NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Holy Bible Institute

To Amphilochius, the Canons.people as they go in to prayer that each and all will mercifully offer on his behalf theirprayers with earnestness to the Lord. After this let him be received for another period ofthree years to hearing alone, and while hearing the Scriptures and the instruction, let himbe expelled and not be admitted to prayer. Afterwards, if he has asked it with tears and hasfallen before the Lord with contrition of heart and great humiliation, let kneeling be accordedto him during other three years. Thus, when he shall have worthily shown the fruits of repentance,let him be received in the tenth year to the prayer of the faithful without oblation;and after standing with the faithful in prayer for two years, then, and not till then, let himbe held worthy of the communion of the good thing.LXXVI. The same rule applies to those who take their own daughters in law.LXXVII. He who abandons the wife, lawfully united to him, is subject by the sentenceof the Lord to the penalty of adultery. But it has been laid down as a canon by our Fathersthat such sinners should weep for a year, be hearers for two years, in kneeling for three years,stand with the faithful in the seventh; and thus be deemed worthy of the oblation, if theyhave repented with tears. 2846LXXVIII. Let the same rule hold good in the case of those who marry two sisters, althoughat different times. 2847LXXIX. Men who rage after their stepmothers are subject to the same canon as thosewho rage after their sisters. 28482846 The Ben. note points out the St. Basil refers to the repudiation of a lawful wife from some other causethan adultery. It remarks that though Basil does not order it to be punished as severely as adultery there is nodoubt that he would not allow communion before the dismissal of the unlawful wife. It proceeds “illud autemdifficilius est statuere, quid de matrimonio post ejectam uxorem adulteram contracto senserit. Ratum a Basiliohabitum fuisse ejusmodi matrimonium pronuntiat Aristentus. Atque id quidem Basilius, conceptis verbis nondeclarat; sed tamen videtur hac in re a saniori ac meliori sententia discessisse. Nam 1 o maritum injuste dimissumab alio matrimonio non excludit, ut vidimus in canonibus 9 et 35. Porro non videtur jure dimittenti denegasse,quod injuste dimisso concedebat. 2 o Cum jubeat uxorem adulteram ejici, vix dubium est quin matrimoniumadulterio uxoris fuisset mariti, ac multo durior, quam uxoris conditio, si nec adulteram retinere, necaliam ducereintegrum fuisset.2847 cf. Letter clx. p. 212.2848 The Ben. note is Prima specie non omnino perspicuum est utrum sorores ex utroque parente intelligat,an tantum ex alterutro. Nam cum in canone 79 eos qui suas nurus accipiunt non severius puniat, quam cui cumsorore ex matre vel ex patre rem habent, forte videri posset idem statuere de iis qui in novercas insaniunt. Sedtamen multo probabilius est eamdem illis pœnam imponi, ac iis qui cum sorore ex utroque parente contaminantur.Non enim distinctione utitur Basilius ut in canone 75; nec mirum si peccatum cum noverca gravius quam cumnuru, ob factam patri injuriam, judicavit.727