The Councils and the Fathers.

The standard Byzantine canonical collection, which also forms the basis of canon law in Slavic countries and in the modern Orthodox Church — the so-called Nomocanon in XIV Titles (its origin and development will be mentioned farther), contains the following canonical texts of purely ecclesiastical origin:

i. The Apostolic Canons, an early collection of eighty-five disciplinary rules, which served in the first half of the fourth century as a standard canonical text in Syria. Its content in many ways reflects the practices of the pre-Nicaean period but is certainly not of genuinely apostolic origin. A shorter collection (fifty canons) was translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus (late-fifth century) and widely accepted in the West. The introduction of the full series of eighty-five canons into the canon law of the Church of Constantinople was the work of Patriarch John in Scholasticus (565-577) and endorsed by the Quinisext Council (692). The difference between the shorter and the longer collections will play a role in Greco-Latin polemics.

ii. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils:

1. Nicaea (325) — 20 canons;

2. Constantinople I (381) — 7 canons;

3. Ephesus (431) — 8 canons;

4. Chalcedon (451) — 30 canons;

5. The Quinisext (or “Fifth-Sixth”) Council also known as the Council in Trullo and often referred to in Byzantine texts as the “Sixth Council” (692) because its entire canonical corpus was given post jactum an “ecumenical” status in being procedurally attributed to the ecumenical councils of 553 and 680 — 102 canons;

6. Nicaea II (787) — 22 canons.

iii. The Canons of local Councils:

1. Ancyra (314) — 25 canons;

2. Neocaesarea (314-325) — 15 canons;

3. Antioch (341) — 25 canons;

4. Sardica (343) — 20 canons;

5. Gangra (first half of fourth century) — 21 canons;

6. Laodicea (fourth century?) — 60 canons;

7. Constantinople (394) — 1 canon;

8. Carthage (419) — 133 (sometimes 147) canons also known as Codex canonum ecclesiae Ajricanae; this collection of canons resulted from the continuous legislation by African councils, which was compiled in 419;

9. Constantinople (859-861) also known as “First-Second” because the two councils of 859 and 861 were considered for reasons of convenience as a single assembly — 17 canons;

10. Constantinople (879-880) sometimes referred to as “Eighth Ecumenical” — 3 canons.

iv. The Canons of the Holy Fathers: The patristic texts gathered in this category were mostly the occasional letters or authoritative answers written to individuals. In collections, they are often divided or classified in “canons.” The following authors appear in the Nomocanon:

1. Dionysius of Alexandria († 265);

2. Gregory of Neocaesarea († 270);

3. Peter of Alexandria († 311);

4. Athanasius of Alexandria († 373);

5. Basil of Caesarea († 379) [a very authoritative collection of 92 “canons”];

6. Gregory of Nyssa († 395);

7. Gregory of Nazianzus († 389);

8. Amphilochius of Iconium († 395);

9. Timothy of Alexandria († 355);

10. Theophilus of Alexandria († 412);

11. Cyril of Alexandria († 444);

12. Gennadius I of Constantinople († 471).

Later Byzantine collections also include texts by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Tarasius († 809), John the Faster († 595), Nicephorus († 818), and Nicholas III (1084-1111), which also entered the Slavonic Kormchaya Kntga. Obviously, this entire series of authoritative canonical texts is conceived first of all as a frame of references and standards different in kind and in importance. The most important collection of canons is probably that of the Council in Trullo (692) conceived by its convener, Emperor Justinian II, as a first attempt to codify earlier conciliar legislation. Actually, most of these texts — including the Apostolic Canons and the Canons of the Fathers — receive their authority from the Trullan Council. It must be noted however that although the Quinisext is invested with “ecumenical” authority in the Byzantine Church tradition, it has never been received as such in the West. Actually, since it explicitly condemns several Latin liturgical and canonical practices, it already clearly implies an understanding of Church tradition and authority differing from that of the Latin Church.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 494