О святом Вселенском седьмом соборе

The Holy Ecumenical Seventh Council was convened in Nicaea of ​​Bithynia, for the second time in this city, under Constantine and his mother Irene in 783 A.D. [378]. It was attended by 350 Orthodox fathers [379], but they were joined by 17 more, who had previously been iconoclasts, and then repented and were accepted by the Council. Consequently, there were a total of 367 fathers at the Council. Influential and prominent among them were Tarasius of Constantinople, Peter, the Roman archpresbyter, and another Peter, also a presbyter and abbot of the monastery of St. Savvas in Rome (who took the place of Pope Hadrian), Thomas, syncellus and hieromonk, and John hieromonk [380], who replaced the primates of the apostolic sees, i.e. Apollinaris of Alexandria [381], Theodoret of Antioch and Elijah of Jerusalem [382]. The monks had great power at this Council, since 136 archimandrites of the monasteries were present at it. This Council was convened against the wicked iconoclasts who slandered Christians. The council anathematized them, and especially Anastasia, Constantine and Nikita, who under the iconoclasts were the false patriarchs of Constantinople, since they not only did not kiss the holy icons and did not worship them, but also called them idols [383], put them on fire, trampled underfoot, threw them into the streets and insulted them in every possible way. In addition, by the 6th act, the Council refuted the false definition of faith that took place under Constantine Copronymus at Blachernae (this definition of faith was read by deacons Epiphanius and John), and proclaimed St. Germanus, John of Damascus and George of Cyprus, setting out in the 7th act a definition of faith, which literally reads as follows: “We determine with all severity and diligence that, like the image of the Honest and Life-Giving Cross, honest and holy icons, painted with paints or mosaic or other suitable material, are placed in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and gates, in houses and along roads - icons of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, our Most Pure Lady the Holy Theotokos, honest angels [ 384 ] and all saints. For the more often they become objects of contemplation through their images on icons, the more those who look at them are raised to the memory of the prototypes and love for them. It is appropriate to kiss these icons and give them reverent worship (τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), but, of course, this is not true service in accordance with our faith (λατρεία), which befits the Divine nature alone (service is defined by Basil the Great as intense, incessant and undistracted care about what we serve, see rule 230 from briefly stated 385), but such worship that is given to the image of the Honest and Life-Giving Cross, the holy Gospels and other sacred objects. We also determine to offer incense and candles in their honor, which was a pious custom among the ancients. After all, the honor of the image goes back to the prototype [386], and the one who worships the icon worships the hypostasis of the one who is depicted on it 387. This is the basis of the teaching of our holy fathers, that is, the tradition of the Catholic Church, which accepted the Gospel from one end to the other.” Along with all this, the Council, in its 8th act, set out 22 real rules necessary for the deanery and organization of the Church. These rules, like the entire holy VII Ecumenical Council, were approved by the Council held after it in Hagia Sophia and by all interpreters of the rules. The minutes of this Council, contained in eight acts, are found in the Synodikon (vol. 2, p. 719). After the minutes are placed various letters relating to the present Council. 22 Rules of the Holy Ecumenical Seventh Council with interpretations For those who have received the priestly dignity as inheritance, examples of canonical decrees serve as evidence and guidance, accepting which with joy, the God-speaking David and I sing to the Lord God, saying: In the path of Your revelations I have enjoyed myself as if in all riches (Ps. 119:14) and In Your revelations You have commanded righteousness forever: Give me understanding, and I will live (see Ps. 119:138 ~ and 144). And if the prophetic voice commands us to preserve the testimonies of God forever and live in them, then it is clear that they remain unshakable (ἀκράδαντα) and unshakable. Moses, the seer of God, speaks about this as follows: It is not proper to add to this or subtract from that (see Deut. 12:32). And the divine ap. Peter, boasting about them, exclaims: What angels desire to penetrate (1 Pet. 1:12). And Paul says: But even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach to you a gospel other than what you received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). Since this is true and has been witnessed before us, we have joy similar to that with which someone would rejoice if he found great spoils (Ps. 118:162), with love we accept the divine rules and keep intact and without changes their commands, set forth by the trumpets of the Spirit, the all-praised apostles, as well as the six holy Ecumenical Councils, and the councils that met locally to set forth such decrees, and our holy fathers. All of them, being enlightened by the same Spirit, determined what was useful. And those whom they anathematize, we anathematize; those who are cast out, we also cast out; those who are excommunicated, we also excommunicate. And whoever they subject to penance, we also impose the same penance. Have a disposition that does not love money, being content with what you have (Heb. 13:5), clearly cries out the divine Apostle Paul, who ascended to the third heaven and heard unspeakable verbs. (IV Universe 1; VI Universe 2.) The divine rules for initiates are testimonies [388] because they testify and show them how to live. And they are called guidance because if they are followed, they correct the life of the initiates and guide it. So, this Council, joyfully accepting these rules, in this rule sings to God, who so determined, these prophetic words of David, proclaiming the following: “I have rejoiced, O Lord, in Your testimonies, just as I would have rejoiced if I had found all the riches of the world. And You commanded that I should forever keep Your testimonies, with which You made me wise, and I will live in them.” And if this voice of the prophet commands us to keep the testimonies of God forever and live in them, then it is clear that they also remain eternal and unshakable (for, according to the interpretation of Zonara, the Greek word κράδη refers to a fragile and easily broken branch of a fig tree, and that which is hard and motionless is called unshakable (ἀκράδανχα) Therefore, Moses commands that no one add anything to the Law or subtract from it. The Supreme Peter also boasts of these testimonies, saying that the angels desire to penetrate into what the apostles revealed to us, preaching the gospel by the Spirit of God. And Paul anathematizes anyone who preaches the gospel contrary to what was delivered to him, even if he were an angel. Therefore, we, rejoicing over the divine rules, just as warriors rejoice when they find a lot of booty from the enemies they have defeated (as David speaks about this), we joyfully embrace them, and consolidate, and approve - those rules that were set out both by the holy apostles and by the six Ecumenical Councils, as well as by Local Councils and individual fathers - anathematizing those whom they anathematize; disgorging those whom they disgorge; excommunicating those whom they excommunicate. And it’s easier to say by punishing those whom they punish. Just as those whose disposition is not money-loving are content with the goods they possess, as Paul speaks of, so we do not add or subtract anything, but are content with what is determined by the rules of the holy fathers [389]. See IV Universe. 1, as well as the preface to the rules at the beginning of the book. Since we promise God during psalmody: I ​​will learn Your statutes, I will not forget Your words (Ps. 119:16), then it is saving for all Christians to observe this, and especially for those clothed with priestly dignity. Therefore, we determine: anyone who will be elevated to the rank of bishop must certainly know the Psalter so that he can teach his entire clergy from it. The Metropolitan must carefully test the appointed one, whether he can zealously, and not superficially, study the sacred rules, the Holy Gospel, the book of the divine Apostle and all Divine Scripture, as well as live according to the divine commandments and teach the people entrusted to him. The essence of our hierarchy is the words given to God, that is, the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures, as the great Dionysius showed. If the one being appointed contradicts and does not express a joyful readiness to do so and teach, let him not accept ordination, because God said through the prophet: Since you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you from serving Me as a priest (Hos. 4:6). All lay Christians should learn from the justifications of God and not forget His words, as they chant every day in the psalms and promise with the prophet, and especially and most of all this befits the clergy. Therefore, this rule determines: anyone who is preparing to become a bishop must certainly know the meaning of the Psalter in order to teach his people from it and so that they too may learn. Let the metropolitan also carefully test whether he has the zeal to study not superficially and only in letter, but deeply and with a comprehension of the meaning, the sacred rules that we listed above, the Holy Gospel, the Apostle and all divine Scripture - and not only study, but also live as they prescribe, and teach his flock according to them. Since, as Dionysius the Areopagite shows [390], the essence and basis of the church hierarchy are the words given to God, that is, true comprehension and accurate knowledge of the Divine Scriptures, he who hesitates and does not strive to study them and teach others, let him not become a bishop, because God speaks through the prophet. Hosea: “You yourself have rejected the knowledge of My laws, and I will reject you, so that you are not My priest” (see Hos. 4:6). In accordance with this rule, the Carthage rule also determines. 24: “Those who are going to consecrate a bishop or cleric must first teach them the rules of the sacred Councils, so that those being consecrated, acting in accordance with the definitions and rules of the fathers, do not later repent of having violated them” [391]. Therefore, God not only commands the one who becomes the ruler of the people to read Deuteronomy all his life, in order to learn from this book the fear of God and observance of all His commandments, but also encourages him to rewrite it with his own hand: And when he sits on the throne of his power, let him write Deuteronomy for himself from the book that is kept by the priests of the Levites (Deut. 17:18). And the reason why He commands the ruler to rewrite the book himself is the following: the one who only reads easily forgets the meaning of what he reads, and the one who also writes imprints the meaning of the book in his memory, since he has the convenient time and freedom to think over thoughts separately and, before he understands one well, not to write down another, - this is how Philo the Jew interprets. And if God encourages external rulers to do this, then how much more so do internal rulers, namely the shepherds of their flock, the bishops? Any election of a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, made by the rulers, must remain invalid, according to the rule that says: “If a bishop, having resorted to temporal rulers, with their help achieves power over the Church, let him be deposed and excommunicated, as well as all those in communion with him.” Anyone who will be promoted to the episcopate must be elected by the bishops, as defined in Nicaea by the holy fathers in the canon that reads: “It is most fitting for all bishops of the metropolitan region to appoint a bishop. If this is difficult, either due to circumstances constraining them, or due to the distance of the journey, then at least three must gather in one place, provided that those absent give their consent by expressing it through letters, and then let the ordination take place. Approval of these actions must be granted in each region to its metropolitan.” (Apost. 1, 2, 30, 61; I Oed. 4; Laodice. 5, 13; Carthage. 59; Timothy Alexander. 7.) This rule is compiled from Apost. 30 and I Omni. 4, the interpretation of which is in its place, so that we do not repeat it here (since we have already explained them). This rule contains only the following feature: any election of a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, which was made by the authority and power of the rulers, remains invalid; let bishops be elected bishops in the manner previously explained. And the fact that elders and deacons are also elected is especially clear from this rule - see note about this. to Apost. 2. The interpretation of the Apostle shows that Christians, following the bishops, should elect those who will be ordained. 61. See also Apostle. 1 and 2 and note. to Laodice. 5. The preacher of truth, the divine Apostle Paul, establishing, as it were, a rule for the Ephesian elders, but rather for the entire priestly class, boldly said: I did not covet silver, nor gold, nor clothing from anyone... In everything I showed you that, while working in this way, it is necessary to support the weak, believing that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:33 ~ and 35). Therefore, we, taught by him, determine that the bishop should not, out of shameful self-interest, inventing excuses for sins 392, demand gold, or silver, or anything else from the bishops, or clergy, or monks subordinate to him. After all, the apostle says: The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9) and: Children should not gather up wealth for their parents, but parents for their children (2 Cor. 12:14). So, if it turns out that someone, for the sake of extorting gold or something else, or due to some passion of his (ἰδιοπάθειαν) [ 393 ], does not allow any of the clergy subordinate to him to serve and excommunicates any of the clergy subordinate to him, or closes the sacred church so that divine services are not performed in it, then such a person, since he turns his fury on insensitive objects, is truly devoid of feelings, and let will endure the same thing, and his anger will turn on his head (Ps. 7:17), as a violator of the commandments of God and the apostolic decrees. After all, Peter, the chief of the apostles, also instructs: Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, not under compulsion, but willingly and pleasing to God. Not for vile gain, but out of zeal. Not by lording over the inheritance of God, but by setting an example to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive an unfading crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:2–4). Since the great Paul, both in word and deed, encourages the bishops of Ephesus, and through them - all subsequent bishops, not to covet silver, or gold, or clothes, but with the labor of their hands to help the weak and needy, and proclaims that it is more blessed to give than to receive, 394 then this rule decrees that no bishop, out of shameful self-interest, should demand gold, or silver, or any other thing from him as a debt. bishops, or clergy, or monks subordinate to him, because such a demand is unrighteous, and the unrighteous - according to the same apostle - will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and because it is not children who should collect property to give to their parents, but parents to give to their children. So, a bishop who is convicted of removing from service or excommunicating any priest or clergyman or closing a church in order to receive money or for some other passion of his, let him suffer the same, that is, let him be removed from service or excommunicated by his metropolitan, if he is a bishop, and by his patriarch, if he is a metropolitan. Supreme Peter instructs the bishops as follows: “Shepherd God’s flock not with coercion and tyrannically, but willingly and godly, not for vile gain, but out of zeal, not dominating the clergy, but setting an example and image for the flock; so that when the Chief Shepherd Christ appears at His second coming, we may receive from Him the unfading crown of glory.” Sin leading to death (1 John 5:16) is a sin when those who sin it remain incorrigible. But worse than this is when they rebel against piety and truth with arrogance, preferring mammon to obedience to God and not adhering to His canonical decrees. There is no Lord God in such people if they, having humbled themselves, do not become sober from their delusion. After all, it is more appropriate for them to approach God and with a contrite heart to pray for forgiveness of this sin and for forgiveness, and not to be vain with illegal giving, because the Lord is close to the broken-hearted (Ps. 33:19). So, those who boast that they received rank in the Church for gold, and rely on this vicious custom, alienating them from God and any sacred degree, and therefore with a shameless face openly dishonor with abusive words those who are chosen by the Holy Spirit for a virtuous life and numbered among the clergy without giving gold - let those who do so first take the last degree of their rank, and if they persist, let them be corrected penance. If it turns out that someone did this 395 at the ordination, then let him be punished according to the words of the apostolic canon: “If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon takes possession of this dignity for money, let both he and the one who ordained him be deposed; and let him be completely cut off from fellowship, like Simon by me, Peter”; and also according to the 2nd canon of our venerable fathers in Chalcedon, which says: “If any bishop performs ordination for money, he will reduce unsold grace to an object of sale and for money he will ordain a bishop, or a chorebishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or anyone else from the clergy, or, because of his greed, for money he will promote him to the steward, or ecdiki, or paramonari, or in general to any church rank, then anyone who encroaches on this after exposure will be subject to deprivation of his degree, and the one ordained by him should not use the purchased ordination or production at all, but should be alien to the dignity or position that he received for money. And if anyone is simply a mediator in such vile and lawless profit, then such a one, if he is a cleric, will be deposed from his position, and if he is a layman or monastic, he will be excommunicated.” Some, before they were included in the clergy of a particular church, voluntarily brought money to it, out of a God-loving desire - not in order to get a place in the clergy with their help, but dedicating it to God, according to Balsamon. Later, boasting of giving money and honoring mammon and wealth more than sacred rules, they began to seek first places and shamelessly scold those clergy who, having been chosen by the Holy Spirit, were counted among the clergy without money for their virtuous lives. So, for this reason, the present rule decides: those who boast about this money and blaspheme others for not giving money should be relegated to the lowest place among the clergy equal to them in rank, and if they continue to remain in this state, then the bishop should correct them with the help of an appropriate, more severe penance. The Fathers of the Council, citing the saying of John the Theologian, say that the boasting of such clerics with money (if they have not reformed) is a mortal sin [396]. But they call their shamelessness and insolence towards the rest of the clergy and the fact that among them there is no Lord God, according to Scripture, an even worse sin than mortal sin. And they call their giving of money illegal not because it is such in itself - initially it was beautiful and God-loving - but because of the subsequent boasting and shamelessness of the givers. So, be careful not to accept such donations of money for ordination. As you can see, this rule consists of two parts. The first part prohibits giving money - giving not in order to be ordained, for this is discussed later, but in order to be counted among the clergy of some church, and then to behave insolently and despise poor but reverent clergy; such giving of money is therefore prohibited as illegal. Then the second part is added: if they had brought this money for consecration, then it should have been discarded, according to the previous rules. The rule also adds that anyone who gives money, in order to be ordained a clergyman or priest, must receive penance according to the Apostle. 29 and IV Omni. 2, which state this rule verbatim; See their interpretation in the appropriate place. Since there is a rule that says that twice a year in each metropolitan region canonical issues should be discussed by a meeting of bishops, the reverend fathers of the Sixth Council, due to the fact that this is difficult and those who gather lack funds for travel, determined that meetings should be held in any case and without excuse once a year and correct errors. So, we also resume this rule; and if any superior is found to be obstructing this, let him be excommunicated. If any of the metropolitans neglects to fulfill this, not out of need and violence and without any valid reason, let him be subject to penance. Since the Council is dedicated to canonical and evangelical subjects, it is appropriate for the assembled bishops to have care and concern that the Divine and life-giving commandments of God are observed. For observing them, the reward is great (Ps. 18:12), because the commandment is a lamp, the law is light, and reproof and punishment are the way to life (see Proverbs 6:23) and the commandment of the Lord is bright: it enlightens the eyes (Ps. 18:9). Yes, the metropolitan will not be allowed to demand cattle or anything else that the bishop brings with him. If he is convicted of having done so, let him repay him fourfold. (Apostle 37; I Om. 5; IV Ose. 19; VI Ose. 8.) This rule renews Rule VI Universal. 8, which determines that since, due to the difficulty of travel, two Councils of bishops on church canonical issues cannot be held annually (as the rules establish, namely Apost. 37, I Ecum. 5 and IV Ecum. 19), then there must certainly be one Council per year in order to correct errors that occur. But the present rule adds: if any of the secular leaders prohibits such a council, let him be excommunicated; If any metropolitan neglects to convene the Council (except in the case where he was prevented by difficult circumstances and some good reason), let him be subject to penance. And since the Council must take place to examine whether both canonical decrees (for example, on excommunication, on the management of church affairs, etc.) and evangelical decrees are being observed, then the assembled bishops should take care that their people observe the life-giving commandments of the Gospel, because for such observance a great reward is given, according to David, and the commandment and law of God is “a lamp, and a light, and a way of life,” according to To the influent. The metropolitan is not allowed to demand from his bishop, as from a debtor, cattle or anything else that he has with him, and if he does so, he must pay four times. Divine Ap. Paul said: Some people's sins are obvious, but some are revealed later (1 Tim. 5:24). If sins have been committed previously, others follow. Therefore, other wickedness followed the wicked heresy of those slandering Christians. Namely, as soon as they deprived the Church of the opportunity to look at honest icons, they neglected some other customs that should be renewed and observed both according to written and unwritten law. So, in those honest churches that were consecrated without holy martyr’s relics, we determine to perform the position of the relics with ordinary prayer, and let the one consecrating the church without holy relics be deposed as having violated church traditions. Basil the Great interpreted this apostolic saying differently. The present Council understood it more simply, saying that sins committed earlier are followed by other sins, as happened with the slanderers of Christians - the iconoclasts, who both deprived the Church of holy icons and also despised and rejected something else in the Church that should be renewed so that both the written law and the unwritten [397] tradition would be observed. Finally, in those divine churches that were consecrated by them without the relics of martyrdom, the relics should be placed with the recitation of a prayer for renewal 398 [399], containing words about them. And the bishop who will henceforth consecrate the church without the holy martyr’s relics, let him be deposed as a criminal of church traditions. Rule of Carthage. 91 stipulates that those altars that do not contain the bodies or relics of martyrs should either be destroyed or not be used for worship. Since some who adhere to the Jewish error have decided to mock Christ our God: they pretend to become Christians, but secretly reject Christ, secretly observe the Sabbath and other Jewish customs, we determine not to accept such people either into fellowship, or for prayer, or into the Church, but let it be obvious that they are Jews by faith, and their children should not be baptized, and they should not buy or acquire a slave. If one of them converts with sincere faith and confesses it with all his heart, exposing their customs and deeds in order to expose and correct other Jews, accept him and baptize his children and strengthen them in renouncing the Jewish way of life; if they do not treat you this way, do not accept them under any circumstances. With regard to those Jews who only hypocritically became Christians and converted to the Orthodox faith, but secretly reject it and ridicule Christ our God by observing the Sabbath and other Jewish customs (i.e., circumcise their sons, consider anyone unclean who touches a dead or leper, etc.), this rule specifies that no one should accept them into fellowship, pray with them, or accept them into the Church, but so that such will become Jews again, as before, and that no one will baptize their children or allow these Jews to buy a slave or acquire him by exchange, or as a gift, or in any other way. If a certain Jew converts with pure and sincere faith and with all his heart professes Orthodox Christianity, openly condemning the Jewish religion, then in order to expose and correct other Jews, we need to accept such a person and baptize his children, urgently requiring them to abstain from Jewish superstitions, and those who do not convert in this way, we should not accept at all [400]. In accordance with this rule, the book also determines. 1 “Basilik” (tit. 1, ch. 44): if a Jew, convicted on some charges or having a debt, pretends because of this that he has become a Christian, then this should not be accepted until he pays his debt and is freed from charges. Equal to Ch. 47 of the same book and the same title determines that no Jew should have a Christian slave or circumcise a catechumen, and also that no other heretic should have a Christian slave. As soon as he acquires such a slave, the slave becomes free. Read also the note. to I Omni. 2. All childish amusements and crazy bacchanalia - false writings composed against honest icons - must be given to the bishopric of Constantinople, so that they can be put aside along with other heretical books. If it turns out that someone is hiding them, then if he is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, let him be deposed, but if he is a layman or a monk, let him be excommunicated. (Apost. 60; VI Ose. 2, 63; Laodicecus 59.) This rule determines that all the false writings compiled by iconoclasts against the sacred icons, which are as easily refutable as children’s inventions, and as insane as the frenzied and crazy bacchantes (αἱ βάκχαι), - women who, drunk, danced at the festival of the patron saint of drunkenness, Dionysus - all these writings, I continue, must be given to Patriarchate of Constantinople, so that they could be placed along with the rest of the heretical books where no one could ever take them to read. And if anyone hides these scriptures in order to read himself or give them to others to read, then if he is a bishop, presbyter or deacon, let him be deposed, and if he is a layman or monk, let him be excommunicated. Since some of the clergy, neglecting the canonical decree, leaving their parish, flee to another, mainly in this God-protected and royal city, and settle with the rulers, performing services in their houses of prayer, such, without the knowledge of their own bishop and the bishop of Constantinople, are not allowed to be received in any house or church. If anyone does this and persists in it, let him be cast out. And those who do this with the knowledge of the above-mentioned clergy are not allowed to take upon themselves worldly and everyday concerns, since they are forbidden to do this by divine rules. If someone is caught holding the position of the so-called great 401, either let him leave it, or let him be deposed. It is better for him to engage in training children and servants by reading the Divine Scriptures to them. For this is why he received the lot of the priesthood. (Apost. 6, 15, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 3, 5, 10, 23; Double. 11; Carthage. 18, 63, 98; I Ecum. 15, 16; VI Ecum. 17, 18; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15, 16, 18.) This rule prohibits two iniquities at the same time: the movement of clergy from city to city, especially to Constantinople, and their coming to the authorities and serving in their houses of prayer without the permission of both their own bishop, from whom they withdrew, and the patriarch, into whose region they arrived - since both of these cases are contrary to the establishment of divine rules. So, the rule prescribes the expulsion of that cleric who, without the permission of the above-mentioned persons, either comes to Constantinople, or begins to serve in houses of prayer and persists in this. And it is not proper for clergy, received with their permission, to take upon themselves worldly cares, but it is better to teach children and slaves Christians. The same cleric who takes over the management of the estates of the chiefs - and those who managed them were called large, perhaps as those in charge of more profitable affairs related to management - either let him stop this or, if he does not stop, let him be deposed (as Dvukrat. 11 also defines). See also Apost. 6, 15. Since we are all obliged to observe divine rules, we must in every possible way keep unbreakable the rule that commands that there should be stewards in every church. And if every metropolitan supplies an economist in his church, that’s good; if not, then the Bishop of Constantinople has the right to appoint a steward to this church with his own authority. Metropolitans have the right to do the same if the bishops subordinate to them do not intend to install stewards in their churches. The same should be observed in monasteries. (Apost. 38, 41; IV Om. 26; VII Om. 12; Dvukrat. 7; Ankyr. 15; Gangr. 7; Antioch. 24, 25; Carthage. 34, 41; Theophilus Alexander. 10; Cyril Alexander. 2.) Since IV Omni. 26 decrees that each church should have a steward, who, with the permission and will of the bishop, would manage its property; therefore, this rule, confirming precisely this, adds that if each metropolitan himself appoints a steward to his metropolis, then good; if he does not do this, then the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right, by his own authority, to appoint an economist to this very metropolis and to others, that is, those subordinate to him. Likewise, if bishops do not want to appoint an economist to their bishoprics, then their metropolitan has the right to appoint one. Let the same thing happen in monasteries that do not have economists: let the economists in them be appointed either by the abbot, or, if the abbot does not want, by the bishop, or, if the bishop does not want, by the metropolitan, or, if the metropolitan does not want, by the patriarch. If it is discovered that any bishop or abbot alienates and transfers into the hands of the authorities or another person something from the lands of a bishopric or monastery, this transfer will be invalid, according to the rule of the holy apostles, which reads: “Let the bishop take care of all church things and dispose of them as in the eyes of God. But it is not permissible for him to appropriate any of them or give any of them to his relatives. If they are poor, then let him help them as if they were poor, but let him not sell under this pretext what belongs to the Church [402].” If the bishop or abbot justifies himself by saying that the field causes a loss and does not bring any benefit, then even under such conditions the land should be given not to local rulers, but to clergy or farmers. If he uses a crafty trick and the ruler buys a field from a cleric or a farmer, then in this case the sale will be invalid and what was sold will be returned to the bishopric or monastery, and the bishop or abbot who does this will be expelled - the bishop from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery, as criminally wasting what they did not collect. (Apost. 38, 41; IV Om. 26; VII Om. 11; Dvukrat. 7; Ankyr. 15; Gangr. 7; Antioch. 24, 25; Carthage. 34, 41; Theophilus Alexander. 10; Cyril Alexander. 2.) Land is called all property that generates income, and especially real estate, for example: fields, vineyards, olive groves, etc. So, the present rule defines this: if the bishop takes this property from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery and gives it to the rulers - sells or exchanges - then let the transfer be invalid and the property return to the bishopric or monastery, as defined by the Apostle. 38, which is given verbatim. If, suppose, a bishop or abbot will justify himself by saying that such and such a field or vineyard does not bring income and benefit, but rather a loss, then let them sell it not to rulers and rulers, but to clergy or farmers [403], that is, to humble and simple people. If they craftily give it to the last person first, in order to then hand it over to the ruler, then this sale will be invalid, and the bishop who sold the field or vineyard in this way will be expelled from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery, because those offerings that others brought and collected honestly, they criminally squandered and sold. See also the interpretation of Apost. 38. Since, as a result of the disaster that occurred in the Churches due to our sins, some sacred houses, bishoprics and monasteries were plundered by certain people and turned into ordinary dwellings, to the extent that those who hold them intend to give them away so that they can be restored to their former form, this is wonderful and noble; if not, then, if they are from the list of the sacred order, we decree that they should be cast out, and if they are monks or laymen, excommunicate them, for they are condemned by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and may they be placed where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:44, 46), because they resist the voice of the Lord, saying: At home Do not make My Father a house of trade (John 2:16). (IV Universe. 4, 24; VI Universe. 49; VII Universe. 12, 19; Double. 1; Cyril Alexander. 2.) During the time of the iconoclasts, among other evils that occurred, many bishops from their bishoprics and metropolises and many monks from their monasteries were expelled by them for the holy icons. Since the buildings were empty, some worldly people took them over and turned them into worldly dwellings. Therefore, the present rule states: if those who own these bishoprics and monasteries want to give them back, so that the bishoprics and monasteries can be restored to their previous position, that is fine; if they do not want to, let the clergy be deposed, and the monks and laity excommunicated, for they are condemned for this by the Holy Trinity, and let them be placed in that place where the worm does not die and the fire does not go out, according to the words of Isaiah and the Gospel, since they resist the word of the Lord, which says: Do not make My Father’s house... etc. Read also IV Omni. 4, 24. It is obvious to everyone that the priesthood is accompanied by order and strict observance of the rules for placing on the degrees of the priesthood is pleasing to God. So, since we see that some people are tonsured into the clergy in childhood without consecration and, without having yet received consecration from the bishop, even read from the pulpit in the congregation, doing this contrary to the canons, we command from now on that this will not happen. Let the same be observed among monks. And each abbot is allowed to perform the consecration of a reader in his own, and only his own, monastery, if the abbot himself has received the consecration from the bishop for the abbot's superiors; of course, if the abbot is a presbyter. Likewise, according to ancient custom, chorebishops should produce readers with the permission of the bishop. (VI Omni. 33; Carthage. 22.) Since some from infancy were dedicated to God and, having put on the clothes appropriate for clerics, even received tonsure from their own parents according to a certain custom, under the pretext that they were dedicated to God, and when they came of age, they even dared to read divine books to the people (relying, perhaps, on that tonsure in childhood) without receiving consecration from the bishop, sealing and tonsure as a reader, then this rule states, so that this does not happen, because it is disorderly and uncanonical. Not only the laity cannot perform the office of reader without being sealed by the bishop, but also monks. The abbot of the monastery is given the right, if he is a priest and has become an abbot through the consecration of a bishop, to produce (χειροτονῇ) a reader only in his monastery, but not in another place. Likewise, according to ancient custom, chorebiscopes have the right to produce readers [404]. (On chorebiscopes, see also the note to I Om. 8.) From now on, a cleric should not be appointed to two churches, for this is characteristic of mercenary behavior and greed and is alien to church custom. For we have heard the very voice of the Lord: No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate one and love the other; or he will be zealous for one and neglectful of the other (Matthew 6:24). So, everyone, according to the apostolic voice, in what he is called, must remain in that (1 Cor. 7:20) and serve in one church. What happens in church affairs out of greed is alien to God. To meet the needs of this life there are various activities. Therefore, if anyone wants, let him provide himself with what is necessary for the body with their help, for the apostle said: These hands have served my needs and the needs that were with me (Acts 20:34). And so it should be in this God-protected city. In remote areas, due to lack of people, let concessions be made. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 10, 20, 23; VI Om. 17, 18; VII Om. 10, 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15, 16, 18; Carthage. 63, 98.) This rule prohibits the enrollment of any clergyman in the clergy of two churches located either in one city or in two, since this matter is carried out for greed, namely, so that the appointed cleric receives support from two churches. What happens out of self-interest is alien to both God and the clergy. For the Lord says that no one can serve two masters: he will either hate one and love the other, or embrace one and despise the other. And Paul commands everyone to remain where he has been called by God. If these clergy make excuses that they cannot live on the support of the church alone, then please, there are many pious activities in the world - and let them work to satisfy the needs of the body. After all, Paul, with his own labor, acquired what was necessary both for himself and for those who were with him, as he himself says about it. So, the enrollment of any cleric in two churches in this reigning city should not be done due to the large number of clergy in it, but in remote places let it be allowed due to the lack of priests and clergy. All luxury and decoration of the body is alien to the priestly rank. Therefore, bishops or clergy who adorn themselves with lush and bright clothes must be corrected, but if they persist, they must be subjected to penance, as well as those who anoint themselves with fragrant ointments. Since the bitter root - the heresy of the blasphemers of Christianity, having arisen 405, became an unclean stain for the Catholic Church, and those who accepted it not only abhorred the iconographic images, but also rejected all reverence, being indignant at those who lived holy and piously, and what was written on them was fulfilled: Piety is hateful to the sinner (Sir. 1:25), then if there are those who mock those who dresses in cheap and modest clothes, let the scoffers be corrected by penance. Since ancient times, every consecrated husband wore strict and modest clothing, because everything that is accepted not for the sake of necessity, but for decoration, is subject to accusations of vanity, as Basil the Great said. No one also put on multi-colored clothes made of silk fabrics (ἐκ σηρικῶν), and did not sew patches of a different color on the edges of the clothes, because they heard from the God-speaking tongue that those who wear soft clothes are in the royal palaces 406. (VI Omni. 27; Gangr. 12, 21.) This rule determines that both those bishops and clergy who wear magnificent clothes, and those who anoint themselves with fragrant ointments, must get rid of this absurdity, since any decoration of the body and attire is alien to the clergy. If they persist and do not correct themselves, let them be punished with appropriate penance. In addition, the iconoclasts, who, in addition to rejecting the holy icons, rejected all decency in clothing and mocked those who wore cheap clothes (that’s why they called the monks monks and monks, ridiculing the modesty of the monastic schema, according to the story of Simeon Metaphrastus in the life of Stephen the New) 407, need to be corrected by penance, since the clergy For a long time, from the very beginning, they wore modest clothes. Therefore, Basil the Great (rule 49 of the brief summary) calls vanity [408] all clothing that does not satisfy the needs of the body, but serves as decoration 409. And they did not wear colorful clothes made of silk (the word σῆρες refers to silkworm caterpillars, from Σῆρας, as the Chinese are called, from whom these caterpillars were discovered, and from them were transported to other places), and also did not sew on the edges of their clothes patches of a different color than the color of the clothes [ 410 ], because they heard the voice of the Lord: those who wear similar soft garments are found in royal palaces, not in bishoprics and churches. Some of the monks, having left their monasteries, striving to rule and rejecting obedience, began to build houses of prayer, although they did not have the means to complete them. So, if anyone undertakes to do this, let him be stopped by the local bishop. If he has the means to complete it, let his plans be completed. The same applies to the laity and clergy. (IV Omni. 4; VII Om. 21; Double. 1.) Since some power-hungry monks, not wanting to obey others, but wanting others to obey them, leave their monasteries and then undertake to build houses of prayer, but do not have the means to complete them, the present rule decrees that the bishop forbids them such an undertaking. If they have enough funds to complete the construction, let them get down to business. Let the same be observed if laymen or clergy take up the construction of houses of prayer 411. See also IV Omni. 4 and VII Omni. 21. Do not give temptation to those outside, says the divine apostle 412. And the presence of women in bishoprics or monasteries is a reason for every temptation. So, if anyone is caught having a slave or free woman in a bishopric or monastery to perform any service, let him be subject to penance, and if he persists, let him be deposed. If it happens that there are women on country estates and the bishop or abbot wants to travel to those places, then in the presence of the bishop or abbot the woman should not perform any service at that time, but let her stay in another place until the bishop leaves, so that there are no complaints. (I Omni. 3; VI Om. 5; VII Om. 22; Ankyra. 19; Carthage. 45; Basil the Great. 89.) This rule prohibits women from being in bishoprics and monasteries for the sake of serving, since this becomes a great temptation and brings criticism against bishops and monks from both lay Christians and pagans. And the apostle calls us not to give temptation to outsiders - Jews and Greeks. So, the bishop or abbot who is found doing this, let him be punished, but if he persists and does not correct himself, let him be deposed. If it happens that women find themselves on the estates of a bishopric or monastery, and the bishop or abbot goes there, let the women not perform services while they are there, but leave until they leave, in order to avoid reproach and temptation. See also I Omni. 3. The hateful love of money has spread so much among church leaders that even some of the husbands and wives who are considered reverent, having betrayed the Lord’s commandment to oblivion, have become deceived and accept those entering the sacred rank and monastic life for gold, and it happens according to the word of Basil the Great: the beginning of which is worthless, and everything is unacceptable 413. For it is impossible to serve God and mammon (see Matt. 6:24). So, if anyone is found doing this, then, if he is a bishop, or an abbot, or someone from the priestly rank, let him either stop or be deposed, on the basis of the second canon of the holy Council of Chalcedon; if this is an abbess, let her be expelled from the monastery and given to another monastery as a subordinate, just like an abbot who does not have presbyteral ordination. And regarding the things brought, passed on by parents to children as an inheritance or constituting personal property, if the bringers declare that they are donated to God, we have determined that these things, whether the bringer stays or leaves, remain in the monastery, according to his promise, unless the abbot is guilty of leaving. (Apostle 29; IV Om. 2; VI Ose. 22, 23; Basil the Great. 90; Epistles of Gennady of Constantinople and Tarasius of Constantinople) Church leaders are called bishops, priests and abbots of monasteries, since it was determined for them, both for the sake of their orthodoxy and for the sake of virtues, to stand at the head of the laity. So, this rule says that since they are so strongly possessed by the love of money that they accept those entering the sacred rank and monastic life for money and the saying of Basil the Great is fulfilled on them, which says: “Where the beginning is unsuccessful and bad, everything that follows is unsuccessful and bad,” then henceforth that bishop, or consecrated abbot, or anyone else from the sacred list who does this, let him either stop doing so. act, or undergo an eruption, on the basis of rule IV Omni. 2, which determines to disgorge the one who produces at least only a prosmonary for money [414]. If the person who committed this is an uninitiated abbot [415] or abbess, then let them be expelled from their monasteries and sent to other monasteries to remain in obedience, for they are unworthy of being an abbess and of having others subordinate to them, because before accepting a person entering monasticism, they demand money from him. And if someone dedicates to the monastery in which he is a monk, property (movable or immovable), which he received as an inheritance from his parents or acquired himself, then this rule determines that it remains inalienable from the monastery [416] on the basis of the promise of the dedicator, regardless of whether he himself remains in the monastery or leaves it voluntarily for his own reasons. If he leaves the monastery due to any fault of the abbot (we will talk about the reasons for such leaving in the interpretation of the 21st rule of the same VII Council), then he can take his property back [417]. From now on we determine that the monastery should not be double, because for many this is a temptation and a stumbling block. If someone, together with their relatives, intends to renounce the world and follow the monastic life, then men should go to a monastery, and women should enter a nunnery, for this pleases God. Let the monasteries, which are still double, be governed according to the rule of our holy father Basil and, according to his commandment, be organized in the following way. Let monks and nuns not live in the same monastery, because living together gives rise to adultery. Let not a monk and a nun, or a nun and a monk, dare to talk alone. Let no monk go to bed in a nunnery, and no nun and monk eat alone. And when the male side provides the nuns with the necessities of life, let the abbess of the convent receive it, along with some old nun outside the gate. If it happens that the monk wants to see some relative, let him talk with her in the presence of the abbess, and, moreover, in few words and briefly [418]. (VI Om. 46, 47; VII Ov. 18, 22.) Zonara says that a double monastery is two neighboring monasteries, located so close to each other that voices from one are heard in the other. Other interpreters, with whom Balsamon agrees, say that it was one and the same monastery, where men and women lived together at the same time, but not strangers in the flesh, but relatives to each other. I would say that the second opinion seems more correct, since it is confirmed by the tone at the beginning of this rule and its context, but the decree of Basil the Great on double monasteries, which the rule gives below, proves that the first opinion is true and indisputable. One way or another, this rule decrees that such double monasteries should no longer exist, for they give rise to temptation. If men and women who are related to each other want to enter monasticism, let the men go separately to the men's monastery, and the women to the women's monastery, because in this way God is pleased. Those monasteries that are still double should act in accordance with the decree and law of Basil the Great, which is as follows: monks and nuns should not live together in the same monastery, since such cohabitation is accompanied by adultery. Let no monk dare to talk alone with a nun, or a nun with a monk. Let a monk not go to bed in a nunnery, and let him not eat with a nun, and when the monks from the monastery bring the nuns what they need for life, let them leave it outside the monastery gates, and the abbess, together with some elderly nun, take it from there and bring it inside. If a monk wants to see his relative-nun, let him see and communicate with her in brief words in the presence of the abbess and quickly leave [419]. The 2nd decree of the 1st title also determines that monks should not live together with nuns. “Novel” (Photius. Nomocanon. Tit. 11, ch. 1). Perhaps a prophet. Zechariah therefore says that in the tribes of Israel men and women should mourn separately, and when speaking about grief, he secretly points to the mournful monastic life, and when speaking about separation, he means that men and women should not live together in a monastery, as this rule defines. And the land will mourn for the tribes: the tribe of the house of Levi especially, and their wives especially (Zech. 12:12 ~ and 13) [420]. See also VI Omni. 46, 47. A monk or nun should not leave his monastery and go to another. If this happens, then it is necessary to show him hospitality, but one should not accept him without the will of his abbot. (IV Omni. 4; VII Om. 19; Double. 3–5; Carthage. 88.) This rule determines that a monk or nun should not leave the monastery in which they were tonsured and go to another. If someone does this, then the fathers of another monastery should cordially receive him as a guest for a few days (so that he is not forced, due to the fact that he was not shown hospitality, to go out into the world and communicate with indifferent people). However, he should neither be detained nor counted among the brethren without the will of his abbot and a letter of release from him [421]. Double rule. 4 excommunicates both a monk who leaves his monastery and goes to another monastery or lay house, and the one who receives him, unless the bishop wants to move him either for the improvement of another monastery, or for the sake of saving the house, because in this case the monks and those who receive them are not responsible. In addition, the rule of Carthage. 88 decrees that no stranger, except his own flock, should have communion with that bishop who accepted a monk from a monastery in another episcopal region and made him a cleric or abbot of his monastery. And this monk, says the rule, should not remain either a cleric or abbot. The IV Ecumenical Order also determines that monks should not leave their monasteries, unless the bishop allows them to do so out of urgent necessity. 4. And the rule is twice. 3 excommunicates the abbot who does not take care to return the fleeing monks to his monastery [422]. Placing everything on God and not being a slave to your own desires is a great thing. The Divine Apostle says: Whether you eat or drink, do everything to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Therefore, Christ our God in His Gospels commanded to cut off the beginnings of sins. For He not only punishes adultery, but also condemns the movement of thoughts towards committing adultery, as He says: Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Having learned from this, we are obliged to purify our thoughts. After all, although everything is permissible for me, not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 10:23), we learn from the apostolic word. Every person, in order to live, needs to eat; and for those who live in marriage, have children and are in the position of the laity, it is not reprehensible for men and women to eat together; let them give thanks only to Him who gives food. And let them eat without any theatrical performances, or satanic songs, citharas and lewd tunes, against which the prophetic curse is directed, saying: “Woe to those who drink wine with harp and harp; they do not consider the works of the Lord and do not think about the work of His hands” (Is. 5:12). And if there ever are such among Christians, let them be corrected, and if they are not corrected, let the canonical instructions of our predecessors come into force against them. As for those who have a silent and solitary life, those who have made a vow to the Lord God to take upon themselves the monastic yoke, let them sit alone and be silent 423 . However, it is completely prohibited for those who have chosen the priestly life to eat alone with a woman, unless in the company of God-bearing [424] and pious husbands and wives, so that this joint meal leads to spiritual virtue. And the same applies to relatives. If sometimes during a journey it happens that a monk or cleric does not have the necessities with him and, out of necessity, he wants to stay either in a hotel, or even in someone’s house, he has the right to do this, because need forces him [425]. (Apost. 42, 43; I Om. 3; VI Om. 5, 46, 47; VII Om. 18, 20; Carthage. 45, 69; Ancyra. 19; Laodice. 24; Basil the Great. 89.) This rule specifies that it is not blameworthy for laymen who have wives and children to eat and drink with other men and women, although they should not drink wine and at the same time indulge in entertainment, sing satanic songs, indulge in depraved dancing and singing - so as not to inherit the curse and grief that Isaiah proclaims to those who do this and do not experience the works of the Lord; but they must thank God who feeds them. If they do not correct themselves and do not stop doing this, let them undergo penances (i.e., excommunication), which the rules of previous Councils prescribed for such Christians. And that's all for the laity. And let the monks who have made vows to God remain silent in solitude, taking upon themselves the yoke of asceticism, according to the famous saying of Jeremiah 426. In addition, none of the clergy has any right to eat with women alone, one on one, even if they are their relatives, unless together with pious and God-fearing men and women, and also in the case when a monk or initiate, who finds himself on the road and does not have the necessary funds for the journey, happens to stay for a while in an inn, or in an inn, or in someone's house. But even then let them settle down to rest with reverence and modesty, and let all this be done so that the well-known apostolic saying is fulfilled, which says: Whether you eat or drink, do everything to the glory of God, and so that monks and initiates do not commit adultery with women in their hearts, looking at them with lust and passion, which the Lord condemns 427. Even if they themselves, suppose, are not tempted by looking at them (which happens extremely rarely), nevertheless, in order not to seduce others, they still should not eat with women. After all, Paul also said that it is permissible for him to do everything, but not everything is useful, since it tempts others. See also Apost. 42, I Omni. 3 and VI Omni. 47. Spyridon Milias in the 2nd volume of the Synodikon says that this Council was convened in 783. Others claim that in 788. However, the most accurate chronologists believe that it was convened in the years indicated above. The fact that there were just so many fathers at the Council is said in an admirable eulogy to the Council (Synodikon. Vol. 2. p. 890) by Epiphanius, deacon of the Catan diocese in Sicily (he was at this Council the locum tenens of Thomas, Archbishop of the island of Sardinia), as well as by Psellus. Photius, in a letter to Michael, Tsar of Bulgaria, writes that there were 367 fathers (Phot. Ep. I, 8. 18 // PG 102, 649C), and the month book of Tsar Vasily states the same. The mentioned locums, according to Theophan, became: John - Patriarch of Alexandria, and Thomas - Metropolitan of Thessaloniki. Photius calls him Apollinaris, and in the account of a certain anonymous person about the seven Councils he is called Politianus, with which Ignatius, one of the newest writers, agrees. These patriarchs, due to the invasion of the Hagarians, could not attend the Council at that time. Thus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (whom Dositheus, I don’t know why, calls Theodore) was expelled by the Hagarites a thousand miles from Jerusalem. Christians in Alexandria and Antioch also suffered terrible disasters, which means their patriarchs also suffered with them (Dositheus. Twelve Books, p. 631). One is an idol, another is a statue, and another is an icon. An idol differs from an icon, since an icon, according to Origen (Orig. In Exod. // TLG 2042/023. 221. 26–27) and Theodoret (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Deut. 1 // PG 80, 405B), is a likeness of a true thing and prototype, and an idol is a likeness of a false and non-existent thing and prototypes, such as, for example, idols of false and non-existent Hellenic gods. And we call sculptures, sculptures and statues in general those images that represent the entire body of the person depicted. The Catholic Church not only does not worship this type of images, that is, statues, but also does not make them at all for many reasons. First reason. In its present definition, this Council commands that icons be painted with paints, made of smalt or other suitable material (i.e., from gold, silver and other metals, as Theodosius of Amoria says in the 4th act of this Council) on sacred vessels and clothes, i.e., shrouds and veils, on walls and gates, houses and roads, but does not mention at all the erection of a statue or sculpture, and moreover, this definition of the Cathedral rejects statues. Second reason. Neither in the letters that the patriarchs wrote to each other and to the kings, nor in the letters of Pope Gregory to Herman and Pope Adrian to this Council, nor in the speeches and interviews conducted by bishops and monks at all eight sessions of this Council, is there any mention of sculptures and statues. In addition, the Councils convened by the iconoclasts, especially the Council of Blachernae under Copronymus, which wrote against holy icons, mention painting and murals, and never about sculptures or statues, about which, if they existed, the iconoclasts would not remain silent, but would write against them for the sake of the strongest censure of the Orthodox. Third reason. At the same time, the bleeding woman made a copper statue of Christ in thanksgiving and remembrance of the miracle and benefit that He had shown her, and placed it in Paneas. At the feet of this statue grew grass that healed various ailments. This statue was broken and the copper was taken, as some say, by King Maximinus, the predecessor of Constantine the Great, or by Julian the Apostate, who erected a statue of Zeus in its place, according to an anonymous writer. But even if the bleeding wife made this statue (which Christians placed in the church, revered it and came to look at it for the love of the prototype, as the Arian Philostorgius tells (Philostorg. Hist. eccl. VII, 3 // PG 65, 537C–540A)), still this work of the bleeding woman was the condescension of God, who, in His goodness, accepted him, condescending to imperfect knowledge of women. This was the exaltation and observance not of gospel grace, but of the old law, as Pope Gregory II says in his letter to St. Herman (PG 98, 149CD) (for the old law had two cherubim, which were carved and golden statues, representing the whole body of the angelic powers depicted, according to the 38th chapter of the book of Exodus (the said chapter is not in the Bible translation. See the Septuagint and Elizabethan Bible). These cherubim, according to the unknown interpreter, had the face of a calf and bowed before the ark of the witness, with their worship leading the Israelites away from the idolatry of the Egyptians, who worshiped the calf. Because from this the Jews learned that if the calf worships the ark, then the Egyptians are doing a bad thing by worshiping the calf as God). Statues and sculptures were erected not only according to the old law, but also according to Hellenic custom, as St. writes. Herman in his letter to Thomas of Claudiopolis, which is in the 4th act of this Council. The message reads as follows: “It is quite obvious that the Savior performs the works of His own grace out of condescension towards the faith of the weak female nature and shows - as we explained above - that one should not simply consider what is done, but test the purpose of what is done...” (German Const. Ep. 4 // PG 98, 188A). And again: “We say this not so that we can take care of statues made of copper, but only to show that since the Lord did not reject what was done according to pagan custom, but was pleased for a sufficient time to demonstrate the miracles of His goodness in this, it is not pious to disparage a custom that has become entrenched among us in an even more exalted form” (German Const. Ep. 4 // PG 98, 188B). See three things here? Firstly, the erection of the statue of Christ was a pagan affair and the Lord accepted it out of condescension for the times. Secondly, it is not proper to make statues. And thirdly, to depict revered images not with the help of statues, but in drawings with the help of paints is a more sublime and pious matter. For the same St. Herman said a little earlier that Eusebius, speaking about the statue, also said that images of St. Peter and Paul and Christ Himself, painted with colors... (Ibid. // PG 98, 188A). And Rule VI Omni. 82 says that we should prefer the grace of the Gospel to the legal image and represent in icons and pictures instead of the ancient lamb the image of Christ according to humanity. Therefore, from everything that has been said, it is clear that Western Christians, when they make sculptures and statues and erect them in churches, act contrary to the definition of this holy Ecumenical VII Council and contrary to the Tradition of the Church. We said above that statues, statues and sculptures are generally called those that represent the whole body of the person depicted, and that which does not represent the whole body, but simply appears on a smooth and even surface, is called not statues or sculptures, but holy icons, as for example, there are images on sacred vessels, divine Gospels and other holy books, on honest crosses, gold and silver, according to Dositheus (The Twelve Books, p. 656), which includes an icon painted in wax, which also sufficiently protrudes on a smooth and even surface and about which the divine Chrysostom speaks (in the word that the Lawgiver of the Old and New Testaments is one, as well as about the clothes of the priest; the beginning of this word is “The Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ”): “I also liked the image written wax, for the sake of his piety. So, I saw on the icon how an angel drives the barbarian regiments. I saw how the barbarian tribes were defeated and David spoke the truth: Lord, destroy their image in Your city (Ps. 73:20)" (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 852; 6th act of the VII Universe; Chrysostom. T. 6. P. 647 (Ioan. Chrysost. De Legislat. 6 // PG 56, 407)). This icon, painted in wax, is also approved by Icumenius in his interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therefore, Anastasius of Antioch in his letter to Simeon, bishop. Vostrsky, says: “Although the icon is nothing more than wood and paints, combined and mixed with wax (Anast. Antioch. De Sabb. // PG 89, 1405A)” (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 785). These icons also include icons carved on wooden crosses and amulet. After all, they also appear in a similar way on a smooth surface and do not represent the entire body of the person depicted. The reason and reason why statues are not worshiped (except for the lawful observance of rites and customs), as it seems to me, is that since statues can be touched and they represent the whole body and members of the depicted, they are obviously no longer and are not called images (εἰκόνες), but are primitive things. And some say that the Church of Christ rejected statues in order to completely avoid the likeness of idols, because idols were solid statues, tangible from all sides. Therefore, when at the 5th meeting of this Council the word of John of Thessaloniki was read, in which he proves that angels should be depicted, because many people saw them sensually in a bodily form, Tarasius replied that this father proved that angels should be depicted, since they are describable and appeared to many as people. The Council also agreed with Tarasius’ opinion. The angels’ own bodies, according to the interpretation of some modern theologians, are temporary bodies perceived from airy substance, which they take in order to become visible to the eyes with their help. The already named John says in this 5th act that angels are depicted because they have subtle bodies, and also brings witnesses to this - Basil the Great, Athanasius the Great and the divine Methodius. According to these fathers, angels have a light body, but are not completely incorporeal, like God. Basil the Great in the 16th chapter. the book “On the Holy Spirit” says about angels: “Why they are in some place and become visible, appearing worthy in the form of their own bodies” (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 16. 38 // PG 32, 137A). And the divine Hilary says that everything created is necessarily also corporeal (chapter 2 of the interpretation of Matthew). In addition, Origen believed that angels have subtle bodies (On the Principles. Book 1, Chapter 7 and Book 2), and Tertullian speaks about this in many places, and especially in the “Tales on the Flesh of Christ” (Chapter 6), and Justin, and Clement, the author of the “Stromata” (Stromata. Book 3), and Athenagoras in the “Apology”, and Cyprian (On Clothing virgins), and Ambrose (Book of Noah and the Ark), and Eusebius (Gospel Preparation. Book 5), and Sulpicius Severus (On Church History), and Lactantius (On Divine Institutions. Book 2), and Augustine, and together with all of them Macarius the Great (see also Chapter 67 of Simeon Metaphrastus, “Philokalia”, p. 720). This saying belongs to the Great Basil, as the Council itself says in its 6th act, and Basil himself in the 18th chapter. books “On the Holy Spirit” (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 18.45 // PG 32, 149C). Athanasius also says: “He who worships the image of the emperor worships the emperor himself” (Athanas. Alex. De sacris imagin. // PG 28, 709C). Likewise, Chrysostom: “Or don’t you know that if you insult the image of the emperor, you are insulting the honor of the prototype?” (see: Ioan. Damasc. De imagin. 2 // PG 94, 1313C) (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 859). However, this veneration is given to the prototype in a different way and to the icon in a different way (according to Vlastar): to one - as a service, and to the other - relatively (σχετικῶς). The image (εἰκών) is called so from the verb “to be similar” (ἐοικἐναι), i.e. from the similarity that it has with the prototype. One image is called natural, just as every natural son is an image of his own father (therefore, the divine Basil understood the saying “honor of the image (εἰκόνος)” given above in the sense in which the Son and the Word are the natural image (εἰκών) of God and the Father). And the other image is imitative and artificial, such as, for example, the one created by painting with paints or by working with another suitable substance, which is discussed here. But the natural image differs in hypostasis from its source (for example, father and son are two hypostases) and does not differ in nature, since they are one in relation to human nature. An artificial one, on the contrary, differs from the prototype in essence, since the prototype is an animate and living person, and its image is a soulless and dead substance. Therefore, the VII Council said in the 6th act (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 836) that the icon is similar to the prototype not in essence, but in hypostasis, i.e. in similarity with the hypostasis, it is one with the prototype. The image and the prototype have one hypostasis because, on the one hand, the prototype is visible in the image, and on the other, the image exists in the prototype, like a shadow in the body, and it is impossible to separate one from the other. The image and the prototype have one hypostasis also because it is the hypostasis that is depicted, and not nature. In addition, the image is not inscribed with the name of nature, i.e., not “This is an image of man in general,” but the name of the hypostasis, i.e., “This is an image of Christ or John,” etc., which is why the present Council in Act 6 (Synodikon. p. 836) says that the icon is similar to the prototype only in the name and position of the members depicted. There is a third image, which is called intelligible and symbolic. For example, the sacraments of the grace of the Gospel and the truth were prototypes, and the symbolic sayings of the old law and the prophets were their images, on the basis of which in the Slavnik of Vespers of the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy it is said that the grace of the Gospel and the Church ordained the image of the tabernacle of testimony. Therefore, the Church, as a prototype and an original thing, existed before the image of the tabernacle, and its image appeared later than grace - not in time, but because the tabernacle is an image and an object determined by a cause; and also, the objects of the future century are prototypes, and the sacraments of the Gospel grace are their images. (That is why the Divine Paul said: The Law, having a shadow, and not the very image of things (Heb. 10:1) in these words, by the image he meant grace, and by things - the works of the future age, and Basil the Great in his 91st canon called the resurrection an image of the future age. On this basis, some fathers called the Divine Eucharist after the consecration as a substitute for the Body and Blood of the Lord, comparing it with what will be revealed simply and clearly in the coming century, but now it is covered by the innate properties of bread and wine, as St. Maxim.) In relation to holy icons, veneration and kissing are one and the same thing, because veneration (κυνῶ) in ancient Greek means “to embrace” and “to kiss.” And the prefix προς (προσκυνῶ) shows increased desire, attraction and love. Therefore, the present Council, in its 7th act, commanded that honorable icons should be accepted in all respects and venerated, that is, kissed, for this is the same thing, as stated above in the definition of the Council: “It is proper to kiss icons and give them reverent veneration.” In a broader sense, “worship” means all veneration and prostration given to holy icons, as the divine Damascene said in his word on icons (Ioan. Damasc. De imagin. 3 // PG 94, 1348D). Another is service worship (λατρευτικὴ προσκύνησις), another is non-relative, and another is correlative. Service worship is rendered to the One God and Christ Himself and to the bread and wine transubstantiated during the Divine Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ. After all, according to Vlastar, the one who worships Christ worships together the Father and the Holy Spirit, one nature in the Trinity. He who worships Christ as God and Master worships Him for His own sake, and not for the sake of someone else, according to the Council on Icons, which took place in 1084 under Patriarch Nicholas and Alexei Komnenos (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 981). Service mainly shows slavery, according to Augustine (On True Religion. Ch. 45), and contains faith and hope of our salvation. But we do not worship the holy icon of Christ with service worship (which does not make any difference between the icon and the prototype depicted on it), and we do not serve holy icons as gods, which is what the iconoclasts accuse us of - get rid of such a thought! - for this is alien to church tradition. That is why this Council in its definition said: “It is appropriate to kiss icons and give them reverent worship (τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), but, of course, not that true service in accordance with our faith (λατρεία), which befits the Divine nature alone.” And God Himself said: Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone (Deut. 6:13; Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). You see that He allowed worship to be given to others, and He did not yield service to anyone, but allowed it to be given only to Himself. Anastasius of Theopolsky perfectly interpreted this saying: if it is said about serving anyone, then it means service in relation to circumstances, and not in its own sense, and it means only veneration. Thus, one tropar speaks about Vasily: “O Vasily, wise and servant (λάτρις) of the Mother of God” (luminary from the service to St. Basil the Great). (Therefore, the worship of the Divine Mysteries after transubstantiation, since it is ministerial (λατρευτική), should be done differently from their worship before transubstantiation, that is, with a slavish, earthly prostration.) Irrelevant worship of an icon occurs when someone worships only what is depicted on the icon, and not the icon and what is depicted together. However, this worship is not given to holy icons, since in this way many other things can become icons that are not worshiped because they are perceived only as a reminder of something (for example, all creations can be considered icons of the Creator). Holy icons are given mainly relative veneration, which is between the servile and the non-relational. It is called correlative because the icon is called so not in itself and not unconditionally, but in relation to something and relatively, for the icon (εἰκών) is the icon of the depicted (εἰκονιζομένου). Therefore, for the sake of the relationship that the icon has to the depicted, i.e., in the likeness of the hypostasis and the inscribed name, it is venerated together with the depicted and worshiped with the same worship, but worship caused by the fact that the icon and the depicted bear the same name, and worship is correlative, and not identical in all respects, as Theodore the Studite says in his letter to Athanasius (Theod. Studit. Ep. II, 85 // PG 99, 1329A). For we worship the depicted Christ, as we said, with ministerial worship, and His icon with correlative worship, for the sake of connection with Him. Like the saints themselves and their relics, we worship with slavish worship, as servants and servants of Christ for the sake of their assimilation to Christ. And we worship their icons with correlative worship for the sake of the connection that they have with the saints because of the similarity of their hypostasis and the inscribed name, as determined by the aforementioned Council that was under Nicholas. In the same way, we worship the Mother of God Herself with veneration that surpasses slavish veneration, as the Most Holy Mother of God, and Her icon with correlative veneration (see also: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 655). However, note: although in the 4th act of this Council (Synodikon. Vol. 2. P. 780) it is said that honest icons have the same meaning with the Gospel and the honest Cross, namely because they are all given correlative worship - but despite all this, according to the order of worship, the holy Gospel is first worshiped (perhaps because, as Chrysostom says, what was said by the saints is an image their souls (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ps. 145. 2 // PG 55, 521) (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 852; 6th act of VII Ev.), and, accordingly, the words of the Holy Gospel are images of the soul and heart of the Lord, therefore they occupy first place), then the Cross, then the icon of Christ, the icon of the Mother of God and then the icons of saints, like this can be seen in the mentioned act (p. 779) from the words of St. Maxima. And simply put, the rank and dignity of the prototypes corresponds to the rite of worship of their icons. Holy icons are worshiped not for their substance, but for their likeness to what is depicted. Therefore, the fathers of the present Council in private interviews said that when the wooden Cross is destroyed, it is burned, and when the colors and images on the icons are completely deteriorated, the board is burned like unnecessary wood. However, some people bury them out of reverence. Holy icons do not need to be anointed with holy myrrh or consecrated by the prayers of a bishop. First reason. We worship holy icons not because they are anointed with myrrh or consecrated by prayers. When we see a holy icon, we immediately, without asking at all about peace and prayers, worship it for the sake of the name of the saint and for the sake of the similarity that the icon has with the prototype. Therefore, in the 6th act of this Council it is said that the Council of Iconoclasts at Copronymus condemned holy icons, arguing that when they begin to be called icons, they do not say a sacred prayer that would consecrate them so that from this the icon from a simple thing becomes a shrine, but it remains a simple thing and not worthy of veneration, as the painter painted it. Answering this through Deacon Epiphanius, the holy VII Council did not say that prayer is performed over icons, but said that although sacred prayer is not read over many sacred objects, they are filled with grace and sanctification from their very name, for example, the revered and worshiped image of the life-giving Cross. Although there is no prayer over him, we believe that we receive sanctification from his image alone and hope that through the worship we pay to him, and his sign on our forehead, and his seal made by the finger in the air, we drive away demons. (Please note that in ancient times the sign of the cross was performed not with three fingers, as now, but with one, as Chrysostom says in one of his words; see about this also note 3 to St. Basil the Great. 91). Such things include many sacred vessels that we keep, kiss and hope to receive consecration from them, even though a sacred prayer is not recited over them. In the same way, by kissing the holy icon, over which no prayer has been read, and reverently worshiping it, we partake of consecration, being elevated to the honor of the prototype through the name of the icon. If iconoclasts cannot say that sacred vessels do not deserve veneration and are simple objects, since there is no sacred prayer sanctifying them, and that they are the same as the weaver, painter and goldsmith made them, but accept them as holy and revered, then they should accept honest icons as saints, revered and sacred, even if a prayer sanctifying them is not said over them (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 844). Second reason. Holy icons do not need prayer and anointing with myrrh because, according to Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 658), only papists have the lawlessness of consecrating icons through prayers and rituals. For they boast that the pope makes icons from pure wax, holy myrrh and water of consecration, that he reads miraculous prayers over them and that is why these icons work miracles (just as they lie about the fact that Leo III sent one such icon to Charles, King of France, and he received it with reverence, and Pope Urban sent another icon to John Palaeologus, and in its honor processions of the cross were held in the church). Now do you see that the prayer that is read over the holy icons is papist, not Orthodox, modern, and not ancient? That is why the mentioned prayer is not found anywhere in the ancient handwritten Euchologies, and we noticed that this prayer is not in the Euchologies printed 100 years ago. It becomes clear that holy icons do not need prayer and anointing, because the icons painted on the walls of churches, in their porches and courtyards, and simply along the roads and on the doors, and on sacred vessels, are never anointed with myrrh and are not sanctified by prayer, but, despite this, everyone worships them with correlative and reverent worship for the sake of their similarity to the prototype. Therefore, the scientist, the holy bishop of Campania, Mr. Theophilus, did not hide this truth, but wrote in the book that he compiled quite recently that holy icons do not need either anointing or the prayer of the bishop (Θεόφιλος, ἐπίσκοπος Κομπανίας. Ταμεῖον ὀρθοδοξίας περιέχον συνοπιικῶς καὶ διαλαμβάνον περὶ Θεοῦ, περὶ πίστεως, περὶ ἐξηγήσεως καὶ χρήσεως τῶν ἑπτὰ Μυστηρίων, δέκα 'Εντολῶν, καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαιοτέρων τῆς Ίερᾶς Εκκλησίας ἐθίμων. Βενετία, 1780). It should be noted that the present Council, in its letter to the Church of Alexandria, pleases those who know and accept, and therefore depict and honor the visions of the prophets and the appearances of God to them in the way that God Himself depicted these phenomena and imprinted them in their minds. And on the contrary, the Council anathematizes those who do not accept iconographic images of such visions of God the Word before His incarnation (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 905). We can conclude that the beginningless Father should be depicted as He appeared to the prophet. Daniel, that is, as the Ancient of Days (see Dan. 9:7)). If Pope Gregory, in his letter to Leo the Isaurian (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 712) writes that we do not describe the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, then he does not say this in general, but because we do not depict Him pictorially according to the Divine nature, since it is impossible, says Pope Gregory, to describe and depict the nature of God with the help of painting. This is precisely what the present Council and the entire Catholic Church affirm, and this is not at all what Pope Gregory means, that we do not portray God the Father as He appeared to the prophet. For if we did not depict Him at all with the help of painting, then why do we depict both the Father and the Holy Spirit in the form of angels, young men, in whose form they appeared to Abraham? Moreover, even if it is possible that Gregory says this, then the opinion of one numerous Ecumenical Council is preferable to the opinion of one person. We affirm that the Holy Spirit should also be depicted in the form of a dove, as He appeared. Since a certain Persian named Xenaias said, among other things, that depicting the Holy Spirit as he appeared - in the form of a dove - is characteristic of infantile thought, the Holy Ecumenical VII Council (Synodikon. Vol. 2. P. 819. Act 5) anathematized him along with other iconoclasts. From this it follows that, according to the VII Council, it is appropriate to depict the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove in the same way as He appeared; Dositheus also asserts the same thing (Twelve Books, p. 655). The wisest Plato, Archbishop. Muscovy, in his “Orthodox Catechism,” notes in his explanation of the second commandment of the Decalogue that one should not consider one icon more holy than another, or rely on one more than another. And Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 658) believes that holy icons work miracles either because they were painted by some saint (but the majority does not agree with this), or for another reason (perhaps for the sake of the piety of the worshipers) and according to the Divine economy; and one more thing: the fact that Orthodox Christians hollow out holes in holy icons or make depressions in gold or silver on an icon and place a particle of the Honest Tree and holy relics inside and honor them together with the icons is not forbidden. It is fitting for us to worship holy icons with trepidation and believe that Divine grace descends on them, which, according to Vlastar, imparts sanctification to us. But it is necessary that we, keeping our five senses pure, become worthy of worshiping icons and so worship them, according to the 6th act of this VII Council. And those who hold icons only for meditation, and not in order to kiss them, are corrupt people and feigned truthfulness, according to the same 6th Act of this Council. For six reasons, images are made on holy icons and worship is given to them. First: because they improve and decorate churches. Second: because they teach those who do not know how to read and write the prophecies of the prophets, the battles of the saints, the exploits of martyrs, the passions and miracles of Christ, according to St. Nile (Nil. Ep. IV, 61 // PG 79, 577D) in the 4th act of VII Omni. (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 778–779). Third: because icons remind the literate of what they may have forgotten. Therefore, icons are called books for the wise and the ignorant, as Dvoeslov says in the book of Secundus. Fourth: because they increase the love of Christians who look at them. Therefore, the Council said that those who contemplate icons are raised to the memory of prototypes and love for them. Fifth: because icons encourage those who contemplate them to imitate holy deeds, according to St. Nile, Great Basil (in a laudatory speech to Martyr Gordius) (Basil. Magn. Hom. 18. 1 // PG 31, 492A) and this VII Council. Sixth: because icons encourage those who contemplate them with faith and hope to call on God as Savior, and the saints as intercessors before God, so that “with their prayers He would give to those who ask, “everything that can be asked for salvation.”” Iconoclasts were not only adherents of the iconoclast kings, but also the Arians before, and all the Monophysites later, and now they are all Lutherans and Calvinists. From what has been said, it becomes clear that it is wrong for the Latins to not inscribe the names of saints on icons, since, according to the definition of this Council, an icon is similar to a prototype, and in addition, it is consecrated both by the characteristic features of the person depicted and by his name. And the divine Gregory of Thessaloniki says that the name of Jesus Christ should also be inscribed on those unpainted crosses that are installed on roads, or on doors, or in other places, so that from the name it becomes clear that these crosses are of Christ, and not of the thieves crucified with Him. To this note we need to add the following: those who bring holy icons to festivals and celebrations in honor of some saints, rush around with them here and there, creating chaos and jumping, as if possessed, allegedly predicting the future and announcing hidden things and uttering other false prophecies and divinations, reintroducing Hellenic and pagan superstitions - such, I say, are confessors and saints bishops must subject them to the most severe penance in accordance with the rules, and the Holy Great Church of Christ must correct them with severe punishments. And the fact that the Holy Spirit is depicted in the form of a dove is also proven from the following: the fathers of this Council accepted doves as the image of the Holy Spirit, which are hung over fonts and altars (Act 5, p. 820). As for what the Sacred Trumpet says (in a eulogy to the three hierarchs) - that it is not appropriate to depict the Father, according to Acts 4, 5 and 6 of the 7th Ecumenical Order - we, having inquisitively read these acts, did not find anything similar, except that the nature of the Holy Trinity, as having no external outline and invisible, is not depicted. We should know that the unpainted cross is smaller than the icon of Christ. For St. Nikephoros says (in 10 chapters in which he writes about holy icons and which are preserved in manuscripts) that through the icon of Christ we worship Christ Himself, and through the unpainted cross we worship not Christ, but that primitive Cross on which Christ was crucified. In other words, through the cross we worship the Cross. And here’s something else we note here: since this holy Ecumenical Council in many places says that the painter represents what is revealed in Scripture and the Gospel with the help of words with the help of icons, then for this reason painters should be very careful and, first of all, know what Scripture and the Gospel say, and then paint their icons in accordance with the Gospel and Scripture. Or, if they themselves do not know, let them ask those who are knowledgeable and learned, in order to learn and not depict absurdities, which are often contrary to the Gospel and completely inappropriate. For example, when He teaches at Mid-Pentecost, the Lord is depicted as a beardless young boy, while the Lord was then a mature man and this happened after baptism. Depict ap. Paul at the time of the Ascension and Pentecost, while Paul became a disciple of Christ after the Ascension and Pentecost and the stoning of Stephen. They depict the resurrection of Christ, but not in such a way that Christ comes out of the tomb, soldiers are around the tomb and keep guard, and an angel sits on a stone - as the Gospel narrates - but in such a way that Christ descends into hell, Adam and Eve hold His hands, the gates and bars of hell are broken, and there are many dark demons and all the forefathers and prophets there. This is not an icon of the Resurrection, but an icon of the Descent of the Lord into hell. And there is a great difference between the resurrection and the descent into hell, for during the descent into hell the soul of the Savior was separated from the body and only one soul descended into hell, and the body lay dead in the tomb. During the resurrection, the soul was again united with the body - this is the resurrection. In addition, one should not depict a person on the Pentecost icon under the apostles and sign that this is peace (κόσμος), but instead one should depict a prophet. Joel, saying: I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28), as we see on some ancient icons. This and other equally absurd things are depicted by painters out of ignorance and bad custom, and let them correct this, also trying to become skilled and good craftsmen and painters, so that the icons they paint have a resemblance to the prototype, as this holy Council proclaims, and are not somehow strange and without similarity. Here pay attention to how sacred and venerable the divine rules are, because with the same titles and names with which the inspired and Holy Scripture is exalted, this holy Council exalts the divine rules, calling them testimonies, guidance and similar names. Therefore, Photius (tit. 1, ch. 2) says that the 3rd decree of the 2nd tit. “Novel” states: the rules of the seven Councils and their dogmas have the same force as Divine Scripture. Note that this Ecumenical Council affirms the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite as reliable and stops the mouths of those who call them forged or doubtful. The above saying is taken from Chapter 1. book “On the Church Hierarchy” (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. I, 1. 4 // PG 3, 376B), - just like that saying about Peter, which mentions the following, 4th, rule of the same Council: “Peter, the supreme head of the apostles,” is an expression of the same Dionysius, taken from the 3rd chapter. books “On the Divine Names” (Idem. De divin. nomin. III, 1. 2 // PG 3, 681D). And these are precisely the two books from which those who wrongfully slander the writings of Dionysius most often receive food for controversy. Moreover, not only the present Council, but also the VI Ecumenical affirms (Act 6) the writings of Dionysius, in which he mentions the act of God, since the Council borrowed this expression from the 4th letter of this saint to Gaius (Idem. Ep. 4 // PG 3, 1072C). Dionysius was also mentioned by the Council that took place under Pope Martin in Rome against the Monothelites, and by Sophronius at the Council in Jerusalem; Andrei Kritsky paraphrases what was said in Chapter 3. the book “On the Divine Names,” where the Dormition of the Virgin Mary is mentioned (Idem. De divin. nomin. III, 1. 2 // PG 3, 681CD), and the divine Maximus interprets Dionysius, and Damascene mentions him in the book. 1, ch. 12 “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” (Ioan. Damasc. De fide orth. I, 12 // PG 94, 844C), and Pope Agathon in the 15th letter to King Constantine. If the ancient saints did not mention the writings of Dionysius, then, according to Coresius, they did so because they wanted to prove their words only with the help of the evidence of Holy Scripture. At the same time, even the Jesuits Peter Lansselius and Corderius prove that what Gregory the Theologian said in his word on the Nativity of Christ: “On which someone else spoke beautifully and very highly in philosophy before us” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 38.8 // PG 36, 320C), is said about Dionysius the Areopagite, since he interpreted the hymn of the seraphim and lived before Gregory, and not about Athanasius, as Nikita claims, since Athanasius lived at the same time as Gregory, and not before him. We could give here the excuses of those who contradict and show that they are wrong, but we considered this unnecessary, because two Ecumenical Councils (and two Local Councils) and so many saints are enough against many thousands of those who contradict. And the 123rd novella of Justinian commands that the one who is to become a bishop should study the Divine Scripture and sacred rules for three months; and the one who was ordained in a different way, let him be deposed, and the one who ordained him, let him be prohibited from serving, since it is shameful and absurd for someone who himself should teach others to study after ordination. See also p. 440 of the “Greco-Roman Law”, where it is said that after the Creed, each bishop during his consecration also proclaims the following: “In addition, I accept the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, which were assembled for the preservation of sacred dogmas, and I promise to love and preserve the rules determined by them, and the holy decrees that were set forth by our sacred fathers on various occasions and at various times. All those whom they accept, I accept, and those from whom they turn away, I turn away.” In other sources - “own predilection” (ἰδίαν ἐμπάθειαν). Paul says these words in Acts were spoken by the Lord. And a certain Euphaly, bishop. Sulkius, a contemporary of Athanasius the Great, says that Paul took these words from the “Apostolic Constitutions” (Euthal. Diac. Editio Act. Apost. // PG 85, 644D). They are in ch. 3 books 4 of the “Apostolic Constitutions,” but it is also written there that the Lord said them (PG 1, 808D–809A). See also the preface to these regulations. Metropolitan of Smyrna, interpreting the Council Epistles (in which Apostle John says that there is a sin leading to death and there is a sin not leading to death (1 John 5:16–17)), says that a sin leading to death is every sin for which the old law punished with death. Such sins were blasphemy, deliberate murder, bestiality, adultery, etc. A sin not leading to death is a sin for which the punishment was not death, for example, involuntary murder, etc. Anastasius of Sinaite (question 54) says that a sin leading to death is a sin committed consciously, and a sin not leading to death is committed in ignorance. And blasphemy is a sin unto death, as well as deliberate great sin, such as murder, adultery, etc., since they all kill the soul (Anast. Sinait. Respons. 54 // PG 89, 616C–617A). But the present Council calls uncorrected and unrepentant sin a sin unto death. In accordance with the present Council, the Icumenius also says that a sin leading to death is a sin that is not healed by the correction of the sinner, like the sin of Judas and the wicked, about whom it is said: The paths of the vindictive lead to death (Prov. 12:28) (Oecum. Comment. in I Ep. loan. 7 // PG 119, 681D). See also note. to the 3rd chapter. the book “Guide for a Confessor,” which by the grace of Christ was recently published (we are talking about the book of St. Nicodemus “Exomologitarium”). For unwritten legends, see the rules of Vasily the Great. 91 and 92. The term ἐγκαίνια (renewal) was originally used to designate a special rite that was performed annually in each church on the day of its consecration. Later, this rite was combined with the solemn transfer of the relics and their position in the already consecrated church (in the pre-iconoclastic era, churches could be consecrated without the placement of martyr’s relics in them under the altar). Gradually, in the post-iconoclastic era, with the establishment of the tradition of consecrating churches only with the placement of holy relics in them, the term “renewal” became increasingly associated only with the rite of consecrating the church. The so-called rite of renewal became an integral part of the rite of consecration. The martyr's relics are placed in the foundation of the church, according to the establishment of the ancient Euchologia, as follows. After the sacred rite of consecrating the church, the bishop takes three particles of the martyr’s relics, puts them in the reliquary and, having poured holy myrrh on the relics, closes it. And if the holy meal stands on pillars, the bishop hides this reliquary in the floor under those pillars that face the east. (Some express the opinion that for the sake of greater piety, it is appropriate to hide the reliquary with the martyr’s relics not in the floor, but in one of the eastern pillars, if the particles of the relics are small; if the particles are large, they are hidden in the floor.) If the holy meal is placed on only one pillar, the reliquary is placed in the middle of this pillar, and the holy meal is placed on top of it (i.e. i.e. the so-called altar board). Four subtleties are worthy of note in this update note: First. According to the rites and the establishment of Euchologia, the consecration of any church must be performed by a bishop. Therefore, if in many places bishops allow others to consecrate churches - just as in Muscovy bishops allow archimandrites to consecrate divine churches - then this, as I argue, contradicts the rites of Euchologia. In all places both in the Euchology and in the works of Simeon of Thessaloniki where consecration is mentioned, the bishop is named, not the priest (Sym. Thessal. De sacro templo // PG 155, 305–361A). Lesser consecration (μικρὰ ἐγκαίνια) is not mentioned in the Euchology, and also in Muscovy they do not know about it. Obviously, this is a rite of later origin (it is not known what St. Nicodemus means here by small consecration. In modern practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, the rites of small consecration of a church are usually called rites performed when it is necessary to resume services in a church that was once consecrated, but for some reason has been desecrated). Second. The relics that will be placed in the church should belong to the martyrs, and not to the monks or hierarchs. Therefore, the custom that is observed in Muscovy is commendable: the relics of the martyrs are kept there in the archdiocese, and when it is necessary to consecrate the church, only the bishop takes them from there, so that no mistake occurs and instead of the martyr’s relics, either simple relics or the relics of another saint and not the martyr are hidden. Some demand that the relics of both holy martyrs and holy martyrs be used for this, but Euchologius does not talk about this. Third. These martyr's relics must be hidden under the holy table, and not in another part of the church, in order to fulfill the saying: “The divine face of the martyrs is the foundation of the Church,” as stated in the service of renewal. And those who place the relics in another part of the church commit a great sin. Fourth and last. During any consecration of a church, large or small, it is necessary and absolutely necessary to place the relics of the martyrs under the holy table. Therefore, those bishops who perform the great consecration, or those bishops and priests who perform the so-called small and abbreviated rite of consecration without the placement of martyr’s relics, must be cast out, according to the definition of this rule. After all, an integral component and distinctive part of the consecration of a church is the position of holy relics in it, and without this consecration is impossible. And the antimensions, since they have the sanctifying power that is given to them by the consecration of the church and the performance of prayers during the consecration, and in addition, the seven-day celebration of the liturgy at the meal of the consecrated church, replace the consecrated holy meal. Therefore, they are freely transferred to where the need for them arises, and they are not inscribed only for the parish in which they were consecrated, just as the holy myrrh and other shrines are not inscribed. Antimensions are placed on those thrones that have not been consecrated, according to the 1st answer of Peter and Patr. Manuel Haritopoulos (Greco-Roman Law. P. 239). After all, according to Balsamon, they are capable of replacing consecration and opening (i.e., the opening of the doors of the church: when the consecration of the church takes place, the doors are opened while singing Take, the gates, your princes (Ps. 23:7), etc.). However, in order to consecrate the meal, all other sacred rites (i.e., washing, anointing and dressing the throne in sacred shrouds) are not enough unless the relics of the martyr are placed under it. Likewise, for the antimensions that replace the meal (in order for them to truly and accurately replace the consecrated meal), only the sacred rites over them during the consecration of the church are not enough, unless the martyr’s relics are also sewn into the antimensions. Therefore, the Euchologia’s establishment on the consecration of antimensions teaches that they are consecrated through the relics of martyrs. Likewise, in Muscovy, antimensions are never used without holy relics, as we said earlier in the note. to VI Omni. 31. Pay attention to the following: according to John of Kitras, unless the new temple is consecrated in some other way, the antimensions are not consecrated at all (Greco-Roman Law, p. 331). However, Simeon of Thessaloniki (chapter 127, p. 226) says: if there is a need for antimensions, then even without the consecration of the church, the antimensions are spread out on the sacred table and the rite of consecration is performed (similarly, in the Euchologia, the rite of consecration of antimensions is given separately from the rite of consecration of the church). Saint Simeon also says that two panels of equal size must be sewn to the antimensions. One is like a srachitsa, as the srachitsa appears at a holy meal, in the image of the shroud; the other is like a trapezophore (i.e. indium), in honor of the fact that the antimension will be the throne of God. Iliton is also sewn to the middle of the antimension (Sym. Thessal. De sacro templo 127 // PG 155, 333BC). It is also necessary to sew into the antimins and particles of relics in a small linen bag and perform over the antimins without changes everything that is done over the divine consecrated meal. The same saint adds (ibid.) that the rite of this consecration is performed exclusively by the bishop, but if necessary, it can be performed by a pious and experienced priest, with the permission of the bishop. And Balsamon says that the bishop should serve not in an unconsecrated (ἀνενθρονίαστον) church, but in a consecrated (ἐνθρονιασμένον), since in such a church there is a pulpit (θρόνος), to which the bishop must sit down while reading the apostle. When one bishop during the time of Patriarch Luke served in such a church, some said that he should be deposed. And Mr. Luke determined that he should suffer another punishment, which the Council deems necessary. John of Kitras in his 9th canon says that in that consecrated church where there are martyr’s relics, the dead should not be buried. Balsamon says the same thing in the 38th answer (Greco-Roman Law, p. 382). Socrates in the book. 7 of his “History” tells that one Jew, taking on the guise of piety, was baptized many times for selfish reasons, so that in this way he acquired a huge fortune. Moving from heresy to heresy, he finally came to Paul, Bishop of Novatia, in Constantinople, pretending that he wanted to truly and completely become a Christian. When the water necessary for the sacrament was poured into the font and the Jew entered it for baptism, oh a miracle! - the font has dried up. Those present were surprised by what had happened and, having plugged all the holes that were in any way suspicious, they filled the font again. And when the Jew entered again, the water immediately disappeared without a trace, and everyone was amazed (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. VII, 17 // PG 67, 772C–773A). It is obvious that this miracle occurred either because of the hypocritical faith with which the shaky Jew sought baptism - and, therefore, it teaches bishops and priests to accept a Jew into Orthodoxy not with ease, but after time and with much testing - or because baptism was lawlessly repeated. Another interpretation of the text found in older translations is “that he is in the service of the so-called nobles.” – Ed. “Belonging to God,” as in other sources. The reason why the present rule requires that ecclesiastical or monastic property should be sold not to rulers, but to clergy or farmers, is, as it seems to me, this: this property is dedicated to God, and the consecrated and sacred are also called those belonging to the poor. So, since it is sacred, it should be given to persons sacred and dedicated to God, which are the clergy, and since it belongs to the poor - to the poor, which are the farmers. Therefore, such a transfer is consistent with the person of the recipients; conversely, if this property were given to rulers, it would be completely inappropriate, for they are not sacred and not poor. Perhaps the rule commands that the property be sold to the farmers and the poor, so that the Church can buy it back from them if it later finds the means to do so, which it could not easily do if it sold it to the rich. Note also that according to the laws and according to Vlastar, in the proper sense, alienation is the transfer to another owner and owner of any real or movable property, accomplished through either a gift, or a sale, or a long-term lease, or an exchange, or in another similar way, in other words, when the property is completely alienated and given to another. And leasing is when any property is given to someone not completely and not forever, but for a while. However, in the improper sense, bestowal is called alienation, and, conversely, alienation is called bestowal, just as this rule used the concepts of bestowal and alienation in the second sense, improper. Although the present rule says that monastic and church property should not be alienated, the 120th novel of Justinian determines that even profitable estates that constitute the real estate of churches and monasteries should be sold when the need arises to give money for the release of Orthodox prisoners. See also note. to Apost. 72 and IV Omni. 24. Rule of St. Nikephoros 6 allows such an abbot-presbyter to also produce a subdeacon. And the divine laws of Orthodox emperors, complementing the sacred rules in this matter, add how the abbot should be appointed: the bishop must appoint the abbot to monasteries not according to rank, but according to the election of either all the monks, or the most virtuous of them, who must declare with all responsibility that they choose him not out of friendship or gratitude, but because they find him Orthodox, prudent and capable of leading the monks and the monastery well. The same should be done in relation to the abbess in women's monasteries. Steph. diac. Vita Steph. Junior. // PG 100, 1112A. Vanity (περπέρεια) in the proper sense is any vain and untimely deed. This word comes from the Perpers, brothers of the Cecropides, who labored in vain and untimely out of love for unworthy persons (Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 514). Therefore, the apostle said: Love does not exalt itself (οὐ περπερεύεται) (see 1 Cor. 13:4), that is, it does not do anything in vain. However, if we take the word ἡ περπέρεια in a broader sense, then it means vanity and boasting. In fact, Scripture forbids the joining into one fabric of threads that are dissimilar and different from each other, and therefore of different colors, saying: Do not put on clothing made of different substances, wool and linen together (Deut. 22:11). Interpreting this, the divine Isidore Pelusiot says that Moses demands that purple and crimson threads not be woven into linen clothing in order to induce listeners to wisdom and drive out all luxury from them. With the command not to combine wool and linen into one fabric, he prohibits multi-colored and variegated clothing, and with the command not to weave purple and crimson threads into linen clothing, he prohibits all excess and decoration in clothing (Isid. Pel. Ep. III, 84 // PG 78, 789BC). And if God forbids this to worldly Jews, then even more so He forbids it to Christians, and especially to His bishops and priests! If this is forbidden to bishops, priests and clergy, then even more so it is forbidden to monks who have renounced the world and all its splendor! Therefore, the clothes that some monks wear today are truly disgusting and are so decorated that you will not find the same among the laity. Therefore, Basil the Great (Ascetic Rules. Chapter 9) says that the ascetic and monk who desires and strives to become a cleric and clergyman or to become an abbot and mentor to others is sick with the devil’s illness and the crime of covetousness (PG 31, 1369C). Basil. Magn. Hom. 2. 4 // PG 31, 192A. I found a note on the present rule (which appears to be from Zonara) explaining why Rule IV Omni. 2 makes a decision that the one who ordained or performed for money should be subject to eruption, and this rule says: “Let him either stop or be ejected.” So, she resolves the confusion and points out that the rule of the IV Council speaks about those who ordain for money, and the present rule is not about ordainers, but about those who are accepted into the clergy, in other words, about those who are already ordained and clergy who are enrolled for money into the clergy of any church, which is why it prescribed a lighter penance. The correctness of this explanation is also confirmed by the text of the rule, which says that the one who did this, if he is from the sacred list, will be cast out. But a simple priest does not ordain any cleric. See also that, according to this rule, those abbots and abbots of the monasteries who in our days demand that those who come to them have money, and accept them for money, and do not accept them into the monastery without money, should be expelled from their monasteries. From this rule it is clear that an unordained monk, but a reasonable, prudent and worthy abbot, can become the abbot of a monastery. Therefore, the 2nd decree of the 1st title. The Novell defines: if a monk leaves a monastery and enters another, his property must remain in the first monastery. And the 38th decree of the 3rd title. 1st book. The Code says that those leaving their monasteries should not take away the movable property that they brought into them, no matter how much it may be in quantity, and even if no document was drawn up about its dedication (Photius. Nomocanon. Tit. 11, ch. 4); also, real estate dedicated by someone should remain with the monastery, since the land dedicated by Ananias and Sapphira to God was also real estate, however, due to the theft they committed, withholding from its value, they were put to a terrible death (Acts 5). However, he cannot use it himself, for it is already dedicated to God, but must rededicate it to another monastery. Other sources also added this: “And soon it is removed.” The same Basil the Great (in rule 33, set out at length) says that when monks need to talk with nuns, they must choose the persons who will conduct the conversation, the time, the appropriate place, and the need, so that everything is modest and beyond any suspicion. So, the persons who should conduct the conversation, on the part of the monks, should be the elders, modest, reverent and possessing reasoning in order to question and answer, and on the part of the nuns should also be the most senior and judicious. When they are having a conversation, there should be two or even three nearby, both from the monks and from the nuns. For two are better than one (Eccl. 4:9) and worthy of greater trust; the same person from both sides should not enter into a conversation - both because of the danger of arousing suspicion, and because he cannot reliably confirm what was said. If other brothers need to talk to a nun, they should not engage in conversation directly themselves, but should convey what they want to say through the mediation of senior and selected monks to selected senior nuns, and they, in turn, should convey it to those sisters with whom they sought conversation. Also, those monks who bring the nuns the necessities of life and provide services must be experienced, modest and of advanced age, so as not to arouse evil suspicion in anyone (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (fus.) 33. 2 // PG 31, 997C–1000A). The same thing is determined by the 220th rule briefly stated (PG 31, 1228BD). And the 181st rule determines that if two monasteries are located close to each other and one is poor and the other has means, the one who has the means of subsistence must help the poor, because according to the commandment it is necessary to lay down one’s life for others (see 1 John 3:16). But if they do not help the poor, they must endure long and, imitating Lazarus, rejoice, trusting in the consolation and joy that awaits them for the sake of this poverty in the next century (PG 31, 1204B). In accordance with what Basil the Great said above about senior monks who should help nuns, St. Nikifor. Thus, in the 22nd rule, he says that if a monk-presbyter, that is, a hieromonk who is young in years, serves nuns, no one should partake of the Holy Mysteries with him - probably in order to thereby shame him and correct him. See also the three rules of John the Faster, below, and note. in addition to the 22nd rule of Nicephorus the Confessor. This is how Basil the Great cites this saying on the same issue in his word “On Virginity” (Basil. Magn. De virgin. 43 // PG 30, 756C). Imperial laws also determine that parents not only cannot take their children who have chosen monastic life from the monasteries, but are also obliged to give out the inheritance that is due to them, even if they were guilty of some kind of guilt (i.e., accused) before they entered monasticism. Read also the testimony of Chrysostom in the note. to Gangr. 16. This rule is stated vaguely, since it does not indicate the reasons why one can leave the monastery. Therefore, we, to the extent possible, investigated this issue and found the following reasons. A monk leaves the monastery if: 1) his abbot is a heretic, according to the 17th rule of Nicephorus the Confessor; 2) women enter the monastery, according to the same rule of Nicephorus the Confessor; 3) worldly children study in the monastery, since through them the rumor about what is happening in the monastery spreads throughout the world, according to the same rule of Nicephorus the Confessor - add also the temptation that comes from children. And Basil the Great (rule 36 of those set out at length) only for one reason allows anyone to leave his monastery, namely: if a monk receives spiritual harm, which, the saint says, he must first declare to those who are able to correct it, and if they do not correct it, then let him leave, no longer as from brothers, but as from strangers. If a monk, due to the inconstancy and frivolity of his intention, and not because of any harm, is going to leave the monastery, he should heal this weakness and inconstancy by staying in his monastery, and if he does not want to receive healing in this way, another monastery should not accept him. The same saint adds that the reason and teaching of the fathers do not approve of any other valid reason for separation and departure (besides mental harm, which we mentioned). If, for the commandment of the Lord, brothers each go in their own direction, then such are not separated from each other, but fulfill the economy (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (fus.) 36 // PG 31, 1008C–1009A). Constantinople also speaks in agreement with the divine Basil. 6, determining that if someone suffers mental harm, he must tell the abbot about the harm caused to him, and if the abbot does not eliminate the harm, and the danger is obvious, he should leave the monastery. And even if the abbot imposes a ban on him so that he does not leave, let him not pay attention to this ban, but leave. Some also point to another valid reason for leaving: if it happens that the inhabitant of the novice, the novice, turns out to be worthy of silence. In this case, with the permission of the abbot, he can leave to communicate with God one-on-one, according to John Climacus (The Sermon on Obedience). However, one should pay attention to the fact that not everyone is suitable for hermitage and silence. It's all about voluntary leaving. Even the abbot is forcibly expelled from the monastery and placed in another if he accepts those intending to become monks for money, according to the VII Ecumenical Order. 19. And the tonsured person without a successor is sent to another monastery, according to Dvukrat. 2, and tonsured without a three-year trial, according to Dvukrat. 5. In addition, for the sake of improvement and putting in order other monasteries, the bishop transfers virtuous monks, according to Dvukrat. 4. In other sources, “God-fearing,” which seems more correct. Other sources add: “...only let it be done with reverence,” as Zonara interprets.