О святом Вселенском Пято-Шестом или, лучше сказать, Шестом Соборе

The Holy Ecumenical [177] Fifth-Sixth, or rather [178] Sixth Council, was assembled in Constantinople, in the famous imperial chamber called Trulla, under Justinian II (who was the son of Pogonatus and had the nickname Rhinotmit), in 691 A.D. [179]. It was attended by 227 fathers, according to Balsamon and Zonara, and according to the author of “Συνοδικού βιβλιαρίου” - 240. They were led by Paul of Constantinople [ 180 ], Basil, bishop of Gortyna of Crete, and a certain bishop of Ravenna - the latter two representing the Roman pope [181] - Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem and George of Antioch. This Council took place by imperial decree, not for the sake of considering any particular heresy and not for the sake of defining the faith, otherwise there would be reason to call it a separate Council, but for the sake of issuing the necessary rules concerning the ordering and structure of the Church. These rules are given below. They are confirmed: – 2, 4 and 8 acts of the VII Ecumenical Council and its 1st rule; – three popes: Adrian I, Gregory II and Innocent III; – legates of the pope who were present at the VII Ecumenical Council; - the so-called Double Council, which cites Rule VI Ecumenical. 31 in its 12th rule; - John of Damascus, who says: “Examine the definitions of the VI Ecumenical Council and you will find proof there” 182; - with the handwritten signatures of the emperor, the legates of the Pope, the patriarchs and fathers of the Council and, in short, the entire Catholic Church, although modern Latins slander these rules because they expose their innovations. Adrian I, in his letter to Tarasius, left us an admirable testimony about these rules: “I accept the Acts of this holy VI Council along with all the rules legally and divinely proclaimed by it, among which the following is accepted: “On some revered icons it is inscribed...” - and then follows the text of the entire 82nd rule of this Council (Synodikon. p. 748). And Pope Gregory in his letter to St. German (which is in Act 4 of the VII Ecumenical Council) writes about the same rule of the present VI Ecumenical Council: “Therefore, the host of the holy fathers, by the Divine will, taught this most important rule to the Church as the basis of the greatest salvation.” Note also that he calls this Council a holy host, and its rules issued by the Divine will. In order to stop the mouths of opponents and force them into silence, one testimony of Patriarch Tarasius about these rules is enough, and even more so - the entire VII Ecumenical Council, which says literally the following: “Some people, suffering from the disease of ignorance, are seduced by these rules and ask: “Are these the rules of the VI Council?” But let them know that the holy, great VI Ecumenical Council was assembled under Constantine against those who said that in Christ there is one action and will; the fathers of the Council anathematized the heretics and, having clearly stated the Orthodox faith, retired to their own borders in the 14th year of the reign of Constantine. Then... these same fathers, having assembled under Justinian, the son of Constantine, adopted the above-mentioned rules, and let no one doubt them, because the same fathers who signed under Constantine also signed the present charter under Justinian, as can be seen from the identity of their signatures. They should have, since they declared the Council Ecumenical, to accept the church rules” (4th act of the VII Ecumenical; see: Synodicon. T. 2. P. 780). In the same 4th Act VII Om. it is written that at the VII Ecumenical Council the original charter was read, which was signed by the fathers of the present VI Ecumenical Council. And Peter of Nicomedia said that he also had another book containing the real rules of the VI Ecumenical Council (see also: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. pp. 603–618). 102 rules of the Holy Ecumenical Sixth Council with interpretations The best order for a beginner to begin every word and deed is to begin with God and finish with God, according to the saying of the Theologian 183. Therefore, even now, when piety is already clearly preached by us, and the Church, at the foundation of which (ἐνᾗ) [184] is Christ, constantly multiplies and prospers, so that it rises above the cedars of Lebanon 185, we, laying the foundation for sacred words, determine by the grace of God that innovations and changes do not touch the faith transmitted to us by eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word 186, God's chosen apostles, as well as 318 holy and blessed fathers, who gathered in Nicaea under Constantine, our emperor, against the wicked Arius and the pagan heterotheism or, strictly speaking, polytheism raised by him into a dogma. They, with the unanimity of faith, opened and clarified for us the consubstantiality in the three Hypostases of the Divine nature, did not allow it to remain hidden under a shroud of ignorance, but openly taught the faithful to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit with one worship, and they overthrew and destroyed the false teaching about the unequal degrees of the Divinity, and they crushed the children's constructions against Orthodoxy built by heretics from sand and overthrew. In the same way, we affirm the faith preached by the 150 holy fathers who gathered in this reigning city under the great Theodosius, our emperor, we willingly accept theological sayings, and we reject the wicked Macedonius, together with the former enemies of the truth, since he boldly dared to consider the Lord a slave and robberly set out to cut into pieces the uncut Unit, which is why he was imperfect would be the mystery of our hope. Together with him, vile and raging against the truth, we condemned Apollinaris, who knew the secrets of evil, who wickedly spewed out that the Lord took on a body without soul and mind - thereby suggesting that our salvation is imperfect. We also confirm, as the indestructible power of piety, the teaching set forth by the God-bearing fathers, who had previously gathered in the city of Ephesus under Theodosius, son of Arcadius, our emperor, we preach the One Christ, the Son of God incarnate, and we recognize the immaculate Ever-Virgin who gave birth to Him without seed in the proper sense and truly the Mother of God, and the absurd Nestorian division as We reject what is far removed from God’s lot, for it teaches that the One Christ is a separate man and a separate God, and renews Jewish wickedness. Moreover, we Orthodoxy affirm the faith outlined by 630 God-chosen fathers in the Chalcedonian metropolis under Marcian, when he was our emperor. This faith loudly proclaimed to the ends of the earth the One Christ, the Son of God, consisting of two natures and glorified in the same two natures, and the superstitious Eutyches, who declared that the great sacrament of the economy was accomplished in a ghostly manner, spewed out of the sacred fence of the Church as something disgusting and vile, and with him also Dioscorus and Nestorius, one of whom was the defender and champion of division, and the other - confusion, and who, from opposite sides of wickedness, plunged into one abyss of destruction and atheism. We also recognize that the pious sayings of the 165 God-bearing fathers who gathered in this reigning city under Justinian, our emperor of pious memory, were spoken by the Spirit, and we teach our descendants the same. The named fathers collectively anathematized and rejected Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Nestorian teacher, Origen with Didymus and Evagrius, who resumed pagan fables, in their insanity and dreams, who imagined for us transitions and transformations of certain bodies and souls and wickedly raged against the resurrection of the dead, and in addition, the fathers rejected the writings of Theodoret against the right faith and 12 chapters of the blj. Kirill and the so-called message of Iva. We again undertake to preserve in integrity the faith of the Holy VI Council, recently convened in this reigning city under the divine memory of our Emperor Constantine. This faith acquired even greater strength due to the fact that the pious emperor approved the conciliar decrees with his seals for the sake of their inviolability in all centuries. This faith lovingly explained that we must glorify two natural desires, or two wills, and two natural actions in the incarnate economy of our One Lord Jesus, the true God, and those who perverted the right dogma of truth and preached to people one will and one action in the One Lord our God Jesus Christ, were condemned by a pious court, namely: Theodore of Parano, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius Roman, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, who were primates in this God-protected city, Macarius, Bishop of Antioch, Stephen, his disciple, and the insane Polychronius. Thus this faith preserves intact the common body of Christ our God. In short, we decree that the faith of all the glorified men in the Church of God, who were luminaries in the world and possessed the word of life (see Phil. 2:15-16), remains firm and remains unshakable until the end of time, as well as their God-taught scriptures and dogmas. We reject and anathematize everyone whom they rejected and anathematized as enemies of the truth, who rebelled in vain against God and constantly spoke untruths about (the Being on) the heights 187 . If anyone of all does not adhere to and does not accept the above-mentioned dogmas of piety, does not think and preach like this, but attempts to go against them, let him be anathema, according to the definition previously made by the above-mentioned saints and blessed fathers, and let him be excluded and cast out from the list of Christians as an alien. For we have finally decided not to add anything or subtract anything from what was previously determined, even if we could in any way. This 1st rule has not been interpreted by either Zonara or Balsamon, since it is nothing more than a brief enumeration of the dogmas and creeds of the holy Ecumenical Six Councils that preceded this Council, and those heretics against whom these Councils were convened, as well as the times and places when and where these Councils took place. And this is not just a repetition, but also an affirmation of the conciliar dogmas. Therefore, following the same interpreters, we refer readers for more extensive information about the definitions and dogmas of the said holy Councils, the times and places, and the heretics against whom each of them was assembled, to the prefaces of the canons of each Council, so that what is said there is not repeated here in vain. We will explain only certain expressions that are not entirely clear to ordinary people. So, starting with the saying of Gregory the Theologian [188], which states that the best order for those who intend to begin every word and deed is to begin with God and end with God, the rule determines that the faith transmitted both by the holy apostles [189] and by the following fathers should remain unchanged and unshakable: 1. The Fathers of the First Council, who destroyed Aryan heterotheism [190] or, better said, polytheism and preached consubstantiality, that is, the identity of essence (or nature) in the Holy Trinity. 2. The Fathers of the Second Council, whose theological sayings the Fathers of the present Council, according to them, willingly accept. These are the same sayings that were added by the Second Council in the Creed to the theology of the Holy Spirit: to the words of the First Council “and in the Holy Spirit,” the Second Council added “the Lord, the life-giving, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke the prophets.” 3. Fathers of the III [191], IV, V and VI Councils [192]. Briefly, the fathers of this Council decreed that the faith and dogmas taught by God of all the saints, who shone in God’s Church and became for the world as if life-giving luminaries, should remain firm and unshakable until the end of time. In addition, the fathers anathematize all those enemies of truth (i.e., heretics), whom the fathers of previous Councils anathematized, and also determine that they have no intention and in no way can add or subtract anything from the mentioned dogmas. And whoever does not adhere to these patristic dogmas of piety, does not think in accordance with them and does not proclaim them, but tries to contradict them, to him, say the fathers, let him be anathema and let him be excluded from the list of Christians and cut off as an alien and rotten member. This Holy Council recognized that the most beautiful and most important thing was that from now on, for the healing of souls and the healing of passions, the 85 rules accepted and approved by the holy and blessed fathers who came before us and handed down to us under the name of the rules of the holy glorious apostles should remain firm and inviolable. Since in these rules we are commanded to accept the “Ordinances” of the same holy apostles transmitted through Clement, into which the heterodox once, to the detriment of the Church, introduced something counterfeit, alien to piety and which darkened for us the splendid beauty of divine dogmas, then we properly, for the sake of the edification and safety of the Christian flock, rejected these “Ordinances”, absolutely not allowing the germs of heretical lies and not mixing them with the genuine and intact teaching of the apostles. We also approve all the other sacred rules that our holy and blessed fathers set forth, namely: 318 God-bearing fathers gathered in Nicaea, the fathers in Ancyra, as well as in Neocaesarea, in Gangra, in Syrian Antioch and Phrygian Laodicea; in addition, 150 fathers who gathered in this God-protected reigning city; 200 fathers who previously established the Council in the Ephesian Metropolis; 630 holy and blessed fathers gathered at Chalcedon; likewise the Council of the Fathers in Sardica, as well as in Carthage; in addition, once again in this God-saved and reigning city the fathers gathered under Nectarios, the primate of this reigning city, and Theophilos, archbishop of Alexandria. We also confirm the rules of Dionysius, archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and martyr; Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea; Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory of Nyssa; Gregory the Theologian; Amphilochios of Iconium; Timothy I, Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; Theophilos, archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and Gennady, Patriarch of this God-protected and reigning city. There is also the rule of Cyprian, the archbishop of an African country and a martyr, which was set forth by the Council that took place under him and received force according to the transmitted custom in the places of the previously mentioned primates, and only with them. And no one will be allowed to distort the above rules, or cancel them, or accept rules other than those established with false inscriptions, which were drawn up by those who dared to trade in the truth. If anyone is caught changing any of the above rules or trying to reject them, he will be guilty against this rule: he will suffer the penance that it prescribes, and through what he stumbled, he will receive healing. (Apost. 85, IV Ecum. 1; VII Ecum. 1.) Since each Council, and especially the Ecumenical Council, drew up a definition in which the dogmas of faith were set out, and wrote down rules that contributed to the establishment of order and deanery in the Church, the present Council, after in the 1st rule approved and approved the definitions of the faith of the holy Ecumenical Councils, here, in the 2nd rule, also approves and approves the rules, firstly, of the holy apostles, numbering 85. About these rules the Council says that they were accepted and approved by former fathers. (And the “Apostolic Constitutions” transmitted through Clement, since they are in some parts distorted by heterodox to the detriment of the Church, the Council rejects for the safety of Christians. However, it seems to me that in the form in which they are now printed, they do not contain anything inappropriate or spurious. See also about them in Apostle 85.) Secondly, the Council approves and confirms the rules of the four Ecumenical Councils; thirdly, the rules of the named Local Councils [193]; fourthly, the rules of individual holy fathers listed by name. The Council adds that no one is allowed to distort or reject any of these rules, or instead recognize other rules with false inscriptions. And if it turns out that someone is trying to distort or reject any of these rules, then he must suffer penance determined by the rule that he distorts or rejects. Namely: if a rule prescribes and prescribes excommunication, or ejection, or anathema, then the one who distorts and rejects the rule must receive such penance, so that he can heal his error by the very rule against which he sinned [194]. Read also the Apostle. 85, IV Omni. 1 and preface to the apostolic canons. Our pious and Christ-loving emperor called upon this holy Ecumenical Council to make those who are in the clergy and teach others the divine, pure and immaculate servants, worthy of the mental sacrifice of the great God, who is both the Victim and the Bishop, and to cleanse them from the filth that has attached to them due to lawless marriages. To this, those belonging to the most holy Roman Church proposed to observe the rule of acrivia, and those subject to the throne of this God-protected and reigning city - the rule of philanthropy and compassion. Therefore, we, paternally and together lovingly uniting both together, so as not to allow either relaxed meekness or cruel severity, and especially taking into account the fact that the fall that occurred through ignorance extends to a considerable number of husbands, we determine to subject to canonical eruption those who were involved in a second marriage and until the 15th day of last January of the month of the past 4th Indictment 6199 remained in enslavement sin, not wanting to come to their senses. As for those presbyters or deacons who, although they fell into such a passion for second marriage, however, before we knew about it, they learned what was useful and cut off evil from themselves, throwing this alien and illegal relationship far away, as well as those whose wives of their second marriage had already died, and they themselves converted, having learned chastity and soon forgetting their former iniquities - about such it was decided that they should cease any kind of sacred service or action, from then on being under penance for a certain time. Let them enjoy the honor of the seat and the position they occupy, being content with the place of honor and crying before the Lord, so that He may forgive them their lawless act, committed out of ignorance. It is incongruous for one who must care for his own wounds to bless another. And those who, although married to one wife, but the one they took was a widow, as well as those who, after ordination, entered into an illegal marriage, that is, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, after being removed from the priesthood for a certain short time and being under penance, can again be returned to their degrees, provided that they never advance to another, higher, degree and, of course, if they have already terminated their unlawful cohabitation. However, we have decreed this in relation to those who, as stated, before the fifteenth day of the month of January of the fourth indictment were noticed in the above-mentioned sins, and only in relation to sacred persons, from now on we define and renew the rule, which reads: “He who has been married in two marriages after baptism or who has taken a concubine cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or generally belong to the list of the sacred rank” 196 . Likewise, “whoever takes as his wife a widow, or an abandoned woman, or a harlot, or a slave, or an actress cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or even belong to the list of the sacred order” 197. (Apost. 17–19; VI Ecum. 26; Basil the Great. 12, 27.) The fathers of the present Council, correcting the evil that arose at that time and protecting themselves for the future, adopted this rule in accordance with church economy, since the emperor asked them to cleanse the clergy of that time from the impurity of illicit and illegal marriages into which they fell. Moreover, on the one hand, representatives of the Pope proposed to observe the strict rules towards them, and on the other, the bishops subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople said that leniency and philanthropy should be shown towards them. The Fathers of the Council, having combined both together, i.e., acrivia and leniency (especially since many clergy at that time entered into such marriages out of ignorance), at the request of the emperor, determined that those of the clergy who entered into a second marriage who did not repent of this before the time of the present Council and did not dissolve their illegal marriages were subjected to complete eruption and became laity. And as for those second-married clergy, i.e., presbyters or deacons, who, on the contrary, repented before this Council took place, and themselves dissolved their illegal marriage or, after the death of their second wives, turned to chastity and repentance, it is considered fair that they cease their priestly service for a certain period of time. However, they can enjoy the honorable right to sit and stand outside the altar along with the clergy, crying before God for forgiveness of the iniquity they committed in ignorance and not blessing anyone. It is not appropriate for someone who must heal the ulcers of his own soul with repentance to teach blessings to others, as the rule of Vasily the Great says. 27. In turn, those presbyters, deacons and subdeacons who took a widow as a wife or married after ordination, after being removed for a short time from any sacred rite, let them again perform what is inherent in the priesthood, but let them not ascend to a higher degree, but remain in those degrees at which each of them is located. But this should be after they dissolve the illegal cohabitation. Having determined this by economy and leniency towards the mentioned clergy, the named fathers renew (that is, make a decision so that in the future they will have force) the rules of the holy apostles, namely the 17th and 18th, which are given verbatim. See their interpretation, as well as the interpretation of the Apostle. 19. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, or reader, or singer, or doorkeeper copulates with a wife consecrated to God, then let him be deposed, because he has corrupted the bride of Christ. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. (Apost. 25; I Om. 9; IV Om. 16; VI Ose. 21, 40, 44, 45; Anchir. 19; Neocesar. 9; Basil the Great. 3, 6, 17–20, 32, 51, 60, 70.) This rule casts out clergy who commit fornication with wives consecrated to God, that is, with nuns, and excommunicates the laity who did this, for they corrupted the bride of the Bridegroom of the souls of Christ God, whether she was a virgin before she became a nun, or a widow. At the same time, clergy and clergy are cast out not only when they fall into fornication with a nun, but also when they fall into fornication with a laywoman. Read also the Apostle. 25 and IV Omni. 16. Let no one from the sacred rank keep a woman or a maidservant with him, with the exception of those who do not arouse suspicion as specified in the rule, thereby preserving himself from criticism. If anyone transgresses what we have determined, let him be cast out. Let the eunuchs observe the same, taking care of their impeccability. Let those who transgress this, if they are clerics, be cast out, and if they are laymen, let them be excommunicated. (I Om. 3; VII Om. 18, 22; Ankyr. 19; Carthage. 45; Basil the Great. 88.) The definition of this rule is as follows. None of the clergy, if they want to live decently, should bring a concubine or a maid into their home, with the exception of those who do not arouse suspicion, whom the rule lists (meaning I Om. 3), i.e., mother, sister or aunt, no matter whether by father or mother, in order to remain impeccable in the eyes of the people. And any of the clergy who violates this rule will be deposed. Like them, eunuchs, protecting themselves from criticism, should not live with persons who arouse suspicion. If they dare to do this, then if they are clerics (which means they were castrated against their own will or eunuchs by nature), then let them be cast out, and if they are laymen, let them be excommunicated. Read also I Omni. 3. Since the apostolic canons say that of the celibates promoted to the clergy, only readers and singers can marry, then we, observing this, determine that from now on in no case will a subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter after ordination be allowed to enter into marital cohabitation, and if he dares to do this, let him be deposed. If anyone entering the clergy wants to marry his wife according to the law of marriage, then let him do this before being ordained as a subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter. (Apost. 26; IV Ose. 14, 15; Anchir. 13; Carthage. 19, 33.) Since the rule of Apost. 26 determines that only readers and singers can marry after ordination, insofar as the fathers of this Council, confirming this with this canon, determine that from now on no subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter after ordination will be allowed to marry. And if he does this, then let him be cast out [198]. If any of these wants to get married, then let him get married before being ordained as a subdeacon, deacon or presbyter. Since we have learned that in some churches deacons have church positions and because of this, some of them, out of impudence and self-will, sit above the presbyters, we determine that a deacon, even if he has a rank, that is, holds any church position, should not sit above the presbyter, unless, representing the person of his patriarch or metropolitan, he arrives in another city on some business. Then he, as the one occupying that place, will be honored. If anyone dares to achieve this by using violence, then after being demoted from his rank, let him be the last of all in the rank to which he is ranked in his Church. Our Lord admonishes us not to rejoice in first places, according to the teaching proposed by the holy Evangelist Luke on behalf of our Lord and God Himself. He spoke the following parable to those invited: When you are invited by someone to a marriage, do not sit in the first place, lest one of those invited be more honorable than you, and the one who invited you and him would come up and say to you: give him your place; and then with shame you will have to take the last place. But when you are called, sit in the last place, so that the one who called you will come up and say: friend! sit higher; then you will be honored before those who sit with you, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 14:7-11). Let the same be observed in relation to other sacred ranks, because we know that spiritual ranks are superior to worldly ones. (I Om. 18; Laodice. 20.) This rule determines: since some deacons, having church positions (such superior ministries are also called honors and sources of income, according to Balsamon, i.e. these are the positions of exocataquil clergy 199: great steward, great sacellarius, skeuphylax, chartophylax, minor sacellarius and protekdicos), behave impudently and sit above the presbyters, then henceforth, no deacon, no matter what church position he holds, should sit higher than the presbyter, unless, representing the person of the patriarch or metropolitan, he is sent to another place on some church business. Then he will be given greater honor than the presbyter, but not because he is a deacon, but because, as we said, he occupies the place of a patriarch or metropolitan. And that deacon who, with the insolence of a tyrant, sits above the presbyter and who is given preference over other deacons equal to him in rank, must become the last and lowest among all deacons, because the Lord in the Holy Gospel of Luke teaches us not to rejoice in first places. He tells those invited to lunch or dinner the following parable: “Man, when you are invited by someone to a wedding, do not sit in the first place, so that one of those invited by him does not happen to be better than you and the one who invited you and him comes up and says to you: “Make room for him”; and then with shame you will have to take the last place. But when you are called, sit in the last place, so that the one who called you will approach and say: “My friend! Sit higher"; then you will be honored before those who sit with you at table, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Not only should deacons not enjoy greater honor than presbyters and sit above them, but all other lower ranks of clergy and clergy should not sit above the senior ranks, that is, neither subdeacons are higher than deacons, nor readers are higher than subdeacons. After all, if among persons bearing worldly and secular titles, those of lower rank do not sit in front and are not given preference over those who are superior and have a higher rank, then how much more should this be observed among persons bearing spiritual titles, bestowed by the divine grace of the Spirit, which are greater and higher than worldly ones? [ 200 ] Read also I Omni. 18. Desiring in everything to adhere to the institutions of our holy fathers, we also renew the rule commanding that an annual Council of Bishops of each metropolitan region be held where the metropolitan deems it best. But since, due to the raids of the barbarians and for other random reasons, the primates of the Churches do not have the opportunity to convene Councils twice a year, it was decided that the Council of the above-mentioned bishops should be convened without fail once a year for the sake of naturally arising church issues in each metropolitan region, during the period from the holy feast of Easter until the end of October of each year, in the place that, as stated above, will be approved by the metropolitan. And those bishops who do not appear at the Council, although they are in their cities and, moreover, are in health and free from all urgent and necessary activities, it is brotherly to reprimand. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carthage. 26, 81, 84, 85, 104.) Here the fathers confirm and renew the rule of the previous holy fathers, which prescribes that two Councils should be held every year in each metropolitan region. But since it is difficult for bishops to meet twice a year due to fear of barbarian enemy raids and other temporary circumstances, the fathers prescribe that a Council of Bishops must be held once a year in each metropolitan region to consider and put in order current church affairs. Such a Council should be held between Holy Easter and the end of October in the place that the metropolitan of each metropolitan region finds suitable. And those bishops who do not appear at the Council, although they are in their episcopal areas, are healthy and are not busy with any urgent matter, should be reprimanded in a brotherly manner. No cleric is allowed to keep an innkeeper. For if one is forbidden to enter an inn, how much more so is it forbidden to serve others in it and to undertake what is not permitted to him? So, if he does such a thing, let him either stop or be cast out. (Apost. 42, 43, 54; VII O. 22; Laodice. 24; Carthage. 18, 47, 69.) This rule specifies that no cleric is allowed to maintain or serve in an inn. After all, if he is not even allowed to enter taverns, then how much more is he not allowed to be there, serve visitors and do what is indecent to his rank? Anyone who does anything like this should either stop or be cast out. But if someone who has his own inn instructs others to serve in it, according to Zonara, this does not harm him or prevent him from remaining in the rank. However, it is better to sell it and acquire other property, more decent and more befitting the rank of clergy [201]. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who charges interest or so-called hundredths, let him either stop or be deposed. (Apost. 44; I Om. 17; Laodice. 4; Carthage. 5, 20; Basil the Great. 14.) That bishop, says the present rule, or presbyter, or deacon, who takes interest on money borrowed, for example, 12 or 6 coins per 100, let him either stop doing so, or, if he does not stop, let him be deposed. No one belonging to the sacred rank and no layman eats Jewish unleavened bread, enters into fellowship with the Jews, calls them in when they are sick, accepts treatment for them, and does not at all wash with them in the baths. If anyone begins to do this, then if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. This rule commands that no clergyman or layman should eat unleavened bread sent to him by the Jews, and also in no case befriend them, do not call them in case of illness and not be treated by them [202], and in no case wash with them in the bathhouse. And anyone who acts differently, if he is a cleric, must be expelled, and if he is a layman, he must be excommunicated. See also Apost. 7, 70. It has also come to our attention that in Africa and Libya and other places, some of the most God-loving primates who are there, even after being ordained, do not renounce cohabitation with their wives, creating a stumbling block for other people and leading them into temptation. So, since we are very concerned about doing everything for the benefit of the flock we lead, we considered it reasonable that from now on this should not happen at all. We affirm this not in order to reject or refute the apostolic laws, but in order to prudently take care of the salvation and progress of people for the better, and also not to bring any censure on the priestly order. For the divine apostle says: Do everything to the glory of God. Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks, or to the Church of God, just as I please everyone in everything, seeking not my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Cor. 10:33) 203. If it turns out that anyone does this, let him be cast out. (Apost. 5; VI Ose. 30, 48; Gangr. 4; Carthage. 4, 33.) We learned that in Africa and Libya (or both words designate the same place, because located in the south, one of the four parts of the world, previously called Libya, was later renamed Africa, according to Chrysanthus; or the rule generally calls the entire part of the world Libya, and Africa some separate region included in it, according to Meletius) and other places, the bishops, even after they are ordained, live together with their wives and seducing other people. Therefore, trying to do everything that is aimed at the common benefit of the Christian flock, we determine that from now on no bishop will live with his wife after he is ordained [204]. We determine this not to refute the general apostolic canon (i.e., 5th), excommunicating that bishop who, under the pretext of reverence, separates from his wife against her will, and not to reject the command that Paul specifically gives to Titus, saying: And that you appoint elders in all the cities... If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife... 205 (presbyters mean bishops, according to Chrysostom 206, since, as we already said at the beginning of Apostle 1, a bishop is also called a presbyter 207. This is obvious from the following words of the Apostle: For a bishop must be... 208 - etc.). Not for the abolition of these rules, I continue, we determine this, but in order to take care of the salvation and more perfect prosperity of Christians and so that these people do not bring any accusation against the bishop's rank. Even if bishops who cohabit with their wives live with them in chastity and abstinence, the common people are still tempted and blame them, suspecting something opposite in their life together. The Divine Apostle bequeaths to us that whatever we do, do it for the glory of God and not become a temptation either for Jews, or for Greeks, or for Christians 209. He says: Just as I please everyone in everything, seeking not my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ 210. If any of the bishops lives together with his wife, let him be deposed. We learned that in the Roman Church it is a rule that those who are to be ordained deacons or presbyters promise to no longer have marital relations with their wives. We, following the ancient rule of apostolic strictness and order, wish that the legal marriage of consecrated husbands will continue to remain indissoluble, and we in no way destroy their union with their wives and do not deprive them of conjugal intimacy at appropriate times. Therefore, if anyone turns out to be worthy of ordination to the rank of subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, let him not be prevented from entering this degree because he is cohabiting with his lawful wife. And let us not require from him at his ordination an obligation that he will leave legal marital intimacy with his own wife, so that we are not forced thereby to offend the marriage established by God and blessed by His presence. After all, the Gospel saying says: What God has joined together, let no man separate (Matt. 19:6), and the apostle teaches: Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled (Heb. 13:4), and also: Are you united to your wife? do not seek divorce (1 Cor. 7:27). We also know that those who gathered in Carthage, caring for the purity of life of the ministers of the Church, said that subdeacons who touch the Sacred Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters, according to their definitions, should abstain from their wives, so that we also preserve the apostolic tradition, which has been observed since ancient times, knowing the time of every thing 211, and especially fasting and prayer. After all, those approaching the altar at the time when they approach the Holy Gifts should be abstinent in everything, so that they can receive from God what they simply ask for 212. So, if someone dares, violating the apostolic rules, to deprive any of the consecrated ones, that is, presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons, of union and marital intimacy with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In the same way, if a presbyter or deacon, under the pretext of reverence, expels his wife, let him be excommunicated, but if he remains inflexible, let him be deposed. This rule defines the following. We have learned that in Rome it is an indisputable rule that those intending to become deacons or elders promise at the time of ordination that after their ordination they will no longer have intercourse with their wives. Therefore, we, following the ancient rule of the holy apostles, namely the 5th, affirm and decree that the marriage of clergy remains strong and indissoluble, and at the same time we do not deprive them, after ordination, of marital relations with their wives at decent times, that is, when there is no fasting and when they are not celebrating the Divine Mysteries [213]. Therefore, if any married person is worthy to become a subdeacon, deacon or presbyter, let him become one and let him not be required to promise to separate from his wife, so that we are not thereby forced to dishonor the marriage established by God and blessed by His presence, namely, at the marriage in Cana of Galilee. Indeed, in the Gospel, the saying of the Lord says: What God has joined together, let no man separate, and the apostle teaches: Marriage is honorable and the bed is undefiled, and also: Are you united with your wife? don't look for a divorce. The Fathers of the Council of Carthage, prudently concerned about the purity of the clergy, decreed in canon 33 that subdeacons, deacons and presbyters who touched the Sacred Mysteries should abstain from their wives according to their own definitions [214]. The Fathers approved this so that we too would preserve the apostolic tradition, which has been observed since ancient times, according to canon 3 of the same Council (that is, both written traditions and unwritten ones, according to Zonara and Balsamon). So we, saying the same thing as these fathers, decree that ministers of the Church of the three degrees listed above should abstain from their wives during fasting and prayer, according to the word of St. Pavel. It is appropriate for those standing at the altar to be abstinent in everything during the sacred rite, so that through this abstinence they can receive from God what they seek in simplicity (that is, either without reasoning, according to Zonara, or for the common benefit of the people, according to Carthage 3). This means that if anyone dares, bypassing the apostolic rules, to prohibit subdeacons, deacons and elders from having legal intercourse with their wives, let him be deposed [215]. The rule sets out verbatim the rule of the Apostle. 5, the interpretation of which read. Let the rule of our holy and God-bearing fathers be observed in not ordaining a presbyter before the age of 30, but to wait, even if the person were very worthy, for the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach in the 30th year. Likewise, a deacon before 25 years of age, and a deaconess before 40 years of age, should not be ordained. (I Om. 19; IV Om. 15; Neokesar. 11; Carthage. 21.) This rule repeats verbatim the rule of Neokesar. 11, confirming it, and determines that no one should be ordained an elder before reaching the age of 30. Even if the one whom they intend to ordain was eminently worthy of consecration, nevertheless he should have waited until the end of his term, because the Lord was baptized and began to preach the Gospel at the age of 30 (And He, beginning His ministry, was about thirty years old, says Luke (see Luke 3:23)), and the elders should also imitate Him, since they, having received presbyteral rank, are appointed teachers faithful [ 216 ] . Likewise, a deacon should not be ordained before reaching 25 years of age (Carthage says the same thing 21), and a deaconess - before 40 years of age. May God be lenient to today's violation of these rules. And if the violators are not ashamed of the sacred, God-bearing and holy fathers themselves, then let them at least be ashamed of a secular man - the Emperor Justinian, who in his 123rd novella says: “We do not allow anyone under 30 years of age to become a presbyter, a deacon under 25, and a subdeacon under 20.” Read also I Omni. 19 and note. to Neokesar. 11. One cannot ordain a subdeacon before the age of 20. If anyone is ordained to any sacred degree before a certain age, let him be deposed. The present rule says that one cannot be ordained as a subdeacon under the age of 20. And anyone belonging to the four indicated degrees who is ordained before the age indicated for them, let him be deposed. The reader was ordained, according to Carthage. 19, when he reached adolescence, i.e. at 14 years old, and according to the 123rd story of Justinian, placed in the 3rd book. “Basilik” (tit. 1, chapter 28), - at the age of 18 (the short story commanding his ordination at eight years old was omitted during the purification of the laws and was not included in “Vasilik”, and therefore lost its force). For information about how old a bishop should be at ordination, see the note. 2 to Apost. 1. And since the civil law commands that like should be judged by like, then, naturally, both the reader and the bishop, if they are ordained before the appointed age, are deposed in the same way as others, in accordance with the present canon of the Sixth Council 217. Since the book of Acts conveys that the apostles appointed seven deacons, and since the fathers of the Neocaesarea Council in the rules they set out definitely said that “according to the rule there should be seven deacons, even if the city was very large, and you will be convinced of this from the book of Acts,” then we, having compared the thought of the fathers with the saying of the apostles, found that they were not talking about men serving the sacraments, but about serving the needs tables. In the book of Acts it is written like this: In those days, when the disciples multiplied, there arose among the Hellenists a murmur against the Jews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of needs. Then the twelve Apostles, having called together many disciples, said: It is not good for us to leave the word of God and worry about the tables. So, brethren, select from among yourselves seven known men, filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom; We will place them in this service, and we will constantly remain in prayer and the ministry of the word. And this proposal was acceptable to the whole meeting; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenes, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert from the pagans; they were placed before the Apostles (see Acts 6:1–6). Explaining this, the teacher of the Church John Chrysostom reasons as follows: “It is amazing how the people were not divided when electing those men and how the apostles were not humiliated before them! But it is necessary to understand exactly what dignity they had and what ordination they received. Maybe a deacon's? However, this dignity was not found in the churches. Then the ministry of elders? But at that time there was not a single bishop, but only apostles. Therefore, I think, it is clear and obvious that this name did not mean either deacons or elders” 218. Based on this, we also proclaim that the above seven deacons should not be taken as ministers of the sacraments, according to the stated teaching, but they are those who were entrusted with the management of the general needs of those who gathered at that time, and in this they became for us an example of philanthropy and care for those in need. This rule corrects, or rather improves, the Neokesar rule. 15, which determines that even in the largest city there should be only seven, and no more, deacons, as the book of Acts relates. So, the fathers of the present Council say: “We, comparing the interpretation that the fathers offer with what is said about these seven deacons in the Acts of the Apostles, find that these deacons were ministers not of the sacraments, but of tables.” Acts says: “In those days, when the Christians increased in number, those who believed among the Greeks (or, according to others, those Jews who accepted the Old Testament not in the Hebrew original, but in a translation into Greek) murmured against those who believed among the Jews (or against those who accepted the Scripture in the Hebrew original) because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of needs during events. then common meals.” So, the people, on the advice of the apostles, chose these seven deacons (they are listed by name), men filled with the Holy Spirit and witnessed by everyone, and appointed them to serve the needs of the tables, while the apostles continued in prayer and the ministry of teaching. Interpreting this, the divine Chrysostom is first surprised that because of this election of deacons the people were not divided (after all, probably some wanted to elect one, others another), and then says that these deacons had neither the title of ministers (διακόνων) of the sacraments, nor the title of presbyters, for such titles had not yet been established in the Church, since it was in its beginning, or, so to speak, in infancy. Therefore, the fathers of the Council, agreeing with the interpretation of the divine Chrysostom, proclaim that these deacons, as we said, were not ministers of the sacraments, but cared for the general needs of Christians of that time and food for them [219] and became for us an example of philanthropy and care, which we should show towards the poor. Not only were these fathers not guided by the said rule of the Neocaesarea Council, but neither were the emperors Justinian and Heraclius who lived before them, of whom the first appointed one hundred deacons in the Great Church, and the second more than a hundred. And in general, all churches have as many deacons and clergy as they can support [220]. Since the clergy of various churches, leaving their churches in which they were ordained, resorted to other bishops and, without the permission of their bishop, were enrolled in other churches, from which it became clear that they turned out to be rebellious, we determine that from January of the past 4th Indict (ἐπινέμησις) absolutely none of the clergy, no matter what degree he was, had the right without letter of dismissal from his bishop to be assigned to another church. Anyone who will not henceforth observe this, but by his act will dishonor the one who ordained him, let him be cast out - both he himself and the one who foolishly accepted it. (Apost. 12, 15, 33; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 11, 13, 20, 23; VII Om. 15; Antioch. 3, 7, 8, 11; Laodice. 41, 42; Sardik. 7, 8, 15, 16, 19; Carthage. 31, 63, 97, 98, 116.) This rule does not allow clergy to leave their churches and move to others without the permission and letter of dismissal of their bishop, because otherwise they would be disobedient. And whoever, starting from January of last 4th indictment (for the word ἐπινέμησις means indictment, as is clear from the 3rd canon of this Council), in other words, from today onwards, dares to do this, by his transition and covering with shame the one who ordained him, and showing his contempt for him, let him be deposed, just like the one who foolishly accepted it. Read also the Apostle. 12, 15. The clergy who, under the pretext of a barbarian invasion or for some other circumstance, have become migrants, are commanded, as soon as these circumstances change or the barbarian invasions that caused their removal cease, to return to their churches again and not to leave them for a long time without reason. If anyone behaves inconsistently with this rule, then let him be excommunicated until he returns to his church. Let the bishop who restrains him be subject to the same punishment. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Oz. 5, 10, 20, 23; VI Oz. 17; VII Oz. 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15, 16, 19; Carthage. 63, 98.) This rule does not allow leaving their churches not only for those clergy who have no reason for this, but also for those who leave either because of the invasion of barbarians, or perhaps because of the severity of debts and taxes, or famine, or a deadly epidemic, or for some other circumstance. The rule orders them to return to their churches as soon as the reason for which they left is removed. Anyone who does not act in accordance with this rule must be excommunicated until he returns to his church; The bishop who keeps such a cleric in his episcopal region is also absent for the same period. See also the interpretation of Apost. 15. The heads of churches must every day, and especially on Sundays, teach the entire clergy and people the words of piety, choosing from the Divine Scripture thoughts and judgments of truth and, moreover, without transgressing the already established limits or the traditions of the God-bearing fathers. If the word of Scripture is examined, let them explain it in accordance with what the luminaries and teachers of the Church have proposed in their writings, and in no other way, and let them be better glorified by their writings than by composing their own works, so that if they lack skill in this, they sometimes do not deviate from what is due. Through the teachings of the mentioned fathers, people receive knowledge both about objects that are excellent and worthy of choice, and about harmful and unacceptable ones, and therefore they change their lives for the better and do not become prey to the passion of ignorance, but, heeding the teaching, they encourage themselves to move away from evil and, out of fear of the punishments that threaten them, work out their salvation. (Apost. 58; Dvukrat. 16; Laodice. 19; Carthage. 79, 131–133; Peter Alexander. 10; Gregory Nis. 6.) This rule determines that the heads of churches - first of all bishops, and then elders - must teach the entire clergy and people every day, but especially and necessarily on Sundays [221], as well as on other holidays, because on these days Christians leave their work, gather in churches and listen to Divine words, and therefore teachers on these days can give them the greatest benefit. However, they must teach based not on their own reasoning and thoughts, but on those taken from Divine Scripture, and not transgress the conciliarly approved definitions and dogmas of faith or the traditions of the God-bearing fathers. If they reason about the word of Scripture, they must explain it not in any other way, but in the way that the teachers of the Church explained it in their writings. And let them try more to succeed in teaching the teachings of the divine fathers than in composing their own speeches, so that, using their own thoughts, but sometimes being unable to understand the Scriptures correctly, they do not deviate from what is due and from the truth. People, learning from the teachings of the fathers about what is beneficial for their souls and what, on the contrary, is harmful, change their sinful life to a virtuous one and are freed from the darkness of ignorance. And again, listening to this teaching and hearing about the punishments and torments that await sinners, out of fear of these torments, they avoid evil deeds and achieve their salvation. Moreover, the rule of Laodicecus. 19 says that first at the liturgy there should be a teaching from the bishop. May a bishop not be allowed to teach publicly in another city that does not belong to him. If anyone is caught doing this, let him be removed from the bishopric, and let him perform the actions of a presbyter. (Apost. 35; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; Antioch. 13, 22; Sardik. 3, 11, 12.) It is not allowed, this rule says, for any bishop to teach openly and publicly in a foreign episcopal region, that is, without the permission of the local bishop, since such popular teaching dishonors the local bishop: as if he were a fool and ignorant, and he is a wise man and a teacher. If it turns out that someone does this, let him be removed from the episcopal dignity and perform only the sacred rites of a presbyter. This rule determines that a foreign bishop should not teach publicly, because if he answers questions privately, he does not sin. This rule does not contradict rule IV Omni. 29 for the reasons given in the rule of Apost. 35, which you should read. Those who are guilty of canonical crimes and for this are finally and forever subjected to ejection, as well as those relegated to the place of the laity, if, voluntarily striving for correction, they reject the sin because of which they fell from grace, and completely distance themselves from it, let them cut their hair in the image of the clergy. If, of their own free will, they do not want this, then let them grow their hair like the laity, for they preferred being in the world to living in heaven. (Apost. 25; I Om. 9; VI Ose. 4; Neo-Caesar. 9; Basil the Great. 3, 17, 32, 50, 70.) For those clergy who, for canonical crimes, for example, fornication, adultery or other similar sins, were cast out completely and forever, took the form of laity and stand with them, this rule prescribes: if they voluntarily repent and completely abstain from sin, because of which they lost the grace of the priesthood, then let them cut the hair on their heads, that is, have a so-called papalette on the crown of their head, which was the outward sign of clergy [ 222]. If they do not voluntarily repent, let them grow their hair like secular people, so that, being ashamed of the fact that they look like secular people, they will someday realize the evil they have committed and repent. We command that bishops and any clergy who are ordained for money, and not after testing and election for their way of life, be deposed, as well as those who ordained them. (Apost. 29; IV Om. 2; VI Oz. 23; VII Oz. 4, 5, 19; Basil the Great. 90; epistles of Gennady of Constantinople and Tarasius of Constantinople.) This rule prescribes the deposition of bishops and any other clergy who are ordained for a bribe, and not for the sake of their dignity and virtuous life. But not only they are ejected, but also those who ordained them. Read and groan, brother, about the violation of so many and important rules! Simony is now indulged in as if it were a virtue, and not a godless heresy, as His Holiness Gennady calls it. If someone begins to examine the current state of church affairs from the point of view of the sacred canons, then he, of course, will be perplexed and will not find the slightest correspondence with their previous situation in order to somehow resolve his bewilderment. All clerics receive their degrees lawlessly, live and die lawlessly. That’s why our slave shackles are tightening more and more, becoming more and more heavy, but we don’t feel it and break the laws more and more shamelessly... That none of the bishops, presbyters or deacons, when teaching the most pure communion, should charge the communicant for this communion money or anything else, for grace is not for sale and we do not teach sanctification from the Spirit for money, but must teach it without guile to those worthy of the Gift. If it turns out that anyone among the clergy demands any kind of retribution from the one to whom he gives the most pure communion, let him be cast out as an imitator of the error and crime of Simon. (Apostle 29; IV Omni. 2; VI Om. 22; VII Om. 4, 5, 19; Basil the Great. 90; epistles of Gennady of Constantinople and Tarasius of Constantinople.) This rule stipulates that no bishop, presbyter or deacon [ 223 ] from those to whom he communes the Divine Mysteries should demand, as a kind of debt, money or other offering, even the smallest, for Divine Communion. The grace of the sacraments is not for sale, and we teach the sanctification of the Divine Spirit not for money, but disinterestedly - to those who are worthy of it. According to Balsamon, this is why many call Divine Communion Gifts, because it is given freely. If anyone does otherwise, he must be cast out as an imitator of the error and heresy of Simon the Magus, who believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit is sold for money [224]. Let no one in the sacred rank or monastics be allowed to go to the races or attend theatrical games. And even if any cleric is invited to a marriage, then as soon as the tempting games begin, let him rise up and immediately leave, for this is what the teaching of our fathers commands. If anyone is caught violating this rule, let him either stop or be expelled. (Apost. 42, 43; VI Ecum. 51, 62, 66; VII Ecum. 22; Laodice. 53, 54; Carthage. 17, 70.) No initiate or monk, as this rule says, is allowed to go to those places where races are held, or to watch and listen to the games like women. If any cleric is invited to a wedding, then he can go, however, when they plan to organize such seducing satanic games, let him immediately get up and leave, as the teaching of the fathers, i.e., the rule of Laodice, prescribes. 54 (although it adds that it is not appropriate for clergy to watch other spectacles that occur at weddings and feasts, and should leave before the performance begins). And let anyone caught in an act prohibited by this rule either stop or be expelled [225]. Together with all the others, we also renew the rule that defines: village or country parishes in each Church must invariably remain with the bishops who own them, and especially if they, having held them for 30 years without the use of violence, ruled them. 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. (IV Om. 17; Carthage. 128–130.) This rule renews rule IV Omni. 17, which is stated here verbatim, but not in full, but in part, therefore see its interpretation in its place. A presbyter who, out of ignorance, has entered into an unlawful marriage, let him use the presbyteral seat, in accordance with what is laid down for us by the sacred rule, and abstain from other actions. For forgiveness is enough for such a person, but one who must take care of his own wounds should not bless another, since blessing is the teaching of sanctification; he who does not have it because of a sin committed out of ignorance, how will he teach it to another? Therefore, let him not bless either publicly or privately, and not share the Body of the Lord with others, and not perform any other service, but, content with the place he occupies, let him ask with tears other people and the Lord to forgive him for his lawless act committed out of ignorance. Moreover, it is obvious that such an unlawful marriage must be dissolved and the husband under no circumstances can cohabit with the one for whom he was deprived of the right to officiate. (Apost. 19; VI Ose. 3; Neocesar. 9; Basil the Great. 23, 27, 78.) This rule is exactly the same as the rule of Vasily the Great. 27, which determines that a priest who ignorantly marries any of his relatives can be forgiven, since he did not know about this relationship, and can enjoy the honor of the priestly seat, but abstain from all other sacred rites. In fact, it is enough that he is not subjected to canonical penance, but receives forgiveness, but it is not appropriate to bless others who must heal his own ulcers, that is, repent of an illegal marriage, because blessing is the impartation of sanctification, and if such a priest does not have this sanctification, then how can he give it to another? So, let him neither openly nor secretly bless, give communion to others, or do anything else, but, being content with the honor of the seat, as we said, let him cry before God, so that He forgives him the iniquity committed out of ignorance, and before others, so that they also pray to the Lord for him. Before these words, this is Vasily’s rule. And the Council also adds that he cannot enjoy the honor of the seat until he dissolves the lawless marriage, because of which he was expelled from the priesthood, because if he does not dissolve it, he will not only lose the honor of the seat, but will also be subject to penance. Read also the Apostle. 19. Let none of those enrolled in the clergy, either in the city or on the road, dress in inappropriate clothing, but wear clothes intended for those already in the clergy. If anyone does this, let him be excommunicated for one week. (VII Omni. 16; Gangr. 12, 21.) Clerics and clergy should also look modest, because although God looks at the heart, people look at the outward appearance, according to what is written: Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Consequently, from the external they also draw a conclusion about the internal location of the heart. For this reason, the present rule determines that no cleric should wear clothes unusual for his rank, that is, expensive and silk or even military, either when he is in the city or when he is on the road, but to use the usual clothes of clergy, namely modest and simple. Anyone who does otherwise must be excommunicated for one week. Rule VII Universal. 16 also subjects priests to penance who wear luxurious clothes and do not reform themselves, as well as those who anoint themselves with perfume. If the rule is Gangr. 12 and anathematizes those who condemn those who wear silk garments with reverence, then it does not contradict this rule. Firstly, because the present rule speaks only about clergy wearing such clothes, and the rule of the Gangra Cathedral speaks generally about both clergy and laity. Secondly, because this rule speaks of those who wear clothes that are inconsistent with custom. Thirdly, and finally, because the same Gangra Council corrects what was said in the mentioned 12th canon in the 21st canon, saying: “We praise modest and simple clothes, but we turn away from elegant and soft ones.” And if the Council condemns soft clothes when the laity wear them, then it condemns them much more when the clergy wear them. Thus, the Gangra Council not only does not contradict the present, but also agrees with it and, moreover, approaches this issue even more strictly. So the Lord says: Beware of those who love to walk in long robes (Luke 20:46). And if ap. Peter forbids women to wear costly clothing (see 1 Peter 3:3), although women by their very nature love to adorn themselves, and if Paul forbids them the same (see 1 Tim 2:9), how much more is it forbidden to the clergy? Basil the Great also demands that we have decent clothes, and says in the 11th conversation on the six days: “If you see someone dressed in flowery clothes and covered with silk fabrics, then despise him” 227. And Chrysostom in the 11th conversation on the First Epistle to Timothy says: “Do you see a man dressed in silk clothes? Laugh at him." 228. And Isidore Pelusiot, explaining in the 74th letter what the tunic of Christ was woven on top and not sewn 229, says: “Who does not know the low value of the clothes that the poor Galileans wore? They had a particularly common himation, woven in the peculiar way in which chest bandages were woven - with a diagonal weave.” And at the end he adds: “So, if you ardently desire this [the bridal chamber], then imitate the lowly clothing of Jesus, for the love of luxury leads to local delicacy, and not to the luminosity of heaven” 230. Since we have learned that in various Churches, when grapes are brought to the altar according to some deep-rooted custom, the clergy, combining it with the bloodless sacrifice of the offering, then share both together to the people, we decreed that henceforth none of the initiates should do this, but for the remission of sins and revitalization, teach the people only the offering. Let the priests consider the offering of grapes as an offering of firstfruits and, blessing it separately, give it to those who ask in thanksgiving to the Giver of those fruits, feeding on which our bodies, by Divine command, strengthen and grow. If any cleric acts contrary to what is prescribed, let him be deposed. (Apostle 3, 4; VI Ecumenical 32, 57, 99; Carthage 44.) Since in some places, according to custom, some people brought grapes to the holy meal, and the priests mixed it with the most pure Mysteries and taught the people both together, this rule prescribes from now on no priest to do this [231], but to teach Holy Communion separately to those who are worthy, for the remission of their sins and revival [232]. Grapes, as the first harvest, should be blessed with a special prayer and taught to people, so that they give thanks to God, who gives such fruits, feeding on which our bodies grow and become stronger. Anyone who acts contrary to this rule will be cast out. Read also the Apostle. 3. The canon of the fathers of the Council of Carthage commands that the sacrament of the altar should be celebrated only by those who have not eaten anything, with the exception of one day in the year on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated. Probably, the divine fathers took advantage of such economy at that time for some local reasons useful to the Church. Therefore, when nothing prompts us to leave Akrivia, we, following the apostolic and patristic traditions, determine that fasting should not be allowed on Pentecost, the Thursday of the last week, and dishonor the entire Pentecost. (Apost. 69; VI Om. 89; Laodice. 49–52; Carthage. 48, 56; Dionysius Alexander. 1; Timothy Alexander. 8, 10.) Since our Lord Jesus Christ on the evening of Maundy Thursday first ate the usual meal, and after that taught the Divine Mysteries to the apostles, a custom was established in the regions of Africa, according to which on Maundy Thursday, as Zonara says, they first ate some more pleasant dishes, weakening the usual dry eating observed on the other days of Pentecost, and after that they performed the sacrament and partook of the Divine Mysteries. So, the real Council, perfecting the rule of Carthage. 48, which mentions this custom, determines that those fathers probably used such oikonomia in order to bring some benefit in those places. However, we, since we have no reason prompting us to abandon the strictness of the rules, follow both the tradition of the apostles, that is, the rule of the Apostle. 69, which determines that everyone should fast during the Holy Pentecost (the Pentecost includes both Maundy Thursday and the entire Great Week), and the tradition of the fathers, i.e., the 50th canon of the fathers of the Council of Laodicea. This rule determines that no one should allow fasting on Thursday of the last week of Pentecost (i.e., Maundy Thursday) and with this permission to dishonor and make useless the fast of the entire Pentecost, but the entire Pentecost, and therefore on Maundy Thursday, should be fasted with dry food [233]. Note that Carthage is not the only rule mentioned. 48 determines that priests should celebrate the liturgy on an empty stomach: Canon 56 of the same Council says that this was also confirmed by the Council of Nicaea. However, if someone is in danger of dying, then he should receive communion even after eating, according to the rule of Nikephoros Constantinople. 9. And Chrysostom, accused of giving communion to certain people after they had eaten, writes in a letter to the bishop. Kyriacou: “If I have done this, then let my name be blotted out from the book of bishops. However, if they still say this against me and insist on it, then let them condemn Paul, who baptized the whole house after the supper. Let them also condemn Christ, who after supper administered the sacrament to the apostles." 234 Therefore, those intending to receive communion are allowed to drink water until midnight, and after this time they should not take anything into their mouths until they receive communion. Desiring to do everything for the building of the Church, we decided to make arrangements for the priests in the barbarian (βαρβαρικαῖς) Churches. Therefore, if they consider it their duty to exceed the apostolic rule that they should not cast out their wife under the pretext of reverence, and to do beyond what is specified in it, and, based on this, by agreement with their spouses, abstain from carnal intercourse with each other, then we determine that they will no longer cohabit with them under any circumstances, in order thereby to provide us with complete proof of their promise. We allowed this to happen to them not because of anything else but because of their cowardly thoughts, as well as their alien and unstable morals. (Apost. 5; VI Ose. 12, 13, 48; Gangr. 4; Carthage. 3, 4, 33.) Since in barbaric Africa the clergy, wanting to surpass the law of the rule of Apost. 5, which instructs the priest not to separate from his wife under the pretext of reverence, to make agreements with their wives and to abstain from carnal intercourse, then the present rule determines that those who have done so should in no way live with their wives any longer. On the one hand, this was established for the purpose that by this dissolution of cohabitation the clergy would show that it was not for the sake of hypocritical and false reverence, but truly for the sake of the thirst for chastity and virginity that they made such a promise and entered into an agreement. On the other hand, the establishment is caused by the fact that, constantly looking at their wives and communicating with them, the clergy are again inclined to have a carnal relationship with them. However, this, the rule says, we allowed them not for any other reason than because of their cowardly thoughts and rude disposition, according to Zonara, or their lack of well-ordered church customs, according to Balsamon, and the instability of their faith (and look: the same thing that the Council allows for these reasons in Barbary, it does not allow in Rome because of the meekness of morals, church deanery, etc.). etc., and this despite the fact that the said custom passed to Barbary from the Romans, according to Carthage 4). Read also the Apostle. 5, as well as VI Omni. 12, 13. We determine that clergy who liturgize or baptize in chapels located in houses should do so with the consent of the local bishop, so that if any cleric does not comply with this, he will be deposed. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; VI Ose. 34, 59; Dvukrat. 12–15; Gangr. 6; Antioch. 5; Laodice. 58; Carthage. 10, 62.) This rule does not allow clergy to liturgize or baptize without the permission and consent of the local bishop in a room and house church (that is, in a room intended for prayer, but not consecrated), because this is an illegal meeting and a defection from the bishop. They must do this with his consent and permission. Anyone who does not comply with this will be cast out [235]. The double council, in its 12th canon, quotes this rule verbatim, confirming it and adding that priests who must perform the liturgy in house churches must obtain permission from the bishop. If anyone, without being appointed by him and without receiving permission from him, dares to perform liturgy there, then let him be deposed, and the laity who were in communion with him be excommunicated. Rule of Laodice. 58, which says that a bishop or priest should not perform the liturgy in houses, does not contradict this rule, since it does not speak about house churches, which are discussed in this rule, but simply about houses, that is, about ordinary houses. It is prohibited to perform the liturgy in them unless there is great need [236]. In addition, the 59th canon of the present VI Ecumenical Council expels those clergy who perform baptism in someone else's house of prayer, and not in the cathedral church, and expels the laity who took part in this [237]. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 31. It has come to our attention that in the Armenian country the performers of the bloodless sacrifice bring only wine at the holy meal, without mixing it with water, and refer to the teacher of the Church John Chrysostom, who, in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew (Conversation 82), says: “Why, after the resurrection, did the Lord drink not water, but wine? In order to uproot another evil heresy. Since some use water in the sacraments, the Lord, showing that He used wine both when He taught the sacrament and when, after the resurrection without the sacrament, He offered an ordinary meal, says: From the fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:29). The vine produces wine, not water." 238 As a result, they [those who bring only wine] think that this teacher rejects the need to add water to the sacred sacrifice. So that from now on they will not be dominated by ignorance, we reveal the thought of this father in an Orthodox way. Since at that time there existed the ancient evil heresy of the hydroparastats, who in their sacrifice used only water instead of wine, this God-bearing man, refuting the lawless teaching of this heresy and showing that they were going against the apostolic tradition, composed the above speech. And to his Church, the pastoral leadership of which was entrusted to him, Chrysostom conveyed the command, whenever a bloodless sacrifice was to be performed, to add water, thereby indicating the combination of blood and water that flowed from the honest side of our Redeemer and Savior Christ God for the sake of revitalizing the whole world and atonement for sins. And in all the Churches where spiritual luminaries have shone, this God-given order is observed. And James, brother according to the flesh of Christ our God, the first to whom the throne of the Church of Jerusalem was entrusted, and Basil, bishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory spread throughout the entire universe, in the rite of the sacramental rite given to us in writing, they commanded that the sacred cup at the Divine Liturgy be made from water and wine. And the venerable fathers, gathered in Carthage, definitely said about this: “In the holy sacrament, let nothing be offered except the Body and Blood of the Lord, as the Lord Himself commanded, that is, bread and wine mixed with water.” So, if any bishop or presbyter does not act according to the rite handed down from the apostles and offers a most pure sacrifice, without combining water with wine, let him be cast out as imperfectly proclaiming the sacrament and introducing innovation into Tradition. This rule eliminates the incorrect custom that has spread in the Armenian country, that is, the custom of celebrating the liturgy with wine alone, without combining it with water, according to Church Tradition. Since those who do this cited evidence from John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew to justify this custom and believed that this divine father, with the words “The Lord used wine both before and after the resurrection,” rejected the need to connect water with the Mysteries, then because of this erroneous understanding of theirs, the fathers of the Council show the true meaning of the saint’s words. For the reason, they say, that there was an ancient heresy of the so-called hydroparastats [239], who used only water and not wine in the Divine sacred rites, the divine Chrysostom uttered such a word to refute this heresy and not accept this evil custom of the hydroparastats. Chrysostom himself, through his Divine Liturgy, commanded the Church of Constantinople in a bloodless, mystical sacrifice to mix water with wine to depict the blood and water that poured out from the honorable side of the Lord, hanging on the cross, for the sake of the remission of sins and the revitalization of the whole world, according to the Gospel saying: One of the soldiers pierced His ribs with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out 240 [241]. Not only Chrysostom, but also James, the brother of God and the first hierarch of Jerusalem [242], and Basil the Great, in the rite of their liturgies, commanded to fill the holy chalice with wine and water, and besides them, the fathers of the Council of Carthage in the 44th canon, which is given verbatim. So, let a bishop or priest who, according to apostolic tradition, does not mix water with wine during the Divine rite, be deposed, since thereby he makes the sacrament of the Divine Eucharist imperfect and refutes Tradition. Since we learned that in the Armenian country only persons from the priestly family are accepted into the clergy, which shows a desire to follow Jewish customs, and that some of them, even without tonsure, are appointed as sacred singers and readers of the Divine Church, we decided: from now on, those who wish to elevate someone to the clergy are not allowed to pay attention to the origin of what is being done, but they must, after testing whether they are worthy of being numbered among the clergy, the definitions adopted in the sacred rules to produce such as ecclesiastical ministers, whether they descend from consecrated ancestors or not. But reading Divine words from the pulpit to the people according to the rank of the clergy is not allowed to anyone at all, except those who have received priestly initiation and blessing from their shepherd in accordance with the rules. If anyone is found to be acting contrary to what is prescribed, let him be excommunicated. (Apost. 77; VII O. 14; Laodice. 23; Carthage. 22.) And this rule corrects the inhabitants of the Armenian country, who not only accepted into the clergy only those who came from a priestly family (following the custom of the Jews, who accepted into the priesthood only those who came from the tribe of Levi), but also appointed singers and readers in the Church without the ordination of a bishop. Henceforth, it is commanded not to look at whether the one who is about to be ordained comes from a priestly family or not, but to test whether he is truly worthy of being accepted into the clergy. In addition, no one is allowed to proclaim Divine words to the people from the pulpit [243] until he receives canonical consecration as a reader from the bishop. Anyone who acts contrary to what has been established must be excommunicated. Rule VII Universal. 14 also prohibits anyone without the consecration of a bishop from reading from the pulpit, even if he were a monk. And the rule is Carthage. 22 prohibits the readers from bowing to the people after reading. Rule of Laodice. 23 says that readers should not wear an orarion when they read. The sacred rule clearly proclaims that conspiracy or the formation of secret societies, as a crime, is completely prohibited by external laws, but much more should it be prohibited in the Church of God. Therefore, we diligently strive to observe the following: if it turns out that any clergy or monks are conspiring, or forming secret societies, or plotting intrigues against bishops or fellow clerics, let them be completely deprived of their rank. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; Dvukrat. 13–15; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 10, 62.) This rule is exactly the same as Rule IV Omni. 18, so read its interpretation in its place. See also the interpretation of Apost. 31. Let none of the metropolitans, after the death of a bishop subject to his throne, be allowed to take away or appropriate the property of the bishop or his church, but until the installation of another bishop, let it be kept by the clergy of the church of which the deceased was the primate. Unless there are no clergy left in this church, then the metropolitan will keep the property intact in order to transfer everything to the bishop who will be ordained. (Apost. 40; IV Ose. 22; Antioch. 24; Carthage. 30, 89.) It is not allowed, says this rule, for any metropolitan, when any of his bishops die, to plunder or appropriate the property of either the bishop or his bishopric, but let the clergy of the bishopric keep the property until a new bishop appears. If it happens that there are no clergy left in this bishopric, then the metropolitan will have to keep the property safe and sound until he gives it to the bishop, who will subsequently be ordained. See also Apost. 40. Renewing the law of the 150 holy fathers gathered in this God-protected and reigning city, and the 630 gathered in Chalcedon, we determine that the throne of Constantinople should enjoy equal advantages with the throne of ancient Rome and in church affairs be exalted like it, being second after it; and next after him let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be numbered, after that of Antioch, and after that the throne of the city of Jerusalem. (Apost. 34; II Ecumenical 3; IV Ecumenical 28.) This rule [244] restores rule II Omni. 3 and IV Omni. 28, which speaks of the advantages of the See of Constantinople, and determines that it should enjoy equal and equal advantages with the See of Rome and an equally great position in ecclesiastical affairs, being second only to it in order. The third is the primate of Alexandria, the fourth is that of Antioch and the fifth is that of Jerusalem, and in the indicated sequence they are thought of and named only for the sake of the fact that this is necessary when enumerating. Read the above rules and I Omni. 6, as well as note. 17, in which we mention the five patriarchs. At different times, barbarian invasions occurred, and because of this, many cities found themselves in the hands of the lawless, so that the primate of such a city could not, after the ordination of him, take his throne, establish himself in a priestly appointment and then, according to the established custom, perform ordinations and do and undertake everything that befits a bishop. In view of this, we, preserving the honor of the priesthood and respect for it and desiring that the attack of the pagans should in no way harm ecclesiastical rights, have decided: if anyone is ordained in this way and for the stated reason has not ascended to his thrones, then this should not be considered a reason for accusation. Therefore, they should ordain various clergy in accordance with the canons, exercise the power of presidency in accordance with their position, and every order emanating from them should be firm and legal. For the compulsion of circumstances and the limited execution of acrivia cannot limit the right to govern. (Apost. 36; Ankyr. 18; Antioch. 17, 18.) This rule determines: since some bishops after consecration were unable to go to their sees and to their episcopal regions [ 245 ] due to the fact that they were captured as a result of barbarian invasions, we, taking care to preserve reverence and respect for the episcopal office and not allowing barbarian captivity to create an obstacle to the observance of church rights, determine that those ordained in this way and not having the opportunity out of fear before the barbarians established themselves in their sees, they freely performed the consecrations of various clergy of their episcopal region, even while being far from it (see also note 1 to Antioch. 16), in accordance with the decrees of the rules. We also determine that these bishops should have the honor and power of presidency in accordance with their position, that is, the place allocated to their episcopal region, for example, first, or second, or third, etc., and that everything that they will do by right of bishopric, i.e., as bishops, will be firm and legal [246]. Although the acrivia (which consists in the fact that bishops must go to their sees and perform the listed actions there) suffered due to difficult circumstances and barbarians, the limits of government should not suffer due to this temporary necessity, that is, bishops must still perform such actions in their sees, albeit far from them. We also preserve the rule adopted by our fathers, and it defines this: if a city was founded by royal authority or will be founded later, then the distribution of church affairs must follow civil and state decrees. This rule is identical to rule IV Omni. 17, therefore see its interpretation in its place. Our brother and co-servant John, the primate of the island of Cyprus, due to the barbarian invasions, and also with the goal of freeing himself from the slavery of the pagans and freely submitting to the scepter of the most Christian power, by the providence of a man-loving God and the diligence of our Christ-loving and pious emperor, he moved with his people from the said island to the Hellespont metropolitan region. We, in turn, decree that the privileges granted to the throne of the said husband by the God-bearing fathers previously assembled in Ephesus will remain unchanged, and that the new Justinianople will have the rights of Constantinople and the most God-loving bishop appointed for it will stand at the head of all the bishops of the Hellespont metropolitan region and accept ordination from their bishops in accordance with ancient custom, for Our God-bearing fathers decreed that the customs of each Church should be observed. And let the bishop of the city of Cyzicus be subordinate to the primate of the said city of Justinianople, following the example of all other bishops subordinate to the mentioned most God-loving primate John, who, when need dictates, let him ordain the bishop of the same city of Cyzicus. (Apost. 34; I Om. 6, 7; II Om. 2, 3; III Om. 8; IV Om. 28; VI Om. 36; Antioch. 9.) During the time of Emperor Justinian II, Archbishop John of Cyprus, having retired from his metropolitan region along with the people, came to the metropolitan region of the Hellespont (according to Balsamon, the Hellespont is the eastern lands stretching from Abydos, that is, the eastern fortress on the outside, to Thrace, and according to Chrysanthus, the Hellespont is a strait stretching from Tenedos to Kallioupolis). Archbishop John did this both because of the barbarian raids, and because, by the Providence of God and the care of the emperor, having freed himself from barbarian captivity, he submitted to Roman authority. Therefore, the present rule determines that all the benefits granted to the Cypriot Primate by rule III Omni. 8, and this new Justinianople had the rights of Constantinople (that is, that it too should be autocephalous, like Constantinople, or that the Hellespontine metropolitan region would be subordinate to Cyprus in the same way as the Asiatic, Pontic and Thracian dioceses are subordinate to the Primate of Constantinople, as we said in IV Ecumenical 28). This rule also stipulates that the Archbishop of Justinianople should accept ordination from his bishops, according to ancient custom, and that the Metropolitan of Cyzicus should submit to him, as well as all the bishops in Cyprus, and, when need dictates, accept ordination from him [247]. Read also III Omni. 8. Since clinging to God, moving away from everyday worries, is very saving, we should not, without testing, untimely accept those who choose monastic life, but we must also act with them according to the rule taught to us by the fathers: the vow of life according to God must be accepted as already firm and stemming from free will and reasoning when the mind reaches perfect maturity. So, those who intend to take on the yoke of monasticism should not be younger than 10 years, and it is in the power of the primate to test whether it would be more useful for him to extend the period of entry into monastic life and establishment in it. Although Basil the Great in his sacred rules stipulates that those who voluntarily dedicate themselves to God and love virginity should be included in the rank of virgins upon reaching the age of 17, however, by analogy with what is said about widows and deaconesses, we indicated a different age for those who chose monastic life. For the divine apostle prescribed that a widow should be chosen in the Church for 60 years (1 Tim. 5:9). And the sacred rules allowed the ordination of a deaconess at the age of 40, since they took into account that the Church, by Divine grace, has become stronger and is advancing further, and that the faithful are firm and unshakable in keeping the Divine commandments. We also fully noticed this and made a determination accordingly, quickly sealing the one who intends to begin deeds according to God with the blessing of grace, as if with some kind of seal. Thus, we encourage him not to hesitate for long and not to deviate, but most of all we exhort him to choose the good and establish himself in it. (I Omni. 19; IV Om. 15; VI Om. 14; Carthage. 6, 51, 135; Basil the Great. 18, 24.) Those who want to become monks or nuns should not, according to this rule, be accepted without testing and at the wrong time, contrary to the rule taught to us by the divine fathers (and especially by Basil the Great). The vow that such will make to God should be accepted as reliable and coming from their own will, when the ability of their mind to reason reaches perfection [248], as Basil the Great says in the 18th rule 249, and especially in the 15th rule of the extensively stated 250. So, someone intending to become a monk must be at least 10 years old, but it is in the power of the bishop to test him and increase the period of testing (in accordance with the natural prudence of the subject) if the bishop considers it useful. Although Basil the Great, in the mentioned 18th rule, determines that a girl over 16 or 17 years old should be considered a virgin, we, following the example of the decree on widows and deaconesses, have reduced the 16 and 17 years specified by Basil to 10 years. The Apostle determines that a widow should be elected, that is, numbered in the Church, at the age of at least 60 years, and the fathers of the IV Ecumenical Council say in the 15th canon that a deaconess accepts ordination at the age of 40 [251], for they see that the Church of God prospers by the grace of God, and Christians show firmness in keeping the Divine commandments. Likewise, we, well understanding this, have established this rule, imprinting on the gentle soul of the one who is about to begin monastic spiritual deeds, the blessing of Divine grace, like a kind of seal, and teaching him in this rule not that he should neglect the practice of virtue for a long time, but, on the contrary, that he should quickly choose the good part. Rule of Carthage. 6 says that only a bishop should dedicate virgins to God. Rule 51 of the same Council states that the bishop must also take care of them, and in his absence the presbyter must take care of them. Those who wish to go into seclusion in cities or villages and listen to themselves in solitude must first enter a monastery, learn a hermit’s way of life, for three years in the fear of God obey the head of the monastery and show obedience in everything as it should be. And when they thus show their will to lead a hermit life, the local primate must also test whether they are devoted to it with all their hearts and voluntarily. After this, for another year they must patiently remain outside the seclusion so that their intention is revealed to a greater extent, for then they will provide perfect proof that they strive for such silence not in pursuit of empty glory, but for the sake of the most genuine good. If, after such a long period of time, they do not change their will, let them enter into seclusion and let them no longer be allowed to leave this solitude whenever they want, unless they are forced to do so by general need and benefit or by some difficult circumstances that threaten them with death, but even in this case - with the blessing of the local bishop. And those who dare to leave their places of residence without the specified reasons should first be imprisoned against their desire in the seclusion they left, and then heal them with fasting and other strict measures, so that they know that, according to Scripture, no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of Heaven (see Luke 9:62). It is great audacity - having barely retired from worldly life, to become a hermit and go into seclusion and rush from one extreme to the other - from the stormy sea of ​​life to the difficult sea of ​​silence. Therefore, the fathers in this rule determine that those who wish to retire into seclusion must enter a monastery and, after three years of showing obedience to the abbot in everything, they must undergo a test with the bishop, confessing that they, of their own free will and with all their hearts, desire such a hermitage. After this, they must remain silent outside the retreat for one year in order to provide even greater evidence that it is not for the sake of vain glory, but only for the sake of the benefit of silence, that they desire such a life. And if after all this they remain firm in the same thought and desire, then let them retire into seclusion and let them no longer be allowed to leave it whenever they want, unless for the common good of the people and in view of mortal danger. But even then, let them leave with the blessing and permission of the local bishop. And if they do not leave for these reasons, then they must be imprisoned again against their will and punished with fasting and other deprivations, so that they understand that, as the Lord said, anyone who puts his hand to the plow, that is, begins to live according to God, and then returns to worldly life, cannot freely enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Regarding the so-called hermits, who, putting on black clothes and letting their hair grow, go around the cities, move among worldly people and dishonor their vow, we determine: if they want to take the monastic image (σχήμα) after cutting their hair, following the example of other monks, then place them in a monastery and count them among the brethren. If they do not want this, then completely expel them from the cities, and let them live in the deserts, after the name of which they came up with a nickname for themselves. Since in ancient times many deceivers who called themselves hermits, in black clothes and with long hair, wandered through the cities among men and women, disgracing the monastic rank, the present rule determines: if such people wanted to cut their hair, like other monks living in monasteries [252], and live in a monastery, then it would be good; and if they don’t want to, then they should be expelled from the cities altogether. And let them go to live in the deserts, by the name of which they falsely, and not truly, called themselves deserters. It is permissible for a Christian to choose the ascetic life and, leaving the troubled storm of everyday affairs, enter a monastery and take monastic vows, even if he has been convicted of any kind of sin. For God our Savior said: Him who comes to Me I will in no wise cast out (John 6:37). And since monastic life imprints the image (στηλογραφούσης) of life in repentance, then we approve of those who sincerely join such life; and whatever his temper may be, it will not prevent him from fulfilling his intention. As you can see, some who wanted to lead a monastic life were prevented from doing so, probably because of the sins they had committed. Therefore, the present rule determines that every Christian (meaning free, not subject; see also Apostle 82) is allowed to renounce the world and go to a monastery to take monastic vows [253], even if he has committed the greatest sin. After all, the Lord Himself said: “I will not drive away anyone who comes to Me.” The life of the monks is imprinted with repentance, just as the features of a monument are imprinted with what it depicts. Therefore, we are favorable to those who choose repentance and rejoice with them, and no reason (meaning sin, not a dependent position) will prevent such people from fulfilling their intention. Rule 25 of Nikephoros also says that if someone in illness asks for a monastic schema, then one must give it to him without delay and not interfere with the action of grace on him. Balsamon and Simeon of Thessalonica say the same thing. However, no one should become a monk without an elder who will accept him into obedience, according to Double. 2. A monk convicted of fornication or bringing a woman for marriage and cohabitation will be subject to penances prescribed according to the rules for fornicators. (IV Om. 16; Ankyr. 19; Basil the Great. 6, 18–20, 60.) If a monk, as this rule defines, is convicted of committing fornication or getting married, then he will undergo penance as a fornicator, namely seven years, in accordance with the rules, and the lawless cohabitation must first be dissolved. And by “rules” we mean the rule of Vasily the Great. 19. Read also IV Omni. 16 [254]. Since we have learned that in some women's monasteries those who are to be honored with the sacred monastic image, those who bring them first dress them up in various silk clothes and even put on them decorations strewn with gold and stones, and then, when they approach the altar, they take off this magnificent outfit, and immediately they are given the blessing of the monastic image and they are clothed in a black robe, we determine that from now on this was not the case from now on. For it is indecent for one who, by her own free will, has already rejected worldly pleasures, with zeal began to live according to God, unshakably established herself in it in her thoughts and then entered a monastery, because of this perishable and transitory adornment, again brought to mind what she had already consigned to oblivion. This leads her to doubt and confuses her soul, overwhelming her like waves and throwing her in one direction or the other. Because of this, it also happens that she sometimes does not shed even a tear, without outwardly expressing her heartfelt contrition; and if, as it should be, he sheds a tear for a moment, then the one who sees this will consider that the reason for this is not the desire for the field of achievement, but the abandonment of the world and what is in the world. This rule prohibits women who are about to take monastic vows from dressing up in silk robes and adorning themselves with various ornaments made of gold and precious stones, and in such attire approaching the holy altar of the church in a nunnery, there taking off these vain robes, immediately putting on black monastic robes and receiving the blessing of the monastic image. If a woman, of her own free will, had already rejected all worldly pleasures, loved living according to God, confirmed this will of hers with steadfastness of thought, and then, without hesitation, entered the monastery, it would not behoove her, because of these decorations, to again remember what she had previously rejected and forgotten [255]. And not only this, but also the fact that because of these decorations her soul can become confused: like waves, worldly ideas will wash over her, so that she will not be allowed to shed a tear during tonsure (and thereby show contrition of heart). And if she accidentally sheds a small tear, those who see it will think that this happened not so much because she was awarded the image of an angel, but because she left the world and everything in the world. Women who choose an ascetic life and are enrolled in a monastery should not leave it at all, and if some absolutely necessary need forces them, then let them do so with the blessing and instructions of the abbess. But even then, let them not go out alone, not on their own, but with some elders and leaders in the monastery, according to the commandment of the abbess. They are not allowed to spend the night outside the monastery at all. Likewise, men undergoing monastic life can go out when necessary, with the blessing of the one to whom the leadership has been entrusted. And those who violate the ruling we have now made, whether men or women, may be subject to appropriate penances. The Fathers of the present Council demand that nuns do not leave their monasteries at all, and if some inevitable need forces them to do this, then let them leave with the blessing and permission of the abbess, but even then not alone, but together with others, elders in age and judgment. They are absolutely not allowed to spend the night outside their monasteries. And the monks, in the same way, when necessary, let them leave their monastery with the blessing of the abbot. Those who act differently, whether men or women, should undergo the appropriate penance, which the abbot or abbess will prescribe. Basil the Great (the 120th rule briefly outlined) also instructs the monk not to go anywhere without the permission of the primate 256. And anyone who leaves the monastery without receiving a blessing must be excommunicated from communion (penance 12) 257. Even to visit relatives, monks should not move away from the brethren and lead a life that is not witnessed by anyone (the 32nd rule of those set out at length) 258. And the 2nd decree of the 1st title. The Novell goes further and instructs the bishop to show prudence and ensure that neither monks nor nuns leave their monasteries at all and do not wander around the cities, but carry out the necessary work through informants and apocrisiaries, remaining in their monasteries (Photius. Tit. 11, ch. 4). Let neither a woman spend the night in a monastery, nor a man in a nunnery. For the faithful must avoid all stumbling and temptation and arrange their lives in such a way as to serve the Lord decently and unceasingly 259. If anyone acts in the above manner, then, whether he is a cleric or a layman, let him be excommunicated. This rule stipulates that no woman should spend the night in a monastery and, conversely, no man should spend the night in a nunnery. All Christians should not lead people into temptation and arouse suspicion in them, but are obliged to spend their lives decently and pleasing the Lord, especially this should be observed by monks. And if women spend the night in a monastery and, on the contrary, men in a nunnery, then this serves as a temptation for themselves, for it kindles the natural fire of lust in both, and in addition, it seduces outsiders, since it leads them to inappropriate suspicions against the monastics. Anyone who does this should be excommunicated, whether he is a cleric or a layman. The wife of one who is elevated to the episcopal see, having previously separated from her husband by common consent, after his consecration as a bishop, let her enter a monastery built far from the place of residence of this bishop, and remain in the care of the bishop. If she turns out to be worthy, then let her be elevated to the dignity of deaconess. This rule prescribes that the wife of someone who is to become a bishop must first separate from him by mutual consent. And after he was ordained, she entered a monastery far removed from his episcopal region, that is, she became a nun there [260], but this bishop must take care of the necessities for her life (if, of course, she is deprived of funds). All this is prescribed so that they do not see each other, do not constantly remember their previous pastime and life together, and, therefore, are not inflamed by carnal passion. And if the wife is worthy, then let her become a deaconess. Read also the Apostle. 5, VI Omni. 12 and note. 251 (to VI Universe 40). From this rule, Vlastar draws the correct conclusion that the wives of deceased priests should not enter into a second marriage. Resuming this sacred rule, we determine that once consecrated by the will of the bishop, monasteries always remain monasteries, and the things belonging to them are retained by the monastery, and that henceforth these monasteries can no longer be worldly dwellings, and in general no one can give them to worldly people. But if this has happened until now, then we determine that in no case will it have force and that from now on those who attempt to do this will be subject to penance according to the rules. (IV Omni. 24; VII Om. 13.) This rule renews rule IV Omni. 24, stating it verbatim, so see its interpretation in its place. Здесь к нему прибавлено лишь, что никто (т. е. ни клирик, ни мирянин, ни монах) не может передавать монастыри мирским людям (с той целью, разумеется, чтобы они управляли ими) [ 261 ] ; and if this has happened so far, then from now on it should not happen. From now on, no one at all, be it a layman or a clergyman, plays dice, but if anyone is caught doing so, then if he is a cleric, he will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. The Fathers of the present Council prohibit all laymen and clergy from playing dice, or cards, or checkers, or other similar games. Anyone who, after this rule, begins to play them, if he is a cleric, must be ejected, and if he is a layman, excommunicated. The Holy Ecumenical Council completely prohibits the organization of so-called mimic performances, and in addition, spectacles of animal baiting and dancing on stage. If anyone neglects this rule and indulges in something forbidden, then if he is a cleric, he will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. (VI Om. 24, 62, 66; Carthage. 17 (18), 70 (72).) This rule completely prohibits the performances of so-called mimes, who, sometimes imitating the gestures of Arabs, sometimes Armenians, and sometimes slaves, sometimes even slapping each other, all this arouse uncontrollable laughter in the audience. And the spectacles of animal persecution [ 262 ] consist in the fact that someone watches how animals, for example lions, or bears, or some other wild animals, fight or tear apart people condemned to death. It is great cruelty and rudeness to watch such terrible bloodshed and laugh. In addition, the rule prohibits dancing and obscene songs (λυγίσματα) by 263 men or women on stages. A stage (σκηνή) is a tent in which various performances were staged and roles were played, or “someone showed theatrical art,” as Photius says in Chapter 21. 13th tit. Consequently, actors (σκηνικοί) are those who play the role of either masters, or servants, or someone else. Anyone who neglects this rule and gets carried away by this kind of spectacle, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. Read also the 24th rule of the same VI Ecumenical Council. On all days of the fast of the Holy Pentecost, except Saturday, Sunday and the holy day of the Annunciation, let the sacred Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts be celebrated. The days of the Holy Pentecost are days of sorrow and contrition, and the majority consider the offering of a perfect sacrifice to God, and especially on the days of remembrance of saints, as a reason for celebration, joy and celebration, which is why they tend to have fun together on these days. Sorrow and joy are opposite to each other. Because of this, the present rule prescribes on the weekdays of Pentecost to celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts [264], in other words, the second offering of the perfect and offered sacrifice. On Saturdays and Sundays, as more joyful and non-fasting days, as well as on the day of the Annunciation, since it is the beginning and main principle of our salvation, and therefore a holiday and triumph, the rule allows you to make a perfect sacrifice and serve the full liturgy. The rule of Laodice also speaks in accordance with this rule. 49, determining that on the days of Pentecost no bread should be brought, that is, the full liturgy should not be served, except on Saturday and Sunday. In addition, the 51st rule of the same Council prohibits commemorating and celebrating the birthdays of martyrs on the fast days of Pentecost, and allows only on Saturdays and Sundays. Balsamon in the interpretation of the rule of Laodice. 51, as well as Vlastar in ch. 5, the letters “T” say that commemoration of the dead should not be performed on other days of Lent, except Saturday [265], just as the statutes determine this. See also Apost. 69. Kinship in spirit is greater than union in body, and we have learned about cases where some become the recipients of children from holy and saving baptism and after that enter into marital cohabitation with their mothers when they are widowed. Therefore, we determine: from now on, nothing like this will be done. If anyone, after this rule, is caught doing this, let him first of all leave this lawless marriage, and then let him be subjected to the penances of fornicators. This rule prohibits the recipient of a child at holy baptism from marrying his widowed mother, since the kinship in spirit, by virtue of which they, the recipient and his godfather, become spiritual brother and sister, is greater than the kinship in the flesh (no longer in the number of degrees, for the carnal kinship of spouses is prohibited only up to the third degree in a straight line, but in quality and relation; see Chapter 8 “Teachings on Marriages”). And those people who dare to do this must first of all dissolve this illegal marriage, and then suffer canonical penance for it as fornicators. The same thing that this rule says about adoption should be observed during adoption, accomplished through a ritual and with the reading of sacred prayers, according to the 24th novel of Leo the Wise. Since the Divine Scripture clearly teaches us: Do not enter into the presence of any relative of yours in the flesh in order to reveal his shame (see Lev. 18:6), then the God-bearing Basil, although he listed some of the prohibited marriages in his rules, passed over most of them in silence, bringing us benefit in both ways. Namely, having rejected many shameful names, so as not to defile speech with these words, he designated uncleanness with general names, through which he pointed out to us lawless marriages in general. But since, due to this silence and the insufficiently clear distinction between unlawful marriages, nature confused itself, we decided to speak about this subject more openly. We determine from now on that whoever enters into marriage with his cousin, or a father and son with a mother and daughter, or a father and son with two virgin sisters, or a mother and daughter with two brothers, or two brothers with two sisters, are subject to a seven-year penance, of course, after their removal from illegal cohabitation. Divine Scripture clearly teaches us: “Man, do not take into the fellowship of marriage any relative in the flesh,” and Basil the Great, having mentioned this saying in the 87th rule, listed in his rules certain types of prohibited marriages (for example, in the 76th rule he talks about marrying his own daughter-in-law, in the 78th - about marrying two sisters, in other rules - about other marriages) and I kept silent about most of them as shameful, so as not to defile speech with their names. He collectively, vaguely designated all lawless marriages with the general name of uncleanness (and those words that the Council attributes to Basil, he took, as he himself says, from Divine Scripture, precisely from the divine Paul, who says: But fornication and uncleanness should not even be named among you 266 - etc.). But since, due to this silence, the nature of people was subject to incest, we give a clearer definition of this in this rule: from now on, if someone takes his cousin as a wife, or if a father and son take a mother and daughter or two sisters, or two brothers take a mother and daughter or two sisters, then all of them must first dissolve this illegal cohabitation and then bear canonical penance for seven years. And Basil the Great, in the 68th rule, generally determines that a marriage entered into with prohibited kinship is subject to the canonical penance of adulterers, i.e. 15 years (see also “Teaching on Marriages”). Since we learned that the inhabitants of the city of Rome fast on Saturdays during the holy fast of Pentecost, contrary to Church Tradition, the Holy Council decided that in the Roman Church the following rule should be inviolably observed: “If any cleric is found to fast on the Lord's Day or on Saturday (with the exception of only one Saturday), he will be deposed. And if he is a layman, then let him be excommunicated.” This Council, by this rule, prohibits the ancient Romans from fasting (that is, either eating nothing at all, or fasting until the ninth hour with dry food) on the Saturdays of Holy Pentecost (because on these days wine, oil and crustaceans are allowed) and determines that in Rome the 64th rule of the holy apostles, which the Council cites verbatim, should be preserved inviolate. Read his interpretation [267]. Similarly, we learned that in the Armenian country and other places on Saturdays and Sundays of the Holy Pentecost, some eat eggs and cheese. Therefore, it was decided that the Church of God throughout the entire universe, following a single rite, should fast and abstain from everything that can be eaten, as well as from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and product of what we abstain from. If anyone does not observe this, then if they are clergy, let them be expelled, and the laity - excommunicated. Obviously, the Christians living in Armenia, hearing that the apostolic canon forbids fasting on Saturday and Sunday, and not understanding these words correctly, ate cheese and eggs on Saturdays and Sundays of Pentecost. Therefore, the Council by this rule determines that the entire Church of Christ throughout the universe must maintain the same order: on the days of Lent, to fast (allowing only wine, oil and crustaceans) [268] and equally abstain from slaughtered animals [269], and from cheese and eggs, which are the fruit and product of these animals. And those who do not preserve this, if they are clerics, will be subject to eruption, and if they are laymen, to excommunication. Read also the Apostle. 64 and 69. About the fact that honey and milk should not be brought to the altars. This rule determines that milk and honey should not be brought to the holy altar for the holy meal, in accordance with the rule of the Apostle. 3, the interpretation of which you can read. This rule also improves and corrects the Carthage rule. 44, which defines bringing something like this according to some local custom. Let no one from among the laity teach himself the Divine Mysteries when there is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon. Anyone who dares to do anything like that, as one who acts contrary to what is prescribed, will be excommunicated for one week, thereby learning not to think more about himself than he ought to think (Rom. 12:3). That layman who communes himself with the Divine Mysteries unnecessarily (meaning when there is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, according to Zonara), acts arrogantly and arrogates to himself the dignity of the priesthood, contrary to the laws. For the right to give communion is given to priests, and not to laity, which is why the present rule is that anyone who dares to do so, despite the fact that he is a priest, is excommunicated from the Church for one week, so that this person, according to the word of the Apostle, learns not to think more about himself than he should think [270]. In a chapel inside a home, let no baptism be performed at all, but let those who intend to receive the most pure enlightenment come to Catholic churches and there be honored with this gift. If anyone is caught not keeping our definitions, if he is a cleric, he will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. This rule prescribes that baptism should be performed not in a chapel within a home, but in catholic and, therefore, consecrated churches. Anyone who does not observe this, if he is a cleric, may be deposed, and if he is a layman (meaning a participant in such baptism), may he be excommunicated. See also Apost. 31[271]. Since the apostle proclaims that he who unites himself with the Lord is one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17), it is obvious that he who assimilates himself to the enemy becomes one with him due to the union. So, those who pretend to be possessed and hypocritically portray them because of the depravity of their morals, it was decided to punish them in every possible way and subject them to the same hardships and labors that those truly possessed would rightly be subjected to in order to be freed from the influence of the demon. Some people, due to their depravity of character and for the sake of money, pretend to be possessed, imitate those who are mad in their gestures and disorderly movements, wander around the cities, bother people and become a laughing stock. Therefore, the present rule determines that such people should be subjected to all kinds of penances and subject to such severe penalties and such great labors as those who are truly possessed are subject to, in order with their help to be freed from the demon, to which these feigned demons have become assimilated and with whom they have become one, just as one who cleaves and is assimilated to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him, according to Paul. Balsamon says that many patriarchs and bishops at different times tied those pretending to be possessed with chains and imprisoned them. Those who turn to soothsayers, or the so-called leaders of hundreds and the like, so that they reveal to them everything they want to know about, are subject to six years of penance, according to the recent definitions of the fathers about them. Those who lead she-bears or similar animals to the amusement and harm of the common people and in their seductive empty speeches proclaim happiness, fate, genealogy and many similar things, as well as the so-called cloud-catchers, sorcerers, phylacters and soothsayers, should be subjected to the same penance. Those who persist in this, and do not correct themselves, and do not avoid these harmful pagan practices, we determine to completely eject from the Church, as the sacred rules command. For what does light have in common with darkness? - as the apostle says. Or what is the relationship between the church of God and idols? Or what is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel? What agreement is there between Christ and Belial? (2 Cor 6:14–16). Christians should not engage in anything that the pagans did, i.e., predictions, divination and the like. Therefore, the present rule determines that those Christians who turn to soothsayers [272] and the so-called leaders of hundreds [273] or other similar people should abstain from the Divine Mysteries for six years in order to learn from them about something hidden (i.e., about money or something lost). The previous fathers also punished them in this way. Like all of the above, the rule also punishes with a six-year penance those who bring bears [ 274 ] or other similar animals with them for fun and to the detriment of ordinary people, or who predict people's fate, talk about what awaits them in life, whether they were born on a good or bad day, and utter other misleading words. In the same way, it punishes those who are called cloud casters [275], sorcerers [276], phylacteries [277] and soothsayers - all of them must suffer the appointed punishment if they repent and leave their disastrous, devilish and pagan activities. If they persist in this vice and error and do not renounce it, then they must be completely expelled from the Church of Christ and excommunicated from the congregation of Christians, as the divine rules also determine. For, as Paul says, what has light and darkness to do with it? What unity does the church of God have with the altar of idols? What is the complicity of the faithful with the infidel? What agreement does Christ have with the devil? It should be noted that the penance that this rule imposes is given only to the laity - both to those who themselves are engaged in the devilish and witchcraft deeds we listed above, and to those who turn to such people. And clergy-priests who do something like this will undoubtedly be subject to eruption, according to Balsamon and Zonara [278]. Fortunetellers who follow Hellenic customs and bring wizards [ 279 ] into their homes so that they can discover the spells with which someone allegedly bewitched them are punished by the fathers of the Council of Ancyra in the 24th rule with a five-year penance, and Basil the Great in the 83rd rule with a six-year penance. This Council followed him, calling Basil and the fathers of the Council in Ancyra “preceding fathers.” And the rule of Laodice. 36 clearly expels those who wear amulets from the Church and forbids clergy and priests to become wizards, or sorcerers [280], or number tellers [281], or astrologers, or to make amulets. In the words “as the sacred rules command” the Council mainly means the mentioned rule of Laodice. 36, but maybe also those we’ll talk about now. Rule of Gregory Nis. 3 determines that those who go to sorcerers and soothsayers must be questioned well, and if they, forced by some unbearable circumstances, showed cowardice and were misled by these people, then they must be punished more leniently, as well as those who renounced Christ under torture. If they did this because they despised the faith of Christ and did not believe that Christ is God, powerful to free them from all evil and misfortune, then they should be punished as having voluntarily renounced Christ, namely: they cannot commune all their lives (except at the time of death), they must be excommunicated from the Church and pray only away from everyone, as the same Gregory of Nyssa points out in the 2nd rule. In addition, the rule of Vasily the Great. 7 imposes on poisoners [282] the same penance as on Christians who sacrificed to idols and, therefore, were excommunicated from the Christian Church. The same Basil, in the 65th rule, punishes those who confess to having committed witchcraft or poisoning with the penance prescribed for those who committed deliberate murder, and in the 72nd rule he also punishes those who turn to soothsayers. We wish to eradicate the so-called Kalends, Vota and Vrumalia and the festival celebrated on the 1st day of the month of March forever from the lives of the faithful; but even more than that - popular dances of women, which can cause great harm and destruction. We also reject and define dances and rituals performed by men or women according to some ancient and alien to Christian life custom in the name of those whom the pagans falsely call gods: none of the men should dress in women’s clothing, and none of the women should dress in clothes befitting men; also not to wear comic, or satirical, or tragic masks; do not proclaim the name of the vile Dionysus when the grapes are crushed in the winepress, and at the time when the wine is poured into barrels; do not burst into laughter out of ignorance or frivolity, which is the effect of demonic delusion. Those who from now on, knowing about these prohibitions, attempt to do any of the above, if they are clerics, we command to be thrown out, and if they are laymen, to be excommunicated. Kalends are the first days of each month, which were usually solemnly celebrated by the pagans in order to spend the whole month in joy [283], but Vrumalia were pagan holidays. Voty, which means “cattle and sheep,” was celebrated in honor of the god Pan, whom the Greeks considered the guardian of sheep and other domestic animals, and vroomalia in honor of Dionysus, who was nicknamed “Vromius” by the Greeks, from the word βρόμος, which means “noise and thunder” 284 . The Romans called Dionysus Vrumalia, i.e. “noise,” and the holiday was called vrumalia, in the plural. This is the same as the Dionysians, as the Greeks called them. The rule prescribes that such pagan holidays should be completely removed from the lives of Christians, as well as the festival celebrated on the 1st day of March (probably for the sake of good weather). Neither public round dances of women, nor festivals and dances of men and women in honor of pagan false gods should be allowed. In addition, the rule stipulates that neither a man wear women's clothing, nor a woman wear men's clothing, and also that they do not put on comic masks and masks - causing laughter, or tragic - causing crying and tears, or satirical - masks of satyrs and bacchus. Satyrs and Bacchus, as if frantic and possessed, danced in honor of Dionysus 285. The rule also stipulates that no one should invoke the name of the vile Dionysus (who was considered the giver and guardian of wine) while the grapes are being pressed in the winepress, and should not laugh or laugh when new wine is poured into the barrels. Thus, anyone who, from now on, knowing this, deliberately takes up any of the mentioned demonic and pagan affairs, if he is a cleric, may be deposed, and if he is a layman, may he be excommunicated. Note that God in Deuteronomy (Deut. 22:5) forbids a woman to wear men's clothing, and a man to wear women's clothing: Let no man wear a man's dress, nor let a man put on a woman's garment, for whoever does this is an abomination to the Lord your God. The Gangra Cathedral does not allow a woman to wear men's clothing even for the sake of imaginary asceticism: he anathematizes anyone who does this in the 13th rule. Read also the 24th rule of this Council. We command that the false lives of the martyrs, compiled by the enemies of the truth in order to dishonor the martyrs of Christ and lead listeners to unbelief, are not published in churches, but are to be put on fire. Those who accept them or listen to them as true are anathematized. Infidels and enemies of the truth, wanting to accuse Christians, composed stories about how Christ’s martyrs said and did, apparently, something funny and absurd. By doing so, they intended to insult the martyrs and ridicule the faith of the Orthodox. Therefore, this rule prescribes that such false writings should not be publicly announced, but that they should be burned. Let those who accept them as true be anathematized [286]. See also Apost. 60. About the fact that a layman should not publicly give a speech or teach, thereby appropriating the dignity of a teacher, but he must obey the institution left by the Lord and open the ears of those who have received the grace of the teacher’s word and learn from them the divine. For in the one Church God created different members, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:27), interpreting which Gregory the Theologian clearly shows their order [287]: “Let us honor and preserve this order, brothers! Let one be the ear, and the other the tongue, one the hand, and the other something else, let one teach, and let the other learn.” And a little further: “And let him who learns be obedient, and let he who distributes give with joy, and he who serves serves with diligence. Not everyone can be a language, which is what we most strive for, not everyone can be apostles, not everyone can be prophets, not everyone can be interpreters.” 288 And a little further: “Why do you make yourself a shepherd, being a sheep? Why do you become a head when you are a leg? Why do you undertake to lead an army when you are placed among the warriors?” 289 And in another place: “Wisdom commands: “Do not be hasty in words 290, do not be equal to the rich when you are poor (Prov. 23:4), do not strive to be wiser than the wise." 291 If anyone is caught violating this rule, let him be excommunicated for 40 days. This rule prohibits a layman as a teacher from giving instructions openly in churches and commands him to better learn from those who have received the gift of teaching, because just as in one body there are different members, according to Paul, so in one Church there are people of different ranks, to whom God has given which. Therefore, Gregory the Theologian, interpreting this saying of the Apostle (in the word “On maintaining good order in interviews”), says that one in the Church is the ear, another is the tongue, the third is the hand, the fourth is some other part of the body, and that not all are tongues, that is, teachers, not all are apostles, not all are prophets. You, man, being a sheep, why do you make yourself a shepherd? Being a foot, why do you become a head? As a soldier, why are you trying to become a commander, that is, a leader of soldiers? Solomon also says: “Do not be easy with words and, being a beggar, do not strive to surpass the rich, do not try to become wiser than the wise.” Anyone who acts contrary to this rule will be excommunicated for forty days. However, if any layman is skilled in speech and pious in behavior, he is not prohibited from answering questions and teaching in private, as Zonara says and as stated in Chapter 32. 8th book. "Apostolic Constitutions" 292. After all, it is written: All will be taught by God 293. So Apollos spoke and taught about the Lord, despite the fact that he knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:25), and Aquila and Priscilla, more precisely, taught the way of God to the same Apollos (ibid.). We command from now on that no one should light fires in front of their shops or houses on new moons, over which others, according to some ancient custom, madly dare to jump. Therefore, whoever does anything like this, if he is a cleric, will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. For in the 4th book of Kings it is written: “And Manasseh built an altar for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord, and caused his children to pass through the fire, and practiced sorcery, and practiced sorcery, and made ventriloquists, and multiplied the number of sorcerers, and multiplied the evil works of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger” (see 2 Kings 21:5-6). Since some Christians, in imitation of the pagans, lit fires in front of their shops and houses and jumped over them, this Council expels those clergy and excommunicates those laymen who will continue to do this. If such pagan customs moved God to indignation and anger when imperfect Jews observed them, then they irritate Him much more when they are observed by us, perfect Christians and disciples of the Gospel. Wanting to show this, the Council says: “King Manasseh made an altar, that is, he made sacrifices to the army and the power of heaven, namely to the stars (especially the Moon, as it is written in Jeremiah: Burn incense to the queen of heaven (i.e., the Moon) and pour out drink offerings to her 294), in the middle of the two courtyards of the church, and led his children through the fire, and cast spells (ἐκληδωνίζετο) [ 295 ], and practiced magic [ 296 ], and brought on many ventriloquists and sorcerers [ 297 ], and did evil before the Lord, and angered Him.” Note that the words “made his children pass through the fire” were understood by the Council here in the sense that Manasseh forced his children to jump over the fire, and Cyril of Alexandria, in his interpretation of the book of Isaiah, explained that he made a burnt offering, sacrificing his children to demons 298. Throughout the entire week from the holy day of the Resurrection of Christ our God until New Sunday, the faithful must certainly spend time in the holy churches in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 299 rejoicing and celebrating in Christ, listening to the reading of the Divine Scriptures and enjoying the Holy Mysteries: thereby we will be resurrected and exalted with Christ. Therefore, on these days, let horse riding or other folk spectacles never take place. Since the entire Bright Week is considered one day, which is called the Lord's, the present rule determines that it is appropriate for all Christians to spend this week in churches, rejoicing and celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, listening to the words of the Divine Scriptures and partaking of the Divine Mysteries, because in this way we will be resurrected and exalted with Christ [300]. Therefore, on these days, let there be no horse racing or any other popular spectacle, that is, obscene games, or dances, or competitions, or other similar entertainment. See also Apost. 9 and VI Omni. 24. Divine Scripture commanded us to abstain from blood, strangulation and fornication (Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 17 and 18:13; Acts 15:28–29). Therefore, those who, for the sake of a voluptuous belly, with the help of some art, prepare the blood of any animal for food and then eat it, we punish accordingly. So, if anyone from now on begins to eat the blood of an animal in any way, if he is a cleric, he will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. This rule commands that no Christian eat the blood of any animal, no matter how skillfully or how it is prepared, even if it is combined with other food, that is, even if it is sujuk or something else. After all, the Divine Scripture of the Old and especially the New Testament definitely commanded Christians to abstain from blood, strangulation and fornication (and sacrifices to idols). And whoever eats blood, if he is a cleric, let him be cast out, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. That the books of the Old and New Testaments, of our saints and recognized preachers and teachers, in general, are not allowed for anyone to spoil, or cut, or give to booksellers, or so-called world makers, or anyone else for destruction, unless they are damaged by moth, or water, or something else and have not become completely unusable. From now on, anyone caught doing something similar will be excommunicated for a year; in the same way, the one who buys the said sacred books, if he does not keep them for his own benefit and does not give them to someone else so that he can use them for a good purpose and keep them, but begins to spoil them, let him be excommunicated. It is not permissible, says this rule, for anyone to spoil or cut [ 301 ] the books of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and recognized teachers, that is, those approved and recognized after testing (for many wrote books, but were rejected and condemned), or to give them for destruction to booksellers, namely, those who erase what is written in them or otherwise spoil books, or sellers of incense, or anyone else. The exception is the case when they are completely eaten away by worms or rotted and the letters in them have been erased from age, so that they cannot be read [302]. Anyone who does anything like this shall be excommunicated for one year. In the same way, the one who buys the said sacred books, not in order to benefit from reading them himself, and not in order to give them to another for his benefit, but in order to spoil them, should be excommunicated. Let no one from among the laity be allowed to enter the sacred altar, although according to some ancient custom this is by no means prohibited to the royal power and power when it wants to bring gifts to the Creator. The holy altar is intended for initiates, therefore this rule prohibits any layman from entering it, with the exception of the king, but he is allowed not as a layman, but as a person who is endowed with authority and power and is the anointed of God. According to ancient custom, he is allowed to enter the altar when he wants to bring gifts to the God who created him and receive communion [303]. Therefore the rule of Laodicecus. 44 and prohibits women from entering the altar. And the 1st rule of Patriarch Nicholas, for the sake of respect for the monastic image, allows those monks who are not guilty of any crime to enter the holy altar to light lamps or candles. In addition, St. Nikephoros in his 15th rule says that nuns can enter the holy altar in order to light lamps and candles, decorate and sweep it. However, if someone is not yet a monk, but only a novice, then he should not enter the altar, as Balsamon says in the interpretation of the 1st rule of Nicholas, which you should read. Yes, women will not be allowed to speak during the Divine Liturgy, but, according to the word of St. Paul, let them be silent, for they are not allowed to speak, but to be in subjection, as the law says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands about it at home (1 Cor. 14:34–35). This rule prohibits women from speaking during the Divine Liturgy (and, undoubtedly, during all meetings of the faithful that take place in the church). They must remain silent, as Paul writes, because they are not allowed to speak, but are commanded to obey and listen, just as the Law of Moses says about the woman: To your husband will be your turn, and he will have possession of you (Gen. 3:16). If they want to know anything, let them ask their husbands at home. The same is determined by the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 3, chapter 6) 304. And one external sage says: “Silence adorns a woman” 305 [306]. Students of civil laws should not follow pagan customs: going to theaters, or holding so-called kilistras, or dressing in clothes unusual for everyone - neither at the time they begin their studies, nor at the time they finish them, nor during the entire course of this study. If anyone from now on dares to do this, let him be excommunicated. Just as the most reckless of the Athenian sages were in the habit - as Gregory the Theologian writes about in his funeral homily to Basil the Great - to fight with their opponents, capture cities and roads and do other similar things adopted by the young sophists 307, so the Christians who studied civil laws followed these pagan customs and competed at spectacles to see which of them would have primacy, organized the so-called kilistras [308] or wore unusual clothes. This rule prohibits them from doing all this both when they begin to study the laws, and when they are in the middle of studying, and when they finish it. And whoever does this in future will be excommunicated. Let neither an Orthodox man marry a heretic woman, nor an Orthodox woman be allowed to marry a heretic man, and if it turns out that someone has done something similar, then the marriage must be considered invalid and the lawless cohabitation must be dissolved, for one should not confuse the unmixable and combine the wolf with the sheep and the lot of sinners with the part of Christ. If anyone transgresses what we have determined, let him be excommunicated. But if some, while still in unbelief and not being counted among the Orthodox flock, were united with each other in legal marriage, then one, having chosen the good, resorted to the light of truth, while the other chose to be bound by the bonds of error rather than direct his gaze to the divine rays (and the unbeliever agrees to live with the believer or, conversely, the unbeliever with the believer), let them not be separated, according to the words of the divine Apostle: For an unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband (1 Cor. 7:14). This rule specifies that an Orthodox man is not allowed to marry a heretic or an Orthodox woman to marry a heretic. If anyone does this, the marriage will be invalid and the illegal cohabitation will be dissolved, because it is not proper to unite a wolf with a sheep and the lot of sinners and heretics with a part of Christ and the Orthodox. Anyone who violates this rule will be excommunicated [309]. However, if at the time of marriage both spouses were in unbelief and adhered to the same error, then one of them turned to Christ, and the other remained in the darkness of unbelief, then, if the unbelieving half agrees to live with the believer, let them not be separated, as Paul says and as stated in the rule of Basil the Great. 9. Firstly, because both an unbelieving husband is sanctified when he lives with a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife when he lives with a believing husband, and secondly, because thanks to such cohabitation, perhaps the other half will come to piety. Why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or do you, husband, why do you know if you won’t save your wife? (1 Cor. 7:16). See also IV Omni. 14. Since the life-giving Cross has shown us salvation, it is necessary for us to strive with all diligence to give due honor to that through which we were saved from ancient sin. Therefore, worshiping him with mind, word, and feeling, we command by all means to blot out the images of the cross made by anyone on the ground, so that they do not step on the sign of our victory and thereby dishonor him. So, from now on, we determine to excommunicate those who imprint the image of the cross on the earth. By the life-giving Cross we were saved [ 310 ] and freed from the slavery of sin, therefore we must (as this rule says) try to give it due honor and worship (also with the mind), remembering how many benefits we have been granted thanks to it, and in word, telling others about it and giving thanks to Christ crucified on it, and with feeling, kissing it and honoring it when we see it. Since some simpletons depict the honorable Cross everywhere, even on the surface of the earth, supposedly out of reverence and in order to give it greater honor, the Council orders that the sign of the cross be blotted out if it is found inscribed on the ground, so that the victorious sign of our salvation is not trampled on and thereby dishonored [311]. Those who from now on will depict a cross on the ground will be subject to excommunication. There should not be so-called agapes in the houses of the Lord, or in churches: eating in the church and setting up table beds. Those who dare to do this should either stop or be excommunicated. This rule is literally the same as the rule of Laodice. 28, which prohibits Christians from having agapes (that is, meals served out of love and leading the diners to love and unity) in the houses of the Lord, or in churches, and also from preparing in them soft and high beds, which are called by the Latin word accubita (table beds), from the verb accumbo or accubo, meaning in Latin “to recline at the table”, because Christians ate while reclining on them [312]. Those who dare to do this should either stop or be excommunicated. It should be noted that, according to Balsamon, by the houses of the Lord in this rule we mean every place dedicated to the Lord, including the vestibule, and by churches - the church itself. Therefore, he takes the conjunction “or” not as explanatory, as Zonara says, but as dividing, so that, in his opinion, no one should eat not only inside churches, but also in church vestibules. The rule of Carthage is similar. 49 prohibits bishops, clergy and laity from holding meals in churches, unless someone needs to eat during a trip. Also pay attention: although these rules prohibit organizing agapes in churches, they do not prohibit organizing them in ordinary houses. Therefore the rule of Laodicecus. 27 decrees that clergy and laity, out of gluttony, should not take any food with them when they are invited to such agapes. Gangr rule. 11 anathematizes those who despise those who organize such agapes (of course, outside the church) and invite brothers in honor of the Lord and, disdaining all this, do not want to go to them. Rule 76 of this VI Ecumenical Council excommunicates those who sell wine and food or other items inside the sacred enclosures. In addition, Rule VI Omni. 97 clergy living in sacred places are expelled, and laymen are excommunicated. The 88th rule of the same Council discards clerics who introduce an animal into the sacred church, and excommunicates the laity, except in cases where they did this out of great need. See also note. to VI Omni. 83. We wish that those who come to sing in church do not let out disorderly cries, do not force their nature to scream, and do not add anything indecent and unusual for the Church, but with great attention and tenderness offer psalmody to God, who looks at the hidden. For the sacred word taught the children of Israel to be reverent (Lev. 15:31). The psalmody performed in churches is an appeal to God to propitiate Him for our sins. The one who calls and prays must have a humble and contrite disposition, and if someone shouts, then this expresses insolence and lack of reverence. Therefore, this rule commands that those who sing in churches do not force their nature to shout loudly, and also do not utter anything indecent to the Church. What is indecent for the Church? The interpreter of Zonara replies that these are feminine pretentious melodies and sounds (in other words, a lot of teretismata 313 and excessive diversity of melodies, which brings them closer to prodigal songs). This rule commands that all this be removed from the Church, and those who sing, with great attention, offer psalmody to God, who looks more at the innermost things of the heart, that is, at psalmody and prayer performed with the mind in the heart, than at external exclamations. Therefore, the sacred word of the book of Leviticus teaches the sons of Israel to be reverent before God [314]. The prophet also speaks. David: Sing wisely 315 . Interpreting this saying, Basil the Great (rule 279 from the summary) says: “Understanding the words of Holy Scripture is like discerning the quality of food that the mouth eats, since, according to the book of Job, the larynx recognizes the taste of food, but the mind understands the words (see Job 12:11). So, if someone’s soul recognizes the meaning of each word, just as taste distinguishes the quality of each food item, then such a person fulfills this commandment of David” 316. The same Basil the Great adds (rule 281 from the summary): “He who goes to sing in church without desire, let him either correct himself or be expelled” 317. He says that if there are many singers (rule 307 of those briefly stated), let them begin psalmody singing one by one, 318, that is, weekly. Rule of Laodice. 15 decrees that no one else should sing in the church except singers who are members of the clergy and sing from books, that is, except those who sing from a leather or paper song book. And the 23rd rule of the same Council says that singers should not wear an orarion when they sing. In the intervals between the singing of psalms there should be reading (or prayer), according to the 17th rule of the same Council [319]. You cannot set up a tavern inside the sacred enclosures, or offer products made from aromatic substances (ἀρωμάτων) [ 320 ], or sell anything else, since you must maintain respect for the churches. Our Savior and God, teaching us by living in the flesh, commanded us not to make His Father’s house a house of trade. He scattered the money of the money changers and drove out those who made the church an ordinary place (John 2:16). Therefore, if anyone is convicted of the above-mentioned crime, let him be excommunicated. The Lord said to the Jews: It is written: My house will be called a house of prayer (see Luke 19:46; Isa. 56:7), but you have made it a den of thieves (see Jer. 7:11). So that this terrible word is not addressed to the faithful, the fathers by this rule prohibit the establishment of taverns, that is, according to Zonara, the sale of wine, brandy or any food, or even, according to Balsamon, aromatic substances or other objects inside the sacred enclosures, that is, next to divine churches and churches and in their courtyards, in order to maintain respect for them. Therefore, the Lord, instructing us, said that we should not make His Father’s house a house of trade. He scattered the penyaz (i.e., small coins) of the money changers and drove out with a whip those who made the sacred place ordinary. Whoever commits the said crime shall be excommunicated [321]. Read also VI Omni. 74. Initiates, or clerics, or monks should not wash in the bathhouse together with women, and in general no Christian layman, for this, first of all, causes criticism from the pagans. If anyone is caught in this, then if he is a cleric, he will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. This rule repeats the rule of Laodice word for word. 30, adding to it only words about penance. The rule says that clergy consecrated at the altar, or clerics consecrated outside the altar, or monks and ascetics, or simply lay Christians, should not wash in the baths with women, since this obscene act is in the eyes of the pagans the first reason for the censure of Christians and the greatest temptation. The Apostle commands that we should not give offense either to the Jews, or to the Greeks, or to the Church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). And if, as Zonara says, the mind becomes confused even when someone meets a woman on the road or in the house, then how will the minds of those husbands who wash with women not become darkened and aroused to lust? And according to Balsamon, even spouses should not wash together (in a bathhouse, sea or river), because they own each other’s bodies for childbirth, and not in order to undress and look at their shame. In addition to what is said in the rule of the Council of Laodicea, the present rule says that whoever is convicted of this, if he is a cleric, will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated [322]. The “Apostolic Constitutions” (Book 1, Chapter 9) also prohibit a woman from washing with a man 323. Epiphanius (chapter on heresy 30) 324 and Clement of Alexandria in “The Teacher” (book 3, chapter 5) 325 also speak about such outrages. Those who are enlightened must study the doctrine and on the fifth day of the week 326 give a report to the bishop or elders. Likewise, this rule repeats word for word the rule of Laodice. 46, which says that catechumens preparing for enlightenment and baptism (see interpretation of I Ecumenical 14) must, throughout their catechumen (and how long it was, see note 10 (to I Ecumenical 20)) thoroughly study the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and every Thursday, according to Zonara, tell them about them to the bishop or elders who conduct the catechumen. so that the catechumens are not baptized without understanding the meaning of our sacrament and so that, due to their ignorance and lack of confidence (2 Pet. 3:16), they do not easily succumb to the deception of heretics [327]. In addition, the 47th canon of the same Council of Laodicea says that those who were baptized while sick should study the dogmas of the faith when they recover. Confessing that the Divine birth from the Virgin was seedless and painless (ἀλόχευτον 328), and preaching this to the entire flock, we admonish those who, out of ignorance, do something inappropriate. It turned out that after the day of the Holy Nativity of Christ our God, some prepare bread from wheat flour and pass it on to each other under the pretext of supposedly honoring the birth (λοχειῶν) of the All-Immaculate Virgin Mother, therefore we decree that believers should not do anything like that. For to describe and imagine Her indescribable birth according to the example of what is usual and characteristic of us does not mean to give honor to the Virgin, who above mind and word gave birth to the incontainable Word in the flesh. So, if anyone from now on is caught doing something similar, then if he is a cleric, he will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. Some Christians, out of ignorance, on the second day after the Nativity of Christ, prepared bread from wheat flour and other treats, passed it on to each other and ate it, doing so under the pretext of honoring the birth of the Mother of God (just as there is a custom to honor other women who give birth naturally). Therefore, this rule specifies that Christians should not do this in the future. After all, the fact that we, by such a custom, liken the inexplicable birth from the Ever-Virgin to our ordinary and wretched human birth is considered not an honor, but rather a dishonor for She who, above reason and words, gave birth in the flesh to the God of the Word, inconceivable for the world. According to Zonara, just as we recognize conception as seedless and from the Holy Spirit, so birth from Her is superior to all childbirth, which is the painful birth of a baby, accompanied by bleeding [329]. Anyone who does what is prohibited by the rule, if he is a cleric, will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. Look also at St. Epiphanius chapter on the 79th heresy (against the Collyridians), where he says that some women put some kind of bread on a square bed covered with linen, and then eat it, doing this under the pretext of worshiping the Mother of God Mary; Moreover, they say something else blasphemous 330. If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of the clergy, or a layman has no pressing need or difficult matter that prompts him to be absent from his church for a long time, but, remaining in the city, does not come to the congregation on three Sundays for three weeks, then if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excluded from communication. This rule defines that a bishop, or a deacon, or a clergyman in general, or a layman who, without an urgent need or difficulty forcing him to be absent from his church, but being in the city, does not come to church for three Sundays with the other faithful, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. After all, he is one of two things - either an unfaithful, or, if faithful, he neglects the general praise of God and prayer to Him. This rule is a verbatim excerpt from the Sardik rule. 11. However, the words “a bishop should not, if he does not have any urgent need or difficult matter, leave his church for a long time”, the Sardician Council pronounces separately, implying that bishops should not be absent from their episcopal area for a long time, and the present Council, connecting these words with subsequent ones, interpreted them so that bishops should not be absent from the church assembly of the faithful. The words “remaining in the city, three Sunday days,” etc. The Sardikian Council refers to the laity, and the present Council also applies to bishops, just as the 12th canon of the same Sardikian Council requires that a bishop located on his estates located in a foreign episcopal region, come with other faithful to the church located in the neighborhood for three Sundays. Gangr rule. 5 anathematizes the one who neglects the church and the assembly of the faithful that is in it. In the same way, the 20th canon of the same Council anathematizes those who arrogantly condemn the days of remembrance of the martyrs and the meetings and liturgies celebrated on these days. And the 21st canon of the same Council praises church meetings as generally beneficial. We learned that in some places in the Trisagion Song, after the words “Immortal Holy One,” the following is exclaimed: “Crucified for us, have mercy on us,” and this was removed from this song by the ancient holy fathers as alien to piety, just as they rejected the lawless heretic who first introduced this exclamation. Therefore, we, while piously affirming what was laid down before us by the holy fathers, anathematize those who, after this definition, allow this exclamation to be pronounced in church or add something else to the Trisagion. And if the violator of these definitions is an initiate, we decide to deprive him of the title of initiate, and if he is a layman, to excommunicate him. The first to dare in the Trisagion Song after the words “Immortal Saint” to add “crucified for us” were Peter Gnafevs and his followers, the theopaschites [331]. It was these heretics who were condemned for the addition they made by the Council, which was held in Rome under Felix until the V Ecumenical Council, and first of all Gnathevs was anathematized (see the preface to the V Ecumenical Council). Since there were still some followers of the Gnathevs heresy who uttered the Trisagion hymn with this blasphemous addition, the present Council anathematizes those who accept it and join the Trisagion either in church and openly, or in private prayer, and if they are clergy, it casts them out, and if they are laymen, it excommunicates them. On some revered icons, a lamb is depicted, to which the Forerunner points with his finger and which was accepted as an image of grace, because through the law he showed us the true Lamb - Christ our God. Therefore, we, kissing old images and shadows as symbols and pre-images of the truth handed down to the Church, prefer grace and truth, accepting it as the fulfillment of the law. So, in order for even the art of painting to depict the perfect before the eyes of everyone, we now determine on icons, instead of the Old Testament lamb, to represent the image of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, in human form. Through this we comprehend the humility of God the Word and bring to mind His life in the flesh, His suffering, saving death and the redemption of the world accomplished through this. Since some depict Christ as a sheep and a lamb, to whom the Forerunner points with his finger and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), then this rule commands that this should not happen in the future. Christ, as a perfect man, should be depicted in human form, so that His human appearance reminds us of His life in the flesh, suffering, death, and the salvation of the world accomplished through this. After all, we honor those ancient images of the law insofar as they prefigured the truth of the Gospel and grace, and one of such images was the lamb slain at Passover, which served as an image of Christ, the true Lamb, who takes away the sin of the world. Now, when the truth itself has come and the events themselves have happened, we prefer them to the image, and we accept them [332]. Let no one give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead (τελευτώντων), for it is written: Take, eat (Matthew 26:26), but the bodies of the dead can neither receive nor eat. This rule is almost the same as the Carthage rule. 25. Since there was, according to Zonara, an ancient custom of teaching the Eucharist, that is, the Divine Mysteries, to the bodies of the dead [ 333 ], both rules prohibit this, saying that the Lord, when he gave the mysterious Bread to His disciples, and through them, therefore, to all the faithful, said: Take, eat, - but the bodies of the dead can neither receive it nor eat. It is also not appropriate for anyone to baptize the dead, according to the second part of the same rule of Carthage. 25. And Chrysostom (Discourse 4 on the Epistle to the Hebrews) for a long time excommunicates from the Church as an idolater that Christian who, for a fee, invites mourners to weep over his dead relatives, and does not listen to admonitions. He also excommunicates the mourners themselves if they dare to go to mourn 334. Following the canonical provisions of the fathers, we determine: whenever there are no reliable witnesses who claim that infants have undoubtedly been baptized, and because of their age they themselves are not able to give an appropriate answer about the sacrament given to them, they must be baptized without hindrance, so that the resulting bewilderment does not deprive them of such purification through sanctification. Likewise, this rule repeats verbatim the rule of Carthage. 88, ruling on cases where there are no reliable witnesses to testify that the children are baptized (for example, because the barbarians took the children captive and took them to remote areas [335], and then the Christians ransomed them), and the children themselves are not able to certify that they were baptized, “due to age,” namely, because they were baptized in infancy. Such children, I continue, should be baptized without any hindrance, so that doubt as to whether they are baptized or not deprives them of purification through washing. Also see note. to Apost. 47. We have accepted what was said in Scripture: every word is established by two and three witnesses (see Deut. 17:6). Therefore, we determine: slaves freed by their masters, let them accept this honor in the presence of three witnesses, who by their presence will give legitimacy to the liberation and certify this matter from themselves. Since, according to civil laws, the emancipation of slaves is a matter that is not assessed in any way, then when it was necessary to testify to it, it was appropriate for five or more witnesses to be present so that the case could have reliable proof. But, rejecting this, the present rule determines that only three witnesses are enough to confirm such a liberation of slaves, because Divine Scripture itself says that every word will become, that is, receive power and confirmation, with two or three witnesses 336. See also Apostle. 82. Those who, to seduce souls, recruit and keep harlots, if they are clerics, we determine to excommunicate and cast out, and if they are laymen, to excommunicate. Being the owner of a brothel, that is, to the detriment of souls, recruiting and maintaining harlots in order to receive payment for their fornication, is prohibited even by civil laws and punished for this [337], and even more so by church rules. Therefore, the present rule simultaneously excommunicates and deposes those clergy who do this (which is a grave and double punishment, since in most cases only defrocking is considered a sufficient punishment for clerics), and excommunicates the laity. She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she marries another, according to the sacred and divine Basil, who very appropriately cited the following words from the prophecy of Jeremiah: “If she becomes a wife to another husband, let her not return to her husband, but being defiled, she will be defiled” (see Jer. 3:1), and also: he who contains an adulteress is foolish and wicked (Prov. 18:23). Therefore, if it turns out that the wife left her husband without reason, then he is worthy of leniency, and she is worthy of penance. Condescension will be shown to him in the fact that he can be in communion with the Church. But the one who leaves his wife, legally married to him, and brings another, is subject, according to the word of the Lord (Matthew 5:32 ~ and 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18), to condemnation for adultery. The rules of our fathers established that such people should cry for a year, listen for two years, fall for three years, and stand with the faithful for the seventh year and then be rewarded with communion of the Holy Mysteries, if, of course, they repent with tears. (Apost. 48; Ankyr. 20; Carthage. 113; Basil the Great. 9, 35, 37, 77.) This rule is composed of three rules of Basil the Great. Its beginning, borrowed from the 9th rule of Basil, reads: “A woman who leaves her husband and marries another is an adulteress. The Divine Basil made such a wise conclusion from the prophecy of Jeremiah, who says: “If a woman takes another husband, then she can no longer return to her first husband (unless he himself wants to accept her, according to Zonara), since she has become defiled,” and also from the Proverbs of Solomon, who said that he is wicked and insane who keeps in his house a wife who has committed adultery with another man.” The continuation of the interpreted rule, borrowed from the 35th rule of Basil, is as follows: “Therefore, if it turns out that a wife left her husband without good reason (i.e. she left not because he committed fornication, and the opposite follows from this: a wife can leave her husband for a good reason, but there is no other good reason except fornication and adultery), then the husband deserves leniency as innocent in her causeless departure and can take another, and the wife, on the contrary, deserves penance for adultery as guilty of her departure. The indulgence that her husband will receive is that he can stand with the faithful in church and is not absent, but does not partake of the Divine Mysteries.” The rest of this rule repeats verbatim the rule of Vasily the Great. 77. It says: “However, the one who leaves his lawful wife (even though she is not guilty of fornication) and takes another is subject to penance for adultery, according to the words of the Lord: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her 338 . But out of leniency, if he repents with tears, the fathers of this and those like him (i.e., the fathers of the Council of Ancyra by the 20th canon and Basil the Great by the 77th canon) are punished by exclusion from communion for seven years [ 339 ], of which such sinners spend one year with those who weep, two with those who listen, three with those who fall, and in the seventh year with those standing with them. faithful and then receive communion.” Read also the interpretation and notes. to Apost. 48 and Ankir. 20 [340]. Let no one bring any animals into the sacred church, unless someone stops in the church during a journey, since, having no home and shelter, he will be constrained by the greatest need. After all, if you do not bring the animal inside, it may die, and he himself, having lost the animal and therefore not being able to set off, will be in mortal danger. For we have been taught that the Sabbath is for man’s sake (Mark 2:27), and therefore we believe that man’s salvation and safety should be preferred over everything. If someone is caught unnecessarily, as has been said, introducing animals into the church, then if he is a cleric, he will be expelled, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated. This rule prohibits anyone from introducing any animals into the sacred church, for churches are worthy of veneration and reverence. Unless someone on a journey and in difficult circumstances, caused, for example, by a harsh winter or heavy rain, having no place to hide, will bring his animal into the church so that it does not die outside, and he himself will not be in mortal danger, since he will not be able to go on a further journey on foot and will endure sorrows, not finding a way to acquire another animal. The rule also cites evidence from Scripture, which says: The Sabbath is for man's sake. And this can be understood in two ways: either in the sense that just as the Sabbath is intended by law so that a person’s slave and animal can rest and, thanks to this rest, be able to serve their master, in the same way this rest of an animal in the church is not for the sake of the animal, but for the sake of the person to whom it belongs. Or in the sense that how the requirement to leave all work on the Sabbath was relaxed in order to give water to the animals (Lk. 13:15) or, for example, to get them out of the pit where they fell on the Sabbath, and so that after that they work for a person, so the requirement to honor the church is weakened for the sake of saving a person who has an animal. If someone without such a need introduces any animal into the church, then if he is a cleric, let him be ejected, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. Spending the days of the saving Passion in fasting, prayer and contrition of heart, the faithful must end the fast (ἀπονηστίζεσθαι) around the middle hours of the night after Holy Saturday, because the divine evangelists Matthew and Luke, the first saying after the Sabbath 341, and the second very early 342, point us to deep night. This rule determines that Christians should spend the entire Great Week of the Holy Passion in fasting [343], prayer and contrition of heart, of course true, and not hypocritical (especially and most of all, Great Friday and Great Saturday, on which they should force themselves to completely abstain from food), and around midnight, in other words, after midnight between the past Great Saturday and the coming Great Saturday resurrection, stop fasting [344], because the Lord has already risen, as the divine evangelists show. In fact, Matthew, saying that the women came to look at the tomb after the Sabbath, showed that the Sabbath and most of the night after the Sabbath had passed, and Luke, in turn, saying that they came very early, showed that most of the night remained until the dawn of Sunday. From the evidence of both, it follows that the Lord rose again around midnight, after the sixth hour and at the onset of the seventh [345]. The 1st canon of St. speaks at greater length about the time of the Lord’s resurrection. Dionysius, from whom the present Council borrowed all this information. Rule of St. Dionysius also adds that we condemn those who allow fasting until midnight as cowardly and incontinent, and we praise those who endure until dawn as courageous and abstinent. In addition, the “Apostolic Constitutions” (Book 5, Chapter 19) say that Christians should break fast at dawn on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1) 346, i.e. on Sunday. See also interpretation and note. 225 (1 to VI Ecum. 233) and Apost. 69. We accepted a canonical injunction from our God-bearing fathers: while honoring the Resurrection of Christ, do not kneel on Sundays. Therefore, in order for us to have a clear understanding of how this must be observed, we will clearly establish for the faithful: after the clergy enters the altar on Saturday evening, according to established custom, no one kneels until the next Sunday evening, on which, bending the knees again upon entering at Vespers, we thus offer prayers to God. For, considering the night following Saturday as the harbinger of the Resurrection of our Savior, from this time we begin spiritual chants, and end the holiday on the coming day, when it gets dark, and thus we celebrate the Resurrection all night and day. Since we have accepted (as defined by this rule) from the God-bearing fathers of the First Council, as well as the divine Peter and Basil the Great, 347 the command not to kneel on Sundays for the sake of the Resurrection of the Lord, we explain to the faithful that we must stop kneeling after entering the holy altar, performed by the priests at vespers on Saturday, and begin them again after the priests enter the holy altar, performed at vespers on Saturday. Sunday, in other words, kneeling stops from one evening to the next. After all, considering the night following Saturday as the forerunner and harbinger of the Resurrection of the Lord, from now on we begin Sunday hymns. It turns out that we begin the holiday with the onset of darkness on the night following Saturday (which is considered Sunday), we celebrate it as long as the light of Sunday lasts, and then we end it, thus we celebrate the Resurrection all night and all day. See also I Omni. 20[348]. Wives who give means that promote the eruption of the fetus from the womb (ἀμβλωθρίδια) and take poisons that kill the fetus are subject to the penance of murderers. Some women, secretly copulating with men, conceive from them and, in order not to be caught, drink some poisonous drinks or eat poisonous herbs, thereby killing the fetus in their womb and thus causing a miscarriage. Therefore, the present rule imposes the penance of murderers both on the women (or men) who give such means, and on the women who take them and drink or eat them [349]. Vasily in the 8th rule defines exactly the same thing. However, both the fathers in Ankyra (21st rule) and Basil the Great (2nd rule), acting more leniently, punish such people not for the rest of their lives, but for 10 years. The word ἀμβλωθρίδια, as noted by some, and especially Svida, also means the potion itself for killing the fetus, as the rule of Ankyr calls it. 21, and the embryo which it destroyed. Women who give these poisonous herbs and women who take them are condemned as murderers and in the 60th book. "Basilik", tit. 39. Athenagoras says the same thing in his Apology in Defense of Christians. See also Apost. 66. Those who kidnap women under the pretext of marriage, or help the kidnappers, or agree with them, the Holy Council determined that if they are clergy, they should be deprived of their degree, and if they are laymen, they should be anathematized. This rule repeats verbatim rule IV Omni. 27, and therefore read the interpretation there. She who, after her husband has left and gone missing, cohabits with another until she receives news of her husband's death commits adultery. In the same way, the wives of warriors who married because it was not known where their husbands were are subject to the same determination as those who did not wait for the return of their absent husband. However, here this act has some excuse, because the assumption about the death of the husband can be made sooner. And the one who, out of ignorance, married someone who was abandoned for a while by her wife, and then was abandoned by him because his former wife returned to him, committed fornication, but out of ignorance, so marriage is not forbidden to her, but it is better if she remains that way. If a warrior, whose wife, due to his long absence, married another man, returns after some time, he, if he wishes, should take his wife back, and forgiveness is given to her and the man who brought her into his house in his second marriage for the sake of ignorance [350]. This rule is composed of three rules of Basil the Great. At the beginning of it, the 31st rule of Basil is repeated verbatim, which reads: “If the husband of a woman left and did not return after a long time, and she married another before hearing and receiving notification of his death, then this woman is an adulteress” [351]. The following is the 36th rule of Basil: “In the same way, the wives of soldiers who married a second time because they did not receive news of the return of their husbands are adulteresses. However, these wives who remarried have some excuse (i.e., more than the remarried wives of non-warriors), because it can be assumed that their husbands, since they are warriors and are at war, are more likely to be dead than alive [352]. And that woman who (this part of the rule literally repeats the 46th rule of Basil. - St. N.) married someone abandoned by his wife for a while, not knowing that he was married, and then will be rejected by him, because his former wife returned to him, committed fornication, but out of ignorance - however, she is not condemned as an adulteress. Therefore, she will not be prevented from taking a legal husband if she wants, but it is better and safer if she does not marry.” The rest of the rule is the Council's own definition. If a warrior, whose wife remarried because of his many years of service in a foreign land, returns from the war years later, he, I say, if he wants, can take his wife back, forgiving both her and her second husband, because they entered into marriage without knowing that he was alive [353]. Those who take pagan oaths are subject to penance, and we impose excommunication on them. Pagan customs should be hated by Christians, therefore the present rule excommunicates those Christians who, according to the custom of the pagans, swear either by their false gods - “I swear by Zeus!” - or by the forces of nature, for example, “I swear by the sun!”, “I swear by the sky!”, or something similar. So is the rule of Vasily the Great. 81 subjects them to penances. However, Vasily punishes for 11 years those who, without being strongly forced by torture, renounced the faith, tasted things sacrificed to idols and swore pagan oaths, of course, because they themselves believe in them. And the present conciliar rule excommunicates, as Balsamon says, not only them, but also Christians who have not renounced the faith, but who swear oaths according to the custom of the pagans. Therefore, such an oath, like any oath associated with an illicit religion, is not observed, according to Chapter 19. 13th tit. "Nomocanon" Photius. Christians are prohibited not only from oaths taken according to the custom of the pagans, but also from any oath in general, for the Lord says that we should not swear at all: neither heaven, nor earth, nor Jerusalem, nor our own head, but instead of any oath we should only say “yes, yes” and “no, no” (see Matthew 5:34–37). And everything else that we say beyond this is from the devil [354]. This is confirmed by God's brother James (James 5:12). Old Testament prophet. Hosea also prohibits swearing: Do not swear by the Living Lord (Hos. 4:15). Therefore, Basil the Great says in the 29th rule that an oath is completely prohibited, and even more so one that is given with the aim of causing harm to someone else. Consequently, those leaders who take an oath to cause harm to those under their control and subordinates, he commands to repent of what they swore recklessly, and not to keep these oaths sworn for evil. In addition, in the 10th canon he condemns Sevier, because he acted against the rule and bound the presbyter Cyriacus with an oath, contrary to the law of the Gospels. And this is all about the fact that it is not proper to swear. Those who have already taken an oath and then violated it, the same Basil the Great in the 64th rule, without making a distinction between them, punishes with deprivation of the sacrament for 10 years. And in the 82nd rule, the punishment for oath-breakers is imposed with a distinction: if someone breaks an oath under pressure and force, then he bears penance for 6 years, but if without force - 7 years. The same Basil, in his 28th rule, as well as in the rules briefly stated (137), says that it is worthy of laughter if someone promises God not to eat pork meat or decides to abstain for some time from any other kind of food or drink, and that it is not proper to make such promises that stem from ignorance, but the consumption of food should be considered an indifferent matter 355. If Basil, in the 17th canon, allowed Vianor, who had sworn not to liturgize, to liturgize, then he did not do it simply, but, firstly, because Vianor took the oath because of violence and imminent danger, secondly, he allowed him to serve secretly and in another place, and not where he swore, and, thirdly, Vasily adds that Vianor must repent of what he gave oath. All initiates and clerics who break their oath are subject to eruption, according to the Apostle. 25, the interpretation of which read. We accept those heretics who join Orthodoxy and part of those who are being saved according to the following rites and customs. Arian, Macedonian, Novatian, who call themselves pure (καθαρούς) [ 356 ] and leftist (ἀριστερούς) [ 357 ], fourteeners, or tetradites, and Apollinarians, if they give receipts and anathematize every heresy that does not think so, As the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God thinks, we accept, sealing, that is, anointing, with the holy world first the forehead, then the eyes, nostrils, lips and ears, and, sealing them, we say: “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Regarding the Paulineists, who later turned to the Catholic Church, a decree was made: they must be rebaptized. The Eunomians, who are baptized by a single immersion, the Montanists, called here Phrygians, the Sabellians, who hold the opinion of the fatherland and do other intolerant things, and all other heresies (since there are many of them here, especially many who come (ἐρχόμενοι) [ 358 ] from the Galatian country) - all those of them who wish to join Orthodoxy, we accept as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second - catechumens, then on the third day we conjure them with three blows on their faces and ears - and so we catechumen them, force them to stay in the church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. We also accept the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and similar heretics. Nestorians must give receipts and anathematize their heresy, as well as Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Sevirus and other founders of similar heresies, their like-minded people and all the heresies mentioned above, and then partake of Holy Communion. This rule, from the beginning to the words “then we baptize,” literally repeats the rule of II Ecumenical. 7, and the words in the middle, starting from “about the Paulianists” and to “be sure to rebaptize them,” are a literal excerpt from the rule of I Om. 19, therefore we do not interpret them again here, but see the interpretation of them in their place. А остальная часть правила – это собственное определение настоящего Собора, гласящее, что манихеев [ 359 ] , валентиниан [ 360 ] и маркионитов [ 361 ] , переходящих в православие, подобает крестить, как и евномиан и монтанистов, по толкованию Вальсамона. And the Nestorians [ 362 ], Eutychians, followers of Dioscorus and Sevirians [ 363 ] must anathematize in writing their heresy, the heresiarchs and all those who think in accordance with their heretical teaching (the Monothelites are counted among them, as well as, of course, the Novatians and Macedonians), and then partake of the Divine Mysteries. Basil the Great in the 47th rule commands the baptism of the Encratites [364], and the Saccophori [365], and the Apotactics [366], because these heresies are branches of the Marcionites and adhere to their crafty dogmas [367]. Those who have put on Christ through baptism have vowed to imitate His life in the flesh. Therefore, we fatherly heal those who, to the detriment of those who look upon them, remove and decorate the hair on their heads with sophisticated weaving and thereby seduce unconfirmed souls with suitable penance, educating them and teaching them to live chastely, so that, leaving the deceitfulness and vanity of all material things, they are constantly transported in their minds to an undying and blissful life, have immaculate behavior with fear, approach God as much as possible through the purification of life and they adorned the inner man more than the outer man with virtues and good, impeccable morals, so as not to carry in himself any remnant of depravity stemming from the enemy. If anyone spends his life violating this rule, let him be excommunicated. All of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), says the great Paul. To this the present rule adds that those who have put on Christ must live like Christ, abide in all integrity and purity and not adorn their body unnecessarily and sophisticatedly. Therefore, the rule excommunicates those Christians who braid their hair on their heads, combing it, trimming it, and flaunting this braided hair as a kind of bait for those who are unsteady in soul and easily inclined to sin - both men and women [368]. Educating such people with this penance of excommunication, the rule teaches them, along with all deceitfulness and vanity, to also abandon the decoration of matter and this corruptible body - and raise their minds to that blessed and incorruptible life; through purity of life, to draw closer to God as far as possible and to adorn the inner man, i.e., the soul, with virtues and good morals, rather than the outer man, i.e. body, with these false and vain decorations - so as to no longer leave in themselves a trace of the devil's filth, since they have renounced the devil through holy baptism. Therefore, God commands in the book of Leviticus (Lev. 19:27) that no one should make from the hair on his head what is called in Greek σισόη, that is, braids, according to an unknown interpreter. Likewise, all the apostles together in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (Book 1, Chapter 3) command men to cut their hair, and not to comb it skillfully, not to anoint it with incense and not to braid it in one or many braids, so as not to arouse love in women 369. And in particular ap. Paul, noticing this elegant hair decoration and wanting to prohibit it, said that if a man grows his hair, then it is a dishonor for him 370. For this purpose, the divine Epiphanius said that long hair is a thing alien to the Catholic Church. However, note that just as it is reprehensible not to cut your hair for the sake of beauty and appearance and for a bad purpose, so, on the contrary, it is also prohibited to cut or shave it with any curls, or, more simply, for the sake of beauty and prettiness. Therefore, the word σισόη, which is used in the book of Leviticus, is conveyed by Symmachus as follows: do not shave the surface of your head into a circle. Akila is like this: do not make a circle on the hair of your head. So, from all this it follows that the laity should cut their hair simply, without decorations or frills. Those people who, either by living with their wife or otherwise transforming sacred places into ordinary ones, without making any distinction between them, treat them with disdain and remain in them with such disposition, we command to be expelled from those places in sacred houses that are intended for the catechumens. If someone does not comply with this, then if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. The rule here refers not to divine churches as sacred places, but to the buildings around the divine church intended for the catechumens. Some lived in them with their wives and behaved in the same way as in other ordinary places, making no distinction, that is, not seeing the difference between a holy and an unholy place. Therefore, the rule commands that such people be expelled from there. And whoever does not comply with this, if he is a cleric, will be deposed, and if he is a layman, he will be excommunicated [371]. Therefore, the 5th book. “Basilik” (tit. 1, ch. 12), in accordance with this rule, determines that those who, having abandoned their weapons, seek refuge in the church due to some misadventure, enjoy safety and protection within the church. However, they cannot eat, drink or sleep in the church, but must remain in the gardens, galleries, courtyards or living quarters that surround the church (Photius. Nomocanon. Tit. 5, ch. 2). According to Armenopoul, no one could expel those who found refuge within the church, unless they were murderers, adulterers and kidnappers of virgins (Vasiliki. Book 5, Chapter 21). Anyone who enters into a marriage relationship with a woman betrothed to another, while the betrothed is still alive, must be charged with adultery. A betrothal that takes place according to the laws, that is, provided that the man and woman are of legal age and exchange pledges, at the same time there is a sacred ceremony and the betrothed kiss as usual - such, I continue, a betrothal has the same force as a perfect marriage (see also note 1 to Apostle 17). Therefore, the present rule determines: whoever takes as his wife a woman thus betrothed to another, during the life of her groom, must be punished as an adulterer, that is, like one who took a married wife. Therefore, the groom is called the husband of his bride, as he is right. Joseph the Betrothed is called in the Gospel the husband of the Holy Virgin and the Holy Virgin, in turn, is the wife of Joseph, since even according to the old law the betrothal had the force of marriage [372]. We learned that in the Armenian country it also happens that some, after boiling pieces of meat, bring selected parts to the sacred altars and give them to the priests according to Jewish custom. Therefore, protecting the integrity of the Church, we forbid the priests to accept special parts of meat from those who offer, but let them be content with what the offerer would like to give, given that such an offering will be made outside the church. If anyone does this wrong, let him be excommunicated. And Zonara, and Balsamon, and Aristin, and the anonymous interpreter - they all agree that the Armenians cooked meat in the altar. But it seems to me that these interpreters were mistaken because they did not separate the expressions “boiling pieces of meat” and “into sacred altars” with a comma, but connected them together. This is incorrect, for the words “to the sacred altars” are not connected with the words “boiling pieces of meat,” but, being separated from them by a comma, are connected with the words “bringing the choice parts.” After all, the fact that they would cook meat in the holy altar and make a kitchen out of it is so absurd that it is impossible to believe in it. So, the present rule says that the custom that existed in Armenia of boiling meat in houses and then bringing parts of it to the holy altar for the priests (as the Jews brought to the priests the breast, shoulder and other parts of sacrificial animals) - this, I continue, the custom should no longer exist, and also the priests do not have the right to take those parts of the animal that they want, but must give thanks for those that the Christian who brings them gives them, and this offering should take place outside church, and not in the sacred altar. These words prove our own thought stated above, for if meat were cooked in the altar, the rule would certainly prohibit this, as it prohibited the offering, since boiling meat in the altar is even more inappropriate. Anyone who breaks the rule will be excommunicated. Balsamon says (in the interpretation of Apostle 3) that he saw the abbot expelled from the priesthood and deprived of the abbess for bringing meat and cheese to the holy altar. See also the interpretation of Apost. 3. Note that, according to Zonara, the rule allowed priests to accept parts of meat not throughout the world in general, but only in Armenia, and then because of the then widespread custom among the Armenians [373]. Let your eyes see what is right and guard your heart with all care, advises wisdom (Prov. 4:25 ~ and 23), for the bodily senses easily convey their impressions to the soul. Therefore, images that captivate the eye - whether they are presented on boards or in some other way - seduce the mind and incite the desire for shameful pleasures, we command henceforth not to be drawn in any way and in any way. If anyone tries to do this, let him be excommunicated. Since some have depicted obscene scenes on walls and boards, such as naked women washing or kissing men, and other shameful things that deceive the eyes of those who look at them and arouse carnal lusts in the mind and heart, this rule commands that such pictures should not be depicted under any circumstances. If anyone portrays something like this, let him be excommunicated, since all five bodily senses, especially the first and royal one, i.e. vision, easily introduce into the soul images of what they perceive. Therefore, Solomon advises that everyone’s eyes should look at what is right and good, and that everyone should take every precaution to protect the mind and heart from shameful sensory impressions. The divine apostle loudly proclaims man created in the image of God to be the body of Christ and the church (1 Cor. 12:27; 2 Cor. 6:16). Therefore, having become above all sensory creation and having been granted heavenly dignity through saving suffering, a person, when he eats and drinks Christ, is constantly transformed for eternal life, being sanctified by both soul and body through the communion of Divine grace. Therefore, if someone during a meeting wishes to partake of the most pure Body and become one with it through communion, let him, clasping his hands in the image of the cross, thus approach and receive the communion of grace. And those who, instead of hands, make some containers out of gold or other material for receiving the Divine Gift and with their help are honored with the most pure communion, we in no case admit to the sacrament, as they prefer the image of God to soulless matter subject to human hands. If anyone is caught giving the most pure communion to those who bring such containers, let both he and the one bringing them be excommunicated. At that time, the following custom was widespread: the laity received communion as priests, taking the Holy Bread in their hands in the same way as they now take the antidor. Since some, under the pretext of reverence and greater respect for the Divine Gifts, made vessels, gold or from other expensive material, and, receiving the most pure Body of the Lord in them, partook of it in this way, the present rule did not accept such a custom, even if it originated from reverence. After all, man is superior to all sensual and soulless creations and, therefore, his hands are more honorable than any vessel, since man is created in the image of God, eats and drinks the Body and Blood of Christ and is sanctified through them, and besides, according to the Apostle, he represents the body and church of Christ. Therefore, whoever wishes to partake of the Body of Christ should form two hands in the image of the cross [ 374 ] and receive it in them. But a layman who receives the Body of Christ with the help of a vessel, and a priest who gives it to such a layman, will both be excommunicated, because they prefer a soulless vessel to a man created in the image of God. Those who have received from God the power to decide and bind must examine the nature of sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion and then apply treatment appropriate to the illness, so that due to immoderation in both, they do not make a mistake in saving the sufferer. For the disease of sin is not simple, but complex and diverse and sprouts many harmful shoots, from which evil spreads abundantly and spreads forward to the point that it is able to resist (ἀντνσταίη) [ 375 ] the power of the healer. Therefore, anyone who discovers medical spiritual art must first consider the disposition of the sinner: whether he strives for health or, on the contrary, by his own morals he brings illness upon himself - and notice how he monitors his behavior at this time. And if he does not resist the doctor and heals his mental wound due to the fact that he uses the proposed medicines, then measure him mercy according to his merits. For God and the one to whom the pastoral administration is entrusted are all concerned with bringing back the lost sheep and healing those wounded by the serpent. So, the one who experiences the fruits of repentance and wisely guides a person called to the highest luminosity, cares not about pushing into the rapids of despair, not about loosening (ὑπενδοῦναι) [ 376 ] the reins, thereby leading to a life of relaxation and neglect, but about certainly at least one of the ways, drugs or more harsh and tart, or softer and gentle, resist passion and struggle for the complete healing of the wound. So, we must know both: both characteristic of acrivia and characteristic of custom, and with those who do not accept perfection, act in accordance with the model shown in legend, as Saint Basil teaches us. After this Council had made decisions about many and various penances, in the present canon it finally leaves everything to the judgment of bishops and confessors and to their power to bind and decide, saying that it is appropriate for them to consider both the nature of the sin, whether it is forgivable or mortal, and the disposition of the sinner to repentance and then apply treatment suitable for his illness, so that in case they give lenient penances to those who are strong in spirit and zealous for repentance, and more to the careless and cowardly, on the contrary, they were strict; without correcting either one or the other, they did not destroy them. After all, sin is so diverse and grows so strongly that it resists (ἀντιστέκεται), that is, it overcomes the power and art of the spiritual doctor (or so: sin is diverse and grows strongly until it is stopped and dried up by the art of the confessor). Consequently, the spiritual doctor must first of all consider the disposition and inclination of the sinner: whether he loves the health of the soul, having ardent repentance, or, on the contrary, cultivates sin to his own detriment; how he relates to sin, whether he does not reject the saving medicines that are given to him (as those who have lost their minds do, rejecting the medicines of doctors treating their body), and whether this does not increase the wound of sin even more. I continue, the confessor should consider all this first of all and, in accordance with this, show mercy, making penances easier for the careless and cowardly, but making them more difficult for the strong in spirit, doing both by grace, so as to cleanse the strong in spirit from sin, and not make the wound worse for the cowardly. Simply put, both God and the confessor have the only goal - to convert the lost sheep, the sinner, to heal him, wounded by the mental serpent, the devil, not to plunge him into despair with heavy penances and at the same time not to loosen the bridle, like a horse, with light penances and not to push him in this way to negligence and negligence - but in any way, strong or light with medicines, try to heal the sinner from sinful wounds, experiencing the fruits of his repentance and with wisdom directing him to the highest splendor of the Holy Trinity (which is the Kingdom of God, according to Gregory the Theologian). So, it is appropriate for a confessor to know both (here the rule of Basil the Great is repeated verbatim 3): both acrivius and custom [377]. And if sinners do not want to accept that acrivia, for the sake of which there is leniency in the duration of penances for sin, let the confessor command them to at least observe the custom, that is, the full number of years determined by the rules and the penances prescribed by the rules. This Council is called and is Ecumenical for many reasons. Firstly, because in the Council’s welcoming speech to Justinian, as well as in the 3rd rule of this Council, “Ecumenical” is written. Secondly, because the VII Ecumenical Council in the 8th act and 1st rule calls it Ecumenical. In addition, Adrian I, Pope of Rome, in his letter to Tarasius, found in the 2nd act of VII Omni. (Synodikon. p. 748), classifies him among the Ecumenical. Thirdly, because this Council in its rules establishes laws and makes determinations for the entire universe, and not just one part of it: both for the Eastern Churches, and for the Western, and for the named Churches of Rome, Africa, Armenia, as well as the metropolitan regions in Barbary, which becomes clear from rules 12, 13, 18, 29, 55, 56. It would, of course, be funny if this Council, not being Ecumenical and not having the authority of the Ecumenical Council, established laws for such a huge number of metropolitan regions, and even more so corrected the rules of many Local Councils, about which see note. to VI Omni. 2. Fourthly, because the four ecumenical patriarchs were present at this Council in person, and the Pope in the person of their locums, and the Council was accepted by all Churches, which is an essential and fundamental feature of Ecumenical Councils. Fifthly and lastly, because the rules of this Council are consistent with the Divine Scriptures, apostolic and conciliar traditions and decrees, which, as we said in the preface to the First Ecumenical Council, in itself is a sign and distinctive feature of the Ecumenical Councils, although not the most important. I said that in its proper sense it is more correct to call this Council the Sixth for the following reason: although later interpreters of the rules and others sometimes call it the Fifth-Sixth, as a Council that made up for the omission of the V and VI Ecumenical Councils, that is, adopted rules that improve the church structure and which those Councils did not publish, however, this Council in the literal sense of the word and truly is the Sixth and should be called so. Firstly, because, according to the Roman writer in the preface to the acts of this Council, the bishops who composed the VI Ecumenical Council under Pogonatus also compiled this Council under his son Justinian. According to this writer, 43 of the bishops present at the VI Ecumenical Council were also at this Council. However, from the words of St. Tarasius, addressed to the VII Ecumenical Council, it seems that there were more of them. Secondly, because the VII Ecumenical Council both in the 4th and 8th acts, as well as in the 1st rule, calls it the VI Ecumenical Council. And Adrian I, in a letter to Tarasius, accepts the rules of this Council as belonging to the Sixth Council proper (Synodikon. p. 748) and in a letter to Charles, king of France, calls it the holy VI Council. The papal legates, when present at the VII Ecumenical Council, also confirmed that this Council was the Sixth, and Innocent III says about the 32nd rule of this Council: “Established at the VI Ecumenical Council,” and Gratian mentions this Council under the name of the Sixth itself. Finally, thirdly, also because this Council is identified more with the Sixth than with the Fifth, since it is closer to it in time and was held in the same Trullo Chamber where the VI Ecumenical Council was convened. The time of its holding dates back to this year. The VI Ecumenical Council that preceded it took place in 680 in the 9th indict, and ended in 681, in the 1st month of the 10th indict, as evidenced by the acts of the VI Council. And the present Council, as evidenced by its 3rd and 17th rules, was assembled in 6199 from Adam, and from the Nativity of Christ in 691, i.e. in the 5th indict after the just passed period of 15 indicts, in the 10th indict of which the previous VI Council ended. Thus, from the VI Council to the present, 10 or 11 years have passed, and not 27, as the Latins say. The council took place under Paul of Constantinople, according to the testimony of the Synodikon (p. 698), and not under Callinicus, as Binius and Baronius talk idle talk. Not only Balsamon, as he says, found in the ancient codes of the Nomocanons evidence that these bishops were representatives of the pope at this Council and that there were also other legates of the pope: the primates of Sardinia, Thessalonica and Corinth, but also the rule of VI Ecumenical. 3 clearly indicates that legates and representatives of the pope were present at the Council (about them, see the same place in the Synodikon). And the primates of Gortyn, Thessalonica and Corinth replaced the pope at this Council not because they obeyed the pope, as those ordained by him, but, as Blastar says, because of the distance of the journey (meaning from Rome to Constantinople). Ioan. Damask. Adv. Const. Cabalin. 5 // PG 95, 320D. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 2. 1 // PG 35, 408A. In other sources - “under which (ὑφ’ ᾗ)” (then the translation would be: “under which as the foundation is Christ”). Note that the Theologian borrowed this saying from the first letter of Demosthenes, in which he says: “Whoever approaches every important word and deed, I believe, should begin first of all with the gods” (Demosth. Ep. 1. 1 // TLG 0014/063. 1. 1. 1–2). Some argue that the apostles, when they intended to separate and go to preach, in 44 (as we said before) held a greatest and memorable meeting, at which they composed the Creed. Those who hold this opinion cite the testimony of many Western fathers in favor of the fact that this Symbol is an apostolic one. (Similarly, some of the new theologians of our time cite evidence from it on one occasion or another in their theological reasoning.) It is probably also indicated by the “faith handed down by the apostles”, which the rule mentions here. But since the most holy and wise Mark of Ephesus gave a completely satisfactory answer to the Latins in Florence about this Symbol, saying: “We do not even know the Apostolic Symbol,” as the great ecclesiarch Sylvester writes in section. 6, ch. 6, insofar as this “faith transmitted by the apostles” here means either the unwritten exposition of the dogmas of faith transmitted through the living speech of the apostles, or the faith that is collectively presented in the Holy Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles, and perhaps also the “Ordinances” - i.e. the dogmas of faith. However, as it seems, this Symbol is included in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 7, chapter 42) (Const. Ar. VII, 41 // PG 1, 1041C–1044A). Aryan's heterotheism consisted in the fact that he said that there is one God the Father and another the Son. About the first, Arius said that He was not created, and about the second, the Son, that He is a creation and, therefore, the Father is greater, and the Son is less. This is the false teaching about unequal degrees, which, as the rule says here, the First Council destroyed. Note that by the fathers of the Third Council the rule means those who gathered in Ephesus for the first time. When the unfortunate Eutyches, allegedly opposing the Nestorian division, himself fell into a new heresy: he thought and taught about one nature in Christ after the incarnation, then, in view of the confusion that occurred because of this in the Church, the same Emperor Theodosius the Younger convened a second Council in the same Ephesus. He appointed Dioscorus of Alexandria as the Chairman of this Council in the hope that he would turn out to be the second Cyril, whose immediate successor he became. But Dioscorus, rather, turned out to be his opposite: he was a Monophysite, a like-minded person and defender of Eutyches, and therefore he approved his false teaching and deposed the divine Flavian of Constantinople. Thousands of evils happened at this Council, the culmination of which was murder (see footnote to the preface of the rules of the IV Ecumenical Council in this edition: vol. 2, p. 127) Bl. Flavian, which is why the Cathedral received the name Robber Cathedral. There is a note to this part of the rule in some codes: the fathers of the present Council, recognizing the worship of icons, denounced the wicked iconoclasts, and they accused the fathers of monothelitism, and therefore this rule nails the slander of the iconoclasts to the pillory. In this canon, the Fathers, together with the VI Council, openly anathematize the heresy of the Monothelites and confess two natural wills and two natural actions in our One Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the iconoclasts became like the Eutychians and the followers of Dioscorus, who were called Nestorians by the fathers of the Fourth Council because they overthrew their heresy, or even the Jews, or, better said, the demons, who incited the Jews to call the Lord demon-possessed, since He drove out demons from people with His Divine power and power. Some rules of individual Local Councils are excluded, which were not so much approved as corrected or, more precisely, improved by this Council. For example, the rules of Carthage. 4 and 33 were improved by the 13th rule of this Council, the rule of Neokesar. 15 improved by 16th rule, Carthage. 48 - 29th rules of this Council, and other rules were similarly improved by other rules. Note that the rules of the Faster, although not mentioned in this rule (I don’t know for what reason, probably because they are lenient), are nevertheless accepted by the entire Church. See also the preface to the Postnik rules. In a similar way, the later rules of St. are accepted by the Church. Nikifor, as well as the canonical question-answers of Nicholas. What is this Council, reassembled under Nektarios in Constantinople, about which this rule speaks? See about him after the rules of the Council in Sardica. In addition, note that this rule names the rules of Timothy I, distinguishing them from the rules of Timothy of Alexandria, called Elur, who lived during the IV Council, i.e., later than Timothy I. And also pay attention: since the Latins accuse the present Council for not mentioning the Local Councils held in the West and their rules (which were collected by Bartolomeo de Carranza and many others before him), then we answer this as follows. The Council listed those rules of the Councils and Fathers that were used in the Church, and at the same time adopted those rules of Western Local Councils that are consistent with the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. And in general, just as the V Ecumenical Council accepted the opinions of the Western Fathers Augustine and Ambrose, but, of course, not all, but only those corresponding to the right faith and serving to denounce heretics, so we accept in the Western Councils what is right, and not all, because the Pope of Rome prescribes a lot of absurd things at these Councils. That is why most Western Local Councils made mistakes, and besides, they adopted an addition to the Creed - the first and last of the evils and the immediate cause of the schism. In other sources the word "illegal" is omitted. For this reason, the 2nd decree of the 1st title. “Novel” (Photius. Titus 9, ch. 29) instructs the ordainer of an unmarried person to ask him whether he can live in chastity and virginity, and also orders to depose the bishop who allowed a subdeacon or deacon to marry after ordination. To this the 6th novella of Leo adds that if the candidate answers the bishop’s question with consent, he will be ordained. And the one who gave permission to the deacon to get married after the ordination should be thrown out. Resolution 44 tit. 3 defines: “The children who are born to priests, deacons and subdeacons who marry after ordination are considered neither their illegitimate children nor illegitimate children, and they cannot receive anything from such their fathers, either as an inheritance, or as a gift, or through a fictitious loan, or under any other obligation - neither they nor their mothers. But all the property of these clergy is received by the church to which they belong. Such lawless people, after they are deprived of the priesthood, can neither be placed in a secular position nor elevated to a military rank, but spend their entire lives as private individuals and ordinary people” (Photius, ibid.). Why can’t you get married after ordination? The reason is given by the 3rd short story of Leo the Wise, which defines the following: “It is an unworthy and inappropriate thing to do, after ascending from the carnal humiliation of marriage to the spiritual level of the priesthood, to return again to this humiliation, but rather the opposite should be done. Namely: after the carnal humiliation of marriage (that is, after marriage) to ascend to the high level of the divine priesthood. And those who do otherwise will be cast out” (Balsamon’s 36th answer; see: Greco-Roman Law. P. 381). Pay attention to even greater severity: the 7th and 8th stories of Leo even prescribe to force those clergy and monks who have thrown off their robes and become laymen to wear the robes of clerics and monks. Exocatacles are the highest officials under the Patriarch of Constantinople. Therefore, Balsamon (Greco-Roman Law. Answer 61. P. 392), citing this rule as evidence, says that the reader who has received from the abbot the right to manage the property of the monastery should not sit above the priests or be remembered at services after the abbot, except in the case if he goes somewhere as a deputy abbot. Note that Armenopul (Summary of the rules. Section 3, tit. 2), as well as Balsamon, say that Patriarch Luke, by his definition, forbade clerics to serve in world shops (that is, in those where they make and sell incense) and baths, since this occupation becomes an occasion for deception and obtaining shameful profits; he prohibits deacons from practicing medicine and excommunicates clergy who are engaged in secular and public affairs. Therefore, Chrysostom, in agreement with this rule, says that no one should go for treatment to Jewish doctors (vol. 6, p. 360) (see, for example: Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 8. 5 // PG 48, 935). Note that this Council, by ecumenical rule, prohibited bishops from having wives for three very important reasons: 1. Bishops belong to the most perfect and highest rank of all other ranks of the Church: they should also be perfect in virtues, and most of all in virginity and purity, which is why they must live strictly chastely. 2. Bishops who had wives and children, after death, left the episcopal rank to their children as an inheritance, and many of the church things were mercilessly stolen, as the Apostle says about this. 6. 3. Caring for their wife, children and the whole house prevented them from caring for their flock, because, according to Paul, a married man cares about worldly things, how to please his wife (1 Cor. 7:33). So, in order to avoid all these inconsistencies, the Ecumenical Council by this rule prohibited bishops from marrying. I said “ecumenical rule” because even before this Council, marriage for bishops was prohibited, but not by an ecumenical rule, but by a private rule. Where does this come from? Firstly, from how the divine Chrysostom interprets the saying of St. Paul about the bishop If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife (Tit. 1:5-6) saying: “Therefore he said: The husband of one wife. He said this not because this is now observed in the Church - after all, a bishop must be clothed in perfect holiness and purity - but because then it was considered a great thing for the Hellenes who were in fornication to have only one wife" (Homily 2 about Job) (Ioan. Chrysost. In Job 2.2 // PG 56, 569). And secondly, from the 4th and 33rd rules of the Local Council of Carthage, which were distributed in certain places in Africa and ordered bishops, presbyters and deacons to impose restrictions on themselves, that is, to promise to abstain from their wives, of course with mutual consent. This Council, by this rule, established that the custom according to which bishops would not only abstain from their wives, but also not live with them at all, should prevail everywhere. The 30th rule of this Council also allows presbyters and deacons to abstain from their wives, but not everywhere, but only in some barbarian places, due to the wild disposition of the barbarians and the weakness of their faith. The fact that the bishops, even after the promise they made, lived, as the Council says, together with their wives, is clear from Carthage. 33. The rule of this Council does not contradict the rule of the Apostle. 5 or the command of St. Paul, does not cancel or abolish them. Firstly, because the divine apostles, allowing bishops to have wives, did not make this a law, but condescended to the weakness of the people living then and to the customs of the Jews and pagan peoples, since both the Jewish and pagan high priests had wives. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom (in the same word) says: “...Establish bishops if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife - not because he elevated it to law, but because he indulged in error” (Ibid). This Council, seeing that the Church was flourishing and Christian life was succeeding in virtues, made it a rule that the life of bishops should be decorated with the color of celibacy and chastity. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom, interpreting the above saying of St. Paul, says that then the ap. Paul only allowed marriage because “he knew that over time, when piety reaches its peak, this nature (meaning human nature) of its own free will will prefer the benefits of celibacy and virginity, and the choice will fall on the best, that is, unmarried, bishops who have preserved their virginity” (Ioan. Chrysost. In Job 2.2 // PG 56, 569). Secondly, the apostolic canon prohibits a bishop from expelling his wife, that is, removing her by force, without her consent and desire, but does not prohibit separating from his wife with her consent. And this Council, recognizing in the 48th rule that it is permissible for a wife, with mutual consent, to first separate from her husband, who is preparing to become a bishop, and after his ordination to enter a nunnery, does not at the same time allow a wife to leave her husband under duress and against her will. After all, if the Council had affirmed this, it would have clearly contradicted the apostles, as well as the words of the Lord Himself, who commands that marriage remain indissoluble (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). Since the Council does not say this, it does not contradict the apostolic canon, but rather agrees with it. And to put it briefly, this Council, thanks to the progress of the Church for the better, having, as a kind of wealth, a multitude of celibates, that is, hieromonks, does not want to have in the rank of bishops those who are married, not because it condemns and condemns marriage, but because it prefers what is more beautiful - celibacy. Therefore, this Council also accepts married people into the rank of bishops, provided that they separated from their wife either due to her death, or by consent, as the Apostle says (see 1 Cop. 7:5). Moreover, this Council does not dissolve a marriage, but ordains as a bishop the one whom it finds free and released from marriage ties voluntarily and with the consent of the wife, and deposes the bishop who lives with his wife after the consecration. First, because by such cohabitation with her he may become inflamed and fall into carnal intercourse with her, which is no longer lawful intercourse as before, but is considered fornication and adultery, since he has broken the agreement and promise he made to abstain from her. Secondly, because such cohabitation becomes a temptation for the people, as this rule directly states. Ioan. Chiysost. Hom. in Ep. ad Tit. 2. 1 // PG 62, 671. About this Rev. Nicodemus speaks in the note. 2 to Apost. 2. Note that when Patriarch Mr. Luke was asked how many days a person intending to receive communion should abstain, he conciliarly declared that not only clergy, but also married laymen should not touch their wives for three days. If the Lord ordered the Jews not to approach their wives for three days in order to accept the old law: Be prepared, for three days you should not go in among women (Ex. 19:15), then how much more appropriate is it to observe these words for those who, through the Divine Eucharist, are not to accept the law, but to receive into themselves the Lawgiver of God Himself. If even the bishop Abimelech (or Abiathar), intending to give showbread to David and his people, asked them if they were clean from wives, and they answered that they had abstained from intercourse with wives for three days (And David answered the priest and said to him: we also abstained from wives yesterday and on the third day (1 Sam. 21:5)), then how is it not fitting for those who intend to be clean from wives for three days? to partake of the Lord's Body? And those who are going to get married should confess together with their brides, fast, prepare in advance and get married before the Divine Liturgy. After they are married, let the Divine Liturgy begin, after which let them begin to partake of the Divine Mysteries. And on the night after communion they must refrain from intercourse, as this most holy custom and order was and is observed to this day by true Christians who want to be saved. Therefore, according to Balsamon, the above-mentioned Mr. Luke imposed penance on those newlyweds who copulated on the same day, after holy communion. Based on this, we deduce from the greater the lesser and say: if three days of abstinence from carnal intercourse is sufficient to prepare for communion, then three days of fasting is even more sufficient. And although none of the divine rules establishes fasting before communion, those who are able to fast before it for a whole week do well. See also note. 3 to Apost. 69 and note. to Neokesar. 7. The Carthage Council puts the following meaning into the expression “according to its definitions”: to abstain in accordance with the promises that these initiates made, that is, to lead a chaste life in agreement with their wives. And this Ecumenical Council, having improved the resolutions of the Local Council, puts into the expression “according to its definitions,” as Zonara and Balsamon interpret, the following meaning: to abstain during the sacred rite and one’s turn in performing the divine service. Thus, the expression of the Council of Carthage “to be abstinent in everything” (see Carthage 3) was understood by the present Council in the sense of abstinence from their wives during their term, and not always, concluding the thought of that Council in a more cautious expression, so that because of the promise to constantly abstain from their wives, many of the clergy would not indulge in fornication and debauchery. And the Churches that were located in Libya and Barbary were barbaric, which is why the 12th rule of this Council mentions by name Libya and Africa, where such a custom prevailed. The Latins blaspheme, saying that this Council was mistaken in establishing marriage for priests in the Roman Church, and they openly resist the Holy Spirit who spoke through this Council. This Council, being Ecumenical, with authority makes laws for the entire universe without exception, for the popes, like any bishop, obey the Councils, as Pope Pelagius II says. This Council was not mistaken in establishing marriage for priests, since it follows both Scripture, which requires that marriage remain indissoluble, and the First Ecumenical Council, which refused to forcibly dissolve the marriages of priests. Since in the Roman Church this indisputable custom, or rather, rule, forced many who were forcibly separated from their wives to eventually indulge in fornication, debauchery and have concubines (as now the Latins openly and even legally have them), therefore, I continue, this Council prohibited this custom. I say “forcibly” because many, desiring priestly dignity, but being unable to obtain it because they had wives, were forced, for the sake of the glory of this title, to separate from their wives against their will. It was necessary to prohibit marriage for bishops for the reasons that we spoke about in the 12th canon, and most of all, so that they would not give church property to their children. But in the case of priests, there is no such need, since the purpose of the priest is to constantly take care of the small parish, village and places in the neighborhood. And besides, if one of the priests, with the consent of his wife, separates from her or abstains from her for some time, then this is permissible. Forcing a divorce, as suggested by the Roman rule of priestly confession, is illegal and is an overthrow of the law, rebelling against the Holy Spirit. If the Latins condemn this Council, then why do they carry out its instructions? After all, they allow the priests of the Latin-wise people of the Maronites, who inhabit the area of ​​Mount Lebanon and Phenicia, to have wives. Let these unfortunates blame themselves: since they allow the Maronite priests, contrary to the command of St. Paul and the rules (the present rules, the rules of Dionysius Alexander. 3, Timothy Alexander. 5 and 13, which prohibit this), to copulate with wives on the very day of the sacred rite; and also - since they allow second-married Orthodox Christians in Lyakhia to have holy orders if only they accept papism, which is contrary to the rules and all [customs] of antiquity. And in the rank of church positions it is said that a second-wed cannot be a cleric. Look at what Gregory the Theologian says in his homily on the Holy Lights: “Christ is purified when he is 30 years old, and you, not yet having a beard, teach the elders? Or do you think that you can teach without earning respect either by age or, perhaps, by character? Here, of course, in the language there is Daniel, and so-and-so, and so-and-so, and young judges and ready-made examples... After all, everyone who does not act truthfully has an excuse ready. But for the Church, rarity is not a law, since one swallow does not make spring” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 39. 14 // PG 36, 352AB). Note: Zonara in the interpretation of the rule of Carthage. 33 says that the subdeacon does not touch the Mysteries, and in support of his words he refers to the Council of Laodicea, which prohibits the minister from doing this (ὑπηρέτην). And judging by this evidence, the minister and the subdeacon must be one and the same person. However, for many reasons they are not the same person. Firstly, because the subdeacon touches the Sacred Mysteries, according to the mentioned rule of Carthage. 33 and according to VI Om. 13, and also to ministering vessels, as stated in chapter 21. 8th book. "Apostolic Constitutions" (PG 1, 1117B), while the minister does not touch the sacred vessels and does not have a place in the diaconium, according to Laodice. 21. Secondly, because the minister constantly watches the doors of the church, according to Laodice. 22 and 43, being a doorkeeper, but a subdeacon is not a doorkeeper: he differs from him, according to the 4th rule of this VI Council, which speaks about them separately, and according to the 3rd novella of Justinian, contained in the 3rd book. "Basilik", tit. 2, ch. 1 (Photius. Tit. 1, ch. 30), and supplying in the Great Church separately subdeacons and separately doorkeepers (the latter there were 100). From this it is clear that Eustratius Argentis, of blessed memory, made a mistake on p. 273 of the book “On the Sacraments”, where he says that ch. 57 books 2 of the “Ordinances” commands subdeacons to stand at the doors for women. We, having carefully looked at this place in the “Regulations,” discovered that at the doors for women stood, as befits, deaconesses, and not subdeacons (PG 1, 732A); The 11th chapter he mentions does not contain anything of the kind. 8th book. “Regulations” (one can assume that St. Nicodemus made a mistake or used a different source. In fact, the “Apostolic Constitutions” speaks specifically about subdeacons. See: PG 1, 1089D.). And thirdly, because, according to some, the ministers (λειτουργοί) of the Divine sacred rite, whom Chrysostom mentions in his word on the parable of the prodigal son, are deacons and subdeacons (Ioan. Chrysost. De filio prodigo 3 // PG 59, 520) (for the subdeacons, according to the interpretation of Zonaras on Laodice 22, also exclaimed: “Catechumenate, go forth,” which is exactly what the saint says there regarding these servants), and the light cloth that they wore on their left shoulder is the current so-called orarion, and the orarion was the rule of Laodice. 22 prohibits a minister from wearing (ὑπηρέτης). (However, as for the orarion, this is not true, because it was worn only by deacons, since they needed it (see note to Laodice. 22, as well as to VI Om. 23), but not by subdeacons, since they did not need it.) So, from the difference in the actions of ministers and subdeacons, it seems that they differ from each other. On the other hand, it seems that subdeacons, and readers, and singers, and exorcists, and doorkeepers, and ostiarii, and in general all clergy appointed outside the altar, bear the general title of ministers only by name, and not by law, according to the rules of Basil the Great. 12, 89, Laodice. 24, and also Laodicecus. 20, as we said and in the note. 3 to Apost. 17, and especially according to Sardik. 14. However, subsequent interpreters attribute these ministries to subdeacons. Thus, Gabriel of Philadelphia (in “The Sacrament of the Priesthood”) says that they are entrusted with preparing, putting in order the holy vessels and sacred vestments, and also watching over them. Simeon of Thessaloniki says the same thing (chapter 164), adding that they watched the sacred gates so that no one entered the altar, and led the catechumens out of the church when the deacon exclaimed: “Catechumen, come out.” (That is why even now the subdeacons say: “The faithful ones.”) At the great entrance they take extra holy vessels and give them to the servants for safekeeping; at litias they go ahead with a cross. They also prepare the lamps in the altar, the lamp and the trikirium, and receive communion from the hands of the bishop or priest in front of the altar gates after the deacons (Sym. Thessal. De sacr. ordin. 164 // PG 155, 369AB). See also the rule of Vasily the Great. 69, from which it is clear that a minister is a different person than a subdeacon. Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Acta apost. 14. 3 // PG 60, 116. This leads some to say that these seven deacons should not be depicted as ministers of the sacraments, wearing a surplice with an orarion and censer and with their heads uncovered. But, on the one hand, Ignatius the God-Bearer writes in his letter to the Trallians that Archdeacon Stephen served pure and immaculate service for James, the brother of the Lord (Ign. Ep. ad Tral. 7 // PG 5, 788A), and on the other hand, in Ch. 4 and 46 books. 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, seven deacons, one of whom was Stephen, are listed after the bishops and presbyters and are numbered with them (PG 1, 1069C, 1153C). With all this in mind, I believe that they were also ministers of the sacraments, and therefore there is nothing inappropriate in portraying them as ministers of the sacraments. Indeed, Sozomen says (book 7, chapter 19) that in other cities the number of deacons was different, but in Rome before his time, he says, there were seven deacons, just as the apostles elected seven (PG 67, 1476AB). This is also evidenced by the divine Maxim in his interpretation of Chapter 3. "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" of the divine Dionysius (PG 4, 136C). Dionysius himself calls these deacons chosen (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. III, 2 // PG 3, 425C). There is a note to this rule that says: pay attention to this rule and marvel at how it is neglected today. The Most Reverend Patriarch, Mr. John of Chalcedon, who was under Alexei Komnenos, taught every Sunday, which is why his teachings are in a separate book; there is also the “Kyriakodromion” of John or George Xiphilinus, Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as other patriarchs and bishops. St. also speaks in accordance with this rule. Justin in the 2nd Apology of Christians. He reports that on Sunday Christians from all over the world gathered in church and after readings from the New and Old Testaments were read at the liturgy, the bishop delivered a sermon. “Then, when the reader finishes reading, the primate speaks an instruction, calling to imitate these good examples” (Just. Martyr. Apol. 1.67 // PG 6, 429B). And the fact that elders are also heads of churches is clear from the 15th word of Gregory the Theologian (p. 226), in which he calls elders shepherds and bishops archpastors (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 16.4 // PG 35, 937C). In addition, Zonara calls them sitting together with the bishops in the altar, and Chrysostom - teachers and primates of the people (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 11. 1 // PG 62, 553), but if this is so, then it is clear that they are also “co-presidents” of the churches. See the testimony of Chrysostom in the note. to 58 Apostles, as well as Laodice. 19. The papalette, which is also called garrara, as Peter of Antioch says in a letter to Cerullarius (Petr. Antioch. Dissertatio 4. 6 // PG 120, 800B), is hair cut into a circle like a wreath on the crown of the head, and this custom belongs not to the Latins, but to the entire Church - Eastern and Western, which is confirmed by both this rule and the holy fathers. So, Jerome in a letter to Augustine says: “I ask for your crown.” In a similar way, Augustine wrote to Bishop. Proculianu: “In the name of our crown.” They began to wear the papalette not in honor of the apostle. Petra, as the Westerners say. Initially, it served as the actual external sign of clerics, by which, according to this rule, they differed from those who were not clergy. And besides, it also contains an allegorical meaning: it is the image of the Lord’s crown of thorns, as St. Hermann in his essay on “Mystical Contemplation” (German Const. Contemp. rerum eccl. // PG 98, 392D). Now the clergy of our Eastern Churches cut this palette artlessly and without embellishment, simply cutting the hair from above and a little below, that is, crosswise, and leaving the middle uncut and completely untouched, while Western clergy wear the palette for decoration. They shave the hair from the bottom and top, and constantly trim the middle, making the palette unlike the crown of saints, which is why Maxim Margunius in the 35th note. to the rules of the Council of Antioch, he called the papalette of the Latins the prodigal wreath (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 778). Let our clergy also learn from this rule that it is necessary to cut such a crown on the crown, for it is unrighteous to endure the eternal limits that our fathers set (see Proverbs 22:28). There are two things to note about this rule. Firstly, clergy who were expelled for canonical crimes were first deprived of the right to have the appearance of clergy and were thus expelled to the rank of laity (it would be inappropriate, having the appearance of one belonging to the clergy, to stand with the laity), which is why Balsamon interpreted the rule of Basil the Great. 44 and says that the erupted change their appearance. The Apostle agrees with this. 25, Vasily Velik. 3 and all other rules: they say that those who have been dethroned must be expelled into the rank of the laity. Other rules are also consistent, which say that if those who have been cast out later voluntarily hate sin, completely reject it and repent, let them again take on the appearance of one belonging to the clergy - the appearance of which they were deprived. And if so, then it is clear that they were elevated to the rank of clergy and enjoyed the honor of sitting and standing with the clergy. And with this, in turn, the rules of Ankir are consistent. 1, 2, Neokesar. 9, 10, VI Omni. 3, 26 and Vasily the Great. 27, which say that those expelled from the priesthood can enjoy the honorable right to sit and stand with the clergy, that is, only the external honor befitting clergy (about this honor, see note to VI Ecum. 26). Both from this rule and from rule VI Omni. 58 the conclusion follows that the deacons also taught the Divine Mysteries to the laity. Therefore, the “Apostolic Constitutions” (Book 8, Chapter 28), in accordance with these rules, say that during the service of the Liturgy by a bishop or priest, the deacon receives the Mysteries from them and teaches them to the people - not as a priest, but as a servant of the priests (PG 1, 1125A). This ministry of the deacon consisted mainly in the fact that he taught the cup, according to the same “Regulations” (book 8, chapter 13): “Let the deacon hold the cup and, giving it, say: “Blood of Christ.” Cup of Life" (PG 1, 1109A). Cyprian also testifies to this in word 5 about those who have fallen away, and Ambrose of Milan in volume 1 “On Duties,” and John Chrysostom in conversation 83 on the Gospel of Matthew (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Matth. 82 (83). 6 // PG 58, 744.) (see also Eustratius Argentis, p. 306). Those receiving communion from the chalice wiped their mouths with the deacon’s oracle, for which reason he wore it, as we will talk about in the interpretation of Laodice. 22. I said “mainly” because St. Justin in the 2nd Apology says that the deacon also communed with the Holy Bread. “Those we call deacons give each of those present to partake of the blessed Bread, Wine and water, and they also give it to those who are absent” (Just. Martyr. Apol. 1.65 // PG 6, 428B). This is probably what Anchir's rule also means. 2. From this rule it becomes clear that those confessors must certainly be cast out who, believing that piety serves for profit, according to Paul (see 1 Timothy 6:5), and being sellers of Christ, demand money from Christians who confess their sins to them as a kind of debt and for this they give permission to partake of the Divine Mysteries even to the unworthy. The greatest wickedness! He is denounced and condemned in one of his words by the most learned and skillful of theologians, Joseph Briennius, saying that this is the reason why our Orthodox race is captured and delivered into the hands of the wicked and godless Hagarians. “What will you give me, and I will allow you to receive communion?” - what is this if not the words of Judas, with which he, betraying the Lord, turned to the Jews: What will you give me, and I will betray Him to you? (Matthew 26:15). Your Eminence, holy bishops! Take care, for the love of God, to eradicate in your episcopal regions this greatest evil, because of which our sweetest Jesus Christ, once sold for his race, is sold every day. If Balsamon says in the interpretation of this rule that such spectacles and performances are prohibited only on Sundays and great holidays, but not on other days (and he draws such a conclusion from the rule of Carthage. 70, which says that these spectacles should be transferred to other days), then we object; firstly, the 51st rule of this Ecumenical Council, as we said, not only prohibits them on some days, but allows them on others, but prohibits them in general and unconditionally. And secondly, the same Council of Carthage in the 17th canon says that all Christians are always urged not to approach those places where foul language and other obscenities occur around such performances. We also cite the words of Basil the Great (see Rule 20 of the extensively stated) that no reprehensible deed in itself can ever become good for the sake of the time in which it is committed. “No reprehensible deed can be acceptable to us at any time” (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (fus.) 20. 1 // PG 31, 972A). And since these spectacles and performances are reprehensible, it means that even if they are held on non-holiday days, they are unpraiseworthy and unkind, for all these are the works of Satan. Chrysostom also says (Discourse 12 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 3. P. 318): “And don’t tell me about the custom. If it is vicious, then at least it never existed, but if it is good, let it be” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 12.5 // PG 61, 103). In other words, if the deed is bad, let it not be done even once, and if it is good, let it be done always. The same Chrysostom calls theaters and horse races the triumph of Satan (Homily 20 on statues. Vol. 6. P. 610) (St. John expresses the opinion expressed by St. Nicodemus in his interpretation of the book of Genesis. See: loan. Chrysost. Hom. in Gen. 6. 1 // PG 53, 54), and he also says that being in theaters gave rise to adultery, intemperance and all sorts of shamelessness, and attending horse competitions leads to disputes, reproaches, beatings, insults and constant hostility (Homily 15 on statues. T. 6. P. 564) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 15. 4 // PG 49, 159). See also the word in which he prohibits approaching theaters, because they turn people into complete adulterers (Vol. 5. P. 89) (Idem. Contra theatra // PG 56, 541–554). From this rule it becomes clear that all priests who are either deposed from the priesthood for their obvious crimes, or are prohibited from serving on the advice of their spiritual father for secret sins that deserve deportation, or themselves, convicted by their conscience, renounce the priesthood - all of them, I continue, can neither bless, nor consecrate, nor perform any other sacred act, either secretly or openly. And if so, it means that they cannot give communion to anyone, nor perform consecrations, prayers, baptism, consecration of oil or anything similar, because in all these sacred rites blessing and consecration are taught, but they do not have this consecration, within the meaning of this rule. They also cannot accept confession and become confessors, because, according to Symeon of Thessaloniki (response 11), the one who receives confession of thoughts must bless, and read the prayer of permission, and liturgize, and give communion to those confessing, and intercede for those who repent (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 10–13 // PG 155, 864C). In short, the confessor must have the right to officiate, according to John of Kitras (see also note to Apostle 39). And the fact that the mentioned priests cannot do all this is clear from many things. Firstly, if a priest, who through ignorance entered into an illegal marriage, in other words, sinned involuntarily (according to Nemesius, “involuntary” is something that happened either as a result of violence or ignorance) (Nemes. Emes. De natura homin. 30 // PG 40, 720B), according to this rule, can neither bless, nor sanctify, nor perform any other sacred rite, then how much more can one who has been deposed or renounced his rank because of an arbitrary sin punishable by eruption no longer do this? Secondly, if the 3rd rule of this Council, which mentions the same rule of Basil the Great. 27, determines that those prohibited from serving for a time should not bless or sanctify, just as those who have been deposed or who have been deposed, punished by eruption once and for all, can no longer bless or sanctify, according to the rule of Basil the Great. 3, and no longer able to regain the priesthood from which they had fallen? Thirdly, Rule 8 of Nicholas prohibits a person who voluntarily renounces the priesthood from uttering the initial exclamation “Blessed be God...”, the dismissal “Christ, the true...”, receiving communion at the altar and burning censer, and orders him to stand with the laity. And if it forbids such people even to burn incense, then how much more to bless, and sanctify, and perform the highest sacred rites that we spoke about? If the rule is Neokesar. 9 and says that a priest who commits a carnal sin before ordination and talks about it in confession should not make an offering, that is, perform sacred acts, but retains other advantages, if, I repeat, this rule says so (and only on this rule are based those who believe that those who have relinquished the priesthood because of their sins can bless, and sanctify, and perform the highest sacred rites), then we, for our part, We interpret this rule in its true sense, in accordance with other rules. So, the rule, when it says that such a priest should not perform sacred acts, implies that along with the higher and more general sacred acts, the lower and more private actions of the priest are also prohibited to him. And other advantages, which, as the rule says, should remain with him, are that such a priest, firstly, has the appearance of a cleric and does not take the place of the laity (which is deprived of those expelled for canonical crimes, according to VI Ecumenical 21). Secondly, he sits with the priests, according to the present rule of this Ecumenical Council, as well as Anchir. 1 and Vasily the Great. 27. Thirdly, he stands with the priests, according to VI Ecumenical. 3. Fourthly, enjoys external honor, according to Antiochus. 1, that is, honor in meetings outside the church, or the honorable right to perform actions in the church outside the altar, according to Balsamon, or, more correctly, honor given for the sake of the appearance that elders have. Fifthly, it bears the name of a priest, according to Balsamon (and Zonara and Balsamon also say, interpreting the same rule of Neokesar. 9, that such a one is allowed to receive communion at the holy altar. However, the rule of Basil also allows those who have committed an incomplete sin and are prohibited from serving for a time to receive communion with presbyters and deacons (meaning the rule of Basil the Great. 70)). These advantages and these honors are those other advantages that, as the rule says, can remain with elders who confess their sin - but not action, or blessing, or any kind of sacred rite. After all, those demoted from the degree of priesthood are nowhere in the above rules given the right to perform any of the sacred rites, but only the right to occupy the seat, stand with the presbyters, and, more simply put, to enjoy external honor, and nothing more. And therefore, how can this one single rule of the Neocaesarea Council contradict six other rules: two Ecumenical - VI Ecumenical. 3, 26 – Ankir rules. 1, 2, Antiochus. 1 and Vasily the Great. 27? In any case, there is no contradiction or disagreement in the utterances of the Spirit, since that would be absurd. So, this one rule should be understood in the same way as the other six. And the fact that the words were ruled by Neokesar. 9 “let him not make offerings” presupposes any sacred act, and that “other advantages” in the same 9th rule mean sitting and honor - this is the understanding of Balsamon, set out in the interpretation of this rule of the VI Ecumenical Council. In addition, by the “sacred rule”, which is mentioned in this rule, what is meant, as he understood, is the rule of Neokesar. 9, and the present rule of the VI Council follows the rule of the Neocaesarea. After all that has been said, I am surprised how the modern custom of blessing and sanctifying priests demoted from the priesthood has become established, while neither the rules nor the interpreters themselves speak about this. Although the 79th novella of Leo says that presbyters, deacons and subdeacons who have married and were deposed for this should not wear worldly attire and be condemned to the point of being removed from another service in the Church, the performance of which is not unlawful for them (i.e., lawless and contrary to the rules), however, it also says that this is another service, namely the proper one clergy (see also note to VI Ecumenical 15), but not blessing, consecration and sacred rites characteristic of the priesthood, which such people are not allowed to touch by the rules. I know that everything that has been said seems harsh and upsetting for the priests who were deposed or defrocked for their sin. But we, having once taken up the task of interpreting the rules, say what is consistent with the rules and is recognized by them as fair, so that those who have the fear of God and a good conscience, let them recognize this and correct themselves. Spiritual fathers should say the same thing, but without imposing penance, but only offering advice, to clergy who have not been convicted of sin, leaving everything else on their conscience: whether they themselves want to resign or not. Basil. Magn. De hominis struct. 2. 12 // PG 30, 56BC. Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 11. 3 // PG 62, 557. Isid. Pel. Ep. I, 74 // PG 78, 233BC. Consequently, both priests and bishops during the plague should use a method for giving communion to the sick that does not contradict this rule. They must put the Holy Bread not in grapes, but in some sacred vessel, from which gravediggers and the sick can take it with a spoon. The vessel and spoon should then be immersed in vinegar, and the vinegar should be poured into the altar well (an altar well is an untrodden place where water is usually poured after washing the floors in the altar, washing vestments, and washing sacred vessels). Or they can give communion in any other, more reliable way that does not violate the rule. Holy Communion should be given not only separately from the grapes, but also separately from the particles taken out at the proskomedia. Therefore, Simeon of Thessaloniki (chapter 94) says that priests must be careful to give communion to Christians not with particles, but with the Body of the Lord Himself (Sym. Thessal. De sacra liturg. 94 // PG 155, 284D). If there are many who intend to receive communion (which happens especially on Maundy Thursday, the feasts of the Nativity of Christ, the Holy Apostles and the Mother of God), then let the priests not put the particles into the holy chalice, so as not to accidentally make a mistake and not give communion to someone with a particle, but leave them on the holy paten and, after the Christians have received communion, let them put them in the chalice and finish the sacrament, as is customary to do in the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Although the particles unite with the Blood of the Lord and His Body, they do not become the Body of the Lord Himself. From here we conclude that such a resolution of fasting on Maundy Thursday became a custom in Africa, and perhaps in other areas even before the Second Ecumenical Council, because the Council of Laodicea, which took place before the Second Ecumenical Council, denounces this custom in the mentioned 50th canon. It may be surprising why Rule VI Omni. 89 tells us to spend the Great Week in fasting. And the rule of Dionysius Alexander. 1 says that some Christians spend six of these days completely without food, others - four, others - three days, and others - two. In addition, the Apostolic Constitutions say (book 5, chapter 18) (PG 1, 889A) that for these six Holy Days no one should eat anything other than bread, water, salt and vegetables, without tasting either wine or meat. Laodice also confirms this. 50, as well as VI Omni. 29, as we said. Why, I repeat, do they all say this, and the statutes give permission for oil and wine on Maundy Thursday? (However, the most accurate handwritten regulations of the royal and great monasteries of the Holy Mountain on Maundy Thursday give permission only for wine, but not for oil, which is what we must follow. And it is written in them like this: “We eat wine and brew without oil.”) It seems to me that this happened due to the fact that two opposing opinions were established regarding Maundy Thursday. On the one hand, the fathers of the Council of Carthage abolish dry eating on this day, and on the other, all the rules mentioned, as we said, prescribe it on this day. Therefore, the God-bearing fathers, who drew up the statutes, as if taking a middle path between these two opinions, determined that on this day there would be permission only for wine; thereby they showed indulgence in honor of the Lord's Supper, which took place on that day. However, the one who does better is the one who abstains from both wine and oil on Maundy Thursday. On the contrary, those who, after the liturgy of Holy Saturday, allow fasting for oil and wine are clearly illegal. The Divine Apostles in the “Ordinances” (Book 5, Chapters 18 and 19) instruct Christians to fast throughout Good Friday and Holy Saturday, as they themselves fasted on these days, since the fasting of these two days was legalized by the Lord Himself, Who said: The days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast (Matthew 9:16 ~ (Matthew 9:15)) (PG 1, 889AB–892A). It was on Good Friday and Holy Saturday that the Lord was captured by the Jews, crucified and buried for our salvation. If anyone refers to the words of the Typikon that on the evening of Holy Saturday the cellarer comes in and gives one piece of bread and one measuring cup of wine (see: Typikon, eat Ustav. M.: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2002. P. 952), then we answer that this measuring cup of wine and a loaf of bread are not ordinary wine and not ordinary bread, but bread and wine, blessed by the priest. Firstly, the Typikon above says that the blessing of the loaves should be performed, and further mentions this. Secondly, in most statutes it is written about one piece not of bread in general, but of specific and already mentioned bread, that is, bread that was previously blessed. And thirdly, this measuring cup contained blessed wine, which was mixed with water and given to the brethren for consecration, and first of all, offered to the communicants so that they could “wash it down,” that is, rinse their mouths, as is customary to do after Divine Communion. Many fast (that is, completely abstain from food) for three days on Holy Pentecost, so why shouldn’t they also fast on these two days, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, which is more necessary? If they cannot withstand both of these fasts, then it is better to fast for these two days than to fast for those three days. The Divine Chrysostom says in a conversation on Great Week that just as Great Week is higher than all other weeks of the year and is their head, so Great Saturday is the head of Great Week (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Magn. Hebdom. 1 // PG 55, 519). And the fact that the above-mentioned blessing of bread is the usual statutory blessing of five loaves is shown more clearly and in detail by the handwritten charter of the monastery of Pantocrator. In addition, it states that a sufficient portion of the blessed loaves should be given to each brother, as well as of the blessed wine. It follows that the bread should be large in size, and the wine should be large enough in quantity so that there is enough of it. Ioan. Chrysost. Ep. 112 // PG 52, 683. Photius notes (tit. 3, ch. 14) that if someone celebrates the sacred liturgy in a private place (i.e., an ordinary place, and not intended for prayer, as some interpret), in a suburb or village, or allows other clergy who are not among those appointed to this by the bishop to perform the liturgy, then the place in which the liturgy was served with the knowledge of the owner of the house is dedicated to the church of this village through the bishop, steward and ruler. If the owner did not know, then he himself is not subject to punishment, and those who knew about it are sent into exile, and their property is given to the local church. Balsamon says that the antimensions are consecrated by the bishop for the purpose of placing them at the holy meals of houses of prayer and considering them, in accordance with the name, to replace the consecrated holy meal (the Latin mensa means “meal”, which is why the shrouds placed at holy meals are called mensalia) (the word “antimens” is derived from the Latin word mensa (table) using the Greek prefix ἀντι- (instead of)). And the priests who receive them from the bishops, thereby silently receive from them, as can be seen, permission to celebrate the liturgy at these antimensions in houses of worship. John of Kitras also says in the 13th answer that a priest who performed the liturgy or baptism with an antimension in a special place in a house or ship, where there are icons, did not sin, just as the priests of emperors who officiate in bamboo tents on desert plains do not sin. Balsamon says the same thing (answer 14): “And he who celebrates the liturgy in such places without an antimension is cast out.” Particles of the relics of the martyrs must be sewn into these antimensions so that the antimensions really replace a consecrated meal, as prescribed by the rite of their consecration found in the Euchologion. Therefore, in Muscovy, antimensions without holy relics are never used. See also note. to VII Omni. 7. I said “without great need” because, according to Basil the Great (canon 310 summarized), neither the ordinary supper should be eaten in church, nor the Lord’s supper in an ordinary house, unless in time of difficult circumstances one chooses the purest place and house (PG 31, 1304C). Therefore, the apostles instruct the bishop to hold meetings in houses during persecution, so that not a single pious person attends the church and the gathering of the wicked. And in church history we see many cases that occurred under the pressure of circumstances that are worthy of mention. So, we read that sschmch. Lucian, the Antioch presbyter, while in prison, celebrated the liturgy on his chest, placing the clergy and faithful who were there around him in the same order as in the church. Theodorit, bishop For Kirsky, when he was in the desert under the open sky, the holy meal was replaced by the hands of the hierodeacon, and he performed Divine mysteries on them. After all, the chest and hands of a priest, according to Chrysostom, are more precious and sacred than a stone table and the soulless vessels standing on it. However, such cases are extremely rare. And for houses of prayer or for any other place where necessity forces the celebration of the liturgy, the so-called antimensions are absolutely obligatory. If anyone is perplexed about what happens to the house in which the sacrament was performed if it is captured by enemies: whether it remains sacred or becomes ordinary, then let him look at the note. to IV Omni. 24. In addition, Sinesius says that if in a house or some place people, having gathered during the invasion of the pagans, offered prayers as usual, then the house does not become sacred because of this, because those houses where prayers and sacraments were performed during the Arian era remained ordinary private houses, as they were before. Although the present Council in this 31st rule allows baptism to be performed in a chapel with the permission of the bishop, it is clear that in the 59th rule it completely prohibits this, as Zonara also says. The Council does not contradict itself, but probably decides this for the purpose of ensuring that numerous Christians gathering in Orthodox churches are witnesses to baptism at all times, and that the names of those baptized and the date of baptism are recorded in the metric books of the Catholic Church. And thanks to this, such lawlessness would not be allowed, so that the baptized person would be baptized a second time if there are no witnesses that he was once baptized (according to Carthage. 80 and VI Ecum. 84). The Council also established this so that everyone would know the recipient of the baptized person and, as a result, there would be no spiritual kinship when the time comes for the baptized person to get married. Both of these cases could easily have happened if the baptism had taken place in a meeting house, since there are not so many Christians meeting there. But perhaps the Council prohibits baptism in houses of worship in cases where this occurs without the consent of the bishop, i.e., in the same way as the liturgy is prohibited from being celebrated in a house of prayer without the consent of the bishop. There is a third reason why baptism should be performed in churches and not in houses of worship: the priest must first perform proskomedia, then, dressed in full priestly vestments, go out and baptize the child, and after baptism begin the Divine Liturgy and at the end of it give communion to the baptized baby. Just as nature, immediately after the baby’s physical birth, prepared milk for him as bodily food, so grace, immediately after the baby’s spiritual birth, prepares for him Divine communion for spiritual nourishment. However, if the child’s life is in danger, then he is baptized at any time and in any place. Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. In Math. 82 (83). 2 // PG 58, 740. The head of the heresy of hydroparastats, that is, those who brought water instead of wine, was Tatian, a former disciple of St. Justin (Theodorit. Code of heretical fables. Book 1, chapter 20) (PG 83, 369CD). The miracle of the most pure rib of the Lord turned out to be twofold, and not only because blood and water poured out (blood, since the Lord is a man, and water, since He is above man, according to the explanation of Gregory the Theologian) (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 45.29 // PG 36, 661D), but also because they poured out warm and alive, because this rib was alive and life-giving for the sake of hypostatic union with the life-giving Divinity, according to Simeon of Thessalonica (Sym. Thessal. Exp. de Divino templo 94 // PG 155, 741D). Therefore, in order to depict the first miracle, it is decreed that Blood and water be poured into the holy chalice, and in order to depict the second miracle, it was decreed from the very beginning, as Balsamon and Herman of Constantinople say, to pour in this water during the sacramental verse, hot and boiling, and not cold or lukewarm, so that the priest himself and others who partake of hot Blood and water feel that they are partaking of the very thing that once came from the life-giving rib of the Savior. So, those priests are sinning, sinning a lot, who neglect this and do not warm up the holy warmth well, but pour it into the divine chalice lukewarm. The water must boil and seethe when it is poured in (so that the holy chalice also heats up from it), as its very name indicates: the Greek word ζέον (heat) means “boiling water.” Therefore, the divine Nikephoros in the 13th rule says that without hot and boiling water, the presbyter should not perform the liturgy. And the Latins, who perform the liturgy not with boiling water, thereby represent to the dead the living Divinity and the Divine rib of the Savior revived by Him. The priests should be more attentive and, when first pouring water into the chalice during proskomedia, pour in less water, and then pour in more hot water, with a dual purpose: to warm the first connection in the chalice and so that the mixing of wine and water is moderate and we thereby do not give the Latins a reason to accuse us of spoiling the mixing in the chalice with an excessive amount of water. Our following addition would be appropriate in a note to this rule and very useful for priests. What should be done if the Divine Secrets happen to spill or are eaten by rodents? Simeon of Thessaloniki (question 81) says: “If they spill after the great entry (in other words, before consecration and transubstantiation) or the mice eat the bread on the altar and find out about it after the great entry, then the priest must make a second connection in the chalice and perform proskomedia on another bread with the reading of the prophetic words and repeating the prayer of offer. Then he must begin the prayers that are said after the great entrance, because they are perfect (and those prayers that are said before the entrance do not need to be repeated, because they are not perfect). The priest must carefully collect the spilled Gifts into a holy vessel along with earth and other materials and then place them in an altar well or other sacred place, safe and untrodden, so that they will not be walked on or do anything else inappropriate with them. If, where the Holy Gifts are shed, the floor is covered with small and easily moved marble slabs, then the priest should take them out completely and put them in a separate place; if they are large and motionless, then let him not take them out, but deeply gouge out the floor with a chisel throughout the entire space where the Holy Gifts were shed, and put all these hollowed out pieces in the altar well, and wash the hollowed out place itself as thoroughly as possible. If the Holy Gifts have not been completely poured out, but some part remains, then you should add to the chalice as much as is necessary for the sacred rite. If the Holy Gifts are spilled on the sacred vestment of a priest, luxurious and expensive, before performing the sacrament and consecration, then it should be washed well in a special vessel, so that nothing remains on the vestment, and what is washed off from the clothes should be poured into the altar well with water. And if the Gifts were spilled on the vestment after the sacrament and transubstantiation, then it is imperative to cut out that part of the vestment on which they spilled and use it as a sacred cover, washing it in the same place where holy chalices are washed. The priest who shed the Gifts must first of all confess his sin to the bishop, and if this happened through negligence and inattention, he is subjected to appropriate punishment and is temporarily prohibited from serving, unless there is an urgent need for a priest in that place: then he is not prohibited from serving, but a penance is imposed on him, consisting of fasting, prayers and prostrations” (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 81 // PG 155, 946D–949A). According to Balsamon (according to the manuscripts the answer is 20, this is not in his published answers), if the Gifts are poured out before consecration, then the offense should be cured by moderate penance. But when the Gifts are poured out after transubstantiation, then, if this happened due to the negligence of the priest, a more severe penance is imposed on him and he is prohibited from performing priestly service, and if due to the action of demons, then his sin, committed against his will, is subjected to a lighter canonical penance, so that the devil does not achieve with such a trick and action that the priest does not perform sacred services continuously, i.e., so that the devil does not find a reason to interfere priest in the constant service of the liturgy. John of Kitras says the same thing in the 11th answer, preserved in manuscripts. And Manuel Charitopulus, Patriarch of Constantinople, by a council decision determined that if the pre-sanctified Bread was eaten by cats or mice, then the priests would be subject to penance for not keeping them safe (Greco-Roman Law, p. 239). Priests who celebrate the liturgy in chapels must be extremely careful so that a mouse does not take away the bread from the holy paten on which the proskomedia has already been performed. Therefore, they must carefully cover the paten with a cover and have a minister who would monitor the holy offering, or they must monitor it themselves, so that due to their carelessness the Divine Bread does not disappear and because of this they do not suffer penance. If it happens that the Holy Gifts become covered with mold (that is, in accordance with the accidents of the bread alone and the moisture inherent in these accidents, according to Coresius), then the priest should not burn them or lower them into the altar well. Let him first carefully dry them on hot coals, as Nectarius of Jerusalem says, and then mix them with sweet wine and consume them, as wisely advised by people experienced in such matters and prudent. However, in order to prevent the Gifts from becoming moldy, the priests must leave them in the air for a sufficient time until the moisture inherent in the accidents evaporates. Or it is better, as others, more judicious, say, that the priests, in a more reliable and easy way, dry the Holy Bread on hot coals, very carefully kindled, and thus preserve it. Simeon of Thessaloniki (answer 83) says that if a priest forgets to make the connection and covers an empty chalice, and at the great entrance he notices this, then he must immediately make the connection at the holy meal and read the prayer of proposal and then continue the liturgy. If he notices this during communion, he must make the union, read the prayer of proposal and repeat the prayers, starting from the great entrance, seal the chalice with the sign of the cross while invoking the Holy Spirit and do everything else in order, and then he can take communion (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 83 // PG 155, 952A). Please note that this rule recognizes the Liturgy of the Brother of God, which in ancient times was celebrated in Palestine and which is not now celebrated, except in some places and occasionally. Although Balsamon saw that even the Ecumenical Council accepted it, nevertheless in the 1st answer to Mark of Alexandria he said that it should not be accepted, probably because it seems damaged in some places. Thus, the chant “Rejoices in You,” which she instructs to chant after “Extremely in the Most Holy One,” was not ancient, but appeared later. See also catechism. In addition, Manuel Malax in the 220th chapter. The Nomocanon says that the Liturgy of James was served in the Church until the time of Basil the Great. Note that, according to the “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 2, chapter 57), all other words of the Divine Scriptures were read to the people by a reader, standing in the center on a dais, and the Gospels were read by a deacon or presbyter (PG 1, 728A–729A). According to Gregory the Theologian, as some claim, the reader also read the Gospels. He, it seems, himself says in the “First Accusatory Word against King Julian”: “How did Julian not know them (i.e., the Gospel commandments - St. N.) exactly, he, who was once a reader of Divine words and awarded the honor of serving the great altar?” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 4. 97 // PG 35, 632B). But, probably, the Divine words that he read were other Scriptures, and not the Gospels at all, which, as the saint says, Julian “knew” and did not “read,” although the general meaning of the sentence allows us to understand otherwise. Or the Theologian also says this for the reason that the readings that the readers read in the Church are dotted with Gospel sayings. The privileges of Constantinople are a cause for envy, and because of this, many have been abolished every now and then. But they comply with the rules and because of this, many have restored them every now and then. So, for example, Dioscorus made the Primate of Constantinople fifth and violated Rule II Omni. 3, but this rule was restored by the IV Ecumenical Council. And when the usurper Basilisk abolished these privileges with his chrisovul (although he himself restored them with messages that abolished his chrisovul), Justinian renewed them. After this, when the tyrant Phocas gave primacy to the Roman throne (although Heraclius abolished this), the real Council of Trullo, which had the dignity of an Ecumenical Council, resumed the privileges of the throne of Constantinople. Consequently, the Council did not sin in this, as the papists blather out of envy, because it did not do it on its own, but following the preceding Councils. Look at the privileges of the throne of Constantinople in the “Tomos of Reconciliation” (chapter 19, p. 29), where Zinon is named instead of Justinian. A pulpit (θρόνος) is not just a settlement (παροικία), but a settlement in which Christians and clergy live. Consequently, those who are ordained to churches in cities where there are no Christians and clergy (like those fictitious Eastern patriarchs among the papists) are ordained without appointment, since they do not stand at the head of the fullness of the faithful and clergy; and this contradicts the canon, according to IV Ecumenical. 6. Therefore, such bishops should not enjoy the honor of the episcopal see: after all, their goal is not to intercede for the people, but ambition and greed (see also note 123 (1 to the message of the Third Ecumenical Council). And if Balsamon says that a decree was issued by Emperor Alexei to elect bishops in the Church of the East, even in the case when they cannot go there due to pagan invasions, then he, it must be said, means that they should be ordained not in those places where there are no Christians and clergy, as we said, but in those where there are both Christians and clergy, but these places are captured by barbarians and pagans, as the rule of this Council defines. For a shepherd should not be without his flock, and a bishop should not be without his episcopal region. Note that although such bishops of the cathedrals captured by the barbarians cannot go to their places, so as not to expose themselves to obvious dangers - after all, this would mean tempting God, according to Chrysostom (26th conversation on the Epistle to the Hebrews) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Hebr. 26. 11 // PG 63, 182), - still they should, and being from a distance, by messages or other means, to support his flock until the barbarians retire. Since Justinian II Rhinomit himself convened the present VI Ecumenical Council, and freed Cyprus from slavery, and named it after his name as the new Justinianople, the fathers of the Council, in order to honor the emperor and give him gratitude, subordinated the Hellespontine metropolitan region to the Primate of Cyprus. However, Zonara says that he does not know whether the Metropolitan of Cyzicus ever submitted to the Primate of Cyprus, but he knows well that he does not now submit. The anonymous interpreter says that after Cyprus was liberated from the pagans and the Cypriot primate returned to his see, the episcopal regions of the Hellespont also returned to the Primate of Constantinople. Let no one be surprised to see that, on the one hand, the Great Basil says in the 18th canon that maturity of mind and prudence appears in girls over 16 or 17 years of age, and on the other hand, the present Council says in the canon before us that this happens at the age of 10. Maturity of mind appears earlier for some, and later for others. Thus, some, being by nature more receptive and refined, are more likely to acquire the ability to distinguish between good and evil, according to Balsamon. Therefore, Saint Timothy in the 18th rule says that the sins of some are judged by God from the age of 10, and of others from an older age. And if God judges a person’s sins committed from the age of 10, then it is clear that they are committed with the maturity of the mind. Indeed, the divine Basil says (the 15th rule from those set out at length): “The Righteous Judge, according to the merits of their deeds, gives honor to those who succeed and punishes those who sin after they have reached maturity of mind” (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (fus.) 15. 4 // PG 31, 956B). In addition, the divine Chrysostom states (in his “Word to a Believing Father”) that young people from the age of 10 must fight passions and evil and receive punishment for the sins they commit (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. oppugnat. vitae monast. III, 17 // PG 47, 378). That is why John of Kitras in the 4th rule says that male children must confess their sins to their confessors from the age of 14, and female children from the age of 12 (not to mention the fact that, according to some modern teachers, in the present evil generation, girls should confess from the age of 6, and boys from 8, due to the increase of lawlessness (Matthew 24:12) and because a person’s thoughts, as it is written, are directed toward evil from youth (Gen. 8:21)). Others, on the contrary, being by nature more plump and sluggish, acquire the ability to distinguish between good and evil later and at an older age. Therefore, God says that the Israelites began to distinguish between good and evil after the age of 20: And the Lord was indignant in anger on that day and swore, saying: These people who came out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, knowing good and evil, will not see the land about which I swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Num. 32:10-11). Rule of Carthage. 135 says that virgins take the monastic form at the age of 25, unless some circumstance - the likelihood of abduction or the danger of death - forces it to be taught to them earlier. In general, the maturity of the mind and, therefore, the distinction between good and evil is judged according to the measure of each person’s natural “knowledge and reasoning,” as stated in the aforementioned rule of Timothy Alexander. 18. And frankly speaking, the further our century goes, the more crafty children become, and consequently, some of them discern good, and especially evil, even before the age of 10. So, based on all this, the present Council, not only because of the success of the Church and Christians, which it speaks of, but also because of the natural ability of people to more subtly distinguish between good and evil (which it does not speak of), wants monks to become monks from the age of 10. He listens to the words of Solomon that prudence for people becomes gray and old: Wisdom is gray hair for people (Wisdom 4:9), and the words of Elihu from the book of Job: It is not the wise of many years, nor the old (only) who understand (just) judgment, but there is a spirit in people: the breath of the Almighty teaches (them) (Job 32:9 ~ 8). In addition, since the present Council did not stop at the age of 10 years, but gave the power to the bishop to increase the term, and the Double Council, by the 5th rule, prescribes three years of probation for those wishing to become monks, it is in this way that these years are again reduced to almost 16 years, indicated by Basil, when the vow of a person intending to become a monk is recognized as reliable and valid as the vow of a mature person and, therefore, capable of judging whether he can maintain virginity or not. It should also be noted that it would truly be wonderful if, in accordance with this rule, “young and beardless” became monks at the age of 10 or at least 13 years (i.e., after a three-year trial) and from such a tender age they fought with passions and the ruler of the world, and if “they were encouraged to every exercise in good deeds from the very beginning,” according to Basil the Great (15th rule from the extensive set forth) (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (fus.) 15. 4 // PG 31, 956B), for it is good, says Jeremiah, for a husband when he bears the yoke in his youth (see Lamentations Jer. 3:27). But since our contemporary generation has become prone to passions, the bishop, as the present rule prescribes, must extend the period for those intending to become monks until they grow a beard, because it is more beneficial for these monastics themselves that the prudence of their minds and, consequently, their experience become more perfect, and because in this way their beardless and effeminate faces will not be a temptation and a cause of death for the monks living with them. See also note. 12 (1 to I Universe 3) and Gangr. 16. This refers to the rule included in the canonical collections. Basil. Magn. Ascet. (fus.) 15. 4 // PG 31, 956B. The example of widows and deaconesses, which this rule gives, is not inappropriate, as some have considered it, on the ground that supposedly the widow's business is one thing, and the deaconesses' another. However, the rule cites them as an example, not at all referring to abstinence from marriage (which both deaconesses at 40 and widows at 60 can practice). And this is not what Zonara is talking about - they say, if the deaconess, being a virgin and not having tasted pleasure, abstained until the age of 40, then you can be sure that, of course, she will keep her virginity in the future; and the widow, as having tasted pleasure with her husband, needs to reach 60 years of age for a greater test, etc. All this does not correspond to the meaning of this rule. But we, explaining this example as far as possible, affirm: the widow mentioned by Paul should have been counted among the rank of widows without ordination, according to chapters 1 and 2. 3rd book. “Apostolic Constitutions” (PG 1, 760A–764A), to receive help from the Church, according to Basil the Great. 24, and have enough money for food. So Paul himself adds: If any faithful person has widows, then they should provide for them and not burden the Church, so that it can provide for true widows (1 Tim. 5:16). But although, I will continue, such a widow was ranked among the order of widows, and not to the order of deaconesses, yet from among these widows who had one husband, deaconesses were also ordained, from which it is clear that they were also ordained at the age of 60. And there is a reason for this: if the inclusion of widows in a lower rank was done only at such an age, so that they would not fall into luxury in opposition to Christ (see 1 Tim. 5:11), then shouldn’t widows who became deaconesses after consecration be ordained at a different age? Moreover, their marriage after consecration was incomparably more contrary to the laws than the marriage of widows and, therefore, there was more to fear for them. This can be proven not only by reasoning, but also by deed itself. Sozomen (book 7, chapter 16) testifies that Emperor Theodosius issued a law (before the present VI and even before the IV Ecumenical Council) according to which no woman should accept the ministry of deaconess if she has no children and is not older than 60 years. “For the same reason,” suggests Sozomen, “the Emperor Theodosius, caring for the good name and holiness of the Churches, decreed that women, if they do not have children and have not reached 60 years of age, should not be entrusted with the service of God, in accordance with the indicated command of the apostle. Paul" (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII, 14 // PG 67, 1461C). But the IV Ecumenical Council reduced these 60 years for deaconesses to 40, determining in general and without explanation that a deaconess should not be ordained before reaching 40 years of age, and it does not matter whether she is a virgin or a widow who has been married once. So, for these reasons, the example of widows and deaconesses, which is given in this rule, is suitable and perfectly consistent with the meaning of the rule. The deaconesses are compared with those deaconesses who were appointed from widows. And the fact that deaconesses were appointed from widows who had one husband is evidenced, firstly, by the “Apostolic Decrees” (book 6, chapter 17): “Let the deaconess be an immaculate virgin, and if not so, then at least a widow who has had one husband, a believer and venerable” (PG 1, 957A). Secondly, the 48th rule of the present VI Ecumenical Council, which says that the wife of the one who will become a bishop, if worthy, should become a deaconess; and thirdly, the example of the famous Olympias: being a widow, she was a deaconess. And the fact that the marriage of deaconesses is more lawless than the marriage of widows is clear from IV Ecumenical. 15 and Vasily the Great. 24: The 15th rule anathematizes a married deaconess, together with the one who united with her, and the rule of Basil only excommunicates a married widow from communion until she abstains from uncleanness, for widows also promised not to enter into a second marriage, like, for example, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel. This is also clear from Chapter 1. 3rd book. "Apostolic Constitutions" (PG 1, 760B–761A) and the words of Paul: They are subject to condemnation because they rejected the former faith (1 Tim. 5:12). See also note. 63 3 to I Universal. 19. Note that, according to this rule, monks living in monasteries and monasteries must cut their hair accordingly, because monks cut their hair accordingly, which is clear both from this rule and from the word “On virginity” of Athanasius the Great (Athanas. Alex. De virgin. 11 // PG 28, 264B), and from the 1st word “On the world” of Gregory the Theologian (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 6. 2 // PG 35, 724A), and from many stories of Lavsaik. For monks, the present time is a time of sadness, according to the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 56 on Matthew) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Matt. 55 (56). 5 // PG 58, 545) and John Climacus. God speaks through the prophet. Isaiah that a sign of sorrow, crying and sobbing is the cutting of the hair on the head (see Is. 22:12). And if, according to Paul, in general any man who grows his hair dishonors himself (see 1 Cor. 11:14) (see also note 357 1 to VI Oc. 96), then how much more do monks who grow their hair dishonor themselves? If all monks in general should cut their hair accordingly, then how much more should young monks and deacons living in monasteries or cells cut their hair? For such people seduce others both with their beardless faces and with their long combed hair. But monks living in cities, and especially in the royal city, should beware of this. Here the rule refers to the great angelic image as tonsure, since, according to Balsamon (interpretation of the 2nd rule of the Council of Hagia Sophia), in the proper sense of the word, tonsure is the putting on of the great angelic schema. We should know that initially there was only one monastic schema, the great one, as St. writes about this. Theodore the Studit in his will: “Do not teach anyone the so-called small schema, and then the great one, because the monastic image is one, like baptism, and because this is what the holy fathers did” (i.e., they taught one monastic image. Theod. Studit. Testament. 12 // PG 99, 1820C). And the divine Gregory Palamas in a letter to Hieromonk Paul says: “This is the great monastic schema. The fathers do not know the small monastic schema, and although some of the later fathers apparently divided the schema into two, however, by the fact that they offer the same questions and answers, the same vows in both the small and the great schema, they again establish one schema” (Greg. Pal. Ep. ad Paul. Asen. 4 // Συγγράμματα. T. 5. Σ.248). And Simeon of Thessalonica (chap. 20) says that just as there is only one baptism, so the monastic image is one, for the small schema is betrothal and the beginning of the great schema and was invented by some later fathers due to the weakness (or negligence) of people (Sym. Thessal. Dial, contr. haer. 20 // PG 155, 104C). And in the Euchology, as in Balsamon (in the interpretation of the 2nd rule of the Council of Hagia Sophia), the small schema is called the great betrothal. And Job Amartol in his word “On the Sacraments” (see: Chrysanthus of Jerusalem. Syntagmation) also speaks about the third schema: “The monastic schema ascends from the lesser to the most perfect, from the so-called small schema, or ryasophore, to the holy schema of tonsure, and from it to the so-called great angelic schema.” Similarly, in Euchology there are three separate successions of the schema: the succession of the Rasophorus, the lesser schema and the great schema. And it does not call the man of the ryasophore, as in Job, the one who is usually called the staurophore - Job called him above having the schema of tonsure. From all that has been said, it follows that the cassocks can no longer throw off their cassock and get married - let it not happen! How can they dare to do this, while the hair on their heads is shorn, which means that they have rejected all worldly wisdom and dedicated their lives to God? How dare they do this when, with a blessing, they wore a monastic cassock and kamilavka (meaning the so-called kamilavhiy, which, according to tradition in the Greek Church, is worn by cassocked monks. - Ed), changed their name and two prayers were read over them by the priest, in which the priest thanks God for “delivering them from the vain worldly life and calling them to an honest promise monastic,” and asks Him to accept them “into His saving yoke”? And if the one who has just made a promise to become a monk, even if he has not accepted the cassock, should not break the promise, but must fulfill it (see also note 1 to St. Basil the Great 28), according to the saying, I will fulfill my vows to the Lord (see Ps. 115:9) - then how much more is the one who wore the cassock? Therefore, Balsamon says (in the interpretation of Twofold. 5) that the ryassophore no longer has the right to become a layman, but he should be forced to fulfill his first intention, that is, to accept the perfect schema, and if he does not want to, then he should be punished, as the law prescribes in Titus 1. 4th book. "Vasilyk" See also note. 2 to Vasily the Great. 18, there are Balsamon's words about the same thing. And there is no way back for the stavrophors of the Great Schemas, that is, they must be as strict with themselves as the Great Schemas, for two reasons: firstly, because they gave God the same and equally immutable promises and vows as the Great Schemas; secondly, because they were honored to be adorned by God with the same clothes (with the exception of three) as the great schema-monks. Moreover, let them not invent excuses for their sins (see Ps. 141:4), because they are not great schema monks and therefore are not obliged to maintain a strictly monastic lifestyle, and let them not be negligent in their desire to obtain the perfect great schema. Just as betrothal is imperfect in comparison with marriage, so the small schema is imperfect, since it represents the betrothal of the great schema, as we said, and therefore those who have it are imperfect. Let them also pay attention to the words of Simeon of Thessaloniki, who says (chapter 360): “Those who are imperfect in the schema must improve, so as not to die imperfect, without the most perfect sacrament (τελετής) of the schema... and just as the one who is not baptized is not a Christian, so the one who has not accepted the perfect schema is not a monk (meaning, not a perfect monk. – St. N.)" (Sym. Thessal. De ordine sepult. 360 // PG 155, 673AB). Please also note the following. Although Athanasius of Athos, and the venerable confessor Dunale, mentioned in the “Synaxarist” (December 17), and some others accepted first the small schema, and then the great at different times, those who immediately become great schema-monks act better and more correctly, without accepting the small schema, because with this single acceptance of the schema they show that there is really only one monastic schema, as the tradition of the saints requires. And the prayer printed in the book of catechumens of the Studite, who says that its compiler accepted first the small schema and then the great one, although touching and soul-helping, however, does not belong to Theodore the Studite, but to a certain Theodosius, as can be seen from its contents, and was compiled on the basis of different sources. Note also that although any time is suitable for becoming a monk, the time of Pentecost is more suitable for this, as a time of repentance, according to the 25th answer of Simeon of Thessaloniki (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 25 // PG 155, 876D). And Job says that during one liturgy many monks or nuns do not receive tonsure at the hands of one elder, but only one or one. The monastic schema is called angelic for various reasons, but mainly for the following two: firstly, because the monk, although clothed in flesh, must imitate the disembodied life and virginity of angels, and secondly, because the monk must always glorify God, like the angels in heaven, according to Simeon of Thessaloniki (Idem. De poenit. 265 // PG 155, 489B). And Dionysius the Areopagite says in the chapter “On monastic fulfillment” that “renunciation of the divisible, not only existing in life, but also imaginary, reveals the most perfect monastic wisdom, expressed in the knowledge of the one-creating commandments” (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. VI, 3. 2 // PG 3, 533D). Balsamon, seeing that the present rule punishes a married monk only as a layman who has fallen into fornication, says that this leniency can be granted to those monks who themselves voluntarily dissolve their lawless marriage and resort to confession and repentance, and not to those who bring repentance involuntarily. As we can conclude from the words of the rule, she forgot about it due to the fact that she had already stayed in the monastery for some time and passed the test. And therefore, even then, the monks and nuns, undergoing the test, wore secular clothes and were not dressed in a cassock. The rule says that they put on black clothes after entering the monastery, and this is clearer from Carthage. 135 (see also the 1st answer of Nicholas of Constantinople about this). And note that, according to Pachymer's paraphrase on St. Dionysius, the black clothes of monks mean that they live in solitude (μοναχικῶς), focusing on themselves, just as the black color focuses the gaze on itself: “The monastic order... lives in solitude, for this is what the black robe indicates” (PG 3, 548A). That is why the divine Athanasius in the word “On virginity” says: “Let your robe be black, but not dyed, but a natural color” (Athanas. Alex. De virgin, 11 // PG 28, 264B). Not only black clothes are appropriate for monks, but also gray ones, not quite black and not quite white, combining black and white. Therefore, Chrysostom in his essay “On Virginity” says: “Virginity is not in gray clothes and colors” (Ioan. Chrysost. De virgin. 7 // PG 48, 537). The historian Zosima also testifies to such clothes of the monks. The black color also means grief and sadness, which a monk should have, for those who are sad and grieving for dead relatives usually wear black clothes. Since we have mentioned monastic robes, it is appropriate here to explain what each of them means. So, the chiton (which was a kind of shirt, which is now called the lower cassock, or cassock) means the robe of joy and Divine truth, in which the monk is clothed instead of the leather vestments and nakedness of Adam, according to the Euchology and the writings of Simeon of Thessaloniki (Sym. Thessal. De poenit. 273 // PG 155, 497B). Then - the pallium, a special robe, similar in appearance to the modern so-called outer cassock, or cassock-mantle. Simeon of Thessaloniki also calls it a robe. And Abba Isaac, saying “wrap yourself in your pallium,” means the type of clothing (Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Σύρου. Λόγοι ἀσκετικοὶ 57. 3 // ΕΠΕ. Τ. 8 (Β). Σ. 364), but modern monks, having abandoned the pallium, use the so-called paraman instead, while the name “paraman” means clothing like a second mantle (it seems that this is why in the Euchology the small schema is called a mantle), and not the square, the size of a span, which is now worn on the back of the monks of the lesser schema. Pallium, I continue, means clothing of incorruption and purity and the Divine cover and overshadowing, according to Euchologius and the words of Symeon of Thessalonica (Sym. Thessal. De poenit. 273 // PG 155, 497B). A leather belt tightening the lower back, where the kidneys and the lustful power of the soul are located, means the mortification of carnal desires and chastity, as well as the fact that the monk must be ready for service, according to the Euchologium and the writings of Simeon, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dorotheus and Sozomen (book 3, chapter 13) (Πο PG chapter 14. PG 67, 1072). Sandals or other shoes mean that the monk must be ready to run on the road of the gospel of peace, not stumbling, but trampling on mental serpents. And just as the legs are at the bottom of the whole body, so the body should be in a lower position and subordinate to the soul, as it is said in the Euchology, by Simeon and Cyril of Jerusalem. These are the robes of a monk who has a small schema, or a stavrophorian, and in addition to this, a great schema monk has three more clothes: a kukul, an analav and a mantle. Kukul, according to Euchologius, means a helmet of salvation (Eph. 6:17) and the overshadowing of Divine grace, driving away thoughts of this world, and according to Simeon and Cyril of Jerusalem - goodness and humility, because even good-natured babies wear such kukuls, according to Sozomen and Dorotheus. And analav (Sozomen also calls it anabolic and says that it is made of leather - now we call it polystavri) means that the monk accepts the cross of the Lord and follows the Lord, as they say in the Euchology and the writings of Simeon and Dorotheus. And the fact that crosses are depicted on it in front and behind means, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, that the world should be crucified to the monk through removal from it, and the monk to the world through impartiality towards it, as it is said, for me the world is crucified, and I for the world (Gal. 6:14). According to Sozomen, the fact that the analav clasps the shoulder blades means that the monk must be ready to serve. The mantle (which Sozomen calls a sleeveless tunic, and Dorotheus calls a tunic), since it covers all other clothes, means that the monk, wrapped in his mantle, is, as it were, in a coffin, according to Simeon’s explanation. And Sozomen and Dorotheos say that, since it does not have cuffs and sleeves, it means that the monk should not raise his hands against anyone and do the deeds of the old man. The spaciousness of the mantle means the wings of angels, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, because the monastic schema is called angelic; and the four corners of the robe signify the four cardinal virtues: reasoning, chastity, truth and courage. On the mantle there was also a crimson sign, by which, according to Abba Dorotheus, monks are recognized and which means that they are warriors of the King of Heaven. And Simeon of Thessaloniki says that the mantle belongs only to the great schema-monk. These are his words (ch. 273): “And in the end he puts on a mantle, since it covers all clothes. At this time, the priest speaks louder: “Our brother (name) has received a great and angelic image.” In the Euchologia, however, there is no mention at all of the mantle of the great schema-monk. And for the kamilavka and marking there is no separate blessing, although some pronounce the blessing of the kukul over the kamilavka of the stavrophore monk. From all that has been said, it follows that the priest needs to bless the outer cassock instead of the mentioned paraman, the size of a span, and give it to be worn by the monk whom he is tonsuring. Otherwise, at the moment when he gives the outer cassock, he will find himself in a funny position, due to the fact that there is not enough prayer and blessing for it. And if someone wants to wear this small paraman over a cassock instead of a cross, then, it seems to me, there is nothing inappropriate in this. Basil. Magn. Poenae 12 // PG 31, 1308C. Idem. Ascet. (fus.) 32. 1 // PG 31, 996A. Therefore, John Glyka, although he was the logothete of the drome and had a wife and children, immediately, as soon as he became patriarch, his wife became a nun, according to the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras (book “Roman History”) (PG 148, 444). Note that the wife of someone who intends to become a monk should do the same as the wife of someone preparing to become a bishop. So, she must, firstly, separate from him by common consent, secondly, remain unmarried from now on and, thirdly, after his tonsure, she also becomes a nun, like her husband. They must separate by common consent, and not by force, because the apostle says to the spouses: Do not deviate from each other except by consent (1 Cor. 7:5) and Are you united to your wife? do not seek divorce (1 Cor. 7:27). And again: A wife has no power over her body, but a husband, and a husband has no power over his body, but a wife (1 Cor. 7:4). If they do not have power over themselves, but are subordinate to one another and are not free, then, consequently, they cannot separate without common consent. And the Lord says: Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:6). Basil the Great also agrees with the apostle, for when asked how married people should be accepted into monastic residence, he answers (see the 12th rule, which is set out at length) that they must first be asked whether they are doing this by common consent, as Paul says, and then accepted in the presence of many witnesses (PG 31, 948C–949A). If one side of a married couple, i.e., the husband or wife, does not agree to this, but rebels against such separation, because it cares less about pleasing God, which is achieved in monastic life, than the other side, then, remembering the words of St. Paul: God has called us to peace (1 Cor. 7:15), let them not accept them and do not plunge ourselves into confusion. And the Lord said: Whoever does not hate father and mother and wife and children cannot be My disciple (see Luke 14:26). If such spouses do not fulfill this, they cannot become disciples of Christ in the monastic rank, because nothing can be preferred to obedience to God, i.e. His commandments, among which there is a command to accept such people on condition of their mutual consent to monasticism and not to accept them if they do not hate each other. That is why Basil the Great repeated the same word twice, in different places: nothing can be preferred to obedience to God. It is also interpreted this way: if one side opposes the other, then let the one who intends to accept them tell them that they must remain in the peaceful marriage to which God has called them, and that they cannot become disciples of Christ unless they hate each other. The saint also adds that the party that the other does not allow to become a monk can, even while in marriage, achieve its goal, monastic purity, through fervent prayer and fasting. In addition, the divine Augustine, in letter 45 to Armedarius, says that one side of a married couple cannot become a monk against the will and desire of the other. If she begins to become a monk against the will of the other, then it is necessary to force her to reunite with her other half. And the divine Jerome (letter 14) strongly denounced Galatia for wanting to become a nun against the will of her husband. So, we said that the wife of someone intending to become a monk should separate from her husband by common consent. It is also clear that she should henceforth remain celibate. After all, if she enters into a second marriage, then it will be adultery - and according to the word of the Lord, who said: Anyone who divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32) and according to the word of Paul: A woman who, while her husband is living (i.e., if he is really alive in body, as a monk is alive), marries another, is called an adulteress (Rom. 7:3). And Chrysostom says (Discourse 19 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7): “Since it happened that spouses were separated either for the sake of abstinence, or under other pretexts, or because of displeasure, it is better that this does not happen from the very beginning, but if this has already happened, then let the wife remain with her husband - if not for copulation, then in order not to bring another husband” (PG 61, 154), in other words, let her remain celibate. So, the following is clear: for the two reasons mentioned, the wife of someone who is going to become a monk must also become a nun herself. For the consent that she gave to her husband for him to become a monk forces her not to marry in the future, but to remain celibate. In turn, in order to keep this celibacy strong, safe and not arousing suspicion, she is forced to withdraw from the world, enter a monastery and take monastic vows. Therefore, Leo the Wise, worthy of his wisdom, defined the spouses in the 20th short story as follows: “Since the marriage was dissolved by consent, for the sake of chastity, we order that it be dissolved only on the condition that both parties immediately after separation become monastics, each taking his property” (Armenopul. Book 4, tit. 12). From all that has been said, it follows that Balsamon says incorrectly that a woman can become a nun even against the will of her husband. Others express the opinion that one side of a married couple, after the other accepts monasticism, can marry a second time, since it is believed that the other side has died because it has chosen a different life. This is how the present Council mutes the lips: despite the fact that the one who is about to be consecrated as a bishop has also chosen a different life, the Council does not allow his wife to marry a second time, because this is adultery. And although in the 4th ch. The 22nd novella of Justinian (Basiliki. Tit. 7, book 28) says that a husband and wife can, moving on to a better, monastic life, separate and leave the world, but this separation presupposes, of course, mutual understanding and mutual consent. See also p. 745 “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” by Patriarch Dositheus of blessed memory, who says that the opinion that one of the parties to a married couple can enter into marriage after the other has accepted monasticism is a delusion and that those who do not obey the holy fathers, but allow one of the spouses to enter monasticism against the will of the other, are subject to anathema. Also, pay attention: the fact that the vows and promises of a wife subject to her husband (like the husband himself, without the consent of his wife) should not be valid is confirmed by Chapter 30. books of Numbers. It says that if a wife makes some promise to God and her husband hears it and remains silent, then she must fulfill her promise. And if the husband does not remain silent, but objects, then she should not fulfill the promise in practice, and the Lord will not condemn her for this (see Numbers 30:8–9). See also note. 1 to Apost. 22. It remains to be said that not only should spouses become monks by mutual agreement, but, moreover, they should ask the wife whether she herself agrees to become a monk and whether her husband agrees to this, and if after three months she does not change her good intentions, then she can be tonsured, if, of course, the wife is 40 years old and has strong convictions, according to the interpretation of Balsamon on the 2nd chapter. 1st tit. "Nomocanon" Photius. See also Job Amartol, who requires that spouses become monks by common consent (Chrysanthus. Syntagmation, p. 133). Note that Patriarch Sisinius, as well as John of Antioch, published a tomos in agreement with this ecumenical rule, determining that monasteries should not be handed over to the laity. Patriarch Sergius, on the contrary, issued another tomos, which determined that monasteries should be given to the laity; however, not so that they turn them into worldly dwellings - this is prohibited by this rule - but to restore and improve them. Well, if you think carefully, it becomes clear that Sergius did not make such a determination according to a fair court. In fact, if the goal of the fathers was not to give monasteries to the laity only so that they would not make secular dwellings out of them (while, as a rule, the rule of IV Ecum. 24 speaks about this quite definitely), then why would the present rule be added so that no one would give monasteries to lay people at all? This addition would be unnecessary and vain idle talk. Further, rule IV Omni. 8 instructs monastery clergy and primates to submit to the authority of the bishop. And if, according to the tomos of Sergius, monasteries are given to the laity, therefore, monastery leaders must obey both the bishop and the laity, and therefore serve two masters. But it is impossible to serve two masters, as the Lord said (see Matt. 6:24), and because the bishop orders one thing, and the laity another, disagreements and temptations arise. Therefore, monasteries should not be given to the laity, even for the sake of restoration and improvement, but they should be given to clergy and monastics. The sacred should be given to priests, not to the laity. To do otherwise is outrageous and utter incongruity. Not to mention the fact that this both harms souls and destroys the homes of lay people who receive monasteries. From this rule it follows that it is not appropriate for all clergy and clergy, as well as monks, to hunt hares and other animals or birds. If this rule prohibits clerics from merely observing the fights of animals and wild animals, then even more so it prohibits them from hunting themselves. Consequently, if the clergy, who before initiation were hunters, do not stop hunting, then they are subject to eruption, and the monks are subject to excommunication, according to this rule. Λύγισμα (ligizma) is a musical term meaning one of the genres of Greek folk music. Ligizma personified passionate singing, because it was accompanied by special dance movements and was distinguished by a winding, “twisted” melodic line. The word λύγισμα itself comes from the verb λυγίζω, which means “bend”, “twist”. Note that the following of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts does not belong to Gregory Dvoeslov, since he did not know Greek, according to the 29th letter of his 6th book, and since it is not among his writings. It exists from the time of the apostolic successors, according to the 56th answer of Simeon of Thessalonica (PG 155, 904-909), and from an earlier time than the time of the Two-Speaker, as can be seen from Laodice. 49 and especially from the custom of Christians on Wednesdays and Fridays to partake of pre-sanctified bread. This custom was widespread both in the East, as Basil the Great says in a letter to Caesarea, the wife of a patrician (Basil. Magn. Ep. 93 // PG 32, 484B), and in the West, as Jerome says in a letter to Pammachius. It is obvious that both before communion and after it, those communicant said some prayers, which, one might say, then constituted the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, Argentis says about this. See also note. 1 to Laodice. 14. And we remember Gregory the Dvoeslov at the dismissal of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, or because he, having taught such a liturgy to the Romans for the fast days of Pentecost (according to Mauritius, the hierodeacon of the great Church who wrote the Synaxarion, and his translator, Maximus Margunius, and Michael of Constantinople), gave advice to the Easterners to perform it daily on Pentecost, as some claim (see: Dositheus. History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. P. 526); or because, although this liturgy existed before, later the Dvoeslov made it more beautiful and arranged its prayers and chants in the sequence in which they can be seen now. The fathers established the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in order to be partakers of heavenly life and grace, which are given through the Holy Mysteries, even on fasting days. That is why Vlastar (letter “T”, chapter 5) says: “Just as warriors on the battlefield, after they stop fighting, eat food prepared in advance in the evening in order to refresh themselves with it and fight the enemies again the next day, so we Christians, fighting against the passions and the devil in the days of Pentecost, receive communion in the evening (of course, being worthy and prepared) of the Body and Blood The Lord’s, consecrated in advance on Saturday and Sunday, in order to be strengthened by them and again, more courageously, fight with mental enemies.” (The Bishop does not say this on his own, but translates another, ancient scholium that we found.) The same is said in the prayers of this very Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Note that, according to the statutes and decrees of the Western Council of Chalons, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts must be celebrated in the evening, therefore, those who perform it immediately after morning have sinned and must correct themselves. For how can they say at this liturgy: “Let us fulfill our evening prayer to the Lord,” when this prayer is not even midday? According to this rule, not only on Wednesday and Friday, but also on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, those who wish can celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts without restriction. Those who do not water the Holy Bread with the Most Pure Blood, as prescribed in the Euchologies, and save It unwatered for the celebration of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, are clearly being Latin-wise. For the wickedness of the Latins also lies in the fact that they teach the Eucharistic Mysteries to the laity under one guise, that is, only under the guise of Bread, as the Western Council illegally established, meeting in Constantia in Germany in 1414 (and for the reasons for which the Presanctified Bread was preserved, see Eustratius Argentis, p. 284, and note 1 to Laodice. 14). Presanctified Wine was also preserved in churches, as evidenced by Chrysostom (1st letter to Innocent) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ep. ad Innoc. 1. 3 // PG 52, 533), Jerome (4th letter to Rufinus), Gregory the Theologian (funeral word for Gorgonia) ( Greg. Nazianz. Or. 8. 18 // PG 35, 809C), fathers of the Local Council in Toledo, etc. See also note. 1 to Laodice. 49. Since we are talking about commemorations here, we note that the thirds, which are performed in memory of the deceased brothers, mean, according to the holy Simeon of Thessaloniki, that the deceased brother initially received being from the Trinity. Nines for the dead means that the one who has been resolved into that from which he was composed must be numbered among the nine immaterial angelic ranks, being himself immaterial (Sym. Thessal. De ordine sepult. 372 // PG 155, 692B). And the magpies mean that in the coming resurrection, having again received bodily composition in the highest image, he must also be exalted like the Lord and appear raptured in the clouds as the Judge (see 1 Thess. 4:17). Commemorations in the third, sixth and ninth months mean the same three states of a person, and, more simply, they are performed for the sake of cleansing the deceased, especially the magpie, as is clear from the example of our Lord, Who in His three births observed three full Pentecostals (Christ, by His human nature, had three births: from the Ever-Virgin Mary, in baptism and in resurrection. After 40 days after each of these birth, an important event followed: on the 40th day after his birth, Christ was brought to the Jerusalem temple, 40 days after baptism in the Jordan River, he defeated the devil in three temptations, and after 40 days after his resurrection he ascended to heaven), in Himself prefiguring our life. After all, the death of everyone is called a birthday, according to Laodice. 51. The “Apostolic Constitutions” (book 8, chapter 42) says that thirds are performed for the sake of the resurrected Christ on three days, nines - in remembrance of the living and the dead, and forties - according to ancient custom, because the people mourned Moses in the same way (PG 1, 1145-1148). Some say that thirds are performed to cleanse the three parts of the soul, nines - to cleanse the five senses of the body, the natural power of fruitfulness (τοῦ γονίμου καί φυσικού) and the driving force of the soul (μεταβατικοῦ), and sorochins - to cleanse the four bodily principles, each of which served to violate the Ten Commandments; and four times ten will be forty (The author of the interpretation is not specified, but its meaning goes back to the scholastic Byzantine tradition (cf. Maximus. Conf. Quaest. ad Thallass. 55.171–177. Laga & Steel 1980). The natural power of fruitfulness distinguishes the living from the inanimate and as such is inherent in the soul; and what puts the body into action is not physical actions, but forces souls moving the body (μεταβατικαὶ ἐνέργειαι – (cp. Simplic. In Arist. phys. CAG vol. 9.421.13SS). It can be assumed that μεταβατικόν here is a general name for the actions of the intelligent (λογιστικόν), desirable (ἐπιθυμητικόν) and violent (θυμικόν) forces of the soul (see Maximus. Conf. Op. cit.). Finally, the four bodily principles (στοιχεῖα) are four primary elements that make up the body. – Ed. Since the present rule, like a two-edged sword, pierces the hearts of the papists, they with great insolence accuse this Ecumenical Council of having made an incorrect determination on this matter. However, their accusation affects the apostles themselves, because the Council made its determination following the apostolic rule. Note that the Orthodox Church on Saturdays and Sundays of Pentecost allows for wine, oil and crustaceans, as evidenced by Meletius the Confessor: “As for everyone generally blameless, so for everyone individually on Saturday and Sunday we allow fasting” (degree 36). And with this moderate permission, the Church wisely achieves two goals: it honors the fast of Pentecost through the prohibition of meat, cheese, eggs and fish, and observes the rule of the Apostle. 64, which determines that one should not completely abstain from all food on Saturday and Sunday, but at the same time one should maintain abstinence on these days. Someone, perhaps, will say: “The divine voice that spoke to Peter: Arise, Peter, slaughter and eat (Acts 10:13) what did you command to slaughter? Four-legged animals, creeping things (Acts 10:12). And fish are also called reptiles, according to the saying of Scripture: Let the waters carry away the reptiles with living souls (Gen. 1:20).” So, if fish are also called hardened, then we should abstain during Lent from fish eggs, i.e., caviar. If fish are not called slaughtered, and only animals that live on land and birds are so called, then we are not acting reprehensible by eating caviar on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent. However, those who do not eat do better. Monks in the desert, of necessity (due to the fact that there are no priests there), have the permission of the bishop, as Simeon of Thessaloniki says (question 41), to preserve the Presanctified Gifts in the monstrance and to partake of them with great reverence in this way: spread out some sacred cloth in a clean place and place a holy cover on top of it, on top of the cover - a spoon with a particle of the Most Pure Body and, first chanting psalms, or prayers, or the Trisagion, having burned incense and made three bows, take communion from a spoon, but not with your hand, but with your lips, and then, taking a cup of wine and water, rinse your mouth (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 41 // PG 155, 889BC). The same thing that Simeon of Thessaloniki says is also written in the life of Luke, who labored on Mount Styria. Having asked the metropolitan who then occupied the see of Corinth whether it was appropriate for someone in the desert to receive communion himself in the absence of a priest, he received permission from him to receive communion in almost the same way (see also note 1 to Laodicecus 14). The reader and the layman commend to the one who is in danger of dying, of course, if there is no priest or deacon, according to the same Simeon (question 41) (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 41 // PG 155, 889C) (see also note 48 2 to I Om. 13). Here it may rightly be surprising why the present Council, in its 31st canon, allowed baptism to be performed in a chapel with the permission of the bishop, but in the present canon it completely prohibits it? According to Zonara, performing baptism in a house of worship is not entirely permitted and not entirely prohibited, but it is necessary, he says, that there should be well-known, and not outside, priests and that they perform sacred functions with the permission of the bishop in order to avoid secret meetings. Soothsayers are those who have dedicated themselves to demons and are believed to foresee future events from the palm of their hand, or a cup, or through sacrifices and other false inventions and signs. Therefore, the 13th decree of the law prescribes to punish as a murderer the one who makes forbidden sacrifices, that is, prophesies with their help, and orders the one who encourages him to do this or pays him to be exiled with confiscation of property, according to the 23rd chapter. 9th book. "Code". The wiser and oldest of the soothsayers and more revered compared to everyone else were called the hundred-leaders. Those who took bears with them hung some kind of dyed ropes on the heads and all over the bodies of these animals and, cutting off the bears’ hair, gave it along with these ropes to people so that they could use them as amulets protecting against diseases and the evil eye. And others wore small snakes in their bosoms and used them to cast spells. Cloud chasers are those who observe the shape of clouds, especially at sunset, and predict the future based on their shape. For example, if they see that the clouds are becoming like people with swords in their hands, they predict that there will be a war and talk idle talk about something like that. Cloud chasers can also be called those who, with the assistance of demons, disperse clouds so that rain or hail falls in more than one place. Sorcerers are those who, calling upon demons, simultaneously recite the psalms of David, the names of saints and the Lady Theotokos Herself, and about whom the divine Chrysostom says that although they name the name of the Holy Trinity and the names of saints, depict the sign of the cross, Christians should avoid them and turn away from them. He says in the conversation “On Statues”: “Aren’t you ashamed, Christian, to bring drunken and crazy old women into your house, but you say that these old women do not pronounce anything other than the name of God? But this is why you should especially turn away from them, because these old women, although they are Christians, abuse the name of Christ and act like pagans. After all, the demons also uttered the name of Christ, but they remained demons and were evil, so Christ forbade them and drove them away” (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad illumin. 2.5 // PG 49, 240). Phylacteurs are called both those who make amulets, wrapping them with silk thread and inscribing messages to demons on them, and those who take these amulets and hang them around their necks so that they protect against all evil. Therefore, one should cast out those priests who read the so-called charter of Yala over the sick, and those who take tar candles and, going to the mountains and ravines, light them there and read Solomon’s, or better yet, the devil’s book, or otherwise call upon demons, pronounce their names and thus excommunicate their enemies from the Church and make sure that either they themselves die, or their pets are killed, or they suffered some other damage. Therefore, such books - I mean the Book of Solomon, the Charter of Yala, as well as works on chrontology, astrapology, emerology and in general all magical and suspicious books - must be confiscated by the local judge, as the 18th book decrees. law, 1st tit., 35th decree (Photius. Tit. 9, ch. 25), and burn, just as in Ephesus believers burned witchcraft books worth 50,000 drachmas (see Acts 19:19). The penances imposed by this rule should also be subject to those evil old women who prophesy by barley or beans, or scatter coal when fortune telling, or yawn, or strangle babies, those whom the demons delight into the air, so that they move from one place to another, like the magician Heliodorus, Kinops of Patmos and Simon. In a similar way, those shepherds who place a certain bone under the feet of sheep or goats so that the animals grow and their flock multiply are subject to penance, as well as those who lead their children through circles. And generally speaking, all sorcerers and sorceresses, as well as men and women who turn to sorcerers and sorceresses, all of them, if they repent, receive the penance determined by this rule, and if they remain in this devilish error, they are completely cast out from the Christian Church as a part of Satan, and not of Christ. Note that the divine Chrysostom (Discourse 3 on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians) says: “Those who fell ill and did not agree to be conjured over them or alleviate the disease with spells and amulets, but remained courageous and endured, receive the crown of martyrdom as martyrs” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Thessal. 3.5 // PG 62, 412). And in the 5th conversation against the Jews, he says this: “And you, if you reject conspiracies, enchantments and divination and die from illness, you will be a real martyr, because when others promised you recovery in exchange for wickedness, you chose to die in piety” (Idem. Adv. Jud. 8.8 // PG 48, 940). And the 65th short story of Leo the Wise says that “he who is absolutely known to be casting a spell, either for the sake of healing from a bodily illness, or in order to protect the fruits from damage, must be subjected to the highest punishment and suffer the punishment that rebels against the king bear.” Wizards are those who call upon demons for any good deeds, despite the fact that they are destroyers and attackers. Sorcerers are those who attract demons with any spells and invocations to participate in the deeds that they plan, as well as those who charm wild animals, such as wolves, etc., so that they do not devour their cattle when they are outside the pens at night, or take snakes in their hands and make sure that they do not bite them. Those who charm married couples with diabolical art and magic are also called sorcerers. O damned ones! O scoundrels! O you who anger God! Alas and woe to those who engage in such satanic work! Oh, and these unfortunates do not know what terrible punishment will befall them because through their fault an honest marriage is dishonored, hatred arises between spouses and those whom God united are forever separated (Matthew 19:6). Some people advise future spouses, in order not to receive harm from such conspiracies, to first confess, fast and partake of the Divine Mysteries, and then get married, as we said. Some suggest that the groom hold the sacred Four Gospels over him during the wedding, and experience has shown many the effect of faith. For, according to the divine Chrysostom, where the Gospel lies, the devil does not dare to approach. And there is an ancient custom for women and small children to wear the Gospel around their necks for great protection of themselves (Discourse 32 on the Gospel of John. T. 2. P. 686, line 5 (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in loan. 32. 3 // PG 59, 187); Discourse 19 about statues. T. 6. P. 594, line 35 (Idem. Ad popul. Antioch. 19. 4 // PG 49, 196)). God commands that sorcerers and ventriloquists be stoned: Man or woman, if one of them is a ventriloquist or sorcerer, let them both die, stone them, they are guilty (Lev. 20:27). Apparently, number tellers are the same as astrologers, as can be concluded from the words of both Zonara and Vlastar. These are not those who have a good command of the four main mathematical disciplines: arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy - and investigate natural phenomena with the help of these sciences, but those who write that the actions of people performed by free will are controlled and guided by the movement of celestial bodies; those who connect all human passions and motives without exception with the stars, and in the different arrangements of luminaries and stars find the root cause of events in people's lives. They divine by the stars with the assistance of demons, listening to the stars as if they were gods, and, more simply, they resort to mathematical sciences out of superstition. Poisoners are those who, with the help of witchcraft, prepare poisonous drinks in order to either kill someone, or darken their mind, or make them fall in love, which women especially use to arouse love in men. For this they are punished according to the canons as murderers, that is, they bear penance for 20 years, according to Vasily the Great. 8. And in the 47th book, tit. 10, it is said that those people who, by means of poison, have driven someone mad, are subject to the law of violence. In the book. 48, tit. 8, decree 2 prescribes to punish as a murderer the one who makes poison for murder, or sells it, or keeps it in his possession. And those men or women who prepare tinctures in order to arouse love in someone should be exiled and their property confiscated (see also: Photius. Nomocanon. Tit. 9, ch. 25). Both Balsamon and others say that Kalends, Non and Id were rich brothers who fed Rome in times of war and famine: Kalends for 12 days, Non for 10, and Id for 8, the three together for one full month. And in order to ensure that the good deeds of these people were never forgotten and that a debt of gratitude was always repaid to them, the Romans called the first 12 days of the month Kalends, named Kalenda, the second 10 days - Nones, named Nona, and the third 8 days - Ides, named Ida, and on these days they held a holiday, performing many indecent acts. They are also imitated by those Christians who organize the so-called Kalends on January 1: they play games, dance in front of the doors of houses, walk, sing many empty songs, tell funny stories, read some poems supposedly dedicated to Basil the Great. Bishops and confessors should prohibit doing this, and punish violators so that they do not indulge in such pagan activities, as this rule says. The etymology offered by St. Nicodemus, is entirely folk and has a later character. Votae – translated from Latin. sacrifices, vows. This was the name of the New Year's celebrations from December 23 to January 1. Brumalia comes from bruma (winter solstice) and was celebrated in honor of Dionysus from November 24 to December 17. – Ed. And today Christians, often initiates and clergy, do the same on Meat and Cheese Week, both in various places, and, especially, on the islands where the Latins live. I mean they wear masks and wigs, men wear women's clothes, and sometimes women wear men's clothes and dance publicly. God says about them: Let no man's clothing be on a woman, nor let a man put on a woman's garment, for whoever does this is an abomination to the Lord your God (Deut. 22:5). And indeed, all these are abominations to God and truly pagan activities, alien to Christians. Holy bishops must make every effort to prohibit such activities under threat of excommunication, because this serves to censure Christianity. That is why we, Eastern Christians, should be deeply grateful (just as, according to my information, Western Christians are grateful) to St. Simeon Metaphrastus, who did a tremendous amount of work: he wrote the lives of the holy martyrs and saints, clearing the original lives of all lies and fiction. He himself went to different places and in some lives he described what he himself saw, and others he compiled on the basis of reliable evidence. In the word “On maintaining good order in the interview.” Greg. Nazianz. Or. 32. 12 // PG 36, 188BC. Idem. Or. 32. 13 // PG 36, 188D. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 32. 21 // PG 36, 197D–200A. Divination (κληδών), from κλῶ, καλῶ (to call), in the proper sense, is guessing future events by words and cries, as a certain sage says, and above all Theodoret (Chain of interpreters on the Octateuch. T. 2. P. 193) (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in IV Reg. 53 // PG 80, 793A). To this day, this pagan custom of divination is observed in many places, and especially on the islands, where men and women pour water into a vessel and put all kinds of fruits in it, cover them, and then gather together and, taking them out, each time chant a certain devilish song, thus supposedly predicting the fate and fate of each of those gathered. This divination, as well as the lighting of fires in front of the doors of each house, is organized on the Nativity of the Baptist, which bishops and confessors, punishing with excommunication, must prevent, as well as the custom of organizing May holidays, namely hanging flowers on the doors on May 1, because this custom is pagan, alien to Christians. Likewise, Patriarch Michael of blessed memory, master of philosophers, with great zeal took care to abolish all such satanic and pagan activities. Christians, instead of celebrating the May holidays, casting spells and lighting bonfires, on the 1st day of the month they invite a priest to their homes, consecrate water, sprinkle it with it and thereby drive away all evil and evil fate from themselves and gain all prosperity, according to Vlastar (letter “E”, Chapter 3). So in ancient times they blessed water with the Honest Tree of the Cross, and also performed prayer singing on August 1 to ward off diseases, which were mostly spreading at that time due to hot weather - this is mentioned by St. Gregory of Thessaloniki (Conversation on the first of August) (Greig. Pal. Hom. 35 // PG 151, 397D–400A) and in the handwritten synaxarion. Here I mean the so-called small, and not the great, consecration of water, because it is the small consecration that can be performed not only on the 1st day of the month, but at any time during serious illnesses. And the great consecration is usually performed only twice a year. Once in the evening on the eve of the Feast of Lights, when consecration takes place in the image of John's baptism (according to Paisius of Gaza, who resolves some issues), therefore it is performed modestly. And the second time is actually on the Day of Lights, when the consecration takes place in the image of the Baptism of the Lord, according to the same Paisius, which is why it is performed with a gathering of people and with a solemn procession of the cross. Sorcery, according to Theodorit, is that someone predicts the future by the flight or sounds of birds (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in IV Reg. 53 // PG 80, 793A), especially ravens, which is why it is also called bird divination. Also considered sorcery is the belief of some that there are good and bad encounters, or good and bad questions, or good and bad omens, etc.: all this should have no place among Christians, because it irritates God against them. Ventriloquists are those who make sounds from the womb, tell satanic fables and pronounce prophecies. Sorcerers are those who divine by cutting open the entrails of animals. Liver fortune telling gets its name from them. And all the ventriloquists together are called by the Greeks fortunetellers from the entrails, according to Photius and Theodoret (Idem. Quaest. in Lev. 29 // PG 80, 337C). Cyr. Alex. In Is. IV, 3 (cap. 48, vers. 1–5) // PG 70, 1013C. Let today's Christians learn from this rule what a holy life the Christians of those times led on the holy days of the Resurrection and what, on the contrary, disordered life they themselves lead today, and let them correct themselves by stopping the amusements, dancing, games, songs and other inappropriate activities in which they indulge in these days. They say that in Muscovy, every day of Holy Week, Christians go with religious processions from one church to another, so that they do not have time for any absurdities. It would be appropriate for our Christians to act in this way, so as not to deviate into excesses and inappropriate actions. Many people also know another sacred custom, widespread in Muscovy. It consists in the fact that the most pious husbands do not share a bed with their wives during the entire Bright Week, and accordingly, weddings do not take place then. Indeed, it is truly a most holy custom, which our Christians should imitate, since, as we said earlier, this whole week is considered as this Bright Day, called the Lord's Day. See also the rule of St. Nikifor 42 in the attachment. From this it becomes clear how reprehensible are those who cut up parchment sacred books to make fishing baits or wrap tobacco or other things in them, and those who cut out images of saints or other designs from books, and those who throw books into a burning oven, or write some rudeness and obscenity in the margins. It is generally not appropriate to write in sacred books, even for the purpose of correcting or interpreting them (except in the case where the book belongs to the writer or he does so with the permission of its owner). For from all this the books deteriorate and become unusable, for which the present rule imposes excommunication. However, even then it is not appropriate to use such sacred and holy books for fontanelles (we are talking about a method of treatment that is not used today: wounds were inflicted on the human body, which were artificially prevented from closing with the help of inserted thin strips of fabric or paper. These strips were called fontanelles) and for other dishonorable and shameful purposes, and also to give them to others who will use them for similar purposes, but it is appropriate to either burn them, or leave them, or better yet, bury them in an untrodden place, so that the holy and sacred words contained in them are not profaned. For the saying of Isaiah also applies to this subject: And His rest will be (that is, Christ and God) glory (Is. 11:10). I say this because at the time of this Council the books were mostly made of parchment and the letters in them could be completely erased. But in modern books, since they are made of paper, the letters always remain, no matter how old these books are, which is why it is not appropriate to dishonor them. Note that, according to Theodoret (Church History. Book 5, Chapter 17), although St. Ambrose released the faithful king Theodosius from the bonds imposed on him for the bloodshed, of which he was the culprit, however, when Theodosius brought gifts to God to the holy altar and was waiting for communion there, Ambrose did not allow him, saying: “Internal things, king, are accessible only to priests,” and ordered him to remain outside the altar. From then on, even after returning to Constantinople, the king, although he brought gifts to God to the holy altar, immediately went out and did not go inside to receive communion according to custom. “Having brought gifts to the holy table,” says Theodoret, “he immediately went out” (PG 82, 1236D–1237B). The deeply religious emperor showed by his example that it was not appropriate for kings who committed unjust bloodshed to receive communion at the altar (see Niceph. Callist. Hist. eccl. XII, 41 // PG 146, 889D–900A). Let this encourage priests and confessors to stop the illegal custom that is widespread in many places, namely the custom of lay people entering the holy altar. This custom, which does not distinguish between priests and laity, leads to the fact that the laity fall under the same punishment as King Ahaz, who, being a layman, dared to take up the affairs of the initiates. After all, even the laity, entering a place intended for priests, in some way appropriate for themselves what belongs to the priests. If it is also illegal for the laity to enter the altar, then how much more illegal is what some ignorant priests do: they instruct the laity or readers on Maundy Thursday to consume the Holy Gifts inside the altar at the holy offering. Let them stop this for the love of God, so as not to be ejected from the priesthood. And Simeon of Thessaloniki says (chap. 143) that the emperor receives communion at the altar after the deacons only during the anointing of the kingdom, and not at the holy meal, but aside on some table on which the antimension is placed (Sym. Thessal. De sacro templo 143 // PG 155, 352C). Soph. Ajax // TLG 0011. 003. 293. That’s why the divine Chrysostom reasons like this: “Once a wife taught (Adam in paradise - St. N.) and overthrew everything, so the apostle says: let him not teach.” And again: “For she should be so silent that she does not talk in church not only about everyday, but even about spiritual subjects. This is beauty, this is modesty, this can adorn her more than clothes” (Homily 9 on the First Epistle to Timothy, vol. 4, p. 283) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 9. l // PG 62, 544–545). Greg. Nazianz. Or. 43. 15 // PG 36, 513D–516A. The kilistra, according to Balsamon, was in all likelihood a kind of device that was used by those teaching the laws when they argued about who would take which student. If whatever they were turning on this device happened to fall on a certain side, it was a sign that such and such a teacher was taking such and such a student. Generally speaking, the kilistra was something like a device for casting lots. Let the bishops whose episcopal regions are located on the islands and in all those places where Latins live fear the penance imposed by this Council, and let them in no way allow a Latin to marry an Orthodox woman or a Latin woman to marry an Orthodox man. For what kind of communication can there be between the Orthodox side and the heretical? Even if somehow, without their knowledge, such illegal marriages are concluded, let them immediately dissolve them, according to this rule, with the exception of if the Latino is baptized according to the Orthodox rite. If both sides were at first in the heresy of the Latins, and then one side accepted Orthodoxy, then all their children should be Orthodox, according to civil laws. See also note. to IV Omni. 14. Let us add to what was said earlier the words of the divine Chrysostom about the cross: “So that it [the cross] may be for us instead of a sword, let us hang it near our bed. So that it will be instead of a bolt, we will draw it on the doors. So that it will be instead of a wall, we will fence the house with it” (T. 5. P. 881) (Ioan. Chrysost. De adorat. crucis 4 // PG 52, 840). Therefore, all modern Christians: children and adults, men and women, young and old - instead of any other means of protection, should wear a cross around their necks, either wooden, or gold, or silver, or copper, as was customary among ancient Christians. St. Orestes, one of the five martyrs, wore a gold cross around his neck, which is why the pagans learned that he was a Christian, and Pankratius of Tauromenia gave each person he baptized a cross made of cedar wood to wear on himself. St. Meletius the Confessor in his “Tale on Italian Customs” says that the Latins had the custom of drawing a cross on the ground and kissing it, and then trampling it underfoot. We, however, should not do this at all; moreover, the cross depicted on books or even on letters and letters should be revered, as well as the divine names of Christ and the Most Holy Theotokos or saints written in letters, and not use these letters and letters for shameful purposes, but either burn them or put them in some inaccessible place, cutting out these holy names from them, so as not to desecrate them and sin hard. See also note. to Vasily the Great. 91 and note. 292 and 293 (1 and 2 to VI Omni. 68). Let the two-horned pope (the pope is compared to a beast that has two horns like a lamb (Rev. 13:11–12). This interpretation of the apocalyptic image was characteristic of anti-Latin polemics. Another favorite comparison with the Catholic Church was the harlot mentioned in the Apocalypse. - Ed.) learn from the definition of this rule how anti-Christian he acts by depicting the life-giving Cross at himself on his shoes and allowing those who come to kiss them: after all, in this way he tramples on the victorious sign of our salvation. And not only Orthodox emperors wore this sign over their heads and were proud of it more than the royal diadems, but even Calvinists, who reject all worship of saints, nevertheless install it in their churches on an elevated place and worship it with reverence. What am I saying – emperors and Calvinists? Even the Turks captured at Mauritius had a cross inscribed on their foreheads, as Theophanes (PG 108, 569C) and Simokatta (book 5, chapter 10) tell about it (TLG 3130/003. 5. 10. 14. 2). When they were asked why they had a cross on them, they replied that once there was a pestilence in their country and Christians advised them to draw a cross on themselves. Having done this, they recovered, and from then on it became their custom to imprint a cross on themselves. Gregory the Theologian speaks about the cross in his word against Julian: “He resorts to the cross, a proven means, and is marked by it against horrors, calls for help to the Persecuted. What followed was even worse. The sign worked, the demons were defeated, fears were dispelled" (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 4. 55–56 // PG 35, 580A). He says this about Julian the Apostate, who, while he was with the sorcerers and demons began to gather, crossed himself - and the demons immediately dispersed and he was freed from fear. And Chrysostom, in the 54th conversation on the Gospel of Matthew, says: “We wear the cross of Christ as a crown, for through it all our deeds are accomplished. Whether to be fed with this mysterious food, to accept ordination, or to do something else - this sign of victory is everywhere before us” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Math. 54 (55). 4 // PG 58, 537). The custom of holding agapes in the church arose among Christians in apostolic times. When they intended to receive communion, especially on Sundays, the richer ones brought bread and wine to the church and after communion of the Holy Mysteries, as Zonara and Chrysostom say (Discourse 27 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians), they invited the poorer ones, and everyone reclined and ate (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 27. 1 // PG 61, 224). However, the Corinthians violated this order and each of the rich ate his own food and did not give it to the poor, so that because of this it turned out that one, that is, the poor, was hungry, and another, that is, the rich, got drunk. Therefore, the divine Paul in the 11th chapter. The First Epistle to the Corinthians reproaches them both for the fact that by their behavior they express disdain for the Church of God, and for the fact that they in some way humiliate and disgrace the poor, who have nothing to eat at such common meals. Basil the Great, having cited these words of the apostle in his canons, briefly stated, draws from them the conclusion that no one should eat a common meal in the church (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (brev.) 310 // PG 31, 1304BC), and this is in agreement with Laodice. 28 and the present 74th rule of the VI Council. Please note that by the Lord's Supper, which Paul speaks of, mentioning such common meals of the Corinthians, Basil the Great (ibid.) understands the Divine Supper as a sacrament (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (brev.) 310 // PG 31, 1304BC), in the same sense it is spoken of in the rule of Carthage. 48. And Chrysostom understands by it a common meal for all, performed in imitation of the Lord, Who taught the Mysteries to all His disciples without exception (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 27. 3 // PG 61, 227). On the Lord's Supper, see also Eustratius Argentis (p. 308). The houses of the Lord, which this rule mentions, were called so because the Divine Liturgy was most often celebrated in them on the days of the Lord (Lord's Day (Κυριακή) is the Greek name for Sunday). Eusebius, in his “Praises to Constantine,” says that the houses of the Lord were named in the name of the Lord, to whom they were dedicated: “The sacred places are dedicated to one God, the King of all and the Lord of all, which is why they were awarded the name of the Lord, having received the name not from people, but from the Lord of all Himself. That is why they were worthy of the title of the Lord” (Euseb. De laud. Const. 17 // PG 20, 1432AB). Also note that some agapes or common meals that were held in memory of the martyrs were called γενεθλιακά (dedicated to birthdays), others that took place at weddings were called γαμικά (wedding), and others that were held on the day of burial of the dead were called ἐπικήδεια (funeral) (On religious tolerance. P. 8). Teretizmaty, as well as non-nanizmaty, are varieties of the so-called kratim, characteristic of the calophonic style of Byzantine church singing (καλοφωνικός - “beautiful-sounding”). This style developed by the 12th century. and was distinguished by extensive chants with long melodic lines. Kratims are special musical structures based on a series of similar syllables, which, depending on the content of the work, expressed complaint, fear, joy, sadness. If the kratima was sung with the syllables “a-ne-na”, it was called nenanizmata, and if it was sung with “te-re-re” - teretizmata. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom (Discourse on the words I saw the Lord sitting on the throne. Vol. 5. P. 120) strictly prohibits theatrical songs, dances of actors performing pantomimes, piercing screams and discordant sounds. Interpreting the well-known psalm verse, serve the Lord with fear (Ps. 2:11), he mercilessly denounces those who mix external theatrical gestures, poses and incomprehensible sounds with spiritual chants (such as teretizmaty, nenanismat and other incomprehensible words are now), and says that this is not characteristic of those who glorify God, but of those who dance and mix devilish amusements with angelic doxology (Ioan. Chrysost. In Is. sermo 1. 2 // PG 56, 99–100). Chrysostom also teaches many instructions that we must offer up praises to God, so that they are pleasing to Him, like fragrant incense, with fear and a contrite heart. The statement of the most learned Meletius Pigas from the 3rd chapter is also truly commendable and worthy of every mention. book “On Christianity”: “Whereas simple and harmonious music is easily perceived, due to the fact that it makes hearts more cheerful, as if elevating the soul above the body (after all, musical harmony is very close to the spirit, because it has a nature intermediate between bodily plumpness and spiritual immateriality), on the contrary, pretentious and overly sweet music does not delight, but relaxes... therefore, the divine fathers, allowing in the Church only human voices as natural and artless, reject the sounds of strings and wind instruments as artificial.” Some of today's musicians, by singing in an instrumental manner, are trying their best to reintroduce these sounds into the Church. The performance of teretizmat and nenanizmat is, apparently, not an ancient tradition, but a more recent one, since in the works attributed to John of Damascus and other ancient musicians there are no these incomprehensible words and we kratim. In all likelihood, they arose during the time of John Kukuzel. However, the kratims that today's choristers sing at vigils, due to the fact that they are doubled and often tripled, actually become unpleasant for reverent listeners and bother them. Therefore, we ask the singers to sing them briefly, so that at the same time their performance will be more pleasant, and there will be time for reading, and the canons will be sung more slowly, because for the soul all the fruit from the vigil is brought by the canons and reading. Some say that these incomprehensible teretisms were accepted into the Church in order to attract the common people by their pleasantness. This is how it usually happens now at vigils, especially on the Holy Mountain, and this is how it was before, according to the story of Basil the Great (message to the clergy of the Neocaesarian Church): “The customs now established in all the Churches of God are uniform and agree. Our people have been awake since the night... finally, having risen after prayers, they begin to sing psalmody. First, dividing into two parts, they sing one after another. Then, instructing one to start singing, the rest sing along, and thus spend the night in various psalmody, and pray in between...” (Basil. Magn. Ep. 207. 3 // PG 32, 764A). Please note that psalmody differs from prayer, since psalmody is performed with singing, and prayer is performed without singing, and that among the ancients psalmody was performed according to the Psalter of David. That is why there are ancient Psalms, based entirely on musical voices. Today, the opposite is happening: our prayer consists of the Psalter, which we read, not sing (with the exception of the first three psalms and polyeleos), and our psalmody consists of troparia dedicated to new grace. However, the God-bearing fathers, called those who are in sobriety (νηπτικοί), call psalmody oral and verbal prayer, and prayer itself - prayer performed with the mind. In other sources there is βρωμάτων - “food”, which corresponds to the interpretation of Zonara. In addition, Basil the Great (rule 40, set out at length) condemns the trade organized in the churches of martyrs and saints on the days of celebrating their memory: “Christians gather in churches and the surrounding areas of churches for no other purpose than to pray and remember how the saints fought and labored for piety to the point of death, and to motivate themselves to similar zeal. They do not gather for this purpose to organize a festival and make the church a market and marketplace.” He also adds the following: “God is so angry with those who sell and buy in the churches or in the courtyards of the churches that Jesus Christ, Who was always and everywhere meek and lowly in heart, raised a scourge only on those who were selling and buying near the sanctuary to strike them, since such marketplaces turn the house of prayer into a den of robbers and thieves” (PG 31, 1020BC). Also, pay attention that the Lord called sellers and merchants in general robbers and thieves for the injustice and deception that they commit in their trade affairs. Ep. Philo says (Chain of Interpreters on the Eight Books. Vol. 1. P. 163): “Even the Jews do not wash with their fathers, lest they see their father’s nakedness, as Ham saw the nakedness of Noah. Therefore, therefore, it is not proper for the children of Christians to wash with their fathers.” And St. Diadochos, bishop Photikian (chapter 52. See: Philokalia. p. 216), teaches: “Moving away from the baths is a courageous and most chaste thing, especially for those who prefer to become one with the beauty of chastity, in other words, for clergy and monks who have taken a vow of virginity, because the pleasant humidity of the bath relaxes and pampers the body, and nudity in the bath brings back that inglorious memory the nakedness that Adam felt after disobedience" (PG 65, 1183BC). And to say in general, baths do not provide any benefit, but only delight the flesh and evoke obscene fantasies. An exception is made only for those who are forced to wash due to illness. Epiph. Adv. haer. 30. 7 // PG 41, 416D. Please note that by Thursday, which the rule speaks of here, some understood only Maundy Thursday: on this day, the catechumens who intended to be baptized on the evening of Holy Saturday, according to custom, told their mentors about the dogmas of the faith that they had studied as a souvenir. Interpreters came to this understanding based on the previous 45th canon of the same Laodicean Council - it talks about those receiving baptism on Holy Saturday. However, it seems to me that the above understanding of the rule is more successful, because the catechumens, after being included in the list of the enlightened, had to not only on Maundy Thursday, but also on every Thursday in general, tell what they had studied on the other days of the week, so as not to forget it. And the fact that not one week, but many, passed between the registration of the enlightened and baptism, is clear from the litany of the enlightened, which begins to be recited from the Wednesday of Lent (this is what is called in the Church Rules the middle (fourth) week of Great Lent, following the Week of the Cross) of the week of Lent. Ἀλόχευτος would be more accurately translated as “deprived of what is characteristic of childbirth.” The interpretation of Zonara, which is given below by St., is based on this understanding of this word. Nicodemus Svyatogorets. Therefore, painters should not depict the Mother of God on the icon of the Feast of the Nativity of Christ lying on a bed and as if exhausted from pain, and also in the Menaion, on the second day after the Nativity of Christ, they should not write this expression - “The Birth of the Mother of God,” but they can only write “The Council of the Mother of God,” for, according to Gregory of Nyssa, who agrees with the definition of the present Council, a single birth without that which is characteristic of childbirth, was the birth of Christ and it is impossible to use the word “birth” in the proper sense in relation to the Uncorrupted and Unartificed (Greg. Nyss. In Cant. 13 // PG 44, 1053AB). And to depict, as can be seen on many icons of the Nativity of Christ, some women washing Christ in the font is a completely incongruous invention of carnal people, and therefore should be gotten rid of in every possible way. However, since divine poets and hymns often call the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary childbirth, let this name be applied in an improper sense to a painless birth, with the condition that this birth is understood as a birth without labor pains and is accepted as a simple birth. Epiph. Adv. haer. 79. 1 // PG 42, 741A. The Church accepted the Trisagion Hymn from above. Theophanes says that when earthquakes did not stop in Constantinople, the inhabitants finally, in fear, went out onto the field and performed prayers (both Emperor Theodosius the Younger and Proclus of Constantinople performed prayers with them, and barefoot, according to Glyca (Michael Glyca. Annales 4 // PG 158, 488C)). So, one day it happened that a certain youth was caught up into the air and heard a Divine voice, which commanded him to tell the bishop and the people that prayer should be performed with these words: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us” (PG 108, 244C–245A). And Nikephoros says that the place from which the child was raised was called “divine exaltation” (ὕψωμα θεῖον), and now it is called Ψωμαθειά (Niceph. Callist. Hist. eccl. XIV, 46 // PG 146, 1217D). So, from then on, the emperor ordered that this song be sung everywhere in Greek. Therefore, in ancient times, Savva the Great, although he allowed Armenian Christians to sing their service in Armenian, did not allow the Trisagion to be pronounced in Armenian, but ordered them to sing in Greek. And the Latins still at their funeral services sing the Trisagion in Greek, and not in Latin, out of respect for the language in which the song was uttered at God's command. And note that this miracle happened even before Gnathevs, according to Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 312). Gnafevs lived later, under Zeno, and theopaschism did not emerge before the IV Ecumenical Council. This Trisagion hymn consists of three parts. The words "Holy, Holy, Holy" are taken from the song of the Seraphim as heard by Isaiah (see Isaiah 6:3). And the words “God, the Mighty, the Immortal” are taken from David’s verse: My soul thirsted for the mighty, living God (Ps. 41:3), for the living and the immortal are one and the same. The words “have mercy on us” are borrowed from Chapter 33. the books of Isaiah (see Isaiah 33:2) and Psalm 122 (see Psalm 123:3) are both requests and prayers. This song is addressed to the Holy Trinity. “Holy God” refers to the Father, who is the Divine source of the Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. “Holy Mighty” - on the Son, who is the strength, and the strength, and the hand of the Father, and through whom all things began to be (see John 1:3). And the words “Holy Immortal” refer to the Holy Spirit, Who is called the Giver of Life. The words “have mercy on us,” with a singular verb, denote one dominion and the Divinity of three Persons. The insane Gnafevs, adding the words “crucified for us,” not only crucifies the Father and the Holy Spirit together with the Son, as Damascene says (book 3, chapter 54) (Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. III, 10 (54) // PG 94, 1020A), but also, according to Balsamon, imperceptibly introduces a fourth person into the Trinity and separately considers the Son of God and the crucified Christ separately. See also the theological interpretation of the Trisagion Song by Dositheus (ibid.) and by Damascene in the “Tale of the Trisagion Song” (Idem. De Trisag. // PG 95, 21A–61A) and in the “Exact Exposition” (book 3, chapter 10) (Idem. De fide orth. III, 10 (54) // PG 94, 1017B–1021C). This rule is mentioned by George Kedrin, which is why the papists who slander the rules of this Council and say that not a single historian has mentioned them are forced to remain silent here too. Pope Adrian also recognizes him in a letter to Tarasius (Synodikon. T. 2. pp. 747–749). Note that, according to this rule, it is not appropriate for artists to depict separately both on the Cross of Christ and on other icons the four animals that prefigured the four evangelists in the Old Law, but, giving preference to the truth, paint the evangelists in human form. I said “four animals separately,” because if the evangelists are depicted in human form, and the animals that represented them are depicted along with them, then, it seems to me, this is not sinful. This rule of the VI Council is mentioned both by the VII Council in Acts 6 and 4, and by Adrian in his first letter to Tarasius. After reading this rule, Elijah, presbyter of the Blachernae Church, who had previously been an iconoclast, corrected himself (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 780). See also the preface to the rules of this Council. Therefore, the VII Council in its letter to Alexandria (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 905) says that it is better to depict the Lady Theotokos as a virgin, and not as an ark, a rod, a lamp or any other type of Her. However, if prototypes of the Mother of God are written around Her, then I believe that this is not sinful. Zonara says that although the word τελευτώντων (lit. “dying”) in the strict sense means those who have not died, but are near death and have not yet died, nevertheless, the subsequent words of the rule explain that this should be understood in the sense of “deceased” and “dead.” Therefore, in other codes, instead of τελευτώντων, it is written τελευτησάντων (“dead”). After all, if someone is even at his last breath, it is appropriate to teach him the Divine Mysteries, according to I Om. 13 and the story of St. Dionysius, given in its place (see note 48 (2 to I Om. 13). Note that it is not proper to bury the dead inside the church, but those who do this sin grievously. St. Gregory the Dvoeslov tells (Evergetin. pp. 10 and 49) that once a nun who was chaste and abstained from shameful pleasures, but could not refrain from untimely conversations, was buried inside the church. And oh horror! That night, the man guarding the church sees in a revelation how some brought this nun to the holy altar and sawed her in the middle. They threw one half into the fire and burned it, but the other remained like that. In the morning he told about this extraordinary vision to the Christians present there. Moreover, the same saint says that when the patrician Valerian, who lived in his time, died in a city called Brixia, the bishop of that city took money from his relatives and provided them with a place in the church for the burial of the remains of Valerian, who lived badly until his old age. And then the next night St. martyr Faustin, in whose name the church was founded, appears to the promonitor and guardian of this church and says to him: “Go and tell the bishop to throw out of my church this unclean body that he buried here, and if he does not do this, he will die in thirty days.” Prosmonar was afraid to announce the vision to the bishop, and the saint appeared again and told him the same thing, but he, being afraid again, did not reveal this to the bishop. Therefore, when the thirtieth day arrived, the bishop, being healthy, went to bed in the evening and - oh horror! - did not rise again, but died a sudden death. Hear, bishops, hear, priests, hear, all Christians in general who allow the bodies of the dead to be buried in holy churches, and especially the inhabitants of the islands where this God-hating and reprehensible custom is widespread, and find out what condemnation and punishment from God (as the same Gregory adds) the souls of the dead are exposed to, because they are buried in the church, both those bishops and priests who allow this, and relatives of the dead who wish this. You believe that you are benefiting the dead when you bury them in the church, and you do not know that by doing this you are undoubtedly bringing torment and punishment upon them. After all, if that nun, who was defeated only by untimely and idle talk, was sawn apart and burned in the fire because she was buried in a church, then what, therefore, will those who sinned with many words and deeds endure after they die and are buried in churches? For the love of God, holy bishops, forbid your Christians such great evil and command them to dig graves for the dead outside the church. Oh, what great evil! On the one hand, Christians bring incense and incense in order to appease God with them, so that the church smells fragrant and incense is poured out on the Christians gathered in it, and on the other hand, the same ones bury the stinking bodies of the dead, from the stench of which God turns away, and the church is filled with a stench, and Christians plug their noses and run from the church as if from fire and repeatedly curse the buried. Is it possible to find greater absurdity and stupidity than this? If rule VI Omni. 97 commands that no living person should remain even in those places of the church that are intended for the catechumens, then how much more inappropriate is it for dead bodies, filled with stench and stench, to remain in the church itself? Therefore, John of Kitra resolutely prohibits burying the bodies of the dead inside the renovated church. Balsamon says the same thing (Greco-Roman law. Answer 38. p. 382). And St. Ephraim in his will begs not to bury him in the church, saying: “I adjure you: do not allow me to be buried in the house of God, under the altar or in any other place in the church of God, because it is not proper for a rotten and stinking worm to be buried in the church and sanctuary of the Lord. And whoever dares to do this may not see the heavenly altar and may not be worthy of a church in the Kingdom of Heaven!” (TLG 4138/156. 401. 1–6). Let us tremble, brothers, and be afraid. After all, if God-bearing Ephraim did not consider himself worthy of burial in the church, then how much more unworthy are sinners to be buried in the church? Alas and woe to those who do such things! It is equally appropriate to punish those who do not go to the church where some of their relatives are buried. What are you doing, reckless man? Do you not know that by the very thing you are doing, namely not going to church, you are entering into enmity with God and his saints and fighting with them because your relative has died? And who are you that you fight with God, Who arranges everything, both life and death, for good? In addition, confessors must punish those women or men who go to the graves of their relatives and cry, as if they have no hope that they will be resurrected, and forbid them to do this. They, foolish ones, do not understand that the death of Orthodox Christians is not death, but a kind of sleep from which they must awaken on the day of resurrection. This thousandfold barbaric, bad custom is still widespread in Moldo-Vlahia, and in its metropolitan areas there are often learned and prudent rulers, chiefs and bishops who are well aware of this shameless, harmful and bad custom. Ioan. Chrysost. Nom. in Hebr. 4. 5–6 // PG 63, 44–45. This is what it says in the acts of the Council of Carthage. Or also in cases where children were found abandoned on the road or at the door of a church, as happens with illegitimate children, and it is not known whether they were baptized. See Deut. 17:6; 19:15 ; Matt. 18:16. That’s why the 60th book. "Basilik", tit. 38, ch. 1, commands that a daughter be freed from submission to her father, and a slave from submission to her master, if the father and master seek to make them harlots. If they themselves do not want to free themselves from such subordination, they must be exiled and their property confiscated. In addition, 2nd ch. punishes brothel keepers and pimps in the same way, that is, with exile if they are ordinary people, and if they are military men - with deprivation of property. Photius (Tit. 13, Ch. 21) says that the one who knows that his wife is committing fornication and remains silent is called a pimp (Vasiliki. Book 24, Tit. 2, Ch. 14). I said “by condescension” because, according to Vasily the Great. 59, seven years is the penance of fornicators, not adulterers, and, therefore, in the present rule adulterers are punished only as fornicators. However, according to Ankir. 20, seven years is the penance of adulterers, and therefore the punishment in the present rule is no longer imposed by leniency: adulterers bear the penance of adulterers, and not of fornicators. See note. to Vasily the Great. 22. I said that the husband of the wife who abandoned her husband, although he was not guilty of adultery, and married another, can marry a second time. However, if a wife only renounces her husband, who is not guilty of adultery, but does not marry another, but remains so, then her husband is not allowed to take another wife: both parties must either remain celibate, or reconcile and unite again, according to Carthage. 113. Therefore, the divine Epiphanius says the same as it is said in this rule: “All people spend six days before Easter in dry eating, namely, at this time they consume bread, salt and water in the evening” (Epiph. De fide 22 // PG 42, 828BC). The end of fasting, which, as stated in this rule, should occur after midnight, in those days among ancient Christians, according to Balsamon, usually occurred in a different way, but this method is completely uncommon in modern times. Others say that the word ἀπονηστίζεσθαι, i.e. “to end the fast,” means eating cheese, eggs and Easter food in general - they draw this conclusion from Chapter 19. 5th book. "Apostolic Constitutions" (PG 1, 893C). However, one way or another, after midnight, Christians should first listen to the entire Sunday Matins, wait until the end of the Divine Liturgy, and then break the fast and eat Easter food with joy and joy. Indeed, the Apostolic Constitutions (ibid.) say: “Therefore you also, since the Lord has risen, offer your sacrifice, which He commanded you through us, saying: Cue do in remembrance of Me (Luke 22:19) and then fast with joy” (PG 1, 893C). Do you see that the “Resolutions” say that first the liturgy should be celebrated, and then we should break our fast? Therefore, those who hold eggs or cheese in their bosoms and, as soon as they hear “Christ is Risen!”, begin to stuff their mouths with it all, are worthy of condemnation, extremely enslaved to the belly and insatiable. Let them stop this outrage once and for all. However, it is not appropriate for parents to allow their children such outrage. We say that the Lord rose on Sunday precisely because, according to Blastar (letter “N”, chapter 3) and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem (in “Geography”), the day for church people begins at the seventh hour of the night and ends at six o’clock the next night, and the work that is accomplished in twenty-four hours of this day and night is and is recognized as accomplished in one day. Let us note here that on the day of the Resurrection the kiss was performed twice. The first is in the morning in the royal palace and especially in churches when singing “Resurrection Day” at the end of Matins. The second - in the evening in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, when all the archons kissed the emperor, as Kuropalate narrates (Kuropalat of the Palace of Constantinople George Kodin - Greek writer of the 15th century, author of the book “On the ceremonies of the Palace of Constantinople” (De officialibus palatii Constantinopolitani etc.). Published in Lyon in 1588), saying: “The Emperor sits on throne, while the great domestic bears the sword... and all the archons, even to the last, upon entering, first kiss the emperor’s right foot (for the sake of the autocracy of royal power. - St. H.), then his right hand (because the emperor is the anointed of Christ and the defender of the Church, as Simeon of Thessaloniki interprets. - St. H.), and after that his right cheek” (Codin. Curopal. De offic. 14 // PG 157, 89D) (because “the king and the warrior, the rich and the poor are equal in Christ”). Many people, out of ignorance, call this second kiss the second Resurrection. And about the custom of eating red eggs on the day of the Resurrection, many tell a lot of unreliable things, but Paisius of Gaza, a learned man, resolving some questions for the Russian Tsar, says that when the Jews said: His blood be on us and on our children (Matthew 27:25), immediately all the objects in their houses, and therefore the eggs, turned red. Therefore, in memory of the miracle, we also paint eggs red on the Day of Resurrection. And this miracle, according to him, is known to us from ancient legend. This refers to the rules: I Omni. 20, Petra Alexander. 15, Vasily the Great. 91. But when and by whom was this evangelical, apostolic and paternal custom of kneeling abolished in our Eastern Church? We do not know what to say exactly, but we assume that it should have been abolished after the schism, when, probably, some of our overly zealous people began to be hostile to the customs of the Western Church, and, consequently, against this canonical custom. And to be convinced of the truth of this assumption of ours, look at the end of the 3rd book. about the Christianity of our Meletius Pigas, the place where he talks about kneeling (p. 240 of the Bucharest edition). Therefore, the so-called “papalette” among Westerners, that is, the tonsure on the head of clergy, although it is canonical, was abolished by ours - see the 21st rule of this Council. Frequent communion of the Mysteries, accepted by the Latins, although it complies with the rules, has also been abolished by us - see the preface to the “Tomos of Love” - etc. And by kneeling I do not mean the so-called prostrations, but the prayer that we perform on our knees. Emperors Leo and Constantine in the “Eclogue of the Laws” (tit. 28) say that a woman who conceives from fornication, if she encroaches on her womb in order to cause a miscarriage, should be subjected to corporal punishment and sent into exile. Therefore, King David took back his wife Michal, who had married Phaltius for the second time, forgiving them, because, according to Theodoret’s explanation, Saul forcibly forced them into marriage and Michal was forced to marry a second time (2 Sam. 3:14) (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. In. II Reg. 11 // PG 80, 604C–605A). Note also that if the wife of the returned husband does not desire him, then it is in no way permissible for her to have a second husband, because both she and her second husband are adulterers and are called adulterers. That is why Nikita of Irakli says that if a woman’s husband goes to another country and acquires a concubine there, and the wife waits for him for three years, but he does not come, then her husband should separate from the concubine, and not from the wife; his wife cannot marry another man, but must remain so, because she is free to marry a second time only after the death of her husband, according to the word of the apostle (1 Cor 7:39) (Greco-Roman law, p. 310), and not during his life. In addition, Leo’s novella determines that if one of the spouses is captured, then the one remaining free cannot marry. If he does, the spouse who is in captivity has the right to take him (her) back when he is free and to dissolve the second marriage. In accordance with this rule, the 117th novel of Justinian, located in the 7th titus, also determines. 28th book. “Basilik” (Photius. Nomocanon. Tit. 13, ch. 3): if a soldier, or a scholar (a scholar is a soldier of the imperial guard), or a federate (the federates are barbarian settlers who were stationed according to an agreement (foedus) on the border territories of the empire with the obligation to perform military service for money or food), or some other armed warrior has been in during a military campaign and in war, the wife must wait for him, even if she does not receive letters from him. If she hears that he has died, let her not marry until either she or her parents make a request to the priors, charteraries and tribune (prior, charterary, tribune are the names of military positions) of the detachment in which her husband was, and they confirm in writing before the Gospel that her husband really died. However, even after receiving letters from them, she should not marry for another year after that. If she marries without observing the above conditions, then both she and the man who took her must be punished as adulterers and give 10 liters of gold to the soldier, her real husband, when he returns from the war. He has the right, if he wants, to take his wife back. The authority says that the fathers of the present Council determined that forgiveness for a second marriage should be received by those women who are ready to renounce their second husband and do not persist in this ignorant sin of a second marriage. However, one should not forgive those who resist and do not want to be separated from their second husbands (letter “G”, Chapter 5). Therefore, the divine Chrysostom, objecting to those who defend oaths, says (Discourse 8 about statues): “But what to do,” you tell me, “if you need to swear? Where there is a crime against the law, there is no place for any necessity. And is it possible, you say, not to swear at all? What are you saying? God has commanded, and you ask whether it is possible to keep His command? It is even more impossible not to keep His command than to keep it” (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 8.4 // PG 49, 102). And in another place he says (the First Catechetical Word to those preparing for enlightenment): “I want to eradicate some long-standing evil that has become a custom. I want, I repeat, to destroy not only bad and false oaths, but also good and true ones. But, you object to me, such and such a person, virtuous, having a sacred rank, chaste and reverent, swore - he took an oath. However, I will answer you to this: do not tell me that a virtuous man, having a sacred rank, chaste and reverent, swore. If you like, you could just as well tell me that the one who took the oath is Peter, or Paul, or an angel from heaven: even if we assume that such great ones swore, I will not retreat before their greatness. After all, the law that prohibits all oaths and which I read to you is not the law of Peter, or Paul, or angels, or generally slaves like us, but the King of all, God Himself. When the royal charters are read, slaves must remain silent, no matter how dignified people they may be. Therefore, if you can claim that Christ commanded us to swear, or that Christ does not punish those who swear, show where He says this, and I will submit. If Christ with such zeal forbids us to swear and is so concerned that there should be no oaths at all, that he puts the swearer on an equal footing with the evil one (i.e., the devil), for he says: What is beyond this is from the evil one (Matthew 5:37) - why are you pointing out so-and-so? After all, God will judge the one who swears, not because another of his fellow servants swore earlier out of frivolity, but because he himself violated the prescription of His law. “I commanded,” He will say to him on the day of judgment, “it was fitting for you to obey My command, and not to refer to one and the other and to engage in the crimes of others.” who are liable for this crime, because God is no respecter of persons” (Ibid. 1.5 // PG 49, 230). Therefore, Basil the Great, in his “Penances,” excommunicates men for one week if they swear any oath other than the words “yes” and “no” (Basil. Magn. Poenae 6 // PG 31, 1308A), and excommunicates women who have sworn any oath for two weeks (Idem. Epitimia in canonicas 1 // PG 31, 1313C). In addition, Chrysostom himself (Discourse 5 on statues; Discourse 17 on the Gospel of Matthew) punishes those who swore with empty, generally accepted oaths by having to go to bed without dinner, hungry, provided that he reforms (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 5. 7 // PG 49, 79). If he does not correct himself, then he is excommunicated from holy communion and from the Church, just as fornicators, adulterers and murderers are excommunicated (Idem. Hom. in Matt. 17.7 // PG 57, 264). The same Chrysostom (Discourses 5, 14 and 15 on statues; Selections from various words: Homily 28 on oaths) punishes with the same penances both those who break an oath and those who force them to break or take an oath (see respectively: Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 5. 7 // PG 49, 79; Ibid. 14. 3. // PG 49, 148; Ibid. 15. 5 // PG 49, 161; Eclogae ex diversis homiliis // PG 63, 773). After all that has been said, let both Balsamon (when interpreting the 29th rule of Basil) and his followers, who claim that giving good and true oaths is a legal matter, be ashamed and stop their lips, firstly, because the royal laws allow oaths, and secondly, because it is generally characteristic of the perfect not to swear, but to swear imperfect and, therefore, it is impossible for the commandments to be observed everyone. So, to the first argument we answer what we have already said in different places, namely: kings often make laws that are not beneficial, according to Chrysostom (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 16. 2 // PG 49, 164), and, in the opinion of the kings themselves, all those laws that contradict the divine canons, and especially the Divine Scriptures and Gospels, should be abolished. And to the second argument we answer that all the commandments, therefore the commandment about oaths, must be observed by all Christians. Therefore, on the one hand, the Lord commanded the apostles to teach the faithful to observe everything that He commanded them, without any exception, and did not allow one to be observed and not another, and said that the one who breaks one of the least commandments will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19). On the other hand, Basil the Great (preface to the extensively stated rules) says: the fact that we become judges of the Lawgiver God and choose some of His laws as good and neglect others, while He commanded us all to keep all His commandments, serves as a sign of arrogance (PG 31, 900B). If all the commandments were not necessary for our salvation, they would not have been written and they would not have been commanded to keep them all. We know that in the Old Testament Scripture true and legal oaths were permitted (Deut. 6:13; Ps. 62:12; Jer. 4:2 ~ and in other places) - yes, they were permitted, but they were not prescribed by law. Permission is one thing, and legislation is another. Oaths were allowed because of the imperfection and spiritual infancy of the Jews and for the purpose of avoiding idolatry. The Divine Gospel resolutely forbids anyone to swear not only by the name of God, but also by their own head, saying that if our righteousness does not exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees and the righteousness of the law in general, we will not be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (see Matt. 5:20). It is not proper to swear even by created things, because such an oath still applies to the Creator, according to Chrysostom. And the words I bear witness to your praise (1 Cop. 15:31) or I conjure you by the Lord (1 Thess. 5:27), etc., in which Paul calls on the name of God for confirmation, are the appearance of an oath, but not an oath, as Chrysostom says. Perhaps Paul says this, firstly, out of great need, involuntarily, and, secondly, not for the sake of any cause, human or generally related to this world, but he says this because of the threat to faith and simply for the sake of God and divine things, and, moreover, according to oikonomia, and not according to akrivia and law. If someone swears by God, suppose, for the sake of tens of thousands of gold, such a person resists and sins against the third commandment of the Decalogue, which commands not to take the name of God in vain (see Exodus 20:7), since the whole world and what is in the world is vanity, as worthless and perishable. Knowing this thanks to the innate and common law of conscience, Cleinias, the famous student of Pythagoras, although he was a pagan, did not swear, but paid a fine of three talents, which he could have avoided if he had taken a true oath, as Basil the Great testifies to this (Basil. Magn. Hom. 22.5 // PG 31, 577B). Note that civil laws punish oath-breakers after their oath has been revoked, that is, after it has been examined and found to be false; the sacred rules of those perjurers whose oath was canceled are assigned to the places of penitents, and those whose oath was not canceled are excommunicated only from communion, but not from the Church and prayer with the faithful. See chapter 18. 13th tit. "Nomocanon" of Photius and Balsamon's scholia on it, and especially Armenopoulus, book. 1, tit. 7. You should know that an oath on the Holy Gospel refers to God Himself, Who is present in the Gospel and speaks through it. I will also add the words of Athanasius the Great about the third commandment of the Decalogue: “If anyone is worthy to call God at all, then he, of course, deserves trust even without an oath: he who is capable of more is much more capable of less. But if he is not trustworthy without an oath, therefore, he is not worthy to name the name of God” (Athanas. Alex. De pass. et cruc. 4 // PG 28, 189C). See how this great father proves in two sentences that it is generally unnecessary to take an oath, which is why civil laws themselves do not require that credible witnesses swear. The VII Council also says in Act 6: “Let us not train our lips to swear, but let us hear the voice of the Lord saying: But I say to you: do not swear at all (Matthew 5:34).” Look and note. 1 to Apost. 75. To what has been said, let us add this brief, but worthy of mention, remark of Chrysostom: “If you believe that a person is sincere, do not convince him of the need for an oath, and if you know that he is lying, then do not force him to swear” (Homily 15 on statues. T. 6. P. 566) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 15. 5 // PG 49, 161). See also in the 14th word about statues how strictly he prohibits oaths (Ibid. 14 // PG 49, 143–152). See also the novella of Basil the Macedonian, Leo and Constantine (Greco-Roman Law. Book 2. P. 135), in which they clearly prohibit swearing and say that swearing is prohibited by the Divine Gospel and Scriptures and that since the changes and beginnings of this world are vanity, according to Solomon (see Eccl. 1:2-9), then when someone he swears in the name of God for their sake, he swears in vain, as we have already said. In other sources: “calling themselves pure and pure” (καθαρούς καί καθαρωτέρους). In other sources: “the best” (ἀρίστους). In other sources: καὶ ἐρχόμεναι (then this word agrees with the word “heresies”, and the translation will be: “since there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country”). Manes the Persian, having been a slave for a long time, was nicknamed Scythian, according to Theodoret (Heretical fables. Book 1, chapter 26) (Theod. Cyr. Haer. fab. I, 26 // PG 83, 377A). He was also called Kubrick, according to Epiphanius (chapter on heresy 66) (Epiph. Adv. haer. 66. 1 // PG 42, 29B). His followers later renamed him Manichaeus. He spread the evil of Basilides and Marcion in the 3rd century, according to Augustine (On heresies. Ch. 46). Among other things, according to Theodoret (ibid.), he said that after death souls enter birds, animals and reptiles (Theod. Cyr. Haer. fab. I, 26 // PG 83, 380C). Valentin, who lived in the 2nd century, said that Christ, having assumed the etheric body, passed through the Virgin, as if through a pipe, without receiving anything from Her (Tertullian. Book against the Valentinians. Ch. 15). The Valentinians denied the resurrection of bodies and rejected the Old Testament. Reading and interpreting the prophets, they, according to the anonymous interpreter of the rules, invented some fables and talked idle talk about other wicked things. Marcion was a follower of a certain Cerdon, who studied with Basilides and Sathorninus, followers of Simon Magus, according to Tertullian (Book of the Flesh of Christ). When one day this Marcion asked St. Polycarp, does he know who he is, the saint answered that he knows him very well: he is the firstborn son of the devil (Irenaeus. Book 3, chapter 3) (Iren. Contra haer. III, 3 // PG 7, 853B). Marcion said that there are three principles. The first is the invisible God, the second is the visible God and Creator of the world, and the third is the devil. He baptized not just once, but three times, allowing women to be baptized as well. According to the rule of Vasily the Great. 47, he abhorred marriage and wine, said that creation was unclean and that God was the creator of evil. Marcion lived in the 2nd century. We spoke about them in the preface to III Omni. See about them in the preface to IV Omni. The Encratites were so called because they were abstinent (ἐγκρατεύονται): they did not eat animal food, rejected marriage, like Marcion, and did not drink wine, according to Balsamon. The leader of their heresy was Tatian, a disciple of St. Justin, according to Theodoret (Theod. Cyr. Haer. fab. I. 20 // PG 83, 369CD). In the Mysteries they used only water, like hydroparastats, according to Epiphanius (chapter on heresy 47) (Epiph. Adv. haer. 47. 1 // PG 41, 852B). See also Vasily Velik. 86. Saccophores were called so because they wore rags (σάκκους), thereby showing that they supposedly had extreme abstinence and led a harsh life. The Apotactics were so called because they renounced the world (ἀποτάσσονται) and did not eat the same food that the Encratites did not eat. Note that Balsamon gives this very rule in his 29th answer in this form: “The same with the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and similar heretics (we accept them as pagans, that is, as wicked). The Nestorians must give receipts and anathematize their heresy, as well as Nestorius,” etc. If anyone is perplexed why this Council cited here this canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, which was issued against the Arians and Macedonians, who existed at that time, but almost disappeared during the VI Council, we answer: the VI Council had a need to renew the canon of the Second Council, perhaps for the sake of those who still remained above-mentioned heretics, but mainly for the sake of the Monothelites, of whom there were many during the VI Council. They are indicated, although not directly, by the words “their like-minded people” contained in the rule, for the heresy of the Monothelites was a branch and branch of the heresy of the Monophysites. After all, it is clear that those who thought that there was one will in Christ, thought, therefore, that there was one nature in Him; and if, according to the Monophysites, Christ had one nature, then He certainly had one will. Therefore, in order for the VI Council to make a determination on how these contemporary heretics should be baptized, it was necessary, out of respect for the II Ecumenical Council, to renew its rule, and not issue another, its own. But you, beloved, if you wish, learn that the baptism of all heretics in general is impious and blasphemous and has nothing in common with the baptism of the Orthodox. Read chapter 9. 7th book. Eusebius, and from there you will learn that one person, baptized by heretics, later saw how the Orthodox were baptized, began to cry and could not be consoled, but fell at the feet of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, asking him to baptize him with Orthodox baptism and saying that the baptism he received was full of blasphemy and had nothing at all to do with Orthodox baptism (PG 20, 653A–656A). And also understand from this that both heretics and Latins, when they come to the Eastern Orthodox Church, must themselves ask to be baptized, and not the Orthodox must persuade them to do so. According to Zonara, those who do not touch their heads with a razor at all and do not cut the hair on their heads, but specially allow them to grow to the waist, like women, fall under the excommunication of this rule, according to Zonara; and those who dye their hair to make it blond or golden, or roll it into bobbins to make it curly, or put wigs on their heads and use extensions. People who shave their beards so that after shaving their hair grows smoothly and beautifully and does not become frizzy, or so that they always look like beardless youths, are also subject to this excommunication; and also those who, with a hot shard, burn out hair from the beard that is longer or uneven compared to the rest, or pluck the hair on the face with small tweezers so that the face becomes tender and they look beautiful, or dye the beard, wanting to hide the fact that they are old. Those women who apply white and rouge to their faces in order to appear beautiful and thus arouse satanic passion in the men who look at them also fall under this excommunication. How can these unfortunates dare to dishonor the image given to them by God with vile decorations?! And how can God recognize His creation and image in them if they wear a different, devilish face and a different, satanic image?! Therefore, Gregory the Theologian says in his poems: “Women, do not build towers of false hair on your heads, breaking thin necks with these rocks. Do not cover the image of God with disgusting colors, wearing masks instead of faces... May the offended God not answer you like this: “Who? Where is this creator from? Answer, stranger to Me! I didn’t paint you as a dog, but I created My own image. Where did I get an idol instead of a kind image? "" (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. Moral. 29 // PG 37, 884A, 887A). They do not know, unfortunate ones, that by their actions they are likened to the famous sorceress and harlot Jezebel and they themselves become new, the next Jezebels, because she also used face paint to please men, as it is written: And Jehu came to Jezreel, and Jezebel heard, and darkened her eyes, and adorned her head, and leaned out of the window (2 Kings 9:30). All men and women who do this are excommunicated by this Ecumenical Council. And if this is forbidden to ordinary laity, then how much more so to clergy and clergy, who must, in word and deed (namely, by having a modest appearance, not decorating clothes, hair and beard) teach the laity not to be carnalists and dandies, but to love the soul and virtues? Note that this rule denounces Latin priests who shave their mustaches and beards and look like young grooms, pretty and effeminate. After all, God generally forbids shaving beards, even to the laity, saying in the book of Leviticus: Do not spoil the edges of your beard (Lev. 19:27). And he specifically forbids the clergy to shave their beards, commanding Moses to tell the sons of Aaron, that is, the priests, not to shave the edges of their beards (Lev. 21:5). God not only forbade this in words, but also appeared to Daniel with a beard, in the image of the Ancient Denmi (Dan. 7:9). And the Son of God wore a beard during His coming in the flesh. Likewise, the forefathers, the patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles had beards, as can be seen in the most ancient icons, on which they are depicted with beards. By the way, the saints of Italy, such as Ambrose, Benedict - the father of monks, Gregory Dvoeslov and others, wore beards, as can be seen in their images in the Church of St. Stamp in Venice. And the very reasoning of common sense admits that cutting a beard is absurd. After all, a beard is the visible sign by which a man is distinguished from a woman. Therefore, one philosopher, when asked why he grows a beard, replied: “Every time I touch my beard, I feel that I am a man, not a woman.” Those who shave their beards have a feminine, not a masculine face. Therefore, Epiphanius condemns the Messalians for cutting their beards, which give men their characteristic appearance (Epiph. Adv. haer. 80.7 // PG 42, 765D). The Apostles in the “Ordinances” (Book 1, Chapter 3) command that no one shave their beards or change the natural appearance of a man to an unnatural one. They say: “What the Creator God recognized as decent for a woman, He considered inappropriate for a man” (PG 1, 568A). This innovation - cutting beards - appeared in the Roman Church shortly before Leo IX, and Gregory VII even forced bishops and clergy to do this. Oh, what a most shameful and disgusting sight - to see the successor of Peter cut short, as the Greeks say (ἐν χρῷ), that your groom, with the only difference that he wears an epitrachelion and an omophorion, sits at the head of a cathedral of many like him and is called pope. However, even after the mad Gregory, bearded popes did not disappear, as evidenced by the fact that Gelasius II, as written in his life, grew a beard (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. pp. 776–778). And Meletius the Confessor (question 7 about unleavened bread) says that the king detained a certain Pope Peter for his dishonorable deeds and cut off half his beard in order to dishonor him. Addition (The following fragment does not belong to St. Nicodemus, but was added during the first edition by Theodoret of Esphigmena, as evidenced by the mark in the Greek text of the “Pidalion” - Ἑτέρου. Two similar notes are also found in note 4 of the preface to the rules of the Council of Hagia Sophia and at the end of the interpretation of the rule of the Council of Carthage at the Council of Saint Sophia. Cyprians. For more information about this, see: Bondach A. G. History and content of Pidalion // BV 11–12. pp. 127–128.): in some churches rulers with beards were also depicted, and among them were clergy; in Leipzig in the church in the name of Paul and in the church of Thomas these can be seen depicted next to Martin Luther. I saw the same thing in Bratislava. St. Nicephorus says in his 3rd rule that if someone remains in the vestibule of the church out of necessity and for a short time, for example, for one day, then he is not condemned; but if he remains for a long time, let him be expelled from there by imposing penance, and let the advantages of the church be restored, that is, it will not become an ordinary house, no different from others. The royal laws also command that anyone who, taking advantage of his power and authority, detains someone who has sought refuge in the church, should be subjected to corporal punishment, tonsured into monasticism and then exiled. However, bishops and ecdics of churches must write down the names of those seeking refuge and the reasons why they resorted to the church, and announce them to the archons, so that they do not carry out the prescribed judgment. In accordance with this rule, Chapter 2 also determines. 58th tit. 60th book. "Basilik" and the 3rd position of the 12th chapter. 37th tit. the same 60th book: the one who takes as his wife a woman engaged to another is condemned as an adulterer (see: The Teaching on Marriages. Chapter 11). Therefore, it is appropriate for the bishops, under the threat of the strictest penances, to prohibit Christians from what in Turkish is called “Kurbani” (κουρμπάνι - a lamb slain on the Eid al-Adha holiday), which they are currently performing and which represent a kind of renewal of pagan and Jewish sacrifices. After all, just as the pagans and Jews believed that they propitiated God with the blood and slaughter of sheep and other animals, so these erring and insane Christians believe that they propitiated God with the slaughter and sacrifice of lambs. And therefore one can see that these Kurbanists do not buy some sheep slaughtered and prepared by others, but want to slaughter them themselves, light candles on their horns, fumigate them with incense, roast them whole, place them in front of holy icons, freshly roasted and still smoking, and dedicate their skin to a church or monastery. And returning from such a celebration, they bring some parts of the sacrifices to their relatives and friends, so that they too receive sanctification from them. O pagan delusion and Jewish superstition! These lost ones do not know that God wants mercy, not sacrifice, and that the sacrifice accepted by Him and acceptable to Him is not the meat of sheep and calves, but a contrite spirit and a humble heart, as the divine David sings. Read about this the book of the Bishop of Campania (chapter 57) περιέχον συνοπιικῶς καὶ διαλαμβάνον περὶ Θεοῦ, περὶ πίστεως, ?? καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαιοτέρων τῆς Ίερᾶς Εκκλησίας ἐθίμων Βενετία, 1780). Although Niketas, Chartophylax and Bishop of Thessaloniki (Greco-Roman Law. p. 350), says that there is nothing reprehensible in Christians outside the church offering the breasts and skins of animals to the priests or offering doves in memory of the dead, he nevertheless adds that this is not reprehensible only if such offerings are intended for the priests as food, but not if all this is offered as a sacrifice and causes such numerous gross superstitions, which we mentioned above. Because of these superstitions, it is appropriate to completely stop such sacrifices. The way in which the laity of that time accepted the Holy Bread into their hands is more clearly described by Cyril of Jerusalem (Sacramental Instruction 5): “When you approach the Sacraments, do not straighten the palms of your hands and do not spread your fingers, but placing your right hand on top of your left hand, because it is about to receive the King, and making a depression in your palm, then accept the Body of Christ, saying “Amen.” After you accept it, sanctify your eyes, bringing it closer to them with caution, and then partake of it, carefully making sure that not a single pearl is lost from it,” etc. (Cyr. Hieros. Mystag. 5. 21 // PG 33, 1124B–1125A). Note that this rule denounces those who say that the divine Chrysostom invented the spoon for communion. In fact, the custom of Christians to take Holy Bread into their hands was widespread after Chrysostom for at least 400 years, as is clear both from the words of this Council and from the words of John of Damascus, who talks about this custom in the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” (Book 4, Chapter 14) (Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. IV, 13 (86) // PG 94, 1149A). And Chrysostom himself talks about this custom in many words: in the interpretation of the 49th Psalm (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ps. 49. 8 // PG 55, 253), word 6 about the seraphim (Idem. In illud: vidi Dom. 6. 3 // PG 56, 139), word 21 about the statues (Idem. Ad popul. Antioch. 20. 7 // PG 49, 208); see also his life, written by Metaphrastus (Sym. Metaph. Vita s. Ioan. Chrysost. // PG 114, 1045–1209). But you should know that in the Western Church women did not receive the Holy Bread with their bare hands, but by covering their hands with certain white handkerchiefs (ὀράρια), as the Local Council in the city of Antisiodor defines this in the 36th rule and as Augustine says in the 252nd word. This handkerchief was called Dominicale, which means “of the Lord” in Latin, because it was brought to church to receive the Body of Christ on the Lord’s Day. The reason for the invention of the spoon for communion was that some people - pretending to be Christians, or heretics, or superstitions - took the Holy Bread in their hands, either threw it, or hid it, or used it for witchcraft and other crafty deeds. Therefore, when, thanks to the invention of the spoon, Holy Communion began to be taught by mouth, then any reason for such a disdainful attitude towards the sacrament was eliminated (see also Eustratius’ book “On the Sacraments,” pp. 301–303). But some suggest that there was another, more fundamental reason, namely the convenience of teaching the Mysteries. In ancient times, almost every church had its own deacon, and therefore, according to apostolic tradition, the priest taught the Divine Body, and the deacon, standing next to the holy chalice, administered the Divine Blood. But since later there were no deacons in most churches (which we know from our own experience), especially in villages and poor churches, and for this reason it became difficult for the priest alone to teach the Gifts separately, then for convenience, for reasons of economy, a spoon was invented so that after combining the Gifts, it would be easy for the priest to teach them, and especially to infants. In other sources: σταίη. In other sources: ἐπιδοῦναι. The custom is various penances for a given number of years: the rules tend to admonish sinners with such penances in most cases, be they laymen or clergy. Akrivia is that sinners add to these long-term penances hatred of sin, toil of the heart, tears, bodily oppression and other good deeds, because from the mere duration of the punishment the correction is small. The patristic rules themselves, and especially I Ecumenical, teach about these two means, acrivia and custom. 12, which you should read. The fact that every confessor should have the right to officiate and should not be either deposed for open crimes or defrocked for secret ones is testified by Simeon of Thessaloniki (answer 11): “He who receives confession of thoughts must bless, and read the prayer of permission, and perform the liturgy, and give communion to those confessing, and be an intercessor for the repentant” (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 10–13 // PG 155, 864C). And John of Kitras clearly says in one answer (preserved in manuscripts): “Whoever, voluntarily or against his will, has relinquished his priesthood cannot accept confession.” And priests who accept thoughts and confess without the permission of the bishop, according to the above-mentioned Simeon (same answer), sin in the same way as the one who performs sacred rites, being uninitiated (Ibid. // PG 155, 864A). According to Balsamon (commentary on Carthage 7), Patriarch Michael said that such people should be cast out as violators of the rules, since the rules cast out those who have done something outside their area. Unordained monks, as well as nuns, should not confess, because this is against the rules. Therefore, Balsamon (answer 34) says that if the uninitiated abbot of the monastery cannot accept confession of thoughts, even having received permission from the bishop, then even more so the abbess and nun cannot do this, even if her virtue shone brighter than the sun (Obviously, here by “acceptance of thoughts” is meant confession before a priest, with the goal of absolution of sins (it may be short and may not be of a spiritual nature instructions). This is also evidenced by the theme of this canon: we are talking about penances and absolution, and not about spiritual guidance, which today is called monastic confession of thoughts and which has always been the responsibility of monastic mentors. This practice is reflected in the existence of a double “confession” among monastics - careful, detailed spiritual guidance from their elder and a short confession without details from their confessor). And Nicephorus Chartophylax says that monks who are not priests and who accept confession should know that they are doing this contrary to the canons (Greco-Roman Law, p. 342). See also note. to Apost. 39. The already mentioned Simeon adds (answer 11) that if there is an extreme need and there is neither a bishop nor a confessor, then a simple monk can accept thoughts, but after that he must declare them either to the bishop or to the one who has the right to serve as a spiritual father.