Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library

Council of Nicea I

IntraText CT - Text

  • CANON IV.
Previous - Next

Click here to hide the links to concordance

CANON IV.
 
IT is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the 
bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account 
of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet 
together, and the suffrages of the absent[bishops] also being given and 
communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in 
every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the 
Metropolitan.
 
NOTES.
 
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
 
A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least 
by three, the rest giving by letter their assent ; but this choice must be 
confirmed by the Metropolitan.
 
ZONARAS.
The present Canon might seem to be opposed to the first canon of the 
Holy Apostles, for the latter enjoins that a bishop ordained by two or 
three bishops, but this by three, the absent also agreeing and testifying their assent by writing. 
But they are not contradictory; for the Apostolical canon by ordination 
( keirotonian  ) means consecration and imposition of 
hands, but the present canon by constitution 
( katastasin  ) and ordination means the election, and 
enjoins that the election of a bishop do not take place unless three 
assemble, having the consent also of the absent by letter, or a 
declaration that they also will acquiesce in the election(or 
vote,( yhfw  ) made by the three who have assembled. 
But after the election it gives the ratification or completion of the 
matter--the imposition of hands and consecration--to the metropolitan 
of the province, so that the election is to be ratified by him. He does so 
when with two or three bishops, according to the apostolical canon, he 
consecrates with imposition of hands the one of the elected persons 
whom he himself selects.
 
BALSAMON
also understands  kaqistasqai   to mean election by 
vote.
 
BRIGHT.
The Greek canonists are certainly in error when they interpret 
 keirotonia   of election. The canon is akin to the 1st 
Apostolic canon which, as the canonists admit, must refer to the 
consecration of a new bishop, and it was cited in that sense at the 
Council of Cholcedon--Session xiii.(Mansi., vii. 307). We must follow 
Rufinus and the old Latin translators, who speak of "ordinari" 
"ordinatio" and "manus impositionem."
 
HEFELE.
The Council of Nice thought it necessary to define by precise rules the 
duties of the bishops who took part in these episcopal elections. It 
decided(a) that a single bishop of the province was not sufficient for 
the appointment of another;(b) three at least  should meet, and(c) they 
were not to proceed  to election without the written permission of the 
absent bishops; it was necessary(d) to obtain afterward the approval of 
the metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the ordinary metropolitan 
division in its two most  important points, namely, the nomination and  
ordination of bishops, and the superior position of the metropolitan. 
The third point connected with this division--namely, the provincial 
synod--will be considered under the next canon.
 
Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon. It may be 
remembered that he had nominated bishops without the concurrence 
of the other bishops of the province, and without the approval of the 
metropolitan of Alexandria, and had thus occasioned a schism. This 
canon was intended to prevent the recurrence of such abuses. The 
question has been raised as to whether the fourth canon speaks only of 
the choice of the bishop, or whether it also treats of the consecration of 
the newly elected. We think, with Van Espen, that it treats equally of 
both,--as well of the part which the bishops of the province should take 
in an episcopal election, as of the consecration which completes it.
 
This canon has been interpreted in two ways. The Greeks had learnt by 
bitter experience to distrust the interference of princes and earthly 
potentates in episcopal elections. Accordingly, they tried to prove that 
this canon of Nice took away from the people the right of voting at the 
nomination of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to 
the bishops of the province.
 
The Greek Commentators, Balsamon and others, therefore, only 
followed the example of the Seventh and[so-called] Eighth(Ecu-
menical Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nice takes 
away from the people the right previously possessed of voting in the 
choice of bishops and makes the election depend entirely on the 
decision of the bishops of the province.
 
The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with it also the people 
have been removed from episcopal elections, but this did not happen 
till later, about the eleventh century; and it was not the people only 
who were removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the 
election was conducted entirely by the clergy of the Cathedral Church. 
The Latins then interpreted the canon of Nice as though it said nothing 
of the rights of the bishops of the province in the election of their 
future colleague(and it does not speak of it in a very explicit manner), 
and as though it determined these two points only;(a) that for the 
ordination of a bishop three bishops at least are necessary;(b) that the 
right of confirmation rests with the metropolitan.
 
The whole subject of episcopal elections is treated fully by Van Espen 
and by Thomassin, in Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l' Eglise, P. 
II. 1. 2.
 
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, 
Pars I. Dist. LXIV. c. j.



Previous - Next

Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library

Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC
IntraText® (V89) - Some rights reserved by EuloTech SRL - 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a Creative Commons License