О святителе Григории Неокесарийском

This divine Gregory was a contemporary of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, although somewhat later. For this reason, he found with him the same emperors, Valerian and Gallienus, and the persecution they initiated against Christians. Having first received a complete Hellenic education in Alexandria, and then becoming a disciple of Origen, 28 he then, by Divine inspiration, accepted the ordination as bishop of Neocaesarea on Pontus (Black Sea) from the Amasian bishop Phedimos, who, although in location was far from Gregory, was nearby through the action of grace that knew no bounds. When Gregory wanted to accurately comprehend Orthodox teaching, the Lady Theotokos appeared to him with John the Theologian, who, at the command of the Mother of God, revealed to him the sacrament of theology as follows: “One God, Father of the living Word, hypostatic Wisdom and Power and Eternal Mark, perfect Parent of the Perfect, Father of the Only Begotten Son.” “There is one Lord, one from one, God from God, the Mark and Image of the Divine, the active Word, the Wisdom that embraces the universe, and the creative Power of all creation, the true Son of the true Father, the Invisible - the Invisible, the Imperishable - the Imperishable, the Immortal - the Immortal and the Eternal - the Eternal. There is one Holy Spirit, who had his being from God and through the Son appeared to people, the perfect Image of the perfect Son, Life, the Cause of the living, the holy Source of holiness, the Giver of sanctification. In Him God the Father, who is above everything and in everything, and God the Son, who is through everything, reveal Himself. The Trinity is perfect, in relation to glory, eternity and kingdom, not divided or isolated. So, in the Trinity there is nothing created, or servile, or introduced - that would not have existed before, but appeared later. So, neither the Father was ever without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit; and one did not increase into two, and two into trinity, but always the same Trinity is immutable and unchangeable” 29. Together with Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and many other fathers, Gregory was present at the Council of Antioch, convened against Paul of Samosata 30. St. Gregory even saw the reign of Aurelian, during which the last Council against Paul of Samosata was held in 272 31 . The Church of Christ celebrates the memory of St. Gregory on November 17. Basil the Great, in his letter to the clergy of Neocaesarea, among many other things, says about Gregory that he, being a true disciple of St. Paul, did not cover his head when he prayed; avoided oaths, contenting himself with the words “yes” and “no”; did not call anyone crazy; hated slander 32. In the 29th chapter. works “On the Holy Spirit” by St. Vasily writes about him like this: “Where do we place Gregory and his speeches? Shall we not place with the apostles and prophets a man who walked in the same Spirit with them, walked in the footsteps of the saints all his life and lived diligently in the Gospel all his life; a man in whom the action of the Spirit manifested signs and wonders with all its power, and whom, because of the abundance of these gifts, the enemies of the truth themselves called the second Moses? 33 So, this man, in addition to other works 34, wrote in 252 this canonical epistle, as Milias speaks of in volume 1 of the Synodikon, divided into 12 or 11 canons. It was indirectly approved by Rule IV Omni. 1, and directly - by rule VI Omni. 2. Thanks to this statement, it in some way received the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. The message is contained in volume 2 of the Pandect and volume 1 of the Synodikon, p. 107. Gregory sent it either to Dionysius of Alexandria himself, or to Maximus, the successor of Dionysius, according to Eusebius (book 7, chapter 28) 35 because he calls the addressee of his letter pope. Apparently this pope asked the divine Gregory about those who ate the sacrifices to idols and did something else during the barbarian invasion of both the Pontic and Alexandrian regions. And everyone can learn that both in Pontus and in Alexandria under the same emperors the same persecutions followed both from the life of this saint and from Eusebius (ibid. Ch. 11) 36, who tells about the disasters that befell Egypt under Dionysius. In the saints of our father Gregory, Archbishop of Neocaesarea, wonderworker, there are 12 rules into which his canonical message is divided It is not food that burdens us, most sacred Pope, although the captives ate what the victors offered them, especially when everyone agrees that the barbarians who raided our countries did not sacrifice to idols. The Apostle says: Food is for the belly, and the belly is for food; but God will destroy both (1 Cor. 6:13). And the Savior, who cleanses all food 37, says that it is not what goes in that defiles a person, but what goes out (see Matt. 15:11). During the lifetime of this saint, barbarians called Vorades and Goths invaded the lands of the Romans and captured a large number of Christians. They gave the captives sacrifices to idols or food that was otherwise forbidden and unclean, and they ate. Therefore, to the question of the then pope, the divine Gregory answers in this canon: there is no particular harm or grave sin in the fact that Christians eat this kind of food 38, especially when everyone knows that these barbarians did not make sacrifices to idols and, therefore, the food they gave to the faithful was not sacrificed to idols. He also cites the testimony of the Apostle, who teaches that food is for the belly, that is, to please the belly, and, in turn, gluttony is for pleasure; God will abolish both pleasure and gluttony, so that no one will suffer harm from them 39 . After this, the saint shows that the food that is condemned is that which is eaten for the sake of pleasure and gluttony, and not that which is eaten by captive Christians, because they are forced to this by natural necessity and the violence of the barbarians. He also cites the testimony of the Gospel: “It is not the food that enters through the mouth that makes a person unclean, but what comes from the heart.” Let's also say that the captive women were corrupted because the barbarians violated their bodies. But if the life of any of them was previously worthy of reproach, because, as it is written, she walked after the eyes of those who commit fornication (see Ruth. 3:10) 41, then it is obvious that the inclination towards debauchery inspires suspicion even during captivity, so that such should not be allowed to communicate in prayer hastily. If she lived in perfect chastity and showed that her previous life was pure and free from any suspicion, and now she was violated by force and involuntarily - for this case we have in Deuteronomy an example of a young girl who was met in the field by a man and committed violence against her. “To the maiden,” says Scripture, “do not do anything; on the maiden there is no mortal crime: for it is the same as if someone rebelled against his neighbor and killed him, so is this matter. Although the girl screamed, there was no one to help her (Deut. 22:26–28). These are similar types of cases. In turn, regarding captured women who were molested by barbarians, this rule determines that this forced molestation is not a grave sin, but the matter must be investigated. After all, if the former free life of such women was condemned as dissolute, then the suspicion clearly arises that they followed the attraction and habit of debauchery during captivity. In other words, one can suspect that they were not violated by the barbarians, but rather that they themselves desired this corruption. Therefore, they should not be easily allowed to pray together with other women. But if their former life was extremely chaste and pure, free from all suspicion and accusation, and subsequently they were forcibly dishonored by the barbarians, then God judges them as not involved in mortal sin. For He also recognizes as such that girl who, when she was alone in the field, was violated and who was molested, “because she cried out,” says Scripture, “and there was no one nearby to help” 42 . In agreement with this, Basil the Great, in his 49th rule, says that victims of violent molestation are not subject to punishment. And in the 20th canon of St. Nicephorus says that a 40-day penance is imposed on a nun corrupted by barbarians or other disorderly men, if her previous life was unsullied and impeccable; and if she lived badly, then she is punished as an adulteress 43 . But what is terrible is covetousness, and it is impossible in one epistle to cite passages from the Divine Scriptures in which it is proclaimed that not only robbery is vile and disgusting, but also in general indulge in covetousness and appropriate the property of others for the sake of vile profit, and that anyone of this kind should be publicly declared expelled from the Church of God. And regarding the fact that during the invasion, amid such great lamentation and so many tears, some dared to consider this time, bringing destruction to everyone, to consider for themselves a time of gain - let’s say that this is characteristic of wicked and God-hating people, unsurpassed in vileness. Therefore, it was decided to sentence all such people to expulsion from the Church, so that anger would not come to the whole people and, first of all, to the primates themselves, who do not punish them for this. For I fear, as the Scripture says, lest the wicked destroy the righteous with him (see Gen. 18:23). Fornication, says Scripture, and covetousness, for which the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience (Col. 3:5-6). So, do not be their accomplices. You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord: walk as children of light, for the fruit of light consists of all goodness, righteousness and truth. Test what is pleasing to the Lord, and do not participate in the fruitless works of darkness, but also reprove. For what they do in secret is shameful to even talk about. Everything that is revealed is made manifest by the light (Eph. 5:7–13). This is what the apostle says. If some, having been punished for their former covetousness during the time of peace, at this very time of wrath again turned to covetousness, profiting from the blood and death of those people who became exiles or were captured and killed, then what else should we expect except that those who strive in covetousness will bring wrath both on themselves and on the whole people? During the invasion of the barbarians mentioned above, some Christians, who were not taken captives, invaded the houses of the captives and stole those things that the barbarians did not carry away. So, the saint, when asked about such, answers that all covetousness is a highly vicious matter and prohibited by Divine Scripture, so that it is impossible in one epistle to cover all the sayings of Scripture, which stigmatize as a terrible and terrible sin not only theft, but in general all covetousness, theft of someone else’s property and injustice. After all, every thief, covetous person and offender is excommunicated from the Church of God and is alien to it. And if covetousness and theft are such in themselves, then it is absolutely certain that people who, during the invasion of the barbarians, amid such great crying and groaning (when some cried that they themselves were captured, others - that their relatives were taken captive, and others - that the barbarians seized their property) considered this disastrous time convenient for their own gain and dared to steal and appropriate property the captive brothers are wicked, God-hating people who have surpassed every measure of evil. That is why it is necessary to expel them from the Church of God, so that because of them God’s wrath does not come to the entire people and especially to their leaders, that is, bishops and rulers who do not intelligently investigate such matters. The saint brings evidence from Scripture that the wicked attracts the righteous to punishment and destruction along with him, that because of covetousness the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience, and that righteous and virtuous people should not become accomplices and accomplices in fruitless and dark deeds of vice and injustice. He also adds the following: if those who appropriated the property of the captive brothers were not brought to their senses by the punishment that God brought upon them (i.e., the barbarian invasion) for the covetousness shown by them during the time of peace, but continue to extort during the wrath and invasion of the barbarians, robbing and profiting from the blood and death of killed and captured people, then what else should be expected from now on, except that those who diligently care about insatiable covetousness and theft will bring the great wrath of God on themselves and on the whole people? Following this is the 4th rule of St. Gregory says that such robbers are worse than Achar, who stole from the things dedicated to God in Jericho. In the 5th rule of St. Gregory forbids even the person who finds the thing to appropriate it. And in the 6th rule he says that even those who have lost their property and then found someone else’s cannot keep it in place of theirs. In the rule of Theophilus Alexander. 14 it is said, in accordance with the words of the divine Gregory, that the elders in Gemina acted legally and canonically, excommunicating from the Church a woman who acted against justice, since she did not want to give up her unrighteousness. Rule of Vasily the Great. 61 punishes a thief who himself repented and confessed with a one-year penance, and one convicted by others with a two-year penance. Rule of Carthage. 5 prohibits covetousness, calling it the mother of all vices. Gregory of Nyssa says in his 6th rule that covetousness is a disease that affects three parts of the soul: rational, irritable and lustful 44, and divides thieves into two types. The first is robbers, i.e. obvious thieves who carry out armed attacks, attract accomplices and set up ambushes in dangerous places. The second is secret thieves who steal other people's property secretly. Gregory punishes the first as murderers, just as his brother Vasily does, assigning them the penance of free murderers in his 8th rule. And to the second, after confessing their sin, he orders to distribute property to the poor, if they have it; if there is no property, work and give from your labor to those in need 45. Gregory the Theologian goes even further: he says that the guilt of someone who has acquired something unjustly, that is, by theft, embezzlement or covetousness, not only simple repentance, not only putting on the monastic image 46, but even baptism itself cannot atone for, if the covetous person, having in his hands what was appropriated, does not return it to those from whom he took it. In the 2nd word on baptism, addressing those who committed lawlessness and were then baptized, but after baptism did not turn away from lawlessness, he says this: “You have done two evils, O predator and covetous! The first is that you unfairly appropriated someone else’s thing, the second is that you keep it and don’t return it. And for unrighteous appropriation you were forgiven by God in holy baptism, but for holding back and not returning, you were not forgiven, because you did not renounce the unrighteousness, but you are still doing it, because to this day you have in your hands someone else’s thing, which you are holding unjustly. This sin was not completely blotted out, but was only divided in two by time. You stole and appropriated someone else’s property before baptism, and you still own it after it, and therefore you remain unforgiven. After all, in baptism they say goodbye - that’s right! - sins committed before it, which in this case is the theft of other people’s things, but baptism also does not forgive all those sins into which you fall after it, and such is the illegal possession of a stolen thing for you” 47. So, someone who stole something, and then was baptized, but did not return what was stolen, should not consider that his iniquity has been forgiven, because he deceives himself and only invents cleansing, that is, he considers himself clean from injustice, although this is not the case. The Faster in the 27th rule does not allow a thief who brings repentance voluntarily to receive communion for forty days, and a thief caught by others - for six months, with dry eating and bowing. Armenopulus speaks about the same thing (Brief summary of the rules. Section 5, tit. 3) and Matthew Blastar. And the one who has committed a “substantial theft,” if he is a layman, does not become a priest, according to the 28th rule of the Faster, and if he is a priest, he is subject to eruption, according to the rule of the Apostle. 25, which you should read. Did not Achar, the son of Zerah, sin by taking from the accursed thing, and did not wrath come upon the entire assembly of Israel (see Joshua 7:1)? And he alone sinned, but did he alone die in his sin? At the present time, it is appropriate for us to consider every acquisition as cursed if it is not ours, but someone else’s property. After all, the mentioned Achar took from the spoils, and these now take from the spoils, but he took what belonged to the enemies, and the present ones take what belonged to the brothers, a destructive acquisition. In this rule, the saint gives the example of Ahar, the son of Zara. Because Achar stole a multi-colored cloth, 200 didrachms of silver and one ingot of gold from the spoils taken in Jericho and dedicated to God and hid it in his tent, God was angry with the Israelites, and they were defeated in the war with the city of Ai. Thirty-six people were killed, three thousand fled and were defeated. Therefore, just as Achar, although he stole and sinned alone, died not alone, but with very many, so those who stole the property of those taken captive will not only perish themselves, but will also destroy many others with them. After all, they also stole from things dedicated to God (since the property of others left by the barbarians should be considered an offering to God), as Achar once did, and they stole from the spoils of a raid, as he did then. And why “like him”? They are even worse than him, because Achar stole what belonged to the enemies, and they stole what belonged to their brothers, and also brothers who were captured and robbed. See also the 3rd rule of this holy father. Let no one deceive himself even by the fact that he has found something, for it is not permissible for the finder to profit. Deuteronomy says: When you see your brother's ox or sheep going astray, do not abandon them, but return them to your brother. If your brother is not close to you, or you do not know him, then take them away and let them be with you until your brother comes looking for them, and then return them to him. Do the same to his donkey, do the same to his clothes, do the same to every lost thing of your brother, which is lost by him and which you find (Deut. 22:1-3). Deuteronomy says this. And in the book of Exodus, not only if someone finds a brother’s thing, but also if an enemy’s thing is found, it is said: Return it to the house of its owner (see Ex. 23:4). But if in times of peace it is impermissible to profit at the expense of a brother or enemy who lives carelessly, in luxury and neglects his property, then how much more is it impermissible when he is in misfortune, flees from enemies and, of necessity, leaves his property? This rule is a continuation of the previous rule of St. Gregory. Let no one of these thieves deceive himself by making the excuse that he allegedly found something that his brother had thrown and neglected, and therefore he picked it up. Even if he found something that had been neglected, it is not permissible to appropriate it and keep it, since he must, having taken the thing, keep it until the owner begins to look for it. St. Gregory also gives two confirmations of this. The first is from Deuteronomy, which says that if anyone finds his brother's lost calf, sheep or donkey, lost clothing or any other thing, he must return it to him. If he does not know whose it is, he is obliged to keep it until his brother begins to look for the missing thing, and then let him return it to him. The saint gives his second testimony from the book of Exodus, where it is said that if someone finds something abandoned not by a brother, but by an enemy, he must return it to its owner. If, according to these Divine sayings, it is not permissible to retain the property of a brother or an enemy, which in times of peace through negligence he neglected, then how much more is it not permissible to retain the property of a brother who is in trouble, flees from enemies and leaves his property out of need? See also the 3rd rule of this holy father. Many deceive themselves by keeping the property of others they have found instead of their own lost, so that, after the Vorads and Goths have treated them as enemies, they themselves become Vorads and Goths for others. So, therefore, we sent a brother to you, Elder Euphrosynus, so that he could establish, following the example here, from whom to accept accusations and who to excommunicate from prayers. Since some of the above-mentioned kidnappers justified themselves by the fact that they kept the property of others they found instead of their own, taken by the barbarians, St. Gregory in this rule objects to them, saying that those who refer to such absurdity are deceiving and misleading themselves. After all, what their enemies and adversaries did to them, they also did the same, becoming enemies and adversaries for the rest of their brothers. The barbarians seized their property - they also seized the property of their brothers. Therefore, says the saint, we sent our brother, Elder Euphrosynus, so that as we act here, so do you at home. This brother will show you who should be allowed to be accused (for this see Apostle 74 and II Ecumenical 6) and who should be expelled from the Church so that they do not pray with the rest of the faithful. We were also told about something incredible, something that had happened in your country, undoubtedly by unfaithful and wicked people who did not even know the name of the Lord. Namely, some have reached such cruelty and inhumanity that they forcibly hold on to escaped captives. Send someone to this place, so that lightning will not fall on those who do such things. Some, says St. Gregory, as we learned, reached such extreme brutality and inhumanity that they forcibly retained those Christians who fled and escaped from the barbarians. These are, without a doubt, unfaithful and wicked people, and even completely ignorant of the name of God. So, send someone and conduct an investigation about this everywhere, so that fire and lightning do not fall from the sky and burn those who do such things 48 . Those who joined the barbarians and went into captivity, forgetting that they were once faithful Christians, and became so like the barbarians that they even killed their fellow tribesmen either with a club or a noose; as well as those who showed the way or the dwellings of Christians to barbarians who did not know the area, should be excluded even from the category of listeners until the assembled holy fathers, and before them the Holy Spirit, deign to make a general decision about them. This rule makes a determination about those who were taken captive by barbarians, and then, forgetting that they were once Christians, acquired a barbarian disposition and themselves became at one with their enemies, so that they even killed their fellow Christians and showed the road and their houses to the barbarians who did not know the area. So, even after they repent and convert, they should not stand even as disobeyers of the Divine Scriptures. Let them stand outside the doors of the church with those crying until the holy fathers, having gathered together at the Council, determine the punishment appropriate for them, or better yet, until the Holy Spirit determines it through the saints 49. Under the saints of St. Gregory here means the fathers of the Council of Ancyra, who, meeting 52 years after this, in their 9th canon prescribed penance for them. Read this rule. If those who dared to attack other people's houses are convicted after being accused, then do not even honor them with the degree of hearing; if they announce themselves and return what was stolen, let them fall down as converts. Having spoken in the previous rules about those who stole the property of captive Christians, the saint now defines the penances due to them. He says that those who invaded other people's houses belonging to those who were captured and stole things from there, if after the accusation they do not confess, but are convicted of this theft, should not even stand with those listening, but only with those crying outside the church. If they themselves confess and return the stolen property, let them pray together with those who fall. See also the 3rd rule of this saint and the image of the church. And those who find something left by the barbarians in the field or in their houses, if they are caught after the accusation, let them also be among those who fall, and if they declare themselves and return what was stolen, let them also be worthy of prayer. While robbing the country and taking away the property of Christians, the barbarians, if they subsequently found other, better things, or because of the weight they could not carry away everything stolen, threw it either directly into the field, or in houses where they accidentally found something better. So, this rule determines that all those who found the things of their brothers abandoned by the barbarians in the field or in their houses, if they appropriated these things for themselves, which they were convicted of, stand together with those who fell. If they themselves announced the find and returned it, let them stand and pray with the faithful praying in the church until the end of the service. And so on until, having shown repentance, they are awarded communion. Those who fulfill this commandment must fulfill it without any greed, without demanding any reward for reporting, or reward for preservation, or payment for finding, or anything else, no matter what name they call it. Having moderately punished in the previous rule those who admit that they have found someone else’s thing, now in the present rule the saint determines that they should not demand from the owners of the property either a reward for the find, or so-called thanks, for example, for informing them about what was found, or anything similar, as is customary among many. What is found should be returned without any shameful or dishonest gain. Indeed, such self-interest is truly shameful when a reward is demanded from someone who has lost his property during a disaster, and is not returned free of charge. Therefore, civil laws, according to which those who find someone's property receive a reward from its owners for the find, in this case should not be taken into account as contradicting this rule. See also the preface about the rules at the beginning of the book. The lament takes place outside the gates of the house of prayer: standing there, the sinner must ask the faithful who enter to pray for him. Listening is inside the gate, in the vestibule, where the sinner must stand until the prayer for the catechumens and then leave, for it is said: “After he has listened to the Scripture and teaching, he must be expelled and not honored with prayer.” The fall consists in the fact that the one standing inside the church gates goes out along with the catechumens. Standing together means that the penitent stands with the faithful and does not go out with the catechumens. Finally - the communion of the Holy Mysteries. This rule does not speak of anything other than the four places on which the penitents stood. Please note the following. Although this rule seems inauthentic - both because the saying given here is a verbatim quotation from the 75th rule of our great father Basil, who lived later in time, and because the outstanding interpreter Zonara did not leave any interpretation on this rule and does not mention it at all, and also because in some manuscripts this rule is inscribed as a scholia - however, on the advice of the learned researcher Mr. Dorotheus, this text was added as a rule, as we find it in the Pandects and other collections. For the places of the penitents, see the image of the church located at the end of the book. Gregory of Nyss talks about this in his most eloquent praise of the life of this saint (Greg. Nyss. De vita Greg. Thaum. // PG 46, 905CD.). In exactly the same form, the symbol is contained in Gregory of Nyssa in the same word (Idem. // PG 46, 912D-913A.). See Eusebius (book 7, chapter 28) (PG 20, 705C-708A.), Zonara and Balsamon. See the Book of Hours under November 17, as well as the preface to the rules of St. Dionysius and note. to I Omni. 19. Basil. Magp. Er. 207. 4 // PG 32, 765AB. Idem. De Spirit. Sanct. 29. 74 // PG 32, 205BC. The works of this saint were published in Paris in 1622. Among them, the “Arrangement of Ecclesiastes” was published (which is erroneously attributed to Gregory the Theologian) - after all, this is the genuine work of the neo-Caesarean saint (see also: The chain of interpreters on the Octateuch. Vol. 1. P. 12). Euseb. Hist. eccl. VII, 11 // PG 20, 661C-673A. That is, declaring all food clean. Why the rule of Peter Alexander. 14 The one who accepted the meat sacrificed to idols in his mouth is counted among the confessors, but the present rule says nothing of the kind about the one who tasted the meat sacrificed to idols? The fact is that the rule of Peter speaks of those who were imprisoned and who were forced to eat in this way. In other words, about those whose persecutors forcibly put food into their mouths, which they could not spit out, even if they wanted to. The present rule speaks of those who were forced to eat things sacrificed to idols, but not in this way: the captives were not put in chains, and the barbarians did not force food into their mouths, but they ate themselves, with their own hands. Although those who did this did not commit a grave sin, nevertheless, their act was not entirely blameless, and therefore, according to Balsamon, they should be punished with moderate penance. Peter, deacon and chartophylax of the Great Church, in his 9th answer says that he who has tasted evil renounces Christ and will not be accepted immediately, but after some time, if he does worthy deeds of repentance, and then receives confirmation and after that receives communion (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 1002). Consequently, Peter imposes a penance that is more severe than required, unless, in addition to filthy eating, there was also a real renunciation of Christ. This is how Zonara and Balsamon interpreted this saying, and before them the divine Chrysostom (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Cor. 17. 4 // PG 61, 139–140.). But St. Gregory, perhaps, had in mind a simpler interpretation, since he added the Gospel saying below. In other words, food enters the belly and the belly receives it, but God will abolish both, because the food, after the natural process of digestion, comes out as aphedron, and the belly again becomes empty, as before, and the soul does not receive any harm from this. The numbering of rules among the interpreters of Zonara and Balsamon differs from that adopted in this book. Therefore, next to the numbering of the “Pidalion” the numbering of the interpreters is placed. – Note. publishing house AΣTHP. The reason for this difference is that the first canon is divided into two by the authors of the Pidalion. – Per. See also: Numbers 15:39; Ezek.6:9. Please note that, according to Philo Judaea’s interpretation of this saying, if a girl does not scream, even if this happens in the field, she is condemned, since by silence she showed that she agreed to be corrupted. As well as vice versa: if the rapist tied her up and gagged her so that she could not scream, then, even if it was in the city, she is not subject to condemnation. Therefore, the spiritual judge must examine in this kind of matter not so much the place as the will, according to the mentioned Philo (Philo. De special. Legibus // TLG 0018/024 3.76.4–3.78.8.). Why does Vasily recognize corruption of this kind as not subject to punishment, and Nikifor punishes them with 40-day penance? Although these corruptions as violent are not subject to punishment, however, firstly, corruption remains corruption, and the women who were subjected to it, no matter how it happened, are corrupted, and not innocent virgins, as before. Secondly, although they were violated by force and at that moment they did not give the rapists any reason on their part, nevertheless, for their other sins - past, present or future - God allowed them to undergo such defilement. For this reason, the divine Nikephoros determines a moderate penance for them. After all, the Faster in the 35th rule imposes a 40-day penance on anyone who vomits after Divine Communion, for whatever reason. “Even if he thinks,” says Postnik, “that he did not give a reason then, but this, of course, was allowed for some of his other sins.” And in the 23rd rule, he punishes with moderate penances a mother who, through the devil’s malice, killed her baby in a dream, since “this abandonment occurred due to other sins.” It is clear that the divine Gregory, although he does not call such violent corruption a grave sin, at the same time calls it reproach. So, because of this, that is, because of reproach through corruption, men who during the barbarian invasion were subjected to similar violent corruption are defrocked if they are clergy; and if uninitiated, they are not allowed to the priesthood. Wives of priests who have been subjected to violence must be separated from their husbands if they wish to perform priestly duties. If priests do not want to be separated from their wives, then they leave the priesthood. For all this is vice and defilement for the immaculate priesthood. However, the wives of the laity, who are forcibly molested, are not separated from their husbands, but receive forgiveness due to violence, according to civil law (book 60, tit. 38, chapter 12, provision 6). Why does the divine Gregory of Nyssa, in the same 6th rule, say that the fathers left covetousness unhealed, that is, unpunished, while Gregory the Wonderworker punishes covetousness with excommunication? The Nyssa saint says this either because Gregory the Wonderworker does not impose penance on covetous people for a certain period after they have stopped the sin of covetousness, as the rules of penance of a certain duration are prescribed for other sinners, but punishes them only as long as they indulge in covetousness, and no longer (as can be seen from the 14th rule of Theophilus). Or Gregory of Nyssa says this because the fathers did not issue a conciliar rule against covetous people. According to 2nd tit. 6th book. "Code" and 47th book. “Digest” (Photius tit. 9, ch. 27) there are two types of theft. One of them is called explicit, and the other implicit. Explicit - if the thief is caught with the stolen thing on the very day of the theft, before he took the stolen thing to the place where he intended. And implicit - if the thief is caught with the stolen thing after he has reached the place where he intended to take the thing. An obvious thief is sentenced to pay the value of the stolen item four times, and an indirect thief - two times. In the same title, book 6. The “Code” and Armenopoulus (book 6, tit. 7) say that anyone who steals any thing during a fire in a building, a shipwreck or the destruction of a house is subject to condemnation as a thief. And if the owner of the stolen item identifies it within one year, then the thief must pay its price four times. And if he identifies the thing after a year, the thief is obliged to simply compensate for the damage, that is, pay the cost of the taken thing. In addition, the thief, according to the law on robbers, is subject to criminal punishment. In the 1st chapter. 27th tit. 60th book. “Basilik” says that those who accepted the robbers, as well as those who, having the opportunity to detain the robbers, released them because they received money or part of the stolen goods from them, are subject to the same punishment as the robbers. The one who warned and saved the robber, who is his relative, is punished with leniency, according to the 2nd decree of the 16th title. 47th book. “Digest” (Photius tit. 9, ch. 33). And Armenopoul (book 6, tit. 7) writes that accepting stolen goods, knowing that it is someone else’s, is the same as stealing it yourself. In this he agrees with Basil (See Basil the Great. 71.) and with the rule of Ankyr. 25. The one who found someone else’s dropped item and took it for himself is also condemned as a thief, even if he did not know whose it was. The exception is those cases when this thing was thrown away - either in reality, or so the finder thought (book 60, tit. 12, chapter 43, position 5). And position 48 tit. 11 books 60 says that the thief is not the one who, knowing the thief, does not expose him, but the one who hides him, just as David condemns not the one who sees the thief, but the one who agrees with him, that is, assists and helps him with advice or deed. “If you saw a thief,” says David, and does not stop there, but adds: “hurried with him (Ps. 49:18.). The same imperial laws command that anyone who moves borders or appropriates land must pay double for what was appropriated. Therefore, those who claim that taking monastic tonsure and generally repentance can make up for an unrighteous acquisition, when a person, holding the acquired thing in his hands, does not return it even after taking the tonsure, are mistaken and speak recklessly. After all, if baptism itself, which strongly forgives every sin: both original and arbitrary sins, does not grant forgiveness to those who kidnapped and did not return what was stolen, then how can tonsure, which is an image of baptism, or repentance in general, grant it? Augustine spoke about this very wisely: “If it is possible to return someone else’s thing, but it is not returned, it means that repentance is not true, but feigned.” Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40. 32 // PG 36, 404C-405A. The saint rightly uttered such a formidable word, because, according to ch. 45 books 8 of the “Apostolic Constitutions” (PG 1, 1149B), Christians who have not been persecuted must carefully accept those who are persecuted for their faith and therefore flee from city to city and, in order not to renounce the name of Christ, leave their property to be plundered by infidels. We need to help them with everything they need, and not hold them back by force and cruelty. Please note: whatever pleases the Councils assembled in the Holy Spirit, that pleases the Holy Spirit Himself. See also note. 1 in the preface to I Omni.