О святом Вселенском четвертом соборе

The Holy Ecumenical Fourth Council was convened in 451 A.D. in Chalcedon, the famous city of Bithynia, under the emperor Marcian and Pulcheria [125]. It was attended by 630 fathers, among whom the leading and most prominent role was played by Anatoly of Constantinople, bishop. Paskhazin and Lucentius with presbyters Boniface and Vasily, and with them the bishop. Julian, who replaced His Holiness Leo of Rome, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem. They condemned and anathematized the unfortunate archimandrite. Eutyches and his patron Dioscorus, who became Bishop of Alexandria after Cyril. Eutyches and Dioscorus, having fallen into an error opposite to the error of Nestorius, together with him fell into the same destruction: Nestorius divided the One Christ into two persons and two hypostases, and Eutyches and Dioscorus two natures of Christ, Divinity and humanity, of which He consists and in which we know Him and worship Him, boldly merged into one nature, not understanding, insane, what follows from this wicked opinion, that Christ is not of the same nature with the Father, and not of the same nature with people, but of some other nature [126]. Therefore, this holy Council, following the Symbol of the first, Nicene, and second, Constantinople Councils, the message of Cyril of Alexandria, in other words, the definition of the third, Ephesian Council, and in addition, the letter of His Holiness Leo of Rome [127], left inviolable the general Symbol of the first, Nicene, and second, Constantinople Councils, anathematizing those who dare to add to it or remove something from it, and compose your own oros of the Orthodox Faith, which literally sounds like this (Act 5): “Therefore, following the divine fathers, we all teach in agreement to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity. Truly God and truly man, the same from soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and the same consubstantial with us in humanity, similar to us in everything except sin. Before the ages, born from the Father according to Divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for the sake of our salvation - from Mary the Virgin Mother of God according to humanity. One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, from two natures, unfused, immutable, indivisible, inseparably cognizable [ 128 ], so that through the union the difference of natures is in no way destroyed, but all the more the property of each nature is preserved and united in one person and one hypostasis. Not into two persons divided or cut, but one and the same Son and Only Begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets taught about Him in ancient times and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us and as the Symbol of the Fathers taught us.” 129 This Council also declared invalid the robber gathering that had previously taken place in Ephesus, in 448, at which Dioscorus, the defender of Eutyches, presided; the Roman legates were not heard, and St. Flavian of Constantinople, after being beaten and inflicted many wounds, died 130. At this Council (Act 8) Blessed. Theodoret, having said: “Anathema to Nestorius, and to him who does not call Holy Mary the Mother of God, and to him who divides the one Only Son,” 131 and also having anathematized Eutyches and all heresy and subscribed to the decisions of the Council, was acquitted, sat down in his place at the Council and received back his episcopal region. Along with all this, the Council also set out the present 30 rules, which are found in its 15th Act, legitimized and approved directly, with the name of this Council, Rule VI Omni. 2 and indirectly – by rule VII Omni. 1 and which are necessary for the well-being and order in the Church. The acts of the present Council are divided into three volumes: the first volume contains various messages and acts of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian and the Robber Council in Ephesus, the second contains 16 acts of the Council of Chalcedon itself, and the third contains various letters of the Council and emperors, as well as other private acts that took place after the Council and related to it [ 132 ] (see: Dositheus. P. 331–397; Synodikon. 2). 30 rules of the Holy Ecumenical Fourth Council with interpretations We considered it right to observe the rules set forth by the Holy Fathers at every Council right up to the present time. (VI Universe 2; VII Universe 1.) This rule considers it fair that all the rules that the Holy Fathers, from the beginning to this day, set forth at every Council, both Ecumenical and Local, should be observed, that is, have weight and force, whether these rules are aimed at the most precise definition of dogmas or serve church deanery. The same thing as the present rule is determined by the VI Omni. 2 and VII Omni. 1, namely: so that the apostolic canons, and the canons of previously convened councils, and the canons of the fathers remain unchanged. See also the preface at the beginning of this book, which talks about rules in general. If any bishop performs ordination for money, reduces unsold grace to an object for sale and for money ordains a bishop, or a chorebishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or anyone else among the clergy, or, because of his greed, for money, ordains an economist, or an ecdycus, or a paramonari, or in general to any church rank, then anyone who attempts for this, after conviction, let him be subject to deprivation of his degree, and let the one ordained by him not use the purchased ordination or production at all, but let him be alien to the dignity or position that he received for money. And if anyone is simply a mediator in such vile and lawless profit, then such a one, if he is a cleric, will be deposed from his degree, and if he is a layman or monastic, he will be anathematized. (Apost. 29, 30; VI Om. 22, 23; VII Oz. 3–5, 19; Basil the Great. 90; Laodice. 12; epistles of Gennadius of Constantinople and Tarasius of Constantinople.) According to Zonara, bishops, presbyters and deacons are ordained, readers, singers and abbots receive consecration and are sealed [133], while others are ordained without sealing, such as ecologists [134], ecdices and paramonari, i.e. prosmonari. So, if any bishop, as this rule defines, elevates all these or other clergy for money and, out of greed, sells the unsellable grace of the Spirit, then, having been convicted, let him be deposed from the rank of bishop. But let him who is ordained in this way not enjoy consecration or production, but let him be deprived of both the holy rank and the position that he received as a result of this trade. If anyone becomes a mediator in this vile profit, then if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a monk or layman, let him be anathematized. Read also the Apostle. 29, 30. It came to the attention of the Holy Council that some of those belonging to the clergy, for the sake of vile profit, take over other people's estates and arrange worldly affairs, neglecting at the same time God's service; they wander around the houses of worldly people and, out of love of money, take upon themselves the management of property. So, the holy and great Council determined that henceforth no one - neither a bishop, nor a clergyman, nor a monastic - should farm out estates or take upon himself the management of worldly affairs, unless according to the laws he is called to the inevitable guardianship of minors or the bishop of the city entrusts him, for the fear of God, with the care of church affairs, or of orphans, or of widows deprived of guardianship and persons who are especially in need of church services. help. If anyone in the future dares to violate this definition, such a person will be subject to church penances. (Apost. 6, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 7; Dvukrat. 11; Carthage. 18; VII Ecum. 10.) This rule defines: it has come to the attention of the Council that some clergy, out of greed, rent other people’s estates and become contractors [135], that is, for the sake of profit, they interfere in worldly affairs, neglecting the ministry of the priesthood, enter the houses of worldly people and, out of love of money, take upon themselves the management of their property. Therefore, this holy Council determined that henceforth no bishop, or cleric, or monk should rent an estate or interfere in the management of worldly affairs, unless by law he is called to become a guardian of minor children [136] (children from birth to 14 years of age are called minors) or a curator, that is, a person who cares for minors and supervises them (minors are people from 14 to 25 years of age), or will the bishop of the city force him to take care of the affairs of the Church, or orphans, or widows deprived of guardianship, or other persons who especially need church help and care, but not for the sake of receiving some kind of profit, but solely for the fear of God. If anyone dares to violate this definition in the future, let him be subjected to church penance. What kind of penances are these, which are determined by the apostolic rules? This is their eruption from the clergy. Read and Apostle. 6. May those who truly and sincerely undergo monastic life receive due honor. But since some, just for show, wearing monastic clothes, upset the Church and civil affairs, arbitrarily walking around the cities and even attempting to establish their own monasteries, it was decided that no one would build or establish a monastery or house of prayer anywhere without the permission of the bishop of the city. Let the monastics in every city and country be subordinate to the bishop, let them love silence, and adhere only to fasting and prayer, patiently remaining in those places in which they have renounced the world. They should not interfere in either church or everyday affairs and participate in them, leaving their monasteries, unless the bishop of the city entrusts them with this out of urgent necessity. (VI Omni. 24; VII Om. 21; Double 1.) Let no slave be accepted into monasticism in monasteries without the permission of his master. We have decreed that whoever transgresses this definition of ours should be a stranger to communication, so that the name of God would not be blasphemed. And the bishop of the city must have proper care of the monasteries. (Apost. 82; Basil the Great. 40, 42; Carthage. 73, 90; VI Om. 85; Gangr. 3.) This rule defines the following. Let those who live the monastic life truly and without any hypocrisy receive due honor. But some, in order to be revered, use the monastic robe for show, thereby causing temptation, and, wanting to manage church and civil affairs, they throw them into disorder, and also randomly walk around the cities and strive to build their own monasteries. Therefore, it seemed sensible that no monk, neither in a village, nor in a city, nor in the desert or in any other place, should build or establish a monastery or house of prayer without the permission of the local bishop [137]. Monks living in any city and country should submit to the local bishop and remain in silence, diligent only in prayer and fasting, staying in those monasteries in which they were tonsured, without leaving them (see VII Om. 21) and without interfering in church and civil affairs [138], unless, out of urgent necessity, the bishop entrusts this to them, judging that they are capable of this. In addition, it seemed reasonable that no slave, without the consent of his master, should be accepted into the monastery for the purpose of being tonsured a monk, and that neither people, seeing how monks interfere in worldly affairs, nor owners, upset because of their slaves, should blaspheme the monastic order, and thereby blaspheme the name of God through them. Let the violator of the rule be excommunicated. However, just as it is fitting for monks to spend their lives in activities appropriate to them, in the same way it is fitting for a bishop to have appropriate care for monasteries, protecting the monasteries and giving alms for necessary needs either from his own funds or from the funds of the Church intended for the poor, according to the Apostle. 41 and Antiochus. 25. This must be done for two reasons: firstly, so that the monks live in silence and without having fun, and secondly, so that the bishop himself receives spiritual benefit from this alms [139]. Likewise, Rule VII Omni. 17 commands that the bishop prevent those monks who leave their monasteries and undertake to build houses of prayer, without having the means to finish and complete the construction. The double council, by its 1st rule, also does not give anyone permission to build a monastery without the permission of the bishop or, after construction, to become its master. Read the interpretation of the Apostle. 82 and 24 canons of this Council. Regarding bishops or clergy moving from city to city, it was decided that the rules adopted by the holy fathers would have force. (Apost. 14, 15; I Om. 15, 16; VI Ose. 17; Antioch. 3, 16, 21; Sardic. l, 2, 15, 16, 18; Carthage. 57, 63, 90.) This rule determines that those rules adopted by the Holy Fathers that prohibit the transfer of both bishops and clergy from one city or region to another city or region shall be in force. Read about it in Apost. 14, 15. It is decided not to ordain anyone without appointment - neither a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor in general anyone belonging to the church rank - unless each person being ordained is assigned to the church of a city, or a church dedicated to a martyr, or a monastery. Regarding those ordained without an exact appointment, the Holy Council determined: their ordination should be recognized as invalid and nowhere should they be allowed to serve, to the shame of the one who ordained them. This holy Council, wishing to easily prevent transitions and movements of clergy from place to place that occur against the rules (the beginning and root of which is ordination without a specific appointment), decrees in this canon that henceforth neither a priest, nor a deacon, nor anyone else from the church rank will be ordained in this way, but will be ordained only with an appointment to the church of a city, or village, or to a monastery, or to the church of a martyr. At the same time, the bishop proclaims in the prayer of consecration: “Divine grace will guarantee such and such a presbyter or deacon of such and such (the name of) a church or monastery,” i.e., in exactly the same way as the name of the episcopal region is proclaimed at the consecration of any bishop. And regarding those who will be ordained without appointment, the Holy Council determined that such ordination is invalid and that they cannot use it anywhere, so that their removal from the priesthood would serve as dishonor for the bishop who committed the ordination against the rules, and he, admonished by the dishonor, did not do this another time [140]. You, O reader, weep with me over this rule... After all, at no time at any ordination of a deacon or presbyter is the name of a particular church or monastery now proclaimed, as this rule prescribes. Meanwhile, it is obvious that this proclamation, along with other things, is an integral requirement of ordination - even if the violators do not think about it at all. We determined that those who had once been classified as clergy and monks should not enter into military service or secular office. And those who dare to do this and do not repent, in order to return to what was previously chosen for the sake of God, are to be anathematized. (Apost. 6, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 3, 16; Dvukrat. 11; Carthage. 18; VII Ecum. 10.) This rule determines that clergy and monks should neither become warriors nor occupy secular positions, and all those who dare to do this and do not return with repentance to the way of life according to the previous vow that they made for the sake of God should be anathema. But why is the rule Apost. 83 only spews out such things, and this is also anathematizing? According to Zonara and other interpreters, the apostolic canon speaks of those who wear the clergy's clothes and engage in such ministries, and the present canon speaks of those who, having put aside the robes of the cleric and monk, then take up these ministries. But perhaps this rule speaks of those who, having once dared to do this, no longer want to repent and turn to their former life (which the apostolic rule does not say), and therefore the rule punished them more severely as unrepentant [141]. See also Apost. 6 and IV Omni. 16. Let the clergy of almshouses, monasteries and martyr churches remain, according to the tradition of the holy fathers, under the authority of the bishops of each city and may not rebel against their bishop out of willfulness. And those who dare to violate this decree in any way and do not obey their bishop, if they are clergy, must be subject to the penances imposed by the rules, and if they are monastics or laymen, must be alienated from communion. The definition of this rule is that clergy and clergy who are attached to almshouses, i.e., orphanages, nursing homes and hospitals, as well as monasteries and churches in honor of martyrs, must, according to the tradition of the holy fathers, always be subordinate to the bishops of each city and not willfully leave the authority of their bishop. Those who dare to violate this rule in any way and leave the subordination of their bishop, if they are clergy and clergy, must suffer those penances imposed by the rules that the local bishop himself deems appropriate, and if they are monks or laymen, they must be excommunicated. But why does the rule, first speaking only about clergy and monks, then mention the laity? In order to point out those laity, on whose insolence and patronage the clergy and monks rely, because of which they behave disrespectfully with the bishop and do not obey him [142]. If any cleric has a dispute with a clergyman, let him not leave his bishop and not resort to secular courts, but first let his bishop consider the matter or, by the will of the bishop himself, let the court be composed of those whom both parties choose; and if anyone acts contrary to this, let him be subject to penance according to the rules. If a cleric has a dispute with his own or another bishop, then let him litigate at the Council of the metropolitan region. And if a bishop or cleric has a disagreement with the metropolitan of this region, then let him appeal either to the exarch of the diocese, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople and be tried before him. (Apost. 74; I Om. 6; IV Om. 17, 21; Antioch. 14, 15; Carthage. 8, 12, 14–16, 27, 28, 36, 87, 96, 105, 115, 118, 134, 137–139.) This rule determines that in the case where one cleric has a lawsuit with another cleric, he should not leave his bishop and consider the case in secular courts, but first present it to his bishop for consideration; or, by the will of the bishop and with his permission, the litigation should be considered by elected judges, with whom both parties, that is, the plaintiff and the defendant, would be satisfied. A cleric who acts differently must be punished by the bishop according to the rules. In the event that a cleric has a dispute with his bishop, let him consider the matter at the Council of the metropolitan region. If a bishop or cleric has a lawsuit with a metropolitan, let them turn to the exarch of the diocese [143] or the throne of the reigning Constantinople, and let the case be considered there. Rule of Carthage. 28 determines that if presbyters and deacons are accused, the presbyters must elect six bishops from the surrounding area, and the deacons - three, and together with them, let their own bishop of the accused consider their case. They themselves should be given a two-month sentence, and their accusers should be tried, as with the accusation of a bishop. The rest of the clergy are judged by the local bishop alone. But the bishop alone judges neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor deacons, according to Carthage. 118. And the rule of Carthage. 87 says: if the clergy who are facing any charge do not prove their innocence within a year, then their acquittal will not be accepted subsequently. Rule of Carthage. 115 states: if a cleric, having a dispute with someone, asks the emperor for a civil court, and not an episcopal one, then he is ejected. In the 123rd short story, which is in the 3rd book. “Basilik” (tit. 1, ch. 35), Justinian orders that anyone who has a lawsuit with a cleric, or a monk, or a deaconess, or a nun, or a hermit, must first present the case to the bishop, to whom the defendants are subordinate, and if both parties are satisfied with the decision of the bishop, then the official (if there is a need) must carry out his sentence. In the same story, in ch. 36, Justinian says that officials cannot take any part in church affairs, but, according to the rules, it is decided by the bishops alone. Ch. 8 of the same novella decides that when a bishop is accused, his metropolitan must investigate the case; when a metropolitan is accused, his case must be investigated by the archbishop to whom he is subordinate; and when a presbyter, or a deacon, or a cleric, or an abbot, or a monk is accused, the charges against them are examined by their bishop and, in accordance with the sin of each, he imposes penances corresponding to the rules of penance. Read also the Apostle. 74 and I Omni. 6. A cleric is not allowed to be registered in the churches of two cities at the same time: in the one to which he was originally ordained, and in the one to which he transferred out of a desire for vain glory, because this church is supposedly larger. And those who do this should be returned precisely to the church to which they were originally ordained, and only there should they serve. But if someone has already been transferred from one church to another, then he should not receive any part of the property of the previous church, that is, from the martyrdom churches, or almshouses, or hospice houses dependent on it. And those who, after the determination of this great Ecumenical Council, dared to do anything that is now prohibited, the Holy Council determined to depose them from their degree. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Oz. 5, 20; VI Oz. 17, 18; VII Oz. 15; Antioch. 3; Carthage. 63, 98; Sardik. 15, 16, 19.) This rule determines that a cleric is not allowed to be registered at the same time in the churches of two cities (or even one city, according to VII Ecumenical 15), namely in the one where he was originally ordained, and in the other, to which he later transferred, as to a larger one, out of vanity and greed. Those who commit this inappropriate act after this rule should be returned to their former church to which they were ordained, and let them only perform the ministry of their rank there. But if someone has already been transferred from one church to another and remains in it, then he should no longer receive any support from the property of the previous church, that is, from hospice houses, almshouses and martyrdom churches. Those who dared to do anything like this after this rule of the great Council should be thrown out. Novella 16, placed in 3rd title. 3rd book. “Basilik” prescribes that in the event of the death of a clergyman of any church, not to immediately ordain another there, but, if in other churches there are more than the designated number of clergy, to take one of them and fill the number of missing clergy until in each church the number of clergy reaches the initially determined number. We have determined that all the poor and those in need of help, upon verification of their poverty, must travel only with peaceful church charters, and not with representative ones. For letters of representation should only be given to persons under suspicion. (Apost. 12, 33; IV Om. 13; VI Om. 17; Antioch. 7, 8, 11; Laodice. 41, 42; Sardik. 7, 8; Carthage. 31, 97, 116.) All those who are poor and in need of help, as defined by this rule, must first be tested whether they really need help, and after that they must receive small letters from the bishops. These letters were called “peace letters” for the reason that they brought peace to those who suffered from the anger and unfair decisions of officials and rulers (these letters of release were also called). But they should not also receive letters of representation, because the latter should be given mainly to those persons whose reputation has previously been discredited. These representative letters advise them and declare their innocence [144]. Read also the interpretation and notes. 2 to Apost. 12. It has come to our attention that some, contrary to church decrees, resorted to the authorities and, with the help of pragmatic sanctions, cut the single metropolitan region into two, which is why there were two metropolitans in one region. Therefore, the Holy Council determined that henceforth the bishop should not dare to do anything like this, for anyone who attempts to do so will be deposed from his position. And those cities that, according to the royal charters, are already honored with the names of metropolises, let them be content only with honor, as well as the bishop who governs the Church of this city, while preserving his own rights of a true metropolis. (I Omni. 8; Apost. 34; I Om. 6, 7; II Om. 2, 3; IV Om. 28; VI Om. 36, 39; III Om. 8.) Some power-hungry bishops, turning to the emperors, asked to honor their bishoprics by naming metropolises through royal decrees (for these are the pragmatic sanctions that the rule speaks of here) and divided a single metropolitan region into two. Thus, two metropolitans found themselves in the same metropolitan region (which contradicts the conciliar rules, and especially I Ecumenical 8), and hence disagreements arose between the bishops of this metropolitan region 145. For this reason, the Holy Council decreed that in future no bishop should dare to do this. And anyone who undertakes something like this, even if he does not carry out his plan, must be ejected. Cities and bishoprics, which until now have already been honored by royal charters with the names of metropolises, let them only have the honor befitting this name, as well as their bishop. And the rights and authority over the affairs of the metropolitan region must be retained by the real metropolis, which bears this name truly and originally 146; the new metropolitan, so called only out of respect, cannot arrogate to himself any of these rights. The right of a true metropolitanate in the proper sense consists in the fact that its metropolitan ordains the bishop of the metropolitanate, which is given the honor of being so called, in accordance with the rule of I Omni. 6, which says that he is not a bishop who became one without the permission of the metropolitan. Foreign clergy and readers in another city, without letters of representation from their bishop, should not serve in any way anywhere. This rule determines that foreign clergy and readers do not have the right to perform the ministry of their degree in another city without representative letters testifying to their ordination, Orthodoxy and past life, but are accepted into communion there as laymen. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 12, 15 along with a number of parallel rules, since there was not enough space to list them all near this rule 147. Since in some metropolitan regions readers and singers are allowed to marry, the Holy Council decided not to allow any of them to take a non-Orthodox wife. Those who have children from such a marriage, if they have already baptized them with heretics, must bring them into communion with the Catholic Church, and those who have not baptized children can no longer baptize them with heretics, nor marry them with a heretic, Jew or pagan, unless the person marrying the Orthodox promises to convert to the Orthodox faith. If anyone violates this definition of the Holy Council, let him be subject to penance according to the rules. (Apost. 26; VI Ose. 6, 72; Laodice. 10, 31; Carthage. 19, 29, 33.) Despite the fact that the rule of Apost. 26 allows readers and singers after consecration to marry if they wish; from this rule it becomes clear that this was not allowed everywhere (most likely, it was allowed in Africa, according to the 19th rule of the African Council 148). So, this Holy Council determines that in those areas where this is permitted, no reader or singer should be allowed to take a heterodox wife. And those who already have children from this illegal marriage must bring them to the Catholic Church. If they baptized them with heretical baptism, then in the case when this heretical baptism does not differ from Orthodox baptism in substance and image, but is accepted by the Catholic Church, they should only be anointed with chrism, according to Zonara (however, it is more correct and correct to baptize them, because the baptism of all heretics is desecration, and not baptism. Read also the interpretation of Apostle 46, 47, 68). But if baptism is not accepted, they should be baptized again. If the children have not yet been baptized, they can no longer be baptized with heretical baptism, nor can they be married to a heretic, that is, to a Jew or pagan, in other words, to an infidel and an idolater. If the heretic promises to become an Orthodox Christian, then let him first fulfill the promise, and then let the marriage take place. Anyone who transgresses these definitions is subject to canonical penances (meaning the penances of the above apostolic canons). Likewise Laodice. 31 commands that Christians should not give their children to heretics, but rather take their children if they promise to become Christians. Rule of Laodice. 10 prohibits church people from marrying their children with heretics. Carthage also prescribes the same thing. 29, and rule VI Omni. 72 even deprives of legal force the marriage that is concluded not only by a cleric, but in general by any Orthodox Christian or Christian woman with a heretic. If at first both spouses were heretics, but later one of them was baptized, and at the same time they do not want to be separated, let them not be separated, according to this rule and the words of St. Paul 149. However, the same Paul prohibits marriage with unbelievers, saying: Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). Read also the Apostle. 26[150]. A woman must be no younger than forty years old to become a deaconesses, but even such a woman must be appointed after a thorough test. If, after accepting consecration and spending some time in ministry, she marries, offending the grace of God, let her be anathematized along with the one who married her. (I Om. 19; VI Om. 14, 40; St. Basil the Great. 44.) Because women are easily tempted and fall, this rule prescribes that they should not be ordained as deaconesses before the age of forty. However, even a forty-year-old should be ordained not simply and randomly, but after a thorough examination of her previous life and behavior. But if someone who was ordained in the manner described and served for some time as a deaconess then neglects the grace of God and gets married, then she is anathematized along with the man who took her as his wife. Armenopulus says (book 6, tit. 3) that those who seduced deaconesses and nuns into fornication should have their noses cut off, as well as those seduced themselves. See also interpretation of I Omni. 19 and note. 3 to him. A virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, and likewise monastics, are not allowed to marry. If there are still those who do such things, let them be deprived of fellowship. However, we have determined that the local bishop has full power to show them philanthropy. (IV Omni. 7; VI Om. 44; Carthage. 19; Basil the Great. 6, 18–20, 60.) In ancient times, some women in secular attire dedicated themselves to God, as is clear from Canon VI of Omni. 45, and they vowed to remain in virginity, mastering their thoughts. After they were tested to see whether they would remain in their vow, they were numbered among the other virgins (for such is called a virgin, according to St. Basil the Great. 18). In addition, according to VI Omni. 45, they were dressed in black clothes. Consequently, the present rule determines that these virgins, as well as monks, who either show by silence that they accept celibacy, or, when asked, take a vow to remain in virginity, according to Basil the Great. 19, it is not permissible for people to marry and break the promises and vows they have made to God. After all, if those agreements that people enter into with each other are confirmed through the name of God, as Gregory the Theologian says, then how dangerous is it to turn out to be criminals of those agreements that they entered into with God directly? And if, according to the words of the great Basil (Ascetic Statutes, 21), a monk, having brought as if some kind of fruit and dedicated his body to God, no longer disposes of it as an offering dedicated to God, and it is unfair for him to use it to serve his relatives 151 - then all the more he cannot use it for the sake of carnal mixing [152]. If it turns out that some are doing this, they should be excommunicated. But let the local bishop have the power to show them philanthropy, that is, either to soften the penance or to shorten its duration; however, not at a time when the cohabitation has not yet been dissolved, but after those united have separated. After all, according to Basil the Great (rules 6, 18), what happened is fornication, or, better said, adultery, and not marriage. Village or rural parishes in each region must remain invariably with the bishops who own them, and especially if they have held them for 30 years without using force. If during these 30 years any dispute has occurred or will occur because of these parishes, then those who say that they were treated unfairly regarding the parishes are allowed to initiate a case before the Council of the metropolitan region. If someone is treated unfairly by his own metropolitan, let him be sued by the exarch of the diocese or before the throne of Constantinople, as was said about this earlier. But if a city was founded by royal authority or will be founded later, then the distribution of church parishes should follow civil and state decrees. (Apost. 74; I Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 21; Antioch. 14, 15; Carthage. 8, 12, 14–16, 27, 28, 36, 87, 96, 105, 115, 118, 128–130, 137–139; VI Ose. 25, 38.) Village parishes were small parishes that were located in remote places on the outskirts and had a small number of inhabitants. They were called single-yard ones. Rural parishes were located near estates and villages and had more inhabitants. So, the present rule commands that these parishes of each region invariably remain inalienable and inalienable from the bishops who own them, and especially if for 30 years they have had them in their power legally and without the use of violence, that is, if they have not forced anyone and have not stolen these parishes on an illegal basis [153]. But if over the course of 30 years any disagreement has occurred regarding these parishes or after the publication of this rule, then those who say that they were treated unfairly regarding the parishes are allowed to consider their case before the Council of the metropolitan region. If his metropolitan treats someone unfairly on this matter, let him consider his case before the exarch, i.e., the head of the diocese (however, this degree was abolished after this IV Council, as we said in note 143 (to the 9th canon of this Council)), or before the Throne of Constantinople, as was said about this earlier. If, before the present time, any city was founded by the royal power or will be founded subsequently, then the neighboring bishop should not seek to subordinate it to himself as his parish, since the order of the parishes of that Church should follow the civil laws and regulations that the emperor will make in relation to the newly built city, and not vice versa [154]. Pay attention to the fact that the VI Ecumenical Council, dividing this rule in two, makes the first part - from the beginning to the words “before the Council of the Metropolitan Region” its 25th rule, and from the words “if by royal authority” to the end - the 38th rule. Rule of Carthage. 129 determines that if any bishop converts the place where heretics live to Orthodoxy and holds it for three years, and the one who is supposed to defend it does not do this, this place should no longer be demanded from the one who held it. Canon 128 says that heretics who have turned to the unity of the Catholic Church must submit to the throne to which the Catholic society of the Orthodox, located there from ancient times, also obeyed. Also, canon 130 says that if someone, considering himself a people belonging to another, takes possession of it, without having the letters of the bishop to whom this place belongs, and without asking the Council, but by attacking as a ruler, then he must lose this people, even if the people belonged to him and even if the invader says that he had letters from the leading bishop. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 74, I Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. Conspiracy or the formation of secret societies, as a crime, is completely prohibited by external laws, all the more so it should be prohibited from being in the Church of God. So, if it turns out that any clergy or monastics are conspiring, or forming secret societies, or plotting intrigues against bishops or fellow clerics [155], let them be completely deprived of their rank. (Apost. 31; VI Om. 34; Carthage. 10, 62; Gangr. 6; Antioch. 5; Dvukrat. 13–15.) The conspiracy is that some people unite with each other, taking oaths; and the formation of secret societies is that they unite by mutual consent, deciding not to abandon what they have planned against anyone until they carry it out. As Saint Luke narrates in Acts, the conspiracy was hatched by those Jews who, having conspired against Paul, swore not to eat or drink until they killed Paul (Acts 23:21). So, the present rule says that conspiracy and the formation of secret societies, as a crime, even by the civil laws of both the pagan Hellenes [156] and the Orthodox emperors who adopted most of the laws from the Hellenes [157], are completely prohibited. It is much more necessary to prohibit such things in the Church of God. Therefore, if it is discovered that clergy or monks are forming a conspiracy or secret society or plotting something else cruel and crafty (for this means the expression “to plot” (τυρεύοντες κατασκευήν), according to what is written: Hardened (ἐτυρώθη) like milk, the heart them (Ps. 119:70), that is, “hardened, became hard as cheese”) against their bishops and fellow clerics, let them be cast out. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 31. It has come to our attention that in metropolitan areas there are no councils of bishops established by the rules, and as a result, many of the church affairs that require correction remain neglected. Therefore, the Holy Council determined, in accordance with the rules of the holy fathers, that twice a year the bishops in each metropolitan region should gather in one place, in which the bishop of the metropolitan area deems it necessary, and resolve all issues that arise. And the bishops who do not come, although they live in their cities and, moreover, are in health and free from any urgent and necessary business, should be subject to fraternal censure. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carthage. 26, 81, 84, 85, 104.) Since the Councils established by the rules, which should be held twice a year, did not meet and as a result many church affairs requiring correction were neglected, this rule determines that the bishops in each metropolitan region should meet twice a year where the metropolitan deems it convenient, and put in order the affairs that arise from time to time. And those bishops who, being healthy and free from all necessary care, do not come, let them receive fraternal admonition. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 37. Clerics assigned to the church are not allowed, as we have already decided, to be assigned to a church in another city, but should be content with the one in which they were initially honored to serve, with the exception of those who, having lost their fatherland, of necessity moved to another church. If, after this determination, any bishop accepts a clergyman who is subordinate to another bishop, then we have decided that both the accepted one and the one who accepted him will be alien to communion until the transferred cleric returns to his church. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 23; VI Om. 17, 18; VII Om. 15; Antioch. 3; Carthage. 63, 98; Sardik. 15, 16, 18.) Clerics (as stated above in the 8th canon) belonging to one church are not allowed to move to the church of another city - they must remain in the one to which they were originally assigned to serve, with the exception of only those who moved to another church because they fled from their fatherland due to some necessity or, for example, because of the invasion of the barbarians (but they should also return to their church after the invasion of the barbarians has passed, according to VI Ecumenical 18). If, after the publication of this rule, any bishop accepts a clergyman of another bishop, let both the one who accepted and the one accepted be excommunicated from communication with his fellow bishops and co-clerics until the foreign cleric returns to his church. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 15. Clerics or laymen who accuse bishops or clergy should not be allowed to face accusations simply and without trial, unless their reputation has first been examined. (Apost. 74; II Ev. 6; Carthage. 8, 27, 137–139.) This rule determines that those clergy or laity who accuse bishops and clerics not in a property or private matter, but in a case of an ecclesiastical crime, are not allowed to be accused simply and without verification, unless their reputation is first examined whether it is impeccable and irreproachable. See also Apost. 74 and II Omni. 6. After the death of their bishop, clergy are not allowed to steal things that belonged to him, just as this is prohibited by ancient rules [158]. Those who do this risk losing their degree. (Apost. 40; Antioch. 24; VI Ecum. 35; Carthage. 30, 89.) Clergy, says this rule, should not, after the death of their bishop, plunder his things, as the ancient rules prohibit this (for example, Apostle 40 and Antiochus 24). Those who do this expose themselves to the danger of losing their degree and dignity. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 40. It came to the ears of the Holy Council that some clergy and monastics, without any instructions from their bishop, and sometimes even being deprived of communication with him, come to the reigning Constantinople, live in it for a long time, causing unrest and disordering the church structure, and, in addition, upsetting the homes of some. Therefore, the Holy Council determined first to remind such people through the ekdik of the most holy Church of Constantinople that they must leave the reigning city. If they shamelessly continue these things, then against their will they should be expelled through the same ekdik and returned to their places. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 20; VI Om. 17, 18; VII Om. 15; Antioch. 3; Carthage. 63, 98; Sardik. 15, 16, 18.) This Council also learned that some clergy and monks, although they do not have any ecclesiastical powers - for their own bishop did not recognize them as worthy - and often being excommunicated by him, come to Constantinople and, living there for a long time, create confusion in the church structure and upset the homes of the Christians who received them or their fellow clergy who imitate them. Therefore, in the present rule, the Council determines that they must first be informed through the church ecdica that they must peacefully leave Constantinople. And if they shamelessly continue the same things, they must be expelled, despite their wishes, with the help of the same ekdik and returned to their places. Who is an ekdik - look in the notes. 134 (to IV Universe 2). Monasteries, once consecrated by the will of the bishop, must always remain monasteries and preserve the things belonging to them and henceforth not be secular dwellings for them. Those who allow this should be subject to penance according to the rules. (IV Omni. 4; VI Om. 49; VII Om. 12, 19; Double. 1; Cyril Alexander. 2.) This rule determines that all monasteries that were previously once consecrated with the knowledge and permission of the local bishop (as we previously said in the 4th rule of this Council, which you will find), must always remain monasteries and henceforth no longer become ordinary secular dwellings. Likewise, all property of monasteries, movable and immovable, must be kept inalienable and inviolable. Those who, although they themselves do not turn them into worldly dwellings and do not take away their property, but give permission to others to do this, are subject to penances according to the rules. What kind of penances are these? Those that the VII Ecumenical Council indicates in its 13th canon: eruption for clergy and excommunication for monks and laity who have plundered monasteries and bishoprics, turned them into ordinary dwellings and do not want to return them, so that they again become sacred as before. In the 49th rule of the VI Ecumenical Council not only prescribes that monasteries should not be turned into ordinary secular dwellings, but also prohibits giving them to lay people so that they can dominate and manage the monasteries. And VII Omni. 12 prohibits the abbot from alienating the lands and property of the monastery. And the 19th rule of the same Council does not allow a monk to take away things that he gave to his monastery if he voluntarily leaves it. And the rule of Kirill Alexander. 2 requires that utensils and estates remain inalienable from the churches to which they belong [159]. Since some of the metropolitans, as we know, neglect the flocks entrusted to them and postpone the consecrations of bishops, the Holy Council decided that the consecrations of bishops should be carried out within three months, unless inevitable necessity forces the time of postponement to be extended. If he [160] does not do this, then he is subject to church penances. At the same time, let the income of the dowager Church be preserved intact by the steward of this Church. (Apost. 58; VI Ose. 19; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11, 12; Carthage. 79, 82, 86, 131–133; Petra Alexander. 10.) This rule determines that metropolitans should not neglect their flocks and postpone the consecration of bishops subordinate to them, but after the death of a bishop, they must, within three months, ordain another bishop to the dowager episcopal region. The only exception is the case when some urgent need forces the extension of the delay (for example, if the episcopal region was captured by barbarians or some other disaster occurred in it, and therefore it is impossible to go there). The metropolitan who neglects this is subject to penance according to the rules. The steward must keep the income from the property of the episcopacy intact and inviolable until he transfers it to the one who will be ordained. Since in some churches, as we have learned, bishops manage church property without economists, it was decided that every church that has a bishop should also have an economist from its clergy, who manages church property at the will of his bishop: so that the administration of the church is not without witnesses and because of this the property of this church is not wasted, and the priesthood is not subjected to reproach. If anyone does not fulfill this, then he is subject to the judgment of divine rules. (Apost. 38, 41; VII Om. 11, 12; Antioch. 24, 25; Dvukrat. 7; Carthage. 34, 41; Gangr. 7; Ankyra. 15; Theophilus Alexander. 10; Cyril Alexander. 2.) Since, as this rule says, we have learned that in some episcopal regions bishops manage the property of the church without economists, on their own and as they wish, it seemed necessary that the bishop of each church should have an economist (not from among his household servants or relatives, but from among his clergy), who manages the property of the church according to the will of his bishop - so that it does not remain untested where, how and when church income is spent, and so that in this way the bishop does not give reason to the people suspect him of wasting them in vain. Let a bishop who acts contrary to this rule be subject to punishment according to divine rules. Just as a bishop must have a steward over church property, so the abbot must have a steward over monastic property [161]. Read also the Apostle. 38, 41. Those who kidnap women [ 162 ] under the pretext of marriage, or help the kidnappers, or abet them, the Holy Council determined, if they are clerics, to deprive them of their degree, and if they are laymen, to anathematize them. (VI Om. 92; Ankyr. 11; Basil the Great. 22, 30, 38, 42, 53.) For those who kidnap women in order to take them into marriage, this rule imposes a more severe penance than other rules regarding wife kidnapping. For it casts out not only the kidnappers, but also those who took part in such a kidnapping and assisted with advice, if they are clergy, and if they are laymen, it anathematizes [ 163 ], and rightly so. After all, the kidnapper can refer to the fact that he is prompted to do this by an obscene passion for women, and the accomplices and advisers to this outrageous act are not prompted by anything other than their evil will [164]. Following in everything the definitions of the holy fathers and recognizing the just read rule of the 150 most God-loving bishops who gathered during the reign of the pious memory of Emperor Theodosius the Great in the reigning Constantinople, the new Rome, we also determine and decree the same about the advantages of the Holy Church of the same Constantinople, the new Rome. For the fathers justly gave advantages to the throne of ancient Rome, since that city was reigning. Following the same impulse, 150 most God-loving bishops endowed the most holy see of new Rome with equal advantages, prudently judging that the city, awarded the honor of being the city of the emperor and synclit and enjoying equal advantages with the old royal Rome, would be exalted like it in ecclesiastical affairs, being second after it. And therefore only the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian dioceses, as well as the bishops of the mentioned dioceses among the barbarians, are ordained by the above-mentioned most holy see of the most holy Church of Constantinople. This means that each metropolitan of the above-mentioned dioceses with the bishops of his metropolitan area ordains diocesan bishops, as prescribed by divine rules. And the metropolitans of the above-mentioned dioceses are ordained, as stated, by the Archbishop of Constantinople after, according to custom, a unanimous election takes place and its result is presented to him. (Apost. 34; II Ev. 3; VI Ev. 36.) At this IV Ecumenical Council, Rule II Ecumenical was read. 3, which determines that the primate of Constantinople should have primacy of honor after the Roman one, since Constantinople is the new Rome. Therefore, the fathers of the Council, by this rule, renew and confirm the said rule and make the same determination and decree regarding the advantages of Constantinople, the new Rome. For, they say, just as the fathers rightly granted to the throne of old Rome the privileges of being called first among the other patriarchs, since it was the city of the emperor, so to the most holy see of new Rome, that is, Constantinople [165], 150 most God-loving bishops of the Second Ecumenical Council, having the same goal, granted equal and no different privileges honor. They considered that it was fair for this city, since it, like Rome, was awarded the honor of being the city of the emperor and synclit, to receive, like it, equal privileges and to have equally great importance in church affairs, with the only difference that the old Rome should be first in order, and the new Rome second. In addition to this, we determine and decree that the above-mentioned Holy See of Constantinople shall appoint only metropolitans, and not bishops subordinate to metropolitans, for each of such bishops is appointed by his metropolitan with the bishops of the metropolitan region, as determined by the divine rules, and in particular I Omni. 6. We also determine that not only metropolitans of the mentioned dioceses will be supplied, but also bishops for the barbarian countries that are located in the vicinity of these dioceses. For example, the so-called Alans lived on the border with the diocese of Pontus, and the Rosses lived on the border with the diocese of Thrace. However, let the said metropolitans not be appointed by the Archbishop of Constantinople by his own will and choice. Let the Council constituted by them carry out the election and present its outcome, according to custom, to the Archbishop of Constantinople, who must ordain one from among those who were unanimously elected by all or the majority of those who elected [166]. Relegating a bishop to the rank of presbyter is sacrilege. If some just reason removes him from episcopal action, then he should not occupy a presbyteral place. But if he was removed from his dignity without any guilt, then let him be restored to the episcopal dignity. In the 4th act of the present IV Council it is written (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 150) that the Tire bishop. Photius (or, according to other sources, Eusebius of Tire, but the former is more correct) reported to Emperor Marcian that Eustathius, bishop. Beritsky, tore away from Tire various episcopal regions: Byblos, Vostra, Tripoli, Orthosiada, Acre and Antharas, and deposed the bishops appointed by Photius, and demoted them to the presbytery degree. So, a synclite of dignitaries reported this matter to the Council, and, responding to this report, both the papal legates and the Archbishop of Constantinople with the entire Council issued this rule, saying that the reduction of a bishop to the degree and place of presbyter is blasphemy. In fact, if someone is deposed and deprived of the actions of a bishop for any crimes, then he cannot be a priest or perform the actions of a priest. But if he was deprived of the bishopric without any guilt preventing him from serving, then, as having been unjustly deprived of his dignity, in all fairness he should receive his place back and become a bishop again. Zonara says that the unjust reduction of a bishop to the presbytery degree is greater than sacrilege, since it is not some sacred thing that is stolen, but that which is greater than the sacred thing. For through the bishop's calling, churches and sacred things are dedicated and sanctified by the influx of the Holy Spirit. And that which sanctifies, of course, is greater than that which is sanctified. Resolving the confusion as to why this rule prohibits such actions, and VI Omni. 20 deposes to a presbyteral place a bishop who teaches outside the boundaries of his district without the knowledge of the local bishop - see Apostle. 35. Since the most reverent bishops of Egypt have postponed the signing of the message of the most reverend Archbishop. Leo, not because they opposed the Catholic faith, but because, according to them, it is the custom in the Egyptian diocese not to do anything like this without the will and decree of the archbishop, and since they ask to be given a respite until the installation of a future bishop of the great city of Alexandria, it seemed fair and philanthropic to us to grant them, who are in their rank in the reigning city, this respite until the installation of an archbishop of the great city of Alexandria. So, let them give a guarantee that they will not leave this city until the city of Alexandria receives a bishop. In the 4th act of this Council it is written that 10 (or, according to other sources, 13) bishops of Dioscorus of Alexandria after his eruption, although they anathematized Eutyches and Dioscorus himself with their teachings, did not agree to sign the epistle of St. Leo of Rome, which he sent to St. Flavian of Constantinople (this letter was even called the stronghold of Orthodoxy, as we said, because it contained the entire teaching of the Orthodox faith). True, they did not agree because they rebelled against the Orthodox dogmas contained in it, but because, as they said, it was a custom in the diocese of the Archbishop of Alexandria that its bishops did not perform a single action without his knowledge [167]. However, the bishops of the Council did not believe their words, but, suspecting them of heresy, demanded their eruption. The dignitaries and the Synclite, who were philanthropic towards them, proposed to the Council not to cast them out, but to allow them to remain so, i.e. non-erected, in the reigning city, appointing the duration of this stay until the installation of another archbishop of Alexandria (for Dioscorus of Alexandria, as we said, was deposed before this). And the Council, following the will of the dignitaries, determined for them to remain so and to present guarantors that they would not leave Constantinople until the installation of the bishop of Alexandria, who became Apollinaris (he was replaced by Proterius), ordained after Dioscorus (Synodikon. Vol. 2. p. 241) [168]. See also Apost. 20, 34. Marcian was the son-in-law of Theodosius the Younger, the husband of his sister Pulcheria. He took her as his wife, but did not enter into marital relations with her: she remained a virgin until her death, according to Evagrius (Church History. Book 2, Chapter 1) (PG 86b, 2489B). Both Marcian and Pulcheria took care together to convene this Council. The two of them also attended the sixth meeting of the Council and sat on thrones in front of the altar barrier. After all, if the nature of Christ were one, then it would be fitting for it to be either Divine or human, or neither Divine nor human, but different from both. However, if it were Divine, then where is the human? And if human, then don’t those who say this deny the Divinity? If different from both, then does not Christ become of a different nature than the nature of the Father, and different from the nature of people? But what could be more wicked and more insane than to believe that God the Word became man in order to destroy both His Divinity and perceived humanity? This is what Photius says, opposing the wickedness of the Monophysites, which they showed at the Fourth Council. This is the message of St. Leo (whose memory the Church celebrates on February 18) wrote to St. Flavian of Constantinople against the Monophysites. They say that after Leo composed the message, he placed it on the tomb of St. ap. Peter and with fasting, vigil and prayer begged the apostle to correct the letter if there was any error in it. The Apostle appeared to him and said: “I have corrected him.” An excerpt from this epistle, containing a precise and sublime theology about the two natures and one hypostasis of Christ, literally reads like this: “Both forms act in communion with the other, as is characteristic of each: the Word does what is proper to the Word, and the body does what is proper to the body. One of them shines with miracles, the other has been desecrated. Just as the Word is inseparable from the glory of the Father, so the body has not lost the nature of our race. For one and the same is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of Man. God, because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1), and man, because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)” (ACO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 1, 14. 27–15. 6). That is why, after reading this message at the present Council, the fathers exclaimed: “This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! Peter proclaimed this through Leo” (Ibid. // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 81. 24, 26). For this reason, the message was even called a stronghold of Orthodoxy. Sophronius of Jerusalem also writes about this message: bishop. Theodore (whose episcopal region was in Libya), being the cuvicular of the Alexandrian Patriarch Eulogius, saw in a dream a tall man who evoked great respect and reverence. This man told him: “Inform Patriarch Eulogius that Pope Leo has come to meet him.” Theodore immediately ran to the patriarch and told him what he had said. And so, having met, they greeted each other, and after a little Leo said to Eulogius: “Do you know why I came? I came to thank you for understanding my message very well and defending it. Now know that you have shown great benefit not only to me, but also to Supreme Peter.” Having said this, he became invisible. In the morning, Theodore told Eulogius about this, and he with tears thanked God, who had made him a preacher of the truth (Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 527). The named Eulogius lived under the Emperor of Mauritius. But since the papists, on the basis of this epistle, come to the wrong conclusion that the pope has the supreme power in the universe and in Councils, we answer as follows. Firstly, although this message is truly and without any doubt Orthodox, it was adopted by this Council for a reason, but was first subjected to a test: is it in accordance with the Symbol of the First and Second Councils and with the acts of the Third Council under Cyril - and after its consent was confirmed, it was signed by the bishops at the 4th meeting of this Council. Secondly, just as this message was called the pillar of Orthodoxy at the IV Council, so at the VII Council the letters sent by the eastern bishops to Tarasius were called the pillar of piety, and the message of Tarasius to the East was called the oros of Orthodoxy (4th act of the VII Council); and the stronghold of Orthodoxy, the pillar of piety and the oros of Orthodoxy are one and the same thing. It is hardly necessary to say that the epistle of Leo was called not just a stronghold, but one of the strongholds of Orthodoxy, since there are other strongholds of Orthodoxy, and the epistle of Tarasius is simply the oros of Orthodoxy, and the letters of the East are simply a pillar of piety. Thirdly, both after reading the Epistle of Leo, the Council said: “This is the faith of the fathers,” and after reading the acts of the First and Second Councils, it exclaimed: “This is the faith of the Orthodox, so we all believe” (ASO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 79. 27–28). When Cyril’s message was read, the Council said: “Leo and Anatoly believe so, and we believe so. Kirill believes so, eternal memory to Kirill” (Ibid. // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 81. 9–11). I will also add that after reading Leo’s message, the Council added the following: “Cyril believed so. Dad interpreted it that way.” And again: “Lion taught. Kirill taught me this. Lev and Kirill taught the same way” (ASO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 81. 27–28). And, fourthly, the last thing: the Third Council made Cyril’s letter to Nestorius its oros (see. also in the preface to the III Ecumenical), but the IV Council did not accept the message of Leo as its own oros and, despite the fact that the legates of the Pope made every effort to do so, answered: “There will be no other oros” (Ibid. // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 124. 24). Oros approved this message, but from it the only thing that was brought into the oros was that in Christ the two natures are united inseparably and unfused. Thus, on the basis of all that has been said, the imaginary monarchical dignity of the pope is overthrown and it is proven that the pope, even if he thinks Orthodoxy, is subject to trial and testing by the Ecumenical Council, which is the last judge in the Church. See the notes about this. 1 to the preface I Omni. It seemed to me regrettable not to cite here, for the sake of a more precise understanding of the words about the immutably and unfused natures united in Christ, the interpretation of Theodore, presbyter of Raifa, placed in the “Library of the Fathers” - a truly and highly theological interpretation (Dositheus. Twelve Books. p. 469). It reads: “The Orthodox profess two natures, essentially united in hypostatic unity, inseparably and unfused (interpretation of oros). The expression “two natures” indicates the otherness and otherness of the two united natures: the perceived Divinity and the perceived humanity; and “essentially” means that they coexist and are united not by good will, that is, not by grace, or energy, or dignity, or equivalence, or relation, or connection, or force, or any other relative unity (as Nestorius said), but they exist in one and the same being, which is the subject of the thing. And the expression “in hypostatic unity” indicates that humanity was not first formed and the Divinity had already come to it, but from the very beginning of its existence, humanity was united with the Divinity (for as soon as flesh and blood were formed, it was the flesh of the Word of God, according to another theologian). “Inseparable” and at the same time “unmerged” means that the united natures have not changed into new ones through unification, but their connection is always preserved in the same way, and none of the natures is diminished, preserving the limits and meaning of its essence” (Theod. Rhait. Praeparatio // PG 91, 1492AC). Consequently, from this interpretation we learn that when the fathers call the union of two natures in Christ a union by nature and natural, then by the name “natural” they do not mean that in Christ the union of humanity took place in nature and by nature - not at all! (After all, if this were so, then, consequently, one complex nature should have been composed of two natures; but this was the wicked opinion of the Monophysites, and not the Orthodox opinion of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the two natures of Christ are united not by nature or in nature, but by hypostasis and in the hypostasis of the Word of God. Therefore, the hypostasis of Christ, composed of two natures, divinity and humanity, is one.) The names “natural” and “by nature” the fathers show that this union occurred truly and truly, as interpreted by the mentioned Theodore of Raifa and, in particular, in the best possible way by the divine Cyril of Alexandria, the loud interpreter of this ineffable and incomprehensible union. He said in the 3rd anathematism: “Whoever in the One Christ, after the union, separates the Hypostases (i.e., existing and present, or real natures. - St. H.), pairing them only with a connection according to dignity, that is, according to will or strength, and not as it should have been - according to a natural union: let him be anathema" (Cyr. Alex. Explic. 12 capit. 3 // PG 76, 300V). So, having said this, he interprets both in the explanation of this anathematism (Ibid. // PG 76, 300C), and in responses to the objections of the “eastern” ( Cyr. Alex. Pro 12 capit. contr. orient. 3 // PG 76, 332B), and in responses to the refutations of Theodoret ( Idem. Pro 12 capit. contr. Theodoret. 3 // PG 76, 405C, 408B) - simultaneously in three places - that the expression "natural union" which he used indicates a true and actual union. As an example, he cites the well-known apostolic saying: And they were by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) - instead of “truly children of wrath.” But some other theologians explain that the expression “natural union” is used instead of “hypostatic union”, since hypostasis by theologians and philosophers, and mainly by the VII Council in its 6th Act, is defined as essence and nature with its properties. ASO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 129. 23–130. 3. Flavian's death from beatings is, apparently, an exaggeration by later Byzantine chroniclers. Flavian himself, in his appeal to Pope Leo, speaks only of threats and shouts, without mentioning beatings. – Ed. ASO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 3, 9. 27–29. Note that Eutyches sometimes said that the flesh of the Lord is not consubstantial with either the Mother or us, and sometimes that before the union in Christ there were two natures, and after the union there was one. On this basis, he said that Christ is of two natures (i.e., before the union), but not in two natures (i.e., after the union), which is why the Council of Chalcedon, in its oros cited above, said that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity. From the Monophysite Eutyches, like from some kind of multi-headed hydra, many heresies subsequently grew. For example, the theopaschites, who said: “Holy Immortal, crucified for us,” which was started by Peter Gnafevs (see about him VI Omni. 81), because, according to the Monophysites, humanity was transformed into the Divine. Consequently, the entire Holy Trinity suffered - why, Lord, have mercy on us! - since the nature of the Divine is one. Thus, these madmen shot the arrow of their blasphemy at the Holy Trinity, sung in the Trisagion Song. The Sevirians grew from the Monophysites, from the monk Sevirus, who became the bishop of Antioch. From them came the Jacobites, from a certain Syrian Jacob, a man of low origin, called Zanzal or Dzandzal, who became the head of the Armenian heresy. From the Jacobites - Guyanites. Guyan followed the heresy of Julian, bishop. Halicarnassus, and was ordained bishop of Alexandria by him. They claimed that Christ was completely dispassionate (ἀπαθής), for which they were nicknamed Apatites, while Damascus calls them Egyptians (Ioan. Damasc. De haer. 83 // PG 94, 741A), and from them the Copts originated. From the root of the Monophysites, the heresy of the Monothelites later grew. After all, if, according to the teachings of the Monophysites, there was one nature in Christ, then, consequently, this one nature must also have one will. From them came the Agnoites, whose head was Themistius. They said that Christ did not know the day of judgment; according to Damascus, these heretics broke away from the Theodosian Monophysites (Ibid. 85 // PG 94, 756B). From them came the tritheists, who said that in the Holy Trinity there is both a common essence and nature, and private ones, like three people. Their leader was John Philoponus of Alexandria. All Monophysites were called in one word - acephalians, or because they separated from Peter Mong, Patriarch of Alexandria, for the reason that he did not openly anathematize the IV Council, according to Leontius (Leont. Byz. De sectis 5.3 // PG 86a, 1229AB); or because they organized various illegal meetings, performed baptism separately, and also introduced other innovations and caused a schism, according to Nicephorus Callistus (Niceph. Callist. Hist. eccl. XVIII, 45 // PG 147, 420AB); or because they were divided among themselves, like Sevier and Julian in the dispute about the perishable and incorruptible, and some followed one, and others followed the other. Generally speaking, they were called acephalians because they obeyed more than one head, but some to one, others to another, breaking away from each other and from the Church in various ways (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 470; and other authors). All Monophysites and Theopaschites did not accept the icon of Christ (as stated in the 6th act of the VII Council), because they argued that the described and depicted nature of humanity was mixed with the nature of the Divinity and was transformed into it. By the way, they were wittily accused of this by Alamundar, the leader of the Saracens. When he became a Christian, Sevier sent two bishops to him to lure him into his heresy, and he, wanting to expose them, said: “Don’t you know? They sent me letters, and their senders say that Archangel Michael has died.” The bishops of Sevier told him that this was impossible. Then Alamundar said: “Well, if Christ does not have two natures, as you claim, then how could it be that He suffered and died on the cross? After all, His Divinity is impassive and does not die! (Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 424). Note also that the tonsure of clergy performed by the bishop is called the seal of tonsure and episcopal tonsure, and the tonsure of monks - tonsure and monastic tonsure (in the interpretation of VI Ecum. 33 and 77). The position of economists was introduced to manage church affairs in accordance with the will of the bishop, as indicated by the rules of Theophilus Alexander. 10, IV Omni. 26 and VII Omni. 11, and the office of ecdics is to help those who have been treated unjustly, to liberate the oppressed and to defend those who, suffering disasters and slander, seek refuge in the Church. There were two types of ecdics: church ones, which the present rule speaks of, and secular and imperial ones, which Carthage speaks of. 83, 107. According to Balsamon, they were called defensors (defensor - from defensor, protector (Latin)), and according to Justinian - church ecdics. In the Church of Constantinople there were twelve of them, the first of which was called protekdik and, together with the other two ekdik, considered minor matters arising in the Church. And prosmonari (prosmonar - from the verb προσμένω, to expect) existed in order to stay in the church assigned to them, waiting and meeting those who came to worship. According to Armenopoul (book 3, title 8), contractors in the proper sense of the word are artisans who provide a guarantee and take on any work, pledging not to leave it until they complete it. For what reason does this rule allow bishops and monks to become guardians and curators, but Justinian's 123rd novel prohibits it? According to Balsamon, the novella forbids them to do this so that they do not become guardians and trustees of their own free will or when only the laws call them to do so. But she does not forbid them to do so if the bishops ask them to do so. And Chartophylax Peter says that monks should not be recipients of the baptism of children (unless it is absolutely necessary; see also the note to the rule of John the Faster 24) and enter into twinning, for this is against the rules (Greco-Roman Law, p. 395). And Chartophylax Nicephorus says that the Church commands abbots and those in charge of monasteries to ensure that monks do not become successors or brothers-in-arms, and that by law twinning is not accepted at all (Ibid. p. 342). See also the chapter on twinning in the Doctrine of Marriages. That is why the 7th decree of the 1st tit. "Novel" (67th novella of Justinian) and 3rd decree of 2nd tit. (131st short story of Justinian), placed in 5 books. "Basilik", tit. 3, ch. 4 and 5 (according to the “Nomocanon” of Photius tit. 3, ch. 14 and tit. 11, ch. 1), instruct those who wish to build a house of prayer, or a church, or a monastery, to first discuss this with the bishop, to donate sufficient funds for lighting lamps and lamps in the church and for the priesthood, for the food of the promonaries and those who will live there. Then the bishop must announce this to everyone, solemnly go to the site of the future construction, say a prayer and plant a cross there, and then let the construction begin. In addition, it is said that the bishop, the stewards and the ruler of the place must force both the one who begins a new building or restores an old one, and his heirs, to complete the construction begun and not abandon it. Consequently, according to this rule, those who are called hieromonks should neither be ordained in parishes in secular churches, nor carry out the line of priestly service there. For they, by their name, are monks and take a vow of virginity, and therefore it is fitting that they should be ordained in monasteries and live, fulfilling the service of the priesthood, there, and not in the world. That is why, confirming this, the patriarch of philosophers, Michael of Constantinople, determined that all sacred rites performed in the world should be performed by lay priests, and not hieromonks. Hieromonks should be in their monasteries, as Balsamon says (interpretation of chapter 3, tit. 1 of Photius’ “Nomocanon”). In addition, Peter, chartophylax of the Great Church, says that a hieromonk cannot bless a marriage even in the monastery itself (Greco-Roman Law, p. 395). Consequently, those bishops who ordain hieromonks in cities are acting against the rules, and let them correct this inconsistency. For for all those evil deeds and sins that these hieromonks commit in the world, encountering the lusts of the world, the bishops who ordained them must be punished for all this. After all, this is what the divine Chrysostom says: “Don’t tell me that the presbyter or deacon has sinned. The blame for all this lies with the heads of those who ordained them” (Discourse 3 on the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 4. P. 627) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Acta apost. 3. 4 // PG 60, 40). According to this rule, those monks who leave their monasteries, cells or monasteries and go into the world to collect alms also act badly. Thus, they fall into many traps of the devil and suffer spiritual harm. Yes, Basil the Great allows monks to leave the monastery and travel for the needs of the monastery and in some way denounces those who, out of negligence, refuse and do not want to go out into the world (Ascetic Rules. Ch. 26) (PG 31, 1416AB), but at the same time the same Basil says that the abbot should send for these needs of the monastery one who can himself not be harmed, and who can benefit those who talk with him. If there is no strong and capable brother in the monastery, then it is better for the brothers to endure all sorrow and oppression even to the point of death, rather than, for the sake of bodily consolation, to neglect the obvious harm to the soul of the one they intend to send. Upon the brother’s return, the abbot should ask him how he spent his time away, and what he did well should be praised, and what was bad should be corrected, etc. (see rule 44 of the extensively stated) (PG 31, 1029B–1032A). This rule in the same form is found in Act 6 of this IV Council, but there it contains two additions. First: you cannot build a monastery on someone’s property without the consent of the owners; and second: not only slaves, but also those assigned, that is, warriors, should not be accepted into the monastery and tonsured (ACO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 2, 157. 4–5, 8–10). Consequently, what is said in the rule of Antiochus. 13 must be understood in the same way as what was said here by this Council about invalid ordination. See also note. to Apost. 28. Justinian's 123rd novella also lays down the law in accordance with this rule. She says: let no one leave his rank and become a layman, because he will be deprived of his assigned position or military rank and handed over to the councilors of his city. And the 7th and 8th stories of Leo command that clergy and monks who changed their clothes and became laymen should be again clothed in the clothes of clerics and monks, even against their will. (In Armenopoul’s “Summary of the Rules” section 3, title 2.) Therefore, in the 10th act of the Council, held under Basil the Macedonian, it is written absolutely correctly about this: “Not a single layman, no matter who he is, is allowed to initiate proceedings on church issues or to oppose the entire Church or the Ecumenical Council, because the study and testing of these issues is the work of the patriarchs, priests and didaskals, to whom it is given from God to knit and decide. A layman, though filled with all wisdom and reverence, is nevertheless a layman and a sheep, and not a shepherd; on the contrary, the bishop, as long as he occupies the bishop’s place, remains a shepherd, even if he shows disrespect in anything; therefore it is not proper for sheep to resist their shepherds.” Like bees around honey, so various opinions swarm around this part of this rule. For example, in our country, speaking out against papal power and wanting to honor the Primate of Constantinople, we reached the point of excess. Thus, Macarius of Ancyra understands the other patriarchs by “exarchs of the diocese,” and refers the final appeal to the Primate of Constantinople and claims that he is the first and supreme judge over all the patriarchs. Macarius is echoed by both the author of the Alexiad and Nicholas of Metho in his writings against papal power. The papists, in turn, wanting to establish the autocracy of the pope, follow our theologians and agree to recognize the Primate of Constantinople as the chief judge over all. Their goal is to show that if the Primate of Constantinople is the judge over all, then, since, according to the rules, the first is the Pope of Rome, and not the Primate of Constantinople, therefore, the Pope is the last judge over all the patriarchs in general, and over the Patriarch of Constantinople himself, and the appeal of the four ecumenical patriarchs goes back to him. The papists who say this are the apostate Bessarion, Binius and Bellarmine. For his part, Pope Nicholas, in a letter against Photius, written to Emperor Michael, asserts that by the exarch of a diocese the rule means the Pope of Rome and that by the word “diocese”, which is in the singular, one must understand “dioceses” in the plural. So in Divine Scripture, he says, the singular is often used instead of the plural, for example: a spring flowed out of the earth (Gen. 2:6) - instead of “the springs flowed out of the earth.” According to him, the rule says that anyone who has a lawsuit with the metropolitan must first of all sue before the exarch of the diocese, i.e., the Pope of Rome, and then, out of leniency, he is allowed to sue before the Primate of Constantinople. However, all of the above are mistaken and far from the truth. That the Primate of Constantinople does not have the right to act in the dioceses and regions of other patriarchs and that this rule did not give him the right to accept appeals in any case in the universal Church, becomes clear from the following. (An appeal is the transfer of a trial from a court to another, larger court, according to the 9th book, 1st tit. “Basilik”.) Firstly, in the 4th act of this Council of Chalcedon, Anatoly of Constantinople received censure both from the dignitaries and from the entire Council, for acting outside his region and, having taken Tire from its bishop, Photius, handed over Eustathius to Berites, deposing and excommunicating Photius. Despite the fact that Anatoly gave many justifications, the Council declared everything that was done there invalid, and Photius was acquitted and received back the Tyrian episcopal regions. That is why Isaac of Ephesus told Michael, the first of the Palaiologos, that the power of the Primate of Constantinople does not extend to the patriarchates of the East (in Pachymer, book 6, chapter 10) (PG 143, 909B–910A). Secondly, civil and imperial laws do not determine that only the judgment and decision of one Patriarch of Constantinople is not subject to appeal, but they say vaguely - “each patriarch” or in the plural - “patriarchs”. Justinian in the 123rd novella says: let the patriarch of the diocese make decisions that are in accordance with church rules and laws, and no party can object to his decision. And Leo the Wise in 1st titus. of his summary of the laws says that the decision of the patriarch is not subject to appeal and is not revised by another patriarch, being the beginning of everything in the Church, for all judgments come from the patriarch and are canceled by him. And again Justinian in the book. 3, ch. 2 of the “Church Collection” says that the relevant patriarch will consider the decision without fear of appeal. And in the book. 1, tit. 4 of the “Church Resolution” says this: “The decisions of the patriarchs are not subject to appeal,” and also in the book. 1, tit. 4, ch. 29: “The emperors who preceded us legislated that there would be no appeals against the decisions of the patriarchs.” So, if, according to the laws of emperors, which are consistent with the sacred rules, the decisions of all patriarchs are not subject to appeal, that is, they are not submitted to the court of another patriarch, then how can the Primate of Constantinople review them? And if the present rule of the Fourth Council, like its 17th rule, was intended to give the Primate of Constantinople the right to accept appeals from the decisions of other patriarchs, then how could the emperors prescribe the diametrically opposite when they knew that civil laws that did not comply with the rules were invalid? Thirdly, if we agree with the above-mentioned papists that the Primate of Constantinople judges the patriarchs and reviews their decisions, then, since the rule does not make an exception for any patriarch, he, therefore, will judge the Pope and review his decisions, and thus the Patriarch of Constantinople will be both the first and the last, and the common judge of all the patriarchs and the Pope himself. Consequently, by the same cunning with which the papists seek to justify the autocratic dignity of the Pope, they destroy and overthrow this dignity. Fourthly, no one - neither the metropolitan nor the patriarch - has the right to perform any actions in the Churches outside the borders of his region, but only in those subordinate to him, according to the rules: Apostle. 34, 35; I Universe 6, 7; III Omni. 3, 8; VI Universe 20, 36, 39; Sardik. 3, 11, 12; Antiochus. 9, etc. And how then could this rule and others prescribe something that is contrary to all these rules? Fifthly, if the Patriarch of Constantinople received such an advantage, then why did the patriarchs of Constantinople, when they often happened to disagree with the popes, talk not about having such an advantage, but only about equal privileges? Or why did no other Christian, with such disagreements between them, ever say that the primate of Constantinople is greater than the Roman one? But the Lord lives, lives! The true interpretation of the rule is this: the exarch of a diocese, according to Balsamon, is not the metropolitan of a region (because a diocese includes many metropolitan regions), but the metropolitan of a diocese. He is not a patriarch, because the words of the rule of II Om. 6 “if anyone shows disrespect for all the bishops of the diocese” are identical to the words of the present canon regarding the “exarch of the diocese,” and the Council of the diocese and the exarch of the diocese occupy a different position compared to that occupied by each patriarch with the bishops subordinate to him. So, the exarch of a diocese is the metropolitan of the diocese, who has a certain advantage over other metropolitans of the same diocese. This advantage of exarchs is now invalid: although some metropolitans are called exarchs, they do not have other metropolitans of the diocese under them. Therefore, according to Balsamon, it becomes clear that in those days the exarchs of the diocese occupied a different position. (Of these, according to Zonara, the exarchs of Caesarea, Cappadocia, Ephesus, Thessalonica and Corinth wore polystauria in their churches. Polistavria were called phelonions embroidered with many crosses, as Balsamon says on p. 447 of Greco-Roman Law.) However, this advantage was abolished either directly during the present IV Ecumenical Council, or a little later. That is why Justinian, speaking about disagreements between clerics, does not mention exarchs at all, although he lists all other clergy courts. Thus, the rule says that if a bishop or cleric has a disagreement with the metropolitan of a region, then let him appeal to the exarch of the diocese. In other words, let the clergy and metropolitans subordinate to the throne of Constantinople be judged either before the exarch of the diocese in which they are located, or before the primate of Constantinople, as before their patriarch. It is not said: “A cleric who has disagreements with the metropolitan of another diocese, or a metropolitan who has disagreements with the metropolitan of any diocese and region, let him be tried before the Patriarch of Constantinople.” But it is not said like this: “Let him first of all address the exarch of the diocese, and not the primate of Constantinople,” as Pope Nicholas distorted and incorrectly interpreted this rule, as we pointed out above; but where to turn is left to the discretion of the parties intending to litigate. It makes no difference: either to the exarch of the diocese, or to the primate of Constantinople, and there is no difference before whom to sue - before one or before the other. That is why Zonara says that the Patriarch of Constantinople is appointed as a judge not over all metropolitans without exception, but only over those subordinate to him (in the interpretation of IV Ecumenical 17). And in the interpretation of Sardik. 5 he says: “The Primate of Constantinople considers appeals only from those subordinate to the Primate of Constantinople, just as the Pope considers only appeals from those subordinate to the Pope.” At present, due to the fact that the Council and the exarch of the diocese have been abolished, the Primate of Constantinople is the first, only and last judge over the metropolitans subordinate to him - but not over those who are subordinate to the other patriarchs. For, as we said, the final and universal judge of all patriarchs is the Ecumenical Council, and no one else. See also note. 91 (2 to II Ev. 6), where we spoke about the diocese in more detail. Due to the fact that the degree of exarchs mentioned in the rule, as we said, has long been abolished, the name of exarchs is now borne by those who occupy a special church position and whom the Church sends abroad. In one place I accidentally discovered that the letters that were given to the poor had the following seal and signature: “The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord (Ps. 32:5). † Pope Gregory." And how they are compiled now, see at the end of the book. Sozomen (book 5, chapter 16) calls these letters episcopal letters of recommendation (PG 67, 1261B), and Gregory the Theologian in his word against Julian calls them letters of recommendation: “With letters of recommendation, with which we send those in need from one people to another” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 4.111 // PG 35, 648C). Gregory the Theologian, in his funeral oration for Vasily, tells that a similar incident occurred in the Cappadocia Metropolis, when the bishopric of Tiana was awarded the name of the new metropolis (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 43. 58 // PG 36, 572AB). Thus, when Marcian honored Chalcedon with the name of metropolis, and Valentinian - Nicaea, it was determined that their own rights and dignity should be preserved for their ancient and true metropolises, as is clear from the 4th act of this Council. Therefore, although Byzantium and Elia are honored by the name of patriarchy, still regarding Elia the rule is I Om. 7 says that her metropolis, Caesarea, must maintain its own dignity, as we have said. A o Byzantium Balsamon and Nicephorus Gregoras say that in their times the Patriarch of Constantinople was consecrated by the Metropolitan of Irakli (Niceph. Greg. Hist. VI, 1. 6 // PG 148, 309BC). Now he receives from him only a staff, because before becoming a patriarchate, Byzantium was the bishopric of the Metropolitan of Irakli. In the Greek edition of the Pydalion, a number of parallel rules are given in the margins next to the text of the rule. This rule takes up only two lines, and with these words St. Nicodemus points out that it is difficult to list all the parallel rules in the margins. This refers to the Carthage Cathedral. So does Photius in the 12th and 13th titus. says that since in the 23rd book. 2nd tit. “Digest” 1st decree defines marriage as “the union of husband and wife and the communion of life, participation in divine and human right,” then, in accordance with this definition, those who are married must belong to the same religion. And the 1st book. "Code", tit. 5, Resolution 12 says that when parents are in disagreement with each other (this means the case where they belonged to the same religion, but one of them converted to Orthodoxy, or otherwise it turned out that they married professing different faiths), then the advantage should be on the side that wants to convert their children to Orthodoxy. Resolution 18 of the same title. He also says that if one of the spouses is Orthodox and the other is a heretic, then their children should become Orthodox. In the 1st book. "Basilik", tit. 1, ch. 35, it is written: “No Jew shall take a Christian wife, nor shall a Christian marry a Jew: whoever does so shall be punished for adultery.” And an Orthodox person who has been married to a heterodox or a heretic is not allowed to partake of the Divine Mysteries until he is separated from him and suffers penance according to the rules, according to the 33rd answer of Balsamon. Simeon of Thessaloniki says the same thing (answer 47), adding that only at his death can such a person, after the blessing of oil has been performed on him, receive communion (of course, if he repents), and the priest should not take out particles for him and accept his offerings, with the exception of candles and incense, and sometimes (and therefore not always) can give him holy water and antidorin so that the person does not fall into despair and so that encourage him to give alms (PG 155, 893ВС). Basil. Magn. Const. monast. 20. 4 // PG 31, 1393C. And the same Gregory the Theologian says in his verses that as much as virginity is higher than marriage, so is immaculate marriage higher than when one strives to have both virginity and marriage, and therefore one must either maintain virginity in truth, or enter into marriage and not want to mix everything together: virginity with marriage, honey with gall, wine with dirt, Jerusalem with Samaria. “As much as virginity is preferable to marriage, an immaculate marriage is preferable to dubious virginity. Therefore, you, a zealot for perfection, either completely love pure virginity, if you have the strength and disposition for it, or choose marriage, as they say, after the first, a second, also good, voyage. But avoid those who want to combine both lives: both celibate and apparently married, that is, to mix bile with honey, dirt with wine, and wicked Samaria with holy Solim” (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. moral. 2 // PG 37, 610A–611A). The Divine Epiphanius also says (chapter on heresy 61): “So, it is better to have one sin than countless. It is better for the one who fell in the field to openly take for himself a lawful wife and, having spent a long time in repentance after the loss of virginity, be reintroduced into the Church” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 61.7 // PG 41, 1049B). And Chrysostom says in his letter to Theodore that a monk who marries commits a sin as much worse than adultery as God surpasses people (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad Theodor. 2. 3 // PG 47, 312). Basil the Great, in the rules set out at length (in the 14th of them), says that for a monk who has broken a vow made to God, no brother should open the door of his home to receive him, even if it is cold outside and he has come in search of shelter. And this is not because of hatred, but, according to the words of the apostle. Paul, so that such a one would be put to shame (see 2 Thess. 3:14) (PG 31, 952A). And in a letter to the fallen monk, Vasily says that we should not even greet this with the word “Rejoice” (Basil. Magn. Ep. 44. 1 // PG 32, 360D–361A). The divine Nikephoros says the same thing in the 24th rule. But in his 34th rule he says that a monk who has entered into marriage, if he does not repent, must be anathematized, forcibly put into schema and imprisoned in a monastery. When the one who has put aside the schema returns and repents, he should be clothed in it without reading prayers, according to the 14th rule of the same Nicephorus. And anyone who has put on the schema for some need or because of deceit and hypocrisy, as if mocking it, and then, when the need has passed and there is no longer any need to be a hypocrite, has cast it off, must undergo penance for three forty days and then be allowed to receive communion, according to his own 21st rule. The said divine Nikephoros in his 20th rule says: “If a nun was corrupted by barbarians or disorderly people, then if her previous life was impeccable, let her bear penance for only forty days, and if she was vicious, she should be subject to penance as an adulteress.” Note that those who corrupted an ascetic or a nun, that is, a consecrated virgin, as well as those who were their accomplices in this corruption, are subject to the highest degree of punishment, and all their property is confiscated by the ruler and given to the monastery of the corrupted woman, according to the 2nd decree of the 1st titus. "Novel" (Photius. Tit. 9, ch. 30). In the same way, anyone who kidnaps or tries to take such a dedicated virgin as a wife is subject to the highest degree of punishment (Book 1, Tit. 3, Decree 5), and she herself and her belongings are placed in a monastery under reliable guard. The authority also adds that even one who became a monk at his last breath and was completely unaware of what was happening to him when he was tonsured as a monk, cannot put aside the monastic image and remain in the world any longer. See also note. 140 (1 to IV Ev. 7) and this very rule, which anathematizes the one who has thrown off the monastic image and entered into a secular position. See also note. to Nikephoros Constantinople. 34. Please note that this rule does not contradict rule III Omni. 8, for the latter speaks of the episcopal areas for which bishops were ordained, and determines that no bishop should selfishly steal them if they were not in the power of his predecessors. The present rule speaks of the smallest parishes, which, because of their uselessness and insignificance, happened to be neglected by the bishops who held them and owned them for a long time and from the very beginning. This Council allowed the emperor to make decisions regarding the parishes only of those cities that he himself built, and not all of them, as Balsamon concludes. For, according to the 12th rule of this Council, cities honored with royal charters in the name of metropolises - both themselves and their bishops - receive only honor, and the rights and privileges are invariably retained by the metropolitanate, which actually existed previously. In John of Antioch’s “Collection of Rules” (tit. 32) “co-monastics” instead of “co-clerics”. As Ulpian tells about this. Photius (tit. 9, ch. 37) says that state law punishes secret societies and conspiracies. According to the 60th book. "Basilik", tit. 36, who conspired against the state is charged with treason. For information on what high treason is, see the note. to Apost. 72. Note that Balsamon, in his interpretation of this rule, says: “Do not say that a conspiracy drawn up for the sake of committing an evil and not a good deed is subject to punishment - no, every conspiracy, whether it is drawn up for the sake of a good deed or for the sake of an evil one.” In other lists: “...as well as those who receive it are prohibited.” By those who accept Zonara and Vlastar (letter “E”) they understand those who take the bishop’s things for safekeeping; and if they appropriate any of them, they are expelled along with those who plunder them. And in the book. 11 imperial decrees, tit. 8, decree 51 (Photius. Tit. 2, ch. 1) it is determined: sacred things are things of Divine right and do not constitute anyone’s property. A sacred thing is one that has been publicly dedicated to God. In turn, according to resolution 10 tit. 1, sacred is that which has been rightly dedicated to God by the priest, such as churches and vessels. But what a person makes sacred of his own free will is not sacred. This is the definition of a sacred thing, and it means that if the church is destroyed, then the place remains sacred and no one can, according to Armenopoulus, take possession of it. What has once become sacred never ceases to be so. If the 36th resolution of the 11th book. 7th tit. and says that sacred things, when they are captured by enemies, cease to be sacred, just as a free person ceases to be free when he is taken prisoner, but upon his return they become sacred again, here he means that things cease to be sacred in effect, but not in power. In terms of their power, they are always sacred, and especially sacred movable utensils, which, even if they are captured, often demonstrate the very effect of the power of holiness located in it, as God’s ark showed it. After it was captured by foreigners, their idols were overthrown, the country was filled with mice, and they themselves were struck with a plague on their seats (1 Samuel 4) (see 1 Samuel 5:6). So the sacred vessels, stolen by the Babylonians from the temple of Jerusalem, killed Belshazzar, since he used them as ordinary and unsacred vessels (Dan. 5). And yet, despite all this, the words of Basil the Great are as true as they are terrible (moral canon 30): he says that what is dedicated to the name of God is revered as a shrine until the will of God is fulfilled on it (Basil. Magn. Moralia 30. 1 // PG 31, 748D). So this house and the temple of Jerusalem remained empty and deprived of Divine grace, according to the word of the Lord: Behold, your house is left empty (Matthew 23:38; Luke 13:35), because the will of God was not fulfilled in it, in other words, the priests serving in it did not fulfill it. No one can own sacred objects for the reason that he has eaten from them and used them for a long time, according to the 10th decree of the 6th tit. We cannot claim our rights to the sacred as our own, that is, acquire it, according to the 23rd decree of the 6th book. 1st tit. If there is a sacred place between two simple and unholy places, then there should not be a road from the holy place to the unholy place. According to the 14th decree of the 1st title, it is prohibited to build on a sacred site; according to the 4th book. 15th tit. "Institutions", i.e. “Introductions” to the laws, no one can sell, or exchange, or donate, or mortgage the monastery where the throne was erected and the sacred liturgy was performed and the monks underwent their feat. And if anything like this is done, it has no force: the seller will lose both the money he received and the monastery and the things of the monastery that he sold; in the same way, the one who buys will lose both the money paid and the purchased monastery. This money will be given to local monasteries and the local Church, in accordance with the 1st decree of the 2nd title. "Novel" (Photius. Tit. 11, ch. 1). And the 2nd decree of the 2nd title. “Novel” (Photius. Tit. 10, ch. 1), as well as Armenopul in the 3rd book, tit. 4, commands that economists, epitropes and other stewards of churches and charitable institutions, as well as charteraries, their parents and children, should not give church items to anyone on loan, or for rent, or on bail, and not to take money for all this. Those who take church property on interest or lease and hold it as collateral will lose both the money given for it and the income received from taking it on interest. And all of the above-mentioned, who gave away the thing, will not only lose the price received for it, but will also pay a fine equal to the income they received; and let this money be given to the charitable institution and church to which this property belonged. Book 3 “Introductions” to tit. 19 and 23 states that no one can buy a sacred place knowing that it is sacred. If a deceived person bought it as private property, he can bring legal action against the person who sold it fraudulently. If the church is destroyed, then the place does not lose its holiness - and therefore is not for sale, according to decree 73 tit. 1 (Photius. Tit. 2, ch. 1). Option: “if anyone.” Note that the steward must submit a report to the bishop (or abbot) every year on the management of the property of the church or monastery. If it happens that he dies before he reports, then let his successors provide the report, according to the 42nd decree of the 3rd title. "Novel" (Photius. Tit. 10, ch. 1). And Malax in the “History of the Patriarchs” says that the great steward of property should be a hierodeacon (or priest). When the liturgy is celebrated by the bishop, the great steward, dressed in a surplice, stands next to the holy meal, holding the holy ripida in his hands; He also brings the one who is about to be ordained to the bishop. He keeps track of income and expenses and keeps an account of all the property of the church; keeps the charter with records of expenses and presents it to the bishop four times a year. He oversees the property of the dowager church and takes care of it until there is no bishop in it, and at the trial he stands on the right side of the bishop. Zonara in the history of Isaac Komnenos says that the great economy and skevophilax were at that time appointed by the emperor, but the mentioned Komnenos determined that they both should be appointed by the patriarch (Zonara. Annales XVIII, 4 // PG 135, 244AB). Isidore Pelusiot (letter of 1628 to the committee Hermin) says that the steward (οἰκονόμος) is so named because he gives everyone (νέμειν) what is due (οἰκεῖον) to him, or because each of those in the house (τῷ οἴκῳ) endows (νέμειν) with dignity. “Maidens” – in John of Antioch’s “Collection of Rules,” tit. 42. The Council, as well as civil laws, punishes the abduction of women severely, since it is a dishonorable act that overthrows entire houses. It is the cause of murder, strife and many evils in general. And if, for example, the parents or masters of the kidnapped women subsequently consent to the marriage, they, however, give consent forcedly and against their will, because of the dishonor and corruption to which in most cases their kidnapped daughters and slaves are subjected before marriage, and because no one else wants to take them after that. I said that it is for this reason that the present rule and the civil laws punish the abductors of women severely. If the reason were only in the dependent position of these women, then Basil the Great in his 22nd rule requires that the marriages of daughters under the authority of their parents be approved by the consent of their parents, as we said above. However, civil laws dissolve marriages contracted after abduction, even if the fathers of the abducted women subsequently consent to them, as we have said. According to ch. 39 tit. 12 books 60, if someone kidnaps another man's harlot slave and hides her, then he should not be punished as a thief or as a slave trader, since he did it for pleasure, and not for theft, but if he is a rich man, let him be fined, and if he is poor, he should be beaten with rods. The VI Ecumenical Council, in its 92nd canon, sets out this very rule verbatim. And Ankir. 11 specifies that grooms must be given back their brides who were betrothed to them and kidnapped by others, even if the brides were abused by the kidnappers. The rule of Vasily the Great says the same thing. 22. If they were not betrothed, then, the rule adds, the kidnappers must return them to their parents or relatives and, if the parents wish, let the marriage be concluded, and if they do not wish, do not force them to do so. If the kidnappers molested women secretly or by force, then they must bear penance as fornicators for four years. Rule 30 of the same Basil excommunicates those who kidnapped or helped them for three years. It considers someone kidnapped only for show (i.e., wanting to follow a man) not to be subject to punishment, just like a marriage in general that was not concluded under coercion, if there was no corruption before the marriage. In the 53rd rule, Vasily recognizes as innocent a slave-widow who was kidnapped for appearances, but in reality wanted to get married a second time. There are five main reasons for the publication of this rule: three are indirect, and two are necessary and worthy of attention. 1) Since the rule of Apost. 34 instructs the bishops of each nation to have one bishop first and consider him the head and since the rules of I Om. 6, 7 subordinated other dioceses to the Bishop of Rome, others to the Bishop of Alexandria, others to the Bishop of Antioch, and others to the Bishop of Jerusalem, then, therefore, it was necessary that the autocephalous dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace should have the Archbishop of Constantinople as their first and head, submit to him and their metropolitans would be ordained by him, because he was in the neighborhood, and in especially because such a custom existed from the beginning. The Patriarchs of Constantinople installed many metropolitans from these dioceses. So, Chrysostom installed Heraclid of Ephesus, and on the way to Ephesus and on the way back to Constantinople he deposed 13 bishops; also the Bishop of Ancyra and Memnon of Ephesus (chairman at the Third Ecumenical Council) were installed as Archbishop of Constantinople. That is why what we said above, in the note, seems true. to the 9th rule, resolving this confusion. Thus, it is obvious that the present rule subjects the metropolitans of these dioceses to the court of the Patriarch of Constantinople. 2) Since the Second Ecumenical Council in its 3rd canon also gave the primacy of honor to the Archbishop of Constantinople, it was necessary, in addition to this advantage, to grant him the privileges of power. 3) It was fitting for the Archbishop of Constantinople to receive the benefits of power, since various patriarchs and bishops came to appeal to the emperor with a prayer for their needs, and first it was necessary for them to meet with the archbishop of Constantinople, because they found in him a comrade-in-arms and assistant, and through him they had to turn to the emperor, as Justinian defined it, confirming the ancient custom. Therefore, in the 16th act of the IV Ecumenical Council, Nunechius of Laodicea, when the legates of the Bishop of Rome showed displeasure regarding the privileges of Constantinople, said: “The glory of Constantinople is our glory, since it takes upon itself our concerns” (ASO // TLG 5000/003. 2. 1. 3, 97. 9-11). 4) It was fitting for the Archbishop of Constantinople to receive the privileges of power over the above-mentioned three dioceses, since, as is clear from the 13th act of the IV Ecumenical Council, many temptations occurred in Ephesus due to the lawless consecrations of Stephen and Vassian. A similar thing also happened in Asia, Pontus and Thrace, where after the death of bishops during elections and installations, due to the absence of ruling bishops, great unrest began to occur, as stated in the message of the same IV Ecumenical Council to Pope Leo. And between Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea, great displeasure arose regarding the Bishopric of Basilinople. 5) The fifth and final reason: the wicked Dioscorus at the robber council in Ephesus placed Flavian of Constantinople not in first, but in fifth place, contrary to the rules, which neither Leo of Rome nor his legates liked, for which they condemned Dioscorus at the IV Ecumenical Council. So, for all these reasons, the Council by this rule, renewing II Om. 3, granted the Archbishop of Constantinople and privileges of honor equal to the privileges of honor of the Bishop of Rome, that is, patriarchal dignity; and privileges of power equal to those of the bishop of Rome, that is, the right to appoint metropolitans to the three aforementioned dioceses (since they are under the jurisdiction of Constantinople). This right is confirmed not only by custom, but also by rule. Just as the Bishop of Rome has the primacy of honor and power, in other words, patriarchal dignity and the right to lead his western region, so the Archbishop of Constantinople has the same advantages, that is, patriarchal dignity and power over the named metropolitans located in his region. These are the ecclesiastical affairs mentioned in this canon, in which both the Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of Constantinople are exalted, with only one difference: the Bishop of Rome is first in order, and the Bishop of Constantinople is second. These privileges of Constantinople were approved and approved not only by the fathers of the Council, but also by the entire synclite of dignitaries, despite the objections of the papal legates, who, although at first they condemned Dioscorus, however, seeing that the limits of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople were expanding, opposed this almost to the point of losing consciousness. Therefore, it is clear that the papists are lying when they say that the primacy of the bishop of Rome and his seniority, as well as his great importance in church affairs, testify to his special right to power in the entire Church, that is, to his sole and infallible dignity. For if these privileges had such a meaning, then the Archbishop of Constantinople should also have such dignity, since he, according to the rules, is an equal and unchangeable measure of the honor, power and greatness of Rome. However, according to the rules, the Archbishop of Constantinople never received such dignity, therefore, the Bishop of Rome did not receive it either. Nor does it constitute the privilege of the Bishop of Rome that what was given, as the Latins say, to Sylvester of Rome by the notorious “gift” of Constantine the Great (St. Nicodemus only expresses doubt about the authenticity of the act, although in his time unconditional proof of the forgery of the “Donation of Constantine” already existed, but it seems that he was not familiar with it, or did not consider it necessary to mention it here. - Ed.), namely: walk with the distinctive signs of imperial greatness in imitation of the emperor, wear a shiny ribbon on his head instead of a crown, dress in a royal omophorion, a porphyry chlamys and a red tunic, cover his horse with blankets in a royal manner, with all the royal insignia; at the same time, the emperor, like a groom, had to hold his horse by the bridle, and the clergy of his Church had to stand out, like a synclite, with their clothes, shoes, and horses. So, in this external greatness and splendor do not lie the advantages and dignity granted by the rules to the Bishop of Rome - not at all. Firstly, because if privileges consisted of this, then they should have been granted in a similar manner and to the same extent to the Archbishop of Constantinople. Secondly, because, according to VII Omni. 16 and VI Omni. 27, light and magnificent clothes, any luxury and decoration of the body are alien to the clergy and the priestly rank, and also because the fuming arrogance of worldly power should be far from the priests of God, as the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine says. And Apostle. 83 casts out those who wish to retain both the Roman leadership and the priestly power. And the Lord in the Gospels commands us to beware of those who want to walk around in smart clothes (see Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46). Therefore, this decree, which has needlessly caused so much speculation, is considered fraudulent and fictitious. Even if we condescend to assume that it is true, then since it is clearly contrary to the sacred rules, this decree has no force and is invalid. After all, imperial decrees that contradict the rules are invalid, as we said at the beginning of the book. So, the privileges and primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as we said, consist in the fact that he has power over all the bishops and metropolitans in the Roman diocese, and therefore appoints them along with the bishops of the diocese and is first in order among the other patriarchs. But he received these privileges not because Rome is the See of Peter, not because the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ, as the papists idly say - no! - but above all because Rome was a city of imperial power. To the throne of ancient Rome, says the present canon, the fathers justly gave priority, since this city was reigning, and therefore, by virtue of the established ancient custom, just as the city of Rome was first, so its bishop should have taken first place, because the rules gave him such an advantage. Likewise, this advantage was given to the Archbishop of Constantinople, because Constantinople became the reigning city and the new Rome. And since he became reigning, a custom arose in ancient times: the Archbishop of Constantinople appoints bishops of Asia, Pontus and Thrace. And as soon as the custom arose, rules were issued that approved it. Please note that in addition to privileges equal to the privileges of the Bishop of Rome, which the Archbishop of Constantinople received, he also received the following two titles: unlike other patriarchs, he began to be called Most Holy and Ecumenical. The title “All-Holy” was the first to be used in addressing the Archbishops of Constantinople Sergius and Peter by Macarius of Antioch at the VI Ecumenical Council in the 7th century, and the title “Ecumenical” was the first to be used by the clergy of Antioch and the Orthodox of Byzantium in addressing the Archbishop of Constantinople. John the Cappadocian, during the reign of Justin the Thracian, in the 6th century. I said that the Archbishop of Constantinople is called this way, unlike the others, for the reason that although many called the Bishop of Rome, and Alexandria, and Antioch, and Jerusalem, All-Holiness, and although in general all these patriarchs were called All-Holiness by different people at different times, despite all this, the custom of granting this title exclusively to the Archbishop of Constantinople prevailed. In a similar way, some called the Bishop of Rome Ecumenical, but rarely, and having called the Bishop of Constantinople Ecumenical, they do not stop calling him that name. Therefore, after the Cappadocian, the bishops of Constantinople Epiphanius, Anthimus, Mina and Eutyches were called Ecumenical by Justinian in his novels and edicts, so that at the VII Ecumenical Council, the papal legate Peter called Tarasius Ecumenical. Therefore, the divine John the Faster, during the reign of Mauritius, based on the fact that others constantly applied this title to the bishop of Constantinople, was the first to put the title “Ecumenical” in his signature. The title “Most Holy” means “in all things most holy,” as, for example, Tarasius and Photius wrote to Popes Adrian and Nicholas: “In all things, the most holy brother and co-celebrant Adrian (or Nicholas), Pope of Rome.” The title “Ecumenical” has two meanings: it is understood either simply as “in the Universal Church,” that is, it refers to a bishop who has personal and sole authority in the Universal Church; or means most of the universe. Therefore, many emperors, although they were not masters of the entire universe, are nevertheless called its rulers, as Evagrius calls Zeno (Evagr. Schol. Hist. eccl. III, 17 // PG 86b, 2633A), since they had power over most of the universe. So, neither the Archbishop of Constantinople, nor Rome, nor any other is ever called Ecumenical in the first sense, but only Christ alone, the true Patriarch of the entire universe, to Whom is given all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). And in the second meaning, the Patriarch of Constantinople is called Ecumenical because he has most of the universe under his authority, and also because he shows zeal and concern for the preservation of the faith and conciliar and paternal traditions not only in his diocese, but also in others. Therefore, the polysemy of this word caused discord between John the Faster of Constantinople and the Roman Popes Pelagius and Gregory Dvoeslov. The latter, understanding the word “Ecumenical” in the first meaning, called this title blasphemous, diabolical and many other epithets and said that the one who wants to be called Ecumenical is the forerunner of the Antichrist (Gregory’s letter to Mauritius) - and in this sense they were right. However, Faster, Mauritius and subsequent patriarchs and emperors understood the title in the second meaning and therefore did not worry about anything - and in this sense they were right too. Therefore, the Council held in Hagia Sophia clearly says that the patriarch, if called Ecumenical because he rules most of the universe, is not the Antichrist. However, both of these titles were not given to the Archbishop of Constantinople by conciliar or paternal rules, but were approved by custom. This note has been compiled largely from the Twelve Books of Dositheus, with the use of other sources. Please note that this IV Ecumenical Council set out these 30 rules in its 15th act, but I do not know why the 28th, 29th and 30th rules are not in the “Collection of Rules” of John of Antioch, or in the “Nomocanon” of John Scholasticus of Constantinople, or in the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph of Egypt. All other collections contain them. See also Apost. 34 and I Omni. 6. Please note: both of these rules, 29th and 30th, were preserved only in the form of a dialogue recorded in the 4th Act of the Council. And later, either the interpreters of the rules, or someone else before the interpreters, combining these reasonings and interviews, made rules and definitions from them. In the present 30th canon we see that the papal legate Paschazin, in other words, in his person the entire Council, agreed that ten Egyptian bishops should present only guarantors that they would not leave Constantinople until they signed the letter; and the lay imperial dignitaries, prompted by civil law, added that the bishops, if they did not provide guarantors, must swear that they would not retire. So, seeing this, we included in the rule the words about guarantors, about whom the Holy Council made a determination through Paskhazin, and excluded the words about the oath, since they are not a determination of the Council, but of the imperial authorities and a determination of civil law in general, and not of divine rules (for the divine rules nowhere define taking oaths - whether before God or before the emperor, since this is contrary to the holy Gospel), even if the Council in the present case remained silent and did not wish object to the dignitaries so as not to cause them embarrassment.