CANON I of the Holy Apostles

A Bishop must be ordained by two or three other Bishops.

(c. IV of 1st Synod; c. III of 7th Synod.)
This is a very important canon, and it is the first of all Canons. The Orthodox Church is founded upon the concept of
conciliarity, that is, nothing is done without common consent. This principle is reflected in the above canon. Conciliarity is
also fundamental to the dogma of the Church's Catholicity, meaning universal, since we must all hold the same Faith
handed down to us by the Apostles, in every time and place. Since it is through the bishops that the teachings of the
Apostles are transmitted to each successive generation, it is necessary that those appointed to this office are appointed
upon the conciliar foundation of the Church. Therefore, one bishop cannot ordain his cohort and create his own church.
Apostolic Canons
CANON II (2)
A Presbyter must be ordained by a single Bishop, and so must a Deacon and other Clergymen.
Interpretation - This Canon prescribes that Presbyters and Deacons and all other Clergymen, Subdeacons, that is to say,
Readers, and Cantors, etc. shall be ordained by a single Bishop.
Last week we shared with you Apostolic Canon I, which stated that a Bishop must be ordained by two or three other
Bishops. This Canon prescribes that all other clergymen are to be ordained by a single bishop, not multiple bishops.

CANON III
If any Bishop or Presbyter, contrary to the Lord's ordinance relating to sacrifice, offers anything else at the sacrificial altar,
whether it be honey, or milk, or artificial liquor instead of wine, chickens, or any kind of animals, or vegetables, contrary
to the ordinance, let him be deposed from office: except ears of new wheat or bunches of grapes, in due season. Let it not
be permissible to bring anything else to the sacrificial altar but oil for the lamp, and incense at the time of the holy
oblation.
(Ap. c. IV; cc. XXVIII, III, LVII, and XCIX of the 6th C.; c. XLIV of Carthage; and c. VIII of Theophilus.)
Comments:
The way and the place that we Orthodox worship are holy, the altar, the sanctuary, and the entire Liturgy is holy before
God, and these are given to us by God, and no one has the right to institute any mode of worship of his own devising or to
use the Church or the altar for anything other than the purposes for which the Lord appointed it. We cannot treat the altar
or the church as a common thing to be used as we like - the Lord condescends to sacrifice His Body and Blood there on
that altar and in that place. If we venerate the place where He was born and laid in the manger, the Cross on which He was
stretched, or the Tomb in which He was laid and resurrected, then equally so we should honor and reverence the place
where He condescends to lay Himself and offer Himself to us every day or every Sunday. Nor can we replace the salvific
offering of Body and Blood of Christ with something else of our own devising or foolish preference. And this is what this
canon is telling ! us.
The Holy Apostles foresaw that heretics and irreverent people would arise and try to alter or debase our holy Divinelyinstituted worship and places of worship; therefore, they forbade such things from the start.
In antiquity, this canon applied to people such as certain Gnostic heretics who abominated wine as evil and so used only
water, milk, or other substances in the liturgy. It also applied to certain clergymen who, acting like Old Testament-priests,
received tithes of livestock and sacrificed and offerred these animals on the altar, roasting and eating them in the church. It
also applied to medieval Roman Catholics who use something other than what the Lord used when He said, "Do this", that is, they use unleavened wafers and wine without water. And it applies to heretics of our own times, in yet another
example of their willful violations of Apostolic teaching and tradition. Especially since the Roman Catholics had Vatican II
in the 1960's, the heterodox in the west have transformed their worship more into theatrical spectacles and circus acts than
even the pretense of reverent worship of God. For instance, nowadays the traditional Roman Catholic mass, once decla!
red 'unchangeable, permanent and irreplaceable' by previous 'infallible' popes, has been outlawed and with the Pope's
blessing, in many places, they now have such things as the "rap mass" or "disco mass", and the 'priest' supposedly
consecrates such things as meat-ball pizza and Coco-cola soft-drink as the Body and Blood of Christ! What a blasphemy!
They seek to justify themselves by saying that, when the Lord instituted the Holy Communion, He used what was the basic,
common food in those days - bread and wine, but, they say, today everyone eats pizza and coke, or potato-chips, therefore,
they ought to offer and 'consecrate' these instead. Because we Orthodox honor and keep the canons, we have never and will
never fall into such irreverant, "new-age" madness and replace our Lord's Body and Blood with "pizza and coke" or
elements other than the one's He ordained to be used in the offering.
This is also why, in the Russian Church, when the faithful bring various foods to the church to be blessed, they leave them
outside the church proper in the exo-narthex and these are blessed outside of church. However, on the Transfiguration
grapes are blessed in the church, because the Apostles permitted this in this canon; however, it is always done outside of
the Liturgy, apart from the Holy Mysteries, since blessing these offerings is not on the same level with the Lord's Body and
Blood, and this distinction and separation is dictated by several other Holy Canons.

Apostolic Canon IV:

"Let all other fruit be sent home to the Bishop and Presbyters as firstfruits, but not to the sacrificial altar. It is understood
that the Bishop and Presbyters shall distribute a fair share to the Deacons and other Clergymen.
Comment:
This canon is a continuation of last week's canon (Apostolic Canon III) of what may or may not be offered at the Holy
Altar. The Apostles ordain that all offerings of produce (other than wheat or grapes offered at established times, such as
Transfiguration) made to the Church shall not be taken in or offered at the Holy Altar, but should be offered to the Bishop
of the church or his presbyters directly, outside of the church and worship service.
Because the Apostle makes it a mark of reverence and simply a Christian duty to help support the clergy and those whose
lives are dedicated to God's service (cf. 1 Cor. 9), Christians have always made such offerings. We call them today tithing.
One tenth of our labors are offered to God. Today, most offer paper money, rather than produce, because this is what they
obtain by their labors, but in antiquity and in some places still today, many of the faithful do agricultural work or animal
husbandry and so they would bring a portion of whatever they produced that year to help maintain those laboring on their
behalf and on behalf of the Gospel in God's service.
However, in their 4th Book of Injunctions, the Holy Apostles forbid bishops and clergymen from accepting the offerings
and gifts of unrepentant sinners and all who are opposing the will of God. The Apostles forbid this, they say, because such
offerings are abominable to God, like an offering made out of the hire of a prostitute. None of the Prophets and Righteous
of old, they say, ever deigned to accept offerings from this type of offerer, as for instance, when Abraham refused to receive
a reward from the King of Sodom [Gen.14:22-24] or when Elisseus refused the gift-offerings of the impious Hazael [cf. IV
Kings 8].
Finally, the Apostles ordain that the Bishop or presbyters in charge of receiving the offerings shall make a fair distribution
of the offerings to other lower clergy of the church, who are also laboring on behalf of the Church, so that all are provided
for and not only those in more exalted ranks.
Apostolic Canon V:
"No Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon shall put away his own wife under pretext of reverence. If, however, he put her away, let
him be excommunicated; and if he persist in so doing, let him be deposed from office."
Comment:
The Holy Apostles are not here speaking of an abstention or even separation by mutual consent for the sake of devoting
their lives to God; such a thing is praised by the Apostles if both spouses are capable of so striving without falling into
fornication (cf. 1 Cor. 7). Rather they are speaking of the case where the husband puts away or casts out his wife without
her consent.
The Holy Apostles forbid any clergyman to cast out his wife as if on the pretext that this is pious or reverent toward God.
On the contrary, they are giving a false pretext, because the Lord expressly forbids as sinful the casting out of one's spouse,
except on account of his or her marital infidelity (cf. Mt. 5:32). To think it pious to do so implies that marriage is impious,
and puts one under suspicion of abominating marriage, which is a heretical belief, since it implies that God is the author
of evil, since it was He Who created or instituted marriage. Such a view has been condemned by the Holy Apostles and
also anathematized by the Council of Gangra (cf. Canons IV, XI, XII, and especially XIV). What can we say now of the
Latins who demand celibacy from clergy, when we see the Apostles speaking about the marriage of clergymen?
However, as was said, a Christian spouse may be cast off for marital infidelity, and, in fact, Canon VIII of the Council of
Neocaesarea actually obligates a clergyman to either divorce his wife if she has been convicted of adultery or forfeit his
office, because the clergyman and his family must be a model and example of Christian life for their flock, and that is no
longer possible for an adulteress. In fact, to keep an adulteress is considered wrong by the Holy Scriptures and Fathers:
"Whoever keeps an adulteress is both foolish and impious" (Prov. 18:22 LXX). "If a wife depart her husband for another
man, she shall not return to her husband, but shall surely be utterly defiled" (Jer. 3:1 LXX).
"A husband will not be criticized for casting out of his house a wife who has become a harlot...(Why?) In that case the
marriage has already been dissolvedAn unfaithful wife has defiled the marriage union itself. If her husband is joined
with her, he becomes as impure as she is, since both of them thereby become one body (cf. 1 Cor. 1:15-16). Purity in such a
situation is not possible for either husband or wifeA husband is no longer a husband after such infidelity" (St. John
Chrysostom, Homily XIX on 1st Corinthians; see also St. Photius, Nomocanon, Title I, c. 2). Saint John Chrysostom in the
above quote is very severe; other Fathers, however, offer more leniency.
"Having taken up then the members of Christ, shall I make them members of a harlot? May it not be! Or know ye not that
he that is joined to the harlot is one body? For, "The two," saith He, "shall be into one flesh." [1 Cor. 6:15,16]
Also, the Apostles include Bishops in this canon because in the early days of the Church some of the men that they
ordained to the episcopate were already married. However, in view of the great attention he needs and the innumerable
cares placed upon a bishop in his ministry to the flock, it very quickly became a wise custom throughout the Christian
world for only celibate men to be consecrated bishops, because, as the Apostle says, "I wish you to be without care. The
unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he shall please the Lord. But he who is married careth for the things of
the world, how he shall please his wifeAnd this I say for your own profit, not that I might cast a noose upon you, but for
that which is seemly, and for constant waiting on the Lord without distraction."[1 Cor. 7:32-35]. The Church acted thus

also for another reason- that is, that the Bishops, whom the canons give authority over all church property, were wont to
embezzle it and bequeath it as an inheritance to their family members, which is forbidden by the Canons. For such
reasons, either a monk would be chosen or a man who, together with his wife, by mutual consent promised to enter the
monastic life, and they would live separ! ately thereafter to avoid scandalous suspicions that they were not kee ping their
vows. And these wise customs were ultimately codified into canons by the 6th Ecumenical Council (cf. Canons XII, XIII,
XLVIII).

CANON VI
A Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon must not undertake worldly cares. If he does, let him be deposed from office.
Comment:
In instructing a newly-ordained hierarch, St. Paul admonishes him and compares him to an enlisted soldier: "3Thou
therefore suffer hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4No one serving as a soldier is entangled with the affairs of life,
in order that he might please the one who enlisted him." [2 Tim. 2:3,4] And he frequently uses this analogy of the life of a
clergyman to that of a soldier [cf. Phil. 2:25, Phile. 2, 1 Cor. 9:7]. Once a soldier enlists, his life is no longer his own at all,
but it becomes the poss! ession of his government to be used in whatever way it decides. This is literally so, for if he
deserts his post, he is punished for theft of government property. He is expected to carry out every order immediately and
without excuse, and no excuse will be accepted. He has no freedom to do anything that hinders the fulfillment of his
orders, since his life is the property of his commander and government. Just so, a clergyman, once he enlists in the ranks
of holy orders, becomes the property of Christ and His Church, for use, however, wherever, whenever, the Church decides.
Neither can he thenceforth undertake anything that hinders the prompt fulfillment of his mission and objective -! the
preaching of the Gospel, the service and building up of th e Church, the salvation of the flock. For example, a clergyman,
once ordained, may no longer look for a wife, but thenceforth his eyes must only be on following the Lord and fulfilling
his mission. Or, for instance, he cannot decide to become a playwright on Broadway, or the fiscal officer of a corporation
or a politician, the object of whose pursuits are secular or worldly and are not necessary to the Church. Such pursuits are
vain and useless to a clergyman and become a hindrance to his full service to God and the Church.
However, if the good of the Church truly requires a clergyman to do something normally considered secular, then that
activity ceases to be extraneous to his evangelical mission, but actually becomes an obligation to him. The Apostles do not
here forbid secular work in such cases to clergymen. For, the Apostle Paul himself, believing it expedient for the spread of
the Gospel and the building up of the Church, chose to take up a secular occupation, earning his bread by his former
livelihood as a tent-maker, rather than by taking his due tithes from certain churches. As he says:
"13Ye know, do ye not, that those who labor at the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who wait upon the
altar partake with the altar? 14Even so the Lord appointed to those who proclaim the Gospel to live of the Gospel. 15But I
used none of these things. [1 Cor. 9:6-15] "8nor did we eat bread from anyone as a gift, but with toil and travail,
working night and day, in order not to burden any of you; 9not that we do not have authority...." [2 Thess. 3:8,9] 12
Nevertheless we did not use this authority; but we bear up against all things, lest we should give any hindrance to the
Gospel of Christ." [1 Cor. 9:12].
And again: "I preached the Gospel of God to you as a free gift 8I stripped other churches, having received wages from
them with a view to your ministration. 9And when I was present with you, and in need, I burdened no one; for that which
I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in all things I kept myself from being burdensome to you,
and I will keep myself. [2 Cor. 11:7-9]
Likewise, in times of great calamity, when normal political, economic, or even military supports of life were completely
lacking, many of the saints have involved themselves in these secular matters for the protection or preservation of the lives
of their flocks. For then, what once would have been a departure into secular life, became needful to them as the means to
saving their flocks, which the calamities threatened to swallow up.
In the past, we have seen such an example in St. Pope Gregory the Dialogist, who after the collapse of almost the entire
system of civilized Roman life in the West amidst barbarian destroyers, worked tirelessly to provide for the material
welfare and security of his flock, even to the point of hiring legions to keep the peace and negotiating political treaties with
the barbarians. We also see such examples in the lives of the recent holy ones of Russia who, following the collapse of
civilized Russia and the calamities, famines, and persecutions of the early years of Bolshevism, were forced to undertake
political, legal, and economic missions to secur! e the well-being of their far-scattered flocks in the dangers of exile abroad
or suffering from a nation-wide famine and civil war at home. But today, the most common circumstance that requires a
clergyman to be involved in worldly affairs is the same circumstance originally spoken of by the Apostle Paul, that it is not
expedient for him to be supported by his small or poor flock, and so he undertakes some secular work to support himself
and his family, rather than hurt the Church by placing too great a burden on Her.
APOSTOLIC CANON VII
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Pascha before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be
deposed.

Comment:
Pascha (the Greek version of the Hebrew Pesach or Passover) is the foremost feast of the Church, for it marks the
deliverance of human nature from the world of the Fall and its return to the life he would have had had he not fallen in
Paradise. Man had an immortal life clothed in the glory of God, but the devil caused Man to be exiled from God - his body
to the dust of the grave and his soul to the oppressive gloom of Hades. On Pascha, by Christ's glorious resurrection, human
nature regained what it had lost and returned to where it had been or something even higher. It passed over from death to
life and from earth to heaven, from the dominion of the devil to the kingdom of the Son of God's love. This is the true
Passover which we Christians celebrate. The Old Testament Passover of Israel from out of the slavery of Egypt into the
Promised Land through the death of the Passover lamb was, like all of the Old Testament ritual, only a prophetic type
which was to be fulfille! d afterwards; it was an earthly shadow of the coming Divinely-wrought Passover to Heaven.
The Holy Apostles here reiterate the chief point of their rules concerning Pascha, which they had enjoined upon Christians
in their 5th book of Injunctions, adding a penalty of deposition for the disobedient:
XVII. It is therefore your duty, brethren, who are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, to observe the days of the
Pascha correctly, with all care, after the vernal equinox, lest ye be obliged to keep the anniversary of the one passion twice
in a year. Keep the anniversary once only in a year for Him that died only once.
Do not you yourselves compute, but keep it when your brethren from out of the circumcision do so: keep it together with
them; and if they err in their computation, be not you concerned. Keep your nights of vigil during the days of unleavened
bread. And when the Jews are feasting, do you fast and wail over them, because on the day of their feast they crucified
Christ; and while they are lamenting and eating unleavened bread in bitterness, do you feast. But no longer be anxious to
keep the feast with the Jews, for we now have no communion with them; for they have been led astray in regard to the
calculation itself, which they think they accomplish perfectly, that they may be led astray on every hand, and be fenced off
from the truth. But do you observe carefully the vernal equinox, which occurs on the twenty-second of the twelfth month,
which is Dystros, observing carefully even as far as the twenty-first of the moon, lest the fourteenth of the moon shall fall
on a differen! t week, and an error being committed, you should through ignorance celebrate the passover twice in the
same year, or celebrate the day of the resurrection of our Lord on any other day than a Sunday.
XVIII. Do you therefore fast on the days of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week until the preparation,
and the Sabbath, six days, making use of only bread, and salt, and herbs, and water for your drink; but do you abstain on
these days from wine and flesh, for they are days of lamentation and not of feasting. Do ye who are able fast the day of the
preparation and the Sabbath-day entirely.
XIX. Wherefore we exhort you to fast on those days, as we also fasted till the evening, when He was taken away from us;
but on the rest of the days, before the day of the preparation, let every one eat at the ninth hour, or at the evening, or as
every one is able. But break your fast when it is the first day of the week, which is the Lord's dayAnd since He was
crucified on the day of the Preparation, and rose again at break of day on the Lord's day do you also, now the Lord is
risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He enjoined us, saying, "Do this for a remembrance of me; " and
thenceforward leave off your fasting, and rejoice, and keep a festival, because Jesus Christ, the pledge of our resurrection,
is risen from the dead. And let this be an everlasting ordi! nance till the consummation of the world, until the Lord come.
The chief rules here are that:
The anniversary of the Passion and Pascha should not be observed before the vernal equinox
When the Jewish feast is supposed to be celebrated, we are to be fasting and only afterwards are we to celebrate the festival
of Pascha.
We are not to base our computation on the reckoning of the Jews henceforth, for we do not have communion with them
and they do not compute correctly; rather we should keep it together with our brethren who were before us in the Church,
whether their computation is exact or not.
Pascha must be celebrated on a Sunday, the Passion commemorated on the preceding Friday, and in general the order of
Holy Week must follow the order of the Passion Week in the life of our Savior.
By the present canon, the Holy Apostles have secured first of all that the Church will not commemorate the anniversary of
the Lord's Passion and Resurrection twice in one year; for if we celebrate two anniversaries of the Christ suffering and
rising, it will be the same as saying that he died and rose and then died again and rose again on another date as well, as if
he had not risen eternally freeing human nature from the dominion of death. For according to St. Paul, and also St.
Methodius of Patara, it is because Christ "dieth no more" that we know that "death no more hath dominion over him" and,
because the curse of death on human nature in Adam was removed in one man, Christ, that we know that it will not hold
the rest of those born of the nature of fallen Adam. If he died again after rising, then death still prevailed and death still
has dominion over human nature. Therefore, it is necessary to proclaim that Christ suffered only once and then rose
forever, whi! ch we proclaim by commemorating but one date or anniversary of His suffering a year.
Secondly, by telling us that the Jews erroneously celebrate it before the equinox, the Apostles teach us that the Jews are not
to be relied upon or inquired of as to the correct computation. For not long after they crucified our Savior, they lost
discernment and became muddled in their mind by various silly traditions that they introduced, each rabbi corrupting the
computation further as he invented a new tradition to correct it; consequently, already by the end of the 1st century A.D.,
their chief, rabbi Akiba had to decree the observance of three straight years of thirteen months in order to restore the
Jewish Passover to the spring season instead of wintertime into which it had receded. In spite of his efforts, the Jewish
reckoning continued to err and was made worse by the dispersion of the Jews from out of Palestine. In the late 4th century,

their chief rabbi, Hillel II, attempted to correct their calendar, but despite many improvements, ! the same phenomenon of
early and double Passover years continues to plague some factions of the Jews, so that, for example, in 1956 one Diaspora
rabbinic assembly decreed that Passover be observed seven days before what they reckoned as the vernal equinox.
There is much more that could be explained here, but we will return to the subject of the Paschal celebration when we
comment on the 1st Canon of Antioch.
But, before closing, we should explain what may be a point of confusion in the Injunctions. Because there it said that we
should "keep it when those of your brethren from out of the circumcision do so" and "be not concerned if they err", but
both in the canon and more explicitly in the same injunction it is stated that we ought to be fasting when they are
celebrating and that we ought not to try to keep it with them because they have erred, all of which appears very selfcontradictory. But this is only so at first glance as St. Epiphanius explains in the 70th section of his Panarion:
"And the Apostles did not say, "keep it when your brethren who are in the circumcision do so", but "when your brethren
who are from out of the circumcision do so," to show that those who had come from out of the circumcision to the Church
were the leaders from then on, and so that the others would agree with them, and one not celebrate the Passover at one
time, and another at another. For their entire concern was for the unity, so that there would not be schisms and divisions.
But the Audians [schismatics who broke from the Church over the reckoning of Pascha] were not aware of the Apostles'
intent and the intent of the passage in the Ordinance, and thought that the Passover should be celebrated with the Jews.
And there were altogether fifteen bishops from out of the circumcision (in Jerusalem). And at that time, when there were
circumcised bishops who were consecrated at Jerusalem, it was essential that the whole world follow and celebrate with
them! , so that there would be one concord and agreement, the celebration of one festival. Hence the Apostles' diligence in
bringing people's minds into accord with the Church.
But "for a long time since, even from the earliest days, the Passover was celebrated at different times in the church
occasioning ridicule every yearAnd this had been the situation ever since it was thrown into disorder after the end of the
time of the circumcised bishops [of Jerusalem, whose succession ended on account of the early persecutions by the Roman
Emperors and the unbelieving Jews]. "But since the festival could not be celebrated by such a means for such a long time,
a correction for harmony's sake was made in Constantine's time by God's good pleasure. For what the Apostles' said was
for the sake of harmony, as they testify by saying, "Even though they [the bishops of Jerusalem from out of the
circumcision] are in error as to their computation, let it not concern you."
So, the intention of the Apostles' in their injunction was not so much to subject the Church to a particular, precise
scientific calculation, beyond the few necessary criteria, but rather to secure unity and unanimity by establishing a sure
standard and central authority by which to resolve or cut short disputes about the reckoning. In the first century, this
recognized arbiter-authority was the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, the elder brethren in the Faith of the newly-converted
Gentile Christians; but when that commonly-recognized arbiter ceased, its place was eventually filled by the authoritative
agreement of the whole Church at the 1st Ecumenical Council, of which we will speak later. As St. Epiphanios reiterates
after elucidating the formula for calculating Pascha: "But even though much precision is required in so important a
question, the Apostles' declaration was not made for the sake of this question and for accuracy's sake, but for the purpos! e
of concord."
It should be noted that when the Calendar of Pope Gregory (the Gregorian Calendar) was introduced into the Orthodox
Church, the Masonic bishops who did this deliberately avoided changing the date of Pascha, and left it on the Church
Calendar (the Orthodox Paschalion) to avoid the condemnation of this canon.
APOSTOLIC CANON VIII
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else in the sacerdotal list, fail to partake of communion when the
oblation has been offered, he must tell the reason; and if it is a good excuse, he shall receive a pardon. But if he refuses to
tell it, he shall be excommunicated, on the ground that he has become a cause of harm to the laity and has instilled a
suspicion as against the offerer of it that the latter has failed to present it in a sound manner.
Comment:
In the past, in the Church, any clergyman who was present at the Divine Liturgy, even though not a concelebrant, was
expected to partake of the Offering. In a more recent and prevalent practice, however, the strictness of all those present
partaking of the mysteries has been relaxed in a certain manner, but without disregarding and violating the intention and
essence of the canon, as will be discussed at length at the end of the comment on Canon IX below. In this recent practice,
those in priestly orders, who cannot communicate, do not vest or serve. This at least serves to eliminate the suspicion from
the laity that he is not communicating on account of the offers' failure to offer it correctly; for if he were vested and serving
but suddenly stopped, exited the altar and did not communicate, then it would seem that something wrong happened in the
course of the offering. Whereas if someone is present but does not vest or serve, then the reason for not communicating
obvi! ously has nothing to do with a failure of the offerer to serve and offer properly. Therefore, observing this sign (not
vesting or serving) the laity conclude that it is his own personal impediment that prevents him from communicating. By
this sign, at least, this prevalent and recent practice does not contradict the intention of the present canon, since its main
object was to prevent the laity from being scandalized and suspecting that the offering was not made correctly. It is not a
strict total adherence to the canon, but it is not a violation of its essence and intention either. Perhaps the clergyman was
not prepared to receive holy communion, because of not completing his prayers which certain traditions impose on a

priest. At any rate, in the present practice, there are a number of reasons why a priest will temporarily abstain from
communing if he is present for the Divine Liturgy but is not serving.
On the importance of Holy Communion and why it is a sin subject to excommunication if one willfully withdraws from
communicating when one is present and able to do so see the interpretation of the next Apostolic Canon (IX).
In general there are three reasons why someone may abstain from participation in the offering if present - (1) the offerer
has publicly taught heresy to the Church (cf. Canon XV of the 1st-&-2nd Council); (2) the offerer has failed to perform the
liturgy properly; or (3) the would-be recipient has an impediment.
In recent practice, the people who come to Church and do not commune do this because of some impediment. Either they
have not prepared themselves with confession or they have an open, bleeding sore or cut, or they are under an epitimia
from the priest or their spiritual father. If none of these reasons are present, the person should be a communicant of the
offering.
APOSTOLIC CANON IX
All those faithful who enter and listen to the Scriptures, but do not stay for prayer and Holy Communion must be
excommunicated, on the ground that they are causing the Church a breach of order.
Comment:
How important is communion of the Body and Blood of Christ! He Who is the Life and the Source of the life of our souls
and bodies unites and commingles with us. Through sin we withdraw from our Life and our soul suffers as one being
deprived of air or water and in the throes of dying, unless we have become totally insensible and carnal-minded. But
through repentance or return to Him, and receiving Holy Communion, He comes to dwell in us again, and He abides in us,
as we will know and experience if we are not insensible to His coming through a careless life and neglect of Him. A
Christian must be abiding in Christ; if the Christian is not abiding in Him and He in the Christian, then that person is
dwelling outside of Christ and outside of salvation - he is like a branch severed from the vine and he no longer has Life,
but is withered and dead and will be cast out into the fire on the Last Day (cf. Jn. 6 and 14 -15).
Therefore, in the present canon the Holy Apostles ordain that those who are present and able to commune must do so. But
why are some excommunicated for coming but not partaking? For what reason have they come to the communion service
if they are not going to commune? If they refrain from communicating on the plea that their conscience is not clear, why
did they not clear it beforehand by repenting and confessing their sins and being cleansed and reconciled to God through
the priest who was present? So this plea does not free them from sin in the matter, but rather condemns them further,
because they show themselves guilty of negligence and being complacent about th! eir sins and content to be alienated
from Christ. A Christian, if he/she falls, must repent immediately and do all he/she can to be reconciled and reunited to
Christ. A Christian is one who is not at ease in sin, so that he puts off being reconciled and reunited to Christ, such a one
is failing to live like a Christian. Therefore, he is excommunicated from participating in prayer with the faithful until such
time as he repents and returns to being more Christian in mind and heart.
That this canon by the words "stay for prayer and Holy Communion" means staying for participating in prayer and
participating in Holy Communion, and not simply remaining to be present when others commune, is made clear by Canon
II of Antioch, where this canon is repeated, but more explicity says:
"As for all those persons who enter the church and listen to the sacred scriptures, but fail to commune in prayer together
and at the same time with the laity, or who shun the participation of the Eucharist, in accordance with some irregularity
[i.e. disorder], we decree that these persons be outcasts from the Church until, after going to confession and exhibiting
fruits of repentance and begging forgiveness, they succeed in obtaining a pardon."
But why is it called a "breach of order" when the faithful leave church without taking communion? Because it is after the
reading of the Scriptures that the Apostolic Liturgies and those based on them (those of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the
Great, and St. Gregory the Dialogist) appoint the command: "Catechumens depart; let not one of the Catechumens
remain" and a similar order for penitents to remove to their places if there are any. After this the faithful are called upon to
continue praying in the Church, and therefore, are expected to be present.
On account of this, the Liturgy is divided into two parts. There is the Liturgy of the Catechumens which continues up to
the Gospel Reading and Sermon, for the Catechumens are under instruction and it is proper for them to hear the public
preaching of the Gospel and Evangelical exhortation with the faithful, even as Christ publicly taught the multitude of
interested non-disciples, Jews, and pagans along with His disciples who truly believed in Him. Following the Scripture
readings and the command for Catechumens and others to depart, there is the Liturgy of the Faithful in which are the
Creed, the Our Father, and Holy Communion, in which the Catechumens cannot participate.
The Catechumen cannot say the Symbol of Faith along with the faithful, because both in antiquity and today, the
Catechumen is an inquirer and still under instruction; he has not yet learned the Christian Faith fully and he has not yet
whole-heartedly believed and perfectly confessed the mysteries of the Christian Faith. Therefore, because the Catechumen
does not yet fully know and believe the mysteries of the Faith, he does not confess the Symbol of Faith together with the
Faithful, for he cannot yet have the faith of which it is a token or sign. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the famous catechist of the
Church, has written this in the prologue of his catechetical i! nstructions: "This instruction for those who are being
illumined is offered to be read by those who are coming to be Baptism and by the faithful who have already received
Baptism; but by no means give it either to the catechumens or to anyone else who has not yet become a Christian,
otherwise you will have to give an answer to the Lord." "We include the whole teaching of the Faith in a few lines. And I
would wish you to remember it word for word and should repeat it among yourselves with all fervorAnd be careful

lest anyone of the catechumens should hear what has been handed down to you." "When the catechetical teaching is
pronounced, if the catechumen should ask you,! 'What did the instructors say?', you are to repeat nothing to those who are
without (i.e. outside the Church). For we are giving you the Mystery and hope of the future age. Keep the Mystery of Him
Who is the Giver of rewards. May no one say , 'What harm is it if I shall find this out also?' Sick people also ask for wine,
but if it is given at the wrong time it produces disorder in the mind, and there are two evil consequences: the sick one dies,
and the physician is slandered." This is also the sense in which St. John Damascene and other Fathers interpret the Lord's
prohibition: "Do not ever give that which is holy to the! dogs, nor cast your pearls before the swine, lest they should
trample them with their feet, and turn and rend you." [Mt. 7:6] That is, do not give those not ready to fittingly receive it
the holy mystery or pearl of the Faith, lest they should trample upon it and the giver, that is, mock and slander, distort the
teaching into heresy, or otherwise harm the Church and the Faith. irtues, our portion will be no other than hades, and the
venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble. But God grant that none of those who hear these words
experience that punishment!" (St. John Chrysostom).
Thus it is completely contrary to order for the Catechumen to stand in common with the Faithful and be a participant in
the Liturgy after the command to depart or for the Faithful to depart with the Catechumens. For the former cannot
participate with them in Liturgy of the Faithful - he cannot faithfully confess the Creed with them, pray the Our Father
with them, or communicate of the Body and Blood of Christ with them. And it is completely disorderly, disobedient, and
also spiritually injurious for any one of the faithful to depart after the Gospel and not stay for the Liturgy of the Faithful,
for how will the limb live if it separates itself from receiving the sp! iritual, life-giving nourishment of the Body and
Blood? That one is willfully separating himself from Christ, and no one who loves Christ or cares for his soul and wants to
truly be a Christian can do this.
But what if one cannot commune because the priest has already excommunicated and penanced him for some canonical
crime? If he has confessed his sin and is fulfilling a penance, then he will not be punished for not partaking, for he is
repenting and seeking reconciliation/reunion with Christ, as a Christian must. For the Apostles write concerning the
faithful, that is those who are not guilty, but such a one is in a different class - that of the penitents, and these have their
own rules and places to stand, as defined by the Fathers and Canons elsewhere.
In more recent practice, catechumens are given the Creed to understand. The faithful who come to Church, but are not
able to communicate, are not penalized. Although this does not completely follow the letter of the canon, it does not violate
its essence, since what the Apostles and Fathers intended to discipline and correct by such rules is the sinful decision on
the part of those who are able to communicate and be united with Christ, yet do not do so, but withdraw and turn away
from union with Him. But the main concern and the essence of the rule is that all be uniting themselves to Christ, whether
that path be communion for the faithful, fulfilling their penance before seeking Communion for the penitents, or seeking
faith and Baptism first before Communion for catechumens. This prevalent modern practice is not a strict following of the
Church rules, but it does not completely disregard them either, still adhering to their essence, which might! be called an
economy for the benefit or salvation of souls.
Something similar is the case with giving modern catechumens the Creed long before Baptism. First of all, they are not
being given the Creed for a solemn profession in Church as if already being among the true believers and those who have
truly come to know the mysteries of the Faith. Secondly, the intention of the Fathers was, as St. Cyril said, not to show the
mysteries of the Faith to those who were not ready to reverently accept them yet and would be harmed by exposure at that
point. Today, most catechumens of the true Orthodox Church come either from ecumenist pseudo-Orthodoxy or from
Roman Catholic or Protestant pseudo-Christianity. In the former case, the catechumens are often times misplaced
'Orthodox', at least in their personal belief, and the doctrine of the Creed is not foreign or completely misunderstood by
them; rather it is the confession of faith of their hierarchy that is not Orthodox, since they do not believe in the mysteries
set forth in the Creed. O! nly on account of the catechumen's negligence or naivet did he/she unite themselves to a
hierarchy not of the Church and not of the Faith. Therefore, there is little preparation that needs to be made for them to be
Baptized, once they realize their erroneous association and seek to correct it. Some Protestants and Roman Catholic
catechumens are personally close to right-belief also and are ready to reverently receive the mysteries of the Creed and
correct their errors. In such cases, they are more like the ones about to be illumined (baptized) to whom the Fathers did
impart the mysteries of the Faith and the Creed. So, in this case, the modern practice is not really at variance in intention
and essence with that of the Fathers which was more widely-followed before recent times. Again, it is an economy to help
facilitate the bringing in of the lost sheep, without however violating the intention and essence of the rules of the Fathers.
APOSTOLIC CANON X
If anyone pray with an excommunicant, he shall be excommunicated himself.
Comment:
The canon is not talking about those of the faithful who are merely excluded from partaking of the Holy Mysteries, yet are
allowed to pray in the church, but rather of one who has been truly and completely excommunicated even from common
prayer with the Church. This is obvious from the canon itself. For an excommunicant (Greek: akoinetos) is one who is
'without or outside of participation' in something, and excommunication (Latin: ex [out of] and communicatio [having a
something in common]) is to be put outside sharing or participating in something. As is obvious, the canon is speaking
about a transgression of this exclusion from participation by one of the faithful. Now, if the excommunication is only from

participation in the Mysteries, but not from common prayer or communion of prayer with the faithful, then prayer with
such a one will not be a transgression of the Church's act of excommunication. Yet the canon is punishing a transgre!
ssion. Therefore, the Apostles must be speaking about one whom the Church has completely cast out from participation in
the common life of Her members, both from the mysteries and from prayer. Consequently, anyone who prays with one
whom the Church has cut off from Her communion shall be severed from Her communion himself.
The various types of persons to whom the Apostles' refer, then, are these: those of another faith (viz. heretics, Jews,
pagans) who, de facto, are excluded from participation in the Church's life, apostates of various kinds, and also those who
have committed very grave sins, grave enough to be separated even from participating in prayer with the faithful or even
with the penitents - such as the incestuous, the rapist, the bestialist, and the voluntary homicide. The latter are placed
outside the church to weep and ask intercession for their sin, then let in the church to kneel and listen in the narthex, until
they finally have manifested contrition enough to be readmitted to sharing in the prayers and Mysteries (cf. for instance,
Canons 12 of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea and 75 of St. Basil the Great, as well as the canons of Ss. Basil and Gregory of
Nyssa in general).
Why are those who pray with these excommunicants also excommunicated from the prayers and Mysteries? The Lord says:
"But if also he taketh no heed of the Church, let him be to thee even as the heathen and the tax collector" [Mt. 18:17]. If
one disregards the voice of the Church by praying with one with whom she has prohibited him to pray, one is not acting as
one of the faithful, but like a heathen and therefore, he/she is excluded from sharing in the prayer and communion of the
faithful like one of them. Moreover, if, as St. John the Almsgiver says, "Communion has been so called because he who
has 'communion' has things in common and agrees with those with whom he has 'communion'" the one who prays with
heretics, Jews, pagans, or apostates is showing approval of their views or agreement with them. Much more so, then is that
person to be excluded from the prayer and mysteries of the Church like one alien to Her, since he is acting like one. (In
this class fall all the ecumenists, and St. Philaret the Confessor specifically cited this 10th Apostolic Canon in his letter
concerning Patriarch Athenagoras' actions of 1964-1965, as something under which the latter fell.)
But why are these last ones (grave sinners), who are not heretics or apostates, but simple sinners also treated severely and
excluded along with those who deny the Lord? As Ss. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa explain in their canonical
epistles, the penalties prescribed in these cases reflect the Fathers' estimation of the relative ease or difficulty of avoiding
the given sin. Most people sin relatively involuntarily, on account of real natural weakness, or in spite of a struggle or good
intention; therefore, their sins are not the result of a wicked intention, but only a weakness or mistake in their execution of
a good intention. On the other hand, there are some sinners who light-mindedly violate the law of Christ in even its easiest
precepts, so as to even treat with contempt the awesome gift of Him Who died for love of them. Is Christ really Lord, God,
and Savior in the eyes of such a person? In the latter case it is appropriate to trea! t them differently from ordinary
Christians who fall into some sin; for "of how much worse punishment, do ye think that one shall be deemed worthy who
trampled underfoot the Son of God, and deemed common the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, and
insulted the Spirit of grace?" [Heb. 10:29]. These are made to stand together with those who denied Christ, because, in the
words of the Apostle, "they confess to know God, but in works deny Him, being abominable and disobedient, and reprobate
to every good work. [Tit. 1:16] The extent of their separation from the Church's communion of prayers and Mysteries
reflects the relative extent of their already-existing separation from the common spiritual life of the members of Christ.
Before returning to the c! ommunion of Her prayers and mysteries, the one who has fallen so far m ust first "produce fruits
worthy of repentance"[Mt. 3:8] as a mark of their inward return to a Christian, Christ-loving life and as a kind of
confession through works in contradiction to their previous denial through works.
Therefore, also the one who prays with these when they have been excluded for their callous indifference toward Christ
treats as nothing what is in effect an insult to and a denial of the Lord, and therefore he/she also is chastised for a similar
uncaring indifference toward Christ.
In short, the faithful who pray with those excommunicated from the prayers of the Church are also so excommunicated
because by their act they show indifference or sympathy toward the evil that the excommunicant has done. If anyone
wishes to show compassion toward the excommunicant, as is good, they should pray for him, not with him.
APOSTOLIC CANON XI
A clergyman who prays together with a deposed clergyman shall also be deposed.
Comment:
The canons are wont to punish those who commune with the excommunicated with excommunication (as in the previous
Apostolic Canon), to anathematize those who commune with the anathematized (as in Canon IX of Carthage, IV of
Antioch, etc.), and here to depose those who commune, i.e. liturgize or offer prayers together with, deposed clergymen. It
seems fitting to let those who wish to share in their bad spiritual life to also share in their penalty for that bad spiritual life.
That the Apostles mean a clergyman who offers prayer in a liturgical sense with a deposed clergyman is apparent from the
rest of their canonical legislation. In their 25th canon, they specifically state that they do not excommunicate a clergyman
when they depose him for a crime, punishing him twice for the same offense, and St. Basil also says as much in his 3rd
canon; therefore, it is impossible that the same Apostles mean merely praying together in a general sense with someone
who has been deposed, for they just legislated that the deposed clergyman not be excluded from lay communion in the
Holy Mysteries, and, therefore, much more so, that he not be excluded from common prayer in lay status. By liturgical

prayer, we mean offering the prayers of the liturgy or service (which is what liturgize means - to perform [ritual] public
service) - i.e., that both are offering priestly prayers like a clergyman, not simply! that the deposed clergyman stands with
the laity and quietly prays in that sense.
In the rest of their canons the Apostles follow the pattern of deposing those who serve with those who have no right to
serve (e.g., Apostolic Canons XXVIII, XXX, and XXXI), and therefore, it is sensible for this reason also to think that they
follow the same principle here. To recapitulate, those who offer priestly prayers together with a deposed clergyman are
likewise to be deposed.
The only exception to the aforementioned rules is when a clergyman separates from his lawful bishop without finding him
to be transgressing piety and righteousness - in which case both he and all that abet him are both deposed and
excommunicated (cf. Apostolic Canon XXXI, Canon IV of Antioch and others). The priest is the representative of the
Bishop and the Bishop is the representative of the Church, and by depriving themselves, without Church-sanctioned cause,
of communion and submission to the Bishop, they deprived themselves of communion with and submission to the Church.
Therefore, they already operate without the grace of the priesthood or the grace of the Church, and what they have already
informally divested themselves of, they are to be formally stripped of by the Bishops.
CANON XII
If any clergyman , or laymen, who has been excommunicated, or who has not been admitted to repentance, shall go away
and be received in another city, without commendatory letters, both the receiver and the one received shall be
excommunicated.
Comment:
In the previous two canons, the Holy Apostles sought to prevent, by the threat of harsh penalties, a lawful
excommunication or deposition from being ignored by anyone among the faithful or clergy. However, since one could
reason that since the bishop only has jurisdiction over his own diocese, one would no longer be under ban of
excommunication if he traveled to another diocese, the Apostles have added this present canon. By forbidding the
reception of foreign clergy and faithful without commendatory letters from the bishop of their home diocese, the Apostles'
effectively prevent this from being done. As in their tenth canon the Apostles excommunicated all who pray with
excommunicants, so here they also excommunicate anyone that receives the excommunicant into communion.
But the canon is not only concerned with excommunicants but also the problem of wandering or foreign clergy entering
another diocese without permission of the bishop to whom the clergyman is subject. They demand commendatory letters of
all traveling clergy, that is, letters from his bishop commending him as validly ordained, Orthodox, and not under
excommunication, suspension, or some other penalty. By requiring this of all traveling clergy, the Holy Apostles cut off
with one swipe a whole host of potential problems. For how else would one effectively prevent the faithful or clergy from
communing with those rebelling against the Church if the rebels were deceitful and did not proclaim themselves heretics,
or schismatics, or parasynagogists? Otherwise, they could simply wander into an area in which they were unknown and
carry off unwittingly a portion of the genuine flock to their false communion. But the Holy Apostles have prevented this by
the ! present canon; for now only those who ought not to be received will be without the aforesaid letters and will be easily
marked out.
In their 33rd Canon, these instructions are elaborated upon further: "None of the foreign Bishops, or Presbyters, or
Deacons shall be received without letters commendatory. Even when they bear such, they shall be examined. And if they
really are preachers of piety, they shall be received; but if they are not, after furnishing them what they have need of, they
shall not be admitted to communion. For many things are done with a view to rapine" (that is, rapine or pillaging of the
flock.)
The canon also mentions those who have "not been admitted to repentance", which is to say, they have committed some
crime and were under accusation, but had not yet been given a canon of penance to undergo, as the excommunicant has.
Although neither one could be admitted to communion and both are in this sense excommunicants, yet it is possible to
make a distinction as the Apostles do here. "One who has not been admitted to penance" is the meaning here. In any case,
this person also could not obtain a commendatory letter from his bishop and so any foreigner coming into the diocese with
the intention of communion will be easily marked out as either able to commune or unable.
CANON XIII
If he has been excommunicated let his excommunication be augmented, on the ground that he has lied and that he has
deceived the Church of God.
Comment:
This canon is a continuation of the previous one. Briefly, it means that the one who was excommunicated by his bishop
and went away and was illegally communed by another bishop, let that liar have his excommunication lengthened. For he
is a liar, and, even worse, a liar to the Church of God, because he presented himself as a communicant to the Church when
he was actually an excommunicant.

APOSTOLIC CANON XIV

A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number
of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the
inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the
judgment of many Bishops, and at their urgent request.
Comment:
Where there is no acknowledged authority, there is no order, and where there is no order, lawlessness is not restrainable.
And this is what the result is when there come to be multiple bishops in one diocese. Therefore, the Apostles strictly
prohibit other bishops from interloping in another bishop's diocese, that is, intruding and taking up episcopal functions
therein. Likewise, they condemn to excommunication "as a teacher of disorder" (Apostolic Canons 15 and 16) any bishop
that even so much as tolerates a sheep from another bishop's flock to forsake his lawful shepherd for the other (himself).
The 6th Ecumenical Council deprived of episcopal powers any bishop who entered and taught in another's diocese without
his permission (Canon XX). If a bishop performs ordinations in another's diocese without his permission, he is deposed by
the Apostles in Canon XXXV. The Church from which the bishop derives episcopal power simply denies! the efficacy of
any action undertaken by a bishop outside the bounds of the authority or jurisdiction given to him by Her (Canon XV of
Sardica). The first Ecumenical Council formulated this principle in short form "there shall not be two bishops in the same
city" (Canon VIII) and on these grounds denied schismatic bishops (who were converting to the Church) permission to
receive episcopal authority in any diocese already under an Orthodox bishop.
As the Apostles and Fathers say, the bishop represents Christ to the flock and as there is only one Christ, so for any portion
of the flock there can only be one bishop; hence the Church is truly Catholic - "in every place a single one[a whole]" (St.
Pacian of Barcelona, Letter I, On the Name Catholic). Therefore, no schismatic or parasynagogist can be a catholic
Christian. Therefore, as St. Cyprian wrote, even this inviolable principle alone suffices to determine the intruder or 2nd
bishop in the diocese was not a valid bishop of that church:
"How can he be esteemed a pastor, who while the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by
successive appointment - (he) succeeding to no one, and beginning from himself, becomes a strangeran enemy of the
divine unity"And as after the first bishop appointed there cannot be a second, whosoever is appointed after one who
ought to be alone, is not second in addition to him, but is in fact none at all You desire to be informed as to what heresy
Novatian had introduced; know that, in the first place, we ought not even to be inquisitive as to what he is teaching, so
long as he teaches out of the pale of unity. Whoever he may be, and whatever he may be, he is not in the Church of Christ,
he is not a ChristianUnless one seems to you to be a bishop, who - when a bishop has already been made in the church
by sixteen fellow-bishops -attempts to have himself appointed an adulterous and extraneous bishop by the hand! s of
those who desertAnd although there have already been ordained in each city, and through all the provinces, bishops old
in years, sound in faith, proven in trial, proscribed in persecution, (this one) dares to create over these 'other' pseudobishops" [Ep. 51, 75]
St. John Chrysostom admonished his flock not to mix with the followers of a rival bishop of Constantinople on the same
principle: "Even if they hold the same dogmas as we do, the reason for not mixing with them is greater still, because
then the disease is from lust of authority. Know ye not what was the punishment of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? (Num.
xvi. 1-35.) Of them only did I say? Was it not also of them that were with them?...If they are right, we are in error; if we
are right, they must needs be in the wrong Tell me, dost thou think this is enough, to say that they are orthodox? Is then
the ordination of clergy past and done away? And what is the advantage of other things, if this be not strictly observed? For
as we must needs contend for the Faith; so must we for this also. For if it is lawful for any oneto act as priest, let
everyone approach to minister. In vain has this altar been raised, in vain the number of the priest! s. Let us take them
away and destroy them. And if the idolaters reproach us on account of our heresies, what will they not say of these
things? "If they have the same doctrines, if the same mysteries, wherefore does a ruler in one church invade that of
another? See ye," say they, "how all things amongst the Christians are full of vainglory? And there is an ambition among
them, and hypocrisy Any one, say they, that chooses may find followers, and would never be at a loss for them.' Oh,
what a disgrace are these things! These things do we assert that it may not be in your power in that day to say, "No one
told us, no one gave us commandment, we were ignorant, we thought it was no sin at all." Therefore I assert and protest,
that to make a schism in the Church is no less evil than to fall into heresy I speak not of you that are present, but of
those who are deserting from us. The act is adulteryThere must be breach of the law either ! on the one side or the other.
If then thou hast these suspicions conce rning me, I am ready to retire from my episcopal office, and resign it to
whomsoever ye may choose. Only let the Church be one. But if I have been lawfully made and consecrated, entreat those
who have contrary to the law mounted the episcopal throne to resign itWherefore I entreat you, endeavor henceforward
both to resist nobly and to bring back those who have seceded, that we may with one accord lift up thanksgiving to God;
for to Him belongs the glory for ever and ever. Amen."
This principle also demonstrates the absurdity of the Roman Catholic teaching on the Pope and the episcopacy. For their
hierarchs teach that they themselves are all bishops and have jurisdiction over their parishes, but the Pope has "immediate
jurisdiction over every church." Thus every diocese has two valid overseers or bishops supposedly - Bishop X. and the
Bishop of Rome. The Church of Rome by her false claims either violates catholicity or denies the validity of all bishops
save one. For there cannot be two bishops over the same flock, two heads over the same body, two episcopates, two
overlapping dioceses. Either the Roman Catholics must admit that there are innumerable churches of Christ and not one

only, or they must admit that their bishops, cardinals, etc. are nothing at all while the Bishop of Rome is alone bishop of
the parishes - St. Pope Gregory the Great: "But if anyone usurp in the Church a title which embraces all the! faithful, then
the universal Church - O blasphemy! - will fall with him, since he makes himself to be called the universal. May all
Christians reject this blasphemous title - this title (universal bishop) which takes away the sacerdotal rank from every
priest the moment it is insanely usurped by one!" [Book 5 Epistle XX. To Mauricius Augustus] If the Bishop of Rome has
the "immediate episcopal authority" over Chicago, for instance, then the one you (Roman Catholics) call Bishop of
Chicago has no episcopal power or authority - he is not a bishop. It is pointless and contrary to his own ex cathedra
doctrine for the Pope to appoint Uniate Patriarchs and bishops - he alone is the bishop of what you think is your church. It
is vain for the Ecumenists to pretend that Rome now recognizes them and that he is just "first among equals=2! 2 with
them. There can never be mutual relations or recognition with R ome. There can only be the abolition and absorption of
one or the other. As long as the Pope has not renounced his claim to be anything more than a local Bishop, he does not
recognize your episcopacy.
But what then do the Apostles mean by adding: "unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can
be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in
obedience to the judgment of many Bishops, and at their urgent request"? This is explained later by them (Canon LVIII):
"If any Bishop or Presbyter neglects the Clergy or the laity, and neglects to instruct them in piety, let him be
excommunicated: but if he persists in his negligence and indolence, let him be deposed."
In other words, if a bishop completely abandons fulfilling his necessary offices as bishop, and piety is declining thereby, if
he persists after being admonished, then he may be canonically tried and deposed by many bishops and then they may
appoint another in his stead. Likewise the 1st-&-2nd Council explains (Canon XVI):
"Under no circumstances shall, any Bishop be appointed over a church whose president is still alive and is in good
standing of honor, unless he himself shall voluntarily resign. For the cause of one who is going to be ousted from the
church must first be canonically examined and brought to a conclusion, and then thereafter when he has been duly
deposed, another man may be promoted to the episcopacy in his stead. But if any Bishop in good standing of honor neither
cares to resign nor to pastor his own laity, but, having deserted his own bishopric, has been staying for more than six
months in some other region, without being so much as detained by an Imperial rescript, nor even being in service in
connection with the liturgies of his own Patriarch, nor, furthermore, being restrained by any severe illness or disease
utterly incapacitating him motion to and from his du! ties - any such Bishop, therefore, who is not prevented by any of the
said excuses from performing his duties, nevertheless holds himself aloof from his own episcopate and for a period of over
six months sojourns in some other locality, shall be deprived altogether of the honor and office of bishop. For because of
his woefully neglecting the flock which has been entrusted to him, and tarrying in some other region for a period of more
than six months, the holy Synod has decreed that he shall be deprived altogether of the bishopric whereby he was
appointed to act as a pastor, and that someone else shall be chosen to fill his place in the episcopacy."
In summary, no bishop may enter another's diocese and exercise episcopal functions there without his permission;
however, if many bishops (12 according to Carthage) through a canonical trial determine that he has abandoned or
neglected his flock for over six months without legitimate excuse, he may be deposed and only then will another bishop
take up episcopal functions in the diocese. This, of course, is omitting the case of heresy or schism, in which case the
canons tell us that such men are now "not bishops, but pseudo-bishops" (15th Canon of the 1st-&-2nd Council) and "they
lost their authoritywith the going into schism" or heresy (cf. 1st Canon of St. Basil the Great).
APOSTOLIC CANON XV
If any Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the list of clerics, abandoning his own province, departs to another, and
after deserting it entirely, sojourns in another, contrary to the mind of his own Bishop, we bid him to officiate no longer;
especially if his Bishop summons him to return, and he has not obeyed and persists in his disorderliness; however, he may
commune there as layman.
As in the 14th Apostolic Canon (last week), the Apostles here continue legislating for the proper order of the Church.
If the bishops who govern the Church must abide within the boundaries appointed to them by the Church, as the previous
(14th) canon and commentary showed, then much more so must the lower clergy do so, who are to be governed by them.
Would it not seem ridiculous if bishops could not operate as it pleased them outside of their dioceses, but their presbyters
or deacons could?
How could the Church maintain discipline and deal with trouble-makers, either? They would move about as it pleased
them and in effect be subject to no bishop at all; for, whenever a bishop attempted to discipline them, they would simply
transfer themselves to another diocese, where that bishop did not have authority. Chaos would reign in the Church, but
"God is not a God of confusion, but of peace", and there is peace where there is order.
Moreover, the wisdom of God which inspired the Apostles and the Church's experience testify that the majority of
clergymen do not seek increased authority or to abandon their parish for another on account of some spiritual motive, but
rather on account of ambition, greed, and vainglory, which cannot be of God. Man's passions do not serve God's
righteousness (cf. Jas. 1:20). Thus She says:
"For [it] is evident on account of what such things are undertaken. For so far no Bishop has ever been found to have
attempted to change from a larger city to a very small city. Hence it has to be concluded that such persons have to be

regarded as motivated by an ardent sense of greedso as to succeed in seemingly acquiring greater authority...[Therefore]
such villainy ought to be the more sternly avenged [i.e. punished]. For we deem that not even laymen ought to associate
with such persons." (Canon I of Sardica)
"From now on let no Clergyman be attached to two churches. For this is a mark of commerce and of greediness for profits,
and is alien to ecclesiastical usage Each person, therefore, in accordance with the Apostolic utterance, wherever he
happens to be, ought to stay there and serve in one church. For things done on account of greediness for profits in
connection with ecclesiastical matters are alien to God's institutes but in small towns outside of (the city), for want of
men, let there be concessions." (Canon XV of the 7th Ecumenical Council)
Therefore, to prevent and cut such things off beforehand, the Apostles command that no clergyman shall be able to
perform sacred rites outside of the diocese and parish in which he was established by his bishop, unless, and only so long
as, it pleases his bishop to allow him to serve elsewhere. Furthermore, according to Canon XVII (17) of the 6th
Ecumenical Council and Canon VII (7) of Antioch, the clergyman must bear a written letter from his bishop blessing him
to serve outside of the parish and diocese.
In fact, the Church has amplified this Apostolic guard against disorder and passion and simply declares invalid every
ordination of a clergyman in which he is not restricted to the service of a specific church:
"It is decreed that no one shall be ordained at large either a Presbyter or a Deacon, nor anything else at all in the
ecclesiastical ranks unless he be particularly assigned to the church of some city, or to a martyrium, or to a monastery. As
for those ordained at large the Holy Council has determined that any such cheirothesia [i.e., laying on of hands/ordination]
shall be null and void, and that such ordinees shall not be allowed to officiate anywhere, to the dishonor of the ordainer."
(Canon VI of the 4th Ecumenical Council).
However, the Church does not make this requirement for a valid ordination only to keep order and cut off ambitious and
greedy men. Rather, the very character of the clerical orders demands it; for every clergyman is called not only to a
particular kind of service (diaconate, priesthood, episcopate, or the lower orders), but also to the service of someone by
God. "For every high priest being taken from among men is being appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God,
that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sinsfor the peopleAnd no one taketh the honor to himself, but he who is
called by God, even as also Aaron. [Heb. 5:1-4] Everyone who is a priest "is being appointed on behalf of men in things
pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrific! es for sinsfor the people". Ordination to the priesthood is
appointment to represent and intercede for others before God. How then is he a priest who is not appointed to represent or
intercede for anybody? What significance can an 'ordination' have that authorizes the ordinee to perform his service
nowhere? How can a deacon, meaning a servant in Greek, be a deacon if he is not appointed to serve anyone or anywhere?
Or how can a bishop, meaning overseer in Greek, be a bishop if he is not appointed to oversee any church? A name cannot
be applied where the activity or power of the thing signified by the name is lacking. And, as the Apostle also says, he
certainly cannot appoint himself to any congregation. Therefore, no clergyman or bishop can be valid without assignment
to minister to a specific congregation.
APOSTOLIC CANON XVI
If, on the other hand, the Bishop with whom they are associating, admits them as clergymen in defiance of the deprivation
prescribed against them, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder.
That is to say, if the Bishop of the diocese to which they have immigrated admits to clerical functions any clergyman who
has left his assigned parish without the consent of his own bishop, then let him be excommunicated as confirming and
lending support to the disorderliness of that clergyman.
APOSTOLIC CANON XVII
Whoever has entered into two marriages after baptism, or has possessed himself of a concubine, cannot be a Bishop, or a
Presbyter, or a Deacon, or anything else in the list of clerics.
See our commentary on Canon V of the Holy Apostles concerning why the Church allowed married men as bishops in the
beginning, but does not do so now.
By "concubine" (the Latin word for 'one who shares the bed with another') the Fathers understand a mistress or a woman
living solely in a permanent union with one man, but without a marriage (more particularly, a Church marriage), without
any of the rights of inheritance, public recognition, or domestic rights or authority. St. Pope Leo the Great gives Hagar as
an example - for though she shared Abraham's bed and no other, yet she did not have the rights of a wife, but was the slave
of Sarah, who dismissed her at will, and her children could not inherit from Abraham. In fact, the Church only recognizes
Church marriages and does not allow concubines, as can be seen, for instance, from Canon XXXIII (33) of St. Nicephorus
the Confessor:
If anyone has a concubine and refuses either to leave her or to have her blessed as his wife, we ought not to accept any
offerings he makes to the Church, whose laws he is actually insulting and scorning. Read also c. XXV of Ancyra, and c.
VIII of Theophilos, and Apostolic Canon XVII.
By "two marriages after baptism", the Apostles do not mean only in the case of two simultaneous marriages, but also in the
case of two successive marriages, as also St. Basil and others say (cf. Canons XII [12] & XXIV [24] of St. Basil).
Moreover, the Church treats betrothal as marriage, except that it lacks, for the time being, the blessing to consummate it;
therefore, Canon XCVIII (98) of the 6th Ecumenical Council condemns as an adulterer the man who marries a woman
already betrothed to another, while St. Basil (Canon LXIX [69]) does not condemn the man who lies with his betrothed as

a fornicator, but only as one who did not abide by the proper order and await the blessing of the marriage. Consequently,
the Apostles here also exclude anyone who has been betrothed twice after baptism from clerical service.
Why does the Church look down upon a second marriage after baptism, though a man does not have two wives at once,
but only in succession? For, She does not even crown him, but gives him a penace, as St. Nicephorus says in his 2nd
Canon: A digamist is not blessed with crowns, but, on the contrary, is even amerced to abstain from Communion for two
years; and a trigamist, for three years.
When God made Adam and deemed it good that he have support or help, He ordained for him but one helper and support,
and no more, saying, "Let Us make a helper meet for him" [Gen.2:18] and the Lord took one rib to make only one woman
for the man. On the basis of this primeval creation and God's words, the Lord later abrogated divorce (except for
fornication) and remarriage, which had crept in on account of fallen men's passions [cf. Matthew 19]. In doing so, He
confirmed that the original character of the institution must be followed and not later anomalies. "But if it had been His
will that man should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed multiple
women. But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell
with one woman continually and never break off from her" (St. John Chrysostom, Homily LXII on St. Matthew)
"When God had wrought his creatures, He gave them once and for all an order to which they must conform and by which
they must abide, such as seedtime and harvest, spring and winter, night and day, and so too for the generation of animals.
As for man, he was given one wife, with whom he must live as long as the Giver's will allows him; marriages in excess of
this are a matter of human indulgence, not of Divine Ordinance" [St. Nicholas I Mysticos, Patriarch of Constantinople,
Tract on the Tetragamy, IX]
"When the Creator of the universe says of Adam, 'Let us make a help meet for him,' this is not permission for more than
one marriage, but for one only; therefore, He also creates one woman, having taken one of Adam's ribs, out of which He
forms a woman to bring her to him as his bride. Consequently, marriage as instituted by God knows one union only, and
further unions do not derive from Divine Law, even though they are conceded from human considerations." (St. Nicholas I
Mysticos, Patriarch of Constantinople, Tract on the Tetragamy, I)
And indeed, even after the Fall, one will never find God approving of multiple marriages, but either forbidding the
practice to someone (e.g., Deut. 17:17) or passing over it without comment. Consequently, the original law and institution
was never abrogated, but the "sins which were done aforetime" were overlooked "in the forbearance of God" [Rom. 3:25].
But now grace has shown forth, and Christ has made human nature rich and stronger so that the time for overlooking such
things has passed.

APOSTOLIC CANON XVIII (18)

No one who has taken a widow, or a divorced woman, or a harlot, or a housemaid, or any actress as his wife, may be a
Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, or hold any other position at all in the Holy List.
In the previous commentary on the 17th Canon, we discussed why the Church does not approve of second marriages, and
consequently why this canon prohibits those married to widows from clerical service.
The clergyman must have a "good reputation with those outside" [1 Tim 3:7] so that his personal character or reputation
does not bring reproach, unfounded or not, on the Church in the eyes of the non-Orthodox, whom he must convert. He and
his family must also be a model for others to follow in striving for piety. Therefore, any man married to a woman of illrepute, regardless of whether or not this was only her past and she has repented of it, may not be made a clergyman. In
certain conditions, the contemporary practice makes a dispensation upon the woman after her baptism into the Church.
As there are only certain legitimate grounds for a divorce in the Church, nevertheless, to take such a woman bars one from
the clerical list.
"Concerning an actress or harlot, who by virtue of her profession and the life-style typical to it, even today, does not carry a
reputation for chastity and strict moral uprightness, it is apparent that such a woman cannot be an example to the faithful.
Moreover, the very character of her work appears alien to Christian life insofar as its very nature demands one to
continually seek the praise of men in vain theatrics and pretensions and displays of passion.
Although anyone may certainly become a saint, even women such as St. Mary of Egypt or St. Pelagia the Former-Harlot
once were, yet on account of Her consideration of what is expedient to the conversion of the non-Orthodox and the moral
up-building of the faithful, the Church does not permit the husbands of the aforementioned women to become clergyman.
CANON XIX
Whoever marries two sisters, or a niece, may not be a clergyman.
(Cf. cc. III; XXVI of the 6th; c. II of Neocaesarea; cc. XXIII, XLVII of Basil : and c. V of Theophilus)
Interpretation
Among marriages some are called illicit, as those contracted with relatives or heretics, and others are called unlawful,
such as those of one who takes as his wife a woman of whom his father had acted as guardian since she was an infant, and
other condemned marriages, such as those in which one takes as his wife a woman who had been consecrated to God, or a
nun. In a common appellation all these marriages may be called unlawful; but the present Canon deals only with illicit

marriages, by prescribing, "Whoever takes as wife two sisters, or takes an older niece of his as his wife, cannot become a
clergyman." Because any illicit marriage, whether by reason of blood or of marriage ties, not only prevents one from
becoming a clergyman, but also subject to penalties.
For St. Basil the Great in mentioning those taking two sisters in his cc. LXXVIII and LXXXVII, rules that they shall
abstain from the Mysteries for seven years, according to his LXVIII, while c. II of Neocaesarea ordains that any woman
shall be expelled from Communion or participation in the Lord's Supper until death, one who has married two brothers.
Canon XXVII of Basil the Great prescribes that any presbyter who shall unwittingly fall into an unlawful marriage, i.e.,
one involving a relative, shall be allowed to share only the honor of his seat, but shall abstain from all other activities
connected with the priesthood, and shall not bless anyone either secretly or openly, nor shall he in any case administer
communion to anyone. This same canon of St. Basil was repeated verbatim by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod in its c. XXVI,
adding thereto that those unwittingly in unlawful marriage are to be separated first, and then shall he! have a right to
enjoy the honor of his seat.

CANON XX
Any Clergyman that gives security shall be deposed.
Comment: Another rendering of this canon is "Any Clergyman that gives himself as security for another shall be deposed",
drawing out the significance of the use of the "middle" voice in the Greek verb. This verb signifies to put one's own person
or property forward as collateral for a loan, so that the creditor can seize him or his effects if his friend does pay off the
loan. The Apostles follow Solomon in discouraging this perilous practice, for he said long before that "if you stand surety
for a friend of yours, you shall deliver your hand to an enemy. Therefore give not yourself as surety out of shame. For if
you have not the ability to pay, they will take the mattress from under your ribs" (Prov. 26:6, 10, and 22). The Merchant of
Venice provides a classic example of this - Antonio is hated by Shylock; Antonio offers himself as security for Bassanio to
obtain a loan, and Bassanio obtains the loan from Shylock; Bassanio and Antonio suffer the loss o! f their investments and
Shylock through a court obtains the right to seize 'a pound of flesh' from Antonio as his compensation or repayment for the
defaulted loan, only being prevented from accomplishing this on a technicality. Another, more church-related example:
The Apostles order that the Bishop own the property of the Church (Apostolic Canon XLI [41]) and if the Bishop were
permitted to give himself as security for another, then the property of the Church might be subject to seizure and profane
use, which would be sacrilege. Perhaps for this or similar reasons the Apostles entirely prohibit clergyman from offering
themselves as security for another, with a severe penalty of deposition.
CANON XXI
A Eunuch, whether he became such by influence of men, or was deprived of his virile parts under persecution, or was born
thus, may, if he is worthy, become a Bishop.
Interpretation: A Eunuch is a man who has been incapacitated from having children. In ancient times, there were three
types: those who were born this way, those whose parents or owners made them eunuchs against their will, and those
whose private parts were cut off in time of persecution.
The Apostles here lay down the sets of circumstances under which a eunuch may be made a bishop. This does not
contradict Apostolic Canons XXIII and XIV where those who eunuchize themselves are excommunicated if laymen and
deposed if clergymen. The difference between the present canon and those is that those canons refer to someone who is
already a Christian and voluntarily became a eunuch, whereas the present canon refers to those who did not become such
of there own volition. Those who through no fault of their own became eunuchs are free to become clergymen. Those who
became such apart from serious medical reasons (cf. c. I of Nicaea) are not.
APOSTOLIC CANON XXII (22)
Let no one who has mutilated himself become a clergyman; for he is a murderer of himself, and an enemy of God's
creation.
(Apostolic Canons XXI, XXIII, XXIV; c. I of lst; c. VIII of lst-&-2nd.)
Interpretation
The preceding Canon prescribes mandatorily regarding those who have been mutilated, whereas the present Canon
prescribes optionally about men who have been mutilated, by saying: Whoever willfully mutilates himself when in sound
condition, whether he do so with his own hands or has someone else mutilate him, let him not be made a clergyman, since
he himself is a murderer of himself by himself, and is an enemy of God's creation. In the example of a person who
eunicizes himself, God created him a man complete with genitals, but, by removing these, he converts himself into an odd
and outlandish nature; since he is neither a man, because he cannot perform the chief functions of a man and beget a
human being like himself, nor, again, is he a woman, because he is incapable of undergoing the duties of women.

An Orthodox Christian should be very concerned never to mutilate himself in any way, keeping in mind this canon and the
canon that will follow. If there any situations that develop, the Orthodox Christian should always consult with his priest or
bishop.
APOSTOLIC CANON XXIII
If anyone who is a clergyman should mutilate himself, let him be deposed, for he is a self-murderer.
Interpretation
This Canon also, like the one before, deals with cases of mutilation. But the former prescribes that he shall not be made a
clergyman who, while a layman, should mutilate himself; whereas this Canon says that if anyone who was previously a
clergyman should mutilate himself when in sound health, or have someone else mutilate him, he is to be deposed; since he
is a murderer of himself. But besides the divine Canons even the Byzantine laws also castigate those who mutilate either
themselves or others with various punishments, ranging all the way from confiscation of their property, exile, or
retaliation, i.e., by compelling them to be mutilated themselves by some other person.
APOSTOLIC CANON 24
Any layman who has mutilated himself shall be excommunicated for three years. For he is a plotter against his own life.
(Ap. cc. XXI, XXII, XXIII; c. I of the 1st; and c. VIII of the 1st-2nd.)
Interpretation
If, on the other hand, it be a layman that should mutilate and castrate himself when in good health, or have someone else
eunuchize him, the present Canon commands that he be excommunicated from the Mysteries and from the congregation of
Christians in the church for a period of three years; since with the eunuchization he becomes a danger to his own life.
[One might also take 'for he is a plotter against his own life', in the sense of an enemy and destroyer of some part of his
own God-made being.]
APOSTOLIC CANON 25
Any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that is taken in the act of committing fornication, or perjury, or theft, shall be deposed
from office, but shall not be excommunicated. For Scripture says: "Thou shalt not exact revenge twice for the same
offense." The same rule applies also to the rest of clergymen.
Interpretation
All men who are in holy orders or who are clergymen must be pure and unimpeachable. For this reason the present Canon
decrees thus: Any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon that gets caught, i.e., or is proved to have engaged, in the act of
fornication, or violence of an oath, or capital theft shall be deposed. As for such an offender, the Canon says to let him be
deposed from holy orders, but not be excommunicated also from the church and prayer of Christians. For divine Scripture
says: Thou shalt not punish twice one and the same sinful act. And, like those in holy orders, all other clergymen too that
may be caught in the aforementioned sinful acts shall also be deposed from their clerical offices and rights, but shall not be
excommunicated from the Church. It should be noted, the canon says that such an offender is not excommunicated: this is
in reference to being cut off from the Church. It is not referring to being excommunicated from the Holy Mysteries. On the
contrary! , such a person is excommunicated from the Holy Mysteries most definitely, for how can a fornicator or an
adulterer be permitted to partake of the Holy Mysteries without fulfilling the canonical penance first? According to cc. III,
XXXII, and LI of St. Basil the Great, they cannot partake of the Holy Mysteries on the ground that they are unworthy and
are under a canon until such time as the prelate or their spiritual (i.e., confessor) sees fit to permit them to do so. Let no
one think, however, that a clergyman may, according to his own reasoning, continue to serve while being a fornicator or a
thief, or a perjurer because he has not been caught. Spiritually speaking, one who dares to serve while being in such a state
is adding more condemnation to himself.
Concord
But c. VIII too of the same Neocaesarean Council says that a priest who is cohabiting with his wife after she has
committed adultery must be deposed from office. Again, c. XXI of the 6th says: Clergymen who have been entirely deposed
from office on account of canonical crimes, if they voluntarily repent, let them be permitted to look like clergymen; but if
they are unwilling to give up the sin voluntarily, let them be shorn and look like laymen. Canon LXX of St. Basil decrees
that in case a deacon, or a presbyter, should sin with a woman only to the extent of kissing her, he shall leave the holy
orders for a time, according to Zonaras, but he shall have the right to partake of the mysteries together with his fellow
presbyters and fellow deacons. But if it should come to light that he sinned further than the kiss, he shall be deposed from
office. Canon IV of the 6th deposes any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or other clergyman that has sexual intercourse
with a woman c! onsecrated to God, i.e., a nun. Saint John the Faster says that if anyone fell into masturbation once
(which some saints call self-fornication) before being admitted to holy orders, he is to be penanced and afterwards to be
admitted to holy orders. But if he fell after admission to holy orders, he is to remain suspended for one year, and is to be
canonized (i.e., disciplined) with other penances, and thereafter be allowed to officiate. If, however, even after becoming
fully conscious of the sinfulness of the act, he again falls into this mishap two or three times he is to be deposed from holy

orders, but demoted to the class of an anagnost (or church reader). Of course, this assumes that he will never again engage
in this type of sin.
APOSTOLIC CANON 26
As to bachelors who have entered the clergy, we allow only readers and psalts to marry, if they wish to do so.
(c. XIV of the 4th; c. VI of the 6th; cc. XIX, XXXIII of Carth.; c. LXIX of Basil.)
Interpretation
Before being ordained, presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons have a right to take a wife and to be ordained after marriage.
But if after ordination they should wish to marry, they are deposed from their order in accordance with c. VI of the 6th.
Anagnosts (readers), on the other hand, and psalts (i.e., chanters or psalm-readers) and the clerics lower in rank than these
have a right to marry without prejudice even after becoming clerics and to be advanced to higher orders. Hence it is that
the present Canon commands that such clerics be allowed to marry even after taking orders, though only with an Orthodox
woman, and not with a heterodox woman, in accordance with c. XIV of the 4th Ecumenical Synod. Canon LXIX of Basil
the Great says that if a reader should fall with his fiance before being wedded, he is to be suspended for a year, after
which he is to be accepted, but must not be promoted to any higher r! ank. (This is not considered fornication [which is
liable to deposition according to Ap. Canon 25], because betrothal is considered as marriage but without the right to
consummate it yet.) If, on the other hand, he marry clandestinely without a betrothal, he is to be discharged from the
service. Canon VI of the 6th promulgates the present Canon verbatim.37

APOSTOLIC CANON XXVII (27)

As for a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that strikes believers for sinning, or unbelievers for wrong-doing, with the idea of
making them afraid, we command that he be deposed from office. For the Lord has nowhere taught that: on the contrary,
He Himself when struck did not strike back; when reviled, He did not revile His revilers; when suffering, He did not
threaten.
(c. IX of the 1st-&-2nd; c. V of Antioch; cc. LVII, LXII, LXXVI, C, CVI, CVII; and I Pet. 2:23.)
Interpretation
In teaching His disciples His divine commandments the Lord used to say: "Whatever I say to you My disciples, I say also
to all Christians" (Mark 18:87'). One of His commandments is to turn our left cheek to anyone that strikes our right cheek
(Matt. 5:39). If, therefore, this commandment ought to be kept by all Christians, it ought much more to be obeyed by those
in holy orders, and especially by bishops, regarding whom divine Paul wrote to Timothy that a bishop ought not to be a
striker (I Tim. 3:3). That is why the present Canon says too: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon strikes those Christians
who offend him, or unbelievers that do wrong to others, with a view to making others afraid of him with such blows, we
command that he be deposed from office. For in no part of the Gospel has the Lord taught to do such a thing as that: in
fact, He has taught us quite the contrary with His example; since when beaten by the soldiers and Jews, at the time of His
p! assion, He did not lift a hand to beat them in return. When accused and insulted, He did not insult others, nor did He
accuse them. Even when suffering on the cross, He did not threaten to chastise them, but begged His Father to pardon
them. "Those in holy orders ought to imitate the Lord by rebuking sinners and wrongdoers, in order that others may be
afraid" (I Tim. 5:20), as St. Paul says, and "by sobering them, at times with teaching and admonition, and at times with
ecclesiastical penances; but not taking revenge with wrath and anger, for villainy sake, or for any offense such persons may
have given them, or by beating them and thrashing them." In mentioning this same Canon, c. IX of the 1st-&-2nd also
says that not only are those in holy orders to be deposed who strike others with their own hands, but also those who get
others to deliver the blows. Let no one confuse the thoughts here by thinking that they cannot spank their children for
wrong-d! oing.
APOSTOLIC CANON XXVIII
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, who has been justly deposed, for proven crimes, should dare to touch the Liturgy
which had once been put in his hands, let him be cut off from the Church altogether.
(cc. IV, XII, XV of Antioch; c. XIV of Sard.; Basil's epistle to Gregory, which is his c. LXXXVIII.)
Interpretation
The present Canon ordains that if any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon happens to have been justly and lawfully deposed on
account of manifest and proven crimes - the bishop by the synod, the presbyter and the deacon either by their bishop or by
their synod - and after such lawful deposition he should have the boldness to again liturgize, any such person, I say, shall
be cut off from the Church entirely.
Firstly, because of his extreme boldness and rashness; and secondly, because after deposition there remains no other
canonical chastisement for those who were in Holy Orders more severe than to be utterly cut off from the Church. And that
is just and right. For if it should happen, according to c. XIV of the Sardican, that anyone who has not been deposed justly
should have the boldness to perform the functions of the clergy after his deposition and before another synodical judgment

or decision, he ought to be sobered by bitter and severe words. In fact, according to c. V of the 1st, if even in case one is
excommunicated, not as a matter of justice, but as a matter of some pusillanimity and contentiousness of his bishop, he
cannot handle anything holy until a synodical examination and investigation is carried out, how much more is not one
incapacitated for the performance of any function belonging to Holy Orders who has been just! ly deposed on account of
manifest sins? Again, if Basil the Great threatened to condemn Gregory, who had been merely suspended by him, to
anathema if he should have the boldness to exercise any function before his correction, how can it be said that one ought
not to be entirely cut off from the Church who has been justly deposed for manifest sins, but after the deposition has had
the boldness to exercise any holy function?