek and the Latin text, as just defined. According to his view, it means: “If a province once numbered many bishops, but some are dead, others deposed, others absent, so that besides the metropolitan only one remains, and he neglects to be present at the consecration of new bishops, the metropolitan shall then summon him by letter; and if he still does not come, shall grant the wish of the people, and appoint a new bishop.” fa210 In like manner does another Greek of the Middle Ages, Harmenopulus, fa211 interpret the canon. Whether, in such case, the metropolitan might himself alone consecrate the new bishop, in contradiction to the fourth Nicene canon, Zonaras does not say; but Harmenopulus expressly maintains this, and argues it from the to< ijkano<n k.t.l.
The old Latin translation of the Greek text which Maffei found in a codex at Verona fa212 has something quite peculiar to itself. It also gives the words: “If in a province only one bishop is left besides the metropolitan,”
and therefore so far agrees with Zonaras. On the other hand, it interprets the fatal plurimi quite differently from all other texts, in adding
ordinandi, so that the meaning becomes: “If in this province several new bishops are to be consecrated,” of course because besides the
metropolitan only one is left. “If this one does not appear at the consecration, the metropolitan shall invite him by letter,” etc.; here it agrees with our Greek text. “If, even after this invitation, he does not appear, the metropolitan shall summon bishops of the neighhouring province, and in union with them shall perform the consecration.” We see that the Greek text from which this old translation is taken agrees far more closely with the last words of the Latin text of Dionysius, etc., than with our Greek text, and thus we are no longer perplexed by finding mention made suddenly, in a little half sentence, of something quite new, and without any connection with the context, namely, the consecration of a metropolitan. On this account the Ballerini have given preference to this way of reading the Greek text, now lost, and represented by this old translation. fa213
This first part of the canon, which we have now been discussing, is said to have been quoted as Nicene by the bishops assembled at
Constantinople in 382. So think Hardouin, fa214 Mansi, fa215 the Ballerini,
fa216
and others. Spittler fa217 contradicts them, and is of opinion that the bishops at Constantinople may perhaps have had in view the fourth Nicene canon. Let us examine who is in the right. The Fathers of Constantinople say in the passage in question, that the Nicene rule had come into practice, that in every province the provincial bishops might consecrate, and, if they wished, also call to their assistance the
neighboring bishops fa218 (of another province). Now it is clear that, according to the Greek text, this Sardican canon says something quite different; but according to the Latin, something similar, though not exactly the same. The fourth Nicene canon, on the contrary, orders that,
“at the consecration of a bishop, all the bishops of the province shall be there; but if this cannot well be, at least three shall be present.” It is evident that here something quite different is meant from that to which the bishops of Constantinople refer. Spittler is of opinion that the meaning of the Nicene canon was that the three bishops, who were sufficient for the consecration, were to be taken from the neighborhood of the place where the consecration was held. Therefore he says that they might at Constantinople have been fitly designated as finitimi, and that
the passage referred to by the Constantinopolitans speaks, too, only of finitimis, of neighboring bishops, but not bishops of the neighboring province, as did the Synod of Sardica. This is true; but in the first place, the three finitimi episcopi of the Nicene canon perform the consecration alone, because the other comprovincials are absent. The finitimi of the Constantinopolitan rule, on the contrary, assist the comprovincials who are present, and only strengthen them. Hence it follows, secondly, that the finitimi of the Constantinopolitan rule do not belong to the same province, but to another; because, as the text plainly shows, they act with the comprovincials, but not in their stead, or as their commissaries, as the Nicene canon orders. It is therefore quite impossible that the bishops of Constantinople can here have had in view the fourth canon of Nicaea; and Spittler is only so far right in saying that they do not quote the Sardican canon accurately, fa219 but give it far too wide a scope in giving universal permission for the assistance of foreign bishops, while the Synod of Sardica confines this to one particular case. There is, moreover, in the si velint of the Constantinopolitans, and in pro<v to< snmfe>ron (for the sake of utility), a restriction, as these passages mean that those neighbors were only to be summoned if the good of the Church required it, and the comprovincials so decided.
From all this we gather something further. Not only does the Latin text of Dionysius and others, as we before remarked, say something of the same kind as the Fathers of Constantinople, but the old Latin translation of the Greek text above mentioned also gives this meaning, and hence it follows that the bishops of Constantinople must have had a Greek text which, differing from our present one, gave the canon the meaning which we laid down in page 132; or, in other words, that the old Latin translation in question represents the most ancient Greek text as it was arranged a few years after the Synod of Sardica. We may therefore consider this Greek text as the genuine and original one, because it is far easier to make this than our present Greek text harmonize with the Latin original text.
The second part of our canon, in Dionysius and in the Prisca the sixth canon, in Isidore the last half of the sixth canon, offers fewer difficulties.
Its meaning is: “In order that the episcopal dignity may not suffer, it is not allowed to appoint a bishop in a village or small town where one priest suffices; but the bishops of the province shall only appoint one for those places where there have been bishops before. If, however, a town is so populous as to appear worthy of a bishop, it shall obtain one.”
Instead of “bishops of the province,” the Latin text in Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca has, ex alia provincia invitati episcopi; and the old Latin translation from the Greek agrees with this, as it reads, episcopi vicinoe provincioe. This clause is thus placed in still closer connection with the preceding part, as it declares that, “If, as was supposed in the preceding part, a province has no more bishops left, and therefore bishops from the neighbouring province have to be summoned to consecrate new pastors, yet even then they shall not appoint bishops to small towns and villages which have had none hitherto.” We see, moreover, that the main substance of this rule is the same in the Greek as in the Latin text.
CANON 7.
FA220[Osiov ejpi>skopov ei+pen JH ajkairi>a hJmw~n kai< hJ pollh< sune>ceia kai< aiJ a]dikoi ajxiw>seiv pepoih>kasin hJma~v mh> tosau>thn e]cein ca>rin kai< parjrJhsi>an, o[shn ojfei>lomen kekth~sqai polloi< ga<r tw~n ejpisko>pwn ouj dialei>pousin eijv to< strato>pedon
paragevo>menoi, kai< ma>lista oiJ ]Afroi, oi[tinev kaqw<v e]gnwmen para< tou~ ajgaphtou~ ajdelfou~ hJmw~n kai< ounepisko>pou Gra>tou ta<v swthriw>deiv sumboula<v ouj parade>contai, ajlla<
katafronou~sin ou[twv, wJv e[na a]vqrwpon eijs to< strato>pedon plei>stav kai< diafo>rouv kai< mh< duname>nav wjfelh~sai ta<v ejkklhsi>av deh>seiv diakomi>xein, kai< mh<, wJv ojfei>lei gi>nesqai kai< wJv prosh~ko>n eosti, toi~v pe>nhsi kai< toi~v lai`koi~v h} tai~v ch>raiv suvai>resqai kai< ejpikourei~n, ajlla< kosmika< ajxiw>mata kai< pra>xeiv perinoei~n tisin au[th toi>nun hJ skaio>thv to<n qrausmo<n oujk a]neu skanda<lou tino<v hJmi~n kai< katagnw>sewv proxenei~ prepwdesteron de< ei+nai ejno>misa, ejpi>skopon th<n eJautou~ boh>qeian pare>cein ejkei>nw|, o]stiv a}n uJpo> tinov bia>xhtai h] ei] tiv tw~n chrw~n ajdikoi~to h} an+ pa>lin orfano>v tiv
ajposteroi~to tw~n aujtw~| proshko>ntwn, ei]per a]ra kai< tau~ta ta<
ojnomatadikai>an e]cei th<n ajxi>wsin eij toi>nun, ajgaphtoi< ajdelfoi<, pa~si tou~to dokei~, ejpikri>nate mhde>na ejpi>skopon crh~nai eijv to<
strato>pedon paragi>nesqai, parekto<v tou<twn, ou{v a}n oJ eujlabe>statov basileu<v hJmw~n toi~v eJautou~ gra>mmasi
metakaloi~to ajll j ejpedh< polla>kiv sumbai>nei tina<v oi]ktou deome>nouv katafugei~n ejpi< th<n ejkklhsi>an, dia< ta< eJautw~n aJmarth>mata eijv perioriasmo<n h} nh~son katadiakasqe>ntav h} d j au+ pa>lin oiJa|dhpotou~n ajpofa>sei ejkdedome>nouv, toi~v toiou>toiv
mh< ajrnhte>an ei+nai th<n boh>qeian, ajlla< cwri<v mellhsmou~ kai<
a]neu tou~ dista>sai toi~v toiou>toiv aijtei~sqai sugcw>rhsin eij toi>nun kai< tou~to ajre>skei, su>myhfsi gi>vesqe a[rantev ajpekri>nanto a[pantev Jorixe>sqw kai< tou~to.
“Osius episcopus dixit: Importunitates et nimia frequentia et injustae petitiones fecerunt, nos non tantam habere vel gratiam vel fiduciam, dum quidam non cessant ad comitatum ire episcopi, et maxime Afri, qui (sicut, cognovimus) sanctissimi fratris et coepiscopi nostri Grati salutaria consilia spernunt atque contemnunt, ut non solum ad comitatum multas et diversas Ecclesiae non profuturas perferant causas, neque ut fieri solet aut oportet, ut pauperibus aut viduis aut pupillis subveniatur, sed et dignitates seculares et administrationes quibusdam postulent. Haec itaque pravitas olim non solum murmurationes, sed et scandala excitat. Honestum est autem, ut episcopi intercessionem his praestent qui iniqua vi opprimuntur aut si vidua affligatur aut pupillus exspolietur, si tamen isthaec nomina justam habeant causam aut petitionem. Si ergo vobis, fratres carissimi, placet, decernite, ne episcopi ad comitatum accedant, nisi forte hi, qui religiosi imperatoris literis vel invitati vel evocati fuerint. Sed quoniam saepe contingit, ut ad misericordiam Ecclesiae confugiant, qui injuriam patiuntur, aut qui peccantes in exilio vel insulis
damnantur; aut certe quamcunque sententiam excipiunt,
subveniendum est his et sine dubitatione petenda indulgentia. Hoc ergo decernite, si vobis placet. Universi dixerunt: Placer et
constituatur.”
This canon, which has also been partly taken into the Corpus Juris Canonici, fa221 forbids the bishops to visit the Court and present petitions, and says: “Bishop Hosius said: our troublesome and oft-repeated
importunities and unjust petitions have caused us to stand in less favour, and hindered our being able to be as free-spoken, as ought to be the case.
For many bishops are in the habit of coming to the Imperial Court, especially the Africans, who, as we have heard, do not accept the wholesome advice of our colleague and brother Bishop Gratus, fa222 but so utterly despise it that some continually bring many different, and for the Church utterly useless, petitions; not, as it should be, for the care of the poor, the laity, fa223 and the widows, but in order to gain some worldly honors and advantages. This disorderly conduct occasions us