17 правил Собора, который состоялся в храме Святых Апостолов и получил название Двукратного с толкованиями

One can see how the sacred and honorable work, beautifully conceived in ancient times by our blessed and reverend fathers - the founding of monasteries - is being carried out poorly today. Some, giving their estates and possessions the name of the monastery and promising to dedicate them to God, record themselves as the owners of the donated property. They came up with this trick: to dedicate one name to God, because after dedication they are not ashamed to assign to themselves the same power that they were not forbidden to have before. And such commerce has been added to this business that much of what is initiated is sold in full view of everyone by the initiates themselves, and this causes horror and disgust among those who see it. And such not only do not repent of taking upon themselves authority over what was once dedicated to God, but they also fearlessly transfer this authority to others. So, the Holy Council made a determination about this: no one is allowed to found a monastery without the knowledge and will of the bishop. With the knowledge and permission of the bishop, provided that he performs the proper prayer, as the God-loving law of the ancients laid down, a monastery is allowed to be founded, and everything that belongs to him, along with himself, must be entered into an inventory and stored in the bishop's archives. The donor by no means has the right, without the will of the bishop, to appoint himself or another as abbot in his place. After all, if the one who gives something to a person can no longer be the owner of this thing, then how can the one who dedicates and donates something to God be allowed to steal power over the donated? (IV Omni. 4, 24; VI Om. 49; VII Om. 12, 13, 17, 19; Cyril Alexander. 2.) Since some, having founded monasteries and donated their property to them, after the donation not only retained power over this property, but also sold it and made others its owners, the present rule determines: each monastery must be founded with the permission and knowledge of the local bishop, who performs the customary prayer for the foundation of the monastery. Both the newly created monastery itself, and all things and estates donated to it either by the founder himself, or by other Christians, must be included in the inventory [8], that is, in a small and short list. And this list must be securely stored in the bishopric or metropolitanate, so that with its help in the future the donor cannot take away anything from the donation. The founder of the monastery and donor must be removed from the monastery so much so that he neither becomes its abbot himself, without the permission of the bishop, nor appoints another abbot in it, as if in his own [9]. After all, if the one who makes a gift to some person can no longer dispose of what was given, then how can he again own what he once dedicated to God? Such a one is considered a blasphemer and is subject to equal condemnation with Alanya and Sapphira (see Acts 5: 1–10). Some enter the monastic life feignedly - not in order to serve God in purity, but in order to gain the glory of piety from the revered monastic robe, and thereby gain the opportunity to taste pleasures in abundance, and, committing only the shedding of hair, such remain in their homes, without fulfilling any monastic observance or institution. Therefore, the Holy Council determined: absolutely no one should be honored with the monastic image unless there is someone who will accept the person being tonsured into obedience and promises that he will guide him and take care of his spiritual salvation. It is obvious that the recipient must be a God-loving man, the abbot of a monastery and capable of saving the soul that is being brought to Christ at that time. If anyone is found to have taken tonsure without the abbot, who was supposed to accept the tonsured person into obedience, then he should be cast out as disobedient to the rules and a destroyer of monastic order, and the person tonsured unreasonably and disorderly should be transferred for obedience to a monastery, to which the local bishop determines. For reckless and careless tonsures dishonored the monastic image and became the reason why the name of Christ was blasphemed. Some, wanting glorification from the world (or perhaps because of illness or sorrow) become monks hypocritically and, after taking monasticism, live, as before, in their homes in the world, without keeping a single monastic institution or rule [10]. So, while forbidding these absurd actions, the present rule determines: no priest, or even bishop, should tonsure a monk unless there is an elder and spiritual successor who will take care of the spiritual salvation of the person being tonsured. The recipient must be a God-loving person [11], the abbot of the monastery and capable of guiding newly tonsured novice monks to salvation. If someone takes tonsure without a guardian, let him be expelled as having violated the rules and monastic decency, and the one tonsured without a guardian, let him be placed for obedience in another monastery, in which the bishop deems it necessary to place him. In fact, incorrect and unreasonably performed monastic tonsures not only dishonored the most honest monastic image, but also prompted infidels to blaspheme the name of Christ, because they saw that the monks lived disorderly and carelessly [12]. Know that the one who has become a monk, even without a successor and an elder, cannot take off this image from himself, but, continuing to wear it, is only transferred to another monastery. See also note. to VII Omni. 21. It was decided to correct another shortcoming, which, due to negligence and negligence, remains unattended, which is very bad. If any abbot of a monastery does not diligently search for the monks subordinate to him who have secretly fled, or, having found them, does not accept them back and does not try to restore and strengthen the sick person with appropriate and appropriate healing for the sin, then the Holy Council determined that such a person should be subject to excommunication. After all, if the one who is entrusted with the care of dumb animals and who neglects his flock does not remain without punishment, then is it really not punishable for insolence from the one who has been entrusted with shepherd authority over the sheep of Christ and who, because of his negligence and laziness, wastes their salvation? And if a monk who is called to return does not obey, he will be excommunicated by the bishop. (IV Om. 4; VII Om. 19, 21; Carthage. 88.) This rule prohibits monks from running away from their monasteries and moving to others or wandering here and there. The rule subjects the abbot of the monastery to excommunication if some disorderly monks act in the manner described, and he does not take great care to find the fugitives [13], that is, his runaway monks, and does not try, when he finds them, to return them and heal the spiritual weakness with which each of them is possessed. After all, if the one who shepherds and protects dumb animals is punished when he neglects them, then how much more deserving of punishment is the one who shepherds the sheep of Christ and, through his negligence, sells their salvation, which Christ bought with His blood? If the monk who is being sought and called to return turns out to be disobedient, let him be excommunicated by the bishop. Read also VII Omni. 21. The evil one tried in various ways to cover the venerable monastic image with shame and took advantage of the time of the previous heresy for this. Monastics, leaving their monasteries because of heresy, moved some to other monasteries, and others to the dwellings of lay people. But what prompted the monastics to be considered blessed, since they were then doing it for the sake of piety, now, having turned into an unreasonable custom, makes those who act so worthy of ridicule. After all, although now piety has spread everywhere and the Church has been delivered from temptations, some even now, leaving their own monasteries and, like an unstoppable stream, spilling and flowing here and there, fill the monasteries with many disorders, bring into them with them (συνεισκωμάζουσι), destroy and destroy the holiness of obedience. However, putting an end to the inconstancy of their aspirations and disobedience, the Holy Council decreed: if any monk, having run away from his monastery, moves to another monastery or settles in a secular dwelling, then both he and the one who accepted him must be excommunicated until the one who fled returns to the monastery from which he maliciously left. If the bishop wishes to move those of the monks who are attested to be distinguished by piety and holiness of life to another monastery for the sake of its improvement, or considers it necessary to place them in a secular house for the sake of the salvation of those living in it, or deigns to assign them another place, this does not make either those who receive them or the monks themselves guilty. During the iconoclasm, the monks were persecuted by the iconoclasts and left their monasteries: either they moved to other monasteries (see VII Om. 13), or they sought refuge in worldly houses. Having become accustomed to doing this from that time on, even in times of peace for Orthodoxy, they left their monasteries and, like some unstoppable river, rushed from place to place and from monastery to monastery. By this inconstancy they not only deprived the monasteries of decoration (for the decoration of monasteries consists in the fact that the monks always live in it in silence, and do not leave it every now and then), but also introduced into them great disorder and, together with lusts, corrupted and alien customs to monasticism (this is what the word είσκωμάζω means). So, the Council, in order to prohibit such a great evil, by this rule excommunicates both monks who fled from their monasteries, and those who would have accepted them, be they monks of another monastery or laymen. The rule dictates that they be excommunicated until those who fled return to their monasteries. However, if the local bishop wishes to move pious and virtuous monks to another monastery in order to improve its structure, or to a secular house for the salvation of those living in it, or to another place, then neither the monks who came nor those who accepted them are subject to excommunication. Read also VII Omni. 21. We find that reckless renunciations of the world, made without preliminary testing, greatly damage monastic discipline: some, recklessly rushing into monastic life and neglecting the rigor of asceticism and constancy in it, again, unfortunately, turn to a carnivorous and voluptuous life. Because of this, the Holy Council determined: no one should be honored with the monastic image until, after the expiration of the three-year period allotted to them for testing, they prove proven and worthy of such a life. The Council commanded that this be observed in every possible way, except in cases where some serious illness occurs that will force the duration of the test to be shortened, or if a person turns out to be reverent and, while still wearing secular robes, goes through monastic life, for for such a person a six-month period will be enough for a complete test. If anyone acts contrary to what is written, then let the abbot be deprived of his abbess and the state of subordination will serve as a punishment for his outrage, and let the one tonsured into monasticism be transferred to another monastery in which strict monastic rules are observed. Some, without any testing, completely by accident, or, better said, boldly and disorderly, become monks, and then, unable to withstand the difficulties of monastic life, they again return to their former carnal worldly life. Therefore, the present rule specifies that no one should become a monk unless he has first been tested for a full three years. Let this period be shortened only if someone, due to a serious illness, finds himself in mortal danger, or if he is pious and, living in the world, leads a monastic life - only six months are enough for such a test. And if any abbot tonsures a monk before the expiration of these three years, let him himself be deprived of his abbotship and, as a punishment for his outrage, remain in obedience, and let the newly tonsured monk be sent to another monastery, where monastic strictness is observed [14]. Please note that even one who has become a monk without a three-year trial cannot subsequently remove the monastic image from himself, but is only transferred to another monastery. See also note. to VII Omni. 21 and this very rule. Monks should not have anything of their own. All their property should be assigned to the monastery, for Blessed Luke speaks of believers in Christ, who are an example of monastic life: Not one of them said that he was his own from his possessions, but he gave them all things in common (Acts 4:32). Therefore, those who wish to become monks are given the freedom to preliminarily dispose of their property and transfer it to whomever they wish, but, of course, to those whom the law does not prohibit. After all, after they enter monasticism, the monastery acquires power over all their property and they are not allowed to take care of their property or dispose of it. If anyone is convicted of having appropriated any property without transferring it to the monastery, and is enslaved by the passion of covetousness, then let the abbot or bishop take this property and, having sold it in the presence of many, distribute the proceeds to the poor and needy. And the one who, like Ananias in ancient times, decided to conceal this acquisition, the Holy Council determined to admonish him with appropriate penance. It is obvious that the Holy Council recognized that what it established as a rule for monks was also fair to observe in relation to nuns. This rule defines: monks, since they have died to the world, should not have any property of their own, but all their property should be donated to the monastery in which they took monastic vows, so that the words of the Evangelist Luke from the Acts, which he spoke about Christians who believed at the very beginning of the preaching of the Gospel and gave an example of communal monastic life, would be fulfilled. None of them called anything their property, but the property of each was common to all. Therefore, those who intend to become monks, before entering monasticism, are free to divide their property among those who are not prohibited by state laws (that is, not between heretics, which is prohibited by the rules of Carthage. 30 and 89, and not between illegitimate children. However, according to Zonara, if there are legitimate children, one-twelfth of the property can be allocated to the illegitimate). And after accepting monasticism, it is no longer allowed to take care of property or divide it. It is entirely under the authority of the monastery [15]. If someone, after accepting monasticism, is caught in keeping some thing and did not transfer it to the hostel, then let the abbot or local bishop take this thing, whatever it is, and, having sold it in front of many witnesses in order not to arouse suspicion, divide the proceeds among the poor. And let the monk, like Ananias, commit sacrilege, be admonished with appropriate penance. What we have determined for monks should be observed in the same way for nuns. We see that many of the bishoprics are in decline and in danger of being completely destroyed, because their primates have turned the care and concern necessary for them to the construction of new monasteries and, destroying the bishoprics and plotting the appropriation of their income, are making efforts to multiply the monasteries. Therefore, the Holy Council determined: none of the bishops is allowed to build their own new monastery to the detriment of their bishopric. If anyone is convicted of daring to do this, then he himself will be subjected to the appropriate penance, and what he has newly created, since it has not even received the correct beginning of a monastery, should be transferred to the bishopric as the property, for nothing that is done lawlessly and disorderly should be preferred to that which arose according to the rules. (Apost. 38; GU Universe. 26; VII Universe. i, 12; Antioch. 24, 25; Anchir. 15; Gangr. 7; Carthage. 34, 41; Theophilus Alexander, 10; Cyril Alexander. 2.) This rule prohibits bishops from neglecting their bishoprics, which are in danger of destruction, and from building their own monasteries at the expense of the bishoprics’ property. It is wrong for both monasteries and bishoprics to be deprived of their property, especially those in danger of ruin. Let the bishop who dares to create a monastery receive the appropriate penance, and let the newly created monastery not receive the rights of a monastery at all, that is, it does not have self-government, but becomes property donated to the bishopric, because it was founded at its expense. What is done illegally does not damage or destroy what is done legally and according to the rules. Balsamon says that if the bishopric is not endangered and does not suffer harm, the bishop can, at his own expense (and possibly at the expense of the excess income of the bishopric), both found new monasteries and renew ruined ones. For example, Patriarch Photius founded the monastery of Manuel; Patriarch Alexy - Alexievsky Monastery; Patriarch Theophylact is a famous Rufinian monastery; other patriarchs and bishops did the same [16]. See Apost. 38. The divine and sacred apostolic rule considers those who castrate themselves to be suicides and, if they are priests, then casts them out; if not, he does not allow them to the priesthood. From this it becomes clear that if one who castrates himself is a suicide, then one who castrates another is, without a doubt, a murderer, and one can rightly call him a blasphemer of creation itself. Therefore, the Holy Council determined: if a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon is convicted of having either made someone a eunuch with his own hand, or ordered someone else to do it, let him be deposed, and if a layman does this, then he is excommunicated, except in the case where some illness forces the sick person to be castrated. Just as the 1st rule of the Council of Nicea does not punish those who have undergone castration during illness, because they are sick, so we do not condemn priests who order the castration of the sick, and we do not blame laymen who personally perform castration, for we consider this to be the healing of an illness, and not an evil intent against the creation or blasphemy against the creation. (Apost. 21–24; I Om. 1.) Just as the 22nd Apostolic Canon forbids one who has castrated himself to become a cleric, and the 23rd castrates clergy who have castrated themselves as suicides and blasphemers of God’s creation, so the present canon casts out those clergy who either castrate someone with their own hands or ordered it, and excommunicates the laity who committed this. If someone falls into such a disease that forces him to resort to castration, then neither the priests who ordered him to be castrated are cast out, nor the laity who castrated this person with their own hands are excommunicated, since this castration is performed to cure a disease, and not to kill a person or violate nature. Read also the Apostle. 21. Although the apostolic and divine canon prescribes the ejection of those priests who attack with beatings the faithful who have fallen into sins, or the infidels who have committed unjust acts, but those who come up with how to satisfy their own anger, perverting the apostolic institutions, attribute this, perverting the apostolic institutions, only to those who beat them with their own hands, despite the fact that neither this rule has such a meaning, nor common sense allows one to think so. After all, it is truly reckless and very sinful to throw out the one who personally inflicted three or four blows, and to leave the one who, taking advantage of the freedom given to him, gave the order to beat him and cruelly extended the punishment even to death. Consequently, the mentioned rule punishes beatings in general, and we affirm this: it follows that the priest of God should admonish the outrageous person with teachings, admonitions, and sometimes church penances, but should not throw himself on human bodies with whips and blows. If some turn out to be completely rebellious and not obedient to admonition through penances, no one forbids them to admonish them through accusations before the authorities of that place. And the 5th rule of the Council of Antioch prescribes that those who bring confusion into the Church and organize rebellions in it must be brought to order with the help of external authority. (Apost. 27; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 57, 62, 76, 83, 99, 100, 106, 107.) Some clergy, misinterpreting the 27th Apostolic Canon, which casts out those clergy who beat the faithful or the unfaithful, say: the rule casts out only those who strike with their own hand, and not those who order to be given over to others for beating, and wish to justify their unreasonable anger with this misinterpretation. It is unreasonable, says the present rule, for us to believe that the divine apostles ordered that a clergyman who strikes three or, say, four times with his hand should be thrown out, and that one who hands a person over to others to be brutally beaten to the point of death should be left without punishment. So, since the apostolic canon says simply and without details: the one who strikes must be cast out, either with his own hand or by giving it to others, then we define it in a similar way. It is necessary for the priests of God to admonish the disorderly with admonitions and advice, and sometimes with church penances, that is, excommunication from communion or anathematization (in the event that they do not listen to advice), and not fall upon people with blows with sticks. If some are not admonished by church penances, they may be handed over to external authorities for punishment. So is Antiochus. 5 determines that those who rebelled in the Church should be admonished by the authority of the rulers. Read the specified rule Apost. 27. Those who openly indulge in their passions not only do not fear the punishment prescribed by the sacred rules, but also dare to mock these rules. Namely, they misinterpret them and distort them in accordance with their passionate will, so that for the sake of passion, according to Gregory the Theologian 17, they not only do not bear responsibility for the evil committed, but the evil itself seems Divine. The Apostolic Canon says: let no one else appropriate a consecrated gold or silver vessel or veil for his own use, for this is lawless; if anyone is found guilty of this, let him be punished by excommunication. Referring to this rule to justify their own iniquities, they argue that those who transform the honest cover of a holy meal or some other sacred vestment into clothing for themselves should not be considered worthy of eruption, and even those who take the holy cup - oh, wickedness! - or an honest paten, etc., is used for their own needs or desecrated! After all, they declare that the rule considers it fair that those who fall into this should be excommunicated, and not cast out. But who will tolerate such great corruption and wickedness? The rule excommunicates those who only take consecrated objects for their own use, and do not completely steal them, but they exempt from eruption those who completely plunder the Holy of Holies and commit sacrilege there. They also believe that those who desecrate honest paten or sacred cups, using them for ordinary food according to their own reasoning, do not deserve eruption, although this is obvious desecration and it is obvious that those who do so are subject not only to eruption, but also to the charge of extreme impiety. Therefore, the Holy Council determined to subject to complete eruption those who steal the holy chalice, or the paten, or the spoon, or the holy shroud, or the so-called air, or in general [18] any of the sacred and holy vessels or vestments located in the altar for their own benefit or use for unsacred purposes, for one of these actions is desecration, and the other is the theft of the holy. And those who take, for themselves or for others, vessels consecrated outside the altar or vestments not for sacred use, the rule excommunicates, and we excommunicate along with him; those who completely kidnap, we condemn as blasphemers. (Apostle 72, 73; Gregory Nis. 8.) Some, distorting the rule of Apost. 73, excommunicating those who used a sacred vessel or vestment for ordinary and unholy actions, they said that those who use the vestments from the holy meal on their shirt or other clothes or use for their own needs or desecrate the holy cup and the honorable paten and other most divine vessels located in the altar do not deserve to be cast out, since the apostles only excommunicate those who do this, and not spew out. So, the present canon determines that those who speak in this way distort the apostolic canon and, out of their own passion, reinterpret it. After all, if the rule excommunicates those who did not steal, but only took for unholy use vessels consecrated outside the altar by simple dedication to the church, are those who both steal and desecrate with unholy and unclean use what belongs to the Holy of Holies, i.e., cups and divine paten, etc. etc., with the help of which the awe-inspiring Sacraments are performed, should not only be cast out, but also give an answer for their extreme wickedness? So, that clergyman who steals the holy vessels or vestments located in the altar or uses them for an unsacred purpose must undoubtedly be deposed, since this theft is, let’s say, “sacrilege” (ἁγιοσυλία), that is, theft is much greater compared to simple sacrilege, and this unholy use is the desecration and desecration of holy things. Those who use vessels or vestments outside the holy altar for their own unsacred purposes or give to others for the same, and the apostolic rule, and we excommunicate [19]; and we condemn those who completely kidnapped them as blasphemers. Elders or deacons who assume temporal positions of authority or care or the title of stewards in the houses of rulers have the divine and sacred rules cast out. So, confirming this, we also make a determination regarding all others enrolled in the clergy: if any of them occupy secular positions of authority or take upon themselves the title of stewards in the houses or country estates of superiors, he should be expelled from the clergy. No one can, according to the false word of Christ Himself, our true God, work for two masters (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). (Apost. 6, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 3, 7; VII Ecum. yu; Carthage. 18.) This rule prohibits not only those who were ordained inside the altar, as other rules indicate, but also all clergy ordained outside the altar, from occupying secular positions and places of management, that is, taking upon themselves the affairs of management and care, both in the houses of the archons and in their country estates. And whoever of them does this should be deprived of his degree, since, according to the saying of the Lord, no one can work for two masters. Since the Holy VI Ecumenical Council casts out those clergy who, contrary to the will of the bishop, perform liturgy or baptism in chapels inside homes, we also agree with this. The Holy Church rightly rules, spreads and defends the word of truth, observes the holiness of life and teaches it [20], which means it is shameful and wicked to allow those living in unbridledness to sneak into homes, destroy the decorum of the Church and fill it with many turmoil and temptations. Therefore, the present sacred and God-assisted Council, being in agreement with the holy VI Ecumenical Council, decreed that those appointed, that is, those who received an appointment from the local bishop, should serve in chapels inside houses. If anyone other than them, contrary to the will of the bishop, invades houses and dares to begin celebrating the liturgy, then they should be thrown out, and those who entered into communion with them should be excommunicated. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; VI Ose. 59; Dvukrat. 12–15; Gangr. 6; Carthage. 10, 62; Antioch. 5; Laodice. 58.) This rule is consistent with Rule VI Omni. 31, which we have already explained; see its interpretation in its place. The Fathers of this Council add only one thing: those who will celebrate the liturgy in unconsecrated chapels inside dwellings must be identified and appointed to this by the local bishop. If any other clergy, without being appointed to do so by the bishop, dare to celebrate the liturgy in the same chapels, then they should be ejected, and the laity who participated in their service should be excommunicated. The All-Evil One, having sowed the seeds of heretical weeds in the Church of Christ and seeing how they were cut off by the roots by the sword of the Spirit, entered on another path of deceit, attempting to divide the body of Christ with the madness of schismatics. But resolutely reflecting this evil plan of his, the Holy Council determined for the future: if a presbyter or deacon, accusing his own bishop of certain crimes, dares to withdraw from communion with him before the conciliar reasoning, consideration of the case and the final condemnation of the bishop and does not raise his name according to the Tradition of the Church at the Liturgy during sacred prayers, then he is subject to eruption and is deprived of all priestly honor. After all, one who is in the rank of presbyter, but steals the court of metropolitans and himself condemns his father and bishop before the trial, is not worthy of the honor or name of presbyter. And those who follow him, if they are clergy, let them also be deprived of their honor; if they are monks or laymen, let them be completely excommunicated from the Church until they return to their own bishop, rejecting communion with schismatics with disgust. (Apost. 31; IV Ecum. 18; VI Ecum. 31, 34; Double. 12, 14, 15; Antioch. 5; Gangr. 6; Carthage. 10, 11, 60.) The devil uses both heretics and schismatics to divide the body of Christ, that is, His Church. Therefore, the present rule determines: a presbyter or deacon who separates himself from communion with his bishop and does not remember his name according to custom before the Council examines his crime and pronounces a sentence, let him be deposed. They do not deserve the dignity and name of presbyter or deacon, because they condemned the bishop, their father in spirit, and stole the right of metropolitans to judge. After all, metropolitans, not clergy, judge bishops. And those who are in communion with these apostates, presbyters and deacons, if they are clergy, let them be expelled, and if they are monks and laymen, let them be excommunicated not only from the Divine Sacraments, but also from the Church, until they hate these apostates and unite with their own bishop [21]. If any bishop, under the pretext of the misconduct of his metropolitan, before the conciliar decision, retreats from communion with him and does not, according to custom, raise his name at the Divine Mystery, then the Council determined that he should be deposed, however, only if, by retreating from his own metropolitan, he began a schism. Everyone should know his own measure, and neither the presbyter should neglect his bishop, nor the bishop his metropolitan. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; VI Ose. 31, 34; Dvukrat. 12, 13, 15; Antioch. 5; Gangr. 6; Carthage. 10, 11, 62.) Similar to the previous rule, the present one casts out those bishops who will separate themselves from communion with their metropolitan and will not remember his name according to custom: neither a presbyter should neglect his bishop, nor a bishop should neglect his metropolitan. What is determined about presbyters, bishops and metropolitans is all the more befitting of patriarchs. Therefore, the Holy Council determined: if any presbyter, bishop or metropolitan dares to break off communion with his patriarch and does not lift up his name during the Divine Mystery according to a certain and established order, but before the conciliar decision and the final condemnation of the patriarch he initiates a schism, then he must be completely deprived of every degree of priesthood, if only he is convicted of this iniquity. However, this statement and definition applies to those who, under the pretext of some crimes, defect from their leaders and create schisms, destroying the unity of the Church. After all, those who separate themselves from communion with their primate because of some heresy condemned by the Holy Councils or the Fathers (if he publicly preaches heresy and openly teaches it in churches), not only are not subject to the penance prescribed by the rules for the fact that before the conciliar decree they protected themselves from communion with the said bishop, but are also worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. And indeed, they condemned not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and did not dissect the unity of the Church by schism, but tried to rid the Church of schisms and divisions. (Apost. 31; IV Om. 18; VI Om. 31. 34; Dvukrat. 12–14; Antioch. 5; Gangr. 6; Carthage. 10, 11, 62.) The definitions of the previous rules about bishops and metropolitans, this rule applies to an even greater extent to patriarchs. It says that the presbyter, bishop or metropolitan who breaks off communication with his patriarch and does not, according to custom, commemorate his name (in fact, here we are only talking about the metropolitan, because the presbyter commemorates his bishop, and the bishop commemorates his metropolitan), before he brings his accusations against him at the Council and the patriarch is conciliarly condemned, must be completely deposed: the bishop and metropolitan are deprived of the right to perform hierarchical duties. service, and the presbyter - any sacred rite. However, this should be the case if the elders are separated from their bishops, the bishops from the metropolitans, and the metropolitans from the patriarchs because of crimes such as fornication, sacrilege, and the like [22]. If the said primates are heretics and publicly preach heresy [23], because of which their subordinates are separated from them before the conciliar condemnation, then those who separate are not only not subject to trial, but are also worthy of the honor due to them as Orthodox, since their separation did not cause a schism in the Church, but rather freed it from the schism and heresy of false bishops. Because of the strife and turmoil that occurs in the Church, it is necessary to determine the following: not to appoint a bishop for that Church, the primate of which is alive and remains in his rank, unless he voluntarily renounces the episcopacy. And in fact, it is first necessary to complete the canonical investigation of the guilt of the one who is supposed to be deprived of the bishopric, and after his deposition, another should be elevated to the bishopric in his place. If any bishop, remaining in his rank, does not want to either renounce his episcopacy or be the shepherd of his people, but, having left his episcopal region, lives in another place for more than six months, although he is not restrained by either an imperial order, or the service entrusted to him by the patriarch, or a serious illness that has confined him to his bed, then such a one who has retired from his bishopric and lives in another place for more than six months, while he is not prevented by any of the above reasons, let him be completely deprived of episcopal honor and dignity. For the Holy Council determined that anyone who neglects the flock entrusted to him and lingers in another place for more than six months should be completely deprived of the bishopric to which he was elevated for the sake of shepherding, and another would be elected in his episcopal place in his place. (Apost. 58; VI Ose. 19, 80; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 79, 82, 86,131–133; Petra Alexander, 10; Gregory Nis. 6; Cyril Alexander. 1.) This rule prohibits the installation of a bishop in that episcopal region whose primate is alive and remains in the rank of bishop, because this causes temptation and confusion in the Church. The only exception is if the bishop voluntarily renounces his episcopal region (the reason for this is some secret obstacle, about which see the message of the Third Council) [24]. If a bishop deserves expulsion from his episcopal region for some crimes, then these crimes should first be considered by a council and deposed, and then another bishop should be installed in his place. If a bishop does not want either to resign his rank or to be a shepherd to his people, but lives outside his episcopal region for more than six months [25], although neither the imperial order, nor the obedience entrusted to him by the patriarch [26], nor a serious illness that makes him immobile, then he is called upon, but he does not return, but neglects the flock entrusted to him, is prevented from returning, let him be completely expelled from the episcopal dignity, and in his place another bishop should be ordained. Note that the words at the beginning of this rule “unless the bishop voluntarily renounces his episcopacy” are then corrected by the words that a bishop should be deprived of his region for crimes, and not when he simply, through negligence or inaction, submits a voluntary renunciation (only a secret obstacle, as we said, can serve as a sufficient basis for voluntary renunciation). In accordance with this rule and the rule of Carthage. 96 determines that a bishop should not be deprived of his episcopal territory before the final decision of his case. And the rule is Sardik. 4 does not allow the installation of a bishop in the episcopal see in place of the deposed bishop before the decision of the Roman primate on this matter, so that there are not two bishops in one city, which is illegal and prohibited by the rules of I Omni. 8 and IV Omni. 12. See also Apost. 58 and VI Omni. 80. Concerned about the observance of church deanery in everything, we considered it necessary to determine that henceforth no layman or monk should be immediately elevated to the height of bishopric, but should first be tested in the ecclesiastical degrees, after which he would be ordained a bishop. For although to this day some laymen or monks have, of necessity, been immediately awarded the honor of bishops, surpassed others in virtue and exalted their Churches, we, not considering a rare case as a law for the Church, determine that this will not happen in the future. Let the ordained one pass through all the degrees of the priesthood in order, remaining in each rank for the prescribed time. (Apost. 8o; I Om. 2; Laodice. 3; Sardik. 10; Neocesar. 12; Cyril Alexander. 4.) This rule prohibits elevating a layman or monk to the height of the bishopric, that is, ordaining a bishop immediately after election, but requires, firstly, to ordain him in order for each degree of the priesthood, i.e., reader, subdeacon, deacon and presbyter, and secondly, to leave him at each degree for a sufficient time [27], after which, if he is worthy, he will also be ordained a bishop. And although until now, under forced circumstances, some of the laity or monks immediately became bishops (that is, without spending a certain time according to custom at each degree of the priesthood) and turned out to be worthy, shining with virtues and glorifying their areas [28], however, private and rare cases caused by circumstances do not become a general law for the Church (Gregory the Theologian speaks about this, this is also said in the 2nd act of the Council in St. Sofia: “What is good, but rarely happens, cannot be a law for many”). And therefore, from now on, this should not happen. Inventory (Ppepiov) is a Latin word (in Latin breviarium.), derived from the verb brevio, to shorten. It denotes a short and overview list, or code, what is now usually called ppapiov. The same should be observed in relation to those who found monasteries or donate something there, or to Divine churches, or to other places dedicated to God. After the donation, all donors cannot dispose of what is dedicated to God The rule of the great schema-monks, i.e., monks with full tonsure, is the following: every day to make genuflections, i.e. prostrations to the ground, according to the holy fathers - 300 (see: Philokalia. P. 1053) (Callist. et Ign. Xanthopul. Op. ascet. 39 // PG 147, 712D.); according to the prudent men of the Holy Mountain, there are 120 kneelings, and 12 bows from the waist. Monks in the small schema, also known as stavrophore monks, do 100 genuflections and bows from the waist - 6 rosaries. The ryassophores - 100 genuflections, and 3 bows - 3 rosaries. If monks are illiterate and cannot either read or listen to their rule, instead of Matins they should pray 30 rosaries while standing, saying for each knot of rosary: ​​“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.” Instead of hours - 10 rosaries, instead of Vespers - 10 and instead of Compline - 10, as determined by the canons of the Holy Mountain. And about when the previously stated rule is fulfilled and when it is not fulfilled, see I Om. 20. Basil the Great, in his ascetic word, the beginning of which: Come, all you who labor..., uses the same expressions and demands from the future elder and spiritual father the same virtues as the present rule. Addressing the one who is preparing to surrender himself into obedience, Vasily says: “Try, brother, with great care and foresight, to find such an infallible teacher and leader of your life, who knows well how to lead those who walk to God, is adorned with virtues, has from his deeds evidence of his love for God, knows the Divine Scriptures, is not a lover of money, is not given over to vanity, is devoted to silence, is a lover of God, compassionate towards the poor, not angry, strong in instructing his neighbors... etc. And generally speaking, a man of many virtues, so that you become the heir of the benefits inherent in him” (Basil. Magn. Sermo de renuntiat. saeculi // PG 31, 632B.). And St. Callistus Xanthopulus in ch. 14 (Philokalia, p. 1021), explaining what an infallible elder should be, teaches: “He must provide evidence from the sacred scriptures for what he says. And when you find such an elder and entrust yourself to him, you need to follow his commands” (Callist. et Ign. Xanthopul. Op. ascet. 14 // PG 147, 652AB.). According to Basil the Great, everything that the elder says should be law and rule for the brotherhood (Basil. Magn. Ascet. (brev.) 64 // PG 31,1128D.). Since we have spoken about what virtues an elder should have, it would be good to briefly point out the virtues befitting a novice. So, Great Basil (see rules 26 and 46 of the extensively stated ones) says that the novice should not hide any secret movement in himself, but through confession declare the secrets of his heart and reveal every sin to the superior either himself in private, or through the mediation of other brothers who know about this sin, if they themselves cannot heal it (PG 31, 985CD and 36B.). The fact that confession is necessary for novices is also said by the previously mentioned Callistus in ch. 15 (PG 147, 656A.), and before him John Climacus said in word 4 about obedience. To the confession, Callistus adds four other actions that are necessary for the novice and instructions for which he found in Climacus: to have pure and sincere faith in his elder, so that the novice, seeing the elder and obeying him, thinks that he sees and obeys Christ Himself; to be truthful in all words and deeds and not to say one thing instead of another; not to do one's own will; do not contradict (PG 147, 656.). John Climacus adds to these five deeds that we spoke about that the novice should also have strong love for his elder: “I will be surprised if, without such love, the novice does not spend his time in vain in that place, being united with his elder only by feigned and hypocritical obedience.” He also says that we should not judge and condemn our elders if we see that they, as people, make some small mistakes (Ioan. Climac. l,. 28 // PG 88, 693B and 68oD.). Please note that, according to this rule, one must take tonsure, and another must be the elder-receiver. And if someone at the same time takes tonsure and becomes an elder, then he is subject to punishment according to the rule, unless he does so out of extreme necessity, since there is no other recipient. Therefore, I am surprised how Simeon of Thessaloniki (chap. 272) (Sym. Thessal. De poenit. 272 ​​// PG 155, 496.), without adding that this happens forcedly, said that one and the same person can be both a successor and a father, and a priest who tonsures a monk - and this is a violation of this rule. Therefore, the implied “as necessary” should be added to Simeon’s quoted words. Although the custom that the recipient and the tonsured priest have the same degree of tonsure as the monk is preparing to receive, that is, they are stavrophorians or great schemaniks, is not based on any rule, but since this custom has become dominant thanks to tradition, it should be observed. His Holiness Patriarch Luke also speaks about this with his Council in some handwritten answers: “Tonition into the Great Schema, which is performed by a mantle (i.e., stavrophore) priest, always raises doubts. And moreover, I came across one rule, which is attributed to Patriarch Nicephorus and in which he clearly says that the great schema monk must take monastic vows from a priest in the great schema, because you can give what you have.” However, it seems to us that the priest has the right to tonsure not because he is a monk, but because he is a priest, no matter what degree of tonsure he has. However, if the thoughts of someone who is preparing to become a monk are wavering with doubt, let him take monastic vows from a priest-great-schemist (unless there is some insurmountable obstacle to this) - but in order to eliminate doubt, and not out of necessity. Observe that the present rule so strictly requires the monks not to retire from their monasteries, that their very departure is called by the word "flight", which the Greeks usually apply to fugitive slaves and those who are bound and imprisoned when they break their bonds, get out of prison and secretly escape. Let the current primates and abbots of monasteries who have just come from the world and do not even know what the monastic image means, after a few days clothe them in the holy image and then leave them to live in negligence, be embarrassed by the penance defined by this rule and correct their inappropriate behavior. These renunciations of the world are truly reckless and committed without testing; they destroy monastic decorum and bring spiritual destruction to both elders and novices. Note that the 13th decree of the 1st title. The “Novel” determines that both slaves and freemen must undergo a test in a monastery for three years in secular dress (see note to VI Ecumenical 45). They must reveal both their life and the reason why they want to enter monasticism, and after three years, if they find themselves worthy, let them become monks, free themselves from slavery and not worry about it at all. If the slaves stole any things, let the owner receive them from the monastery. If the owner claims that the slave stole things from him and brought them to the monastery, and demands that the slave, still undergoing this three-year test, be returned to him, the slave should not be immediately given to him. Let him first prove that this is his slave and that he robbed him and ran away, and after that let him take him and the things that he brought to the monastery. But if he cannot prove this, and the slave, as will be seen from his exploits, turns out to be pious, let this slave, even if another three years have not passed, remain in the monastery and after three years become a monk (Photius tit. 11, 3). Pay attention also to the fact that God had previously approved the definition of this rule from above: the angel who appeared to Pachomius commanded him to test the novices for three years with difficult obediences and then accept them into the community (see the life of Pachomius in Lavsaik (Pallad. Hist. laus. 38 // PG 34, 1102B.)). It follows from this that the definition of the 123rd novel of Justinian, which leaves to the discretion of the abbot the period of probation for those seeking monasticism, is invalid. The following also follows from this rule: if someone, after being in a monastery for three years, does not become a monk, then in the future he lives with the brethren in the monastery illegally, and he should either accept monasticism or leave the monastery. In accordance with this rule, the 13th resolution of the 1st title also determines. “Novel” (in Photius tit. 11, chapter 1): “Whoever wants to become a monk must first dispose of his property, because when he enters the monastery, then his property also comes into the power of the monastery, even if the person has not definitely said with his own lips: “Let the monastery dispose of the property.” The 123rd story of Justinian in the 4th book. "Basilik", tit. 1 (in Photius tit. 11, ch. 1) determines: if a person tonsured into monasticism has children, but before taking tonsure did not allocate part of the property to them, he can, after tonsure, give them the legal part of the property in the same amount, however, he himself must be included in the participants in this division, as if on the rights of one of the children. Suppose if someone has three children, let them count him too - there will be four, and thus his property should be divided among four. The children receive their share, and their father-monk donates his share to the monastery. If, without having time to dispose of his property, this monk dies in the monastery, then after his death let the children receive their legal share, and the monastery inherit the rest. So, the above short story considers only his children as the heirs of a monk who did not dispose of his property and did not leave a will, and Zonara, and especially Balsamon, believe that the monk’s parents are also considered heirs, who cannot be bypassed. Balsamon cites as evidence of this the 118th novel of Justinian, located at the end of the 3rd tit. 45th book. "Vasilyk" She determines that children should be recorded as heirs first; if there are no children, then the parents. No one is obliged to make someone else from the collateral line heirs if he does not wish to do so. And the fact that monastics who have not made a will should make their sons and parents heirs, and especially if they are in need, some prove on the basis of the rules of Gangr. 15 and 16, which specify that children and parents should nourish and care for each other. Barsanuphius, the great among the fathers, confirms this opinion in his response to Elian, abbot of the monastery of St. Serida, that he needs to talk several times with his mother and help her with her bodily needs. “You must talk with your old woman (i.e., mother - St. N.) from time to time throughout her life and satisfy her needs, whether she wants to live in the city or in this village.” The above legalizations apply to the property that the monks owned before entering monasticism, and they do not have the right to give the property that they acquire on behalf of the monastery as an inheritance either to their children, or to their parents, or to other relatives (except in the case when they want to show them mercy as beggars, and not as relatives), because this property is dedicated to God. Bishops and clergy, according to Carthage. 40, if they acquire any property after consecration to the bishopric or entering the clergy, they must leave it in their bishopric and church, otherwise they are condemned as thieves and kidnappers. Monks are condemned in a similar way, and to a much greater extent. If the monks receive some things by inheritance from relatives or as a gift to themselves and not to the monastery, then after taking monastic vows they can leave some of these things to their relatives, although something from this should be given to the monastery, just as the above-mentioned rule of the Council of Carthage commands bishops and clergy to do this. Indeed, the law says that like should be judged by like, and in our case the acquisitions of bishops and clergy from their episcopal sees or churches are likened to the acquisitions of monks from a monastery. Please note: what we said about monks living in monasteries must also be applied without changes to the Kelliots and Sketes. Balsamon says that neither laws nor regulations distinguish between Kelliot monks and monastic monks. Basil the Great teaches (see Rule 9 of the extensively stated) that anyone who wants to enter monasticism should not neglect his property, but, having conscientiously collected everything as already dedicated to God, he should distribute it either with his own hand, if he has experience in such matters, or through another person, tested and distinguished by reasonableness and fidelity in matters of property management - that is, he should distribute his property to the needy and beggars After all, it is equally unsafe both to leave property to your relatives and to distribute it through an unverified person. If the relatives begin to shamelessly argue and keep his property, he must tell them that they are committing sacrilege, but he should not bring them to worldly court because of property, remembering what the Lord said: Whoever wants to sue you and take your robe, let him also have the swearing (Matthew 5:40). (See also this entire rule, set out at length, belonging to the named saint; it is very necessary for the issue under consideration (PG 31, 941A-944B.) And in the 187th rule, from those briefly stated by St. Basil teaches that even if the relatives of the monks are in great need, they should not withhold anything from the property of the monks, but should give everything completely to them, so as not to be condemned for sacrilege. However, this property should not be spent in front of those monks to whom it belonged, so that they themselves would not be proud of the fact that they brought these things to the monastery and fed the rest, and the poor monks, who have nothing, would not be ashamed of their poverty. Let the steward dispose of this property at his own discretion (PG31, 1208BC.). This is what the rules say and this is what the saints say, and we, for our part, observe every day that those who inherited money or some things from the monks bring fire into their homes, consuming to the point of destruction, according to Job (Job 31:12), and not only do they not prosper, but also become beggars from the rich and even go so far as to beg for alms themselves, because things dedicated to God should belong to people, dedicating themselves to God and not to the world. Against those bishops who build with unrighteous incomes, St. writes thus. Isidore: “As they say, you are building a church in Pelusium, magnificent judging by the means used for this, but you are building with wicked morals, selling ordinations, lies, insults, oppressing the poor, wasting what belongs to the poor. This is nothing less than building up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wickedness (Mic. 3:10). God does not need sacrifices made from other people's wealth. So, stop building and offending, so that this house does not serve you as a reproach before God - so that, having risen high, it does not become an eternal accusation for you” (letter 37 to Bishop Eusebius) (PG 78, 205AB.). And Habakkuk says: It is fierce to him who creates a city with blood (Hab. 2:12). Greg. Nazianz. Or. 39–7 // PG 36, 341. The subjects listed up to this point are not mentioned in the printed codes of rules, and Zonara and Balsamon in their interpretations of the canons also do not mention them at all. However, the text in this form can be found in many handwritten codices, made with a serviceable and skillful hand. Clearly, the default is that those who take these sacred objects and use them for their mundane needs or for the needs of others must return them back to the church. And those who do not return, even if they themselves donated these things and are the abbots of the church, are condemned as blasphemers, like Ananias and Sapphira. Note that other sources do not have this part of the sentence: “keeps and teaches the sanctity of life.” See also the 1st rule of Basil the Great, which punishes those who organize unauthorized gatherings only with a temporary ban on the priesthood. Despite this, the rule is Apost. 31 considers the separator innocent if he knows that his leader is trampling on justice. From these words of the rule it is clear (as Balsamon believes) that one cannot separate from one’s bishop if he adheres to a heresy, but keeps it secret, because it may happen that later he himself will correct himself. Probably the rule says this for the sake of St. Photius, who became patriarch under the still living Patriarch Ignatius, as we said at the beginning. However, many other bishops and patriarchs were ordained, despite the fact that their predecessors were still alive (see: Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 123). However, this is illegal and against the rules, and therefore not an example to follow. This means that the 1st decree of the 1st title should be invalidated. “Novel”, i.e. the 67th Justinian novel, according to Balsamon (Photius tit. 8, chapter 2), which determines that a bishop is deprived of his area if he is absent from it for more than a year (and not six months, as the present rule defines). In addition, the decree of Manuel Komnenos, which determines that bishops who live more than six months in a foreign place, should be expelled only from there, and not from their own region, is also invalid. After all, as we said in the preface to this book, civil laws that contradict the rules have no force, which is confirmed by these laws themselves. And the 7th decree of the 1st title. The “novel”, which prohibits the steward of the bishopric from giving funds to a bishop who has been absent from his area for a long time, is, of course, valid and effective. It remains to be said that, according to Sardik. 11, 12 and VI Omni. 80, a bishop is allowed to be absent from his area for only three weeks. Thus, both the emperor and the patriarch, according to the rules, can keep the bishop from returning to his region for more than six months. Some have asked how much time should be spent in each degree of the priesthood. And some answered that seven days, drawing such a conclusion from the “Tale of the Priesthood” by Gregory the Theologian, others - three months, citing evidence from the 122nd novella of Justinian, but in fact the period is not defined. And indeed, the Council of Sardica in the 10th canon determines that this period should be sufficient for the faith, good morals, and firmness of convictions of the ordained to be revealed. But it is known that faith and convictions are revealed faster for some, and slower for others, which means that the time frame for each is unclear. However, at each degree one should spend not as little time as possible, but as much time as possible. It was precisely such bishops and patriarchs that became the ordained laymen Nektarios, Ambrose, Tarasius, Nicephorus, and Saint Photius himself, who was present at the Council at that time, because of whom, in fact, the Council approved this rule. The fact is that although Photius accepted the patriarchate following the example of Tarasius, Nicephorus and Ambrose, nevertheless the Romans reproached him for this. Of the persons mentioned here, Tarasius, Nikephoros and Photius were appointed from the laity, and Nektarios and Ambrose - even from the catechumens. As soon as they were baptized and accepted all degrees of the priesthood in order, the Second Ecumenical Council proclaimed Nektarios Patriarch of Constantinople, and Ambrose the clergy and people - Bishop of Milan. See also Dositheus’s preface to the “Tomos of Joy” (p. 6), where he says that Photius wrote to Pope Nicholas that he himself contributed to the adoption of this rule at the Council for the sake of agreement between the two Churches, Constantinople and Rome, and in order to remove every stone of temptation.