О Сардикийском Поместном соборе

The Holy Local 190 Council in the Illyrian 191 city of Sardica was convened in 347 192 during the reign of the brother-emperors Constantius and Constant, the first of whom reigned in Constantinople, and the second in Rome. The council took place 10 years after the death of their father, Constantine the Great 193. It was attended by 300 fathers from the West and 76 from the East, according to Socrates (book 2, chapter 20) 194 and Sozomen (book 3, chapter 12) 195 196. The foremost of them were Hosius, Bishop of Corduba in Spain, worthy of all respect for his old age and the many labors he endured, the presbyters Archidamus and Philoxenus, three representatives of Pope Julius, Maximus of Jerusalem, Paul of Constantinople and Athanasius of Alexandria (who were present at the Council, although the Eusebians defrocked them), the Sardician Bishop Protogenes, etc. There was a schism and division between the Eastern and Western Fathers at the Council, and they did not come to mutual agreement. The Eastern Arianists, when they went to Sardica, wrote to the Westerners not to provide a place at the Council of St. Paul, Athanasius the Great, Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepe of Gaza, as defrocked. But the Westerners responded that they did not recognize these fathers as either guilty or deposed, and therefore treated them as participants in the Council and accepted them into communion. The eastern ones, having learned about this, returned back to Philippopolis and again cast out Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus, Asclepas, Julius of Rome, Hosius of Corduba, Protogen of Sardicia, etc. Without remembering the consubstantiality at all (although Socrates in book 2, chapter 20 says that they openly anathematized the consubstantial 197), they uttered anathema only on those who spoke about three Gods; on the one who taught that Christ is not God and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same Person; and on the one who said that the Son may not have been begotten and that there was once a time or age when He was not. The Western fathers who remained in Sardica, having held a Council, confirmed the Nicene faith, without adding anything to it and without subtracting anything from it. They acquitted Athanasius, Paul, Marcellus 198 and Asclepas, dropped the charges against them and, through the emperors, helped them receive their sees. In response, the eastern ones who gathered in Philippopolis were defrocked, however, not all of them, but only 11 fathers, since not all of the eastern were Arians, but only some, and the rest remained Orthodox (which the Sardician fathers report in a letter to all Churches), which is why many of the opinions of Arius were anathematized, and the divine Hilary accepted their Symbol as Orthodox. Along with all this, the Western fathers also issued real rules 199 necessary for the deanery and structure of the Church. They are indirectly confirmed by the rules of the IV Universe. 1 and VII Omni. 1, and directly – VI Omni. 2. Thanks to this confirmation, they in some way receive the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. 20 rules of the Sardician Local Holy Council with interpretations It is not so much a bad custom as a most harmful disorder of affairs that should be eradicated to the very foundation: none of the bishops will be allowed to move from a small town to another city. For the reason why such transitions are undertaken is obvious. After all, it was absolutely never possible to find a single bishop who would strive to move from a larger city to a smaller one. Hence it is discovered that such people are inflamed by a fiery desire for covetousness and they rather slavishly serve arrogance in order to appear to have greater power. So, everyone wants such depravity to be punished more severely: we believe that they should not have communication even on an equal basis with the laity. (Apost. 14; I Om. 15; IV Ose. 5; Antioch. 16, 21; Sardik. 2; Carthage. 57.) In the introduction, this rule says that every bad custom [ 200 ] must be abolished. When he upsets both church affairs and the deanery, then it is appropriate to uproot him to the very foundations and completely destroy him. Then the rule determines that it is not permissible for a bishop to leave his small episcopal region and take another, larger one, since the reason why he does this is greed and pride, which is obvious to everyone. Self-interest - in order to have greater and more abundant profits from a larger episcopal region; pride - so that, having a larger area, one can have, therefore, greater glory and power. Therefore, such evil should be punished more severely than anything else, and bishops who dared to do this should be excommunicated from the meeting of Christians and not allowed to communicate with the faithful in the Church, even as laymen [201]. If someone turns out to be so crazy or impudent that he decides to excuse himself for such things by claiming that letters from the people were delivered to him, then it is obvious that others, a few in number, being bribed with rewards and money, could cause rebellions in the Church, allegedly wanting to have him as a bishop. Therefore, we believe that such tricks and tricks should be decisively punished, so that none of them, even at death, will be honored with church communion, even on an equal basis with the laity. (Apost. 14; I Ose. 15; IV Ose. 5; Antioch. 16, 21; Sardik. 1; Carthage. 57.) This rule continues the previous one: it speaks of the case if any bishop is so arrogant and impudent that, even after the above rule, he dares to move from one episcopal region to another. Moreover, in order to show that he is supposedly not subject to the penance of the rule, he will begin to object and say that he received letters from the people of that episcopal region with an invitation to become their bishop. So, if this happens, then it is obvious that he used cunning and deceit and, having bribed some from that episcopal region with silver, persuaded them to create unrest and ask him to be their bishop. Therefore, such treachery and cunning must be so severely punished that those who do this, even at death, will not be awarded church communion and communion - neither as bishops nor as ordinary laymen. It is also necessary to add that none of the bishops move from their metropolitan region to another where there are bishops, unless they are called by one of the brothers who are there, so that it does not seem that we are closing the gates of love. In the same way, the following must be provided: if in a metropolitan region any of the bishops has a case against his brother and co-bishop, then none of them should call bishops from another metropolitan region as mediators. So, if one of the bishops turns out to be condemned in some case and believes that he has not empty, but fair grounds to once again resume the trial, then, if you wish, we will honor the memory of the apostle with love. Peter - and let those who carried out the trial write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, with the help of the bishops neighboring the metropolitan region, the trial will be resumed and the pope will appoint persons who will sort out this matter. If the accused cannot prove that his case needs to be reviewed, then the sentence once passed should not be canceled and remain in force as existing. (Apost. 35; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; VI Ose. 8; Antioch. 13, 22; Sardik. 11–12.) Bishops are not only forbidden to leave a smaller episcopal region and take a larger one, but also, according to this rule, they are absolutely not allowed to come from their metropolitan region to the region of other bishops to perform any kind of episcopal service without the latter’s invitation. However, the rule allows people to come even by invitation so that the gates of love and brotherly love between bishops are not closed. If two bishops have any legal case between themselves, they should ask bishops not from someone else’s metropolitan region to judge them, but from the one to which they themselves belong. And if one of them is condemned by the bishops of the metropolitan region, but considers that his case is not devoid of truth and force and can be decided in his favor if it is reviewed by others, then it is appropriate for us to honor the memory of the apostle out of love. Petra. This means that the bishops who carried out the trial in this case should inform the Roman See (its bishop was then Julius) that the bishop they convicted was not satisfied with their verdict. And the Bishop of Rome, if he considers that the matter needs to be reviewed, will order the bishops of the neighboring metropolitan region to consider it. If he considers that the case does not require a retrial, then the previously rendered decision of the bishops must remain in force and be valid. Please note: this rule does not apply to those metropolitan areas that are not subject to the pope, but only to those that are subject to him, according to Zonara [202]. If a bishop is deposed by the court of these neighboring bishops and says that he is again taking up the work of justification, then another should be installed in his see not before the Bishop of Rome, having familiarized himself with the matter, makes a decision about it. (Double. 16; Carthage. 96.) And this rule serves as a continuation of the previous one. It says that if a bishop is deposed by the nearest neighboring bishops, but declares that he can justify himself before another court, then another bishop is ordained to the see of the deposed one, not before the pope, having learned about this eruption, makes a decision as to whether it is valid or not. Please note that this rule also applies to metropolitan areas subordinate to the pope, and not to those that are not subject to him, according to the same Zonara. See Apost. 74, Double. 16 and preface to this Council. If a denunciation is received against a bishop and the bishops of that region, having assembled, deprive him of his rank, and he, for the purpose of appeal, resorts to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, who, having wished to listen to him, considers it fair to resume consideration of his case, then it is decided that the pope deigns to write to the bishops closest to that metropolitan region and that they, having carefully and carefully examined everything and are convinced of the truth, made a decision on the case. If someone begins to demand that his case be heard again and, at his request, the Bishop of Rome wants to send presbyters for his part, let this be in the power of the Bishop of Rome. If he considers it good and determines that those should be sent who will judge along with the bishops, being invested with the authority of the one by whom they were sent, let this be allowed. If he considers the consideration of the case and the verdict regarding the bishop sufficient, then let him do what seems good to his most prudent reasoning. This rule defines almost the same thing as the previous one. It says: when a bishop, accused of a crime, is deposed by the bishops of his metropolitan region and transfers the trial to the pope, then the pope, if he considers it fair to reconsider his case, must write to the bishops neighboring that metropolitan region so that they thoroughly and carefully consider the case and make a true and fair decision on it. However, if the same bishop, after he has been condemned by neighboring bishops, for the second time sends the court to the pope and asks him to send his own people, endowed with his authority and being his deputies, and so that they judge (for the third time) this case together with the bishops of that metropolitan region or those neighboring it, then it depends on the power and wise prudence of the pope whether to send his representatives to judge this case or to determine, that the first trial of bishops and their sentence carried out over a bishop is sufficient [203]. Please note that this rule, according to Zonara, applies only to the pope’s subordinates, and not to those who do not obey him. If it happens that in one metropolitan region, where there are many bishops, there will be only one bishop left and he, through negligence, does not want to come and agree to the installation of bishops, and the assembled people begin to ask that the bishop whom they demand be installed, then this remaining bishop must first be reminded through messages from the exarch of the metropolitan region (I mean the bishop of the metropolitan area) that the people demand to give them a shepherd. We consider it good to wait for his arrival. If, even after a written request, he does not come and does not answer, something must happen that satisfies the wishes of the people. To install a bishop of the metropolitan area, it is necessary to call upon bishops from the neighboring metropolitan region. It is not generally allowed to appoint a bishop to a village or small town, for which one presbyter is enough. There is no need to place bishops there, lest the name and authority of the bishop be neglected. But the bishops of the metropolitan region, as I said before, must appoint bishops in those cities in which they were before. If it turns out that any city increases in number of inhabitants so much that it is considered worthy of a bishopric, let it receive it. This rule defines: if it happens that in a certain metropolitan region, which has many bishops, only one bishop remains (because others have been deposed, or have died, or are absent due to some forced circumstances), and the people of one of the episcopal regions that are part of that metropolitan region, having gathered, begin to demand that a bishop be elected and ordained for it, then the exarch of the metropolitan region, i.e. the metropolitan (see note to Apostle 34), you need to write to the mentioned remaining bishop about the demand of the people and wait until he arrives. If, through negligence, he does not want to come for the selection and consecration of the required bishop and does not even want to give his vote for him in a letter, then the metropolitan must satisfy the request of the people, that is, convene the bishops neighboring that metropolitan region and together with them elect and ordain the bishop demanded by the people. In the same way, when a metropolitan should be installed in such a single-episcopal, so to speak, metropolitan area, he should be elected and ordained by these neighboring bishops [204]. In addition to this, the rule says that there is no need to appoint a bishop to a village or small town, for the spiritual administration of which one presbyter is enough, so that through this the highest episcopal dignity is not neglected. Bishops need to be ordained only in those cities that from the very beginning were bishoprics, that is, episcopal sees. However, if any city turns out to be so populous that it is worthy to become a new bishopric, let it become one and receive its own bishop. Rule of Carthage. 62 similarly determines that the laity who have never had their own bishop in their locality can receive one, but only with the knowledge and will of the bishop to whom they were subordinate from the very beginning. And the 65th rule of the same Council says that no small parish should be separated from the entire metropolitan region in order to become a new bishopric, without the permission of the metropolitan of the entire metropolitan region. And the 109th rule of the same Council determines that areas that did not have a special bishop should not receive one without the decision of the metropolitan, the patriarch and the entire Council and without the knowledge of the bishop who initially ruled them. See also Apost. 1. Our untimely, very frequent and unfair intercessions have led to the fact that we do not use such mercy and boldness as we should use. Indeed, many of the bishops do not cease to appear at the imperial court, and especially the African bishops, who, as we learned from our beloved brother and co-bishop Gratus, do not accept saving advice, but despise it so much that the same person brings to the court the most numerous and varied petitions, moreover, such as cannot be useful to the Churches; and not in order to help the poor and common people or widows and intercede for them (as it should and becomes), but in order to obtain for some worldly ranks and positions. In a word, such ignorance causes us harm, in addition to causing temptation and condemnation. And we considered it more decent for the bishop to provide his assistance to the one who is suffering violence, or to the widow who is unjustly offended, or to the orphan who is deprived of what belongs to him - if only the requests of these persons are fair. But none of the bishops should appear at the imperial court, except those whom our most pious emperor summons with his letters. However, since it often happens that some people in need of compassion come to the Church, those who were condemned for sins to exile or exiled to an island, or who were given any other sentence, one should not refuse such help, but, on the contrary, without delay or hesitation, ask for leniency for them. (Antioch. 11; Sardik. 8, 9, 20; Carthage. 117.) Some bishops, especially those in Africa, dared to come to the emperor not in order to help widows and beggars, as was proper, but in order to give some of their friends a higher position in society and positions of rulers. Despite the fact that African bishops were often advised to stop this, they neglected such advice so much that the same bishop could bring many different petitions to the royal palace that had nothing to do with the Church. So, I say, such outrage occurred, and as a result, the bishops did not have such boldness before the emperor and did not find from him such mercy as they should enjoy; moreover, they served as a reason for temptations and reproaches addressed to them. Therefore, this rule, while prohibiting this, determines that every bishop must come to the emperor in order to provide assistance to the oppressed, for example, widows who are offended, orphans whose property is taken away [205]. However, even in this case, assistance should be given to those whose request is fair and justified, but to those whose request is unfair and unreasonable, assistance should not be provided. In addition, the bishop should not come to the emperor of his own free will, without a written imperial invitation. Those cases are excluded when people deserving mercy resort to the Church because, for example, they were exiled to some island or other harsh places for crimes they committed. For the sake of such and similar condemned people, bishops must without delay or invitation come to the emperor to ask for leniency for the crimes of such persons and, consequently, for their release from punishment. See also Antiochus. 11. Let the following be determined. Since it was decided that none of the bishops should incur condemnation by appearing at court, then if some of them have such petitions as we mentioned above, let them send them through their deacon. For the servant’s face is not reproachable, and he will be more likely to deliver what is entrusted. (Antioch. 11; Sardik. 7, 9, 20; Carthage. 117.) This rule serves as a continuation of the previous one. It determines that bishops, if they need to bring a petition to the emperor for the reasons mentioned above, that is, in order to help the oppressed or free the condemned, do not come to the emperor themselves, since this also serves as a reason to accuse them and show contempt for them, but send deacons and bring these petitions through them. After all, in this case, firstly, no one will blame the bishop for going there; and, secondly, the letters to be given by the emperor, and other answers to the said petitions, will be more easily and quickly delivered through the deacon than through the bishop. Let the following be determined. When in any metropolitan region bishops send petitions to their brother and co-bishop, then the one who is in a larger city, that is, in the metropolis, should send his deacon with these petitions, also handing him representative letters, that is, letters that he will write accordingly to our brothers and co-bishops, if any of them at that time happens to be in those places and cities where the most pious emperor manages public affairs. If one of the bishops has friends at the imperial court and wishes to ask for something worthy, then let him not be forbidden to ask them, and to encourage him through his deacon to give him good help as a petitioner. Those who come to Rome, as I said before, should present their petitions to our beloved brother and fellow bishop Julius, so that he first checks whether there are any shameless ones among them, and then, adding his own intercession and care, directs them to the court. (Antioch. 11; Carthage. 117; Sardik. 7, 8, and, 20.) This rule deals with the same topic. Namely, if a bishop writes a letter with his requests to the bishop of the area where the emperor is located, then this letter should first be handed over to the metropolitan of the bishop who sends the letter. If the metropolitan sees that the letter contains requests worthy of attention and that it will not burden the emperor, he should send it with his deacon to the bishop to whom it is addressed, and for his part write representative letters to the bishops of those cities where the emperor is located, asking them to provide assistance in an appropriate manner, namely in the same way as the said bishop himself asks them to do so. If, on the contrary, the metropolitan sees that the letter will burden the emperor, let him send it back to the sending bishop. No bishop is forbidden to write through the deacon to his friends in the palace, so that they will help him in matters worthy and worthy of attention for which he asks them. If the emperor is in Rome, then the deacons of the bishops going there [ 206 ] must submit their petitions to the pope so that he considers them and, if they deserve respect and do not contain insolent words in addressing the emperor, sends them to the palace under his own representation and patronage. It must be observed with all care and care that, if any rich or learned person from among the secular persons is worthy to become a bishop, he is not installed before he has passed through the offices of reader, deacon and presbyter, so that if he is found worthy at each degree, he will be able, as he succeeds, to rise to the height of bishopric. And it is obvious that no too short time should be allotted to the degree of each rank, during which his faith, decency of character, constancy and meekness could be known, so that he, found worthy of the divine priesthood, may receive the greatest honor. One cannot arrogantly and rashly appoint a bishop, presbyter or deacon: neither learning nor good behavior can allow this. After all, otherwise he should have been considered a convert, especially since the most blessed apostle, who became a teacher of the pagans, clearly forbade quick orders 207. Testing over a long period of time will be able to reveal the behavior and disposition of everyone in the proper way. (Apost. 80; I Om. 2; Dvukrat. 17; Neo-Caesar. 12; Laodice. 3; Cyril Alexander. 4.) This rule determines that the following law must be observed with great care: if any rich or learned person (meaning one of the secular and immersed in the vanity of public affairs) turns out to be worthy of bishopric, then he should not be immediately ordained as a bishop, unless he first spends a long, and not a short time in each degree (reader, deacon and presbyter), so that during this time he will be previously identified and tested right faith, decency of character, nobility of judgment and meekness, and then he advanced from degree to degree, ascending to the highest peak of the bishopric. After all, it is indecent and indecent for knowledge of divine words or time-tested good character to allow one to ordain a bishop, presbyter or deacon thoughtlessly and hastily. Otherwise, such a person will be considered a convert, and this is forbidden by St. Paul, saying that it is not proper for a bishop to be a convert [208], also instructs Timothy not to ordain anyone hastily: Do not lay your hands on anyone hastily (1 Tim. 5:22). See also Apost. 8o and note. 1 to Double 17. In the case where a bishop moves from one city to another or from one episcopal region to another, working for the sake of vanity and for his own praise or out of zeal for the faith, and wants to spend a fairly long time there, and the bishop of that city is unskilled in instruction, we determine that the former should not neglect the latter and should not preach too often, seeking to disgrace and disgrace the person of the local bishop. For this usually becomes a reason for turmoil, and the bishop seeks by such cunning to encroach on someone else’s see and seize it, without hesitation deciding to leave the Church entrusted to him and move to another. So, a time must be determined for this (since not receiving a bishop is considered an inhuman and evil deed). Remember how in the past our fathers determined: if a layman, while remaining in the city, does not come to the meeting on three Sunday days within three weeks, let him be excluded from communion. So, if this is decreed regarding the laity, then it is not proper, it is not proper and it is not useful for a bishop, if he does not have any urgent need or difficult matter, to be absent from his Church for a long time and sadden the people entrusted to him. (Apost. 35. 58; III Om. 8; VI Om. 19, 20, 80; Dvukrat. 16; Carthage. 79, 82, 83, 131–133; Gangr. 5, 20, 21; Sardik. 3, 12; Gregory Nis. 6; Petra Alexander, 10; Antioch. 13, 22.) If a bishop goes to another city or episcopal region for the sake of vanity, that is, in order to receive praise for his learning or for the study of piety and faith [209], and wishes to stay there for a long time, and the bishop of that city is not skilled in the matter of instruction, [210] then the present rule determines that the visitor should not often teach in church with the goal of humiliating the local bishop and disgracing him as an ignoramus. This constant teaching of a foreign bishop creates confusion and makes one suspect him of trying to win the love of the people in this way and then leave his own episcopal region and seize someone else’s by cunning. So, since, on the one hand, it is inhuman not to accept foreign bishops into one’s episcopal region at all, and on the other hand, it is suspicious and lawless when they remain for a long time in someone else’s episcopal region, it is necessary to determine how long they can stay there. After all, a layman who, while in the city, does not come to church on Sundays for three weeks, is excommunicated, as the fathers determined even earlier than this Council, either orally or in a written rule (this does not mean the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council, who defined this in the 8th rule - read it - since they lived after the fathers of the Sardician Council, but some others). Then how much more indecent and unprofitable is it for a bishop to leave his episcopal region for a long time and, therefore, to upset his flock with his absence (unless he has an urgent need for this and difficult circumstances prevent him) [211]? See also Apost. 35.58 and rule VI Omni. 8o, which contains a verbatim excerpt from this rule. Some of the brothers and co-bishops in the cities where they are appointed bishops apparently own very little property, but in other places they have large estates, from which they can help the poor. Therefore, we believe that if they wish to come to their estates and collect fruits, they should be allowed to stay on their estates for three Sundays, that is, three weeks, and come to the nearest church where the presbyter serves, and serve there, so that it does not seem as if they are left without worship; and in a city where there is a bishop, they should not come too often. Thus, their own affairs will not suffer any harm due to their absence, and they themselves will undoubtedly avoid accusations of arrogance and arrogance. (Apost. 58; VI Ose. 19, 80; Dvukrat. 16; Gangr. 5. 20, 21; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 79. 82, 83, 131–133; Gregory Nis. 6; Petra Alexander, 10.) This rule, apparently, continues the previous one. It determines: since some bishops in some of the foreign episcopal regions have small estates belonging to their own churches, and in others large and fertile ones from which they can help the poor, the bishop who owns such estates is allowed to go there to collect fruits. However, let him not often come to the city where the bishop's see is located, but remain on his estates for three weeks and on Sundays come to the church closest to that place, in which the rector of the parish is a presbyter, and serve - not perform sacred acts, but offer the usual hymns to God [212] together with the people. (And let him do this so that it does not seem as if he does not go to church, and, therefore, in order not to give temptation to Christians and not to violate the previous rule. See about this VI Omni. 80.) Thus, the fruits of his estates do not disappear due to his absence, since he comes to collect them, and he himself avoids any accusation of arrogance and ambition, because he does not often visit the bishop's city during that time. See also Apost. 58, VI Omni. 80. It was decided: if a deacon, presbyter or any of the clergy is deprived of church communion and turns to another bishop who knows him and who knows that he has been removed from communion by his bishop, then he should not be given communion by insulting the bishop and his brother. If anyone dares to do this, let him know that he has made himself obligated to justify himself before the bishops when they gather. (Apost. 12, 32, 33; IV Ose. 13; Antioch. 6; Constantinople 879 1.) This rule defines: if a priest, deacon or cleric is excommunicated by his bishop and comes to another bishop who knows about his excommunication, then this bishop should not enter into communion with the excommunicated one, since this is considered an insult to the excommunicating co-bishop and contempt for him. If he dares to do this, he must present a justification for this at the Council of Bishops of the metropolitan region. He will not be convicted as having committed a crime without an investigation into the case, but will be brought to trial. See also Apost. 12, 32. If the bishop turns out to be angry (which should not happen in such a husband) and, suddenly indignant at the presbyter or deacon, wants to throw one or the other out of the Church, care must be taken to ensure that such a person is not immediately condemned and deprived of fellowship. But let the ejected person have the right to resort to the metropolitan bishop of the same metropolitan region. If the bishop of the metropolitan area is absent, let him turn to a neighboring bishop and ask that his case be examined carefully, for those who ask should not be left unattended. But even that bishop who rightly or unjustly deprived him of his dignity must complacently endure the fact that the matter is being reviewed, and may his verdict be either confirmed or corrected. The person excommunicated should not demand communication for himself until the case is resolved, until all the circumstances have been carefully and reliably considered. If some of the clergy, having gathered, see arrogance and arrogance in the excommunicated person, then (since insolence and unjust complaint should not be tolerated) they must admonish him with very stern and strict words in order to maintain humility and obedience to the one who commands what is due. After all, just as a bishop must show sincere love and affection to his ministers, in the same way the servants must unfeignedly perform deeds of service to the bishops. (Apost. 12, 13, 28, 32; I Om. 5; Constantinople. 879 1; Antioch. 4, 6; Sardik. 12, 15; Carthage. 11, 37. 74, 141.) And the present rule, as is obvious, follows from the previous one. It determines: if a bishop, being hot-tempered (and this passion should not be in such a man, because he is an imitator of the meek Christ), under the influence of anger excommunicates a presbyter or a deacon, then we need to take care that the excommunicated person is not deprived of fellowship unreasonably and hastily. But let him have the right to come to the metropolitan of the bishop who excommunicated him or, if the metropolitan is absent, to a neighboring, foreign metropolitan, so that the reason for his excommunication be carefully considered [213], since it is unfair to refuse to listen to those who ask to consider their legal cases. And while the case is being considered, the bishop - whether he excommunicated justly or unjustly - must remain patient until the sentence of excommunication passed by him is confirmed (if it is just) or corrected (if it is unjust). For his part, it is not appropriate for the excommunicated person to violate the excommunication, but it is necessary to remain under it. If he transgresses it because of disdain and superiority over the excommunicator, then the clergy of that bishop must gather and with stern, reproachful words call the excommunicated person to obedience and humility, in order through this to show obedience to their bishop. After all, just as a bishop is obliged to sincerely love his ministers and clergy, so ministers must mutually serve their bishop with sincerity. See also Apost. 28, 32. We determine: if a bishop wishes to appoint someone else’s minister from another episcopal region to any degree, without the consent of his bishop, such an appointment shall be considered invalid and void. If some of us allow ourselves to do this, then the brothers and fellow bishops should remind them and correct them. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Oz. 5, 10, 20, 23; VI Oz. 17, 18; VII Oz. 10, 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 16, 17; Carthage. 63, 98.) This rule determines: if a bishop accepts a cleric from another episcopal region without the knowledge of his bishop and consecrates him to some sacred degree, then such consecration must be invalid, and the one who ordained him must be exposed for this and corrected by other co-bishops. Since presbyters and deacons often come to the Thessalonian Metropolis from other regions and, not content with a short stay, linger and live there all the time, or after a long time they are with difficulty forced to return to their churches, then those determinations that are made in relation to bishops are observed in relation to these persons. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Oz. 5, 10, 20, 23; VI Oz. 17, 18; VII Oz. 10, 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15, 17; Carthage. 63, 98.) And this rule also prohibits the transfer of clergy from one church to another, saying: since often elders and deacons who come to Thessalonica either spend their whole lives in this city, or with difficulty return to their churches after a long time, then just as the rules prohibiting the transfer of bishops must be strictly observed, the rules prohibiting the transfer of elders and deacons must also be observed. They made a decision: if a bishop, having suffered violence, is unjustly expelled either for his knowledge, or for his profession of the Catholic Church, or for defending the truth, and although he is innocent, he is nevertheless subject to accusation and, avoiding danger, comes to another city, he should not be prevented from living there until he returns or has the opportunity to get rid of the offense inflicted on him. After all, it would be merciless and extremely cruel on our part not to accept someone who has suffered an unjust expulsion: such a person should be received with the greatest goodwill and friendliness. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Oz. 5, 10, 20, 23; VI Oz. 17, 18; VII Oz. 10, 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15,16; Carthage. 63, 98.) Since the present Council, in its 11th and 12th rules, determined that no bishop should remain in a foreign episcopal region for more than three weeks, now in this rule the Council allows that bishop who was unjustly and forcibly expelled to remain in a foreign episcopal region until he returns to his own or proves that he was innocently insulted and expelled from his throne: either for the exact knowledge of the dogmas of the faith, or for the fact that he professes everything dogmas and traditions that the Catholic Church professes and recognizes, or for fighting for the truth and defending the offended and oppressed (what happened with Athanasius the Great, Basil, Chrysostom, etc.). Such a bishop, in order to avoid danger, is forced to go to another episcopal region; although in reality and in fairness he is not guilty, he was “accused,” that is, due to the arbitrariness of his persecutors, he was considered worthy of punishment. Therefore, it is cruel and inhuman if the fellow-bishops who are thus expelled from their throne are not received with all friendliness and hospitality [214]. Since we must be peaceful and patient and have sufficient compassion for everyone, we should not henceforth accept those whom some of our brothers once promoted to the church clergy, if those promoted do not wish to return to those churches to which they were ordained. Let Eutychian not demand the name of bishop for himself, and let Musius not be considered a bishop. If they ask for fellowship in the rank of laity, they should not be refused. Musius and Eutychian, whom this canon mentions, as well as some others, ordained certain clergy as bishops. So, the rule determines that those ordained by such persons should be accepted as clergy. Although those who ordained them should not have remained bishops for the offenses and sins they committed, however, at the time when they performed the consecration, they had episcopal rights, as those who had accepted this dignity, and therefore the Council accepted those whom they consecrated. But if these latter do not want to return to the churches to which they were called clergy, then they should not be accepted into other churches in the future. But let Eutychian and Musius not seek the rights or name of bishop. If they want to be accepted and be in communion with others as laymen, they should not be denied - let them receive this and be accepted as laymen [216]. These saving, justified and befitting definitions of our priestly dignity, pleasing to God and people, will not be able to retain their meaning and power if the decisions made are not accompanied by intimidation. For we ourselves know that often, because of the shamelessness of a few, the divine and most venerable name of the priesthood has been reproached. So, if anyone, trying to please pride and arrogance more than God, dares to do something other than what has been decided by everyone, let him know from now on that he is making himself obligated to answer for a crime and loses the honor and dignity of a bishop. Since this Council set out various church saving definitions, which, on the one hand, are befitting the honor and dignity of the clergy, and on the other, are pleasing to God and people, so that these definitions were effective, had force and could not be violated with contempt, the Council finally provided by this rule both intimidation and penances for those who violate these definitions. Indeed, often due to the shamelessness of some clergy who violate the rules, the venerable name of the priesthood is subject to censure and blasphemy [217]. In other words, all clergymen in general are subject to censure, including those who do not break the rules. So, the penance for those who violate these rules is as follows: anyone who dares to do anything contrary to them, indulging in pride and not trying to please God, let him know that he will not be condemned without investigating the matter, but as having committed a crime, he will be brought to the church court and will be required to give an answer, after which he will lose the dignity and honor of a bishop, that is, he will be deposed. And from now on let this become well known and be fulfilled if any of us bishops living near the roads or on the main route, seeing the bishop, finds out the reason for his journey and where he is going. If it turns out that the bishop is heading to the imperial court, let him ascertain the circumstances mentioned above. And if he goes by invitation, then let there be no obstacle on his way. If he hurries to the court in order, as has already been said to your love, to show himself or at the request of some, then you should neither sign his letters nor remain in communication with him. (Antioch. 11; Sardik. 7–9) To assign penance for violators, the present rule was drawn up, which says: “And let this be known...” What is “this”? Precisely that the priesthood should not be subject to accusations because of the shamelessness of some. "And it will be fulfilled." How? If each of us bishops are on the public roads and crossings through which everyone who goes to the imperial palace (located at that time in Rome) must pass, just as water passes through a canal, that is, a water pipe, then, if one of us sees another bishop passing there, let him ask him for what reason he is passing here and where he is going. And if he learns from him that he is going to the imperial headquarters, let him again ask him whether he is going for the reasons mentioned in the 7th, 8th, and 9th rules (i.e., to help orphans and widows and to free the condemned) and whether the emperor invited him [218]. And if he finds out that he is coming at the invitation of the emperor, let him not interfere with him. If he is sent in order to obtain secular positions for certain persons or to show his learning in another episcopal region and to talk with the bishop of that region in order to shame him, then let none of the bishops sign the letters of release and peace that he carries and not enter into communication with him. Despite the fact that both Socrates (book 2, chapter 20) (PG67,236A.) and Athanasius the Great (in his apology) called this council Ecumenical, nevertheless, it was called that only at the time when it was convened, i.e. only at the beginning. In terms of its result and ending, it is truly only Local, since the eastern and western bishops who gathered at it were divided into two parts and began to excommunicate each other. Sozomen says: “After this Council they no longer communicated with each other as Orthodox and did not accept each other into communion.” And again: “Discord, as was to be expected, upset the affairs of the Churches, and the Churches remained at enmity” (book 3, chapter 13) (PG 67, 1065C.). (But the agreement of all bishops is a characteristic feature and fundamental difference of the Ecumenical Councils, as we said in the preface to the First Ecumenical Council.) So, since the Eastern did not agree with the Western, the Second Ecumenical Council in its 5th rule, defining the faith of this Council, called the Tomos only the Western. For this reason, Maximus Margunius in “Antirrhetic”, dedicated to Mark of Ephesus, says about the Council: “The Holy Council in Sardica is Local, not Ecumenical. After all, if it were Ecumenical, why is the first Council in Constantinople called and is the Second Ecumenical Council, while it was appropriate to call the Council of Sardicia in this way? He was recognized as local by all interpreters of his rules, and by the entire Catholic Church. In addition, this Council is not the same as the first Council of Nicea, and is not placed on the same level with it, as the Jesuits talk idlely, wanting to prove that the real Council is Ecumenical and identical to the Nicene Council, and based on this, to also prove that the right to accept appeals, which it grants to the pope in its 3rd, 4th and 5th canons, has catholic and ecumenical significance throughout the entire Church. So, firstly, the present Council is not the same as the Council of Nicaea, since the time, and the place, and the bishops assembled, and the question, and the purpose, and, in short, all the circumstances surrounding this and the Council of Nicea, are completely different and not similar - they are not the same. Secondly, proof that this Council is not identical to the Nicene Council is the dispute that occurred between the fathers of the Council of Carthage and the Roman Popes Zosima, Boniface and Celestine regarding the rules of this Council, which we will discuss below. And thirdly, if the present Council were identical to the Nicene Council, subsequent Ecumenical Councils would have remembered it in their definitions, just as they mention the Nicaea Council. And interpreters of its rules and historians would point out this fact somewhere in their works. Since all this contradicts the opinion of the Jesuits, therefore, the assumption that this Council and the Council of Nicaea are one and the same is a lie. According to the geographer Meletius, Sardica is a city in Bulgaria, which is located on the border of Thrace and in which the episcopal see is located; now it is called Triaditsa. And according to others, Sardica is the same city that is now called Sofia (Geography. P. 417). However, more rigorous researchers believe that Sardica is located in Moisia and is 100 miles from Philippopolis. And Theodoret (Ecclesiastical History. Book 2, Chapter 4) says that it was a city in Illyricum (in the broad sense of the name “Illyricum”) and the metropolis of the Dacian people (Theod. Cyr. Hist. eccl. II, 3 // PG 82, 996D.), in new Dacia, not ancient, according to Chrysanthus (Syntagmation. P. 83). In short, Sardica was the metropolis of Dacia Mediterranean, that is, internal (In the 4th–6th centuries in the Roman Empire there were two provinces with the name of Dacia - coastal Dacia (Dacia ripensis) and internal Dacia (Dacia mediterranea).), according to the "Geography" House of Charles de Saint-Paul, head of the Feuillants (House of Charles de Saint-Paul, first head of the French Feuillants (a Catholic order that emerged from the Cistercians), later Bishop of Avranches. In 1641, he published the reference book “Geographia sacra sive notitia antiqua episcopatuum Ecclesiae universal.” St. Nicodemus could use both the first edition of this work (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1641), and reprints of the 18th century, although Ptolemy (Geography. Book 3, chapter 11) classifies Sardica as a city of Thrace (Ptolem. Geogr. // TLG 0363/009. 3.11. 7. 11.), since new Dacia, the city of which Sardica is, is part of Thrace, is part of Illyricum and lies on this side of the Danube River. In modern historical literature, the date 342–343 is accepted. The reason why the emperors convened this Council is briefly this. The enemies of consubstantiality, the Eusebians, cast out St. Paul of Constantinople and St. Athanasius and with the help of the imperial power of Constantius expelled them. And Paul and Athanasius, having gone to Italy to Julius of Rome, grieving over what had happened to them, begged him to give them a helping hand. Then Julius writes about them to the bishops of the East and convenes a Council in Rome. However, they did not listen to him at all, and, therefore, he could not help them in any way. Then Paul and Athanasius, together with Julius, convince Emperor Constans, and he sends letters to his brother Constantius, asking him to return the sees to these bishops. And since Constantius did not pay any attention to this, Constantius again wrote to him in their defense, but nothing was achieved with these letters, for unrest and discord occurred among the people. Therefore, the divine Athanasius and Paul with their followers asked Constans to hold a Council so that their affairs and questions about the Nicene faith would be considered - and with the assistance of both emperors the present Council was convened. Look at the life of Athanasius the Great, where you will find information that there were over 300 fathers from the West at the Council, and 70 from the East. I wonder why Athanasius says that there were more fathers, at least 170, and Theodoret - that there were 250 of them (Church History. Book 2, Chapter 7) (PG82,997D.). Note that Marcellus, being infected with the heresy of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata and considering the Lord only a simple man, deceived this Council and received acquittal and the see, although he had previously been deposed. Namely, he deliberately falsely stated that some do not understand the expressions in his work and therefore think that he thinks like the Bishop of Samosata. Therefore, the heresy of this Marcellus was subsequently anathematized both by Basil the Great and by the rule of II Om. 1, which you should read. It is very appropriate to add in this note that on the basis of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th canons of this Council, the Popes of Rome, both in ancient times and in modern times, have diligently tried to prove that they have been granted the right to receive appeals from the entire Church, that is, all bishops, presbyters and deacons who have legal cases must, from all parts of the universe, refer these cases to the pope. And what did they not use in order to gain this notorious right to accept appeals, what lies did they not invent! Thus, to the Council of Carthage, Pope Zosima falsely presented as the rules of the Council of Nicea the 5th and 14th rules of this Council, which talk about the revision of the affairs of bishops, presbyters and deacons. But with the help of reliable lists of definitions of the Council of Nicaea, which were sent by Atticus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, the Council of Carthage proved that the above rules are not the rules of the Council of Nicaea and, therefore, the Popes Zosimus, Boniface and Celestine who declared this are liars, as we talk about in the preface of the Council of Carthage. And by the way, pay attention: neither Boniface nor Celestine gave a written response to the message of the Council of Carthage, informing that the mentioned rules did not belong to the Council of Nicaea. Namely, they did not answer the Council that Zosima called these rules the rules of the Council of Nicaea because the Council of Sardicia is identical to the Council of Nicea - no, but since this was a lie, they kept silent about it so that the Council would not expose them in this lie. So they are lying, it is the Jesuits who are lying, when they say that Zosimas was convinced that the Councils of Sardica and the Council of Nicaea are one and the same thing, and therefore from a false premise they draw the unprecedentedly false conclusion that these rules of the Council of Sardica are inscribed as belonging to the Council of Nicaea, as we said above. After all, each of these Councils has its own power, and not the same for both, and its own rules - one has one, the other has another. This is what the papists did in ancient times at the Council of Carthage, and to this day they do not stop declaring that the 3rd, 4th and especially the 5th rules of this Council establish the right of the pope to accept appeals from everyone. But the fact that the mentioned rules make determinations about the acceptance by the Pope of appeals only from those who are subordinate to him is clear from the following arguments. 1. The excellent John Zonara, in his interpretation of the 5th canon, says that although the Romans cite this rule in defense of their right to accept appeals, it was proven at the Council of Carthage that it is not the rule of the Council of Nicea and that not all bishops, but only those subordinate to him, submit appeals to him (i.e., the Pope of Rome). Balsamon says the same thing. 2. The ancient scholium, located among these rules, reads as follows: “See how almost all the rules of the Council of Sardicia regulate particular, and not general, questions, and, moreover, only those that relate to the area of ​​​​the Roman See.” Therefore, he who wishes these rules to be observed and respected will not impose them as general and universal, for even the circumstances themselves do not allow this. However, these rules make determinations both about the Pope of Rome and in a similar way about the other four patriarchs, and each of them can apply this to the cases under his jurisdiction and the appeals of those persons who belong to his patriarchal area. After all, these rules do not elevate all appeals and all government of the Churches to the Roman Throne, since this is both an impossible matter and alien to the Church. 3. And the Local Council held in Benefalia understood this rule of the Sardician Council in the same way as the scholium cited above explains it, i.e., bishops, presbyters and deacons subject to the Pope of Rome must submit to his decisions and court, and those subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and other patriarchs must submit to the court and resolutions of these patriarchs, as evidenced by the Council in Benefalia Archbishop Leo of Bulgaria and as stated in the mentioned scholium, which is among the said rules (Benefalia is an episcopal region subordinate to Sergiopolis, as William of Benefalia says). 4. If these rules are understood in such a way that they give the Pope the right to accept appeals from the entire Church, then they turn out to be in clear contradiction not only with the rules of the Apostle. 12:16, 32, but also with the 5th rule of the Council of Nicea, with which the Council of Sardica is supposedly identical, as the papists are trying to prove, and with the name of which they falsely inscribe the rules of the Council of Sardica, as we said above. For how is it possible that, in their opinion, the Council of Sardica was the same as the Council of Nicaea, while the rules of the former, in their understanding, are completely opposite to the rules of the Council of Nicaea? 5. The discord which occurred between the fathers of the Council of Carthage and the popes proved most certainly that the present rules give the Pope the right to accept appeals only from persons belonging to his province. Thus, in the letter to Celestine, who sought the right to review the decisions of the court of bishops in Africa (i.e., outside their region), the divine fathers say: “The African Church is not denied this by any definition of the fathers...” (Meaning that the African Church is not deprived of the right to decide its internal affairs independently and all clergy of the African Church, including bishops, must submit appeals to their metropolitans), and also: “That to send someone as if from your very holiness, we do not find a definition in any Council of the Fathers” (We are talking about the fact that the Pope sent representatives to the Council of Carthage so that they would defend the presbyter Apiarius, who had been deposed in the African Church.). The fathers in Carthage uttered such words not because they were completely ignorant of this Council of Sardica (how could they not know about it if 36 bishops from Africa, according to Dositheus, were in Sardica?) or did not know that the words “judges are sent from the Pope” are the words of the 5th rule of this Council (after all, it is incredible that the African bishops present at it did not take the rules of the Council with them to Africa). No, they said so because the rules of the Council of Sardica refer only to those who obey the Pope of Rome, but not to those who do not obey him, as these rules of the pope understand. Truly, as the Council of Carthage says, no decree or rule of the fathers defines this, and not a single Council of the Fathers has such a definition. (Others said that the expression “we do not find a definition in any Council of the Fathers” was used instead of “this cannot be seen at any meeting of the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council,” since the Carthage Council usually calls the meetings of the fathers of the Councils and their actions Councils, which we will say in the preface to the Carthage Council. Or it can be understood this way: “this cannot be found in any Ecumenical Council.” Dositheus says that since the rules The Council of Sardica are private and local; the Carthaginian fathers did not know them, since they were not immediately transmitted to the whole Church.) This is the true meaning of these rules, and from this it is clear that the right of appeal, which the pope seeks, is false and once again false - it has absolutely no force. If the Latins refer to Armenopoulus, since he recognizes the right of the pope to accept appeals from everyone, then it should be said that the word of Armenopoulus and others like him, before so many witnesses that we have mentioned, is imputed to nothing. And moreover, the mentioned rules of the Council of Sardicia neither renew nor confirm the right of the pope to accept appeals given to him by the Council of Nicaea. Indeed, for those who read these rules, it becomes clear that they do not renew, but give the Bishop of Rome a previously non-existent right to accept appeals, and they do this for the sake of love and closeness to the Bishop of Rome, which Hosea had as his representative. Therefore, the Council did not answer anything about the 3rd and 4th rules, only saying “acceptable” about the 5th rule. Note that some of the rules of this Council, although they are a record of meetings and not rules, we have made in reality rules, like the rules of the Council of Carthage. About this Council, see “The Twelve Books” of Dositheus from p. 146 to s. 159. In this rule, pay attention to the fact that it is appropriate to overthrow every bad and harmful custom and destroy it to its very foundations, and strengthen and preserve every good and useful custom. Therefore, the divine fathers say the same. The Divine Chrysostom (Discourses 10 and 56 on the book of Genesis) proclaims: “Do not, I ask you, seek custom in any matter, but seek what is useful and not harmful to the soul. And if the deed is good and useful, we will do it, even if it was not the custom to do so. If the matter is harmful to the soul, then we will hate it and turn away from it. Even if there was a custom to do this, let this bad custom be cut off” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Gen. 56.1 // PG 54,487.). And also (Discourse on the apostolic words But, in order to avoid fornication, everyone...): “Let no one tell me that there is a custom, since where sin is committed, custom should not have force. If the deeds being done are vicious, then, even if there was an ancient custom, abolish it; if there is nothing vicious, then, even if the custom has not been widespread, act according to it and instill it” (Idem. In illud: Propter fomicat. 2 // PG 51, 210.). And again (Discourse 12 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians): “Do not tell me about the custom, for if the deed is wicked, let it not be done even once; if there is no vice in it, let it always be done” (Idem. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 12.5 // PG 6i, 103.). And also (at the end of the word about cohabitation): “Despise the vicious custom” (Idem. Contr. eos qui subintroduct. habent virgin. 12 // PG 47, 514.). And again (Discourse 52 on the Gospel of Matthew): “For human tradition is not the law” (Idem. Hom. in Matt. 51 (52). 2 // PG 58,511.). Basil the Great (Rule 40, expounded at length) says that we should not follow the corrupt customs of the majority and assert something inappropriate by participating in the matter (PG 31, 1020C.). Gregory the Theologian (First Sermon on the World) says: “We must despise human law for the sake of the law of the Spirit” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 6.1 // PG 35, 721A.). And Christ in the Gospel reproaches the scribes: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matthew 15:3). Basil says in canon 87 that a custom handed down by holy men has the force of law. And according to the 2nd book. "Basilik", tit. 1, ch. 41 (in Photius tit. 1, ch. 3), a custom has the force of a written law, but not in general, indefinitely and always, but only when this custom is strengthened and approved in court in those cases regarding which there is no written law, and when the custom, according to the same book “Basilik”, does not contradict the written law, is prudent, legal, fair and implanted with good intention, having been tested by famous men, according to Armenopoulou (book 1, title 1). And all reckless and inappropriate customs should not be observed, according to the same Armenopouls (ibid.). The words of the rule that it has never happened that anyone moved from a larger episcopal region to a smaller one were uttered because this happens extremely rarely, but such transfers do happen. See note. 2 to Apost. 14. After all, then Sardica, being part of Mysia, was subordinate to the pope, because at that time almost all the Western Churches were subordinate to the pope, that is, Macedonian, Thessalian, Illyrian, Hellenic, the so-called Epirus, which later came under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, according to the same Zonara. See also interpretation of IV Omni. 28 and preface to this Council. For these three rules, i.e. 3, 4 and the present 5th, see the preface to this Council, as well as in the two messages of the Council of Carthage, which are interpreted after its rules. Note that, according to Zonara, the bishops of their own or neighboring regions elected and ordained metropolitans at a time when cities elected and ordained them themselves. Now this does not happen, but the patriarch with his Synod also elects and ordains the metropolitans subordinate to him, except for the so-called autocephalous ones. In addition to this, note that although Philotheus in Armenopoulus (Summary of the Rules. Section 1, tit. 1), interpreting the phrase “that which satisfies the desire of the people,” says that one metropolitan is sufficient for the election of the required bishop, but not enough for ordination, nevertheless the above interpretation is better. After all, to elect a bishop, either all or many bishops must gather, according to I Oc. 4, and for ordination only three are enough, according to the same rule. If one metropolitan is not enough for ordination, which requires a smaller number of bishops, how will he be sufficient for election, which requires the presence of all or the majority? It's inconsistent. Therefore, the imperial laws stipulate that bishops must notify the rulers and rulers of the country (of course, the Orthodox) about the injustices committed by offenders; and bishops should also visit prisoners in prison every Wednesday and Friday, whether slaves or free, and encourage the authorities to deal with them in all justice, as the laws dictate. If the authorities are not obeyed, the bishops must announce this to the emperors (perhaps in writing) and insist that the rulers release the imprisoned slaves within 20 days (according to Blastar). Or other clergy, for the above rule prohibits bishops from coming to the emperor in person. Please note that app. Paul and in canon I Omni. 2 by a convert is meant a recently catechumen who has been grafted from the wild olive of unbelief into the good olive of faith (See Rom. 11:24), in other words, the newly enlightened. And in this rule, a convert is considered to be one who has not spent the required time in each degree of the priesthood. Perhaps the expression “out of zeal for the faith” (θρησκείας καθοσιώσει) shows that the bishop comes to a foreign episcopal region in order to receive praise as a sacred person (καθωσιωμένος), i.e. a recognized theologian professing the right dogmas of faith (as they say, “the sacred notary of the Great Church”), or as a person who fears God and is the most pious in matters of faith. Note: the rule does not say unambiguously that the bishop is not skilled in teaching, but in the form of an assumption: in case the bishop someday turns out to be so. See also VII Universe. 2. Both from the present and from the next, 12th, canon it becomes clear that a bishop is allowed to be absent from his episcopal area for only three weeks. And the Double Council, in its 16th canon, extended this absence and allowed the absence of the bishop for six months. Note also that the rule issued before this Council, when it stipulates a period of three weeks, means the laity who do not come to church with other faithful during this time, and this Council means bishops who are absent from their episcopal region during this time. Please note that this rule shows the duty of bishops, as well as other clergy and clergy, not to abandon, but to read the usual sevenfold sequence established by Tradition: Midnight Office, Matins, Hours, Vespers and Compline. And the fact that clergy and clerics who do not read the sequences are subject to strict penance is evident from the following terrible incident, which occurred during the time of His Holiness Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. Under this patriarch, one reverend and great man in life died, his name was Eutropius. The Patriarch, planning to bury him in the common tomb of the Great Church of Jerusalem, found twenty whole, undecomposed bodies in it. Not knowing whose remains these were, the patriarch and the entire Church held an all-night vigil, praying to God to reveal to them about them. And so God opened the mouth of one of those deceased, and he said: “We were priests and clerics and, busy with everyday concerns, neglected the established order, therefore we are subject to excommunication and our bodies do not decay.” After the patriarch’s question, it turned out that they had not read the sequence for twenty years. All the clergy present pledged that they would fulfill the succession for these years, and after this the bodies of the deceased immediately disintegrated. Not only the clergy, but also the laity are obliged to listen to or read this sevenfold praise. After all, if David, despite the fact that he lived in the times of the law, was a king and had so many worries, did not neglect him, as he himself says: Seven times a day I praised You (Ps. 119:164), then how much more should Christians not neglect him? If they cannot pray seven times, then the apostles in their “Ordinances” (Book 2, Chapter 59) instruct them to at least listen daily to Matins (Matins also includes the Liturgy) and Vespers. The apostles say to the bishop: “Command and exhort the people to be sure to be in church every morning and evening and not to give up meeting, but to gather constantly” (PG 1, 741B-744A.). Note that, according to Zonara, if once in ancient times there was a definition that a neighboring bishop could judge whether an excommunicating bishop who does not obey him correctly excommunicated a clergyman or not, now this definition does not apply at all. Please also note that this rule was given verbatim at the Council of Carthage to the expression “regardless of whether its sentence is confirmed or corrected,” as can be seen from the acts of that Council. For example, the divine Chrysostom, going into exile, met such a friendly attitude from the bishop of Taurokilicia, who, if it had been possible, would have given him his throne, as Chrysostom himself says (letter to Kyriak) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ep. 125 // PG 52, 685.). Note that not only bishops, but also presbyters, and deacons, and all monks persecuted for the truth and traditions of the Catholic Church, bishops, priests and all Christians, no matter who they come to, should be greeted with all kindness and hospitality. And those who do not accept them in this way commit, according to this rule, a truly cruel and inhumane act and, therefore, seriously sin. This numbering corresponds to the numbering of the interpreters: Zonaras, Balsamon and Aristina. – Note. publishing house "AZTHP". The 18th rule, contained in the interpreters, is omitted in the “Pidalion”, since it deals with the same subject as in the next, 19th, rule. – Per. Please note: the anonymous commentator says that Eutychian and Musius were expelled because they became schismatics, and if they repent and begin to seek the episcopal name, they do not deserve attention and should be accepted only as laymen, according to the rule. And the fact that Balsamon says that they were uninitiated and did not have consecration does not correspond to the truth. Therefore, Isidore Pelusiot writes in letter 552: “The priesthood is something divine, the most valuable of all that exists. Those who insult him most of all are those who use him badly and who should not have been ordained at all, so that reckless people would not dare to transfer onto the priesthood itself the crimes of those who live badly in this rank. In fact, leaving aside those who insult him, they direct accusations at the priesthood itself, while it needs to be defended, because it suffers outrages from vile people who are not allowed to touch it” (Isid. Pel. Ep. II, 52 // PG 78, 493C). This rule does not contradict the 8th rule of the same Council, which does not allow the bishop to go personally to the emperor, since this rule adds that the bishop can go in person, but only if he was invited by the emperor, and not on his own. The only exceptions are those cases when an extreme need arises and danger threatens the entire city. For example, Flavian of Antioch, after all the Antiochians turned to him with a prayer and God inspired him to do so, came to the Emperor Theodosius the Great, who threatened to turn over all of Antioch, and with his prayers calmed his anger, as Chrysostom says (Homiles b and 21 about statues) (Ioan. Chrysost. Ad popul. Antioch. 6. 2–3 // PG 49, 83–84; Ad popul. Antioch. 21 // PG 49, 211–220). However, in such cases, it is appropriate for the bishop to go according to the invitation letters of the emperor, and not on his own.