Local Council - Carthage 393-419.

Nikodim (Milash) . To the bishop of the Roman church, sent from the entire council in Africa through the locum tenens of the Roman church, bishop Faustinus and presbyters Philip and Asella. To the most blessed lord and most honorable brother Boniface: Avrilius, Valentinus, bishop of the first see in the Numidian diocese, and other bishops, numbering two hundred and seventeen, who came to the full council in Africa. Since the Lord was pleased that what our most holy brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and co-presbyters Philip and Asellus did with us, our humility responded not to the blessed memory of Bishop Zosima, from whom they brought us letters and orders, but to your honesty, which stood up , according to the will of God, his place: then we consider it our duty to briefly reveal (to you) what was accomplished by our mutual agreement, without touching on everything that is contained in the lengthy scrolls of deeds, and on which we dwelled for a long time, trying not without difficult and long wrangling, but with the preservation of love, enter into the acts everything related to the (real) case. And he (Zosima), if he had remained in this body, would have accepted with greater joy, O dear brother, what he would have seen accomplished with great peace. Presbyter Apiarius, whose installation, excommunication and summons (to the council) caused considerable confusion not only in the Sik church, but throughout Africa, asked forgiveness for everything in which he had sinned, and was again accepted into communion. Beforehand, our co-bishop Urvan of Sik, without any hesitation, corrected what he should have corrected. And since it was necessary to take care of church peace and tranquility not only in the present, but also for the future, we, in view of the fact that such matters have already arisen many times, and in order to protect ourselves from similar or even graver (cases) , they decided to remove the presbyter Apiarius from the Sik church, while preserving his honor and degree, so that he, having taken (from us) a letter, could serve in any other place, at his own request and opportunity, and do everything befitting the presbyterate rank. We agreed to this without any difficulty, at the own request of Apiarius himself. But before this matter was brought to such an end, we had, among other things, to deal with other issues that involved us in lengthy debates. Since the very essence of the questions required that we ask our brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and co-presbyters Philip and Asellus, to include in the church acts what they were entrusted to do with us; then they stated something verbally, not in writing; when we urgently demanded the written instructions they brought, they presented it, and this instruction, having been read before us, was attached to the acts now sent through them to you. It contained four points that they had to consider with us: the first - about the appeals of bishops to the (high) priest of the Roman church, the second - about the fact that bishops should not go to the palace (κομιτάτον) whenever they please, the third - about that the affairs of presbyters and deacons be considered by neighboring bishops, the fourth - that Bishop Urvan should be deprived of communion and, in addition, called to Rome, if he does not correct what requires correction. Regarding the first and third of these points, i.e. that bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome and that the affairs of clergy were finally decided by local bishops, we took care in our letters last year to also explain to Bishop Zosima of venerable memory that, without any insult to him, we will for some time observe both while the (authentic lists) of the definitions of the Council of Nicaea are being sought. And now we ask your shrine, that as this was decreed and determined by the fathers in Nicaea, so it would be observed among us; and there, with you, let what is contained in the instructions be fulfilled, namely: “ If there is a denunciation against a bishop, the surrounding bishops having gathered will depose him from his position, and he, transferring the matter, will resort to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, this same will be pleased to hear this, and recognizes it as righteous to resume the investigation of the case about him: then this must also be established, and deign to write to the bishops adjacent to that region, so that they carefully and in detail delve into all the circumstances, and, being convinced of the truth, pronounce judgment on the case . If anyone demands that his case be heard again, and, at his request, the Roman bishop deigns to send presbyters on his own behalf: let it be in the power of this bishop, since he recognizes and determines what is best and right, for judgment together with the bishops, send taking the place of the one who sent. Or, if he recognizes the previous consideration and decision of the case regarding this bishop as sufficient, let him do what his most prudent reasoning considers to be good.

"Equally - about presbyters and deacons: "
If a certain bishop appears, prone to anger (which should not take place in such a husband), and suddenly being irritated with a presbyter or deacon, he desires to expel someone from the church: it is appropriate to use protection, but not he will immediately be condemned and deprived of fellowship.
All the bishops said: the one who is ejected has the right to resort to the bishop of the metropolis of the same region. If the bishop of the metropolis is not in place, resort to a neighboring bishop and ask, and the matter will be thoroughly investigated. For the hearing of those who ask must not be blocked. And this bishop, who righteously or unrighteously cast out such a person, must complacently endure it, so that the matter will be investigated, and his verdict will either be confirmed or receive correction .” These very rules, before receiving the most accurate copies (έξέμπλων) of the Council of Nicaea, are included in (our) acts. And if indeed there are such rules as are contained in the instructions presented to us to the brethren sent from the apostolic see, and such an order is observed among you in Italy: then we should in no way be forced to accept what we do not even want to remember; but we believe that by the grace of the Lord our God, while your shrine presides in the Roman church, we will not tolerate such an arrogant claim; on the contrary, in relation to us, those rules will be observed with brotherly love and without any quarrel on our part, which, according to the wisdom and justice given to you by the Almighty, you yourself find it necessary to observe, unless otherwise contained in the canons of the Council of Nicaea. For although we have reviewed many books and have not read them in any Latin copy (of the rules) of the Council of Nicaea in the form in which they were sent from there in the above-mentioned instructions; however, not being able to find a single Greek copy here, we deliberately took care that they were brought from the Eastern churches, where, they say, these same definitions can still be found in the originals. Therefore, we also beg your venerability, that you deign to write on your own behalf to the (high) priests of those countries, i.e. to the bishops of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople and to others, if it pleases your shrine, that from there the canons established by the holy fathers in Nicaea be sent to us. And it is especially fitting for you to provide, with God’s help, such a benefit to all Western churches. For who doubts that the most accurate copies of the Council of Nicea, which was among the Greeks, are those that, having been brought from different eminent churches and compared with each other, will turn out to be in agreement? Until this happens, we declare that until the matter is resolved we will observe everything contained in the above-mentioned instructions regarding appeals from bishops to the high priest of the Roman Church and about the execution of affairs between clergy among the bishops of their region, and we hope that your blessedness, by the will of God, will help us with this. If you deign, our aforementioned brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and presbyters Philip and Asellus, will report to your shrine about everything else that has been done and approved at our council, since they carry with them (all the deeds). And they signed: May our Lord preserve you for us, beloved brother, for many years to come. Also signed by: Alypius, Augustine, Possidius, Marinus and other bishops. As we know, the presbyter Apiarius, due to various crimes, was deposed by his bishop Urban of Sicca in proconsular Africa. Then he turned to Rome, petitioning to have the sentence pronounced against him by Urban overturned. The Roman Bishop Zosima (417–418), having accepted the complaint of Apiarius, declared in one of his letters to the African Fathers about his right to review and in his own court the decisions made at the councils of the African Church, and motivated his right by the rules of the Serdica Council, accepted by Zosima as the rules Nicaea (I Ecumenical) Council; at the same time, he invited the fathers to inform him in detail about the progress of the case in order to be able to make their own verdict about it. Zosima sent his message to the African fathers through his above-mentioned deputies. On this occasion, a real Carthaginian council met in 419. We have already spoken about what was done by this council and why the message was adopted in the interpretation of the 1st rule of this council. Meanwhile, Zosimus died and his successor Boniface (418–422) took the same position in relation to the Africans as his predecessor. Thus, the African fathers sent this message to Boniface in response to the message of Zosimus, briefly informing him of everything that had been done at the council. Regarding Apiarius, they say that although they allowed him to enjoy the presbyteral honor, since, having admitted his mistakes and repented of them, he asked for forgiveness, they demand that he leave the Sik church and move from it to some other one. Regarding the issue of appeals to Rome raised by Zosima, the African fathers declare that they will not enter into disputes about this until they receive the original rules of the First Ecumenical Council, to which Zosima refers, and, having received it, will adhere to what is prescribed rules; at the same time, they ask Boniface to turn to the east and look there for the original rules of the mentioned ecumenical council. A few months later, the original acts of the Council of Nicaea were received in Carthage with the same number of rules and with the same text that had been kept in Carthage until then and which fully correspond to our current text and number of rules. These acts, which constitute rules 136 and 137 in Kormchay, were sent to Boniface on November 26, 419. The restless presbyter Apiarius, who retired after being expelled from Sica, settled with the Fabrakenians, but, having fallen into new crimes and being expelled for the second time, he went to Rome again at the end of 423 with a complaint against the decision of the African fathers. The Roman bishop Celestinus, who succeeded Boniface, received him and, returning to him all his rights, sent him, contrary to the decision of his proper spiritual authority, to Carthage with Bishop Favstinus, ordering that the decision decreed against this presbyter be reversed. Carthage immediately began reviewing this case, after which the following was sent to Celestine:

Literature

CPL, N 1764-1769b; CPG, N 5385, 5651;
S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera omnia / Ed. W. Hartel. Vindobonae, 1868. Pars. 1; 1871. Pars 2. (CSEL; 3);
Soden H., von. Sententiae LXXXVII episcoporum: Das Protokoll der Synode von Karthago am 1. September 256 // NGWG. 1909. S. 247-307;
Concilia Africae A. 345 – A. 525 / Ed. C. Munier. Turnholti, 1974. (CCSL; 259);
La colección canónica Hispana / Ed. G. Martínez Díez, F. Rodríguez. Madrid, 1982. T. 3: Concilios griegos y africanos.
Maassen F. Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande. Gratz, 1870. Bd. 1;
Lloyd J. The North African Church. L., 1880;
Diehl Ch. L'Afrique byzantine: Histoire de la domination byzantine en Afrique (533-709). P., 1896;
Monceaux P. Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne. P., 1902. T. 2: Saint Cyprien et son temps; 1905. T. 3: Le IVe siècle, d'Arnobe à Victorin; 1912. T. 4: Le Donatisme;
Hefele CJ, Leclercq H. Histoire des Conciles d'après les documents originaux. P., 1907. T. 1; 1908. T. 2; 1909/1910. T. 3; 1911. T. 4;
Massigli R. Primat de Carthage et métropolitain de Byzacène: Un conflit dans l'Église Africaine au VIe siècle // Mélanges Cagnat: Recueil de mémoires concernant l'épigraphie et les antiquités romaines. P., 1912. P. 427-440;
Leclercq H. Liber canonum Africae // DACL. T. 9. Fasc. 1. Col. 159-178;
Beaver RP The Organization of the Church in Africa on the Eve of the Vandal Invasion // Church History. Chicago etc. 1936. Vol. 5. N 2. P. 168-181;
Devreesse R. L'église d'Afrique durant l'occupation byzantine // Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'École française de Rome. P., 1940. Vol. 57. P. 143-166;
Stickler AM Historia Iuris Canonici Latini. Augustae Taurinorum, 1950. T. 1: Historia fontium;
idem. The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations. San Francisco, 1995;
Cross FL History and Fiction in the African Canons // JThSt. NS 1961. Vol. 12. N 2. P. 227-247;
Refoulé F. Datation du premier concile de Carthage contre les Pélagiens et du “Libellus fidei” de Rufin // REAug. 1963. Vol. 9. N 1/2. P. 41-49;
Folliet G. L'épiscopat africain et la crise arienne au IVe siècle // REB. 1966. T. 24. P. 196-223;
Markus RA Reflections on Religious Dissent in North Africa in the Byzantine Period // Studies in Church History. Woodbridge, 1966. Vol. 3. P. 140-149;
idem. The Imperial Administration and the Church in Byzantine Africa // Church History. 1967. Vol. 36. N 1. P. 18-23;
Munier Ch. Cinq canons inédits du concile d'Hippone du 8 octobre 393 // Rev. de Droit Canonique. Strasbourg, 1968. Vol. 18. N 1. P. 16-29;
idem. La tradition manuscrite de l'Abrégé d'Hippone et le canon des Écritures des églises africaines // Sacris Erudiri. Turnhout, 1972/1973. Vol. 21. P. 43-55;
idem. Vers une édition nouvelle des conciles africains // REAug. 1972. Vol. 18. N 3/4. P. 249-259;
idem. Vie conciliaire et collections canoniques en Occident, IVe-XIIe siècles. L., 1987;
idem. Carthage: Councils // EEC. Vol. 1. Pt. 2. P. 146-148;
idem. La contribution de Ballerini à la connaissance des conciles africains (a. 345-525) // AHC. 1998. Bd. 30. S. 311-327;
idem. Exemption monastique et conciles africains (525-536) // RBen. 1998. Vol. 108. P. 5-24;
idem. Problèmes monastiques et conciles africains (a. 345-427) // Augustinianum. R., 1999. Vol. 39. P. 149-168;
idem. Les conciles africains (a. 345-525) “revisités” // I concili della Cristianità occidentale, sec. III-VR, 2002. P. 147-165. (SEAug; 78);
Maier J.-L. L'épiscopat de l'Afrique romaine, vandale et byzantine. R., 1973;
idem. Le dossier du donatisme. B., 1987-1989. 2 t.;
Fischer JA Die Konzilien zu Karthago und Rom in Jahr 251 // AHC. 1979. Bd. 11. S. 263-286;
Amidon PR The Procedure of St. Cyprian's Synods // VChr. 1983. Vol. 37. N 4. P. 328-339;
Eck W. Der Episkopat im spätantiken Africa: Organisatorische Entwicklung, Soziale Herkunft und Öffentliche Funktionen // Hist. Zschr. 1983. Bd. 236. S. 265-295;
Clarke GW, transl. The Letters of St. Cyprian. NY, 1984-1989. 4 vol.;
Duval Y. Densité et répartition des évêchés dans les provinces africaines au temps de Cyprien // Mélanges de l'École française de Rome: Antiquité. R., 1984. Vol. 96. P. 493-521;
Mordek H. “Libertas monachorum”: Eine kleine Sammlung afrikanischer Konzilstexte des 6. Jh. // ZSRG.K. 1986. Bd. 72. S. 1-16;
idem. Karthago oder Rom?: Zu den Anfängen der kirchlichen Rechtsquellen im Abendland // Studia in honorem eminentissimi cardinalis Alphonsi M. Stickler / Cur. card. RI Castillo Lara. R., 1992. P. 359-374;
Silva y Verastegui S., de. Imágenes de los concilios Africanos en los códices altomedievales hispánicos: Los concilios de Cartago y el concilio Milevitano // REAug. 1986. Vol. 32. N 1/2. P. 108-123;
Contreras E. Las Actas des Tercero Concilio Bautismal del Cartago del año 256 // Teología. Buenos Aires, 1987. Vol. 24. N 49. P. 29-57;
idem. Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVI de haereticis baptisandis // Augustinianum. 1987. Vol. 27. P. 407-421;
Lancel S. Évêchés et cités dans les provinces africaines (IIIe-Ve siècles) // L'Afrique dans l'Occident romain: Ier siècle av. J.-C.-IVe siècle ap. J.-C.: Actes du colloque de Rome (3-5 December 1987). R., 1990. P. 273-290;
Ocker C. Augustine, Episcopal Interests, and the Papacy in Late Roman Africa // JEcclH. 1991. Vol. 42. N 2. P. 179-201;
Tilley MA Dilatory Donatists or Procrastinating Catholics: The Trials at the Conference of Carthage // Church History. 1991. Vol. 60. N 1. P. 7-19;
Merdinger JE Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine. New Haven, 1997;
eadem. Councils of North African Bishops // Augustine through the Ages: An Encycl. /Ed. AD Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1999, pp. 248-250;
García Mac Gaw CG La epístola 59 de Cipriano y el conflicto entre las sedes de Roma y Cartago // Gerión. Madrid, 1999. Vol. 17. P. 479-496;
Kéry L. Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400-1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature. Wash., 1999. (History of Medieval Canon Law; 1);
Mombili Thumaini M.-E. L'aspect d'autonomie et de communion dans la praxis africaine des recours à Rome (IIIe-Ve siècles): Essai d'interprétation du comportement ambivalent de l'épiscopat africain. R., 2001;
Dunn GD Cyprian of Carthage and the Episcopal Synod of Late 254 // REAug. 2002. Vol. 48. N 2. P. 229-247;
idem. Cyprian and His "Collegae": Patronage and the Episcopal Synod of 252 // JRH. 2003. Vol. 27. N 1. P. 1-13;
idem. Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the “Rebaptism” Crisis: Cyprian of Carthage Synod of Spring 256 // Theological Studies. Baltimore etc., 2006. Vol. 67. N 2. P. 257-274;
Hess H. The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica. Oxf.; NY, 2002;
Hermanowicz ET Catholic Bishops and Appeals to the Imperial Court: A Legal Study of the Calama Riots in 408 // JECS. 2004. Vol. 12. N 4. P. 481-521;
eadem. Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate at the Time of Augustine. Oxf.; NY, 2008;
Bernardini P. Le “Sententiae episcoporum” del concilio cartaginese del 256 e la loro versione greca // Cristianesimo nella storia. Bologna, 2005. Vol. 26. N 2. P. 477-497;
idem. Sinodalità e concili africani del terzo secolo: Vent'anni di studi // Synod and Synodality: Theology, History, Canon Law and Ecumenism in New Contact: Intern. Colloquium Bruges 2003 / Ed. A. Melloni, S. Scatena. Münster, 2005. P. 115-142;
idem. Un solo battesimo una sola chiesa: Il concilio di Cartagine del settembre 256. Bologna, 2009;
The Cambridge History of Christianity. Camb.; NY, 2007. Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600/Ed. A. Casiday, F. W. Norris; Brent A. Cyprian and Roman Carthage. Camb.; NY, 2010;
Shaw BD Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Camb.; NY, 2011;
Ohme H. Sources of the Greek Canon Law to the Quinisext Council (691/2): Councils and Church Fathers // The History of Byzantine and Eastern Canon Law to 1500 / Ed. W. Hartmann, K. Pennington. Wash., 2012. P. 24-114. (History of Medieval Canon Law; 4).