St. Nikodim (Milaš) of Dalmatia, Canonist and Theologian: On the Condition and Limits of Conciliar Authority

Source: Православное церковное право [Orthodox Ecclesiastical Law], by Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia, St. Petersburg, Printing House of V. V. Komarov, 1897. Emphasis added.

 

Section III. Church Administration.

Chapter 3. The Power of Governance.

I. Church Legislation

§110. General Overview

The Founder of the Church entrusted legislative authority to His apostles, and from the apostles it passed to their successors—the bishops, to whom, collectively, it has belonged throughout all the ages, just as it belongs at the present time (§ 13). [1644]

On the basis of divine authority and in accordance with the mission of the Church itself (§ 1), its legislative authority develops in a precisely defined direction. The representatives of the Church’s legislative authority, in issuing laws, act in this case not in their own name, exercising their personal authority, but in the name of the Spirit of God Who dwells in the Church, in relation to Whom they serve only as instruments for carrying out His will on earth. According to the promise of the Founder of the Church that He will always be with His apostles and their successors, the apostles, as well as their successors, neither issued nor issue laws for the Church from themselves and in their own name, but in the name of the Holy Spirit, acting through them. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” say the apostles when making the determination that the Old Testament ceremonial law has no significance for Christians. [1645] In like manner do the fathers of the Church express themselves whenever they issued laws that were to have binding force in the Church. [1646] But in order that the will and power of the Holy Spirit may be truly expressed in the legislative authority of the Church, two essential conditions must be observed, namely: first, that the legislative authority act with the voice of the whole Church as a body quickened by the Holy Spirit; and second, that the representatives of this authority be persons who have received the sacrament of the priesthood, with which a special grace of God is joined. The observance of these conditions is necessary for the very significance of the Church’s laws; and the Church legislators give expression to them in their determinations, mentioning therein the Holy Spirit, in Whose name the legislative activity in the Church is accomplished. [1647]

Given such a significance of church laws, the legislative authority extending over the whole Church cannot belong to one person, even if he were the first-ranking bishop; for just as there is no visible personal head of the entire Church (§ 49), so, according to the fundamental teaching of the Orthodox Church, no person by himself can be exalted above the Church to such an extent as to prescribe from himself laws to the whole Church, and therefore cannot be so infallible as to issue for the Church such laws as they ought to be by the holiness of the Church itself and by the loftiness of the matters which they concern. [1648] Therefore the right of legislation in the Church belongs only to conciliar authority, to which the one Founder of the Church promised His help and co-presence when it acts in His name (§ 54). In consequence of this, from the very beginning of the Church it was established by lawful order to convene every year councils of bishops for the common discussion and administration of all matters relating to church life, and for the issuing of laws, so that in the Church everything might be accomplished according to the will of its Founder. The decree on the convocation of councils was always considered in the Church a decree of divine right, and it was often repeated both by the Ecumenical and by the local councils. [1649]

On the basis of and in the spirit of the legislation of conciliar authority, individual bishops may also issue particular laws in the Churches entrusted to them; but these laws must proceed from the conciliar legislation, be in inseparable connection with it, without any deviation from it, and still less in contradiction to it. The legislative authority of a bishop is limited by the laws established by conciliar authority, and may make only a particular application in certain cases of that which has been established by the conciliar legislative authority (§ 116).

§ 111. 1. General Church Legislation.

By general church legislation is meant the laws issued by the supreme legislative authority of the Church, and therefore unconditionally binding upon every member of the Church. In speaking of general legislation, one must, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, distinguish the ancient general legislation from the more recent, that is, that which developed during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, from the legislation which developed after them and is developing at the present time.

The fundamental laws concerning doctrine and the internal spiritual governance of the Church have been composed, defined, and confirmed on the foundation laid by Christ Himself, then by the apostles, and finally by the Ecumenical Councils. These laws no one can alter or abolish, but all must regard them as unconditionally binding at all times. [1650] Therefore, in further developing its legislative authority, the Church must preserve the integrity, purity, and unity of the fundamental laws of the Ecumenical [Universal] Church, set forth in the acts approved by the Ecumenical Councils, having the right, in accordance with the time and local needs, to derive from these fundamental laws and to issue particular laws which must remain in inseparable connection and in direct dependence upon them. [1651] As for other laws relating to the external life of the Church and having no relation to the foundation of the Church in terms of dogmatic teaching, fundamental structure, and spiritual governance, the operation of church legislation enjoys greater freedom and is limited only by the general spirit of church law and the general principles which permeate it (§ 17).

General church legislation is created either at an Ecumenical Council or through written communications between the representatives of the existing independent (autocephalous) Churches.

§ 112. a) Ecumenical Councils

The highest legislative authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council (οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος) [1652] is an assembly of pastors and teachers of the Church, convened, insofar as possible, from all countries of the Christian world, for the joint resolution of questions concerning the entire Church, which resolution is afterwards accepted and recognized by the whole Church. [1653]

I. In order for a council to be called Ecumenical in the strict sense, it must fully correspond to both the internal and the external definite conditions. Among these, the principal consists in this: that all the local Churches participate in such a council, either through the personal presence of their primates or their representatives, or by means of special letters setting forth the opinion of a given Church on certain questions, or finally, through a declaration on the part of certain Churches, which are in some exceptional situation, of their readiness to recognize all the decisions of the council. The number of members of the council does not determine its ecumenical character, and by the word “Ecumenical” one should not understand the obligatory presence at the council of all the bishops existing in the world, which would, of course, be impossible; moreover, there have been local councils at which twice as many bishops were present as at certain Ecumenical Councils, and yet these councils have only a local significance. [1654] The ecumenical significance of councils depends on other conditions, and among them, in addition to the one mentioned, one of the external ones is that the decisions of the council be accepted by all the Churches, both by those whose representatives were personally present at the council, and by those which had no representation there; [1655] furthermore, there is also a third external condition, namely, that the decisions of the council be accepted by all the clergy and the laity of the Church (§ 55). This last condition is especially important because it concerns the entire composition of the Church (§ 55) and, bearing witness to the unanimous recognition and holiness of the conciliar definitions, at the same time transfers them from the realm of theory into the life of the Church and makes them the possession of all its members without distinction of their position in the ecclesiastical organism. [1656] Beyond the external conditions, for the recognition of a council as Ecumenical, certain definite internal conditions must also be strictly observed. Among these, the first is that the questions considered at the council have an ecumenical significance, namely, that they concern the essence of the faith and the doctrine of the Church, the fundamental principles of the being and structure of the Church, and have general importance for all the local Ecumenical Churches. The second condition is that the council in its determinations should express with due clarity that which, in general and in essential features, all have held always and everywhere. [1657] The fulfillment of all these conditions constitutes the fundamental teaching of Orthodox canon law concerning Ecumenical Councils, and we see that they have been strictly observed by the seven Ecumenical Councils which the Orthodox Church accepts and recognizes. According to the aforementioned conditions, especially the internal ones, and on the basis of the records of the past Ecumenical Councils, to them belongs:

1. the determination, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church, of the dogmas of the faith and their exposition in the form of creeds or definitions of faith; [1658]
2. the investigation and confirmation of the tradition of the Church, and the separation of the true tradition from the corrupted; [1659]
3. the discussion of any teaching which has appeared in the Church; [1660]
4. the review of the canons of all previous councils; [1661]
5. the determination of the form of church governance in general, and in particular, the governance of local Churches and their rights; [1662]
6. the determination of the degrees and rights of the ecclesiastical hierarchy; [1663]
7. the highest judicial authority over the primates of Churches and even over all the local Churches; [1664]
8. the issuing for the entire Church of general, positive determinations on everything that concerns the structure, governance, and life of the Church. [1665]

II. Ecumenical Councils do not belong to the permanent ecclesiastical institutions, such as, for example, metropolitan councils, but appear in history as extraordinary institutions, whose significance extends not only to the Church but also to the State. By reason of such significance, it is natural that in the convocation of an Ecumenical Council both ecclesiastical and state authority should participate—the former having charge of the internal aspect of the council, the latter of the external. The Church, by its very nature, has the right to act independently in matters of faith and of its own life, and therefore determinations on these matters can proceed only from it and must stand in close connection with its general purpose and the needs of its existence. But the Church, as a spiritual kingdom, cannot dispose of the earthly means required for the exercise of this right, especially in such cases when it must gather from all the countries of the Christian world the bishops, so that they, united together, might affirm a certain fundamental truth and make a determination which should serve as the expression of the whole Church and, consequently, be binding upon all. Therefore the Church has need of the help of the state authority, which can provide it with the necessary means and ensure its freedom in exercising the aforementioned right. This explains the participation of the state authority in the convocation of the seven Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Orthodox Church—a participation which the state authority should also have at the present time in the event of the necessity to convene a new Ecumenical Council. From the history of the seven Ecumenical Councils we see that the causes of their convocation, the subjects of deliberation, the persons who had the right to discuss these subjects, and finally the formulation of the very determinations—all this depended upon the ecclesiastical authority and was based upon rights belonging to it independently; whereas the designation of the place and time of the council, the provision for the maintenance of its members and for the freedom of its actions, the securing of the universal promulgation and obligatory force of the conciliar determinations as state laws—this and similar matters required the participation of the state authority and were accomplished with its assistance. Consequently, the convocation of Ecumenical Councils belongs to the joint participation of ecclesiastical and state authority. The bishops express the necessity to convene an Ecumenical Council on a given question, the state authority agrees with this and itself convenes them to a designated place, providing them with the means for the formation of the council and for free action therein. [1666]

III. The right to participate in the Ecumenical Councils and the right to vote in conciliar decisions belongs to the bishops. Consequently, former Ecumenical Councils were often designated by the number of bishops present at them, without any other designation. [1667] There were also other members of the clergy at the councils, presbyters and deacons, but only with a consultative voice, whereby they assisted the bishops in discussing certain questions, or, at the invitation of the council, entered into disputes with opponents and refuted their arguments. Among such presbyters and deacons, only those who came with authorization from their bishops and who stood in for absent bishops could have a decisive vote, on an equal footing with the bishops; in this case, the deputies of bishops signed the decisions of the council along with its other actual members. Believing laymen, theologians, philosophers, and generally all those who studied the questions subject to discussion, were also admitted to the councils, and who, at the proposal of the bishops, gave the necessary explanations and contributed to the best possible disclosure of the truth. At some Ecumenical Councils, emperors or their representatives were also present; but this occurred only for the sake of preserving order and peace, and never with the aim of discussing the matters subject to the council’s consideration. [1668]

IV. The right of presiding at the Ecumenical Councils and of directing the discussions belongs to that bishop whose throne holds primacy among the other thrones of the Universal Church. Thus it ought to be, according to the fundamental constitution of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, established by the canons of the Councils — the 28th of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the 36th of the Council in Trullo. At former Ecumenical Councils, attention was given to the extent to which, personally or through their representatives, the bishops of the primatial thrones participated in the conciliar sessions, and whether any one of them was the subject of conciliar examination or condemnation. In addition to the aforementioned presidents, who managed the affairs of the council and influenced its decisions, honorary presidency at the councils was held, when they were present, by the emperors, by virtue of their significance as defenders of Orthodoxy and supreme guardians of the integrity of ecclesiastical rights. [1669]

V. The decrees of an Ecumenical Council, as the voice of the whole Church, provided only that the council meets all the above-mentioned conditions, are unconditionally binding upon everyone belonging to the Church. Concerning the binding force of the conciliar decrees, the Ecumenical Councils themselves, which enacted them, have spoken, and this was recognized by all subsequent councils, as well as by the state authority. The decrees of some of these councils were signed by the emperors themselves together with the bishops, members of the councils. However, the signatures of the emperors should not and cannot be taken in the sense that by their own authority they confirmed the dogmas of the faith and other decisions of the councils; by this, the emperors only expressed that they accept everything determined by the council as an undoubted truth, and acknowledge it as salvific for the Christian peoples. Emperor Justinian II, for example, signed the decree of the Council in Trullo thus: σταχήσας ἅπασι τοῖς ἁρισθεῖσι, καὶ ἐμμένων, ὑπέγραψα (“agreeing with all that has been determined, and remaining in it, I have signed”), whereas the bishops signed ὁρίσας (“having determined”). [1670] In addition to these signatures of the emperors, the state authority recognized and solemnly promulgated the binding force of the conciliar decisions, in exactly the same way as the decrees of the emperors themselves; and this occurred every time after the council had concluded its sessions. Emperor Justinian in one of his Novels says that he accepts the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils as the word of God, and their canons as state laws. [1671]

Speaking of the binding force of the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, one should understand only those of their decrees on matters of faith (ὅροι) or discipline (κανόνες) which have been formally and solemnly proclaimed as such; and therefore, the records of the conciliar sessions, various discussions, reports, etc., do not have legal force; they serve only for the interpretation and better understanding of the decrees and have historical significance.

§ 113. b) The second type of general church legislation

Apart from the Ecumenical Councils, the Church can also, in its ordinary state, in case of need, manifest its general legislative authority. This happens when all the chief pastors of the Church, even though they have not been convened to a council, yet each remaining in his own place of residence, unanimously and in agreement set forth the teaching on a subject regarding which the voice of the Ecumenical Church is required. This type of general church legislation, which does not have the form of an Ecumenical Council, is conditioned by the Orthodox teaching on the unity of the Church. “The Catholic Church is one,” writes St. Cyprian, “indivisible and inseparable, and therefore it must also be united into one whole by the mutual bond of the hierarchs.” [1672] In the early times of the Church, when of an Ecumenical Council there could be no thought, the Church nonetheless had its own general legislation, created by the joint and harmonious actions of all the local Churches and chief pastors (§ 51). So it was in the Church later as well, when circumstances hindered the convocation of an Ecumenical Council, while in the meantime its common voice was required. Bearing in mind the great difficulties connected with the convocation of Ecumenical Councils, the fathers and teachers of the Church do not indicate an unconditional necessity for these councils. Concerning the Pelagian heresy, Augustine wrote thus: “Is it really necessary to convene a council in order to expose such an obvious evil? As if no heresy has ever been condemned without convening councils? Meanwhile, it is known that only for very few heresies did such a need arise, while other heresies, and even most of them, were exposed and condemned where they arose, and from there it was announced to the other churches so that they might beware.” [1673] Accordingly, the Church has acted in all times. Thus, if some important question arises, having significance for the whole Church and hierarchy, in the region where it has appeared, it is subjected to discussion by a local council, and the decision of the latter is communicated to the other local Churches, so that they may adopt this decision into their practice; or, if this local council is deemed insufficient for resolving the matter, then it appeals to the opinion of the other local (autocephalous) Churches, and when all agree on a certain decision, it is then proclaimed in the name of the Church, and it thereby receives the same significance and force as a decision of an Ecumenical Council.

Example: Around the middle of the 17th century there arose a need to protect Orthodox Christians from a danger threatening them in regard to their faith, and to set forth for all the foundations of the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Then the Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, composed the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church” in order to meet the needs of the Russian Church, in which a danger to Orthodoxy had arisen. This confession was approved, first of all, at one council in Kiev, then at the council in Iași, and afterwards it was reviewed and approved by all four Eastern Patriarchs and unanimously accepted by the entire Orthodox Church. Thus, the aforementioned confession became an expression of the teaching of the whole Church, and as such, in every respect and in all things, has the same importance and significance as if it had been composed by an Ecumenical Council. At the Ecumenical Councils, representatives of the entire episcopate personally expressed unanimous approval of the conciliar definitions, whereas here the same episcopate expressed unanimous approval in writing, by means of letters. In the same manner was it done in the promulgation, at the end of the 17th century, of the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church,” as well as in 1848, when the “Encyclical of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church to all Orthodox Christians” was promulgated.

§ 114. 2. Particular Church Legislation

In addition to the general church legislation, whose prescriptions are binding for all, the canons permit each local church, within the boundaries of its region, to govern itself in accordance with local conditions and to issue laws required by these conditions. The Council in Trullo, in its 39th canon, reminds that the privileges enjoyed by certain local churches must be honored; and the Second Ecumenical Council, in defining in its 2nd canon the boundaries of the jurisdiction of certain primatial bishops, decrees that the affairs of each particular ecclesiastical region must be administered by the corresponding council. By this, in essence, the legislative authority proper to the regional councils within the boundaries of the local churches was recognized. The canons likewise recognize legislative authority for individual bishops within the boundaries of the ecclesiastical region entrusted to them. The Council of Antioch, in its 9th canon, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in its 6th canon, define the scope of activity of the regional councils, while at the same time recognizing for individual bishops the right to independently administer the affairs of the church entrusted to them in the spirit of the general enactments of the regional council, on which they depend, and to issue the corresponding enactments required for the administration of this church. Finally, in certain churches there exist various communities with specific pious aims. These communities, if they are canonically recognized and have their own definite autonomy, confirmed by law, within the limits of this autonomy likewise enjoy the right to issue various rules for their needs, which thereby acquire the significance of law.

The legislative activity of these autonomous ecclesiastical communities is in direct dependence upon the local diocesan bishop. As for the legislative authority of local councils and bishops, the general canonical enactments have for them the significance that, in developing their particular legislation, they must first of all be guided by the canons obligatory for the entire Church, and may introduce into the scope of their actions certain particular rules only in dependence upon the general canonical enactments. Local councils and bishops have the right to independently alter their particular rules according to circumstances, but they must always strictly observe the fundamental canonical enactments. The arbitrary departure of a bishop or of a local church from the fundamental canonical enactments adopted by the Universal Church places that local church in the position of a schismatic society, and the bishop who has committed such an act is subject to deposition.

§ 115. a) Local Councils

We have already spoken about local councils when examining the governmental institutions under metropolitans (§ 81) and patriarchs (§ 84) of ancient times, and at the same time spoke about the scope of action of these councils in the present independent local churches (§ 87). The legislative authority of local councils extends to all matters for which there are no precise indications in the general church legislation and with regard to which there arises the need to issue a special law. [1674] But in order that the legislative authority of these councils may function correctly and have canonical significance, its prescriptions must be based on the laws of the Universal Church and express its principles and spirit, and this authority itself must have a canonical foundation — that is, it must belong to persons called to this by virtue of their high sacred rank. [1675]

With regard to the legislative activity of local councils, the canons prescribe paying attention that the laws of these councils not only do not violate the universal foundation of the church order and do not contradict the true spirit of the Church of Christ — namely, the spirit of Orthodoxy, holiness, moral purity, and hierarchical rights — but concern only the particular aspects of the canons, and not their general content; only their external application, and not their inner force; only the forms of church administration, and not their essence. Therefore, the legislation of local churches, in the person of their regional councils, can in no case concern matters of the inner church life — dogmatic, liturgical, and spiritual-moral. In regard to these matters, the Universal Church has always paid strict attention that they be preserved in their entirety by the local churches as the institutions of the Ecumenical Councils, exposing and correcting any, even the slightest, deviation noticed by her in one or another local church. [1676] And the local churches themselves, in their legislative activity at the regional councils, must pay special attention that the laws they issue proceed directly from the general canonical enactments and are not caused by passions, ignorance, or any external non-ecclesiastical influence. Therefore, if a local council happens accidentally to issue a law that has no strict canonical foundation, it must, as soon as it perceives this, by its own direct impulse, take measures for its removal and, in its place, promulgate another having a canonical foundation. In the history of church legislation there have been such examples, [1677] which must serve as a model for all times.

 

References

1644. Cf. on this in my edition Rules with Commentary, II, 1 ff., and the article of Archimandrite Ioann “On Church Legislation” (Christian Reading, 1865, I, pp. 368 ff.).

1645. Acts 15.

1646. See, for example, Canon 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Can. 1 of the Council in Trullo, Can. 7 of Gregory of Neocaesarea.

1647. See §§ 54 and 56 of this book.

1648. “Can anyone believe that our God inspires justice in judgment in only one person, and does not grant it to the numerous clergy assembled in council?” writes the Council of Carthage of the year 419 in its epistle (my Collection, p. 224).

1649. Apostolic Canon 37, Can. 5 of the First Ecumenical Council, Can. 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical, Can. 8 of Trullo, Can. 6 of the Seventh Ecumenical, Can. 20 of Antioch, Can. 18 and 73 of Carthage.

1650. Can. 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council, Can. 1 of the Fourth Ecumenical, Can. 1 and 2 of Trullo, Can. 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical.

1651. Apostolic Canon 77, Can. 20 of the First Ecumenical Council, Can. 47 of Basil the Great, and others.

1652. The name “Ecumenical” (οἰκουμενικὴ) is derived from the word οἰκουμένη (γῆ) — “inhabited earth” — and signifies “universal.” Oikoumenē in ancient times denoted the Roman Empire; thus, the Evangelist Luke writes: ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην (“A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered,” Lk. 2:1). This word, when joined to “council,” denotes the character of universality which such a council must have. The most complete treatment of the Ecumenical Councils is found in C. J. von Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, particularly in the first three volumes of the second edition (Freiburg im Breisg., 1873–1877); this remarkable work exists in a French translation (Paris, 1869 ff.). See also the book by E. Michaud, Discussion sur les sept conciles oecuméniques étudiés au point de vue traditionnel et libéral (Berne, 1878), and cf. “On the Ecumenical Councils” in my edition Rules with Commentary (2nd ed., pp. 29–73).

1653. The Longer Catechism, on the 9th article; Can. 2 of the First Ecumenical Council, Can. 8 of the Third Ecumenical. Similarly defines the Ecumenical Council also Hefele, but adds: unter dem Vorsitz des Papstes oder seiner Legaten (“under the presidency of the Pope or his legates”) (I, 3).

1654. At the Second Ecumenical Council there were only 150 bishops, whereas at some local councils, especially at the Council of Carthage, there were twice as many.

1655. For example, at the Second Ecumenical Council there were present only the primates of the Eastern Churches, and yet, as a result of the universal acceptance of its decrees, it is recognized as Ecumenical even by the Western Church.

1656. For example, certain conciliar decrees may be unanimously enacted by all the church primates assembled at the council, but if they are not accepted by all the clergy and the people, they will not receive ecumenical significance, and likewise the council that enacted them cannot then be considered ecumenical. There have been heretical councils, for example, the one at which the semi-Arian creed was composed, or such councils under the acts of which far more bishops signed than under the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, or even such whose decrees were signed by patriarchs and emperors. And yet these councils were not recognized as ecumenical for the sole reason that the believing people could not accept their decisions as the true voice of the Church.

1657. Cf. note 8 to § 21 and § 103.

1658. Can. 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council, Can. 1 of Carthage.

1659. Can. 1 and 2 of the Council in Trullo.

1660. Ch. 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Ch. 1 of the Third Ecumenical, and others.

1661. Can. 1 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Can. 8, 16, 25, 29, and others of Trullo.

1662. Can. 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council, Can. 2 and 3 of the Second Ecumenical, Can. 8 of the Third Ecumenical, Can. 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical, Can. 36 and 39 of Trullo.

1663. Can. 4 and 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, Can. 12, 28, and others of the Fourth Ecumenical.

1664. Can. 12, 13, 32, 33, 55, 56, and 81 of Trullo.

1665. See § 17 of this book.

1666. Thus were convened all the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Orthodox Church. See on this in my edition Rules with Commentary, II, pp. 41–47. This is acknowledged also by many Roman Catholic writers, among them Hefele (op. cit., I, 8).

1667. For example, the First Ecumenical Council is usually called “the council of the 318 fathers,” the Second Ecumenical — “the council of the 150 fathers,” since this was the number of bishops present at them.

1668. For details on this, see Rules with Commentary, II, pp. 47–53; concerning the meaning of the participation of emperors and their representatives at the Ecumenical Councils, see the epistle of the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian to the Third Ecumenical Council, in which they explain what will be the task of the imperial representative Candidian at the council (ibid., p. 51, note 1).

1669. See Rules with Commentary, II, pp. 53–65, where it is described in detail who presided at which Ecumenical Council, as well as the discussions on this in Hefele (I, 20–43). His words “unter dem Vorsitz des Papstes” (p. 3) apply to the councils that took place from the 12th century in the West and are recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as ecumenical.

1670. Harduin, III, p. 1697.

1671. Novella 131, ch. 1. This novella, in its expanded form, is also in the Basilika, where the given passage reads: τῶν γὰρ προειρημένων ἁγίων συνόδων τὰ δόγματα καθάπερ τὰς θείας γραφὰς δεχόμεθα καὶ τούς κανόνας ὡς νόμους φυλάττομεν (lib. V, tit. III, ch. 2. Ed. cit. I, p. 134).

1672. Ep. 65 ad Rogatianum.

1673. Ad Bonifacium, Contra duos epistolas pelagianorum, ch. 12.

1674. Cf. in my Collection (2nd ed., p. XV ff.), as well as Zhishman, Die Synoden, p. 8.

1675. Apostolic Canon 37, conclusion of Canon 47 of Basil the Great, and others. Cf. Tertullian, De jejunio, ch. 13; Ambrose, De fide, III, 15; Augustine, Ep. 54 ad Januar.

1676. See Can. 18 and 20 of the First Ecumenical Council, Can. 8 of the Third Ecumenical, Can. 6, 12, 13, 16, 29, 32, 33, 55, 56, and others of Trullo.

1677. Zhishman points out several such examples from the 14th century in the history of the Church of Constantinople (ibid., p. 46, notes 1 and 2). If, for example, the episcopal council in Belgrade were to change the law of December 31, 1883 concerning the composition of the episcopal council itself, there would be nothing uncanonical in this.

 

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikodim_Milash/pravoslavnoe-tserkovnoe-pravo/