|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Edited from a variety of translations (mentioned in the preface) by H. R. Percival
THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS Resources Online and in Print
|
83 Pages
Page 80
Canon XCVII.
Those who have commerce with a wife or in any other manner without regard thereto make sacred places common, and treat them with contempt and thus remain in them, we order all such to be expelled, even from the dwellings of the catechumens which are in the venerable temples. And if any one shall not observe these directions, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XCVII.
Whoever in a temple has commerce with his wife and remains there out of contempt, shall be expelled even from the Catechumens. If any one shall not observe this he shall be deposed or cut off.
Zonaras.
In the name of holy places, not the church itself but the adjoining and dependent buildings are intended such as those which are called the "Catechumena." For no one would be audacious enough to wish to cohabit with his wife in the very temple itself.
Canon XCVIII.
He who brings to the intercourse of marriage a woman who is betrothed to another man who is still alive, is to lie under the charge of adultery.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XCVIII.
He is an adulterer who takes one espoused to some one else.
Aristenus's commentary on this canon is Saphes. A more extraordinary estimate of it could hardly be made. So far from the meaning being "perspicuous," as the Latin translation has it, the meaning seems to be past finding out; for, as Van Espen remarks, a man who sins with a betrothed woman is certainly not an "adulterer." He tries therefore to introduce the idea that though he is not an adulterer, yet he is to be punished as if he were. But the Greek hardly seems patient of this meaning, and the Ancient Epitome says in so many words that he is an adulterer.
On account of this difficulty some have supposed that the espousals here mentioned were not de futuro but de proesenti, and that therefore it was the case of stealing a real wife of another man. But this explanation also is involved in many difficulties.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/ecumenical-councils/quinisext.asp?pg=80
