CANON VIII.

CONCERNING those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over 

to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod 

decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the 

clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in 

writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic 

and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with 

persons who have been twice married, and with those who having 

lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all 

things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. 

Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained 

are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the 

same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there 

is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the 

Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was 

named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of 

presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake 

in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then 

shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or 

presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, 

and that there may not be two bishops in the city.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.

If those called Cathari come over, let them first make profession that 

they are willing to communicate with the twice married, and to grant 

pardon to the lapsed. And on this condition he who happens to be in 

orders, shall continue in the same order, so that a bishop shall still be 

bishop. Whoever was a bishop among the Cathari let him, however, 

become a Chorepiscopus, or let him enjoy the honour of a presbyter or 

of a bishop. For in one church there shall not be two bishops.

The Cathari or Novatians were the followers of Novatian, a presbyter 

of Rome, who had been a Stoic philosopher and was delivered, 

according to his own story, from diabolical possession at his 

exorcising by the Church before his baptism, when becoming a 

Catechumen. Being in peril of death by illness he received clinical 

baptism, and was ordained priest without any further sacred rites being 

administered to him. During the persecution he constantly refused to 

assist his brethren, and afterwards raised his voice against what he 

considered their culpable laxity in admitting to penance the lapsed. 

Many agreed with him in this, especially of the clergy, and eventually, 

in A.D. 251, he induced three bishops to consecrate him, thus 

becoming, as Fleury remarks,(1) "the first Anti-Pope." His indignation 

was principally spent upon Pope Cornelius, and to overthrow the 

prevailing discipline of the Church he ordained bishops and sent them 

to different parts of the empire as the disseminators of his error. It is 

well to remember that while beginning only as a schismatic, he soon 

fell into heresy, denying that the Church had the power to absolve the 

lapsed. Although condemned by several councils his sect continued 

on, and like the Montanists they rebaptized Catholics who apostatized 

to them, and absolutely rejected all second marriages. At the time of 

the Council of Nice the Novatian bishop at Constantinople, Acesius, 

was greatly esteemed, and although a schismatic, was invited to attend 

the council. After having in answer to the emperor's enquiry whether 

he was willing to sign the Creed, assured him that he was, he went on 

to explain that his separation was because the Church no longer 

observed the ancient discipline which forbade that those who had 

committed mortal sin should ever be readmitted to communion. 

According to the Novatians he might be exhorted to repentance, but 

the Church had no power to assure him of forgiveness but must leave 

him to the judgment of God. It was then that Constantine said, 

"Acesius, take a ladder, and climb up to heaven alone."(2)

ARISTENUS.

If any of them be bishops or chorepiscopi they shall remain in the 

same rank, unless perchance in the same city there be found a bishop 

of the Catholic Church, ordained before their coming. For in this case 

he that was properly bishop from the first shall have the preference, 

and he alone shall retain the Episcopal throne. For it is not right that in 

the same city there should be two bishops. But he who by the Cathari 

was called bishop, shall be honoured as a presbyter, or (if it so please 

the bishop), he shall be sharer of the title bishop; but he shall exercise 

no episcopal jurisdiction.

Zonaras, Balsamon, Beveridge and Van Espen, are of opinion that 

 keiroqetoumenous   does not mean that they are to 

receive a new laying on of hands at their reception into the Church, 

but that it refers to their already condition of being ordained, the 

meaning being that as they have had Novatian ordination they must be 

reckoned among the clergy. Dionysius Exiguus takes a different view, 

as does also the Prisca version, according to which the clergy of the Novatians were to receive a laying on of hands, 

 keiroqetoumenous  , but that it was not to be a 

reordination. With this interpretation Hefele seems to agree, founding 

his opinion upon the fact that the article is wanting before 

 keiroqetoumenous  , and that  autous   

is added. Gratian(1) supposes that this eighth canon orders a re-

ordination.

EXCURSUS ON THE CHOREPISCOPI.

There has been much difference of opinion among the learned 

touching the status of the Chorepiscopus in the early Church. The 

main question in dispute is as to whether they were always, 

sometimes, or never, in episcopal orders. Most Anglican writers, 

including Beveridge, Hammond, Cave, and Routh, have affirmed the 

first proposition, that they were true bishops, but that, out of respect to 

the bishop of the City they were forbidden the exercise of certain of 

their episcopal functions, except upon extraordinary occasions. With 

this view Binterim(2) also agrees, and Augusti is of the same 

opinion.(3) But Thomassinus is of a different mind, thinking, so says 

Hefele,(4) that there were "two classes of chorepiscopi, of whom the 

one were real bishops, while the other had only the title without 

consecration."

The third opinion, that they were merely presbyters, is espoused by 

Morinus and Du Cange, and others who are named by Bingham.(5) 

This last opinion is now all but universally rejected, to the other two 

we shall now devote our attention.

For the first opinion no one can speak more learnedly nor more 

authoritatively than Arthur West Haddon, who writes as follows;

(Haddon, Dict. Christ. Antiq. s. v. Chorepiscopus.)

The chorepiscopus was called into existence in the latter part of the 

third century, and first in Asia Minor, in order to meet the want of 

episcopal supervision in the country parts of the now enlarged 

dioceses without subdivision. [They are] first mentioned in the 

Councils of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea A. D. 314, and again in the 

Council of Nice (which is subscribed by fifteen, all from Asia Minor 

or Syria). [They became] sufficiently important to require restriction 

by the time of the Council of Antioch, A. D. 341; and continued to 

exist in the East until at least the ninth century, when they were 

supplanted by  exarkoi  . [Chorepiscopi are] first 

mentioned in the West in the Council of Riez, A. D. 439 (the Epistles 

of Pope Damasus I. and of Leo. M. respecting them being forgeries), 

and continued there (but not in Africa, principally in France) until 

about the tenth century, after which the name occurs (in a decree of 

Pope Damasus II. ap. Sigeb. in an. 1048) as equivalent to archdeacon, 

an office from which the Arabic Nicene canons expressly distinguish 

it. The functions of chorepiscopi, as well as their name, were of an 

episcopal, not of a presbyterial kind, although limited to minor offices. 

They overlooked the country district committed to them, "loco 

episcopi," ordaining readers, exorcists, subdeacons, but, as a rule, not 

deacons or presbyters (and of course not bishops), unless by express 

permission of their diocesan bishop. They confirmed in their own 

districts, and (in Gaul) are mentioned as consecrating churches (vide 

Du Cange). They granted  eirenikai  , or letters 

dimissory, which country presbyters were forbidden to do. They had 

also the honorary privilege ( timwmenoi  ) of assisting 

at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the mother city church, 

which country presbyters had not (Conc. Ancyr. can. xiii.; Neo-

Caesar. can. xiv.; Antioch, can. x.; St. Basil M. Epist. 181; Rab. Maur. 

De Instit. Cler. i. 5, etc. etc.). They were held therefore to have power 

of ordination, but to lack jurisdiction, save subordinately. And the 

actual ordination of a presbyter by Timotheus, a chorepiscopus, is 

recorded (Pallad., Hist. Lausiac. 106).  In the West, i.e. chiefly in Gaul, the order appears to have prevailed 

more widely, to have usurped episcopal functions without due 

subordination to the diocesans, and to have been also taken advantage 

of by idle or worldly diocesans. In consequence it seems to have 

aroused a strong feeling of hostility, which showed itself, first in a 

series of papal bulls, condemning them; headed, it is true, by two 

forged letters respectively of Damasus I. and Leo. M. (of which the 

latter is merely an interpolated version of Conc. Hispal. II. A.D. 619, 

can. 7, adding chorepiscopi to presbyteri, of which latter the council 

really treats), but continuing in a more genuine form, from Leo III. 

down to Pope Nicholas I. (to Rodolph, Archbishop of Bourges, A.D. 

864); the last of whom, however, takes the more moderate line of 

affirming chorepiscopi to be really bishops, and consequently refusing 

to annul their ordinations of presbyters and deacons (as previous popes 

had done), but orders them to keep within canonical limits; and 

secondly, in a series of conciliar decrees, Conc. Ratispon. A.D. 800, in 

Capit. lib. iv. c. 1, Paris. A.D. 829, lib. i.c. 27; Meld. A.D. 845, can. 

44; Metens. A.D. 888, can. 8, and Capitul. v. 168, vi. 119, vii. 187, 

310, 323, 324, annulling all episcopal acts of chorepiscopi, and 

ordering them to be repeated by "true" bishops; and finally forbidding 

all further appointments of chorepiscopi at all.

That chorepiscopi as such--i.e. omitting the cases of reconciled or 

vacant bishops above mentioned, of whose episcopate of course no 

question is made--were at first truly bishops both in East and West, 

appears almost certain, both from their name and functions, and even 

from the arguments of their strong opponents just spoken of. If nothing 

more could be urged against them, than that the Council of Neo-

Caesarea compared them to the Seventy disciples, that the Council of 

Antioch authorises their consecration by a single bishop, and that they 

actually were so consecrated (the Antiochene decree might mean 

merely nomination by the word  ginesqai  , but the 

actual history seems to rule the term to intend consecration, and the 

[one] exceptional case of a chorepiscopus recorded [Actt. Episc. 

Cenoman. ap. Du Cange] in late times to have been ordained by three 

bishops [in order that he might be a full bishop] merely proves the 

general rule to the contrary)--and that they were consecrated for 

"villages," contrary to canon,--then they certainly were bishops. And 

Pope Nicholas expressly says that they were so. Undoubtedly they 

ceased to be so in the East, and were practically merged in 

archdeacons in the West.

For the second opinion, its great champion, Thomassinus shall speak.

(Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Eglise, Tom. I. 

Livre II. chap 1.  iii.)

The chorepiscopi were not duly consecrated bishops, unless some 

bishop had consecrated a bishop for a town and the bishop thus 

ordained contrary to the canons was tolerated on condition of his 

submitting himself to the diocesan as though he were only a 

chorepiscopus. This may be gathered from the fifty-seventh canon of 

Laodicea.

From this canon two conclusions may be drawn, 1st. That bishops 

ought not to be ordained for villages, and that as Chorepiscopi could 

only be placed in villages they could not be bishops. 2d. That 

sometimes by accident a chorepiscopus might be a bishop, but only 

through having been canonically lowered to that rank.

The Council of Nice furnishes another example of a bishop lowered to 

the rank of a chorepiscopus in Canon viii. This canon shows that they 

should not have been bishops, for two bishops could never be in a 

diocese, although this might accidentally be the case when a 

chorepiscopus happened to be a bishop.

This is the meaning which must be given to the tenth canon of 

Antioch, which directs that chorepiscopi, even if they have received 

episcopal orders, and have been consecrated bishops, shall keep within 

the limits prescribed by the canon; that in cases of necessity, they 

ordain the lower clergy; but that they be careful not to ordain priests or 

deacons, because this power is absolutely reserved to the Diocesan. It 

must be added that as the council of Antioch commands that the 

Diocesan without any other bishop can ordain the chorepiscopus, the 

position can no longer be sustained that the chorepiscopi were 

bishops, such a method of consecreting a bishop being contrary to 

canon xix. of the same council, moreover the canon does not say the 

chorepiscopus is to be ordained, but uses the word 

 genesqai   by the bishop of the city (canon x.). The 

Council of Neocaesarea by referring them to the seventy disciples (in 

Canon XIV.) has shown the chorepiscopi to be only priests.

But the Council of Ancyra does furnish a difficulty, for the text seems 

to permit chorepiscopi to ordain priests. But the Greek text must be 

corrected by the ancient Latin versions. The letter attributed to pope 

Nicholas, A.D. 864, must be considered a forgery since he recognises 

the chorepiscopi as real bishops.

If Harmenopulus, Aristenus, Balsamon, and Zonaras seem to accord to 

the chorepiscopi the power to ordain priests and deacons with the 

permission of the Diocesan, it is because they are explaining the 

meaning and setting forth the practice of the ancient councils and not 

the practice of their own times. But at all events it is past all doubt that 

before the seventh century there were, by different accidents, 

chorepiscopi who were really bishops and that these could, with the 

consent of the diocesan, ordain priests. But at the time these authors 

wrote, there was not a single chorepiscopus in the entire East, as 

Balsamon frankly admits in commenting on Canon xiii. of Ancyra.

Whether in the foregoing the reader will think Thomassinus has 

proved his point, I do not know, but so far as the position of the 

chorepiscopi in synods is concerned there can be no doubt whatever, 

and I shall allow Hefele to speak on this point.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I. pp. 17, 18.)

The Chorepiscopi ( kwrepiskopoi  ), or bishops of 

country places, seem to have been considered in ancient times as quite 

on a par with the other bishops, as far as their position in synod was 

concerned. We meet with them at the Councils of Neocaesarea in the 

year 314, of Nicaea in 325, of Ephesus in 431. On the other hand, 

among the 600 bishops of the fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon 

in 451, there is no chorepiscopus present, for by this time the office 

had been abolished; but in the Middle Ages we again meet with 

chorepiscopi of a new kind at Western councils, particularly at those of 

the French Church, at Langres in 830, at Mayence in 847, at Pontion 

in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871.