О святом Вселенском втором соборе

The Holy Ecumenical Council took place under Theodosius the Great in 381 - it is also called the first Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. Of the fathers present, the most worthy of mention are Nektarios of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa; there were many other bishops of the East, numbering 150. But no one from the West was present at it - neither Pope Damasus himself personally, nor his representative, and there was not even a conciliar message from him [70]. However, later both Damasus and the entire Western Church agreed with the definitions of the Council and approved them, and to this day it recognizes this Council as a true Ecumenical Council. It was convened, firstly, against Macedonius, who blasphemed, saying that the Holy Spirit is the creation of the Son; and secondly, against Apollinaris, Eunomians (or Eudoxians), Sabellians, Marcellians and Photinians [71]. And in general, the Council anathematized all heresy that arose during the reigns of Constantius, Julian and Valens - the emperors who ruled before the Council. Having corrected the doxology of the Holy Trinity [72] and the image of Her worship distorted by the Arians, the Council resumed the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Nicaea as Orthodox in all respects. Therefore, in order to show that it and the Council of Nicaea affirm the same thing, the Council did not compile another, its own Creed, but slightly changed the Symbol of the first Council: it added the words “His Kingdom will have no end,” because of the heresy of the chiliast Apollinaris [ 73 ], more extensively stated the eighth member “and in the Holy Spirit,” supplemented the end of the Symbol with four other members [ 74 ] - and thus brought it in the unchanged form in which it is still read by all Orthodox Christians. In this form we find it among the documents of the Second Ecumenical Council (Synodikon. T. 1. p. 286) and in the 5th act of the IV Ecumenical Council (vol. 2, p. 155). But, despite the fact that the Second Ecumenical Council only made additions to the Nicene Symbol and made the indicated changes to it, subsequent Councils accepted it as a single Symbol of the I and II Ecumenical Councils. And for what reason the Council made these additions, see the note. to III Omni. 7. In addition to all this, the Council also issued the following seven rules concerning church structure and deanery, indirectly confirmed by Rule IV of the Ecumenical. 1 and directly - by the rules of VI Omni. 2 and VII Omni. 1 (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 222) [75]. 7 rules of the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Second with interpretations The Holy Fathers, gathered in Constantinople, determined: let the faith of the 318 fathers gathered in Nicaea of Bithynia not be rejected, but let it remain immutable, and let all heresy be anathematized, namely: the heresy of the Eunomians, or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians, or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians. (II Universe 5; VI Universe 1; Carthage 2.) This first rule of the present Council states that the 150 holy fathers who met in Constantinople determined: the Orthodox faith, in other words, the Creed, 318 of the fathers who gathered at Nicaea of ​​Bithynia, may not be rejected, but remain unshakable and undistorted, and let all heresy be anathematized. In particular, the heresy of the Eunomians [76], or the so-called Eudoxians, the heresy of the Semi-Arians [77], or Doukhobors, the heresy of the followers of Sabellius [78], the heresy of the adherents of Marcellus [79], the heresy of the disciples of Photinus [80], and the heresy of the Apollinarians [81] must be anathematized. In accordance with this rule and rule VI Omni. 1 decrees that innovations should not affect the faith transmitted by the fathers at Nicaea and the 150 fathers of this council. And the 5th rule of the present Council accepted the Western ones, who confess the One Divinity of the Trinity. The rule of Carthage is similar. 2 determines that the Church’s faith in the Holy Trinity, corresponding to the model of the Council of Nicaea, must remain firm, as the 1st canon of the same (Carthage) Council says. The dogmas of faith are also mentioned in Carthage. 120–127. Bishops ruling dioceses should not extend their authority to the Churches outside the borders of their district and should not mix the Churches, but, according to the rules, let the bishop of Alexandria rule only in Egypt, let the bishops of the diocese of the East rule only in the Eastern diocese, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian Church, recognized by the Nicene rules; also let the bishops of the Asian diocese rule only in the Asian diocese; Pontic - only in Pontic, Thracian - only in Thracian. Without an invitation, bishops must not intrude into a diocese for ordination or any other matter of church government. It is clear that, subject to the stated rule regarding dioceses, the affairs of each metropolitan region will be held by the Council of that region, as determined in Nicaea. The churches of God among foreign peoples must be governed according to the custom of the fathers that has been observed until now. (Apost. 34, 35; I Om. 6, 7; III Om. 8; IV Om. 28; VI Ose. 20, 30, 39; Antioch. 9; Sardik. 3, 11, 12.) Previously, due to persecution, as Socrates testifies (Book 5, Chapter 8), a bishop could well act outside the borders of his district 82, and even the bishop. Eusebius of Samosata, as Theodoret narrates, acted this way out of his ardent jealousy 83 . Therefore, when times of peace arose in the Catholic Church, the present rule was issued. It concerns not only autocephalous metropolitans (as interpreted by Balsamon) and not only patriarchs [84], but both, according to Dositheus (History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. P. 233). The rule proclaims that each of them must rule in his own metropolitan region and diocese and not invade others, violating the rights of the Churches, but, on the contrary, according to the rules (I Om. 6 and 7, and especially Apost. 34 and 35), the primate of Alexandria must govern the episcopal regions only in Egypt (the Council directly names the primate of Alexandria for the reason that the Bishop of Alexandria, together with his entourage, contributed the fact that Maximus Cynicus was ordained to the see of Constantinople, and the great Gregory was expelled from his diocese and episcopal region). Further, the metropolitans of the East should rule only over the Churches of the East, while maintaining the advantages of the Antiochian primate, according to the rule of the Council of Nicaea (meaning the 6th canon), and the metropolitans of the Churches in Asia, Pontus and Thrace should govern only the metropolitan regions related to them (later, canon IV Ecumenical 28 determined that the metropolitans of these The churches were ordained by the Primate of Constantinople). In addition, the rule prohibits both patriarchs and metropolitans from moving beyond the boundaries of their dioceses and metropolitan areas without an invitation to ordain or perform other matters of church administration in foreign episcopal areas. It is also said that the church affairs of each metropolitan region (be it elections, consecrations, penances and resolutions from them, etc.) will be arranged by the Council of the metropolitan region, and the affairs of each diocese headed by the patriarch - by the Council of the diocese, as determined by the Council in Nicaea (Rule 6). And in fact, the words of the Council in Nicaea that no one should become a bishop without the permission of the metropolitan, and the words of the present Council: “... the affairs of each metropolitan region will be arranged by the Council of this region” (i.e., the region of the metropolitan). The Churches of God located among foreign peoples, which either do not have a sufficient number of bishops for a Council to take place, or need an educated bishop to go there to confirm Christians in the faith, must be governed according to the custom of the fathers that has been preserved to this day. This means that neighboring bishops, and, moreover, the most worthy ones, must visit these Churches in order to fill the missing number of bishops for convening a local Council, which, although it did not correspond to the rules, was, of necessity, allowed by this Council. Read the Apostle. 34 and 35 and I Omni. 6. Let the Bishop of Constantinople have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because this city is the new Rome. The previous rule made a determination about the patriarchs (primarily Alexandria and Antioch) and metropolitans in general, and the present rule makes a determination specifically about the Bishop of Constantinople and says that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have primacy of honor after the Pope and Patriarch, since this city, namely Constantinople, is called the new Rome and is such. Moreover, the preposition “after” here does not mean succession in time, as some say together with Aristinus, and not lowering and belittling, as Zonara incorrectly interprets (for if after the Patriarch of Constantinople there is the Patriarch of Alexandria, after Alexandria - the Patriarch of Antioch, and after Antioch - the Patriarch of Jerusalem, according to VI Ecumenical 36, then there will be four degrees of lowering of honor and, consequently, five different dignities, one higher than the other, which is contrary to the entire Catholic Church and acceptable only to Latins and Latin-minded people), but signifies equality of honor and order, according to which one is first and the other second. On the one hand, equality of honor, since the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in the 28th canon say that those 150 bishops provided the throne of new Rome with equal advantages with the throne of old Rome, and the fathers of the Council of Trullo in the 36th canon order the see of Constantinople to enjoy equal advantages with the throne of Rome. On the other hand, order, since both those and other fathers in the same rules call the throne of Constantinople second after the Roman - not second in honor, but second in order of honor. For in the nature of things it is impossible that two objects, being equal and called in relation to each other “first” and “second”, should not be arranged in order. Therefore, Justinian in the 131st story, located in the 5th book, 3rd tit. “Basilik” literally calls the Bishop of Rome first, and the Bishop of Constantinople second in order after Rome. Note: since Zonara, interpreting the present rule, cites this Justinian decree, it becomes clear that what he said about the above-mentioned demotion and belittlement of the Bishop of Constantinople in relation to the Bishop of Rome - he said only regarding the order of their honor, and not regarding their dignity. In accordance with this, in the lists of signatures, and when listing departments, and when commemorating their names, one takes first place, and the other takes second place. Some say that the present rule granted only honor to the Bishop of Constantinople, but subsequently urgent necessity gave him the power to ordain metropolitans in Asia, Pontus and Thrace. On the other hand, the Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo 85 says that the bishop of Constantinople had such power to perform ordinations according to ancient custom, and the 28th canon of the same IV Ecumenical Council only confirmed it [86]. Read also this rule IV Omni. 28. About Maximus the Cynic and the outrage that happened because of him in Constantinople: neither Maximus was a bishop and is not a bishop, nor those ordained by him to any degree of clergy were clerics and are not clerics; everything in connection with him and everything he did was declared invalid. This rule determines: it should not be considered that the said Maximus [87] was or is a bishop at all and that those ordained by him to any degree at all accepted the ordination, for everything was declared invalid, namely, both his consecration, performed by Egyptian bishops outside their region and contrary to the rules, and the consecrations of others performed by him himself. As for the Western tomos, we accepted those in Antioch who profess the one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (II Universe 1; VI Universe 1; Carthage 1, 2.) This rule is special and private. For he says that, just as we accepted the Western Tomos, that is, the definition that affirms the Holy Symbol of the Nicene Fathers and anathematizes all who think otherwise, and which was set forth by the Western Fathers who gathered in Sardica [88], so in the same way we accepted the definition of the faith of those who gathered in Antioch [89]. They confess the one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, obviously in agreement with the fathers gathered at Nicaea. Since many, wishing to upset and overthrow church deanery, hostilely and slanderously invent certain accusations against the Orthodox bishops ruling the Churches, seeking nothing more than to tarnish the reputation of the priests 90 and create confusion among the peaceful people, for this reason the Holy Council of Bishops, meeting in Constantinople, was pleased, not without investigation, to admit accusers, not to allow everyone to bring forward accusations against the ruling Churches, however, and not to ban everyone. But if someone files some kind of personal, that is, private, complaint against the bishop, for example, because he has become a victim of his greed or suffered other injustice from him, then with such accusations one cannot examine either the person of the accuser or his faith. For in any case, it is necessary that the conscience of the bishop be free, and that he who declares himself offended, no matter what his faith, receives justice. If the accusation leveled against a bishop concerns ecclesiastical issues, then the faces of the accusers must be tested so that, first of all, heretics are not allowed to bring charges against Orthodox bishops in ecclesiastical matters. We call heretics those who from ancient times were declared alien to the Church, and those who were subsequently anathematized by us. And besides them - those who, pretending to profess a sound faith, have separated and form assemblies against our canonical bishops. Then, those members of the Church who were previously condemned and expelled for some crime or excommunicated from the clergy or the laity should also not be allowed to accuse the bishop until they have cleared themselves of the accusation that has fallen on them. In the same way, those who are under accusations brought against them earlier should not be allowed to accuse the bishop or other clergy until they have proven their innocence of the charges brought against them. If some, being neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor convicted or previously accused of any crimes, say that they have any accusation against the bishop in an ecclesiastical matter, then the Holy Council commands them first of all to present the accusations before all the bishops of the metropolitan region and before them to prove their complaints against the bishop accused of anything. If it happens that the bishops of the region are powerless to settle the complaints brought against the bishop, then let the accusers turn to a larger Council of bishops of that diocese, which should be convened for this reason. And they cannot bring an accusation before they give a written undertaking to suffer the same punishment as the accused, if during the proceedings it turns out that they are slandering the accused bishop. If someone, having disdained the above decisions, dares to disturb the imperial hearing, or disturb the courts of secular leaders or the Ecumenical Council, showing disrespect for all the bishops of the diocese, let him not be allowed to be charged at all, as having offended the rules and violated church decorum. (Apost. 74; IV Ose. 9, 17, 21; Carthage. 8, 12, 14–16, 27, 36, 96, 105, 134, 137–139; Antioch. 12, 14, 15.) This rule says the following. Since many, wishing to upset the deanery of the Church, hostilely slander the Orthodox bishops, seeking nothing more than to tarnish the reputation of the initiates and outrage the people, the Holy Council was pleased that not all the accusers of the bishops were accepted, but at the same time not all were rejected. And if the accusations are private, relating only to material damage, that is, if someone accuses a bishop of having acted unfairly or selfishly towards him (for example, by depriving him of movable or immovable property), then there is no need to examine the person of the accuser and his faith, but, whatever his faith, it is appropriate that he be accepted and receive justice. If accusations of crimes are brought forward that could thus entail a reduction from the level, for example, accusations of blasphemy, of performing divine services outside one’s episcopal region, etc., in such cases the accusers must be tested: firstly, so that they are not mistaken in dogmas and are not heretics, both anathematized by the Church from ancient times and anathematized by us in recent times; secondly, so that they are not schismatics [91], that is, people who separated from the Church because of any customs that allow healing (according to the 1st rule of Basil the Great) and gather separately contrary to the rules, that is, in opposition to the Catholic bishops appointed Orthodoxy and according to the rules; thirdly, so that they are not completely cut off from the Church for any of their sins or temporarily excommunicated from other clergy or laity. Likewise, those who have previously been accused by others are not allowed to accuse the bishop or other clergy until they have cleared themselves of the charges brought against them. However, if those accusing a bishop of crimes of an ecclesiastical and general nature are free from all of the above, then the Holy Council decrees that they first submit reports against the bishop they accuse before the Council of all bishops of that metropolitan region. If the Council of the metropolitan region cannot eliminate the cause of the accusations, then the accusers must transfer the trial to a larger Council, namely the Council of Bishops of the diocese [92], and let the matter be completed there. In the 60th book, 26th tit., 6th chapter. “Vasilik” it is written that anyone who brings an accusation of a crime subject to punishment, but turns out to be a traitor and a liar, must suffer the punishment that the defendant was about to receive. Therefore, the present rule, following this civil law, adds: the plaintiff should not proceed to accusations until he has given a written undertaking that if it is proven that he has unjustly and slanderously accused the bishop, he will receive a punishment equal to what a bishop would have received if he had been justly and correctly convicted. Anyone who neglects the stated conditions and, having shown disrespect for all the bishops of the diocese, dares to take his case to the emperor [93] or to the courts of secular authorities or begins to demand an Ecumenical Council [94], such a person should not be allowed to face charges at all, since he has offended the sacred rules and violated church decorum. Likewise, Rule IV Omni. 9 determines that whenever clergy, having disagreements among themselves, leave their bishop and turn to secular courts, they must be subject to canonical penances. And the rule is Carthage. 14 says that the bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or cleric who, bypassing the church court, turns to the civil court, loses his place. In addition, the rule of Antiochus. 12 determines that if a presbyter or deacon, deposed by his bishop, or a bishop deposed by the Council, does not appeal to the larger Council of Bishops, but bothers the emperor, then he will henceforth be deprived of the opportunity to justify himself and the hope of restoration. The Council of Carthage, by its 36th rule, excommunicates clergy and bishops who transfer their judgment to the other side of the sea, that is, outside their district, and do not turn to the leading bishops of their regions. The same thing is determined by the 134th rule of the same Council [95]. Note that the highest ecclesiastical judges to whom the appeal is filed do not censure the lower ones, but only if they are not found to have passed an unjust sentence for some service or because of enmity, according to the 15th canon of the same Council of Carthage. See also Apost. 74 and IV Omni. 9. We accept those heretics who join Orthodoxy and part of those who are being saved according to the following rites and customs. Arian, Macedonian, Sabbatian, Novatian, who call themselves pure and leftist [96], the Quaternary, or Tetradite, and Apollinarian, if they give receipts and anathematize every heresy that does not think as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God thinks, we accept, sealing with the holy ointment first the forehead, then the eyes, nostrils, lips and ears, and, sealing them, we say: “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The Eunomians, who are baptized by a single immersion, the Montanists, called here Phrygians, the Sabellians, who teach about filial fatherhood and do other intolerant things, and all other heresies (since there are many heretics here, especially those from the Galatian country [97]) - all those of them who wish to join Orthodoxy, we accept as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second we make them catechumens, then on the third day we conjure them with three blows on their faces and ears; and so we announce them, force them to stay in the church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. (Apost. 46, 47, 68; I Oe. 8, 19; VI Oe. 95; Laodice. 7, 8; Carthage. 66; Basil the Great. 1, 5, 47.) This rule determines how we must accept those who come from heresies to the Orthodox faith and to some of those who are being saved, and says that we accept the Arians, Macedonians and Novatians, about whom we spoke in the 1st rule of this Council, the Savvatians [98], the Fourteeners, that is, the Tetradites [99], and the Apollinarians after they give testimony (λιβέλλους), i.e., a written exposition (the Latin word libellus is translated by Zonara as “exposition” [100]), anathematizing their own and any other heresy that does not think as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God thinks. Likewise, the First Ecumenical Council, in its 8th canon, demanded such a written statement from the Novatians. Then we seal with the holy world first their forehead, then their eyes, nostrils, lips and ears, with each sealing we say: “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” We accept all of them in the described way, without rebaptizing, since, according to Zonara, their rite of holy baptism is no different from ours and they are baptized in the same way as the Orthodox. The Arians and Macedonians, although they were obvious heretics, were accepted by the rule without crossing over in oikonomia, firstly, because there were a great many such heretics at that time, and secondly, also because they were baptized in the same way as us. However, the Eunomians, who are baptized in one immersion, the Montanists, who are called Phrygians here in Constantinople [ 101 ], the Sabellians, who claim that the Father and the Son are one Person, and do other evil, and all other heretics (of which there are many here, especially those from the country of Galatia) - we accept all of them as pagans, that is, as completely unbaptized (since they or were not baptized at all, or were baptized, but incorrectly, not in the way Orthodox Christians are baptized, which is why they are considered unbaptized at all). And on the first day we make them Christians, that is, we prepare them to accept all Christian dogmas, outside the vestibule of the church with the laying of the priest’s hand on them, according to the 39th rule of the Elvira Local Council (in Spain) [102]. On the second day we make them catechumens, i.e. we rank them among the ranks of the catechumens; on the third day we read the usual spells over them with three blows on their faces and ears. Thus, we partially teach them the dogmas of faith, force them to stay in church for a long time [103] and listen to the Divine Scriptures, and then we baptize them [104]. Just like this rule, and the rule of Laodice. 7 demands that the Novatians and Quaternaries, when they turn to Orthodoxy, be accepted according to oikonomia, that is, through anathematization of heresy and sealing with the world, and the Frigi, if they convert, the 8th rule of the same Council commands to baptize. Rule VI Universal. 95 is nothing more than a repetition of this rule, with the addition that the Manichaeans, Valentinians and Marcionites, when converted to Orthodoxy, must be baptized, and the Eutychians, followers of Dioscorus and Sevirians must be accepted through anathematization of their heresies, i.e. as Novatians, etc. Rule I Universal. 19 requires that the Paulians must be baptized, as canon VI Om. testifies to this. 95. Basil the Great in the 47th rule says that when converting, encratites, saccophores and apotactics (about which see VI Om. 95) should be baptized. And in its 5th rule it says that we must accept heretics who repent at the end of their lives, however, not without reasoning, but with testing. Read also the Apostle. 46 and 47. The circumstances under which the present Council took place are worthy of attention, since they abolish the fictitious privilege of the current Popes: that Ecumenical Councils are rightfully assembled by popes. And in fact, the real Ecumenical Council was not only not convened by Pope Damasus, but the pope did not even participate in it - neither personally, nor in the person of the locums, nor through the usual conciliar message. However, despite all this, all Westerners then recognized and now recognize this Council as truly Ecumenical. For each of these heresies, see the note. to the 1st rule of this Council. The fact is that the Arians, as well as the Semi-Arians and Doukhobors, changed the ancient and usual doxology of the Holy Trinity for the Church. The wicked, instead of “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,” in order by the difference in prepositions to introduce the difference in the essence, order and honor of the divine Persons of the consubstantial and consubstantial Trinity. Leontius of Antioch, who castrated himself, seeing that the Orthodox added the conjunction “and” to the “Son,” and the Arians added the preposition “through” and the preposition “in” to the “Holy Spirit,” passed over the beginning and middle of the doxology in silence and proclaimed only the end, i.e., “...and forever and ever” (Synodikon. T. 1. P. 247) (see also: Theod. Cyr. eccl. II, 19 // PG 82, 1057C–1060A). Under the emperor Anastasia Dicorus, when Trasamund, the leader of the Vandal-Arians, closed Orthodox churches in Africa and exiled one hundred and twenty bishops to the island of Sardinia, one Arian named Barbarian (and according to other sources, the name of the one who was going to be baptized was Barbarian), intending to baptize someone, said: “So-and-so is baptized in the name of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit” - and (lo and behold!) the font was immediately completely dry (Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 446). Many, having misunderstood the words of Revelation (Rev. 20:3-7) that Satan was imprisoned and bound for a thousand years and that the righteous, who took part in the first resurrection, reigned with Christ for a thousand years, imagined that after the second coming and the general judgment the righteous would reign here on earth for a thousand (χίλια) years with Christ, and then ascend to heaven. For this they were called chiliasts (χιλιασταί). There were two types of chiliasts. Some of them said that during that thousand years they would enjoy every pleasure and bodily pleasure (in the 1st century these were the followers of Cerinthus, a student of Simon, and in the 2nd century - the Marcionites). Others said that they would not enjoy sensual pleasures, but rather mental ones, befitting rational people; their ancestor was Papias of Hierapolis (Eusebius. Church history. Book 3, ch. 39) (PG 20, 300A), etc. The mentioned Apollinaris was a chiliast of the first variety, as is clear from the words of Basil the Great (letter 232) ( Basil. Magn. Ep. 263 (74). 4 // PG 32, 980C), Gregory the Theologian (letter 51) ( Greg. Nazianz. Ep. 102 (51) // PG 37, 197C) and Jerome (book 18 on Isaiah) ( Hieronym. Stridon. In Is. 18 // PL 24, 627C). In order to refute this heresy, the present Council added the following expression to the Nicene Creed, borrowing it from the words of the Archangel Gabriel addressed to the Virgin: and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:33). The thousand years that John speaks of will not happen after the second coming of Christ, and the Kingdom of the Lord is not limited in time, it is not food and drink, as Paul said (Rom. 14:17). Theologians understand by a thousand years the period of time from the first coming of Christ to the second. At this time, Satan was bound, according to the word of the Lord: Now is the judgment of this world, now the prince of this world will be cast out (John 12:31), at the same time the first resurrection took place for the justification of souls, thanks to the mortification of unbelief and vice. About this resurrection, Christ said: He who hears My words and believes in Him who sent Me has passed from death into life (John 5:24), and the apostle says: Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ, set your mind on things above (Col. 3:1–2). And therefore, at this time the Kingdom of the righteous came with Christ, which consists in their unity with Him through the Spirit, in the contemplation of His Divine enlightenment and in pleasure. The Lord said about this Kingdom: They will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God (Mark 9:1). The Council outlined and supplemented the Symbol by the hand of Gregory of Nyssa (as Niceph. Callist. Hist. eccl. XII, 13 // PG 146, 784B, etc. says), and as Dositheus says (Twelfth Book, p. 1628), it was done by the hand of Gregory the Theologian. It was he who, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, thundered like heavenly thunder with his theology at the Council: “If God, then not a creature, for creatureliness is characteristic of us, and we are not gods. If it is a creature, then it is not God, because it has a beginning in time. And what began did not happen before. What was preceded by non-existence is not actual existence. And what is not actually existing - is it God? So, none of the Three is a creature” - etc. (farewell speech) (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 42. 17 // PG 36, 477C). I said that this Council anathematized every heresy that arose under Constantius, Julian and Valens, since Constantius, although he recognized the eternity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, was once tempted by the fact that the word “consubstantial” was a cause of discord, since it is not in the Scriptures, and began an irreconcilable war against those who thought so. So, he sent them into exile, deprived them of their property and humiliated them, and convened various Councils in the West and East against the “consistency.” He surrounded with attention and elevated heretical bishops to great cathedras, who ordained their clergy. Then Julian did as much as former emperors and persecutors had not done before him. Finally, Valens not only did everything that Constantius did, but also, being an Arian, raised a persecution against the Church stronger than the persecution of pagans, so that his like-minded friend Luke of Alexandria beat, killed, sent into exile and deprived even the ascetic hermits of their property. Not only Arians, but also other heretics, pagans, and Jews enjoyed freedom in their time, while the Orthodox were persecuted. These three emperors continued to persecute the Church for forty years, until there were only a few Orthodox saints left to denounce heresies. They, taking advantage of the favorable time, gathered for this Ecumenical Council during the reign of Theodosius the Great. Note that the followers of Arius after the First Council of Nicea were divided into three schools, according to Epiphanius (chapter on the 73rd and 74th heresies), and some of them were called Anomeans, since they said that the Son was in no way similar (κατὰ πάντα ἀνόμοιος) to the Father (Epiph. Adv. haer. 73. 23; 74. 2 // PG 42, 445A, 473C). Their head was a certain Galatian Eunomius, who was the bishop of Cyzicus. He crossed those who turned to slander him, immersing them only once - upside down and upside down (Ibid. 76. 6 // PG 42, 637C). In addition, he babbled (and Aetius along with him) that punishment and Gehenna do not really exist, but are threatened with them only for the sake of intimidation. Eunomians were also called Eudoxians - from the like-minded Eunomius Eudoxius, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople and ordained Eunomius Bishop of Cyzicus. Others were called semi-Arians because they adopted half of the Aryan heresy. They said that the Son is similar in everything (ὄμοιος κατὰ πάντα) and similar in essence (ὁμοιούσιος) to the Father, but they did not want to recognize the word “consubstantial” (ὁμοούσιος), despite the fact that it is more ancient and it was used by the ancient fathers even before the First Ecumenical Council (see the preface to the First Ecumenical Council). The head of the Semi-Arians was Vasily of Ancyra. Being one of this party of semi-Arians, Macedonius (whom the present Second Ecumenical Council condemned) also took up arms against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, which is why his adherents were nicknamed Doukhobors. Still others did not call the Son either similar or dissimilar, occupying a middle position between the Arians and Semi-Arians. Sabellius, originally from Libya, bishop. Ptolemais of Pentapolis, having accepted the heresy of Noetus of Smyrna (according to Theodoret (Theod. Cyr. Haer. fab. III, 3 // PG 83, 404B) and Epiphanius (In fact, Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that Noetus was from the city of Ephesus. See: Epiph. Adv. haer. 57. 1 // PG 41, 996A)) or Ephesian (according to Augustine), spread it so widely that those who spoke this nonsense began to be called not Noetians, but Sabellians, after his name. He said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three names for the same Person and, depending on the difference in actions, It is called either the Father, then the Son, or the Spirit. Marcellus was from Ancyra. He adopted the heresy of Sabellius and not only called Christ a simple man, but also talked idle talk, according to Eusebius (On Church Theology. Book 3) (Euseb. De eccl. theol. III, 10, 17 // PG 24, 1020BC, 1037BC), as if after the Second Coming and Judgment the body of the Lord will be cast off and turn into non-existence and, therefore, the Kingdom It must have an end. Photius, who came from Sirmium and was the bishop of Sirmium, thought in the same way as Paul of Samosata. He did not confess the Holy Trinity; He called God, the Creator of everything, only the Spirit, and the Word only a spoken word (προφορικός), as if some kind of mechanical instrument, and he said about Christ that He was not God, but a simple man who accepted into himself that very spoken word of God and received being from Mary (see about this: Sozomen. Church History. Book 4, Chapter 6 (PG 67, 1120AB), also Laodice 7). Apollinaris, who was a bishop in Syrian Laodicea, adopted the heresy of Arius, who said, among other things, that the Word in the body of Christ was instead of the soul (according to Athanasius (Athanas. Alex. Contra Apoll. II, 3 // PG 26, 1136D-1137A) and Epiphanius (Epiph. Adv. haer. 69.19 // PG 42, 232B)). At one time, Apollinaris said that the Word took on a body without a soul, and at another time, ashamed of his ignorance, that It took on a soul, however, without a mind and wordless, and thereby separated the soul from the mind, following the Platonists. He also declared that we should not give worship to a God-bearing man, in refutation of which Gregory the Theologian said that “we should worship not the God-bearing flesh, but the God-bearing God” (Gregory the Theologian. Second Epistle to Kledonius) (Greg. Nazianz. Ep. 102 (51) // PG 37, 200B). Having misunderstood the saying of the second man from heaven (1Kop. 15:47), Apollinaris further babbled that Christ had flesh from eternity and, therefore, could not receive flesh from the Virgin, as Basil the Great testifies in one epistle (Basil. Magn. Ep. 261.2 // PG 32, 969B). Theod. Cyr. Hist. eccl. IV, 12 // PG 82, 1147C. Note that although Socrates in the 5th book, 8th chapter. claims that the Second Ecumenical Council by this rule divided the Churches between the patriarchs (PG 67, 577C-580A), but Sozomen, as if interpreting the words of Socrates about the patriarchs, says that this Council considered it reasonable that the faith of the Nicene fathers should be transmitted to all Churches through bishops who are in communion and like-mindedness with Nektarios of Constantinople and Timothy of Alexandria (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII, 9 // PG 67, 1437A). So, those whom Socrates called patriarchs, Sozomen called “those in communion,” therefore, by this he said that they were called patriarchs in an improper sense, instead of exarchs. (The term “exarch” (ἔξαρχος) until the 6th century meant the first bishop in a civil diocese and was applied to both metropolitans and patriarchs. The current status of the exarch is much lower: in the modern understanding, the exarch is the primate of the Local Church. More details about how St. Nicodemus understands the title “exarch” is stated in note 1 to IV All. 9). ASO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 3, 118. 5–7. Note: because the wicked Dioscorus violated this rule and placed St. Flavian of Constantinople in fifth place, Eusebius of Dorylaeus went to Rome and, in the presence of the Constantinople clergy, read this rule to His Holiness Pope Leo, who also recognized it. Maxim was an Egyptian whose occupation was a Cynic philosopher (Cynics (κυνικοί) received this name because they were arrogant and shameless, like dogs (κύνες)). In Constantinople, he entered into friendly relations with Gregory the Theologian, who announced him, baptized him and, moreover, ranked him among the clergy, since he was a defender of “consistency.” But subsequently Maxim, having encroached on the throne of Constantinople, sent money to Peter of Alexandria, and he sent certain people who ordained him as Bishop of Constantinople in the house of a flutist, according to the disciple of Gregory the Theologian Gregory, who wrote his life (Greg. Presb. Vita Greg. Theologi // PG 35, 280C–281B). As Theodoret (Bk. 5, Ch. 8) (PG 82, 1209B–1212A) and Sozomen (Bk. 7, Ch. 9) (PG 67, 1436C–1437A) say, the Egyptian bishops, together with Timothy of Alexandria, having come to Byzantium, secretly performed the consecration and installed Maximus as bishop Constantinople, but the Council, having learned about this absurdity, deposed him from the dignity, and declared the consecrations he had performed invalid. And since it turned out that the same Maximus thought like Apollinaris, he was, moreover, anathematized by the Council. The papists say, and even boast, that this dog came to the pope with repentance and received forgiveness from him. Against Maximus Cynic, Gregory the Theologian wrote in both poetry and prose: “This man, I say, tore the Church to pieces, filled it with confusion and noise, turning out to be a wolf instead of a shepherd. He willingly allowed everything to those who sinned, on the condition that they join wicked teachings” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 26.5 // PG 35, 1233C). Sisinius, the Novatian bishop, together with the emperor Julian, took philosophy lessons from Maximus, according to Socrates (book 5, chapter 21) (PG 67, 621AB). The reason why this tomos arose, in short, is as follows. When the emperors Constantius and Constantius learned that the supporters of Eusebius were disturbing the Church and that they had overthrown Athanasius the Great and Paul of Constantinople, they ordered the convening of a Council in Sardica, an Illyrian city, with the participation of both Western and Eastern fathers. The Eastern Fathers, going to the Council, wrote from Philippopolis to the Western Fathers, so that they would not allow Athanasius and Paul to attend the Council as erupted, for the Eastern Fathers were enemies of “consistency.” The Westerners wrote to them in response that they did not consider them erupted or guilty. Having learned about this, the Eastern Fathers left the Council and returned to Philippopolis. And the Westerners, left alone, completed the Council, acquitted Athanasius and Paul and established the Nicene faith, without adding anything to it or removing anything from it. Thus, the present rule calls this presentation and statement of faith the tomos of the Western ones only, and not the Eastern ones, because the latter left the Council. Socrates (book 2, chapter 10) says that the supporters of Eusebius of Nicomedia at the Council of Antioch, held under Constantine (a mistake was made here. The Council of Antioch took place under the emperor Constantius), did not at all condemn the Nicene faith, but set out a different definition of faith in a different style and in different expressions, from which it is clear that they profess the one Divinity of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. This belief is also expounded by Socrates (PG 67, 200B–204C). About this definition of faith, the present rule says that the Council accepted it (although initially this definition was drawn up by the Eusebians with the insidious intent to gradually attract the majority to the way of thinking of the Arians, as the mentioned Socrates also says there). This definition and tomos is also mentioned by Theodoret (book 5, chapter 9) (PG 82, 1216D–1217A). The conciliar message that the present Second Ecumenical Council sent to the Romans contains a mention of it literally in the following words: “So, this is the main thing that concerns the faith that we openly preach. You can be even more comforted by this if you consider it necessary to turn to the tomos written by the Council that was held in Antioch, as well as to the tomos set forth by the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople last year. In them we confessed our faith more extensively.” This means, just as the 25 rules of the Council of Antioch were adopted, the Second Ecumenical Council also awarded the same approval to the above-mentioned definition of faith as Orthodox (albeit composed with insidious intent). In this rule, the word ἱερεύς is used in its ancient meaning and means “bishop.” Therefore, Athanasius the Great, in his apology to the emperor, says this: “The accusers are Meletians, who should not be believed at all: they did not become schismatics and enemies of the Church now, but even during the time of the Great. Peter, who became a martyr" (Athanas. Alex. Apol. contra arian. 11 // PG 25b, 268A). For the same reason why the rule called schismatics and those who gather without permission as heretics, see the 3rd note. to the 1st rule of Vasily the Great. The word "diocese" has many meanings when it comes to church affairs. It could mean: 1) the bishopric and the parish of each bishop, according to Carthage. 62; 2) metropolitan area, according to IV Ecumenical. 28; 3) areas of many metropolitans located in one diocese, according to this rule of II Omni. 6; 4) the region of each patriarch, as it is said in many places of the Council Acts, for example, the Council of Ephesus: “The Holy Council of the Eastern Diocese”; 5) the areas of two or three patriarchs together, as was said at the VII Ecumenical Council: “...John and Thomas, locum tenens of the eastern diocese, i.e. Antioch and Jerusalem.” Based on this interpretation, we can say that in the phrase “Diocese Council” the word “diocese” is never used in the 1st and 2nd meanings, but in the 4th and 5th meanings it is undoubtedly used: both in antiquity and until now, such a Council has acted and continues to operate. The council of the diocese with the word “diocese” in the 3rd meaning was in force in ancient times, according to this conciliar rule, as well as according to the IV Ecumenical. 9 and 28; after the IV Ecumenical Council, such a Council ceased its activities. Therefore, Justinian in the 29th decree of the 4th tit. 1st book. [of the Code] (Photius. Nomocanon. Tit. 9, ch. 6) does not mention it at all when talking about disagreements between bishops and clergy: “Whether the metropolitan alone judges a bishop or clergy, or he judges with his Council (that is, if the Council of the metropolitan region judges), the patriarch of the diocese has the right of review, and the decisions made by him are obeyed, as if he had been judging from the very beginning. For the decisions of the patriarchs are not subject to appeal.” The Rule speaks here of the “Council of the Diocese.” In rules IV Omni. 9 and 28 speak of the “exarch of the diocese,” who is not the patriarch, as we will say in the interpretation of those rules. Note that Macarius of Ancyra incorrectly explains the present rule, saying that this Council of Patriarchs calls the exarchs of the diocese, since he mentions only the Council of the metropolitan region, the Council of the diocese and the Ecumenical Council. For greater clarity, let's say that the Council of a diocese was a meeting of metropolitans of one diocese with the leading exarch among them. Since now there is no such Council anymore, the Council of each patriarch conducts court on all church affairs of the metropolitans of the diocese under its jurisdiction. And moreover, this Council became greater than the Council of the Diocese, after the patriarchs at the Fourth Ecumenical Council received full power to ordain their metropolitans - something that they did not fully and completely possess before, according to Dositheus (p. 388). The Second Ecumenical Council, additionally noting in this rule that no one should demand an Ecumenical Council after the judgment of the Council of the diocese, thereby makes it clear to us that the Ecumenical Council is the final judge in all church matters, and every appeal is directed to it, about which see the preface to the First Ecumenical Council, note. 1. Although Balsamon says that the emperor can do everything and therefore can appoint a secular judge to try a bishop and, in general, any clergyman, can legally turn a church court into a civil one, to this we will say: yes, he can do everything legal and fair, and not lawless and unjust. After all, according to Chrysostom (the Word that sin introduced three kinds of slavery), laws are leaders and rulers even over the leaders themselves, for, according to the Apostle, only for the righteous is there no law (1 Tim. 1:9) (Ioan. Chrysost. In Gen. sermo 4. 2 // PG 54, 596). Read also the interpretation of Rule IV Omni. 9, in order to know that the emperors themselves determine not to judge secular rulers in church matters. Look and note. to the 3rd rule of the Council of Hagia Sophia. Although Paul of Constantinople and Athanasius, together with Pope Julius, demanded that Constantius and Constantius convene an Ecumenical Council (which was called the Sardician Council) so that their cases could be considered, and Chrysostom and Innocent demanded an Ecumenical Council from Arcadius and Honorius to consider the case of Chrysostom - although, I repeat, these saints demanded an Ecumenical Council, they are not subject to punishment, imposed by this rule. Firstly, they were popes and ecumenical patriarchs and therefore had no other higher court over them other than the Ecumenical Council. And secondly, they demanded it out of necessity: after all, both the Eusebians, who intended to judge Athanasius and Paul locally, and those who were going to judge Chrysostom, were their obvious enemies. And in the church decree (Code. Book 1, tit. 4, paragraph 29) it is written: let no one judge a clergyman immediately from the patriarch, but first from his bishop. If anyone has suspicions against the bishop, let him bring his legal case to the metropolitan. If he is also under suspicion, then together with him the trial should be carried out on behalf of the entire Council by the three leading in the order of consecration. If even after this the verdict passed does not satisfy the plaintiff, let him send the case to the patriarch and submit to his verdict, as if the patriarch himself had conducted the trial from the very beginning, since patriarchal decisions are not subject to appeal, that is, transfer to another, higher court (on the basis of which one patriarch cannot be a judge over the decision of another patriarch, according to Dositheus (p. 390)). See note about this. 1 in the preface to I Omni. This rule is given in full and verbatim in the letter to Martyrius of Antioch, which was sent from Constantinople in order to show how heretics should be received. It says this: “...calling themselves pure and pure...”. Therefore, in other sources, instead of “left” (ἀριστερούς), it is written “best” (ἀρίστούς). In the mentioned letter to Martyrius it is said this way: “... since there are many of them here, especially many who come from the Galatian country.” According to Socrates (book 5, chapter 21), Sabbatius, who converted from Judaism to Christianity, was ordained a presbyter by Marcian, bishop of the Novatians of Constantinople. However, even after converting to Christianity, he followed Jewish customs, celebrating holidays with the Jews and celebrating Easter at the same time as them (PG 67, 621B–625A). In addition, according to Balsamon, he also observed the Sabbath in the Jewish way (for which, perhaps, he received such a name (“Sabatius” (Σαββάτιος) from the Greek σάββατον (“Saturday”)). His followers were called Savbatians, they were also Novatians. These Novatians are called leftists (ἀριστεροί) or by mistake, instead of “the best (ἄριστοι)” and “the purest of all,” which they considered themselves for the fact that they did not accept into fellowship those who had fallen during the persecution and avoided their uncleanness, or because they abhorred the left hand and did not want to take any thing with it, according to To Balsamon. It is worthy of surprise why the First Ecumenical Council, by the 8th canon, accepted these Novatians through confession alone, and the present Second Ecumenical Council accepts them through the seal of the holy world. Resolving this bewilderment, we answer that the First Ecumenical Council decided this mainly and primarily out of leniency and economy, so that the Novatians would not hesitate to convert to Orthodoxy, ashamed of the fact that the Orthodox anoint them as unanointed. Then the present Second Ecumenical Council accepted them through the seal of the world, since, according to Theodoret, the Novatians were not anointed with the holy world. He speaks of them like this: “...and to those baptized by them they do not impart the all-holy unction” (Theod. Cyr. Haeg. fab. III, 5 // PG 83, 408B). That is why the all-praised fathers (i.e., the fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council and the fathers of the Council of Laodicea in the 7th canon) commanded to anoint all those who join from this heresy to the body of the Church. The Tetradites, or Tetradites, are so called because they celebrated Easter not on Sunday, but when the moon becomes fourteen days old, no matter what day of the week it falls on, and they spend this day in fasting and vigil. Therefore, Pope Liverius (according to Socrates, book 4, chapter 12) demanded a written confession from the Macedonians, and they gave him a scroll on which the Nicene Creed was written (PG 67, 485B). And the Great Basil in the 72nd letter says about the Arians: “If they claim that they have repented, then let them present written evidence that they bring repentance, anathematize the Constantinople faith (i.e., their own) and separate from the heretics, and let them not deceive inexperienced people” (Basil. Magn. Ep. 251 (72). 3 // PG 32, 937AB). Montanus, who lived in the 2nd century, appeared, according to Eusebius (History. Book 5, Chapter 15), in Mysia, near Phrygia (which is why his followers began to be called Phrygians). Possessed by a demon, he falsely prophesied, called himself the Comforter and opposed the apostolic traditions. He called his two followers, Priscilla and Maximilla, prophetesses (Euseb. Hist. eccl. V, 14, 16 // PG 20, 464A, 465BC). He taught to dissolve marriages and abstain from food, abhorring it. Montanus and his followers perverted the celebration of Easter; they merged the Holy Trinity into one Person; they slaughtered the baby and, mixing his blood with flour, baked bread, served on it and received communion from it (Some Western polemicists accused Montanus’ followers of this, but there is no reliable evidence of this.). The Montanists were also called Pepusines, since they excessively praised a certain village in Phrygia - Pepuza, which was even called Jerusalem. Rule I Universal. 8 Novatian also received through the laying on of hands. (The mentioned Council in Elvira was convened shortly before the First Ecumenical Council.) However, all heretics and schismatics who turn to the Catholic Church should be received through the laying on of hands. See the notes for the exact time required for announcement. 1 to I Universal. 2. According to this rule, it is certainly and with inevitable necessity that the Latins also need to be baptized, since they were not baptized even by one immersion. After all, if the rule prescribes that those being baptized should be baptized in one immersion, then what more so for those who were not immersed even once at baptism? This is sufficiently and convincingly stated in the interpretation of the rule of Apost. 46, so apply here what is said there. However, let us add here, on top of everything, the following useful remark: just as this Council determines that Novatians, upon conversion, should be anointed with chrism, since they were not chrismated, so the Council of the Eastern Fathers prescribes the baptism of converting Latins, since they were not baptized by immersion. See also the last note to VI Omni. 95 to learn that Latins should ask for baptism of their own free will, they should not be prompted to do so by others.