Sardica

COUNCIL of SARDICA (or SERDICA), (modern Sofia). A Council summoned c.343 by Emps. Constans and Constantius principally to settle the orthodoxy of Saint Athanasius. It was intended that it should be an Oecumenical Council, but the E. bishops on arrival refused to attend on the ground that Athanasius, whom the E. had deposed, was being regarded by the W. as a proper member of the synod. The W. bishops therefore met by themselves, under the presidency of Hosius of Córdoba. They confirmed the restoration of Athanasius, acquitted Marcellus of Ancyra of heresy, and also restored Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza, who had been deposed by a Synod of Antioch. The Council is famous for the disciplinary canons which it passed, chief among which are the provisions constituting the Bishop of Rome a court of appeal for accused bishops in certain circumstances. The canons of Sardica were at one time held to be canons of Nicaea and were quoted as such by Pope Zosimus in a letter sent in 418 to a Council of Carthage.

The docs connected with the Council, incl. the text of the canons (both Gk. and Lat. versions), will be found in Hardouin, 1, cols. 635–84, and Mansi, 3 (Florence, 1759), cols. 1–140. Crit. edn. of Lat. text of canons [incl. Gk. text in parallel column] in EOMIA 1. 2. 3 (1930), pp. 441–560. Lat. and Gk. text also pr., with Fr. tr., in Joannou, 1, pt. 2 (1962), pp. 159–89. Hefele and Leclercq, 1 (pt. 2; 1907), pp. 733–823. H. Hess, The Canons of the Council of Sardica, a.d. 343 (Oxford, 1958; 2nd edn. as The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica, 2002). L. W. Barnard, The Council of Serdica 343 a.d. (Sofia, 1983). CPG 4 (1980), pp. 16–18 (nos. 8560–71). G. Bardy in Fliche and Martin, 3 (1936), pp. 122–30. Id. in DTC 14 (pt. 1; 1939), cols. 1109–14, s.v. ‘Sardique (Concile de)’. On the Sardican Creed, F. Loofs, Das Glaubensbekenntnis der Homousianer von Sardika (Abh. (Berl.), 1909, Heft 1); M. Tetz, ‘Ante omnia de sancta fide et de integritate veritatis. Glaubensfragen auf der Synode von Serdika (342)’, ZNTW 76 (1985), pp. 243–69; and SAINT G. Hall, ‘The Creed of Sardica’, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica, 19 (Louvain, 1989), pp. 173–84.

[57b/133-135] [Can. 3] (Isid. 4).	133 57b ((can.3a) Isidor. can.4)
HOSIUS the bishop said: That also, that a bishop may not cross from one province into another province, in which there are bishops, unless perchance on the invitation of his brothers, lest we seem to have shut the door of charity.	Osius episcopus dixit: Illud quoque (suppl. e graeco: necessario adiciendum est), ut episcopus de provincia ad aliam provinciam, in qua sunt episcopi, non transeat; nisi forte a fratribus suis invitatus, ne videamur ianuam caritatis clausisse.
--That too should be provided; if perchance in any province some bishop has a dispute with a brother bishop, let no one of these summon the bishops from another province.-	- Illud quoque providendum est: si in aliqua provincia forte aliquis episcopus contra fratrem suum episcopum litem habuerit, non ex his unus ex alia provincia advocet episcopos. -
But if any bishop has been judged in some case, and he thinks he has a good case, so that a new trial may be given, if it seems good to you, let us honor the memory of the most holy Apostle, Peter: either let those who have examined the case or the bishops who reside in the next province write to the Roman bishop; and if he should judge that the judicial investigation ought to be repeated, let it be repeated, and let him appoint judges. But if he should determine that the case is such, that what has been finished should not be reopened, his decree shall be confirmed. Is this agreeable to all? The synod replied: It is agreeable.	Quod si aliquis episcopus iudicatus fuerit in aliqua causa, et putat bonam causam habere, ut iterum iudicium renovetur, si vobis placet, sanctissimi Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus: scribatur vel ab his, qui causam examinarunt, vel ab episcopis, qui in proxima provincia morantur, Romano episcopo; et si iudicaverit renovandum esse iudicium, renovetur, et det iudices. Si autem probaverit talem causam esse, ut ea non refricentur quae acta sunt, quae decreverit confirmata erunt. Si hoc omnibus placet? Synodus respondit: Placet.
134 (Isid. 5). Gaudentius the bishop said: To this very holy opinion which you have offered, if it is agreeable, we ought to add: when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who abide in the neighboring places, and when he has proclaimed that he must plead his case in the city of Rome, another bishop may not be ordained for his place in the same office after the appeal of him who seems to have been deposed, unless his case has been decided by the judgment of the bishop of Rome.	134 57c (Isid. 5). Gaudentius episcopus dixit: Addendum, si placet, huic sententiae, quam plenam sanctitatis protulistis: cum aliquis episcopus depositus fuerit eorum episcoporum iudicio, qui in vicinis commorantur locis, et proclamaverit agendum sibi esse negotium in urbe Roma, alter episcopus in eadem cathedra, post appellationem eius, qui videtur esse depositus, omnino non ordinetur loco ipsius, nisi causa fuerit iudicio Romani episcopi determinata.
135 57d [Can. 3b] (Isid. 6.)
Hosius the bishop said: However it has been agreed, that, if a bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of the same province have judged and deprived him of his office, and he appears to have appealed, and has taken refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church and has desired to be heard,	135 57d ((Can. 3b) Isid. 7) Osius episcopus dixit: Placuit autem, ut, si episcopus accusatus fuerit, et iudicaverint congregati episcopi regionis ipsius, et de gradu suo deiecerint eum, et appellasse videatur, et confugerit ad beatissimum ecclesiae Romanae, episcopum et voluerit audiri
and he has thought it just that an examination be made anew, let him deign to write to these bishops who are in the adjoining and neighboring province so that they themselves may diligently make all inquiries and decide according to their pledge of truth.	et iustum putaverit, (ut) renovetur examen; scribere his episcopis dignetur, qui in finitima et propinqua provincia sunt, (ut) ipsi diligenter omnia requirant et iuxta fidem veritatis definiant.
But if anyone asks that his case be heard again and by his plea moves the Roman bishop to send a presbyter from his own side, what he [the presbyter] wishes or what he determines will be in the power of the bishop;	Quod si qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri et deprecatione sua moverit episcopum Romanum, ut e latere suo presbyterum mittat, erit in potestate episcopi, quid velit aut quid aestimet:
and if he decrees those ought to be sent who in person may judge with the bishops and who have the authority [of him] by whom they have been appointed, it [this decree] will be within his decision. But if he believes that the bishops suffice to put an end to the affair, he will do that which he decides in accordance with his own very wise deliberation.	(et) si decreverit mittendos esse, qui praesentes cum episcopis iudicent, habentes (eius) auctoritatem, a quo destinati sunt, erit in suo arbitrio. Si vero crediderit sufficere episcopos, ut negotio terminum imponant, faciet quod sapientissimo consilio suo iudicaverit.

xcxxcxxc F ” “ This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 1990....x.... ’ “”.