О святителе Василии Великом

In sainthood, our father Basil was from Caesarea, located in that part of Cappadocia that lies near Pontus - in ancient times it was also called Mazaca. He was born in 329 122, and in 364 he was elevated to the degree of presbyter by Eusebius of Caesarea 123. But after a short time, yielding to the envy of Eusebius, he retired to Pontus and with his word carried away the divine Gregory of Nazianzus, who was unanimous in his opinion. After he became the head of the monasteries located there and set out regulations and rules for them, he indulged in desert solitude, justifying himself with a thirst for perfect silence. In 365 125, having learned that the Arian heresy, which had spread under Valens, was ready to penetrate into Cappadocia, he returned, devoted himself to the service of the Mother Church, reconciled with Eusebius and valiantly stood for Orthodoxy 126. Having become bishop of Caesarea after the death of Eusebius in 370, 127 he courageously led the fight against the heresies that were widespread in those days. So, he confronted Eparch Modest, who tried in every possible way to shake his piety, and boldly turned to him with memorable words: “I will remain the same tomorrow, and you do not change your opinion, but fulfill your threats” 128. After ruling his flock for eight years, he reposed in the Lord. Among his other writings (published in Paris in 1730), the all-validated man left us the following canonical messages necessary for the deanery and structure of the Church. They are indirectly approved by the rules of the IV Omnibus. 1 and VII Omni. 1, and directly - by rule VI Omni. 2 (this Council, moreover, borrowed many of the rules of Basil and made them their own), and through this statement they in some way received the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. These rules are found in the 2nd volume of the Pandect and in the 1st volume of the Synodikon, p. 335 130. In the saints of our father Basil the Great. Canonical messages, aka 92 rules His first canonical letter to Amphilochius, divided into 16 rules Scripture says: He who is foolish and asks for wisdom will have it counted as wisdom (Prov. 17:28). The question of the wise, as can be seen, makes the foolish also wise, which, by God’s grace, happens to us every time we receive letters from your hardworking soul. For we surpass ourselves in knowledge and understanding, learning from the question itself much that we did not know before, and the concern for how to answer is made by our teacher. Likewise now, although we never thought about the questions you asked, we were forced to consider them carefully, and remember whether we had heard anything from the elders, and ourselves reflect on similarities with what we were taught. The preface to this message is filled with much humility. Basil the Great begins with the saying of the Pritochnik that a foolish person will be considered wise if he asks about wise things, and then adds that, conversely, the question of a wise person makes the foolish person wise. By wise Basil means St. Amphilochius, who asked him a question, under the foolish and wise - himself. Following this, Vasily speaks about the way in which he receives wisdom. He says that before he was asked, he did not think about such questions, but after that he became more attentive, because he remembered what he had heard from the elders, and also he himself judged what was in accordance with and in accordance with the ancient custom. The question of the Kafars has already been discussed before, and you have well reminded that it is appropriate to follow the customs of each locality, because even at that time those who discussed their baptism thought differently. But the baptism of the Pepusines, it seems to me, does not deserve any respect, and I am surprised how the great Dionysius, so knowledgeable in the rules, missed this, for the ancient fathers decided to accept that baptism that in no way departs from the faith. That is why they called some heresies, others schisms, and others self-inflicted assemblies. Heresies - in the event that some have completely rejected and become alien by faith itself; schisms - if they disagree with others in opinions for certain church reasons and issues that can be resolved; and unauthorized assemblies were called those assemblies that consist of presbyters or bishops who have fallen out of obedience and ignorant people. For example, if someone, after being convicted of sin, was prohibited from serving in the priesthood and did not obey the rules, but arrogated to himself the presidency and the priesthood, and others followed him, leaving the Catholic Church, this is an unauthorized gathering. And to fall into schism is to adhere to a teaching about repentance that differs from the teaching of the Church. Heresy is, for example, the teaching of the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and these Pepusines, because here the disagreement concerns the very belief in God. So, the ancient fathers decided to completely reject the baptism of heretics, to accept the baptism of schismatics, as still in the Church, and to rejoin those who belonged to unauthorized assemblies, after they had corrected themselves through due repentance and conversion, again to the Church. Therefore, often those clergy who followed the heretics were received in the same rank after they repented. The Pepusines are quite obviously heretics, for they blasphemed the Holy Spirit by impiously and shamelessly giving Montanus and Priscilla the name of the Comforter. Therefore, both as those who idolize people, they are worthy of condemnation, and as those who have offended the Holy Spirit by comparing Him with people, they are guilty of eternal condemnation, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. So on what basis should we accept their baptism if they baptize Montanus and Priscilla into the Father and the Son? For those who were baptized into that which was not handed down to us were not baptized, and therefore, although this eluded the great Dionysius, we should not imitate error. After all, this inconsistency is obvious and obvious to everyone who is even slightly capable of reasoning. The Kafars are schismatics. However, the ancients, that is, Cyprian and our Firmilian, decided to make one decision about all of them, be they caphars, encratites, hydroparastats and apotactics. For, although the beginning of their separation was a schism, those who separated from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit on themselves, because its teaching ceased due to the fact that the succession was stopped. The first to apostate received ordination from the fathers and, through the laying on of their hands, had a spiritual gift, but since they separated, they became laity and no longer had the power to baptize or ordain, and could not convey to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen. Therefore, the fathers commanded those who received baptism from them, as baptized by the laity, to cleanse the Church with true baptism, if they come to it. But since some Asian fathers clearly decided for the sake of caring for many to accept their baptism, let it be accepted. And we should consider the trick of the Encratites: in order to make it difficult to accept them into the Church, they tried to prevent this in the future by their own baptism and therefore even distorted their own custom. So, I believe that since nothing is clearly said about them, we should reject their baptism, and if someone received baptism from them and then came to the Church, then baptize him. However, if this becomes an obstacle to the general well-being, we must again use the custom and follow the fathers, who, according to economy, established what is necessary for us. Otherwise, I fear that, wanting to keep them from haste in baptism, we might, by the severity of the decision (προτάσεως) 131, put an obstacle for those being saved. If they retain our baptism, let this not confuse us: we are not obliged to give them gratitude, but must obey the strictness of the rules. But in any case, let it be established that those who come to the Church from those baptized by them receive anointing from the faithful and then proceed to the sacraments. I know that we accepted brothers from the circle of Zonius (Zώνιον) 132 and Satorninus, who belonged to this society, to the episcopal see. And therefore, we can no longer excommunicate those associated with their society, since by accepting their bishops, we have established, as it were, a certain rule of communication with them. (Apost. 46; I Om. 8; II Om. 7; VI Ose. 95; Laodicecus 7.) After the preface, the saint consistently answers Amphilochius’ questions. Going to speak about the baptism of the schismatics Kafars, or Novatians, and the heretics Pepuzin (see the note about them to II Ecum. 7), or the Montanists, he begins his speech from afar, in a more general sense, citing such a division among the ancient fathers, according to which some are called heretics, others - schismatics, others - organizing an unauthorized gathering. And those included in the unauthorized assembly are disobedient presbyters and bishops who, according to the rules, were expelled from the priesthood because they fell into sin. Not wanting to voluntarily submit to the rules, they justified themselves and arrogated to themselves the rights of bishops and priesthood, and others followed them, separating from the Catholic Church. Schismatics are those who are in disagreement with the Catholic Church not over the dogmas of faith, but over certain church issues that are easily resolved. Heretics are those whose difference concerns directly the very belief in God, i.e. they separated from the Orthodox in faith and dogma and completely moved away from them 133. Those who enter an unauthorized gathering are reunited with the Church through one proper repentance and conversion, and those who were priests and clergy among them, and then turned to the Church, are received in the same rank and dignity in which they were previously 134. And the heretics, which include the Manichaeans, Valentinians and Marcionites (see the note about them to VI Ecum. 95), as well as these very Pepusines in question, etc., if they turn to Orthodoxy, then, like the pagans, they receive baptism, since the ancient fathers decided to recognize only that baptism that in no way departs from the faith. And they decided to completely reject the baptism of heretics, since it is outside the right faith. Therefore, therefore, the Pepusines, since they receive baptism not in accordance with tradition, that is, they are baptized not into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but into the Father, Son and Montanus and Priscilla, and thereby blaspheme the Holy Spirit (and such blasphemy is not forgiven), attributing the name of the Comforter to mortal people and deifying people, are obvious heretics, and therefore it is necessary, if they convert, to baptize them. Although Dionysius (meaning Alexandria) says that they do not need to be baptized, he is mistaken in this and we do not need to follow him here. And two opinions have been established about the schismatics. On the one hand, St. Cyprian and two African Councils under his presidency (see his canon), as well as the Council in Iconium led by St. Firmilian (whom Basil calls “ours”, since he was the bishop of Caesarea), adhering to the acrivia, decided that the Kafars in question, the Encratites, the Apotactics (see note to VI Ecum. 95), the Hydroparastats (see note to VI Ecum. 32) and in general all schismatics, if they come to the Catholic Church, must be baptized. After all, although the first clergy of the schismatics had from the Church the gift of ordaining and baptizing, after they once broke away from the whole body of the Church 135, they lost this gift and can no longer baptize and ordain others and generally teach the grace that they lost through the schism. Therefore, those baptized by them are considered to have received baptism from the laity, which is why they need to be baptized. On the other hand, some Asian bishops accepted their baptism for the sake of economy and condescension, and not in accordance with akrivia, and treated the schismatics as if they were still members of the Church. Therefore, in accordance with the opinion of these fathers, let the baptism of such be accepted. However, Encratite schismatics, unlike others, must be baptized if they convert, in accordance with the acrivial rules, because they invented their own baptism, distorting the tradition of baptism 136, and because no special and clear decision was made about them on how they should be received. And if they themselves do not rebaptize our Orthodox Christians who come to them, this should not confuse us and raise doubts about whether we should also rebaptize those who come from them. However, if the very fact that we baptize them in case of conversion serves as an obstacle to the general leniency and oikonomia that the fathers applied to all schismatics, then we will follow this oikonomia, so that by the severity of our decree we do not force them to neglect baptism, since they may be ashamed that they are baptized as if they were completely unfaithful, and, therefore, by this we will hinder their salvation. And to put it briefly, those who have accepted the baptism of the Encratites, if they convert to Orthodoxy, must certainly accept the anointing of the holy myrrh from the faithful and then receive communion. And since we accepted the bishops of these same Encratites and their consecrations, we thereby in fact established a kind of rule and agreed that they are not separated from the Catholic Church. See also the interpretation of Apost. 46, I Omni. 8 and II Omni. 7 137. Anyone who intentionally destroys a conceived fetus is subject to punishment for murder. But we don’t have an accurate investigation into whether the fetus has formed or not. After all, the guilty person in this case is punished for the fact that she attempted not only on the child who was about to be born, but also on herself, because very often women die from such attempts. Added to this is the death of the fetus, a second murder, because women dare to do this deliberately. However, the time of their repentance should not be extended until the end of life, but they should be accepted after 10 years, and healing should be determined not by the time, but by the manner of repentance. (Apost. 66; Ankyr. 21; VI Ecumenical 91; Basil the Great. 80; I Ecumenical 12.) This rule defines that a woman who willfully kills a child conceived in her womb, either by eating grass or poisonous drugs, or by lifting a weight beyond her strength, or by any other means, is a murderer. But we do not make the same distinction that the Jews made, that is, we do not distinguish whether the child who was killed and came out of the womb was still formless, like just a piece of meat, or was already formed, had the features and integral members of a person 138 . Indeed, because of this method of killing, not only does the fetus die in the womb, but often the pregnant woman herself dies along with the fetus, so that for double murder, those who act in this manner receive the punishment of murderers, whether they are men or women. However, they are punished by excommunication from the Mysteries not for life, but, for the sake of philanthropy, only for 10 years, that is, they are given the penance of unwitting murderers (according to Basil the Great. 57). But the repentance of such people should be measured not by time, but by the manner of their repentance. Consequently, if they repent ardently, the confessor reduces these 10 years of penance; if carelessly, it increases. See Apost. 66, VI Omni. 91, and also read I Om. 12. A deacon who, after accepting the diaconate, fell into fornication, shall be removed from the diaconal ministry; but, expelled to a place for the laity, let him not be deprived of fellowship, because there is an ancient rule - those who have fallen from their degree are subjected only to this form of punishment, in which the ancients followed, as I believe, this law: Do not take revenge twice for the same thing (see Nahum. 1:9). And another reason is that those in the order of the laity, if they find themselves cast out from the place of the faithful, are again accepted into the place from which they fell, and the deacon receives the sufficient punishment of casting out once and for all. Therefore, since the diaconate will not be returned to him, they limited themselves to this one punishment. And so according to the regulations. In general, the surest healing is removal from sin. Therefore, the one who rejected grace for the sake of carnal pleasure, if, with heartfelt contrition and every enslavement of himself to abstinence, he renounces the pleasures through which he fell, he will present to us perfect proof of his healing. So, we must know both: both characteristic of acrivia and characteristic of custom, and with those who do not accept perfection, act in accordance with the example shown in legend. If a deacon, after ordination, falls into fornication, he is expelled from the diaconate, according to this rule, and expelled to the place of the laity, but is not excommunicated from communion 139, that is, from standing and praying with the faithful. In other words, he is not excommunicated from the Church, like the catechumens (however, he does not receive communion), since the Apostle. 25 (read it) punishes such only by expulsion without excommunication from the Church. One reason for this is that the rule follows the saying “You cannot punish twice for the same crime,” and the other (this Vasily speaks for himself) is that the laity, if they sin, are expelled from the place of the faithful, that is, they are not allowed to stand with the faithful in the Church, and after a certain time of repentance has passed, they return to the same place again. A deacon (and any clergyman in general), after he has been expelled once and has lost his deaconate, no longer receives it again (see 2nd note to Apostle 28). So, says the saint, since the diaconate is not taught to him another time, then the ancients, i.e. Apostolic rules and limited the punishment to eruption, decreeing: “Let him be ejected, but not excommunicated.” This is precisely the penance that the rules usually assign to deacons who have fallen into fornication, that is, only eruption. However, the general, complete and real healing for them is abstinence from sin and removal from pleasures to which they were enslaved and because of which they lost the grace of the priesthood, with contrition, abstinence and all other oppression of themselves and suffering. For the rest of this rule, containing the doctrine of custom and acrivia 140, see note. to I Omni. 12, and especially in notes. to VI Omni. 102: there we quote and interpret it verbatim. In the rule, we made the same definition about trigamists and polygamists as about second-marrieds, by analogy: those who are second-married are given a year, but others – two; and those who are trigamous are excommunicated for three, and often for four years. After all, such cohabitation is not called marriage, but polygamy, but rather limited fornication. Therefore, the Lord said to the Samaritan woman, who had five husbands one after another: and the one you now have is not your husband (John 4:18), since those who have transgressed the measure of bigamy are no longer worthy to be called by the name of husband or wife. And we, not as a rule, but following our predecessors, adopted the custom of imposing a five-year excommunication on those who marry in three marriages. However, they should not be completely blocked from entering the Church, but should be honored with a hearing for two or three years, and after that allowed to stand with the faithful, but kept from partaking of the Good 141; and when in this way they show some fruit of repentance, return them to the place of communion. Regarding trigamy, this rule says that the ancient fathers called trigamy not marriage, but polygamy (and probably the fathers of the Council of Neocaesarea are meant here: in the 3rd rule they call the third marriage polygamy) or, better said, fornication, which does not extend to all women, but stops at one. Therefore, just as women who married for the third time are not worthy to be called the wives of their third husbands, so men who married for the third time are not worthy to be called the husbands of their third wives. Therefore, the Lord said to the Samaritan woman, who was married to five men: “The husband you have now is illegitimate and, therefore, is not worthy to be called your husband.” So, some punish these trigamists, or polygamists, in the same way as those who are second-married, namely: since some punish those who are second-married for one year, others for two, then those who are three-married are punished for three and four years, by analogy with the time of penance for those who are second-married. However, according to the custom of their predecessors, and not according to the rule, they are punished for five years. However, they should not be completely thrown out of the Church, as those crying outside the gates: let them listen to the Scriptures for two or three years and after that stand with the faithful, but do not receive communion; and having thus shown the fruit of repentance, let them begin to receive communion. See also the interpretation of Neokesar. 3 and 7 and the picture of the church at the end of the book. Heretics who repent at the end of their lives should be accepted. But accept, of course, not without reasoning, but by testing whether they show true repentance and whether they have fruits indicating a desire to be saved. Since some were perplexed whether it is necessary to accept heretics into fellowship if they repent at the end of their lives, the saint in this canon answers that they should be accepted, but not simply and as it happens, but to be tested: whether they truly repent, abandon their heretical dogmas and show the fruits of repentance. See II Universe. 7 and Neokesar. 12. Fornication of those dedicated to God (τῶν κανονικῶν) should not be considered marriage, but their cohabitation should be dissolved by all means. This is also useful for the Church for its security, and will not give heretics a reason to say against us that we are allegedly attracting people to ourselves by allowing us to sin freely. This rule determines that if those dedicated to God, that is, clergy, clerics, monks or nuns, fall into fornication, then the bishop should not allow them to get married and live together, like other married couples, but must in any way dissolve their lawless cohabitation, even if they have already gotten married 142. This separation brings many benefits to the Church: another will no longer commit a similar act; the dignity of the priesthood and monastic vows will not be neglected; heretics will have no reason to accuse us of allowing clergy and monks, without dissolving their lawless marriages, to remain and cohabit in sin in order to attract heretics to our faith by allowing them to sin freely. See also the interpretation of Apost. 26, IV Omni. 16 and note. to VI Omni. 6. Sodomy, bestiality, murderers, poisoners, adulterers and idolaters deserve the same punishment, therefore, the rule that you are guided by in relation to some, observe in relation to others. And we should not even doubt the acceptance of those who for 30 years repented of uncleanness committed out of ignorance. After all, ignorance, and voluntary confession, and withdrawal from communication for such a long time make them worthy of leniency. After all, almost an entire human generation was betrayed to Satan in order to learn not to commit outrages. So order them to be accepted immediately, especially if their tears incline you to mercy and these people show a life worthy of compassion. The present rule subjects sodomy and bestiality to similar punishment and penance (read about them Anchir. 16), murderers (see Apost. 66), poisoners (see VI Ecum. 61), adulterers (see Apostle 48 and VI Ecum. 87) and idolaters, i.e., or, as Balsamon and Zonara believe, sorcerers, because that they call upon demons, or, according to others, those who, in difficult circumstances, denied Christ and offered sacrifices to idols (see also I Om. 11). All of them are subject to the same punishment - not in the sense of a certain duration of penance, because some of them receive penance for a longer time, others - for a shorter time, as determined in the relevant places and rules, but in the sense that they are all subject to long-term penance, according to Zonara, and all of them are reduced to four degrees of repentance, according to Balsamon. And those who repented for 30 years of carnal impurity committed in ignorance (it could be that they entered into a relationship with a relative without knowing about their relationship, or did something similar) should without a doubt be allowed to partake of the Mysteries for many reasons: because the sin was committed in ignorance; for the sake of their voluntary confession; for the sake of tears and the life they revealed, deserving of mercy, and for the sake of the many years of penance they suffered. After all, these people, since they were excommunicated from communication with the faithful, almost an entire human generation were betrayed to Satan, so that they, like that Corinthian devoted to Satan, 143 would learn not to commit such unclean deeds. The same Vasily, in his 62nd rule, punishes sodomy for 15 years, as well as adulterers. And Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th rule is at 18 and says that this is an insult inflicted on someone else’s family, and, moreover, contrary to nature. The faster in his 18th rule forbids homosexuals to communicate for three years and imposes on him fasting, dry eating and bowing. In the 19th rule, the Faster says that if a boy is molested, he subsequently cannot become a priest, except in the case where he received discharge only in the thighs. God in the book of Leviticus commands to put to death homosexuals: If anyone lies with a man as with a woman, then both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death, they are guilty (Lev.20:13) 144. He who raises an ax against his wife in anger is a murderer. But it is wonderful and worthy of your prudence that you reminded me that I need to say more about this, since there are many differences between intentional and unintentional. After all, if someone, throwing a stone at a dog or a tree, accidentally hit a person, then he did it completely unintentionally and his thought was far from it. His goal was to drive away the beast or knock down the fruit from the tree, but due to the will of circumstances, a random passer-by came under attack, so what happened was unintentional. It is also unintentional if a person, for the purpose of admonition, without cruelty, beats another with a belt or a staff, and he dies. After all, the intention is taken into account here: the person wanted to correct the sinner, and not kill. Similarly, the case when someone, defending himself in a fight, mercilessly hits vital organs with a stick or hand in order to cause pain to the enemy, and not to completely kill him, is considered unintentional. However, this is already approaching premeditated murder: it is clear that the one who resorted to such a means of defense or inflicted an imprudent blow does not spare the person because he himself is overwhelmed by passion. Unintentional murder also includes when someone struck with a heavy stick or stone more than a person could bear, but had one thing in mind and did another: in anger he struck such a strong blow that the one who received it died, although the first one had the intention, perhaps, to wound, and not completely kill. But the one who took a sword or something similar has no excuse, and even more so the one who threw an ax. After all, he did not strike with his hand, so that the force of the blow depended on him, but inflicted a wound in such a way that the weight of the iron weapon, its sharpness and throw from a long distance inevitably made the blow fatal. Also completely deliberate - and there is no doubt about this - is such a murder, as among robbers or during enemy raids. Robbers kill for money, getting rid of evidence. And in war they kill, intending not to intimidate, not to reason, but to obviously destroy their opponents. In addition, if someone prepared a magical potion for another purpose, but killed a person with it, we classify this as premeditated murder. For example, women often try to attract men to themselves with magical spells and knots, and also give them drugs that darken their minds. Such murderers, even if they, while planning one thing, did another, are considered free murderers for their witchcraft and forbidden deeds. And those women who give drugs that cause miscarriage are also murderers, just like those who take poisons that kill the fetus. Since the saint was asked about intentional and unintentional murders, he answers this in this rule and discusses which murders are intentional and arbitrary, which are unintentional and committed without the will of a person, and which are close to intentional. Unintentional killings are when someone throws a stone at an animal or a tree and hits a random person passing there and kills him; and also if, wanting to reason with someone, he punishes him without cruelty with a belt or a small stick and it happens that the punished person dies. Arbitrary and premeditated murders - such as when someone, holding an ax in his hand or throwing it, in anger hits his wife or another with it, and he dies; and also if he takes a knife, gun or something similar for this. Robbers deliberately kill to steal money, and enemies, as well as those women and men who prepare magical drinks and give them to others in order to cause them to have a carnal desire for themselves, and who, after drinking them, become darkened by reason and die. In a similar way, those who give and take poisonous herbs deliberately kill with the aim of killing the baby in their womb (for this separately see VI Om. 91). Killings are involuntary, but close to intentional, such as when in a fight someone mercilessly hits his opponent in a vital place with a stick or his own hand and the person dies from the blow, as well as those when someone chooses a heavy stick and a large stone to hit him, beyond human strength, and it turns out that the person receiving the blow dies. The Lord's saying that it is not allowed to dissolve a marriage except for the guilt of adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:7), in accordance with its meaning, applies equally to men and women. However, the custom is not like this, but in relation to women we find greater severity, because the Apostle says: He who copulates with a harlot becomes one body with her 145, and Jeremiah: “If she becomes another husband’s wife, let her not return to her husband, but being defiled, she will be defiled” (see Jer. 3:1); and again: He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and wicked (Proverbs 18:23). However, custom commands that women adhere to their husbands even if they commit adultery and remain in fornication, so I don’t know whether one who cohabits with a husband abandoned by his wife can be called an adulteress. Here the reproach refers to the one who left her husband: for what reason did she leave married life? If she was beaten, and she could not bear the beating, she should rather endure it than divorce the man living with her; if she did not endure material damage, then this reason is not valid. If, because he lived in fornication, then in church custom we do not find such a rule, even moreover, the wife was ordered not to separate from her unbelieving husband, but to remain with him, because the outcome is unknown: Why do you know, wife, whether you will not save your husband? (1 Cor. 7:16). So, the one who left her husband is an adulteress if she left for another husband. But the one left behind deserves leniency, and the woman living with him is not condemned. However, if a husband, having left his wife, went to another, then he is an adulterer, because he forces his wife to commit adultery, and the woman living with him is an adulteress, because she attracted someone else’s husband to her. (Apost. 48; VI Om. 87; Ancyra. 20; Carthage. 113; Basil the Great. 21; Timothy Alexander. 15.) The saying of the Lord commands that husband and wife should not be separated from each other, except in the event that one or the other party commits fornication or adultery. However, custom commands that husbands should be separated from their wives if they commit fornication or adultery with another, 146 according to the words of the apostle, Jeremiah and the Tribute; but women should not separate from their husbands, even if they commit fornication and adultery with others. So, according to this custom, if a woman marries a man whom his wife has left as a fornicator and adulterer, then I wonder whether the said woman can be considered an adulteress, since the sin of divorce falls not on the husband, but on the wife who left him. She has no right to leave her husband: even if he beats her, she should endure it and not get a divorce; even if he squanders her dowry, even if he commits fornication with other women, she must endure. What am I saying? Even if her husband is an unbeliever, 147 she should not divorce him, as Paul says, but let the wife live with her husband, probably in order to convert him to the knowledge of God by her example. Thus, a woman who leaves her husband is an adulteress if she marries another; and the abandoned husband himself, if he takes another wife, is lenient and the second wife he took is not condemned as an adulteress. However, if a husband leaves his wife through no fault of fornication and takes another, he is an adulterer, because he forced his wife to commit adultery, in the case when she married another while her first husband was still alive. And his second wife is also an adulteress, because she married someone else’s husband while his first wife was still alive. See also note. to Apost. 48 and in rule VI Omni. 87 that part of it that is taken verbatim from this rule. Those who swear not to accept consecration, if they have uttered this with an oath, should not be forced to break their oath. After all, even if, as it seems, there is a certain rule that excuses them, we know from experience that perjurers are not successful (οὐκ εὐοδοῦνται) 148 . But one should take into account the form of the oath, and its words, and the disposition with which they pronounced it, and the slightest additions to the words, so that if there is no justification from anywhere, they should be completely abandoned. And in the case of Sevier, that is, the presbyter ordained by Sevier, it seems to me that there is such a way out of the situation (if you also think the same): order the Masads to subjugate the village that is subject to Mystia and to which this person was assigned. Thus, he will not violate his oath, because he will not leave this place, and Longinus, having Cyriacus with him, will not devastate the church, and his soul himself will not be condemned for idleness, and we, it seems to us, will not do anything contrary to the rules, condescending to Cyriaco, who swore to remain in Mindana 149, but agreed to the transfer. After all, the return will be in compliance with the oath, and the fact that he yielded to the order will not be charged to him as a crime of oath, because it was not added to the oath that he would not leave Mindan even for a short time, but it was said that he would remain there in the future. And we will forgive Sevier, who makes the excuse of forgetfulness, although we will say that the Knower of the secret will not allow His Church to be dishonored by the one who from the very beginning violated the rules: he bound him with an oath contrary to the Gospel and taught him to break the oath by moving to another place, and now lies, pretending to be forgetful. But since we are not judges of hearts, but judge by what we have heard, we will leave vengeance to the Lord, and we ourselves will accept it, without examining the matter and excusing human weakness - forgetfulness. Since some, when called to ordination, swore an oath that they would not accept ordination, the present rule commands that such should not be forced to be ordained and, therefore, not to be forced to violate the oath they have taken. Although it seems that it is possible to excuse and resolve, according to some rule 150, the bonds of those who have taken an oath and bound themselves to do or not to do a certain thing, at the same time we know from experience that those who have transgressed their oaths are not prosperous, are not considered pleasing and pleasing to God, but God allows them to fall into temptation. However, in such cases, one must take into account the type of oath, that is, whether the person swore by God or something else, and the expressions of the person who swore, and the disposition and intention with which he swore, that is, whether he swore out of passion or cowardice, and not with a firm and unchanging intention; You also need to take into account the slightest additions that were made to the words of the oath. In the event that it is not possible to find any just excuse to justify the oath given, such should be allowed to keep their oath and not be forced to break it. And Sevier’s case, it seems, was as follows. A man named Longinus owned an estate called Mindani, which belonged to the episcopal region of Mystia. Sevier, bishop of Masad, consecrated a presbyter for the church of this estate, a certain Cyriacus, and made him swear that he would remain there and submit to the bishopric of Masad. But the bishop of Mystia, in whose jurisdiction this estate was located, having learned about this, forbade Cyriaco to officiate in this church, because he had been ordained by another. Therefore, Cyriacus moved to another church, and Longinus, the owner of the estate, out of frustration began to threaten that he would destroy the church or leave it desolate. In a word, Basil the Great was asked about this case, and he replied that the estate should be transferred to the authority of the Masada bishopric, even if it belonged to another region, and let the presbyter Cyriacus return and officiate there, since in this way he would keep the oath he had given, and Longinus would not lead the church into desolation, and, therefore, his soul would not be condemned for the idleness to which he would condemn it by depriving it of divine hymns. And we, says Vasily, will not act contrary to the canons by returning Cyriacus to his church, since by returning there he will not break his oath. Indeed, although he was absent for some time, however, since he did not add to his oath that he would not be absent from the estate in Mindan even for a short time, this is not considered a crime of perjury 151. And Sevira, since he justifies himself by saying that he forgot that this estate belonged to someone else’s episcopal region, and therefore consecrated a presbyter there, we must forgive. Even though he committed three evils contrary to the rules, namely: he forced Cyriacus to take an oath, which is contrary to the sacred Gospel; induced to break the oath by this movement; and he lies, saying that he forgot - but since we are not experts in the heart, we forgive him and accept him indiscriminately, for the sake of the weakness of forgetfulness, and leave it to the Lord to give him vengeance. See also VI Omni. 94. Anyone who commits involuntary murder is sufficiently punished for 11 years. Obviously, in relation to those who were beaten, we need to observe the Mosaic decree (Ex. 21:18-19) and the one who fell ill from the blows he received, but began to walk again, leaning on a stick, we will not consider killed. And if he did not recover from the blows, but the one who beat him did not want to kill him, then although the one who beat him is a murderer, however, judging by his intention, he is an involuntary one. (Apost. 66; VI Om. 91; Ankyr. 21, 23; Basil the Great. 2, 13, 43, 54, 56, 57; Athanasius the Great. 1; Gregory Nis. 5.) Someone, having committed an involuntary murder, spent 11 years in repentance, excommunicated from the sacraments. When the saint was asked about this, he answered in the present canon that such penance was enough and should remove his excommunication 152 . And he added that in relation to those who were beaten, the provisions of the Mosaic Law must be observed. And it says that if someone is beaten and falls into bed from the beating, but then gets up and is able to move with a stick due to the consequences of the disease, and dies later, then he himself is not considered killed, and the one who beat him is not considered a murderer. To this Mosaic decree of St. Vasily adds that if the beaten person does not recover from the beating, but dies, then the one who beat him is a murderer, but one who killed involuntarily, and not intentionally, because he did not want to kill, but only to beat him. The rule does not allow second marriages to serve at all. The saint here calls the Apostle the rule. 17. Read it along with the interpretation. It seems to me that our fathers did not consider murder in war to be murder out of condescension towards the defenders of chastity and piety. But perhaps it would not be bad to advise that they, as having unclean hands, should only refrain from communion for three years. (Apost. 66; VI Om. 91; Ankyr. 21, 23; Basil the Great. 12, 43, 54, 56, 57; Athanasius the Great. 1; Gregory Nis. 5.) By fathers here, Basil the Great means Athanasius the Great and those who were unanimous with him. Thus, Athanasius the Great, in his letter to Ammun, says that killing enemies in war is lawful and worthy of praise. And Vasily also explains the reason why the ancient fathers forgave him, precisely because those who kill in war fight for faith and the preservation of chastity. After all, if barbarians and infidels once seize power, then there will be no piety left, which they will destroy, establishing their own evil, nor chastity and preservation of honor, since the barbarians will rape and corrupt girls and boys everywhere. And then St. Vasily adds a non-obligatory rule of his own, but unobtrusive advice: although the ancient fathers did not consider those who kill in war to be murderers, however, due to the fact that the hands of murderers are unclean from blood, it would be better for them to abstain for three years from just the sacrament of the Mysteries (that is, they are not expelled from the church, like other penitents) 153 . He who takes interest, provided that he agrees to spend unjust profits on the poor and henceforth get rid of the disease of love of money, can be accepted into the priesthood. This rule determines that if someone, being a layman, received interest on his money, then provided that he spends the unjust profit on the poor, that is, the interest received (note how interest is called unjust, even if it is the laity who receive it), and henceforth stops taking it, he can become a priest. By contradiction, it is implied that someone who has not shared the monetary interest among the poor cannot become a priest. I am surprised that when studying Scripture you demand literal accuracy and consider an artificial form of expression in such a translation, which conveys the meaning of Scripture, but does not offer what is actually indicated by the Hebrew expression. Since the question proposed by an inquisitive person should not be left unanswered, we will say: the birds of the air and the fish of the sea (Ps. 8:9) and at the creation of the world had the same origin, because both kinds were brought out of the water (Gen. 1:20). The reason for this is in one common property of both types: some swim in water, while others float through the air, which is why they are mentioned together. As for the next expression, if you apply it to fish, there will be no consistency, but if it applies to everything living in the waters, then it is very suitable. For man is subject to the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and not only these, but also everything that passes along the paths of the sea. And indeed, not everything that lives in water is a fish, for example, cetaceans: whales, hammerheads, dolphins, seals, and also seahorses, blennies, sawfish, swordfish and sea cows, and if you like, jellyfish, scallops and all shelled animals, not one of which is a fish, and all that pass through the paths of the sea. So there are three types: birds of the air, fish of the sea, and those of the animals that live in the water and, although different from fish, also pass through the paths of the sea. Although it is not clear what the question was, judging by the answer, Amphilochius asked Basil why David, speaking in the 8th Psalm about man: He put everything under his feet... the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, passing through the paths of the sea, firstly, he connected the birds of the air and the fish of the sea and, secondly, grammatically connected the words passing through the paths of the sea not with the word fish, as should be in accordance with the grammar, but with the word birds 154. To the first bewilderment, the saint replies that the reason why David combined birds and fish in his speech is that both kinds of these animals are created from water and have the same property: just as fish swim in water, acting with their small fins as oars, and with their tail as a rudder, so birds swim in the air, with their wings acting as blades, and with their tail as a rudder. And for the second bewilderment of St. Vasily replies that the passing paths of the sea do not refer to fish, but to all animals living in the water 155. Such are, for example, giant whales; shellfish, i.e. scallops, etc.; crustaceans such as shrimp and crabs; and mollusks in general, for example cuttlefish, octopuses, squids, etc. All these animals are not called fish. So, David says that three kinds of animals that came from the water were subjugated to man: birds, fish and all the others that live in the water, but are not related to fish (this is in addition to the four-legged animals that were created from the earth). And Naaman the great was not before the Lord, but before his master 156 (2 Kings 5:1), that is, he was one of the influential people of the king of Syria. Therefore, carefully delve into the Scriptures and there you will find the solution to the question. When asked why Scripture calls Naaman great, the saint replies that Naaman was great not before the Lord, that is, not before God, but before his master, the king of Syria, as evidenced by the words of divine Scripture: And Naaman, the commander of the king of Syria, was a great man before his master (2 Kings 5:1). Moreover, the second canonical message, divided into 34 rules You asked me about Presbyter Vianor: can he be accepted into the clergy because of the oath he took? As far as I remember, I had already proposed to the Antioch clergy some general rule regarding all those who swore with him: let them withdraw from public meetings, and perform the ministry of presbyters in private. The same rule also gives him permission to serve, because his priesthood is not in Antioch, but in Iconium, which, as you wrote to me, he chose to live instead of Antioch. So this person can be accepted; but let your reverence demand from him that he repent of the fact that he so easily swore an oath to an unfaithful person, unable to bear the weight of such a small threat. This answer is not entirely clear because the question is not entirely clear. Probably, one unfaithful person, by threats and intimidation, forced certain priests in Antioch to swear that they would no longer perform priestly ministry. One of the priests who swore, named Vianor, moved to Iconium. Amphilochius of Iconium asked about him whether he could serve him. To this St. Basil replies that he has already given a general definition for all those who swore in Antioch: let them serve in private, and not publicly, in front of everyone, so as not to seduce people who see that they are breaking the oath they have taken. So, according to this general definition, Vianor is also allowed to serve as a priest, especially since he is going to serve not in Antioch, where he swore an oath, but in Iconium, where he moved (after all, the expression “his priesthood” used in the rule must be understood in the sense of “his priestly service”). However, he must repent that he took the oath too easily and recklessly because of a small threat. The fallen virgins, who, although they promised the Lord to live in purity, but then fell into carnal passions and thereby violated their vows, our fathers, in simplicity and meekness, forbearing to the infirmities of those who crawled, were legalized to be accepted after a year, establishing this following the example of the decree on second marriages. But since over time, by the grace of God, the Church is strengthened in strength and the rank of virgins is now multiplying, it seems to me that we need to strictly approach this matter, which is essentially clear, and delve into the exact meaning of Scripture, which can be revealed from the following reasoning. Widowhood is less than virginity, therefore, the sin of widows is much lighter than the sin of virgins. So let's look at what Paul wrote to Timothy. Do not accept young widows, for they, falling into luxury and contrary to Christ, want to marry. They are condemned because they have rejected their former faith (1 Timothy 5:11–12). If a widow is subject to very grave condemnation in the case when she rejected faith in Christ, what can we say about the virgin - the bride of Christ, the sacred vessel brought as a gift to the Lord? It is a great sin if a slave, having entered into a secret marriage, fills the house with corruption and dishonors her master with a bad life; but the sin of the bride is much more serious if she becomes an adulteress and, having dishonored her union with the groom, indulges in dissolute pleasures. So, the widow is condemned as a corrupt slave, and the virgin is subject to condemnation on a par with the adulteress. And just as we call someone who has an affair with another man’s wife an adulterer and agree to accept him into fellowship not before he stops sinning, so let us make the same rule in relation to someone who cohabits with a virgin. Now it should be noted that a virgin is one who voluntarily dedicated herself to the Lord, renounced marriage and preferred life in a shrine. We recognize vows as valid from the age when the mind reaches perfect maturity, because children's words in such matters, without a doubt, should not be considered valid. But the one who is older than 16 or 17 years old, has control of reason, has passed a long test, remained firm after that and persistently asks for acceptance, must finally be included in the number of virgins and the vow must be confirmed, and for violation it must certainly be punished. For many are brought by parents, brothers and some of their relatives before they reach adulthood, and not because of their own inclination towards a celibate life, but from some worldly motives; we should not accept them thoughtlessly until we clearly know their own disposition. This rule defines: the ancient fathers, condescending to those virgins who, although they dedicated themselves to God and made a vow to preserve virginity, 157 but then fell into fornication or got married, assigned them penance for only one year, like those who were remarried. And Basil the Great says that since by the grace of Christ the Church has become stronger in virtue than before, and the rank of virgins is increasing, those virgins who have fallen into fornication should be punished more severely, which corresponds to the thought of the apostle. Pavel. After all, the apostle says that if a widow, numbered among the church rank of widows (about which see the note to VI Ecum. 40) and who promised to remain chaste, breaks her vow and gets married, then she falls under very grave condemnation. How much more is the virgin, the bride of Christ and the vessel dedicated to Him, condemned if she breaks her vow? It is indisputable that widowhood is lower than virginity, which means that the sin of widows is less than the sin of virgins and, conversely, the sin of virgins is heavier than the sin of widows. And if a slave who has fallen into fornication dishonors her master and his entire household, how much more does his own bride or wife, who turns out to be an adulteress, dishonor the master? Therefore, a widow who violates her vow is punished as a slave who has fallen into fornication, that is, with a seven-year penance, and a virgin, as a bride who has committed adultery, is given a penance of 14 years. And, naturally, just as the repentance of an adulterer is not accepted if he does not part with someone else’s wife, in the same way the repentance of a sinner with a virgin is not accepted if he does not part with her. Having said all this, St. Vasily talks about when and how girls should be ranked as virgins: at the age of over 16 or 17 years, when they are already aware of themselves and have control of their reason, and also when they themselves, voluntarily, surrender themselves to God and, after a long trial, remain firm in their intention, earnestly asking to be accepted. When classifying them as virgins, we need to consider their vow of virginity as reliable and firm, and also punish them for violating the vow. And those girls who did not choose virginity voluntarily, but at the age of under 16 or 17 years were brought by their parents or relatives, perhaps due to the fact that relatives do not have the opportunity to give them a dowry for marriage, or for some similar worldly reason, should not be thoughtlessly ranked among the rank of virgins. Nor should we regard their childhood vows as firm and reliable until we clearly know their disposition. Read also VI Omni. 40 and IV Omni. 16. But we don’t know the vows of men, unless someone has ranked himself among the ranks of monastics, who by their silence show that they accept celibacy. However, as for them, I recognize that it is necessary to first ask them and accept a valid vow from them; so that if they turn to a carnal and voluptuous life, they will be subjected to the same punishment as fornicators. From this rule it turns out that the former monks before the time of St. Basil the Great, when becoming monks, they did not pronounce their vows out loud, as they do now, because St. Vasily says that he does not know any other men who have promised to maintain virginity, except those who are clothed in monastic image. But although they did not verbally promise to maintain virginity, they made a vow by silence and by putting on monastic clothes. However, those entering the monastic order should be asked about this, and their verbal promise should be accepted as a pledge. Why? So that if they break their vow by falling into fornication or getting married, they will suffer a seven-year penance as fornicators, having, of course, first dissolved their marriage. The same should be done to unmarried subdeacons and deacons at their ordination (see note to VI Ecumenical 6). Read also IV Omni. 16. Women who, belonging to heresy, took a vow of virginity and then chose marriage, I think, should not be condemned, for the law, if it says anything, speaks to those who are under the law (Rom. 3:19). And those who have not yet bowed under the yoke of Christ do not even know the rule of the Lord. Therefore, they must be accepted by the Church with everyone and, in addition, receive forgiveness through faith in Christ. And in general, everything done in the life of the catechumens is not subject to liability. And, as you know, the Church does not accept catechumens without baptism. Therefore, the benefits of rebirth are most necessary for them. This Rule is also related to Rule 18, interpreted above. It determines that those women who, belonging to the heresy, made a promise to preserve virginity and then got married, should not be subject to penance when converting to Orthodoxy. After all, according to Paul, what the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that these women, not being under the yoke of Christ because of heresy, did not know the law of Christ. This means that when they are accepted into the Church, they receive forgiveness of this sin thanks to their Orthodox faith in Christ. Why doesn’t this rule prescribe penance for sins committed in the life of the catechumens, whereas rule I Om. 14 prescribes - to resolve this apparent contradiction, see the interpretation of I Om. 14. And further the rule says that the Church does not accept heretics without baptism, 158 and the most necessary gift and advantage of rebirth in baptism is the forgiveness of previous sins, and therefore these women who were in heresy were forgiven for breaking their vow at baptism, when they turned to Orthodoxy. See also IV Omni. 16 and I Omni. 14. If a husband, living with his wife and not being satisfied with the marriage, falls into fornication, then we recognize him as a fornicator and subject him to penance for a long time. However, we do not have the rule to accuse him of adultery if the sin was committed with a woman free from marriage. After all, as it is said, a nasty adulteress will become defiled and will not return to her husband (see Jer. 3:1). And he who contains an adulteress is foolish and wicked (Proverbs 18:23). But he who has fallen into fornication is not separated from cohabitation with his wife. Therefore, let the wife accept her husband if he has stopped fornication, and let the husband drive out the defiled woman from his house. The reason for this is not easy to find, but this is the prevailing custom. If a married man sins with an unmarried woman, then he is considered a fornicator, and we do not have a rule that allows us to condemn him as an adulterer. However, according to this rule, he is punished more severely and severely than an unmarried person who has fallen into fornication. An unmarried person is treated as if he is suffering violence from natural lust, which he is unable to satisfy, while a married person is deprived of this indulgence because he quenches his desire with his lawful wife. However, although he is punished more severely, his wife cannot be separated from him because of his sin, and the husband is separated from his wife if she falls into fornication. The Church adopted this custom from the Romans, and why it is so accepted is not easy to understand. Look at the note. Apostle 48, and do it without fail. Those who have taken wives by kidnapping, if they have kidnapped those betrothed to others, should not be received before the kidnapped ones are taken away from them and left to the will of those who were betrothed to them at first, so that they either take them if they want, or let them go. If someone takes an unbetrothed woman, then she must be taken away from him and returned to her relatives, leaving them to their will, whether they be parents, brothers or anyone who has power over the girl, and if they wish to give her to him, their cohabitation must be confirmed, and if they do not give consent, they must not be forced. And the one who secretly or violently corrupted his wife before marriage must bear penance for fornication; Penance for fornicators is fixed at four years. In the 1st year, such people are not allowed to pray and must cry at the church doors, in the 2nd year they are accepted into the number of listeners, in the 3rd year they are allowed to repent, in the 4th year they are allowed to stand with the people with a prohibition to receive communion, and then they are allowed to partake of the Good. This rule determines that the repentance of those who kidnapped women engaged to others should not be accepted until they return the abducted persons to their former betrotheds - so that if they want, they can take them as wives. If someone kidnaps an unengaged woman who is still in the power of her parents, then he must return her to her parents and relatives or her guardian, and if they want to give her to the kidnapper, then with the consent of the woman herself, let this cohabitation be approved, and if they do not want to, they cannot be forced to do so. But even if such a marriage takes place after the abduction, the one who kidnapped and molested his wife, secretly or by force, must certainly bear penance as a fornicator. His penance is four years. In the 1st year let him cry, in the 2nd year he listens, in the 3rd year he falls down, and in the 4th year he stands with the faithful, after which he can partake. Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th rule assigns penance to the fornicator for nine years, Basil himself in the 59th rule - for seven years 159, and John the Faster in the 12th rule - for two years, with dry eating and bowing. See also interpretation of IV Omni. 27 and the picture of the church at the end of the book. About those who marry two sisters or marry two brothers, I published a letter, a list of which I sent to your reverence. And whoever takes his brother's wife will not be accepted until he leaves her. The letter mentioned in this rule is a letter to Bishop. Diodorus, also known as the 87th rule of Basil. In that rule of St. Basil, guided by noble motives and citing evidence from the law, prohibits a man from marrying the sister of his deceased wife, in other words, two sisters, as well as a woman from marrying the brother of her deceased husband. And anyone who enters into such an unlawful marriage cannot be accepted for repentance until he separates from his wife. The apostle ordered that a widow included in the number of widows, that is, receiving everything she needs from the Church if she marries, be left without care (παρορᾶσθαι). And for a widowed man there is no law, but the penance of the second-wed is enough for him. If a widow, who has reached the age of 60, wants to live with her husband again, let her not be awarded the communion of the Good until she leaves the unclean passion. If we ourselves include her in the number of widows before the age of 60, then the fault is ours, not the wife’s. In ancient times, those widows who were true widows and lived in solitude, trusted in God and remained in prayers and supplications day and night, upon reaching 60 years of age, were included in the church rank of widows if they promised not to remarry a second time, but to remain in chastity. They received food and help from the Church, as Paul says about this (1 Tim. 5:5 ~ and 9; see also note to VI Oc. 40). So the present rule says that if any of these widows, but not yet 60 years old, is included in this rank and then gets married, then Paul commands that she be left without care, i.e. the Church no longer provides for her 160 . And if a man becomes widowed, then there is no law prohibiting him from marrying a second time or punishing him for it, but it is enough for him to suffer penance for his second marriage, that is, to be excommunicated for one or two years, according to Vasily the Great. 4. If a widow for 60 years is ranked among the rank of widows and then gets married, then she cannot receive communion until she leaves this unclean relationship in old age and dissolves the illegal cohabitation. But if we ourselves counted a widow among the ranks of widows before she reached 60 years of age, and then she got married, then she is worthy of forgiveness because of her youth, and the guilt falls on us, because we violated Paul’s command and counted her among the ranks of widows before 60 years of age (1 Tim. 5:9). The one who took as his wife someone who was corrupted by him, let him be subjected to penance for corruption, but let him be allowed to have her as his wife. (Apostle 67; Basil the Great 22, 23, 26.) This rule specifies that if someone has molested a woman who is not engaged to another, he receives penance for having molested her before marriage, 161 but he is allowed to keep her as his wife forever. Fornication is not marriage, and not even the beginning of marriage. Therefore, if it is possible for those who have married after fornication to be separated, then this is best. If, in any case, they wish to live together, then let them bear penance for fornication, but remain together so that nothing worse happens. (Apostle 67; Basil the Great 22, 23, 25.) St. Basil, in the 22nd and 25th rules, allowed those who had lost their chastity to marry before marriage, and in this rule he concludes by giving a general and most precise definition. For those who first entered into a relationship with a girl or a harlot, and after fornication want to marry her, the most faithful and best thing would be not to marry, and even if they have already entered into marriage, to separate. After all, marriage is called honest, and the bed is called immaculate, 162 because they are clean from all previous sin and corruption, and fornication and corruption are not marriage, and not even the beginning of marriage. But if those who have fallen into fornication do not want to be separated, then they must suffer the penance of fornicators, that is, seven years, but they can remain married so that something worse does not happen (in other words, so that they do not commit fornication secretly even after separation, or, having married others, do not commit adultery secretly, or do not kill themselves, because of excessive love they cannot bear the separation). Read also the Apostle. 67 with note. Regarding the presbyter who, out of ignorance, entered into an unlawful marriage, I determined what must be done: let him use the presbyteral seat, but refrain from other actions. Forgiveness is enough for him, but one who must take care of his own wounds should not bless another, since blessing is the teaching of sanctification; he who does not have it because of a sin committed out of ignorance, how will he teach it to another? Therefore, let him not bless either publicly or privately, and not share the Body of the Lord with others, and not perform any other service, but, content with the place he occupies, let him ask with tears other people and the Lord to forgive him the sin committed out of ignorance. This rule was repeated verbatim by the VI Ecumenical Council and is its 26th rule, the interpretation of which you can read. It seemed funny to me that someone took a vow to abstain from pork meat. Therefore, try to teach them to abstain from absurd vows and vows, while recognizing the consumption of pork meat as an indifferent matter, because no creation of God is reprehensible if it is received with thanksgiving (see 1 Tim. 4:4). So the vow is ridiculous - abstinence is optional. The saint was asked whether someone could break a vow, that is, a promise made before God, not to eat pork, and he answered that this promise was worthy of laughter. Therefore, it is necessary to teach such people so that they do not make such unreasonable promises in the future, and consider the consumption of pork meat, from which they have already promised to abstain, as a matter of indifference, 163 that is, they could equally not eat it, and eat it, because, according to the word of Paul, no creation of God is reprehensible when it is eaten with thanksgiving. See also VI Omni. 94. Bosses, when they vow to harm their subordinates, require special treatment. The cure for them is twofold: one is that they learn not to swear thoughtlessly, and the other is that they learn not to persist in bad decisions. Therefore, he who has bound himself with an oath to cause harm to another, let him repent of the rash oath and at the same time not carry out his evil intention under the guise of reverence. Keeping the oath did not bring any benefit to Herod, who, under the pretext of not breaking the oath, became the murderer of the prophet. An oath is completely prohibited; it is even more fair to condemn an ​​oath given for evil. Therefore, the one who has sworn an oath needs to change his way of thinking, and not at all strive to keep his dishonorable word. Indeed, examine this incongruity in more detail: if someone swore to gouge out his brother’s eyes, would it be good for him to actually carry out this? What if someone swore to kill or even break any commandment for the sake of an oath? I have sworn and decreed not to sin, but to keep the destinies of Thy righteousness (Ps. 119:106). Just as the commandment must be fulfilled with unwavering determination, so sin must be abolished and eradicated by all means. This rule states: if a commander swears to harm someone, he must, firstly, learn not to swear frivolously and, moreover, repent of this rash oath. Secondly, he should not remain with his bad intention - the intention to cause evil - allegedly wanting to keep the oath for pious reasons. After all, keeping the oath was of no benefit to Herod, who killed John allegedly in order not to break the oath. In fact, it would be more beneficial for him to break his oath and not commit such a lawless murder. The Holy Gospel prohibits completely, that is, completely and completely, every oath, whether it is given for good or evil. All the more worthy of condemnation is that which is given for evil. Therefore, one who has sworn to harm someone should not commit this evil deed for the sake of his oath, but let him repent of having taken such an oath in the first place. So, for example, if someone swears to gouge out the eyes of his brother, or to kill, or to transgress any commandment of the Lord, then it will not be good for him to carry it out for the sake of his oath, for David says to God: “I swore and confirmed my oath, not to sin, but to preserve the judgments of Your righteousness.” And besides, just as one should fulfill the Lord’s commandments with firm determination, so, on the contrary, one should get rid of any intention to sin. We don’t have an ancient rule about kidnappers, and we have formed our own opinion: they and those who participated with them in the kidnapping must be kept out of prayer for three years. But non-violent kidnapping is not punishable unless the case was preceded by molestation or theft. The widow has complete freedom, and whether to follow him depends on her, so we shouldn’t pay attention to appearances. It was Saint Basil the Great who was the first to impose penance on those who abduct women or assist in abduction in this rule: to be outside the prayers pronounced over those who fall for three years, that is, to stand in the vestibule with those listening. And the rule, which also makes a determination about the kidnappers of women (IV Om. 27), was adopted later than the present rule. If a free woman, that is, not subject to her father or her master, a woman voluntarily, without violence on the part of a man, followed him, then penance is not imposed on him, but only on the condition that he did not corrupt the woman or enter into a secret relationship with her (this is what the words of the rule “corruption and theft” mean). So if a widow, who is free and decides for herself whether to follow a man or not, is ashamed, perhaps, to give herself over to her lover openly and pretends that he kidnapped her, but in fact follows him herself, in this case the one who took her is innocent. After all, we take into account not this feigned abduction 164, but the fact that the widow herself actually followed the man. See also IV Omni. 27. She who, after her husband has left and gone missing, cohabits with another until she receives news of her husband's death commits adultery. This rule is repeated verbatim by Rule VI Omni. 93, see its interpretation there. Clerics who have committed a mortal sin are demoted from their rank, but are not deprived of communication with the laity, for one cannot take revenge twice for the same thing 165 . (Apost. 25; VI Ose. 4, 21; Carthage. 35; Basil the Great. 3, 17, 51.) There is sin leading to death and there is sin not leading to death - says the Evangelist John (1 John 5:16-17). According to the opinion of some fathers, especially Mitrofan of Smyrna (in the interpretation of the conciliar epistles), sin leading to death and sin not leading to death are understood differently. And Zonara believes that a sin leading to death is a sin that has reached the point, if, of course, this sin is mortal in appearance, and a sin not leading to death is a sin that has not reached the point, but has stopped at the death 166 (see also Neokesar. 4). So, the present rule says that clergy who commit a mortal sin are expelled, but are not excluded from communication, that is, prayer with the laity, following what has been said: do not take revenge twice for the same thing. But such people do not partake of the Divine Mysteries. Read also the Apostle. 25 and the same Vasily the Great. rule 3. A woman who gives birth on the way and leaves the child neglected is subject to condemnation as a murderer. This rule specifies that if a woman gives birth on the road and does not take care of her child so that it dies, she receives penance as a murderer. The rule of Vasily the Great speaks in more detail about this case. 52: if a woman gave birth on the road and had the opportunity to save the baby’s life, but left him and he died (she left him either in order to hide her sin, if she conceived from fornication or adultery, or simply because she brutally and inhumanly neglected the child), then she is condemned as a murderer. But even if the child does not die, but is picked up by someone else and survives, then his mother is condemned as a murderer, according to Zonara, because she neglected him without care and, although it depended on her, left him to die. If the mother was not able to save the baby’s life because the place was deserted and there was nothing necessary, and therefore the baby died, then she deserves forgiveness, according to the same rule of Vasily the Great. 52. Read also the Apostle. 66. Women who fell into adultery and themselves confessed their sin out of reverence or were caught in some way, our fathers forbade them to denounce publicly, so as not to give those caught a reason for death, but they decided to remain without communion until the time of repentance was over. If a married woman commits the sin of adultery and, out of reverence, that is, out of fear of future judgment, confesses her sin, or the sin will reveal itself, because the woman becomes pregnant or gives birth, while her husband has gone far away, then the fathers ordered not to denounce her publicly, that is, not to put her in places for the repentant (crying, listening and falling), so that people, seeing her leaving the church with catechumens or standing in the vestibule, they did not understand that she had definitely sinned, and they did not attribute to her the guilt of adultery before other sins. Thus, this penance will become the cause of death for her, because her husband, having learned about it, can kill her, according to the famous saying of Solomon: Because her husband’s wrath is full of jealousy (Proverbs 6:34). That is why the fathers ordered that such women stand in the church along with the other faithful, but do not receive communion until the time of repentance designated for them is over 167 . In the event that a wife leaves her husband, the reason for this must be considered, and if it turns out that the wife left without reason, then the husband deserves leniency, and the wife - penance. Condescension will be shown to him in the fact that he can be in communion with the Church. If a woman left her husband, then we need to investigate why she did this. The rest of the rule was repeated verbatim by the VI Ecumenical Council in the 87th rule, so see its interpretation in its place. Wives of warriors who married because it was unknown where their husbands were are subject to the same definition as those who did not wait for the return of their absent husband. However, here this act has some excuse, because the assumption about the death of the husband can be made sooner. This rule is repeated verbatim by Rule VI Omni. 93. See his interpretation there. Anyone who enters into marriage after someone else’s wife has been taken away from him will be accused of adultery for the first, but not condemned for the second. According to this rule, anyone who illegally takes someone else's betrothed or wife, and after her husband returns her to himself, marries another, unmarried woman, will be punished as an adulterer for sin with the first, someone else's wife, but will not be charged for taking a second wife. Girls who violated the will of their father commit fornication. By reconciling with the parents, the matter seems to be cured. However, they are not allowed to receive communion immediately, but after three years of penance. This rule determines that if girls under the authority of their father violate his will, that is, give themselves to their lovers without permission, then they fall into fornication and do not enter into marriage. If, after this, the parents of these girls reconcile with them and agree that their lovers, who corrupted them, should live with them, then what was done in the beginning, apparently, is healed, and their fornication becomes marriage and marriage 168. However, men and women who do this are not allowed to partake immediately, but only after three years of penance. The fact that marriages of daughters and slaves, concluded without the consent of fathers and masters, are charged with fornication and dissolved, but after their consent they receive approval and become a valid marriage, is clear from the 40, 41 and 42nd rules of the same Basil the Great. See also note. to Carthage. 17 and 42. She who lives with an adulterer during all this time is an adulteress. A woman who, having a husband, falls into adultery, and then either leaves her living husband and follows the one with whom she committed adultery, or, after the death of her husband, marries this man and cohabits with him, 169 remains, according to this rule, an adulteress for the entire time that she lives with the adulterer, even after fulfilling the 14-year penance for adultery. After all, she has not retreated from sin, but persists in it, and therefore her repentance is not accepted and cannot be trusted, which means that she will not receive forgiveness until she parts with the adulterer. See also note. to Neokesar. 2. She gave herself to her husband against the will of her master and committed fornication. But after this, she entered into a marriage permitted to her and became married. So the first is fornication, and the second is marriage. For mutual agreements between people under control have no force. (Apost. 82; IV Om. 4; VI Ose. 85; Gangr. 3; Carthage. 73, 90; Basil the Great. 41, 42.) If a subordinate woman, that is, a slave, gives herself to her husband without the will of her master, she commits fornication, since the agreements and contracts of the subordinates have no recognition and force 170. And if the owner of the slave subsequently allows her to marry or gives her complete freedom 171 and the slave enters into marriage openly, then she is no longer considered a harlot, but legally married. See also Apost. 82 and Vasily the Great. 38. A widow who has power over herself can live with her husband without reproach (if no one breaks up this cohabitation), because the apostle said: and if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2). (Apost. 82; IV Ecum. 4; VI Ecum. 85; Gangr. 3; Carthage. 73, 90; Basil the Great. 40, 42.) If a widow, being in control of herself, marries a second time, then she is not condemned. Ap. Paul speaks of her this way: if her husband dies, then she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord, 172 that is, not an infidel, a heretic or a relative, whom cannot be married by law, but a faithful Orthodox Christian, marriage with whom is not prohibited. And the words “if no one dissolves this cohabitation” mean: if someone has power over this widow (father, grandfather or master), then he can dissolve her marriage if he does not want to agree to it 173. See also note. to Apost. 82, as well as Vasily Velik. rule 38. Marriages entered into without the consent of those in authority are fornication. Therefore, those who marry each other during the life of their father or master are subject to liability until those who have power over them express consent to this cohabitation. Then it receives the power of marriage. This rule is the conclusion of the three previous rules: 38, 40 and 41. It states that if a daughter dependent on her father, or a slave dependent on her master, marries without the consent of those who have power over them, then such marriages are considered fornication; Moreover, they must be dissolved, and those who were combined must suffer penance. If the father or owner, who has power over the girls, gives their consent, then the marriages receive approval and become indissoluble, and those who marry do not incur penance. Read also the note. to Apost. 82 and the rule of Vasily the Great. 38. He who deals a fatal blow to his neighbor is a murderer, whether he struck first or struck back. (Apost. 66; VI Om. 91; Ankyr. 21–23; Athanasius the Great. 1; Basil the Great. 2, 8, i. 13, 33, 52, 54, 56, 57; Gregory Nis. 5.) He who inflicts a fatal blow, so that a person dies because of this blow, is considered a murderer according to this rule, whether he himself started the fight or, having been the first to receive the blow, responded in kind out of revenge. A deaconess who has fallen into fornication with a pagan can be accepted into communion, but she will be allowed to make offerings in the seventh year, of course, if she lives in purity. And the pagan, who, after accepting the faith, again begins sacrilege, returns to his vomit 174. Therefore, we do not allow the body of the deaconess, as consecrated, to continue to be used in the flesh. (Apost. 25; VI Ose. 4, 21; Carthage. 35; Basil the Great. 32, 50, 51, 70.) If a deaconess (see the note about them to I Ev. 19) falls into fornication with a pagan, after being defrocked, she is accepted into communion, that is, she stands with the faithful and participates in church prayer, and she is accepted into the communion of the Holy Mysteries when seven years of penance for her fornication have passed 175, but even then she is accepted provided that she has left the vice and lives in chastity. If the pagan, who committed fornication with her, believed, but after that again began to seek to take as his wife, according to the explanation of Balsamon and Vlastar, the deposed deaconess (for the saint calls this sacrilege), he, like a dog, returns again to his vomit. Therefore, we do not allow the consecrated body of the deaconess 176 to be used henceforth for carnal mixing and pleasure, that is, we do not allow her to get married. If someone, having accepted the name of a Christian, blasphemes Christ, there is no benefit to him from the name. Anyone who believes in Christ and begins to be called a Christian 177 must also live according to the commandments of Christ, in whom he believes, so that God may be glorified through him, according to what was said: Let your light shine before men, etc. (Matthew 5:16). If someone is called a Christian, but transgresses the commandments of Christ, then by this crime he blasphemes Christ Himself, and just from being called a Christian, he will not receive any benefit, as the brother of God James said: What is the benefit, my brothers, if someone has faith but does not have works? can this faith save him? (see James 2:14). And Ignatius the God-Bearer says this in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “Those who declare that they are Christ’s are known not only by what they say, but also by what they do, for a tree is known by its fruit. It is better to remain silent and be than to speak and not be. The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power 178 » 179 . See also note. to Apost. 64 and Carthage. 119. The one who, out of ignorance, married a man abandoned for a time by his wife, and then was abandoned by him because his former wife returned to him, committed fornication, but out of ignorance. Therefore, marriage is not forbidden to her, but it is better if she remains so. This rule is literally included in VI Omni. 93, so see its interpretation there. The Encratites, Saccophori and Apotacticians fall under the same decree as the Novatians, because a rule has been issued about them, albeit in different versions, but about the former it is silent. We rebaptize such people on the same basis, but if such rebaptism is prohibited among you for the sake of some kind of economy, like the Roman fathers, then let our word still have force 180. The fact is that their heresy is a kind of branch of the Marcionites, who abhor marriage, turn away from wine and call God’s creation defiled. Therefore, we do not accept them into the Church unless they are baptized by our baptism. So let them not say that they were baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who, with Marcion and other heretics, equally consider God the creator of evil. Therefore, if it pleases, a large number of bishops should gather together and then lay down a rule, so that the one who does this will be safe, and the one who answers the question about such matters will be trustworthy. In his 1st rule, this divine father determined by oikonomia, as the anonymous interpreter of the rules says, to accept the baptism of the Encratites and Novatians (although in that rule he determined this, following the Asian fathers who accepted their baptism). And in the present rule, correcting what was defined there on oikonomia, Basil says that all Encratites, Saccophori and Apotacticians (about which see the note to VI Ecum. 95), as well as Novatians, should be rebaptized, and that although the Asian and Roman fathers forbade rebaptizing such for the sake of oikonomia, let the word of Basil himself have authority and power 181. After all, the heresy of the mentioned heretics is an offshoot of the heresy of the Marcionites, who abhor marriage and wine and call God the creator of evil. So, if this opinion wants to be accepted, a Council of Bishops should be convened so that they turn private opinion into a general and unshakable rule, 182 so that those who rebaptize these heretics do their work without fear, and the one who answers those who ask about this deserves trust thanks to the rule. Abandoned by her husband, in my opinion, should remain so. For the Lord said: If someone leaves his wife not because of the guilt of fornication, he gives her a reason to commit adultery (see Matt. 5:32) - and by calling her an adulteress, He forbade her to cohabit with another. Is it possible for a husband to be held accountable as the perpetrator of adultery, and for the wife, whom the Lord called an adulteress for cohabiting with another husband, to be blameless? This rule determines that a woman whom her husband has left, not because of fornication, should not marry another, according to the saying of the Lord, which says that he who has sent away his wife, not because of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. It is obvious that the Lord, calling her an adulteress, forbade her to take another husband. After all, if her husband is guilty of forcing her to commit adultery - to take another husband, then she, if she marries a second time, is guilty of committing adultery with her first living husband, and therefore the Lord called her an adulteress, as we said. Corruption under compulsion should not be subject to liability, so that a slave, if she suffers violence from her master, is not liable. The forcible corruption of women, the present rule defines, is not imputed to them as a sin, because it was committed without their will and, therefore, does not entail punishment for them, so a slave should not be punished if she was corrupted by her master, and all others who were similarly forcibly corrupted. See also Gregory Neokesar. 2. There is no law for trigamy, so legally there is no third marriage. We look at such actions as desecration of the Church, but we do not publicly condemn them, because this is better than rampant fornication. (Neo-Caesar. 3; Basil the Great. 4, 80.) This rule determines: we do not have a law or church rule that would allow a third marriage 183, so such a marriage is not legal, but illegal and desecrating the Church. But since it, like fornication, stopping only with one woman, is better than unhindered fornication with many, we do not openly condemn the third marriage, so as to insist on divorce, but we leave it without attention. See also Neokesar. 3. Moreover, the third canonical message, divided into 35 rules Regarding clergy, the rules are set out without distinction and command that the fallen be given one punishment - removal from service, whether they were elevated to any degree or served in a service that does not require ordination. (Apost. 25; VI Ose. 4, 21; Carthage. 35; Basil the Great. 3, 32, 44) This rule makes the determination that the rules punish those who sin - both clergy who have been ordained, i.e., subdeacons, deacons and presbyters, and those who have only a bishop's seal: readers, singers and below - only by expulsion from the degree and removal from service; It is not that those who are more senior in rank are punished more severely, and those who are younger are punished more gently, but both are punished equally. See also Apost. 25. The one who did not take care of the one she gave birth to on the way, although she could have saved him, because she either neglected it, or wanted to hide her sin, or even indulged in a brutal and inhuman thought, let her be convicted of murder. If she could not save and the child died due to the desolation of the place and the lack of necessities, the mother deserves leniency. We explained this rule when interpreting the 33rd rule of the same Vasily, see its interpretation there. After all, here the saint does not say anything else, unless in that rule he is more concise, and in this he expresses himself in more detail. The widowed slave, perhaps, did not sin seriously by agreeing to a second marriage under the guise of kidnapping, so she should not be blamed for this at all, for it is not the external action that is judged, but the will. However, it is obvious that she will face penance for bigamy. If a widowed slave, being subject and wanting to get married a second time, pretended that she was kidnapped by someone who intended to marry her, then she did not commit a great sin and is not condemned as having fallen into fornication. After all, one should look not at her abduction, which was feigned, but at her intention - she, in reality wanting marriage, voluntarily gave herself to the kidnapper. Therefore, such a woman is punished with penance only for a second marriage, that is, one or two years of excommunication, but only if her master also agreed to the slave’s marriage. Without his consent, what happened is considered fornication. See also the rule of Vasily the Great. 38 and note. to IV Omni. 27. I know that before I wrote to your love of God, as far as we were able, about the differences between unintentional murders, and I can say nothing more than that. And it is left to your prudence to increase or decrease penances according to the particular circumstances. The Divine Basil, having spoken in his 8th rule about the differences between intentional and unintentional murders and not having anything else to add to this, allows the confessor, who assigns periods of repentance for unwitting murderers, to either increase or soften penance depending on the particular circumstances, i.e., on the method and reason for the murder and on the killer’s readiness to repent. Read also the Apostle. 66. Those who attacked the robbers in response, if they do not belong to the church rank, are deprived of the Holy Communion, and if they are members of the clergy, they are cast out from the rank. For Scripture says: Whoever takes the sword will die by the sword (see Matt. 26:52). This rule determines that those who killed thieves who attacked them should be excommunicated, if they are laymen, for three years from the Mysteries, because their hands are not clean, just like those who kill in war, according to Balsamon and Zonara 184. Priests and clerics are cast out for this, since, according to the word of the Lord, everyone who takes the sword will perish by the sword. Please note that the saint here calls deprivation of communion and eruption by sword and death, because among the reasonable and prudent this is considered a truly deadly punishment. See also Apost. 66 and note. to the 13th rule of the same Basil. Anyone who committed a deliberate murder and after that repented, let him not partake of the shrine for twenty years. Twenty years will be distributed for him as follows: for four years he must cry, standing outside the gates of the house of prayer, asking the faithful who enter to pray for him and confessing his iniquity. After four years, let him be accepted into the audience and go out with them for five years. For seven years let him pray and go out with those who fall. For four years he only stands with the faithful, but does not receive communion offerings. After these years have passed, let him partake of the holy things. This rule punishes a person who commits premeditated murder and then repents with twenty years. It determines that this person should cry for four years, listen for five years and leave the Church together with those listening, seven years fall down, stand with the faithful for four years, and after all this proceed to communion. See also Apost. 66, IVel. 11 and the picture of the church at the end of the book. Let the one who commits murder involuntarily not partake of the shrine for 10 years. These 10 years will be distributed for him as follows: let him spend two years in weeping, three years with those listening, four fall and a year only standing with the faithful, and then let him be admitted to the Holy Mysteries. For someone who has committed murder against his own will, this rule prohibits him from partaking of the Divine Mysteries for 10 years and orders him to cry for two years, listen for three, crouch for four, and stand with the faithful for one year and then receive communion. See Apost. 66, I Omni. 11 and a picture of the church. Let the one who commits adultery not partake of holy things for 15 years. These 15 years will be distributed for him as follows: for four years he will cry, five years he will listen, four years he will fall, two years he will stand with the faithful without communion. (Ankyr. 20; Gregory Nis. 4.) This rule punishes an adulterer with exclusion from communion for 15 years. Let him cry for four years, listen for five, fall down for four, stand with the faithful for two, and then let him take communion. See also Ankir. 20. Let a fornicator not partake of holy things for seven years. He cries for two years, listens for two, falls down for two, and only stands with the faithful for a year, and in the eighth year he will be allowed to receive communion. (Basily the Great. 22; Gregory Nis. 4) This rule punishes the fornicator by exclusion from the Sacraments for seven years. Let him cry for two years, listen for two, fall down for two, stand alone with the faithful and receive communion in the eighth year. This rule is Vasily’s own definition, and therefore this penance is more severe. See also his 22nd rule and note. to him. Let the one who has taken a vow of virginity and broken the promise, leading a solitary life, fulfill the time of penance imposed for the sin of adultery. The same applies to those who took a vow to lead a monastic life and broke it. (IV Om. 16; Anchir. 19.) This rule imposes penance for adultery, that is, it punishes nuns and monks who have fallen into fornication or entered into marriage to 15 years. See also IV Omni. 16 and Ankir. 19. If the one who steals repents and accuses himself, only the communion of holy things will be prohibited for one year; and if he is convicted, then for two years. The time will be divided for him into falling and standing with the faithful, and after that let him be honored with communion. The present rule forbids communication to those who stole and then confessed the sin and repented for only one year. And for the one whom others have exposed or caught in the act of stealing, it commands one year to fall asleep, and another year to stand with the faithful and then begin to receive communion. See also Gregory Neokesar. 3. The one who commits disgrace on men will be assigned the time of penance, just like the one who commits adultery. (Basily the Great. 7; Gregory Nis. 4.) The present rule punishes a sodomizer, like an adulterer, for 15 years. See also the 7th rule of Vasily himself. He who declares his wickedness with the dumb, let him spend the same time in repentance. (Ankyr. 16, 17; Basil the Great. 7; Gregory Nis. 4.) Likewise, the present rule punishes a bestialist for 15 years. Let the perjurer not take communion for 10 years: he cries for two years, listens for three, falls down for four, only stands with the faithful for one year, and then he is awarded communion. The present rule removes an oathbreaker from the Mysteries for 10 years and orders him to cry for two years, listen for three, crouch for four, stand with the faithful for one, and then receive communion. This oathbreaker should be understood as one who broke his oath unnecessarily 185 . Anyone who confesses to witchcraft or poisoning will receive a period of penance as a murderer and will be punished in the same way, because he convicted himself of this sin. This rule punishes the sorcerer and the poisoner in the same way as someone who has committed premeditated murder. See also VI Omni. 61. Let him who opens the tombs not take communion for 10 years. This rule prohibits communion for 10 years from anyone who opens tombs in order to steal any decoration from a buried body 186 . And Gregory of Nyssa, in his 7th rule, divides the opening of tombs into two types: excusable and unforgivable. He considers such an act to be excusable when someone, without touching the dead, takes stones that, for example, will be on his coffin, in order to use them for the construction of some generally useful structure. And he calls the opening of tombs unforgivable in the case when someone opens them in order to remove clothing or other decoration from the dead buried there, and this is precisely what is punished as fornication, that is, by nine years. And the Faster in his 29th rule punishes the opening of tombs with excommunication for one year with dry eating and bowing. Incest between a brother and sister requires the same amount of repentance as murder. In this rule, the saint punishes the one who committed incest with his own sister, that is, born of the same father and mother, as a deliberate murderer, that is, for 20 years, according to the anonymous interpreter of the rules. In his 75th canon, the saint punishes with eleven years the one who commits incest with his half-sister, that is, born either only from the same father, or only from the same mother. The saint says that until such a sinner stops this wicked act, let him not enter the church; and after he stops, let him cry for three years, listen for three years, fall down for three years and stand with the faithful for two years without receiving communion, and then finally let him be awarded communion. The faster in his 14th rule punishes the one who sinned with his sister for three years, with dry eating and bowing. The marriage of people who are in a prohibited degree of kinship, if exposed as a human sin, may receive the penance required for adultery 187. This rule punishes with the penance prescribed for adulterers, in general, any marriage that is concluded between persons who are related by law. Obviously, such a marriage is first dissolved, and then the perpetrators are punished. But, probably, here Vasily punishes unauthorized marriages with a softer penance for adultery, which was established by the fathers who lived before him, i.e., excommunication for only seven years (see about this Ankyr. 20 and Basil the Great. 22), and not his own, more strict, imposed for 15 years, since if we turn to his 78th rule, then in it he took two sisters as wives he punishes seven years. If a reader, before marriage, enters into a relationship (συναλλάξειεν) with his bride, let him, after being banned from serving for one year, be allowed to read, but at the same time remain without promotion to higher levels; and if he entered into secret relationships (κλεψιγαμήσας) without betrothal, let him leave the ministry. This also applies to the minister. If a reader enters into a relationship with his betrothed bride before the sacred ceremony of marriage, despite the fact that she also wanted this (after all, this is what the expression “to enter into a relationship” means), then this rule punishes him with a ban on the ministry for one year. Then he is again accepted to the degree of reader, but he does not advance to a higher degree, that is, he does not become either a deacon or a presbyter, because he was faint-hearted and did not endure until the marriage was concluded. If he had intercourse with a woman to whom he was not engaged, let him leave the ministry, even if before the intercourse he promised her that he would take her as his wife, and even if after the intercourse he married her (for this is what the expression “entered into secret relations” means, κλεψιγαμήσας). Let any other minister of the Church receive the same penance for a similar act (see the note about him to VI Ecum. 15), for example, a singer or a doorkeeper 188 . A deacon who has defiled his lips and confessed that he has sinned only by this, let him be prohibited from serving. And let the presbyter also be worthy to receive holy communion with the deacons. If he is found to have sinned more than this, then, no matter what the degree, he will be cast out. This rule makes a determination about a deacon who has become defiled with his lips, that is, he has only gone so far as to kiss a woman with a passionate loving kiss (and this is desecration and impurity of the soul, because if even one inclination to sin defiles and stains the soul, then a passionate kiss is much more so). So, if a deacon does this and confesses that he has sinned only by this, let him be banned from the diaconal ministry for a time. And at a time when he is under prohibition, let him receive communion at the altar along with other deacons who are not under penance. Let the priest who sins in a similar manner only with a passionate kiss 189 receive the same penance. If a priest or deacon has sinned with something more than a passionate kiss, for example, going to the bed or even to copulation, and he confesses it, let both of them be deposed 190. Anyone who knew about any of the previously mentioned sins and did not confess it, but was exposed, may be subject to penance for the same amount of time as the one who commits evil is punished. After the saint spoke about the sins that priests, deacons and others belonging to the church rank committed, now in this rule he speaks of someone who knew that any of the mentioned persons had sinned, and did not confess this in secret to the bishop, so that he would correct the sinner. Or this person himself, being able to forbid them from sin by reminding them in private, covers it up and remains silent. So, if later he is convicted of what he knew, but was silent and covered up, let him be punished in the same way, that is, removed from communication for the same amount of time as the person who committed the sin that he knew about is punished. See also Ankir. 25 and note. to the rule of Gregory Neokesar. 3. Anyone who indulges in fortune-telling or the like will be punished for the same amount of time as the murderer. This rule punishes as having committed premeditated murder, that is, for 20 years, according to an anonymous interpreter, those who have completely betrayed themselves to fortune-tellers or similar people who practice magic. Anyone who has renounced Christ and transgressed the sacrament of salvation must cry throughout his life and must repent; and during the exodus from this life one is rewarded with shrines through faith in God’s love for mankind. This rule imposes punishment on any Christian, without specification, who renounced Christ (meaning voluntarily) for the duration of his entire life, forbidding him to enter the church and commanding him to cry outside the doors of the church and only at the end of his life to partake of the Divine Mysteries. See also I Omni. 11 191. However, if one who has fallen into any of the previously mentioned sins becomes zealous in repentance, then the one who, by God’s love for mankind, has been entrusted with the power to bind and decide, will not be worthy of condemnation if, seeing the extreme repentance of the sinner, he shows greater love for mankind and reduces the time of penance. For the story told in the Scriptures tells us that those who repent with great effort soon receive God’s love for mankind. The saint, having listed the various periods of penance corresponding to different sins, finally in this rule hands everything over to the bishop and confessor, who have the power to bind and loose sinners. He says that if they see sinners who repent ardently and zealously, they will not be condemned if they reduce the time of penance, since Divine Scripture teaches us that God’s mercy quickly descends on those who repent with the greatest pain of heart, which was especially evident in Hezekiah and Manasseh. Let him who has defiled himself with his paternal or maternal sister not be allowed to enter the house of prayer until he ceases his lawless and illicit deed. And after he comes to the consciousness of his terrible sin, let him cry for three years, standing at the doors of houses of prayer and begging the people who go to prayer, so that everyone with compassion offers earnest prayers for him to the Lord. After this, for another three years he should be allowed only to listen and, after he has listened to the Scripture and teaching, he should be expelled and not honored with prayer. Then, if only he sought this with tears and fell to the Lord with a contrite heart and strong humility, let him fall for another three years. And thus, after he shows worthy fruits of repentance, in the 10th year let him be accepted into prayerful fellowship with the faithful, without communion. Standing in prayer for two years together with the faithful, may he finally be honored with the communion of the Good. We explained this rule when interpreting the 67th rule of the same Vasily, see its interpretation there. The same rule applies to those who take their daughters-in-law as cohabitants. Along with the one who entered into a relationship with his half-sister, this rule punishes the one who took his daughter-in-law as his wife, that is, with eleven years, which are distributed in the same way. Of course, an illicit marriage must first be dissolved. And the Faster in his 15th rule punishes such a person for two years, also prescribing dry eating and bowing. Anyone who leaves a wife legally married to him and brings another is subject, according to the word of the Lord (Matthew 5:32 ~ and 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18), to condemnation for adultery. The rules of our fathers established that such people should cry for a year, listen for two years, fall prostrate for three years, and stand with the faithful for the seventh year, and then receive communion if they repent with tears. This rule is literally included in VI Omni. 87, see its interpretation in that place. Let the same rule apply to those who took two sisters into cohabitation, even if at different times. Along with the one who left his wife and took another, this rule punishes for seven years the one who, after the death of his wife, married her sister, in other words, the one who took two sisters as wives. And seven years is penance for adultery, determined by the ancient fathers 192. Those who are inflamed by passion for their stepmothers are subject to the same rule as those who are inflamed by passion for their sisters. This rule punishes those who have sex with their stepmother by analogy with the rule about those who have sex with their sisters. Namely, if this is a sister from the same father and mother, then the punishment is imposed for 20 years, according to the rule of Vasily the Great. 67. And if the sister is from different fathers or mothers, then for 11 years, according to the rule of Vasily the Great. 75. The fathers kept silent about polygamy as a matter of bestiality and completely alien to the human race. It seems to us that this sin is heavier than fornication, therefore it is reasonable to subject such people to penance, namely: after they cry for a year and fall for three years, then let them be accepted into fellowship. Obviously, by polygamy the rule here means trigamy, because that is what the fathers call the third marriage, according to the 4th rule of Vasily himself. So, the rule says that the previous fathers kept silent about this third marriage, without setting out any law or definition about it and without assigning penance (there is no law for trigamy, and according to the law there is no third marriage, according to the 50th rule of Basil himself), since such a marriage is characteristic of cattle, and alien to the human race. To us it seems to be a sin more serious than fornication. Therefore, such trigamists should cry for a year, fall down for three and then take communion 193. Since many, during the invasion of the barbarians, transgressed their faith in God, taking pagan oaths and tasting forbidden foods that were sacrificed before idols with sorcery, then let them be dealt with according to the laws and rules already determined by the fathers. Those who have suffered grave violence under torture, have not endured suffering and have been forced to renounce, let them not be accepted into the Church for three years, and then let them listen for two years and after another three years spent in the rank of the fallen, let them then be accepted into communion. And those who, without great violence, betrayed the faith of God, touched the demonic table, swore with pagan oaths, may they be expelled from the Church for three years and listen for two years, pray for three with those who fall down and three more participate in prayer with the faithful, then may they be accepted into communion with the Good. (I Om. 14; VI Om. 94; Ancyra. 4–6; Peter Alexander. 3; Basil the Great. 73; Gregory Nis. 2.) This rule determines that those captured during the invasion of barbarians who renounced faith in the true God took pagan oaths, that is, swore by the gods in which the pagans believe, and did this with the spiritual disposition characteristic of the pagans, tasted the food brought to idols through witchcraft art and rituals, punished according to the rules of the fathers (probably the fathers of Ancyra cathedral). And those who, having undergone severe torment and unable to bear suffering, renounced, should not be accepted into the Church for three years, but let them cry outside at the door, let them listen for two years, fall down for three, stand with the faithful for three, and only then receive communion 194-195. See also I Omni. 14 and Ankir. 4 and 5. About those who committed perjury: if they broke their oaths due to violence and coercion, they are subject to lighter penances, so that after six years they must be completely accepted into communion. And those who betrayed the faith without coercion, after they spend two years with those who weep, two with those who listen, and in the fifth year they pray with those who fall down and for another two years they are accepted into prayerful communion without offerings - finally in this way, that is, by showing worthy repentance, they will be restored to the communion of the Body of Christ. Since in his 64th rule this saint generally assigned a punishment of 10 years to the perjurer, now in this rule he makes a distinction between perjurers. He punishes those who violated the oath under compulsion and under duress for six years, and those who betrayed the faith without coercion, i.e., broke the oath (since every oath is given in the name of God and, therefore, anyone who breaks an oath violates his faith in God) - for 11 years: let them cry for two years, listen for two, crouch for five, stand with the faithful for two, and then take communion 196 . Those who tell fortunes and follow pagan customs or bring someone into their homes to discover enchantments and for purification, shall be subject to a six-year punishment: they cry for a year, listen for a year, fall down for three, stand with the faithful for a year and then will be accepted into fellowship. This rule is borrowed verbatim from Ankyra. 24; see the interpretation there. This rule differs from the rule of the Ancyra Council in only one way: it punishes the mentioned persons with a five-year penance and distributes this time in a different way; and this punishes those who practice witchcraft for six years: let them cry for one year, listen for one, fall down for three, stand with the faithful for one, and then receive communion. Pay attention also to the fact that in his 7th rule the saint punishes soothsayers and poisoners as murderers, that is, assigning them his penance, but here he punishes them more mildly, in accordance with the penance of the preceding fathers. See also VI Omni. 61. We prescribe all this so that the fruits of repentance may be experienced. After all, we do not judge such things by the time of penance, but we take into account the image of repentance. If the repentant cling tightly to their habits, want to work for carnal pleasures more than for the Lord, and do not accept life according to the Gospel, then we have nothing in common with them. For we know that it is said about a disobedient and disobedient people: Make haste to save your soul (Gen. 19:17). After the saint has determined the various dates for various penances, he additionally gives the present rule that one should experience the fruits of repentance, since we not only look at this or that duration of penance, but also take into account the disposition of the penitents 197 . This means that if they repent zealously, the time of penance is reduced; if they repent carelessly, it increases. If those who sin do not want to give up their sins and pleasures and live according to the Gospel, like Christians, but do not obey and contradict, then we, the stewards of their souls, bishops and confessors, should not participate in their sins, but should renounce them. After all, we hear Divine Scripture, which says: Hasten to save your soul, i.e., “see that you do not punish your own soul by communicating with incorrigible sinners.” So, let us not allow ourselves to perish with such people, but, fearing a heavy judgment and holding before our eyes the terrible day of the Lord’s retribution, we will not wish to perish because of the sins of others. After all, if we were not enlightened by the threats of the Lord and were not brought to our senses by such strong calamities: for our iniquity the Lord abandoned us and delivered us into the hands of the barbarians, and the people were taken captive to the enemies and given over to dispersion because those who bear the name of Christ dared to do such things; if they did not know and understand that the wrath of God visited us for this, then how can we agree with them? On the contrary, we must testify to them about this day and night, publicly and privately. But we will not allow ourselves to be carried away by their evil deeds and, first of all, we will pray to acquire them and extract them from the snare of the evil one. If we cannot do this, then we will at least try to save our souls from eternal condemnation. This rule is an admonition to bishops and confessors; it implores them and speaks to them. From now on, we, stewards of souls, should fear the judgment and reward of the Lord, so as not to be punished for the sins of others, the sins of such unrepentant and incorrigible sinners, if we show them excessive leniency. If Christians dare to commit such great sins for which God abandoned them and the barbarians enslaved them, if they could not come to their senses and did not know that for their iniquities such a heavy blow and such great wrath of the Lord fell upon them, if, I say, such great misfortunes could not correct them, then what kind of communication can we have with such a stiff-necked people? Of course, none. Therefore, we are obliged to teach and reprove them every day, both together and alone, and pray to God to free them from the snare of the devil. And if we cannot free them, then we should not be crushed by their evil deeds: on the contrary, we will at least try to save ourselves from eternal torment 198 . From another canonical message of the same Vasily, besides To the cunning encratites, to their great difficulty, why then don’t we eat everything? - let it be said that we also abhor our eruptions. After all, according to the dignity of food, meat for us is green herbs (Gen. 9: 3), and according to the difference between what is useful, just as in greens we separate the suitable from the harmful, so in meat we distinguish between the useful and the harmful. After all, hemlock is green, just like vulture meat is meat, but no one in their right mind would eat henbane 199 or touch dog meat unless absolutely necessary (and in the latter case, the one who ate it did not break the law). We set out this rule almost verbatim in the interpretation on the Apostle. 51, see its interpretation there. And about who the Encratites are, see the notes. to VI Omni. 95. The same Basil's canonical letter to Diodorus, bishop. Tarsian A letter with the signature of Diodorus has reached us, but everything else in it belongs more likely to someone else than to Diodorus. It seems to me that some cunning man, hiding behind your name, thereby wanted to make himself worthy of the trust of his listeners. When someone asked him whether it was permissible to take the sister of his dead wife into marriage, he did not shudder at such a question, but listened calmly and with great courage and ardor helped to fulfill this obscene wish. So, if I had this letter, I would send it to you so that you could defend both yourself and the truth. But since the one who showed me the letter took it back and carried it everywhere as a kind of sign of victory over me, who was the first to prohibit such marriages, and said that he had written permission, I wrote to you now in order to attack his forged letter from both sides and not leave him with any power, so that it could not easily harm those who read it. As can be seen from this introduction, as well as from the 23rd rule of St. Vasily, the divine Vasily in his message forbade the same person to take the sister of his deceased wife, in other words, to take two sisters. And Diodorus 200, in response to someone’s question whether it was possible to take them, answered in writing that it was possible. And therefore the one who asked took this written permission and showed it to Basil the Great. For this reason, St. Basil, wanting to shame Diodorus in the person of another person, as Zonara says, writes to him that this written permission, of course, did not belong to Diodorus, but is someone’s forgery and this other, in order to seem worthy of trust to the listeners, put the signature of Diodorus on his message (or maybe it actually belonged to someone else and St. Basil did not invent this in order to indirectly expose Diodorus). And therefore, in addition to his first message, Vasily was forced to write the present one in order to completely refute the permission for this lawless cohabitation with double force. So, the first (and most important) thing we can refer to in such matters is the custom we have adopted, which has the force of law, because the regulations were handed down to us by the holy fathers. This custom is this: if someone, possessed by an impure passion, falls into an unlawful relationship with two sisters, then do not recognize this as a marriage and generally accept such people into the church congregation not before they are separated from each other. So even if there was nothing more to say than this, then the custom itself would be sufficient to prevent the vice. But since the one who wrote the letter attempted to put this evil into practice through false evidence, it is necessary for us not to refuse the help of inferences, although in very clear matters everyone’s own conviction is more important than the arguments of reason. He says that in the book of Leviticus it is written: Do not take a wife along with her sister, to make her a rival, so as to expose her nakedness while she is alive (Lev. 18:18), from which it becomes clear, he continues, that if the wife dies, then you can take her sister. To this, first of all, I note: If the Law says anything, it speaks to those who are under the Law (Rom. 3:19), otherwise we will be subject to circumcision, the Sabbath, and abstinence from food. After all, of course, we cannot submit to the yoke of legal slavery only when we encounter something that corresponds to our voluptuous desires, and if we encounter something difficult, we must resort to freedom in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:1). When they asked us whether Scripture said that one can marry one’s wife’s sister, we answered what was clear and true for us, that is, that Scripture did not say such a thing. And to deduce from the addition to this phrase what was left out is the job of the legislator, not the interpreter of the law, otherwise, if anyone wants, he can dare to take her sister during his wife’s lifetime. After all, the same trick works for this. “It is written,” he will say, “do not take it in order to make it a rival; therefore, it is not forbidden to take it when there is no jealousy.” And whoever indulges passion will claim that the sisters have a non-jealous disposition. When the reason why cohabitation with both is prohibited is destroyed, then what prevents you from taking two sisters? But we will say that neither this is written nor that is defined, while the meaning of the inference makes both equally admissible 201 . It would be necessary to look back a little at the circumstances surrounding the law and thus free ourselves from difficulties. The legislator, apparently, does not speak about all types of sins, but prohibits the actual sins of the Egyptians, from whom Israel left, and the sins of the Canaanites, to whom he moved. And this is how it is written verbatim: Do not do the works of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, and do not do the works of the land of Canaan, where I am leading you, and do not walk in their statutes (Lev. 18:3). So, probably, this type of sin was not then widespread among these peoples, so that the legislator had no need to warn against it, but considered the innate tendency to turn away from vile things to be sufficient. Why, having prohibited more, kept silent about less? Because many carnalists, apparently, were harmed by the example of the patriarch, encouraging them to cohabit with sisters who were still alive. What should we do? Should I read what is written or be curious about what is not said? For example, these laws do not say that a father and son should not have the same concubine, but in the prophet this deserves the greatest censure. So, he says: A son and a father went in to one slave girl (Amos 2:7). And about how many other types of unclean passions, which were invented in the school of demons, the divine Scripture was silent, not wanting to desecrate its holiness by naming vile vices. It designates all unclean deeds by general names, just like St. Paul says: But fornication and all uncleanness must not even be called among you, as is fitting for saints (Eph. 5:3), the name of uncleanness including the indecent acts of both men and women. Therefore, silence does not at all promise the sensualist impunity. And I say that the legislator not only did not keep silent about this evil, but also very strictly forbade it. For what is said: Do not approach anyone who is close to you according to the flesh in order to reveal their nakedness (cf. Lev. 18:6) also implies this type of relationship. Indeed, what is closer to a husband than his wife, or, better said, his own flesh, because they are no longer two, but one flesh (Matthew 19:6)? Therefore, through the wife and her sister, she passes into the kinship of her husband. And because he will not take his wife’s mother or his wife’s daughter into marriage for the same reason that he does not take his mother and his daughter, so he will not take his wife’s sister for the same reason that he does not take his sister. In turn, it is not permissible for a wife to have cohabitation with her husband’s relatives, because the rights of kinship are common to both. And I testify to everyone who thinks about marriage that the image of this world is passing away and the time is already short, so that those who have wives must be as if they had not (1 Cor. 7:31 ~ and 29). If they point out to me the commandment to increase and multiply (Gen. 1:22), then I will laugh at him who does not know how to distinguish between the times of the law. The second marriage is a deterrent from fornication, and not an encouragement to debauchery. It is said: If they cannot abstain, let them marry (1 Cor. 7:9), but it is not said: “And if they trespass, let them break the law.” However, these people, blinding the soul with shameful passion 202, do not pay attention to nature, which has long distinguished the names of kinship. In what kind of relationship do they call those born? Will they be called siblings to each other or cousins ​​(ἀνεψιούς)? After all, both names suit them because of confusion. Do not, man, make your aunt a stepmother to your children and do not arm the one who should cherish them instead of their mother with irreconcilable jealousy. For only the stepmother’s hatred continues enmity even after death. It’s better to say that other enemies make peace with the dead, but stepmothers begin to hate only after death. And the conclusion from what has been said: if someone strives for marriage according to the law, then the whole universe is open to him, but if his desire is passionate, then because of this, let a large part be closed for him, so that he learns to keep his vessel in holiness, and not in the passion of lust (1 Thess. 4:5). I am ready to say more, but the length of the letter holds me back. I wish that either my advice turns out to be stronger than passion, or that this filth does not move to our country, but remains in those places where they dared to do so. After St. Vasily made an introduction to his message; he begins to refute this forged written permission to marry two sisters to the same man. He says that the first proof that such cohabitation is not permitted is a custom that has been established in the Church and received the force of law because it was handed down to us by holy men 204. This custom commands the following: if someone takes two sisters as wives, then this cannot be considered a marriage, and such cannot be accepted into the Church until they are separated. So, even if we could not name another obstacle to such lawless cohabitation, then church custom alone would be enough to prohibit it. But who showed the false message of Diodorus, in support of the permissibility of lawless cohabitation, cited evidence from the book of Leviticus, saying: “Do not take a rival wife, your wife’s sister, while she is still alive,” and drew from this the conclusion that if the law prohibits a person from taking his wife’s sister while she is alive, it means that it allows him to take her after the death of his wife. Therefore, we object to his baseless assertion as follows. First, what the old law says, it says to the Jews under the law, and not to us Christians. And if this is said for our sake, then, consequently, while accepting the pleasant commandments of the law, we must also accept the burdensome ones, that is, keep the Sabbath, perform circumcision, not eat food forbidden by the law, and not in such a way that we accept the pleasant and easy things as being under the law, and reject the burdensome and burdensome ones, saying that we are free in Christ. We were asked whether it is written that one can take one's wife's sister as a wife, and we answered that it is not written, and this is true and certain. And to draw a conclusion based on the sequence of speech about what Scripture is silent about is no longer characteristic of someone who wants to convey what is said in the law, but of someone who wants to establish the law on his own. After all, if one concluded that the law forbade a man to take his wife’s sister not after she died, but while she was alive, then someone else may conclude that since the law forbade taking a rival sister, it means that if she is not a rival, he can take her during his wife’s lifetime, in other words, he can take two sisters at the same time. And if someone objects that this is not written, we answer that that is not written either, but as one follows from the sequence of reasoning, so does the other. So why didn’t Moses add a special clause stating that you cannot take the sister of your dead wife? Resolving this bewilderment, the saint says that Moses did not have the goal of covering in this chapter of the book of Leviticus every type of kindred cohabitation, so as to talk about this, but he only forbade what the Egyptians, from whom the Jews were then leaving, did, and what the Canaanites, to whom they were heading, did. How is this clear? From the words that are given at the beginning of the same chapter: “Do not do as the Egyptians, to whom you were strangers, do, and do not do as the Canaanites, to whom I am leading you, do.” This means that this unlawful cohabitation did not exist among the Egyptians and Canaanites, which is why Moses did not add such a definition, but considered the custom that condemns it sufficient. But why did he decide that it was forbidden to take his wife’s sister while she was alive? Because I saw that many sensualists were striving for this, looking at the patriarch Jacob, who simultaneously had two sisters as wives, Leah and Rachel. But we must say what is written in the law, and not be curious about what is passed over in silence. Thus, the law was silent about the fact that a father and son cannot take one slave as a concubine, but the prophet Amos strongly condemns this, saying: “The father and son went in to one slave and committed fornication.” Demons taught people many other unclean deeds, but Divine Scripture, not wanting to desecrate its holiness by listing them in detail, kept silent about them, covering them with a general name, as Paul says: “Let not fornication and all uncleanness be named among you, as befits saints,” denoting by the name of uncleanness every shameful act of women and men. And therefore, it is not permissible for sensualists to enter into such lawless cohabitation, citing the fact that Divine Scripture is silent about this. However, after testing we discover that the law did not keep silent about this, but directly prohibited it. After all, what is said in the law: “Do not go in to any relative of yours to reveal his shame” applies to any illegal cohabitation by relationship and property, and therefore to this too. If a husband and wife are one flesh and there is no one closer and dearer to a husband than his flesh, i.e., his wife, then through her his wife’s sister becomes a relative and family member to her husband, i.e., a sister. And just as no one marries his wife’s mother or his wife’s daughter from another husband, because he does not marry both his mother and daughter because of kinship (after all, a marriage with one or the other is a marriage of the first degree of kinship), similarly, no one marries his wife’s sister, because he does not take his own sister as a wife (a marriage with both is a marriage of the second degree of kinship), and vice versa, a woman cannot marry the brother of her deceased husband or his other relatives. The saint cites the apostolic words that the image of this world is passing away and time is short, so that even those who have a legal wife need to live as if they do not have one. And if someone says that God gave the law to the first-born to grow and multiply and that the children of Adam, being brothers and sisters, entered into marriage, then I will laugh at the one who says so and does not see the difference: after all, then there was a need to do so, because there were no people from other clans, and now, when there are different clans, this is completely inappropriate 205. Moreover, a second marriage is not a means or occasion for wickedness, but an obstacle and a bridle for fornication. And Paul writes to those entering into a second marriage that if they cannot abstain, then let them marry, but does not add that those entering into a second marriage should break the law, as those who take two sisters as wives do. After this St. Vasily proves the inappropriateness of such cohabitation due to the confusion of names that follows it. Indeed, what will those who enter into such cohabitation name the children they give birth to? Siblings to each other, as if born from the same father? Or nephews (ἀνέψια), that is, cousins ​​206, as born from two sisters? After all, both of these names are suitable for them because of the mixture of nature, which, according to natural laws, made brothers and sisters both relatives and cousins. And not only this, but another confusion follows. After all, whoever takes the sister of his former wife makes the aunt of his children from a previous marriage a stepmother for them, and therefore a rival and envious person, whereas she should have cherished them instead of their mother. After all, every stepmother 207 naturally has jealousy towards her husband’s children born from another marriage. And if hatred towards other enemies decreases when the enemies die, then among stepmothers jealousy only begins with the death of their rival wives. And to briefly summarize everything: if someone wants to enter into a second marriage with a legitimate wife, then the whole universe is open to him, and, of course, he will find himself a wife who is not prohibited by law, but if he strives out of passionate love to take an illegitimate wife, then let this be excluded and not allowed for him in order for him to learn to observe his vessel, that is, his body, or his wife, in holiness, as the apostle says. Paul, and not in shameful passion. I wanted to write to you more, says St. Vasily, but the size of the letter did not allow me, because letters should not be verbose. I wish that my message either wins and destroys this illegal cohabitation, or if it doesn’t win, it at least prevents this evil from spreading in our region, but leaves it in those places where it was first dared. The same Basil's canonical letter to Gregory the presbyter I read your letter with all patience and wondered why you, when you could immediately easily justify yourself to us by the deed itself, intend to remain with your reprehensible deeds and try to heal the incurable with many words. We were not the first and we were not alone, Gregory, to legislate that women should not live together with men. Read the rule set forth by our holy fathers at the Council of Nicaea: it clearly prohibited having cohabiting women. A celibate life deserves respect because a man withdraws from cohabitation with a woman. Therefore, if someone, using the name of a virgin, actually acts like those living with their wives, then it is clear that, although he achieves the dignity of virginity by name, he does not abstain from shameful voluptuousness. All the more easily should you fulfill my request, since you yourself, as you say, are free from all carnal passion. And I don’t think that a 70-year-old would live with a woman out of passion, and what I have determined, I have determined not because anything indecent is being done, but because we are taught by the Apostle not to give a brother an opportunity for stumbling or temptation (Rom. 14:13). Meanwhile, we know that what some do sensibly serves as a reason for sin for others. For this reason, following the decree of the holy fathers, we commanded you to separate from this woman. And why do you blame the chorebishop and remember the old enmity? Why do you blame me for allegedly willingly inclining my ears to accept slander, and not myself for not being able to give up my habit of having a woman? Remove her from your home and place her in a monastery. Let her live with the virgins, and men serve you, so that the name of God is not blasphemed because of you (see Is. 52:5; Rom. 2:24). And as long as you do this, the thousands of excuses that you set out in letters will not bring you any benefit, but you will end your life prohibited from serving and you will give the Lord an answer for your prohibition. And if, without correcting yourself, you dare to keep the priesthood to yourself, then you will be anathema before all the people, and whoever accepts you will be declared excommunicated throughout the entire Church. (I Omni. 3; VI Om. 5; VII Om. 18, 22; Carthage. 45.) Since Gregory had a virgin nun in his house who served him, Basil the Great wrote to him to remove her. In response to this, Gregory put forward many excuses. Therefore, in this letter of St. Vasily first accuses him of the fact that he could easily justify himself by deed, sending this woman away from him, but instead he offered thousands of excuses. Then he says that it was not he himself, Vasily, who established such a law that clergy and clergy should not live with women, but the First Ecumenical Council in the 3rd rule, after which he adds that virgins and clergy are respected because they avoid communication with women. If one of them promises to lead a virgin life, and then lives with women, then he thereby shows that he only loves virginity in words, but in fact has not given up voluptuousness. So, says the saint, you should, Gregory, listen to us and expel the woman with the same readiness with which you claim that you are not at all partial to her. After all, the readiness to immediately expel this woman as soon as possible would precisely be proof of impartiality, because I myself will never believe that you, a 70-year-old man, live with a woman out of passion and for the sake of pleasure. But since we were taught by the Apostle not to give temptation to our neighbors, and since what some do without passion and sin (which you are doing now), for others, passionate, becomes the reason and reason for sin, we have ordered you to drive a woman out of your house, following the 3rd rule of the Council of Nicaea. And do not blame either the chorebishop, as if he told me about this woman out of enmity towards you, or me, because I easily trust slander, but blame yourself for not wanting to part with the woman. So, remove her and place her in a monastery, and let her live with virgins and nuns, and let you, as a man, be served by men, so that because of you the name of God will not be blasphemed by the infidels who see you. And know that if you do not drive away this woman, then all those thousands of excuses that you give will not help you, but you will die prohibited from the priesthood and you yourself, as the guilty one, will give an account for this prohibition, and not I 208. If you dare to perform any priestly action before correction, you will be anathematized by all the people, and those who accept you will be expelled from every Church. The same Basil's canonical letter to the chorebishops It is very regrettable for me that the paternal rules have been abandoned and all severity has been expelled from the Churches, and I am afraid that because of this gradually increasing indifference, the affairs of the Church will come into complete disorder. According to the ancient custom established in the Churches of God, church ministers were accepted after a strict test in everything. Their behavior was carefully examined from all sides: are they not slanderers, are they drunkards, are they not prone to quarrels, are they curbing their youth so as to become capable of achieving holiness, without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). Such a test was carried out by the presbyters and deacons who lived with these ministers, and announced them to the chorebishops, who, having received feedback from those who testified truthfully and notifying the bishop, thus ranked the minister among the ranks of clergy. And now, firstly, by removing me and not agreeing to notify me, you have assumed full power; secondly, showing disdain for the matter, they allowed the presbyters and deacons to introduce unworthy people into the Church, without testing, whomever they wanted out of passion, or because of kinship, or because of some other friendly ties. Therefore, in every village there are many ministers, but there is not a single one worthy to serve the altar, as you yourself testify to this, having difficulty finding people during elections. So, since the matter has finally reached an irreparable state, especially now, when very many, fearing conscription for military service, enroll as clergymen, I, of necessity, began to renew the paternal rules and instruct you to send me a list of clergymen in each village with the meaning of who is determined by whom and what kind of life they have. Keep a similar list for yourself, so that you can compare your entries with those stored with me, and so that no one can write themselves in whenever they want. Thus, if some were appointed presbyters after the first year of the indictment, then let them be expelled to the rank of laity. And let you undertake research about them again, and if they turn out to be worthy, then let them be accepted according to your decision. Cleanse the Church by removing the unworthy from it! And henceforth test those who are worthy of being accepted, just do not count them among the clergy until you present them to me; otherwise, know that anyone accepted into the clergy without my knowledge will remain a layman. (Ancir. 13; Neocesar. 14; Antioch. 8, 10; Laodice. 57; Sardik. 6.) In this message, Basil the Great accuses the chorebishops of violating the ancient order that was accepted in the Church. It consisted of the following: the presbyters and deacons first tested those who were going to become ministers of the Church, that is, subdeacons, readers or exorcists (about them, see the note to VI Ecum. 15), and found out whether they were blasphemers, drunkards, and whether they curbed the carnal aspirations of youth; They themselves chose them in this way, but announced their choice to the chorebishops, and they, in turn, to the bishops, and then they enrolled them in the clergy. But now, says the saint, everything is done wrong. Presbyters and deacons do not test such candidates, but choose their relatives and friends out of bias, and chorebishops do not report candidates to the bishops. Because of this violation, in every village there are many subdeacons, readers and exorcists, but not a single one who is worthy of becoming a priest. Therefore St. Vasily commands the chorebishops to send him a list of ministers, from which it would be clear by which chorebishop who was accepted into the clergy and what kind of life this person lived, and also commands them to have a copy of this list themselves, so that anyone cannot enroll in it whenever they wish. And those ministers (says Basil) who were chosen by the presbyters alone after the first year of the indictment should be expelled to the rank of laity, and after you, the chorebishops, have tested them anew, let them be accepted by your own decision. When expelling the unworthy from the Church, henceforth accept the worthy, but do not count them among the clergy until you inform me about this matter, because the one who is accepted by you as a minister without my permission will be deprived of service and expelled to the rank of the laity. See note. to I Omni. 8 and Carthage. 39, as well as note. to Apost. 17. His canonical letter to the bishops subordinate to him 209 The unprecedented nature of the case about which I am writing, just because it became the subject of suspicion and rumor, filled my soul with sorrow, and even to this day this case seems incredible to me. Therefore, let the one who recognizes himself guilty of this matter take a letter about this as medicine, and whoever does not realize it - as a warning, and an indifferent person (which I don’t want to find among you) - as evidence against himself. What am I talking about? It is reported that some of you take money from those being ordained, hiding behind the name of piety. And this is even worse. After all, if someone does evil under the guise of good, then he is worthy of double punishment, since he does something that in itself is not good, and to commit a sin, one might say, resorts to the help of good. If this is really the case, then let this not happen in the future, but the evil will be corrected, for the one who takes the money must say the same thing that was said by the apostles to the one who wanted to buy the possession of the Holy Spirit with silver: Let your silver perish with you (Acts 8:20). After all, the one who, out of ignorance, wants to buy the gift of God sins more easily than the one who sells it, because the sale has been made; and if you sell what you yourself received for free, as if you had been sold to Satan, then you will be deprived of your gift for the fact that you are starting a trade in spiritual matters and in the Church, where we have been entrusted with the Body and Blood of Christ. This shouldn't happen. I will also tell you what kind of cunning they use: they think that they do not sin, because they do not take it before ordination, but after it. But whenever you take it, it still means take it. Therefore, I beg you, leave this income, or better yet, this entrance to Gehenna, and, by desecrating your hands with such profits, do not make yourself unworthy to perform the holy sacraments. Forgive me that at first I didn’t believe it, but now, having become convinced, I threaten. If anyone does anything like this after this letter, then let him retreat from the local altars and look for a place where he can buy and resell the gift of God. But we and the Church of God do not have such a custom (1 Cor. 11:16). By adding one word, I will end my speech. Such things are done out of the love of money, and the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10) and is called idolatry (see Col. 3:5). Therefore, for the sake of a small amount of silver, do not prefer idols to Christ and do not become new imitators of Judas, for the sake of profit a second time betraying Him who was crucified once for us, because both the villages and the hands of those who receive such fruits are called Akeldama (see Acts 1:19; Matt. 27:8). The Divine Basil, having learned that the bishops subordinate to him took money from those ordained by them, writes this letter to them and says that this matter seemed incredible to him, which, as soon as it was noticed and became public, caused him great sorrow. And therefore what I write says St. Vasily, let the one who has committed lawlessness accept it as a cure for his vice, and the one who has not committed it - as a medicine that prevents illness. The indifferent one, that is, the one who commits this evil and does not think at all that he is doing evil (I pray to God that this vice of indifference does not exist among you) 210, let him accept this message as a command and a threat. So, some say that you accept money from those ordained and cover up this vice in the name of piety, saying that you allegedly do this for good and pious reasons, 211 and this is even worse. After all, the one who commits evil and then pretends to do good is worthy of double punishment: both for doing evil and for using good, or rather the name of good, as a means and pretext for doing evil. And therefore, if this is the case, this should not happen in the future, and the situation should be corrected 212, because we will also have to turn to those who want to take money for ordinations with the words that St. Peter said to Simon: Let your silver perish with you. Moreover, the sin of the one who gives silver is easier, because out of ignorance he tries to acquire what he does not have; and you, the taker, because you sell the grace you received freely, like a slave sold to the devil, will be deprived of it, i.e. expelled because you bring dirty and dishonest trade (and this is what the word “trade” means) into the Church, in which we are entrusted with the most honest and most honorable Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, because you are dishonestly selling the Mysteries of Christ, which surpass all honor, like a merchant. And since the bishops cunningly hid this sin, believing that it is not sinful to take money after ordination, the saint tells them that whenever they take such money, before or during ordination, they take it, which means they sin. So, I beg you, St. calls them. Vasily, reject the profit that leads you to hell, and do not become unworthy to celebrate the Divine Mysteries, desecrating your hands with criminal money. And anyone of you who, after this command, does anything like that will be banned from the priesthood here in my region, and let him go to where he can buy and resell the grace of God, because we and the Churches of God do not have such a custom, as the apostle says. Paul. There is no doubt that you are selling the grace of God because of the love of money, and the love of money is the root of all evil, and Paul calls it idolatry. So do not prefer idols to Christ and do not imitate Judas, betraying Christ, who was crucified once for us, for pieces of silver a second time. Know that just as the field purchased with those 30 pieces of silver for which Christ was betrayed was called Akeldama, according to what was said in the Acts (“Akeldama” means “place and price of blood”), so the hands of the bishops who receive such money, as well as the parishes and villages of those who give and take it, will be called the place and price of blood. The same Basil from the 27th chapter of the letter to Amphilochius on the Holy Spirit Of the dogmas and sermons preserved by the Church, we have one in the form of teaching set forth in Scripture, and the other we accepted from the apostolic tradition as transmitted to us in secret. But both have equal force for piety, and no one will argue with this if he is at least a little knowledgeable in church decrees. Indeed, if we began to reject customs not set forth in Scripture as having no great power, then in an unnoticeable way we would distort the Gospel in the most important way, and moreover, we would turn preaching into an empty name. For example (let me first remind you of the first and most common one), who taught through Scripture that those who have placed their trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign the sign of the cross? What Scripture taught us to turn to the east in prayer? Which saint left us in writing the words of invocation during the consecration of the Bread of Thanksgiving and the Cup of Blessing? For we are not content with those words that are given in the Apostle or the Gospel, but before and after them we pronounce others, as having great power in the sacrament, having accepted them from a teaching not set forth in Scripture. Based on what Scripture do we bless the water of baptism, the anointing oil, and the person being baptized? Is it not on the basis of a silent and mysterious tradition? What else? What written word taught us about anointing with oil itself? Where does the triple immersion of a person come from? From what Scripture are the other things that happen at baptism taken - to deny Satan and his angels? Is it not from this unpublicized and hidden teaching, which our fathers observed in unquestioning and modest silence, for they were well taught to protect the holiness of the sacraments by silence? Was it wise to divulge in writing a teaching about something that the uninitiated should not even look at? And among other things, the purpose of the unwritten tradition is so that the knowledge of dogmas, after long exercises in it, having become a habit, does not become easily despised by many. After all, one is dogma, and another is preaching. Dogmas are kept silent, and the sermon is made public. But the obscurity that Scripture uses, making it difficult for the readers to understand the meaning of dogmas, is also a type of silence. Therefore, during prayers, we all look to the east, but not many of us know that at the same time we are looking for the ancient fatherland, the paradise that God planted in Eden in the east 214. So on the first day after Sabbath, we perform prayers while standing upright, but not everyone knows the reason for this. For we do this not only because we, as those who have risen with Christ and are obliged to seek things above on Sunday, by standing during prayer we remind ourselves of the grace given to us, but also because this day, apparently, is, as it were, an image of the hoped-for age. Therefore, being the beginning of days, Moses calls it not first, but one: And there was evening, and there was morning: one day (Gen. 1:5), since the same day returns many times. So, he is both one and eighth, representing the truly one and truly eighth day, which the psalmist mentioned in some of the inscriptions of the psalms (see Ps. 6 and 11), that state that will follow the present time, that unceasing, non-evening, unchanging day, that endless and ageless age. Therefore, the Church, of necessity, teaches her children to pray standing on this day, so that with the frequent reminder of endless life, we do not neglect to provide ourselves with parting words for moving there. And all of Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in eternity, because that one and first day, multiplied seven times by seven, constitutes seven weeks of holy Pentecost. So, starting with the first day, it also ends with it, turning 50 times through the same intermediate days. In this way, Pentecost imitates eternity, because in a circular movement it begins with the same signs and ends with the same ones. On Pentecost, church regulations taught us to prefer an upright position of the body in prayer, with this clear reminder, as if moving our mind from the present to the future. And every time we kneel and stand up, we show by action that through sin we fell to the earth and were called to heaven by the love of our Creator. Not even a day will be enough for me to recount all the sacraments of the Church that are not set forth in Scripture. I'll leave the rest. The confession of faith itself - faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit from what Scriptures do we have? After all, if, on the basis of the tradition of baptism, as piety requires, we set forth a confession in accordance with baptism, since we are obliged to believe as we are baptized, then let us be allowed, in the same accordance, to give glory in accordance with faith. And if they reject the image of doxology as not set forth in Scripture, then let them give us the evidence set forth in Scripture for the confession of faith and everything else that we have listed. Moreover, when there is so much that is not stated in Scripture and, however, has such great power in the sacrament of piety, will they really not allow us one word that has come down to us from the fathers? It is, as we have found, preserved in intact Churches by a custom naturally observed, and is of no small importance, and gives much of the power to the sacrament. The Doukhobors condemned the doxology of the Holy Spirit, which Basil the Great had once proposed together with the Orthodox, concluding it in such a short troparion: Glory to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit. This troparion glorifies the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the Son and, therefore, proves His consubstantiality with Them. And since the Doukhobors condemned this troparion and said that this preposition “with” is not in the Divine Scripture, Basil the Great shows in this rule that not only this preposition “with,” but also much else that can be found in the Church is absent in the Holy Scripture, but is invariably preserved along with what is written in Scripture. For what is preserved by the Church can, in general, be divided into two types: dogmas and preaching, and the sermon is recorded in the Old Testament and especially in the New, why it is proclaimed to everyone, and the dogmas are transmitted through the secret apostolic tradition, not written down, but oral, why they are kept silent about them and they remain secret for the majority. Nevertheless, both have the same force for faith, since if we begin to reject unwritten church customs as having no force, then we will do great harm to the faith preached to us in the Gospel, turning it into an empty name 215. After this, the saint lists what is observed according to unwritten tradition, such as the sign of the cross 216 and turning to the east when praying. There are also no words in Scripture that the priest pronounces during the transubstantiation of the Divine Mysteries 217, because the priest pronounces not only the Lord’s words 218 and not only the words of the Apostle, but also adds other words, before and after the Lord’s, which are not written in the Divine Scripture, but are known from secret tradition and have great power when performing the sacraments. It is also not written about the blessing of water, oil and the person being baptized during baptism, and about the fact that everyone needs to be baptized through three immersions and uprisings, and about denial from Satan and union with Christ, which is usually done by those who come to be baptized. The reason why the fathers (i.e., the apostles or their successors) did not write down the dogmas, but transmitted them secretly, that is, not through Scripture, but through the unwritten word, is that otherwise the dogmas would have been studied in detail and, out of habit, many would have easily neglected them. And the fathers knew well that by silence the mystical is preserved in holiness and glory, and that if the unbaptized cannot even look at the symbols of the sacraments, then it is all the more impermissible to spread the teaching of the sacraments among them, committing it to scripture. And the very ambiguity that the Divine Scripture (especially the Old Testament) uses, making the meaning of dogmas difficult to comprehend for the benefit of the readers, is also a type of silence. Having said this, the saint then explains the meaning and reasons for some secret unwritten customs, for example: when we pray, we turn to the east, because we are looking for our fatherland, that is, paradise planted in the east; We pray standing on Sunday not only because we have risen with Christ by faith and must seek the highest, but also because Sunday is, apparently, a kind of image and seal of the future century, in which everyone will be resurrected. Therefore Moses calls this day, as the beginning of days, not the first, but one. This is also the eighth of the previous days, according to the Theologian, truly representing the eighth, non-evening and unchanging day, which will come after the end of this seven-day age. David also points to this day in some of the inscriptions of the psalms, namely the 6th and 11th, inscribing them “about the eighth” 219. The entire Pentecost is also a reminder of the resurrection expected in the next century, because just as the circumference of a circle begins at one point, goes around one center and ends at the same point, which is why the circle seems to have no beginning and end, so Pentecost begins from the Resurrection (Lightbringer) and, turning through six intermediate Sundays, ends on the eighth Sunday, which is why it is also similar to the century to which it is characteristic beginninglessness and infinity, according to Gregory the Theologian (Word for the Nativity of Christ) 220 221. And since Pentecost is also an image of the future century, church rules (meaning I Ecumenical 20, read it) instruct us to pray standing, and not kneeling. And this is so that the upright position of the body transfers our mind from the present age to the future, because every time we kneel and rise, we thereby show that by sin we were brought down to earth, and by the love of God we were raised to heaven (see note to I Om. 20). Then the saint adds: I leave all the other unwritten sacraments of the Church and ask from what Scripture did we take the confession of faith, that is, “we believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” if quoted verbatim? If the Doukhobors say that this is from the tradition of the Lord about baptism, since He said: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 222, then let us be allowed to give praise to the Trinity in accordance with faith, since our confession of faith is in accordance with baptism, i.e., since we say that we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then let us be allowed say “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” or “with the Holy Spirit.” And if they claim that this doxology is not in Scripture, then we answer that there is no confession of faith, and everything else that we said above. And if the Doukhobors agree with so many unwritten traditions that are so important for the faith, then why don’t they allow us one word contained in this doxology, i.e. the preposition “with” or the conjunction “and”, which is transmitted by the fathers of the Orthodox Eastern Church (and especially by Gregory, the miracle worker of the Neocaesarian Church), when this word is of great importance for the belief in the Holy Trinity 223 ? The same Vasily from the 29th chapter of the same work And to the objection that the doxology “with (σύν) the Spirit” is not attested and not reflected in Scripture, we answer: if nothing else is accepted that is not set forth in Scripture, then let this not be accepted, and if very much concerning the sacraments and not set forth in Scripture is used among us, then together with many other things we will accept this too. And I think that to adhere to traditions not set forth in Scripture is an apostolic institution. After all, the apostle says: I praise you, brethren, because you remember everything that is mine and keep the traditions as I handed them down to you (1 Cor. 11:2) and keep the traditions that you received either by word or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15). One of these traditions is, of course, the present doxology, which the original founders passed on to their successors and, by long-term custom (it was used constantly for a long time), took root in the Churches. And if, in the absence of written evidence, we presented you with many witnesses, as in court, then would we really not receive an acquittal from you? I think they would have received it, because in the mouth of two witnesses, or in the mouth of three witnesses, every word stands (Deut. 19:15). And if we clearly proved to you that the statute of limitations is in our favor, then would you not recognize the justice of our words that we should not be subjected to trial? After all, ancient dogmas in some way inspire reverence: antiquity, like some kind of gray hair, makes them worthy of respect. And this rule reports on unwritten church traditions, saying that the Doukhobors do not accept the glorification of the Father and the Son “with the Spirit” due to the fact that it is not in Scripture. However, if we do not accept any other custom that is not attested by Scripture, then let this one not be accepted, but if there are many such customs in the Church, then let the doxology of the Spirit with the Father and the Son be accepted with the others. After all, the apostle taught us to keep the unwritten traditions: I praise you, brethren, that you remember everything that is mine and keep the traditions as I handed them down to you. And one more thing: Keep the traditions that you were taught either by word or by our message. One of these traditions is the doxology of the Holy Spirit, which our ancestors, passing on to subsequent generations, rooted in the Churches through long-term use and custom. And therefore, if, suppose, we were to go to court for doxology “with the Holy Spirit” and, without written evidence, brought many witnesses, then wouldn’t we win? Of course, they would have prevailed, because in the mouth of two witnesses, or in the mouth of three witnesses, every word will stand. And if we had also proved that both antiquity and longevity assist us in this matter, then wouldn’t the trial against us itself be completely unnecessary, since it would immediately become clear that victory is ours? After all, customs that have been established since ancient times evoke respect for them in everyone and convince everyone, because they are worthy of respect and reverence for their antiquity 224. And then the saint refers in the same chapter to many ancient witnesses, especially to the saints who wrote about this, who sometimes glorified like this: “Glory to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit,” and sometimes like this: “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 225. Garnier in the life of Basil, placed in the 3rd volume of the saint’s writings (part 8, p. 60), says that he was born in 316, and Udin (On Church Writers. Vol. 1. P. 543) - in 328. Socrates (book 4, chapter 26) says that Basil was ordained deacon by Meletius of Antioch (PG 67, 529B.). Theologian in the funeral homily for Basil (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 43. 28–31 // PG 36, 533C-540A.) and Nikephoros Callistus, book. 11, ch. 18 (PG 146, 621D-624C.). Garnier, there, and Fabricius. Theodorite. Story. Book 4, ch. 19 (Theod. Cyr. Hist. eccl. IV, 16 (19) // PG 82, 1160B-1161A.). The theologian in epigrams: “For eight years you held the reins of the godly people” (Greg. Nazianz. Epitaph. 119 // PG 38, 75A.). Consequently, all the years of his life are 49, and not 45, as it is written in his life. It remains to say that, according to Garnier, Vasily lived 62 years, and according to Oudin - 50 years. Photius (code 141) (Phot. Bibl. 141 // PG 103, 420C-421A.) says about his style: “Basily the Great is excellent in all his writings. He skillfully, like no one else, speaks pure, clear and strong style, and is generally skilled both in words dedicated to public events and in speeches of praise. In terms of harmony and clarity of thought, he is the first and is not inferior to anyone. The very persuasiveness, grace and brilliance, he flows with words and, as if inadvertently, paves the way. And in his gift of persuasion, he achieved the point that if someone takes his words as a model of political speech, then carefully studies them, of course, without being himself ignorant of the laws of this art, then, I think, he will no longer need anyone else: neither Plato nor Demosthenes.” The VII Ecumenical Council (in Act 6) called this divine Basil “great both in word and in deed.” And Isidore Pelusiot in his 61st letter speaks of him as “our inspired father Basil” (PG 78, 224A.). In other sources, “prescriptions” (προστάξεως), which is more suitable. In other sources “Zoina” (Zωΐν) or “Zoia” (Zώϊον). Therefore, George Scholarius, in his word against simony, calls anyone who directly or indirectly distorts any of the tenets of faith a heretic (Gennad. Schor. De haer. Simon. // PG 160, 733D.). And civil laws say: anyone who deviates from the right faith even in the slightest is a heretic and the laws on heretics apply to him. Tarasius at the first meeting of the VII Council said: “It makes no difference to sin against small or great dogmas, for both deny the law of God.” Here are the words of Photius from a letter to Pope Nicholas: “Truly it is necessary for everyone to preserve the common tradition, and above all that which concerns faith. To deviate here and in small things means to sin a sin unto death” (Phot. Ep. I, 2 // PG 102, 604C.). And heretics differ from infidels insofar as heretics wrongly understand Christian teaching, while infidels do not at all accept the economic incarnation of God the Word (Meletius. Church History, p. 71). Look at this twice. 13. Just as a member, if cut off from the body, immediately dies because it no longer receives vital force, so, in the same way, they, once separated from the body of the Church, immediately became dead and lost spiritual grace and the action of the Holy Spirit, since this was no longer transmitted to them through the joints and ligaments connecting the body, that is, through unity in the Spirit. However, pay attention that, according to Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 968), even an unauthorized gathering is a type of schism; and although it is not yet a heresy, but, having mistakenly separated and existed, it turns into a heresy. Therefore II Omni. 6 and classifies as heretics those who have a sound faith, but have separated from the Church and form secret societies in opposition to the properly appointed bishops. And schismatics are schismatic-heretics, because Augustine (letter 101) says that there is no schism unless a heresy is first invented, so that it seems that the schismatics are separated from the Church by right. And in ch. 11 of the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, he argues that the schism, existing due to error, turns into heresy or approaches heresy, although it is not the difference in faith that makes schismatics, but the dissolved unity of communication (Ibid.) (Aug. Hipp. Quaest. in Matt. I, 11. 2 // PL 35, 1367–1368.). And if Basil, this great father, considered it necessary to baptize these schismatics because they distorted the custom of baptism, then how much more appropriate is it to baptize the Latins who distorted, or rather, completely distorted the tradition of baptism and who, moreover, are not only schismatics, but also obvious heretics? Please note that this rule, from the words “and we should judge the trick of the Encratites” to the end, is given in the 1st act of the VII Council. In the book of Exodus, ch. 21, verse 22, it is written that if someone happens to hit a pregnant woman and she miscarries, then if it is shapeless and imperfect, let the one who hit pay as much money as the woman’s husband demands from him, because this fetus is not yet a perfect person, since it does not have a rational soul, according to Theodoret’s explanation (Theod. Sur. Quaest. in Ex. 48 // PG 80, 273A.) and Diodorus (Diod. Tars. In Ex. 21. 22 // PG 33, 1584AB.). If the fruit is formed and perfect, let the one who kills it be killed as the murderer of a perfect person who has a perfect body and a rational soul. And Basil the Great says that we now do not monitor the observance of this, because the one who kills the fruit, albeit imperfect and formless, is a murderer. After all, even if this fruit is not yet a perfect person, but of necessity, according to the immutable laws of nature, it had to become perfect. Some here understood communion as communion of the Divine Mysteries, but this passage is not interpreted that way, but in accordance with our explanation. This also explains the 32nd rule of the same father in these words: “Clerics who sin by sin leading to death are demoted from their degree, but are not deprived of communion with the laity, for do not take revenge twice for the same thing.” So, such a cleric stands with the laity and is not expelled from the Church, however, he does not partake of the Mysteries, as some say, because the 44th rule of the same saint says: “A deaconess who has fallen into fornication with a pagan must be accepted into communion (that is, with the faithful), and is allowed to offer (this is the offering of the Mysteries) in the seventh year.” Interpreters say that for copulation with a pagan, a severe punishment was imposed on her. So, for the deacon, let the same punishment be excommunication from the Mysteries, but perhaps less than for those who fall into fornication, for example, four years (and the punishment for fornicators was determined by the same saint). Some say that the saint here calls the rules of other Councils “custom”, and “acrivia” his own. But both the custom and the acrivia, which the saint mentions here, are also contained in other rules, and especially in the rules of I Om. 12 and VI Omni. 102. But the truth is that regarding clergy expelled for carnal sins, only the present canon of the saint makes a separate determination according to the mentioned acrivia. The rules of others make a determination about them according only to custom, and this is a dethronement from the degree. Please note that the spiritual father can show leniency to a deposed person who has retained the acrivia and allow him to receive Holy Communion after a shorter time for the sake of his ardent repentance, but in no case can he allow him to have the holy rank at the same time, let him not! After all, the rule says that such a thing is cast out forever. You need to know that such a deacon, like all clergy in general, defrocked and relegated to the place of the laity, first changes his appearance, that is, he is deprived of the right to look like a clergyman, and then is expelled to the place of the laity, as is clearly defined by the rule of the VI Ecumenical. 21. It is not proper, and indeed indecent, for them to stand among the laity, looking like clerics. And the fact that the erupted changed their appearance is also said by Balsamon in his interpretation of the rule of Vasily the Great. 44. The rule of Neokesar says the same thing. 1. That is, from communion of the Holy Mysteries. Please note that according to this rule, the bishop cannot allow ordained clergy and monks to get married, not only if fornication has occurred, but also if it has not occurred. As one didaskal argues, sodomy is such a terrible thing that God Himself personally descended to earth to see whether such a sin was truly being committed. God seemed not to fully believe that such terrible depravity could be found on earth. After all, He says this about the homosexuals, the inhabitants of Sodom: Therefore, I will go down and see whether they do exactly what the cry is against them that comes to Me, or not; I will know (Gen.18:21). St. Jerome says that because of this sin alone, the Son of God delayed for so many thousands of years to become a man. Therefore, pious kings, following the indicated Divine law, put homosexuals to death. Both Justinian, according to Zonara (book 3), and Theodosius the Great first confiscated all the property of the godless homosexuals, then put them to shame and painful death. And Valentinian publicly burned homosexuals. Kings Leo and Constantine in the “Eclogue of Laws” (Greco-Roman Law. Tit. 28, p. 128) say that debauchees - both those who commit and suffer corruption - must be beheaded with the sword. If the one who is being molested is under 12 years of age, let him be forgiven for the sake of his minority. Gregory of Nyssa, citing the words that God said about the Sodomites: the cry of Sodom - etc. (Gen. 18:20), says: “Let us be afraid, brethren, and let fear overtake us, for the danger is not small, because, as God says, this sin is very great.” Plato said that pederasty is not the work of man, but of four-legged animals, although even four-legged animals do not commit this unnatural act (Piat. Phaedr. // TLG 0059/012. 250e4.). The Divine Chrysostom says that for those young men who agree to endure this, it would be better to die than to accept such great dishonor: “It is better to die than to live in such a reproach, because no matter what sin you call, none will be equal to this iniquity. And if those falling into it realized what was happening to them, they would accept thousands of deaths, just not to endure this” (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom, in Rom. 4. 2 // PG 60, 419.). Therefore, even among the Hellenes, young men, although they were deprived of the light of faith, preferred to be killed rather than to give themselves up to reproach. Thus, Plutarch narrates that when the dissolute Aristodemus heard that a certain young man remarkable for his beauty lived in Piraeus, he equipped a ship and went there to dishonor him. The young man, having learned about this, climbed onto the roof of the house and, throwing himself down, committed suicide. “Rising,” says Plutarch, “to the roof, he threw himself down and died” (See: TLG 0007/ 082. 234.B.12-C.5; TLG 0007/114. 773.F.3–774.A.1.). See p. 333 "Pipes". Therefore, Attaliatus, in the synopsis of the laws (Greco-Roman Law. Tit. 71, book 2. p. 64) says that if someone is forced to commit debauchery, he can kill the rapist with impunity. Patriarch Luke of Constantinople, resolving with his Council some issues set out in surviving manuscripts, says that those who fall into sodomy cannot marry each other’s sisters. This refers to the case if husbands do not want to be with them; and if they wish to remain with them, they do not divorce, even when the wives have fallen into fornication or adultery. Both Justinian and Leo the Wise understood this rule in this way in their laws. They said that if husbands forgive their wives the sin of adultery or fornication, they will accept their wives again without any hindrance for two years thereafter. This refers to a case where both were initially unbelievers, and after that the wife believed, and the husband remained in disbelief. In other sources, “εὐδοκοῦνται” (“have no favor”), as Zonara also interpreted. In other sources “in Almonds”. There is no such rule anywhere, unless the holy rule calls the advice given by Athanasius the Great to Dracontius. To convince him to accept the episcopal see, Athanasius writes like this: “Even if you gave your word, and a word is like an oath for the saints, then read about Jeremiah (Jer. 20:9), as he himself did, saying: I will not remember the name of the Lord, and later, fearing that the word had become fire in him, I did not do as I said, and did not hide, as if previously bound by an oath, but, in reverence for Him Who entrusted him with the work, fulfilled the prophetic ministry” (vol. 1, p. 956) (Athanas. Alex. Ad Drac. 2 // PG 25b, 529AB.). See how Basil the Great, with the help of reasoning and subtle study of the words of the oath, found a way to convince that the repentant does not violate his oath. Similarly, the 11 tribes of Israel, after they destroyed the entire tribe of Benjamin except for 600 people for fornication with the Levite’s wife, swore that they would not give the remaining wives of their own free will. Later, in order to keep the oath unbreakable, according to an unknown interpreter, and at the same time so that these 600 people would not be left without wives and the tribe of Benjamin would not completely perish, they resorted to cunning. They took 400 girls from the city of Jabesh-gilead, whose inhabitants did not go to war. And the remaining 200 Benjamites were ordered to kidnap 200 other girls who were dancing in circles in Shiloh. And thus they kept the oath, and preserved the tribe of Benjamin. See also chap. 21 books of Judges. Not because this is the number of years of penance imposed on unwitting murderers (unwitting murderers are punished by the 57th rule of the same Vasily for 10, not 11 years), but because this person has already spent the prescribed number of years under prohibition. Why didn’t the ancient fathers assign penance to those who killed in war, and Basil the Great deprived them of communion for three years? This bewilderment is resolved by God Himself in the book of Numbers. It says: Jews who returned from the war with the Midianites must remain outside the camp for seven days, wash their clothes and cleanse themselves, and then enter the camp. And you shall remain outside the camp seven days; Whoever kills and touches the murdered one, be clean... and wash your clothes on the seventh day, and be clean, and after that enter into the camp (Num. 31:19 ~ and 24). According to the interpretation of Philo the Jew, the reason for this command is that, although the killing of enemies was legal, whoever kills a person, whether justly, or out of revenge, or involuntarily and forcibly, obviously falls into sin and crime, since he kills a person akin to himself, of the same nature as himself. And therefore, the Jews who killed the Midianites in war, even justly, even as enemies, even in vengeance (after all, it was God who said to Moses: Avenge the Midianites for the children of Israel (Numbers 31:2)), however, as those who killed people similar to themselves by nature, they are guilty of the sin of murder and must be cleansed from sin by a seven-day cleansing outside the camp. The same reason is indicated by Procopius and an unknown interpreter, explaining the above sayings; they do not say, as some do, that the reason is that the Jews took captive the Midianite women. After all, the Jews performed the seven-day purification after the murder of the married Midianite women, and not before it, as becomes clear from the indicated chapter. Following this example of Scripture, Basil the Great advises that it would be good for those who killed in war to abstain from communion for three years, because they were defiled by the blood of their own kindred people, and, perhaps, also because they turned out to be capable of harming God’s creation and destroying it (see also note to Apostle 66). The saint offers this rule without insistence and in the form of advice, because he honors and respects the ancient fathers who left such murderers without penance, and because he has wise humility and reverence. And the fact that this is the rule of St. Basil was accepted by the Church as a mandatory rule, definition and law, and not just as unobtrusive advice, as evidenced by an incident from history that occurred under Emperor Nikephoros Phocas. Both interpreters of the rules (Zonara and Balsamon) and Dositheus (Twelve Books, p. 533) talk about him. This emperor demanded that Christian soldiers killed in the war with the barbarians be considered martyrs and, like them, honored and glorified. But the Patriarch and the Council of Bishops opposed this and, unable to convince the emperor, finally presented this rule to St. Basil, as a rule, said: “How can we count among the martyrs those killed in the war, when Basil the Great excommunicated them for three years from the sacraments as having unclean hands?” In addition, according to Valsamon, Basil himself sets out the present rule, set out as advice, in the 55th rule as definite and obligatory, because he excommunicates from communion the laity who killed the robbers who attacked them. True, Zonara says that this advice of the saint, or rather, the rule, seems painful and harsh, because for Christian soldiers who participate in continuous wars, these three years will never expire, which means they will never receive communion. Nevertheless, we confirm that soldiers cannot receive communion during the war, but only three years after it. The difficulty that St. solves. Basil, lies in the grammatical combination of words of the Greek text (Ps. 8:9): τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ τοὺς ἰχθύας τῆς θαλάσστς, τὰ διαπορευόμετα τρίβους θαλασσῶν, where τὰ διαπορευόμετα (passing), agreed in the genus with τὰ πετεινὰ (birds), and not with τοὺς ἰχθύας (fish). The Divine Augustine (interpretation of the 8th Psalm) understood the sea coast as the paths of the sea, which means that by passing the paths of the sea he understood all the animals that live on the sea coasts, for example: crabs, mollusks, snails, etc. The difficulty is caused by the word κύριος, which in Greek means both Lord and lord. Since these girls were ranked among the rank of virgins only after they had achieved the fullness of reason, took a vow of virginity, passed a long-term test of fidelity to this vow and were accepted with prayer, and in addition, after being ranked as virgins, they wore monastic clothes, as Athanasius the Great says (in his word on virginity) (Athanas. Alex. De virgin. 11 // PG 28, 264B.) and as evidenced by VI Om. 45 and Carthage. 135, then we can assume that these virgins were similar to modern nuns. And Balsamon believes that even if a person has not taken monastic vows (as these virgins did not), but only wears a cassock (like them), he can no longer throw off the cassock and get married, but must return to monastic life, as many times, Balsamon notes, we have already talked about this. See note about this. to VI Omni. 43. Note that the Church does not accept heretics without baptism, although the Second Ecumenical Council, by the 7th rule on economy, accepted some heretics in this way. Therefore, the Latins who are heretics must be baptized. See also note. to Apost. 46. Why does the same Basil the Great, in the 59th rule, define penance for a fornicator for seven years, but in this rule only for four years? Mainly because such (i.e., four-year) penance was given to fornicators by the fathers before Basil. So, the Ankir rule. 20 adultery is punished by seven years, and since adultery is a double sin in comparison with fornication, according to the rule of Gregory Nys. 4, therefore, the same fathers in Ancyra punish fornication by four years, although, according to my information, there is no rule that clearly defines this. That is why Basil the Great said that a four-year penance was prescribed for fornicators, that is, it was defined by the fathers before him (according to Zonara and Balsamon); following the fathers, he appoints her. Or maybe Basil the Great said this because the kidnapper committed a sin not just with a harlot and not just out of his depravity, but with a virgin in order to take her as a wife according to the law, and in the 59th rule an order is made about penance for fornicators, which is why they are punished more severely, since the Church has grown and strengthened. See also note. to the rule of Vasily the Great. 83 and its 18th rule. There are two things worth noting in this part of the rule. First, it should be clear that this widow, who married and lost custody, is under 60 years old, and not 60, like the one mentioned below. Secondly, although Zonara says that the words “leaving this widow without care” mean that she does not receive food from the Church, it seems to me that this also means that her marriage is ignored (In accordance with the other meaning of the verb παρορᾶσθαι.) and is not dissolved, like the marriage of a 60-year-old widow. However, she also receives penance, and it is stricter than the penance of a second-married man, because she is subject to greater responsibility, according to the rule of Vasily the Great. 18 and the words of St. Paul: she broke the promise not to marry, which she made to Christ, and the widower did not give such a promise, which is why he receives penance for the second-wed and nothing more. Note also that only women were counted among the rank of widows in the Church and received food, both because of the weakness of female nature, and so that, oppressed by poverty, they would not fall into fornication and get married. But widowed men were not included in this rank because of their masculine nature, which allows them to earn their own livelihood in a variety of ways, not fall into poverty and not resort to a second marriage (reprehensible, and therefore requiring repentance, according to Neokesar. 7). Balsamon, citing the rule of Vasily the Great as evidence. 32, says that the penance for corruption is three years, but it is fairer and more accurate to determine the penance for corruption at four years, according to the rule of Vasily the Great. 22. Please note: Basil the Great, when he calls the consumption of pork meat, about which a promise was made, a matter in the precise sense only indifferent, but not permissible, thereby makes it clear to us that even such laughable promises made before God should not be broken. And if one should not break such promises, isn’t it even more impossible to break reasonable vows to God? Therefore, everyone who, either during difficult circumstances, or not forced by anything, made a vow to God either to become monks, or to go to worship the life-giving Sepulcher, to holy monasteries and to holy relics, or to give alms, or to build schools, monasteries, or to hold such and such a fast, or to perform some other good deed, another virtue - all of them must not only necessarily fulfill these vows, but not delay the time of their fulfillment for one hour. After all, if they hesitate to fulfill them, they sin grievously. And on the one hand, God speaks about this - sometimes through the mouth of the prophet Moses: If you make a vow to the Lord your God, fulfill it immediately, for the Lord your God will exact it from you, and sin will be upon you (Deut. 23:21), and sometimes through the mouth of the wise Sirach: Let nothing prevent you from fulfilling your vow in time, and do not delay justification until death (Sir. 18:22). On the other hand, the divine Gregory the Dvoeslov denounces the Roman patrician Rusticiana, that although she promised to go to worship in Jerusalem, but then, having arrived in Constantinople, in order to set out on her further journey from there, she began to indulge in idleness and was in no hurry to fulfill her promise (Greg. Magn. Epist. II, 27 // PL 77, 562-563. St. Nicodemus is not precise: Rusticiana was not passing through Constantinople, but moved there with her entire family from Rome, as mentioned in other letters from Gregory to her - Ed. Therefore, those who break their promises and vows to God, and especially those who vow to become a monk and do not become one, destroy themselves and their homes and do not succeed at all in this life. After all, before you make a vow, you need to consider whether you are able to fulfill it, and after you have already made a vow once, you cannot break it again, because otherwise you are tempting God and mocking Him, as Sirach says, before you make a vow, prepare yourself, and do not be like a man who tempts the Lord (Sir. 18:23). And if you do not want to make vows, there is no sin in this, and God does not force you. If you do not want to make a vow, the Scripture says, there is no sin on you (Deut. 23:22). Listen also to the words of the prophet David: I will fulfill my vows before You, which my mouth has uttered and my tongue has uttered in my sorrow (Ps. 65:13-14) - and the prophet Jonah: I will bring to You what I promised, I will bring for my salvation to You, the Lord (Jon. 2:10). The following should be noted here. God commands in the book of Numbers (Num. 30:1): if someone's young daughter (meaning still subject to her father, according to the explanation of Theodoret and Procopius) (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Num. 47 // PG 80, 400A; Procop. Gaz. Comment, in Num. 30, 3 // PG 87a, 880A.) will make a promise to God, and her father, having heard about it, will remain silent and say nothing, this promise in any case must be confirmed and it must be fulfilled. If the father does not approve of the promise made, but when he hears about it, tells her that he does not agree, this promise must be invalid, and the Lord will forgive the woman who made the vow for breaking it. God commands the same to be observed in relation to a married woman - whether her husband remains silent or resists his wife’s promise. From here the opposite follows: if parents who have children in their power, in a dangerous illness or other misfortune, make a vow to God for them that they will take monasticism or do another good deed, then the children must fulfill the vow that their parents made for them - even if they have already gained independence and freedom from subordination, because then, when the vows were made for them, they were subordinate. And this is especially true if they remained silent when their parents made a vow for them. However, parents should also remind their children of this vow; Moreover, if they have made a vow that their children will take monasticism, they should train them and educate them for such a life, devoting them to God, like Anna did to Samuel. Until what time children remain subject to control, see Carthage. 42 (44). See also, as a rule, Ankir. 19 punishes those who first promise to keep their virginity and then break their promise. Therefore, those who first make a vow to take monasticism and subsequently get married need to repent of violating their vow, and if they can convince their wives to separate by mutual consent and both lead a monastic life, then good. If the wife dies, they must fulfill their vow and become a monk. “Appearance”, which is referred to in this rule, means feigned abduction - this is what Basil the Great himself shows more clearly in the 53rd rule. This means that those who by “appearance” mean the mourning attire of widows or those clothes that were worn during the probationary period by widows who wished to be enrolled in the church rank of widows are speaking incorrectly. This understanding does not correspond to the true meaning of the rule. I said that this mortal sin, as Zonara defines it, must come to the point, that is, be committed through the body, for the reason that sin in words, committed by the tongue and being mortal in appearance, is punished by eruption, for example, blasphemy and perjury, according to the Apostle. 25. But sin in thought and soul, if it is mortal in appearance, also leads to eruption when it manifests itself externally, for example, exaltation or heresy, according to I Om. 2. And Balsamon interpreted the mortal sin mentioned in this rule in the sense that it entails the death penalty. See also note. to VII Omni. 5. In a similar way, John the Faster says in the 33rd canon that not a single woman (neither a laywoman nor a nun) should be expelled from the Church for any sin. See the interpretation of this fasting rule. That is why Emperors Leo and Constantine, in their brief “Eclogue of Laws,” determine that marriage is concluded in writing or orally when the husband is 15 years old and the wife is 13 and they love each other. However, parental consent must be obtained first (Greco-Roman Law. Book 2, tit. 12. P. 101). This means that the laws do not allow such cohabitation even if the parents subsequently agree (Vasiliki. Book 60, tit. 58). Therefore, civil laws, in accordance with this rule, determine that against a woman who has committed adultery once, even if after that she marries the man who sinned with her, the charge of adultery is not removed by the appearance of a marriage concluded after adultery (i.e., both of them are adulterers, even after marriage. Michael Attaliatus. Synopsis. Tit. 70). Therefore, God was more angry with David when he took Bathsheba as his wife after the death of Uriah than when he committed adultery with her during his life (according to Theodoret) (Theod. Sur. Quaest. in II Reg. 24 // PG 80, 629A.). Thus, God said to David through Nathan: And now the sword shall not depart from your house forever, because you despised Me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife (2 Samuel 12:10). The statement that agreements and contracts of subject persons have no recognition and force, St. Vasily borrowed from Chapter 30. Book of Numbers, for which see note. to Rule 28 of the same Vasily. I said “or give her complete freedom” because, according to Nikita of Thessaloniki, those masters who know that their male and female slaves are committing fornication with each other, according to the canons, deserve excommunication if they do not allow them to enter into a legal marriage. Masters should not unreasonably think that if they allow slaves to enter into church marriage, they will lose them, because church marriage supposedly frees them from slavery. No, Emperor Alexy in his novella prescribes that male and female slaves get married while remaining in slavery (according to the book “Greco-Roman Law”). See also the story of the divine Chrysostom that slaves who marry do not receive freedom (Discourse 11 on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians in vol. 4, p. 217) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. I ad Thessal. 11. 3 // PG 62, 464.). Basil the Great, interpreting the words only in the Lord (in the word about virginity), says that their meaning is as follows: the primary goal of marriage should not be the spouses’ satisfaction of voluptuousness and carnal lust, but spiritual help to each other on the path of life; The next purpose of marriage is procreation. Vasily cites as an example the words spoken by God to Adam before the creation of Eve: Let us make him a helper like him (Gen. 2:18) - this means that in marriage mental and spiritual help comes first. In addition, Theodoret says that because of this God gave an order to the one who captured his wife (This refers to the order of Deut. 21:13 ~ that a woman captured in war must mourn her separation from her relatives for a month, and then can become the wife of the one who captured her.): “He ordered, curbing his lust, that in communication, not voluptuousness, but reason should prevail” (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Deut. 19 // PG 80, 425B.) (Pentateuch. T. 1. P. 1537; Deut. 21:13). Moreover, according to civil laws, the widow must wait a year of mourning, that is, a full year after the death of her husband, firstly, for the sake of respect for the deceased, and secondly, so that it does not turn out that she got married while pregnant, and there is no mixing of the family. And if she gives birth during the year-long mourning, she can get married before it ends, although it would be better to wait until the end, for the sake of preserving honor. If she does not wait until the end of the year of mourning, she is subject to dishonor. And if she has no children, then she should not take an inheritance from the property of her first husband, but it will be given to the relatives of the first husband, and if there are no relatives, then to the imperial treasury (Vlastar. Letter G; Armenopul. Book 4, tit. 6; Leo and Constantine. Eclogue of Laws. See: Greco-Roman Law. Book 2, tit. 12. P. 105). These emperors say: what is true for women is also true for men, that is, a man must wait a year after the death of his wife. Proverbs 26:11 ; 2 Peter 2:22. Both Zonara and Balsamon unanimously say that this deaconess, since she fell into fornication with an infidel, and not with a faithful one, the saint punishes for fornication not with a milder penance, which was imposed by previous fathers (see the interpretation of the rules of Ankyr. 20 and Basil the Great. 22), but with a more severe penance, which he himself determined for fornication. See also note about this. to Laodice. 48. From this, Balsamon concludes that neither hieromonks and hierodeacons who have been deposed and deprived of the appearance of clergy can marry, nor deposed white priests, if they are widowed, can enter into a second marriage. They may have been defrocked, but at the same time they dedicated their body to God and promised: hieromonks and hierodeacons - not to marry at all, and white priests - not to enter into a second marriage. In addition, the wives of white priests after the death of their husbands cannot marry a second time, according to the same Balsamon. Basil the Great himself says (see rule 80 from the summary): “It is characteristic of a Christian to be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit by the Blood of Christ, to perform holiness in the fear of God and the love of Christ, not to have spot, or blemish, or anything like that, but to be holy and blameless; with your righteousness surpassing in everything the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees; love one another as Christ loved us; always see the Lord before you, stay awake every day and hour, and be ready to completely please God” (Basil. Magp. Moralia 80.22 // PG 31, 869BC.). According to app. Paul, a Christian is one who, for the sake of Christ, crucified his flesh with passions and lusts (Gal. 5:24), and in general, “the name of a Christian,” according to Theodoret, “is full of praises and blessings, and when praising him, people say: “Truly a Christian,” and when admonishing, they are used to saying: “Act like a Christian.” Do what befits a Christian” (Theod. Cyr. Quaest. in Is. 65.15 // PG 81, 485C.). Ign. Er. ad Eph. 14–15 // PG 5, 747B. “Let our word have the power to reject their baptism” - in other sources this rule is placed in this form. Namely, to reject the baptism of such schismatic heretics. Pay attention also that the saint says that his own word - not to accept the baptism of such - should have greater power and authority than the oikonomia according to which some received their baptism. So we, the East, following this example, no longer accept the baptism of the Latins, which was once accepted according to oikonomia (read also the note to Apostle 46). Please note that the saint uses the word “rebaptism” not in its own meaning, but in a figurative sense, speaking about our baptism in relation not to himself, but to the baptism of heretics. He calls their baptism baptism, as they themselves called and call it (note to Apostle 47). Therefore, Balsamon confirms this, saying that the rules of the divine and holy fathers not only do not allow a third marriage, but also subject the second to moderate penance (Greco-Roman Law. P. 383. Answer 41). The same period of penance is imposed on them by Constantine Chliarin, Patriarch of Constantinople, with his Council, but only if they could not escape from the thieves who attacked them. And if they could have escaped and did not escape, but killed them, let them receive a punishment that exceeds three years. Pay attention, however, to the fact that the divine Isidore Pelusiot, having learned that the priest Zosima had forgiven the perjurer for several fish that he brought him, wrote to Zosima that the perjurer is not forgiven even for the sake of gifts, unless he first compensates for the damage that his opponent suffered from this perjury. “The one who breaks an oath is absolved from guilt not by the fact that you have favored him because of his gifts, but by the fact that the one who was offended by his perjury received back his property” (letter 1060 to Zosima) (Isid. Pel. Ep. III, 260 // PG 78, 940CD.). Therefore, after the victim of perjury receives what he lost, the perjurer should be punished. Title 23 book. 7 “Vasilyk” decides that those who open tombs incur both criminal and financial punishment. Criminal - because they are deprived of honor, material - because they are fined 100 or 200 nomism. If they came armed and opened the tomb, they receive a death sentence; and if without weapons, then they are condemned to excavation work in the mines. And if they are of low rank, they are sentenced to the highest punishment, and if they are of noble birth, they are sentenced to exile or work in the mines. And the title is 7 books. 11 The Digest says that opening tombs is subject to the law of sacrilege. Please note that those who move the bodies of the dead without the permission of the priest, or bishop, or emperor, or archons, are considered to be opening tombs. Therefore, the abbot of the monastery of St. Mokia, who moved the relics without such permission, was deprived of his abbess and defrocked, according to Balsamon (see all this in Photius, tit. 9, chapter 27). In this note, it is also appropriate to say about the condemnation worthy of those priests or laymen who open coffins in order to find, in their words, the so-called ghouls and kill them. Oh, the pathetic ignorance into which today's Christians have fallen! Christian brothers, what kind of delusion has taken over you? What are these foolish and childish thoughts that you believe? What kind of ridicule is this, with the help of which demons tear you away from your unshakable faith in God and mock you like foolish children? I tell you and assure you that there have never been ghouls anywhere in the world. The ghouls you talk about are nothing more than a false childish superstition, which was born out of your fear and unbelief, and some crazy thought that, laughing at you, suggests that the dead rise from their graves, come and bother you. There are no ghouls, because it is impossible for the devil to raise the body of a person who died one or two months before, and arrange for this body to have blood, or nails, or any bodily movement, as you imagine. Ghouls are a crazy idea: if you carefully test those who say that they saw ghouls, it turns out that at first these people claimed that someone else told them that they saw a ghoul, and in the end they came to the point that they began to claim this about themselves. It seemed to me that this is actually what happens in many places. Therefore, my brothers, having learned about this, throw this superstition and fiction out of your mind and never again believe that ghouls really exist. If, due to your weak faith in God, the devil presents you with some kind of ghost, ask the priest to sing the rite of consecration in that place, and the demonic action will be destroyed by Divine grace. And those who dare to open coffins in order to stab a dead body or burn it, allegedly with the aim of killing or burning a ghoul, the bishop must punish not only as grave diggers, but also as murderers. What am I saying? The bishop should be prohibited with the help of severe penance, so that from the very beginning they should not dare to open the tombs of those who arouse their suspicions. Look also at the divine Chrysostom (Homily 36 on Lazarus in vol. 5, p. 234) (Ioan. Chrysost. De Lazaro 2. 1 // PG 48, 983.), how he denounces those madmen who believe that the souls of those who were killed, or burned, or killed by a violent death become demons or, what is the same thing, ghouls. Chrysostom tells his listeners that it is not the souls of such people who become demons or ghouls, but those of Christians who lived in sin and imitated demons with their depravity. See also 2nd volume of “Conciliar Acts”, p. 992, which talks about the heresy of the Bogomils, who claimed that demons live in bodies. In other sources, this rule is given in a different form: “If someone marries a relative with whom marriage is prohibited, he will be punished with the penance required for adultery, and the marriage will be dissolved.” Therefore, Nikita, Chartophilax of Thessaloniki, following this rule, determines: if a cleric, before the sacred ceremony of marriage, enters into a relationship with his betrothed bride, then, although he is not an adulterer, since he considered betrothal a sufficient basis for entering into a relationship, he is not worthy of consecration. If he was consecrated and after the consecration the full sacramental rite of marriage was performed on him, he is still subject to punishment, that is, he is deposed both because he ignorantly believed that betrothal alone allows for copulation, and because after consecration the sacramental rite of marriage is not performed on anyone (Greco-Roman Law, p. 346). Please note that in this place the minister is, as is quite obvious, not a subdeacon, because the latter is not allowed to marry after ordination, according to VI Ecumenical. 6. Others understand removal from ministry as life-long and final defrocking, since the saint did not determine the time of prohibition from ministry. The fact that a defiled deacon is awarded communion along with other deacons is explained by the fact that his sin is not so serious. And by the eruption that the saint assigns to the sinner with something more than a kiss, they understand a complete eruption from a degree and that in the future he will receive communion not at the altar with other deacons, but with the laity. This is what they say, but the opinion expressed in the interpretation is better, as more humane, which is why Zonara considers it more suitable. Obviously, in his opinion, grace delivered from committing a sin the one who experienced carnal lust and was inclined to share a bed with a woman and did not do so, as the rule of Neocesar says. 4. But it is unfair for him whom grace has delivered to be cast out with such a grave sentence. And some say that a passionate embrace, which is more than a kiss, imposes eruption on the priest if this sin occurred after his ordination, according to this rule, as well as forbids him to accept initiation if the sin occurred before his ordination. The same thing as taking money for ordination: whether it happened before or after the ordination, the money was taken according to the 90th rule of the same Basil. Thus, this act, worthy of reproach, whether it happened before or after the ordination, remains an act worthy of reproach, and the Church commands that impeccable and blameless people become priests, according to I Ecumenical. 9. Moreover, it must be borne in mind here that the erupted do not receive communion, as before, in the altar with the deacons and priests. Please note that this rule punishes only those priests and deacons who themselves confessed their sin, and not those who were convicted by others, according to I Om. 9 and Neokesar. 9, which you should read. Read also the note. to VI Omni. 26. Why did the other fathers who lived before Vasily leave none of the apostates without communion for his entire life, but Vasily does this in this rule? And speaking in general, why did they determine softer penances for sinners, while this saint, like his brother Gregory of Nyssa, assigned more severe ones? Resolving this confusion, Zonara says that each of the fathers determined penances in accordance with the circumstances of their time. The fathers who lived during times of persecution, for example Peter of Alexandria and the fathers of the Council of Ancyra, due to the inevitability of persecution, assigned more lenient penances to those who renounced Christ, because the faith was not yet confirmed. And Vasily, who lived during the time of the spread of faith, when paganism was on its last legs, and the faith was firmer and the Church stronger, and when those who renounced Christ renounced Him without violence and voluntarily, for these reasons he sets out this more severe rule. And the fact that, due to the greater strength of the Church, stricter penances should be assigned to those who have sinned is evidenced by the 18th rule of the same Basil. But this penance is assigned to those who have sinned after they have dissolved their unlawful cohabitation and are accepted into places for repentants. And while they adhere to it, they are generally expelled from the Church, according to the rule of Neokesar. 2, which you should read. Please note that those who claim that by polygamy the saint here means not trigamy, but quadrugamy and generally cohabitation after the third marriage are wrong, because: 1. As we said, the saint explains himself in his 4th rule, calling trigamy polygamy. 2. If there is no law for trigamy, what law will there be for quadrugamy? 3. If quadrugamy is so forgivable and is punished mildly, why did the Patriarch and the entire Council not forgive Emperor Leo, who entered into a fourth marriage? (See also note to Neo-Caesar. 3.) Yes, because the Church never accepted tetragamy! In fact, anyone who expresses the above opinion is subject to anathema, as the Council proclaimed, which took place after Leo married for the fourth time (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 977). But why does Vasily, having said that triple marriage is worse than fornication, punish him as fornication? Resolving this confusion, Zonara says that the number of years of punishment is the same in both cases, but the distribution of this time is more difficult for trigamists than for fornicators, because, according to the 22nd rule (Referring to Basil the Great. 22.), fornicators move from one place of repentance to another every year out of these four. But those who have three marriages are ordered to swear for three years, and not to stand with the faithful like the fornicators, and this is a more severe penance. “Three stand together with the faithful” – added by St. Nicodemus due to the fact that here he mixed two different cases given in canon 81. The mentioned punishment of St. Basil the Great appoints those who have made sacrifices to idols “without great violence.” And those who did this after cruel torture, the saint punishes more gently, as can be seen from the text of the rule itself. This rule does not contradict the 73rd rule of the same saint: there the saint prescribed the punishment for the renounced person not to receive communion throughout his life, having himself determined this penance; and here he punishes in the indicated manner the one who renounced, whether under coercion or without coercion, following the penance of the preceding fathers. After all, this saint sometimes punishes those who have sinned with the penances of previous fathers, and sometimes with his own, as can be seen from his 22nd and 59th canons, 73rd and present, 7th and 83rd, etc. This is what seems to me the true reason for the difference in the penances that he assigns to sinners, and not what Zonara says: as if there the one who renounced receives without coercion because of this a more severe punishment, but here we are talking about someone who renounced under compulsion and therefore the punishment is more lenient, while those who renounced without coercion are mentioned here too. Some say that in his 64th canon the saint punishes with ten years of excommunication a perjurer, that is, one who breaks an oath many times, but here he punishes one who commits an oath, that is, one who breaks an oath once or twice. But they are wrong, since here even those who once committed an oath, if only they broke the oath without coercion, receive a more severe punishment - 11 years or, more accurately, similar to the punishment of those perjurers discussed in the 64th rule. So one should identify the perjurers who are discussed there and those who broke the oath without coercion, who are discussed here, because both receive identical penances. Even if the expression “without coercion” is not added to the former, it should be implied. After all, if the situation were as these people claim, then it would be more difficult to punish oathbreakers who violated the oath many times, and not those who violated it only once. For the fact that an offense committed once is punished more leniently compared to one repeated many times, see note. to Ankir. 8. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom, in agreement with this, says: “I ask not about the length of time, but about the correction of the soul” (Conversation 14 on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians) (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. II ad Cor. 14. 3 // PG 61, 502.). Please note that Zonara and Vlastar believe that the rules of Basil the Great end with this 85th rule. The remaining rules that follow are called canonical excerpts from his messages. This is how Basil’s rules are numbered in the Paris edition, i.e. their number is equal to the number of Apostolic Rules. But since these 85 rules are messages, like the subsequent ones, for the sake of convenience we put the name of the rules above the subsequent messages, as well as above the previous ones. Because whoever eats hemlock dies, and henbane goes crazy, according to herbalists. The mentioned Diodorus, whom Photius also calls Theodore, was a monk, the teacher of the divine Chrysostom in the interpretation of the divine Scriptures. Then he became an Antioch presbyter and was made bishop of Tarsus. According to Theodoret, he is the first, together with St. Flavian divided the choir into two faces and taught it to sing the psalms of David alternately (Theod. Sur. Hist. eccl. II, 19 // PG 82, 1059C.). But since he fell into the illness of the Nestorian heresy and was the teacher of Nestorius himself, the V Ecumenical Council anathematized him along with Theodore of Mopsuestia (Photius. Codex 18) (Phot. Bibl. 18 // PG 103, 57A.). See about him: Chain of Interpreters. T. 1. P. 14. That is, marriage to the wife’s sister after the wife’s death or during her lifetime. Note that Balsamon has no interpretation for this message. Although he praises it very much, he does not interpret it, considering it unnecessary. There is a brief interpretation by Zonara, but not among the texts of the rules, but among other notes. And we did not fail to interpret it in detail, for the sake of the worthy and very important issues that it touches on. For customs, see note. to Sardik. 1. In my opinion, the words increase and multiply should be connected not with the subsequent, but with the preceding reasoning. In fact, it is said above that time is limited and shortened, so that even those who have a wife need to be as impartial as if they did not have one at all, therefore the saint adds that if someone, against the law of Paul, presents God’s law given to the primordial ones, increase and multiply, then I will laugh at him, because he does not distinguish the time when God said: Increase and multiply, from the time when God, through Paul, established the law of impartiality towards wives. Then it was necessary to give such a law for the multiplication of the human race, because the people of that time were long-lived, and especially because they were carnal and infantile, and not spiritual and perfect men in Christ. And later it became necessary to give the above-mentioned statute of Paul, since the human race has multiplied, and people’s lives have become short, and especially and above all, since Christians are spiritual, not carnal people: they must live according to the Spirit, mortifying the lusts and pleasures of the flesh, and not seek marriage and be slaves to their addictions to women. According to Zonara, in many places ancient authors call cousins ​​nephews (ἀνέψια). And note that any cohabitation that confuses names is criminal and lawless in relation to the laws of nature, and therefore should not take place. Consider this a general precept and rule in relation to all cohabitations concluded by nature. But perhaps the saint calls such children nephews also because each of the children of one sister is a nephew in relation to the other sister, and each of two sisters is an aunt in relation to the children of their sister. Note that, according to lawyers and specialists in establishing the degrees of kinship between cohabitants, any wife of a grandfather or great-grandfather is also called a stepmother (μητρυιά), as discussed in the “Doctrine of Marriages.” Therefore, Simeon of Thessaloniki (questions 10–13), citing these words of Basil the Great as evidence, says that the ordained, according to all the rules, must be diligent and zealous in serving God, and not lazy and careless because of imaginary reverence. Because if a person imposes a prohibition on himself and does not perform the ministry of the priesthood that he has canonically received, then this is not reverence. After all, if he performs his service, then this will be saving both for himself and for all the living and the dead. And if he remains idle, he will give an answer to God for his idleness (Sym. Thessal. Respons. 10–13 // PG 155, 860A-C.). So Severian of Gavalsky says: “It is clear that the priest brings to God as a gift and a gift the service of the priesthood, with which God honored him. Therefore, the one who neglects the liturgy out of reverence, out of ignorance, falls into a greater sin, not paying tribute to the One who honored him” (Pentateuch. Vol. 1. p. 1284). The same Simeon adds (in the 74th answer) the following: every priest who is ordered to serve liturgies, but he does not serve them, is condemned by God both as an unrighteous and as a thief, and as depriving his brother, who gave him money, of the sanctification that he could receive from the Divine Liturgy. After all, since the liturgies are not performed, the one who ordered them does not receive consecration, but is awarded, perhaps, only reward for alms, and the reward is not as great as he would have received if he had given this alms to the poor (Ibid. 74 // PG 155, 933C.). And in the 46th answer of St. Simeon says that when a priest has many offerings and liturgies, he must remember together all the names of those who made the offering and take out a particle for them, and also write down their names in order to perform liturgies for them at other times, because the offering that these people made, they made so that the liturgy could be performed for each of them (Ibid. 46 // PG 155, 892D.). And Zonara has a very brief interpretation of this message, which is not among the interpretations of the rules, but in other notes. The saint desires that there should be no indifference among his bishops, because of the great evil that it causes wherever it appears. After all, if someone does evil and understands that he is doing badly, then there is hope that someday he will retreat from this evil and correct himself, and the one who does evil and does not pay attention to it will never leave this evil and come to repentance, as Zonara says. And therefore, having learned from these short words of St. Vasily, what an evil indifference can be, let us, brothers, drive him out of our lives. It is completely alien to Christian life and has turned everything upside down. It gave rise to almost all the vices: lack of fear of God and reverence, coldness towards the Divine, disregard for fulfilling God’s life-giving commandments. On every occasion, indifferent people express ungodly words: “Well, what’s wrong with that? What's wrong with that? Yes, these are nonsense, and that’s nonsense too.” To put it briefly, people for the most part have fallen and fall into heresy and godlessness from indifference, which is why Isidore Pelusiot wisely says: “The words “this is not important” led to rampant vice in life” (letter 1233) (Isid. Pel. Ep. V, 17 // PG 78, 1333C). Please note that Zonara’s interpretation of this message is also not placed after the message itself, as in the interpretation of other rules, but only among the notes. They probably considered this a good deed because they took the money after the ordination, and not before or during the ordination, as the saint further says and as Zonara interprets. Those ordained and those who have ordained for money feel great consolation from this condescending word of St. Vasily, as well as from his further words - “Anyone of you who, after this command, does anything like that...”. After all, with these words the saint commands that not those who ordained for money or who have been ordained until now be deposed and banned from ministry, but only those who do so after this command. The saint showed this leniency and resorted to oikonomia because, as some say, the vice of simony then spread among almost all clergy, just as it is now widespread and dominates everyone. Therefore, it was useful to do this, otherwise, if everyone was defrocked, the church flock would be left without shepherds. A similar oikonomia was applied by the VI Ecumenical Council, which did not defrock clergy who entered into a second marriage after ordination; since there were a lot of people who committed such lawlessness, this Council issued the 3rd rule out of leniency. But why, in his rules, does Basil the Great depose priests who have committed fornication, adultery or murder, and leave those guilty of simony in office, despite the fact that they are worse than Macedonius, as the divine Tarasius says? Some say that simony is only mental corruption, in other words, the corruption of one soul. You thought to receive the gift of God for money (Acts 8:20), - said the apostle. Peter to Simon. While fornication, murder and adultery are corruption of both soul and body. After all, according to Ap. Paul, the fornicator sins against his own body (1 Cor. 6:18). This means that the corruption of the mind, that is, the soul, of those who have committed the sin of simony can be eliminated by repentance alone, which is why Peter told Simon only about this: Repent therefore of this sin of yours, and pray to God: perhaps the thought of your heart will be forgiven you (Acts 8:22). But repentance cannot eliminate the corruption of the soul and body of fornicators caused by carnal sin. The same Basil the Great said about this in his word on virginity: “After all, repentance forgives sin, but, not having the strength to make what has been corrupted uncorrupted again, it grieves all its life” (Basil. Magn. De virgin. 59 // PG 30, 789A.) (see. also the 19th rule of John the Faster). That’s why the rule is Neokesar. 4 The one who had a mind and wanted to commit fornication, but did not do it, is not cast out from his dignity, because he sinned only with his mind and soul, and not with his body. The Orthodox Church, according to ancient tradition, glorifies God in the (ἐν) Trinity with the words: “Glory to the Father and the Son and the (καί) Holy Spirit” or “Glory to the Father and the Son with the (σύν) Holy Spirit.” After all, although these three words “in” (ἐν), “and” (καί), “with” (σύν), from the point of view of grammarians, differ, as the same Basil the Great says (in the 25th chapter “On the Holy Spirit”), since the conjunction “and” connects like, the preposition “with” indicates communication with another (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 25.59 // PG 32, 177B.), and the preposition “in” shows the relationship of a thing to a place (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 25. 60 // PG 32, 177C.), with all this, in meaning, they mean the same thing, according to the same Basil (Ibid. Ch. 25 and 27): the conjunction “and” is equivalent to the preposition “with” and in the same way to the preposition “in”. And therefore, often, as a replacement, “in” is placed instead of “with,” as in the psalm: I will enter Your house with (ἐν) burnt offerings (See Ps. 65:13.) instead of with (σύν) burnt offerings. But for the sake of greater accuracy, the God-bearing fathers, as a rule, glorified the Holy Spirit, using the preposition “with,” and thus, on the one hand, refuted the heresy of Sabellius, who denied the three God-originating Hypostases: they, pronouncing “Glory to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit,” simultaneously showed both the peculiarity of the Hypostases and the inseparability of communication (Basily the Great, ibid. Ch. 25) ( Basil. Magn. Sanct. 25. 59 // PG 32, 177B.). On the other hand, they did this for the reason that the preposition “with” indicates the communication of the Spirit with God and reveals the dignity of the Spirit due to God. With the help of this preposition “with,” we, raising our thoughts from ourselves to God, show that the Holy Spirit is united with the Father and the Son and that He is consubstantial with Them, He Himself is God and is distinct from creatures. And the preposition “in” implies the grace given to us from God in the Holy Spirit. With the help of this pretext, we, lowering the thought from God to ourselves, show that all grace and the bestowal of goods is given to us in the Spirit (Ibid. Ch. 27) (Ibid. 27. 68 // PG 32, 193B.). So, we talked about this. It happened that one day Basil the Great, in the presence of the people, said “Glory to the Father and the Son with the Spirit.” Hearing this, the Doukhobors began to blame the saint for glorifying the saint with the preposition “with,” which is new and not found in the Scriptures, and not with the preposition “in” (Ibid. Ch. 1) (Ibid. 1. 3 // PG 32, 72C.), probably because it was the preposition “in” that the apostle used, saying: “And one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things” (Cp.1Kop.8:6. In the Slavic and Russian translations of the New Testament these words are not present. However, there is a discrepancy according to which these words are added at the end of this verse. See: PG 32, 73D; Greek-English New Testament. Nestle-Aland, 1994. P. 453). Indeed, they could not object to the conjunction “and”, which we use when we say “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” because it is probably written in the tradition of baptism, since the Lord said: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in the symbol of the Nicene faith, which says: “I believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, and in the one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit Saint." For this reason, St. Vasily was forced to write what is contained in this rule. Leaving aside all the other reasons why faith needs church traditions, I will say only one thing: church tradition is a touchstone for distinguishing between genuine, canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, containing faith, and counterfeit, non-canonical ones. Therefore, Eusebius (Church History. Book 3, Chapter 25) (PG 20, 269B), turning to tradition as an infallible rule, distinguishes between books included and not included in the canon, and says literally this: “We considered it necessary to compile a list of them in the same way, distinguishing between the writings, according to church tradition, true, genuine, generally accepted and those outside them numbers are not included in the canon and are even disputed, but are known to most church writers.” So, in the same way, church traditions require faith, and faith requires church traditions, and one cannot be separated from the other. The ancient Christians formed their fingers differently for the sign of the cross, that is, they depicted it with only two fingers, the middle and index, as St. Petersburg says. Peter of Damascus (Philokalia. P. 642). The whole hand, according to him, means the single Hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers mean His two natures. But now Christians have established the custom of connecting two fingers with the big one and depicting a cross with these three fingers, meaning the Holy Trinity, placing the hand first on the forehead, then on the stomach (which depicts the vertical part of the cross), then placing it on the right shoulder and then on the left (which depicts the horizontal part of the cross). The Latins accuse us Greeks of not placing the cross first on the left shoulder and then on the right, as they do. But do they understand what they are saying? We do this because with this type of cross we want to depict the crucified Christ on ourselves. During the crucifixion, Christ looked to the west, and during prayer we look to the east, from which it follows that Christ’s left shoulder is opposite our right, and His right is opposite our left. Therefore, when we put our hand on our right shoulder, we put it on Christ’s left shoulder, and when we put it on our left, we put it on Christ’s right shoulder (I don’t know why, but the “Orthodox Confession,” on p. 73, says that you need to put your hand not on your stomach, but on your chest, that is, on your chest, and instead of shoulders it talks about forearms). As Cyril of Jerusalem teaches (catechumenate 13), Christians should not begin any work without crossing themselves, whether they are in the house, on the street or in any other place, at night or during the day (Cyr. Hieros. Catech. 13. 36 // PG 33, 816AB). The divine Chrysostom says the same thing in his first word against the Jews (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. Jud. 1.9 // PG 48, 826.). See also VI Omni. 73 and notes thereto. Dionysius the Areopagite in the 7th chapter. “On the Church Hierarchy” also says that secret prayers, blessings and invocations in the sacraments, sanctifying and consummating, are taken from unwritten tradition: “And consummatory invocations are not permissible to interpret in writing, as well as to bring their secret and the Divine powers operating in them from under the veil to public view, but, in accordance with our sacred tradition, the one who learned about them from undisclosed teachings..." (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. VII, 10 // PG 3, 565C.). Therefore, the church custom of always reading these prayers secretly, and not out loud, like the words of the Lord, reminds us of this silent, unwritten and secret tradition. Let the papists be put to shame when they see how Basil the Great, this thirteenth apostle, says here that the Lord’s words Take, Eat... and Drink... are not enough to perform the divine sacraments, as they cunningly and incorrectly say, but along with them are necessary prayers and invocations, secretly pronounced by the priest. And that this is the real truth, with clarity surpassing the sun, the most learned man Eustratius Argentis shows with the help of indisputable and remarkable evidence in his book “On the Sacraments” on pages 92 to 250. Read them. God wanted to honor the holy day of the Lord with many advantages, and the first of them is that the other days were created either by the primordial light, or by the luminary the sun, created on the fourth day, and God Himself immediately brought the day of the Lord from non-existence into existence. After all, before the creation of the created world there was neither time nor day, and when Moses says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1.), then this, according to St. Basil, means that God created time, and at the beginning of created time he created heaven and earth (Basil. Magn. Hex. 1. 5 // PG 29b, 13C.). Indeed, both are temporary and remain in time, and not without beginning and timeless. The beginning of this time was the beginning of that first and only day, that is, the day of the Lord, because just as other creations were created on each day of the week, so the heavens and the earth and what is between them were brought into being on this first day of the Lord. Therefore, one can ask such a witty and subtle question: what did God create on this first Lord's day? And answer that He created precisely this first day of the Lord (after all, the primordial light appeared after the beginning of time and the day of the Lord were created). Therefore, some theologians believe that the emanation of this light began from the middle of the celestial hemisphere, that is, from noon. Why did Moses begin to measure the day from the evening, towards which this light inclined: And there was evening, and there was morning: one day (Gen. 1:5). For the same reason, the psalmist said about the day of the Lord: This day has the Lord created (Ps. 117:24), because, as we said, the Lord brought into being only this day from non-existence, and other days came from light. It is in this sense that a certain interpreter interprets this saying in the catenas on the Psalter. According to church tradition, on the day of the Lord the Father began to create the first creation, on the day of the Lord the Son began the partial renewal of the second, corruptible creation by His Resurrection, on the day of the Lord the Holy Spirit will complete the renewal of all creation: You will send Your Spirit, and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth (Ps. 103:30). Many teachers believe that on the day of the Lord the Annunciation took place, on the day of the Lord Christ was born, on the day of the Lord the miracle of the multiplication of five loaves was performed, on the day of the Lord the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and on the day of the Lord John was vouchsafed to see a terrible revelation, as is clear from Chapter 1. his Revelations. And the day of the Lord is called one because, in addition to what the divine Basil speaks of, this one day contained all the subsequent six days, since the creatures that arose in those days did not arise from nothing, but from the already existing substance of the elements, which was brought from non-existence into existence on this single day. So the great advantage of the Lord's day is that the creatures born on this day passed from non-existence into being and gave substance to subsequent creations, for, according to Gregory of Thessaloniki, the creations of the first day of the Lord were born as if they were in the womb, and from them others came into being. And since some object, saying that Sunday in the proper sense is not an image of the future age, because St. Vasily here speaks of it as an image of the future century not in the full sense, then let them know that the same Vasily in the 2nd conversation on the Sixth Day (vol. 1, p. 28) calls the Lord's Day an image of the future century unambiguously and without any restrictive particle. Here are his words: “Therefore, he called the chapter of time not the first, but the single day, so that this day, by its very name, would have an affinity with the century. And as revealing in itself the sign of an age that is unique and has no commonality with another age, this day in its proper sense is decently called one” (Basil. Magn. Hex. 2. 8 // PG 29, 49CD.). And again: “In order to raise our thought to the future life, he named this image of the age, the beginning of days, as one - the holy day of the Lord that arose simultaneously with the light, glorified by the Resurrection of the Lord” (Basil. Magn. Hex. 2. 8 // PG 29, 52AB.). And to summarize everything, I will say that the entire future century will be one day of the Lord, unchanging and without end. Greg. Nazianz. Or. 38. 8 // PG 36, 320V. Just as Basil the Great says here that that one and first day, that is, Sunday, seven times multiplied by seven, makes up the seven weeks of Pentecost, the Theologian also says that the number seven multiplied by seven makes up Pentecost minus one day, which, namely Sunday, we take from the future century: “For the number seven, multiplied by itself, gives fifty minus one day, but it is occupied by us from the age to come and is the eighth, and it the first, or, better to say, the one and endless” (Homily on Pentecost) (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 41. 2 // PG 36, 432B.). About this doxology, i.e. “Glory to the Father,” see 1st note. to this rule. In accordance with this rule, Rule VII of the Omnibus also decides. 7, which says that church customs must be observed both according to written and unwritten law. Carthage ruled equally. 3, and Gangr. 21 require compliance with written and unwritten traditions. And Chrysostom (Discourse 4 on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians) interprets the above-mentioned word of the apostle as follows: “From here it is clear that they [the apostles] did not convey everything through letters, but they also communicated a lot orally, and both are equally reliable. Therefore, we must recognize church tradition as reliable. There is a tradition, look no further" (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Ep. II ad Thessal. 4. 2 // PG 62, 488.). In addition, the VII Ecumenical Council in Act 8 anathematizes those who reject church traditions, saying this: “Let him who rejects any church tradition, written or unwritten, be anathema” (Synodikon. Vol. 2. p. 883). In the Epistle to the Alexandrians, the same Council writes: “Let everything that has already been invented and done or will be done subsequently be against church tradition, the teaching and the rules of the holy glorious fathers be anathema” (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 906). The same words were proclaimed at the Council of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 977). From the above it follows that tradition in the proper sense of the word is, according to theologians, the unwritten word of God, something that is not written in Divine Scripture, although it is contained in the books of the God-bearing fathers and in the acts of the Councils. However, sometimes what is written in the Divine Scripture is also called tradition in a broader sense (despite the fact that such a tradition actually exists and should be called Scripture, for this see the note to Apostle 85), as can be understood from the words of the apostle. Paul: Keep the traditions that you have been taught either by word or by our epistle - here he calls tradition also what is written and taught in his epistle, in other words, in the Divine Scripture. The VII Ecumenical Council (see above) also divided tradition into written and unwritten. There are three types of tradition: Divine, apostolic and ecclesiastical. And the Divine is that which is the primary cause of God, the apostolic is that which was handed down to us by the apostles, as stewards and shepherds of the faithful, but not as preachers of what they heard from Christ. So, for example, Paul says: But to those who have entered into marriage I command not I, but the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10). This tradition, although pronounced by the Apostle, is not apostolic, but Divine, because it was given by God the Lawgiver, and through the Apostle it was only preached. Then the same Paul says: To the rest I speak, and not the Lord (1 Cor. 7:12). This tradition is truly truly apostolic: the apostle set it forth on his own behalf as a steward and shepherd of the people. Church tradition is the one established by the successors of the apostles. The characteristic and main feature of the Divine and Apostolic tradition is that the fathers accept both as one and it is preserved from the very beginning in common by all the Churches. And a characteristic feature of church tradition is that it, too, like the apostolic tradition, is preserved in all Churches, if possible, for the benefit of common consent. But since Luthero-Calvinists, following Montanus, who back in the 2nd century. rejected church customs and traditions handed down from the apostles (see note 6 to II Om. 7), they cancel the traditions and object, saying that in Deuteronomy (chap. 4) and Revelation (chap. 22) God commands not to add anything to what is written there, then to this we answer that, according to Augustine (chap. 79 on the Gospel of John) God forbade adding harmful and dissent, but did not prohibit the useful and consonant. Theophylact, interpreting the words: Whoever preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:9), says: “It is not said: if they preach the contrary, but if they proclaim something small to you beyond what we have proclaimed to you (Theoph. Bulg. In Gal. 1. 8 // PG 124, 960D.),” but despite this we will say that the apostle in words we preached the gospel and accepted it, rather, confirms the traditions, since he preached the gospel by word, and the Galatians received his word, and these are the traditions that we defend (after all, he did not say “not what we wrote,” but not what we preached). Theophylact said this in order to forbid us to attribute our own words to the Divine Scriptures as God’s (like those false prophets who said: “This is what the Lord says,” although the Lord did not say anything like that to them), and not at all in order to forbid us to accept the traditions of the apostles and their successors. And if the divine Jerome speaks (Matt., ch. 23) in a refutation of Helvidius: “Just as we do not reject what is written, we do not accept what is not written, and what is not attested by Scripture can easily be neglected as fiction,” then he said these words not about church tradition, but about some unconfirmed mythical stories that Helvidius invented, for example, that Christ was born unclean, like other babies, and other similar heretical nonsense. Church traditions are also based on the words of St. Paul to Timothy: And what you heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). See also note. to Sardik. 1. Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 29. 72–74 // PG 32, 201B-208C.