О Неокесарийском Поместном соборе

The Holy Local Council in Neocaesarea of ​​Cappadocia, located in Pontus, called Polemonov by Ptolemy 80 and Pliny, took place, as Dositheus and Milias write, in 315, i.e. in the same year as the Council of Ancyra, though not at the same time, but a little later, according to Dositheus and others; or a year later than Ancyra, according to Milias. As Dositheus points out (Twelve Books, p. 976), 23 fathers gathered there, among whom Vitaly was the chairman. They laid down the present 15 rules on various issues [81], since such rules were necessary for church order and structure. These rules are directly approved by the VI Ecumenical. 2, and indirectly – IV Omni. 1 and VII Omni. 1, and from this statement they in some way receive the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. 15 rules of the Neocaesarea Local Council with interpretations If the presbyter marries, he should be removed (μετατίθεσθαι) [ 82 ] from his position; if he commits fornication or adultery, he should be expelled completely and brought to repentance. Since, according to Apost. 26, of those who enter into marriage after ordination, only readers and singers are not ejected, so this rule determines: if a presbyter, or rather a hieromonk, marries after ordination, he is deprived of his rank, that is, he is ejected. If he commits fornication or adultery, he is completely excommunicated from the Church and relegated to the place of repentants, like the laity [83]. If a woman marries two brothers, let her be expelled from the Church until death, but at the point of death, if she gives her word to dissolve the marriage upon recovery, let her be allowed to repent out of her love for humanity. But if a wife or husband dies while in such a marriage, repentance is difficult for those who remain. This rule determines that if a woman married two brothers (that is, after the death of one she married the other) and does not want to dissolve this unlawful marriage, let her be excommunicated from the Church until her death. If, being in a mortally dangerous illness, she promises that she will dissolve the marriage after she recovers, then, for the sake of humanity, let her partake of the Divine Mysteries and, if she recovers, be accepted into the category of penitents [84]. If the husband or wife dies without dissolving this illegal and illicit marriage, repentance becomes difficult for the surviving spouse, since true repentance is accomplished by moving away from evil. How can the surviving spouse be accepted or considered truly repentant, when he has not withdrawn from evil, that is, has not voluntarily dissolved an unlawful marriage? After all, the fact that the marriage was not dissolved before the death of one of the parties shows that if the deceased had lived, they would have remained together [85]. The time of repentance assigned to those who fall into numerous marriages is known, but their conversion and faith shorten this time. This rule says that the period of penance for polygamists (in other words, trigamists) is known and that, although the time of punishment for trigamists is determined, their repentance for triple marriage and ardent faith in God can move the bishop or their confessor to reduce the time of penance [86]. Basil the Great, in his 4th rule, excommunicates trigamists from communion of the Holy Mysteries for five years, saying that this five-year excommunication was not handed down by paternal rule, but only by custom and following predecessors. How did this rule escape the attention of the wise Basil, since this Council took place before Basil the Great lived? But, perhaps, the present rule calls the time of punishment for trigamists definite, based not on a written rule, but on custom, like Basil the Great. Since it was known to everyone from general and widespread custom, there was no need to define it in writing here. In his 8th canon, Basil says that trigamy is a more serious sin than fornication, and in the 50th canon he calls trigamy uncleanness and desecration of the Church. If someone, having desired a woman, intends to have intercourse with her, but his desire (ἡ ἐπνθύμησις) [ 87 ] is not fulfilled in practice, it is obvious that he has been delivered by grace. This rule defines: if someone, as a result of the pretext and consideration of a thought, desired a woman, following the pretext of this lust, he formed his thoughts (for this means “to intend”) and tried to find a way to copulate with the woman he desired, but the plan did not actually come true, not because of some external obstacle, but because, having come to his senses before copulation, he formed such thoughts immediately avoided and, according to Zonara, did not commit the act, it is obvious that he was delivered from committing a sin by Divine grace. However, for the fact that he formed a mind and was inclined to commit a sin, he must be punished by his confessor, as Zonara says. Therefore, Basil the Great, in his 70th rule of a deacon, who only goes so far as to kiss a woman, but confesses it, removes him from his ministry for a time (although a kiss is not just one simple act of adulation, but is already part of the action). About preposition, combination, addition, struggle and captivity, or passion, see the rules of John the Faster 2, 3, 4, 5 and notes to them, and in addition, look at the notes. 3 to Vasily the Great. 90. If a catechumen entering the church and standing in the rank of catechumens sins (ἀμαρτάνων) [ 88 ], then if he is one of those who bow the knee, let him pass into the category of those who hear, having ceased from sin. If he does not stop sinning even in the rank of those who listen, let him be expelled. There were two categories of catechumens. One is the more advanced category, who stood at the liturgy before the prayer of the catechumens, listened to it, bending their knees, and the priest laid his hand on them, and after that they left the church. The other is the category of imperfect people who, since they came to faith recently, listened only to the Holy Scriptures and came out after reading the Gospel. So, the present rule says that if any of the catechumens who are perfect and bend the knee sins, let him be reduced to the rank of catechumens who hear the Scriptures, if he abstains from sin. If, while still among those listening, he sins again, let him be expelled even from the vestibule and placed in the place of those who weep—behind the gates of the vestibule. See also I Omni. 14 and the plan of the church at the end of the book. About the pregnant woman: she should be enlightened by baptism whenever she wants, for the one giving birth has no communication with the one being born, because each of them reveals his own will during confession. Since the uterine fetus is part of the pregnant woman, according to the provisions of Chapter 2. 1 tit. 7 books 31 “Basilik” (in Photius tit. 4, ch. 10), then some argued that a woman should be baptized not during pregnancy, but after childbirth, so that it would not turn out that her fetus, being baptized first with her, and then again after its birth, was baptized twice, which is unacceptable. Therefore, the present rule, objecting to those who say so [89], determines that a pregnant woman, if she is in the rank of catechumens, can be baptized whenever she wants, since she does not transmit enlightenment and baptism to the fetus in her womb, but is baptized only herself. After all, in order for a person to confess that in baptism he is united with Christ and renounces the devil, or, more simply, in order to be baptized, he needs to show his own will either directly, as is required of those baptized at the age at which they are able to comprehend the meaning of the Sacrament (such as the pregnant woman in question), or through a recipient, as is required of those baptized in infancy [90]. And the fetus, which is in the womb, cannot independently show will, since it does not yet have one, nor through a recipient, as it is not yet born and cannot receive baptism. Let the presbyter not feast at the weddings of second-weds. After all, if a second-wed needs repentance, then what kind of elder is this who approves of such marriages by his participation in the feast? This rule determines that the priest should not sit at the table at the wedding of the second-married, since the second-married is under sin and penance, and the priest, if he sits at the table with him, shows by this that he favors and rejoices in this marriage of his, which bears the burden of sin and condemnation [91]. The first marriage, according to Gregory the Theologian, is law 92, since there is one legal marital union - both woman with man and man with woman - legitimized by the Divine voice and presence at the marriage in Cana. Therefore, being innocent, such a marriage is crowned and is accompanied by communion of the Divine Mysteries (see also note to VI Ecumenical 13). And the second marriage is an indulgence 93, since it is allowed by leniency. Therefore, what Paul says about widows: But if they cannot abstain, let them marry (1 Cor. 7:9), according to the interpretation of Chrysostom, he says this as permission, and not as a command 94 (i.e., in the same way as he allowed those who entered into their first marriage to have frequent intercourse for the sake of their intemperance) 95. If this is by indulgence, then it is obvious that the second marriage is neither plausible nor blameless, but is under the burden of condemnation and sin. Therefore, according to the rule of Vasily the Great. 4, the second-wed is excommunicated from the Divine Mysteries for one or two years, and according to the rule of Nicephorus, Constantinople. 2, doesn't even get married. That is why Ignatius the God-Bearer said in his Epistle to the Antiochians: “One to one, and not many to one, was given at creation” 96 . Clement of Alexandria says: “He who marries a second time does not sin from the point of view of the Testament, however, he does not fulfill the perfection of the Gospel; he will gain heavenly glory if he keeps the marriage dissolved by death pure, joyfully submitting to the Economy” 97. If the wife of a layman, having committed adultery, is clearly convicted of this, then such a person cannot enter the ministry of the clergy. If she commits adultery after his ordination, he must divorce her. If he lives with her, he cannot retain the ministry entrusted to him. This rule determines that if the wife of a layman commits adultery and is openly exposed by those who can accuse her (about them, see the note to Apostle 48), her husband cannot ascend to any sacred degree. Likewise, if the wife of a clergyman commits adultery, he must divorce her if he wants to retain the priesthood. If he wants to live with this adulteress, then he cannot simultaneously have the priesthood, but is ejected from it [98]. See also Apost. 25. If a presbyter is elevated to the priesthood, having previously sinned in body, and confesses that he sinned before ordination, he should not make the Offering, saving the rest for the sake of diligence in the rest. For other sins, as the majority asserts, are also permitted by the laying on of hands. If he himself does not confess, and it will be impossible to clearly incriminate him, then leave him to your authority. If a priest, before ordination, sinned with his body, i.e., entered into carnal intercourse, and after accepting the priesthood he himself confesses (for example, to his spiritual father or bishop) that he sinned before ordination, this rule prescribes that he should not perform the liturgy (and along with the celebration of the liturgy, other priestly rites are included here, according to Balsamon, in the interpretation of VI Ecumenical 26), however he must retain the rest of the priestly advantages, that is, external honor, a seat, standing and communion at the holy altar, according to Zonara and Balsamon, and this for the sake of his other virtues, and especially for the sake of zealous repentance and confession, which he went to voluntarily (after all, if he is convicted by others of having committed such a sin, he cannot have these advantages either, but after the eruption he will be relegated to his place laymen as a layman, according to Balsamon). See also VI Omni. 21 and Vasily the Great. 3. However, the accusation against a priest who has committed fornication must be confirmed by five witnesses, as the Blastar says (see also Apostle 75) - So, let this be carried out if the priest falls into carnal confusion before accepting the priesthood. If he sins only in the soul, that is, he reaches the point of surrender and aspiration of the soul, or even uses some methods and means to commit sin, but does not actually commit it, then, the rule says, such sins are forgiven by the grace of ordination and do not entail eruption. However, the rule speaks about this with restraint, saying that the majority says so, and not itself. If a priest, before accepting the priesthood, touches a woman’s hand or kisses a woman, then ordination resolves this sin, according to Zonara and others, and therefore he is not ejected (since, falling into this even after ordination, the priest is not ejected, but is removed from service, according to Basil the Great. 70). However, if he sins with something more than a kiss, that is, even goes so far as to lie together, then he is ejected, because ordination does not permit such a sin. For just as a deacon and presbyter, who, after accepting the priesthood, committed a sin greater than kissing, are ejected, according to the same 70th rule of Basil the Great, so one who has committed such a sin before accepting the priesthood is forbidden to become a priest, and, accordingly, if after accepting the priesthood he confesses this, then he is equally ejected. All this, says the rule, must be carried out if the sinned priest confesses [99]. If neither he himself voluntarily confesses this, nor others can clearly convict him of having committed it, then let it be in his power to either remove himself from the priesthood or bring it into effect, since, according to civil law, it is better to leave sins unpunished (as unproven) than to subject them to punishment without guilt. In the same way, if a deacon falls into the same sin, let him have the rank of minister. If, before ordination, a deacon falls into carnal confusion and after ordination confesses this to his spiritual father, let him be expelled from the diaconate and accept the rank of minister and cleric, for example: subdeacon, or reader, or singer. Pay attention also to the fact that this rule did not cast him into the place of the laity - for the sake of zeal, which he showed by voluntary confession of his sin. For if he is convicted of having done such a thing, he will not be allowed to remain in the rank of cleric. Read I Omni. 9 and Carthage. 141. One cannot ordain a presbyter before the age of 30, but one must wait, even if the person is very worthy, for the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach in the 30th year. This rule was borrowed verbatim by the VI Ecumenical Council and made it its 14th rule, so see its interpretation there [100]. If someone was enlightened by baptism in illness, he cannot be promoted to presbyter, for his faith is not from will, but from need, unless, perhaps, for the sake of his subsequent zeal and faith, and due to the lack of people. This rule determines: let no catechumen become a priest who, when he was healthy, postponed holy baptism, and when, due to illness, he was in mortal danger, then out of fear was baptized. After all, it is clear that he was baptized not of his own free will, but because he was forced by illness (and this should not be, because everyone must take on the feat of Christianity out of free will, according to Carthage 119). It is obvious that before this he did not want to be baptized out of a desire to lead a free and voluptuous life, and not an evangelical and Christian one [101]. However, if after baptism he turns out to be zealous in keeping the Divine commandments, firm and strong in faith, and, moreover, there are not enough people worthy of the priesthood, then let him become a priest. The rule of Laodice also rules in accordance with this rule. 47”, determining that those who were baptized while sick should study the objects of faith after recovery. In addition, the rule of Carthage. 52 says that those who are ill should be baptized when, according to their will, someone bears testimony about them. Rule of Vasily the Great. 5 requires the acceptance of heretics who repent at the end of their lives. Rule of Kirill Alexander. 5 requires that catechumens close to death be baptized. Therefore, the 25th rule of St. Nikephoros says: “If someone, being sick, desires holy baptism, he should immediately accept it and not be deprived of Divine grace, as well as the holy monastic schema.” Both Balsamon and Simeon of Thessalonica say the same thing about the holy schema. See also note. to the 25th rule of Nicephorus. See also Apostle. 80. Rural elders may not make the Offerings in a city church if the bishop or elder of the city is present, nor may they administer the Bread and Cup during prayer. If they are absent and they called one village elder to prayer, then he can teach. This rule determines that rural priests (or priests of small towns) cannot perform liturgies in the church of a big city, a city in the proper sense, and especially when the bishop or priests of the city are present, as well as teach the Bread and Cup during prayer, that is, give communion during the liturgy to Christians who are in the city. If the bishop and priests of the city are absent and a priest from a village (or small town) is invited to prayer, then he can freely give communion to those who are there. For no one is ordained without appointment to the church, but everyone where he is called must remain there, according to the apostle 102. The Chorebishops, although they represent the image of the seventy, make the Offering as concelebrants, using honor for the sake of their care for the poor. Bishops represent the image of the twelve apostles, since they, like the twelve apostles, through the sacraments and, of course, through the ordination of clergy, convey to others the grace of the Holy Spirit. Chorebishops, according to this rule, represent the image of the seventy apostles, since they, like the seventy [103], cannot transmit the grace of the Holy Spirit through the ordination of presbyters or deacons, whom they do not have the right to ordain. However, chorebishops are not prohibited from performing sacred functions and enjoying honor for the sake of their concern for the distribution of the income of their churches among the poor brothers. If chorebishops must distribute and spend church income and money on the poor, how much more should the bishops themselves do this?! See also note. to I Omni. 8. According to the rule, there should be seven deacons, even if the city is very large. And you will be convinced of this from the book of Acts. This rule was improved by the VI Ecumenical Council with its 16th rule, and what we said in its interpretation applies to the interpretation of this rule. Therefore, look about it there. Ptolem. Geogr. // TLG 363/14–5-6.4. Therefore, I am perplexed why both Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 976) and Spyridon Milias (Synodikon. Vol. 1, p. 137), who took information from Dositheus, said that the present Council made decisions about those who made sacrifices during the persecution or denied and tasted things sacrificed to idols. After all, these rules were not mentioned about such people, or, as the comedian put it, they were not even mentioned (This refers to the ancient Greek poet-comedian Aristophanes. See: Aristoph. Plutus // TLG 19/11. 17.). About them, as we said, definitions were made in the rules of the Ancyra Cathedral. John of Antioch in his “Collection of Rules” (tit. 27), instead of μετατίθεσθαι, uses κατατίθεσθαι, which means “to spew out.” Pay attention to the following opinion of Balsamon and Zonara. Apostle 25 determines that elders, if they fall into fornication or adultery, are only cast out, but not excommunicated. The rules of Carthage are consistent with this apostolic rule. 35 and Vasily the Great. 3, 32. Therefore, the mentioned rules, since they agree, as we have seen, with the apostolic canon, and because they appeared later, should have preference over the present canon. It seems to me that this canon is in excellent agreement with the apostolic and other canons, if we take into account that it speaks of unmarried elders who committed fornication and adultery twice, thrice and repeatedly. If, after the eruption, they again fall into fornication or adultery, then they (like other clergy) should be completely excommunicated from the Church. Look, and VI Omni. 21, in accordance with this rule, determines that clergy guilty of canonical crimes are not only completely expelled for life, but are also reduced to the position of laity and take on the appearance of laity. For information about what punishments married hieromonks receive according to the law, see the note. to VI Omni. 6 and Vasily the Great. 3. It is obvious that this woman, after recovery and acceptance into the ranks of penitents, does not partake of the Holy Mysteries again until the time of punishment imposed on her for an illicit marriage ends, according to I Omni. 13, Ankir. 6 and Gregory Nis. 5. Her punishment lasts, according to Vasily the Great. 78, seven years, and according to John the Faster - three years with the fulfillment of penances. Likewise, Basil the Great, in the 39th rule, calls an adulteress during the entire period of cohabitation that woman who married a man who committed adultery with her during the life of her first husband, since if he were still alive, they would still have committed adultery. Pay attention to the fact that Gregory the Theologian called the third marriage lawlessness (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 37. 8 // PG 36, 292B.), and Basil the Great (like this rule) polygamy, or better yet moderate fornication (See Basil the Great. 4.). In 922, under Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his father-in-law Roman, at that time basileopater, a conciliar tomos was issued, the so-called “Tomos of Unity”, which determined that second-weds, if they have no children at forty years, are allowed to take even a third wife for the sake of healing their childlessness, but they must be punished by excommunication from communion for five years without any possibility of reducing this time, and after these five years, receive communion only once a year on Holy Easter. If they have children, they are never allowed to enter into a third marriage. And those who did not have children at thirty were allowed to marry a third time for the sake of a young age, at which stumbling easily occurs. However, as punishment, they should not receive communion for four years, and after that they should receive communion only three times a year: on the Resurrection of Christ, the Nativity of Christ and the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. If they have children, penance is imposed for five years, according to custom (see “Tomos” on p. 976 of the “Synodikon”). Those over forty-five years old are never allowed to marry a third time, even if they have no children. It is precisely this, that is, the definition of trigamists, that is perhaps the main reason that has given rise in our days to the great persecution of those who want to partake of the Holy Mysteries often. Therefore, some blame the one who included this definition in the Book of Hours (See, for example: Ώρολόγιον. Ένετίῃσι, 1789. Σ. 489.) as a law and a universal rule for all Christians, whereas it was a punishment only for the incontinence of trigamists. However, I think that this unfortunate man is being blamed unfairly: he did not mean that all Christians should receive communion three times a year - as many educated and ignorant people foolishly believe, and for which zealots of Orthodoxy condemn him. No, I say, that is not the case. On the contrary, apparently, he spoke out against gluttons and especially against those who live with the Latins and learn from them to break the fasts handed down by their fathers (saying that there is only one fast - the Great Pentecost, and the rest are yesterday's and the day before yesterday's inventions). So, I repeat, speaking out against this idle talk, our Eastern zealot undertook to prove that both the forty-day fast (i.e., the Nativity fast) and the August fast are ancient fasts, and not late inventions. And in particular, citing other evidence of this, he very reasonably points to the “Tomos of Unity”, which appeared, as we said, in 922 and in which, we see, the fathers of the famous Council mention, along with the Holy Pentecost, two other fasts, so from here follows the conclusion about their antiquity. And in fact (let’s say this by the way), these posts should also be honored: after all, if they were mentioned in 922, and we live in the 1790s, then how can they be called innovations?! And then, these fasts are mentioned in 922, but they did not appear then, but earlier, that is, they were accepted in the Church from ancient times, so that in 922 they are mentioned as general and observed by everyone, and a decision is made that trigamists can then and only then commune. Why? Of course, not just like that, but because trigamists always deserve condemnation for their intemperance. Consequently, the Church did not excommunicate them in such a way as to expel them completely, but tolerates them and looks at them as uncleanness within its fence. Therefore, having punished them with many years of excommunication, she allows them to receive communion only three times a year, but not more often, as other Christians receive communion, since trigamists are always burdened by their guilt, because of which they are unworthy to dare to approach the radiance of the Holy Gifts more often. This is the true and main reason that prompted the mentioned Christian to refer there to the “Tomos of Unity,” as can be seen from the title “On Fasting.” And unreasonable people, not taking into account the goal and main motive of the speaker, take out one thing from the Book of Hours: Christians should, as he writes, receive communion only three times. May the Lord give them understanding so that they may experience the benefit for their souls and correct themselves. Pay attention to the following: if second-married couples exert pressure to achieve a third marriage, then they should be punished, according to the conciliar decree of Manuel of Constantinople Charitopulos (Greco-Roman Law, p. 239). In addition, the priest who blessed such a marriage, that is, the third, should be cast out, since he neglected the importance of the law, as Balsamon says in the 62nd answer. In other sources, “thought” (ἡ ἐνθύμησις). In other sources ἀμαρτάνει. The fact that the fetus formed in the womb is not a part of the pregnant woman’s body, firstly, is sufficiently demonstrated by the present rule, pointing out to those who claim the opposite a contradiction. After all, if the fetus were part of her body, then, since she was completely baptized, parts of her body should also be baptized along with her. After all, where the whole is, there is a part. Secondly, the formed fetus has its own hypostasis, different from the hypostasis of the mother, not only because it has its own rational soul (and this is a distinctive feature of the hypostasis, according to the divine Damascus (Ioan. Damasc. Dialect. 66 // PG 94, 665B.)), separate from the soul of the mother, but also for the following reason. Although his body was formed mainly from the male seed, and then from the monthly blood of the mother (and conception occurred from both), the fetus is not without its own movement and blood circulation. Its movement is different from that of the mother, since the fetus floats independently in the amniotic fluid. And thirdly, resolution 10 tit. 3 books 41 “Digest” and resolution 26 tit. 16 books 50 “Digest” (in Photius tit. 4, ch. 10) clearly define that the embryo is not a part of the mother, for it is in her as something else in something else. It follows from this that since he is not part of the mother, but has his own body, soul, and movement, he should be baptized not together with the mother who carries him in the womb, but separately and on his own. So, those who claim that the embryo is part of the mother are wrong, even if the 2nd position says so (1st chapter, 7th title, 31st book of “Basily”), as we said. For, according to Dionysius the Areopagite, parents according to the flesh hand over their child to some good mentor from those initiated into the divine, so that in the future the child is under the guidance of this mentor, as the father appointed by God and the guarantor of his sacred salvation (On the church hierarchy. Ch. 7) (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. VII, 3.11 // PG 3, 568B.). And Chrysostom says (the Sermon of the paralytic, let down through the roof) that if one believes, the other is not healed from this, unless he, either because of the immaturity of his age (like baptized infants), or because of a very serious illness, is not able to believe (like the paralytic) (Ioan. Chrysost. In paralyt. 5 // PG 51, 56.). And Gregory the Theologian (Homily on Baptism) says that infants who feel neither harm nor grace should be baptized if they are in danger, because it is better for them to be baptized without realizing the grace of baptism than to die unbaptized and imperfect. After all, circumcision, which was a form of baptism, was performed on eight-day-old infants who were unable to think and know, and the anointing of door lintels with blood among the Jews protected the first-born with the help of inanimate things (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40. 28 // PG 36, 400A.). If anyone says that just as an unbelieving husband is sanctified, according to the Apostle, by a believing wife, so unbaptized infants are baptized and sanctified through the baptism of the mother, since the same Paul calls them saints (See 1 Cop. 7:14.), then let him hear that the unbelieving husband is sanctified for the sake of the hope of future salvation given through baptism. After all, Paul adds: Why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? (1 Cor. 7:16). In the same way, Paul called children saints, not because they are the children of believers (for their children are carnal unless they share in the faith of their parents, since they are born with original sin, while their parents are cleansed from it through baptism), but because they share in the faith and piety of their parents through baptism. Why does the priest approve of a condemned second marriage not when he blesses it, but when he is present and feasting at the wedding? To this we can say that the priest is obliged to perform a sacred act and blessing, because without this such a marriage, permitted by leniency, cannot be concluded; so that, while doing this out of necessity, the priest himself does not express approval. And staying and feasting at a wedding is not only optional, but also serves as a reason for fun. Therefore, the one who did this in some way shows that he himself rejoices at such a sinful marriage. Although Zonara says that patriarchs and metropolitans openly feasted with second-married emperors, such cases, since this is a rare exception from canonical acrivia, do not become the law of the Church. Why does Nikita of Irakli in his 1st rule say that it is legal for elders who have blessed second marriages not to feast on them, in accordance with this rule. Although Nikita himself says that it is not customary to marry newlyweds for reasons of acrivia, the custom of the Great Church does not observe anything like that - however, the custom of the Great Church goes beyond the scope of canonical acrivia, and therefore we should not imitate it. The crowns placed on the heads are a sign of victory, according to Chrysostom (Discourse 9 on the First Epistle to Timothy): a sign that, having become invincible, those getting married enter into an alliance, and that they were not defeated by voluptuousness (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Tim. 9. 2 // PG 62,546.), by which they were clearly defeated second marriages, which is why they are unworthy of crowns. Pay attention, however, to the fact that it is not appropriate for us to disdain second-weds and turn away from them, for this was characteristic of the Novatians, according to I Om. 8. We must maintain communication with them, according to the same rule, although the divine Chrysostom says that many second-weds are ridiculed, both in the bazaars and in homes, many turn away from them and do not tolerate friendship with them (“The Sermon on Virginity” in the book, p. 265) (Ioan. Chrysost. De virgin. 37 // PG 48,559.). Nikita, chartophylax of Thessaloniki (Greco-Roman Law, p. 350) also says that it is not appropriate for priests to feast at the weddings of second-weds. Greg. Nazianz. From. 37. 8 // PG 36, 292B. Ioan. Chrysost. Hom, in Er. I ad Cor. 19.2 // PG 61, 153. Ign. Er. ad Antioch. g // PG 5, 905A. Clem. Alex. Strom. III, 12. 82 // PG 8, 1184AB. Pay attention to the fact that if a layman immediately divorces his adulterous wife, then he can become a priest if he is otherwise worthy, although Balsamon unfairly claims the opposite. For just as a clergyman, divorcing his wife who has fallen into adultery, retains the priesthood, so a layman, divorcing such a wife, can become a priest. If both, even out of ignorance, copulated with their wife after she committed adultery, then equally the priest cannot retain the priesthood, and the layman cannot receive it, because the wife who committed adultery was defiled, and they, having copulated with her, also became defiled, and therefore both became unworthy of the priesthood. Note also that if the adulterous wife of a layman or priest is not denounced by others as an adulteress, but on her own impulse confesses her adultery to a bishop or confessor, then even in this case her husband, unless he divorces her, is unworthy of the priesthood. If some, citing civil laws, say that a person who has committed adultery, even if she admits with her own lips that she committed adultery, should not be believed until she is convicted, then they are wrong. They are refuted by the 9th and 10th rules of this Council, which define the opposite and confirm our opinion. Moreover, the laws say that one should not condemn someone who confesses to adultery (Vlastar calls this itself truly unheard of and strange), and not that one should not believe her. This rule, as well as the 10th rule of the same Council, refutes the opinion of those who say that if the priests are not exposed and accused by the council, then they should not be cast out in the event that they confess their sins themselves. For these rules say that there are two ways to cast out clergy: either when others denounce them as having sinned, or when they themselves voluntarily confess. However, we should add that if the confessor, having heard about the secret sin of a priest, tells him to leave the priesthood according to the rules, and he does not agree to this, he should leave him to his authority and not expose him to shame, since he can refuse to confess this sin to him, and the confessor alone cannot be trustworthy and act at the same time as a judge, an accuser, and a witness. However, even if the priest denies his sin, the confessor must have communion with him, because if he does not accept him into communion, then the rest of the clergy should not accept the confessor himself into communion, according to Carthage. 141. The fact that the oral confession of a sinner is enough to ban him from the ministry and cast him out is clearly shown by I Om. 9, and Vasily the Great. 70. See also in the example of canonical renunciation the testimony of Chrysostom about those who renounce the priesthood before exposure. And Isidore Pelusiot in a letter to Zosima says: “So, get away, get away from the Divine altar, so that disaster does not strike your head” (letter 570) (Isid. Pel. Er. II, 75 // PG 78, 517C); see also the testimony of Simeon of Thessalonica (answer 13) in note. to I Omni. 9, where he says that if the bishops and priests who have sinned before or after ordination do not completely abstain from the affairs of the priesthood, there is no salvation for them. Please note: he does not say that they should renounce only the priesthood, but from works, that is, from the rest of the actions of the priesthood (See PG 155. 86o–861.). What are these “other benefits” that remain for those who confessed their sin, as the present rule says? Look in the notes. to VI Omni. 26, where they are described in more detail. See also note. to the 8th rule of Nicholas. St. Epiphanius in the chapter on the 51st heresy says: “When the Lord was baptized, he was twenty-nine years and ten months old” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 51.16 // PG 41, 920A.). And Sebaste of Trebizond says that He was twenty-nine years and twelve days old (and these are the twelve days that we celebrate from the Nativity of Christ to Epiphany). After all, the Evangelist Luke did not say that the Lord was a full thirty years old, but about thirty years old (Luke 3:23), since either ten months passed from the thirtieth year of His life, according to Epiphanius, or twelve days, according to Sebast. Gregory the Theologian in the 40th conversation says that the Lord revealed Himself at the age of thirty, and not earlier, firstly, in order not to seem boastful and arrogant (due to the fact that He attracted disciples to Himself while young), and, secondly, because this is a suitable age for teaching and at this age virtue is fully tested (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40.29 // PG 36, 400CD.). And Theophylact calls the Lord a husband (interpretation of Chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke) because of his perfect age (Theoph. Bulg. In Luc. 3, 23–38 // PG 123, 744B.). Please note that the Old Testament priests were also thirty years old when they were ordained. For the divine Jerome says (the epistle to Paulinus and the introduction to Ezekiel to Eustochius) that those who would read the mysterious books, i.e., the Six Days, the Song of Songs, the beginning and end of the prophecy of Ezekiel, should have been at the age not of twenty-five, but of thirty years, because it was believed that this was the age suitable for accepting sacred service, and perhaps the Lord, following this legal order, was baptized and began to preach at thirty years old, as befitted priests. That is why the heretic Novatus, who was baptized while mortally ill and bedridden, but was then illegally ordained as a presbyter, began to rage against the Church (see also: Eusebius. Church history. Book 6, chapter 43) (Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, 43 // PG 20, 616B-629A.). The fact that the seventy apostles did not have the gift of transmitting the Holy Spirit to others becomes clear from the 8th chapter. Acts: Philip, one of the seven deacons and seventy apostles, did not impart the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans, whom he baptized and instructed; it was necessary for Peter and John, the apostles of the twelve, to come to Samaria to teach Him, for He (the Holy Spirit) had not yet descended on any of them (See Acts 8:16). (However, we should clarify that, according to Ikumenius, these seventy apostles did not teach the Holy Spirit while they were in Jerusalem with the twelve apostles, out of reverence for them (Oecum. In Acta apost. 8, 16-17 // PG 118, 157D-160A.) It is impossible to believe that they did not ordain and, therefore, did not communicate the Holy Spirit, after they were scattered throughout the universe.) Ignatius the God-Bearer in his Epistle to the Trallians calls the bishop an imitator of Christ in power (like the divine Dionysius the Areopagite - imitating God (See: Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. II, 2. l // PG 3, 393A.)), presbyters - the sacred assembly, advisers and assistants to the bishop, and deacons - imitators of angelic powers, for they serve the bishop purely and immaculately (Ign. Ep. ad Tral. 7 // PG 5, 785B-788A.). Gelasius in the “History of the First Council”, ch. 30, says that the bishop replaces the Lord, the presbyter occupies the seraphim throne, the deacon occupies the cherubim throne, and the subdeacon and minister are appointed to serve them (Gelas. Hist. II, 30 // PG 85,1316C.). See also Chrysostom (vol. 4, pp. 714, 53), who says the same about Philip and adds that giving the Holy Spirit was the work of only the twelve apostles (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Acta apost. 18, 3 // PG 60,144.). And the mentioned Dionysius the Areopagite calls the bishop perfecting, the presbyter enlightening, and the deacon purifying (On the church hierarchy. Chapter 5) (See: Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. V, 3 // PG 3, 504B.).