85 правил святых и всечестных апостолов, истолкованные на современном нам общеупотребительном языке

About the rules of the holy apostles. Preface According to some [308], there were various Councils, or, better said, assemblies of the holy apostles [309]. The first - in 33 or 34 from the Nativity of Christ - regarding the election of an apostle instead of the traitor Judas, when Joseph and Matthias were proposed and the lot fell to Matthias (Acts 1:26). The second is when, because those who believed had one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32), those of them who owned land and houses or something else sold them and brought their value to the feet of the apostles, so that they would distribute it among the poor (see Acts 4:32-35). However, no clear conclusion can be drawn about this meeting from the text of Acts. The third took place when seven deacons were chosen to tend the tables (Acts 6:2). Fourth - when the apostles and brothers of the circumcision 310, having heard that Peter had baptized the pagan Cornelius and those who were with him, disagreed with him (see Acts 11: 1-2). Fifth, when the apostles and elders gathered to decide the question, could the faithful not be saved if they were not circumcised according to the law of Moses, as some who came from Judea to Antioch claimed. It is this meeting that any reasonable person should call in the proper sense a Council and an apostolic meeting, or better to say, an example and prototype of subsequent Councils, since it has both the name and the distinctive properties of Councils. Some rose up from the Pharisaic heresy and said that they should be circumcised (Acts 15:5) (this is the strife and dispute for which the Council was required). The apostles and elders gathered (Acts 15:6) (here are the named Council and Assembly). By long reasoning (Acts 15:7) (here is a preliminary study regarding this controversy). Then the apostles and elders judged with the whole church (Acts 15:22). And it pleases the Holy Spirit and us (Acts 15:28), etc. (this is the decision and decree). This meeting took place in the 17th year after the ascension of Christ. The sixth meeting of the apostles took place in 56 or 58, when Paul came to James, the brother of God; All the elders also came to him (see Acts 21:18). Some insist that there was another meeting of the apostles in Antioch, at which 9 rules were set out, as some Western fathers note (about which see note 1 to Apostle 85), and in addition there were other meetings, of which the largest and most remarkable, as the Westerners say, was in 44, when the apostles were to be separated from each other. By the way, on it they composed the Symbol of Faith, called the Apostolic (see about it note 3 to VI Om. 1). Thus, we have stipulated all this, but antiquity, it must be assumed, did not preserve for us in tradition any exact information at which of the named meetings the divine apostles transmitted 85 of these rules through Clement [311]. However, it can be said that the apostles compiled them during the aforementioned largest and most remarkable meeting of theirs, when they had to separate and disperse to preach the Gospel. Many heretics, and perhaps some of the Western ones (I said “perhaps,” because, according to the testimony of Anthony Forest the Jesuit in “Preparation for the Priesthood,” their Ecumenical Council of Trent approved all the rules, numbering 85), being accused by these rules of introducing innovations, open their mouths to them, saying that they are neither in the aggregate nor individually true rules holy apostles. We, with great zeal, tried to protect them with a thousand shields and all the mighty arrows, as it is sung in Psalm 312, so that even from the mere sight of this numerous all-weapon every enemy would be afraid from afar. I will say this more clearly: we took care to investigate which rules of the Councils confirm these apostolic rules by repeating them word for word, and which ones confirm them by the mere name of the apostolic ones. Verbatim repetition confirms the following: The 5th Apostolic Canon is confirmed by the 13th Canon of the VI Ecumenical Council; 17th and 18th - Rule VI Omni. 3; 22nd and 23rd - Double rule. 8; 26th – Rule VI Omni. 6; 27th - the rule of two times. 9; 29th – Rule VII Omni. 5; 30th – Rule VII Omni. 3; 34th - by the rule of Antiochus. 9; 38th – Rule VII Omni. 12; 40th - by the rule of Antiochus. 24; 41st - by the rule of Antiochus. 25; 53rd – Acts VII Om.; 64th – Rule VI Omni. 55; 73rd - the rule of two times. 10. The following are confirmed only by the name of the apostles: The 12th, 13th and 16th Apostolic Apostles are confirmed by a letter from Alexander of Alexandria, which he sent to Alexander of Constantinople (Theodoret. Church history. Book 1, chapter 4 or, according to other sources, 3) 313; 14th and 15th Apostolic - canon I Om. 15, as well as in a letter that Constantine the Great sent to Eusebius of Caesarea (Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Book 3, chapters 59 and 60 or, according to other sources, 61) 314; 34th and 35th – by rule III Omni. 8; 74th – conciliar protocols drawn up in Constantinople regarding Agapius and Vagadius by the Local Council of Constantinople, about which in the “Pidalion” see after the Sardician. All 85 apostolic canons are confirmed by the canons of the VI Ecumenical. 2 and VII Omni. 1. And the 6th and 137th novels of Justinian, confirming them, say: “We believe that this will happen if only the sacred rules are strictly observed, which were handed down by the justly glorified and venerable samovids and servants of the Divine Word - the apostles, and the holy fathers preserved and interpreted.” Theodosius and Valentinian also mention them in the sacrum, speaking against Irenaeus, bishop. Tire (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 610). They are also confirmed by the interpreters of the rules, namely: Zonara, Balsamon, Alexei Aristin, master and logothete Simeon, hieromonk Matthew Blastar, Joseph of Egypt, Photius. John of Damascus also confirms them, saying: “85 rules of the holy apostles through Clement (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Book 4, Chapter 17)” 315. John of Antioch also speaks about the rules of the holy apostles in tit. 50, and John Scholasticus of Constantinople, in the preface to the collection of rules, teaches this: “The holy disciples of the Lord and the apostles, through Clement, set out 85 rules.” It remains to be said that the 25 rules of the Council of Antioch not only agree in meaning with the apostolic rules, but in a separate form contain entire sayings from them. Proof of the authenticity of the apostolic rules is their agreement and similarity in meaning with other rules, both conciliar and individual fathers, which is shown in this book with each apostolic rule. It is difficult, or rather impossible, to believe that so many Ecumenical and Local Councils and so many rules of individual fathers spontaneously and accidentally agreed with them. And on the contrary, it is certainly easiest to believe that very many rules, preceded by these apostolic ones as such great prototypes and the most reliable foundations, were consistent with them through imitation and were erected on their basis. Bishops are ordained by two or three bishops [316]. (I Om. 4; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19; Laodice. 12; Sardik. 6; Constantinople. 394 1) The word "bishop" (ἐπίσκοπος), firstly, refers in the Divine and Holy Scriptures in the proper sense to God, who cares for everything and oversees (ἐπισκοποῦντα) over everything, as Job testifies: This is the portion of the wicked man from the Lord, and his acquired property from the Overseer (παρὰ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου) (i.e. from God) (Job 20:29). And again: Your care (ἐπισκοπή) has guarded my spirit (Job 10:12). This word also applies to our Lord Jesus Christ, as the supreme apostle. Peter says about Him: For you were like sheep that went astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer (Ἐπίσκοπον) of your souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Secondly, this title by grace also applies to those chosen by God, as God Himself speaks of Eleazar: Overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest (Num. 4:16). And God says to Ezekiel: Son of man! I have made you a watchman (σκοπόν) for the house of Israel (Ezek. 3:17). Generally speaking, in the Old Testament bishops are called, on the one hand, guardians and guardians of the internal church government and affairs (as it is written about the aforementioned Eleazar that he kept watch (ἐπισκοπήν) over the entire tabernacle (see Num. 4:16), and about the high priest Jehoiada that he appointed bishops for the house of the Lord: And the priest appointed overseers (ἐπισκόπους) in the house of the Lord (2 Kings 1:18)), and on the other hand, the overseers of external public affairs and government, as it is written, Moses was angry with the overseers (ἐπί τοῖς ἐπισκόποις) of the army, rulers of thousands and rulers of hundreds (Numbers 31:14). However, none of the apostles was elected or named bishop during the Lord’s life on earth, since He is the only Guardian (ἐπίσκοπος) of our souls 317: the apostles only had the power to heal every disease and cast out demons (Matthew 10; Mark 3). After the resurrection from the dead and the ascension of our Savior, sent by Him (as He Himself was sent by the Father) throughout the world 318 and receiving all the power to knit and tie and all the gifts of the All-Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they had not only the apostolic title (in essence) 319, but also the episcopal title, as Holy Epiphanius testifies in the chapter on the 27th heresy, “the apostles Peter and Paul themselves were the first bishops" 320, and likewise all the other apostles, as the fathers affirm. Therefore, they decreed that bishops should be ordained by three or two bishops in cities. But the apostles themselves, as Saint Clement says in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, “preaching throughout countries and cities, appointed the firstborn of them, 321, after being tested by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who would believe.” Therefore, the God-bearing Ignatius, in his letter to the faithful in Trallae, commands: “Revere your bishop as Christ, according to the commandment given to you by the blessed apostles” 323. And that’s all for the word “bishop.” The word “ordination” (χειροτονία) comes from the expression “to stretch out, or stretch out, hands” (τείνω τὰς χεῖρας) and has two meanings. For consecration is the name of both voting and simply election to some office, which took place by a show of hands by the people, as Demosthenes says, “whoever by a show of hands you choose (χειροτονήσητε) as a military leader” (Homily 1 against Philip) 324. And in particular, this word corresponds to the church custom that prevailed in ancient times, when the assembled people freely “consecrated” (ἐχειροτόνουν), that is, elected bishops by extending their hands, as Zonara says about this, although later the Council of Laodicea abolished this order in its 5th canon, declaring: “Consecrations (i.e. elections - St. N.) should not be performed in the presence of listeners.” At the present time, ordination is the name given to a sacred act performed by a bishop, in which, simultaneously with prayer and invocation of the Holy Spirit, he places his hand on the head of the person being ordained, as is mentioned by the Apostle: Do not lay your hands on anyone hastily 325 . In fact, this order is well known to everyone. So, this rule stipulates that every bishop (be it a metropolitan, archbishop or bishop) must be ordained by two or three bishops [326]. But it is obvious that the image of expression here is inverse. Indeed, without this figure of speech, to put it more simply, this rule would sound like this: “Let three or (at least) two bishops ordain bishops.” This is exactly how, without inversion, the same rule was set out in the Apostolic Constitutions, which read: “We command that a bishop should be ordained by three bishops or, at the very least, two” 327 [328]. In accordance with this rule, various other rules are also laid down. Namely, it must be that either all the bishops of the metropolitan region (according to I Ose. 4, VII Ose. 3, Antioch. 19), or many (according to Carthage 13) gather together and ordain a bishop. Since this is difficult, it is appropriate for at least three to ordain, and the rest to express their consent to his ordination through letters. Confirming this apostolic canon, the 58th canon of the Council of Carthage states: “Let the ancient order be observed: for the consecration of bishops, no less than three bishops are needed,” namely one metropolitan and two other bishops [329]. The 1st rule of the Local Council of Constantinople states the same thing. And the 12th canon of the Council of Laodicea determines that bishops should be appointed to church administration according to the judgment of the surrounding bishops. If it happens that in any metropolitan region there remains one bishop who, having been called by his metropolitan, will neither go himself nor add his voice through a letter in favor of the one who is to be ordained as a bishop, then the metropolitan must both elect and ordain him with the help of bishops of the neighboring, foreign metropolitan region. In the same way, this metropolitan himself must be elected and ordained by neighboring bishops, according to Sardik. 6. The “Apostolic Constitutions” (Book 8, Chapter 27) prescribe that a bishop who is ordained by one bishop should be deposed together with the one who ordained him, except in the case when, due to difficult circumstances caused by persecution, or for some other reason, many bishops could not meet together and, at their choice, he was ordained alone 330. Thus, Siderius was ordained bishop of Palebiscin (according to the testimony of Synesius) not by three bishops, but by one bishop. Philo - because of the cramped position of the bishops at that time 331. Let one bishop ordain a presbyter, as well as a deacon and other clergy. This rule stipulates that every presbyter, deacon and all other clergy [332], that is, subdeacons, readers, singers, etc., should be ordained only by the bishop [333]. If any bishop or presbyter, contrary to the Lord’s regulations on sacrifice, brings anything else to the altar: honey, milk or prepared strong drink instead of wine, poultry, any animals or vegetables, contrary to the regulations, let him be deposed. The exception is young grains and grapes, brought at the appropriate time. Let it not be permitted to bring anything other than oil for the lamp and incense to the altar at the time of the holy offering. (Apost. 4; VI Ose. 28, 32, 57, 99; Carthage. 44; Theophilus Alexander. 8.) When our Lord Jesus Christ taught the apostles the sacrament of divine rites, He commanded them not to perform it in any other way than on bread and wine mixed with water. And He Himself was the first to fulfill this during the Last Supper, as it is written in the liturgy of St. James, the brother of the Lord, "mixed (meaning in a cup) wine and water." Therefore, the divine apostles define in this rule: let that bishop or presbyter be deposed from the priesthood who, violating the Lord’s ordinance about this bloodless sacrifice, brings something else at the holy meal, for example, honey, or milk, or - instead of wine - prepared strong drink, that is, any intoxicating drink, such as brandy 334, which is prepared from various fruits, or mash, i.e. the so-called beer made from barley, or something similar, or poultry, or some kind of animal, or vegetables [335]. You can bring grapes and young grains (or, rather, sheaves of young ears of wheat) to the altar, just as the Jews brought them to God according to what was said: You shall not eat dried young grains until you have made an offering to your God (Lev. 23:14), and also: Bring the sheaves, the firstfruits of your harvest, to the priest (Lev. 23:10). However, not as a bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord, let it not be! But as firstfruits or early fruits, brought in at the proper time, when they are ripe [336]. Therefore, it is unforgivable to bring anything other than oil for illumination and incense to the holy altar at the time of the Divine Liturgy. In accordance with this rule and the 4th rule that follows it, it is decreed that fruits other than those permitted should be brought not to the altar, but to the bishop's house as the first harvest. And the rule is Carthage. 44 it is decreed that nothing other than bread and wine combined with water should be brought for the Holy Mysteries [337]. In turn, rule VI Omni. 28 determines that the priest must bless the grapes that are brought to the altar with a special prayer and blessing, different from those performed during the sacraments, so that we, receiving them from the hands of the priests with a blessing, give thanks to God, who gives favorable weather and thereby provides us with the necessary food. Those priests who do not act in this way, but connect this grape with the Body and Blood of the Lord, are subject to defrocking as a rule. Rule VI Universal. 32 accuses the Armenians of bringing only wine, and not in combination with water. Rule VI Universal. 99 also prohibits bringing boiled meat to the altar. Rule VI Universal. 57 strongly prohibits bringing milk and honey to the altar, despite the fact that earlier, as stated in Carthage. 44, they could be brought for babies. Rule 8 of Theophilus determines what should be done with the remains of prosphora and wine. Let all other fruits be sent as firstfruits to the house of the bishop and presbyters, but not to the altar - of course, so that the bishop and presbyters give a portion to the deacons and other clergy. (Apost. 3; VI Ose. 28, 32, 57, 99; Carthage. 44; Theophilus Alexander. 8.) This rule determines that all other fruits (with the exception of ears of wheat and grapes, oil and incense), as soon as they ripen, are not brought to the holy altar, but are sent to the house of the bishop and elders, so that those who send all this will thereby offer worthy thanks to God, who has given them such blessings. But it is obvious that the bishop and presbyters will not use them alone, but will distribute them among the deacons and the rest of the clergy, so that they too will receive their share [338]. See interpretation of Apost. 3. Let no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon drive away his wife under the pretext of reverence. And if he expels, let him be excommunicated, but if he remains adamant, let him be cast out. (VI Omni. 13, 48; Gangr. 4; Carthage. 4, 33.) The old law, out of leniency, allowed married men, whenever they wished, to divorce their wives, even without any just cause. The Lord strictly forbade this in the Gospel. Therefore, the apostles, following the Lord's commandment, prohibit this in this canon and say: let no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon cast out his wife, that is, let him not forcibly divorce her, in other words, without her consent, under the pretext and appearance of reverence, and if he divorces her, let him be excommunicated until he is inclined to take her back to his home. If he nevertheless remains stubborn and does not want to accept her, let him be expelled from the priesthood completely, since it is obvious: by what he is doing, he is dishonoring marriage, which, according to the apostle, is honest, and considers unclean the bed and union, which the apostle himself called immaculate (see Heb. 13:4). It remains to be said that adultery also serves as a justification for such a divorce, as the Lord said: Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). Moreover, the apostle said: Are you united to your wife? do not seek divorce and do not withdraw from one another, except by consent, to practice fasting and prayer (1 Cor. 7:5 and 27). [ 339 ] So is Rule VI Omni. 13 decrees that the marriage of clergy should remain strong and indissoluble, that if they were married before their ordination, they should not be prohibited from being married for the sake of receiving the priesthood, and that at their ordination they should not be required to undertake to divorce their wives because they had become priests, an illegal custom which had become widespread in Rome. True, Carthage ruled. 4 and 33 say that bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons should maintain chastity and, according to the rule characteristic of each of these degrees, abstain from their wives. But the interpreters of the rules - I mean Zonaru and Balsamon - and especially the VI Ecumenical Council in the 13th rule, interpreting the above-mentioned rules, say that they should abstain only during their turn, and not always, with the exception of bishops. See this in its place. [ 340 ] A bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon should not accept worldly cares. Otherwise let him be cast out. (Apost. 81, 83; IV Om. z, 7; VII Om. 10; Dvukrat. 11; Carthage. 18.) It is not excusable for those who have holy orders to entangle themselves in worldly affairs, but it is necessary that they diligently engage in the divine service inherent in their rank, and keep their minds free from all confusion and excitement of everyday life. Therefore, the present rule determines: let a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon not take upon himself the cares of life. If he accepts and does not want to reject them from himself, but remains in them, let him be cast out. "Nomocanon" Photius in 8th tit. says that bishops should not take charge and become guardians even of their own relatives (Vasiliki. Book 3, tit. 1, ch. 13-15). The only exception is when the guardianship consists of distributing alms and alms for a deceased relative (according to the 68th short story of Leo the Wise). Read also the rules indicated above, which are consistent with this, prohibiting clergy from worldly cares. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon celebrates the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed [341]. (Apost. 64, 70, 71; VI Ose. 11; Antiochus, 1; Laodice. 37, 38; Carthage. 60, 81,117.) There are two equinoxes in a solar year: one in spring and the other in autumn. And they are called equinoxes because day is then equal to night, and night is equal to day. The autumnal equinox occurs in September, when the Sun enters the first part of the zodiac sign called Libra. Libra is not starry and sensual, but starless and imaginary. And the spring, that is, spring equinox occurs in March, when the Sun enters the first part of the zodiac sign called Aries - Aries is not sensual and starry, subject to change, but imaginary and starless, unchangeable, as astronomers say. So, this vernal equinox, due to the deviation in the proper movement of the Sun from West to East, does not always occur on the same day, but during the time of the holy apostles it was 22 dristr, i.e. March, according to the “Ordinances” of the apostles themselves (book 5, chapter 17) 342 or, according to other sources, March 23. During the First Ecumenical Council it was on March 21, according to the testimony of Sebast and others. And now, in our times, it happens on the nth or even around the th of March. For, according to the ancient astronomers, Ptolemy, etc., the equinox shifts by one day in just over three hundred years. According to more modern astronomers, it shifts by one day every 134 years, as shown on p. 540 “Tomos of Love.” After we have learned all this, let us turn to the present apostolic canon. It defines: that bishop, presbyter or deacon who celebrates Holy Pascha before the vernal equinox along with the legal chasm of 343 Jews, let him be deposed. Indeed, among the Jews, according to Blastar, the wisest kept the custom of celebrating Easter at the equinox, as Moses commanded, and the more ignorant began to celebrate it earlier than the equinox, as stated in the present rule, and, consequently, the Jews began to celebrate Easter twice in the same year, as confirmed by the letter of King Constantine about Easter [344], found in the 1st book. "History" of Theodoret, ch. 10 or, according to other sources, 9,345. So when should Easter be celebrated? After the equinox, i.e. and after the legal chamfer. After the equinox because the equinox is the dividing line of the whole year, and if we celebrate before the equinox, then we celebrate Easter twice in the same year and, therefore, we celebrate the death of the Son of God twice. If we celebrate after the equinox, then we celebrate Easter only once a year and, therefore, proclaim the one death of Christ. Therefore, the apostles themselves in the “Ordinances” (Book 5, Chapter 17) say the following: “It is necessary, brethren, that you celebrate the days of Easter exactly, with all diligence, after the equinoctial turning, so that you do not commemorate the same suffering twice a year, but once a year honor the once-Dead One.”346 After the Jewish facet, it must be celebrated, on the one hand, so that the image precedes it, that is, the slaughter of the lamb, and then what is depicted follows, that is, the death of the Lord and the resurrection. And on the other hand, so that we celebrate not on any day of the week, as the Jews celebrate, regardless of when exactly the 14th day of the lunar month 347 happened, but always on Sunday, as the apostles talk about this in the same place. Indeed, because of this, when sometimes the legal chasm falls on a Sunday, we celebrate Easter not on that day, but on the next Sunday, so as not to celebrate with the Jews. On the other hand, in fact, then, first the Jews celebrated their chasm, and then the Lord’s resurrection occurred, the image and memory of which is contained in Easter, which we now celebrate every year. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone on the list of the sacred order does not receive communion when making an offering, then let him declare the reason. And if she is blessed, may she be forgiven. If he does not declare, let him be excommunicated as guilty of causing harm to the people and bringing suspicion upon the one who made the offering, as if he had performed the sacrament incorrectly [348]. This rule requires that everyone, and especially the clergy, be ready and worthy to partake of the Divine Mysteries when the offering is made, that is, the sacred rite of the Body of the Lord. If any of them does not take communion while being present at the Divine Liturgy, then let him declare the reason why he did not take communion [349], and if it is fair and blessed, let him be forgiven, and if he does not want to announce the reason, then let him be excommunicated. For he becomes guilty of causing harm to the people, giving people reason to suspect that the priest who performed the liturgy is unworthy and that is why he did not want to partake of it. All those faithful who enter the church and listen to the Scriptures, but do not remain at prayer and during holy communion, should be excommunicated as disturbing the order in the church. (VI Om. 66; Antioch. 2; Timothy Alexander, 3, 13.) Both interpreters of the sacred rules - I mean Zonaru and Balsamon - commenting on the present apostolic rule, unanimously say that Christians who come to church when the Divine Liturgy is being celebrated and listen to the Divine Scriptures, but do not stay until the end and do not receive communion, should be excommunicated as violating order in the church. This is what Zonara says verbatim: “This rule requires everyone, when making a holy sacrifice, to remain in prayer and holy communion until the end. For at that time it was also required of the laity that they receive communion constantly.” Balsamon says this: “The decree of this rule is very strict, for it excommunicates those who come to church, but do not stay until the end and do not receive communion” [350]. The rule of Antiochus is consistent with this rule. 2, which reads: all those who enter the church during the Divine Liturgy and listen to the Scriptures, but avoid (in other words, avoid under the pretext of reverence and humility, according to the interpretation of the excellent interpreter Zonara) from Divine Communion in violation of order, let them be excommunicated. The need for constant communion is also confirmed by Rule VI Omni. 66. It prescribes that Christians spend the entire Bright Week singing psalms and hymns 351 and enjoying the Divine Mysteries. In addition, from the 3rd rule of St. Timothy, one can draw a conclusion about the constancy of communion. For if he does not allow the possessed to receive communion every day, but only on Sundays (although in other manuscripts it is written “only at times”), then it follows that those who are not possessed are allowed to receive communion even more often. Some find that for this reason the same Timothy in the 13th rule determines that married couples, by mutual consent, abstain from each other on Saturday and Sunday, of course, for the sake of communion, because at that time only on these days, as we said, the Divine Liturgy was celebrated. This opinion is confirmed by the divine Justin, saying in the 2nd Apology: “On the day of the sun (that is, on Sunday (κυριακή). - St. N.) all Christians gathered in churches (which were therefore called the houses of the Lord (κυριακά) 352. - St. N. ) and partook of the Divine Mysteries" 353. And the fact that Christians should always approach Divine Communion frequently is confirmed by the divine Ambrose among the Western fathers, saying: “We see that many brothers gather for church extremely carelessly and, moreover, on Sundays they are not present during the sacrament.” And again, he, reproaching those who do not regularly receive communion, speaks of the mysterious Bread: “God gave us this Bread every day, and we receive it once a year.” Of the Asian fathers, especially the divine Chrysostom demands frequent communion from Christians. Indeed, look at the preface to the interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans... 354 ; conversation 5 interpretation on the First Epistle to Timothy 355; conversation 17 interpretation on the Epistle to the Hebrews 356; a word to those who still fast on Easter 357; conversation 3 interpretations on the Epistle to the Ephesians 358; word to those leaving divine assemblies 359 ; conversation 28 interpretation on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 360; word in blzh. Phylogeny 361 and a word about post 362. Look how this beautiful language fights and flutters in them to encourage Christians to receive communion both worthily and often! See also the letter of Basil the Great to Caesarea, the wife of a patrician, and his “Word 1 on baptism” [363]. And everyone who pays attention to the prayers of the entire Divine Liturgy will not see clearly that all of them have as their goal that the Christians gathered at the Liturgy receive communion, of course all those who are worthy? If anyone prays with a stranger, even in the house, let him be excommunicated. (Apost. 11, 12; Antioch. 2; Carthage. 9.) The name “alien to communication” (ἀκοινώνητος) has three meanings. It means either one who stands in church and prays along with other Christians, but does not partake of the Divine Mysteries; or one who does not receive communion, does not stand with the faithful and does not pray with them in church, but is excommunicated from them, that is, leaves the church and does not participate in common prayer. Or, finally, it means a cleric who is excommunicated from the clergy, for example: a bishop from his co-bishops, a presbyter from his co-presbyters, or a deacon from his co-deacons, etc. Indeed, everyone alien to communion (in other words, excommunicated from the faithful in the Church) is at the same time excommunicated from the Mysteries, but not everyone excommunicated from the Mysteries is also excommunicated from the assembly of the faithful. Thus, defrocked clerics, and those standing with the faithful among those who repent, do not receive communion, but they also do not leave the church, as the catechumens we spoke about leave the church. This rule understands the word “alien from communication” in the second meaning. That’s why it says: if anyone prays with someone who has been excommunicated from the assembly and prayer of the faithful for sin, even if he prays not in the church, but in the house, everyone, be it a clergyman or a layman, let him be excommunicated from the Church and from prayer with Christians, just like him. For communication in prayer, which he makes with the excommunicated person, knowing for certain that he has been excommunicated, brings dishonor and contempt on the excommunicator and discredits him as having excommunicated him unfairly. If anyone, being a cleric, prays with a deposed cleric, let him also be deposed. This rule can be interpreted in two ways. If the expression “will pray together” is used instead of “serve together,” then the whole meaning of the rule is as follows. A cleric who deliberately served as an erupted cleric, may he himself be ejected along with him (this interpretation is more correct). If “pray together” means actually praying together, then the meaning of the rule is as follows. A cleric who consciously prayed with a cleric who was not only defrocked, but also dared to perform any action characteristic of a cleric after the eruption, or, having been expelled from the clergy for sins, after the eruption again fell into the same sins and, above all, was excommunicated from the assembly and prayer of the faithful - whoever prayed with such, I repeat, let the cleric be deposed equally with him. If any cleric or layman, excommunicated or rejected, leaves and is received in another city without a representative letter, then both the one who accepted and the one accepted will be excommunicated. (Apost. 32, 33; IV Om. 11, 13; VI Ose. 17; Antioch. 6–8,11; Sardik. 7–9; Laodice. 41,42; Carthage. 31, 97, 116.) One is excommunicated, and another is rejected. He who is excommunicated is separated from the Church and from the prayers of the faithful, but he who is rejected is not accepted by the bishop, for many reasons. So, the present rule, having mentioned both together, here speaks only of the rejected. Therefore, the particle “or” is not explanatory in the word “excommunicated”, but dividing, distinguishing between “excommunicated” and “rejected” [364]. The rule, therefore, determines: if a clergy or layman, rejected by the bishop, then goes to another city and is accepted by the local bishop, although he does not have representative letters from his bishop testifying to his faith, life, ordination, and especially about the accusations that obscure his reputation [365], then let the bishop who received them in this way, and those themselves who were thus accepted by him, be excommunicated. That one - because, contrary to the rules, he accepted them without letters, and these - either because they did not bother to receive representative letters testifying to their good reputation, or because, by telling a lie, they deceived the bishop and were accepted. (A layman may be rejected for the reason that he is accused by his bishop of some offense, and a clergyman - for the reason that he sought ordination, but the bishop, having examined the information relating to him, found something dubious, because of which he did not allow him to be ordained.) If he is excommunicated, then let his excommunication be extended [366], since he lied and deceived the Church of God. (Apost. 12; Carthage. 116.) This rule is combined with the 12th rule both in meaning and in structure of speech and syllable. The previous rule, as we said, spoke of a rejected cleric or layman, and this speaks of an excommunicated cleric or layman, namely: if a cleric or layman is excommunicated by his bishop, but, having gone to another place, hides and does not admit that he was excommunicated, and therefore will be accepted by the local bishop (who did not know about the excommunication), let the period of excommunication be increased for him, since he lied and mocked the Church and the bishop of that place. A bishop is not allowed, having left his episcopal region, to seize another, even if many force him, unless there is some blessed reason forcing him to do this, namely in the case when he can bring great benefit to those living there with a word of piety. But this is not arbitrary, but by the decision of many bishops and at the urgent request. (I Om. 15; IV Om. 5; Antioch. 16, 21; Sardik. 1, 2; Carthage. 57.) The other is the seizure of another episcopal region and the invasion of it, and the other is the movement and transition from one episcopal region to another [367]. The seizure consists in the fact that the bishop, pursuing selfish goals, willfully leaves his episcopal region (or, not having his own region, remains idle 368) and recklessly seizes another, which, according to Sardik. 1 and 2, is condemned and subject to canonical penance. And the transfer consists in the fact that, out of great need and for the sake of establishing piety, at the request of many bishops, the bishop moves from one episcopal region to another for the greater spiritual benefit of the inhabitants of the latter (and this is probably for a while, and not for life), which is allowed for reasons of oikonomia [369]. Therefore, the present rule determines that a bishop is not allowed, for the sake of profit and without any good reason, to leave his episcopal region and seize another, even if he is forced to do so. He is allowed to move to another episcopal region (whether widowed, lesser or greater) if there is some valid and compelling reason that forces him to do this, in fact, when, by the pious word of his teaching, he can bring greater spiritual benefit to the Christians of that episcopal region than anyone else and provide greater spiritual help. However, let him do this not himself, that is, not on his own impulse, but according to the judgment and choice of many bishops, after urgent requests and persuasion [370]. If a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general anyone from the list of clergy, having left his episcopal region, moved to another and, having finally moved, lives in another region against the will of his bishop, we command that such a person no longer serve, especially if his bishop persuaded him to return, but he did not obey, persisting in disorder; however, let him be there in fellowship as a layman. (I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 20, 23; VI Om. 17.18; VII Om. 10, 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15–17; Carthage. 63, 98.) Rule IV Universal. 6 prescribes not to ordain a presbyter, deacon or any other clergyman simply and indefinitely, in any church, but to ordain with appointment to a church in a city or village or to a monastery. So, one of the clergy, who defines the present apostolic rule, who is ordained in this way, should not leave the church assigned to him and should not go to another church in a foreign episcopal region without the consent of his bishop and a letter of dismissal from him. If he does this, then we order that he not perform in that church any service inherent in a priest or other cleric, and especially if the bishop persuaded him to return, and he, persistent in disorder, out of his stubbornness did not obey and did not return. However, let him pray with the Christians of that church and receive communion with them as a layman. If the bishop with whom they end up, without attaching any importance to the prohibition imposed on them in ministry, accepts them as clergy, let him be excommunicated as a teacher of outrage. (VI Om. 17.18; Antioch. 3; Carthage. 63, 64.) Only the Bishop of Carthage, according to ancient custom, has the right to accept clergy from wherever he wishes (of course, from the bishops subordinate to him) and to include them in the churches of his episcopal region, according to Carthage. 64[371]. Other bishops are never given this right. Therefore, the present apostolic canon, both in syllable and in meaning connected with the previous canon, says: “If a bishop, in whose episcopal region these foreign clergy are located, although he knows that according to the rules they are prohibited from serving by their bishop, nevertheless neglects this prohibition and accepts them as clergy, that is, as capable of performing what is proper to their rank, then, I continue, let such a bishop be excommunicated, since he becomes teacher of disorder and temptations." Anyone who has been married twice after baptism or who has taken a concubine cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or even belong to the list of the holy order. (VI Omni. 3; Basil the Great. 12.) No matter how many sins a person has committed before baptism, they cannot be an obstacle to accepting the priesthood and joining the clergy, since we believe that all these sins are washed away by holy baptism. However, this does not apply to sins that he committed after he was baptized. Therefore, this rule determines that anyone who marries twice after holy baptism (not only the one who marries a second woman, but also the one who gets engaged to a second woman with the blessing of a priest, or marries someone who is betrothed to another [372], or has a concubine as a wife [373]), cannot become a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or even be numbered among the list of the sacred order and receive the sacred degree [374]. He who takes as his wife a widow, or an abandoned woman, or a harlot, or a slave, or an actress cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or even belong to the list of the sacred order. (VI Om. 3:26; Basil the Great. 27.) If the Jewish priests were forbidden to take as a wife a harlot, or one abandoned by her husband, or in general a woman with a defiled name: They must not take for themselves, says Scripture, a harlot and a defamed woman, nor should they take a wife rejected by her husband, for they are holy to the Lord their God (Lev. 21:7 and 14), - then how much more is this forbidden to the priests of the Gospel? Behold, says the Savior, here is He who is greater than the church (see Matt. 12:6). Therefore, the present apostolic canon determines: “Whoever takes as his wife a widow, or one abandoned by her husband, or a harlot, or a slave, or one of those women who take part in comedies and stage performances and perform various roles, cannot become a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general be numbered among the sacred ranks,” since all these women are vicious and condemned. And clergy must be in all respects impeccable and blameless, as the blessed one says. Paul (see 1 Timothy 3:2). Rule VI Universal. 3 says that those elders, deacons or subdeacons who married a widow or, after ordination, entered into an illegal marriage, after divorcing their wives, should be banned from ministry for a short period and subjected to penance. Then let them take their priesthood degrees again, but not advance to a higher degree. Although at that time the VI Ecumenical Council, in its condescension, applied oikonomia to such people, it also determined that from then onwards the present apostolic rule would again come into force. One who married two sisters or a niece cannot be a cleric. (VI Om. 3:26; Neokesar. 2; Basil the Great. 23:87; Theophilus Alexander. 5.) Some of the marriages are called illicit - those that are concluded with relatives or heretics; others are illegal, for example, when someone marries a woman whose guardian his father has been since childhood; and others - worthy of condemnation, for example, when someone marries a consecrated nun. All these marriages can be called by the general name of lawless (just as the VI Ecumenical Council in the 3rd canon generally calls the marriages referred to in canons 17 and 18 lawless). This rule speaks only about illegal marriages, defining: “Whoever married two sisters or married his adult niece cannot become a cleric,” because any illegal marriage, by blood or by nature, not only prevents him from becoming a cleric, but is also subject to penance. For Basil the Great, speaking in the 78th and 87th rules about those who were married to two sisters, determines in the 78th rule that they should be excommunicated from the Holy Mysteries for 7 years. The Neo-Caesarean Council in the 2nd rule orders that a woman who was married to two brothers be excommunicated from communion until death. And the 27th rule of Basil the Great determines that a presbyter who, out of ignorance, enters into an unlawful marriage, that is, takes a relative as his wife, should only enjoy the honor of the seat, but refrain from other actions of the priesthood, and not bless anyone, either secretly or openly, and not give communion. The VI Ecumenical Council, in its 26th canon, quotes this same canon of Basil the Great verbatim, adding that first the unlawful marriage must be dissolved and then the presbyter can have the honor of the seat. Theophilus in the 5th rule says that a deacon who married his niece before baptism, and was ordained after baptism, is not cast out if his wife died or he himself left her without entering into carnal relations with her. And the civil law (book 60, tit. 37) stipulates that all unauthorized marriages must be dissolved and punished for them. He commands that those who have intercourse with two sisters or with their niece (which is also stated in this apostolic canon) should have their noses cut off and beaten with sticks, both themselves and the women who fornicated with them. Even if they do not want to be separated, it is appropriate to separate them forcibly with the help of the ruling power. The cleric who gave the guarantee will be deposed. The expression “give surety” has two meanings, because you can either become a surety for another [375], or take another as a surety for yourself. This rule, using the expression “give surety” in the first meaning, says: “A cleric who gives surety for another, let him be deposed,” because the surety given in this way is resorted to for the most part in the fulfillment of human obligations, that is, in matters related to customs duties, taxes, money and trade transactions in general, and from such matters, everyday and worldly, clergy should be free. And moreover, after such guarantees many different temptations arise, into which it is not proper for them to plunge themselves voluntarily, for, as the Pritochnik says, if you guarantee for your friend, you betray your hand to the enemy, so do not guarantee (for another) out of shame before anyone, for if you do not have something to pay, they will take the bed from under your ribs (Proverbs 6:1; 22, 26-27). It is not appropriate for clerics to become guarantors in everyday affairs, as we said, and for the sake of profit. Although we are commanded to lay down our souls for the love of our brother, it is not for the sake of fulfilling worldly obligations, according to Basil the Great (see rule 162 briefly stated), but for the benefit of the brethren, for the purpose of pleasing God 376 - for this sake, clerics should not only become guarantors, but also give up their very soul. For example, if a cleric, having met a person who is unjustly dragged to prison because he has no one who could vouch for him before the judge, has compassion on his misfortune and vouches for his brother, then, I continue, such a cleric is not cast out; moreover, he is praised by God and people as having fulfilled the divine commandment of the Gospel. After all, Scripture says: Deliver the oppressed and those led to death, and ransom those who are killed, do not spare (money) (Isa. 1:17; Proverbs 24:11). And all this related to the first meaning, to the fact that one should not become a guarantor for another, as said. In turn, the IV Ecumenical Council, understanding the expression “to give guarantee” in the second meaning, demanded in the 30th canon that the Egyptian bishops take others as guarantors for themselves that they would not leave Constantinople until the Archbishop of Alexandria was ordained. Thus, the rules of Apost. 20 and IV Omni. 30 are consistent and do not contradict each other, because the Apostolic uses the expression “to give guarantee” in one meaning, and the IV Ecumenical Council - in another [377]. Skopets, if he became one due to human malice, or lost his male organs during the period of persecution, or was born this way, and at the same time is worthy, let him become a bishop. (Apost. 22–24; I Om. 1; Double 8.) Eunuchs are divided into three genera: anorchites, eunuchs with compressed reproductive organs, and castrati. Anorchitis are those who are born from the mother's womb without testicles and reproductive organs. About such the Lord said: There are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb (Matthew 19:12). Such was Dorotheus, presbyter of the Antiochian Church, as Eusebius testifies in the History of the Church (book 7, chapter 32) 378. Eunuchs with compressed organs are those whose parents pressed or compressed their reproductive organs in infancy, causing them to become incapable of childbearing. Castrati are those who have removed their genitals either with a knife or some other instrument and method [379]. After what has been said, let us turn to the present rule, which says: “If someone became an eunuch due to the malice of people, or his male reproductive organs were cut off by persecutors during the persecution, or he was born this way from his mother’s womb, but is worthy of the priesthood, let him become a bishop” [ 380 ], because he is not guilty of this emasculation, but is crippled by nature or through the fault of evil people, and it is better to pity him, and not to punish and hate. The following rules are Apost. 22–24 also contain definitions of castration. And rule I Omni. 1 says: “That cleric who is castrated by doctors due to illness or castrated by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy, and let such a layman be accepted into the clergy. But the one who has castrated himself while healthy, if he is a cleric, let him stop performing anything inherent in the priesthood, and if he is a layman, then he cannot become a cleric.” Complementing this rule of the First Ecumenical Council, the rule of the Twofold. 8 says: “A cleric who castrates someone with his own hand or entrusts someone else to do it, let him be deposed, but if a layman does this, let him be excommunicated; but if priests or laity castrate a person because of some illness, then they are not condemned.” Let him who castrates himself not become a cleric, for he is a suicide and an enemy of God's creation. (Apost. 21, 23, 24; I Om. 1; Double 8.) The previous rule makes a determination about those who were castrated against their will, and the present one – about those who were castrated voluntarily. It says: “Whoever, being healthy, castrates himself of his own free will, either with his own hand or by instructing another to castrate himself, must not be a cleric [381], because he is a suicide and an enemy of God’s creation.” God created him as a man, with all his reproductive organs, and he, cutting them off, turns himself into an absurd, strange creature: he is no longer a man (since he cannot do what is characteristic of men, i.e., give birth to people similar to himself), but also not a woman (because he cannot experience what is characteristic of women, i.e., carry in the womb and give birth), but something third, some kind of monster, one might say, something in between a man and a woman. See also the interpretation of Apost. 21. If anyone, being a cleric, castrates himself, let him be cast out. Because he is a suicide. (Apost. 21, 22, 24; I Om. 1; Double 8.) And this rule, like the previous one, speaks of castration - only the previous one determines that someone who, being a layman, castrates himself does not become a cleric, and this reads: “If anyone, already a cleric, castrates himself or entrusts another to castrate himself, although he is in health, let him be castrated, because he is a suicide” [382]. And not only divine rules, but also civil laws subject those who castrate themselves or others to various punishments, such as: confiscation of property, exile, equal retribution (i.e., the one who castrates another is also castrated himself). If a slave, healthy or sick, is castrated, the laws prescribe his release (see: Photius. Tit. 1, ch. 14). Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 21. A layman who has castrated himself will be excommunicated for three years, for he has encroached on his own life. (Apost. 21–23; I Om. 1; Dvukt. 8.) If the one who castrates himself while healthy, or instructs another to castrate himself, is a layman, then this rule prescribes that he be excommunicated from the sacraments and from the church meeting of Christians for three years, because by committing castration, he is making an attempt on his own life. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon convicted of fornication, perjury or theft, may be deposed, but not excommunicated. For Scripture says: Do not take revenge twice for the same thing 383. The same is done with other clerics. (I Om. 9; VI Om. 4:21; Neo-Caesar. 1:8; Carthage. 35; Basil the Great. 3:17, 32, 44, 51, 70.) All clergy and clergy must be pure and blameless, therefore this rule makes the following determination. If a bishop, presbyter or deacon is convicted, or rather, if it is proven that he fell into fornication, or broke an oath [384], or committed theft, and the theft is significant, that is, subject to criminal punishment, according to the 28th rule of John the Faster, let him be deposed from the priesthood, but let him not be excommunicated from the meeting and prayer of Christians [385]. (Criminal punishment, as Balsamon explains in his interpretation of the 25th chapter of the 9th tit. “Nomocanon” of Photius, is not decapitation or any other death, but exile, blinding, cutting off a hand, etc.) For Divine Scripture says: “Do not punish twice for the same sin.” Like clergy, all other clerics convicted of the listed sins are expelled from the clergy, but not excommunicated. There are two things to note about this rule. First: clergy and clerics who have committed these crimes, although they are not excommunicated, according to the 3rd, 32nd and 51st rules of Basil the Great, i.e. from the meeting and prayer of Christians in the church, from which the catechumens are excommunicated, however, according to the same Vasily, they do not partake of the Most Pure Mysteries, being unworthy and being under penance, as long as the bishop or their confessor considers it necessary [386]. And second: clergy and clerics are only expelled, but not excommunicated, if they are not convicted of any sins, namely those named in this rule (or similar ones, such as adultery or sacrilege). After all, there are other sins for which clergy and clergy, when they are convicted of them, are simultaneously cast out and excommunicated (for example, ordination for money or with the help of the power of rulers, according to Apostles 29 and 30). Please note that if clergy and clerics who were expelled, but not excommunicated for the above sins, after the eruption again fell into the same or other sins, then they were completely excommunicated from the Church, like catechumens. That is why the Neokesar rule. 1, which determines that if a presbyter commits fornication or adultery, then he is excommunicated from the Church and entered into the rank of repentant laity, is perfectly consistent with the present apostolic canon, if we understand that the canon of the Neocaesarea Council speaks of a presbyter who has committed fornication or adultery twice or thrice. In the rule of Neokesar. 8 says that a priest who continues to live with his wife who has committed adultery is cast out. And rule VI Omni. 21 says: “Clerics who have been completely cast out for canonical crimes, if they voluntarily repent, let them cut their hair in the image of the clerics. If they do not want to voluntarily renounce sin, then let them grow their hair like the laity.” Basil the Great in the 17th canon says that those presbyters who (out of necessity or because of danger) have sworn not to perform actions inherent in the priesthood should not officiate publicly (so as not to seduce those who know about their oath), but they can officiate privately. At the same time, they must repent of having taken such an oath. And in the 70th canon, the same father determines that if a deacon or presbyter sins with a woman only by kissing, then let him, according to Zonara, stop performing priesthood for a while, but let him receive communion of the Mysteries together with the presbyters and deacons. If it is revealed that he has sinned with something more than a kiss, then let him be cast out. Rule VI Universal. 4 disgorges a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any other cleric who has intercourse with a woman consecrated to God, in other words, with a nun. John the Faster says that if someone fell into malakia (which some saints call fornication in private) before ordination, then he should be subjected to penance, and then ordained. If he fell into this sin after accepting the priesthood, let him be prohibited from serving for one year and subjected to other penances, and then let him serve. If, after realizing the sin, he again falls into this passion for the second and third time, let him be cast out and move into the category of readers 387. We command that of those who have entered the clergy as celibates, only readers and singers can marry if they wish. (IV Om. 14; VI Om. 6; Carthage. 19:33; Basil the Great. 69.) Elders, deacons and subdeacons have the right to marry before ordination and to be ordained after marriage. If they marry after ordination, then they are deposed, according to VI Oc. 6. And readers, singers and lower clerics have the right to marry without restriction even after they become clerics, and they can advance to a higher degree. Therefore, the present rule allows them to marry after joining the clergy, however, to an Orthodox woman, and not to a heterodox one, according to IV Ecumenical. 14. Rule of Carthage. 19 determines that when the readers reach adolescence, i.e., reach 14 years of age, they should be forced either to marry, or to take a vow of abstinence, i.e., virginity. But after they get married, they should not be forced to abstain more than established, according to the 33rd (34th) rule of the same Council. And the 69th rule of Basil the Great says that a reader, if he falls with his betrothed before the wedding, should be banned from serving for one year, and then let him be accepted, but not ascend to a higher level. If he entered into a relationship with a woman secretly, without betrothal, let him stop serving. In Rule VI Omni. 6 sets out this rule verbatim [388]. We command that a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, if he beats the faithful for sins or the infidels for unjust deeds and thereby wants to instill fear, is deposed. For the Lord did not teach us this at all. On the contrary, when they beat Him Himself, He did not respond with blows: Being slandered, He did not slander each other; while suffering, he did not threaten (1 Pet. 2:23). (Double. 9; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 57, 62, 76, 83, 99, 100, 106, 107.) Teaching His Divine commandments to the disciples, the Lord said: “What I say to you, My disciples, I say to all Christians” (see Mark 13:37). One of His commandments commands us to turn our left cheek to the one who strikes us on the right (see Matthew 5:39). So, if all Christians must observe this commandment, then even more so the clergy, especially bishops, about whom the divine Paul wrote to Timothy that a bishop should not be a killer (1 Tim. 3:3). Therefore, the present rule says: “We command that that bishop, or presbyter, or deacon be deposed who beats Christians who sin against him, or infidels who offend others, and with these beatings, apparently, wants to make others fear him. After all, the Lord does not teach us to do this in any place in the Gospel, and moreover, by His own example He taught us the completely opposite. When the soldiers and Jews struck Him during His suffering, He did not raise His hand to strike them back. When He was accused and insulted, He did not insult or accuse. And, suffering on the Cross, He did not threaten them with punishment, but begged His Father to forgive them.” In this, the clergy should imitate the Lord. It is fitting for them to reprove those who sin and those who offend, so that others may also have fear, as the apostle says. Paul (1 Tim. 5:20), and also to admonish them sometimes with instruction and admonition, sometimes with church penances, but not to take revenge on them with anger and rage, let’s say, for dishonor or a sin committed against them, and not to beat the guilty with sticks. And the rule is twice. 9, citing this very rule, says that they cast out not only those clergy who beat with their own hands, but also those who entrust others to beat [389]. If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, justly deposed for obvious crimes, dares to touch the ministry once entrusted to him, let him be completely cut off from the Church. (Antioch. 4, 12, 15; Sardik. 14; Basil the Great. 88.) This rule defines: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who has been justly and legally deposed for obvious and proven crimes [ 390 ] (a bishop - by the Council, and a presbyter and deacon - either by his bishop, or by the Council), after such a lawful ejection, dares to again begin the ministry once entrusted to him [ 391 ] (by ministry here is meant both bishop, and the priesthood of presbyter and deacon), then such people will be finally excommunicated from the Church.” On the one hand, for their extreme insolence and shamelessness, and on the other, due to the fact that for the clergy after the eruption there is no other canonical punishment left except complete excommunication from the Church. And rightly so. After all, if, according to Sardik. 14, one should admonish with a stern and strict word the one who, having been unjustly deposed, before another council decision dares to fulfill the ministry of the priesthood; if, according to I Omni. 5, a person who was excommunicated from the Church not by a just court, but because of some quarrel or discord with his bishop, cannot perform any sacramental rites before the conciliar review; is it not possible for someone who was deposed by justice for obvious sins to perform anything inherent in the priesthood? And if Basil the Great threatened Gregory, whom he only banned from serving, and promised to anathematize him if he dared to serve before he corrected himself, then is it not necessary to completely cut off from the Church the one who, after a just eruption for obvious sins, dares to perform any sacred act? Rule of Carthage. 37 also says that the bishop or any other cleric who, having become alien to communication, before the trial dares to enter into communication with others, pronounces a sentence on himself. And whoever defends a person convicted of a crime, according to the 71st rule of the same Carthage Council, must be punished and deprived of honor. If the one who is justly condemned by the bishops violates the peace in other places, then he should be persecuted there too, according to the 74th rule of the same Council. The 7th rule of Nikita of Irakli requires expelling from the Church anyone who officiated after a canonical eruption - until he repents in the rank of the laity and suffers penance in the ranks of penitents. The civil law (Basiliki. Book 3, tit. 1, chapter 1) defines this: “If a bishop ejected by the Council stirs up trouble in order to return his episcopal region, then he should be expelled to a distance of 100 miles from it and not allowed to see the emperor. And those who defend him are punished.” Meanwhile, the divine Chrysostom says (Homily 3 on the priesthood) that he who is cast out due to envy or another unjust reason gives himself a much greater reward than what he would have received from the priesthood, which is why he should rejoice and not be sad; on those who unjustly cast him out, he inflicts punishment 392. If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon takes possession of this dignity for money, let both he and the one who ordained him be deposed; and let him be completely cut off from communication, like Simon the Magus, by me, Peter [393]. (IV Universe. 2; VI Universe. 22, 23; VII Universe. 4, 5, 19; Basil the Great. 90; messages of Gennady of Constantinople and Tarasius of Constantinople.) In the 25th canon the divine apostles said: Do not take revenge twice for the same thing, 394 however, in the present canon they punish those ordained for money with double punishment due to the excessiveness of this evil and say the following. “A bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon who received the dignity of the priesthood for money, let him be deposed - both the ordained one and the one who ordained him, and let him be completely excommunicated from the Church and from prayer with the faithful, just as Simon the Magus was excommunicated by me, Peter.” For it is impossible to find a sin heavier and more terrible than buying and selling the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is not bought or sold. Therefore, the divine Tarasius, in his letter to Hadrian of Rome, proves that those who ordain for money are more wicked than the Doukhobor Macedonius, since he babbled that the Holy Spirit is the servant and creation of God and the Father, and those who ordain for money obviously make the Holy Spirit their slave, selling Him as a slave to those who pay money; in the same way those who are ordained buy Him as a slave from those who sell. And just as the traitor Judas sold the Son of God, so they sell the Holy Spirit for silver. However, from the same message of Tarasius it is clear that the divine Chrysostom, together with the Council gathered around him, showed condescension and allowed those who gave money to the bishop to receive communion at the altar. Antoninus and were ordained by him [395]. Not only bishops, presbyters and deacons, about whom this rule speaks, but also subdeacons, readers and singers, right down to the steward, ecdik and prosmonar - in a word, in general, everyone who is appointed for money is subject to eruption, according to IV Ecumenical. 2, and even fall under the curse of anathema, according to the message of Gennady. In the same way, those who became intermediaries in bets for money, if they are clerics, are expelled, and if they are laymen or monks, they are anathematized, according to the same rule of IV Ecumenical. 2. And rule VI Omni. 22 casts out bishops and clergy who were ordained or ordained for money. And rule VII Omni. 5 relegates to the last degree of their rank those who boast that they were included in the rank of clergy for money, and insults others because they were included in the clergy without giving money. It quotes verbatim both the present apostolic and canon IV Om. 2. In addition, the 19th canon of the same VII Council commands that those entering the priestly or monastic rank should not be accepted for money. Rule VI Universal. 23 adds that those bishops, presbyters and deacons who demand money or something else from those to whom they teach the Divine Mysteries for the sacrament should be deposed. In the 4th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council excommunicates a bishop who excommunicates or bans his cleric from serving or closes the church of God in order to demand money or something else. Pay attention also to how Basil the Great shows leniency to the Simonites (see note 3 to his 90th canon). If a bishop, having resorted to worldly rulers, with their help achieves power over the Church, let him be deposed and excommunicated, as well as all those in communion with him. (IV Om. 2; VII O. 3, 5; Laodice. 13.) And this rule, like the previous one, punishes twice for the same sin, saying: “A bishop who resorts to worldly rulers and through their mediation receives a bishopric or metropolitanate, let him be deposed and at the same time excommunicated from the Church. Likewise, the clergy who enter into communion with him, be they the bishops who ordained him, be they presbyters, deacons, subdeacons or readers - in a word, let them all be deposed from their degree and excommunicated.” The rulers themselves, who became intermediaries, are not only excommunicated, but also anathematized by Rule IV Omnibus. 2, as has already been said, especially if the ordination in which they mediated was performed for money. After all, according to VII Universe. 3, It is not the temporal rulers who are to choose bishops, elders, or deacons, and, according to Laodice. 13, it is not the crowd that should organize the election of clergy (meaning preliminary), but bishops and priests equal in rank to them. I said that the laity do not elect first, because afterwards they too must be asked whether they (all or the majority) agree with the election (see note 2 to Apostle 2 and note 1 to Laodicecus 5). Firstly, because if they can prove the validity of any accusation against the elected one, then they should prevent his ordination (according to the interpretation of Apost. 61); and, secondly, because if they do not agree with the election, then, probably, they will not accept the bishop who will be chosen by one Council, which will cause confusion and division between the bishops and other Christians. Although at present the laity and subsequently are not asked for their consent. If a presbyter, despising his bishop, begins to hold separate meetings and erects another altar, without noticing in the bishop anything contrary to piety and justice, let him be deposed as a power-hungry, for he is a thief of power. Likewise all other clerics who join him; the laity shall be excommunicated. But let this be done after the first, second and third admonition from the bishop. (IV Om. 18; VI Om. 31, 34; Dvukrat. 13–15; Gangr. 6; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 10, 11, 62.) Order, according to Gregory the Theologian, maintains both heavenly and earthly 396. Therefore, it is necessary to observe decorum everywhere, because it binds and unites. It is especially necessary among clergy, each of whom is obliged to know his limits and not go beyond the limits of his own rank. But presbyters, deacons and all clergy must submit to their bishop; bishops - to their metropolitan; and metropolitans - to their patriarch. Therefore, the present apostolic canon determines the following. A presbyter who despises his bishop and, not knowing his obvious sins against piety or justice (that is, not knowing for certain that he is a heretic or is doing wrong), begins to organize meetings of Christians on the side and, having built another church [397], serve in it separately, without the permission and consent of his bishop [398], - for his lust for power, let him be deposed, since by violence and arbitrarily, like a kidnapper, he seeks to appropriate the power belonging to the bishop. Moreover, let all other clergy who were unanimous with him in this retreat also be deposed, and the laity excommunicated. However, this must take place after the bishop has tried three times, kindly and meekly, to persuade those who have separated from him to cease their rebellion, but they remain stubborn. And those who separate from their bishop before the council's consideration because he publicly preaches false teaching and heresy are not only not subject to the above-mentioned penances, but are also awarded the honor due to the Orthodox, according to Twofold. 15. The rule of Antiochus agrees with this apostolic rule. 5, which quotes it almost verbatim and only adds that if the clergy who organize unauthorized meetings, after their eruption, again begin to disturb the Church, then they should be admonished by punishment from the civil authorities (see about him in note 1 to Apostle 27). And Rule IV Omni. 18, and rule VI Omni. 34 cast out clergy who conspire and form secret societies against their bishop and fellow clerics. And rule VI Omni. 31 casts out those who baptize and celebrate liturgy in houses of worship without the consent of their bishop (see also Carthage. 62). Not only this rule, but also the Twice Rule. 13 casts out the presbyter and the deacon, who, because of the crimes of their bishop, before a conciliar review of his actions, will break off communion with him and stop raising his name, as is customary during sacred rites. In the same way, a bishop is ejected if he dares to do something similar against his own metropolitan, according to Dvukrat. 14. The metropolitan will also be ejected if he himself breaks off communication with his patriarch, according to the 15th rule of the same Council. And according to Gangr. 6, Carthage. 10 and 11, presbyters who separate from their bishop are subject not only to deposition, but also to anathema. This is said about those who separate from their bishop under the pretext of some crime. And the 1st rule of Vasily the Great punishes priests who organize unauthorized meetings with only a temporary ban on serving. If a presbyter or deacon is excommunicated by a bishop, he is not permitted to be received into communion by anyone other than the one who excommunicated him, unless the bishop who excommunicated him dies. (Apost. 12, 13; I Om. 5; Constantinople. 879 1; Antioch. 6; Sardik. 14; Carthage. 11, 37, 141.) In the 12th and 13th canons, the divine apostles said that clergy who were rejected or excommunicated by their own bishops should not be accepted by other bishops. And in this canon the apostles define the same thing, but with some addition: “That presbyter or deacon who will be excommunicated by his bishop is not allowed to receive and allow from excommunication not only the bishop of another metropolitan region, but also another bishop of the same metropolitan region. He can only be accepted or released from excommunication by the bishop who excommunicated him, unless the bishop, metropolitan or patriarch who excommunicated him suddenly dies before the presbyter or deacon receives forgiveness.” For then the bishop, metropolitan or patriarch who becomes the successor after the death of the excommunicator, but not another, can free them from these bonds. In this apostolic canon, you need to pay attention to two provisions. Firstly, that everyone excommunicated by the bishop, justly or unjustly, must, without daring to despise excommunication, remain excommunicated until an ecclesiastical investigation on this matter takes place, according to Sardik. 14 and Carthage. 37[399]. The only exception is the case if they were convicted before the case was considered and summoned to the church court [400]. Secondly, what, according to Carthage. 141, if a bishop excommunicates someone because he first confessed a sin to him and then renounced it, the other bishops should not enter into communion with the excommunicator during that time until he himself has communion with the one whom he excommunicated on such grounds. And let it be so that the bishop will beware of accusing anyone if he cannot prove the accusations. According to the “Nomocanon” of Photius (tit. 9, ch. 9) and the interpreter Balsamon, if a bishop or presbyter excommunicates someone from communion (that is, from communion of the Holy Mysteries, according to Balsamon and Blastarus, or also from standing and praying with the faithful in church) without a canonical and just reason, let such excommunication be canceled by someone higher in the sacred rank, and an excommunicated bishop or presbyter should be excommunicated by those to whom he is subordinate for a sufficient period, in his opinion. This is necessary so that he receives fair retribution for what he has unjustly done to another. Therefore, in the “Acts of the Council” (vol. 1, p. 11) it is written that excommunication, if it was not legal, is canceled by the Council, even if the excommunicator is alive. The 7th rule of Nicholas says: if the abbot, dying, imposes an unreasonable prohibition on someone to remain in the rank of abbot, and he subsequently retires, then this prohibition has no force, and therefore the one bound by it is released by the bishop [401]. See also the interpretation of the Apostle. 12. Do not accept any foreign bishops, presbyters or deacons without representative letters. When they are presented, let the bearers be questioned, and if they turn out to be preachers of piety, then accept them; if not, then, having provided them with what they need, do not accept them into fellowship. For many things are done by deception. (Apost. 12; IV Om. 11, 13; VI Ose. 17; Antioch. 7, 8; Laodice. 41; Carthage. 31, 97.) In their 12th canon, the apostles decreed that the bishop should not accept any foreign cleric without a representative letter. And in this rule they define almost the same thing with a small addition. No foreign bishop, presbyter or deacon should be accepted by other bishops unless he presents a representative letter (the bishop from his metropolitan, and the presbyter or deacon from his bishop or metropolitan), reporting his faith and good life, especially if his reputation was under suspicion. But even if they bring with them such representative letters, nevertheless let them be tested whether they are Orthodox or not, because perhaps they sin in their faith, and the one who gave them the representative letter did not know about their error. If the test shows that they are preachers of Orthodox piety, then let them be accepted into communion. However, let them not be allowed to be numbered with any local church and perform the actions inherent in the priesthood, unless, together with a representative letter, they have a letter of dismissal, which shows that they have the right to perform the ministry of the priesthood where they go, according to VI Ecumenical. 17. If it turns out that they adhere to false teachings and are heretics, do not enter into communication with them, says the rule, but give them what they need and send them away, because many inappropriate things happen from those who came by deceit if they are not properly investigated. See also note. to Apost. 12. It is fitting for the bishops of each nation to know the first among them, and recognize him as the head, and not do anything beyond their authority without his permission; It is appropriate for everyone to do only what concerns his area and the places subordinate to it. But even the first one does not do anything without the consent of everyone. For in this way there will be one mind and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (I Omni. 6, 7; II Om. 2, 3; III Om. 8; IV Om. 28; VI Om. 36, 39; Antioch. 9.) When the head is sick and cannot work like a healthy one, then the other members of the body become weak or become completely useless. In the same way, when the one who occupies the place of head in the Church is not given due honor, then, of course, the rest of the body of the Church acts disorderly. Therefore, the present rule determines that all bishops of each metropolitan region must know the one who is first among them [402], i.e., the metropolitan, and consider him their head, and without his permission do not carry out any work that exceeds their authority, that is, not related to the parishes of their episcopal regions, but going beyond their borders and concerning the general structure of the entire metropolitan region. For example, such matters are dogmatic research, orders to correct common errors, the installation and ordination of bishops, etc. Let the bishops gather with the metropolitan and together with him discuss such general issues, jointly making the decision on them that turns out to be the best. Independently, without the permission of his metropolitan, let each bishop do only what pertains to the boundaries of his episcopal region and the places subordinate to it. Just as bishops should not carry out any common affairs without the permission of the metropolitan, the metropolitan should not carry out matters affecting everyone independently, without the permission of all his bishops [403]. For in this way there will be like-mindedness and love between bishops, metropolitans, clergy and laity, and thanks to like-mindedness and love, God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed to people the name of His Father 404 and established the law of love, saying: By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one another (John 13:35). God will also be glorified in His Holy Spirit, Who by His grace has united us into a single spiritual whole. In other words, our unanimity will glorify the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, according to the Gospel saying, which reads: So let your light shine before people, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in Heaven (Matthew 5:16) [405]. Rule of Antiochus. 9 defines almost the same thing as this rule. Rule I Universal. 6 prescribes that ancient customs (that is, established thanks to the present apostolic canon) should have force: Let the bishop of Alexandria have authority over the affairs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, since this is also the custom of the Roman bishop. In the same way, let the Bishop of Antioch have power over his areas, and, more simply, let the same privileges be maintained in each Church and metropolitan area, that is, each metropolitan has power over the episcopal areas subordinate to him. And the 7th canon of the same Council determines that the bishop of Aelia, that is, Jerusalem, should have the succession to the ancient honor and dignity of his own metropolis. In turn, rule II Omni. 3 prescribes that the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor. Rule III Universal. 8 requires that the rights of each metropolitan region (primarily we are talking about Cyprus), which belonged to it from the very beginning according to ancient custom, are preserved intact and without infringement. 8th Rule III Omni. 8 is further confirmed by Rule VI Omni. 39. Let the bishop not dare to perform ordinations outside the borders of his district, in cities and villages that are not subordinate to him. If he is convicted of having done this without the consent of the rulers of those cities or villages, let him and those whom he ordained be deposed. (II Omni. 2; III Om. 8; VI Om. 20; Antioch. 13, 22; Sardik. 3, 11, 12.) And this rule was drawn up for the sake of unanimity and deanery among bishops and metropolitans. It says that it is not appropriate for a bishop to dare to ordain outside the borders of his episcopal region or to perform other church service in those cities and villages that are not subordinate to him (also, a metropolitan does not have the right to come to the region of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other episcopal service). He has the right to perform this kind of action only when he is invited by the bishop of those places. If it turns out that he did this arbitrarily, without the will and permission of the bishops who govern those cities and villages, let him who ordained him outside the borders of his district, and those whom he ordained [406] be deposed. Otherwise, there are two bishops or two metropolitans in the same place at the same time, which is illegal and prohibited by the rules of the First Ecumenical. 8 and IV Omni. 12. Therefore, the VI Ecumenical Council in its 20th canon determines: “Whoever comes to a foreign episcopal region and publicly teaches on his own impulse, without the permission of the local bishop, let him be removed from the bishopric and serve only as a presbyter.” Probably, this was determined for no other reason than to ensure that such an absurdity does not happen that the bishop mentioned in the rule dared to commit, that is, so that in one episcopal region there would not be two bishops at the same time, one of whom wants one thing, and the other wants another. If this was not the purpose of the Council, then why does it demote the bishop to the rank of presbyter, although, according to IV Ecumenical. 29, is this sacrilege? Moreover, if a bishop teaching outside the boundaries of his district is not worthy of bishopric, then he should not be worthy of presbytery; if he is worthy of the presbytery, then why should he not be worthy of the bishopric? So, it is obvious that he is being demoted to the rank of presbyter so that in one episcopal region there will again be one bishop left, and not two. Since he sinned directly against the episcopal rank by arranging it in such a way that there were two bishops in one episcopal region, he is deposed from the rank of bishop. He did not sin against the presbyterate rank, because two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same episcopal region, and therefore he is not expelled from the rank of presbyter (although Zonara and Balsamon say that a bishop who publicly teaches without the permission of the local bishop is demoted to the rank of presbyter in order to humble him, since he sought glory and was exalted). That's why St. Photius (tit. 9, ch. 11) to eliminate the apparent contradiction between the rules, namely between IV Om. 29 and VI Omni. 20, pointed to rule I Omni. 8. However, a bishop from another region must also perform presbyteral service with the permission and permission of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, then, according to the rules, he cannot perform presbytery service, but remains in a foreign place as a simple layman. As a conclusion from this apostolic canon, let us say the following. A bishop who performs episcopal service in a foreign episcopal region with the permission of the local bishop does it not by the power and action of his episcopal dignity (because in this way there would be two bishops in one episcopal region, since each of them has a separate power and action), but by the episcopal power and action of the local bishop, because in this case the two bishops are thought of as one bishop. And if this is so (as it is), then anyone who, without the permission of the local bishop, performs any episcopal action, through eruption, is deprived of his episcopal powers, since he acted outside the boundaries of his district, where he did not have them [407]; and other people's powers of the local bishop: he could have possessed them according to his will and with his permission, but he stole and appropriated them. Rule II Universal. 2 determines that no one (neither the patriarch nor the metropolitan) should intrude into dioceses located outside the boundaries of his district in order to ordain or perform other matters of church government. Likewise, Rule III Omni. 8 determines that the Bishop of Antioch has no right to ordain in Cyprus, outside the boundaries of his diocese, which, according to the canon, is contrary to the apostolic rules, i.e., the one in question. Rules of Antiochus. 13 and 22 unanimously decree that no bishop should dare to invade another’s territory and ordain, unless he comes by invitation from the bishop. If he acts contrary to this rule, then the ordinations and all other sacred rites performed by him must remain invalid. If a bishop has land holdings in the area of ​​another bishop, Sardik rules. 12 allows him to go there to harvest the harvest and for three weeks to visit the church, which is located next to his property. However, he should not often come to the city where the bishop is located. The fact that a bishop cannot teach outside the boundaries of his district without the permission of the local bishop is determined, as shown above, by the rules of the VI Ecumenical. 20 and Sardik. 11. And the rule is Sardik. 3 prohibits a bishop not only from teaching, but also from coming into the area of ​​another bishop without an invitation [408]. If anyone, having been ordained a bishop, does not accept the ministry entrusted to him and the care of the people, he should be excommunicated until he accepts. Likewise the presbyter and the deacon. If, having departed, he is not accepted, not because of his own will, but because of the corruption of the people, then let him remain a bishop, and let the clergy of the city be excommunicated for not instructing such a rebellious people. (VI Om. 37; Ankyr. 18; Antioch. 17, 18.) Obey your teachers and be submissive (Heb. 13:17) and in whatever calling you are called, remain in that (see 1 Cor. 7:24), says the divine apostle. The same thing is defined by the present rule in the following words. If one who is ordained through divine prayer as a bishop of any region, presbyter or deacon of any parish, does not subsequently accept the divine ministry and office of head of the people entrusted to him, but refuses to go to the church assigned to him, then let him be excommunicated until he agrees to go. And if a bishop goes to his region, but the people of this region, due to their own disobedience and depravity, and not because of the corrupt will of the bishop or his action worthy of condemnation, do not accept him, then let him remain a bishop, that is, he has his dignity and performs the service befitting a bishop, and let the clergy of the episcopal region that did not accept him be excommunicated for not educating such a disobedient people with their instruction and good example [409]. Twice a year let there be a Council of Bishops, and let them reason with each other about the dogmas of piety and resolve ecclesiastical disputes: the first time on the fourth week of Pentecost, and the second on the twelfth day of the month of Pervertean. (I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Laodice. 40; Carthage. 26, 60, 61, 81, 84, 85, 104.) Because of doubts in dogmas and emerging church disputes and, generally speaking, because of canonical issues, the divine apostles in this rule order that the Local Council of Bishops meet twice a year together with the metropolitan of each metropolitan region, so that they jointly investigate doubts regarding the dogmas of piety and resolve all church disputes that someone might have with the bishop, for example because the bishop excommunicated him or unjustly subjected him to some other church punishment. Let one Council be held on the fourth week of Pentecost, i.e. after Holy Pascha, and another on the twelfth day of the month of perverteia, i.e. October [410]. About how the Local Council differs from the Ecumenical Council, see the preface to the rules of the First Ecumenical Council, and about how it differs from the local Council - in the preface to the Council held under Cyprian 411. In general, a Council is, according to Vlastar, a meeting of bishops, the purpose of which is either to make a decision necessary for piety (and the deanery of the Church), or to repel the harm caused to piety (and virtue) with the weapon of piety, or to prevent this harm. Let the bishop take care of all church things and dispose of them as before the eyes of God. But it is not permissible for him to appropriate any of them or give any of them to his relatives. If they are poor, then let him help them as if they were poor, but let him not sell under this pretext what belongs to the church. (Apost. 41; IV Om. 26; VII Om. 11, 12; Dvukrat. 7; Ankyr. 15; Gangr. 7, 8; Antioch. 24, 25; Carthage. 34, 41; Theophilus Alexander. 11; Cyril Alexander. 2.) If the bishop is entrusted with human souls, which the whole world is not worth, then it is all the more appropriate to entrust him with church property. Therefore, the present rule determines that the bishop should have care of all church things, be they fields, that is, real estate, or utensils, that is, movable property, and dispose of them with fear and attention, realizing that God is the Observer and Judge of his management. However, although the bishop cares for and disposes of these things, he nevertheless does not have the right to appropriate them to himself, to say that any of these things belong to him personally, or to give things dedicated to God to his relatives. If his relatives are poor, let him give them what they need in the same way as he gives to other beggars. Let him give them alms simply as beggars, and not as his relatives, and, moreover, alms from the income that church property brings in every year, as well as from the annual gifts of the church; he has no right to sell any of his property for their sake. The rule of Antiochus agrees with the present apostolic rule and literally repeats it. 24, which says that the disposition of church property should be left to the judgment and authority of the bishop and that property should be well preserved for the church to which it belongs, with faith in the all-seeing God. And the 2nd rule of Cyril Alexander says that both utensils and real estate must remain inalienable from the church, and the bishops manage the expenses that occur. Ankir's rule. 15 says: everything belonging to the church (τῷ Κυριακῷ) [412] that the elders sell without the knowledge of the bishop, let him take it back himself. Gangr rules. 7 and 8 anathematize those who take or give church offerings without the knowledge of the bishop or steward. In the “Nomocanon” of Photius (tit. 2, ch. 2), in the 21st decree of 2nd tit. 1st book. The Code states that whoever buys sacred vessels and altar vestments, or receives them as collateral and lends money for them, must lose his money, unless he buys them for the purpose of giving the money for the release of prisoners. Likewise, the same decree states that necessary and immovable property consecrated to God should not be alienated from the church to which it belongs (see also note to Apostle 72). Resolution 3 tit. 2 “Novel”, i.e. the 131st novella of Justinian, found in the book. 5, tit. 3 (in Photius tit. 2, ch. 1), determines: if someone leaves a certain gift (i.e., any property) as alms to a charitable house in a will, then if this property is located near the church to which it was dedicated, it should not be alienated from it. If it is located far away and both parties (i.e., the stewards and heads of the church and the heirs of the one who left the gift) agree, they are allowed to exchange this property for another, which is located close and therefore can easily receive income from it. Moreover, during the exchange, if necessary, they add to the church at least a quarter of the value of the property that was left. If this property needs to be sold, then let them take for it as much as the income received from it from harvesting crops and fruits for 35 years, and let this amount be returned to the same church for which the alms were left [413]. Let presbyters and deacons do nothing without the will of the bishop. For he has been entrusted with the people of the Lord, and an answer concerning their souls will be required of him. (VII Om. 14; Laodice. 57; Carthage. 6, 7, 41, 50.) This apostolic rule determines that presbyters and deacons, without the will and permission of their bishop, cannot perform any sacred service, both from among those that belong to the bishop’s episcopal authority, and from among those for which they have the power to perform through the sacrament of ordination, but cannot carry out the action itself without the will of the bishop. For example, without the will of the bishop, the presbyters can neither confess nor forgive the penitents, according to Carthage. 6, 7 and 50 [414], neither to dedicate virgins to God, according to the 6th rule of the same Council, nor to perform the ordination of readers, nor to tonsure monks, and so on. This is explained, according to the rule, by the fact that first of all it is the bishop who is entrusted with the people of the Lord and, first of all, from him, as from a shepherd, God will definitely demand an accurate account of the souls of his flock. In accordance with this rule, the divine apostles determine in their “Regulations” (book 2, chapters 31, 32) that the deacon himself cannot provide housing for distressed clergy or give them the firstfruits of fruits and other fruits that Christians bring to bishops, but distributes them with the knowledge and permission of the bishop 415. With the knowledge and permission of the bishop and elders, they sell the property of the Church when necessary (see interpretation of Apostle 38), and also confess and forgive the penitents, according to Carthage. 7 and 50; and abbots who have been ordained by the bishop, with his knowledge and permission, are tonsured monks, according to the interpretation of Balsamon on the VII Ecumenical. 14, and perform the ordination of readers in their monastery, according to VII Om. 14, as well as subdeacons, according to the 6th rule of St. Nikifor. With the permission of the bishop, according to the 30th rule of the same Nicephorus, the presbyters perform the rite of stauropegia, and also excommunicate all the clergy and laity subordinate to them when they sin, according to the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 8, chapter 28) 416, and do much more. Likewise, deacons, having received power from the bishop, govern the lower clergy and laity, and report their significant sins to the bishop, according to the same “Apostolic Decrees” (Book 2, Chapter 44) 417. During the absence of the presbyter, they are allowed to excommunicate lower clergy when they are worthy of excommunication for their misdeeds (Apostolic Decrees. Book 8, Chapter 28) 418. Therefore, Ignatius the God-Bearer, in accordance with the present apostolic canon, in his letter to the Magnesians says: “Just as the Lord does nothing without the Father, so neither do you without a bishop,” 419 neither a presbyter nor a deacon. And in the letter to the Smyrneans: “It is not permissible without a bishop to baptize, or to make offerings, or to make a Sacrifice, or to celebrate the supper of love, but what he approves must be done for the sake of pleasing God, so that whatever you do will be firm and certain.”420 And the rule of Laodice. 57 prescribes that neither chorebishops, i.e. exarchs, nor presbyters should do anything without the will of the bishop of the city. Let the bishop's own property (if only he has his own) and the Lord's property be known exactly, so that at his death the bishop has the power to leave his own property to whomever he wants and how he wants, and so that under the guise of church property the bishop's property is not wasted, because sometimes a bishop has a wife and children, or relatives, or slaves. For it is righteous before God and people that neither the Church should suffer any damage due to the fact that the bishop’s property is unknown, nor should property be taken away from the bishop or his relatives for the sake of the Church, nor should the bishop’s relatives be involved in litigation, nor would dishonor accompany his death. (IV Omni. 22; VI Om. 35; Antioch. 24; Carthage. 30, 40, 89.) The Divine Apostles, without preferring anything to justice, determine in this rule that the bishop's own property must be known (if at all it is fitting for one who is dead to the world and worldly affairs to have something of his own), be it property that he acquired before becoming a bishop, or that which he received by inheritance or as a gift from relatives. So, I say that the property of the bishop must be known, as well as the property of the Church, bishopric or metropolitanate. For what purpose? So that at his death the bishop has the power to leave his own property [ 421 ] to whomever he wants and how he wants - let him only leave it to Orthodox people, and not to heretics [ 422 ] - and so that under the guise of church property the property of the bishop, who, perhaps, has a poor wife (see Apostle 5) and children, or relatives, or slaves, is not lost. After all, it is righteous both before God and before people that neither the property of the Church should suffer damage from relatives or, for example, the bishop's creditors, unless the bishop's property is separated from the church property and is mixed with it; neither the bishop nor his relatives were deprived of their property because it was mixed with ecclesiastical property. But it is unjust if the relatives and heirs of the bishop fall into temptations, many discords and litigations in order to separate the bishop’s property from the property of the Church, and if because of all this the memory of the deceased bishop is blasphemed instead of being honoured. So, in order to avoid any disputes, the bishop needs to have an accurate inventory of the property that belongs to him personally and, in accordance with this inventory, draw up a will [423] in the event of his death and leave, as we said, his property to whomever he wants. And the bishop's heirs must pay his debt, if any. If a bishop, or any other clergyman, or deaconess dies without leaving a will for their property and without legal heirs, then their property will be inherited by the church to which they were ordained, according to the “Nomocanon” of Photius (tit. 10, ch. 5; 3rd decree of 2nd tit. “Novels”). In the rule of Antiochus. 24 sets forth the present apostolic rule and defines the same thing. Rule IV Universal. 22 says that clergy are not allowed to plunder the property of a bishop after his death, as this is prohibited by the ancient canons (i.e., the present apostolic and the canon of the Council in Antioch), otherwise they face deprivation of their degree. Rule VI Universal. 35 says that even a metropolitan has no right to take the property of a deceased bishop, but the clergy of his diocese must preserve the property until the installation of a new bishop, in order to then give it to him. If it happens that there are no clergy left in the bishopric, the metropolitan must keep this property intact until he transfers it to the bishop who will be ordained. We order the bishop to have authority over the property of the Church. For if precious human souls are to be entrusted to him, then all the more must he be entrusted with the management of money, so that he manages everything according to his own authority and gives to those in need through the elders and deacons with the fear of God and all reverence, and so that he himself takes what is required (if only required) for his own needs and the needs of the brothers he receives, so that they in no way suffer lack. For the law of God has ordained that those who serve the altar should eat from the altar (see 1 Cor 9:13). Likewise, a warrior never takes up arms against enemies, being on his own pay (see 1 Cor 9:7). (Apost. 38; IV Ose. 26; V II Ose. 12; Antioch. 24, 25; Theophilus Alexander. 10, 11; Cyril Alexander. 2.) And this canon, like the 38th Apostolic Rule, gives the bishop all power over church property, saying: “We enjoin the bishop to have power over the property of the Church. After all, if we entrust him with precious human souls, which the whole world is not worth, then there is no need for us to proclaim that he must manage in his own authority all the property and money of the Church and distribute them with the fear of God and all reverence among the poor and needy through the mediation of elders and deacons [424].” But why is it necessary to manage and distribute funds with the help of elders and deacons? So that the bishop is above all suspicion and so that he is not accused of wasting church property and mismanaging it. After all, one should take care of what is good not only before God, but also before people, as the Pritochnik first said (Proverbs 3:4), and then the apostle. Paul (Rom. 12:17), and guard yourself so as not to give offense to anyone (see 1 Cor. 10:32) and be blameless in everything (see 1 Tim. 3:2). However, the rule says, the bishop must receive funds from church property both for personal needs (if he does not have his own property, that is, he is poor), and for the needs of all foreign brothers who come to him, so that in no case will he or his guests lack what is necessary. After all, the law of God prescribed that the priests serving the altar and making sacrifices should eat from the altar, that is, from the sacrifices made on it [425]. And no warrior ever takes up arms against enemies, that is, he does not go to war at his own expense. Pay attention to the fact that, as the rule says, bishops should spend church funds only on what is necessary - not on luxury, pleasures and feasts - and be hospitable and poverty-loving, as the saint commands them to be. Paul in the Epistles to Titus and Timothy (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8). In accordance with the present apostolic canon, Theophilus’ 11th canon is also defined, saying that widows, the poor and strangers should enjoy all peace at the expense of church funds and the bishop should not appropriate these funds. See also the interpretation of Apost. 38. A bishop, presbyter or deacon who indulges in any kind of gambling or drunkenness, let him either stop or be deposed. (Apost. 43, 54; VI Ecum. 9, 50; VII Ecum. 22; Lao dik. 24, 55; Carthage. 47, 69.) Clergy should be a living example and example of all decorum and virtue for everyone and encourage others to every good deed. But since some of them deviate from the path of goodness and virtue and indulge in gambling (which includes cards and other games), as well as drunkenness and revelry, the present apostolic canon determines that the bishop, presbyter or deacon who indulges in such indecent activities must either stop it or must be expelled from the priesthood. The rule of Apostle is similar. 43 specifies that those clergy and even laymen who indulge in drunkenness and gambling must either stop it or be subject to excommunication. Clerics are prohibited not only from drinking, but also from entering a tavern to eat, according to the rules of the Apostle. 54, VI ​​Omni. 9, Carthage. 47 and Laodice. 24, and even more so to maintain a tavern, in accordance with the same rule VI Om. 9. To all clergy and Christians in the world, Rule VI Ecumenical. 50 prohibits playing dice, cards or other games. If it turns out that they are playing such games, then the clergy should be ejected and the laity excommunicated. Moreover, the rule of Laodice. 55 determines that neither clergy, nor clergy, nor even lay people should organize crowded feasts together. And the rule is Carthage. 69 commands Christians to stop organizing feasts, dances and games on the holidays of martyrs and other saints, as is typical of the pagans in their delusion and atheism. In addition, it is not appropriate for Christians to eat and drink while listening to music and the singing of obscene and demonic songs, according to VII Ecumenical. 22. “Nomocanon” Photius (tit. 9, ch. 27) says that the 34th decree of the 4th tit. 1st book. The Code prescribes that a bishop or cleric who plays dice or other similar games, or communicates with those who play them, or sits next to them and watches them play, should be excommunicated from any sacred ministry and deprived of the contents that he receives from his bishopric, or excommunicated from the clergy until he brings repentance within a certain time 426. If he continues in his vice and after the expiration of the time that was given to him for repentance, he should be finally expelled from the clergy with his property and let him become a councilor, that is, a secular official of the city where he was a cleric. Those clerics who watch the hunt and look at other spectacles are subject to the same penances. However, the bishop has the right, when he sees zeal for repentance in a clergyman who has indulged in the game, to shorten the time of prohibition in service according to this repentance and, after a shorter period, give him the right to officiate (Photius. Tit. 9, ch. 39; Novellas. Tit. 1, decree 2). And the 123rd novella of Justinian, according to Armenopoulus, commands the excommunication of clerics who indulge in drunkenness and gambling of dice, and their confinement in a monastery [427] (see also VI Ecum. 24). A subdeacon, reader or singer who does this should either stop or be excommunicated. The same is true for a layman. (Apost. 42, 54; VI Ose. 9, 50; Laodice. 24, 55; Carthage. 47, 69.) This rule also commands: that subdeacon, reader or singer who does something similar to what the previous 42nd rule prohibits, namely, gambles (cards or other games), indulges in drunkenness and carousing, either must stop such indecent activities, or, if he does not stop, must be excommunicated. Likewise, the laity who indulge in the same thing should either stop it or be excommunicated from the assembly of the faithful. See also the previous 42nd rule. A bishop, presbyter or deacon who demands interest from debtors should either stop doing so or be deposed. (I Om. 17; VI Om. 10; Laodice. 4; Carthage. 5, 20; Basil the Great. 14.) Lending money to someone at interest is prohibited by Old Testament law. Thus, God says in Deuteronomy: Do not give your brother silver, bread, or anything else at interest (Deut. 23:19). And David, praising the righteous man, includes the following among his other virtues: He did not give his money at interest (Ps. 14:5). If this was forbidden among the Jews, is it not even more forbidden now among us Christians? [ 428 ] For here is He who is greater than the church (Matthew 12:6). If this is forbidden to all Christians, then how much more so for clergy and clergy, who should be a model and example of all goodness, and especially for ascetics and hermits crucified to the world? An ascetic usurer sounds truly unbearable to any human ear. Therefore, this rule determines that the bishop, presbyter or deacon who lends his money and demands interest from debtors, let him either stop such shameful money-grubbing, or be deposed. Consequently, in a similar way, monks should receive the appropriate penance, namely, excommunication from communion, and a firm promise is taken from them to further abstain from this obvious, condemnable lawlessness. The same is prescribed by the rules of VI Omni. 10 and Laodicecus. 4, prohibiting clergy from charging 12 coins per year of additional interest from 100 coins, that is, one coin per month, and even half of this, that is, 6 coins from 100. And rule I Omni. 17 prohibits not only clergymen from such profiteering and shameful acquisitiveness, but also all canonical persons in general, i.e. clergy. The Council of Carthage in the 5th rule goes further and prohibits the laity, and even more so the clergy, from receiving interest not only on sums of money, but also on any thing. After all, if, according to Leo’s novella (Armenopul. Book 3, tit. 7), clergy are not allowed to engage in worldly affairs in addition to church affairs, then how do they want to be allowed to receive interest? The same Council of Carthage in the 20th canon says that as much as a cleric has lent, he must receive so much, and if he has given something, he must only take it back. Nicephorus the Confessor in the 31st canon prescribes that priests should not give communion to those clergy or laity who do not stop taking interest, and in general should not even eat with them. And the divine Chrysostom in the 41st conversation on the book of Genesis, citing the saying of the law, “Thou shalt not lend at interest to thy brother and thy neighbor” (see Deut. 23:19), says: “What justification can we, Christians, present for having become more cruel than the Jews themselves? We, after the grace of the Gospel and the dispensation of the incarnation of the Lord of the universe, find ourselves lower, or, more precisely, worse than the Jews of the old law? 429. After all, they did not take interest from the Jews of the same faith, but we dare to receive interest and interest from our Christian brothers! Look what Basil the Great says, interpreting the well-known saying from the 14th Psalm, he did not lend his money at interest (Ps. 14:5). Among other things, he says the following: “It is truly extremely inhuman when a poor and beggar borrows from a rich man in order to alleviate his unfortunate lot, and the rich man is not content with his capital, but figures out how to profit and gain interest from the misfortune of the beggar. Growth (τόκος) or generation (γέννα) 430 percent of money is called because of the enormous fertility of evil, because the money of usurers and covetous people, at the very time when they are lent, is then born and is already ready to give birth. Or maybe that’s why interest is called growth or generation, which naturally causes sorrow and pain in debtors, similar to childbirth, and just as the pain of birth is difficult for a pregnant woman, so the debtor suffers when the interest payment comes due” 431 . In the 14th rule, Basil the Great says that if the one who receives interest divides this unjust profit to the poor and henceforth abandons the love of money, then he can become a priest. Read chapter 18 too. books of the prophet Ezekiel, which says that one who, in addition to other virtues, does not give his silver at interest and does not take profit 432 is considered worthy of life. Anyone who, in addition to his other vices, also borrows on interest, is considered worthy of death 433. Finally, the “Apostolic Decrees” (Book 4, Chapter 6) instruct priests not to accept offerings or fruits from those who take interest 434 . A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who has only prayed with heretics shall be excommunicated. If he allowed them to do anything as clerics, let him be deposed. (Apost. 65; III Ev. 2.4; Laodice. 6, 9, 32–34, 37; Timothy Alexander. 9) This rule defines: that bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who, together with heretics, only prays, although he does not serve with them, shall be excommunicated. For the one who prays with those who are excommunicated (and heretics are precisely such), must himself be excommunicated along with them, according to the 10th rule of the apostles themselves. If he allowed these heretics to also perform any service as clergy, then let him be deposed, since the cleric who served with the deposed (and heretics also belong to these, according to III Ecum. 2 and 4) is deposed himself along with them, according to the Apostle. 11. After all, we should hate heretics and turn away from them, and not pray with them or allow them to perform any church service as clergy or priests. Rule Apost. 65 says that whoever enters a meeting of heretics to pray, if he is a cleric, let him be expelled, but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. The Council of Laodicea in its 6th canon does not allow heretics to enter the church, and the 32nd canon of the same Council says that one should not take blessings from heretics, which are idle talk and not blessings, just as one should not pray with heretics or schismatics, according to Laodicean. 33. And the rule of Laodice. 34 anathematizes those who leave the martyrs of Christ and go to the false martyrs of heretics. Rule 9 of Timothy Alexander does not allow heretics to be present at the Divine Liturgy, except if they promise to repent and abandon heresy. And the rule of Laodice. 9 excommunicates those Christians who go to the cemeteries of heretics or the burial places of their martyrs in order to pray or to heal the sick. It is not proper for a Christian to celebrate festivals with heretics, nor to accept the gifts from their festival that they send him, according to Laodice. 37. We command that a bishop or presbyter who recognizes the correct baptism of heretics or who accepts their sacrifice be deposed. For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? Or what is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel? (2 Cor 6:15). (Apost. 47, 68; II Om. 7; VI Ose. 95; Carthage. 435; Basil the Great. 1, 20, 47.) Orthodox Christians must turn away from heretics and heretical practices. More precisely, bishops and elders need to reprove and instruct them, that is, heretics - maybe they will convince them and convert them from error. Therefore, the present rule determines: every bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism of heretics or the sacrifice they offer as correct and true [436] - such, we decree, must be deposed. After all, what agreement is there between Christ and the devil? Or what part does the faithful have with the infidel? Whoever recognizes what was done by the heretics either holds a similar opinion himself, or at least does not strive to ensure that the heretics renounce their false teaching. And indeed, if we recognize their rituals, then how can we then expose them so that they abandon their evil faith and heretical delusion? If a bishop or presbyter again baptizes one who has true baptism, or if he does not baptize one who has been defiled by the wicked, let him be cast out as one who mocks the Cross and the death of the Lord and who does not distinguish between priests and false priests. (Apost. 46, 68; II Om. 7; VI Om. 95, 84; Carthage. 255 1; Carthage. 35, 57, 80; Basil the Great. 1, 20, 47.) One baptism (Eph. 4:5) was handed down to us, Orthodox Christians, both by our Lord and by the divine apostles and holy fathers, since there was one Cross, and there was one death of the Lord, in the image of which baptism occurs. Therefore, the present apostolic canon determines: a bishop or presbyter who baptizes a second time, again and from the very beginning, as completely unbaptized, one who was baptized truly, according to the command of the Lord, the apostles and divine fathers, that is, completely indistinguishable from the baptism of Orthodox Christians - let him be deposed, since with this second baptism he again crucifies the Son of God and curses Him, which Paul calls impossible (see Heb. 6:4–6), and repeats the death of the Lord, although death no longer has power over Him, according to the same Paul (Rom. 6:9) [437]. In the same way, that bishop or presbyter who does not baptize with the baptism of the Catholic Church one who has been defiled, that is, has received baptism from the wicked (i.e., heretics), let him be deposed, because he ridicules both the Cross and the death of the Lord, has a bad and erroneous opinion that the nasty and vile baptism of heretics is an image of the Cross and the death of the Lord (and this is not so), and therefore recognizes it and believes that it is equivalent to the baptism of the Orthodox. And besides, also because he does not distinguish true Orthodox priests from false heretical priests, but equally accepts both of them as true. For neither the abominable baptism of heretics makes those who are baptized by it true Christians, nor does their ordination make those ordained true priests, according to the Apostle. 68. Remember that holy baptism, as we said, takes place in the image of the Cross and the death of the Lord. Indeed, Paul says: As many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death. And so we were buried with Him by baptism into death (Rom. 6:3–4), and united with Him in the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:5). And the Lord called the Cross baptism, according to Chrysostom, saying: With the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized (Matthew 20:23), and also: With baptism I must be baptized; and how I languish until this is accomplished! (Luke 12:50) 438. If a layman, having expelled his wife, takes another or one released by another, then let him be excommunicated [439]. (VI Om. 87; Ankyr. 20; Carthage. 113; Basil the Great. 9, 21, 35, 77.) Since the Lord Himself declared in the Gospel: Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), - therefore the divine apostles, following the commandment of the Lord, say in this rule: that layman who divorces his wife not because of fornication, that is, adultery (because the evangelist here by fornication meant adultery, see about this the 4th rule of St. Gregory Nis.), and will take another, free from marriage, and be excommunicated. In the same way, let him be excommunicated if, after he divorced his wife not because of fornication, he took another wife who was also divorced from her husband not because of fornication, i.e. adultery. What we said about a man should also apply to a woman who leaves her husband not because of adultery and marries another. A man or woman who divorces without good reason and enters into a second marriage, according to the rules, must be excommunicated from church communion for seven years as fornicators, according to VI Ecumenical. 87, Ankir. 20, rules 77 and 37 of Vasily the Great. Read also the rule of Carthage. 113, which determines that if spouses are separated not because of fornication, then they should either remain celibate, or be reconciled and united, as the ap. Paul in chapter 7 First Epistle to the Corinthians. If a bishop or presbyter, contrary to the institution of the Lord, baptizes not in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), but in the name of the three beginningless ones, or the three sons, or the three comforters, then let him be deposed. When the Lord sent disciples to preach the Gospel, He told them: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 440. So, the present apostolic canon determines: that bishop or presbyter who baptizes not in this way, not in accordance with this institution of the Lord, but in three beginningless, or three sons, or three comforters, must be deposed. In fact, some heretics, blaspheming the Holy Trinity, baptized in this way. In the Orthodox Church, it is customary to call only the Father without beginning, since He has no cause and is not born. However, the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, is called beginningless in relation to the beginning in time, as Gregory the Theologian theologizes, but not also in relation to the cause and beginning by nature, for this is the property of the Father alone 441. And only one the Church calls the Son because of the ineffable birth, and only one the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, because of His incomprehensible procession from the One Father. Note also that all the apostolic canons concerning baptism mention only bishops and presbyters, since only they have the right to baptize, but not deacons and any other clergy. If a bishop or presbyter performs not three immersions of a single sacrament, but one immersion taught into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord did not say: “Baptize into My death,” but: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). In the sacrament of holy baptism, three things are extremely necessary and always absolutely obligatory: consecrated water, three times immersion in water and rising from it, and the invocation of the three Divine Hypostases. In the previous 49th canon, the divine apostles established a threefold invocation and taught what names we should pronounce and in what order. In the present 50th rule, they, in turn, establish three immersions and uprisings, which, as we said, are necessary [442] in the most precise sense of the word and are components of true Orthodox baptism. Indeed, without them, baptism not only will not take place, but cannot even be called baptism at all. For if the word “baptize” (βαπτίζω) means the same as the more common word “immerse” (βουτῶ), therefore from immersion in water, in other words, from three immersions (βουτήματα), or “baptisms” (βαπτίσματα), it is called immersion (βούτημα) and baptism (βάπτισμα), and not from anything else. But let's see exactly what the apostles define. That bishop or presbyter who, in the single sacrament of baptism, does not perform three “baptisms,” or three immersions, but only one immersion, supposedly performed in one death of the Lord, let him be deposed (note that this apostolic rule prophetically refutes the fabrication of Eunomius, who was the first to introduce one immersion in baptism, as we have already said, and perhaps other heretics did this in the time of the holy apostles). After all, the Lord did not say to us, His apostles, when He sent us to preach: “Baptize into My death,” no, but said: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, baptize them in three immersions and uprisings and at each immersion consistently call on one of the names of the Holy Trinity. Through one immersion-rebellion, neither the three-day death of the Savior is clearly depicted, nor is the mystery and knowledge of the Divine Holy Trinity fully revealed. This means that such baptism, since it is devoid of theology and the economy of the incarnation, is most wicked and extremely slanderous. And through three immersion-rebellions, the faith in the Holy Trinity is clearly proclaimed, and at the same time the three-day death, burial and resurrection of the Savior are depicted. And therefore, thanks to them, our baptism expresses the two primary dogmas of the Orthodox faith that we profess, I mean the dogmas that theologize about the life-giving Trinity and the economy of the incarnation of the Word of God. If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone on the list of the sacred rank refuses marriage, meat and wine, not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because he abhors all this, forgetting that everything is very good 443 and that God created man and woman 444, and slanderes the creation of God, blasphemes it, let him either correct himself, or be cast out and excommunicated from Churches. Likewise the layman. (Apost. 53; VI Ose. 13; Ankyr. 14; Gangr. 1, 9,14, 21; Basil the Great. 86.) All things are pure for those who are pure of conscience (see Titus 1:15) and every creation of God is good, and nothing is reprehensible if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:4), as the apostle himself says. Paul, and there is nothing filthy or unclean in its nature and essence (see Rom. 14:14). Therefore, the divine apostles in this canon jointly determine that that bishop, presbyter or deacon, or in general any of those on the list of priests and clergy, who, forgetting that everything created by God is very good and that God created man, man and woman, will renounce marriage, eating meat and drinking wine, not for the sake of ascetic labor and abstinence of the flesh [445], but because abhors this and thus blasphemes the creation of God and slanders it, as if it is unclean and evil - let the one who does this, I say, correct himself and understand that he should not disdain all this and turn away from it, since it is not marriage and legal cohabitation with a wife, not meat, not wine, but their improper use that is harmful. For if these things were bad and harmful, then God, who is good by nature, would not have created them. If such a one does not correct himself, let him be deposed and at the same time excommunicated from the Church. Likewise, a layman who disdains this will be excommunicated. In accordance with this rule, the same apostles in the 53rd rule cast out clergymen who do not eat meat or drink wine on holidays, not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because they abhor them. And the Gangra Council even anathematizes those who condemn marriage and disdain a Christian wife sharing a bed with her legal husband (rule 1); also anathematizes those who maintain virginity not for the sake of the virtue of virginity itself, but because they abhor legal marriage (Rule 9); and in addition, a wife who leaves her husband, abhorring marriage (Rule 14). Therefore, the VI Ecumenical Council in the 13th canon, following the present and 5th apostolic canons, determines that marriage unions of clergy should remain strong and indissoluble and that no one should be prevented from being ordained on the grounds that a person has a lawful wife, for, according to the Apostle, marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Ankir's rule. 14 determines that those elders and deacons who do not eat meat for the sake of abstinence should sometimes eat a little of it, so as not to arouse suspicion that they are averse to it, and then again abstain and not eat it. If a bishop or presbyter does not accept someone turning from sin, but rejects him, let him be cast out, for he grieves Christ, who said: There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (see Matt. 18:13; see Luke 15:7). He who comes to me, I will not cast out, says the Lord (John 6:37), therefore the divine apostles in this canon determine to cast out that bishop or presbyter who does not accept one who turns from sin and repents, but, like the well-known Novatus, rejects him and drives him away, abhorring him in some way and turning away from him because of his sins. For by his act such a person saddens Christ, who said: Joy is in heaven, that is, among the heavenly angels, for the sake of one sinner who repents of his former sins. And if He Himself also said: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13), then it is obvious that he who does not accept sinners resists and opposes Christ, and whoever resists Christ is not His disciple, and whoever is not His disciple is not worthy of the priesthood. For how can he have the priesthood and be pleasing to Christ if he has made himself the Antichrist and opposes Christ’s will? Subsequently, the Council of Carthage also decreed by the 53rd canon that no bishop should deprive actors, mimes and apostates, when they turn to God, of Divine grace and reconciliation. In addition, they who have converted to Christianity should not be forced to return to their former amusements, according to Canon 72 of the same Council. Therefore, the apostles themselves, in their “Ordinances” (book 2, chapters 15 and 40) command the bishop not to reject those people whom he excommunicated for their sins from other Christians, but to communicate with them, caring for them, comforting and encouraging them with the words: Be strong, you weak hands and weakened knees (Isa. 35:3), so that they are not overcome by excessive sadness 446. So Paul commanded the Corinthians to communicate with the recently excommunicated man and show him love, so that he would not be destroyed by Satan due to immeasurable sadness and would not despair 447. Read also the letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to the minister Dimophilus and see how he denounces and condemns him for rejecting and expelling from the Church a man who had turned from sin and repented 448 . And St. Nile, in a letter to a certain presbyter named Charicles, who showed cruelty to the penitents, condemns him for daring to drown Favstinus in immeasurable sorrow, despite the fact that he publicly confessed with great humility. Here are the very words of this father: “As it turns out, Charicles, you are lazy in planting Christ’s grapes, but you are zealous in cutting down His plants and throwing them out of the vineyard. Do not say, man, that God does not accept someone who first stumbles and then confesses in words. Because if you say this, you are not far from the Novatians, who deny repentance after baptism, just as you do not accept verbal repentance. Moreover, you know very well: the great Moses, not just somehow, but persistently demanded a goat from Aaron and through this made clear the confession of a sinful soul and forgiveness. Of course, it is good and most fitting that the repentance of the soul is expressed in deeds, that is, in fasting and bodily suffering. However, if someone is deprived of these benefits due to bodily weakness or other circumstances, but makes a pure oral confession, then he is accepted by God, who died for our sins. So Moses, when building the tabernacle, combined fine linen and gold with goat's hair - expensive with cheap. Publican, I ask you, thanks to what labors were you saved? Is it not thanks to mere words of humility? Thanks to what deeds did the thief move from the cross to heaven? Was it not thanks to a few words that he was saved? So is Manasseh. Finally, Charicles, look not at God’s indignation alone, but also at His immeasurable love for mankind. For Your mercy, they say, is great towards me (Ps. 85:13). So do not recklessly assert that God does not accept words of repentance, because I will tell you: does God desire silver, gold and other expensive gifts, but does not accept two mites from a widow? And how can you convince me that you know the Scripture if you don’t remember the words of the Savior? “My Father,” He says, “does not want one of the little ones to perish (see Matt. 18:14), but do you want many and great ones to perish? You teach contrary to the teachings of the Savior, man, and where will you go from the words of Isaiah: Tell me first your sins in order to be justified (see Isaiah 43:26)? God, Who created us, accepts not only the purity of the body, martyrdom and ascetic deeds, but also sadness on the face, if it is due to sins, and the fruit of lips confessing the name of Christ. For some can fight, while others, on the contrary, are not capable of this, because they are easily defeated. And, to put it briefly, sinners do many things that seem small, but these small things bring great salvation to the repentant. Look how Moses, or, better to say, God through Moses, does not command people to offer only oxen and goats for their sins (which only the rich have), but, caring for the weary and humbling himself with the humble so that they do not despair, he condescendingly moderates the law even to a dove and a handful of flour. This means that you, presbyter, protect the person who reveals a contrite heart, and convert and save him, and not only exact from the sinner the fruits of his exploits and ascetic labors, but accept the words spoken by him with tenderness when he confesses with humility and contrition of heart” 449. If a bishop, presbyter or deacon does not eat meat and wine on holidays, disdaining them, and not for the sake of achievement, let him be cast out as one who is burned in his conscience and has become the cause of temptation for many. (Apost. 51; Ankyr. 14; Gangr. 1, 9, 14, 18; Basil the Great. 86.) And this rule, like the 51st (read it), determines: that bishop, presbyter or deacon who on holidays does not eat meat and does not drink wine not for the sake of the feat of abstinence [450], but because he abhors them, let him be deposed. For he is burned, that is, insensible (like parts of the human body, which, if cauterized, become insensible) or defiled in his conscience (like having ulcers from cauterization or purulent wounds exuding ichor and impurities). And besides, he became the cause of temptation for many people who used to gather for holidays and have agapes, that is, common meals, and eat food all together. Ap. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians calls this the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), which means it is common (see about this in note 1 to VI Oc. 74). In agreement with this, the Apostle Paul himself, in his First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:2), called those heretics who taught people to abstain from food out of disgust for it, burned. If a cleric is caught eating in a tavern, he will be excommunicated - unless, while traveling, he was forced to stop at an inn to rest. (Apost. 42,43; VI Ose. 9; VII Ose. 22; Laodice. 24; Carthage. 47, 69.) The chosen ones of God, so that the name of God is not blasphemed through their fault, must be an example of pious life for the laity. Therefore, this rule determines: the cleric who eats food in a tavern will be excommunicated. After all, the fact that he goes to a tavern, what else does it testify to, if not that he leads an ungodly lifestyle and his depravity is expressed not only in his addiction to food and drinks, but also in his other habits? For since dissolute men and immoral women gather in taverns, then, of course, those who communicate with such people will not remain aloof from their vice. After all, according to the words of the ap. Paul, bad communities corrupt good morals (1 Cor 15:33). The only exception is the case when a cleric, being on the road and having no other shelter where to stay for the night, will, if necessary, go to a hotel or inn to rest. Read also the interpretation on the Apostle. 42. If a cleric insults a bishop, let him be deposed. For you shall not revile the leader of your people (Ex. 22:28). (Constantinople 879 3.) Since the bishop and bishop represents the image of the Lord and is considered the visible head of the body of the Church, he should enjoy greater honor than other clergy. Therefore, the present rule determines that a cleric who insults a bishop should be deposed [451], for it is written in the law: Do not slander the leader and ruler of your people, 452, that is, both ecclesiastical, spiritual, and secular, “physical.” After all, this is why a bishop is called a bishop and a hierarch, because he is the steward of the priests (ἄρχων τῶν ἱερέῶν) and the steward of the sacred (ἄρχων τῶν ἱερῶν), according to the divine Maximus and Dionysius the Areopagite . And the 3rd rule of the Council of Hagia Sophia says: “Whoever dares to strike or imprison a bishop without guilt or for a fictitious and false guilt must be anathematized.” If any cleric insults a presbyter or deacon, let him be excommunicated. Presbyters and deacons, since for the bishop they are the hands with which he governs the Church, should also enjoy the honor due to them, which, however, is not the same as that which should be given to the bishop. Therefore, the present rule determines that a cleric who insults a presbyter or deacon should only be excommunicated (which serves as a lesser punishment), and not expelled (which serves as a greater punishment), like one who insulted a bishop. After all, the head is higher than the hands and the rest of the body, and the hands are lower than the head, therefore, those who dishonor the head need more punishment, and those who dishonor the hands need less. If any cleric laughs at someone who is crippled, deaf, blind, or has damaged legs, then let him be excommunicated. Likewise the layman. People with intact and healthy members should be especially compassionate towards those who have crippled and damaged members of the body, should help them and support them, and not laugh and mock them. Therefore, the present rule specifies the excommunication of any cleric who laughs at someone who is deaf, or lame, or blind, or who has wounded or crippled legs. Likewise, if a layman does this, let him be excommunicated. After all, is it really not enough for such cripples the punishment that God sends them through the courts known to Him alone? Why else do people, anticipating God’s judgment, add punishment to punishment for these long-suffering people with their mockery and ridicule?! O fearlessness before God and great insensibility! No, my brothers, for the sake of the Lord, do not dare to ridicule such wretches in the future, nor run from them as from fire and infection; Don’t get used to repeating the senseless and reckless saying: “God marks the rogue.” On the contrary, hurry to help them in any way you can, so that the Lord may also have mercy on you for being compassionate and merciful to your fellow servants. After all, God commands not to scold a deaf person, because he does not hear, and not to place something under the feet of a blind person that would cause him to stumble, because he does not see. Do not speak evil of the deaf and do not place anything before the blind to cause him to stumble; fear the Lord your God (Lev 19:14). A bishop or presbyter who does not care for the clergy or people and does not teach them piety will be excommunicated. If he continues to remain in negligence and laziness, let him be cast out. (IV Om. 25; VI Om. 19, 80; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11, 12; Carthage. 79, 82, 86, 131–133; Gregory Nis. 6; Petra Alexander. 10.) The bishop has an indispensable duty every day to teach the people under his command the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and guide them to the right faith and virtuous life. For God speaks through the prophet. Ezekiel to the rulers of the people: Son of man! I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah. If you do not proclaim and speak, then the wicked will die in his iniquity, and I will require his blood at your hand (see Ezek. 3:17–18). Therefore, the present rule defines: a bishop or presbyter (and presbyters must be able to teach others) [453] who does not care about his clergy and the rest of the people and does not teach them the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and works of piety, let him be excommunicated until he corrects himself. If even then he remains in negligence and laziness, let him be finally cast out as unworthy of episcopacy and presbytery [454]. The VI Ecumenical Council in the 19th canon also determines that the leaders of the people must teach their clergy and people every day, and mainly and especially on Sundays, teaching the understanding of truth on the basis of the Divine Scriptures, in accordance with the interpretations of the fathers and God-bearing teachers of the Church. And the rule is Carthage. 132 says: if a bishop who disdains heretics in his episcopal region is reminded of them by neighboring bishops, but even after six months he does not pay attention to the heretics, then let him be excommunicated until he does so. In the same way, the 131st canon determines: if a bishop who neglects the fact that the places belonging to him are occupied by heretics, within six months after a reminder from neighboring bishops, does not show any concern for these places, then let them be given to another bishop who can return them. If a careless bishop lies, claiming that those heretics were annexed to the Catholic Church and therefore he did not take care of those places, then he will lose his bishopric, according to the 133rd rule of the same Council. And the rule is Carthage. 79 determines that even in places subordinate to the bishop, the latter should not remain for long, leaving the care of the place where his own see is located. Double rule. 16 expels one who leaves his episcopal region for more than six months (unless due to illness, execution of an imperial or patriarchal commission) and orders the ordination of another in his place. And Sardik ruled. 11 and 12 limit the time of absence from the episcopal region to an even shorter period: only three weeks. The same is determined by Rule VI Omni. 80. And rule IV Omni. 25 stipulates that metropolitans only postpone the consecration of their bishops for up to three months, except in cases where, due to unavoidable necessity, it is necessary to postpone the consecration for a longer time. Because of this need and because of disagreements among the people, Carthage ruled. 82 determines the installation of a bishop in the dowager episcopal region for one year, and no longer. In addition, the rule of Carthage. 86 does not allow episcopal areas to remain without a bishop for a long time. And the 10th rule of Peter Alexander. casts out those who, having left the flock of the Lord, gave themselves up to torture and first denied, and then again confessed the faith. So great and indispensable is the duty of bishops to the people entrusted to them. Therefore, if nothing else prompts them to abandon negligence and be sober, then let them at least be prompted by the name of the bishop that they bear - it means “watchman” or “guard.” He who stands on patrol must stay awake and look around, and not be lazy and nod off. For this purpose, as Zonara says, a sacred co-altar was built in the altar, so that, firstly, the bishop, ascending and sitting on it, would look from above, as from a watchtower, at the people subordinate to him and observe them more carefully, and, secondly, the presbyters, standing and sitting with the bishop, would themselves strive from here to observe the people and govern them as assistants given to the bishop in his labors. The bishop's throne, standing in the church, surpasses the other seats in height and therefore is called the highest guard and the sacred elevation of the throne, according to Deacon Ignatius (in the life of Patriarch Nicephorus) 455 [456]. If both the bishop and the presbyters are unlearned people and cannot teach, then it is necessary for them, by common decision, to invite teachers and preachers from other places, allocating funds for maintenance and giving due honor [457], then open schools in their parishes and through these teachers fulfill the duty of teaching, which remains their duty to the people. One way or another, the rules must always be in force. If a bishop or presbyter does not give what is necessary to any needy clergyman, let him be excommunicated. If he persists, then let him be cast out as having killed his brother. Church property and income are called property and income of the poor, because all of it must be distributed to the poor. If church leaders must distribute all this to the occasional poor and needy, then what more so to the poor and needy clergy subordinate to them? Therefore, the present rule determines: that bishop or presbyter who does not give from the funds received by the bishopric or parish (after all, funds also came to the presbyteral parishes, as see in the note to Apostle 4) necessary to support the life of a needy clergyman of that bishopric or parish, let him be excommunicated until he begins to give. If he remains stubborn in his heartlessness, he must be finally cast out, since he became the murderer of his brother of his own free will. For he who does not have what is necessary for life, of course, dies, and whoever has, but does not give to the poor and in danger, is undoubtedly his murderer. Even if that cleric did not actually die, because Divine Providence gave him the means of subsistence through other poor people, still the one who has and does not give is considered a murderer because of his heartlessness and cruelty. Read also the Apostle rule. 4 and also the Apostle rule. 41, which determines that at the expense of the property and income of the churches, the bishop must satisfy all the needs, both his own and those of visiting foreign brothers. If he must satisfy the needs of outsiders, then how much more so of the clergy subordinate to him?! If anyone reads forged books of the wicked in the church as saints, to the detriment of the people and the clergy, let him be cast out. (VI Om. 2, 63; VII Ose. 9; Laodice. 59.) Some books were compiled by heretics and the wicked and falsely inscribed with the names of saints in order to deceive and deceive the simple. This is the so-called Gospel of Thomas, compiled by the Manichaeans and inscribed with the name of St. Thomas, the so-called Revelations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Virgin Mary; nonsense of Chrysomallus, to whom the heretic Pamphilus gave the inscription “Theological Poems,” and thousands of other similar ones [458]. They are mentioned by St. Meletius the Confessor in political verses in his book, which he called “The Alphabet of Alphabets.” Other books, Orthodox and pious, written by Orthodox people and holy fathers, were later damaged by heretics. The “Apostolic decrees handed down through Clement” were so damaged by the slanderous ones, which is why they were rejected, as the VI Ecumenical Council says about this in the 2nd canon, as well as the apocryphal books of Elijah, Jeremiah, Enoch and, moreover, other prophets and patriarchs [459]. Therefore, the present apostolic canon determines that anyone who will proclaim and offer to read in church counterfeit books of the wicked and non-Orthodox as saints, to the detriment of the souls of the common people and clergy, must be deposed. Indeed, such books should be condemned, or at least hidden, and not read in church. Therefore, the VI Ecumenical Council, in its 63rd canon, determines that false stories about martyrs, invented by enemies of the truth in order to dishonor the martyrs of Christ and lead the people to unbelief because of the absurdities they contain, should not be made public, but should be put to the fire. And those people who accept them as true must be anathematized. Consequently, those who read in churches on the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary a narrative signed with the name of James, the brother of the Lord, do not do well. Firstly, because it contains many absurdities that no other father of our Church mentions, especially the story that Joseph the Betrothed brought a midwife to serve in the terrible, seedless and beyond reason Nativity of the Virgin of our Lord. Secondly, because the mentioned St. Meletius also classifies this narrative among the damaged and forged books of heretics. Rule VII Universal. 9 casts out the clergy and excommunicates those laymen and monks who hide and do not reveal false writings written against the holy icons, for they should not be made public, but given along with other books of heretics to the library of Constantinople. If a faithful person is accused of fornication, adultery, or another forbidden act and is exposed, he should not be admitted to the clergy. (II Universe 6; Carthage 59, 138.) Anyone who is convicted of fornication, adultery or other similar illicit deeds (Apostle Rule 25 speaks only of clerics and clergymen, and this also applies to laymen), is forbidden to become not only a priest, but also simply a cleric, that is, a reader, singer, gatekeeper, and in general one of the so-called clerics serving outside the altar, as defined by The present rule is in the following words: “If a Christian is accused of falling into fornication, committing adultery, or some other sin prohibited by sacred rules, then such a Christian (if it really turns out that he committed the sin of which he is accused) should not be brought into the clergy, that is, not made a church cleric.” However, first the identity of the accusers and the objectors must be established, so that they are not slaves and freedmen, and are not those whom civil laws prohibit from acting as accusers, according to Carthage. 138. They themselves should not be accused, for all of them are not allowed to bring charges against any person unless they first prove that they are not guilty of the crimes charged against them, according to Armenopoulus (book 1, tit. 2) and II Ecumenical. 6. So, if the accusers are free from the above and if they prove that their accusation against the candidate is true, he cannot become a cleric. If they fail to prove this within three months, let the bishop who will ordain the clergy forever excommunicate them from the communion of the Most Pure Mysteries as informers and slanderers. And let the slandered and unjustly accused be ordained a clergyman, since he turned out to be pure and innocent, as the 1st decree of the 1st titus commands. “Novel” (Photius. Tit. 1, ch. 8). Therefore, the same novella determines that consecrations, that is, the election of bishops and clergy, must be performed before all the church people, so that everyone who wishes has the opportunity to speak out [460]. Following this, Carthage ruled. 59 also determines: if, during the voting and election of a bishop, anyone objects, making accusations of any crimes, let the objectors be tested, and when the candidate turns out to be clear in the face of all the people from the accusations brought against him, then let him be ordained a bishop. It is clear that what the Council said about bishops also applies to clergy, for which see note. to Apost. 2, note. to Laodice. 5, Laodice. 13 and Apost. 30. If any cleric, out of human fear of a Jew, or a pagan, or a heretic, renounces the name of Christ, let him be excommunicated from the Church, and if he renounces the name of a cleric, let him be deposed. When he repents, let him be accepted as a layman. (I Om. 10; Ancyra. 1–3, 12; Petra Alexander, 10, 14; Athanasius the Great. Epistle to Rufinian; Basil the Great. 45; Theophilus Alexander. 2.) This rule stipulates that a cleric who, out of fear of punishment from people, namely Jews, pagans or heretics, renounces the name of Christ, after repentance must not only be expelled from the clergy, but also excommunicated from the Church and placed in the rank of penitents. If, because of human fear, he renounces the name of a cleric, in other words, that he is a reader, or a singer, or any other cleric, let him be expelled only from his degree of clergy. After all, it is fair to deprive him of what he renounced, not wanting to say that he has it. After such a one has repented, let him be accepted into communion with the faithful as a layman, that is, let him pray with the faithful. Ankir rules. 1 and 2 determine: those presbyters and deacons who, under the torture of the persecutors, actually made sacrifices and renounced, and then, having defeated the enemy, again confessed the faith, can retain the honor of the presbyteral seat, but should not make an offering, teach, or generally perform any sacred act. Likewise, the 10th rule of St. Peter Alexander, deprives all rights to the priesthood of those who voluntarily, on their own initiative, went to martyrdom, but renounced, and then again prevailed and confessed the faith. And those clerics who, subjected to great violence, took incense in their hands or accepted food sacrificed to idols in their mouths, but courageously maintained the faith, not only are not deprived of their ministry, but are also counted among the confessors, according to the 14th canon of Peter Alexander. They cast out not only those who renounced after ordination, but also those who were ordained after they renounced, if this becomes known [461]. See also I Omni. 10. If a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general anyone from the sacred order eats meat with the blood of his soul 462, or beast-eater, or carrion, let him be deposed, for the law has prohibited this. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. (VI Om. 67; Gangr. 2. Acts 15:28–29.) Because God, teaching Noah the law about food, said to him: Like green herbs, I have given you everything. Just don’t eat meat with the blood of the soul (Gen. 9:3-4), then the divine apostles in this rule define: a bishop, presbyter, deacon, or in general any of the priests and clergy in the rank, who will eat meat with blood (which is the soul of an animal), i.e., according to Chrysostom’s explanation, a strangled man 463, or eat beast-eater, i.e. i.e. an animal caught and killed, for example, by a wolf, or a bear, or another predator, or a bird, or eats carrion, i.e. a dead animal that has died of its own accord—a cleric, I repeat, who eats this shall be cast out, because the law has forbidden it to be eaten [464]. The law was given both to Noah, as we have said, and to Moses (Lev. 17). If the one who ate it is a layman, let him be excommunicated. The new gospel law also prohibits eating such things. The apostles themselves, having gathered, wrote to the pagan Christians living in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, the following: It pleases the Holy Spirit and us not to place on you any more burdens than this necessary: ​​to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and blood... and fornication (Acts 15:28-29). The reason for the prohibition of eating animals caught by a beast or pecked by a bird, carrion and strangled meat is that the blood does not pour out of them entirely, but remains in them, penetrating into all the veins of the meat [465], from which it can in no way escape. Therefore, those who eat such meat eat the meat with the blood of its soul. Rule VI Universal. 67 also disgorges the cleric who eats blood, prepared in any way, and excommunicates the layman. And the rule of Gangr. 2 prohibits eating blood, strangulated things, and things sacrificed to idols. If any cleric is found to fast on the Lord's Day or on Saturday (with the exception of only one Saturday), let him be deposed. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. (VI Om. 55, 56; Gangr. 18; Laodice. 29; Petra Alexander. 15; Theophila Alexander. 1.) Another is fasting, another is the permission of fasting, and another is the complete permission of fasting. Fasting in the proper sense of the word is complete abstinence from food or eating once a day at the ninth hour with dry eating, that is, eating only bread and water. The resolution of fasting consists in eating before the ninth hour, even if they eat figs, raisins, etc., or in the fact that, in addition to bread and water, they also eat certain other types of simple and inexpensive foods, for example, beans, wine, spruce or crustaceans. And the full resolution of fasting is eating food of all kinds, for example, meat, fish, milk, cheese, etc. So, in this rule, the divine apostles determine that the cleric who is fasting on the Lord's Day or on Saturday with complete abstinence from food or dry eating at the ninth hour - such, I say, let the cleric be deposed, and the layman who fasts on these days, let him be excommunicated. The only exception is one Great Saturday, on which the body of the Lord was in the tomb and on which all of us, Orthodox, fast, according to the word of the Lord, who said: The days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast (Matthew 9:15). See also note. 1 to VI Omni. 29. The main and essential reason why we do not fast on Saturday is that Saturday is a day of rest, when God rested from the works of His creation, as it is written in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book 5, Chapter 14) 467 . The improper and secondary reason is that the Marcionites fasted on Saturday, opposing the veneration of the Creator of all, according to St. Epiphanius (chapter on Marcion's heresy) 468. And Margunius in the interpretation of the rule of Ankyr. 11 says that the heretics, called Coluthians, and the Apollinarians also fasted on Saturdays for the sake of atonement for the dead. So, in addition to the actual internal reason why we do not fast on Saturday (it lies, as we said, in reassurance from the works of the Creator of all), there is another: we also do not fast so that it does not seem that we agree with the mentioned heretics. And on Sunday we do not fast for the sake of worldwide joy about the Resurrection of our Lord. Indeed, if Saturday reminds us of the first creation and creation of the world, for on Saturday it received its completion and seal, then Sunday contains the image of the second creation and re-creation, for Sunday will be its beginning, or better yet, the beginning of the first creation. Therefore, the VI Ecumenical Council, confirming the present apostolic canon with its 55th canon, decrees that the inhabitants of ancient Rome, who fasted on the Saturdays of Holy Pentecost, should strictly adhere to it. He calls Sunday a day of joy. Peter in canon 15. However, despite all that has been said, no one is allowed to allow cheese and eggs on Saturdays and Sundays of Lent, according to VI Ecumenical. 56, but can only be allowed for wine, oil and crustaceans. In addition, leaving all work is not allowed on Saturday, but only on Sunday. For the rule is Laodice. 29 anathematizes as Judaizers those Christians who leave their work on the Sabbath. The Gangra Council, by its 18th rule, anathematizes those who fast on Sunday not for the sake of true asceticism and abstinence, but for the sake of the imaginary, that is, only feigned and hypocritical. Since the rule of Apost. 53 casts out that cleric who on holidays does not eat meat and does not drink wine not for the sake of the feat of abstinence, but because he abhors them, the conclusion follows from this: those who, for the sake of true asceticism, combined with piety and purity, fast, for example, ten or fifteen days and, therefore, fast also on Saturdays and Sundays falling on these established days, as Zonara and Balsamon in the interpretation of VI Omni. 53 and the present Apostolic Canon [469]. However, those fasting for the sake of feat should not fast the whole day on these days, especially on Sunday, in other words, remain completely without food, but let them allow fasting before the ninth hour and eat some kind of fasting food, not fast food. So Theophilus, in his 1st rule, in order to evade those heresies whose adherents did not honor Sunday, very wisely and judiciously allows the fast of this day by just eating dates 470. Indeed, just as Theophilus, by allowing fasting as indicated, preserved the rules instructing us not to fast on Sunday, and honored the fast day on the eve of Epiphany, which fell on Sunday, so the ascetics, by allowing fasting and eating a little food before the ninth hour, do not become violators of the rules, and achieve the goal of their asceticism and abstinence [471]. The divine Jerome also speaks in favor of fasting on Saturdays for the sake of asceticism and true abstinence. For he, when asked by Lucinius whether one should fast on Saturday, replied: “Oh, that God would give us the opportunity to fast every day!” 472. Not out of aversion to food, not for the sake of imaginary and feigned asceticism, not out of contempt for the rules, not for the sake of observing some law, but for the sake of true, as we said, abstinence and reverence: Ascetics abstain from everything (1 Cor. 9:25). If any cleric or layman goes to pray in a Jewish synagogue or heretical meeting, let him be deposed and excommunicated [473]. (Apost. 7, 45, 71; VI Ose. 11; Antioch. 1; Laodice. 6, 32, 33, 37, 38.) This rule makes it a great sin for a Christian to enter a Jewish synagogue or heretical congregation to pray. For what is the complicity of the faithful with the unfaithful, according to the words of the divine apostle (2 Cor. 6:15)? If the Jews themselves, by entering their synagogues and performing sacrifices, violate the law, because by law they are prohibited from making sacrifices outside Jerusalem (as evidenced by the divine Justin in the “Dialogue with Tryphon” 474, Sozomen in the “Ecclesiastical History”, book 5, chapter 21 475, and Chrysostom in “Homily 2 against the Jews” 476), then how much more illegal is the Christian who prays with the crucifiers of Christ? In addition, the heretical church and congregation, as those who think contrary to the Orthodox, should not be revered, but rather rejected. Therefore, the present rule determines: if a cleric or a layman enters a Jewish synagogue or a heretical meeting for the sake of prayer, then the cleric, as having committed a great sin, must be cast out and excommunicated together, but the layman must only be excommunicated, because, being a layman, he has sinned less than a cleric who has done the same, and because it is impossible for a layman to be cast out. Or rather, as others interpret it, a cleric who entered a Jewish synagogue or heretical assembly to pray should be deposed, and a layman excommunicated. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 7 and 45. If any cleric hits someone in a fight and kills with one blow, let him be ejected for his vehemence. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. (VI Om. 91; Ankyr. 21–23; Athanasius the Great, epistle 1; Basil the Great. 2, 8, p. 13, 33, 43, 52, 54, 56, 57; Gregory Nis. 5.) In their 27th canon, the divine apostles cast out clergy who beat the faithful who have committed a sin, or the infidels who have acted unjustly, as we said in the interpretation of that canon. And in the present rule, the apostles determine that if a cleric, during a fight or quarrel, strikes someone with one blow and kills him with this single blow, let him be deposed [477] not because he struck just one blow without the intention of killing, but because he was overcome by anger and showed impatience and insolence by raising his hand and hitting, which is unacceptable for clerics (not to mention a great mortal sin murder he committed). If such a murder is committed by a layman, let him be excommunicated both from the sacraments and from the assembly and Church of the faithful. Note that, according to the 8th rule of Basil the Great, unintentional murders are one thing, intentional ones are another, and murders that are between unintentional and intentional, or, better said, approaching intentional, are another. Manslaughter occurs when someone throws a rock to hit a tree or a dog and accidentally hits a person. Intentional - when a person takes a knife or gun to kill: such free killers include thieves and those who go to war. According to the 5th rule of Gregory Nis., premeditated murder is a murder that is committed with preparation and deliberation. Close to intentional 478 is when someone in a fight with another mercilessly hits him with a stick or hand in a dangerous and vital place. And Gregory of Nyssa in the above-mentioned rule considers such a murder to be intentional [479]. It is to this kind of murder that the murder considered in this apostolic canon belongs - deliberate, according to Gregory of Nyssa, or close to deliberate, according to Basil the Great - since the murderer used a weapon to strike and mercilessly hit the person in a vital place, being completely overcome by anger. In short, murder, according to the Nomocanon of Photius (tit. 9, ch. 26), should be assessed depending on the disposition and intention of the killer: whether he had the intention and purpose to kill or not, and the disposition, in turn, should be assessed depending on what weapon was used for the murder. Therefore, in many cases, one who strikes but does not kill is punished as a murderer, since he had the intention to kill. Conversely, the one who killed is not punished as a murderer if his intention was only to hit and not to kill. So, the difference between voluntary and involuntary murders is established on two grounds: by the location and motivation of the one who struck and by the weapon used [480]. Women who give pregnant women herbs to kill the fetus in their womb, as well as those who take these herbs, are also considered deliberate murderers, as defined by the VI Ecumenical Council with its 91st rule, the Ancyra Council with its 21st rule, and Basil the Great with its 2nd and 8th rules. However, Ankir's rule. 21 and rule 2 of Basil the Great, subject them to penance more philanthropically: not for the rest of their lives, but for ten years. Women who give drugs and herbs to someone with the aim of captivating them with their satanic love are also recognized as deliberate murderers, for these drugs and herbs cause clouding of reason in the recipients, and often kill them, as Basil the Great shows in the above-mentioned 8th rule. A woman who neglects her child so that it dies is considered a murderer, according to rules 33 and 52 of Vasily the Great. John the Faster in the 26th rule says that those who throw their babies at church doors are considered murderers. Armenopoul (Summary of the rules, section 6) adds that the same thing was determined by the conciliar decree. And in the 23rd rule, John the Faster says that a mother who falls asleep on her baby, causing him to die, is considered a murderer if this happened as a result of her negligence and intemperance. And Basil the Great in the 43rd rule says that he who inflicts a mortal blow on his brother is a murderer, whether he himself struck first or his brother. For involuntary murder, the Ancyra Council in the 23rd rule punishes for 7 or 5 years, and Basil the Great in rule 57 - for 11 years 481. The latter rule also says that the years that a person spent in excommunication are sufficient as punishment for unintentionally committed murder. Gregory of Nyssa in the 5th rule excommunicates for 9 years, and John the Faster in the 20th rule - for 3 years. For premeditated murder, the Ancyra Council in rule 22 excommunicates from the Holy Mysteries for life, Basil the Great in rule 56 - for 20 years, Gregory of Nyssa in rule 5 - for 27 years, and John the Faster in rule 20 - for 5 years. Those clerics who strike and kill the robbers who attacked them are subject to eruption, according to the 55th rule of Basil the Great. And Gregory of Nyssa in the 5th rule says that if someone kills even unintentionally, he is unworthy of the grace of the priesthood. And generally speaking, all those clerics who kill, intentionally or unintentionally, with their own hands or by involving others in the killing, are subject to eruption, in accordance with the definition of Patriarch Constantine Chliarinus [482]. Those who go to war and kill enemies for the sake of piety, chastity and the general peace of their brothers, according to Athanasius (epistle to Amun), are worthy of praise 483, and Basil the Great in the 13th rule excommunicates them from communion of the Holy Mysteries for three years, since their hands are unclean from blood. For the resolution of this imaginary contradiction, see note. to the 13th rule of Vasily the Great. [484]. If anyone keeps an unbetrothed maiden after he has committed violence against her, let him be excommunicated. He is not allowed to take another wife, but let him have the one he has chosen, even if she is poor. (Basily the Great. 22, 23, 25, 26.) This rule defines: whoever forcibly and using his power dishonors a maiden who is not engaged to another and leaves her in his house, let him be excommunicated for violent dishonor, and he has no right to take another wife, but only the one he has chosen, even if she is of low birth and poor. Basil the Great, addressing the topic of this rule in his 22nd and 25th canons, determines: let the molester take as his wife the one he raped, but at the same time bear the penance of a fornicator, that is, he does not receive communion for four years. In the 26th rule, he says that it is better to separate those who first fell into fornication and then got married, but if they do not want to be separated, let them remain together [485]. However, we should also consider what God says about this in chapter 22. Deuteronomy: If a maiden is caught in a deserted place and screams, but there is no one to help her, then she is innocent. There is no mortal crime on the damsel: for it is the same as if someone rebelled against his neighbor and killed him, so is this matter. Although the girl screamed, there was no one to save her (Deut. 22:26–27). And if she was not caught in a deserted place and did not scream, it means that she was dishonored with her consent (see also note 2 to the 2nd rule of Gregory the Wonderworker). If her molester has parents (or is married) and the girl dishonored by him has parents and they (one or the other) do not consent to the marriage, then, according to the 22nd rule of Basil the Great, they should not be forced. According to civil law (Armenopul. Book 6, tit. 3), if the molester is rich, he must give the girl he dishonored one liter of gold [486], and if he is poor, half of his property; if he is completely poor, he must be beaten with sticks, shaved and exiled. If someone corrupts a minor girl, that is, one who has not reached the age of 13, let his nose be cut off and let him give half of his property to the girl he corrupted (ibid.). If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed, unless it is proven that he was ordained by heretics. For it is impossible for those who have been baptized or ordained by heretics to thereby become faithful or clergy. (Apost. 46, 47; I Omni. 8; II Om. 7; VI Om. 95; Carthage. 57, 77, 101.) One can discern various reasons for the second ordination: either the one who was ordained despised the one who ordained him the first time, or he believes that he will receive greater grace from the one who ordained him the second time, since he has greater faith in the second, or there is some other similar reason. Based on this, the present rule determines: that bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who accepts a second ordination from someone [487] shall be deposed along with the one who ordained him, unless it is proven that he has been ordained by heretics. Because those baptized or ordained by heretics cannot become Christians through heretical baptism, or rather, desecration, nor priests and clergy through heretical ordination. And therefore, without fear, they accept baptism from Orthodox priests and ordination from Orthodox bishops [488]. That is why Basil the Great, in a letter to the residents of Nicopolis, writes: “I will never count among the true priests of Christ the one who received ordination and power over the people from the wicked hands of heretics for the destruction of the Orthodox faith” 489 . If the First Ecumenical Council in the 8th canon recognized the ordinations of the Novatians, and the Council of Carthage in the 77th canon recognized the ordinations of the Donatists, then this is because the Novatians were not heretics, but schismatics, according to the 1st canon of Basil the Great, and the ordinations of the Donatists were recognized by the Carthage Council due to the urgent need and lack of clergy in Africa, according to Carthage. 66, in other words, were recognized by economy and necessity. Therefore, the Council in Italy, not having such a need, did not recognize them, according to Carthage. 77. Moreover, the same Council of Carthage, in its 101st canon, demands that 10 liters of gold be collected from those who ordain heretics, or accept ordination from them, or admit them to ministry. And although the VII Ecumenical Council recognized the ordinations of heretical iconoclasts and did not order those ordained by them to be ordained again when they turned to Orthodoxy, as becomes clear from the 1st act of the Council, it did so according to oikonomia, since there were extremely many iconoclasts at that time. (The ordinations that were recognized, however, were not of the leaders of the heresy and not of those who were passionately devoted to it and repented insincerely and untruly, as the divine Tarasius said, but of those who followed the leaders - those who repented truly and sincerely. For this, see the interpretation of the letter of Athanasius the Great to Rufinian.) Likewise, the Second Ecumenical Council on Economy recognized the baptism of some heretics, as we have already discussed. Therefore, since the Seventh Council does not elevate such a temporary and conditioned oikonomia into a definition, it does not contradict the present apostolic canon. Indeed, although Patriarch Anatoly was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus and the heretical Council convened by him, and St. Meletius of Antioch - by the Arians, according to Sozomen (book 4, chapter 28) 490, and many others accepted ordination from heretics and were subsequently accepted by the Orthodox, but these are rare cases and caused by circumstances, deviating from canonical acrivia, and for the Church, what happens due to special circumstances and rarely is not the law, which is confirmed by the rule of Twofold. 17, in the words of Gregory the Theologian 491, the second act of the Council that took place in Hagia Sophia, and the legal principle that says: “An exception to the rule is not given as an example.” Repeated ordination of Orthodox Christians is also prohibited by the Rule of Carthage. 57. Read also the interpretations and notes. to Apost. 46 and 47. If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, or reader, or singer does not fast on Holy Pentecost, or Wednesday, or Friday, let him be deposed, unless bodily weakness prevents him from fasting. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. (VI Om. 29, 89; Laodice. 49, 51, 52; Peter Alexander. 15; Dionysius Alexander. 1; Timothy Alexander. 8, 10.) This rule equally orders all clergy and laity to fast both on Great Pentecost [492] and every Wednesday and Friday. It literally says the following: that bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer who does not fast on Holy Pentecost or every Wednesday and Friday, let him be deposed, except in the case where he cannot fast due to bodily weakness. If a layman does not fast on the indicated days, then let him be excommunicated. According to the reasoning of the divine Chrysostom (Word to those who still fast on Easter), “we fast on Holy Pentecost not for the sake of Easter, not for the sake of the Cross, but for the sake of our sins... since Easter is an occasion not for fasting and sadness, but for joy and joy. Therefore, we should not say that we are distressed because of the Cross. For we are not distressed because of him, let it not be! But because of our own sins" 493. We also fast on Lent in imitation of the Lord, Who fasted on the mountain for 40 days. And two days a week, on Wednesday and Friday, we fast because on Wednesday there was advice about the betrayal of our Lord, and on Friday He suffered death in the flesh for the sake of our salvation, as they say about this. Peter (canon 15) and the divine Jerome [494]. Rule of Laodice. 50 prescribes to us dry eating during the entire Lent, and the divine Epiphanius in the chapter on the 75th heresy says: “During Lent - fasting, dry eating and chastity” 495. And this apostolic rule, together with the fast of Pentecost, calls the fast of Wednesday and Friday. Consequently, the fast of every Wednesday and Friday should consist of dry eating on a par with the fast of Lent. Dry eating consists of eating once a day at the ninth hour, not eating oil and not drinking wine, as we said in the interpretation of the Apostle. 64. That’s why Balsamon prohibits eating crustaceans on Wednesday, Friday and Lent. The divine Epiphanius also testifies to the correctness of what was said, saying: “Fasting on Wednesday and on the day before Saturday, that is, Friday, until nine o’clock” 496. Philostorgius (Church History. Book 10) also says: “The fast of Wednesday and Friday is not limited to abstaining from meat, but, according to the rules, consists of not touching food at all until the evening” 497. That's why darling. Benedict, in his 41st canon, stipulates that the monks under him fast on Wednesday and Friday until the ninth hour. And the God-bearing Ignatius writes in his epistle to the Philippians: “Do not disparage the Quaternary, for in it is an imitation of the life of the Lord. After Holy Week, do not neglect the fast of Wednesday and Friday, giving the excess to the poor." 498 So, let not those who say that fasting Wednesday and Friday is not an apostolic statute be deceived. After all, the apostles in their rules list it along with the fast of the Great Pentecost, and in their “Resolutions” - along with the fast of Great Week. They actually say: “It is necessary to fast during Great Week, on Wednesday and Friday” 499 [500]. But why did I say that the apostles established it? Christ Himself gave the law about fasting on these two days. And about the fact that this is the truth, listen to the holy apostles themselves. In the “Regulations” (book 5, chapter 14) they say: “He Himself commanded us to fast on Wednesday and Friday” 501. Do you see that the Lord Himself is the Lawgiver of the fast of these two days? Since, as has been proven, the fast of Pentecost is no different from the fast on Wednesday and Friday, and accordingly, the reliefs for the weak on both of these fasts are the same. Just as Timothy in the 8th and 10th rules allows a wife who gave birth on Lent to drink wine and eat enough food, abstaining as much as she can bear, and allows someone who is severely exhausted by a serious illness to eat oil on Lent, “for,” he says, “it is a right thing for someone who is completely exhausted to eat oil,” so on Wednesday and Friday, one who is exhausted by a serious illness should be allowed to eat only oil and wine. That is why the divine Jerome says: “Fasting on Wednesday and Friday cannot be allowed unless there is great need.” Saint Augustine says the same thing [502]. But since people attached to the flesh, wanting to break the fast of Lent and the fast on Wednesday and Friday, either make the excuse that they are sick, although in fact they are healthy, or, being really sick, say that only oil and wine are not enough for them to strengthen their strength, because of these excuses it is necessary to ask some experienced and at the same time God-fearing doctor about what kind of food is enough for them to strengthen themselves in illness. And therefore, depending on the doctor’s orders, the bishop or confessor may allow the patient to allow fasting, but does not trust the mere excuses of the patients, especially if these patients are from among the so-called noble persons. And the rule of Laodice. 49, which prohibits performing the full liturgy on Lent, and canon 51, which states that the birthdays of martyrs cannot be celebrated on Lent, and canon 52 of the same Council, which specifies that marriages should not be celebrated on Lent - all these rules have the same meaning as the rules set out above, for they also confirm that fasting and sadness are appropriate for the holy Lent. Therefore, during it it is not allowed to celebrate weddings and birthdays of martyrs, as they provide a reason for joy and breaking the fast. Further, rule VI Omni. 89 determines that we should spend the days of the Holy Passion not only in fasting, but also in prayer and contrition of heart, for fasting in itself does not bring benefit, according to Chrysostom, who says (Conversation 3 to the people of Antioch): “Let us abstain not only from food, but also from sins” 503. Isidore also writes in letter 403: “Abstinence in food does not bring any benefit to those who do not fast with all their senses, for ascetics abstain from everything 504” 505. St. Nikephoros in canon 16 says that monks should not engage in agricultural work during Lent, looking for an excuse to allow the fast for oil and wine. And in the 19th rule, he says that monks who are in the monastery should eat food once a day on Wednesday and Friday. Note that the present apostolic rule, speaking about Lent, includes in it the entire Great Holy Week, because at this time one must fast. See also note. to VI Omni. 29. If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or in general any of the clergy on the list, fasts with the Jews, or celebrates with them, or accepts holiday gifts from them, for example, unleavened bread or something similar, let him be deposed. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. (Apost. 7, 65, 71; VI Ose. 11; Antioch. 1; Laodice. 29, 37, 38; Carthage. 60, 81, 117.) If someone who just prays with those who have been excommunicated or expelled is accordingly excommunicated or expelled along with them, then much more a clergyman who fasts or celebrates with the Christ-killers of the Jews is expelled, and a layman is excommunicated. Therefore, this rule determines: if a bishop, presbyter, deacon, or in general any of the clergy on the list either fasts with the Jews, or celebrates Easter or other holidays with them, or accepts gifts from their holidays, for example, unleavened bread [506] (which they eat on the days of their Easter and on all holidays and which they offered at every sacrifice) or something else similar, let him be deposed, and if he does this layman, let him be excommunicated. Even if those who receive such gifts, fast and celebrate with the Jews do not adhere to their teachings (otherwise they should not be cast out and excommunicated, but anathematized, according to Laodicecus 29), nevertheless they give rise to temptation and arouse suspicion whether they do not honor Jewish rites - which is alien to the Orthodox. Not to mention the fact that they are defiled by communication with Christ-killers, to whom God says: Fasting and idleness... and my soul hates your holidays 507. See interpretation of Apost. 7. If a Christian brings oil to the temple of the pagans or the synagogue of the Jews on their holidays or lights lamps, he will be excommunicated. (Apost. 7, 65, 70; VI Ose. 11; Antioch. 1; Laodice. 29, 37, 38; Carthage. 69.) Similar to the previous one, this rule excommunicates the Christian who brings oil to the sanctuary of pagans and idolaters or to the synagogue of the Jews during their holidays or lights their lamps. From this act it becomes clear that he considers their false rites and bad sacraments to be true. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 7. If any clergyman or layman takes wax or oil from the holy church, let him be excommunicated; and let him add a fifth more than he took. (Apost. 73; Dvukrat. 10; Gregory Nys. 8.) This rule determines that the clergyman or layman who takes wax or oil from the church and uses it for non-sacred and simple purposes must be excommunicated. And when he returns them back to that very church safe and sound, just as he took them, let him, in addition, give the church a fifth of their value. Aristinus interpreted it as “five times more,” so that, in his opinion, the rule states that the blasphemer must return the wax or oil that he took, and five more times the same amount. Joseph of Egypt, who paraphrased the rules in Arabic, also translated “one fifth” as “five times more,” and yet the first interpretation is better. After all, the fifth or tenth part of the fruit, which the Jews gave to the priests and which is spoken of in many places in Holy Scripture, does not denote a fivefold or tenfold amount, but one part out of five or ten. Therefore, the anonymous interpreter of the rules explained this expression as “a fifth.” Double rule. 10 reads: “Clerics who, like thieves, steal or use for non-sacred purposes any of the sacred vessels and vestments located in the holy altar are finally expelled from their degree. Using these objects for other than sacred purposes is desecration of the holy and sacred, and stealing them is sacrilege. Those who use vessels and vestments outside the holy altar for non-sacred needs, whether their own or others, are excommunicated by the 73rd rule of the holy apostles, and we along with them. And on those who completely steal these things from the church, we impose penance as blasphemers.” The punishment for blasphemy, according to the 8th rule of Gregory Nis., in the Old Testament Scripture was prescribed no less than for murder: both the murderer and the blasphemer were subjected to the same punishment - stoning (as is clear from the example of Achar, son of Charmias 508). However, according to church custom, leniency is granted in this case, so that sacrilege is punished less severely than adultery [509]. Pope Boniface V says that blasphemers must be anathematized at all times. Let no one else appropriate a consecrated gold or silver vessel or veil for his own use, for this is illegal. If anyone is found guilty of this, let him be punished by excommunication. (Apost. 72; Dvukrat. 10; Gregory Nys. 8.) And this rule, like the previous one, prohibits the use of sacred things for ordinary needs and determines the following: let no one take and use for his own purposes gold and silver vessels or church veils and vestments, consecrated and dedicated to God [510], since appropriating and using them is an act ungodly and lawless. If it is discovered that anyone is doing this, then let him undergo the penance of excommunication, in other words, let him be excommunicated. And what kind of punishment from God those who desecrate things dedicated to Him and use them for ordinary needs are subjected to is most clearly seen in the example of King Belshazzar. When he desecrated the gold and silver vessels stolen by his father Nebuchadnezzar from the Jerusalem temple of God, by drinking wine from them, and his nobles, and concubines, and wives, on the same night he was killed, and his kingdom was divided between the Medes and Persians (see Dan. 5). Pope Stefan, as Platina writes, says that even a priest cannot use sacred vestments for non-church needs. Read the interpretation of the above 72nd rule. A bishop who is accused of anything by trustworthy people must be summoned by bishops; and if he comes and confesses or is convicted, then let penance be determined. If the one who is called does not obey, then let him be called a second time through two bishops sent to him. If even then he does not obey, let him be called a third time, again through two bishops sent to him; if even in this case he does not appear out of contempt, then let the Council make its decision about him, so that he does not hope to gain benefit by avoiding trial. (II Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 17, 21; Antioch. 14, 15; Sardik. 4; Carthage. 8, 12, 16, 27, 96, 105,131" 137–139; Theophilus Alexander. 9.) The accusation against a bishop mentioned in this canon does not concern a property matter, that is, someone's personal matter and a private complaint that the bishop has dealt with someone unfairly or selfishly, as Balsamon misinterpreted, but an ecclesiastical matter that could lead to defrocking. And where can you see this? From the expression “trustworthy people” – the rule recognizes such people as accusers. For the bishop’s accusers in property matters and private complaints are not tested: whether they are Orthodox or slanderous, whether they are defamed or blameless, in other words, whether they are worthy of trust, but, whatever they are, their accusation is accepted, according to II Ecumenical. 6 and Carthage. 8, 27. Those who accuse him in church matters must be both Orthodox and impeccable, that is, worthy of trust, otherwise they are not allowed to be accused, according to the same rules. Zonara also obviously agrees with this understanding of the rule. So, the rule says: if a bishop has been accused of any ecclesiastical crime by people who are trustworthy and not accused of anything, then it is necessary that the bishops call him to trial. And if he comes and himself admits this accusation to be true or, despite denying his guilt, is exposed by the accusers with the help of irrefutable evidence, then let the bishops assign him the due penance. If they call him, but he does not obey and does not come to the trial, then let them send two bishops to him and call him a second time. If he does not obey again, then let them send two bishops to him again and call him a third time. And if he shows disdain for the third time and does not go, then let the Council of Bishops pass judgment on him even in his absence and assign those penances that seem fair and legal to the Council, so that the guilty person does not expect to benefit from avoiding trial and delaying time. Rule of Carthage. 27 adds that the Council of Bishops must send letters of invitation to the accused bishop, and if he does not come within one month, then he will be deprived of communion. If he proves that he did not come because of necessary business, he must be given another month of time. If at the end of the second month he does not come, let him be disfellowshipped until he proves that he is innocent of the crime of which he is accused. Balsamon says that the three summonses that the rule says must be sent to the accused bishop are each for 30 days. Therefore, if the accused bishop does not appear before the court of the Council after three months, he is condemned unilaterally [511]. Then, in the time of the holy apostles, since there were no patriarchates yet, two bishops were sent to summon a bishop, but now, in order to summon him, it is enough to have the trust of patriarchal notaries. According to Carthage. 12 and 111, a bishop is judged by 12 bishops, a presbyter by 6, a deacon by 3, as well as his own metropolitan and bishop [512]. However, if the parties appoint elected judges by mutual consent, then they should not seek an appeal, even if there are fewer judges than determined by the rules, according to Carthage. 16, 105 and 131. If any bishop first promised that his case would be considered by the bishops, and then did not want this, let him be disfellowshipped. However, until the issue is resolved, according to Carthage. 96, he should not be deprived of his bishopric. When someone accuses a bishop, let his case be first brought before the bishops of the Council of the metropolitan region. If this Council turns out to be insufficient, then let the trial be carried out at a larger Council of the diocese [513], according to II Ecumenical. 6. If someone is suing the metropolitan, he must turn to either the exarch of the diocese or the patriarch of Constantinople, according to IV Ecumenical. 9 and 17. If during the trial of a bishop some of the bishops of the metropolitan region acquit him, while others condemn him, then, according to Antioch. 14, the metropolitan must call on other neighboring bishops so that they can sort out the matter. If all the bishops of the metropolitan region unanimously pronounce a sentence on the accused, then the person convicted in this way should no longer be tried by others, according to the 15th rule of the same Council. And the rule is Sardik. 4 determines: if a bishop, deposed by neighboring bishops, says that he again undertakes to justify himself 514, then let them not ordain another in his place until a better investigation has been made. The rule of Carthage best defines the fact that those who accuse bishops and clergy of criminal matters must be blameless and Orthodox. 138: Neither slaves, nor freedmen who denounce their masters, nor actors and dishonest people, and in general all those who are not allowed to be accused under civil laws, are allowed to accuse clergy. Rule 139 of the same Council says: if someone accusing a cleric of many crimes cannot prove the first accusation, the rest should no longer be accepted from him, as they would be accepted from a faithful one. Those still in excommunication are also not allowed to face charges, according to rule 137. And if accusations against clergy are not accepted from such persons, then accusations against bishops are even less accepted from them. Rule IV of the Universe also speaks. 21, which is to examine public opinion about those who accuse bishops and clergy. Rule 9 of Theophilus Alexander says the same thing. See also the interpretation of II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. A heretic should not be allowed to testify against a bishop, but neither should one who is faithful be allowed to testify: By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word will be confirmed 515 . (I Omni. 2; Carthage. 140; Theophila Alexander. 9.) Not only should the bishop’s accusers, as we said above, not be heretics, but also witnesses against him; it is also impossible to accept only one witness against the bishop. Therefore, the present rule says that not only a heretic, but even an Orthodox and faithful person, if he is alone, should not be allowed to testify against a bishop. For it is also written in the Old Testament (see Deut. 17:6): in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word and accusation that raises doubt will stand and be established 516 [517]. The great Paul separately stipulates the same thing in his letter to Timothy: Do not accept an accusation against an elder except in the presence of two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19). Rule of Carthage. 140 determines that all those persons who are not allowed to be charged are not allowed to testify. But the testimony of those whom the accuser brings from his home, that is, the accuser’s relatives, household and servants, is not accepted. The certificate of a minor under 14 years of age should not be accepted, according to the same rule of the Council of Carthage, although Chapter 20. 1st tit. 21st book. “Basilik” says that anyone under 20 years old is not allowed to bear witness. The First Ecumenical Council, in its 2nd canon, prescribes that a bishop or presbyter, convicted by two or three witnesses of any sin, be expelled from the clergy; the 9th canon of Theophilus also determines that a cleric accused of fornication, if his crime is proven by credible witnesses, must be expelled from the clergy [518]. Rule of Carthage. 38 says that if the accuser cannot bring witnesses because the place where the accused is is dangerous, then let the court meet in a closer place where witnesses can easily come. And Rule 68 of the same Council states that clergy against their will should not be brought to bear witness in court. One witness should never be trusted, even if he were an authoritative high dignitary or a member of the synclite, as it is written in the 9th title. Chapter 2 "Nomocanon" Photius. That a bishop should not, out of family feelings for a brother, or son, or relative, ordain anyone he wants to the dignity of bishopric. For it is unrighteous to create heirs to the episcopacy, yielding God to human partiality, and the Church of God should not be placed under the authority of heirs. If anyone does this, then this ordination will be invalid, and the one who ordained himself will be punished by excommunication. (Antioch. 23; Carthage. 40.) Bishop's power is undoubtedly grace and a gift of the Holy Spirit. How, then, can one bestow it on another, as if by right of inheritance? Therefore, the present apostolic canon determines that it is not appropriate for a bishop, out of complacency as a successor, to ordain to the episcopal dignity whomever he wishes from among his brothers, or sons, or relatives, for it is unjust, out of human partiality, that is, for the sake of family ties and friendship, to make anyone heir to the bishopric and bishopric (just as he appoints heirs to his personal property) and to squander God’s gift, which is bishop's power. It is also not appropriate for him to subject the Church of God to the principle of inheritance, forcing him to call it paternal inheritance. If any of the bishops does this and ordains one of his relatives as a successor to the bishopric, let the ordination of the one who thus received it be invalid, and let the one who ordained him be excommunicated, for bishops must be appointed by the Council. If, according to Carthage. 40, bishops do not have the power to transfer to their relatives or other people to whomever they want, by right of inheritance, property acquired after being appointed to the episcopacy (except only for that property which they received by inheritance from their relatives or as a private donation), then how can they leave the episcopal power itself as an inheritance to their relatives or to anyone else they want? In accordance with this is the rule of Antiochus. 23 decides: the bishop does not have the power, even at the end of his life [519], to appoint a successor in his place, but the right, after the death of the previous bishop, to appoint as bishop someone who turns out to be worthy belongs to the Council and the court of bishops. What the rule prohibits was also prohibited in ancient Israel. Therefore, Moses was accused of elevating his brother Aaron and his sons to the dignity of the priesthood. And if God had not confirmed the priesthood for them through the sign of the blossoming rod, they might have been cast out from it. If someone has an injured eye or a mutilated leg, but he is worthy to be a bishop, let him be, for it is not physical injury that can defile him, but spiritual defilement. The Old Law commanded that those who would become priests should not have any bodily defect, but should be healthy, without bodily defects, and all the members of their body should be intact. No one, says the Scripture, who has a defect in his body should approach, neither the blind, nor the lame, nor with a mutilated nose, nor with a cut off ear, nor one who has a broken arm or a broken leg, nor one with a hunchback, nor one with spots on the face [520], nor with an eyesore [521], nor with a scab, nor with damaged yatras (see. Lev. 21:18–20). And even if, after entering the priesthood, a person had such a defect on his body, he stopped performing priesthood. The new law of gospel grace does not consider such physical defects and injuries to be an obstacle to the priesthood, but rather requires that the soul be clean from all defilement. Therefore, the present rule says: if someone has damaged vision, that is, he is one-eyed, or cross-eyed, or nearsighted; or his leg is broken and he is lame; or he has some similar bodily injury and damage that does not prevent him from performing sacred rites, and if he who has this is worthy to become a bishop, then let him become one, since bodily injury does not make him unworthy, but only the desecration of the soul by sin makes him so. Rule VI Universal. 33 excommunicates bishops who make into clergy only those who come from the priestly family, and determines that one should not look at the race in a Jewish way, but it is much more necessary to seek the dignity of the soul. St. Nicephorus in the 8th canon says that those born from a concubine or from second marriages are ordained if they are worthy. The 9th rule of Nikita of Irakli says the same thing. Let a deaf and blind person not become a bishop - not because he is allegedly defiled, but so that there is no obstacle to church affairs. However, if, as this rule goes on, someone is deaf in both ears or blind in both eyes, let him not become a bishop - not because he was defiled by these injuries and became unworthy, but because they serve as an obstacle to him from performing church rites. Indeed, how can one perform sacred acts who does not see or hear? How will he take the Holy Gifts or read? How will he hear what the believers proclaim? But pay attention to the fact that those who have become deaf or blind after receiving holy orders should not be thrown out of it, because this is merciless. Thus, the civil law in the book. 8, tit. 1, ch. 1, Article 4 says that a blind person can judge and is not removed from the synclite, but he does not receive any other power, but remains with the one he had before his illness [522]. If anyone is possessed by a demon, he should not become a cleric, and even with the faithful he should not pray. After purification, let him be admitted to prayer with the faithful and, if he proves worthy, let him become a cleric. (VI Om. 60; Timothy Alexander. 2, 3, 15.) Anyone possessed by a demon is considered unclean because he incurs the suspicion that through the depravity of his life he has given freedom to the devil to enter into him. How, then, does such a one want to be elevated to the clergy? After all, “they don’t put fragrant ointment in a stinking vessel for safekeeping,” according to the words of Gregory the Theologian 523. Therefore, the present rule determines: if someone is constantly possessed by a demon, he should not become a cleric. In addition, even if he does not pray in church with the faithful, so as not to disturb their prayers and praises of God with his outrages and demonic cries, common to the possessed. After he has been cleansed and freed from the demon, let him be admitted to prayer with the faithful; and if he turns out to be worthy to become a cleric, let him become one. Why does rule 3 of Timothy Alexander allow a demoniac to receive communion if he does not divulge the Mysteries 524 and does not blaspheme them, while the present rule does not even agree with his praying with the faithful? Because the present rule speaks of one who is possessed by a demon constantly, without interruptions, and the rule of Timothy speaks of one who is possessed by a demon from time to time, with interruptions. Therefore, Timothy allows him, when he is not raging and not suffering, to partake of the Divine Mysteries. Thus, the rules are consistent with each other and do not contradict each other. However, even one who is possessed from time to time should not join the clergy and become a priest, so that the priesthood is not blasphemed and the Holy Mysteries are not desecrated during a terrible ceremony if a demon begins to act through the possessed person. Patriarch Nicholas makes the same definition in his 4th rule: if someone, suffering from black bile 525, seems to many to have a demon in him, then let him take communion. If he is really mad, then let him abstain from communion [526]. And the canon of the Trullo Council 527 says: on those who pretend to be possessed, without being so, let the same penance be imposed as those who are truly possessed, and let them also be subjected to the same deprivations and fasts to which they are subjected. Anyone who has converted from pagan life and has been baptized or abandoned an evil lifestyle should not be immediately appointed a bishop. For there is no justice in having someone who has not yet been tested become a teacher of others, unless this is arranged by God’s grace. (I Om. 2; Dvukrat. 17; Neo-Caesar. 12; Sardik. 10; Laodice. 3; Cyril Alexander. 4.) This rule determines that it is not appropriate to immediately become a bishop for someone who, from among the pagans or infidels, came to the pious faith and was baptized or turned to repentance from a vicious and evil life. Such is the life of actors, mimes and the like [528]. For it is unlawful and dangerous for someone who has not yet been tested and proven that he professes a sound faith and is impeccable in his life to become a teacher of others (and this is what a bishop is). This test takes time, and it cannot be passed quickly. Let such a person be appointed to the episcopacy only if, by God’s grace, there is a revelation about him. Yes, app. Ananias had a revelation about Paul - the Lord said to him in a vision: Go, for he is My chosen vessel, to proclaim My name before the nations and kings and the children of Israel 529 [530]. Ap. speaks about this in particular. Paul, addressing Timothy: Not from the newly converted (i.e., recently catechumen and just planted in the vineyard of Christ 531, meaning “ordain.” - Rev. H.), lest he become proud and fall into condemnation with the devil (see 1 Tim. 3:6) and fall into the devil’s snare 532. That is why rule I Omni. 2 prescribes that those who have converted from pagan life to the faith should not be elevated to either episcopacy or presbytery unless they first pass a long test of their faith and life. And the rule of Laodice. 3 says that it is not proper to ordain those who have recently been baptized as priests. Sardik rule. 10 determines that a rich or learned man of the world should not become a bishop unless he has first served as a deacon and presbyter, so that he has been tested in every degree for a considerable time, and thereby his faith and virtue become known and he is not considered a convert. Double rule. 17 defines the same thing: let none of the laity or monks ascend to the height of bishopric immediately if he has not previously been tested in the ecclesiastical degrees. Neokesar Rule. 12 forbids anyone who was baptized due to illness to become an elder, unless for the sake of his zeal and because of the need for people. Rule 4 of Cyril Alexander, prohibits newlyweds or those expelled from a bishop or from a monastery and generally discredited from becoming clergy. See note about this. to I Omni. 19. We said that it is not appropriate for a bishop or presbyter to be involved in the government of the people, but he should take care of the needs of the Church. So, let him either obey and not do what is mentioned, or be cast out, for no one can serve two masters, according to the Lord’s admonition (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). (Apost. 6, 83; IV Ecum. 3, 7; VII Ecum. 10; Dvukrat. 11; Carthage. 18.) And this rule is similar to the Apostle. 6, with the following words, forbids clergy to bind themselves to worldly affairs: “We said (in our 6th canon) that a bishop or presbyter should not stoop to public and worldly concerns and orders, but he should diligently attend to church needs and service. So, let him either obey and not do so in the future, or, if he does not obey, let him be cast out, for no one can serve two masters and please both, as the Lord says.” See also the interpretation of Apost. 6. We do not allow slaves to be promoted to the clergy without the consent of the masters who own them, to their chagrin, for this creates disorder in the houses. If the slave turns out to be worthy of being placed in the church rank (which our Onesimus turned out to be) and his masters agree to this, free him and let him go from home, let him be installed. (IV Om. 4; V I Om. 85; Gangr. 3; Carthage. 73, 90; Basil the Great. 40–42; epistle to Philemon.) No one should do anything that might cause temptation or distress to others. Namely, such a reason is the ordination of a slave without the consent of his owner. Therefore, the present rule prohibits this in the following words: “We do not allow slaves to be ordained into the clergy and priesthood without the consent of the owners, so as not to upset them, because this destroys entire houses (for a slave accepted into the clergy could be either a manager in his master’s house, or a senior in his workshop, or a manager of his funds, and for these reasons the ordination caused grief to his owner). If the slave turns out to be worthy of ordination, like our Onesimus, the bishop must inform his owner about this, and if the latter agrees and in the mouth of two or three witnesses 533 frees him, according to VI Oc. 85, and let him go from his house as a sign of complete release, then let this slave be ordained.” So did the ap. Paul: he did not want to keep the slave Onesimus with him, despite the fact that he found him capable of preaching service, but sent him to his owner Philemon. Slaves should also not be accepted into monasteries to enter monasticism without the permission of their owners, according to IV Ecumenical. 4. And the slave, who married without the permission of her owner, committed fornication, according to the 40th and 42nd rules of Basil the Great, since, according to Basil, agreements and promises of subject persons have absolutely no force. And according to the 41st rule of the same holy father, the marriage of a previously widowed slave, concluded without the permission of the owner, is dissolved if the latter disagrees. Therefore, the Gangra Council in the 3rd rule anathematizes the one who teaches a slave, under the pretext of piety, to neglect his master and evade service. And according to Carthage. 73, the emancipation of slaves should be announced in the church [534]. A bishop, presbyter or deacon who is in military service and wants to retain both - the Roman 535 authority and the priestly ministry - let him be deposed, for the things that are Caesar's are to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God 536 . (Apost. 6, 81; IV Ecum. 3, 7; VII Ecum. 10; Dvukrat. 11; Carthage. 18.) Just as in other rules the divine apostles prohibit clergy from engaging in public affairs and taking on worldly cares, so in this rule they proclaim the same thing: “A bishop, presbyter or deacon who is engaged in military service (of course, does not participate in military operations with weapons in his hands, but manages military property: for example, distributes salaries among soldiers, gives them food and conducts similar affairs administration, which in civil laws are called military affairs) and wants to possess both - Roman royal power and priestly church government, that is, external and internal power [537] - such, if he does not stop this, let him be overthrown. For the deeds and power of Caesar and the king must be rendered to Caesar, that is, to secular and royal people; in the same way, the works and power of God should be given to God, in other words, to divine and spiritual people, such as bishops, presbyters and deacons.” Read also the interpretation on the Apostle. 6. If anyone unfairly insults a king or ruler, let him be punished. And if a cleric offends, he will be expelled; if a layman, he will be excommunicated. The Mosaic Law says: Do not revile the leader of your people (Ex. 22:28), Supreme Peter says: Honor the King (1 Pet. 2:17), and Paul commands to pray for kings and for all those in authority (1 Tim. 2:2), even if they are unfaithful. Here the apostles say together: “Whoever unjustly, that is, without any just reason, offends a king or ruler, let him be punished; and if the offender is a cleric, let him be expelled, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.” Harsh reproof is considered an insult to kings. The rule, having prohibited insulting the king unjustly, allowed us to by default draw a conclusion from the opposite: if kings and rulers behave wickedly or sin, then those who are befitting to reprove these persons are allowed to reprove them. However, the offender himself should not be punished immediately [538]. See also note. 1 to Apost. 55. Let the following books of the Old Testament be revered and holy for all of you, clergy and laity: the five books of Moses - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one Joshua, one Judges, one Ruth, four books of Kings, two Chronicles (i.e., missing in the book of days), two Esdras, one Esther, three Maccabees, one Job, one Psalter, three Solomons - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs; twelve books of the prophets, one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, one of Ezekiel, one of Daniel. Moreover, let additional instruction be given to you: let your young men study the Wisdom of the learned Sirach. Our books, that is, the New Testament: the four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; 14 epistles of Paul, two epistles of Peter, three epistles of John, one of James, one of Jude, two epistles of Clement, as well as decrees in eight books, addressed by me, Clement, to you bishops (which should not be made public to everyone because of the mysterious things they contain), and our Acts of the Apostles [539]. (VI Om. 2; Laodice. 59, 60; Carthage. 32, 54; Athanasius the Great. 39th message on the holidays; poems of Gregory the Theologian; Amphilochia.) After the apostles taught and laid down in their sacred rules how clergy and ordinary laity should live, they finally teach what books they should read. In the 60th rule they taught us not to read non-canonical and forged books, and in the present rule they instruct us to read canonical and holy books, which they list as they are written here. The Council of Laodicea mentions these books in the 60th canon, and the Council of Carthage in the 32nd, and the great Athanasius in the 39th letter on the feasts, and Gregory the Theologian in verse, and Amphilochius of Iconium in iambic verse. So, the great Athanasius in the mentioned letter divides all the books of the Old Testament into two types: canonical and useful for reading. He calls the canonical books of the Old Testament 22, according to the number of Hebrew letters (Gregory the Theologian and the divine John of Damascus say the same thing), and these books are the following: 1) Genesis; 2) Outcome; 3) Leviticus; 4) Numbers; 5) Deuteronomy; 6) Joshua; 7) Judges; 8) Ruth; 9) 1st and 2nd Kings together (the Jews call them the books of Samuel, and the 3rd and 4th Kings are called 1st and 2nd Kings); 10) 3rd and 4th Kings together; i) 1st and 2nd Chronicles together; 12) 1st and 2nd Esdras together; 13) Psalms; 14) Parables; 15) Ecclesiastes; 16) Song of Songs; 17) Job; 18) Twelve minor prophets, called one book; 19) Isaiah; 20) Jeremiah, together with Lamentations, Baruch and the Epistle; 21) Ezekiel; 22) Daniel. The books useful for reading by the newly catechumens are the following: The Wisdom of Solomon, which is even called by Eusebius the treasury of all virtues (Gospel Preparation. Book 11, Ch. 7) 540; The Wisdom of Sirach, also called by George Syncellus the treasury of all virtues 541 (note that in Western Sirach it is called Ecclesiasticus); Esther, Judith and Tobit. However, please note that the book of Esther, which is alone, is considered canonical, just as the present apostolic rule, the Council of Laodicea, and the Council of Carthage classify it as canonical. The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith and Tobit are also considered canonical by the Council of Carthage. The three books of Maccabees are also canonical in the present apostolic canon [542]. The canonical books of the New Testament are the following: four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, seven Catholic Epistles (one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude); The 14 Epistles of Paul and Revelation. True, the divine Amphilochius in iambic verses says that many recognize the Revelation as true, yet the majority considers it to be false. However, it is accepted as a canonical book by the Council of Carthage in the 32nd rule, Athanasius the Great in the aforementioned 39th letter and the divine Dionysius the Areopagite, who calls it a mysterious vision 543, and the interpreter St. Dionysius, the divine Maximus repeatedly mentions him in his interpretations. The Divine Jerome calls it the most sublime book in the world. If Gregory the Theologian does not speak about this book in his poems, then in his farewell speech addressed to the 150 bishops of the Second Ecumenical Council, he clearly points to it with the words: “For I am sure that each Church is protected by its own (angels), as John teaches me in Revelation” 544. And Origen had an explanation of Revelation. This book is also mentioned by Cyril of Alexandria (Pentateuch, p. 679) 545 and Clement of Alexandria (Pentateuch, p. 856) 546. It is also accepted by Apollinaris, Ephraim, Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Augustine, Methodius, Hippolytus, Andrew of Caesarea and the Second Ecumenical Council itself, in front of which Gregory the Theologian pronounced his farewell speech containing a mention of Revelation. It is accepted by Meliton of Sardia, Theophilus of Antioch and others. The two letters of Clement mentioned in this apostolic canon were addressed to the Corinthians on behalf of the Roman Church and were published in the 1st volume of the “Conciliar Acts.” Photius considers the second of these messages to be forged (Miriobiblion. L. 156) 547. The “apostolic decrees,” which Athanasius the Great also calls apostolic teaching, were rejected by canon VI Omni. 2, because they were corrupted by heretics. But since they were not completely distorted, but in some parts, many of the fathers even before the VI Ecumenical Council, especially Gregory the Theologian and Saint Maximus, used sayings from them. Gregory the Theologian in the word for Easter, beginning “I will stand on my watch,” allegorically shows Christ in the form of a sheep, as a symbol of the incorruptible garment 548, and this saying, according to Nikita, was taken by him from the “Resolutions.” The Divine Maximus, in his interpretation of Dionysius, uses entire passages from the “Resolutions”. What can I say about individual fathers? The V Ecumenical Council itself, in the letter of Justinian, cites evidence from the “Resolutions” that it is appropriate to give alms for the dead (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 392). In addition, even after the VI Ecumenical Council, the Council of Hagia Sophia used the evidence from the “Resolutions”. Michael Kirularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, together with his Council, which took place in 1053, brought evidence against the custom of cutting beards from the 1st book. “Apostolic Constitutions” (chapter 3), which says: “Do not cut your beards, for the Creator God made a beardless face decent for a woman, but considered it incongruous for a man” 549 (see also: Synodicon. T. 2. P. 978). And even now, in the form in which they are printed, the Apostolic Constitutions, it seems to me, do not contain anything fraudulent or inappropriate. And the book “The Shepherd”, which Athanasius the Great speaks about in his already mentioned message more than once, has not survived to this day 550. This book probably represented the same thing as the word of John Climacus addressed to the shepherd. In short, she taught the shepherd of verbal sheep how to lead them to saving pasture and keep them unharmed from the claws of mental wolves - demons and erring people. They told us that a very ancient book, “The Shepherd,” the work of Quartus, one of the seventy apostles, is in a Greek monastery. “Shepherd” is also mentioned by St. Maxim in interpretations of the divine Dionysius. The volume of this book is the same as the Psalter. Please note that the rule is Carthage. 54, along with the books of the Old and New Testaments, prescribes reading the lives of the martyrs, which describe their torment, on those days when their memory is celebrated. Dosifey reports about them on p. 14–18 “The Twelve Books.” Archimandrite does this in the same way. Spyridon Milias, citing in the 2nd volume of the Synodikon, on p. 1015, verbatim excerpt from the book of Dositheus. However, for both of them, information about the order of these apostolic meetings is not ordered. Therefore, following more the order of the chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, we gave them a more harmonious order, changing their order. It would be better to say “meeting” because St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence answered the Latins: “We call this an assembly of the apostles, and not a Council,” as Sylvester, the great ecclesiarch, wrote in section. 6, ch. 6. And he answered correctly, as a most learned man, for the Council is a congress of the elected representatives of the Church from different metropolitan regions (ἐπαρχιῶν) (In those cases when in the Greek text of the “Pidalion” the word ἐπαρχία is used in the sense of provincia metropolitana, we translate it “metropolitan region.” (Provincia metropolitana - a unit of division in the Church of the Roman Empire, its borders coincided with the borders of the civil provinces.) and the patriarchate of the earth into one city. And a meeting is their joint presence on an appointed day in the same place and at the same time. I said “presumably” and not “of course” because St. Meletius (in the word about unleavened bread), citing as evidence the apostolic canon about unleavened bread, says that Clement wrote the apostolic canons at the command of Peter and Paul (and the fact that this expression from the “Apostolic Constitutions” written by Clement is preserved in the apostolic canons, any reasonable person will undoubtedly agree with a simple reading of them). And George Sugduris, in his description of the travels of Peter and Paul, says that, having met in Antioch, Peter and Paul drew up these apostolic rules. And the same Clement himself writes his name in the 85th Apostolic Canon. St. Clement was not only a disciple and companion of St. Peter, as indicated by the letter of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Trallians: “Anenklit and Clement, (serving) Peter” (Ign. Ep. ad Tral. 7 // PG 5, 788A). Clement became the bishop of Rome either directly after Peter, or the fourth, that is, after Peter, Linus and Clitus (or Anaklitus, or Anenclitus). But he was also a disciple of Paul, as Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians shows: And with Clement and with the rest of my fellow servants (Philippians 4:3). Anacletus of Rome says that this is the first rule, the word ap. Peter and that, according to the provisions of this rule, James, the brother of the Lord, was ordained by three apostles: Peter, James and John (Anacl. Ep. // PL 130, 69B). And although the divine Chrysostom says that the Lord ordained him, BUT, probably, the Lord chose him as bishop of Jerusalem (and then by consecration Chrysostom means election), and the three apostles, after the Ascension of the Lord and the divine rite, ordained him. Dositheos also testifies to this in the “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” (book 1, p. 3). But why is a bishop ordained by three or two bishops, and a presbyter and other clergy by only one? There is probably an internal reason for this - and, most likely, the most immediate one. Since, according to the Apostle, the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7) (which is said primarily about the priesthood), then for the ordination of an elder, who is the lesser, only one bishop is sufficient, as the greater and being, undoubtedly, higher than him in degree. And for the ordination of a bishop, since he is in the same rank and at the same degree and, therefore, is not lesser, only one bishop is not enough, as he is equal in degree and not greater, let alone one. So that the greater may bless the less, two or three ordain one. After all, undoubtedly, two are better (that is, stronger) than one, as Solomon says (Eccl. 4:9). The Greek word ἀπόστολος means "messenger". The disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ were called apostles because they were sent by Him to preach the Gospel. Epiph. Adv. haer. 27. 6 // PG 41, 372B. By “the firstborn of them” we mean those who were the first to respond to the sermon and believe. Clem. Rom. Er. I ad Cor. 42 // PG 1, 292B–293A. Ign. Ep. ad Tral. 3 // PG 5, 677A. Demoth. Philippica 1 // TLG 0014/004, 19.8. Bishops to be ordained must be of advanced age, namely at least 50 years of age, unless in a small episcopal area it is impossible to find elderly candidates, according to the Apostolic Constitutions (Book 2, Chapter 1) (1PG Ι, 593C–596A) and the 52nd Epistle of St. Cyprian. Or older than 30 years, according to the 137th novel of Justinian. Const. Ar. III, 20 // PG 1, 804A. And the emperors Leo and Constantine define the title of bishop in this way: “A bishop is the guardian and trustee of the entire church flock located in his episcopal region, and can ordain presbyter, deacon, reader, singer and monk. Actually, it is typical for a bishop to condescend to the humble and neglect those who are exalted... And also to be exposed to danger for the flock and to make the difficulties of the flock his own pain” (Eclogue. Tit. 8) (see: Greco-Roman Law. Book 2. P. 92) (Leon. et Const. Delect. 8.1–2 // PG 113, 477D.). A bishop is called a metropolitan (μητροπολίτης), according to Gabriel of Philadelphia (Sermon on the Priesthood), because he is, as it were, a mother for his city (μήτηρ τῆς πόλεώς του), which he is obliged to nourish both spiritually - with instructions, example his life and his saintly morals, and from the income of the metropolitan region (see also Apostle 58). And about the fact that in the Church of God a most useful custom subsequently arose, according to which those preparing to be ordained as a bishop first become monks and then bishops, see the note. to Apost. 51. This is probably why it is said “no less than three” (and this does not contradict the apostolic canon) because in those times there were more bishops than in the apostolic times, when there were straitened circumstances due to persecution. Synes. Ptolem. Er. 67 // PG 66, 1413C–1417A. Clerics are simply and generally called all those who have sacramental and ecclesiastical ordination, starting from the ecclesiastical ranks subsequent to the episcopal and right down to the reader, singer, exorcist and doorkeeper, according to the Apostle. 26, 68 and 70, Laodice. 24 and 30, the message of Basil the Great, to the chorebishops subordinate to him and the “Nomocanon” of Photius (Tit. 1, ch. 31). Therefore, Justinian’s 123rd novella reads like this: “... presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers and singers - we call all of them clerics...”. They are also called canons or members of the clergy, according to Antiochus. 6 and other rules. But mainly all those who received consecration outside the altar are called clerics. Balsamon, in his interpretation of the 51st rule of Vasily the Great, says that monks are also called clerics. And the clerics received their name, according to Chrysanthus (Syntagmation. p. 2), from the lot (κλῆρον) that the apostles cast about Matthias. But now, for the most part, those who occupy church leadership positions are called clergy, both clergy and laity. Note that although it is primarily said about bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons that they are ordained, about readers, singers and the like that they are sealed, or receive consecration, according to Zonara (for consecration is a more general concept than consecration), and about economists, ecdics and paramonars that they are ordained (according to IV Ecumenical. 2), and although, according to Simeon of Thessaloniki, bishops, presbyters and deacons are ordained, subdeacons receive ordination, and readers are sealed - despite all this, the present rule does not make any distinction, but in relation to all clergy it uses the name ordination (χειροτονίας). Note also that, according to Chrysostom (Homily 1 on the Epistle to the Philippians. Vol. 4. P. 5), a bishop can be called a presbyter and a deacon (as having their actions) and, conversely, presbyters can be called bishops (ibid.) (Ioan. Chrysost. Horn. in Phil. 1.1 // PG 62, 183). And the fact that both presbyters and deacons were elected like bishops is clear from the 3rd canon of the VII Ecumenical Council and the 7th canon of Theophilus. And Cyril of Alexandria, interpreting in the 8th chapter. book of Numbers the following saying: And bring the Levites before the Lord, and let the children of Israel lay their hands on the Levites (Num. 8:10), says: “Those called through Christ to the priesthood by their vote are confirmed by the people” (Cyr. Alex. De adorat. XI // PG 68, 780D), although this election is not being performed at the present time. For a sample of the testimony that is given to those preparing to be ordained as a presbyter and a deacon, see at the end of this book. This certificate, sealed with the signatures of proven priests and clergy, obviously replaces voting. We should know that the penances that assign rules, i.e., “let him be cast out,” “let him be excommunicated,” and “let him be anathema,” are grammatically forms of the third person imperative, absent. In order for such a command to be applied to him, the presence of a second person is necessarily required. Let me explain this better. The rules instruct the Council of acting bishops to oust the priests and either excommunicate or anathematize the laity who violate the rules. But if the Council does not actually depose the priests and does not excommunicate or anathematize the laity, then these priests and laity are in reality neither deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. However, they are still subject to ejection, excommunication or anathematization in this world, and in the next world - to the judgment of God. So, if a certain king ordered his slave to flog another who had offended him, and the slave who received the order from the king did not carry it out, then the one who had offended the king remained unpunished, but was subject to punishment. Therefore, foolish people who claim that at the present time all those clergy who are ordained against the rules are in fact defrocked are very mistaken. The language of one who madly and in vain pronounces such speeches condemns the clergy, not realizing that the command of the rules without the actual action of a second person, i.e., the Council, is unfulfilled and immediately, before the trial, does not in itself come into effect. The divine apostles themselves clearly interpret their words in the 46th canon. There they do not say that a bishop or presbyter who recognizes the correct baptism of heretics is immediately deposed by the very act; but they say: “We command that he should be cast out...” - that is, we command that he should appear before the court, and if it is proven that he did this, then by your judgment let him be deprived of the priesthood. Apparently, that is why, after the end of the Divine Liturgy on the feast of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, grapes were brought to the altar of the church in Blachernae, as Balsamon says. Today, in most places, the prevailing custom is to bring grapes to the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Savior, so that the priest will bless them. Some may wonder why only ears of grain and grapes are given such great honor and are brought to the altar, and not any other fruits. Probably because bread and wine are made from them, which are then transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. And the fact that young grains are not the same as vegetables (as interpreted by Balsamon) becomes clear from the very same rule, which clearly prohibits bringing vegetables. The word "grain" (τὰ χίδρα) (this Greek word, used in the text of Apost. 3, means a dish prepared from dried wheat grains) and Theodoret in the interpretation of the book of Leviticus (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 32 // PG 80, 340C.), and Philo the Jews interpreted as young ears of corn (νέα ἀστάχυα). And the rule is Carthage. 44 specifically says that one should bring the firstfruits of grapes and wheat. Of all the prophets, Solomon prophesied more clearly and definitely about these three types of Christian sacrifice in the 9th chapter. book of Proverbs, speaking as if on behalf of the hypostatic Wisdom of God: Come, eat my bread and drink the wine that I poured out for you. The Arabic translation, instead of which I dissolved, contains the words “mixed with water”: see chapter 20. "Golden Labor" by Rabbi Samuel. Note also that the combination of wine and water in the chalice occurs once during the Divine Liturgy: during the proskomedia, that is, only at the beginning. The fact is that the water (and only boiling water), which is added later during the singing of the sacramental verse, is poured in for a different reason (see note 2 to VI Ecumenical 32). Those who make the second union during the Cherubim, once again pouring wine and water into the cup, act badly: henceforth let them abandon this inappropriate matter, so that they do not fall under the penance imposed by the rule. After all, the second union never takes place, except in those cases if the Holy Gifts were spilled or the priest forgot to perform it (see in the same note 2 to VI Ecumenical 32). Giving an even clearer definition regarding this, the apostles themselves in their “Ordinances” (Book 2, Chapter 27) say that the fruits and firstfruits of the harvest, as well as tithes of wheat, wine, oil and other products of the earth, should be sent to the bishop and presbyters, so that they distribute them among the clergy, namely, those who are outside the altar are given one part each, and those who are inside the altar are given one part each, and those who are inside the altar - two each (Const. Ar. II, 27–28 // PG 1, 672A–673A). See also book 4. of the same “Resolutions” ch. 6, 7, 9 and 10 - about from whom it is appropriate for clergy to accept such gifts and offerings, and from whom it is not appropriate. See also note. to Theophila Alexander. 8. Note that in ancient times it was permissible for bishops to have wives, and therefore the present rule decrees that a bishop should not divorce his wife. But, obviously, since the time of the First Ecumenical Council, a different custom prevailed: clergy did not marry, and especially bishops; however, at will, and not necessarily, as is clear from the statements made at the First Ecumenical Council by St. Paphnutius the Confessor, bishop of the city in Upper Thebaid, as we will say in the next note to this canon. However, there was no rule yet approving this custom. Then the Holy and Ecumenical VI Council consolidated this custom, determining in its 12th canon that only bishops should not have wives. The Council does not violate this apostolic rule: it decrees not that presbyters who have wives expel them or divorce them forcibly and without their consent (this is precisely what is contrary to the apostolic canon), but that presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons who have wives, before accepting ordination as bishops, separate from them with mutual consent and subject to the satisfaction of the divorced wives, according to Rule 48 of the same Council. On the other hand, the Council prudently cares about the salvation and greater prosperity of Christians and the impeccability of hierarchal dignity. After all, Moses, after he was awarded the prophetic gift, no longer united with his wife, according to St. Epiphany (book 3, section 2, chapter on heresy 78) (Epiph. Adv. haer. 78.16 // PG 42, 724D–725A). And since the Latins refer to the divine Epiphanius, who says regarding the 59th heresy that the Church does not accept the husband of one wife into the priesthood if he does not abstain from it (Epiph. Adv. haer. 59. 4 // PG 41,1024A) and with which Innocent also agrees (Innocent I. Ep. 9. ך // PL 84, 646D–647B) and Doublespeak, - it must be said that we are not interested in what individual fathers said or thought, but in what Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils and the general opinion of the fathers say. For the point of view of some does not yet constitute a dogma in the Church. And Sozomen says (book 1, chapter 23) that Paphnutius the Confessor at the First Council of Nicea did not allow priests to be prohibited from marrying, although some wanted this, but said: “The marriage of priests is chastity, and therefore it is appropriate to leave it to the will of everyone, according to ancient church tradition” (PG 67, 925BC). And Paul writes to Timothy: A deacon must be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:12). And Titus: If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife (Titus 1:6). And the Council of Gangra anathematizes those who do not receive communion from a married priest (rule 4), because the prohibition for priests to be married is an invention of heretics, and especially of the Manichaeans, as Augustine says in sections on heresies 40 (Aug. Hipp. De haer. 40 // PL 42, 32) and 46 (Ibid. 46 // PL 42, 37). Yes, and examples serve as evidence: Felix of Rome was the son of the priest Felix, Pope Agapit was the son of the presbyter Gordian, Pope Gelasius was the son of the bishop. Valeria, and many others were the sons of priests. Epiphanius himself testifies in the same place that only some, and not all, held this opinion, and he speaks about this, perhaps, advising, and not forcing. As Matthew Blastar says, about the calculation of Easter, a remarkable definition (κανόνιον) (Greek τὸ κανόνιον is used as a term to designate not the canon as a conciliar resolution, but the Paschalia), which could not have been better, was compiled and set forth by the holy First Ecumenical Council, as stated in the rule of Antiochus. 1. It is not in the rules of the First Ecumenical Council, but it is, as Balsamon says, in the acts of this Council. Now it is also available in Matthew Blastar, printed in the Holy Gospels and in many other books. So, we leave the exact study of this Easter so that our Easter students can study it whole and in parts, and in this note we only say that four conditions must be observed regarding our Easter. Firstly, Easter should always be after the spring equinox. Secondly, it should not be on the same day as the legal chastisement of the Jews. (These two conditions are set out in the present 7th Apostolic Canon.) Thirdly, it should not just be at some unspecified time after the equinox, but precisely after the first full moon in March, which occurs after the equinox. And fourthly, it must be performed on the first Sunday after the full moon. (The last two are known to us from tradition, and not from the rule.) Therefore, so that these four conditions are observed equally throughout the universe, and Christians celebrate Holy Easter at the same time and on the same day, and there is no need to turn to astronomers every year and convene Councils, the wise fathers drew up a definition regarding Easter. Note also that, due to the deviation in the movement of the Moon, the fourth restriction is not always observed, but is sometimes violated, since, according to the same Blastar, every 300 years it happens that two days after the first full moon there is a legal chamfer on Sunday. These two days, which turn out to be redundant due to such a deviation, after being added, sometimes become the first Sunday that occurs after the March full moon. And then on this Sunday we celebrate the Week of Vai, and on the next we celebrate Easter. From this small violation there will be no deviation from piety, nor anything inappropriate or dangerous to the soul. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom (Word to those who still fast on Easter) says: “The Church of Christ does not know the accuracy of times and observance of days (cf. Gal. 4:10). For as many times as she eats this life-giving Bread and drinks this Cup, so many times she proclaims the death of the Lord and celebrates Passover. But since the fathers gathered at the First Council and determined when to celebrate Easter, the Church, valuing harmony and unity in everything, accepted the definition that they drew up” (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 3. 4–5 // PG 48, 867, 871–872). So, it was necessary, according to the reasoning of Chrysostom, for the Latins to prefer the consent and unity of the Church to observing the dates (i.e., the date of the equinox, which has now shifted to March 11, whereas during the First Council it was March 21) and celebrated Easter with us, the Greeks, and not despised those 300 God-bearing and spirit-bearing fathers who laid down this law according to Divine enlightenment, they did not consider them unreasonable and did not insult the common Mother of us all - the Church. After all, even if, the golden preacher further says, “the Church was mistaken, and in this case, of course, this exact observance of time would not have achieved as great a good as the great evil that would have been caused by division and schism in the Catholic Church,” since, as he says, “God and the Church do not care about such a preservation of times and days, but only about one agreement and peace” (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 3.5 // PG 48, 870–871). And look, beloved, how the divine Chrysostom calls the Latins schismatics because they introduced innovation in their Paschal and calendar, and not because their observations of the equinox are incorrect. After all, we also see that the equinox is indeed delayed by 11 days. But the fact that they separated from us because of this is an unforgivable crime, according to the same saint. For he says in the same word that fasting and celebrating Easter at this time or at another, let us put it after March 21, as it was established and as we Greeks do, or after March 11, as the Latins do - all this is not subject to condemnation. “And to divide the Church, to stubbornly resist, to stir up disagreements and divisions, and to always separate ourselves from the general Council of the Church is an unforgivable sin and worthy of condemnation, and it deserves much punishment and retribution” (Ibid. 3.5 // PG 48, 872). Let the Latins know that the Ecumenical Councils that took place after the First Council, and the other fathers, of course, saw for themselves (since they were wise) how much the equinox had shifted, but they did not want to move it from March 21, the date established by the First Council. They valued the consent of the Church and unity more than accuracy in calculating the equinox, deviation from which does not introduce any confusion into the calculation of our Easter and does not harm piety, while among the Latins this accuracy created two great inconsistencies, namely: they celebrate Easter either with the Jews, which contradicts the present apostolic canon, or before the Jews. The fact that God is more favorable to the order of our Paschal and, more simply, our calendar, than to the accuracy of the Paschal and calendar of the Latins, is clear from the miracles that He showed and still shows for this purpose. For in the vicinity of the Egyptian Heliopolis, where there are two great pyramids, God performs such an unheard of thing every year: on the evening of our (not the Latins) Maundy Thursday, the earth erupts ancient human remains, with which one huge field is filled. They remain until Ascension Thursday and then they hide and do not appear at all until Maundy Thursday comes again. This is not some kind of fable, but a true and reliable event, attested by ancient and modern historians, first of all, George Coresius from Chios and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Nektarios of blessed memory, who in the “Arab Chronicle” he wrote tells about it on p. 266. From what he said further, it becomes clear that he saw this miracle with his own eyes (and these human bones foreshadow the future resurrection of the dead, like those that the prophet Ezekiel saw). And the mentioned Koressius writes that Paschazin wrote to Leo (as can be seen from the 63rd letter of Leo) that when once the eastern celebrated Easter on April 22, and the western on March 25, then one source, which had previously dried up, was filled with water on April 22, i.e. on our Easter, and not on the Latin one. Look how Dositheus in the 12th book. “The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” tells that once in Belgrade, during the stay of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Paisius, a miracle occurred that confirmed our calendar and refuted the Latin one, namely: dough kneaded by a Latin woman on the day of the prophet. Elijah, turned into a stone entwined with ivy. The spelling “chamfer” (φάσκα) was introduced to distinguish the Easter of the New Testament from the Easter of the Old Testament. In fact, Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great added to all the good that he did that he convened the First Ecumenical Council to draw up a decree on the celebration of Holy Pascha throughout the universe on the same day. The reason was that it was unbearable for the blessed one to see how the Church of Christ was being divided because of this holiday. Many Councils met in different parts of the empire, and the Western fathers disagreed with the Asian ones on this issue: the first followed the custom of the presbyters who preceded them, and the Asian ones followed the confidante of Christ John and the other apostles, as Polycrates of Smyrna writes (Polycrates (2nd century) was the bishop not of Smyrna, but of Ephesus. It is possible that St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, author of the "Pidalion", made a mistake, remembering St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who at one time also took part in a dispute with the Roman high priest Anicetus about the day of Easter celebration.) to Victor of Rome (Eusebius. Book 5, ch. 23) (Euseb. Hist. eccl. V, 23–24 // PG 20, 489C-492A, 493BC–496A). Look also at Chrysostom’s words about Easter, in which he gives an amazing interpretation of the events of the Old Testament Easter in relation to Christ (Ioan. Chrysost. In Pascha 1–7 // PG 59, 723–756). This refers to the 1st lunar month, called Nissan by the Jews. In other sources there are no words “as if he performed the sacrament incorrectly.” This canon resolves the apparent contradiction that arises between the next, 9th, apostolic canon, the words of Chrysostom and other canons of the Councils and Holy Fathers. For the 9th Apostolic Canon prescribes the excommunication of all those Christians who come to the Liturgy, listen to the Scriptures and yet do not receive communion. And Chrysostom says that those who are not ready to receive communion should leave the church, and not pray with the faithful: “Are you not worthy to receive communion? Then you are not worthy to pray with those worthy to receive communion. Do you hear the deacon who proclaims: “Those who are in repentance, come out!” Those who do not receive communion remain in repentance. Why do you, hearing the deacon proclaim: “Come out, you who cannot pray,” stand shamelessly and do not come out?” (Conversation 3 on the Epistle to the Ephesians) (Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Eph. 3. 4 // PG 62, 29.). The sacred rules of Councils and Holy Fathers in many places define the opposite: let many penitents stand with the faithful and pray at the Liturgy, but not receive communion. The present 8th rule precisely eliminates this apparent contradiction, commanding the one praying with the faithful and not receiving communion to explain the reason that prevents him from receiving communion. For in this case, although he prays until the end of the liturgy and does not receive communion, he is not excommunicated. After all, something typical of people could well have happened to him, for example: he drank water, or he vomited, or something else happened to him. This rule teaches constant Divine communion. If Balsamon in the interpretation of the rule of Apost. 8 and says that it is impossible for Christians to receive communion every day, then the present rule blocks his mouth, and he involuntarily admits that it is extremely strict, because it excommunicates those who avoid communion. How could the divine apostles legislate an impossible task?! In addition, the rule does not speak about those who do not receive communion “every day,” but about those who do not remain at holy communion, and therefore, during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Those who misinterpret this rule and say that it excommunicates those who do not attend the liturgy until the worthy have received communion are blocked by Matthew Blastar (letter “K”, chapter 25): “I believe,” he says, “that the ancient Christians, just as they strove to believe correctly, also strove to live correctly. Therefore, many wonderful customs that the divine rules mention and which were customary at that time have now, in our time, changed and become different. The corrupt and careless life we ​​live has changed us so much that we don’t even believe that Christians once reached such a degree of virtue that they received communion constantly - at every liturgy served.” The etymology of the words κυριακή (day of the Lord) and κυριακόν (house of the Lord) St. Nicodemus also discusses in the notes to the Apostle. 38 and VI Omni. 74. Just. Martyr. Apol. 1. 67 // PG 6, 429C–432A. The place referred to by the authors of “Pidalion” could not be established. Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Er. I ad Tim. 5. 3 // PG 62, 529–530. Idem. Nom. in Hebr. 17. 4–5 // PG 63,131–134. Idem. Adv. Jud. 3. 4 // PG 48, 867. Idem. Hom. in Eph. 3. 4 // PG 62, 29. Idem. De poenit. 9 // PG 49, 344–345. Idem. Horn, in Ep. I ad Cor. 28.1 // PG 61, 233. Idem. Contra anom. 6. 4 // PG 48, 755. Idem. Horn, in Gen. 1. 4 // PG 53, 28. The Great Gregory of Thessalonica also lays down the law in the “Christian Decalogue” that Christians should commune every Sunday and every great holiday (Philokalia. p. 951) (Greg. Pal. Decalog. 4 // Συγγράμματα. T. 5. Σ. 255; PG 150,1093 D–1096 A). Likewise, Simeon of Thessalonica says that Christians should not wait until forty days have passed, but should receive communion again as soon as possible, even every Sunday, if possible, and especially the old and infirm (chap. 360) (Sym. Thessal. De ordine sepult. 360 // PG 155, 672C). In addition, the “Orthodox Confession” (This refers to the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East” (1662), compiled by the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mogila and his closest collaborators - Isaiah Kozlovsky and Sylvester Kossov) (p. 111) states that the most pious Christians should confess every month. And if this is so, then it is clear that they must commune every month, but commune with appropriate preparation: contrition, confession, works of repentance (ἱκανοποιήσεως) (Literally “satisfaction” (for sins). The term used here is of Western origin, corresponding to the Latin satisfactio. This refers to the fulfillment of penances.) and feasible fasting, about which see note. 1 to VI Omni. 13. It is clear that the rules of Apost. 10 and 11 refer to those excommunicated and defrocked who remain in the episcopal region in which they were excommunicated. In the present rule - those who are excommunicated are sent to another episcopal region. Clerics who went from one place to another usually received three types of letters. Those who had an impeccable reputation received two types of diplomas. Of these, one was called consular, because it showed under which consul and on what day the cleric was ordained (according to Carthage. 97); it was signed by the bishop and was required so that the order of ordinations was clear: who was ordained earlier and who was later. The other was called absolution, or peace. It showed that clerics have a dismissal and are not prohibited from performing in the place where they go, actions characteristic of a cleric (according to Antioch. 7 and 8, VI Ecum. 17 and Carthage 31). In addition to these two letters, those clerics who were accused of tarnishing their reputation received a third, but they were acquitted. She was called representative, or canonical, because she represented them, restoring the discredited reputation and good name (according to Laodice. 41, Antioch. 8, and especially IV Om. 11 and the present 12th Apostolic Canon). Anyone who received a letter of release or peace did not need to also receive a consular or representative one. Anyone who took a representative or consular document was obliged to receive, in addition to them, a release document. That is why the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 11 on the Epistle to the Hebrews; Discourse 11 on the Epistle to the Ephesians) says: “The bishops must check foreign clergy and priests who come to their episcopal areas, if they call themselves clergy and priests. For it is not safe to communicate with them and accept them without testing. And just as they start arguments and find out whether they are truly Orthodox and faithful, one should also find out whether they are really ordained priests. For it is not at all indifferent whether to be in communion with those who are really priests, or with those who call themselves initiated, but are not such, since if, without distinction, everyone is accepted equally, then the affairs of the Church will turn upside down. However, if those leaving for another area are looking only for food and guidance, like beggars, then the bishop should not ask them about such subjects” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Hebr. 11.4 // PG 63, 96; Hom, in Eph. 11.5 // PG 62, 86). Note that the departing bishops also received a letter of release from their metropolitan, according to Carthage. 31. In addition, the poor received letters of peace in order to go around collecting alms, according to IV Om. 11. Letters were also sent to the emperor and court archons from the bishops - “petitions” for help for orphans and the poor and for the release of prisoners, according to Sardik. 7–9. And bishops, presbyters and clergy going to the emperor must have letters from all the bishops of the metropolitan region, but especially from the metropolitan, according to Antioch. 11. “These letters to the emperor,” says Armenopul, “are called peace messages” (Brief summary of the rules. Section 3, title 2). And it was said above that representative letters also testified to faith. And here’s why: since the Arians changed the image of baptism and began to say: “In the name of the greater Father and the lesser Son and the inferior Holy Spirit,” as Kedrin says, and also, having changed the doxology “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” began to say: “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit” - and thus many put on the guise of Orthodoxy, so that the Orthodox were not deceived, it was established to begin a representative letter as follows: “O. S.S.D.”, i.e. “Father, Son, Holy Spirit.” And after stating the case, the letter was sealed with the word “Amen.” Note also that it was the custom to send letters of three types from the newly ordained patriarchs and to the newly ordained patriarchs, called conciliar, mutual, and letters of ordination. The messages that each of the patriarchs sent to the other patriarchs, professing the Orthodox faith in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, were called conciliar, and they were called so because they were written conciliarly. The messages were mutual, in which the patriarch asked that other patriarchs in return express their consent to his consecration. And letters of installation are messages that were drawn up during the elevation of the patriarch to the patriarchal throne, now called greetings (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 468). For a sample of representative and release letters, see the end of this book. In other codes, the present rule ends here, there are no subsequent words. According to Valsamon and Vlastar, displacement is different from transition. Transfer occurs when a wise and virtuous bishop (having an episcopal region) moves to a larger or smaller episcopal region in order to support endangered piety, as Gregory the Theologian was transferred from Sasima to Constantinople. The transition occurs when an idle (perhaps because his episcopal region is captured by pagans) bishop for the sake of his wisdom and virtue, by the general decision of the Council, moves to another, idle episcopal region. Both are permissible, as Balsamon says, on the basis of this rule and Antiochus. 16. The concept of “idle bishop” (ἐπίσκοπος σχολάζων) bishop. Nicodemus (Milash) reveals as follows: this is “a bishop, correctly elected and ordained for a well-known church, into which, however, due to some external reasons, he cannot arrive, and therefore cannot fulfill his episcopal ministry in it” (Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations of Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatia-Istria: in 2 vols. Rep. reproduced ed. 1911–1912 Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1996. T. 2. P. 75). See “The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” by Patriarch Dosifei of blessed memory, book. 3, p. 220. And Armenopoulus clearly says (Summary of the rules. Section 1, tit. 4) that such a transfer of the bishop, which is discussed in this rule, happens only for a while, and not forever, in order to help the people, and therefore the bishop must return back to his episcopal region. Thus, the most holy Proclus of Cyzicus, Gregory the Theologian of Sasima and many others, out of economy and necessity, leaving the episcopal or metropolitan areas that previously belonged to them, transferred to the ecumenical throne of Constantinople. Thus Meletius was transferred from Sebastia to Verria, and then to Antioch; Alexander - from Flavias (which was near Anazarus) to Jerusalem; the great Eustathius - from Verria Syrian to Antioch, etc. But since, according to Dositheus (Twelve Books. Book 3, p. 221), economia, especially in the present time, has become a reason for vice for many, to that extent, he says, movements can be reckless and illegal. After all, what is sometimes permitted for economic reasons and out of necessity does not become a law for the Church. Therefore, the conciliar answer given by Manuel of Constantinople in 1250, which states that a bishop who has renounced his episcopal region can be moved to another episcopal region by decision of the metropolitan and the rest of the bishops, is destructive and unacceptable as contrary to the rules. And Arephas of Caesarea says: “Displacements are made because of greed and the desire for empty glory; each of these impulses is disgusting: one is like idolatry, the other is like the disease of the morning star” (Aretha Caesariensis. Scripta minora. Vol. 1, 27. 28–30 // V. G. Teubner. Leipzig, 1968.). And Julius of Rome wrote to the Eusebians: “If you really believe that bishops have equal and equal honor, and do not judge bishops by the size of cities, then one who is entrusted with a small city should remain in the entrusted one and not disgrace the entrusted one. If he goes to a city that was not trusted in him, then this shows that, having loved empty human glory, he despises the city given to him by God” (Julius I. Ad Antioch. 5 // PL 8, 890A.). And Pope Damasus, as Theodoret narrates (book 5, chapter 10), wrote to Paulinus: “We consider those who move from one episcopal region to another to be alien to our communion until they return to their episcopal region. If a bishop moves from one place to another, and another bishop is ordained in his place, then let him who leaves his flock be deprived of his episcopal dignity until the one who was ordained to his episcopal region dies” (Theod. Sug. Hist. eccl. V, 11 // PG 8 2, 1221D–1224A). (see also: Socrates. Book 7, ch. 36) (PG 67, 817–821). Note that for economic reasons, there were also demotions of bishops, i.e. movement from a larger episcopal area to a smaller one. So John Kodonat was moved from Alexandria to Tire. One of the lawyers said: “We call the one who accepted two episcopal regions a bigamist.” According to Balsamon, the 3rd novel of Justinian gave such a right to the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople in order to honor him - the right to take and accept clergy of other episcopal regions (of course, subordinate to him) and include them in the churches of their episcopal regions without a letter of dismissal from their bishop. But in order to preserve brotherly love and avoid temptations, he must take and receive clergy with the question of their bishop and with his permission, as the mentioned rule of Carthage indicates. 64. Vlastar in the 9th chapter. the letter “A” says that according to the 130th novel of Justinian, the Bulgarian and Cypriot bishops also received the right to receive clergy from other regions subordinate to them and elevate them to bishops. An engagement, or betrothal, which takes place according to the orders of Emperor Alexei Komnenos and the instructions of Patriarch Nicholas, that is, with the usual sacred prayers and the traditional kiss for the betrothed, provided that the groom is 15 years old and the bride 13 (according to the novella of Emperor Leo the Wise), does not differ from a perfect marriage (according to the decree of the lord emperor Nicephorus Botaniates and according to the decision Patriarch of Constantinople John Xyphilinus with his Synod, which approved the decree of Nicephorus (In this place, the authors of the “Pidalion” made a historical mistake. Historically, first John Xyphilinus with his Council adopted these two resolutions, and then Botaniates (already under other patriarchs) confirmed this with his law)). That is why civil law does not allow relatives of both those who got married and legally engaged to marry when close degrees of kinship prevent this. In addition, the synodal tomos stipulates that a betrothal can be dissolved only for the same reasons for which a marriage can be dissolved. That is why rule VI Omni. 98 accuses of adultery the one who marries someone who is betrothed to another while the latter is still alive. Obviously, adultery is a sin with a married woman. Consequently, the Council considered betrothal to be a perfect marriage. It remains to be said that Basil the Great, in his 69th rule, does not impose a seven-year penance on a reader who, before marriage, entered into a relationship with his betrothed, as on a fornicator (for the reason that he fell not with another man’s wife, but with his own), but removes him from service only for one year because he showed cowardice and did not wait for the marriage to be consummated. So, since betrothal, carried out according to the laws, as proven above, is placed on a par with marriage, insofar as the one who has just become engaged to a second woman or married one who is betrothed to another is considered to be second-married. The rest of the betrothals, concluded only in words and simply through the exchange of pledges, according to the Church’s accord, are not and are not called betrothals, and therefore the conciliar rules themselves cannot act against them (for more detail on betrothal, see also: The Doctrine of Marriages. Chapter II) (Meaning “Διδασκαλία περὶ συνοικεσίων" - a compilation of laws relating to kinship, which was compiled by St. Nicodemus and placed at the end of the "Pidalion"). And Balsamon, in confirmation of the above, says that he who became engaged in accordance with the previously mentioned novel-instruction and decree, and after the death of his betrothed, took another woman as his wife, cannot become a priest, since he is considered a second-marriage. If he did not get engaged in this way, then he can be ordained, because he is not considered a second-marriage (Greco-Roman law. Answer 7. P. 365). However, note that although betrothal is placed on a par with marriage, it is, nevertheless, not quite equivalent to a perfect marriage, but less than it (see also note 2 to Ankir. 25). According to the “Nomocanon” of Photius (Titus 13, ch. 5), a concubine is a decent woman whose partner, by openly testifying to his cohabitation with her, shows everyone that she is like a wife to him. If he does not testify to this openly, then he will dissipate with her. Or in other words: a concubine is a woman who legally cohabits with a man without a blessing for marriage. However, note that although civil laws allowed having a concubine, the laws of our Church in no case allow Christians to have such a wife. Therefore, the 33rd rule of St. Nikephoros says that if someone has a concubine and does not want to leave her or marry her, then the priests should not accept even simple offerings and services from him for the church, since by his deeds he insults and dishonors church laws and rules. Peter, chartophylax and deacon of the Great Church, also says in his 5th answer: “No one should accept any offering, wax, oil, or incense from the house of one who lives with a woman without a blessing.” A harlot differs from a concubine in that she sins with many, while a concubine sins with one. When Basil the Great says in his 12th canon that “the rule absolutely does not allow second-weds to serve,” he means this 17th apostolic canon, as Balsamon and Zonara interpret in agreement. Therefore, it is obvious that, in the opinion of the divine Basil, the best interpreter of this apostolic rule, one who marries twice cannot become a subdeacon, a reader, a singer, or a doorkeeper. After all, they are all called by the common name of ministers (see also note 1 to VI Om. 15), although in the rules of Laodice. 21–23 a minister is primarily called a doorkeeper, and they perform church service, albeit not all in the same way. It is from such service, as Basil the Great says, that this apostolic rule completely and quite definitely excludes second-weds. If the “Nomocanon” of Photius (Tit. 9, ch. 29), followed by Balsamon, says: “A reader who marries a second time or takes a wife prohibited by the laws (We are talking about a woman whose marriage constitutes an obstacle to ordination according to the laws (for example, a second wife)), remains in her degree and is not elevated to a higher one,” then preference should be given to the authority of the apostolic canon and the canon of Basil Great, not civil laws. Firstly, because Saint Photius set himself the goal of giving in his “Nomocanon” a set primarily of short stories, and not of sacred rules, and secondly, because the degree of reader, which Balsamon ranks among the degrees of clergy, is one of the list of the sacred rank. Meanwhile, the apostolic canon, which we are now considering, commands: a second marriage cannot at all belong to the list of the sacred rank. And if Basil the Great completely excludes second-weds from serving in general, then isn’t it even more so the reader, who has an advantage over the rest, the lower servants? So, it is clear that a reader who, after being accepted into the clergy, marries a second time, must be expelled from his degree. Rule VI Universal. 3 says that from among the clergy who at that time fell into the sin of second marriage out of ignorance, those who were enslaved by this illegality, let them be cast out, and those who themselves knew evil and dissolved this illegal marriage, let them stop any priestly service for a certain period, and after that they again accept their degrees of the priesthood, but do not advance to a higher one. But the same Council determined that from then onwards the present apostolic rule should again come into force, which it sets out verbatim. And Pope Urban writes to Bishop. To Binon the following: “We excommunicate second-weds and husbands of widows from sacred degrees” (Urb. II. Er. 24. 7 // PL 151, 307B). That is why John the Merciful drove away that very rich second-married cleric who, at a time of great need, gave him as much bread and 150 pounds of gold as he could, if only he would ordain him as a deacon. The saint told him these memorable words: “It is better that the sun darken than the Divine law be exhausted” (Simeon Metaphrast. Life of John the Merciful) (See PG 114, 916С–917С). And the divine Augustine says: “We command that no one perform lawless ordinations, either on a second-wed, or on someone who is not engaged to a virgin, or on an illiterate person” (Tomos of Love. P. 314). In this sense, a woman cannot give guarantees, that is, she herself cannot guarantee for another. But even if he guarantees, he is not accused of guaranteeing. A woman is brought to trial for suretyship only when she accepts any gift for becoming a surety, because the gift she accepted makes her guilty of suretyship (Armenopul. Book 3, tit.6) According to the “Nomocanon” of Photius (tit. 9, ch. 34), the 25th and 32nd decree of the 3rd tit. 1st book. The “Code” stipulates that bishops and clergy in general, when suing, do not give guarantees, that is, do not put up guarantors for themselves. However, these decrees, after the novellas were purified by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, were not included in the Basiliki, as Balsamon says, and therefore they are invalid and have no force. Or this decree prohibits clergy from becoming guarantors, as we said, in trade transactions and for the fulfillment of human obligations, and not in what is done according to the commandment and for the benefit of the brothers. And the 123rd novella of Justinian says that clergy should not give guarantees when going to trial, but only a promise with a pledge and without an oath. And let the litigating bishops give neither guarantees nor promises. Keep in mind that some have understood by guarantee what is usually called matchmaking, because it is not appropriate for clergy and clerics to be matchmakers in engagements and marriages. Some of the castrati have had both their testicles and their reproductive organs cut off—they can no longer copulate with women, while others have only their testicles cut off, but not their reproductive organs. The latter can sin with women, although they cannot conceive children, and they experience carnal warfare more strongly than those who have all the organs and who bear children. So, Basil the Great speaks about them in his word “On Virginity” (Basil. Magn. De virgin. 61 // PG 30, 796AC.); The words of Sirach are also about them: The desire of a eunuch to corrupt a maiden (see Sirach 20:4 ~ and 30:21). Probably, this was also Pentephry, the eunuch of King Pharaoh (Some of the Christian chroniclers (John Malala, George Kedrin, etc.) believed that Pharaoh was the proper name of the Egyptian king of the times of the Exodus), master of Joseph the Beautiful: we read that he had a wife who inclined Joseph to sin. Note that Saint Augustine tells how a certain young man sent a letter to Hegemon Felix asking him to allow him to be castrated by a certain doctor, who did not dare to castrate him because of the imperial decree, since castration is an unholy matter, prohibited by both divine and imperial law. In addition, the divine Justin speaks in the 2nd Apology about some doctors who claimed that they could not castrate anyone without the permission of the hegemon (Just. Martyr. Apol. 1. 29 // PG 6, 373A.). Such was Niketas, about whom Niketas Choniates speaks: “There was a certain eunuch named Niketas, the home of all virtue, he presided as a bishop in the city of Chona” (Nicet. Chon. De Manuele Comneno V II, 7 // PG 139, 569A). Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople was also a eunuch. God also speaks about eunuchs in Deuteronomy: Let no eunuch or eunuch enter into the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1). Some crazy heretics, especially the Valesians, having heard the words of the Lord: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out” and “If your right hand or foot causes you to sin, cut them off” (See Matt. 5:29-30 and Luke 9:45), interpreted them viciously and perversely. They said that it is necessary to cut off those members that push a person to sin, as the divine Epiphanius talks about these heretics (Epiph. Adv. haer. 58.1 // PG 41, 1012AC.). So, those who, while in health, cut off members of their body are subject to the punishment of this apostolic canon, since they are enemies of God's creation. After all, the above words of the Lord cannot be understood literally - they are interpreted allegorically. If we have relatives or friends as near and dear to us as members of our own body, but friendship with them prevents us from loving God, then we should cut off such affection and friendship from ourselves if we prefer the love of God and the salvation of our souls. This is how the divine Chrysostom, Theophylact, Epiphanius and other fathers explain this saying of the Savior. Note that Gregory the Theologian calls the eunuchs “men among wives and wives among husbands” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 43. 47 // PG 36, 557B), and Basil the Great (letter to Simplicia) calls the genus of eunuchs “despicable, lost, effeminate, sentenced to mutilation” and many other epithets and adds that they even are not trustworthy when giving testimony (Basil. Magn. Ep. 115 // PG 32, 532A). The Divine Apostle considers the one who has castrated himself worthy of damnation. He curses those who corrupted the Galatians with these words: Oh, that those who disturb you were removed (ἀποκόψονται) (that is, castrated, according to the interpretation of Chrysostom and Theophylact) (Gal. 5:12). Thus, following the present apostolic rule, Demetrius of Alexandria deposed, as Socrates testifies, Origen because he dared to castrate himself (Probably, the authors of the “Pidalion” make a mistake - it is not Socrates Scholasticus, but Eusebius of Caesarea who talks in detail about the self-castration of Origen and his deprivation of the priesthood for this crime. See: Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 8 // PG 20, 536–537) (although others say that Origen, being a learned man, invented some kind of herbal potion with which he dried up the root of carnal fury). Read also Epiphanius, who in ch. about the 64th heresy conveys rumors about the castration of Origen (Epiph. Adv. haer. 64. 3 // PG 41, 1076B). Likewise, the divine Athanasius, speaking about Leontius of Antioch, who occupied the see before Eudoxius, said that it was not appropriate for him to have the rank of bishop or to receive communion, because he castrated himself in order to henceforth live unhindered with a certain Eustolia, who had previously had a relationship with him, although she was called a virgin (see: Apology 1 before Constantius) (In fact, this case described in the “History of the Arians”: Athanas. Hist, arian. 28 // PG 25b, 725A.). Note that the rules call perjury the violation of a true oath, and civil laws, according to Chapter 18. 13th tit. "Nomocanon" of Photius - also a false oath. A clergyman who has committed an oath in one way or another is ejected. Note also that since blasphemy is akin to theft, but is heavier than it, a bishop, presbyter or deacon caught in blasphemy is also cast out, twice as much. 10. And since high treason is similar to sacrilege, the clergyman guilty of high treason is also cast out. For information on what constitutes high treason, see the note. 1 to Apost. 72. Note the following. Since the rule of Apost. 61 forbids ordaining someone who, before ordination, was convicted of fornication, adultery, or another sin unacceptable for the faithful, and the sins that this rule mentions are unacceptable, then for them they are not only expelled from the priesthood, but are also not allowed to the priesthood, so that those convicted of them before ordination are not awarded the priesthood. If anyone says that since deposed clergy cannot receive communion, they are thereby punished twice, let him know: they are not punished twice, not in the sense that they are not excommunicated from communion, but in the sense that after the eruption they are not excommunicated from the Church, according to this apostolic rule. (And there is no need to excommunicate them from the Church for the reason that neither their place in the clergy nor the priesthood is returned to them, as Basil the Great says in the 3rd rule.) After all, if we reason like this, then the laity are punished twice, which should not be the case. Meanwhile, when the laity sinned mortally, they were not only expelled from the assembly of the faithful along with the catechumens, but also excommunicated from communion. But no one says that they are punished twice. And this is because abstaining from divine communion was not considered their punishment. What can I say? Let anyone who disagrees with this learn that deposed clergy, according to the 3rd rule of the same Basil, must not only abstain from communion, but also, crushing and enslaving their flesh in every possible way, remove themselves from the pleasures due to which they lost their degree, because abstaining from communion alone is not enough to heal them from passions. In addition, note that they cast out not only those who have sinned by fornication, adultery or other sins prohibiting consecration after ordination, but also those who committed these sins even before ordination, if after ordination they confess to them or are exposed, according to the rule of I Om. 9, which you should read. See the 10th rule of John the Faster. For the ordination and office of readers and singers, see VI Omni. 33 and 75. I said that the clergy should not beat those who sin against them, because those who sin against the shrine and God and are not admonished either by instructions or penances, they can admonish (both clergy and laity) by the power of civil authority, according to Antiochus. 5, Carthage. 76, 83, 99, 100, 106, 107 and Double. 9. After all, it is clear that in this case they no longer avenge themselves, but for God, whom they dishonor and insult. So the Lord, who did not beat or insult those who sinned against Him, made a scourge of ropes and with blows drove the merchants and money changers out of the church, since they sinned against God and made His Father’s house a den of thieves and a house of trade (See John 2:15–16 and Matt. 21:12–13). But it must be borne in mind that although the interpreters of the rules of Zonara and Balsamon, as well as Theophylact of Bulgaria in his interpretation of the Gospel of John, say that the Lord beat the merchants in the church (Theoph. Bulg. In Ioan. 2:12–17 // PG 123, 1197B), however, the four evangelists who narrate this event do not write that He beat them, but write that He beat them just kicked out. That is why Basil the Great (see. Rule 40 of the lengthy expositions) says: “The Lord raised the scourge only on those who were selling and buying near the church” (PG 31, 1020C). This means that Christ swung the whip at them and threatened to beat them, but it does not mean that He actually beat them. Apparently, on this basis, Chrysostom says that blasphemers need to be admonished with a stick, as sinning against God (Discourse 1 about statues): “If you hear someone at a market or crossroads blaspheming God, then come and accuse him of blasphemy. And if you need to hit, hit” (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 1.12 // PG 49, 32). Look, the saint does not say unequivocally that you need to beat the blasphemer, but he sets a condition and restrains the command: “if necessary.” Note also that although the saint says this out of ardent jealousy, he himself has never done anything like this. Balsamon says that if the clergy, being teachers of children, for the sake of discipline or for educational purposes, without any anger or revenge, punish one of them with a light blow of the hand, then they are not condemned. However, in order to respect the sacred order and not fall under canonical penances, it is better to allow other students to gently punish children than to beat them with their own hands. In addition, the rulers through whom the rules commanded to admonish the disorderly were at that time pious and faithful, so no one feared that they would kill or do anything else inappropriate to those whom they were supposed to admonish. And now, in our times, when secular people have neither faith nor piety, representatives of the Church should not hand over the outrageous people into their hands. This is extremely dangerous: firstly, because the rulers, having received the rioters into their hands, instead of simply punishing them for the sake of admonition, will kill them (as in fact often happened in many episcopal regions), and consequently, the clergy who handed them over will fall into involuntary murder, for which, according to Apost. 66, will have to be defrocked; secondly, by the fact that rioters, if handed over to the hands of the wicked, may renounce the faith out of fear, as most often happens (We are talking about the Turkish authorities and their attitude towards Christians during the time of St. Nicodemus). We know that some saints beat people for the sake of admonition. Yes, St. Pachomius beat his student Silvanus, John the Merciful hit a monk who was walking through the market with a girl, and the divine Benedict hit one of his students with a staff (Evergetin. p. 365). However, such cases as a rarity, according to Gregory the Theologian, are not a law for the Church (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 39.14 // PG 36, 352B), and exceptions to the rules, according to lawyers, are not cited as an example. Clerics who were justly expelled for obvious crimes by a full Council (i.e., a Council of all bishops of the metropolitan region with the metropolitan) can no longer file appeals, that is, transfer their case to a higher church court, since for such there is no longer the possibility of acquittal or hope of being restored at another Council, according to Antiochus. 4 and 15. If this is indeed the case, it means that assistance in the form of an appeal is not provided to every convicted person, as Balsamon incorrectly states in his interpretation of the rule of Antiochus. 12, and not every case can be appealed to a higher court. After all, according to Carthage. 105 and 131, the decision of elected judges is not transferred to another court. Moreover, the ejection of a cleric who left his episcopal region and church and, after the admonitions of his bishop, was deposed, according to Antiochus, cannot henceforth be disputed. 3, nor that cleric who neglected the great Council and turned to the emperor, according to the 12th rule of the same Council. It remains to be said that, according to the Nomocanon of Photius (tit. 9, ch. 6), neither the judicial decision of the praetorian prefect and the city prefect, nor the decision of the emperor and the synclite, nor the decision of the patriarch is subject to appeal (see also note 1 to the preface of I Ecumenical). And according to Armenopoul (book 1, tit. 4), one who was at least somewhat satisfied and remained silent when the decision was made on his case cannot transfer a judgment in his case to the highest court. So, from all that has been said, it follows that the rule that the Arians put forward against Athanasius, and Theophilus of Alexandria against Chrysostom, is false. Its content is as follows: “If a bishop or presbyter, rightly or unjustly deposed, arbitrarily again takes possession of his Church before the Council takes place, then he is no longer given the opportunity to justify himself at another Council.” After all, it is obvious that this rule does not distinguish between the righteous and the unrighteous, but sentences both to the same punishment and therefore contradicts Divine Scripture, which does not want the righteous to be punished as the wicked (see Gen. 18:23–26). It also contradicts the Sardik rule. 14, since he says that he who was unjustly expelled and returned to his Church before the Council will no longer have the opportunity to justify himself - then, as a rule, Sardik. 14, only admonishing such a person with a very sharp and severe word, does not say that he does not have the opportunity to be justified at another Council. Consequently, the above rule, since it was compiled by the Arians and states a lie, was refuted by the Council of Sardica. Someone will ask whether ordination, baptism, consecration, etc., which those rightly deposed by the Council for obvious crimes and therefore deprived of the help of another Council, have force and are valid, or do they have no power, are invalid - as if they did not exist at all - and therefore another priest, not deposed, must perform them anew? Some seem to think that they have no force and are completely invalid, and therefore must be performed anew, as if they had never taken place before. After all, if ordinations and other sacred rites performed by a bishop outside his area, according to Antiochus. 13, have no force, and what is more, those actions which the one justly and lawfully deposed have dared to commit have no force and are invalid? If anyone says that, according to the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 2 on the Second Epistle to Timothy (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. II ad Tim. 2. 3 // PG 62, 610); Discourse 11 on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (Idem. Hom, in Ep. I ad Thessal. 11. 2 // PG 62, 463); Discourse 8 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Idem. Nom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 8.1 // PG 61, 69.)), although grace does not ordain everyone, it nevertheless acts through everyone, even through the unworthy - we answer that it acts through everyone who is not deposed, and not through those deposed and defrocked. Moreover, I said that it is necessary to perform anew, as if they had not taken place, precisely those actions that the deposed one dared to perform justly and for obvious sins, because no one can say that the sacred rites that the deposed one dared to perform unjustly, and therefore justified by another, greater Council, also require re-commissioning as unreal and non-existent. After all, if this were so, then the one who was deposed himself should have been ordained a second time after his acquittal, but according to the rule of Carthage. 57, which prohibits repeated ordinations, he was not ordained a second time, therefore he had the power of the priesthood (although, being under eruption, he did not have the effect of the priesthood). Therefore, what he dared to do does not need to be done again. In fact, the one who was justly deposed internally deprived himself of the action of the priesthood for his unworthiness, and was outwardly deprived of it at the Council, and the one who was deposed was unjustly deprived of this action only externally, but did not deprive himself of it. As some say, the ejected one can rightly be likened to a craftsman whose hands have been maimed so that they cannot hold his tools, and whose working tools have been taken away. Therefore, even if, suppose, he moves his hands, he moves in vain: apparently they are doing something, but in essence they are not, which happens both due to the injury of his hands and due to the lack of tools. And the unjustly cast out is like a craftsman whose hands are healthy, but there are no working tools, so when the tools are given to him, he can take them and go about his craft. Even if he takes them himself, before they are given to him, he can practice a craft, and his work will actually be work. The crippled one, that is, justly ejected, neither before nor after the return of the instruments can take them and make something complete with them. If someone says that there is no need to re-perform ordinations and baptisms performed by those who were justly deposed, since the rule prohibits repeated baptisms and ordinations, then let them know that the rule prohibits re-performing real baptisms and ordinations, but not those that did not exist - and these are the actions of those who were justly deposed. And Basil the Great in the 3rd rule says that a deacon, once ejected, is punished by eruption forever; and in general, all clerics who sin mortal sin are demoted from their rank, as stated in the 32nd canon, and the holy rank is no longer returned to them. And if they do not return, it means that the sacred rites, no matter what they performed, are considered as performed by the laity, to whose rank they were deposed. Manuel Malax, a notary, in the translation of the rules, which he made in 1565, says in the 30th chapter that the Bishop of Constantinople determined: if those ordained by deposed bishops knew about their eruption, then they themselves should also be deposed and not re-ordained; and if they did not know, then let the non-deposed bishops ordain them anew. And Theodore the Studite says that the deposed priest does not perform any sacred rites, but is a layman, as he once was, and does not have the grace of the Holy Spirit, since it was taken away from him. And the one to whom he teaches the priesthood is not a priest. Despite all of the above, I still have doubts, and I do not know which opinion to lean towards, since neither the real apostolic rule nor the rule of Antiochus. 4 do not say anything about the subject in question. Should we consider the sacred rites that those rightly deposed dared to perform as not taking place (like the sacred rites of heretics, according to Apostle 46) or as having taken place? First of all and especially, I am perplexed when looking at Rule IV Omni. 6: it calls ordination without a precise designation invalid, not because this ordination is invalid and does not exist, and not because the sacraments that the one ordained without a precise designation performs are invalid and have no place, but because he is under prohibition and his ordination remains ineffective - and then only so that the one who ordained him would be disgraced and covered with shame. And since like must be inferred and judged by like, the word “not having force” in the definition of the rule of Antiochus. 13 must be understood and interpreted as the IV Ecumenical Council understood and interpreted it, and not as the above-mentioned persons understand and interpret it. See also Acts (vol. 2, p. 993). It describes how an entire Council, held in Constantinople in 1143 under Emperor John Komnenos and Patriarch Michael Oxites, accuses Leontius of considering the baptism performed by an erupted person to be inferior and baptized for the second time a baptized priest who was deposed for obvious crimes. In a similar way, Josephus Bryennius, in a letter to Niketas, says that the sacred rites that the erupted dare to perform are holy and complete. The scholar Eugene Voulgaris agrees with this in his critical remarks on the grammar of Neophytos, referring to Nicholas Cabasilus. Ioan. Chrysost. De sacerd. 3.11 // PG 48, 648. In other lists it is written “by Peter”, and not “by me, Peter”. Pope Gregory, in a letter to King Charles, says that the Simonites are the worst of all heretics (Tomos of Love, p. 323). Gennady Scholarius argues that simony is the reason why Christians suffered misfortunes from godless barbarians; that it is the greatest of sins, a terrible wickedness and heresy, sinning against the first member of the faith (Ibid. P. 207) (Gennad. Scholar. De haer. simon. // PG 160, 731CD–732CD, 733C). And Isidore Pelusiot says: “So, anyone who buys the priesthood turns out to be the Christ-killer Caiaphas. After all, what cannot be entrusted to him for deeds, he acquires with wicked gifts” (letter 315) (Isid. Pel. Ep. I, 315 // PG 78, 365A.). Therefore, from now on, the chrisovulus of the emperor Isaac Comnenus should be forever abolished, which decrees that the ordaining bishop should take seven florins from the ordained priests: one from the reader, three from the deacon and three from the presbyter; so are the conciliar decrees of Patriarchs Michael and Nicholas, approving the aforementioned Chrisovul, because they clearly contradict the apostolic, conciliar and paternal rules. And civil laws that contradict the rules are invalid (see p. 21 at the beginning of the book). And Chrysostom says that kings often make laws without benefit (Discourse 16 on statues) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 16. 2 // PG 49, 164.). It remains to be said that the civil laws themselves abolish the mentioned chrisovul. Namely, the 123rd short story of Justinian, placed in the 3rd book. "Basilik" (tit. 1, ch. 9), prescribes that, first of all, the prohibition of giving gold or anything else for ordination should be observed. When this happens, then both those who give and those who receive, as well as those who become intermediaries in these bribes, incur condemnation on themselves, according to the Divine Scriptures and sacred rules: they are deprived of the priesthood and the honor of the clergy. Let the money paid for ordination be given to the church or region in which they wanted to purchase the leadership. And the novella commands the mediator or patron of such ordinations to give to that church twice as much as the ordained paid to the ordained. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 32. 8 // PG 36, 181C. Patriarchal stauropegial monasteries and churches, which are built in various metropolitan, archbishopric and episcopal regions, are not “other altars”, and those who build them, according to Balsamon, are not subject to the penances of the present apostolic rule. After all, both metropolitan and archiepiscopal regions are distributed among the patriarchs, and all metropolitans and archbishops exalt their names during sacred ceremonies, since they are subject to the control of the patriarchs, according to I Ecumenical. 6, 7 and II Omni. 2, 3. Therefore, according to the meaning of these sacred rules, the patriarchs have the right to establish stauropegies in the metropolises and archdioceses of their regions, so that their names are commemorated there. Since the question of stauropegians is touched upon here, we will make a separate, comprehensive note about them based on what is clearly shown on p. 235 and 236 of Greco-Roman Law. The sigil of Patriarch Herman contained in this book determines that the name of the patriarch should be commemorated only in those monasteries, parish churches or houses of worship at the foundation of which the patriarchal stauropegy was committed, that is, a cross sent by the patriarch was erected, and a building was built over this patriarchal cross. Local bishops have nothing to do with them: they do not participate in sacred rites or in the installation of hegumen, they do not deal with cases of spiritual failure and cannot even demand canonical contributions from those who are in these monasteries. This is explained by the fact that all clergy who are assigned to such monasteries, churches and chapels are and are called patriarchal and are subordinate to the patriarchal exarch. And where from the very beginning the patriarchal cross was not erected at the foundation, there power belongs to the local bishop, be it a monastery courtyard, or a monastery courtyard, or a house of prayer, and his name should be remembered in them. Here it is he who must appoint the abbot, carry out investigations and administer justice, take canonical contributions, perform ordinations, permit or prohibit marriages, and generally enjoy all other episcopal privileges. Those who settled within the boundaries of the patriarchal stauropegies - before or after their establishment - if they are native residents, must obey the local bishop in everything, and if foreigners, then the patriarchal exarch. Patriarchal exarchs should not have power over villages belonging to patriarchal monasteries: neither over the people living there, nor over houses of prayer that were not founded and built with the erection of the patriarchal cross, since these settlements are under the authority of the local bishop (Greco-Roman Law, p. 237). So, from these words it follows that monasteries, churches and houses of worship under construction should become patriarchal stauropegies not after construction, but before it. And of these, let only a few become stauropegians, for the sake of the honor and privilege granted to the patriarchs, and not all the monasteries, churches and houses of worship that will be built. This was established so that the rules that determine that monasteries and monks must obey local bishops are not violated (see IV Ecumenical 4). On behalf of the bishop, the presbyter performs the rite of stauropegia (See 30th rule of St. Nikephoros the Confessor). In the 11th discourse on the Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Chrysostom says that, according to one holy man, even martyr’s blood cannot blot out the sin of removal and separation from the Church, and causing a schism in the Church is worse than falling into heresy (Ioan. Chrysost. Нom. in Eph. 11. 4 // PG 62, 85). Also Dionysius of Alexandria, confessor, writes in a letter to the bishop. Novatus, that one must endure any evil, just not to cause a schism in the Church, and that it is more glorious to go to martyrdom in order not to cause a schism in the Church than for refusing to worship idols. Martyrdom for refusing to worship idols is endured for the benefit of one’s own soul, and martyrdom for preserving the Church from schism is endured for the benefit and unity of the entire Church (Dion. Alex. Ad Nov. // PG 10, 1296A; Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 45 // PG 20, 633B). So, Balsamon speaks incorrectly in his interpretation of the rule of Carthage. 37, while somehow defining that those who have been excommunicated by a bishop without justification need not observe such excommunication—these rules define the opposite. From this apostolic canon it follows that confessors should not allow penances imposed by other confessors of equal rank with them, unless these penances contradict the canons and are not completely unreasonable. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom, when he was accused of not submitting to the excommunication that the Council of Theophilus proclaimed for him, but violating it before another council consideration, said in his defense that he was not present at all at the trial, did not hear the accusations of his accusers and did not have the opportunity to defend himself (as evidenced by Metaphrastus in the life of Chrysostom) (Sym. Metaph. Vita s. Ioan. Chiysost. 47 // PG 114, 1176C). The same is determined by the Apost rule. 74, which you should read. Please note that there are three types of excommunication. One is divine; as it is said about Paul, he was separated from his mother’s womb by God to serve the gospel (see Rom. 1:1). The other is fair and canonical, imposed according to the rules. And the third is unreasonable, imposed contrary to the rules. The excommunication imposed by the ancients consisted of removal either from communion of the Holy Mysteries, or from the Church and prayer with the faithful, or, for the cleric, from communication with fellow clerics of equal rank, as we said in the interpretation of the Apostle. 10. And in our days, excommunication consists of actual excommunication from the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity and curse, meaning that sin is not forgiven or resolved even after death. It is not similar to the excommunication of the ancients, but is close to the anathema, about which see in the preface to the rules of the Gangra Cathedral. Therefore, such expressions, as those that do not agree with the rules, should not be included in the decree of excommunication. Look also at how the 1st rule of the Council of Hagia Sophia agrees with the present apostolic canon, which determines that the Patriarch of Constantinople should excommunicate, depose or anathematize those whom the Pope excommunicated, deposed or anathematized. Those who are excommunicated unjustly for the name of God, that is, either for faith, or for church traditions, or for the commandment of Christ, should rejoice, because they are worthy of blessing, according to the word of the Lord: Blessed are you when people hate you and when they excommunicate you, and revile you, and carry your name as dishonor, because of the Son of Man (Luke 6:22). About those who excommunicate foolishly and out of passion, Dionysius the Areopagite in the 7th chapter. of the book “On the Church Hierarchy” says: “Thus, the hierarchs, as exponents of Divine justice, have the power to excommunicate, but not because the all-wise God - let us not utter blasphemy! - will slavishly follow their rash whims, but because the Spirit, which serves as the source of sanctification, prompts them, like prophets, to excommunicate those condemned by God according to their merits.” And again: “Divine hierarchs must use excommunications and all hierarchical powers exactly as the sanctifying Godhead encourages them to use them” (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. VII, 3. 7 // PG 3, 564BD.). Interpreting these words, the divine Maximus says: “If the hierarch excommunicates contrary to God’s plan, then the Divine sentence will not follow him, for the hierarch must impose excommunication by Divine judgment, and not at his own request” (Maximus Conf. Scholia in “De eccl. hierarch.” VII, 3. 7 // PG 4,181B.). Note that, according to Sardik. 6, the first among bishops is called the bishop of the metropolitan area and the exarch of the metropolitan region, and according to the 34th and other rules of the Council of Carthage, the primate. According to the 46th rule of the same Council, he is called a bishop of the first see, but usually in most rules he is called a metropolitan. The first among metropolitans is called or exarch of the diocese, according to the IV Ecumenical. 9, 17 and II Omni. 6, or patriarch (see and note 2 to I Om. 6). According to Carthage. 46, the title “exarch of priests” or “high priest” should not be used, because the metropolitan occupies the same position in relation to bishops as the patriarch occupies in relation to metropolitans. And just as the metropolitan is the first among bishops and the head over them, so the patriarch is the first among metropolitans and the head over them, therefore this apostolic rule can be applied to the relationship between the metropolitans and the patriarch no less than to the relationship between the bishops and the metropolitan. This rule applies equally to both. Therefore, John of Kitras says that if a metropolitan serves the liturgy in the bishopric of his bishop, he should do this with the will and permission of this bishop. However, in diptychs let him commemorate the name of the patriarch, and not the bishop, because it is not proper for the greater to exalt the name of the lesser, according to the “Summary of the Rules” of Armenopoulus (section 1, tit. 4). Therefore, the Egyptian bishops who were present at the IV Ecumenical Council followed the present apostolic canon and at that moment did not sign Leo’s letter, saying that without the permission of the first among them, i.e. the Bishop of Alexandria, they had no right to do anything (4th act of the IV Ecumenical, see also IV Ecumenical 30). The question arises whether clergy who were ordained by a bishop of another region without the permission of the local bishop and therefore expelled can again receive the degree of clergy from which they were deposed, or cannot. Apparently, they can, some say, because these clergy were expelled from the clergy not because of canonical crimes, not because of their own sin, but because of the fault of the one who ordained them outside their region, especially if they did not know that the one who ordained them did this without the permission of the local bishop. If they can again receive their degree of clergy, do they receive it as erupted, through re-ordination by the local bishop, or simply with his consent and permission? Most likely, simply with his consent, because repeated ordination is prohibited according to the rules. After all, if someone kidnaps a woman and, without the permission of the bishop and the woman’s parents, persuades the priest to perform the wedding, and then the bishop and the woman’s parents find out about this and agree to the marriage, then the second wedding will no longer take place (that’s why Basil the Great in the 22nd rule demands that the marital cohabitation formed through the abduction become valid and gain force only with the consent of the parents). In the same way, the ordination of those whom the bishop ordained outside the boundaries of his district receives validity and force from the mere consent of the local bishop, as if this ordination had actually been performed by him. Just as the reason for the ejection of these clergy was that the local bishop did not give his consent to their ordination, so the validity of their ordination depends on the voluntary consent of the same bishop. It is obvious that if someone who has vowed to preserve virginity and not enter into marriage is ordained by a bishop of another region and deposed, then he does not have the right to marry under the pretext that he is deprived of the rank, since he cannot justify himself by the fact that he took a vow of virginity for the sake of the rank and therefore, by leaving the rank, he thereby abandons the vow of virginity and relinquishes it. After all, he had the opportunity to first get married and then be ordained. This means that he loved virginity not for the sake of the rank, so that because of its loss he would hate virginity, but he loved it for its own sake, and therefore cannot renounce the vow. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom in conversation 3 on the Epistle to the Colossians says: “As long as we are on the throne of Constantinople, while we preside, as long as we have the dignity of chairmanship and its powers - even if we ourselves are unworthy” (Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Col. 3.5 // PG 62, 324). If the divine Epiphanius ordained in Jerusalem and Constantinople, like Eusebius of Samosata, according to Theodoret (word 4, chapter 13) (Theod. Cyr. Hist. eccl. IV, 12 // PG 82, 1148C.), and Athanasius, according to Socrates (book 2, chapter 22) (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. II, 24 // PG 67, 264A.), and others ordained outside their area, this, as caused by the circumstances of the time, is not a law for the Church. Therefore, as the same Socrates says, this brought censure on Athanasius; the divine Epiphanius was also accused for the same reason. However, note that, according to Dositheus, the expression “outside one’s area” has a double meaning. Firstly, when some bishop is in the region of another and ordains a resident of this region, and secondly, when he ordains someone who himself comes to him out of contempt for his bishop and after the ordination returns back. If a bishop ordains someone who has moved to his region, being a layman and not a clergyman in another region, then this is not an ordination “outside his region.” In this rule, pay attention to what clergy should be like: not only educated, but also capable of instructing and admonishing others. Now, we see that although they themselves were not the perpetrators of evil, because they did not properly educate their people, they are excommunicated and subject to canonical penances. The Macedonians call October Iperverteum. Here are their names of the months, starting from March: dystros, xanthik, artemisium, desius, panemos, loos, gorpia, iperveretey, diy, appellei, avdinei, peritium. The rule uses the Macedonian name for October, because at that time time was calculated from the reign of Alexander the Great. This was the case until the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century, for then a certain monk Dionysius, called the Small, invented a method of calculating time from the Nativity of Christ that became common to everyone (which is why it is called Dionysian). According to, perhaps, most of the most famous chronologists, the Dionysian year lags 4 years behind the true and exact date of the Nativity of Christ. For example, if now is 1797, then in fact it is 1801 (see also: Cyrus Eugene. On religious tolerance. P. 94) (The authors of “Pidalion” talk about the work of Eugene Voulgaris of 1768 “Σχεδίασμα περὶ τῆς ἀνεξιθρησκείας".). Since then, instead of counting time from Diocletian, the Church began to count time from Christ. Please also note that at subsequent Councils a different time and number of such Local Councils were established. The time of the first of these two Councils is usefully moved forward by the rule of I Ecumenical. 5 for the days before the Holy Pentecost, so that the court of the Council would eliminate all disputes and ill will of the clergy and laity towards each other and their bishop, and after that they purely and dispassionately offered the gift of fasting to God. According to I Omni. 5, IV Omni. 19 and Antiochus. 20, the number of Local Councils remained the same, i.e. these Councils should be held twice a year. And according to VI Omni. 8, VII Omni. 6, Carthage. 26, 60,104 and book. 3, tit. 1, ch. 20 and 21 "Basilik", the number of Councils was reduced to one per year due to the difficulties of travel and other impeding circumstances. This single Council ruled Carthage. 81 decided to hold on August 21. Canon 61 of the same Council says that during the Council, representatives of the Council present at it must personally visit each episcopal region. The Council of Laodicea, in its 40th canon, prescribes that bishops should come to such a Council in order to teach and learn what is proper. A secular leader who will interfere with the meeting of such a Council will be excommunicated, according to VII Ecumenical. b. Those metropolitans who neglect the Council, and bishops who, while in health and free from necessary care, do not come to the Council, must be admonished in a brotherly manner. If some of them do not announce to the leader, i.e. Metropolitan, about the obstacle due to which they were not present at the Council, let them be excommunicated from communion with other bishops, but enjoy communion only in their episcopal region, according to Carthage. 84 and 85. Photius determines (tit. 8, ch. 8) that those leaders who do not force the bishops to hold such Councils or do not report them to the emperor should be subjected to the most severe punishments. In the same title and chapter, Photius says that Councils of Bishops should meet under metropolitans, and Councils of Metropolitans should meet under patriarchs. And that the rule of Carthage does not contradict this apostolic rule. 104, see the interpretation of the latter. Refers to the Council of Carthage in 255. The word τὸ Κυριακόν (house of the Lord) is what the rule calls here the church of the bishopric or metropolis. However, the house of the Lord also means any church in a parish, city or country. The compiler of the interpretation explains that the name “house of the Lord” was borrowed from ascetic monks, who, according to ancient custom, so called the sacred church, where they gathered on every Lord’s Day (Κυριακή) from their solitary cells and listened to the Divine Liturgy. Since the bishop must be entirely occupied only with diligent spiritual care for the souls entrusted to him and does not have time to take care of such things, on the basis of the 10th rule of Theophilus Alexander, by the will of all clergy, he must appoint a steward from the clergy to manage church property, both movable and immovable, so that it, according to IV Omni. 26, was not squandered or misused. According to the same rule of IV Ecumenical, if the bishop does not want to appoint a steward, let him be punished according to the rules, and the right to appoint a steward over the property of the bishopric should be given to the metropolitan. In the same way, let the patriarch have the right to appoint a steward over the property of the metropolis, if the metropolitan does not want to appoint him, according to the VII Ecumenical. 11. If a bishop distributes income and harvest from church fields, which constitute church property, to his brothers and other relatives, he must be punished by the Council of the metropolitan region, according to Antiochus. 25. If he gives or sells to the authorities or someone else any of the things belonging to the Church, or completely takes this thing away from the bishopric, let such transfer, or sale, or alienation be invalid, according to VII Ecumenical. 12, and let the bishop who sold him be expelled from his bishopric. (The same measure should be applied to the abbot who sells any property of the monastery.) If there is a need to sell church property, either because it brings not profit, but losses, or in order for the money proceeds from the sale to be given for the ransom of captive Christians, then, according to the “Nomocanon” of Photius (tit. 2, ch. 2), it is necessary to sell it according to the will of the Council and the presbyters (according to Carthage 41), and if there is no time to obtain their consent, secure at least the testimony of neighboring bishops, according to Carthage. 34. However, even then the property must be sold not to the authorities, directly or through someone else, but to clergy or farmers, according to Rule VII Omni. 12, in which the present apostolic rule is set out verbatim. If the bishop makes a sale without the testimony of his neighbors, then let him be guilty before God and the Council and alien to the honor of the bishop, according to Carthage. 34. Double rule. 7 punishes a bishop who spends the property of his bishopric on the construction of monasteries, while it is threatened with ruin. Rule Apost. 41 puts church property into the power of the bishop and entrusts him with the care of it. As a result of this, elders, both celibate and married, receive from the bishop the power to bind and decide through a letter with blessing and permission to accept confession. Having the ability to bind and solve sins (which is included in the very concept of the priesthood), through this command and written permission they receive the power to exercise this opportunity in practice (St. Nicodemus distinguishes between potential power and its actual manifestation (δύναμις - ἐνέργεια). The power to bind and solve is received by the entire priesthood, but elders can exercise this power with permission bishop. - Ed.). Many bishops appoint confessors not simply through this letter and simple permission, but also through consecration, which is better and more reliable, since it does not give rise to anything bad. Indeed, through this consecration, blessing is transmitted, according to Tarasius and the VII Ecumenical Council (see also note to I Ecumenical 8), and the grace of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts (as it is said, the Holy Spirit was given by the hands of the apostles) (See Acts 8:18). The performance of ordination is approved both by those who say that the power to bind and decide is inherent in the priesthood potentially, and by those who claim the opposite. Simeon of Thessaloniki, it seems, belongs to the latter, for he says (answer 11) that elders do not receive the power to knit and decide together with ordination, but it is the property of bishops only. However, by order and permission of the bishops and if necessary, these actions can also be performed by presbyters (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 10–13 // PG 155, 861D–864A.). And the 30th canon of John of Kitra says that confessors who were once elected by a bishop and received permission to confess do not need to again receive permission from his successor (In accordance with the practice of the Greek Churches, the right to confess is granted by the decision of the bishop only to spiritually experienced priests, i.e. it is not given along with ordination, as is customary in the modern practice of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Ed.). For what is born once cannot be born a second time, and they can lose the grace of spirituality only if they fall into some kind of sin, and nothing else. Then, indeed, they are ejected from the priesthood and are deprived of the position of confessor. So, according to this rule, confessors must be priests who have the right to officiate. And priests who are prevented from performing priesthood by some sins should not even confess. Anyone who does otherwise is acting against the rules. For more details about this, see the note. to VI Omni. 102. Ign. Er. ad Magn. 7 // PG 5, 668V. Idem. Er. ad Smym. 8 // PG 5, 713B. We said that the property acquired by the bishop before his installation should be known, and that he can leave it to whomever he wants, since, according to Carthage. 40, if bishops or clergy, who were formerly poor, later, during their episcopate or service in the clergy, acquired movable or immovable property, then they should leave it to the church to which they belong as bishops or clergy (likewise, from property that they received from someone as a gift or from relatives in a will, they should dedicate to their church what they wish). Rule of Carthage. 89 determines that a bishop who leaves pagans or heretics as heirs is anathematized even after death. Canon 30 of the same Council also prohibits bishops and clergy from donating their property to heretics, even if they were their relatives. For a sample of such a will, see the end of the book. Therefore, Justin, the philosopher and martyr, in the 2nd Apology of Christians says this: “Those who have the opportunity and desire, give what they want, each according to his own will, and what is collected is kept by the primate, and he provides assistance to orphans, widows and everyone experiencing hardship due to illness or for any other reason, as well as prisoners and strangers, and in general, he becomes the caring patron of all those in need” (Just. Martyr. Apol. 1.67 // PG 6, 428C.). According to the interpretation of Theodoret on the 6th and 7th verses of the 3rd chapter. books of Leviticus, from the sacrificial animals (except those intended for burnt offerings), some parts were brought to the altar (namely, the kidneys with fat and the fat that was on the belly and thigh parts, as well as part of the liver), and the remaining meat was given to the priests so that they could eat it (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 1 // PG 80, 305D.) (see: Chain of interpreters on The Octateuch. T. 1. P. 971) (This refers to the book of Nikephoros Theotokis “The chain of fifty-one interpreters on the Octateuch and on the Kingdoms.” St. Nicodemus could use the publication: Σειρὰ ἑνὸς καὶ πεντήκοντα ὑπομνηματιστῶν εἰς τήν Ὀκτάτευχον καὶ τά τῶν Βασιλειῶν... Τ. Ἑν Λειψίᾳ, 1772–1773). The Nomocanon specifies a period of one year. Pay attention: the divine Chrysostom also proves that playing dice and other games can be the cause of many evils. “The passion for playing dice has often become the cause of blasphemy, losses, anger, abuse and countless other things even more terrible than these” (Homily 15 on statues. Vol. 6. P. 564) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 15.4 // PG 49, 159). Aristotle classifies all dice players and gamblers as thieves, saying: “Of course, a dice player, a robber and a robber belong to the number of low people. For they are selfish” (Nicomachean Ethics. Book 4) (TLG 86/10, 1122a, 7). Therefore, the 123rd novel of Justinian deprives such clergymen who are prone to games of the right to any sacred rite and orders them to be imprisoned for three years in a monastery. And Basil the Great, admonishing drunkards, says: “Let fasting cure drunkenness, let psalm cure vile singing. First of all, let alms redeem you from sin” (Word against drunkards) (Basil. Magn. Hom. 14.8 // PG 31, 461C.); This means that those who get drunk to the point of vomiting should be corrected all the more with the help of such treatment by fasting and almsgiving. Therefore, Leo’s novella determines: “Although previously the emperors, according to our information, allowed the collection of interest due to the hard-heartedness and callousness of the lenders, we, however, considered it fair that this should have absolutely no place in the society of Christians, as inappropriate for their life and prohibited by Divine laws. Therefore, our Majesty orders that absolutely no one, under any pretext, has the right to take interest, so that we do not break the law of God, wanting to observe the law of man. But no matter how much the lender takes back, the account should be limited to the size of the debt” (Armenopul. Book 3, tit. 7). Interpretation of 2nd tit. 1st chapter "Nomocanon" Photius says that the 131st story of Justinian, contained in the 5th book. “Basilik” (tit. 3, ch. 9), defines: “If someone in a will leaves a gift for pious deeds (for example, for the release of prisoners, the construction of holy churches, giving to the poor, raising orphans and their maintenance), we prescribe that within six months after opening this will, this gift and alms be given (τὸ ψυχικόν) (The Greek word τὸ ψυχικόν, which means “alms”, has the same root as the word ψυχή - “soul” - and means alms for the repose of the soul of the deceased.) to those persons to whom they are left. If the stewards and executors of the will of the deceased delay the transfer for more than six months and do not give this alms, then they must give it back with interest and the full legal increase calculated from the date of death of the one who left it.” If, I continue, this novella defines it this way, and Photius says the same thing (tit. 9, ch. 27), and the interpreter Balsamon writes that we should thank Patriarch Photius, for he explained well that bishops and clergy should charge interest, this should not completely confuse the reader. After all, Photius does not say that the clergy should collect interest on the money or other items that they themselves lend (because this is contrary to the sacred rules, the Gospel and the Divine law), but, as is completely clear from the very words of the novella, he means that they should collect interest on the alms that the dead leave to the needy for the sake of saving their souls, and the stewards of the dead withhold in order to spend it themselves, and postpone the deadline for its issuance. So let usurers and lenders not rely on the above words of Balsamon, because these words are truly a rod of reeds, according to the prophet (Ezek. 29:6), or, better said, a reed broken by itself (see Matt. 12:20). It does not help them at all, but rather throws them to the ground and brings them down into a soul-destroying abyss. After all, if we, Christians, have the Gospel commandment not to hope to get back even the debt itself when we lend: Lend, not expecting anything (Luke 6:35), and Sirach says: If you lend, consider yourself lost (Sir. 8:15), then how do we want to be allowed to charge interest as well? Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Gen. 41.2 // PG 53, 377. The Greek words τόκος and γέννα are derived from verbs with the same meaning “to give birth.” Basil. Magn. Nom. in Ps. 14.1–3 // PG 29b, 265B, 273C. The canon of the Council of Carthage of 255, to which the authors of the Pidalion refer here, is not included in the Romanian and Slavic canonical collections on the grounds that it contains a decree to baptize any schismatic or heretic who turns to the Church, and the Trullo Council says that this decree was observed only in the African Church, in relation to the circumstances of that time. That's why St. sschmch. Cyprian, who was Bishop of Carthage, and his entire Council of 84 bishops, convened in Carthage (We are talking about the Council of Carthage 255), followed the present apostolic canon, which simply rejects the baptism of heretics, as well as the 68th apostolic, which says that there is no possibility (i.e., impossible) that those who have received baptism or ordination from heretics thereby became Christians or clergy. So, following these rules, the fathers of the Council laid down a rule according to which they simultaneously reject baptism of both heretics and schismatics, proving the justice of this with many sayings from Scripture, but especially with the following apostolic words: One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). Indeed, if, says the Council, there is one Catholic Church and one true baptism, then how can the baptism of heretics and schismatics be true, while they do not remain in the Catholic Church, but have fallen away from it because of heresy? If the baptism of heretics and schismatics is true, and the baptism of the Orthodox and Catholic Church is true, then there is no longer one baptism, as Paul proclaims, but two, which is completely absurd. The fathers of the Council of Carthage also add the following: the opinion that the baptism of heretics should not be recognized is by no means new or recent, not their own, but ancient and approved by their predecessors. The rule of this Council was approved by the holy VI Ecumenical Council (rule 2), and since then what was at first the rule of the Local and Particular Council became the rule of the Ecumenical Council, as approved by it. According to St. Cyprian and his Council and Firmilian, the chairman of the Council of Iconium (Basily the Great in his 1st canon calls Firmilian “ours”, since he was the bishop of Caesarea), declares the baptism of heretics invalid and rejects it. In a letter to St. To Cyprian he says the following: “But who, even if he has reached the pinnacle of perfection and wisdom, can affirm or believe that the mere invocation of the three names of the Holy Trinity is sufficient for the remission of sins and the sanctification of the person being baptized, even if the one who baptizes is not Orthodox?” (Firmilian. Ep. g // PL 3, 1162B–1163A.). Read his entire letter in the book “The History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” (book 1, ch. 16, paragraph 4), it is necessary on this issue. Basil the Great also agrees with this opinion, whose rules were also approved by the VI Ecumenical Council (rule 2). Intending to say in his 1st rule about which baptisms are recognized and which are not, the saint divides them into two types and says: “The baptism of heretics, namely those who have completely excommunicated themselves from the Church and by their very faith differ from the Orthodox, and this difference concerns the very faith in God, it seemed fair to the ancient fathers to completely reject. At the Council of Cyprian and our Firmilian, it seemed fair to reject the baptism of schismatics. For the schismatics, namely the so-called Kafars, Encratites, Saccophores, Hydroparastats, etc., initially departed from the Church and, having separated, no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit in themselves, since its teaching was stopped. Consequently, having become like laymen, they had neither the spiritual gift nor the power to perform baptism or ordination. This means that those baptized by them, as baptized by the laity, the ancients commanded to be baptized with the true baptism of the Catholic Church. However, since it seemed reasonable to the Asian fathers to recognize the baptism of schismatics according to a certain economy for the sake of many, then let it be recognized.” Note also that the baptism of schismatics, which Basil the Great accepts in the 1st canon, he rejects in the 47th, saying: “Kaphars, enkratites and saccophors - we baptize all for the same reason. But if you, like the Romans, according to a certain economy, re-baptism is prohibited, still let our decision remain in force: we must reject the baptism of such.” Consequently, if Basil the Great rejects the baptism of schismatics, since perfect grace abandoned them, then it is unnecessary to ask whether we should baptize heretics. In the 20th canon, he decisively states that the Church does not accept heretics without performing baptism on them. Athanasius the Great has the same opinion, whose words were also approved by the VI Ecumenical Council. In the 2nd word against the Arians, he says: “The Arians are in danger of losing the very fullness of the sacrament - I mean baptism. After all, if initiation into the sacrament of baptism is performed in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Arians do not call the true Father, because they deny that He who is from Him is similar to Him in essence, they also deny the true Son and, inventing in their own imagination another, created from non-existent, they call him the Son, then how can the baptism taught by them not be completely empty and useless? It only has the imaginary appearance of baptism, but in reality does not help faith and piety in any way. It is not the one who simply says “Lord” who teaches correct baptism, but the one who calls names and has the right faith. Therefore, the Savior did not simply command the apostles to baptize, but said that first they should teach those who wish to be baptized and then baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that from the teaching a right faith would arise, and initiation into the sacrament of baptism would be added to the right faith. And many other heretics only pronounce the names of the Holy Trinity, but since they do not think about them correctly and do not have a sound faith, the baptism they teach is useless - as devoid of piety, so that the one sprinkled by them is more defiled by wickedness than freed from it. Likewise, those who are wise, like Arius, although they read what is written and pronounce the names of the Holy Trinity at their baptism, they deceive those who receive baptism from them, because they themselves are more wicked than other heretics” (Athanas. Alex. Or. contr. arian. 2. 42–43 // PG 26, 236C–237ABC). And Gregory the Theologian, in agreement with the saints mentioned above, says in his homily for Holy Baptism, addressing the catechumens of the Arians, and perhaps also the Macedonians: “If you are still lame and do not accept the fullness of the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit, look for another to baptize you, or, better to say, to drown you with this baptism. I have no right to separate the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit from the Divinity of the Father and to kill you at the very time when I should regenerate you through baptism, so that you, having lost your salvation because of a few syllables in the words “consubstantial” and “similar in essence,” have neither the gift of baptism nor the hope that is born from it. After all, whichever of the three Hypostases you would bring down from the height of the dignity of the Divinity, you will bring down the entire Holy Trinity, and you will deprive yourself of the perfection given through baptism" (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40. 44 // PG 36, 421C). The divine Chrysostom also says (Discourse on the saying in the beginning of the Word): "Let not the assemblies of heretics deceive you, O listener, for they have baptism, but not enlightenment, and are baptized with the body, but the soul is not enlightened" (Ioan. Chrysost. In illud.: In principio erat Verbum 2 // PG 63, 547.). Leo, in a letter to Nikita, says: “No heretic teaches sanctification through the sacraments” (Leo Magn. Ep. 159. 7 // PL 54, 1139A.). And Ambrose in his “Tale of the Catechumens” says: “Baptism does not sanctify the wicked.” After all that has been said, it is perhaps fair to be perplexed why the holy Second Ecumenical Council in its 7th canon and the VI Ecumenical Council in its 95th canon did not reject the baptism of all heretics, according to these apostolic rules, the rule of the Council of St. Cyprian and all the other previously mentioned great and wise fathers, whose writings the same VI Ecumenical Council approved by the 2nd rule? But why did these Councils accept the baptism of some heretics, but not others? In order to easily resolve this confusion, it is necessary to first know that in the Church of Christ two types of management and correction are preserved. One type is called akrivia, the other is oikonomia and condescension. In accordance with them - sometimes with one, sometimes with another - the stewards of the Holy Spirit lead souls to salvation. So, the holy apostles in their above-mentioned rules and all the saints mentioned used acrivia, and therefore they completely reject the baptism of heretics, and two Ecumenical Councils applied oikonomia and recognized the baptism of Arians, Macedonians and others, but did not recognize the baptism of Eunomians and some others, since during the Second Ecumenical Council the Arians and Macedonians especially flourished. They were not only very numerous, but also had great influence over emperors, officials and the Senate. In order, on the one hand, to attract them to Orthodoxy and correct them with greater ease, and on the other, so that they would not become even more embittered against the Church and Christians and worse evil would not arise, the mentioned divine fathers, arranging their affairs in court (see Ps. 112:5), arranged this matter in such a way that they condescended to recognize the baptism of heretics. Witnesses that we assert this not in vain and not unfounded are two great fathers - I’m talking about Vasily and Gregory. Namely, Basil the Great, fearing the influence of the Doukhobors on emperors and officials and fearing that they would attack the Church of Caesarea, which was then the only surviving Phoenix (See Ps. 91:13) of Orthodoxy, used oikonomia and until a convenient time did not openly call the Holy Spirit God. And the great Gregory, wanting to reveal the strength and ferocity of the Arians and Macedonians, in his farewell speech to the 150 bishops of the Second Ecumenical Council says the following about them: “Truly terrible beasts have attacked the Church, they do not spare us even after a clear day, but are shameless and more powerful than time itself” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 42.2 // PG 36, 460V.). In this word he shows: despite the fact that the emperor was Orthodox, and Orthodoxy came out openly, and the Ecumenical Council against heretics was convened, they still raged menacingly against Orthodoxy and were stronger than Christians. And above were cited the words of Basil the Great that the baptism of the Kafars, or Novatians (which was accepted by both the Second and Sixth Ecumenical Councils), was recognized according to oikonomia for the sake of many. After all, if not for this argument of oikonomia, then how would the VI Ecumenical Council not contradict both itself and the II Ecumenical Council, on the one hand, recognizing the baptism of some heretics, and on the other, confirming the rules of Basil the Great, who in the 1st and 47th rules completely rejects the baptism of heretics? Perhaps the fathers of the Council did not read the rules of St. Vasily? Or why didn’t the Council make an exception, didn’t say that it approved all its other rules except the 1st and 47th? So, obviously, the Council made it clear to us that Basil the Great applied acrivia, and the VI and II Ecumenical Councils applied oikonomia, and thus there is no disagreement or contradiction between them. And this argument of oikonomia is the first and most important reason why these Councils recognized the baptism of some heretics, but not others. Along with the oikonomia argument, there was a second reason why they did this. It is as follows: those heretics whose baptism is recognized preserved both the image and substance of Orthodox baptism unchanged and were baptized according to the rite accepted in the Catholic Church. The same heretics, whose baptism they did not recognize, distorted the sequence of baptism and distorted either its image, that is, the invocation formula, or the use of the substance, I mean, immersion in water and rise from it. And there are reliable witnesses to the fact that this was precisely what served as the basis for recognition or rejection - first of all, the very words of Rule II Omni. 7. Otherwise, why is the baptism of the Eunomians and Sabellians not recognized, and the baptism of the Arians and Macedonians recognized, while the Eunomians, Arians, and Macedonians are very dangerous heretics? For Eunomius, like Arius, blasphemed the Divinity of the Only Begotten Son of the Father, calling Him the Father’s creation and servant, as can be seen from the 2nd word of Basil the Great against Eunomius (Basil. Magn. Adv. Eunom. II, 20 // PG 29b, 613D.). In addition, Eunomius, like Macedonius, spewed blasphemy against the Divinity of the Spirit, saying that He is third in nature after the Father, as is clear from the 3rd word of the same St. Basil against Eunomius (Idem. Adv. Eunom. III, 1 // PG 29b, 653A.). Both Sabellians and Arians are identical heretics, as Gregory the Theologian says: “It is equally wicked to unite in the Sabellian way and to divide in the Arian way, to unite in relation to the Person, but to divide in relation to natures” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 31. 30 // PG 36,168D–169A.). And again: “Evil is the same in both cases, even if it comes from opposite causes.” (Idem. Or. 38.8 // PG 36, 320B.). Thus, the teaching of Sabellius lays the foundation for Judaism, according to the holy Photius, and the teaching of Arius - for paganism. So why, being heretics, were they not equally rejected by the Council? Obviously because the Arians and Macedonians were baptized without differences from the Orthodox, with three erections and immersions and three invocations of the Holy Trinity, without distorting either the image of invocation or the substance of water. Although the Arian Valens established the law that baptism should be performed by one immersion, as Dositheus says (Twelve Books, p. 86), this law was not taken into account by the Arians, was not approved and was not in effect, since the rule does not mention it at all when it concerns the baptism of Arians, and likewise Zonaras, Balsamon, Aristinus and Anonymous, interpreters of the rules, do not talk about it. And although the Arians changed the formula of invocation at baptism, according to Kedrin and the same Dositheus, and began to say: “In the name of the Greater Father, and the lesser Son, and the lowest Holy Spirit,” they made this change not before the Second Ecumenical Council, but after it, as Dositheus himself says. And the Eunomians, having perverted the method of using the substance of baptism, were baptized by only one immersion, as the rule literally says: “The Eunomians, who are baptized by a single immersion ... (This refers to the rule of II Om. 7”) - etc. The Sabellians, also violating the image of baptism, i.e., three invocations, taught that the Father, Son and Spirit are one Person. A witness to the fact that heretics, whose baptism the Council recognized, were baptized according to the statutes of the Church, is an interpreter of the rules of Zonar. Developing the thought of rule II Omni. 7, he says literally the following: “These heretics are not rebaptized, because regarding holy baptism they do not differ in any way from us, but are baptized in the same way as the Orthodox.” And the fact that, on the contrary, those heretics whose baptism is not recognized were not baptized according to the Charter of the Church is again witnessed by the same Zonara, who says: “That is why the Holy Fathers commanded to baptize these and all other heretics: they either did not receive divine baptism, or, having received it, they received it incorrectly and not according to the Charter of the Orthodox Church.” So, since the heretics mentioned before kept the rule of apostolic baptism, the rules of these two Councils accepted them as baptized, however, not only for this reason, but also because of oikonomia, as we have already said. After all, if oikonomia did not apply to them, then, undoubtedly, the fathers would not have gone against the apostolic rules. But the apostolic canons command the opposite: that we should not recognize the baptism of heretics. All this reasoning that we have presented here so far is not superfluous. Moreover, it is very necessary, both in general at all times, and especially today because of the great quarrels and many disputes that arise regarding the baptism of Latins, not only between us and the Latins, but also between us and those who adhere to the Latin way of thinking. So, following what has been said, and since this is required by the prescription of the apostolic canon, we declare: the baptism of the Latins is a baptism only in name, and therefore it is not acceptable either on the basis of acrivia or on the basis of oikonomia. It is unacceptable according to acrivia: 1. Because they are heretics. At present there is no need for us to prove in any way that the Latins are heretics. The very fact that for so many centuries we have experienced such great hatred and disgust for them clearly proves that we abhor them, as well as other heretics of various kinds, i.e. Arians, Sabellians or Doukhobor Macedonians. But if someone wants to learn about their heresies from books, then he will find information about them all, with their most learned revelations, in the books of the Most Holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, Mr. Dositheus, the flagellant of popes. However, sufficient information can be gleaned from the book of the wise Minyaty, entitled “The Stone of Temptation.” However, the bold words of St. Mark of Ephesus, pronounced by him in Florence (at the 25th meeting): “We separated from the Latins for no other reason than the fact that they are not only schismatics, but also heretics” (See: Ambrose (Pogodin), Archimandrite Saint Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence. M., 1994. P. 214.). Therefore, you should not unite with them at all. And the great ecclesiarch Sylvester (part 9, ch. 5) said: “The differences between the Latins and us constitute heresy, and this is how our ancestors treated these differences.” So, since it is recognized that the Latins are heretics from ancient times, for this reason they are not baptized, according to the above-mentioned words of Basil the Great and the saints who preceded him. Cyprian and Firmilian. After all, the Latins fell away from the Orthodox Church and became laity, and therefore they no longer have within themselves the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which Orthodox priests perform the sacraments. This argument alone is as strong and indisputable as the rules of Basil the Great and smch are strong and indisputable. Cyprian, which were approved at the holy VI Ecumenical Council, and of course, this statement remains in force. 2. The Latins are unbaptized because they do not comply with the requirement to immerse the baptized person three times, as the Orthodox Church originally accepted from the holy apostles. In former times, the Latins, the first to introduce innovations in apostolic baptism, began to use dousing, that is, they poured a little water on the child’s head, which is still done in some places. Most Latins sprinkle a few drops of water on the baby’s forehead three times with a tuft of pork bristles. In other places (as someone who returned to us from there told us), dipping a small piece of cotton wool into water - and everyone knows how much water cotton wool can absorb - they anoint a child with it and baptize him in this way. So, the Latins are not baptized, because according to the apostolic tradition they do not perform three immersions and elevations. We do not talk about how necessary and obligatory these three immersions are for the completeness of baptism. Whoever wishes, let him read, and it is absolutely necessary for him to read, the manual of the most learned and wise Eustratius Argentis (meaning the “Manual on Baptism,” written in 1754 or 1755). And we are in the interpretation of the apostolic rule of the Apostle. 50 let's talk about this as much as the real need requires. If any of the Latins themselves or Latin scholars refer to the three invocations of the Holy Trinity, let him not pretend that he has forgotten what he previously heard from the sacred Firmilian and the Great Athanasius, namely, that there is no benefit or effect from these divine names if they are uttered by the lips of the wicked. Otherwise, undoubtedly, we must believe that old witches also perform miracles, since they whisper Divine names. In a word, the Latins, being heretics, cannot perform baptism, because they have lost secret grace, and moreover, they have also abolished apostolic baptism in three immersions. And since this is so, it means that those who receive the sprinkling of the Latins should think about what they can say against the authority of this apostolic canon, as well as the next one, the 47th. I know how those who so “disinterestedly” advocate Latin false baptism justify themselves. They are justified by the fact that it is the custom of our Church to accept converts from the Latins through chrismation and that there is even a certain rite that states under what conditions we accept them. To this we answer simply and fairly as follows. It is enough that you acknowledge their acceptance through confirmation. Consequently, they are heretics: if they were not heretics, then what is the use of myrrh? If we agree that they are heretics, then it is impossible that the Orthodox and Apostolic Church deliberately wanted to reject these apostolic rules and the rules of the Councils, which we indicated before. But, as can be seen and as we should believe, the Church wished to apply the great oikonomia to the Latins, having for its intention and model the great and holy Second Ecumenical Council. Namely, the Second Ecumenical Council, as we said, applied oikonomia and recognized the baptism of Arians and Macedonians with the purpose and hope of their conversion and repentance, and also so that they would not rush at the Church like wild animals: there were incredibly many of them, and they were influential in external affairs. The Fathers of the Council achieved their goal, and their hope was crowned with success: thanks to this economy, the heretics themselves began to treat the Orthodox more calmly, and so many of them were converted to piety that in a short time they completely disappeared or there were very few of them left. Our ancestors also applied a similar economy when they began to recognize the baptism of the Latins - moreover, through the second rite (i.e., through Orthodox confirmation, without which, according to the commentator, the baptism of the Latins would not have been valid). The fact is that at that time the papacy was flourishing and had all the powers of European sovereigns in its hands, and our state was on its last legs. Therefore, if this economy had not been applied, inevitably the pope would have turned the peoples professing the Latin faith against the Eastern Christians in order to capture them, kill them and inflict on them many other terrible evils. But now, when they cannot cause us such harm, since Divine Providence has placed such a guard over us (the authors of the “Pidalion” want to say that the power of the Muslim Turks for the Greek Orthodox Church was much safer than the Catholic expansion to the East that began in the 17th century), who finally overthrew the pride of these arrogant ones, now, I repeat, when the fury of the papacy has no power against us, why do we need oikonomia? After all, oikonomia has a measure and a limit, and is not constant and not unlimited. Therefore, Theophylact of Bulgaria says: “He who does something according to economy does it not because it is good in itself, but because it is necessary for this time” (interpretation on Gal. 5:11) (Theoph. Bulg. In Gal. 5.11 // PG 12 4.1013B). “It is already enough for us to build (οἰκονομήσωμεν),” says Gregory the Theologian in his laudatory speech to Athanasius, “without annexing someone else’s and destroying our own, which is characteristic of truly bad builders (οἰκονόμων)” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 21. 34 // PG 35, 1124V). I say the same thing. Undoubtedly, that oikonomia (οἰκονομία) is bad, with the help of which we cannot convert the Latins, we violate the strictness of the sacred canons and recognize the false baptism of heretics. “Oikonomia must be applied where crime must be avoided,” says the divine Chrysostom. The fact that the mentioned order of reception of the Latins appeared according to oikonomia is clear from the fact that those who converted from the West were baptized by the East until then, as evidenced by the Local Council in the Lateran Palace of Rome, which took place in 1215 A.D. The 4th rule of this Council says that the East do not serve the liturgy where the West had previously celebrated liturgy, unless they first perform the liturgy for purification. consecration. And then it is said that the eastern ones who convert to the Eastern Church are rebaptized as if they do not have holy and apostolic baptism (see: Dositheus. “The Twelve Books.” pp. 8, 24). So, if until then the Easterners, according to the testimony of their own enemies, baptized them, it is obvious that the rite of reception through the holy ointment began to be used later, according to the Great Economy. First of all, because due to the extreme weakness of our people, it was unprofitable to irritate the fury of the papacy even more; and also because the Easterners then abolished and declared invalid everything that had been so badly established in Florence, which caused a great uproar among the Latins. Consequently, when the time of oikonomia has passed, the akrivia and the apostolic rules must take their place. This means that Balsamon in the interpretation of rule I Omni. 19, as well as others who turned out to be like-minded with Balsamon, incorrectly say that those who, having first been baptized in Orthodoxy, then became heretics, and subsequently again turned to the Orthodox faith, should be baptized a second time. Balsamon and his like-minded people cite as evidence the present apostolic canon and canon I Om. 19, which says that Paulians coming into the Catholic Church must be baptized anew. I argue that their reasoning is wrong for three reasons. First, because with this rebaptism which they require, they introduce two baptisms into the Catholic Church, which in the Creed confesses “one baptism,” basing such a confession on the words of Paul: One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Moreover, by rebaptism, in their own way, they again crucify the Son of God (Heb. 6:6) and repeat His cross and death, which is extremely wicked. It is said: For if we sin willfully, then there remains no more sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10:26), that is, the cross and the baptism that replaces the cross, according to the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 20 on the Epistle to the Hebrews) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Hebr. 20. 1 // PG 63, 143.). For He, says Scripture, made forever perfect those who were sanctified (Heb. 10:14) by one sacrifice, and it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and then fell away (that is, into Judaism and heresy in general, according to Chrysostom (Ibid. 9.3 // PG 63, 79)) to renew them again in repentance when they again crucify the Son of God within themselves (Heb. 6:4–6). Secondly, because this apostolic canon, cited by them to confirm their opinion, does not speak about those who were previously baptized in Orthodoxy, but about those who, having been heretics from birth and defiled by them, then come to Orthodoxy. Therefore, the rule does not say that we should rebaptize them, as if previously baptized, but baptize (it says: “If he does not baptize”), since they have never been baptized Orthodoxy. And rule I Omni. 19, when speaking about the fact that former Paulians should be rebaptized, he refers to those who from birth adhered to the heresy of Paul of Samosata as Paulians, and not those who later became such (even if it seems that the expression “to be a Paulian” has such a meaning). After all, the VI Ecumenical Council in its 95th canon, recalling this very canon of the I Ecumenical Council, changed the expression “about the former Paulians” to “about the Paulianists”, likening their name to the names “Donatists” and “Montanists”, which names show rather the heresy in which they are from birth, and not into which they fall later. Balsamon himself, as well as Zonara, interpret the rule in exactly this sense, as we will see in his interpretation. Even though this rule uses the word “rebaptize,” which means “to baptize a second time,” it does not use it in its primary meaning, but in an improper sense, that is, it compares our baptism with the baptism of the heretic Paul. So Basil the Great, in his 47th canon, used the same word “rebaptism” not because the heretical baptism mentioned was true, but because heretics called it by this word. So is the app. Paul called the Hellenic gods gods and lords, not because they were truly gods, but because the Hellenes called them by this word (1 Cor. 8:5). Thirdly, because if it were possible for Christians who became heretics or renounced the faith to be baptized again, why then the same First Ecumenical Council in its 11th and 12th canons determines that those who renounced during persecution for so many years should remain listening and fall for so many years, while they could be baptized a second time and thus be cleared of their renunciation, and the fathers of the Council themselves would be freed from such great labors and worries about their spiritual correction? So, for these reasons, it is not allowed to baptize a truly baptized person a second time, according to the Apostle. 47 and Carthage. 57, even if a person was defiled by heretics, since even then the first baptism remains unchanged: the gifts of God are immutable (Rom. 11:29). That's why Carthage ruled. 35 does not allow clergy expelled for crimes to be baptized again and thus again ascend to the degree of priesthood. They are cleansed from heretical filth through the anathema of the heresy itself, worthy repentance, the rites of the propitiatory prayers of Patriarch Methodius, which the Church reads for those who have renounced, and, finally, through the seal of the holy world. And after a proper test and fulfillment of the penance assigned by the spiritual father, they are cleansed by the Body and Blood of the Lord, for the Scripture says: The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). Under Patriarch Mr. Luke, it was conciliarly decided that the children of the Hagarians, who were baptized with our baptism not for a pious purpose, but so that they would not be sickly or stench would not emanate from them, should be baptized a second time if they wanted to convert to our faith, since the faith of their wicked parents did not correspond to their baptism. In the same way, it is necessary for those who received baptism from an uninitiated person who falsely assumed the guise of a priest to be baptized. In addition, those who were baptized by a layman in mortal danger should also be baptized, if they remain alive, because, according to the Apostle. 47, only bishops and elders have the right to baptize, but not the laity, as in the 1st rule of Basil the Great, it is said that we baptize those baptized by a layman. For what happens in times of danger and due to circumstances does not become law in the Church, according to Dvukrat. 17; Balsamon and Vlastar say the same thing. To this note we must also add the fact that, according to Carthage. 80 and VI Omni. 84, we must baptize such children who, due to their infancy, do not themselves know whether they are baptized, and there are no other witnesses who can confirm that the children are baptized. See also note. to the 24th rule of John the Faster, which speaks of a baby who was baptized by a person not in rank in danger: if the baby survives, he must be baptized by a priest. Therefore, Dionysius of Alexandria baptized one Jew, baptized by a layman during an illness that threatened him with death, again as soon as he returned to life, as described in the 11th volume of Byzantium, on p. 188. Let us also add here that if a layman, as a last resort, can baptize children, accordingly, he can anoint them and give them communion (see also note to VI Ecumenical 58). There is an opinion that deceased infants, baptized by the laity out of necessity, should be remembered together with the Orthodox as having the hope of receiving God's mercy. But those who were not necessarily baptized by a layman or by an uninitiated who took the form of a priest, if they die, should not be remembered, for they were not baptized. Note also that about the Latins we do not say that we rebaptize them, but we say that we baptize, since their baptism does not justify its name and is by no means baptism, but only sprinkling. Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Math. 65.2 // PG 58, 619. Both Akrivia and the commandment of the Lord equally require that neither a husband divorce his wife, nor a wife her husband. After all, the Lord said the same about both husband and wife: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12), and added: except for the guilt of adultery (Matthew 5:32), which applies, as He made us understand, not only to the husband or only to the wife, but to both equally. Church custom gives the husband the right to divorce his wife if he discovers that she is committing fornication or adultery, and a wife should not divorce her husband, even if she discovers that he is committing fornication or adultery. If she nevertheless divorces him because of fornication or adultery, and he, unable to bear it, marries a second woman, then it is the first wife who divorced him who bears the sin of this divorce, and the husband is worthy of forgiveness for the second marriage, and his second wife is not condemned as an adulteress. This custom, which came into the Church from Roman civil law, is not accepted by Gregory the Theologian. In a word on the Gospel reading When Jesus died, he says this: “I see that many common people have incorrect ideas about chastity, and the law on chastity that they have, in my opinion, is unfair and introduces inequality. For for what reason does this law punish a wife who has fallen into fornication, but gives permission to her husband to commit fornication? And if a wife encroaches on her husband’s bed, then she is condemned as an adulteress, and if a husband, having a wife, falls into fornication with other women, then he is innocent? I do not accept such legislation, I do not approve of this custom. Those who made this law were men, and therefore they made the law only against women. The same legislators of this civil law, on the one hand, made a law that children should obey their fathers, and on the other hand, they neglected the weaker half (i.e., the mother, since a woman is weak by nature), without establishing a law that children should also obey her. God did not establish such a law, but another: Honor your father and mother, this is the first commandment with a promise: that it may be good for you (Eph. 6:2-3) (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10; Deut. 5:16; Exod. 20:12; Sir 3:8). And he also says: Let him who curses his father or mother die by death (Matthew 15:4; Mark 15:10). So, God equally honored the obedience of both father and mother and equally punished the insult of both. And it is also said: A father’s blessing establishes children’s homes, but a mother’s oath destroys them to the ground (Sir. 3:9). Do you see the impartiality of the legislation? One Creator of husband and wife, both of one dust, one law for both of them, one resurrection. We are born equally from husband and from wife, and children have one duty to their parents. How can you, a husband-legislator, demand chastity from your wife, but you yourself are not chaste? How do you demand something that you yourself do not give? Why, having a body similar to that of your wife, do you establish different laws? And even if you mean the evil associated with disobedience: the wife sinned, then Adam also sinned. Both were deceived by the serpent, and it did not turn out that the wife was weaker because she was deceived, and the husband was stronger because he was not deceived. And if you mean the good of re-creation, then know that Christ saved both of them through His suffering. Did he become flesh for his husband? Not only, but also for the sake of my wife. Did you die for your husband? Not only, for the wife is also saved thanks to His death. Do you think maybe He honored his husband by being born of the seed of David? But, being born of a Virgin, He also honored his wife. It is said that both will be one flesh (Gen. 2:24), and, therefore, one flesh should enjoy the same honor. And ap. Paul also establishes the law of chastity for the husband. How? This mystery is great; I speak in relation to Christ and to the Church (Eph. 5:32). It is good for a wife to honor Christ through the honor that she gives to her husband; It is good for the husband not to dishonor the Church of Christ through the dishonor that he inflicts on his wife by committing fornication” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 37. 6–7 // PG 36, 289A–292A.). In a similar way, Chrysostom testifies to the same thing in the 5th conversation on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, saying: “I beg you, let us be kept from this sin! After all, just as we, men, punish our wives when they give their honor by committing adultery with others, so we are punished, if not by Roman laws, then by God, when we betray the honor of our wives and commit adultery with others, since this, that is, the sin of a husband with another, is adultery. For adultery consists not only in the fact that a married woman sinned with another man, but also in the fact that a married man sinned with another woman. Listen carefully to what I tell you. Adultery is the sin of a married man not only with another man’s wife, but also with an unmarried woman - and this is exactly the same adultery. For even if you sinned with a woman who is not related to her husband, you yourself are related to your wife and, therefore, have broken the law and offended your own flesh. For what reason do you yourself punish your wife if she falls into fornication, even with an unmarried man? Of course, for the reason that this is adultery: although the one who committed fornication with her does not have a wife, your wife is connected with her husband. This means that when you fall into fornication with an unmarried woman, then, since you are connected with your wife, your fornication will also be adultery. The Lord says: Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and if this is so, then doesn’t he commit adultery much more who, having his own wife, indulges in debauchery with an unmarried woman? Certainly! This is clear to anyone" (Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Ep. I ad Thessal. 5.1 // PG 62, 425). Not only Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, but also Basil the Great himself, both in other places of his writings and in the 12th of his “Moral Rules,” admits that following a custom that rejects the commandment given by God is intolerable (Basil. Magn. Moralia 12.2 // PG 31, 724B.). In the 35th rule (here the canonical rule of St. Basil is implied), he, in addition, says: “When a wife leaves her husband, we must investigate for what reason she left him, and if it turns out that she left him recklessly, without reason, then the husband must be considered worthy of forgiveness, and the wife, as the author of evil, - punishment and penance.” Apart from fornication, that is, adultery between husband and wife, there is no other valid reason for spouses to divorce. Further, the 117th story of Justinian, contained in the 28th book. “Basilik”, in the 7th tit., defines: if a husband meets another woman either in the city where he lives, or in his house and indulges in debauchery, and if his real wife tells him to leave her, but he does not want to leave, then permission is given to dissolve the marriage for the sake of the wife’s jealousy. Because of this jealousy, some women take poison and die, others lose their minds, others throw themselves off cliffs, others commit other craziest acts. Such cases occur daily in almost every city, village and islands. After all, according to Solomon, the wrath of a husband is full of jealousy because of his wife’s betrayal and will not spare on the day of vengeance. He will not exchange enmity for any ransom and will not be reconciled for great gifts (Proverbs 6:34–35), in the same way (not to say - to a much greater extent) the heart is full of jealousy and rage (St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain explains the use of the ancient Greek word θυμός, which can mean: 1) rage, 2) the irritable power of the human soul, 3) the spirit of a person, 4) heart. See: Lampe G. W. N. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxf., 2001. P. 657. – Ed.), women because the husband commits fornication. Also note that although the Lord allowed husbands to divorce their wives because of fornication, i.e., adultery, the bishop should not also give them permission for a second marriage, but he must leave them divorced for a long period of time, until the half who committed fornication, i.e., adultery, repents, asks for forgiveness and promises that from now on they will preserve the honor of the other halves, and then they must be connected again. After all, the Lord allowed divorce not just because of adultery alone, but mainly and, firstly, because jealousy arises because of adultery, and because of jealousy, murder occurs. And secondly, also because the consequence of adultery is damage to the family, as Gregory the Theologian says (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 37. 8 11 PG 36, 292C). So, the husband is not forced if he does not want, as Zonara says in his interpretation of the 9th and 21st rules of Basil the Great. - to live with his adulterous wife, but if he wants, he does not commit a sin by accepting her and living with her. But what do I say “commits no sin”? The husband who will again accept his wife, even if she has fallen into fornication, is worthy of praise and very reasonable (will accept, however, with the promise that she will not sin in the future). And this is for two reasons. First, he shows love and compassion to his own flesh (i.e., his wife), imitating the Lord of all God Himself, Who was pleased to make human nature, although it had previously been an adulteress and fornicator with idols, His bride through the dispensation of the incarnation and to save it through repentance and union with Him. And just as a prudent husband, when any member of the body is wounded, does not cut it off, but tries to heal it, so the same prudent husband, when his own member of the body, which is his wife, sins, does not separate from it, but takes greater care of it and heals with repentance and admonition. And secondly, the filth in the relationship between spouses arose by God’s permission and because of their previous sins. (Let everyone examine his conscience - he will find that our word is true.) Therefore, both sides should tolerate each other and not be separated. And if the apostle says that a believing husband should live with an unbelieving wife and, conversely, a believing wife with an unbelieving husband for the sake of hope for the salvation of both (why do you know, husband, will you not save your wife? and why do you know, wife, will you not save your husband? (see 1 Cor. 7:16)), then even more so when the spouses are not separated by sin, the worst of all sins - ungodliness, they should live together and not divorce, even if fornication has been committed. What we said about the husband applies exactly the same to the wife. If the Pribytnik says: He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and wicked (Proverbs 18:23), then this saying is characteristic of the harshness and severity of the Old Testament, and not the meekness and goodness of the sweetest law of the Gospel. But, nevertheless, the Old Testament through the mouth of the prophet. Malachi says: Do not leave the wife of your youth. And if, having hated, you let her go... wickedness will cover your thoughts, says the Lord Almighty (Mal. 2:15-16). If, finally, there is no way or means for the married couple to be subsequently united, then the innocent party, in case of emergency, can enter into a second marriage. But the party who committed fornication and caused the divorce can never do this: instead of rejoicing a second time with wedding songs and torches, she would rather weep and weep because of her sin and remain in the darkness of sorrow and widowhood with her living spouse, because those whom God united, she separated. What am I saying? Even a monetary fine must be borne by the half that caused the divorce, as prescribed by imperial laws, according to Chrysostom (Discourse on the words The wife is bound by the law) (Ioan. Chrysost. In illud.: Mulier alligata est 1 // PG 51, 219.). And the fact that the spouse who has committed adultery should not marry follows from the 38th novella of Leo: it orders the husband of the adulteress to take her dowry, and to imprison her in a monastery and force her, even against her wishes, to become a nun. The property that she had in addition to the dowry should be divided between her children and the monastery, or, if she has no children, let her parents and relatives take the property. And the 117th novella of Justinian determines that if the husband of a woman imprisoned in a monastery for adultery dies within two years without taking her back, she must become a nun (and therefore must not enter into a second marriage). The fact that a husband is allowed to again accept his wife who has sinned by adultery is evidenced, firstly, by Armenopulus (book 6, tit. 2), and secondly by the sacred Photius (tit. 1, chapter 32), who says: “The 134th novel of Justinian (contained in the 28th book of “Basilik”, according to Balsamon) determines that a husband can re-accept his adulterous wife within two years from the time she sinned and was sentenced to imprisonment in a monastery for adultery. He has complete power and the right to live with her, without any fear of being exposed to any danger for this, and the marriage does not suffer harm due to previous sin and divorce.” And Basil the Great says in the word “On Virginity” that if a wife abandoned by her husband repents and makes amends for the guilt for which she was abandoned, then the husband must show mercy to her for the sake of her correction and again accept her as his own member of the body (Basil. Magn. De virgin. 42 // PG 30, 752B). And rule VI Omni. 93 allows a warrior, at his request, to re-accept his wife, even if she married someone else due to the long-term absence of her husband. The rule of Neokesar is similar. 8, apparently, allows the priest, if he wants, to live with his wife who has committed adultery, but in this case he must be deposed. Note that not everyone can initiate a case of adultery against a woman, but only five certain persons who must be in the closest relationship with her, namely: father, brother, paternal uncle, maternal uncle, and especially and above all - her fiancé. When the marriage is concluded, no one else is allowed to bring such a claim, except only the husband, through five witnesses who testify with the fear of God that they saw her committing adultery, having caught her at the scene of the crime. According to Armenopoul (book 1, tit. 3), a case of adultery can be initiated within five years, but no more. In addition, everyone should know that civil and imperial laws do not allow husbands to kill their wives, even if they are caught in adultery. Therefore, it is extremely criminal to kill your wives, or sisters, or daughters, or relatives because they have committed fornication or adultery. So, since from everything we have said it follows that a married couple should not divorce, then one half must tolerate the other, according to the instructions of Gregory the Theologian (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 37. 8 // PG 36, 292C). And just as a wife must tolerate her husband, even if he insults her, beats her, even wastes her dowry or otherwise harms her, so the husband must tolerate his wife, even if she is possessed, according to the 15th rule of St. Timothy, or else flawed in some way, or sick, according to Chrysostom (Discourse on the words The wife is bound by the law) (Ioan. Chrysost. Laus Maximi 2 // PG 51, 227). And despite the fact that imperial and secular laws allow spouses to divorce for many reasons, Chrysostom (in the same conversation), objecting to them, says: “God will judge us not according to these laws, but according to those laws about marriage that He Himself established” (Ioan. Chrysost. In illud.: Mulier alligata est 1 // PG 51, 219). There is only one valid reason for divorce, stipulated by the laws, and it consists, according to the “Eclogue” of the emperors Leo and Constantine, in the following: when one half encroaches on the life of the other (Eclogue of Laws. Tit. 13). In addition, the divorce of spouses is justified if one of the spouses is Orthodox and the other is a heretic, according to VI Ecumenical. 72; if they are related by blood or by property, according to the 54th rule of the same Council, or by baptism, according to the 53rd rule of this Council, and if the master of the spouses does not approve of their marriage, according to the 40–42nd rules of Basil the Great. For a sample divorce letter, see the end of the book. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 29. 3–5 // PG 36, 76–77. The fact that the death of Jesus Christ was necessary for the salvation of the entire human race and for the reconciliation of man with God is an indisputable dogma of our Orthodox faith. Without it it would be impossible for man to ever be reconciled with God, but inevitably he would remain forever His implacable enemy. Showing this, ap. Paul says: Although we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son (Rom. 5:10). Therefore, in order for the memory of this ineffable good deed of God to man to always be accomplished and so that henceforth the salvation of people resulting from this death will always remain effective, the Lord Himself, who endured this death in the flesh and the head of our salvation, His divine disciples and all God-bearing fathers decreed that the seal and image of this death must be present in every sacrament, in every sacred rite and in every rite of our Church. But the image of the Lord's death is primarily effective in the sacrament of baptism due to the three immersions performed in it. I said “primarily” because in all other sacred rites the image of the Lord’s death is outside of man, but in holy baptism a person reproduces the Lord’s death in himself, that is, the person being baptized figuratively dies and is buried by Christ in the waters of baptism. Witness to this is Ap. Paul, who says: As many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death; Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death (see Rom. 6:3–4). Consequently, in order for us to have the likeness of Christ’s death and His three-day burial, there must necessarily be three immersions, otherwise this is impossible. Listen also to how the paternal tradition agrees with the Divine Scripture and the apostolic rules in discussions about the need for immersion. For example, a contemporary of the apostles, initiated into the secret sacraments, Dionysius, theologized in his characteristic sublime style: “So, the symbolic teaching about the sacraments commands that by three immersions in water the person being baptized imitates the Divine death of Christ the Giver of Life, Who was in the tomb for three days and three nights.” And again: “...in a similar way, complete concealment under water is perceived as an image of death and invisible burial” (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. II, 3. 7 // PG 3, 404B). And in another place: “So, the hierarch immerses him three times (meaning the catechumen - St. H.), with each of the three immersions and uprisings of the initiate, calling on one of the Three Hypostases of Divine Bliss” (Ibid., 3. 7 / PG 3, 396D). Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechumens says: “And here you, through a symbol, mysteriously depict the three-day burial of Christ. Just as our Savior spent three days and three nights in the womb of the earth, so you imitated the first day of Christ spent in the earth by your first uprising, and the night by immersion” (Cyr. Hieros. Mystag. 2.4 // PG 33, 1080C). And again: “Just as Christ, having taken upon Himself the sins of the universe, died in order, having put to death sin, to resurrect you in righteousness, so you, having descended into the water, are in some way buried, as He was in a cave, and then arise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4)” (Cyr. Hieros. Catech. 3.12 // PG 33, 444A.). And further: “You were led by the hand to the holy font of Divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to the tomb prepared for Him” (Idem. Mystag. 2.4 // PG 33, 1080B). And again: “Just as Christ, having washed himself in the Jordan River and transferred the radiance of the Divine to the waters, came out of them and the essential descent of the Holy Spirit took place on Him, for like rested on like, so we, when we emerged from the font of sacred waters, were given an anointing, symbolizing the anointing with which Christ was anointed” (Ibid. 3.1 // PG 33.1088A–1089A). The steadfast Athanasius the Great, interpreting the apostolic saying that we are united with Him by the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:5), says: “United, i.e. became accomplices; just as the Master's body, buried in the earth, brought forth salvation for the world, so our body, buried in baptism, brought forth righteousness for ourselves. And the similarity is this: just as Christ died and rose again on the third day, so we, dying in baptism, are resurrected. Indeed, immersing a child three times in the font and raising him from it means the death and three-day resurrection of Christ” (Athanas. Alex. Quaest. in Script. 92 // PG 28, 753B.). Basil the Great says: “So, the sacrament of baptism is performed by three immersions and equal number of invocations, so that the image of death is clearly presented, and we, the baptized, are enlightened in soul, learning the knowledge of God” (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 15. 35 // PG 32,132A). And in another place: “One thing we know is saving baptism, because there is one death for the world and one resurrection from the dead, of which baptism is the image” (Ibid. // PG 32, 129C). And again: “So, how do we go to hell? Imitating Christ's burial. For the bodies of those baptized in water are, as it were, buried” (Ibid. // PG 32, 129B). And further: “This means that water represents death, and the Spirit imparts life-giving power” (Ibid. // PG 32, 129C). Gregory of Nyss in his “Catechetical Oration” says: “Descent into the water and a person’s stay in it three times contains another sacrament...” (Greg. Nyss. Or. catech. 35 // PG 45, 85D). And again: “So, our God and Savior, completing the economy of our salvation, descended into the fourth element - the earth, but we, receiving baptism in imitation of our Lord, Teacher and Leader, are not buried in the earth, but, entering into our native earth, the element of water, we hide ourselves in it, just as the Savior hid himself in the earth, and, having done this three times, we depict on ourselves the grace of a three-day resurrection.” (Idem. In bapt. Christ. // PG 46, 585AB). St. John Chrysostom (Discourse 25 on the Gospel of John) says: “What is the meaning of baptism? Divine symbols take place in it: the grave, death, resurrection, life - and all this happens at the same time. When, as in a certain coffin, our heads are immersed in water, then the old man is buried and, plunging under the water, is completely hidden, and then, when we rise, a new man arises” (Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Ioan. 25. 2 // PG 59, 151). And in the 40th discourse on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he says: “Dipping and immersion, and then rising are symbols of the descent into hell and the ascent from there. That is why Paul calls baptism a tomb, saying: We were buried with Him in baptism” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 4 0.1 // PG 61, 348.). And again: “What the womb is to the embryo, so is water to the faithful. For in water it is conceived and formed” (Idem. Hom. in Ioan. 26.1 // PG 59, 153). St. John of Damascus says: “By three immersions, baptism indicates the three days of the burial of the Lord” (Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. IV, 9 // PG 94, 1120A.). But why do I cite only the testimonies of the ancients and our fathers to confirm the need for immersion in baptism? Let anyone who wishes to read the writings and the Latin theologian, the learned man Corderius, and see that in his word on baptism, he, refuting the crafty opinion of Thomas Aquinas (who believed that it makes no difference whether baptism is performed with three immersions or not), comes to the conclusion that three immersions and uprisings must be preserved unchanged, in accordance with the baptismal institution of our Eastern Church. And the name of the font in which those being baptized were immersed, or “bathed,” even without much other evidence, can in itself confirm the need for immersion. Therefore, in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 7, chapter 43) it is written that the baptized person descends into the water (PG 1, 1045B). And again: “So, baptism is taught into the death of the Lord: water - instead of the coffin, oil - instead of the Holy Spirit, a seal - instead of the cross. Chrism is the confirmation of confession... Immersion is death with Christ, and rising is resurrection with Him” (book 3, chapter 17) (PG 1, 800A). That is why there was, and has been preserved to this day, the custom of performing the baptism of catechumens on the night of Holy Saturday, as evidenced by the same “Apostolic Constitutions” (Book 5, Chapter 19) (PG 1, 893A) and the rule of Laodice. 45. In fact, according to Balsamon and Zonara, the night of Holy Saturday occupies the middle between the burial and resurrection of the Lord, the images of which are the immersion and uprising in baptism, which means that the one baptized on this night is buried and resurrected with Christ not only thanks to the immersion and uprising, but also thanks to the very time of receiving the sacrament. Francis Pivat's dictionary says that St. Otto baptized with three immersions. Fearing that the Latins, having declared the apostolic laws regarding baptism invalid, would subject them to reproach, he ordered the construction and installation of knee-high marble fonts inside the churches, so that baptized infants could be completely immersed in them. In Venice, in the Church of St. Mark, such a font has been preserved to this day - to the shame of the papists. Moreover, Pope Pelagius also expresses the opinion that three immersions in holy baptism are absolutely necessary. So, what is the conclusion from all that has been said? Since three immersions and uprisings in baptism are necessary, for they depict the three-day death, burial and resurrection of the Savior, through which salvation, remission of sins and reconciliation are granted to people from God, the Latin sprinkling, devoid of immersion and uprising, is therefore devoid of the image of the three-day death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. And if it does not have this, then it is clear and indisputable that it does not provide remission of sins and is deprived of all grace and sanctification. If the Latins object that their sprinkling gives sanctification and grace through the invocation of the Holy Trinity, then let them know that baptism is not accomplished by invocations of the Holy Trinity alone, but necessarily requires the image of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. After all, it is not only faith in the Trinity that saves the person being baptized; along with it, faith in the death of the Messiah is also necessary, and then through both faiths the person being baptized finds salvation and bliss. It is appropriate to repeat the words of Basil the Great: “So, the sacrament of baptism is performed by three immersions and equal number of invocations, so that the image of death is clearly presented, and we, the baptized, are enlightened in soul, having learned the knowledge of God.” However, pay attention: since we say that the baptism of the Latins is heretical and unacceptable for the stated reasons, then we, the Orthodox, should carefully ensure that our baptism is not performed in containers and vats into which the feet of the children being baptized can only be partially immersed. Not to mention the fact that these containers often tip over and holy water spills! So if we rebuke the Latins for rejecting apostolic baptism, then, on the contrary, we must perform it safely and blamelessly. The duty of taking care of this, as of everything else, lies with the shepherds of souls. We strive as far as possible for our goal and announce all this to the shepherds, but let them observe what concerns them, for they will have to give an account. Let us also add that, according to the great Gregory of Thessaloniki, the Lord, having previously indicated to us through His baptism the descent into hell and the ascension from it, then granted the faithful to perform baptism for salvation (Conversation 2 on baptism) (Greg. Pal. Nom. 60. 5 // ERE. T. 11. Σ. 514–515). Indeed, Orthodox baptism serves as an image not only of the burial of the Lord’s body, as the Apostle and other fathers said, but also of the descent of His soul into hell, according to the above statements of Basil the Great and Chrysostom. And this is so that through the image of the burial of Christ, as the same Gregory says, the body of the baptized person is deified, and through the image of the descent into hell his soul is deified (Greg. Pal. Nom. 60. 7 // ERE. T. 11. Σ. 516.). Finally, just as seeds and shoots, if they are not planted deep into the ground, but remain on its surface, cannot germinate and bear fruit, but either dry up, or are trampled, or are pecked by birds, so it happens with the unfortunate Latins, since they are not united (σύμφυτοι), according to the Apostle, i.e. not planted, like plants (The authors of “Pidalion” base this argument on a play on words: φυτεύω (“to plant, plant”) and σύμφυτοι, which literally means “to be fused, grown together, of the same kind” (in the Church Slavonic translation “compliance”, in Russian “united”), with Christ through baptism. This is the meaning of the word united, according to Basil the Great, who says: “Having been buried in Christ, we accept not the deadness of corruption, but burial and, as it were, imitate the planted seeds” (Basil. Magn. De baptismo 1.13 // PG 3 1, 1548BC) And again: “Since we are planted with Christ in the likeness of death, then.” We will certainly rise with Him, for it is precisely the rebellion that follows the planting” (Homily 1 on baptism. Vol. 2. P. 656) (Ibid. 1.15 // PG 31, 1552BC). planting wheat, saying: If a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies (that is, it is planted and buried - Rev. H.), it will bear much fruit (John 12:24). Since, I repeat, the Latins are not planted in the water of baptism with Christ - a seed having two natures, neither their body nor soul is sanctified - and simply put, they cannot produce salvation, but wither and perish. Both from the present apostolic canon and from the canon of Ankyra. 14 the direct and most certain conclusion follows that both in those days and now some bishops, presbyters and deacons, not being monks, did not and do not eat meat of their own free will. Not because they abhor it or have any other heretical evil thoughts - get rid of such a thought! - but for the sake of achievement, as the present rule proclaims, and abstinence of the flesh, according to Ankir. 14. An aversion to meat was characteristic of the Hellenes, who did not eat it because they believed that dumb animals had a soul, which is why they did not dare to slaughter them, as Plutarch says (Plut. De esu camium 2 // TLG 007/132. 997. D11–E5.). In addition, the Marcionites and Manichaeans in general, according to Epiphanius (Epiph. Adv. haer. 42. Scholia 24 // PG 41, 740D; Adv. haer. 66. 9 // PG 42, 41CD), as well as the Encratites, according to St. Vasily, and the Bogomils, according to the testimony of Balsamon. So, I said that bishops, presbyters and deacons who did not have monastic vows could abstain from meat at will, or they could eat it. Later, the most useful custom was established in the Church of Christ, according to which no one became a bishop until he became a monk (which is confirmed by the statements of the Metropolitans of Caesarea and Chalcedon addressed to the locum tenens of Pope John, at the Council held under Photius (meaning the Council of Constantinople in 879 in the Church of Hagia Sophia): “And in the East, if anyone did not become a monk, does not become a bishop or patriarch." And again: “During his election (i.e. Photius - St. N.) many candidates from among the clergy-monks were proposed with him to the episcopal see." Symeon of Thessaloniki (chap. 266) says that the Church first tonsures the majority of those elevated to the episcopacy and then appoints them as bishops (Sym. Thessal. De poenit. 266 // PG 155, 489D). See also note. to Apost. 80. So, since such a custom has spread, bishops should not eat meat (the ever-memorable Dositheus writes about this in The Twelve Books, on p. 779, which means these are not my words, but this is what the patriarch says to the patriarchs and the bishop to the bishops), and therefore those who violate this fast behave inappropriately, since they cause the greatest temptation among ordinary Christians, and indeed among everyone. That is why Kedrin condemns the bishop. Constantine, who was patriarch under Copronymus, because although he became a crown bearer from a monk, that is, a cleric, he ate meat (Cedrenus. Sotr. hist. // PG 121, 893AB). If, in the opinion of Dosifei, who himself was a bishop and patriarch, it is not appropriate for bishops to eat meat, then what is it even more so for monks? They should especially abstain from meat for three reasons. Firstly, the ultimate goal of the monastic vow is chastity, virginity, curbing and exhaustion of the flesh. Meat food, to a greater extent than any other, fattens the body and, therefore, interferes with chastity and virginity, that is, the ultimate goal of monasticism, because it excites the flesh and brings up the battle of inappropriate lusts and desires on the soul. If, according to Basil the Great, monks should not eat fatty, but low-nutritive food, and if they should not eat delicious dishes, because this expresses voluptuousness, according to the same saint (see rule 71 from the summary) (PG 31, 1132C–1133A.), then how can they eat meat - food that is the fattest of all other dishes, and the most nutritious and sweet? Secondly, monks should not eat meat, so as not to violate the most ancient custom of monastics, I mean abstinence from meat. And the fact that this blessed custom is ancient, and appeared even before the time of Empress Theophano, is also clear from the evidence that we cited above, for Copronymus ruled 150 years before Theophano. And the divine Chrysostom tells (in the First Word to Theodore the Fallen) how one monk who lived in the desert asked his neighbor to go bring him meat and threatened that if he did not want to go (since his demand was inappropriate and illegal), then he himself would go to the marketplace (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad Theodor. 1.17 // PG 47, 304). And in another place, describing the customs of the monasteries of that time, Chrysostom says: “Everything there is pure from fat and blood” (Conversation 14 on the First Epistle to Timothy. Vol. 4. P. 307) (Idem. Hom, in Ep. I ad Tim. 14. 3 // PG 62, 575). Nikephoros Grigora narrates in the “History of Byzantium” that the wife of the logothete John Glyka, having entered into monasticism, wanted her husband to become a monk, but the emperor, who loved him very much, prevented this, for malignant juices formed in the members of John’s body, which is why he suffered at certain times of the year, and, according to doctors, he needed to eat meat, and if he became a monk, eating meat food would become would be unlawful and reprehensible for him (Niceph. Greg. Hist. VII, 11.1 // PG 148, 444B). And the divine Gregory of Thessalonica clearly says that meat-eating is forbidden to monks (Triad 2 in defense of the sacredly silent. Homily 1) (Greg. Pal. Triad. II, l. 35 // Συγγράμματα. T. 1. Σ. 496.). Emperor Nikephoros Votaniates, who became a monk after he lost his kingdom, when asked whether he endured monastic life with generosity, answered: “Only abstinence from meat burdens me, and I worry little about everything else” (Meletius of Athens. Church History. Vol. 2. P. 414). This custom is also confirmed by the life of John Climacus: it says that this saint ate everything that was permitted by vow and did not cause any complaints (see. See also: Evergetin. P. 425). But why do I bring people’s testimonies? Our Lady Theotokos herself testified to how ancient and soul-healthy this custom is – abstaining from meat. In a miraculous appearance, She commanded the glorious Most Holy Dositheus, who was then still a youth, among other things, that he should not eat meat, as the wise Abba Dorotheus tells about this. Let the 34th rule of St. be the seal of all that has been said. Nikephoros the Confessor, who clearly says: “If a monk puts aside the holy schema, eats meat, takes a wife and does not repent of this, then he must be anathematized or forcibly clothed in the schema and imprisoned in a monastery.” Theophylact of Bulgaria polemicizes with the Latin monks and accuses them of eating meat broth, and from this it follows that he recognizes meat-eating as indecent for monastics (Theoph. Bulg. De iis quorum Latini incusantur 2 // PG 126, 224C). And St. Meletius the Confessor in his work “The Alphabet of Alphabets” writes that everyone - both laymen and monks - are obliged to keep God’s commandments, but monks, in addition, must maintain virginity, shun the world and abstain from meat. He says this: “We are all obliged to observe the commandments of the Creator. Only one thing applies primarily to monks, only they must bring the following to the Lord: virginity, flight from worldly pursuits, abstinence from meat, oppression of oneself and sorrow.” Thirdly, and lastly, monks should not eat meat, perhaps not so much because it interferes with the ultimate goal of monastic life and is contrary to the most ancient Tradition of the Church and the Fathers, but mainly because it becomes a universal temptation that enters the hearts of many people. Monks eat meat - one rumor about this becomes a stumbling block for many. That is why the apostle says: I will never eat meat, lest I tempt my brother (1 Cor. 8:13) - and also: It is better not to eat meat, not to drink wine, and not to do anything that would cause your brother to stumble, or be tempted, or become weak (Rom. 14:21), and Abba Pimen, being one day at a meal where meat was offered, did not want to eat, saying that he was doing this so as not to seduce the Christians present there. If some of our monks, who allow themselves to eat meat and want to free themselves from the convictions of their conscience, refer to the fact that even Basil the Great (decree 25) speaks of the permission of the fathers to put salted seasoning in vegetables or beans, that is, salted lard (Basil. Magn. Const, monast. 25 // PG 31, 1413C), and that Pachomius kept pigs in the monastery, and Simeon the New Theologian kept pigeons, then let them know that, like them, the same arguments are given by the Latin monks in their justification. First of all, regarding the words of Basil the Great, it must be said that those who labored in Pontus were actually allowed to add this kind of fat to beans for several reasons. Firstly, circumstances forced this, because in those parts there was no oil, as Dosifei explains; secondly, the brothers, according to some, began to get sick from eating completely unseasoned food; thirdly, the fat was added in such a small quantity that it did not provide any pleasure and was not even completely boiled. Here are the words of the saint himself: “For this smallest piece, placed in such a large amount of water or, if it happens, porridge, testifies not to a delicacy, but to the strictest and truly severe abstinence of the ascetics” (Ibid. // PG 31, 1413D, 1416A). And fourthly, although St. Vasily says so, but despite this, he does not allow meat-eating. Rather, on the contrary, he rejects, as we said, fatty foods and seasonings, calls the consumption of sweet foods voluptuousness and approves of low-nutritive food, the cheapest and most accessible: oil, wine, beans, etc. And about St. Pachomius and St. Simeone must be told that they bred animals or birds, firstly, for the sake of wanderers, and secondly, for the sake of sick monks, according to Dositheus, just as for the sake of the weak they even had baths in their monasteries. Even now, if some sick monk who is in danger of death receives an order from a doctor to eat meat, then he is not condemned if he eats, because he does it for treatment, and not for pleasure and gluttony. If someone says that the Gangra Council in the 2nd rule anathematizes those who condemn those who eat meat, then the same Council then in the 21st rule explains that this is said about those who do not eat meat not for the sake of achievement, but because of exaltation or even disgust, and adds: “We... and abstinence observed with holiness and piety is acceptable.” And to the heretics, called encratites (who, abhorring meat, did not eat it), who ask us the question “Why don’t we eat the meat of all animals?”, Basil the Great answers in the 86th rule. He says that according to its dignity, any meat is considered by us as green herbs, according to the word of God: As green herbs I have given you everything (Gen. 9:3), but if we talk about benefits, then just as we do not eat all herbs in general, but only harmless and healthy ones, so we do not eat any meat, but only harmless and healthy ones. After all, both hemlock and henbane are considered grass, and meat is considered to be the meat of both kites and dogs. But just as no one in their right mind eats hemlock and henbane because they are deadly poisonous, in the same way no one will eat the meat of a kite or dog (unless out of extreme need and hunger), because it is both harmful to health and unpleasant to the taste. If, in case of need, someone eats even the meat of a dog or a kite, he does not sin, because this is not prohibited by the New Testament. After all, the apostles in Acts forbade eating only things sacrificed to idols, blood and strangled animals (Acts 15:29), and in the 63rd rule they also forbade eating the meat of an animal torn to pieces by beasts, carrion and blood. To the objection that the dog and the kite are called unclean in the Old Testament, we answer that they are called so not because they are disgusting and vile (for, as we said, there is nothing nasty or unclean by nature), but for the following three reasons. The first and most important reason is that, according to the above explanation of Basil the Great, everything unclean is harmful to health - this is also confirmed by doctors. The second is that the dog and the kite are considered unclean by prejudice by many people, according to Procopius. And the third is that the Jews should not worship them as gods, according to Theodoret (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Gen. 55 (56) // PG 80,157D, 160A). Consequently, God, protecting our health and wanting to make sure that we did not eat the meat of these animals, called them unclean, so that from this very name we would abhor them and avoid them. Dion. Ageor. Er. 8. 5 // PG 3, 1086С–1097АВ. Nil. Er. III, 243 // PG 79, 496D–50XB. From this rule, as a certain conclusion, it follows that those bishops, presbyters and deacons are not deposed who, not out of disgust, but for the sake of the true feat of abstinence, do not eat meat and do not drink wine, either at all or at times and on certain days. They do not vomit them even if they do not eat meat or drink wine on holidays. However, the rest, be they monks or laymen, who, for the sake of the feat of abstinence, avoid meat and wine (or some other food), according to the opinion of two interpreters of the divine rules, Zonara and Balsamon, are not condemned by this rule as violators, even if they abstain from this on holidays. After all, they do not disdain this food, as the rule says, and not only avoid it on holidays, eating it on other days, but equally on those and other days they avoid it solely for the sake of abstinence. However, so that the abstinence and fasting of such people in no way become a temptation for many, it is better for them to eat their bread separately and in private on holidays. This follows as a consequence of what was said earlier. Photius (tit. 9, ch. 36) says that in the 9th book. "Codes", in the 7th tit., by decree 1, it is determined that he who insults the emperor is not subject to any severe and cruel punishment, since he insulted the emperor either out of frivolity, and should be neglected as frivolous; either through stupidity, and he should be pardoned; or because of offense, and he should be forgiven. In the same way, one who insults a bishop should not be punished as being frivolous, or as stupid and talkative, or as offended. After all, if the emperor, a secular person, is prohibited by law from punishing those who insult him, then how much more so is the bishop, an ecclesiastical and spiritual person, the truest imitator of the meekest and most unforgiving Christ? The only exception is if the offender showed persistence in his intentions, was self-confident and impudent. The same should be thought about those who insult the presbyter and deacon. Pious imperial laws command the death penalty for anyone who enters the church while the liturgy or other holy services are being celebrated and insults the bishop or interferes with the performance of the liturgy or other services. The same applies to processions and prayer services at which bishops and clergy are present, namely, those who offend them are expelled, and those who interfere with the procession and prayer service are punished with death. From this rule it follows that the one who insulted his father according to the flesh or his confessor must also be punished. He who curses his father or mother (anyone, be it a cleric, a layman or a monk - St. H.), let him die (Matthew 15:4; see Lev. 20:9). Death for them is the deprivation of divine communion, for prudent people truly consider its deprivation to be death, according to the 55th rule of Basil the Great. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom says: “There is little difference between them (that is, presbyters - St. N.) and bishops. After all, the presbyters also took upon themselves teaching and primacy in the Church... After all, bishops are superior to presbyters only by the right to perform ordination, and only in this alone, it seems, is their advantage” (Conversation 11 on the First Epistle to Timothy, at the beginning) (Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 11. 1 // PG 62, 553). See also note. 1 to VI Omni. 19. Paul especially speaks about this in the First Epistle to Timothy: A bishop must be a teacher (1 Timothy 3:2), and in his Epistle to Titus he writes that a bishop must adhere to the right word, consistent with teaching, so that he can encourage others to follow sound teaching and rebuke those who oppose him (see Titus 1:9). Ign. Diac. Vita s. Niceph. Const. 25 // PG 100, 69A. Eusebius also reports this, saying that Emperor Constantine made the bishop’s thrones in the church higher than the seats of all the others: “For he, having thus completed the construction of the church, appropriately decorated it with elevated thrones in honor of the primates and, in addition, with seats located in a certain order throughout the altar” (Euseb. Hist. eccl. X, 4 // PG 20, 865C). And Gregory the Theologian says in his poems that while he was in Constantinople, in a dream he saw himself sitting on a very high throne (in the Church of St. Anastasia), while the others were sitting below him. “It seemed to me that I was sitting on a high pulpit, but not with raised eyebrows, for even in my dreams I did not value arrogance. On both sides, below me, the elders sat - leaders of the flock, the chosen age. And the servants stood in shining robes - images of angelic beauty" h6 (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. de se ipso 16 // PG 37, 1255). Regarding this, the novel of the ever-memorable Emperor Alexios Komnenos determined that each teacher of the Great Church should be given 50 modii of bread and 3 liters of coins, i.e. 216 coins (since each liter contains 72 coins), and that they would be given the honor of standing immediately after the royal archons and next to the patriarch as his representatives. The novella also determined that from the teaching rank they would enter church positions. And Paul said that special honor should be given to those who labor in word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17). And he also says: We ask you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you, and those who preside over you in the Lord, and those who admonish you, and to honor them especially with love because of their work (1 Thess. 5:12-13). And again: So the Lord commanded those who preach the Gospel to live from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14). And the apostles in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 7, chapter 10) write the following: “Glorify the one who speaks the word of God to you and remember him day and night, honor him not as the author of existence, but as the one who brings you well-being, for where the teaching about God is, there God is present. Seek every day to meet with the saints so that you can be comforted by their words. Do not be at enmity with them, remembering Dathan and Abiron, who rebelled against Moses” (Const. Ar. VII, 9 // PG 1, 1005B–1005C). God speaks about these teachers of the Church through Isaiah: And on your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen all day and all night, who will never be silent, reminding them of the Lord (Isa. 62:6). Consequently, according to this word, teachers and preachers are obliged not to neglect their work, but always to teach the people. In addition to those mentioned, there are the following counterfeit books: the Revelations of Adam, Lamech, the prayer of Joseph the Beautiful, the Mosaic Revelation and Testament, the Psalms of Eldad and Solomon, the unknown sayings of Isaiah, the Revelation of Zephaniah, the Third Book of Ezra, the Apocalypses of the Virgin Mary, Peter, Paul, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Travels of the Apostles, the book of Matthew and Barnabas, the Teaching Clement, Acts of Paul, Teachings of Ignatius and Polycarp, books of the disciples Simon, Dimus, Cleov and Nicholas, books of the Manichaean heretics, Seventh Gospel, Seven-word agape, Treatise on prayer, Cases of the giants, Gospel of Philip, Childhood of Christ, Acts of Andrew. St. Nicephorus in his 3rd and 4th rules (which are given in the 2nd volume of the “Richest Collection of Rules”, on p. 918) says that we should not accept the Revelation of Paul, as well as vrontology, selinodromy and calandology (we are talking about various fortune-telling books that were used for fortune-telling by the sounds of thunder, by the movement of the Moon, etc.) (for these books are blasphemous and unclean), the Revelation of Ezra and Zosima and two descriptions of the martyrdom of St. George (and the holy martyrs Kirik and Julitta). Note that the book of the Wisdom of Solomon is publicly read in the church along with the canonical books of Scripture because it is called canonical in the rule of Carthage. 32. In addition, Athanasius, in his holiday message, lists it among the books read in church (Athanas. Alex. Er. heor. 39 // PG 26, 1437 C.). Therefore, those who call it apocryphal speak incorrectly: they are exposed by this letter of Athanasius. Look and note. 2 to Apost. 85, as well as interpretation. Moreover, note that the compiler of the book on the Councils writes that the First Ecumenical Council was miraculously informed about the canonical books included in the Bible and about the apocryphal and forged books of heretics, for after all the books were placed under the Holy Altar and the name of the Lord was invoked, the canonical books - lo and behold! - were found on the holy throne, and the apocryphal ones - under it. I spoke about the damage to the apocryphal books of Elijah, Jeremiah and Enoch, as well as other patriarchs, because at the time of the holy apostles they were intact and authentic. Therefore ap. Paul took from the Apocrypha of Elijah those words that he writes in Chapter 2. First Epistle to the Corinthians: But, as it is written: eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9). This is evidenced, firstly, by a certain Gregory, who held the position of archdeacon under Patriarch Tarasius, uncle of the most learned Photius, and secondly, by the most learned Photius himself in the question-answers called “Amphilochia”, and he borrowed this from Gregory. In fact, nowhere in the surviving books of Holy Scripture is this saying of Paul repeated word for word. And from the apocrypha of Jeremiah ap. Paul took the saying that he gives in the 5th chapter. Epistles to the Ephesians: Therefore it is said: Awake, you who sleep, and rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light (Eph 5:14). This is equally confirmed by the same Gregory and the most reasonable Photius. Ap. Jude, in his conciliar Epistle, cites a whole saying from the apocryphal books of Enoch: Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them, saying: Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousand of His holy angels to execute judgment on all and to expose all the wicked among them (Jude 14-15). There were apocrypha of other patriarchs. Therefore, the twice-mentioned St. Meletius cites at the end of the book “The Alphabet of Alphabets” the saying of the patriarch Asher about death, namely, that death is the exposure, or discovery, of a person’s life (see Gen. 30:13; Luke 2:36). For if a person’s death was worthy, then in most cases it follows that his life was worthy, and if it was bad, then the life he lived was crafty and bad. Tertullian calls all these apocrypha unwritten, as not written down in the Holy Scriptures. Not only in the time of the apostles, but also in the time of Moses, there were such apocryphal books, as Apollinaris says. And from here the well-known saying from the book of Numbers becomes clear: Therefore it is said in the book of the warfare of the Lord: He burned Zoov and the streams of Arnon (Num. 21:14). We must add to this note that Chapter 3. 1st tit. 1st book. "Basilik" orders the burning of the works of Porphyry and Nestorius against Christians, as well as those works that do not agree with the rules of the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus. And the 22nd chapter. 1st tit. 1st book. "Vasilyk" decides that those who own and read the mentioned books are punished with extreme severity. There is also a definition that the books written by Nestorius against the Third Ecumenical Council must be burned, and that no one is allowed to have them, or read them, or copy them, or generally mention them or accept them in any way, and those who violate this law will have their property given to the people for destruction. Another chapter of the same title and the same book decrees that no one has the right to write, or read, or dictate, or keep works against the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and whoever does such a thing is expelled forever; and that whoever turns to someone to study these books pays the state 10 liters of gold, and whoever teaches what is forbidden is punished with extreme severity; and that the writings of Eutyches and Apollinaris are being burnt. And those archons, officials of the emperor and ekdics who do not pay attention to this must pay a fine of 10 liters of gold. The last provision of Chapter 27. of the same title and book prescribes the punishment of anyone who does not hand over the books of the Manichaeans to be burned. 5th decree 1st title. The “Novel” prescribes cutting off the hands of those who have the works of Sevirus and do not burn them (Photius. Tit. 12, ch. 3). Why did we report all this? In order to show that if the books of heretics should be burned and those who read them are punished with extreme severity, then isn’t it even more, and much more, necessary to burn the books of the godless Voltaire?! Books preaching obvious godlessness! Anti-Christian! Miasma of the world! Plague and gangrene of society, the death of so many souls! Isn’t it much more necessary to punish with extreme severity those who write, print, have and read these books, and do not consign them to fire, and to confiscate the property of such people and expel them?! Most Orthodox kings! Kings calling on the name of Christ! Imitate those Orthodox and most Christian emperors who established the listed laws against heretical and pagan books! Having jealousy in your royal hearts for the Lord reigning over you, issue edicts, sacra and decrees, novels and laws in order to destroy in the world these networks of error, these schools of atheism and heresy that deny Providence! The wise Solomon, who like you was a king, encourages you to do this - in his Proverbs he says: A wise king is a winnower of the wicked (Proverbs 20:26). Most divine patriarchs, bishops, priests! Try for the sake of Christ to completely prohibit the Christians under your authority from reading these most wicked books! Christian brothers! Look, the divine Paul proclaims to you: See to it that no one leads you away with philosophy and empty deception (Col. 2:8). What kind of philosophy is this? The philosophy of Epicurus, answers Clement, the author of “Stromat” (word 1), since it rejects the Providence of God and praises pleasure - and besides it, any other that honors the elements without recognizing their subordination to the Creative Cause (i.e. God), and does not presuppose the existence of the Creator (Clem. Alex. Strom. I, 11. 50 // PG 8, 748C–749A.). Oh, how similar are the ancient philosophy of Epicurus and the new philosophy of Voltaire! After all, Voltaire, not accepting Revelation, rejects God, the Creator and Maker of everything, and Providence ruins Him. And just as Epicurus made an inscription on the gates of his garden: “Here pleasure is revered as the highest good” (according to Diogenes Laertius), so the new Epicurus puts the same epigraph at the beginning, and in the middle, and at the end, and everywhere in his books, recognizing only nature and nothing more. Avoid, brothers, such philosophy: it is not the love of wisdom, but, as the apostle said about it. Paul, empty deception, love of darkness (in Greek a play on words: φιλοσοφία (philosophy) - love of wisdom, φιλοζοφία (philosophy) - love of darkness, darkness), unreason, characteristic of dumb animals, and not of those endowed with reason; a philosophy that amazes only with its appearance and the persuasiveness of its words, according to the divine Damascene, but is far removed from the truth (Ioan. Damasc. In Col. 2, 8 // PG 95, 893A). She, in addition to condemning those who trust her to hellish torment, also likens them to pigs and unreasonable animals, making them people who deny nature, creation, faith, and rationality. After all, nature, and creation, and the word, and Scripture preach their Creator, according to the Apostle, but they alone deny Him, becoming ungrateful creatures, at enmity against their Creator. We should also know that George Sugduris in the preface to the life of the prophet. Elijah lists the following counterfeit books: the second Revelation of John the Theologian, beginning with the words “Hear, righteous John,” the Word on the Dormition of the Theotokos of the same John the Theologian (this, apparently, is the same word that is attributed to John of Thessaloniki) and the Epistle about the Holy Resurrection, which, as some say, fell from heaven. Just as we reject heretical works, so we must also reject romance novels, for example: “Erotocritus”, “Erophili”, “Voscopula”, etc., as well as satirical and profane books, for example: “A Thousand and One Nights”, “Bertoldo”, “Pamphlet of Spanos”, “Donkey” and the like. After all, according to this apostolic rule, they cause harm and bring destruction to the souls of Christians. And those who write them, or print them, or sell them, or read them, or listen to them, sin grievously and must correct themselves. Read also the 2nd and 3rd rules of Nikephoros in the appendix. Decree 17, which is the 137th novella of Justinian, found in the 3rd book. "Basilik", tit. 1, ch. 8 (Photius. Titus 1, ch. 8), reads: “If anyone accuses someone who is to become a bishop, or a presbyter, or another clergyman, or an abbot, of anything, let the ordination be postponed, and let the bishop who intends to ordain conduct a thorough investigation within three months. And if the accused turns out to be guilty, let the ordination be cancelled, and if he turns out to be innocent, let him commit it. If the bishop ordains before the investigation, let both the ordainer and the ordained be deposed.” Pay attention to the fact that, according to Chrysostom (Homily 3 about Anna), there is not one method of renunciation, but many, and they are different. Describing them, Paul said: They say that they know God, but deny by works (Tit. 1:16), and again: If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those at home, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8), and also: Flee covetousness, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5) (Ioan. Chrysost. De Anna 3.5 // PG 54, 659–660.). Therefore, the 45th rule of Vasily the Great states that a Christian who insults Christ with his deeds has no benefit from the name of a Christian. See also I Omni. 11. A truly terrible story is told in the life of Paisius the Great. Paisius had a disciple to whom a certain Jew once said: “The Christ whom you worship is not the one who is to come, but another.” To these words the student simply replied: “Maybe this is true,” that’s all. But he’s right there – oh horror! - lost the grace of holy baptism. After this terrible incident, let Christians hold their tongues and not utter such ungodly words: “If I do not escape the claims of such and such, I will not die a Christian,” etc., for I am afraid that they too will thus be deprived of the grace of holy baptism, but cannot, without great repentance and fulfilling penances, return it, as that disciple returned. Faith is such a fragile thing that you can renounce it even if you miss just one syllable or make just one nod against faith. Therefore, Gregory the Theologian says: “The fighters for piety chose to zealously endure what makes even the most courageous cowardly, and this, perhaps, for one syllable or for one nod, which would serve as a sign of renunciation and could, unfortunately, save. In short, we stood for God, because it is impossible for those who betrayed Him to find another” (interpretations of the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 10) (See: Greg. Nazianz. Carm. moral. 10 // PG 37, 732A–733A.). And the divine Chrysostom says: “There is no sin worse than renunciation” (Sermon on repentance) (Ioan. Chrysost. Eclogae ex diversis homiliis 3 // PG 63, 591). Ioan. Chrysost. Hom, in Gen. 37. 4 // PG 53, 246. The reasons why God forbade the eating of blood are varied. Theodoret says that blood should not be eaten because it is the soul of the animal (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 23 // PG 80, 333C). Therefore, eating meat without blood is the same as eating vegetables that do not have a soul, but eating it with blood is obviously the same as eating the soul of an animal. Chrysostom says that blood should not be eaten because it was dedicated to offering to the one God, or because God, wanting to prohibit people from shedding human blood, commanded not to eat the blood of animals, so that people would not gradually become accustomed to murder (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Gen. 27. 4–5 11 PG 53, 245–246.). An unknown interpreter says that God commands people to eat meat cleansed of blood in order to teach them not to be inhuman and bloodthirsty, like animals who, having caught prey, tear it to pieces and devour it with blood, but to differ from animals and act like reasonable people: first sacrifice animals, bleed them, and then cook the meat in various ways and eat it. For it is enough that people are so cruel and heartless that they slaughter animals - let them at least not become extremely heartless and eat them bloody. However, the primary and closer to the truth reason why God commanded not to eat blood is this. Blood, for two reasons, is an image of the immaterial, inconsumable and immortal soul of man. Firstly, just as the blood of animals, since it is warmer, more saturated with vapors and more mobile than other liquids, constitutes their dumb and material soul, so the immaterial and rational soul of a person, although it is not blood due to its incorporeality and immateriality, nevertheless uses human blood as a kind of conductor and instrument of its actions, because it has the necessary properties for this. Secondly, the blood of animals was shed in propitiation for rational human souls, as God says about this in the book of Leviticus: The life of all flesh is in the blood. And I gave it to you to make propitiation for your souls at my altar, for its blood makes propitiation instead of the soul (Lev. 17:11). So, whoever eats blood eats a rational soul, the image of which is blood. If it eats the soul, it obviously turns it into a corporeal and material one, and therefore mortal. “If you eat blood,” says Theodoret, interpreting the above saying, “then you eat the soul, because blood replaces the rational soul. That is why this eating is called murder” (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Lev. 23 // PG 80, 333C). Consequently, the Latins and all the others who eat strangled meat, or animal meat, or carrion, and in general meat with blood, and worse, blood alone, sin against an important dogma. After all, by doing this, they thereby affirm the doctrine that the rational soul is mortal, material and subject to suffering, like bodies, for everything done in relation to the image is raised to the depicted. In other words, everything that accompanies eating blood passes on to the rational soul, which is why God threatens death to those who eat blood: Whoever eats it will be destroyed (Lev. 17:14). Or maybe the prohibition to eat blood has a more hidden meaning and should show that just as blood is not eaten with the same indifference with which meat is eaten, so the Most Pure Blood of the God-Man Jesus should not be eaten with the same indifference with which other food is eaten, but with special and exceptional reverence and faith that does not allow doubt. Witnesses that the blood of the victims was an image of the blood of Christ are the divine apostle, who confirms this throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as the face of the divine fathers. What Origen says in his work against Celsus is that we do not eat blood, so as not to feed on the food of demons (Orig. Contra Cels. VIII, 30 // PG 11, 1560AB.) (there were some who said that demons feed on the vapors of blood), and what Clement of Alexandria, Origen’s teacher, says, people should not eat blood because blood nourishes and supports their flesh (Clem. Alex. Paed. I ll, 3 // PG 8, 592A) - all these opinions, as not so significant, are stated last. Therefore, those who kill birds or four-legged animals with a gun and do not immediately slaughter them so that all the blood can flow out of them sin gravely, since they eat meat with the blood of the soul and violate the present apostolic rule. For, I ask, what is the difference between animals caught by a beast or pecked by a bird (dwelling on the ground or birds), on which the rule imposes a ban, from animals killed by a bullet? Almost nothing. After all, both in those and in these there is always blood left. Consequently, hunters, as soon as they kill the game, must slaughter it so that all the blood comes out of it, as God commands, saying: If anyone from the children of Israel or from the strangers who live among you catches an animal or a bird that can be eaten while hunting, then he must let its blood flow out and cover it with earth (Lev. 17:13). Further, John of Kitras says that when any small animal from those called unclean falls into a vessel, then, if it fell there recently and has not decomposed, the contents of the vessel do not need to be thrown away, but let it be consecrated for consumption, unless the person disdains to eat it and it is not harmful to his health. And if the animal decomposes, then the contents of the vessel must be thrown away - and not only so that this food does not harm health, but also so that it does not turn out that the person eating it is eating strangled meat, carrion and the blood of animals (the very things that are prohibited). Therefore, the 58th short story of Leo the Wise determines that those who sell or eat any food containing blood should be beaten with sticks, shaved and condemned to eternal exile, and their property should be confiscated. Those same archons and judges who do not punish such people are subject to a fine of 10 liters of gold. You should know that in some editions this rule is numbered 66, and in others – 64. We also followed the latest editions, as they are more numerous. Const. Ar. V, 15 // PG 1, 880B–881A. Epiph. Adv. haer. 42. 3 // PG 41, 700A. The Latins cannot justify themselves by saying that they fast on Saturday for the sake of asceticism - far from it. The fact is that, as Platina writes, Pope Innocent abolished fasting on Wednesday, and instead introduced fasting on Saturday. So how can the Saturday fast of the Latins, who consider good to be evil and lawless fasting on Saturday, abolish the legal one on Wednesday, be a fast for the sake of asceticism? In addition to the rules mentioned above, both Basil the Great and the divine Chrysostom are witnesses to the fact that one should not fast on Saturday and Sunday. For the first says in the 11th conversation on the Six Days: “Make yourself worthy of the most honest fast, since a five-day fast has been foretold to us” (See: Basil. Magn. Hom. 2. 4 // PG 31, 189B). He calls five days of the week fast, excluding Saturday and Sunday. And Chrysostom, in a conversation about the same thing, says: “To you who have entered the path of fasting, the Lord has given these two days, that is, Saturday and Sunday, as temporary shelters, refuges for the night, shores, seashores and harbors for short rest” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Gen. 11. 2 // PG 53, 92). The divine Ignatius also writes in his letter to the Philippians: “Whoever fasts on Sunday and Saturday, with the exception of the Saturday of Easter, is a Christ-killer” (Ign. Ep. ad Phil. 13 // PG 5, 937AB). And the divine Epiphanius says this: “The Holy Catholic Church considers all Sundays to be days of pleasure, and holds meetings in the morning, and does not fast. For one should not fast on Sunday” (Epiph. De fide 22 // PG 42, 828B.). And the divine Augustine, by the example of the apostles, who on Saturday plucked, crushed and ate ears of corn, proves at the same time that no one should fast on Saturday, just as the apostles did not fast, but ate ears of corn, and that one should not be idle, but must work, just as the apostles ground ears of corn with their own hands (Aug. Hipp. Ep. 36. 3 // PL 33, 138–139). In the 1st rule of Theophilus of Alexandria, we are talking about fasting on Sunday, which falls on the eve of Epiphany. That's why St. Meletius the Confessor says: “Eating food twice a day is often called breaking the fast, violating the established ninth hour” (step 37). Hieronym. Stridon. Er. 71.6 // PL 22, 672. In other sources, “let the cleric be deposed, and the layman excommunicated.” Just. Martyr. Dial. 40 // PG 6, 561CD–564AB. Sozom. Hist. eccl. V, 22 // PG 67, 1284AB. Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 4. 6 // PG 48, 880. Note that although he is only cast out and is not excommunicated from the prayers of the faithful in the Church, he is not allowed to partake of the Divine Mysteries with the faithful for as long as the bishop or spiritual father deems right, as we said in the interpretation of the Apostle. 25. According to the explanation of Basil the Great. The one who prepares poison to kill a person, the one who sells it, and the one who keeps it in his possession is guilty of murder, according to the Nomocanon of Photius (tit. 9, ch. 25), because there is no difference: to kill or incite murder. Killing with poison is even worse than killing with a sword. Therefore, both murderers should be subject to equal punishment, according to the 60th book. “Basilik” (tit. 36 and 39, ch. 12). Anyone who recklessly gives someone medicine, according to Photius (tit. 9, ch. 25), is also charged with murder. If many people take part in the beating, but it is unknown which of them killed, they should all be charged as murderers, according to the 60th book. "Basilik" (tit. 56). The person who committed the murder must separate from his property his wife’s dowry, wedding gifts and the share that constitutes the inheritance of his children, and divide the remaining property into three parts: give two parts to the wife and children of the murdered man, and keep one for himself (Armenopul. Book 6, Chapter 6). According to the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 7, ch. 2), a superior is not liable for a murder which he commits lawfully and justly (PG 1, 997D.). Please note that a person who, during a plague, knowing that he is infected, walks from house to house and town, infects others and becomes the culprit of many murders, is also condemned as a murderer. It is not useless or in vain that the location and intention of the one who struck is also taken into account along with the weapon, because, according to the divine Basil (Ascetic Rules. Chapter 13), both murderers and doctors use knives, but their purpose and location are not the same: murderers use knives to kill, and doctors to heal (PG 31, 1376C.). Basil the Great in rule 57 punishes the person who killed involuntarily not for 11, but for 10 years. During the time of this patriarch, it was conciliarly decided and decreed that anyone who, having the opportunity to run away and save himself from an attack by a robber, does not run away, but remains and deliberately kills him, is subjected, as a murderer, to penance for more than three years. The one who, at the urgent request, undertook to look for the robber, found him and put him to death for the common good, let him be awarded. However, for the sake of greater safety, they found it reasonable that such a one should be subjected to penance for three years. And Balsamon adds that he saw one priest ejected for the following reason: when in a quarrel he took away his book from another priest, because of this he fainted and died. He also saw one hieromonk expelled for insulting another monk, who could not bear it, groaned heavily and breathed his last with groans. He also saw, according to him, a bishop expelled because during the war he killed a Hagarene who raised a sword against him. Athanas. Alex. Ad Amun. // PG 26, 1173B. Is it really both a squire and an executioner who bears the ruler’s sword and, according to the Apostle, is God’s servant, an avenger in punishment for those who do evil (Rom. 13:4) - and he, I say, must suffer punishment and penance or not? After all, according to Chrysostom, it is not he who kills, nor the ruler who sentences him to death, but the crime of the condemned (Discourse 7 on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. II ad Cor. 7. 1 // PG 61, 442). Yes, he should be punished for two reasons. Firstly, because he turned out to be capable of committing murders and atrocities, as a kind of evil force and vessel serving not for honor, but for dishonor (See 2 Tim. 2:20), serving not what happens according to the good will and pleasing will of God, to which we should incline, imitating His goodness, according to Basil the Great (see rule 276 from the summary), but what happens by God's permission. According to the same Basil (ibid.), God does not want us to contribute to this (PG 31, 1273C–1276A.), persecuting the one whom God smites, and increasing the disease of his ulcers (See Ps. 68:27.). Although God uses those who by their own will have become evil - either demons or people - as an instrument for admonishing sinners for the benefit of the latter, He still abhors them and turns away from them, according to the wise Synesius, since they have become capable of causing evil to others and are the enemies and destroyers of His creation (Synes. Ptolem. Ep. 57 // PG 66, 1384ACD–1385A.). Secondly, the executioner and the squire or the demon who punish people do not have the thought and intention that they kill people to serve God, but, having an evil will, according to the same Synesius, they rejoice in the misfortunes of others and bloodshed. Finally, the executioner cannot escape punishment on the grounds that he killed those who were destined for death, for Judas could give a similar excuse. After all, for the sake of universal salvation it was necessary for Christ to be crucified, but, nevertheless, alas and woe to him through whose fault He was crucified (Synes. Ptolem. Ep. 57 // PG 66, 1385A.). If Chrysostom says (Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Ch. 5) that no one hates a tool and does not turn away from it, but they hate and turn away from the one who uses this weapon (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Gal. 5. 5 // PG 61, 671.), then this refers to soulless tools, and not to living and reasonable, like a squire. So, from here it is clear that penance should also be imposed on the executors and executioners. Those who follow the executioners to watch the execution cannot be left unpunished, because they show cruelty, wanting to watch people being killed and the blood being shed, although one only has to imagine this spectacle, how it makes one shudder. It is puzzling: why both the present apostolic rule and the rules of Vasily the Great. 22 and 25 allow molesters to marry those dishonored by them, and in the 26th rule the same Basil says that those who were married after fornication must be separated? Wanting to resolve this bewilderment, Balsamon says that in the first rules, Basil the Great has in mind a dishonored maiden who, if she does not marry the one who molested her, will remain dishonored and worthy of pity, because no one else will take her as a wife because she was deflowered. And in the 26th rule, Basil means a harlot, first corrupted by one, and then falling into fornication with another: such, even if she does not marry the one who committed fornication with her, will not suffer harm and will not be as offended as the above-mentioned girl. That’s why it’s better to separate them. But since Zonara does not say anything like that, and Basil the Great in the 22nd rule also calls the corruption of a girl fornication, we do not like Balsamon’s opinion as it does not correspond to either common sense or the goal of the saint. Vasily. So, in order to resolve this bewilderment, we say that after Basil the Great in the 22nd and 25th rules spoke about those who marry because of previous corruption, he finally speaks in the 26th rule in general about everyone who married after fornication, whether with an uncorrupted maiden, or with a woman who was previously corrupted by another: fornication is not marriage, and not even the beginning of marriage. Therefore, if it is possible to separate those who, having fallen into fornication before marriage, marry, it is better. But why is it better to separate such people? Firstly, because, according to the apostle, marriage is honorable and the bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4), and such a marriage entered into because of fornication, accordingly, is not a marriage at all, and such a bed is not undefiled, but defiled and unclean. For it was not God who united such as it is written: whom God united (see Matt. 19:6), not God’s word and blessing taught through the priest, but debauchery and intemperance. How will such people be worthy during the wedding to accept crowns on their heads, which are symbols of the victory of the crowned over voluptuousness, their invincibility, according to Chrysostom (Discourse 9 on the First Epistle to Timothy) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 9. 2 // PG 62, 546)? Indeed, on the contrary, defeated by intemperance and voluptuousness, they are put to flight! Or how will those who bear penance for fornication be worthy to partake of the Divine Mysteries in church after the blessing of marriage according to the rite accepted in our holy Church? Secondly, if such people are not separated, then the door of destruction will open for all the licentious and intemperate: it will be possible to first have relations with women, and then marry them. Because of this, many will deliberately deflower women so that after the fact they can have the opportunity to marry them, whether their parents want it or not. On the contrary, if such people are separated, then this will become a kind of bridle, and especially for women, so that they do not allow men to dishonor them before marriage, realizing that if this happens, then they will not only not marry those who corrupted them, but will also remain in dishonor and contempt for the rest of their lives, and their gain will only be sin and punishment. So, for these reasons, it is better and more correct that those who want to get married after fornication not only do not get married or get married at all from the very beginning, but also separate if they have already gotten married and got married. This is the meaning of separation that St. speaks of. Vasily. After this, making a concession and showing condescension, he adds that if those who were married after fornication are both adamant in their desire to live in marriage and in no way want to be separated, then let them bear penance as fornicators, but remain together so that something worse does not happen, that is, so that they do not kill themselves, not being able to overcome their attraction to each other, or secretly begin to fornicate or commit adultery even after separation, according to the interpretation of Zonara. Consequently, the present apostolic canon makes the same concession and provides the same leniency, while at the same time it aims to reduce evil. The leniency was provided so that something worse would not happen and that the dishonored girl, wanting to marry the man who deprived her of honor, but being abandoned by him, would not kill herself, unable to bear the shame and reproach, as actually happened to many. In addition, the girl was deflowered by force, and not of her own free will, which seems unbearable to her. In fact, the real rule says: “If someone keeps a girl after he has violated her...”. And Basil the Great in the 25th rule does not speak about violence, but only about corruption. The reduction of evil lies in the fact that rich men are afraid to rape poor women, because this apostolic rule forces them to take them as wives, and similarly rich women are afraid of their own free will to enter into relations with poor men, because then they will be obliged to marry them. Both men and women should refrain from such actions, remembering that they will have to marry the poor and lowly - and this will seem impossible to them. And the fact that the rule speaks specifically about such rich people is clear from the following words: “... let him have the one he has chosen, even if she is poor.” And this is the case with this. If someone takes as his wife a woman who has been dishonored by others and a harlot, without first having committed fornication with her, I cannot even express what a wonderful act this is: after all, he picks up a lost sheep, saves a lost soul! I will only say that he becomes an imitator of God Himself, Who took prodigal and sinful human nature as His bride, without imputing previous sins to it, as we said in the note. to Apost. 48. A liter contains 72 coins. Exactly how much each coin weighed is unknown. Now a liter contains 12 ounces, an ounce contains 8 drams, and a dram contains 60 grains. It is clear that in addition to this fine, such a person is also subject to church penance as a fornicator. Why is it that out of the seven sacraments, only two are not repeated: baptism and ordination to the priesthood? According to the scholastics, the reason is that these sacraments leave an indelible imprint, which, as they believe (see: Nicholas Voulgaris. Catechism. Theology. Ch. 4), is a real quality inherent in the soul and a supernatural power. This opinion of the scholastics was followed by almost all of our modern theologians, and especially by Coresius. But I think that these sacraments are not repeated in one single life of those who receive them only because they are performed in the image of the death of the Lord, which, once accomplished, cannot be repeated. After all, those who are baptized are baptized into the death of the Lord, according to the words of St. Paul (See Rom. 6:3.) and according to Apost. 47. The priests, having lost the priesthood, are not ordained a second time because they represent themselves as the first and great Priest, who once entered the sanctuary and acquired eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12), according to the apostle. Paul, and abides forever, having an everlasting priesthood (See Heb. 7:24.). This is precisely, in my opinion, the reason why a priest is not re-ordained. The priesthood in Christ is imperishable, therefore the image of Christ must always remain in the purity required of the priesthood, so that the similarity between the Prototype and His image - the priest - is fully preserved. Another reason is this: the priest is appointed mainly to perform sacred acts, namely to offer a mystical sacrifice, which is a bloodless sacrifice and through which the one death of the Lord is proclaimed, according to St. Paul (See 1 Cor. 11:26.). If the “imprint” invented by the scholastics really serves as the reason that these sacraments are not repeated, then why is the sacrament of confirmation repeated, although it is called a seal and leaves an imprint on the soul? For the Evangelist John says: However, the anointing that you received from Him remains in you (1 John 2:27). And ap. Paul: Who also sealed you and gave the deposit of the Spirit into your hearts (see 2 Cor. 1:22). And David calls Saul the Lord’s anointed not only after his rejection by God, but also after his death (see 2 Sam. 1:14). So, it is precisely for this reason, that is, because the death of the Lord is one, at one liturgy only one deacon, only one priest and only one bishop should be ordained, and not two or many, according to the words of Simeon of Thessaloniki (response 39) (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 39 // PG 155, 888B) and according to the words of Job, cited in "Syntagmation" Chrysanthus. “And those who were ordained more than one at a time - I don’t even know what they are,” says the same Simeon, “because they were not ordained according to the Tradition of the Church” (Ibid. // PG 155, 888C). And together they ordain readers and subdeacons - several at once during one liturgy, because they are a less perfect part of the priesthood and serve outside the altar, according to the same Job (ibid.). It was precisely for this purpose, that is, so that the only death of Christ would not be repeated twice, and the Local Council in the city of Antisiodor, assembled in 613. under the emperor Heraclius, he decided not to celebrate two liturgies on the same day on the same throne: “It is not allowed to proclaim two liturgies on the same throne on the same day, just as it is not allowed for a presbyter to celebrate the liturgy on the same throne on which the bishop celebrated it on that day,” which is violated by the papists. But our priests, who celebrate the Liturgy twice, supposedly out of boldness, are grievously sinning, and let them not allow this absurdity in the future. That is why Balsamon, in answer 30 (Greco-Roman Law, p. 378), says that if a priest or deacon from heretics is baptized (or anointed), then his former priesthood is considered a desecration and is imputed to nothing. If he is subsequently deemed worthy, he can become both a priest and a bishop. So, since, according to the present apostolic canon, heretics do not have the priesthood, to that extent what they perform is defiled and does not partake of grace and sanctification. Consequently, the unleavened bread and sacraments of the Latin heretics are profaned and not holy, according to the Apostle. 46. ​​And if Demetrius Chomatian (Greco-Roman Law, p. 320) and John of Cytra (answer 12, preserved in manuscripts) said that it was infallible to consider sacred what the Latins performed as holy, they said this because at that time the Latins were accepted as baptized: then they had not yet rejected rebellion and immersion in baptism. But notice that, while saying this, they at the same time add that none of the Orthodox can receive communion from the Latins. In this sense, one should also understand what Bryennius writes about the Latins in a letter to Niketas. However, more than 500 years ago, Eastern Christians already considered the sacred rites of Western ones to be desecrated. Therefore, where the Latins served the liturgy, the Eastern ones first performed the consecration in order to cleanse the place, and then served themselves. See also the rule of the Lateran Council in note. to Apost. 46. Basil. Magn. Er. 240. 3 // PG 32, 897B. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 39.14 // PG 36, 352B. Lent is the tithe of the entire year, according to Vlastar’s precise calculation: there are 365 days in a year, and Lent consists of seven weeks. which, minus Saturdays and Sundays, when oil and wine are permitted, amount to 35 days. We add Holy Saturday - it turns out 36 days, i.e. the 10th part of 360 days of the year. We add the night of Holy Saturday to the morning of Easter - half a day, which is the 10th part of the remaining five days of the year, and then we get a full tithe of the year. Note that during the entire Pentecost we allow fasting for fish only once, namely on the Feast of the Annunciation, as determined by the handwritten regulations of the Holy Mountain. However, if the Annunciation falls during Holy Week, then we allow only oil and wine, according to handwritten and printed regulations. Consequently, the permission for fish on the Vai holiday, indicated in printed charters and Triodions, is an innovation. And Patriarch Nicholas in his poems says that it is appropriate to eat fish only on the feast of the Annunciation (Nicol. Const. De vita monastics 9 // PG 111, 400C.). So, knowing this, let us follow the rules of the saints, and not the innovations of heretics to please the belly. Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 3.4 // PG 48, 867–868. Wednesdays and Fridays of Easter and the weeks following Pentecost are excluded. On Easter week we do not fast because of the joy of the Resurrection of the Son and the Word of God, and in the week after Pentecost - because of the joy of the descent of the Holy Spirit, so that in this way it becomes obvious that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Son and is in no way diminished in comparison with Him, as John of Kitras says in his 25th canon. The full permission of fasting on Wednesday or Friday, on which the feasts of the Nativity of Christ or Epiphany fall, is apparently compensated for by the preceding Vespers fast. I think that it is for this reason that it is established to always observe this fast on these holidays. But the permission to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays during Christmastide, in the week preceding Meat and Cheese Week, cannot be compensated for in any way. And the reason put forward by some to justify this permission and consisting in the fact that on Christmastide the Armenians fast because of a dog named Artsivurius *, in the week preceding the Meat-Empty - the Ninevites, and in the Cheese Week - the Tetradites (see Isa. 1:13-14), is completely unconvincing and unfounded, since all of us, Orthodox, differ from non-Orthodox and heretics not with food, but with dogmas of faith. That's why ap. Paul said: Having abolished the law of commandments by doctrine (Literally “dogmas”) (Eph. 2:15). Both Balsamon and John of Kitras, who believe that we allow fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays because the above-mentioned heretics fast then, say that not all Orthodox Christians should allow fasting, but only those who communicate and live with these heretics. For Balsamon, in the 52nd answer which he gives to Mark of Alexandria, says the following: “However, let it be so in the case if anyone lives with the Tetradites or the Armenians.” And John of Kithra, in the 27th answer to Constantine Cabasilus of Dyrrachium, says in a similar way: “And especially if we happen to live together with such heretics, under this pretext we will not please the belly.” And Patriarch Nicholas writes to Anastasia Sinait in verse: “In the week before the Empty of Meat, which we also call the week of Artsivuria, the majority of the laity began the custom of fearlessly allowing the fast of Wednesday and Friday and eating meat. Like them, monks eat cheese, doing so out of the belief that it is truly good. If they come from an Armenian family and previously professed the Arcivuri heresy, then they are doing the right thing, dispelling all suspicion. If they are Orthodox faithful and such were their ancestors, then in vain they justify their violation of fasting” (Nicol. Const. De vita monastica 13 // PG 111, 404A). So, let these words silence those who do not live with the Armenians (others - the Tetradites and Ninevites - are no longer there) and do not come from an Armenian family, but shamelessly break fast on certain Wednesdays and Fridays! Let them understand that they are not doing this to oppose the Armenians, but rather to please their belly. At the same time, those who live with the Armenians or come from their family can, in order to avoid suspicion of heresy, not fast on one of the non-fasting days of Christmastide, i.e. Tuesday or Thursday, and thus overthrow the error of those who fast all week. Monks are required to fast every Monday in addition to Wednesday and Friday throughout the year. But even a layman who wants to fast on Monday is worthy of praise from God and will receive his due reward. For an increase in goodness always entails a greater benefit. We ourselves know and have seen with our own eyes many husbands in the world, and especially wives, who fast on Mondays in the same way as on Wednesday and Friday. The reasoning proposed by many about fasting on Monday is correct and extremely fair, and it is as follows. The Lord said that if our righteousness does not exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, then we cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Since the Pharisees fasted two days a week, according to the Gospel Pharisee, I fast twice a week (Luke 18:12), so we Christians must fast three days a week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and not just Wednesday and Friday, so that our righteousness surpasses the righteousness of the Pharisees. The fact that the Pharisees fasted on Wednesday and Friday is clearly stated by the divine Chrysostom in his “Word against the Publican and the Pharisee” (vol. 7, p. 465) (PG 62.727). St. Meletius the Confessor says that one must fast on Monday in order for the week to begin with fasting (step 35). Note that since the rule of Gangr. 19 anathematizes those who, not because of bodily weakness, but for their own reasons and under plausible pretexts, violate the fasts established according to Tradition for everyone; therefore, everyone - both clergy and laity - should observe three more fasts along with the fast of the Great Pentecost. I mean the forty-day fast, which we perform both in honor of Christ who is about to be born, and in order to atone for our sins. Further, the so-called fast of the holy apostles, performed not for their sake, as some say, and not for the sake of the descent of the Holy Spirit, but first of all and mainly because of the previous seven-day indulgence, according to what was said in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 5, chapter 20) (PG 1, 900B-901.), and then for the reason that the divine apostles, before they were sent to preaching, fasting: Then they, having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, sent them away (Acts 13:3). This is also said in the “Orthodox Confession” (p. 109). Athanasius the Great also mentions this fast (Sermon on those accusing him of fleeing during persecution): “In the week after Holy Pentecost, the people, having begun to fast, went out to pray in the cemetery” (Athanas. Alex. Apol. de fuga sua 6 // PG 25b, 652B.), - as well as St. Nikephoros in the 19th rule. The third fast, in August, is in honor of the Mother of God, Who remained even more diligent in fasting when the hour of Her Dormition came, according to Simeon of Thessaloniki (answer 54) (PG 155,901B). These fasts should not be observed with dry eating, like Lent, but with permission to wine, oil and fish, with the exception of Wednesdays and Fridays that fall during these fasts and with the exception of the August fast, during which we eat fish only once, on the Feast of the Transfiguration. Although these fasts were not established by the apostles, we must also observe the traditions of our fathers for the sake of ancient custom, which has the force of law, according to sacred and civil laws. In addition, according to Basil the Great (moral rule 70), “even in that which is not defined by Scripture, we must encourage everyone to what is better and beneficial to the soul” (Basil. Magn. Moralia 70.8 // PG 31, 824B.). The August fast is mentioned in the 3rd rule of Nicholas; The “Tomos of Unity” also mentions the August and 40-day Nativity fasts (see also note to Neokesar. 3). Consequently, those who fast during these three fasts for only seven days are condemned as violators of the ancient church institution. * Artsivury (Hellenized Armenian word “aratshavorath”, translated as messenger, informer) is the name of the week of strict fasting among Armenians in the week before the Meat Festival. John of Kitras writes about the origin of this fast in his responses to Constantine Cabasilia of Dyrrhachia: “They (the Armenians) fast this week also because of the death of a dog nicknamed Artsivurius, who ran to a city or village before the teacher Sergius and announced his arrival. “Artsivury” in Armenian means “messenger”. When this dog was killed by animals, Sergius, in grief, ordered all Armenians to fast on these days because of the death of the dog, and to remain in sadness and mourning every year” (PG l, 864BC). The version presented by John of Kitra is most likely unreliable and is polemical in nature. There are several historical versions of the origin of this post. According to the instructions of I. A. Karabinov, the East Syrian tradition dates its establishment to the 2nd half. VI century, when Persian Christians who fasted for three days received miraculous deliverance from the plague. The Armenian Catholicos Nerses Shnorali, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, mentions the Syrian custom and attributes the establishment of the Primary Post to St. Gregory the Illuminator, connecting it with the 5-day fast of King Trdat and his nobles punished by God, after which their healing followed. According to the commentary on the Lectionary Chorep. Grigor Arsharuni, this fast was dedicated to the five Old Testament patriarchs and began, apparently, on Saturday (see more about this: PE. T. 3. P. 368). Epiph. Adv. haer. 75. 3 // PG 42, 508B. Idem. De fide 22 // PG 42, 825B. Philostorg. Hist. eccl. X, 12 // PG 65, 592C. Ign. Er. ad Phil. 13 // PG 5, 937A. Const. Ar. V, 15 // PG 1, 880V. If the fast on Wednesday and Friday is the same as the fast of Lent, then it is clear that, just as on Lent, weddings are not celebrated, according to Laodice. 52, so they should not be performed on Wednesday and Friday. In this case, it is also clear that it is not appropriate for spouses to enter into carnal relations on Wednesdays and Fridays for the sake of the holiness and honor of fasting, just as it is not appropriate to do this on Lent. For it is wrong, on the one hand, to maintain these fasts by abstaining from food, and on the other hand, to break them by carnal union and pleasure. Therefore, on these days one should fast, abstaining equally from foods prohibited during fasting and from carnal lust. So is the prophet. Joel secretly spoke about the fact that during fasting spouses should be chaste: Sanctify the fast, preach healing... let the groom come out of his palace and the bride from her room (Joel 2:15–16). And the divine Paul already says directly that spouses by consent should abstain from carnal union in order to practice fasting and prayer (see 1 Cor. 7:5), i.e. must abstain during fasting, as we said, and at the time when they pray and prepare for communion of the Divine Mysteries, as well as on Saturday and Sunday, according to the 13th rule of Timothy Alexander, and in general on all holidays when a spiritual sacrifice is offered to God. See also note. 1 to VI Omni. 13 and note. to rule 3 of Dionysius Alexander. See also the 50th answer of Balsamon to Mark, in which he says that spouses who do not abstain on Great Pentecost should not only be forbidden to receive communion on Easter, but also be assigned penance so that they reform. Pay attention also to the fact that Chrysostom (Sermon on Virginity. Vol. 6. P. 260) cites as evidence the mentioned passage from the prophet. Joel and says: “If newlyweds, whose passions run high, youth blooms and lust is uncontrollable, should not enter into a relationship during fasting and prayer, then especially other married couples who do not experience such violence from the flesh” (Ioan. Chrysost. De virgin. 30 // PG 48, 554). And about the fact that the ancient Christians fasted throughout Lent with dry eating and did not eat until the evening, listen to the divine Chrysostom, who says: “Some, competing with each other, enter into a wondrous competition: some spend two days without food, while others, having removed from their table not only wine and oil, but also all food, eat only bread and water throughout Lent.” And also: “Behold, today we spent the whole day without food, and in the evening we will set ourselves a meal” (Homily 4 on statues. Vol. 6. P. 490) (Idem. Ad popul. Antioch. 4. 6 // PG 49, 68). From here it becomes clear what kind of condemnation are worthy of those who flooded the newly published books of hours with permission for wine and oil on the days of remembrance of not only great saints, but also small ones, in other words, those who do not have a doxology, although such permissions are not in the surviving ancient books of hours, handwritten and printed. Therefore, whoever learns about this should correct himself and adhere to the ancient books of hours rather than the new ones. To finish our word about fasts, let us also add here that these three fasts: the Nativity Fast, the Holy Apostles Fast and the August Fast, were legitimized by Simeon of Thessaloniki (answer 54) (PG 155, 900D–901AB.), and by the anciently known “Apostolic Decrees”, and by the general statutes of Jerusalem and Studium, and in general by all the private statutes of the royal monasteries (Monasteries founded by Chrysobulus of the Byzantine emperors) Holy Mountain. And the very fact that Lent is called Great Lent shows that there are other fasts, but it surpasses them, according to the subtle remark of Simeon of Thessaloniki (answer 56) (PG 155, 908CD). So, during the Nativity and Holy Apostles fasts, according to the regulations, on Tuesdays and Thursdays it is allowed to eat oil and wine, but not fish. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays we do not eat oil or wine, and if on these days there is a service with “Alleluia”, that is, a service to a saint who does not have a doxology, then there is fasting until the ninth hour, eating food once a day and dry eating. But if there is a service to a saint with doxology, then we eat food twice a day. For this reason, Balsamon, in answer 54, in accordance with the statutes, says that those who eat food twice a day during the Nativity, Apostolic and August fasts out of intemperance, and not because of bodily weakness and need, thereby neglect abstinence throughout the day and must suffer penance (Greco-Roman Law, p. 338). Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 3. 3 // PG 49, 51. Isid. Pel. Ep. I, 403 // PG 78, 408B. Note: from this rule it follows that in a similar way should be punished those who accept and eat the sacrificial lambs of the Hagarites, especially on their godless Bayrams, as well as what is customary to eat during their satanic and God-hating circumcision of children. From this rule it becomes clear what condemnation the Latins are worthy of, who allowed innovation in the sacrament of the Divine Eucharist and introduced Jewish unleavened bread into it. And the fact that unleavened bread is an innovation is obvious. For from the time of Christ until 1053 in the Western Church, liturgies were celebrated on leavened bread, and in 1053 Leo IX became the first to invent unleavened bread. The argument advanced by the Latins that the Lord celebrated the Last Supper on unleavened bread turned out to be extremely false. Firstly, because the same leavened bread that the Lord gave to the apostles was found. Nicholas of Hydrunt tells in his word against unleavened bread that when the Franks took Constantinople, they found in the royal sacristy the honorable Tree, the crown of thorns, the sandals of the Savior and one nail. In a golden vessel decorated with pearls, they also found the bread given by Christ to the apostles, and therefore this vessel had the following inscription: “Here lies the Divine Bread, which Christ divided among the disciples during the supper, saying: Take, eat: this is My Body.” (Matthew 26:26). Since it was leavened bread, the Western Christians who found it, the Bishop of Alvistania, who was named Bishop of Bethlehem, intended to hide it, but, by God’s grace, they could not. The truth of this story is also evidenced by George of Kerkyra, whose heyday was around 1146. The second proof is that first John of Jerusalem, and then, based on his reasoning, the much learned Eustratius Argentis, composed works against unleavened bread and, with the indisputable words of Scripture, proved that the Lord did not taste the lawful Passover at the time of the establishment of the sacrament and, therefore, did not celebrate the Last Supper on unleavened bread. Read also Dositheus (book 8, chapter 12) and Nicholas Voulgaris (Holy Catechism). Note that what distinguishes a thief from a blasphemer is the place, according to the 16th decree of the 19th tit. 48th book. “Digest,” as Photius’ “Nomocanon” says (tit. 2, ch. 2), that is, if the place from which the thing was stolen is a holy church, the theft is called sacrilege, but if the place is ordinary, it is simply theft. However, the main distinguishing feature of sacrilege is what kind of thing is stolen. Anyone who steals a sacred object is condemned as a blasphemer, and someone who steals, for example, a holy icon or something else belonging to someone is punished only as a thief (pay attention to this, since some say that someone who steals an icon, or holy relics, or a book, or the like is not a thief, because he steals out of reverence; but here such a person is called a thief and is punished like a thief). Therefore, the theft of money belonging to a private person from a church is not sacrilege, but simple theft, and the theft of objects dedicated to God, even from an ordinary place, is sacrilege. Moreover, he who steals from a sacred place, and, moreover, objects dedicated to God, is a blasphemer. A sacred object is one that the priest publicly dedicated to God. After all, things that belong to private individuals are not sacred, but ordinary and unconsecrated. Therefore, unconsecrated holy objects are sold, presented as gifts, and remain in someone else’s possession for a long time, while sacred objects can only be at the disposal of clergy. Pay attention also to the fact that, according to Armenopoulus (book 6, tit. 5), anyone who enters the holy altar and steals any sacred vessel from those constantly located there is blinded in both eyes. If someone steals something from outside the altar for another church, then the thief, as soon as he is caught, is subjected to corporal punishment, shaved and expelled. Finally, those who steal from public churches are blasphemers and are punished as blasphemers, and those who steal from private churches and, moreover, sacred things belonging to private individuals, left unattended, are punished more severely than thieves, but less severe than blasphemers. (Book “Digest” 48, tit. 13, decree b; Photius. Tit. 2, ch. 2.) 1st decree 2nd title. "Novel" punishes those who pawn sacred vessels, or sell them, or melt them down, or alienate them from the church to which they belonged and give them into the possession of others. All this is allowed only if the money received for them is given for the release of prisoners. If these vessels are superfluous and it happens that the church that owns them has a debt, then it is allowed to independently sell them to another church that does not have them, or melt them down, and give the proceeds to pay off the debt, so that real estate is not alienated from the church. 4th decree, tit. 2, book. 10, stipulates that heirs should not take what was acquired through sacrilege. Anyone who buys sacred vessels or vestments or takes them as collateral loses the money given, and the sacred objects are again transferred, through bishops and stewards, to the church to which they belong. Even if the vessels were melted down and they are not available, their value is recovered, according to the 17th decree of the 2nd tit. 1st book. "Code". Since high treason is equal to sacrilege, according to the 48th book, tit. 4, resolution 1, then the one who commits this crime is punished as a blasphemer. High treason, according to Chapter 1. 66th book. "Basilik", tit. 36, consists in the fact that someone exposes the Roman people to disaster: by deceit, without the order of the emperor, he introduces soldiers armed against the same city into the city, or seizes and holds by force a holy place or church, or gathers a rebellious assembly of rebels, or kills the ruler. It is also high treason if someone sends a letter or an informant to the enemies, or gives them some kind of signal, or provides them with assistance, or incites soldiers to revolt and revolt against the state. Note that Balsamon also makes a distinction between the initiate and the saint. He says that everything that is sacred and dedicated is holy, but not everything that is holy is also sacred, that is, dedicated. After all, the image of a cross minted on a coin is sacred, but not sacred (of course, if this coin is not also dedicated), therefore the one who steals money with the image of the cross or Christ is punished as a thief, and not as a blasphemer. However, pay attention to the fact that, according to the 7th answer of John of Kithra, preserved in manuscripts, the instruments that were used to repair damaged sacred vessels should not be left unused because of this, nor thrown into the sea, since they did not immediately receive consecration from contact with the sacred. And the place where the craftsmen smelt the sacred vessels should not be demolished to the ground or covered with other material, supposedly so that it will not be trampled upon. Our hands, which touch either the holy or the defilement of our body, we consider neither holy nor profane. We must reason in a similar way about these instruments, unless they were publicly dedicated to God's churches, for then they are considered sacred. But even if we say that they received sanctification, it is still abolished by the effective power of fire. For this reason, imperial laws prescribe that church silver and gold vessels must first be melted down and given in this form for the ransom of captives. In addition, sacred ecclesiastical vestments and priestly vestments are not desecrated if they are washed. If, according to the 1st rule of Nicephorus, an antimension washed out of ignorance does not lose its sanctification and is not desecrated, then how much more are other vestments not desecrated by washing? And from the words of Nicephorus “out of ignorance” it is clear that one should not simply erase the antimensions and coverings from the holy cups. If they completely become unusable, as well as other sacred robes and veils, then some advise burning them (which is best), or throwing them into the depths of the sea, or placing them in untrodden places. See also note. to the 1st rule of Nikephoros. Such is erupted, and Balsamon is wrong in asserting the opposite. After all, the Third Ecumenical Council, having summoned Nestorius three times, cast him out as disobedient. In a similar way, the IV Ecumenical Council deposed Dioscorus, as can be seen from the acts of the council. And Chrysostom, even if he was called four times by the Council “Under the Oak” convened against him and did not appear, did not deserve condemnation, since the same bishops who called him were both his open enemies and his judges. He said that he was not avoiding trial, but only his enemies, although they were in the rank of judges and prosecutors, and he listed them by name. The novel of Emperor Manuel decrees that not only bishops, but in general all those accusing and accused, no matter what position they occupy and what matter they have, should be summoned with three written notices, each calculated for a period of thirty days, and not for a short time (according to Vlastar). Note that from the records made in Constantinople under Patriarch Nektarios about Agapius and Vagadia, who defended their right to the Vostrian bishopric (see these records after the rules of the Sardician Council), it becomes obvious that it is not appropriate to depose a bishop if he was not present at the trial, and it should be deposed not three or two bishops, but by the decision of the Council of the majority of bishops of the metropolitan region, “as well as the apostolic decreed by the rules”, i.e. by this rule. In addition, the Apostle Paul says that even the Romans did not have the custom of handing over a person to death (and simply passing a verdict of guilty) unless the accused had first appeared in person before his accusers and received the right to justify himself in the accusation brought against him: It is not the custom of the Romans to hand over any person to death before the accused has his accusers present and is free to defend himself against the accusation (Acts 25:16). And Nicodemus said to the Jews: Does our law judge a man unless they first hear him and know what he does? (John 7:51). God Himself speaks to the judge about the one who served other gods, like this: And it will be announced to you, and you will investigate carefully, and behold, the word was true: this abomination has been committed in Israel, and bring out that man, etc. (see Deut. 17:4–5). What a diocese is and who its exarch is, see the separate interpretations of these rules. Meaning: to justify oneself before a higher authority. Please note that if many witnesses are not trustworthy, then it is necessary to find out about their lifestyle and intentions, according to the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 2, chapter 49) (PG 1, 709C.). For it often happens that two, three or more witnesses conspire about evil and testify falsely, as, for example, they testified falsely against Susanna, Naboth, Stephen and against the Lord. Therefore, the witnesses, says 1st tit. 21st book. “Basilik” (Photius tit. 9, ch. 2) must be trustworthy people. And since they are trustworthy, it seems unnecessary for them to take an oath. Those who have sworn come under suspicion that their lifestyle and virtue are not worthy of trust, and therefore they want to confirm and authenticate their testimony with oaths. According to Armenopoul, there is also a law about this, commanding witnesses not to swear (book 1, tit. 1). The law requires that witnesses be trustworthy and therefore specifically prohibits persons of low character, the depraved, those of no position, those who are unknown, animal fighters, actors, dancers, or those who have been convicted in a public court of libel, adultery, theft, or similar illegal act from being witnesses and the charge has not been withdrawn from them, or even they have been put in chains and thrown into prison for the enumerated outrageous and evil deeds. Whoever initially testifies to accuse someone will no longer testify in his defense later. In criminal cases, one cannot rely only on the words of witnesses, even though they themselves are absent. Witnesses must be present in person and encouraged to give an exact description of the crime and state the year, month, place of the crime and the person who participated in it; however, they should not be forced to testify about the day and hour as well. If they cannot prove the charges, they should be expelled. Officials and priests are not called upon to bear witness without their consent, but are brought in voluntarily. Bishops, even if they themselves wish to testify, should not be called to testify, but should simply be interrogated at home. But a heretic and an infidel are not witnesses against the Orthodox, according to the words of Armenopoulus (book 1, tit. 6), 1st book. "Code" (tit. 5, decree 21) and "Nomocanon" Photius (tit. 9, chapter 2); the faithful can testify against each other. The “Apostolic Decrees” (Book 2, Chapter 50) state that an evil witness should not go unpunished (PG 1, 712C), that is, an unjust and deceitful witness, as the author of Proverbs, from whom the apostles took this saying, speaks about this (See Proverbs 19:5 ~ and 9). And Chrysostom (in “The Sermon that Sin Introduced Three Slaves”) says that to accuse someone who insulted or hit his father, the testimony of the father himself is sufficient, without other evidence. And rightly so, since the father, who prefers to give both money and property, and often life itself, for the sake of his son, will never become his accuser if the insult inflicted on him by his son was not truly excessive (Ioan. Chrysost. In Gen. sermo 4. 3 // PG 54,598). The 123rd novella of Justinian and the 76th of Leo the Wise determine: if priests or deacons bear false witness, without taking an oath, in property and civil matters, then let them be banned from ministry for three years and imprisoned in a monastery. If they swore, then let them be expelled from the priesthood. And if in a criminal or church matter they testify falsely, then let them be cast out and imprisoned in a monastery. Zonara says that when an accusation threatens defrocking, the testimony of even two faithful and irreproachable people is not enough, but the testimony of three or five is required. See also note. to the 9th rule of Theophilus Alexander, in which you will also find the 4th answer of Nikita of Irakli. Therefore, the pious laws of emperors express the following authoritative opinion: it is better to leave crimes unavenged than to punish someone innocently (according to Vlastar). Regarding this, Theodorit in the 5th book, chapter 23. "Ecclesiastical History" says that the rules do not allow a dying bishop to ordain someone in his place (1PG 82, 1248C) Facial spots are a disease that appears on the forehead and which, as a rule, darkens the skin of the face. This is how Cyril of Alexandria interprets it (Cyr. Alex. De adorat. XII // PG 68, 789B). Therefore, “having spots on the face” is one who has contracted this disease. “With an eyesore” - one whose eyelids are devoid of eyelashes, according to Varin, and simply has some kind of eye disease. Therefore, Balsamon, in the 23rd question-answer to Mark of Alexandria, combining together both of these apostolic canons, i.e., the 77th and 78th, says that anyone who has any bodily injury or illness can perform the priesthood without hindrance. If illness prevents the priest from performing, then the patient stops, but does not lose his dignity. On the contrary, one should sympathize with such a person, and he should enjoy the same honor, have a means of subsistence, etc., as before. Greg. Nazianz. Carm. moral 33 // PG 37, 928. For information about what the expression “to divulge the Mysteries” means, see the interpretation of this rule by Timothy of Alexandria. In ancient medicine, a depressed state of mind, sudden attacks of fear or anger, clouding of consciousness and some mental disorders were explained by an excess of the so-called “black bile” (μέλαινα χολή). This later gave its name to melancholy. – Ed. Pay attention, however, to the fact that those who are possessed, whether they are possessed constantly or from time to time, if they are under threat of death, must certainly receive communion - in the way that the priest chooses. After all, if those who are in mortal sins and those who repent receive at the hour of death, according to the 5th rule of Gregory Nis. and other rules, from the benevolence of the Church, permission to partake of the Mysteries, so that they are not deprived of this parting word, should not those possessed by demons, who often, even without mortal sins, through the incomprehensible destinies of God, be betrayed to the demon and possessed by it, be given communion? Likewise, if the possessed during their suffering throw themselves from a height or otherwise kill themselves, the priests should, according to the 14th rule of Timothy Alexander., perform their funeral service, commemoration and burial, since they were not in their minds, but beside themselves and possessed by a demon. In addition, if a possessed person is not cleansed of the demon, then he cannot be baptized, however, if he is threatened with death, he is baptized, according to the 2nd rule of Timothy. If he is baptized at the hour of death, then at the hour of death he receives permission to receive communion. And even if the wife rages so much that she is kept in chains, the husband cannot divorce her, since this constitutes adultery, according to the 15th rule of Timothy. We must know that, according to the great Gregory of Thessaloniki (Conversation on the 4th Sunday of Lent), demons tempt people in two ways: either by their influence, that is, implicitly and from the outside, as they annoy all people with excuses of thoughts and passions; or by its essence, that is, clearly and from the inside, as happens with those possessed by demons. Demons, somehow entering them with their essence, change the structure of their body, and especially the brain, and, taking possession of them, turn them into madmen (Greg. Pal. Hom. 12 // PG 151,148C). That is why it is written about Judas that Satan, having taken possession of him, entered him, having previously been outside Judas and attacking him through his thoughts (John 13:27). Look and note. to the 3rd rule of Timothy. VI Omni is implied. 60. But takseots (i.e., officials) should not become clergy, so that this does not result in insult and dishonor to the Church of God, according to the 3rd book. “Basilik” (tit. 10, ch. 27). And in the so-called “Church Decree” (Book 3) it is written that a counselor or official should not become a bishop unless he has first spent 15 years in monasticism; and if he became one earlier than 15 years later, then he must again, as before, become an official or adviser. This is what happened with St. Ambrose, bishop Mediolansky, about whom Theodoret writes in the book. 4, ch. 6 of the “Ecclesiastical History”: “Having learned about this, the emperor ordered to immediately dedicate (i.e., baptize) and ordain this praiseworthy man... Taking into account the agreement of the differing parties, he judged that the election was from God” (PG 82, 1132C). Socrates also writes about him in the book. 4, ch. 30 of the “Ecclesiastical History”: “The emperor, surprised by the unanimity of the people, recognized this event as the work of God and commanded the bishops to obey God, who commands the ordination of Ambrose” (PG 67, 544C). And Sozomen in the book. 6, ch. 24: “From the agreement in the Church of Milan, he (the emperor) concluded that God had judged this way” (PG 67, 1356A). The same Sozomen also writes about Nektarios, Patriarch of Constantinople, that by the general decision of the Council (Meaning the Second Ecumenical Council), he, a senator of the city of Samosata, when he was still wearing the clothes of a newly baptized person, was proclaimed Bishop of Constantinople, and of course, Sozomen adds, this did not happen without the will of God (Church History. Book 7, Chapter 8) (PG 67, 14ЗЗС). Greek νεόφυτος (“newly baptized, neophyte”) is literally translated “newly planted.” Please note that according to the laws, there are four types of subject status: accidental - slaves in relation to the master; natural - children to their parents; marriage - wife to husband and, conversely, husband to wife; service - soldiers to military leaders (some add a fifth type of subordination - according to spiritual vow, like novices in relation to elders). On the subordination of a wife to her husband and a husband to his wife, see note. 1 to VI Omni. 48; on the subordination of children to parents, see note. 2 to IV Universal. 27 and note. 2 to Carthage. 42, as well as Vasily the Great. 38. We will now talk about the subordination of slaves to masters (partly about the subordination of soldiers to military leaders). The 9th, 10th and 11th short stories of Leo the Wise determine that a master can, within three years, return to himself that slave who fled and, without his knowledge, became a cleric, monk or bishop. If the slave entered the clergy or monasticism and the master knew about it, then it is determined to demand him back only within one year. Photius in the 36th chapter. 1st tit. says that according to the 36th resolution of the 3rd tit. 1st book. According to the Code, a slave, even with the knowledge of the master, is not accepted into the clergy unless he is first freed, and that the 2nd decree of the 1st tit. The Novell prescribes: if a slave became a cleric, and his master knew about it and did not object, then the slave receives freedom. And Michael Attaliates in the Synopsis (tit. 3) says that a slave is freed if the master knew about his ordination and remained silent. The same decree (2nd decree of the 1st tit. “Novel.”) states that the adoption of the episcopal rank frees both slaves from subordination to owners, and soldiers from subordination to military leaders, if, of course, they were elevated to the episcopacy with the consent of those in authority over them. Note also that the law establishes: when a person is asked and he does not object, but is silent, then if the matter about which he is asked tends to his benefit, he is considered to have expressed consent, and if to his detriment, then refusal. However, the one who knew about the ordination of his slave and did not object, even if it caused him harm, is nevertheless considered to have agreed, and this is specifically for the purpose of freeing the one admitted to the clergy from slavery. This is what it says in Balsamon’s commentary on the text of Chapter 36. 1st tit. "Nomocanon" Photius. In addition, according to the 18th tit. 1st book. Armenopoul, a slave whose owner died without leaving a will receives freedom. If he is ransomed from his enemies, if he is rich, he must return the price paid for him, and if he is poor, he must work for three years or five years for the one who ransomed him, and after that he becomes free. Those who become a warrior, monk or cleric receive freedom with the knowledge of their owner. However, those slaves who, having entered monasticism, then abandoned the feat and moved to a different way of life, must again become slaves, according to the 13th section. Chapter 11 1st tit. 4th book. Armenopoul (see also the note to Dvukrat. 5 and the mentioned place in Armenopoul). Also note that people fall into slavery in two ways: some are born slaves (children of slaves), others become slaves after being captured by enemies. And those who work for their owners for pay are only mercenaries, but not slaves in the literal sense. The divine Chrysostom speaks about slaves (in the 4th conversation on the Epistle to Titus): “He is worthy of condemnation who, under the pretext of abstinence, separates wives from their husbands and slaves from their owners” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. ad Tit. 4. 3 // PG 62, 684–685). Sirach says this: Let your soul love an intelligent servant, and do not deny him freedom (Sir. 7:21) (Sir. 7:23). Power and command are divided into two types. The first is the temporal power that God entrusted to kings and officials, the second is the spiritual power that God entrusted to bishops and rulers of souls. One power is opposite to the other, for one is earthly, and the other is heavenly. One carries a sword and kills, while the other forgives and gives life with meekness. That is why Chrysostom says that “there are other limits to the reign and other limits to the priesthood. The Tsar is entrusted with local affairs, I with heavenly ones (when I say “me,” I mean the priest); the king is entrusted with bodies, and the priest with souls. The king forgives monetary debts, and the priest forgives debts of sins. This one forces, this one begs. This one has a sensual weapon, this one a spiritual one” (Homily 4 on Uzziah, p. 149, vol. 5) (Ioan. Chrysost. In illud: vidi Dom. 4. 4–5 // PG 56, 126.). It is equally absurd for a king to dare to enter the altar, and for a bishop to reign and gird himself with a sword, as happened with the Roman giant with two horns (I mean the pope): being an ecclesiastical person and a bishop in spirit, he wants to be a secular person and a king in body: he wants to bless and kill, wield a pastoral staff and a sword that brings death. The confusion is incompatible and the absurdity is monstrous! So let him see that in desiring to possess both Roman power and priestly government, he is violating the present apostolic rule and is subject to overthrow! On this occasion there are very useful words from Hosea, Bishop. Kordubsky, addressed to Constantine the Great (A historical mistake was made here: Hosius addressed not Constantine, but Constantius.) (from the message of Athanasius to those practicing everywhere in the solitary life): “God has entrusted you with the kingdom, and entrusted us with the affairs of the Church. And just as he who steals your power resists the God who established it, so be afraid: lest you, when you seize church affairs, be guilty of a serious crime. Render, it is written, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Therefore, just as we are not allowed to rule on earth (what can the pope, who has dual power, say about this?! - St. H.), so you, king, do not have the right to bring the censer" (Athanas. Alex. Hist, arian. 44 // PG 25b, 745D–748A). In taming their anger and being philanthropic towards their offenders, let the most divine kings take the example of Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great. When someone threw stones at the image of Constantine and his friends persuaded him to punish the offenders for breaking his face with stones, he, feeling his face and grinning, said the following memorable words: “I don’t see any wound on the face, on the contrary, the head is intact, and the whole face is intact” (Chrysostom, Homily 20 on statues, p. 599, vol. 6) (Ioan. Chrysost. Antioch. 21.3 // PG 49, 216). What about Theodosius? The Antiochians overthrew his statues and committed other daring acts, however, when Flavian of Antioch convinced and begged him, his anger softened to such an extent that he said to Flavian the following philanthropic words: “And what is amazing and great if we, being people, cease to be angry with people who have insulted us, when the Lord of the universe Himself prayed to the Father for those who crucified Him like this: Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34.)” (Chrysostom, ibid., p. 602) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 20.4 // PG 49, 219–220.). Let the very name “king” that they bear convince kings to tame their anger. For Leo and Constantine, the same kings as they, in the “Eclogue of the Laws” (tit. 2) give the following definition: “Firstly, the king is a legal ruler, a common good for all subjects, punishing not out of hostility and benevolent not out of partiality. Secondly, the goal of the king is, by his goodness, to guard and protect those close to him and his subordinates. Thirdly, the king’s ultimate goal is to do good, which is why he is called beneficent” (Greco-Roman Law. Book 2, p. 83). Anyone who wants to tame the royal anger, let him read there in Chrysostom the wisest and very convincing expressions and words that Flavian used when addressing Theodosius. Note that many books, handwritten and printed, and even the “Synopsis” of Alexei Aristin, contain other rules, inscribed - some in the name of Peter, others in the name of Paul, which we should not accept, but must reject as forged and having a false inscription. After all, the VI Holy Ecumenical Council, in the 2nd canon, accepts as true only these 85 apostolic canons, and considers others to be forged, saying literally the following: “Let no one be allowed to distort or reject the above rules or accept, in addition to the established ones, other rules that have false inscriptions and were compiled by people who dared to trade in the truth.” However, Bishop Gregory of Pessinus said at the VII Holy Ecumenical Council that the meeting of the apostles, which was in Antioch (some of its nine rules are in the library of Caesarea in Palestine, founded by the martyr Pamphilus, as Westerners note), determined in its 8th rule that those who are being saved should no longer be deceived by idols, but instead should make an immaculate image of the God-man Christ. So, we accept this apostolic canon both because the VII Ecumenical Council accepted it and because it is consistent with the ancient narratives. For the bleeding one dedicated a statue to the Savior in Paneas, as Eusebius narrates (book 7, chapter 18) (PG 20, 680BC), which was destroyed by Julian, according to Sozomen (book 5, chapter 21) (PG 67, 1280BC) and Nikephoros (book 10, chapter 30) (PG 146, 533B) (Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 18). See also the preface to the Apostolic Canons. Spyridon Milias, taking this information from Dositheus, placed it in the 2nd volume of the Synodikon, p. 1016. Georg. Sync. Chron. // TLG 3045/1.333. 23. Please note that some consider the books of the prophet. Daniel and Ezekiel count as one and thus count 22 books of the Old Testament according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and the Council of Laodicea counts the same number, counting the books of Ruth and Judges as one, which is better, since it was approved by the Council. Consequently, the now well-known order of the books of the Old Testament, in which they are located in printed editions, is incorrect and unfounded for many reasons. Firstly, because the book of Esther is divided into two and one part is placed with the canonical books, and the second with the apocrypha, while the present apostolic canon definitely calls it one book. Moreover, Laodice ruled. 60 and Carthage. 32, as well as Athanasius the Great and Amphilochius, consider it to be one book. Secondly, because the two books of Ezra are placed in different parts: one - among the canonical books, and the other - among the apocryphal books, while these two books are considered one whole by the present apostolic canon, and the Council of Laodicea, and the Council of Carthage, and Athanasius the Great, and Gregory the Theologian, and St. Amphilochius. Thirdly, because the book of Baruch and the message of Jeremiah are separated from the prophetic book of Jeremiah and are listed together with the apocryphal ones, while the Council of Laodicea and Athanasius the Great consider all these three books to be one. (And why the Laodicean Council writes the “epistles of Jeremiah” in the plural, if there is only one and Athanasius speaks of this epistle in the singular, I do not know.) Fourthly, because the three books of the Maccabees are classified as apocryphal, and the present apostolic canon classifies them as canonical. Fifthly, because the book of Nehemiah is placed along with the canonical ones, although neither this apostolic canon, nor the Council of Laodicea, nor the Council of Carthage, nor Athanasius the Great, nor Gregory, nor Amphilochius mentions it at all. Sixthly, because in some publications non-canonical books are called apocrypha, whereas they should not be called by this name at all, according to Athanasius the Great (in the above-mentioned letter), for the name “apocrypha” was invented by heretics in order to write anything under this name and thereby mislead the simple, passing off their books as secret (ἀπόκρυφα) and ancient books of saints. Therefore, it is good to call the non-canonical books of the Old Testament recommended reading, and not apocrypha. In the proper sense, the following books should be considered recommended for reading first of all: Nehemiah, Song of Praise of the Three Youths (See Dan. 3:26–45), Bel and the Dragon (See Dan. 14:3–28), Susanna (See Dan. 13), since none of these books is mentioned either in the present apostolic canon, or in the rules of the Council of Laodicea, or the Council of Carthage, or Athanasius the Great, neither the divine Gregory, nor Amphilochius (Origen, however, had a conversation on Nehemiah). We will not deviate from our goal if in this note, as an appendix to what has been said, we add some information for familiarization that is necessary for students of the Holy Scriptures, and for lovers of literature we offer this as a kind of zest, a seasoning for dishes. So, we will say: 1) what the Holy Scriptures are, 2) how many meanings the Holy Scriptures have, 3) what language they are written in, 4) how many books the books of the Old Testament are divided into, 5) how many editions or translations of the Old Testament exist. 1. Divine Scripture is the word of God, written by Divine inspiration. It is called the Word of God because it is in connection with traditions, and written down because it differs from traditions, which are the unwritten word of God. “By Divine inspiration” was added to distinguish it from church rules and regulations, which were written according to God’s will, and not by inspiration, which is why they are not called inspired writings. (However, occasionally the rules of Councils are called divinely inspired, which is clear from various places in the book “Synodikon”, and indirectly also from the message of the Council of Carthage to Celestine.) After all, you can write a letter in two ways: either dictate to the scribe the words that you want to write, or just retell the thought and allow the scribe to express it in his own words and expressions. So the Holy Spirit communicated the words themselves to the Scriptures, but only the thought to the Councils, according to His providence and enlightenment. Theologians distinguish between revelation, inspiration and enlightenment, that is, illumination and care. Revelation, according to them, is the revelation of an unknown truth sent down from God. Inspiration is an internal movement by which God encourages someone to either say or do something, without the person’s mind being darkened and his free will not being infringed. Enlightenment and illumination are the help and providence of God, with which He carefully protects the speaker or writer from all lies and errors. So, all Divine Scripture was written not only by sight, but also by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For no prophecy, says Peter in his second letter, can be resolved by oneself. For prophecy was never uttered by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke it, being moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:20–21) And again: all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16), and again: how is it that David, by inspiration, calls Him Lord when he says: The Lord said to my Lord (Matthew 22:43–44). That is why we believe “in the Holy Spirit who spoke the prophets.” Ignatius the God-Bearer, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athenagoras, Jerome, Augustine and everyone in general testify together to this truth. Therefore, Chrysostom, based on the words of the Lord, not a single jot or a single line will pass from the law (Matthew 5:18), says: “The sacred writers did not write even one syllable on their own” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom., in Gen. 15.1 // PG 53.1 19). Augustine (Aug. Hipp. In Ioan. 120. 2 // PL 35, 1953.) states the same thing when he interprets the words one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear (John 19:34). However, Dionysius of Alexandria and Jerome say that the mysterious and most important in the Scriptures was written according to the inspiration of the Spirit, and the historical - only according to His providence, while preserving the writers’ own style. They base their opinion on the fact that, firstly, the style of the decalogue of Moses in the book of Exodus (chap. 20) differs from the style of the decalogue in Deuteronomy (chap. 5), and secondly, the writer of the second book of Maccabees says that he completed the writing with great difficulty and then (See 2 Mac 2:26), and also: If I have expounded it well and satisfactorily, then this is what I desired; if it is weak and mediocre, then I did what was within my power (2 Mac. 15:39) (2 Mac. 15:38). For how, say the mentioned fathers, could the writer himself say this, if the Holy Spirit inspired him word for word to the last iota? However, the difference between these two opinions is small and even insignificant: both recognize the most important thing in the Scriptures, namely, that they were written by inspiration and inspiration of the Spirit and that the Spirit, being in the sacred writers, did not allow them to make mistakes in anything, so that everything in the Holy Scriptures: dogmas, historical narratives, chronology are the essence of the words of God. God is faithful (Rom. 3:4) and the God of truth (Ps. 31:6) does not lie like man (Num. 23:19). 2. The meaning of the Scriptures is divided primarily into literal and spiritual. The literal meaning is the one that is first and immediately revealed by the letter, as, for example, in the words: Abraham had two sons, one from a slave and the other from a free woman (Gal. 4:22) in the literal sense it is reported about Abraham and his two wives, the free Sarah and the slave Hagar, and two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The spiritual meaning is that which becomes apparent not from words and letters directly, but from what is denoted by the letter. For example, in the above speech, Hagar means the earthly, lower Jerusalem, and Sarah means the Jerusalem on high and the Church, as Paul interprets (see Gal. 4:22–26). The literal meaning is divided into direct and figurative. In the literal sense it is said: Abraham gave birth to two sons, and figuratively: Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father (See Mark 16:19). The gum side here does not denote the position of the body, but, figuratively, the equality of the Father and the Son in glory. The spiritual meaning is divided into three: allegorical, tropological (i.e. moral, from the Greek τρόπος - “morality.”) and anagogical (Anagogical interpretation (from the Greek. ανάγω - “raise upward”) reveals the secrets of the coming Kingdom.). The allegorical elevates the images of the Mosaic Law to the grace of the Gospel. Tropological is aimed at improving customs and morals. The anagogical one elevates what is said to the glory of the blessed. For example, the word “Jerusalem” allegorically means the Church of Christ, tropologically the soul of every person, and anagogically the highest city, heavenly Jerusalem. On the basis of the literal meaning, theology draws its conclusions accurately and convincingly, but on the basis of the spiritual meaning - not with such power of persuasiveness, and therefore every time the interpreter also needs a compelling argument. 3. All the books included in the Jewish canon are written in Hebrew, and the books of Tobit and Judith are in Chaldean. If the Wisdom of Solomon is his original work, as Athanasius claims, then it is clear that this book was written in Hebrew. However, others say that some of Solomon's sayings were written in Greek by Philo, one of the seventy translators of the Holy Scriptures. The book of Job was written in Arabic, and, as Polychronius (in the preface to the book of Job) and Nikita, the interpreter of Gregory the Theologian, say, it was written or translated by Solomon. He comes to this conclusion on the basis of one statement found in the word of Gregory to Julian, the equalizer of taxes. This statement belongs to Job, and the Theologian attributes it to Solomon: “The small and the great are there, and the slave is with the master (See Job 3:19.) - I will say in the words of Solomon” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 19.15 // PG 35, 1061B). (However, perhaps Solomon’s name ended up here either because the saint lost the correct name from memory, or because of a copyist’s error. For example, for one of these two reasons and in the word of the divine Chrysostom “On Prayer,” Solomon is credited with a saying that belongs to the wise Sirach, namely: The grinning of the teeth and the gait of a person (Sir. 19:27) (Ioan. Chrysost. De precat. 1 // PG 50, 776)). Some argue that the book of Job was written by Job himself, but this opinion is not accepted by Julian of Halicarnassus, for the divine Job was never overcome by the passion of selfishness in order to praise himself. Others believe that it was written by Job’s three friends when he prayed like this: Who would give (the opportunity) to write my words and put them in a book forever? ( Job 19:23 ) Most, however, believe that it was either translated or written by Moses to console the Jews, who were then mercilessly oppressed in Egypt by Pharaoh. Of the books of the Maccabees, the first is written in Hebrew, the second in Greek. The Wisdom of Sirach was written in Hebrew by Jesus, the son of Sirach (some believe he was one of the seventy translators of the Holy Scriptures). Then his grandson translated this book into Greek and dedicated it, as is clear from its prologue, to his grandfather, with whom he had the same name. Only its Greek, not Hebrew, text has survived to our times. Please note that of the books of the Old Testament, according to Gregory the Theologian, Amphilochius of Iconium and John of Damascus (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Book 4) (Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. IV, 17 // PG 94, 1180B), five are called poetic: the book of Job, the Psalms of David and the three books of Solomon - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. They are called this way because, just as in the Greek language there is a poetic art of metrical versification, so in the Hebrew there was a certain art of composing verses, and poetic works were more pleasant and enjoyable than other prose books written in Hebrew. And the books of the New Testament were all written in Greek, except the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which were written in Hebrew or Syriac. The Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew does not exist, and it is also completely unclear who translated it into Greek. Some say it was James, the brother of God. The Epistle to the Hebrews was translated either by Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement of Rome. I said “or in Syriac” because at that time Arabic and Syriac were mixed. If Baronius, the Jesuit chronicler, says that the Gospel of Mark was written in Latin, then he can keep his opinion to himself - and let him be ashamed of our own fathers who say that it was written in Greek. In particular, Saint Augustine affirms this in the 1st book. “On the Concord of the Evangelists,” ch. 2 (Aug. Hipp. De cons. Evang. 1, 2. 4 // PL 34,1044) But what do we say about the quoted verses of Gregory the Theologian, which say: “Mark is for Italy, Luke is for Achaia” (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. dogm. 12 // PG 35, 474A)? Either that they are spurious and brought in from outside, or that the opinion of the majority should prevail. Indeed, if this is truly the opinion of the Theologian, then how did the divine Jerome, his disciple, and Augustine, Jerome’s best friend, not know about it? Also worthy of attention is the story of Nikolai Malax that the divine Luke wrote his Gospel in the monastery of the Great Cave, as stated in the imperial chrisovule of this monastery. 4. All books of the Old Testament, depending on their content, are divided into legislative, historical, moral and prophetic. Legislative - this is the Pentateuch of Moses. Historical: Jesus, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, two Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Maccabees and Job. Moral: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach and Proverbs. Outside this division remain the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes - schools for a more accurate comprehension of what is set out in basic terms in the Divine laws. And finally, the prophetic - books of the prophets, urging everyone to keep the commandments of God and shun all evil and foretelling to everyone the secret of the incarnate economy. Likewise, the books of the New Testament are some legislative, like the four Gospels, others are historical, like the Acts of the Apostles, which contribute to a more accurate comprehension of the Divine Gospels. And who will understand in the Gospels the power of baptism, the mystery of grace and the sacrifice made for us on the Cross without the Epistles of the Apostles, especially the divine Paul? However, nothing prevents one and the same book from being both legislative and moral, like the book of Exodus and the four Gospels. 5. There are five main translations of the Old Testament: Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Chaldean and Italic, i.e. Latin. There are four main translations in Greek. The first and most ancient is the so-called translation of the Seventy or Seventy-two, made under Ptolemy Philadelphus. In the days before the Maccabees, in other words, in 230 BC, they translated not only the Pentateuch, as Scaliger and other new writers erroneously claim, but also the entire Old Testament, according to the testimonies of Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and others. From this translation the divine apostles took prophetic predictions. However, the Jesuit Bellarmine argues that this translation of the Seventy is no longer complete, citing as witness the divine Jerome, who says in the prologue to the book of Chronicles that the ancient and original translation is corrupted and its surviving originals differ from each other (PL 28, 1324B). Bellarmine also relies on the words of Justin, who says in the “Dialogue with Tryphon” that Aristaeus, a certain squire of King Ptolemy, admits that the translation of the Seventy agrees with the Hebrew originals, but already, the saint adds on his own behalf, differs in many respects from the Jewish ones. But let it be known to Bellarmine that the translation of the Seventy from ancient times and from the very beginning was considered by the Church to be authentic and recognized and it was brought into testimony by the divine apostles and the entire Church, not only the Eastern, but also the Western itself until the appearance of the Latin translation of Jerome. Philo the Jew praises the Seventy not only as translators of the Scriptures, but also as prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. And Augustine (in the book “On the City of God”) says: “The same Spirit that enlightened the prophets when they preached, enlightened the Seventy when they translated it” (Aug. Hipp. De civit. Dei XVIII, 43 // PL 41, 604). Both the divine Justin (Just. Martyr. Cohort, ad Graec. 13 // PG 6, 265C) and Tertullian say that all the Seventy carried out their translation in different houses, and - lo and behold! - it turned out that there was not even the slightest difference in the books they wrote. The same words, no more and no less, appeared in all the books without differences. In this case, who can prefer another translation to this inspired one? If in some places it differs slightly from the Jewish originals, so what? “The Spirit,” says St. Augustine in response to this in the book “On the City of God,” “could remove or add something so that no one would suspect that in such a translation there was human art that made it possible to make the translation literal, but rather understood that it was Divine power that enlightened and directed the mind of the translator” (Aug. Hipp. De civit. Dei XVIII, 43 // PL 41, 604.). Augustine teaches the same thing in his book “On Christian Science” (Idem. De doctr. Christiana II, 15 // PL 34, 46). It must be said that the Hebrew originals differ from the translation of the Seventy due to the fact that the Jews, as Sinkell notes, distorted the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. For example, the Hebrew Scriptures say that Noah lived until Abraham was 58 years old, which is a lie. Justin in his “Dialogue with Tryphon” also says that the words of the 95th Psalm tell the nations that the Lord reigned from the tree (Ps 96:10). The Jews distorted it by omitting “from the tree” (Just. Martyr. Dial. 75 // PG 6, 645B.) (but it should still be read this way, although this is not in the edition of the translation Seventy, perhaps due to some damage caused by the scribes). There is no word in the Hebrew text that pierced My hands and My feet (Ps. 21:17). The Hebrew says that the raven returned to Noah, and Joseph, Seventy, Chrysostom, Augustine (Aug. Hipp. Contra Faust. Manich. XII, 20 // PL 42, 264), Ambrose (On the Ark) ( Ambr. Mediol. De Noe et area XVII, 62 // PL 14, 391A) and Jerome ( Hieronym. Stridon . Contra Lucifer. 22 // PL 23,176B) (in paraphrase), on the contrary, they say that he did not return. Therefore, Rabbi Elijah clearly says that the ancient Hebrew Scripture is different from the Hebrew Scripture preserved to this day. Therefore, Simelch says well that the Seventy translated the Scripture from an ancient and uncorrupted Hebrew copy, and this is clear from the following. The Divine Evangelists present the words from the Old Testament that the Lord spoke in Hebrew in accordance with how they were translated into Greek by the Seventy. But the Lord, as the God of truth and the Lawgiver, pronounced them according to the genuine and undistorted Hebrew original, which means that the seventy translators of these words used the same genuine and undistorted original. That the translation of the Seventy is more reliable than all other translations, and why they translated the Scriptures before Christ, and why there were many of them, and why they do not contradict each other, is sufficient evidence from the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 5 on the Gospel of Matthew) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom, in Matt. 5. 3 // PG 57, 57), 146th Justinian short story and divine Epiphanius (chapter on heresy 1). Chrysostom in homily 27 to the Judaizers (vol. 6, p. 323) says that the Scriptures translated under Ptolemy are still in the church of Serapis (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 1. 6 // PG 48, 851. We are talking about that part of the Library of Alexandria, which in the 4th century was still preserved at the church of Serapis. - Ed.) (Serapis was the god of the Egyptians). If many of the fathers, in interpreting the Scriptures, used some words from the translations of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, then they did this not because they preferred them to the translation of the Seventy, but because with their help they better explained some passages from this translation, since the Seventy translated the Scriptures more in meaning than literally word for word. Read also Dositheus (p. 214). This is all about the translation of the Seventy. The second translation was made under King Hadrian, in 130 A.D., by Aquila, a Christian who converted to Judaism. The third was under the emperor Commodus by the Samaritan Symmachus, a Jew who became a Christian, but fell into the Ebionite heresy. The fourth translation is by Theodotion, who was at first a Christian, but later became a Marcionite and translated the Scriptures in the spirit of this heresy - under Antoninus Caracalla or, according to others, under the same Commodus. The translations of the last three have not survived in full, but only in fragments. Origen combined these four translations in one book, each page of which had four columns so that all the translations could be viewed at a glance, and called this work Tetrapla. Along with the four translations, he also wrote the Hebrew original on both sides of the page and called this book “Hexaples.” Finally, adding to these six the translation found in Nicopolis or Jericho under Alexander Mammaeus, and the sixth translation found in Nicopolis, which is opposite Actium, after the persecution of Severus, he called this book “Octaples” due to the fact that it had 8 columns. These are the famous “Tetraples”, “Hexaples” and “Octaplas”, which few people know about now. Keep in mind that a seventh translation has also been found - of Lucian, the great ascetic and martyr, completed in Nicomedia under the Emperor Constantine. This same Lucian, having read the above-mentioned translations and found the Hebrew original, supplemented what was missing and eliminated what was superfluous. Three translations: Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were never recognized or approved by the Church, since these people were apostates and deliberately left unclear the statements containing prophecies about Christ. However, their translations are not entirely useless, because Origen, when he composed the Hexaples, made up for what was missing in the translation of the Seventy from Theodotion’s translation, and Jerome says in the preface to the Psalter that he once heard the prophet being read in church. Daniel according to Theodotion’s translation (Hieronym. Stridon. Praefatio in Daniel // PL 28,1291C.). Even now Daniel is read from Theodotion’s translation, because the translation of the Seventy in this part turned out to be spoiled and has not been preserved. It's all about Greek translations. The Syriac, Arabic and Chaldean translations are also useful for understanding the Scriptures, especially the Syriac as being more ancient and closer to the Hebrew. And the great Basil praises him in the “Six Days”, and the Syrian Church used him as correct. The Chaldean translation was made by three rabbis in the 5th century. and is called "Targum", which means "retelling". However, the Church does not recognize it, because some fables are scattered in many of its places. The fifth and last is the Italian and Latin translation of the Latins. Italian was more ancient, and Latin (which is also called the Vulgate), as Augustine testifies, was made by Jerome, a wise man who knew three languages ​​perfectly (Aug. Hipp. De civit. Dei XVIII, 43 // PL 41, 603.). He translated some books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin, and only corrected the New Testament in some places. However, according to others, the parent of the Vulgate is unknown. This translation contains many errors and many things that are not in the Hebrew original, which is why it should not be preferred to the translation of the Seventy. These are the Old and New Scriptures, the holy books that are in our hands, according to the Maccabees (1 Maccabees 12:9); sources of salvation, as Athanasius calls them (See 3rd rule of Athanasius the Great); sacred tablets, according to the Areopagite (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. 1, 4 // PG 3, 376BC.); included in the Testament, according to Eusebius (Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 25 // PG 20, 580A); and canonical, according to the Council of Carthage (Rule 32). So, brothers and fathers, study in them day and night in order to become like the righteous one, whom the divine David calls blessed (Ps 1:1-2). Read them constantly, because reading the Scriptures, according to Chrysostom, opens the heavens, and the lips of the prophets are the lips of God (Ioan. Chrysost. In illud: vidi Dom. 2. 2 // PG 56, 109–110). Study them at all times, for, according to Augustine, the cure for any mental illness is hidden in the Scriptures (Aug. Hipp. Dedoctr. Christiana III, 17 // PL 34, 75). Search the Scriptures so that in them you may find eternal life (John 5:39), as the Lord said. When reading the law of God, beware of everything false, which is called repetition (This refers to the ritual rites of the Jews and Judaic sects (see: Epiph. Adv. haer. 15 // PG 41, 248A).), i.e. what was said there about the sacrifice of dumb animals for sins, about cleansing, remission (See Lev. 16:10), frequent washings and sprinklings - and from everything that was added to the law by the pagans (Apostolic Decrees. Book 1, Chapter 6; Book 2, Chapter 35 and Book 6, Chapter 20) (PG 1, 572B–573A, 684AB, 968A.). Please note that most of this note is borrowed from the unpublished theological work of the didaskala of Mr. Eugene. Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. I ll, 4.4 // PG 3, 429D. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 42.9 // PG 36, 469A. Cyr. Alex. Glaph. in Ex. II. De hostia agni 2 // PG 69, 432A. Clem. Alex. Strom. VI, 13.106 // PG 9, 328B. Phot. Bibl. 113 // PG 103, 389A. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 45.13 // PG 36, 640 C. Athan. Alex. Er. festival 39. We are talking about the “Shepherd” of Hermas (1st half of the 2nd century). The Greek text of The Shepherd was discovered in the first half of the 19th century. and first published in 1856.