О божественном Кирилле Александрийском

In the saints, our father Cyril, nephew of Theophilus, became archbishop of Alexandria and successor of his uncle in 412 297. Since even after the death of the divine Chrysostom, Cyril treated him with prejudice and hostility because of his passion for his uncle, Chrysostom’s enemy, the Mother of God appeared to Cyril and ordered him to include the name of Chrysostom in the sacred diptychs, which he did, repenting of his previous hostility 298. St. Cyril expelled all the Jews living in Alexandria 299 and then began a spiritual war against the heretics who were at that time, especially against Nestorius. Having failed to turn Nestorius from his error either with the help of the admonishing messages that he first sent to him, or with the help of the Local Council, which he convened against him in Alexandria in 426 300 (there he set out 12 anathematisms against the Nestorian heresy), in the end St. Cyril convinced Emperor Theodosius to convene the Third Ecumenical Council (see the preface to it) and, having headed it, deposed the wicked Nestorius. In 444 St. Kirill went to the Lord 301. His works, published in 1638 in Paris, are collected in 7 volumes; Among these creations is the following canonical message, necessary for the well-being of the Church. Balsamon divides it into 4 rules, and Aristin into 5 (we also followed him). Domnus, to whom this letter is addressed, was the Patriarch of Antioch 302. The message is indirectly approved by the rules of IV Omni. 1 and VII Omni. 1, and directly - by rule VI Omni. 2 and through this statement in some way receives the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils 303. This message is found in the Pandects (vol. 2) and at the beginning of the 2nd volume of the Synodikon. In the saints of our father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, 5 rules, into which his canonical letters to Domnus of Antioch and the bishops of Libya are divided Canonical Epistle to Domnus Any of our deeds, when done according to the rules of decorum, does not give rise to any disorder in us, but both saves us from the censure of some and, moreover, gives us the approval of the prudent. After all, who wouldn’t agree with an impartial decision made by anyone? Or how can it be that a just and lawful court deserves censure, not to say, not worthy of all praise? And I am writing about this now for the reason that your love for God, in your letters sent to me and to our most reverend and most God-loving brother and co-bishop Proclus, calls the most reverent and most God-loving Peter a bishop, and he cries and claims that, contrary to the laws, he was expelled from the Church entrusted to him. Meanwhile, it would be fitting for him to have the name of the priesthood along with the divine action, or, if he is unworthy to stand before the divine throne, not to be called the honorary title of bishop at all. But perhaps my word will seem to your love of God cruel and devoid of love for your neighbor, but in reality it is not like that. We believe that, perhaps, in some sense, we showed the elder a favor by leaving him only the name of bishop. However, it would be much better to think about something else. After all, he claims that he could have defended his reputation, but was not given time to justify himself, and he was not offered to consider the case according to the rules. If this had happened, then the written conclusion itself would either have revealed the justice of the accusations and admitted his guilt (and therefore he could no longer say that he had been insulted), or, having proven his innocence, would have returned to him the primacy of the Church, which was entrusted to him. But since nothing of the kind was done, he loudly complains about what happened, claims that he suffered an intolerable insult and was expelled lawlessly, and adds that all his property was stolen. So, Your Reverence, knowing the decree of the divine rules and what befits the Church and those appointed to priestly service in it, and moreover, being ashamed of our messages, let him wipe away the tears of the elder. And if he wants to sue those who accused him, let him sue, as is customary, before your love for God in the presence of the most God-loving bishops subordinate to him (unless he challenges one of them as inspiring suspicion). Of course, we believe that none of the most God-loving bishops thinks evil against a brother. However, so that there is no reason to invalidate the decision of the future trial of him, as allegedly made unfairly, there is nothing wrong with the fact that some who incur suspicion will not be present at the Council. At the beginning of this letter, the saint says that any church work, when it is carried out in accordance with the sacred rules of deanery, not only does not create any disorder among us clergy and does not bring censure upon us, but, on the contrary, brings us the praise of prudent and prudent people. After all, who wouldn’t praise an impartial and fair decision? And will not a just and lawful court avoid censure and reproach and deserve all kinds of praise and approval? Having prefaced his speech with such an introduction, St. Cyril gets down to business and says to Domnus: “I am writing to you about this because in the letters that you sent to me and our brother Proclus of Constantinople, you call the most pious Peter a bishop, and he comes to us, cries and sobs, claiming, on the contrary, that he was unjustly and recklessly expelled by you from the episcopal region given to him. Meanwhile, it would be appropriate for him either to have an episcopal name along with the thing itself, that is, the episcopal region, or, if he is not worthy to have the region and the rank of bishop, then not to be called by the honorary name of bishop, which you call him. After all, a bishop is called and is a bishop of an episcopal region, and not just in himself, because these two terms - bishop and episcopal region - are inextricably linked with each other. Perhaps my words that one who does not have an episcopal region should not be called a bishop should seem cruel and devoid of brotherly love, but in reality they are not like that. Of course, we believe (pay attention to the fact that the saint begins to speak in the plural, both on behalf of Domnus and on his own, in order to make the speech less offensive and more acceptable) that we showed mercy to Elder Peter by leaving him at least the name of bishop, but it would be better to do something else out of compassion for him. So what? Give him time to defend himself and listen to his justification, as the divine rules command. After all, he says that if he had the opportunity to be tried at the Council, he could prove that he is completely innocent of what he is accused of. And undoubtedly, the very written sentence pronounced at his trial, in case of his guilt, would prove his guilt, so that he could no longer say that he was treated unfairly, and in case of innocence, he would return the episcopal region to him. But since there was no conciliar court or decision in his case, he shouts and declares that he suffered an unbearable offense and, contrary to the laws, was expelled from his episcopal region, and also says that all the money he had was stolen.” Having said this, St. Cyril turns to Domnus with the following words: “So, your reverence, knowing, firstly, the definition of the divine rules that one should not condemn anyone before the council’s judgment and decree (see Apostle 74 and the agreement to it), and secondly, the duty of the Church and its servants (which consists of justice based on the canons), and also being ashamed of my messages, may he wipe away the tears of the elder. And if he wishes to sue his accusers, let him be tried before your love of God in the presence of the 304 bishops subordinate to him, unless he suspects someone of enmity towards him and for this reason does not oppose their presence at the Council. Although we believe that no bishop is the enemy of his brother, however, lest the presence of those whom he suspects become a reason to cancel the consideration of the case (because he believes that they will be unfair to him), let those who inspire suspicion not be at this local Council 305.” Justice demands that the property unlawfully stolen from him be returned to him for two reasons. First of all, because nothing like this should have happened at all. And also because the most God-loving bishops of the whole earth are greatly upset and extremely depressed by the fact that they are required to account for how they spend funds both from church income and from someone else’s offerings, because each of us in our own time 306 will give an account to the Judge of all. In other words, sacred vessels and real estate must be kept inalienable from the churches, but the management of incidental expenses must be safely entrusted to those who at this time administer the divine priesthood. This rule is a continuation of the previous one. It says that for two reasons it is fair to return the said bishop. Peter the money that was illegally stolen from him (see Gregory Neokesar. 4). Firstly, because stealing his property was completely illegal from the very beginning. And secondly, since the bishops of any region are greatly upset and lead to great negligence by the fact that they are obliged to give an account of how they spend in their areas the funds delivered by someone or the income from the estates of the episcopate, since even without that, every bishop must give an account to God of the expenses that he made during the entire period of his episcopate. Sacred vessels and real estate of metropolises and churches must be preserved inalienable and inseparable from them, and the management of incidental expenses must be entrusted to metropolitans and bishops. However, in order to avoid suspicion, bishops should have economists who, at the will of these bishops, would manage all the income and expenses of the Church. He gave a written renunciation, as he claims, not of his own free will, but out of necessity, out of fear and under the influence of someone’s threats. But one way or another, church decrees in any case do not approve of any of the clergy submitting a written renunciation. If they are worthy of service, let them remain in it, and if they are unworthy, let them leave it, not through renunciation, but rather after condemnation for such deeds for which serious charges can be brought, since they violate (ἔξω ἐχόντων) 307 all order. Salute your brotherhood. Our brotherhood greets you in the Lord. Obviously, the mentioned bishop. Peter submitted a written renunciation of his episcopal region. And the present rule says that he did this not voluntarily and not of his own free will, as he admits, but out of necessity, out of fear and under the influence of threats from people who wanted to do him harm. But even if we assume that he submitted this renunciation voluntarily, all the same, when bishops submit written renunciations of rank and region, church rules do not approve of this. In other words, it is against rules and decency. After all, if bishops are worthy of the rank of bishop, let them remain in it and not renounce. If they are unworthy, let them leave their episcopal areas not under the guise of renunciation, but only if they are convicted of unlawful deeds 308, which can give rise to serious accusations, since they violate every order established by sacred rules, that is, they are completely illegal and uncanonical. It is clear that when such accusations are made, they relate to deeds committed openly, known to the accuser and confirmed by witnesses, because no one will accuse something unknown and committed secretly. And if so, then it is proved by contradiction that a bishop can renounce even in the case when others do not openly accuse him. Namely, if before or after accepting the episcopal dignity, he secretly committed a sin that interferes with service and entails removal from the dignity, and if, having confessed this sin to his spiritual father, he, convicted by his own conscience, along with his renunciation of the sacred actions of the bishopric, also renounces the episcopal region. See also I Omni. 9, message III Om. and Double. 16. His message to the bishops of Libya and Pentapolis It is proper to take care of everything that is useful and necessary for the edification of the people and serves for the glory of the holy Churches. For it is written: Make the children of Israel reverent (Lev.15:31). When the fathers of the monasteries located in the Thebes region, pious men and leading a life worthy of surprise, came to Alexandria, I asked them about the state of the monasteries there, and they said that many were tempted for the following reason. Others, having just entered into marriage and, as it were, emerging from the very bridal chambers, deceive some of the most God-loving bishops and, since no one, probably, announces their life, accept ordination as clergy, or rather presbyters. And others, when they are expelled from monasteries as disorderly persons, also seek ordination and, becoming clergy, enter the very monasteries from which they were expelled. At the same time, they want to make an offering and do what the clergy usually do, so that some of those who know them avoid church meetings and do not tolerate communion with them when they serve. So, since we, as I said, must do everything for the edification of the people, let your love for God observe this and, if someone is going to be ordained as a clergyman, carefully examine his life: whether he has a wife or not, how and when he took her, and whether he began to abstain, and whether he is one of those rejected by another God-loving bishop or expelled from the monastery - and after that, let him ordain if he finds him blameless. After all, in this way we will keep our own conscience clear, and our sacred and venerable service impeccable. At the beginning of this message it is said that bishops should take care of everything that is necessary and useful both for the edification and good of the people, and for the good reputation and glory of the holy Churches, in other words, clergy and clergy. For it is written: Make the children of Israel reverent. And further in the letter it is reported to the bishops that some fathers from Thebes, men worthy of surprise and virtuous, came to Alexandria, in response to the question of St. Kirill about the state of the monasteries located there told him that some recently married people are deceiving the bishops, who ordain them as clergy and priests, since no one reveals to them in advance the way of life of these people. In addition, others, when they are expelled from monasteries for outrages, fraudulently receive ordination and return back to their monasteries from where they were expelled, and want to perform liturgy there and perform other sacred rites belonging to the priests. And knowing about their bad life, some brothers because of this do not come to the liturgies they perform and do not want to receive communion with them. Therefore, since it is our duty, as stated above, to do what serves to edify the people, let your own love for God, O bishops, pay attention to this. When someone wants to be ordained, carefully examine his life, whether it is good or bad, and whether he has a wife, how and when he took her, and whether he has ceased carnal cohabitation with her (this is the meaning of the words “began to abstain” 309), and whether he has been expelled from the monastery or whether he has not been expelled by another bishop. And after you have examined everything and found him faultless, ordain him. Indeed, thanks to such ordination, after the test, we will keep both our own conscience and the divine priesthood pure. See also Apost. 80. If some are under excommunication, because they are punished for sins, and then, being condemned, they are approaching death, then let them be baptized and not leave human life without being partakers of grace, that is, without receiving communion. For this too seems to be in agreement with the laws of the Church. (I Om. 13, 14; Neo-Caesar. 12.) This rule determines that if the catechumens for their sins have received penance to separate from the catechumens praying in the church and not to enter the vestibule, then if they are approaching death, let them be baptized, so as not to die without receiving the Divine grace of baptism and without having received communion, that is, without taking part in prayers with the faithful and without partaking of the Holy Mysteries (after all, it is obvious that immediately after baptism they must receive communion Holy Mysteries). For the fact that the catechumens, if they are threatened with death, accept baptism 310 and after this sacrament receive communion, corresponds to the church rules and is in accordance with them, in other words, it is legal and canonical. See also I Omni. 13, 14 and Neokesar. 12. Nikifor. Book 14, ch. 28 (Niceph. Callist. Hist. eccl. XIV, 28 // PG 146, 1149D-1152AB.). Nikifor, same place. Ch. 14 (Ibid. XIV, 14 // PG 146, 1101CD-1104A.); Cave. T. 1. P. 391. Fabricius and Cave, ibid. Note that Patriarch Domnus received two more messages of similar content: one from the same divine Cyril, and the second from Proclus of Constantinople. They are found in Act 14 of the IV Ecumenical Council in the Synodikon (vol. 2, pp. 192–193). About the syllable of St. Cyril Photius (code 49) writes the following: “His word is honed and brought to an exquisite form, it is like free poetry that disregards meter” (Phot. Bibl. 49 // PG 103, 85C.). Anastasius Sinait in the 7th chapter. The “Guide” calls the divine Cyril the seal of the fathers (Anast. Sinait. Viae Dux 7 // PG 89, 113D.). And then in the 8th chapter. says: “Let us point to the luminary itself, to the one who brings the face of the fathers together” (Ibid, 8 // PG 89, 136C.). And again: “None of the fathers spoke about the inviolability, the inability to endure degradation, the eternity and immutability of natures in Christ as did the God-bearing Cyril. The blessed fathers named the number of natures, and blessed Cyril, together with the number, pointed to the immutable and eternal existence of natures after union. Bless you, be a torch and a fiery pillar of truth!” (Ibid. Viae Dux 8 // PG 89, 176C-177A.) One day, Paul of Emesa delivered a sermon in Alexandria and praised Cyril in his presence. Then the people began to cry out, praying for Cyril: “Father of bishops, Lord, save!” (Dositheus. The Twelve Books. P. 955). Pope Agathon in his message calls Cyril an unshakable preacher of the truth. Balsamon - I don’t know for what reason - believes that bishops subordinate to Domnus, and not Peter, should have been present at the Council. He writes: “... let him be judged before you, Domnos, and the bishops subordinate to you,” although the rule speaks of bishops “subordinate to him,” that is, Peter. So the divine Chrysostom wrote to the Council under the oak convened against him that he refused to come, because he did not want Theophilus of Alexandria, Acacius, Severian and Antiochus to be judges at this Council (they were his accusers, judges, and obvious enemies), and that if these four were not at the Council, he would stand trial, but if they remained judges, he would never come. And so it happened: those judges were not removed and Chrysostom did not come (Synodikon. T. 1. P. 332). In other sources “for their bad deeds.” In other sources, “they go beyond all order” (ἔξω τρεχόντων). The Divine Chrysostom commands that even those clergy who are not openly accused of committing secret sins should renounce the priesthood. He writes: “I think it would be appropriate to have such reverence for this matter (i.e., the priesthood) so as to avoid this burden from the very beginning, and upon receiving it, if you happen to commit a sin that deserves eruption, not to wait for the verdict of others, but even before you yourself renounce this power. In this way it would be possible to attract the mercy of God. And to remain in this dignity contrary to decency means to deprive oneself of all forgiveness and further inflame the wrath of God by adding a second, more serious crime to the first crime” (On the priesthood. Homily 3) (Ioan. Chrysost. De sacerd. 3. 10 // PG 48, 647.). So, since the divine Chrysostom writes this way, so that there is no contradiction and disagreement between the utterances of the Spirit, one must also keep in mind what is unsaid. Namely: if someone is cast out from the priesthood, then he can be condemned not only by the people for obvious sins, but also by his own conscience for secret sins, as this golden preacher talks about. In other words, let such people renounce even before the conciliar decision, but at the same time, in a written renunciation, they will certainly indicate that they are renouncing because of their unworthiness, convicted by their conscience. See also the canonical example of renunciation at the end of the book. Probably St. Cyril says this because among the clergy who lived in Libya and barbarian countries there was a custom before ordination to promise to abstain from carnal relations with their wives (as stated in the rules of Carthage. 3, 4, 33 and VI Ecum. 12:30). After all, the saint sends the real message to the bishops of Libya. However, note that the words “did he begin to abstain” are not found either in the “Pandects”, or in the 2nd volume of the “Synodikon”, or in the interpretation of the rules of Balsamon, but they exist only in ancient handwritten codes, written by the hand of a competent and skillful copyist. Let us also point out here that although the divine Cyril in this epistle says all this about unworthy priests and St. Isidore Pelusiot often denounces the unworthy Zosima with the words “deny, deny yourself access to the divine altar, so that lightning does not fall on your head” (letter 570) (Isid. Pel. Er. II, 75 // PG 78, 517 C.), however, Christians should, without reasoning, partake of the Divine Mysteries from unworthy priests. After all, the unworthiness of the priests does not in the least harm the Christians themselves, as Isidore points out this in some of his letters to those who were tempted and did not want to receive communion from the voluptuous Zosima. As an example, he cites Balaam and Caiaphas, who prophesied, although they were unworthy, as well as Elijah, who accepted food from the unclean raven (letter 569) (Idem. Ep. V, 569 // PG 78, 1645C.). See also note. to the 1st rule of John the Faster (from among the rules inscribed with the name of the Faster). Balsamon’s words that by legal and canonical the rule means that catechumens or those under penance cannot stand with the faithful in church and pray with them until the end of the liturgy are correct in themselves, but do not correspond to the meaning and context of this rule.