Отдел второй. Церковный строй

Already in the previous period, the mass of believers was very clearly divided into clergy and people, clerus et laici. The leading role in church affairs, and at the same time the advantage of rights, belonged to the clergy without any controversy from the laity. Statements about the so-called universal priesthood of believers rested on a different basis and therefore could not conflict with the predominant position of the clergy in the church. This was the case, at least, in the Catholic Church. The only exception to this is the claim expressed by Tertullian, after he joined the Montanists, that all believers, licet laici, are de jure priests in the same sense as members of the clergy, that in the absence of clergy, each priest for himself can baptize and share the Eucharist: because everyone lives only by faith and there is no vision of God. “Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?” (“And we, the laity, are not priests?” De exhort. castit. p. 7). At present, these claims are not repeated. On the contrary, the circumstances are such that the difference between the clergy and the people should be clarified more fully and clearly, and even stronger - if possible - established in the general consciousness. The desire of the emperors to be bishops of the external affairs of the church concerned the external sphere of government: there was no claim to equality in the sacramental sense. The most worthy of the bishops and the emperors themselves knew how to make the difference between the clergy and the laity feel. In the east, the custom was established that the emperor occupied a place on the solea, behind bars, together with the clergy. Ambrose of Mediola did not allow Theodosius to take this place in his church and showed him a place among the laity. The emperor voluntarily began to adhere to this custom in Constantinople itself. As for other believers, the affirmation in them of the idea that they were different from the clergy could not but be influenced by the fact that, due to the ingrained custom of postponing baptism until the last days of life, very many of the laity were catechumens. Obviously, in this case, any claim to equality with the clergy became unthinkable. 1. Conditions for joining the clergy A certain degree of education and moral life were required of those elected to church degrees. The first, understandable in itself, is even more clear from the fact that in our period dogmatic activity developed with all its energy; a bishop or presbyter had to feel competent in those issues that were the subject of dogmatic disputes. But the funds for church education were far from sufficient to ensure that, thanks to them, it was possible to easily satisfy the needs of the church for enlightened clergy. The Alexandrian catechetical school in our period was already outliving its usefulness, and Didymus of Alexandria, who died in 395, was the last decoration of this glorious institution in the history of the church. A small branch of the Alexandrian school, the school in Palestinian Caesarea, glorified by Origen, Pamphilus, Eusebius and the famous library, also fell into decay. The Antiochian school, which began around 290 by the presbyters Dorotheus and Lucian, reached its peak at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century and had a strong influence on the theological direction in the Syrian church. A branch of the Antiochian school, the Edessa school, which was founded by Ephraim the Syrian, had a particularly important educational influence. It had the character of a theological seminary, and from here came educated clergy for Syria and Persia. It somewhat survived the storm raised by the Nestorian dispute, and ended its existence only in 489 (Zinon). Finally, in Persia, the Nestorians founded a school in Nisivin with a specific school curriculum, divided into classes, with special teachers of the Holy Scriptures. These are all the educational institutions known in the east. There was nothing like this in the West. The famous Ostrogothic dignitary and scientist Cassiodorius regretted that a professional explanation of the Holy Scriptures was unknown in Rome, and tried to interest Pope Agapit in establishing such a school in Rome; but this plan was not carried out due to unfavorable political circumstances. Obviously, all the educational, so to speak, theological institutions were too insufficient. I had to turn to other educational means. When pagan schools flourished, there was a practice that persons born even into a Christian family received a general literary and philosophical education in pagan schools, and then independently studied the Holy Scriptures. So, for example, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, at the same time as Julian, listened to the lessons of pagan teachers in Athens; John Chrysostom listened to eloquence lessons from Libanius in Antioch; Jerome studied the classics under Donatus. Quite often, monastic life served as a complement to general education. Even those who received a general education in classical schools came here to prepare themselves for church positions. This was the case with Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. In this era, monasteries were generally one of the preparatory institutions for the clergy. Often they became worthy shepherds. But the monastic influence did not always respond favorably to them: with a strict abstinent life, some of their pupils suffered from a certain narrow-mindedness, fell into rigorism and found themselves helpless among the complex everyday relationships, especially in big cities. Examples of such one-sided influence of monastic life can be seen in Chrysostom and Nestorius. But, of course, this was far from being a general rule: Cyril of Alexandria, who so perfectly knew how to find himself among the most confusing and unfavorable relationships, also spent his first years in a monastery. Another educational institution of that time was life in the clergy of famous bishops. This was a very good means of practical preparation for the passage of the pastoral rank. It usually happened that those who were being prepared for the clergy entered the clergy while still boys with the rank of lectores. They remained in this rank for up to 20–30 years, then became akoluths or subdeacons. If someone was especially successful in literacy or showed special abilities, he was made a notary or exceptor, a kind of secretary. So, for example, Epiphanius, later Bishop of Ticin (5th century), entered the clergy for 8 years as a lecturer, when he became proficient in cursive writing, he was made an exsercho. Proclus, later Bishop of Constantinople, also entered the clergy as a lecturer from early childhood, but at that time he continued to attend school and studied rhetoric, then he was made a notary, then a deacon. During this period, it was considered normal for a person to be elevated to the rank of bishop who had passed successively through all the degrees of clergy, as was the case with Basil the Great. In the Western Church this demand was expressed especially persistently. And of course, this practice had its raison d'etre: long-term stay in the clergy was the best guarantee for a certain mental and moral preparation for holding the highest church positions. The clergy of Basil the Great, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Ambrose of Mediola enjoyed particular fame and respect in their time. Christian communities willingly chose their leaders from among them. In the matter of education of clergy, Blessed Augustine is especially famous: the monasterium clericorum he founded, where he lived with the clergy according to the model of the apostolic community, was the first example of the vita canonica, so famous in the Middle Ages. In addition to many lower clergy from the monastery of Blessed. Augustine left 10 bishops. All these random educational means could not particularly contribute to the high rise of church education among the clergy. Therefore, along with very lofty images of the pastoral ideal, we encounter very modest demands in practice. Thus, in the 5th century, in the African Church, a candidate for the episcopal degree was tested an sit literatus (whether he is literate), rather in knowledge of literacy, than in whether he is instructed in the law of the Lord, whether he understands well the meaning of the scriptures, whether he is experienced in church dogmas. In Rome, only literacy was required for admission to the clergy, so that the new member was only non sine litteris (not illiterate). And in one of the documents presented by the fourteeners to the third ecumenical council, you can read the following words: “I, Patrick, the second presbyter from the village of Paradioxila (Παραδιοξύλου), subscribe for inability to read and write (δια το γράμματα με μή είδέναι), by the hand of co-presbyter Maximus" (Mansi, IV, 1357). [At the Council of Ephesus in 449 there were also bishops who did not know letters, Elijah of Adrianople and Kayuma, Bishop of Feno]*) 23. * Mansi, VI, 929; Elias, episcopus Hadrianopolis, definiens subscripsi per Romanum, episcopum Myroram, eo quod literas ignorarem. VI, 931; Cajumas, episcopus Phainus, definiens subscripsi per coepiscopum meum Dionysium [Sycamazonensem], propter quod literas ignorem. The requirement that members of the clergy be distinguished by a high moral life is, in our period, little by little being embodied in a unique form. Ascetics have long been deeply respected in the church, and the celibate life was considered as one that, according to the word of Christ, not everyone can accommodate, but only those who are given it. Hence the view that virginity is a more perfect way of life than marriage. With the development of monastic life at the present period and the reverent reverence with which believers treated the famous desert fathers, this view of the comparative dignity of the two forms of life was bound to strengthen and manifest itself with practical consequences. They began to want the spiritual, as representatives of morality par excellence, to lead a celibate life. This demand came from west to east. In the Latin Church, already in ancient times, rigoristic views were quite widespread, which found their extreme expression in Montanism. At the Council of Elvira in 306, it was decided: it would be desirable to instruct bishops, presbyters and deacons, and all clergy holding church positions, to completely abstain from their wives. This requirement, of course, had only local significance. But in 325, at the Council of Nicaea, an attempt was made to extend its obligatory nature to the entire church. It is likely that a presentation in this sense was made by Hosius of Corduba, who was also present at the Council of Elvira. Apparently, many were inclined in his favor (Sozomen says: others, οι άλλοι, approved the proposal). But a man who, both as a confessor and as an ascetic, enjoyed high respect, spoke out against him. This was Paphnutius, a bishop from the upper Thebaid. His voice carried all the more weight because a strict virgin himself, Paphnutius was free from any suspicion that he was guided by any selfish motives. He spoke in the sense that the apostle also calls marriage honorable (Heb. 13:4), which, therefore, there is no incentive to demand [celibacy] from everyone; by placing on everyone the yoke that only a few can bear with honor, instead of benefiting, one can bring only harm to the church, exposing to dangerous temptations, if not the sacred persons themselves, then their wives. The opinion of Paphnutius triumphed, and the choice between married and celibate life was still left to the free discretion of those supplied [Soz. I, 23]. However, this order of things in the West came to an end very soon. In response to questions from the Spanish bishop Himerius of Tarragona, the Roman Bishop Siricius issued a decretal letter in 385, which formed the basis for all subsequent regulations regarding the celibacy of clergy. In his message, Pope Siricius laments, as the greatest disaster, the decline of church discipline in Spain, expressed in the fact that many priests and deacons, after being ordained, continue to live with their wives and bear children. “Who will give my head water and comb out the source of my tears? And the people weep this day and night” (Jer.9:1). The argument directed against the marriage life of the clergy constitutes a fairly clear description of how low the Christian understanding of the Roman high priest was. He deduces the obligation of celibacy from the command of the law: be holy, for I am holy, the Lord your God (Lev. XX:7), and rejects the reference to the fact that marriage was permitted to priests in the Old Testament, by the assumption that this was permitted because then the priests came from the same tribe. Further, the Bridegroom of the church is Christ, He sanctified the church, that He may present it as having no filth below vice (Eph. 5:27); those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:8); Do you not know that you are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you (1 Cor. 3:16) (as if this were said only about the bodies of clergy). He declares all disobedient people deposed by the authority of the apostolic see, so that they should never touch the holy one. The secrets they deprived themselves of. “For the future, if there is (which we do not want) such a bishop, presbyter or deacon, let him know that we have now granted him access to leniency, because with iron it is necessary to cut out those wounds that do not respond to the healing effect of emollients.” Innocent I in three epistles (To Maximus and Severus of Brutia, Exsuperio Tolosano 405 and Victricio Rotomagensi 404) repeated the decretum of Siricius and his argumentation, supplementing it with such evidence that most of all speaks against celibacy: with what conscience can married priests hear the words of the Apostle: “to the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving there is nothing pure” ( Titus 1:15). [The Council of Carthage in 419 declared celibacy mandatory for subdeacons* 24. Leo I confirmed this decree]. * Can 25: placuit, ut subdiaconi, qui sacra mysteria contrectant, et diaconi, et presbyteri, sed et episcopi secundum priora statuta etiam ab uxoribus se contineant. Councils in Gaul, Spain, Italy and Africa followed the decree of the Roman see. It may be noted that these injunctions are repeated quite often, which clearly shows that violations of the papal injunction are repeated. It is equally characteristic that in 535 the Council of Clermont forever deprived them of their rank of clergy who continued to live with their wives, and the Council of Tours in 461 prohibited only the celebration of the liturgy for clergy who continued to live in marriage and deprived them of the right to the highest church degrees. This softening of the strict decree of the pope shows how numerous its violators were. In the east, compulsory celibacy did not take hold. As a custom, it appeared primarily (for bishops) in the ecclesiastical region adjacent to Rome and dependent on it - in Thessaly, Macedonia and Achaia. There, a cleric was deposed for continuing his marriage. In Thessaly, celibacy was introduced (before 445) on a private occasion when Iliodorus, the author of erotic poems, was installed as bishop of Tricca [Socr. V, 22]. But in the east, everyone in the clergy, even bishops, could abstain from marriage voluntarily, and not by force of mandatory law. For many had legitimate children during their episcopacy. Gregory the Theologian was born when his father was a bishop. Gregory of Nyssa is also believed to have led a married life. But Sinesius of Ptolemais became especially famous in this regard. When he was appointed bishop, he directly stated that he could not renounce certain views of a dogmatic nature and his wife: “God, the law and the sacred hand of Theophilus gave me a wife. And now I declare directly and openly in front of everyone that I do not want to be separated from her, nor to live with her secretly, as if in an unauthorized connection. The first is contrary to piety, the second - to the laws; but I wish to have many wonderful children from her.” Sinesius was installed as a bishop. But the very fact that he had to so solemnly set such a condition clearly shows that his behavior is out of the ordinary. Without any law, practically, the celibacy of bishops became more and more common. On the one hand, the fact that among the celibate bishops one can name such luminaries of the church as Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, deeply respected in the Syrian church, could not remain without influence. On the other hand, the fact that monasteries were one of the main breeding grounds for the clergy should have led to an increase in the number of unmarried bishops. In the Alexandrian church, already under Athanasius the Great, very many heads of monasteries were appointed bishops (ad Dracontium: και άλλοι πόλλοι). Finally, the very influence on the elections of the people, whose Christian concepts were far from high, who were naturally disposed to pay attention to external signs of moral perfection, should have contributed to the fact that the unequal struggle between the marriage life of bishops and celibacy should have ended in the triumph of the latter. And in fact, already Epiphanius of Cyprus considers the celibate life of the clergy, from the bishop to the subdeacon inclusive, as normal, and looks at married life as a deviation. Around the time when Synesius was installed by Theophilus, John Chrysostom deposed Bishop Antonin of Ephesus in 400 because, having renounced marriage when he was appointed bishop, he continued to live with his wife and gave birth to children. One might, however, think that the bishop was deposed not for his marriage, but for violating his vow. But in any case, the mere fact that the bishop who broke the vow once made it suggests that he was almost forced to pronounce it upon installation, and, therefore, the celibacy of bishops by that time was sufficiently established in the consciousness of society. Egypt is especially different in this regard, where the number of celibate bishops was greatest and where, at least, the Pope of Alexandria was almost always celibate, so that among the Copts there was even a legend that among these popes there was only one married man - Demetrius, but even then, according to research, it turned out that he lived with his wife as with a sister; in honor of this discovery there was even a special holiday. Thus, in the West, due to dogmatic reasons, in the East, by custom, the number of persons who refused marriage upon entering the clergy became more and more significant, so that Emperor Justinian began to demand from bishops that they be chosen from persons who had not even been married, who had not and do not have children, guided by the consideration that the bishop would in this case have fewer relatives and, therefore, would be less biased in his position. Since, however, such a requirement naturally narrowed the circle of candidates for episcopal positions, which, without a doubt, could not remain without influence on the dignity of the elected persons, the Trullo Council of 692 recognized celibate life as mandatory only in the rank of bishop. This council decisively spoke out against the celibacy of priests and deacons, and the fathers of the council declared that, in establishing the celibacy of bishops, they were not at all coming from dogmatic views, but, on the contrary, remembered the apostolic rule prohibiting a bishop from expelling his wife, and only due to the circumstances of the time they found it more convenient to prohibit marriage for a bishop, leaving married life to priests and deacons in view of the fact that [bishops] Married life began to serve as a temptation for many [right. 12, 13]. From the fact that celibacy was part of the circle of the clergy of that time, it does not follow that this denied his family life. The Western Church spoke out in all positive terms in this sense, demanding abstinence from marriage and recognizing a marriage once concluded as forever inviolable. In this sense, a law was issued in 420 by Honorius, dictated by one of the Western bishops, by virtue of which the very respect for chastity stood for the family life of bishops; such women as the chaste wives of bishops are fully worthy to be their wives, for by their behavior they made it possible for their husbands to achieve ecclesiastical degrees. Leo I wrote to Bishop Rusticus so that those who have received holy orders should not separate from their wife, but at the same time live as if they did not have her at all, so that the marriage would pass from the carnal to the spiritual. Thus, in fact, the marriage seemed to be dissolved, but conjugal love remained in full force. And there really were such examples. Thus, Peacock of Nolan had a wife, Teresia; he called her sister, she called him brother. Salvian, the presbyter of Marseilles, had a similar relationship with his wife. This custom continued into the 9th century. On one monument, in a magnificent inscription, at the entrance to the church, the stanzas were read: “Here is buried the body of the most blessed Theodora the bishops.” This inscription was made by Bishop Paschal of Rome. Apparently Paschal was the son of a person who was a bishop, and his mother received the title of bishop. The practice of the Eastern Church took a different direction, as can be seen from the fact that Nonna lived in marriage under Father Gregory the Theologian, and others like that. But since the Council of Trullo in 692, it has been determined that, since the celibacy of the bishop has been introduced, the wives of persons promoted to bishops must settle in some remote monastery. And from their husband they had to receive “care” - πρόνοια, i.e. maintenance. However, this rule has not really taken root in life. And cases [when wives remained with their husbands who became bishops], contrary to this rule, continued until the end of the 12th century. In September 1186, Isaac Angel published a novella, prompted by a complaint from the Bishop of Cyzicus, confirming the fact that many bishops had wives living in their houses, and since the episcopal complaints were based on the resolution of the Trullo Council, it was necessary to make an order that the wives of those who accepted episcopal consecration were tonsured into monasteries. Otherwise, the bishop will face defrocking; and for the future, the tonsure of wives should precede the very consecration of their husbands. The prohibition against placing bigamous people in sacred positions came from the same basic concepts. A bishop must be the husband of one wife, writes St. Paul to Timothy (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:12 – deacon) and Titus (Tit. 1:6). A second marriage has always been viewed as something undesirable, almost reprehensible. In the words of Ambrose: we do not prohibit entering into a second marriage, but we also do not advise (non prohibemus secundas nuptias, sed non suademus), one must see the correct expression of the view of the church. It is not surprising, therefore, that from the most ancient times, bigamy in both its forms - both bigamia vera successiva, that is, sequential marriage to two wives, and bigamia interpretativa - marriage to a woman who can be considered bigamous - was considered an obstacle to receiving holy orders (Apostle Prov. 17:18). But since the basis of this practice was only the requirement that priests be distinguished by abstinence, bishops with freer views allowed themselves to deviate from the letter of the rule. At one time, Tertullian, in the spirit of the rigorism that developed in him under the influence of Montanism, who considered the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist (digamus tinguis, digamus offers? Quot enim et bigami praesident apud vos insultantes utique Apostolo?) 25 to be incompatible with bigamy, reproached the Orthodox of that time (early 3rd century) for that they had many leaders who were bigamous. Hippolytus of Rome, who was a representative of the rigorist party of the Roman clergy, accuses the Roman bishop Callistus for appointing as priests and bishops those who were married to two or three wives. These exceptions to the general rule, which are sometimes an expression of a free view of the letter of the law, and sometimes simply a decline in discipline, are also found in our period. The Roman bishops, starting from Siricius, having begun the fight against the marriage life of the clergy, had to repeat the laws regarding bigamous people many times. The bishops of Tarragona and Rouen needed this kind of decrees and clarifications. Particularly interesting is the decretal letter of Pope Innocent I to the bishops of Macedonia, from which it is revealed that, despite his previous circular orders, the Macedonian bishops elevated bigamous people to sacred degrees, especially those who were married for the first time during their catechumenate; that there were many priests in the clergy married to widows. Leo I reproaches the bishops of Mauretania for placing bigamous people in the sacred ranks. In the same era, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, an ascetic, a man of very strict morals, installed the bigamous committee Irenaeus as Bishop of Tyre. When unfavorable rumors arose about this (a request from the Constantinople clergy), Theodoret referred to the fact that Irenaeus was appointed by him by decision of the Phoenician bishops, that he ordained the bigamous man based on existing examples: thus, Alexander of Antioch, with the highly respected Acacius of Beroea, ordained the bigamous Diogenes, that Prailius of blessed memory ordained Domninus of Caesarea, that in view of these examples Proclus of Constantinople recognized and approved (έπαινών) the ordination of Irenaeus - a fact that must be added, all the more weighty since for Proclus, a long-time and ardent opponent of Nestorius, Irenaeus, a faithful friend of Nestorius, who accompanied him even to Ephesus, could in no case be persona grata, and, therefore, consent was given independently from any third party motives or personal bias; finally, the leading bishops of the Pontic diocese and all the Palestinians without any controversy allowed the installation of Irenaeus [epist. 110]. Restrictions on the issue of monogamy ran parallel to established views on celibacy of the clergy. They usually proceeded from the position of the apostle, who requires that the bishop be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2), and considered the facts that could be presented as the antithesis of this position. The bishop must be monogamous. But monogamy was understood, firstly, as the opposite of bigamia in the true sense of the word, bigamia vera simultanea, as in the Old Testament, where a husband could have two legal wives at the same time, and among the Romans, where a husband, in addition to his legal wife, also had concubines, or when, having a wife, the husband lived with a woman of easy virtue (meretrices), secondly, as the opposite of bigamia vera succesiva, when the widower entered into a new marriage, and, thirdly, bigamia interpretativa, when a celibate person married a widow. - There could be no disagreement regarding the first: it was rejected even by the state laws of that time. Regarding the second, the votes were divided. Some insisted on monogamy in the strict sense of the word. The exponent of this opinion is Chrysostom. “The marriage of a person who has lost his wife,” he says, “would show his infidelity to the deceased, and who could entrust the church to a person who turned out to be unfaithful in ordinary human relations?” Some also believed that a person who was widowed before baptism and married after receiving it could be considered as a monogamous person, for baptism washes away previous actions, and his life can be considered only after the moment of baptism, that is, the beginning of a new Christian life. However, representatives of the Western Church vigorously spoke out against this opinion. Thus, Innocent I, in a letter to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, says: “Is getting married a crime or not? If it is not a crime, then the matter does not concern baptism, since baptism occurs for the remission of sins. Otherwise, the marriage is illegal, and the children are spuria.” In the east, the opposite view of Chrysostom was expressed on bigamia successiva under the protection of a highly authoritative personality - Theodore of Mopsuestia (although, it should be noted, his influence was somewhat limited). Theodore of Mopsuestia taught quite differently from Chrysostom. He said: “If someone took a wife and lived with her chastely and only with her, and if, having lost her, he marries another and begins to live with her in the same way, then he is not deprived by this legalization of Paul of the right to bishopric. Is losing a wife a matter of arbitrariness and not chance? And it’s funny if a man who had two wives cannot be promoted to bishop, but one who had one wife and several concubines can.” Over time, the understanding of the words of the apostle was established in the second sense (bigamia successiva) and it was determined not to admit bigamous people, married a second time after the death of the first wife, to the position of clergy. Subsequently, from this desire to maintain the possible purity of the clergy, there was a prohibition to admit into its ranks persons married to widows (bigamia interpretativa), which in the Western Church included brides of other women of suspicious behavior - the latter included the so-called “disgraceful” actresses. Life, however, took its toll and found ways contrary to the requirements of the law. The Trullo Council says that in the ranks of the clergy there were widowed and married priests. A deadline was set - January 15, 691, until which such marriages were considered legal, and after which priests who married were subject to defrocking (law 3). The third requirement in relation to the married life of the clergy was that persons who were ordained before marriage should not enter into it later. It is based on the view of the Ap. Paul regarding the moral perfection of elders. From the point of view of the ancient church, this requirement is quite natural. The Apostle portrays the bishop as a respectable family man, experienced in moral leadership, who discovered this skill in his children (1 Tim. 3:4 - “ruling his house well”). It seems that the bishop is a person of mature age, about 60 years old, and it is reprehensible for a person of that age to marry. And it cannot be that he wants to get married after taking the priesthood. But the practice, which required that the presbyter be an elder in age, did not last long. People began to appear who had been ordained for 30 years. And since this happened, it was natural to expect violations of the rules regarding marriage. Already, Hippolytus reproaches Callistus for allowing his clerics to marry after being ordained to the clergy (which is probably true of hierarchical degrees, because marriage was allowed to readers and singers). Rule 1 of the Council of Neocaesarea 314, which defrocks a presbyter if he marries, obviously assumes such cases in practice. And the 10th rule of the Council of Ancyra, which took place in the same year, even directly allows those of the deacons to remain in office who, at their very ordination, declared that they could not remain celibate, and, having then received the bishop’s permission, married after their ordination, and deposes only those who, at the ordination, did not make such a reservation, or promised to remain celibate and married later. Justinian spoke out against marriage after his installation in 530 (Cod. 1, 3, 45), 535 (nov. 6, p. 5), 536 (nov. 22, p. 42). Canon 10 of the Council of Ancyra was abolished by the Council of Trullo in canon 6. Thus slowly the demands arising from conventional moral views took root. Of course, it was not just these special laws on the issue of the marriage life of clergy that expressed the demand for the moral height of their lives. This kind of legalization is repeated only with great constancy in conciliar legislation. As a general rule, anyone guilty of any serious sins, for example, murder, was removed from the clergy. The Apostle says in general that a candidate for sacred degrees must be blameless (1 Tim. 3:2, 10; Tit. 1:6,7). Theodoret understands integrity as the absence of a pretext for doubt when making a choice. Because of this, persons who have tarnished their reputation are not allowed to hold sacred positions. Therefore, the Council of Nicea in 325, rule 9, decided: “If some were promoted to elders without testing, or during testing they confessed their sins, but, despite their confession, people, rushing against the rules, laid hands on them, then the rule does not tolerate such people. For the Catholic Church demands a blameless life.” Meanwhile, the Council of Carthage (May 30, 419) categorically expressed the idea that if a bishop declares that in confession someone has confessed to him a known offense, and the accused refuses, then let the bishop not consider it an insult to himself if they do not believe him. This means that here the case was about an act that could be stated clearly - either through evidence, or through the public confession of the person himself, but not in confession. The Western Church has spoken very clearly about the repentance of clergy. Namely, in 385, the Bishop of Rome Siricius decreed that none of the clergy was allowed to openly repent and that a person who repented publicly could not join the clergy. In one letter, Innocent complains that a certain Modest, who publicly repented, was not only promoted to the clergy, but was even ready to be elevated to the rank of bishop. Leo the Great also says that it is completely alien to church customs to allow clergy to publicly repent by laying hands on them. In general, the West has established a view of public repentance as an obstacle to entering the clergy. This is evidenced by one fact from the history of the Donatist split. When Caecilian was promoted to bishop of Carthage, but not a sene, that is, not the oldest in the country (metropolitan), as was the custom, then Bishop Secundus of Tigisi, who had the significance of metropolitan, and other bishops did not want to recognize him. “Recognize him as a simple cleric,” they were told, “and come to ordain him.” Then Secundus replied: “Let him only come to us to break his head for the sake of repentance.” This is explained by the fact that “tendentia” (laying on of hands) was also used in the sense of public repentance, so that in the case under consideration, the ordained Caecilian would have been exposed as a public penitent and would have been deprived of the opportunity to enter the episcopal rank. Thus, the practice of repentance before ordination - as it is now used among us - is a phenomenon not foreseen in the ancient church. These are the general conditions imposed on members of the clergy in our period. There is a desire in them to concentrate the intellectual and moral forces of Christian society in the clergy. And we can say that, despite exceptions, quite frequent, in general this goal was achieved. And the representatives of the priesthood were, if not perfectly moral and enlightened, then still among the best people of their time. 2. Increase in clergy and new church positions The prosperous situation of Christians since the time of Constantine made it possible for the church to widely expand its hierarchical program: firstly, the number of clergy members increased, and secondly, some positions began to be created again. The center of the clergy were three sacred degrees: bishops, presbyters and deacons. These are the so-called ordines sacri, majores. But already in the previous period, the ramifications of these degrees appeared in ascending and descending order. Let's start with the last ones. A whole series of descending degrees was formed - ordines minores, clergy in the proper sense, as opposed to the priesthood. In the previous period, in 252, in the Roman Church there were 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acoluthi and 52 exorcists, lectors and ostiarii. Psalms are usually, even in the present period, identical with the readers. At the same time there are “grave diggers”, κοπιαται or fossores, [also] deaconesses. Currently, a quantitative increase in the clergy occupying these positions is being noticed, as a natural consequence of the changed relationship of the church to the state, the improvement of its material life and the developing desire for a magnificent environment for worship. At the beginning of our period, readers even appear at councils as representatives of bishops, albeit together with presbyters or deacons. Thus, among other things, one lecturer and one exorcist signed the acts of the Council of Arles in 314. Finally, in accordance with the general character of our period, when church degrees were fragmented, multiplied, giving branches up and down - and the degree of reader gave one form of this kind. At the Council of Antioch in 445 (under Domna), among other things, άρχιαναγνώστης Isaac appears. On the same level as lecturers were exorcists, whose duty was to read prayers over the possessed (ενεργούμενοι) and to supervise the catechumens. The second stage of the clergy degrees consists of acoluths and subdeacons. According to Roman practice, persons who spent 4 or 5 years in one position or another were given access to the holy rank of deacon (Syricius, Zosimus). Little is known about the office of akoluf: as their very name suggests, they were companions of the bishop; They also distributed the titles of St. Mysteries - which, obviously, brings them closer to the rank of deacons. The class of clerics ordinis minoris undoubtedly includes the “gravediggers”, fossores, who prepared niches in the catacombs in which the bodies of the dead were placed. These “diggers”, of course, existed for a long time, although they have been documented since the 4th century. In one official document of 303 (Gesta purgationis Caeciliani) and in a letter (49) of Jerome, the fossores are considered unquestionably clerics. In one chronicle of the 6th century (Mai, Spic. Rom. IX, 133) they are placed even above the ostiarius (ostiarius, fossorius, lector, subdiaconus, diaconus, presbyter, episcopus) and are considered as a divinely established degree of clergy. - Under the name of “labors”, κοπιαται, κοπιώντες (in the sense of fossor, undoubtedly, from the 4th century; a hint of this meaning in the writing of the 3rd century), fossores appear in the east. Under Theodosius II there were over 1000 of them in Constantinople. In the laws of Constantius of 357 and 360, κοπιαται are directly called clergy. In one petition of pure ectenia, a trace of this church position of “diggers” (“working, singing and standing people”, κοπιώντων, ψαλλόντων, etc.) has been preserved to this day. A different corporation from the “copiates” were the lecticarii and the decani. Constantine, among 950 people, appointed them to serve the church (of Constantinople). These were laymen, recruited from various classes, who served at the burial. They did not belong to the clergy. Emperor Anastasius (491–518) brought their number to 1100. Since they buried the dead free of charge, Anastasius [gave them freedom from taxes and income]. An analogy with the lecticaries is the paravalans, οί παραβαλανεΐν, a corporation dedicated to caring for the sick 26 . Only the Alexandrian paravalans are known. Some historians classify them as clergy, but there is no solid basis for this. It is known that the paravalans were an organized corporation of 600 people with a syndic at the head, had their own legal list, that their privileges were so significant that rich people even bought the places of paravalans for money (and the law sets limits to their impulses), that they were under the authority of the Archbishop of Alexandria, and in this respect they were semi-clergy. This corporation has left a disgraceful reputation in history. It is known how they acted as heroes together with the monks of Barsuma in 449 in Ephesus at the council of robbers, and perhaps the paravalans constituted the main contingent of the crowd that, under the leadership of the reader Peter, tore Hypatia to pieces. In any case, in 416 the Paravalans greatly compromised themselves, and the law of Theodosius II of September 29, 416 certifies them very unflatteringly. It turns out that a special deputation came to Constantinople to ask that the Alexandrian bishop never leave Alexandria, otherwise the citizens did not see any means of keeping this gang of church servants in order. Theodosius reduced the number of paravalans to 500 people, removed them from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria and subordinated them to the prefect of Egypt and strictly forbade them in corpore to appear in public places, in court or in the theater. However, on February 3, 418, these restrictions were lifted, and among 600 people they were subordinated to the bishop of Alexandria. Along with these degrees, the clergy includes representatives of the female part of Christian society, deaconesses. The reasons for their appearance in the clergy are clear. Given the disunity between the male and female sexes that prevailed in the East, it was difficult for a bishop or presbyter to maintain frequent relations with Christian women. Meanwhile, the converts needed instruction in the truths of faith and Christian morality. Therefore, women are included in the clergy very early. Ap. Paul in 1 Timothy V, 3 and gave. and Titus II, 3–5 speaks of widows (χήραι) and πρεσβύτιδες, whom he entrusts with instructing the female half of Christian society. One of the rules of the African church speaks of widows who were tasked with teaching village women preparing for baptism what they should answer when baptized. From various places related here, it is known that the deaconesses had a certain kind of supervision over the female half of the Christian community, instructed Christian women preparing for baptism that they should answer questions, during baptism women undressed and dressed them, looked after them during illness - and in general acted as mediators, fulfilling the instructions of bishops related to the female half of the community. Their canonical age was first determined, in accordance with the expression of St. Paul, at 60 years old (1 Tim. 5:9), but in 451 the Council of Chalcedon (canon 15) decided to appoint deaconesses for 40 years. This rule was repeated by the Trullo Cathedral. The position of deaconesses in the clergy does not seem indisputable. In Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea, they are first counted among the clergy, as those who are given ordination (χειροτονείσθωσαν), but are then considered as those who do not have χειροθεσίαν τίνα and should be counted among to the laity. Canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea (364.347–381) apparently prohibits their ecclesiastical installation. However, it is more likely that they have long been supplied through the laying on of hands by the bishop in the presence of the community, like other members of the clergy. The rule of the Council of Chalcedon speaks of their consecration and consecration. The eldest of the deaconesses, probably something like the chairwoman of their corporations, were called presbyterae in the west. The fate of this institute was different in different localities. In the person of Olympias, known from the story of John Chrysostom, we have the highest representative of this kind. In general, deaconesses are more common in the east than in the west. In the West, there are already quite early attempts to abolish this type of institution. The Council of Orleans 533 (Prospect 18) forbade the teaching of benedictio diaconalis to them due to the weakness of the sex. The Council of Orange (Arausicana I) of 441 (project 26) prohibited the supply of them again, and [decided] to relegate the existing ones to the category of laity. Probably, these orders are due to the changing circumstances of the time: the increasingly widespread custom of baptizing children made the participation of deaconesses in this sacrament unnecessary, and their presence in the clergy, which was necessarily celibate, did not seem entirely safe or decent. On the contrary, in the east their corporation was replenished by the wives of bishops who were separated from their husbands when they were appointed to this sacred dignity, and continues to exist in the 12th century. The listed church positions, with the exception of deans and paravalans, actually have a church, clergy character - they stand in relation to such internal functions of the church as worship. But from the beginning of the period, these clergy degrees began to be intertwined with church positions of a different order, intended to manage a certain kind of external functions of church life, positions with a character not so much clergy, but bureaucratic. In our period they do not reach such a grandiose development as the complex organism of the nine pentads of the Byzantine Church represents; some of these positions exist only in embryo, some have not yet appeared at all. Of these official positions, notaries should be mentioned first of all. They were responsible for drawing up protocols on church affairs. This title, by its very essence, could be combined with a wide variety of church degrees. Therefore, we meet notaries of readers, notaries of co-deacons (in the west) (Caesarius of Arles, † 542), who wore the episcopal baculum, notaries of subdeacons, notaries of deacons. Notaries were of much greater importance than secretaries and clerks in the diocesan administration, because extensive correspondence between bishops was then carried out not in their own hands, but through notaries; correspondence was generally considered an activity unworthy of a high mind. Therefore, the bishop, having received the letter, dictated the answer to the notary, which is where the phrase came from: “Having received such and such news, I immediately dictated my answer.” The notary, therefore, was a person very close to the bishop; why many outstanding church leaders began their ministry as notaries, for example, Athanasius the Great (ύπογραφεύς Alexander of Alexandria) and others. Even at the Ecumenical Council, notaries played a significant role, connected with the diaconate; sent with documents or with questions about a private agreement from one bishop to another, they had to immediately write down the answer on their wax tablet. At the council of 681, for example, there are notaries - Agathon, reader of Constantinople, Theodore, deacon and foremost of the notaries of the Apostolic Church, and Constantine, archdeacon of Constantinople and foremost of the notaries. Not only deacons, but also presbyters were notaries: the foremost of the notaries (primicerius notariorum), Peter, the Alexandrian presbyter, was present at the Council of Ephesus. In Constantinople, this position acquired lasting fame thanks to the martyrdom of Martyrius and Marcian, notaries of Paul of Constantinople, who suffered under Macedonia. Their Memorial Day, October 25, was called the “Feast of St. notaries" and was celebrated very solemnly. The main representative of the celebration was the great Chartophylax. The Chartophylaxes distinguished themselves from the notaries and subsequently occupied a high position. This position was mentioned for the first time at the council of 536. In 681, Chartophylax Deacon George was present at the council. The activities of the Chartophylaxes even then seemed very important, since the information in the documents they kept gave direction to the whole matter. Then a number of positions in church management were allocated. The Council of Chalcedon established the position of steward under the bishops, so that the bishop would not be embarrassed. In the Alexandrian church, the steward occupied a particularly prominent position. In the Church of Constantinople he was a deacon, here he was a presbyter and, it seems, the first person in the bishopric - archpresbyter, which corresponds to our name of cathedral archpriest. This meaning of the steward in the Alexandrian church is indicated by the word “cummus” that has survived to this day in the Alexandrian church, representing a distortion of two Greek words, “ηγούμενος” and “οικονόμος”. There were also other positions. Thus, the management of charitable affairs was entrusted to a special person. This position [of the head of orphanotrophy] was held by Patriarch Acacius until 471. With the legal recognition of the property rights of the church by the state, in cases of conflict with secular persons and judicial authorities, there was a need for special experienced lawyers, who were called defensores in the west, εκδικοι in the east, έκκλησιέκδικοι. They, by the way, were entrusted with those duties, the fulfillment of which required the use of coercive measures; for example, clergy, monks and clerics who did not have the right to live in Constantinople were sent by them to their churches (Khalk. sob. pr. 23). Usually they were appointed from among the deacons, but there were also elders. The position of skeuphylax was appointed to take charge of the church's treasures. It is known that church treasures were formerly kept by deacons. Probably the significant increase in church wealth in our period caused the emergence of a special office. Church vessels - σκεύη, and jewelry - κειμήλια are now kept by the presbyter, who is called φύλαξ των κειμηλίων (Soz. V, 8), or σκευοφύλαξ (Theod. Lector, n. 28), or κειμηλιάρχης. The first historically known skevofylaks, or φύλαξ των κειμηλίων, was the presbyter of Antioch, Theodorus, who suffered (beheaded by the sword) under Julian (they demanded information about the treasures from him). Under Ives, in the Edessa church, the kimiliarch kept not only vessels, but also specie (6000 νομίσματα). This, therefore, is already the church treasurer. In the [first] half of our period, this was a highly respected position in Constantinople. From 447 to 654, out of 20 patriarchs of Constantinople, three - Flavian, Macedonius II and Timothy - were skevophilaxes. Thus, the position of housekeeper received ramifications. And the sacred degrees in the present period have given new divisions. Archdeacons and second deacons, archpresbyters and second presbyters appeared, metropolitans, archbishops, exarchs, primates, patriarchs appeared. The first news of second deacons is found in the Carthaginian church; the first historically known archdeacon was Caecilian of Carthage. Further: Athanasius the Great is called ηγούμενος διακόνων, Evagrius, archdeacon of Constantinople under Gregory of Nazianzus, Serapion, archdeacon under John Chrysostom, etc. The second presbyters are mentioned in the acts of the Council of Ephesus, and also earlier, under Valens, the presbyter Eulogius, o των άλλων ηγούμενος, and Protogen, ό μετ εκείνον, were mentioned in Edessa. Peter of Alexandria under Theophilus, Arsakias, successor of Chrysostom, Proterius, successor of Dioscorus, are called archpresbyters directly or protopresbyters. Archpriests and archdeacons stood out from among their brethren, of course, gradually. The protopresbyter was at first the oldest member of the presbytery, the archdeacon was the first and most prominent among the deacons. In the 4th century, these positions were already firmly established. From the words of Jerome we know that in each church there was one archpresbyter and one archdeacon, that the first was elected from among themselves by the presbyters, the second by the deacons, and, apparently, the most important thing lay in this election. But in the east, apparently, the voice of the bishop had more importance in the appointment of archpresbyter. Little can be said regarding the significance of the archpresbyter: he was the bishop’s mediator in the distribution of alms, the distribution of benefits, and, apparently, took his place in the event of his absence, which is very natural if he was the eldest among the presbyters. In general, this position - a very honorable one - seems rather colorless. The same cannot be said about archdeacons. Their ancient position in the church is indicated by one modern fact of English church life: in this country of conservative Protestantism, among the bishops there are also members of the hierarchy who, de jure, in their ecclesiastical degree, are only archdeacons. In the ancient church, the archdeacon was the bearer of the combined rights and benefits of the deaconate; The archdiaconate is the product of the originally established relationships between the three hierarchical degrees. By right, presbyters have always been superior to deacons: the presbyter was the celebrant of the mysteries, the deacon only their dispenser; the presbyter could baptize, the deacon was allowed to do this only as an exception; the presbyter could confess, the deacon (under Cyprian) was allowed to repent only in case of danger of death of the penitent. The ancient councils were composed of residentibus episcopis et presbyteris, astantibus diaconis: that is, around the elevated seats of the bishops, behind them, the presbyters sat in a semicircle on the lower seats, while the deacons stood in front of the bishops. The liturgical order was the same: deacons did not enjoy the honor of the church seat. In general, the presbyters were regarded as the senatus ecclesiae, the bishop's advisers; the deacons were only the servants of the latter, his ministri. In the Western Church, where everything developed so logically, which was based on a legal principle, there was such a practice during ordination to the sacred degrees: when a bishop was installed, two bishops held an open St. above his bowed head. The Gospel and all the bishops laid hands on the one supplied; when they appointed a presbyter, not only the bishop, but also all the presbyters present laid a hand on the head of the person appointed; on the contrary, when they ordained a deacon, only the bishop who appointed him put his hand on his head, because a deacon is not consecrated for the priesthood, but for service, non ad sacerdotium, sed ad ministerium consecratur. Thus, the deacon in his very ordination was not introduced into the church senate, nor was he called as an equal to the number of shepherds. His appointment was, so to speak, a personal matter for one bishop, just as in the state hierarchy of that time the composition of his officium, his official staff, depended on the personal discretion of the highest state official. Thus, the official position of a deacon was very modest. But this was not the case in practice: the deacons turned out to be truly ministri in our sense of the word, while the elders were only senators. Many things contributed to the rise of their influence. First of all, the common people, the laity, were impressed by the fact that there were so many elders and so few deacons. From the book of Acts we know about the election of 7 deacons to serve at meals. This number stayed in the east for a long time. The Neo-Caesarean Council of 314 defines the number of deacons as seven. But the Council of Trullo, by rule 16, canceled this decree of the Neocaesarea Council and confirmed its decree with a reference to the exegetical text of Chrysostom. The Roman Church also for a long time maintained a sevenfold number of deacons. This circumstance, namely, such a limited number of deacons, with a large number of elders, made a strong impression on the common people and contributed to an increase in the importance of deacons in the eyes of the laity. In church terms, Rome was divided into 14 regiones - districts, and deacons, according to their duties, were placed in the position of overseers in these districts. In the 3rd century. under Cornelius, the Roman Church numbered 46 presbyters and only 7 deacons [and in addition 7 subdeacons]. Quite a few, even large churches, did not want to deviate from this number, sanctified by apostolic practice. The rise of deacons was further promoted by the course of life in ancient church communities. With a rather limited number of believers, the ancient parish (παροικία) could gather in its entirety in one place for public worship. Church life was then concentrated not in what we would call “in the parishes,” but in the cathedral. At the same time, naturally, the head of the church, the bishop, was also the head of the liturgical meetings. Having the right to perform the Eucharist and baptism, the presbyters could very rarely exercise this right in practice, especially since baptism was performed at certain times by the bishop himself. Appointed to be teachers of the people, preachers of the word of God, elders, as one might think, could very rarely exercise this right; the unsophisticated instruction after reading the Gospel was usually given by the speaker himself. In the Roman Church, preaching was generally undeveloped; in Carthage there was a practice that a presbyter should not preach in the presence of a bishop; an exception was made for the first time for Augustine. It was freer in this regard in the east; but here, too, in the Alexandrian church, since the time of Arianism, a custom has been established that not a single presbyter should preach in the church. In a word, in the Western Church only in rare cases could an elder gain a reputation as a good preacher and, from this side, increase his authority in the eyes of his flock. Usually, the importance of the presbyters with their advisory [voice] positively paled due to their constant proximity to the bishop; they had quite a lot of honor, but very little power, a very small area for activity. As much as the elders lost in this case, so much did the deacons gain. They were, so to speak, the bishop's servants, they shone not with an independent light, but even reflected, it was still an extremely strong shine of the episcopal dignity. Usually, not presbyters, but deacons were the bishop’s confidants, his intimate confidants: the Bishop of Rome Xistus was followed to execution by the deacon Lawrence; the life of Cyprian of Carthage - until his last minutes - is described by his deacon Pontius. Many functions of the lower order were entrusted to deacons, because the rank of elders was too high for them to be entrusted to them. Such, for example, are the duties of observing the people during worship, conveying to them the orders of the bishop, calling the disorderly to order - all this was considered the duty of the deacon and all this, undoubtedly, put the deacons in a close relationship with the laity, opening up very many opportunities for making the latter feel all their weight, all their importance. The rich widow Lucilla used to before receiving St. The mystery of kissing the bone of some martyr of dubious authenticity. Archdeacon Caecilian reprimanded this influential person for this, inde irae (hence the hostility): and this circumstance was one of the minor reasons for the emergence of Donatism. Little by little, the deacons began to supervise the behavior of the laity in general. The other side of church government, the management of church property, also depended a lot on the deacons. They were the first custodians of church treasures; they were also managers of church revenues. Lawrence of Rome was required to account for the disposal of rich church treasures; he sold church vessels at one time. The Carthaginian deacon Felicissimus took possession of church revenues, refused to give an account to Cyprian of how he distributed alms, and threatened not to give the slightest allowance to those who did not adhere to his party. Caecilian, the archdeacon of Carthage, was accused by the Donatists of not giving any assistance to the confessors. Add to this that the income of deacons was greater than that of priests (Hieron. er. ad Evangelum), which, of course, could only give the former self-confidence. Given this state of affairs, the deacons could naturally hold their heads high. In particular, the Roman diaconate was distinguished by its defiant attitude towards the elders. As a matter of principle, deacons could not sit in front of the elders; but Jerome knew deacons who not only sat in front of the priests, but even taught them the blessing (ep. ad Evangelum). Phenomena of a similar nature were repeated in other places. The Council of Nicaea (right 18) should have forbidden deacons to partake of the Eucharist before the bishop, to teach the Eucharist to the presbyters, or to sit among them, and to remind them not to forget their measure, that they are servants of bishops and lower than presbyters. The Council of Laodicea (between 343–381, Schaff) also decrees (right 20), καθέζεθαι, άλλα μετά κελεύ – σεως του πρεσβυτέρου καθέζεσθαι (cf. Trull. rights. 7) 27. And if such were the relations of deacons, then one can understand what an archdeacon was like, one among the few. Constant companion of the bishop during divine services (Hieron, comm. in Ezechiel. p. 48: certe qui primus fuerit ministrorum (= των διακόνων), quia per singula concionatur in populos et a pontificis latere non recedit, injuriam putat, si presbyter ordinetur 28 ) the main figure in the administrative sphere, well acquainted with the church affairs of the episcopate, the archdeacon was considered the natural representative of his bishop at councils (for example, Chalk. sob. act. 6: Porphyry archdeacon, taking the place of Uranius, bishop of Emesa) and a mediator in his relations with his other brothers (Innocent, papae ep. 22). And if these were subordinate bishops, then such an intermediary already looked like an auditor. In unimportant matters, he had the right to judge deacons (Nik. sob. rule 57 - inauthentic, from Arabic), he could even excommunicate them from the church at his own discretion (Khalk. sob. act. 10). At the Council of Chalcedon, Iva, the bishop of Edessa, declared as a matter of commonplace that one of his deacons (Mara) was excommunicated not by him (the bishop), but by his archdeacon, excommunicated justly because he had insulted the presbyter - and this excommunication had the same legal force as that pronounced by the bishop himself. The right to supervise the moral life of church members led to the fact that promotion to sacred degrees required the approval of the archdeacon (Hieron. ep. ad Evangelum), a function that made the authority of the archdeacon very sensitive both for the presbyter and for the candidates for bishops themselves. When Iva of Edessa decided to ordain a certain deacon Abraham, suspected of witchcraft, as bishop, the Edessa archdeacon energetically opposed this; Iva dealt with the latter in his own way: he deprived him of his position and excommunicated him, but the candidacy of Abraham, despite all the efforts of Iva, still did not pass (Khalk. personal act. 10). And archdeacons of influential sees sometimes looked down on outside bishops. It is known (Socrates, Sozomen) what a stir was caused by the fact that the archdeacon of St. Chrysostom Serapion did not bow to the Gavalian bishop Sevirian. The latter did not want to believe that Serapion did this by accident, without the intention of insulting him; consequently, the possibility of contemptuous treatment of the provincial bishop by the capital's archdeacon was so great. The energetic archdeacon could stand up for his influence even in a dispute with his bishop. Willow of Edessa had to listen from his archdeacon not only to protests against unseemly candidates, but also to frank remarks regarding such cases when for divine services one had to buy bad wine in shops, and then in insufficient quantities, while the bishop himself had an abundance of excellent wine at the table (Chalk. personal act. 10). In general, archdeacons were the right hand of their bishop. In Rome their importance was very great. Theodoret of Cyrus seeks moral support for himself in Rome and writes a letter to Pope Leo the Great (ep. 113); at the same time, he also addresses the Roman archdeacon (ep. 118) with a request to assist him with his influence on the pope - and this is when a man as independent, iron will and inexorable energy as Leo I sat on the papal throne. And when this latter was an archdeacon, Cyril of Alexandria, in the case of Juvenal in Jerusalem, did not even turn to Celestine (to the pope), but to Leo (Leon. ep. 119, al. 92). It is very natural that a person so familiar with church affairs as the archdeacon should be one of the most prominent candidates for the episcopal see. At least in both the east and the west, vacant sees were filled by archdeacons no less often than by archpriests. In Alexandria: Athanasius the Great, ό ηγούμενος των διακώνων; Archdeacon Timothy, a contender for the see after the death of Theophilus, who competed with Cyril; Proterius, Archpriest of Dioscorus. In Constantinople: Arsakios, successor of Chrysostom, protopresbyter; Anatoly, Archdeacon of Alexandria. In Rome: Felix (355), archdeacon; 366 – deacon (Langen; presbyter, Pagi) Damasus and deacon Ursinus, [candidates for the see]; 418 – struggle between Presbyter Bonifatius and Archdeacon Eulalia over the pulpit; Leo I (440–461) and Hilary (461–468), of the archdeacons; 499 – struggle between deacon Symmachus and archpresbyter Lawrence; Agapit, of the archdeacons; 538 – Vigilius, (arch?)deacon. In general, the succession of archdeacons in the Roman see was so common that a writer of the 6th century. Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (580–607) (quoted by Photius in Cod. 182) even explains the origin of the Novatian schism in Rome by the fact that Pope Cornelius insulted Novatian: not wanting to have him as a successor, he promoted him from archdeacon to presbyter, “for in Rome it was customary (ένενόμιστο) for an archdeacon to be the successor of a bishop.” Given this state of affairs, Jerome’s words that deacons consider it an insult if they are promoted to presbyters do not seem at all an exaggeration. This phenomenon was known not only in the West; but also in the east. The Constantinople archdeacon Aetius, who played a fairly prominent role at the Council of Chalcedon and attracted the favorable attention of the Roman legates, somehow incurred the displeasure of his patriarch Anatolius. It was this who elevated Aetius, making him presbyter of a certain cemetery church. Because of this, Pope Leo had a whole correspondence (ep. 111, 112, 113, 117, 127, 128, 132, 135, al. 84, 85, 86, 88, 100, 101, 105, 106). In Rome they understood very well that, having taken away the management of all church affairs from Aetius (ep. 111: dispensationem totius causae et curae ecclesiasticae, ep. 112: ecclesiasticis negotiis praepositum esse 29), Anatolius deposed Aetius under the guise of honor, and his appointment to one of the remote cemetery churches was too similar to exile (ep. 111: sub honoris specie degradaret; dejectionem innocentis per speciem provectionis implevit, addens in sententia illud injuriae, ut eum coemeterio deputando quodam damnaret exsilio 30). By his petition to the emperor, Leo finally achieved that Anatoly returned his favor to the presbyter Aetius, but, of course, not the archdeaconry. Something similar subsequently happened with Honoratus, archdeacon of Salon (salonitano) (Gregor. M., lib. l, ep. 10 et 19; lib. 2, ep. 16). In the present period, the very development of church life has led to a certain rise in the presbyters. We mean the formation of parishes. It is known that the ancient (pre-Constantinian) church did not know parishes in our sense of the word. The ancient παροικία itself was εκκλησία ή παροικούσα, that is, a local church with a bishop at its head. With a limited number of believers in each city, they all constituted one community (παροικίαν), a diocese-parish with a bishop as its leader, and, with the exception of emergency cases, they gathered in one place. Christian villagers also joined the believing townspeople, coming to the city on Sunday to participate in divine services. If a sufficient number of Christians converted in a certain area, they formed not a new parish with a presbyter, but a new παροικίαν, a church with a bishop at its head. The conversion of the masses in the present period has increased the number of Christians to such an extent that religious meetings of Christians in one place have already become difficult. The Christian population of the villages required their own religious meetings. According to ancient practice, bishops should be installed in every village. The African Church, which was in many ways strictly conservative, did just that. When enough Orthodox Christians had formed in the fortress of Fussale, 40 miles (about 56 versts) from Ippon, Augustine installed a new bishop there. That is why there were very many bishops in Africa. In Rome, the idea of ​​unity prevailed, so that although believers gathered in several places and divine services were performed by presbyters, without the consecration of St. Gifts that were brought to private churches from the bishop by the Akoluths. In this regard, the established practice was that individual elders were assigned to certain churches. In Constantinople the three main churches were regarded as one church; The clergy there belonged, in fact, to the St. Sophia Cathedral. Parish life began earliest, apparently, in Alexandria, and the matter naturally emerged from the most urban conditions. Each city was divided into quarters, into which taxes were distributed, and independent parishes were formed in them. They began to send special presbyters to the so-called “lavras”, who remained there permanently. By the time of the advent of Arianism, parish life here was already highly developed. The presbyter, who by his position presented himself as a kind of Church senator - senator ecclesiae, could not be appointed in the usual manner, like a deacon who stood in the position of ordinary officia. Therefore, the elective principle in admission to the presbytery stubbornly remained. It is unknown whether deacons were elected in the 4th and 5th centuries; this is positively known about elders. The following should be noted about the elections themselves. Parishes at that time expanded in number very slowly. The material interests of individual parishes (income, etc.) were considered as belonging to the entire bishopric. Only then was permission given to each parish to use it separately. Thus, the clergy in ancient times was centralized around the main church - the cathedral, which was called καθολική εκκλησία. The entire clergy of the episcopate was considered as the clergy of the cathedral church, only sent to known places - parishes. Therefore, elections were not carried out separately for parishes, but all electoral work was concentrated at the cathedral church. That elections took place then and how they were carried out is given information about this by the third word of Chrysostom “On the Priesthood” (Chapter 15). In this word, Chrysostom first describes the difficulties of episcopal service both in principle and in practice: the bishop occupies the position of a governor, constantly in a state of war, whose weaknesses are watched by everyone; describes the difficulty of finding a person who satisfies all the requirements from a bishop. Then he says: “Do you want me to show you another type of warfare, filled with a thousand dangers? Go and look at the popular festivities, where for the most part elections to church positions are made: and you will see that as much censure is poured on the saint as the number of those subordinate to him is large. All who have the right to supply this degree are then divided into many parties; the presbyters disagree with themselves and with their bishop; each defends his side, one chooses one, the other another. The reason for this is that not everyone looks at what is the only thing they should look at, i.e. on the virtue of the soul; but here there are many other pretexts for obtaining this dignity. For example, they say: such and such should be elected because he comes from a noble family, another - because he owns great wealth and will not have the need to be supported by church income; the third - voluntarily came to them from our opponents. And everyone tries to ensure that either his short friend, or a close relative, or even a flatterer is preferred over others. But no one wants to look at a truly worthy person; they don’t test his spiritual qualities at all. Some are elected out of fear that they will not go over to the side of their opponents; others for their malice, so that if they were rejected, they would not take cruel revenge. What could be more unlawful than when evil and vicious people receive honor for something for which they should be punished; and why should they not be allowed to cross the threshold of the church, for this very reason they are elevated to the priestly level? Tell me, will we still seek the guilt of God’s wrath if we hand over such holy and terrible things to be trampled upon by vicious and undeserving people? When the management of such affairs is entrusted either to those to whom it is not at all characteristic, or to those whose powers it exceeds, then the church becomes no different from Euripus. Previously, I laughed at worldly leaders when I saw that when distributing honors they value not the virtue of the soul, but wealth, old age, and the patronage of people. But all this seemed not so strange to me when I learned that the same unreason had penetrated us. Is it surprising if worldly people sin like this, seeking glory from the people and ready to do everything for gifts, when those who pretend that they are not at all involved in such actions do no better, and argue about heavenly things as if it were about tithes of the earth or something else like that? they take some ignoramuses and make them the henchmen of such acquisitions, for which the Only Begotten Son of God did not refuse to abase His glory, to become a man, to take the form of a servant, to die a most blasphemous death according to the flesh! But they do not stop there either, but extend their insane insolence much further: they not only elect the unworthy, but also reject the most worthy. - If you want to know the reasons for this evil, you will see that they are the same as the first: the root and, so to speak, their mother are the same - envy. However, they differ in species, they say: this one should be removed because it is young; another - because he does not know how to flatter, a third - because he is in a quarrel with so-and-so; fourth - so that so-and-so will not be offended; the fifth - because he is very kind and forgiving; sixth - because he is too strict towards those who sin; the seventh - for some other similar reason. In general, they can invent as many prepositions as they want. If they don’t find another excuse, then they put wealth itself into view, also that which should not be raised to this level suddenly, but gradually, little by little. They can find other reasons as they wish. Now I wish to ask you, what should a bishop do when he is tossed about by such winds? How can he resist such waves? How to fend off all these blows? If, during such a storm, he is governed by common sense, then everyone will become enemies and adversaries to him and the chosen one, they are stubborn in everything, they kindle discord every day, they persecute the chosen ones with ridicule, until they are either overthrown or they install their own adherents. If he intends to please the voters and prefers pleasing to his own salvation, allowing what he should not do, then instead of them he will have God as his enemy. What's worse than that? Then his position in relation to voters will become much more difficult, because all of them, assisting each other, are thereby strengthened. Just as from strong winds meeting from opposite sides, the sea, hitherto calm, suddenly begins to rage, stirs up waves and destroys swimmers, so the church, as soon as outrageous people are allowed into it, suffers a lot of destruction.” From this description it is clear that we are talking about elections that are large both in the composition of voters and in the number of those elected. This is not about the kind of elections that can happen, for example, in Russia, when you need to elect one person, but, obviously, several people are elected. The indication that they objected to a well-known person on the basis of his youth shows that the matter is not about inclusion in the lower clergy, but in the highest. And since the saint is considered as present at the elections and fighting with the different opinions of the presbytery, then, obviously, the matter is not about the choice of a bishop. It also turns out that at that time there were elections directly to the presbyter. So, the presbytery in the 4th and 5th centuries. remained elective, and other lower degrees were replaced directly at the discretion of the bishop. Let's move on to the history of the episcopal rank. The episcopal rank, equal in all in the sense of priesthood, is the same in all; but episcopal power in the matter of church government in the present period appears before us in many forms: chorebishop, bishop, metropolitan, exarch and patriarch. The history of the present period seems to have been directed towards the elevation of the episcopal rank. Retaining for himself all the ecclesiastical significance that belongs to him, sanctified by history, the bishop of the present period is the concrete bearer of those external privileges that the state has now acquired for the church. The shepherd of souls now, from the outside, grows to the significance of the highest state dignitary. Within the limits of his spiritual power, the bishop was such a force before which the royal persons themselves bowed down to requests, to intense begging, as was the case with Eudoxia when she appeared in the role of mediator between Chrysostom and Sevirian. This outward growth of the episcopal rank was reflected in respectful titles. Their beginning lies already in the previous period. Now they develop into superlatives: “most beloved and most holy” is the most constant epithet of the bishop. What kind of external etiquette bishops could demand is shown by this case. Under Constantius there was one of the many councils. The bishops came to bow to the Empress Eusevia. Only Leonty of Tripoli (semi-Aryan) did not do this and stayed at home. The Empress finally sent an ambassador to him with a kind invitation to come to her, promising various favors for this - to build him a magnificent church, shower him with money. Leonty replied: “If you do this, empress, then you will bring not so much pleasure to me, but benefit to your soul. And if you want me to come to you, then I can do this only with respect due to the rank of bishop. Precisely, when I enter, you come down from your high throne, greet me respectfully and bow your head under my hands, asking for blessing. Then I will sit down, and you stand out of respect, and then, when I give permission, sit down. If you agree to this, I would come to you; and if I must appear in some other way, then you will not, and cannot, give so much to reward us for diminishing the honor that is due to bishops. Otherwise I would have offended the divinely established order of the priesthood.” The Empress complained to Constantius and demanded punishment for the insolent bishop. But Constantius praised the bishop’s straightforwardness and freedom of thought, calmed his wife’s anger and sent her to her half (Philostorg. Ar. Suidam sub v. Λεόντιος)*. * Respect in general for the holy order was such that they tried to honor some outstanding ascetics with it. Such a case is known, for example, with one ascetic - Akepsim. He responded with consent to the offer to accept holy orders, but expressed this consent in the following form: “I obey, but only because in a few days I am going to the Lord.” And indeed, after 7 days he died [Theodor. Hist, religion. 15]. A similar case happened with Salaman. When the Bishop of Antioch, Flavian, visited him and declared that he wanted to consecrate him, [and then laid his hand on him and consecrated him], the ascetic did not answer a word, and Flavian was forced to leave without an answer [ibid. 19]. But regarding the same Flavian and Macedon, something else is known. Flavian decided to honor Macedonius with the rank of presbyter. Since he knew that Macedonius would refuse his offer, he used a trick, saying that an accusation had been brought against him, and invited him as if for trial. Macedonius appeared. On the following Sunday, he was brought to church, and he, unfamiliar with the Greek language, was ordained. When it was explained to him that he had been consecrated, he first began to reproach the bishop and others present, and then he picked up the stick from which he had never been separated and chased after them. The next Sunday he was again called to church, but he did not go, thinking that they again wanted to ordain him as an elder. They explained to him that consecration takes place only once. He calmed down, making sure that he was not mocked, but remained dissatisfied, as he was afraid that he would have to live in Antioch; when he was dissuaded of this too, he parted with the bishop in peace [ibid. 13]. “A majestic spectacle,” [says Ulgorn in his book on charity in the ancient church], was presented by the bishop among the hungry, as a giver of alms, who every day opens his hand, from whom everyone expects help and receives as much as possible, both the poor Roman, driven out of his home by the barbarians, and the German, who for the first time was touched by the quiet spirit of Christian love and awakened in his heart the image of divine mercy; the bishop with whom the foreigner finds refuge, and the sick - help, who sells precious vessels for the ransom of captives and leads the life of a poor man in his house; Basil, who himself takes care of the sick and lepers, Chrysostom, who, simple and modest among Byzantine luxury, feeds 7,000 poor people daily, Ambrose, who with the pride of a Roman and the humility of a Christian stands against the emperor and descends to every poor person, Augustine, who does not want to have any other clothing except what he can give to each brother, Gregory, who deeply feels all the needs of his time and is tormented by the news that another Roman has died of hunger.”* * G. Uhihorn, Die christliche Liebesthätigkeit in der alten Kirche. Stuttgart. s. 263–264. In principle, the episcopal rank was the subject of reverent respect by both the laity and the clergy: even the bishop judged by the council continued to bear the title of “most beloved and most holy of God” - until that fateful moment when the church court removed his high rank from him and relegated him to the category of the wicked. But this very height of episcopal power also contained the moment of its limitation. State power naturally had to strive to ensure that departments were replaced by people pleasing to it. And unrest in Christian society itself could justify these claims by the state to intervene in such important issues as the replacement of episcopal sees. Too many were seeking the office of bishop to suggest greater caution in choosing means for this purpose, and the Christian community was not so high both mentally and morally that it could be guided only by ecclesiastical interests when casting votes. Therefore, elections to episcopal positions were a critical moment for public peace. All this, of course, led to a limitation of episcopal influence and significance. That bishops should be elective was taken as something indisputable, not even subject to reasoning. This should be especially said about the West. There the demand was in full swing: “He who must rule everyone must be chosen by everyone.” It should also be noted that elections in ancient times were not considered as a well-known claim of the laity to participate in church affairs. Elections were usually held at a time when it was impossible to do without them, because spiritual power could not at that moment exert the moral influence that was inherent in it. The venerable bishop, who had achieved influence among the flock and therefore had the opportunity to indicate a worthy successor, died. The flock proceeded to the elections not because they wanted to stand against the gaze of the deceased and show their importance, but because there was no person who would point authoritatively to the worthy one. Only the elders were present before the choosers. But they, knowing individual parts and branches of church administration and economy, could not be competent enough to authoritatively propose a worthy successor to the deceased bishop. The authority of neighboring bishops also could not be of particular importance in this case: they arrived in a given bishopric only for elections and could not, of course, know the flock of their deceased colleague. Therefore, there can be no talk of any special influence on their choice of a famous person and the desire on the part of the flock to resist their influence. We are accustomed to false generalizations and imagine ancient life as set out, for example, in the apostolic canons, but in reality the practice of the ancient church was much more diverse. There is no doubt that [for example, when the question arose about electing a bishop to the metropolitan see] with the death of the metropolitan, the bishops of neighboring dioceses were sent to the metropolis. But we can say little about the details. If it were in the east - in Syria or Antioch, then the bishops would probably begin to gather only when they received an invitation; in Cappadocia, the bishops themselves were obliged to gather upon hearing about the death of the metropolitan, as evidenced by the following incident. In 370, Basil, wishing to see Gregory of Nazianzus, sent him false news of his illness; but Gregory, noticing that bishops were heading to Caesarea, realized that it was not Basil the Great who was sick, but his predecessor Eusebius of Caesarea had died. This means that in the ancient church a congress of bishops was necessary as soon as they learned about the death of a bishop. The practice of electing bishops through “ψήφος και δοκιμασία” was firmly established in the ancient church. Our historical science stands on rather weak legs. This is evident from the fact that dogmatic textbooks preach that the words: “divine grace, always weakly healing...” are the final moment of the sacrament of the priesthood. These words are thus equated with perfect words, for example, at baptism. However, in the ancient church things were different. Only in later practice were these words pronounced by the bishop; and in the church of Constantinople the archdeacon pronounced them, and therefore they no longer looked at them as a perfect formula. They constituted only a preparation for consecration and represented a determination of the Constantinople σύνοδος ενδημούσα on the election of a candidate for bishopric. The prayer itself in ancient times began with the words: “ψήφω καΐ δοκιμασία των θεοφιλέστατων επισκόπων ή θεία χάρις προχειρίζεται » 31 . The word προχειρίζεται means “puts before hands.” Therefore, the reference book that was at hand was called "πρόχειρος βίβλος". Thus, ancient life had forms that were not those that we imagine. This formula (“divine grace”) was used as our bishop’s letters and was not called a prayer, but “κιτατώριον” = citatorium, an invitation, which is why it ended with purely deaconal words: “let us pray for him.” The method of replacing the department is indicated by the words “ψήφω καΐ δοκιμασία”. Ψήφος means pebble, ball; but in the future – voting, casting votes. Δοκιμασία is a test of suitability, verification, approbation; here it means the act of activity of the council of bishops. Therefore, when electing a bishop, a congress [of bishops] was required, where ψήφος was checked, and only then the ordination of the newly elected one took place. Neighboring bishops may not have participated in the election itself. They could have arrived already on the second or third day after the bishop’s death and found the flock already deciding the question of his successor. All they had to do was verify this election. It happened that bishops, arriving for the election, found a whole storm, similar to that described in the word of Chrysostom. The bishops had to judge how effective the election of a given person was, consistent with the goal. The casting of votes began with the arrival of the episcopal council and continued until the moment of consecration of the chosen one. Traces of this remain in Orthodox worship. The first exclamation - “command” - is addressed to the consecrator, who could have interfered, the second - “command” - to the people. Anyone who knew the obstacle could protest against the election. When no obstacles were indicated, the ordination took place. But sometimes there were many elected; the opposing party could not raise any serious objections; It was then that the field opened up for the wisdom of the bishop; it came down to political instinct, the ability to unravel the psychological moment, to make an impression, so that the struggle of the opposing party was reduced to a minimum. Therefore, in the event of such disagreements, the bishops took upon themselves the responsibility of ψήφος´α. After this, the newly elected one, in order to announce his appointment as a bishop to the bishops who did not take part in it, sent a letter to them, enclosing a confession of faith. This message was called “συνοδική”, since the bishop wrote it when the council had not yet dispersed. Those who took part in the selection attached their signatures to this confession and thereby confirmed their like-mindedness with the newly elected one. How was ψήφος produced? For an era more distant than the 4th century, our data is not rich, but we still have little information about it. Alexander Severus recommends that pagans act with the same caution during elections as Christians do when electing bishops. From this we can conclude that ψήφος in the ancient church was set up in an exemplary manner. Nowadays, talking about the elective principle has become fashionable, and it finds many supporters, but I am not one of them. In my opinion, these gentlemen should pay attention to the fact that if ψήφος existed, but was then canceled, then this did not happen without good reasons. Relations since then have been so distorted that the restoration of ψήφος᾿α here in Russia would bring as much benefit as growing grape vines along the sidewalks in St. Petersburg. But then, as I said, ψήφος was conducted in an exemplary manner. By some signs we can guess that ψήφος, electio, was the work of the clergy and laity. We do not know how these members acted. But, undoubtedly, ψήφος was in the hands of the clergy and flock, who should have known the chosen one well. In fact, in order to make an election, you need to know who to elect, and the clergy could know this. Our expressions “Russian Church” and “Greek Church” are common, but in ancient times they sounded like paralogism. Everyone knew the Catholic Church and the churches in the sense of bishops, and what we now understand as the national church was at that time in its infancy. Of course, Italian [for example] bishops met with each other more often [than bishops from different regions], but there was no union. Naturally, the bishops happened to visit the dioceses closest to their cathedras, and knew some of the presbyters and deacons, but they did not know the entire clergy and could not indicate among them the most worthy one to occupy the cathedra vacated by the death of the bishop. Only the deceased bishop could indicate who was most worthy. This is what happened sometimes. But in general the choice belonged to the clergy and the people. Thus, the elective principle was a force at that time, but this force was not like parliamentary election, because it was limited. At present, no one will dare to interrogate the Englishman why he voted for Gladstone and not for Disraeli. There could be only one answer on his part: “I want it that way.” But in the ancient church it was not like that: if the cathedral found out that the most worthy had been bypassed, then it interrogated why this was so. I had to indicate not my wishes, but the actual reasons. Elections were strictly controlled: this control was supposed to restrain the crappy instincts of human nature. Practice is important in any institution. The same must be said about the ancient world. Although the church was originally composed of lower persons, these persons were placed in a position in which self-help developed. Despite the fact that colleges were prohibited in Rome, there were many of them here: religious colleges, funeral colleges. Even slaves could join them. And in the college, complete freedom of choice was assumed. Thus, here we had to reckon with facts, and not with phrases. In our serious magazines we often complain that the jingling of coppers in church distracts from prayer. But blaming the church for this, no one will think about what could replace this tinkling. In ancient times, such a phenomenon was impossible, since each member understood that church workers could not eat only Roman air, but also needed funds, and therefore each member made a monthly contribution for this item - stips menstrua. Currently, the concept of “prosphora” is completely distorted: we ourselves buy this small piece of bread and receive it ourselves, whereas in ancient times there were large “offerings” in favor of others. For a wealthy person to come to church without a prosphora was morally impossible. So in the word attributed to Cyprian of Carthage, it is said: “You will enter the church on Sunday, and will not pay attention to the church corbana and partake of the offerings of the poor.” It's the same as if a rich person would now come to a restaurant, dine here and not pay for it. Nowadays, in a decent society, such a phenomenon is impossible. In ancient times it was also impossible to begin the Eucharist without an offering. Then, sad circumstances served as a corrective to the practice of choice. Who was the ancient bishop? This was the first candidate for martyrdom. The persecution began, and the bishop, as the leader, had to be the first to suffer. Besides honor, what did he receive as a reward for his efforts? There was no provision because the Christian Church was poor. Stips menstrua - contributions and offerings - were spent on the needs of the church. The clergy also received a portion of these contributions and offerings, since they were classified as needy. There was no talk of salary. There is a known case that sectarians acquired a bishop with a salary [Nataly from the monarchians in Rome, at the beginning of the 3rd century], and this created the impression of a scandal on the church. Usually persons of venerable age were elected to bishops. These individuals had already sufficiently provided for themselves in their old age with their savings, and the church expected benefits from them, and not vice versa. There was no material bait for those elected, and the practice of electionis was exemplary. But here, too, the old Adam sometimes showed itself, and the bishops had to use all their authority to eliminate abuses. The following case is typical. Gregory of Neocaesarea, after the death of the Bishop of Comana of Pontus, was invited to the elections. Here he noticed that something strange was going on: various candidates were being chosen, but the worthy ones were being bypassed. Then he addressed the voters with a word of exhortation to pay attention not to the state. Suddenly an ironic voice is heard: “So what? Shall we choose coal miner Alexander?” There was laughter. St. did not react to this this way. Gregory, who said: “Show me this Alexander.” They brought in a man dusty and covered in dirt from coals. He appeared calmly and was not embarrassed by Gregory’s searching gaze. A conversation began between them. Gregory suggested several questions. Alexander answered him calmly and seriously. Then Gregory realized that under this nondescript appearance was hidden an extraordinary moral value. It turned out that Alexander belonged to a high family and was a wealthy man, but for the sake of Christian humility he began to engage in such a low craft. Grigory suggested that he go to the bathhouse - wash and put on clean clothes. When Alexander fulfilled this, he was again presented by Gregory to the assembly. Everyone was amazed this time by the nobility of Alexander’s pose and his courageous beauty. He was unanimously elected bishop, governed the diocese admirably, and ended his life as a martyr. This is how the bishop's authority operated. The 4th century already represents an unfavorable turning point in the practice of election. Abuses are more common at this time. I had to grab onto ancient practice and look for various regulations in it. One of these regulations was that persons from the same flock, and not another, were elected to the dowager see. There were serious and strident voices against the move. Thus, at this time the circle of those elected was already limited. Many churches maintained this practice, and there was no movement from pulpit to pulpit. For example, members of the local clergy were elected to the Roman see. In the Alexandrian church, this practice was aimed at limiting the circle of voters (the Monophysites continue to adhere to it to this day). Usually elected by the people; but the large crowd often turned into “όχλος” and went on to outrages. Therefore, the right to vote was no longer granted to all laymen, but only to the more honorable ones. On September 24, 366, the Roman bishop Liberius, notorious for his relationship with the Arians, died. On October 1, 366, his successor, Damasus, was ordained. But he was not the only chosen one. The opposing party chose Ursinus and dedicated him. The matter with the two candidates for the department was not without stormy scenes. They fought to the death. Prefect of the city, Juventius could not control the crowds, and was forced into the suburbs. There were guardians from the Damasian party who involved quadrigarios (circus chariot managers) in this matter. One can imagine how they, armed with clubs, stood up for the church. On October 26, 366, such disgrace was happening in the basilica that, according to the impartial testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, a pagan writer, 137 corpses from the Ursinian party were found in the basilica, and according to another author, 160 corpses. When the Ursinians occupied the basilica, the Damasians tried to break down its doors or set it on fire in order to drive out their hated opponents. Then they climbed onto the roof and began throwing tiles at the Ursinians and, finally, supported by the Quadrigars, they burst into the basilica and began the beating. Calm was subsequently restored through executions of both laity and clergy (Soz. VI, 23). The struggle between Damasus and Ursinus represents the most striking, but by no means the only example of the shocks to which public peace was subjected during the elections. The days of Damasus and Ursinus were repeated in Rome in 418, when, after the death of Zosimus, one party elected Archdeacon Eulalis, who was consecrated bishop of Ostia, who had long had this right, and the other, presbyter Bonifatius. The former could boast that he was consecrated by the bishop of Ostia, the latter - that he was consecrated not by 3, but by 7 bishops. 80 years later, the same bloody scenes were repeated when, after the death of Anastasius II, one party elected deacon Symmachus (December 22, 499), and the other archpresbyter Lawrence. The bitterness of the parties was so great that when Symmachus appeared at the court of the council (501, synodus Palmaris), his opponents showered him with a hail of stones, and the pope had to seek salvation under the cover of the imperial Gothic guard. Finally, after the death of Felix IV (530), the votes were again divided: one party elected Boniface II, the other Dioscorus. Supporters of both were preparing for a stubborn struggle for their candidate, just as the death of Dioscorus saved Rome from new bloody scenes, and Bonifatius from a dangerous rival. Thus, in the 2.5 centuries, the Roman throne experienced four elections, which were least likely to inspire the civil authorities with confidence in the free development of church life. However, Rome can still be considered an exemplary city in terms of regularity and correctness in replacing the chair. In Constantinople, things were perhaps even worse. True, the chronicles of our period count only one case when bloodshed occurred during elections: this was in 342, when, during the struggle between the Orthodox Paul and the Arian Macedonius, very many died (Socr. II, 12; Soz. II:17), and even the magister militum Hermogenes was killed by the rebellious mob, and then during the enthronement of Macedonius in the church, up to 3150 from sword and stampede. But every time this department became free, a very strong and dangerous movement arose among the people. The exception in this regard is the election, it seems, only of Eudoxia (in 359), when the Orthodox in Constantinople were so suppressed that they could not put forward their candidate with even the slightest hope of success (Socr. IV, 14,15). Sometimes the unrest took such proportions that the emperors had to send entire military detachments to maintain the calm of the capital. These riots apparently occurred so often that historians speak of them as if they were the most common thing. Of the 14 successors of Alexander of Byzantium to Proclus (339–434), about whose elections we have fairly detailed information, six were chosen only after strong disputes between parties, and in almost all other cases these disputes were promptly suppressed. Thus, the civil authorities, interfering in questions about the replacement of the department, sometimes acted only as a guardian of order. Thus, for example, it was in Rome when Honorius - with complete impartiality - decided the question of the see between Eulalius and Bonifatius I. The Arian Odoacer in 483 arrogated to himself the right of control over papal elections, and in 499 Symmachus and Laurentius had to appeal to the justice of another Arian sovereign, the great Theodoric, and he exercised this right in the most noble manner. Things went somewhat differently in the east. Here, very early on, the state authorities make a claim to control church elections. Constantius deposes Paul (338) mainly because he was chosen without his consent and contrary to his views, and elevates Eusebius of Nicomedia to the see of Constantinople. Then Macedonius was deposed for the same reasons. Theodosius the Great demanded that a list of candidates for the see be submitted to his choice, and he elected the very last of them, Nektarios (Soz. VII, 8; Socr. V, 8), despite the discontent and resistance of the bishops, which is sufficiently explained by the fact that the new candidate was not even baptized. Since then, the influence of state power on the replacement of the see of Constantinople has become more and more noticeable and permanent: without formally excluding either the people or the clergy from participating in elections, the sovereigns of the East sometimes, in the interests of public peace, motu proprio appoint candidates to the vacant see of the capital. Thanks to this circumstance, John Chrysostom, who was a presbyter of Antioch, became bishop of Constantinople. At the request of the emperor, he was directly stolen from Antioch, since the Antiochians would probably be glad to see John as their bishop. The emperor gave the order to the prefect to “deliver Presbyter John.” The prefect first invited John to his place to talk, and when John appeared to him, the prefect put him in a chariot and drove him to the first station, where he handed him over to the convoy. In 427, after the death of Sisinnius, when a struggle opened up between the old contenders for the see, the presbyter Philip and the bishop of Cyzicus Proclus, the court decided, in order to maintain peace, not to elect either one or the other, or indeed anyone from the Constantinople clergy, but, contrary to canonical practice, to invite Nestorius from Antioch. The same thing was repeated in 434, when, after the death of Maximian, in order to eliminate the struggle of parties, the emperor ordered the bishops present to immediately enthrone the aforementioned Proclus. But on this basis, the government’s activities sometimes yielded curious results. In the summer of July 489, Akaki of Constantinople died. His reign was one of stormy times: he was not confined to monastic life, and in addition to church interests, he also delved into state needs; for this purpose he edited, for example, Zinon's ένωτικόν. Akaki tried to pacify both the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches and ended his balancing act with the fact that the Constantinople church found itself in disagreement with the churches of both Antioch and Alexandria, and in addition with the Roman one. Obviously, after the death of Akaki, a successor was needed, worthy of the worthy, who could unravel his affairs. Contrary to all expectations, bishops were not invited for selection, but it was decided to resort to divine election. A forty-day fast was appointed with a prayer to God to indicate a successor to Akaki, and the emperor himself took care of how to arrange this divine choice. He placed two charters on the throne: one blank in a sealed envelope, and the other with a prayer to God that He would write the name of His chosen one with the hand of an angel on a blank charter in a sealed envelope. The appointed time has ended. The package placed on the altar was unsealed, and to everyone’s amazement, it contained the name of Presbyter Flavita. This θεοπρόβλητος (offered by God) was immediately installed as a bishop. But three months and seventeen days passed, and God’s chosen bishop died. Unexpected events unfolded. Debt claims fell on the heirs of the deceased from all sides. They did not have the means to cover the abyss of Flavita’s debts. They submitted a petition to the highest name to cover debts and gave away a family secret. It turned out that Flavita promised a large sum of money to the eunuch so that the name of the “God-chosen presbyter Flavita” would be on the blank charter, “and it would be,” and Flavita chose not “Χριστός”, but “χρυσός” (gold). Emperor Zinon, outraged in his most sacred feelings, ordered the cazhenik to be beheaded and half of his fortune to be used to cover Flavita's debts. The kazhenik’s guilt was expressed briefly and clearly: “he arrogated to himself the rights that belonged to God.” In this method of election, which Zeno resorted to, we see a hint of later election by lot. Basil of Cilicia, to whom the story about Flavitus belongs, ends it with very characteristic words: “After this, the king returned the church to the bishops, who elected St. Euphemia." Until the 5th century another method, other than direct election, seemed to be an inappropriate intervention of state power in the ecclesiastical sphere. Under Emperor Anastasia, the influence of state power on the replacement of the See of Constantinople becomes especially strong. The emperor, having eliminated Euthymius, whom he disliked, ordered the erection of Macedonius (496), then, 16 years later, he eliminated Macedonius and erected Timothy (511). Of course, church forms were observed, and the consecrated council of bishops sanctioned both the deposition of the former patriarch and the erection of a new one. This order continues, it seems, without interruption, until Justinian I himself, who knew how to demonstrate his despotic power even over popes: Pope Silverius was deposed as a state traitor (540), and his successors, Vigilius (540) and Pelagius (555), were chosen by the Byzantine court. Little by little, appointments to other patriarchal sees came under the direct influence of the imperial court. Undoubtedly, the imperial power allowed itself many abuses. Not to mention those cases when the emperor issued a sovereign command to depose such and such a bishop and install such and such a bishop, it must be remembered that even now the imperial power is beginning to abuse the clergy in political forms, turning it into a light form of hard labor for politically unreliable people. In the space of 444–780. there are 16 cases when people of this kind either save their heads from the chopping block in the ranks of the clergy, or are enrolled here by order of the emperor. By the grace of this political device, Placentia (Piacenza) counts in the lists of his bishops the ex-emperor Avitus (456), Salon - the ex-emperor Glycerius (474), Cyzicus - the ex-Caesar Basiliscus (484), Cotia or Smyrna - Cyrus, the most worthy prefect of the praetorium and capital and consular (445). The rest committed their lives (including ex-emperor Theodosius III and his son, 716) as simple priests or clerics. In the 8th century this political device gives way to another: tonsure in the clergy is replaced by a monastic hood, often with the addition of emasculation. Evil has not [been] destroyed at its roots. The struggle of the mob with drekoly in their hands is now, in critical cases, replaced by the struggle of influential persons with bags of gold. Bribery is practiced on a large scale. People close to the court are also bribed (John Talaya - Illa Magister, 480), and even the emperors themselves. The Alexandrian bishop Paul, deposed in 539–540, tried to buy himself restoration to the Alexandrian see from Justinian for 7 centinarii (189,000 rubles). In 552, Mina of Constantinople died. As soon as his death became known in the palace, the “electoral struggle” began: During the interruption they proposed their protégés as candidates, supporting them with ύποσχέσεσι και δωροδοκίαις (promises and gifts) from δυνασταί τοΰ βασιλέως (royal nobles) (Eutychii vita, Migne, Patr. gr. 86, p. 2301). The influence of the emperor could not extend directly to all episcopal elections, but was limited only to the most important sees. But the provinces also had to solve the same difficult practical problem. And in unimportant cities, episcopal elections gave rise to the same intrigues, which reached the point of bribing voters with money and dinners and flattering promises about valuable property, the same discord and struggle of parties. At the Council of Laodicea (prov. 13), it was decided that crowds of people should not [allow] electing a bishop (τοις όχλοις). It was not difficult to proclaim lofty principles, and there was no lack of it. Pope Celestine I (July 25, 428) wrote to the bishops of the Vienne province: no one should be appointed bishop against the will of the flock (nullus invitis detur episcopus); the consent (desiderium) and consent of the clergy and the people is required (ep. 4, ol. 11, p. 5, n. 7). The same applies to Pope Leo I: the signature of the clergy, the certificate of honorable persons, the consent of the people are needed; whoever will rule over everyone must be and is elected by everyone (c. 445, ep. 10, ad episc. per provinciam viennens. p. 6: teneatur subscriptio clericoram, testimonium honoratorum, ordinis consensus et plebis; qui praemturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur); should be preferred to everyone whom the consent of the clergy and people unanimously requires, so that if the votes are divided, the metropolitan should prefer the candidate for whom the majority of voters and the advantage of merit, only that no one is appointed without request and against the wishes of the flock, so that the city does not despise or hate an unwanted bishop (after 446, ep. 14, ol.12, ad Anastas. thessal. n. 5, 6). But it is difficult to apply these requirements in practice when two or three candidates had for themselves both equality of merit and equality of votes, or the advantage of merit clashed with the desire of the majority of voters, or the desire of the clergy and bishops did not coincide with the desire of the people. Already Zosimus (Hesychio salonitano, February 21, 418) and especially Celestine (universis episcopis per Apuliam et Calabriam, July 21, 429) complain that in some places voters systematically bypass their clergy (this is understandable). And as a result, instead of those lofty principles it was necessary (Kelestin, July 21, 429) to put forward a rougher rule: docendus est populus, non sequendus (the people must be taught, but not followed), with church punishments in the future. Sometimes the struggle of the parties brought them to exhaustion. They tried all the means to reach an agreement, and therefore, naturally, were disposed to accept some happy accident as an indication from God. There were cases when both parties, exhausted by civil strife, began to pray to God to put an end to their bickering, and, naturally, were disposed to accept, as the voice of God, a happy direction from elsewhere. Thus, Ambrose, as a civil official, had to rise to the pulpit during electoral disputes, when replacing the Mediolan see in 374, and admonished Christians to turn to a sense of justice. Ambrose’s venerable appearance made such an impression on one boy that he said: “Ambrose is bishop,” and this was enough for his election; the child’s voice resolved a dispute that the fighting parties could not settle. The Bishop of Ravenna North was elected because a white dove landed over his head. With the election of Martin of Tours, the disagreement threatened to drag on for an extremely long time. The wishes of the majority of the people were opposed by a minority, supported by certain bishops, among whom was a certain Defensor. The candidate’s virtues were known to everyone, but the opposing party found that anyone who had renounced the world could not successfully handle everyday affairs. We began the evening service; The cleric with difficulty made his way to the place and, opening the book, began to read from the eighth psalm: “out of the mouth of a child and those who piss he made ecu praise, an enemy for Thy sake, who would destroy the enemy and the local” (Ps. 8:3), i.e. in the then Latin translation: “ut destruas inimicum et defensorem.” Then the people shouted that it was necessary to destroy the work of the Defensor party for the glory of God, and Martin was elected. Disputes over candidates, agitated likes and dislikes, all these dark spots on electoral church councils discredited the electoral principle in the eyes of some very worthy representatives of the church. Chrysostom’s view is well known, and Gregory the Theologian thought the same. Therefore, attempts were made on the part of the church to regulate elections, not without limiting the rights of voters. For this purpose, demands were made that neither converts, nor laymen, nor clergy of other dioceses should be elected as bishops; transitions from one department to another were prohibited. But the will of the people and the needs of the time forced us to break these legal boundaries. Attempts were made to peacefully prepare the consent of the people in favor of a certain candidate. For these purposes, Gregory of Nazianzus, upon his removal from Constantinople, was to assume temporary control of Nazianzus. In Africa it has even become a custom to appoint locums, interventores, for the temporary management of the flock. Augustine made every effort to gather the votes of the flock in favor of his successor Erodius during his lifetime (426): reviews of the people and clergy about him were recorded and signed. In the society of the Novatians there was one case when the bishop, Paul of Constantinople († 438), was given the right to secretly, in a will, appoint a successor for himself: the choice was so successful that when the will was opened, a unanimous “άξιος” was heard. A similar practice is found in the Orthodox Church. Athanasius the Great was, so to speak, chosen by the will of Alexander; the dying Bishop Alexander of Byzantium was asked to indicate candidates for his successors. In both cases, the right of election was, however, given to the clergy and the people. The Western Church recognized this kind of instructions as illegal. A keen connoisseur of all things legal, Rome did not approve of this kind of practice and did not want to create harmful precedents. Pope Hilary (462) unanimously condemned such an act of Rusticus of Narbonne, who appointed Hermes as successor, although there was the consent of the clergy and the people. However, when one of Hilary’s successors, Bonifatius II, only by chance got rid of the rivalry of Dioscorus, he tried to approve this practice when appointed to the Roman see. He asked the council of 531 for the right to appoint a successor during his lifetime. The Council agreed. The choice of the pope fell on Deacon Vigilius (later a famous pope). But the following year the council again took away this right from the pope. In all such various experiments in regulating elections, there is one desire: to reduce the circle of voters as much as possible. The aristocratic principle gradually begins to penetrate into church government. In the West, influential seniores plebis have been prominent in the Carthaginian church for a long time. In papal decrees, more and more often there are indications of a preferential role in the elections of the honoratorum civitatis (the most honorable citizens). In the east, Gregory of Nazianzus already found that for the good of the church it would be useful to provide elections only to the clergy and monks - a measure whose suitability seems doubtful. The centralization gradually penetrating into church government was supposed to prepare the triumph of this aristocratic principle, and in this direction there were important precedents in those cases when metropolitans motu proprio appointed bishops within the limits of their diocese, or when the clergy applied for the indication of a candidate for a vacant see in Constantinople (Socr. VII, 37; VII, 48). Finally, Justinian, with his novel [123.1], completely eliminated the common people from participating in the election of the bishop; only the clergy and honorary citizens (πρώτοις της πόλεως) were allowed to nominate three candidates, the choice of which was left to the metropolitan. Something similar happened in the West. The Second Council of Arles (452) decreed that bishops appoint three candidates, from whom the clergy and people (clerici vel cives) chose one. The Council of Barcelona in Spain (599) decided that the clergy and people should present 2-3 candidates at the discretion of the bishops and the metropolitan; the lot decided the matter. The consequences of the newly formed relationship were important. As the people withdrew from participating in the elections of bishops, of course, their intimate, heartfelt connection with their shepherds, which existed in the best times of the ancient church, weakened. The bishop, who owes his throne to the supreme power, naturally could not be as close to the people as someone elected by their will, and more often in his actions he had to listen to the voices of the court parties; otherwise, he could be crushed by the iron hand of such a sovereign as, for example, Justinian. The bishop of a province, appointed by the metropolitan, perhaps from his own clergy, unknown to his flock, or appointed by the voice of a few citizens, could not claim the sympathy of the majority of the flock. The Seventh Ecumenical Council found the matter in such a situation that the participation of the people in the election of a bishop was a completely incomprehensible and illegal phenomenon for it, which is why it decided to eliminate the influence of the secular element in this matter [pr. 3]. But it was easier to issue a decree than to implement it. Tarasius's successor, who presided over the council, was still elected, despite Theodore the Studite's reference to the council's definition. These circumstances fell heavily on Patriarch Photius, and to a certain extent contributed to the division of churches. Election of a patriarch among the Syro-Persian Nestorians and Copts [The intervention of state power in the church sphere in the matter of electing the highest hierarchical persons quite by chance bore fruit in the Monophysite environment]. It happened in Egypt. After the death of Patriarch Zechariah (Jan. 4, 1032), Egyptian Christians (Monophysites) had difficulty choosing a patriarch. Then the Egyptian vizier, Ali bnu Ahmad Mügibu-1-daulath, who was favorably disposed towards Christians and extremely efficient, suggested that Christians do as Christians do in Baghdad. Near Baghdad was Seleucia, where the residence of the Syrian Catholicos was located. The matter was about the practice of the Nestorians. They did it this way. Of all the persons who had the right to vote, 100 people were chosen, from these 100 - 50, from 50 - 25, from 25 - 10, from 10 - 3. Of these three, one was chosen in a special way. The choice was left to God. Each person's name was written on a special ticket; on the fourth, the name of Jesus Christ was written. Then the tickets were rolled up and placed on the throne. The liturgy was celebrated, and after it they sent a child, from whom one could not expect treachery. He brought out a ticket, and if the name of any candidate was on it, then he was recognized as elected; if there was the name of Christ, then this meant that Christ still remains the good shepherd of the dowager church and none of the three candidates is pleasing to Him. So this was repeated another and third time, until the choice fell on one specific person. This time the Copts did not take advantage of the vizier's proposal, but subsequently they had to turn to this method and practice it quite often. The name of this method is haykaliyah - altar. After the death of Gabriel II, the Copts had difficulty in electing his successor. Most were inclined to elect a monk of the monastery of St. Macarius Yunis (John), son of Kidaran, an eloquent, educated, personable man. When they wanted to dwell on it, a message was received from Abu Yusuf (Joseph), who strictly warned not to get carried away by appearance, but to pay attention to character, for woe to the church that puts in charge a person who does not know how to govern himself. We decided to turn to the haikaliya method. Everyone signed their consent, except for the monk of the Makariev Monastery, Michael. Everyone thought that he was a zealous partisan of Younis and therefore did not want to agree to his removal. Three candidates were chosen: John from the monastery of St. John, Sulayman - from the monastery of al-Baramus, and the third - Michael. The lot fell on Michael. Then it became clear why he didn’t sign up. The son of poor parents, he did not receive any education and did not know how to write, and therefore could not subscribe to the conciliar decision on choosing a bishop according to the “haikaliyya” (altar) method. This time the instructions of Providence were respected sacredly. They looked at Michael as God's chosen one. Since he did not know how to read Coptic, he learned the liturgy of Basil the Great from the words by heart and after that was ordained patriarch (in 1145). It is highly characteristic that such a practice developed in the Syro-Persian Church. None of its historians describe it in detail, and therefore we do not know that hayqaliyya was practiced here in exactly the form as described by Mujibu d-daulat. The main idea of ​​the form he described is the consistent replacement of direct elections with mediocre ones. 100 people were directly elected, who were given the right to actively elect candidates from among them. These 100 people decided the issue of choice. Moreover, the number of voters gradually decreased. This is the best practice. The direct election of one person over the entire country would rarely promise success. Residents of, for example, Nisivina know very well the worthy people in Nisivina, but do not know the worthy people in Arbela, and vice versa. How to choose one worthy one from these unknown persons? It is much more expedient to choose your worthy persons as voters, obliging them to do everything possible for them to elect the most worthy as Catholicos. It is not particularly surprising if the method, in its own way, is very good, and was invented by Persian Christians. Need is a great teacher and makes us pray to God. Christians have always lived here between a rock and a hard place. The Persian kings knew about the existence of the Christian church. Although there was no constant persecution, it could begin at the first whim. I had to behave carefully, not to give rise to persecution. The Shah could propose a candidate; it would be very dangerous to refuse him. It was natural for the Syrians to adhere to the method of election by lot, which protected their ecclesiastical freedom. They could say that election did not depend on their will. They can only include the person proposed by the Shah among the candidates. This practice remained firmly in place. When the Catholicos died, then in the “city of peace” - Baghdad, faithful people, doctors and scribes, gathered together and invited presbyters and deacons to a meeting. They sent news to the bishop of Kashkar and called on him to temporarily rule the Seleucia church. It should be noted that the administration of the Persian church was structured according to the following scheme. There were six metropolitan districts under the authority of the Catholicos. At the same time, he was the ruler of a vast diocese called “Beth Armaie” (house of the Arameans = Syrians). Under his authority there were 12–13 bishops, among whom the bishop of Kashkar took precedence: he was called “the head of the bishops” or “the son of his right hand” (Catholicos), probably due to the fact that he stood on the right side during services and in church affairs was, so to speak, his right hand. After the death of the Catholicos, he was recognized as his locum tenens. If the Kashkar department was not occupied, then the locum tenens passed in turn to the lower departments, and so on until the junior bishop of Kasre. The locum tenens conducted all affairs, but did not appoint bishops, did not wear a staff (it was considered inconvenient to use it in a foreign area) and a birun (a vestment resembling an omophorion). He acted as locum tenens for 3 months and prepared the ground for the election, then invited metropolitans and bishops to the council. Usually the Catholicos was ordained by the Metropolitan of Bet Lapata 33 . The Persian church was so well equipped. Questioning the Lord by lot was also practiced in Russia, for example, in Novogorod. The lot was drawn by a boy or a blind man. When evaluating this method of election, you need to pay special attention to the fourth ticket. It contains a deep religious and moral meaning. Firstly, this expresses a strong belief that God will not leave, but will show a worthy successor; secondly, humility. Tsar Zinon demanded a miracle: the writing of the candidate’s name by the hand of an angel on paper, placed in a sealed envelope. But here no such supernatural action was required. Then: here they believe that the Lord, through the use of lots, can indicate a worthy candidate, but they understand perfectly well that not one of the proposed candidates may turn out to be pleasing to God. The fourth ticket taken out with the name of Christ will indicate this. Where this fourth ticket was not there, it was as if they forced God: “whether you want it or not, but one of these three.” Nothing was developed in the Greek Church until the very end of the Byzantine period 34. Election of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church The Roman Church considers dozens of manipulations in the election of the pope. Currently, the pope is chosen by a conclave. After the death of the pope, 10 days, usually appointed for the congress of cardinals, they are locked in a special room where no outsider can enter, not even a late cardinal. The method of electing the pope by lot is considered unlawful. Only cardinals should elect the pope; no one else is given this right. Each member must cast his vote. To what extent all possible obstacles are provided for here, we see from the categories of “obstacles” developed by the cardinals: 1st obstacle - a person may be very sick and unable to reach the throne, but can, however, leave his cell; 2nd - a person may be so weak that he cannot stand up, but can write; 3rd – can’t even write. There are several methods for electing popes. I. Electio per acclamationem. An indispensable condition for this method is that there are no preliminary meetings. The assembled cardinals first begin to discuss general provisions, what qualities the given time and state of affairs require from the pope. Someone expresses that, in his deep conviction, no one possesses these qualities to such an extent as the Reverend Cardinal So-and-so. And everyone agrees. The sick members of the conclave are then notified, and if there are no objections from any of them, then the person is considered elected. By this method, the election of popes is carried out quite rarely. II. Electio per compromiseum. When election by the ordinary method fails (and this failure will be repeated up to 6 times), they sometimes resort to modus'y electionis per compromissum. Several cardinals are elected - no more than 8, no less than 2. If only 2 cardinals are elected, then they must indicate a candidate in the person of someone else; if there are more than 2 of them and if no special reservation has been made, then they can elect from among themselves. The passive right of election belongs to all male Catholics who are of years of understanding and common sense. Formally, it is not required that the candidate belong even only to the clergy. So in theory, but the fact is that from 1378, when a non-cardinal, the former bishop of the lord, Urban VI, was elected pope until the election of Leo XIII, for 500 years, all 55 popes were cardinals. III. Electio per scrutinium. It remains for me to speak of the usual method of electing Roman pontiffs. This method of election by tickets or balls is called per scrutinium, and is the constant method of electing Roman pontiffs to the present day. All cardinals were obliged to take part in it. The matter of election is complex. In the assembly of the entire conclave, three infirmarii [to collect the votes of sick cardinals] and three scrutators [to seize and read the cast ballots] are elected. Then they go to the place where the printed ballots are prepared and write additional words into their printed text, which everyone writes in altered handwriting in view of the requirement of unconditional secrecy in casting votes. At the top of the bulletin, "nomen", between the printed words: "Ego" and "cardinalis" is written not the name of the cardinal, a member of the conclave, but only the cardinal title of the church where he is a cardinal; eg S. Caeciliae, S. Petri, S. Crucis, S. Sixti. Then, in the middle part of the ballot, there are printed election words: “Eligo in Summü Pontifice Revrdsmü Dmnü Meü D. Cardinalem” (i.e., I elect a great pontiff, the most pious lord of my lord cardinal), and a place is left where each member of the conclave - a cardinal writes the name of the cardinal whom he considers most worthy to occupy the papal see. At the bottom of the bulletin, called the “Signum,” each cardinal writes an arbitrary number, as well as the initial word of a prayer, also chosen arbitrarily. The Nomen and Signum, the upper and lower parts of the ballot, are closed by folding the edges and sealed in this manner: under the folded edges of the ballot, white wax is placed in the circles marked there and the seal is pressed on the side of the printed text, so that the letters of the seal stand out in relief on that side. The point, apparently, is that random letters are cut out on the seal and it seems incredible that 2-3 persons would cut out the same letters on their seals. To this must be added that it is also improbable that several cardinals would write the same number and the same word in the Signum. Any of these three arbitrary signs may coincide, but we cannot assume such a random coincidence and agreement in 3 cases when these signs are completely arbitrary. A sealed ballot appears like this only from the edges, and its middle is completely open 35 . Once the ballot is ready, the cardinal raises it above his head and heads with it to the chapel. Taking full precaution that no one's keen eye should discern the name of the voter, everyone should cover the reverse side of the ballot with various decorations, thereby preventing the curious desire of some to know the name of the candidate for the papal throne. Approaching the completely open altar, the cardinal kneels and reads a secret prayer, and loudly pronounces the established form: “I bear witness by Christ the Lord, who is to judge me, that I am faithful to the election and that I will also act in accessu.” Then, in the presence of 3 scrutators, he places this ballot on a completely flat paten, so that the scrutators can see that he does not count two or three ballots, but one. Then the ballot is dropped from the paten into the bowl standing here. Precautionary measures are also being taken, and the scrutineers are eliminating those ballots that contain not one, but two cardinal names. But if it happened that someone made an attempt to announce that it was he who was voting for a given person, or if his ballot was poorly sealed, or the name of the bearer was visible in the world, then this ballot was considered invalid and was subject to unconditional destruction. If there were cardinals who were able to drag their feet to the chapel, but were not able to reach the altar, then the junior cardinal, having taken the oath, does the well-known procedure with the ballot of the infirm cardinal for him. If there happens to be a sick cardinal who would not even be able to drag himself to the chapel, then the cardinal infirmarius takes a special box, which is opened to him in the presence of everyone. Everyone makes sure that the box is empty, then the infirmarius locks it, and leaves the key in the altar on the throne, and carries the box itself to the sick cardinal, who lowers his ballot through the slot in the box. With this box, the infirmarian goes around to all the sick cardinals, who drop their ballots for the election of the pope into it. Now comes the ceremony of removing the ballots from both bowls. To do this, both bowls are transferred to the table, and one of the scrutators, armed with a needle with a white thread, puts his hand into the bowl, takes out a ballot and quietly reads the name of the cardinal for whom the vote was cast, and passes it from his hands to the hands of the second scrutator, and that to the third, and this one only proclaims the name of the cardinal on the taken out ballot. Then a protocol is drawn up, the ballot is pierced with a needle through the printed word “eligo”, threaded onto a thread and dropped into another bowl. The cardinals count the votes for those elected. In this case, there can be two outcomes: [either someone received the required number of votes], or suddenly it turns out that all the votes will scatter, and yet at least 2/3 of the votes of the entire conclave are required for the legal election of the pope: all cardinals receive 2-3 votes, and the result is zero. Next, a commission of 3 members is elected to check the activities of the scrutators, who read and proclaimed the names of those elected to the place of the pope. This commission verifies the vote count. If the count is correct, then the final act of election begins. The result should be such that if anyone receives 2/3 of the votes, he is recognized as elected. Now attention is paid to whether exactly 2/3 of the votes were cast for a given cardinal, for example, tituli Sancti Crucis, [whether he cast a vote for himself]. If there are 52 cardinals in the conclave, then 2/3 will be 35 votes. Although this number of votes is completely sufficient for the legal election of a pope, serpentine wisdom suggests that meanness is possible here too: perhaps Cardinal tituli S. Crucis, who received 35 votes, cast a vote for himself, and the 35th belongs to him. Then they begin to open his ballot and find out for whom he cast his vote. How this is done is unknown. In all likelihood, they are checking the signature (signa) of his ballot. The cardinals directly invite the candidate for the papal throne to say which letters are carved on the seal of his ballot, and by letters they find the ballot that belongs to him. If there are two or three ballots with exactly the same printing letters, then they ask for the signum, the number and the word randomly inscribed on them. It seems completely impossible that there would be no difference here, if not in numbers, then in words. By this difference the ballot of a candidate for the papal throne is recognized. They open the end where “nomen” is indicated, and it turns out that he cast a vote for the cardinal tituli S. Caeciliae, and not for himself (tituli S. Crucis). Then it is absolutely indisputable that the 35th vote for him was cast by someone else. If it turns out that the cardinal will receive 2/3 votes +1, then this insulting ceremony is not resorted to on the simple assumption that at least he cast one vote for himself, nevertheless 36 and without one extra vote constitutes 2/3 of the votes required for a valid election. If it turns out that none of the cardinals received the required number of votes - 35, but received, for example, 32, so that only three votes are missing for his election, then in this case it is possible that some cardinals who did not vote for him may change their minds and join the majority. Therefore, the old ballot is burned, they resort to a special type of election called “accessus” - accession (joining) to the majority. With the scrutinium itself, each cardinal takes an oath that he will act in complete good faith even with the accessus. Firstly, under accessus no one has the right to vote for the same person for whom the vote was cast under scrutinium. In the new ballots, instead of “eligo” (I elect), “accedo” (I begin) is printed. Anyone who does not want to change his voice writes: “accedo nemini” (I do not approach anyone). Secondly, with accessus you need to write a vote for the cardinal who received the majority of votes with scrutinium. All ballots that say “accedo nemini” do not change the election. It should be noted that the reception of votes is highly peculiar and it restricts the freedom of election. For example, a cardinal is convinced that cardinal tituli S. Sixti is worthy of election, at least more worthy than cardinal tituli S. Crucis, who, however, has a majority of votes. But he knows that Cardinal tituli S. Sixti is young or that there was some history with him. It is obvious that Cardinal tituli S. Sixti has no chance of being elected, although he is worthy; however, he does not choose him (Sixti), but must cast his vote for the Cardinal of the Holy Cross (Crucis). But if he knows that 15 or 20 votes were cast for Cardinal tituli S. Sixti by other cardinals, then he finds it possible to join in the election of Cardinal tituli S. Sixti. At the same time, he should have declared: “I refuse to vote in favor of Cardinal St. Cross and transfer it to Cardinal St. Sixta,” but this is not possible. He can only neutralize the vote previously cast for Cardinal tituli S. Crucis. When all the votes are collected, they count how many accessus were cast in favor of such and such. One cardinal may have more than 2/3 of the votes, but the result may be such that 2 cardinals receive the same number of votes. In this case, accessus came to nothing. After checking the accessus bulletins, the latter are burned and a new accessus is started. But if it turns out that one cardinal receives more votes, then it is checked whether he voted for himself, and if it turns out that he did not, then the advantage is recognized for him. The following phenomenon is possible: one cardinal will receive 32 votes, another will receive 14 votes, the remaining votes will be scattered in different ways. When they begin to check the accessus, the indifferent voices are put aside, and the consonant votes of the accessus are counted, and the comparison of seals begins. For example, the accessus bulletin print has the letters a. With. d., and in Signum the number 43 and the word Deus. They look for a ballot with the same seal of the first election - scrutinium, and it turns out that a vote was cast at accessus for Cardinal St. Cross, and with scrutinium - for Cardinal St. Sixta; therefore, the requirement is satisfied. Only after such a procedure is election possible and accessus is considered legal. So, 1) if the votes for scrutinium differ: 32 were cast for one cardinal, 12 for another, and the remaining 8 dispersed, then accessus is made; 2) if three more votes are cast for a cardinal who has 32 votes with scrutinium, with accessus, then 32 + 3 will be 35, and he is considered elected to the papal see; 3) but if suddenly, out of 32 cardinals who cast their vote at scrutinium for the cardinal of St. Sixta, 2 will cast a vote for Cardinal St. at accessus. Cross, and at the same time it turns out that cardinal tituli S. Sixti will receive 5 more votes and his total will be 35, then with accessus he has a majority of votes on his side. Although a change of mind even after this difficult and complex procedure is possible, it is already very difficult to do. No one can be elected against their will. The cardinal-elect is asked if he wishes to be ordained. If the latter agrees with reservations (there may be cardinals who have monastic rank, and election to the pope can bind their monastic conscience, and they can agree to the election if their monastic superiors agree to it), then the voice of all the cardinals, with tears in their eyes, forces the monk to humbly obey the election. After this, the chosen one is asked what name he wants to take, which is essentially not necessary, since he can leave his previous name (Marcellus, for example, left his previous name). In any case, the name of the elected pope is proclaimed, and then the elder deacon-cardinal proclaims the election from the balcony to the people, and the first veneration of the new pope begins. In the election of popes, the spirit of unchurchliness, the spirit of distrust of each other, is in full force. But this is a tribal property of Western Europe, which has found refuge even in this holy cause. II. Forms of church union 1. Parikia governed by a bishop and the formation of parishes in the later sense The elementary form of ecclesiastical union is represented not by a bishopric, but by a “parish,” “παροικία.” From the point of view of ancient church relations, a special “bishop” is necessary for the “parish”, for “there is no church without a bishop.” But as Christianity moved from the cities to the interior of the villages, new relationships were formed. So small societies arose that it was inconvenient to place a bishop here, because the flock was not large and its borders were not wide. Thus, branch churches began to appear among the mother churches (ecclesia matrix). Their management was left to persons of lower hierarchical degrees, so that at the head of branch churches we find not only elders, but also deacons. In one Latin monument there is the following expression: “a deacon who rules the flock” (Concilium Illiberitanum, p. 77: “Si quis diaconus, regens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero, aliquos baptizaverit” 36 But usually the parish was governed by presbyters. If the parish received sufficient strength, then villagers were placed here bishops or chorebishops. So the chorebishops appeared. But then, due to the prohibition of appointing persons of episcopal rank to minor places [Serdik. 4/6], the position of periodeuts appeared. was used in the sense of a visitation, especially a medical one. Therefore, “περιοδεύτης” had the meaning of a practicing physician. It corresponds well with the Latin visitator - a presbyter who has the responsibility of attending or supervising famous churches. But he was assigned to a certain church, and in his absence the position was corrected by another. Thus, from the chorepiscopes they passed to the periodeuts. But the title of chorebishop remained in practice for a long time. In essence, it is quite possible that the chorebishops received episcopal consecration, but did not have the right to “act as bishops,” that is, to perform consecrations. In the West, the term chorebishops did not take root, and when an attempt was made to introduce them, the church fought against it and did not support this innovation. And if there were chorebishops in the Western Church, they were random persons who incurred conciliar condemnation and were forbidden to “act episcopal.” All that remained for them was the title of chorebishop and the management of a large parish. When it was found that a bishop had committed a crime, although not so great as to deprive him of his episcopal rank, but at the same time not so small as to leave him unpunished, then he was given the title of chorebishop. Thus, the chorebishop there represented an intermediate level between the bishop and the presbyter. The most important feature of our concept of a parish is that it is headed by a presbyter, who performs pastoral duties only in this parish. The church did not come to the position of presbyter as the head of the parish as quickly as one might expect. All elders were at first cathedral; the bishops actually sent them to the parishes, and there were cases when the presbyters were at the parish on a weekly basis, but they were all listed as members of the cathedral. The canonical monuments preserve evidence of such a state of affairs that the parish turns out to be temporary. When in Spain, during the Priscillian period, it was feared that the Priscillians in remote places would not be able to build a nest for themselves, services on major holidays were not performed in these churches, and all parishioners of the branch churches had to come to the cathedral in order to be closer to the bishop. Thus, the parish is interpreted as a temporary department of the cathedral. The rapid penetration of Christianity from cities into villages, the increase in the number of believers, on the one hand, and at the same time, on the other hand, the declared desire not to multiply bishoprics - ne vilescat nomen episcopi et auctoritas - led to the fact that, as the main unit of the church union, the place of the ancient παροικία, i.e., a parish with a bishop at its head, was taken παροικία in the later sense, that is, a parish governed by a presbyter* 38. In the West, in contrast to city churches and especially the cathedral ecclesia matrix, these parishes were called parochia (parochia, Innocent. I, 416). The development of parishes did not occur with equal uniformity everywhere. Historical monuments present us with various moments of the transition from parikia to parokhia. * Παροικία = εκκλησία in the sense of “coming.” Theodoret. er. 113 ad Leon, papam. Migne, Patr. lat. Migne, t. 50, 417. Augustini ep. 209 (ol. 262) ad Coelestin. n. 2: Fussala dicitur Hipponensi territorio confine castellum (ab Hippone millibus quadraginta sejungitur). Antea ibi nunquam episcopus fuit, sed simul cum contigua sibi regione ad paroeciam Hipponensis ecclesiae pertinebat (a. 423).—Parochia as a rural parish as opposed to an urban one. Cons. Carpentoract. 527 (528?). Migne, Patr. lat. t. 67, 1287. Vita Caesarii arel. († 542) 2, 16 (ibid. 1033): non solum in civitate, sed etiam in omnibus parochiis preached Caesarius. Previously Innocentius I ad Decentium (a. 416): de fermento vero, quod die dominica per titulos mittimus, superflue nos consulere voluisti, cum omnes ecclesiae nostrae intra civitatem sint constitutae, quarum presbyteri [cf. Athanas. apol. with arian. n. 20: συνελθόντες (in Rome) ?? άγάπην ], quia die ipsa propter plebem sibi creditam nobiscum convenire non possunt, idcirco fermentum a nobis confectum per acolythos accipiunt, ut se a nostra communione maxime ilia die non judicent separatos, quod per parochias fieri debere non puto, quia non longe portanda sunt sacramenta, nee nos per coemeteria diversa constitutis presbyteris destinamus et presbyteri eoram conficiendorum jus habeant atque licentiam. Cf. Neander, KG, III, 243. Collectio canonum Dionysii Exigui dedicated to Juliano presbytero tituli sanctae Anastasiae. Migne, Patr. lat. t. 67 (Julian – at councils 488 and 499). In Carthage Cons. Carth. 419, code. can. eccl. afr. from 33: ut presbyteri non vendant rem ecclesiae ubi sunt constituti, nec episcopo liceat matricis ecclesiae, nec presbytero rem tituli sui usurpare. Migne, Patr. lat. t. 67, 192.– Athan. apol. with arian. n. 85: ' γέγονεν επίσκοπος ουδέ χωρεπίσκοπος, αλλά τω της ᾿Αλεξανδρείας επισκοπώ αί έκκλησίαι πάσης της χώρας υπόκεινται . Εκαστος δέ των πρεσβυτέρων Εχει τάς ίδιας κώμας μεγίστας και αριθμώ δέκα που καΐ πλέονας (nota: not everyone has 10, but everyone in Mareota. Ptolemaeus octo urbes aut pagos recenset). H δε κώμη , ένθα οικεί ό Ί σχύρας , βραχυτάτη και ολίγων ανθρώπων εστίν , ?? κώμη .– Theodor. Lector, 1, 13. Migne, Patr. gr. 861, 171: Γεννάδιος προχειρίξεται, ?? γενομένου (together with Gennady was proposed as a candidate). Photos οντά θρησκείας, εις την έκκλησίαν μετελθόντα. "Ος αμα τω γενέσθαι οικονόμος, τά προσφερόμενα έν εκάστη εκκλησία τους του τόπου κληρικούς κομίζεσθαί διετύπωσεν , εως τούτου της μεγάλης εκκλησίας πάντα κομιζομένης .– Theophan. chronographia, a. 5855 (355) sub Juliano: Και ? πεπιστευμένος (Chron. pasch.: Θεοτέκνος δέ τις πρεσβύτερος της έν ᾿Αντιόχεια εκκλησίας ) έξ υποσχέσεως απατηθείς αυτομάτως έπι τήν ε᾿ιδωλολατρείαν έχώρησεν. Socr. Theodoret. tacent (maybe as a shameful fact for Christians?). In Africa, the ancient orders held on more stubbornly than anywhere else; the development of parochies there did not exclude the development of bishops. What is certain is that in 419 both in the city of Carthage and in the villages there were tituli, certain parishes with presbyters appointed specifically for them (non vage ordinati, ordinatio relativa). But at the same time, we see that with the consent of the local bishop (Cod. can. eccl. afric. p. 53, conc. Carth. 397) new bishoprics were opened very easily. When there were quite a lot of Christians in the fortress of Fussal (c. 423), just 40 miles from the royal Ippon (c. 56th century), Augustine established a new bishopric there. That is why there were so many bishops in Africa as in no other local church. Here the rural parish remained, as it were, a transitional moment to the emergence of bishoprics. An accurate explanation of the question of the territory of the ancient bishops and the number of Christian population living on them is still an insoluble task, which, perhaps, will remain so forever 39 . But we can single out places with a rather definite physiognomy - Latin Africa (led by Carthage), Asia Minor in the broad sense of the word - the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and the East, and Egypt. Latin Africa, i.e. Africa Proconsularis, Byzacena, Numidia, Mauretania, occupied 347,000 square meters. kilometers (a kilometer is slightly less than our mile) = our 7 provinces: Tver, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Vladimir and Kaluga. In this territory in 484 there were not 7 and not 14, if you count our vicars, but 454 bishops, 764 square meters each. kilometers per bishopric. But this figure of 764 is not the minimum. Of the 454 bishoprics, only 4 can be attributed to Mauretania Tingitana, which occupies 53,000 square meters. kilometers (more than Nizhny Novgorod or Chernigov, but less than St. Petersburg province). In general, for each of the remaining 450 bishoprics there will be only 680 square meters. kilometers. In the first case, the area of ​​the Novgorod diocese will have 160 bishops, Tver - 85 and 1/2, St. Petersburg - 70, Moscow - 44. And with the separation of Mauretania Tingitana, Novgorod will have 180, Tver - 96, St. Petersburg - 79, Moscow - 49. And this is not the extreme limit of the density of bishops. Africa Proconsularis in 484 represented 54 bishoprics, and did not occupy even 25,000 square meters in space. kilometers (less than Kurland province). In 461 the number of bishops reached 70. From the center to the extreme limit of the bishopric there was only a 1 and 1/2 hour postal drive along a dirt road. Wherever the metropolitan was, in 6 hours he could be at the scene of the incident (3 + 3 = 6). But you also need to know the population size. In the mentioned 7 provinces there are 10,250,180 inhabitants 40. The population of Africa is believed to have reached 8–9 million in its heyday. But in the IV-V centuries. a significant percentage of the population were pagans, and the remainder should be divided between Catholics and Donatists. Therefore, without much error, we can admit that the bishopric accounted for 10 (rarely 15) thousand people. The transfer of bishops from one see to another in Africa was prohibited. The Bishop of Carthage in Africa Proconsularis was, so to speak, a metropolitan. In other provinces, metropolitans were replaced by senes - senior bishops; as a result, the control center often moved from one place to another. The archive was kept at the center of government, but the metropolitan could be located in another place. The bishoprics of the main cities could be dependent on the bishopric of some “Black Hut” [Casa Nigra]. From the point of view of supervision, Africa can be said to be an ideal value. Let's move on to other areas. By the time of the Council of Chalcedon (half of the 5th century), based on existing information, it can be established that the diocese of Asia (with Ephesus at its head) accounted for 233 bishoprics of 800 square meters. kilometers each. The diocese of the East ('Ανατολή, Oriens) with Antioch at its head has no definite boundaries. Eastern Lebanese Phenicia and Euphratisia touch the steppes, and the border here can be stretched arbitrarily very far. Taking into account only strictly defined boundaries, we obtain on Oriens (within certain limits) 95 bishoprics, each with an average of 1492 square meters. kilometer Pontus represents 71 bishoprics covering 4272 sq. kilometers and, therefore, gives the Novgorod diocese almost 29 bishoprics, Tver - 16, St. Petersburg - 13, Moscow - 8. Cappadocia has 11 bishops of 3145 square meters. kilometers. A completely different practice [compared to Latin Africa] was in Egypt. Christianity established itself here very early, but for some reason there were relatively few episcopal sees. While in Africa [around 330] at the Council in Carthage there were 270 Donatist bishops alone, in all of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis (over an area of ​​13,760 sq. miles = 666,800 sq. versts) there were only about 100. Naturally, church needs here had to be satisfied by other means. Indeed, the earliest news of parishes belongs to Alexandria. Already at the beginning of the Arian dispute, this city was divided into several parts, each of them had a church and a presbyter specially placed in it to satisfy the spiritual needs of the nearby quarters, called laurels. Arius was a presbyter of the Baucalian Church. The position of the parish priest was then so strong that he could preach certain views and form a whole party for himself before information about this reached the bishop. Outside Alexandria there were many rural parishes, even, apparently, two-part parishes. There were up to 10 villages and parishes in Mareota; 19 elders signed one document, 15 elders and 14 deacons signed another. There were also villages here that did not have their own church and were therefore assigned to the nearest parish. In Africa, perhaps more than one bishopric would have been opened in such an area; but Mareota never had a bishop. Obviously, Alexandrian parish life comes very close to ours today. How the matter was conducted in Rome, there is no satisfactory information on this matter. Athanasius says that the council of more than 50 bishops who received him into communion in Rome took place in that church, ένθα Βίτων ό πρεσβύτερος (which was at the First Ecumenical Council) – gathered the people = carried out the duties of the parish presbyter). Hence the conclusion that Viton had a permanent place of ministry here, because otherwise the church where the council met would have been impossible to indicate by reference to Viton. The transition to the parish system was accomplished slowly: the Roman ferrmentum was a memory of the previous relationship. This question, a very obscure one, was clarified by the French scientist Duchenne 41. The fact is that with us, when the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated, the part where the word Jesus is found - “Jesus” is not distributed to the people and is not eaten by the presbyter himself, but is completely lowered into the chalice. This detail of a liturgical nature probably originates from ancient times. The Roman rite, analogous to this phenomenon, was supposed to express that at all times the Eucharist is the same sacrament. To express this unity of the Eucharist in time, one part of St. The body was not used at the liturgy, but remained in a special reliquary until the next liturgy, at which it was taken out at the meeting of the bishop (similar to how our cross is taken out), and then, after the transposition of St. Gifts, this particle was lowered into the chalice, and in exchange for it, the same particle from this liturgy was left. This particle, lowered into the chalice, was called fermentum. Along with this, fermentum was used in Rome to prove the unity of the Eucharist not only in time, but also in space. After the consecration of St. Gifts from the bishop, small particles of St. The bodies, called fermentum, were immediately separated and sent to all city (Roman) parishes with the exception of cemetery (and therefore country) churches. This made it clear that, although the faithful commune somewhere beyond the Tiber, they partook of the Eucharist that was celebrated directly by the bishop. The presbyter who performed divine services in the parish, after the consecration of St. Gifts, he placed the fermentum received that day from the bishop into the chalice. Thus, in the Roman Church, spiritual union in the parish churches found expression in the rite of fermentum. But fermentum was not sent to remote cemetery churches (coemeteria). Church life in the Roman Church developed uniquely in other respects. The established number of clergy in churches of 25 titles appeared very early, but in parallel with this there was such a feature that they were ordained as a bishop more often than as a presbyter or deacon. This is explained by the fact that Roman practice was the antipode of our practice. In our liturgy, only three persons can be consecrated in sequential order: bishop, presbyter and deacon. In the Roman Church, on the contrary, elders and deacons, according to established practice, were not ordained separately. Hence the following notes about the activities of the Roman bishop are understandable: “he ordained so many bishops (from 16 to 20), and ordained presbyters twice during his entire reign.” The situation was set up in such a way that several elders were ordained at a time, and not every year. When there was a decline in the clergy and it was necessary to replenish the clergy, an ordination was appointed in a certain year. There could, however, have been other motives, for example, consecration could sometimes serve as an expression of gratitude on the part of the bishop to his fellow ministers. Usually those chosen for consecration were consecrated at once and, most importantly, in ascending order (cursus honorum). The lower clergy were ordained to the diaconal and presbytery ranks during the same service. All these persons were ordained at certain times of the year. Already in the 5th century. There were special quatuor tempora of the year, consecrated by the establishment of fasting. The fourth day of December was chosen as the time for installation in sacred positions and, moreover, those days on which the fast was intensified: Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, as a continuation of Friday. A characteristic feature was that on Wednesday and Friday there was a stationary service (the bishop himself served in a large church). On Wednesday, the entire people were introduced to the initiates and invited to express their objections to the proteges. The consecration was postponed until Saturday, when the vigilia was appointed in the church of St. Peter's (Christmas Eve), the service was held late. If a situation arose that the ordained presbyter was assigned to a certain parish, then at his ordination he was called presbyter of such and such a title. At the end of the ordination, the presbyter was appointed: preceded by the papal strators, accompanied by a presbyter (friends) specially appointed by the bishop, the newly ordained was brought to the church of his title, where he sat in a chair on the right side of the throne while singing Gloria in excelsis, which was not allowed to others. Such a presbyter was called a cardinal presbyter. But in essence, a sufficient number of elders were appointed to the cathedral church. And when a presbyter of a church died, a cathedral presbyter was sent, who, however, was not called presbyter cardinalis 42. Parish life in the Roman Church expressed itself so energetically that during stationary services the Roman Christians did not mix: each parish stood separately and each parish presbyter gave communion to his parishioners with the gifts consecrated here. Thus, the Roman practice was formed quite early. Very little is known about Constantinople. Undoubtedly, at the beginning of the 5th century there were already parishes here both inside the city and on the outskirts. So, for example, Sisinnius was formerly the parish presbyter of the Church of the Ascension in the suburb of Elea (Socr. VII, 26). Under Justinian, all churches had their own set of clergy, with the exception of three branch churches assigned to the Great Church, in which the services were performed in turn by the Sofia clergy. The parishes of Constantinople received economic independence under Patriarch Gennady (458–471). His steward, Marcian, granted the clergy of each church the benefit of its offerings, whereas previously all church revenues went to the Great Church. In Antioch, too, parish churches (in the suburbs) existed already in the 4th century. In the west, parishes only later gained economic independence. The Council of Orleans in 511 decreed: the bishop receives 1/2 from the cathedral church, and 1/3 from other churches (can 14,15). The Council of Carpentoractense of 527 or 528 decrees that if the bishop is sufficiently wealthy, the income of the parochies should go to the local clergy; and if the bishop is poor, he has the right to use what remains over and above the necessary budget of the parish churches. Thus, parikia in the sense of episcopacy in our period is a collective whole, consisting of the simplest units and governed by a bishop. Not all parish churches enjoyed the same rights. The West knows that some elders had the right to perform baptism, while others, closer to the cathedral church, did not use this right. The first were called deans or parish archpresbyters. This detail reveals that the authority of the elders was not uniformly defined. In the Roman Church, elders did not exercise the right to perform confirmation, which belonged only to bishops. In Russia, elders are granted the broadest rights, while in the East not all elders can be confessors. Thus, not everywhere and not all elders were given all the actions. A diocese, a metropolitan district, parallel to the civil province and coinciding with it, was formed from several parikias governed by bishops. At the head of the diocese was the bishop of its main city - the metropolis, the metropolitan. This title first appears in the rules of the first ecumenical council (4, 6), but is known to everyone. The Council establishes what ordinary practice has developed. The rules of the local Council of Antioch (333) provide us with a particularly large amount of data for clarifying diocesan life. The Metropolitan, as the bishop of the main city of the province, naturally has general supervision over the development of the church life of the diocese (Ant. 9). Without restricting the powers of the suffragan bishops subordinate to him, episcopi suffraganei, έπαρχιώται (Ant. 20), within the limits of their parikia (Ant. 9), he has the right of visitation (Carth. 52/63), developed especially in the West, and is an appellate authority in cases between bishops or in complaints against a bishop. The main body of diocesan life, the diocesan council, meets twice a year * 43, under the chairmanship (and by invitation - Ant. 19, 20) of the metropolitan (Ant. 16, 9). Not a single important matter in the diocese (such as the installation of a bishop [Nick. 6, Ant. 19] - Ant. 9) could take place without his permission. When installing a bishop, he convened a council (Ant. 19), approved its decision (Nick. 4: κΰρος) and consecrated the chosen one. *Nick. 5: α) πρό της τεσσαρακοστής, β) περί τον τοΰ μετοπώρου καιρόν. Ant. 20: a) έβδομάδι της πεντηκοστής, β) ί᾿δοις όκτωβρίαις. Bishops without the γράμματα συστατικά of their metropolitan did not have the right to excommunicate from the diocese entrusted to them (Ant. 11). The height of the power of the metropolitan is best spoken of by the definition of the Antioch Council that the “perfect” (τέλεια) valid council is the one at which the metropolitan is present (16, cf. 19, 20), and that without the metropolitan bishops should not constitute a council (20), although, however, the metropolitan could not decide anything concerning the entire diocese without the council (Ant. 9). Metropolitan power represents the first formation in the development of the church union, as it took shape in the previous period. This was a natural consequence of the conditions in which the church was placed in the state. The Church adhered to the data of the political system, without canceling what it had previously developed, and thus the rise of some bishops took place not on theoretical, but on practical grounds. The placement of bishops located in the central cities at the head of others was in many cases the only way out of difficulties, especially since the cities seemed to be natural centers and presented the least inconvenience in terms of unification. Thus, metropolitan power arose unnoticed. They think that the difference between bishops in authority was based on the origin of one or another see from the apostles. But the origin of the sees from the apostles would not have mattered if their ecclesiastical significance did not coincide with the advantages of their political position in the empire. Rome was the only capital - urbs orbis terraram (city of the universe), hence the Roman bishop had an advantage among the Christian hierarchs. After Rome, in civil terms, Alexandria and then Antioch were considered first, and in ecclesiastical terms, the Roman see was followed by Alexandria and Antioch, which could not have happened if the apostolic origin of the see had been taken into account. From this point of view, the leading department would have to be recognized as Jerusalem, and after the defeat of Jerusalem - Antioch, as the one in which the very name “Christians” first appeared, and as founded by the works of St. Peter and Paul. Pope Innocent writes to Bishop Alexander of Antioch: “Your see would not be inferior to ours, if only it would receive the remains of its founders; but it was founded by transit (along the way), and not by completion.” But did the ap. control? Peter by the Roman see, that’s another question. Consequently, Antioch, on ecclesiastical grounds, should have retained its primacy and not yielded it to the Roman and Alexandrian sees. The latter recognized its origin only from the Evangelist Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter. Having presented the Gospel principle: “a disciple is greater than his teacher,” we find that the Alexandrian department could never gain primacy over the Antiochian one. Thus, civil division was of great importance for church life. The pulpits "apostolicae" represented something ideal, but life takes into account positive realities. The most holy city, which cannot be reached either on horseback or on foot, cannot be the center of life. It would be similar if we, having St. Petersburg as our civil capital, had a metropolitanate, for example, in Luga. Although the Roman bishops began to say that the church is independent of the state, the fact is that the basis of the scheme of church government is the state scheme. It developed in the 5th century. and has precedent in ancient times. Rome began with a city republic, and the expansion of the republic occurred as the borders of the city itself expanded. A particularly important point for Rome is the acquisition of provinces through arms. These provinces were ruled from Rome. High-ranking officials who served for free were sent there “to be fed.” The latter very generously compensated for the expenses of capital life. Typically, large provinces were governed by consuls with the rank of proconsuls, and small ones by praetors with the rank of propraetors. When Rome became an empire, all provinces were divided into two groups: internally pacified (senate) and semi-military (imperial). Proconsuls were sent to the provinces of the first group, combining military and civil power; and in the provinces of the second, the rulers enjoyed military power (legati Augusti pro praetore consulari potestate 44. During the principate, as the imperial power before Diocletian should be more accurately called, other positions appeared and mainly praefectus praetorio. Praefectus - confidant - indicated a person who was under the person of the emperor. Prefectus praetorio was primarily the commander of the guard corps located in Rome. During the division of the empire during Diocletian, four prefectures and four prefects were created between four emperors (two Augusts and two Caesars). Under Constantine the Great, a change took place: from a military position, this position became a civilian one. Thus, by the end of the 4th century. there were 4 prefectures according to the division that Diocletian gave to the empire, and the main officials were: 1) praefectus praetorio Orientis (eastern), 2) praefectus praetorio per Illyricum (Illyricum) - in the eastern half of the empire, and in the western: 3) praefectus praetorio Italiae (Italian) and 4) praefectus praetorio per Galliam (Gaulish). The rights of the supreme power were recognized as praefecti praetorio, and all their decisions were beyond appeal until defrocking. After praefecti praetorio, the second administrative authority is vicarii dioecesum (εξαρχοι). The area they were in charge of was called a diocese. The third administrative level was judices ordinarii. The area they were in charge of was called a province (provincia), in Greek επαρχία, while prefecture in Greek ύπαρχία. Judices ordinarii is an honorary name, and the ordinary one is praesides (rectores, rulers). But in civil administration there were some deviations from this centralization scheme. The new legalizations had to be taken into account with the previous ones: the proconsulates were not abolished, but the power of the proconsuls was equalized with the vicars. In the eastern half there were two proconsulates - in Asia and Achaia. The proconsul of Asia had an advantage over the vicar, since there were provinces that were subordinate exclusively to the proconsul. In the western half there was one proconsulate - in Africa. At the beginning of the 5th century, when the notitia dignitatum was compiled, the relative importance of offices was precisely determined. The eastern prefecture was of primary importance. The vicar of the eastern diocese was called comes Orientis. Egypt received the honor of an independent diocese, headed by praefectus augustalis Aegypti. Augustus declared Egypt his possession and watched over it in such a way that not a single senator could appear there without receiving permission from the emperor himself. An official from the emperor himself was placed at the head of Egypt. The Comes Orientis and the Prefect of Egypt acted with the independence of almost the praetorian prefects. Then, to manage the capitals, it was necessary to establish special officials in Constantinople and Rome, independent of the prefects and their equals (praefecti urbium). Thus, in the state sphere itself, centralization was not strictly adhered to: the second and first degrees stood so close that they were almost confused with each other. In the eastern half, Orientalis praefectura consisted of 5 dioceses, which were divided into 46 provinces; Illyrica praefectura - from 2 dioceses, which were divided into 11 provinces. In total, there were 57 provinces in the eastern half. The western half of the empire consisted of 2 prefectures - Italian and Gallic. Italica praefectura was divided into 3 diocese and 20 provinces. Gallica praefectura - for the Spanish, British and other 7 provinces. There were therefore 29 provinces in total in the western half. Thus, the entire Roman Empire was divided into 4 prefectures, 13 diocese and 86 provinces. If church division coincided with civil division, then there would be as many dioceses as provinces. But the church lived an independent life. Judices ordinarii governed provinces, that is, areas with several cities, and were the lowest unit of administrative government; The diocese of the church was the highest division. The church division, corresponding to the civil division into provinces, was represented by each separate bishopric (παροικία, paroecia, German Pfarrei, southern Russian - parish, parish), governed by a bishop. Church government was of a special nature, corresponding to the Christians’ view of themselves as strangers and strangers - πάροικοι - “having no city abiding here.” Since, in principle, provincia = επαρχία, it would follow that there were as many metropolitans in the church as there were provinces in the empire. But de facto this assumption is incorrect, because the practice of different churches regarding the multiplication of bishops was not the same, which can already be judged by the volume of different bishops. In addition, we also have the positive testimony of Theodore of Mopsuestia (from 392). At the beginning of the interpretation of the Apostle Paul's epistle to Timothy, he expresses himself: “at first there were two, or many three bishops in the diocese” (το πλείστον at most). This practice was maintained in most Western churches until recently, and in some it continues to this day. But then they began to appoint bishops not only in cities (κατά πόλιν), but also in towns (κατά τόπον), although there was no incentive for this, so from 392–393 there were more bishops in the east than required. But we must admit that the church could not have as many metropolitans as there were judices of provinces, already because bishops must be appointed by two or three bishops. If there were two bishops in a diocese and one of them died, then there would be no one to install a new one. Obviously, such a diocese could not be a small independent organism that could live its own life. This suggests that in the 4th century. There were fewer dioceses than provinces. Theodore of Mopsuestia speaks about the West in general, but his words are true only for a certain part of the West. Northern Italy and Gaul followed one practice, while southern Italy and Africa followed a completely different one. So, in the half of the 3rd century. the Roman bishop Cornelius convened a council of 60 bishops, and Cyprian of 90 bishops. This is not what the north of Italy represents. Here Ravenna and Milano could be considered bishoprics that date back to the beginning of the 3rd century and even to the end of the 2nd century. Besides them, only three more: Aquileia, Brescia and Verona can be said with good reason that they existed before the 4th century. In other cities, bishoprics arise very slowly. Eusebius of Vercelli was the first bishop of Vercelli († 370). The 3rd Bishop of Pavia (ticinensis) was present at the Council of Aquileia in 381. In the city of Como, the first bishop was ordained by Ambrose of Milan (from 374, † 397); in Novara, the first bishop was installed as Ambrose's successor. By analogy with the state structure, one can expect either that two more degrees of the episcopal rank will rise above the metropolitans, or that these degrees will not receive full development and will merge into one. Perhaps both happened: the development of higher degrees is even more confusing than the relations between civil authorities. Apparently, the ecclesiastical degrees of archbishops, or exarchs of dioceses, and patriarchs represent a complete analogy to civil vicars - exarchs of dioceses, and praetorian prefects. But the last ecclesiastical degree does not coincide with the supposed civil prototype also because the 4 eastern patriarchates fit into the territory of one eastern prefecture, and the western Roman patriarchate spread in the remaining three prefectures. And then, ecclesiastical exarchs represent a purely rudimentary form, suppressed by the development of patriarchates, a title without a corresponding real meaning: the exarchate is a failed patriarchy, just as the patriarchate is a higher metropolitanate arrested in its development. The beginning of the development of [exarchates, respectively] - patriarchates is believed to date back to the previous period. Even then, among the Christian bishoprics, the so-called sedes apostolicae stood out, and among them the most famous were Rome, Alexandria, Antioch - these three capitals of the Roman world, cities in which ecclesiastical significance coincides with political ones. The message of the Council of Antioch in 269 was addressed to Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria. These were pulpits through which various parts of the Christian clergy entered into relations with each other. Their role in this matter was the most natural. For an eastern bishop to address himself to some bishop of Praenestine or Tmuit, or an Italian bishop to some bishop of Anazar, is as improbable as in our days a letter from French bishops addressed to Kursk or Yeniseisk. Naturally, the importance of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria rose through this. The only question is how prominent were the advantages of power in this advantage of honor? The Council of Nicaea, in canon 6, determined that ancient customs should be preserved, that the bishop of Alexandria should be in charge of Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, just as the Roman bishop was in charge of the 10 provinciae suburbicariae, that ancient customs should be preserved in the east, while respecting the advantages of the Antiochian church. This canon formed the basis of the patriarchal structure of the Eastern Church at subsequent councils. This is a fact. But is the Council of Nicaea really talking about patriarchy, even in embryo? This question is now answered in the negative. If a characteristic feature of the rank of metropolitan is that he stands at the head of a provincial council, representing the second instance in ecclesiastical court and administration, and consecrates his suffragans-bishops, then a characteristic feature of the patriarch should be that he stands at the head of a diocesan council, representing the third instance of ecclesiastical court and administration, and has as his suffragans the metropolitans supplied by him. These features of patriarchal power do not fit the church system that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch represent at the beginning of our period. The Roman bishop did not have a single metropolitan among his subordinate suburban bishops; these were simply suffragan bishops who met only in Rome for a council. Consequently, Rome represented a diocese in civil terms, but in ecclesiastical terms it was only a “province” or diocese. The same is said about Alexandria. The area of ​​its jurisdiction coincided with the boundaries of the Egyptian diocese and included several civil provinces, but in ecclesiastical terms they all stood under one head - the Archbishop of Alexandria, a title that is first found in history in Athanasius the Great in the annex to Peter of Alexandria. The ancient Alexandrian church did not know metropolitans in the proper sense. Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis represented in the 4th century a huge diocese, not a diocese, and the bishop of Alexandria was a metropolitan, not a patriarch. Finally, the relationship of the Bishop of Antioch to his suffragans and metropolitans of the eastern diocese (civil) even in later times is not completely clear, and even less right do we assume the rights of the patriarch under the advantages of the Antiochian Church, which the Council of Nicaea speaks of. In short, Canon 6 of Nicene, as can be seen from its conclusion, speaks only about metropolitans. The Council of Nicea, having determined the advantages of some metropolitans, did not indicate what this advantage should be expressed in. It would be risky to assert that the Council of Nicea already presupposes the existence of patriarchates - exarchates. But of course it is possible that the dioceses united in the form of a diocese, and then the bishops who stood at the head of the diocese (= those who took precedence in the diocese) should have received the title of exarchs (εξαρχος = vicarius; the title “vicarius” is also known in the church life of the West, but there it has a completely different meaning: vicarius romani episcopi). But has the church actually gone through this form of diocesal union? Apparently, the first step towards this transition is contained in a number of decrees of the Council of Antioch, which scholars arbitrarily date to 341. Approximately this cathedral was assembled around 333 45 46. Of his rules, 20, 12, 15 and 14 are relevant in this case. The first of these rules firmly supports the diocese in the meaning of an ecclesiastical unit: it determines that diocesan councils should meet twice a year: the 1st after Easter in the fourth week (the holiday of “midnight” was called in the Ethiopian language “räkab”, which means “meeting”), the 2nd was supposed to be in the fall on October 15 (by date Roman, but according to the Syromacedonian date October 10 - apparently an ancient mistake: δεκάτη is incorrect instead of πεντεκαιδεκάτη ). Canon 12 speaks of a larger council of bishops (ή μείζων επισκόπων σύνοδος). This is explained by rules 15 and 14. If the council on the case of the bishop, the diocesan council, comes to a unanimous decision, then this decision is final and peremptory. If at a council the majority finds a bishop guilty, but the minority does not admit this, then the metropolitan - the chairman of the council - invites some bishops from a neighboring diocese, and this council must decide the matter. This cathedral was essentially the same diocesan cathedral, but only expanded (added with new members). But what to do if this council does not come to a final decision, the rule did not provide for this. Thus, the Council of Antioch does not at all testify to the leadership of the diocesan union through the diocesal one. And there is no question of a council representing a complete diocese. The chairman at this Council of Antioch was Eusebius of Caesarea, wise by experience, who welcomed the new relationship of the state to the church. But thorns soon appeared on this soil. Bishops dissatisfied with the council began to appeal to the emperor's court. This led, of course, to the interference of civil authorities in church affairs. It is against this phenomenon that the Antioch Council, with its highly experienced chairman, rebels. They decide: if any deposed bishop (presbyter, deacon), instead of appealing to a larger council, annoys the king, then ipso facto the bishop loses all hope of restoration. Thus, the council only cares about creating an ecclesiastical court of appeal to review the decisions of diocesan councils, in order to take away the raison d'etre from appeals to the emperor. That's it. The establishment of a “greater cathedral” does not yet have precise outlines. It is not stated definitely from which diocese the bishops should be called for the new council. Let's imagine this situation. In Cappadocia II, a matter arose for which it was necessary to invite neighboring bishops to resolve it. The bishops of Cappadocia I and Cilicia could be considered such neighbors; both belong to the eastern prefecture, but to different dioceses. Was the metropolitan obliged to give preference to bishops from Cappadocia? Since this rule was vague, the discretion of the metropolitan was given wide scope. If people differed on the question of the bishop’s guilt, then they could also differ on the determination of those persons who should have been summoned. The Metropolitan could summon those persons in whom he hoped to meet allies. Suppose a bishop is on trial for moving to another see for what he considers to be good reasons. It was possible to invite bishops who were fundamentally against the bishop's transfer to another see. This, for example, happened at the Second Ecumenical Council, when the arrival of the Egyptian and Macedonian bishops already decided the case against Gregory the Theologian. Thus, the already obscurity of the rule made it necessary to further clarify it in history. So: the “greater council” referred to in the rules of the Council of Antioch was not yet a diocesal council. The Antioch Council of 333 still knows only metropolitans. The main form of the diocesan union is the diocese, not the diocese. Above the diocesan cathedral rises, as an appeal court, a larger council, to which the bishops of the neighboring diocese were invited - the embryo from which the regular councils of the diocese later developed; but it is not yet visible that this was the cathedral of an entire diocese. But the Council of Constantinople in 381, in canon 2, already raises the question of the diocese as an administrative unit, although it is not entirely clear. This decree of the second rule had a precedent for the actions of Peter of Alexandria. According to correspondence with Gregory the Theologian, one might think that he agreed that the Bishop of Sassim should take the see of Constantinople. In fact, as the bishop of Egypt, Peter was against the transition, and not without his initiative the Egyptian bishops installed Maximus Cynicus in Constantinople. Since Constantinople was not part of the Egyptian diocese, the intervention of the Egyptians in the Constantinople affair violated not only diocesan, but also diocesan boundaries. Therefore, at the council it was decided that bishops should not interfere in the affairs of other dioceses, but that the bishops of the Thracian diocese should be in charge of the affairs of only their own diocese, Asiatic, Pontic, too; the bishop of Antioch and the bishops subordinate to him - the affairs of the eastern diocese; Bishop of Alexandria - Egyptian affairs. But a specific organization for managing diocesan affairs was not indicated even in 381; only the rule of the Council of Antioch is explained in the sense that bishops should have been taken to the larger council from neighboring dioceses in their own diocese. Thus, the first formation of the highest unit of the church union falls on a troubled time of canonical relations, which is represented by the era of the Arian disputes. These higher units are called archdioceses, exarchates, and finally patriarchates. The title of archbishop becomes commonly used when applied to the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch around the time of the Council of Ephesus. Domnus of Antioch is called exarch for the first time in the acts of the Council of Antioch in 448, here also called archbishop. The title of patriarch is first (in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus) applied to all bishops, especially to the elderly and especially respected; in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is used in a sense close to the one that was later established for it; but here we are talking about the patriarchs of each diocese, therefore, the “patriarch” is not yet strictly distinguished from exarchs or archbishops. Socrates [V, 8], - hardly, however, not by mistake - applies it to those bishops who, as tested in their faith, received from the Council of Constantinople in 381 the authority to accept those who had erred into communion with the church. The position corresponding to these names is being developed little by little. The beginnings of exarchates are found already in the 4th century. Thus, already Basil the Great acts not only as the Metropolitan of Cappadocia, but also as the exarch of the entire Pontic diocese, and his influence on the church affairs of other dioceses was apparently of a legal nature. He extends church care to Greater and Lesser Armenia, and considers it his duty to appoint a bishop to the metropolis of the Galatian diocese - Ancyra. The successor of Basil the Great, Helladius, installs Metropolitan of Bithynia (Bishop of Nicomedia). Meanwhile, metropolitans exist in the various dioceses of Pontus, and some of them even extend their influence over the affairs of other provinces. Thus, the Metropolitan of Ancyra, according to ancient custom, installs a metropolitan in Gangra of Paphlagon. As for the Asian diocese, its leading metropolitan, the Bishop of Ephesus, also has power resembling an exarch. At least Chrysostom's contemporary, Antonin of Ephesus, installed bishops in the Lydian diocese. The leading metropolitan of the Thracian diocese, the Metropolitan of Herakleia, around the time of the Council of Ephesus, extended his ecclesiastical influence at least to Hemimont. Finally, the fact that Flavian of Antioch was appointed bishop not only of his diocese, but also of the entire eastern diocese, testifies to the significance of the Antiochian hierarch, which extends beyond the borders of his diocese. Thus, 4 church centers were outlined, from which exarchates or patriarchates could be formed, the boundaries of which could coincide with the boundaries of dioceses. But church and political life developed in such a way that a new center, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, arose within the eastern diocese, and the development of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian exarchates was suppressed by the formation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon, which laid solid foundations for the patriarchal system with its definition of the relationship between patriarchs and metropolitans, also sanctioned these changes. Further development of the question of church organization was given at the Council of Chalcedon. A diocese exists not only as a specific unit, but also has its own purpose. The decision of the metropolitan can be appealed either to the exarch of the diocese (according to the rules of the 9th Council of Chalcis), or to the throne of the reigning city. Thus, by 451, the exarchates-dioceses were definite values. But with the diesesal form of the church union, this rule, in essence, already ends. The following alternative appears: either appeal to the exarch, or to Constantinople, and Rule 28 explains this alternative. a) Patriarchate of Constantinople The Church of Constantinople could boast neither of antiquity of origin nor of apostolic foundation (sedes apostolica). The story of the founding of the Apostolic Church in Constantinople was announced later. Consequently, Constantinople, in a purely ecclesiastical sense, did not have such privileges as fell to the lot of other eastern churches. The rise of the See of Constantinople was based on its position as a capital one. In the first decades of the 4th century. information about the state of the Constantinople see is very vague. Gregory of Nazianzus (before the second ecumenical council) found few Orthodox Christians in Constantinople, since at that time the Arians dominated there. But already the second ecumenical council equated the Patriarch of Constantinople with Rome and other apostolic sees. The rise of the new see was generally met with unsympathy from the apostolic sees. Proof of this can be the history of Juvenal of Jerusalem, and especially the history of the Ohrid patriarchy. The rise of the Patriarch of Constantinople was greeted with a similar feeling, especially by the Patriarch of Alexandria, who enjoyed the greatest authority in the east. The elevation of the Bishop of Constantinople directly affected the rights of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Therefore, when a unit began to form, whose authority was based not on antiquity, but on proximity to secular power, people in Alexandria began to worry. Already when Eusebius from Virita moved to the Nicomedia, at that time the capital see, the Alexandrian patriarch drew attention to this. Alexander of Alexandria pointed out that Eusebius was in vain to think that everything depended on him. The same Eusebius changed Nicomedia to Byzantium when the capital moved there. In his claims, the Alexandrian patriarch could not, however, rely on any rights or practice except for the case when Athanasius the Great, returning from exile, installed bishops in some places outside the boundaries of the Alexandrian patriarchate. In this, however, one cannot see an indication of the power of the Alexandrian patriarch, but only that for many localities at that time it was impossible to obtain canonically correctly appointed bishops in any other way. Despite this, Peter of Alexandria already laid claim to authority in Constantinople. He planned to give Constantinople a bishop in the person of Maximus Cynic. For this purpose, a whole council of Alexandrian fathers went to Constantinople. Since it was impossible for them to carry out their plan openly, they resorted to a trick: they planned to install Maxim at night, but the citizens prevented the consecration. Then the ordination was completed in the house of some flutist. Maxim, however, did not establish himself in Constantinople and turned out to be inconvenient for Peter himself: he began to intrigue against him in Alexandria in order to take his place. This fact speaks very clearly about the claims of the Alexandrian See in relation to the Constantinople See. Rule 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, in fact, was directed against this, although it was expressed in a delicate form. Rule 3 requires that bishops generally not go beyond the boundaries of their diocese in matters of power. But it was clear against whom this rule was directed: at that time only the Alexandrian bishop made claims to power outside his diocese. It is not known exactly how Timothy of Alexandria reacted to this decree. There are indications that he left the council without signing at least part of its definitions. Since the second ecumenical council, the Patriarch of Constantinople took second place; the first was granted to the Roman bishop. Egypt, at the height of its church life, could not come to terms with this rule, since it was directed against the bishop of Alexandria. Despite the fact that this rule did not apparently affect the Roman bishop, since it left primacy behind him, nevertheless it hit him too, and all the more offensively because it hit him, so to speak, behind the scenes. Due to the peculiarities of its position, the Roman see should have sought to base its prerogatives on its ecclesiastical significance, and here, in the rule of the second ecumenical council, the Roman bishop was proclaimed first only by the significance of the city of Rome itself as an ancient capital. Rome could not come to terms with this point of view. Thus, two allies were created against the rise of Constantinople: Alexandria and Rome. The point of view of the Roman bishops in this case was very strange. Taking up arms against the ecumenical advantages of Constantinople, Rome said that it defended the Nicene canon. But this canon did not at all address the specified church issue, since in 325 Constantinople itself, as a new Rome, did not yet exist, and it was, therefore, very strange to refer to the Nicene canon when the object itself, i.e. Constantinople, in the latter sense is not mentioned in the rule. The Council of Nicaea only discussed the position of the Alexandrian bishop in his diocese, and did not in any way establish the order of the main departments; he spoke only of ancient privileges. And, however, the struggle was waged under the banner of standing for the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Council. The literal meaning of Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople granted the See of Constantinople very great honor, but not the slightest power: the bishop of the capital was not even removed from hierarchical dependence on his metropolitan, the bishop of Herakleia. But Nektarios of Constantinople knew how to handle things in such a way that a literal interpretation of the canon soon became impossible. The Arian bishops of the capital also created a sufficient number of precedents that could be used by their Catholic successors. Macedonius also installed bishops in the neighboring dioceses of Constantinople; The metropolis of the Hellespont, Cyzicus, had long been replaced from Constantinople: therefore, the possibility of intervention in the affairs of the Asian diocese opened up. Nektarios himself received a letter from Ambrose of Mediolan asking for the deposition of Metropolitan Gerontius of Nicomedia, appointed by Helladius of Caesarea; Consequently, the West came from an indirect recognition of the rights of Constantinople over the Pontic diocese. There is no doubt that the aspirations of the Antiochian fathers (333) failed: no matter how hard they tried to prohibit appeals to the emperor, life itself and circumstances did not allow their aspirations to actually be realized. The case of Porfiry of Gaz is known. His church flock was subjected to all kinds of persecution by the pagans, and he, naturally, was forced to seek protection from the emperor: he should not turn to the council in this case. And the emperor, naturally, could inquire from the bishop of Constantinople about this or that state of church affairs, as from a person who was close to church life in general. Thus, a whole set of affairs came under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople. And since, according to the ancient church rules, bishops, even those endowed with privileges, had to decide matters synodaliter, and not with individual authority (this was reflected even in the language of the epistles: usually at the beginning of the latter the 2nd person singular was used, and then there was an address in the form of “you”, or “you, most holy ones”), then the bishop of Constantinople had to develop such a council. It was not in the power of the bishop of Constantinople to convene the council, for he was only the επαρχιώτης (suffragan) of the bishop of Herakleia, on whom the convening of the council depended. Thus, the Council of the Bishop of Constantinople could not be either diocesan, since all the bishops of the province were not invited to it, nor diocesan, since all the bishops of the Thracian diocese did not participate in it: it was only σύνοδος ενδημούσα. According to the meaning of Greek terminology, άποδημεΐν meant to be absent. Therefore, the σύνοδος ένδημοΰσα consisted only of those bishops who were currently in the capital for some reason, and the competence of such a council could not have certain boundaries. Cases of a wide variety of dioceses could fall here, and such phenomena began very early. It must be borne in mind that the choice that fell on the Tarsus senator Nectarius (381–379) was successful. In his person, it was not a great theologian who ascended to the see of Constantinople, but a man, wise by experience, who knew how to conduct business extremely tactfully. Under him, in 394, there was a council with the participation of bishops, among other things, Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch, presided over by Nektarios himself. In this one can see the rise of the Patriarch of Constantinople. To this, however, one can object that the cathedral was in his diocese and therefore the chairmanship belonged to him by right. We observe a similar phenomenon in the dispute over the cathedral of two bishops, Agapius and Vagadius. The matter concerning the diocese of Oriens was discussed at the Council of Constantinople. His decision, worthy of note, is accepted even by such persons with separatist opinions as Theophilus of Alexandria. Under Chrysostom (398–405), the rights of Constantinople actually extended to Thrace with 6 provinces, Asia with 11 and Pontus with 11 - a total of 28 provinces. Thus, in fact, Constantinople crossed the boundaries indicated by the council of 381. Chrysostom showed his activity in fact: he had to arrive in Ephesus to install a bishop there, or, better said, an exarch; Here he also deposed 6 bishops of Asia who were guilty of simony. In the end, a council was held in Oak (403), which deposed Chrysostom. This council was a mute protest against the bishop of Constantinople with his privileges and an attempt to return to the initial (ancient) order. Theophilus of Alexandria, who was present at the council, pretended that he was present at an ordinary diocesan council - presided over by Bishop Paul of Herakleia. However, all this did not affect the power of the bishop of Constantinople. Under Attica (406–425), the power of Constantinople manifested itself to the same extent. He appointed a bishop to Nicaea (in Pontus Asia); he finally successively transferred Bishop Silvanus, first to the see of Philippopolis, and then to Troas. Matters in this direction went so far that in 421 a law was obtained from Emperor Theodosius the Younger, according to the meaning of which no church activities in Asia, Thrace and Pontus could take place without the knowledge of the Bishop of Constantinople. Under Pope Boniface I (418–422), there were even attempts to subordinate eastern Illyricum to the See of Constantinople. Under Sisinnius (426–428), a husband, according to historians, of holy simplicity and simple holiness (vir sanctae simplicitatis et simplicis sanctitatis), things took a reverse turn. The city of Cyzicus did not accept the bishop appointed by the bishop of Constantinople. Soon, the representative of the ancient system, the Patriarch of Alexandria, won a new victory. Under Cyril of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius (428–431) was deposed as a heretic. The initiative belonged to the Alexandrian bishop; he also presided over the council. This brought forward the significance of the Alexandrian patriarch. That in this matter the latter was guided by more than one dogmatic side of the matter, this can be deduced from what preceded it. Nestorius's successor, Maximian (431–434), was not a particularly active man, stood in moral dependence and, perhaps, even enjoyed the leadership of the Alexandrian patriarch. But already under St. Procles (434–447), the work of the Patriarch of Constantinople again began to improve. However, Rome indirectly supported Alexandria. There they expressed the opinion that they agreed with Proclus in dogmatic terms, but not in terms of government. The last blow against the Patriarch of Constantinople was directed at the Council of Robbers (449), when Flavian (447–449) was condemned, and Anatoly was installed as Bishop of Constantinople. It can be said that the elevation of the See of Constantinople to the position of a real exarchate is the work of Anatoly of Constantinople (449–458). For the first time, Anatoly appeared in Constantinople as a deacon and apocrisiary of the Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus. He was a man of action, who made excellent use of the circumstances of the time, and had undergone real practical school. Having decided to abandon his archbishop (who could not have expected such a step from his apocrisiary), Anatoly extracted from the circumstances everything possible to elevate his see. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon served as the cornerstone of the significance and power of the See of Constantinople, although it, in fact, only explains Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council. Particularly important is the very beginning of the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, in which the fathers of the council precisely and in detail clarified what meaning needs to be combined with the briefly expressed concepts of the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, and established, in particular, that the Roman see owes its rise to the capital position of the city. On this basis, they decided that the see of Constantinople was worth honoring with equal advantage and making it a second Rome. The rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople were confirmed in relation to three dioceses: Thracian, Asian and Pontic. Metropolitans were appointed to them by the Bishop of Constantinople. Not for all the fathers this final result was presented when the council began. Regarding several cases in the previous rules, the Council of Chalcedon provided the Patriarch of Constantinople with advantages that were not quite strong (pr. 9). Against the fear that some bishop will include neighboring parishes in his diocese, it is said that this bishop undoubtedly holds power over them if he ruled them for 30 years. And if another bishop considers himself offended, it is said further, then he has the right to complain at the council. If the metropolitan himself appropriates the parish, then it is inconvenient to complain at the council: the metropolitan presides. It is left to complain about it either to the exarch or to the see of Constantinople. This placed the Patriarch and Exarch of Constantinople in concursus. The expression used here was of such a kind that if, for example, in a Thracian diocese a dispute arose between the Adrianople metropolitan and the bishop, then the bishop would turn to Heraclius or to Constantinople, that is, either to the exarch or to the patriarch of Constantinople. Likewise, if disputes arose between the Archbishop of Tian and his subordinate bishop, then again one could turn to the Exarch in Caesarea or to Constantinople. But in Canon 28 of the IV Ecumenical Council, the rights of the See of Constantinople within the three diets were firmly established, and there could be no misunderstandings at this point. In general, the position of the department by this time was such that Anatoly easily took advantage of the circumstances for its elevation. At the Council of Chalcedon it became clear what enormous successes the bishop of Constantinople had made in spreading his power. 1) Many bishops of Ephesus were ordained in Constantinople or by the Patriarch of Constantinople, although this aroused displeasure among the Ephesians. 2) Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was also elected and ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople Proclus, and before his election the Caesareaites came to Constantinople to ask for a bishop. Thus, the two exarchs stood in actual dependence on the see of Constantinople and therefore could be considered not as equal in rights with the Archbishop of Constantinople, but as metropolitans dependent on him. Many metropolitans of the Asian and Pontic dioceses declared that they and their predecessors were appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was even said that in each region the metropolitan is ordained from this throne, that according to the rules and long-standing custom, the throne of Constantinople has these rights. And Anatoly of Constantinople, in a letter to Leo I, referred to 60–70 years ago in defense of this practice. Likewise, the bishops of Nicomedia and Nicea (Bithynia I, II) on a controversial issue turn to the court not of the bishop of Caesarea, but to Constantinople. Thus, it turns out that the emerging exarchates, both Pontic and Asian, no longer actually existed, were in a state of disintegration, that the dioceses now represented not a cohesive whole, but a weak aggregate of individual metropolitanates, gravitating not towards their diocesal center, but towards Constantinople. This is not enough: the rights and views of Constantinople went even further - they penetrated into the internal affairs of individual metropolises. For example, in the Bithynian metropolis there was the bishopric of Basilinople (a suburb of Nicaea), which was dependent not on Nicomedia, but on Constantinople. The Metropolitan of Ancyra voluntarily sent the Metropolitan of Gangra to be posted in Constantinople, not wanting to expose himself to trial (probably for violating the law of Emperor Theodosius in favor of Atticus of Constantinople). Thus, the Council of Chalcedon presents us with the bishopric of Constantinople at a moment when its tendency to turn into a vast metropolitanate, embracing three civil dioceses, becomes clear. And Anatoly of Constantinople could, therefore, not without effect, with an air of truthfulness, assert that, according to the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, the see of Constantinople was losing rather than gaining, that according to common law, the bishop of Constantinople performed more consecrations than the number granted to him by the most holy council. Finally, it turns out that not having his own metropolitan region, the bishop of Constantinople could not hold diocesan councils, but he held the so-called σύνοδοι ένδυμοϋσαι, to which bishops who lived in Constantinople on their business were invited. Obviously, their composition could be very uncertain; not embracing any single diocese as a whole, they had random representatives from several, and therefore assigned themselves a very broad competence. The fathers of the council, with surprise, far from pleasure, learned that Anatoly of Constantinople, following this custom, accepted for consideration the case of bishops Photius of Tire and Eustathius of Virite, who were subject to the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Antioch, and decided this matter, and Maximus of Antioch, who was present at that time in Constantinople, was not even invited to examine the case; that even earlier, when the clergy, excommunicated by Iva of Edessa and appealing to the legal exarch, Domnus of Antioch, before he could pronounce the sentence, transferred their case to the court of Flavian of Constantinople, the latter did not refuse his investigation and did not return the process ad forum legitimum, but transferred it to the court of the authorized bishops of Phenicia, at whose council the deacon of Constantinople was present as an ambassador Eulogius. If we add to all this that Maximus of Antioch, contrary to all customs, was consecrated in Constantinople by Anatoly, we will see how far beyond the boundaries of what is canonically permitted the archbishops of Constantinople extended their competence. Obviously, the rule of the Council of Constantinople of 381 on dioceses had by that time become a dead letter, passed into the category of laws long dead. The course of action of the bishops of Constantinople was backed by prescription, custom, and expediency, and the Council of Chalcedon gave only sanction to these illegal precedents when, at the request of the Constantinople clergy, it issued the famous 28th rule on the advantages of the see of Constantinople. And we can’t help but give credit: the moment was chosen well. The Patriarch of Alexandria had by this time been deposed, and this see remained unfilled. Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, due to his connection with Dioscorus, hardly sat firmly on his newly created throne. The Exarch of Ephesus, Stephen, from whom stronger resistance could have been expected, was deposed. The Metropolitan of Irakli was not present at the council at all. Maxim of Antioch was in such a state that the slightest turn of the pen would have led to his deprivation of the throne: his predecessor Domnus was alive, although Maxim was elevated to his see. And the new project, apparently, had on its side the sympathies of ordinary metropolitans, who preferred direct dependence on Constantinople to subordination to Ephesus or Caesarea. And the proposal of the Constantinople clergy was accepted and signed. In the series of signatures we do not find the name Thalassius of Caesarea. And this is quite understandable: it was not easy for him, having exchanged the rank of prefect of the praetorium for the degree of bishop of Caesarea, to renounce forever the ancient privileges of his church and become one of the simple metropolitans. Thalassius of Caesarea, without subscribing to the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, hoped for more favorable results from the resistance with which the legates of Pope Leo the Great were supposed to meet this rule; but his hopes were completely in vain, and his own position did not allow him to support the opposition. Thalassius himself was installed in Constantinople, and, moreover, his reputation was shaken by his alliance with Dioscorus. Resistance on this side therefore could not be stubborn and long-lasting. And indeed, Thalassius sided with the canon during its secondary reading at the council. He expressed himself vaguely in the assumption that he could go to Archbishop Anatoly and arrange his affairs. But he failed in this too, and Rule 28 was approved by the council. The rules of the Council of Chalcedon define the patriarchate with the diocesan council as the third ecclesiastical authority to which the verdicts of metropolitans and diocesan councils can be appealed. In accordance with this, granting the Holy See of the new Rome, which had the honor of being the city of the king and the Senate, equal advantages with the throne of ancient Rome, so that the throne of Constantinople was second to the Roman one, the council assimilates to the see of Constantinople and power quite similar to the rights of ancient Rome: it subordinates to it three diocese - Pontic, Asian and Thracian. But the rights of metropolitans in these dioceses remain inviolable: “each metropolitan of the mentioned dioceses with the bishops of his diocese ordains bishops of the diocese, as prescribed by the divine canons.” All metropolitans are elected according to the canons by the bishops of their dioceses and are presented to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who confirms and ordains them. An exception was made only for bishops among barbarians, among foreigners who settled in these dioceses. The instability of these dioceses forced them to be directly subordinated to Constantinople, and not to the metropolitan. It is remarkable that Constantinople’s right to the Russian Church was based (later) on this rule, although at that time the Russian Church did not yet exist. A reinterpretation of this rule was made: a line was drawn to the north across the Black Sea; all the peoples to the right of the line (to the east) are assigned to the Pontic diocese, and those living to the left (to the west) to the Thracian diocese. Thus, the Metropolitans of Caesarea, Ephesus and Herakleia are no different in their rights from other metropolitans; their fledgling prerogatives were now buried forever. In return for actual rights, they were subsequently awarded only ringing titles: Metropolitan of Caesarea - Exarch of Pontus and Cappadocia and πρωτόθρονος; he acquired the right to appoint the Patriarch of Constantinople in the event of illness or absence of the Metropolitan of Irakli. Second place was taken by the Metropolitan of Ephesus, who bore the title of Exarch of the Asian diocese. The Metropolitan of Herakleia retained the usual privilege - the installation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, if he was not elected from among the bishops, otherwise he performed the rite of enthronement - and received the title: Exarch of all Thrace and Macedonia. As the third ecclesiastical authority in the ecclesiastical affairs of his dioceses, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in principle, stands on a completely equal footing with his fellow patriarchs. But in fact, one very important restriction was made, which, undoubtedly, should have led to the elevation of the Patriarch of Constantinople above all others. In controversial issues, the court of metropolitan councils was allowed (9.17) to appeal either to the exarch of the corresponding diocese and his council, or to the throne of the reigning city of Constantinople - an alternative that opened up for the latter a very wide opportunity to intervene in the affairs of other patriarchs and to demonstrate his primacy authority over them. Since the exarchs became in this position, an appeal to them ceased to be even probable. The Council of Chalcedon was convened in an era when the terms: exarch, patriarch and others were not strictly established and delimited and had not yet received their characteristic features; for example, Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, was called both patriarch and exarch. This parallel of names contained the grain of the development of the power and significance of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The possibility opened up for persons dissatisfied with their exarch to turn to Constantinople, and thus the Patriarch of Constantinople became the court of appeal for the entire East, even in the cases of all other patriarchs. All that was missing was for the See of Constantinople to be formally declared the court of appeal in the cases of other patriarchs. This prerogative was granted to her by Justinian's novella of 530, and then the bishop of Constantinople began to relate to the other patriarchs in a relationship reminiscent of the authority of praefecti urbis or praefecti praetorio in relation to the vicars of the diocese. And before this time, the patriarchs of Constantinople managed to demonstrate their authority over the Alexandrian one in the deposition of John Talaya and the elevation of Peter Mong in his place, then in the installation of Paul to the same see in 519. In Constantinople, they tried by all means to ensure that the new patriarch was ordained in the capital itself, but due to the decisive protest of the papal legate, Epiphanius of Constantinople had to go to Alexandria for consecration. Over the Patriarchate of Antioch, the authority of Constantinople was manifested in the ordination of Stephen of Antioch and then John, Metropolitan of Tyre, without any knowledge of the Patriarch of Antioch Kalandion. Thus, the invisible suffragan of the Metropolitan of Herakleia became at the head of the hierarchs of the east, the successors of Peter and the Evangelist Mark, and even above them, and the see, which in proof of its rights could only show the political significance of the capital, but nothing purely ecclesiastical, eclipsed the ancient apostolic sees of Alexandria and Antioch. The struggle that the Alexandrian archbishops waged against Constantinople was as stubborn as it was fruitless - because they were alone in it. The significance of the see of Constantinople was not a matter of the personal talents of its individual primates: it was the fruit of the ecclesiastical condition of the East, or better, of the shortcomings of the Greek race. The Alexandrian hierarchs could win any brilliant private victories, but the root of the growing importance of Constantinople lay in the weakness of the legal instincts of the eastern population and in the lack of unity of action. All the strategic talents of the patriarchs of Alexandria were powerless against this evil. In fact, the beginning of the internal strengthening of the Constantinople bishopric was laid by the fact that many metropolitan cities abandoned the election of local bishops and transferred this matter to Constantinople. This was the kind of self-restraint that is hardly possible in the West. True, the bishop of Constantinople had the strong power of the emperors of the east behind him, ready to support his authority in this matter. But the significance of this support cannot be exaggerated. The Antiochian Paulinians could have maintained their schism until it reached its natural outcome. In the same way, the inhabitants of Cyzicus could defend the bishop they had chosen, despite the long-standing custom and imperial law, and Proclus, who was installed as Archbishop of Constantinople, had to remain in Constantinople, and Dalmatius retained his see. Thus, in the east it was possible to retain the elected bishop, despite the opposition of the authorities; but the whole misfortune was that the Greeks were able to support their beloved shepherd with a street demonstration or even a riot, but were not able to withstand a long siege for their violated church rights. In Rome, Liberia was defended, even despite the entire years of his exile. There was an uprising in Constantinople because of the deposition of Paul, but then they were reconciled with Macedonia. After the first expulsion of Chrysostom, the unrest assumed such dangerous proportions that he was restored to the see; but when he was deposed a second time, only an insignificant handful of Johannites stood up for his interests: the majority reconciled with Arsakias. For Macedonius II, an uprising occurred in Constantinople, which almost cost Anastasius his crown; but then the patriarch was nevertheless deposed and Timothy took his chair. In a word, the Greeks knew how to stand for dogmatic ideas that do not die and can be stored in the depths of consciousness until their triumph for entire decades, but they lacked endurance in the struggle for people who are dying, and for rights that are falling out of use due to the accumulation of facts of an opposite nature. Another phenomenon that also suggests a weak sense of legitimacy is the frequent appeals to the emperor. This evil was supposed to raise the importance of Constantinople, despite any selflessness of its primates: the emperors, naturally, entrusted the analysis of such appeals to the bishops of the capital, even against their wishes. The struggle against this phenomenon could only be waged successfully from below, and not from above. In the West, the rival bishops of Botsria, of course, would have paid with the very object of their dispute for an appeal to Constantinople in addition to the diocesan council, and the Edessa clergy would have ruined their cause irrevocably with their appeal to Flavian. It was not the same in the east. Here the bishops apparently were indifferent to such offenses. Therefore, the archbishops of Constantinople had against themselves the isolated voices of the directly affected hierarchs, and for themselves - the apathy of the vast majority of bishops, who were accustomed to pulling apart and were not disposed to collective resistance. And victory remained with the hierarch of the capital. b) Alexandrian Patriarchate Alexandrian church life has historically developed in a unique way. There is a legend that Ev. Mark established 12 presbyters, who appointed one chief bishop. From this comes the view that the elders in Alexandria had the right of consecration. But this tale does not use modern terminology. All episcopal forces were concentrated in Alexandria, and here the church life of Egypt had its center. A remnant of the ancient system was that the bishop of Alexandria acted as metropolitan for the entire Egyptian diocese, although Christianity from Alexandria had already spread throughout the vast expanse of Egypt. In Thebaid, the closest bishops gathered at councils, discussed matters, elected bishops, but the consecration still belonged to the bishop of Alexandria, who, thus, was in the strict sense the metropolitan of Egypt. Therefore, as soon as the opposition to Alexandrian church relations occurred at the beginning of the 4th century. uprising, Melitius of Lycopolis accepted the title of archbishop and began to ordain bishops, installing them not only in remote, but even in places closest to Alexandria. The dispute that arose from this at the first ecumenical council was resolved in favor of the Alexandrian bishop. The latter was recognized as the head of the entire Egyptian church, and there was no other bishop like him. The one who was later called the Patriarch of Alexandria, during the Melitian schism and in general during the flourishing times of the Alexandrian Church, was called an archbishop, but usually he was called the pope in Egypt. He is also called an archbishop in Verona documents; This title of archbishop, applied to the bishop of Alexandria, is also found in Athanasius. In essence, when applied to the bishop of Alexandria, the title of patriarch is inconvenient: it does not correspond to the scope of his power. The patriarchs of Constantinople were just trying to subordinate the three dioceses to their power, and the Alexandrian bishops already had such power in Egypt, Libya Pentapolis, and the strongest power. But this was not potestas ordinaria. They had the right to ordain all subordinate bishops. Potestas ordinaria subordinates all persons to the bishop, both laity and presbyters, a power that in ancient times no one dared to strive for, and only the Vatican Council, with the usual balancing act, could encroach on this advantage and canonically justify it. In ancient times, clergy were subject to the authority of the bishop, but not the metropolitan; they had the right not to carry out the latter’s orders; therefore, in ancient times, archbishops could strive for a smaller amount of power, not the power of a bishop, but the power of a metropolitan. In the Egyptian diocese, all bishops were subordinate to the Pope of Alexandria: in fact, up to 100 bishops received his consecration. This advantage belonged to the Pope of Alexandria, if not always de jure proprio, then de jure delegato. Where there are no metropolitans, there cannot be patriarchs. The Pope of Alexandria was therefore (in fact) a metropolitan over the vast territory entrusted to him, but could not be and was not a patriarch, for there were no metropolitans subordinate to him. Some scholars, even agreeing that in the 4th century this was the case in Alexandria during the Council of Nicaea, suggest that this system subsequently changed and this is how metropolitans were created. If, indeed, the matter does not come down only to the time of Arab and Turkish rule, when metropolitans and patriarchs remained only nominally, but refers to the era of prosperity of Alexandria, then in essence the concept of metropolitan was used [as applied to the order of Egyptian church life] either by misunderstanding, or by an arbitrary transfer of relations from one place to another. The misunderstanding rests mainly in one place in the letter of Sinesius, bishop of Ptolemais, to Theophilus of Alexandria, where Sinesius attaches to himself the title of metropolitan [er. 66: τα μητρώα της πόλεως δίκαια ] 47 . In reality, it turns out that this name was applied to him by his flock, and not by himself. He states that he privately received one supernumerary bishop with such honor that his own flock responded with indignation and said that he should not do that. The citizens of Ptolemais had the right to call their city a metropolis, because it was such in civil terms and for them the bishop of their city was of greater importance than the bishop received. Here, obviously, is a simple count between cities, and not proof that Sinesius was a metropolitan. The second reason is that, reading the invitation sacra of Emperor Theodosius the Younger to the Council of Ephesus, where it was ordered to take metropolitans and bishops, they conclude that there was a metropolitan in Alexandria at that time. But this assumption is completely arbitrary. If the Council of Ephesus had met in the order of our time, then a large number of forms would have been prepared in Constantinople, and names would have been inscribed in the office. Quite by chance, a form addressed to Cyril of Alexandria 48 has survived to this day. But the text was developed not for one bishop, but for all; therefore, it is impossible to assume that all episcopal relations were provided for there and that things changed under Cyril’s successors. That there really were no metropolitans in Egypt at that time is indicated by many facts. First of all, metropolitanism presupposes a diocesan council under the metropolitan, but it was not convened in Egypt. Several messages have been preserved from Theophilus explaining the order of the court at that time. To assess the significance of the data contained in them, one must not lose sight of what rights and obligations in this case were usually associated with the title of metropolitan. It has already been mentioned that a bishop is a potestas ordinaria, that is, a person who consecrates presbyters and deacons within his bishopric and has the right of spiritual judgment over clergy and laity. Laymen, however, could also be judged by presbyters, and the bishop was an appellate authority in which it was possible to appeal the decision of the presbyters. But in disputes between elders, the bishop was the direct judge. The Metropolitan, in addition to the fact that he was a bishop, was a double authority: firstly, he was a judicial authority in the trial of bishops, and, secondly, an appellate instance for complaints of clergy and laity in the court of bishops. In addition to the right of consecration and trial, the metropolitan also has the right of “visitation” - a certain supervision over bishops. Moreover, he made orders for the entire diocese in urgent matters, but then announced this at the next council, which approved or rejected his orders, so that they were all provisional in nature. When a bishop had subordinate bishops whom he ordained, judged and accepted appeals, such a bishop was already a metropolitan. In the city of Nicopolis (now Siut), a case arose regarding many complaints about the unfair actions of the local bishop Apollo. If Nikopol had its own metropolitan, then the diocesan council would have to speak out on this matter. The whole matter concerned Apollo, who performed several consecrations hastily: the ordained persons turned out to be connected by marriages that were illegal from the point of view of the church, but completely legal from the point of view of the civil authorities. The matter went to the court of Theophilus of Alexandria, who sent Ammon to resolve this matter, providing him with his instructions on what he should investigate. For example, one consecrated person was accused of being married to a close relative, which was not disputed. But the marriage took place before baptism and the wife died before baptism. According to Theophilus, the accusation against Apollo in this case is unfounded. If it then turned out that the cleric testified incorrectly, then he himself was subject to overthrow, and Apollo again would not be guilty if he proved that he did not know this and no one told him about it during his consecration. Thus, to decide a matter that does not affect any relations between the bishops, a delegate from the Alexandrian bishop is sent. But this was not the only case. If there were metropolitans in Alexandria, they would have to decide matters either by their own authority or at local councils. The same phenomenon is observed in the correspondence of Sinesius. In one place [in the villages of Paleviske and Idrake], due to random circumstances, a bishop's see was opened, so to speak, without permission, against the will of the Alexandrian bishop [and Sidirius was placed there without observing the usual canonical requirements]. During the Arian unrest, an energetic person, a fighter, was needed for the Cyrene department. Such was chosen by Athanasius of Alexandria in the person of Sidirius. But when this bishop grew old, he again withdrew to a remote corner of Libya. There had never been bishops in this place before him. When the said bishop died, the inhabitants declared that they wished to be numbered with Erythra, whose bishop, Paul, they were pleased with. Theophilus had the idea of ​​opening a see in these villages, and Sinesius was tasked with persuading the residents to elect a new bishop for themselves. But they begged not to be made orphans during their father’s lifetime. There is no doubt that the establishment of the department would have been subject to the department of Synesius, if he had been a metropolitan. However, he was only a delegate on behalf of Theophilus of Alexandria. Here he had to agree with the cries of the residents and ask Theophilus not to open a new pulpit. Then he decided here another matter between Paul and Dioscorus of Dardan. The matter was about the ownership of some disputed border town. Here Paul was proven wrong and confessed. Dioscorus made all kinds of deals, and the matter ended peacefully. But then a case of church embezzlement arose, which he could solve with his own authority; but he also reported this matter to Theophilus of Alexandria [er. 67]. Another letter dealt with the consecration of a bishop. The bishop died not in the city, but in the village (κώμη) of Olbia. It was necessary to find a deputy. Sinesius arrived here again on behalf of Theophilus. There were many candidates, but everyone settled on one most worthy, remarkable for the holiness of his life, who was also known to Sinesius - Antony. In addition to Sinesius, there were two more bishops present; one of them had already ordained the chosen presbyter and gave the most flattering assessment of him. Thus, everything was in place for the legality of the installation of a bishop; approval was also received from the bishops present, and there were three of them, which, according to the rules, is quite sufficient for the consecration of a bishop. If Sinesius had been a Ptolemaid metropolitan, he could have confirmed the election and consecrated the chosen one, meanwhile, in a letter to Theophilus, he says: “Now, to complete this work, the most important thing is missing - your sacred hand; The Olbiatians need her, and I need your prayers.” This indicates that Sinesius, as a non-metropolitan, did not use either the metropolitan right of court or the metropolitan right of consecration [er. 76]. Thus, there is no evidence to say that there were metropolitans in Alexandria at that time. The thesis remains in full force that the Alexandrian Patriarchate was a huge metropolis. Here the Alexandrian bishop achieved what everyone strived for, but did not achieve. The Pope of Alexandria is only a nominal patriarch, but in reality he was a metropolitan. This system of the Alexandrian church had an important influence on other aspects of church history. It is very likely that there would have been less confusion in the historical course if the structure of the Alexandrian church had not been so peculiar. Metropolitans and a few bishops were summoned to the Council of Ephesus. Anyone who was familiar with the structure of the Alexandrian church understood that if one were strictly guided by the letter of the imperial order, then Cyril acted incorrectly: he should have appeared with few bishops. And when he appeared with 50 bishops, the eastern ones shouted at this as something illegal. However, from a higher historical point of view there was nothing special here. It was only an accident that the Alexandrian church was only a metropolitanate. It could well have been divided into 9 metropolises, so that 45 bishops (9x5) exactly corresponded to the number with which Cyril appeared. Thus, the patriarchate did not take root in the Alexandrian exarchate. Egypt remained under the same form of government. The conviction of the primacy of the Alexandrian bishop was the conviction of all the Egyptian bishops, and when Dioscorus of Alexandria fell into heresy, the Egyptian bishops found themselves, as it were, without a leader. Without the bishop of Alexandria, they refused to participate in all important matters: so, by the way, they refused to sign the ορος of the Council of Chalcedon on the grounds that they did everything under the leadership of their archbishop of Alexandria. And not only Dioscorus’ supporters refused, but even his opponents. Thus, here a limit was set for the development of patriarchy. c) Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchates In Antioch things were done with perfect regularity. The development of the Patriarchate of Antioch was not subject to any shocks. But, unfortunately, it was as if Antioch was destined not to grow, but to grow small. Having taken not second, but third place in the list of patriarchates, it was moved from this place due to the rise of Constantinople. In addition, she had to distinguish from herself a new patriarchate - the Jerusalem one. The origin of the Jerusalem patriarchate is the work of one person - Juvenal of Jerusalem, although there were precedents before, only unsuccessful ones. The rise of the Jerusalem bishop was based on purely ecclesiastical views. Destroyed to the ground under Hadrian, Jerusalem eked out a miserable existence under the name of Aelia Capitolina. The significance - political - of this town was so insignificant that the bishop of Jerusalem had to take the modest place of suffragan metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine. But the memory of the ancient glory of this humble see was vividly preserved in the Christian church: here Aelia Capitolina was ignored and known only to Jerusalem. Therefore, the bishop of the “apostolic see of Jerusalem” shared with the Metropolitan of Caesarea the honor of presiding over the councils; Origen was ordained together by both Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem. At the Council of Antioch in 272, the bishop of Jerusalem ranks higher than that of Caesarea. And a remarkable fact: Eusebius, himself the Metropolitan of Caesarea, in his history reports a continuous series of episcopal successions in the Jerusalem See - and does not do this regarding the Caesarea See. The authority of the Jerusalem church in his eyes was so great that it represented a superior glory to some Caesarea. The Council of Nicea, on its own initiative, sanctioned this respect for the Jerusalem see, sanctified by tradition, granting Bishop Aelia the succession of honor while maintaining the canonical authority over him of the Caesarea metropolis. Probably due to this advantage, the bishops of Jerusalem appointed bishops of Caesarea. Soon after, an apparently accidental circumstance raised the importance of the Bishop of Jerusalem to a high level. This was Helen's journey to the Holy Land. The subsequent construction of basilicas drew the attention of the emperor to the bishop of the Jerusalem wig: Macarius of Jerusalem received a gold-threaded table from Constantine, and in letters to him the emperor titled him bishop of Jerusalem and Palestine. The travels that began to the Holy Land increased the wealth of the Jerusalem see even more. And the bishops of Jerusalem very soon allowed themselves to invade the canonical rights of their metropolitan. Macarius ordains the bishop of Diospolis, his successor Maximus, without any relations with Caesarea, convenes a council and accepts Athanasius into church communion. Both violations remained without consequences. But when Cyril followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and also entered into a competition with his metropolitan for primacy, he was deposed - for some empty reason - by Acacius of Caesarea. It ended, however, that Cyril at the Council of Constantinople in 381 was recognized as the bishop of Jerusalem, “the mother of all churches,” and sat above the bishop of Caesarea. In 415, at the Council of Lydda, the bishop of Jerusalem was to take second place after that of Caesarea. The supremacy of the Metropolitan of Caesarea over the Bishop of Jerusalem has long been an indisputable fact. When a matter arose as a result of a dispute between Jerome and Rufinus about the opinions of Origen, and John of Jerusalem, an undoubted Origenist, turned to the mediation of Theophilus of Alexandria, Jerome himself pointed out the incorrectness of his actions. He said that he should have turned to the bishop of Caesarea; and if he considered him not impartial, then transfer the case to the court of the next instance, to the bishop of Antioch, but not of Alexandria. So, the fact of the subordination of the Bishop of Jerusalem to the Metropolitan of Caesarea is beyond doubt. The further steps were such that the Metropolitan of Caesarea was embarrassed. After the disputes between the Origenists and Pelagius with Celestius, there was a temporary lull, interrupted by the Nestorian heresy and the convening of the Ephesian Ecumenical Council. At the council we do not see the Metropolitan of Caesarea, but a significant number of Palestinian bishops came here under the command of Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem. The matter is being conducted in such a way that Juvenaly occupied a high position; Palestinian bishops speak of him as their main leader. Since Juvenaly immediately took the side of Cyril of Alexandria, he thereby created an exceptional position for himself; he became persona gratissima among the Alexandrians who defended the Orthodox confession. Since he was dependent on the Bishop of Antioch and took the side of his opponent, the Bishop of Alexandria, this step was credited to him; for his dogmatic struggle he was rewarded at the expense of the Eastern patriarchy. After dogmatic questions, the question of the border of the dioceses was raised, and several areas previously subject to the Bishop of Antioch found themselves under the control of the Bishop of Jerusalem. It was not difficult to foresee this. The side of the issue emerged very quickly. The question arose about the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church. In Cyprus there were several dioceses that made up an entire metropolitanate, and the question was whether they depended on the Bishop of Antioch or were independent. The case began with a complaint from the Cypriot bishops against the Bishop of Antioch that he was interfering in their affairs. If you read their statements carefully, it turns out that the Cypriots were unable to give a satisfactory answer: they did not confirm with factual data that the Cypriot churches were independent and installed a metropolitan for themselves, but only stated that this had always been the case. It was impossible in Ephesus to collect accurate and detailed evidence about this matter, and the council had to accept their unfounded statements on faith and declared the Cypriot metropolis autocephalous, recognizing John's invasions as incorrect. This was an indication that all bishops who could provide evidence of their independence could take advantage of favorable circumstances. This was Juvenal of Jerusalem. He carried out the matter so decisively that he subjugated to his power not only the Palestinian dioceses, which were hardly dependent on the Bishop of Antioch, but also Phenicia and Arabia. John of Antioch protested, but Juvenal reinforced himself with an imperial edict, which imposed silence on John. This course of action outraged even Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote to Rome, inciting the pope himself to rebel, so that he would demand the statu quo of the first ecumenical council, which was unfavorable for Juvenal. But Juvenaly understood the force of circumstances. The dogmatic dispute was not over, and Cyril of Alexandria turned a blind eye to this capture for the sake of an alliance. But the Antioch bishops did not calm down and took advantage of favorable circumstances. Since Juvenal had compromised himself by an alliance with Dioscorus at the Council of Robbers and was in danger of being deposed at the Council of Chalcedon, he became compliant. When economic discussions began at the Council of Chalcedon, an amicable agreement took place between the Antioch and Jerusalem bishops, with Juvenal returning Phenicia and Arabia to the Antioch bishop, and he himself was content with three Palestines. The council fathers welcomed this manifestation of the spirit of peace with pleasure and approved their agreement. The compliance of Maxim of Antioch is explained by the fact that his position was fragile, since his predecessor Domnus was still alive, and a matter could arise that would lead to the fact that Domnus would become the legitimate bishop, and Maxim would have to wait in peace until the Lord calls Domnus to himself. Since his position was unfavorable, he wanted to be looked at as a compliant and pleasant person. But when, after the Council of Chalcedon, Maxim established his position, and Domnus preferred monastic solitude to public activity, Maxim realized that he had made a mistake, that he could have demanded more, and the other bishops were dissatisfied with his compliance. Maxim wanted to reverse the matter and started relations with the Roman Church, but he failed to move the pope. The agreement at the Council of Chalcedon was striking enough to form the fifth patriarchate. There could be no question of a title, of course, but, in any case, the end of the order that was established at the first ecumenical council became obvious. If three Palestines depended on the Bishop of the Resurrection of Christ, then from a suffragan bishop he himself became an archbishop. Thus, the Council of Chalcedon brought triumph to the bishop of Jerusalem: having arrived at the council as a bishop, he returned as an archbishop or patriarch, although these titles were not legalized. At first, this caused him a lot of trouble: he had to break ties with Dioscorus and the Monophysites, for which they accused him of selling his faith for the patriarchate; they did not want to see him in Jerusalem, they staged several wild antics against him, so that he had to flee from Jerusalem. But he returned with the help of military force, triumphed and established himself as patriarch in Jerusalem. So, the fifth patriarchy remained a fact. d) Patriarchy Justinianae Primae In history there was also an attempt to found the sixth patriarchate or the fifth eastern one. It owes its origin to the desire of Emperor Justinian I to honor his birthplace, the village of Ταυρήσιον. He made it an important city and named it Justiniana Prima. The location of this city is unknown, but perhaps it was located near Ahrida (ancient Lychnis). With the rise of the civil status of this city, he also raised its ecclesiastical significance. The case was created on purely civil grounds. A historical account was made according to which the praefectus praetorio per Illyricum had his stay in Sirmium, and under the onslaught of the barbarians he moved to Thessalonica. The bishops of Thessalonica enjoyed the rights of the patriarch (Theodore the Reader speaks about this). Justinian's birthplace lay in the region subordinate to the bishop of Thessalonica. Justinian made it clear that since the invasion of the barbarians had been repelled, it was necessary to move the seat of the praetorian prefect to the north, but not to Sirmium, but to Justiniana the First. At the same time, he honored Justinian in ecclesiastical terms. On April 15, 535, he wrote a novella to its bishop Catellian, declaring this see independent of the Bishop of Thessalonica. She acquired rights over extensive dioceses, to which some dioceses of western Illyricum still belonged. But by this the Thessalonian See was not subordinate to her and her rights were not affected. The emperor wanted to establish in Justinian either a metropolis or a patriarchate. Thus, this department was created by the emperor. There were protests in Rome, but they were suppressed by Justinian, and the patriarchate was created by agreement with Pope Vigilius. Vigilius was probably pushed to the wall and bought freedom in dogmatic matters with concessions in canonical ones - the recognition of Justinianae Primae by the patriarchy. But if Justinian managed to resolve the objections that were raised from Rome regarding the approval of the new see, he was not able to remove all the obstacles, for this see was approved arbitrarily. Its second representative, Benenatus, had to get involved in the question of “three chapters” raised by Justinian. The bishop did not have to play a major role, and his intervention in this matter ended rather sadly for him. The bishop of Justiniana the First did not have the courage to take the side of his bishops, but joined the party that condemned the "three heads" and defended the judicatum of Vigil. But their own bishops taught him a lesson: they formed a council and pronounced excommunication over him. Therefore, he did not appear at the fifth ecumenical council, and his position turned out to be too uncertain. He did not have support from above - from the emperor, and solid support from below - from the bishops. The Pope sent a pallium to the third Bishop John. He did not refuse this honorable but humiliating gift, and, therefore, he himself submitted to the authority of the pope. Thus, the patriarchate invented by Justinian I did not last long, because other bishops did not want the elevation of sees that had neither religious nor civil significance. Justinian's efforts were defeated by the lack of sympathy of the elder patriarchs for the new patriarchy. e) Roman Patriarchate and the development of the papacy The West itself has not created a system corresponding to the situation in the East. The history of patriarchy in the West comes down to the history of one Roman see. The Roman hierarchs were bishops of Rome and its environs, as well as metropolitans over the "ecclesiae suburbicariae". Within these limits their jurisdiction was undisputed. Moreover, they were patriarchs over Italy, and this patriarchy tended to expand further and further. While the Roman bishops developed their rights only in the West, they stood on canonical soil. But they already wanted to be popes in the east, and in this desire they left the historical-canonical soil for the dogmatic one. Their position as popes was the subject of lively controversy and ultimately led to the division of churches. The bearers of centralization in the West are the Roman bishops, mostly children of that world-powerful Rome, which set its historical mission to rule over peoples, and in its historical life declared that it was perfectly endowed with those spiritual qualities that were so necessary to fulfill such a task. The Roman bishops were masters of their craft: the national instinct found brilliant expression in their actions. That their victories were the work of their national genius, or - better - of that direction of church life, the impetus for which was given by the influence of the Romanesque on the Christian, is evident from the fact that the vast majority of Roman bishops belong more likely to the category of mediocrity than highly gifted individuals. But they had to carry out their centralization plans among the Romanesque or Romanized peoples, in whom legal and power instincts were as subtly and fully developed as in the Roman high priests themselves. The task of the latter was therefore very difficult, and the history of its implementation arouses interest even of an aesthetic nature, like a competition of rivals worthy of each other, a struggle between equals and equals, where each point has to be taken through battle and after stubborn resistance. The national instinct was expressed most brilliantly in the actions of the Roman bishops. But, recognizing this explanation as satisfactory for the holistic history of the papacy, one has to think about when it comes to the beginning of its discoveries. The fact is that it has now been proven that the Roman Church at the beginning of its existence was more of a Greek church than a Latin one. Christianity first spread here in the lower strata of society - among slaves who were of non-Latin origin. In the first two centuries of the church's existence, the bishops in Rome were not Romans, but Greeks, and the Greek language was the means of official correspondence. The first letter of the Roman Church - Pope Clement is written in Greek: Hippolytus is known as one of the outstanding Greek writers. Only from the middle of the 3rd century, from the time of Pope Cornelius, did the Roman Church begin to use the Latin language for communication with the Western churches. Thus, the first impetus for Roman centralization came from persons of non-Latin origin. From what origins did the first Roman bishops now proceed, expressing those claims that later developed into papist ones? Re-reading Clement's letter to the Corinthians, one can be convinced that it was written from a church that does not have a low opinion of itself, which, with all Christian humility and love, knows that it is a representative of enormous moral significance. It is necessary to take into account the circumstances in which it was written. It was not sent on behalf of the Roman hierarch; from the message we do not even learn the name of the author; we can only guess that the writer of the message is one of the primates of the Roman church. He introduces himself as writing on behalf of the laity, speaks in the plural and uses the following expressions: “we ourselves obey the authorities.” The Epistle to the Corinthians was written regarding the unrest in the Corinthian church. But who authorized the writer to get involved in extraneous troubles? In Rome, only news was received about the disorder in the Corinthian church, and suddenly the primate of the Roman church takes upon himself the task of resolving extraneous troubles. The letter itself does not smell of arrogance; its author declares that he does not teach, that he is not an authority for the apostolic church; but nevertheless, the one writing, although in the name of God, demands acceptance of his message and obedience. “If you do not obey the commands,” says the author of the letter to the Corinthians, “you will be exposed to considerable danger: we are sending a message so that you know that we were concerned that peace would be restored to you as quickly as possible. If anyone does not listen, then let the persons sent by us be witnesses between you and us. If you obey, it will bring us joy.” “Witnesses between you and us” - this biblical form is a very solemn form (for example, in Joshua 22:27). Thus, the author of the letter speaks with authority, demands obedience, and acquires the right to take care of the pacification of foreign churches. This is, so to speak, the first relationship of the Roman Church to other churches. Some time passed and under the Roman Bishop Pius I (140–155), his brother wrote the work “The Shepherd” Hermas. Its author was not a hierarch, he was married, came from the trading class, and assigned the said work for the Roman Church; at the same time, he sent a copy of it to a certain Clement, but so that he would communicate it to all churches. The latter was entrusted to Clement; True, this does not speak of Clement’s authority, but still it was very flattering for the executor of this assignment. Through one successor of Pius, we meet in the Roman see Sotira, from whom a letter to the Corinthian church has been preserved during the bishopric here of a person famous for his literary activity, Dionysius of Corinth. The Epistle of Sotira is remarkable in that it contains interesting touches that indicate the peculiar position of the Roman Church among other churches. She occupies a kind of protective position towards them; she sends help to those in need in the mines and supports the weak in spirit with words of exhortation. Why the Roman Church sends material benefits to the Corinthian Church is not explained in the letter of Sotira; maybe this last church just needed money. Sotira's message was received solemnly and read with honor in the Corinthian church. An indication of such a prominent position of the Roman Church is found in Ignatius of Antioch; he calls it “coming in love.” Thus, already in the first times of Christianity we find the authoritative position of the Roman Church, to a certain extent recognized. What was this authority based on? Of course, it was significant that in the West the Roman Church alone was the “sedes apostolica” and the “ecclesia matrix” for most others, so its relationship to the Western Churches is clear. But here we see that the aspirations of the Roman Church are directed towards the Greek churches, which did not accept the light of Christ’s teaching from it and were themselves of apostolic origin, so here the apostolic authority of the Roman Church could not weigh particularly heavily on the scales. The fact that the Roman Church, so to speak, was proud of the martyrdom of the apostles (especially if we notice the difference between “μάρτυς” and our “martyr”) receives important significance. Here the apostles said their last word, suffering for Jesus Christ. However, this did not particularly distinguish the Roman Church from a person who lived and acted in the West, who spoke and wrote in Greek. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was such a person. This shepherd of the church, in the fight against the Gnostics and their teaching, says that the representatives of this teaching cannot prove its origin from the apostles, but the Catholic Church can prove the origin of its teaching from the apostles, and precisely through the succession of bishops. But since, says Irenaeus, it would be long to list the bishops of all churches, we will point to the primates of the great and ancient church, organized and founded by the glorious two apostles Peter and Paul - the Roman Church. The tradition that she has from the apostles, she preserves through episcopal succession, and, pointing to it, we will defeat those who, due to man-pleasing, vanity, abuse, do what is not right (qui praeter quam oportet [= Greek δει ] colligunt), because it is necessary for this church, due to its predominant preponderance, the whole church, that is, all believers, converges, and in this church it is preserved legend. Ad hanc enim [to the Roman Church] propter potentiorem [Massuet ex conj: potiorem] principalitatem necesse est [in Greek, it probably stood: δια την ίκανωτέραν πρωτείαν συνέρχεσθαι ανάγκη ] omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea, quae est ab apostolis, traditio (Adv. haer. III, 3, 2). This is what motivates the position of the Roman Church. Its significance lies in the fact that tradition is easily preserved in it, and the keeper of this tradition is not the bishop of Rome himself, but those who converge in Rome - qui sunt undique fideles 49. Everyone must naturally obey such a universal tradition; but the “convergence” of the entire universal church to the Roman Church does not mean this. Here it is not “oportet” (= δει), as above, but a simple “necesse est” (= ανάγκη), i.e. St. Irenaeus does not indicate a duty, but states a simple historical fact that occurs due to practical necessity. Everyone gathered to this church, gathered due to the primacy of Rome as the capital, and therefore the Roman church was a natural gathering point for all Christians - keepers of tradition. And what should be meant by the fact that “everyone necessarily converges on the Roman Church” is explained by the 9th canon of the Council of Antioch (IV century). Here it says: μητροπόλει προεστώτα έπίσκοπον καί τήν φροντίδα άναδέχεσθαι πάσης της επαρχίας διά το έν τη μητροπόλεί ??? αυτόν, μηδέν τε πράττειν περιττόν τους λοιπούς επισκόπους άνευ αύτοϋ - that “the bishops of each diocese should know that the bishop who stands in the metropolis takes upon himself the care of the entire diocese, since everyone who has business flocks to the metropolis from everywhere; Therefore, it seemed to us acceptable that the bishop of the metropolis should precede in honor, and that other bishops should not do anything without his consent.” Thus, the metropolitan seemed to gather around himself all the bishops of a certain region. And Leo the Great, transferring the power of the metropolitan to the Bishop of Arles, motivates this by the fact that there is a confluence (concursus) from all cities (ep. 65: ad hanc [civitatem] ex omnibus civitatibus multarum utilitatum causa concurritur). Thus, Rome was the center because it is the capital of the whole world. Hence its benefits are undoubted. People flocked here from all over the Christian world, why its bishop could know better than anyone else about the state of the churches - he could know the needs and satisfy them, - he could know the troubles and pacify them; and, finally, in a dogmatic sense, he could test his local theological views, checking how other churches thought about this or that dogma. Thus, a person who converted to Carthage could learn only the view of this church, but someone who converted to Rome could learn the view of the entire universal church. Borrowing a comparison from our usual practice, we can say that the Roman chronometer had such an advantage because it was always checked according to universal time, while other chronometers showed only local time. This is how the historical advantages of the Roman Church developed, based on which its subsequent primates took a progressive path. Under Pope Victor (the first with a Latin name) there was the first instance of Roman authority being discovered. It is not known under what influence, but one can guess that under the influence of sectarians from the east, the Roman bishop admitted that the eastern (Asia Minor) churches do not celebrate Easter as they should (not on the Sunday of the spring full moon). Victor decided to abolish this practice. He even tried to excommunicate the Eastern churches, but this first claim met with strong resistance. At the head of the practice of the Eastern churches was the Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, Polycrates. He gave this rebuff on behalf of all the Asia Minor (Eastern) churches. He made it clear to Victor that they celebrate Easter here according to the tradition of the apostles, and that he, the 8th of his relatives - the bishops of Ephesus, had read all the Scriptures and was not afraid of threats. And St. Irenaeus, in a letter to Victor, pointed out the existence of this dispute even under St. Polycarp of Smyrna and Anicetas of Rome, and that means there is nothing to worry about. So this dispute ended in nothing. Under Victor's successors, turmoil began [over questions of church discipline], which even caused division in the West. Tertullian rebelled against the Roman bishop because he forgave for repentance and serious sins. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, had to fight Novatian. Both Novatian and Cornelius turned to the court of the universal church; wrote, for example, to Dionysius of Alexandria and others. From there they persuaded Novatian to renounce his claims to the Roman see. Under the second successor of Cornelius, Stephen, a clash and unrest arose between the Roman and Carthaginian churches, which could have engulfed the entire universal church. The matter arose because of the baptism of heretics; the latter, who renounced their errors, were accepted by the Roman Church into its fold without rebaptism, while the Carthaginian Church usually rebaptized them. Stephen, the bishop of Rome, arrogantly demanded that the Carthaginian church abandon its practice and, when accepting heretics into the church, follow the practice of the Roman church. Dionysius of Alexandria took part in this dispute and said his conciliatory word, the result of which was that the discord that arose between the churches little by little ceased completely. Thus, already in the first period of the Christian church we see attempts on the part of the Roman bishops to establish their authority. What is remarkable here is how these attempts ended: Victor and Stephen suffered defeat during the dispute itself, but, nevertheless, they defended a practice that was subsequently adopted by the universal church. As time went on, it turned out that it was much safer for local churches to follow the practice of the Roman Church than of any other church. As for such facts that could cast some shadow on the Roman bishops, they were soon forgotten. Thus, the teaching of Pope Callistus, which echoed Sabellianism, was forgotten in the middle of the 4th century. The dark case of antipope Hippolytus was also soon consigned to oblivion; Hippolytus was even presented as the bishop of the city of Porta, and only the discovery of the Philosophumena clarified the whole matter. Obviously, in order to complete the task, albeit with relative success, favorable circumstances and abundant funds were needed. Indeed, the Roman high priests do not grow out of insignificance, as was the case with the Patriarchs of Constantinople; in their struggle they start from a very strong, high, historically established position. Behind them was the charm of the first hierarch in the Christian world. They were the leaders of that church, which during the difficult years of persecution acquired for itself the glory of practical piety - that center which was a model in cultural terms. Over the course of three centuries, 28 bishops were replaced on the Roman throne, and not one of them, as far as people of our period could remember, darkened the glory of their Orthodoxy. There were examples of them making claims that were met with strong resistance from their contemporaries, but - a remarkable historical accident: the opinion they defended ultimately won. So it was with the question of celebrating Easter, about discipline regarding the fallen, about the baptism of heretics. All this could not but impress the entire Christian world. The authority of the Roman bishops in the west was even more firmly established. The Roman Church was the only “sedes apostolica” in the West, and this high definition became for it an ordinary name, almost a proper name, through which it was, as it were, an apostolic see par excellence. For most of the Western churches, Rome was the "ecclesia matrix". The tradition about the independent origin of some churches from the east was soon forgotten, and Pope Innocent I (416) could no longer fear objections to express the idea that in all of Italy, Gaul, Spain and Africa no other apostle preached except St. Petra. Thus, the Roman bishops had already achieved quite a lot in the previous period. But they had not yet fully resolved their task in the period under review: such were its dimensions and such was the strength of the opposition they encountered. Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West The first ecumenical council in canon 6, asserting against the claims of the Melitians the authority of the Alexandrian bishop over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis in accordance with ancient customs, points to similar rights and customs of the bishop of Rome. “Let the ancient customs existing in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis be preserved, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all of them, because this is customary for the Roman bishop; in the same way, let the privileges of the churches (τά πρεσβεία) be preserved in Antioch and other dioceses.” This rule can and has caused many interpretations. The Roman Church always tried to base its claims to primacy on it, and at the beginning of the rule interpolated the line: Romana ecclesia semper habuit primatum. At the same time, it has been forgotten that there was no reason to talk about the order of churches in general at the council: the rule refers only to the Alexandrian church. This addition, as the Greek text of the conciliar acts shows, is not only not genuine, but even stupid: it only shows how quali fronte some Roman leaders were gifted, if they not only based the primacy of Rome on a false increase, but also dared to read it at the IV Ecumenical Council after the shameful exposure in the Apiarius case 30 years ago. The matter of reinterpretation is complicated by another circumstance. The Latin historian Rufinus set out the contents of canon 6 as follows: “so that the ancient custom is preserved in Alexandria and Rome and that the Alexandrian bishop has care for Egypt and the Roman bishop for the suburbicariae ecclesiae.” The understanding of the last term has not been established with precision; its history itself is quite peculiar. Under Augustus, all of Italy was divided into 11 regions. Some (northern) regiones were called annonariae; others, in contrast, are urbicariae or suburbicariae. (For example, Picenum annonarium was distinguished from Picenum suburbicarium). On the basis of this division, the question arises about the volume of suburbic provinces. Under Diocletian, Italy was divided into 17 provinces, and these provinces into 2 dioceses. The control system was very simple. Directly after the emperor, the praefectus praetorio was at the head of the administration. And under Diocletian there were 4 emperors and 4 praetorian prefects, which were included in this number throughout the subsequent period of the existence of the Roman Empire. The prefects became civil commanders, although in the government system of Rome there was no strict distinction between civil and military officials. The word “militare” was therefore applicable to every person in public service. Thus, the praetorian prefects were the highest officials in the state, and no appeal could be brought against them until the prefect was removed from his office. The prefects were followed by their governors, the vicarii of the dioceses, and the latter were subordinate to the praesides, who bore different names. Of the 17 provinces, the northern 7 made up the Italian diocese: at the head of this diocese was the vicarius Italiae. The remaining ten were subordinate to the vicar in urbe Roma. But Rome itself was in a special position: at the head of the capital was the praefectus urbis Romae, a dignitary of equal rank with the praefecti praetorio. This position of prefect of the city of Rome gave rise to special complications in the scheme of government of southern Italy. Vicarius in urbe Roma, like all vicars, was subordinate to the praetorian prefect of Italy. But the prefect of the city of Rome, of course, not subordinate to the vicar, with his power interfered with the affairs of the vicar in urbe Roma. The 10 provinces that made up the diocese of the vicar in urbe Roma were known under the name provinciae suburbicariae. It should be noted, however, that in previous times, perhaps, the name provinciae suburbicariae did not apply to all 10 provinces of the diocese, which included, by the way, the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, etc. The question arises: are the concepts identical: provinciae suburbicariae and ecclesiae suburbicariae? They usually solve it in the sense that they are identical. And at one time such a decision seemed probable to me. But it seems that here we need to take a different point of view 50. The prefect of the city of Rome had strange privileges. The provinces lying close to the city of Rome were subject to the prefect of that city. Even in distant republican times, it was possible to subject citizens to the punishment of expulsion (exilium) from the city, in which they were deprived of water and fire, so that those condemned were forced to leave Rome. The limit point beyond which the exile licet esse 51 was determined specifically for each special case: sometimes this limit was 100 stones, sometimes more*. And thus, ultra centesimum lapidem 52 became a current expression regarding those expelled from the city. * On this occasion, even the curiosity with Cicero is known. When Cicero was sentenced to exile 400 miles from the city, he, as an intelligent and educated man with connections, timely aware of what was being done against him, had already planned his residence in one of the cities of southern Italy. But the government caught on in time, and the final version of the verdict said that Cicero was moving 500 miles from the city, and, as a result, he had to leave Italy. The localities in all provinces located within the hundredth stone (intra centesimum lapidem) were under the jurisdiction of the prefect of the city of Rome. Crimes within these limits were dealt with by local authorities, and the appeal went not to the prefect of the Praetorium of Italy, but to the prefect of the city of Rome. Thus, this highest Roman dignitary had the peculiar power of accepting an appeal at a distance of a hundredth stone from Rome. This territory was called regiones suburbicariae. Moreover, when the prefect left Rome, he was deprived of his power, and only by remaining in Rome did he enjoy a peculiar privilege. The population of a large city naturally increased, and therefore the peculiar economic conditions became more difficult. In sacred matters, the border of Rome has always been considered the pomoerium, the furrow that Romulus drew, but in legal matters it was necessary to make concessions. The city ends where adjacent continuous buildings end. A very important question was which of the citizens of Rome should be considered present in the city. The government expanded the concept of the city limits and recognized as present in Rome those who were located at a distance of one mile from the city, counting from the center, and then this concept had to be expanded, and the distance of one mile from the city began to be counted from the point where the city buildings end. The Roman population lived on imported grain, and any disruption of the river system caused them a lot of harm. The lack of water also caused Rome a lot of trouble. The most important water supply, the aqua Marcia, which supplied Rome, was located 39 miles from the city. Based on all these economic needs, the power of the prefect of the city of Rome should have been extended to the entire sphere of interest of Rome. Life prompted us to recognize 100 miles as such a border. If the city was threatened by famine, then, by order of the prefect, all useless foreigners, and then servants of the lowest rank, slaves disgraced by capital punishment, were evicted 100 miles from Rome. Then, the legal concept closely linked the relationship between the freed slave and his master. This slave becomes libertus - free, but not completely. The master became patronus in relation to him, and the slave was called libertus. The libertà had certain moral and legal responsibilities towards the patron. In case of inappropriate behavior on the part of libertus towards his patron, the latter could remove him from Rome for the hundredth stone - he just had to tell the prefect about it. All such measures were successfully used because power was in the hands of the prefect. Thus, in Roman administration there was an original concept of the “hundredth stone”. The figure of the hundredth stone cannot be drawn in the form of a regular geometric figure: it is impossible, for example, to measure this hundredth stone by setting the leg of a compass in Rome, and by drawing another circle, the radius of which would be equal to one hundred stones. In fact, the hundredth stone was counted only on roads that led to Rome or went from Rome. It was a very conventional figure. Only now has it been determined (Pertsch) with sufficient mathematical and geographical precision where this hundredth stone lay on various roads. The Roman mile is equal to our 693 fathoms. Ultra centesimum lapidem lay, for example, Perusia (now Perugia - the city whose archbishopric see was occupied by Leo XIII before his election as pope), Capua - the metropolis of Campania. The area of ​​the intra centesimum lapidem is only 27,800 square meters. kilometers. The question arises: did the ecclesiae suburbicariae lie in the 10 provinciae suburbicariae, or in the regiones suburbicariae intra centesimum lapidem? The second alternative is already supported by the fact that the Roman bishop is here placed in analogy with the highest civil dignitary (vir illustris praefectus praetorio Romae), and not with the average (like vicarius). Then, there is too little probability that the metropolitan system will not take root in Sicily and southern Italy. After all, it was an expression of episcopal self-government and, for example, in Africa close to Rome, it was widely used in a certain form. Thus, it is natural to assume that the special relationship of the Roman bishop to the “suburban churches” was practiced intra centesimum lapidem, and not in the 10 provinciae suburbicariae. The Roman hierarch was the bishop for the city of Rome, the metropolitan in relation to the ecclesiae suburbicariae. Within these boundaries his jurisdiction was beyond any dispute. At the present period, the popes are trying to subordinate the entire Western Church to it, that is, to develop it in the territory whose borders were the German bishoprics in the north, the churches of Africa in the south, Gaul and Spain in the west, and the borders of the Illyrian prefecture in the east. Thus, the Western Church of the present period began very close to Constantinople: the current cities of Nicopolis and Philippopolis belonged to the east, but Serdika (about present-day Sofia), Thessalonica, some 400 miles from the walls of Constantinople, with all of Greece, were already considered to be in the west. The spread of the patriarchal power of the Roman bishop within these boundaries presents the curious phenomenon that it is more quickly and firmly established in churches that are geographically or ethnographically distant from Rome. First of all, in the north of Italy, the bishop of Rome managed to establish a very relative power in the ancient period. He met resistance from the churches of Mediolan (with 17 subordinate bishoprics), Aquileia (with 14) and Ravenna (with 6). The significance of Mediolan was elevated by the legend about the antiquity of the spread of Christianity here by the ap. Barnabas, political significance, since Mediolan was made an imperial residence, and, finally, church glory, thanks to the high personality of Ambrose of Mediolan. Without entering into a sharp conflict with Rome, the Mediolan Church treated the Roman Church with fraternal freedom, which excluded its subordination. Next to the great personality of Ambrose, such mediocrity as Damasus disappeared. Much evidence has been given of the insignificance of the authority of Rome for the Mediolan Church. Auxentius of Mediola was condemned in 371, but remained on the see and died as a bishop in 374. Then at the Council of Aquileia under Ambrose, although there were representatives from upper Italy, western Illyricum and even Gaul, there were no official representatives from the Roman Church. Ambrose acted freely in the affairs of his own department. In 381, he probably presided over the Council of Mediolan, and the decisions of this council were approved by himself without reporting to Rome. And then the Mediolan bishops acted in the same direction. During the Three Chapters Controversy, the Mediolan Church formally separated from Rome. Mediolan bishops were appointed without receiving approval or pallium from Rome. Only during the Lombard oppression did Gregory the Great († 604) manage to exercise jurisdiction over this church, when the presbyter Magnus, deposed by Lawrence II of Mediolan, appealed to Rome and was restored in 593. The Aquileian Church, which stood at the head of 14 bishops, traced its origins to St. Mark didn’t even want to know about submission to Rome. Its metropolitans even adopted the title of patriarchs for themselves. During the dispute over the three chapters, it also separated from Rome, and neither the Lombard conquests nor the centralizing talents of Gregory the Great could subjugate it to Rome. She formally submitted in 698 under Paulinus of Aquileia. But legends about autocephaly survived until the 11th century. In the Ravenna church the protest was weaker. The importance of Ravenna has risen since 408, when Honorius moved his capital here before the Visigoth invasion. The culmination of its prosperity was in the third quarter of the 7th century. Despite her later strengthening, she successfully defended her independence. On the contrary, in churches distant from Rome, the authority of the Roman bishop was readily recognized. The most devoted sons to the Roman bishops could be found in the east - in Greece, in the Illyrian prefecture. Thessalonica 53 was the center of Roman influence here. Even in the time of Damasus, the Thessalonian bishops received the title of vicars of the apostolic see - vicarii sedis apostolicae. The first vicar was Acholy; his successors, Anisius from 383 and Rufus from 412, were also confirmed in this title by the Roman bishops. As Roman vicars, the Thessalonian bishops acted like real patriarchs; they convened diocesan councils, decided on matters that exceeded the competence of provincial councils - only matters of great importance they could not decide without communication and consent with Rome - ordained metropolitans and approved candidates for episcopal sees. Thus, Roman centralization took deep roots in Thessalonica. Innocent I spoke with the bishops of Macedonia in a tone of undisputed authority on the occasion of the question of certain differences with the Roman Church and saw an offense to the Apostolic See in the question itself. This strange position of Thessalonica is explained quite easily. Thessalonica, undoubtedly, was of great importance in civil terms; this is evident from the fact that the proconsuls of Achaia have long had their residence here, and under Constantine this city almost became the capital of the entire empire. This, of course, raised the importance of the Thessalonian bishop. Alexander of Thessalonica was a figure of high importance. But the emergence of Constantinople, the new capital of the empire, relatively close to Thessaloniki, made us guess that when the importance of Constantinople strengthened, this close center would have an attractive influence on Thessaloniki and in the end we should expect the subordination of the Thessalonian bishop to the Constantinople bishop. The Roman bishops took advantage of this situation. The Roman Church, by appointing Acholy as vicar of the apostolic see, thereby established Thessalonica's dependence on Rome and granted it many rights and its moral authority against the restrictions of its importance on the part of Constantinople. It was natural to foresee that Thessalonica’s dependence on distant Rome would be less constraining than on Constantinople. The remoteness of Thessalonica from Rome and the difference in language among its inhabitants were the reasons for granting broad competencies to the Thessalonian bishops. Indeed, it was not easy for a man of Greek origin to carry an appeal to Rome. The vicariate, established in a timely manner, took deep roots. From here it becomes clear that when in 379 part of the Illyrian prefecture was annexed to the eastern empire and Theodosius the Great himself settled in Thessaloniki, the Thessalonica bishops not only did not break ties with Rome, but even demonstrated this connection. When Bishop Acholy had the opportunity to go to the council either in Constantinople or in Rome, he went to Rome and thereby showed that he belonged to the system of Western churches, and arrived in Constantinople only at the end of the meetings. This state of affairs was maintained for a long time. The Edict of Theodosius II (421) on the subordination of eastern Illyricum in ecclesiastical terms to Constantinople remained without consequences, and only Leo the Isaurian in 732 forcibly forced the Thessalonian exarchate to join the eastern system of churches. The bishops of distant Spain treated Rome with the same devotion. If this was the case there in a prosperous time, then these relations intensified even more when the oppression of the Arian conquerors fell on Spain. The Spanish Church greatly valued the moral support of Rome and, thanks to this, Rome's power over Spain strengthened early. The first genuine decretal epistle of 385 is the answer of Pope Siricius to the Spanish bishop Imerius of Tarracona on his disciplinary questions. Things went differently in Gaul 54. The spirit of independence of the times of St. Irenaeus still had a strong influence on church relations with Rome. Appeals to popes for resolution of various church issues are not unprecedented in Gaul; but the very tone of the papal decretals best speaks of how weakly the papal authority was still established in Gaul. It is known how Pope Innocent accepted the questions proposed to him by the bishops of Macedonia. This is the tone in which he responds to this kind of appeal to the Italian bishops subordinate to him. “We cannot marvel that your love, following the rules of the fathers, turns to us, as the head and pinnacle of the bishopric, for the resolution of perplexing cases; but we are amazed that you, a reasonable man, want to consult with us about what is undoubtedly known to everyone...” (Felici nuceriano). “Every bishop should know the church rules, because it is all the more indecent for a bishop not to know them when pious laity know them and consider it necessary to observe them in practice” (Maximo et Severo epp. per Brutios). But here is how the same pope responds to similar requests from the Gallic bishops. “Although you, dear brother,” he writes to the Bishop of Rouen, “know all the church rules about life and teaching and there is nothing in the sacred books that is incomprehensible to you - this is vouched for by the merits and the hierarchical honor that you possess to a high degree - but since you persistently ask me to send you the disciplinary rules of the Roman Church, I fully obey (morem admodum gerens) according to your wishes." “I answer your questions, dear brother,” writes Innocent to the Bishop of Toulouse, “to the best of my understanding, which seems consistent with common sense, or what I read in St. Scripture, or, finally, what is known from tradition. Your love, following the wise principles of the fathers, prefers to turn to the Apostolic See for instructions in perplexed cases, rather than to act at its own discretion. And isn’t it more shameful not to know something at all than to learn from someone else? And similar queries are useful to me myself: by answering them, you better understand their rational basis for yourself, so that every time you teach someone, you learn something yourself.” The establishment of a papal vicariate in Gaul seems to prove that the popes there enjoyed generally recognized authority. However, the first experience of this kind under Zosima (Patroclus of Arles) was very unsuccessful, and therefore subsequent popes had to destroy their creation, leaving things to their natural course. One of the most common reasons for papal intervention everywhere was the appeal in Rome of the deposed. Gallia is a remarkable phenomenon in this regard. Between 346 and 444 8 cases of deposition of bishops by Gallic councils are known, and, however, not one of the victims appealed to the papal throne. It is impossible to assert that the case of each of them seemed completely hopeless in his own eyes, or that extraneous circumstances prevented the appeal. Or rather, the Gallic bishops in general valued their autonomy so much that an appeal to Rome would have ruined the deposed one in the opinion of his brethren. There are three cases before Leo the Great when popes intervened in the affairs of the Gallic church. 1) In view of the elevated (political) importance of the city of Arelat (Arles), the bishops of this see began to seek metropolitan rights. Pope Zosimus (417), supported by the powerful Constantius, even appointed Patroclus of Arles as his vicar. The metropolitans of Narbonne, Vienne and Marseille defended their rights against the papal creatures. Zosimus even declared Proculus of Marseilles deposed in 418, but he retained his see and acted as a bishop recognized by all. Boniface I in 422 finally limited the rights of Patroclus in favor of the metropolitans. 2) Bonifatius intervened in the church affairs of Gaul for the second time following a complaint from the clergy against Bishop Maximus of Valence (419), but he was careful to refer the matter to the court of the Gallic Council. 3) Finally, when Celestine called to his court, based on complaints from the east, a certain Daniel, a man apparently of dubious morality, then by a strange accident, perhaps not entirely unintentional, Daniel was at that time made a bishop (428). Thus, until Leo the Great himself, papal authority in Gaul was extremely relative. Only this great representative of the papacy was able to exercise his power over Gaul with significant success. Hilary of Arles, who was highly respected, a strict ascetic, but hardly free from lust for power, at one council deposed a certain Celidonius, a bishop believed to be of Besançon. Whether Hilary had jurisdiction over him remains doubtful, and in any case, if he was right in this, then his competence did not rest on papal decrees. Celidonius was deposed because, having previously been a judge, he pronounced several death sentences and was married to a widow, or, better said, to a girl who was the bride of another. It is an extremely obscure question whether he was really guilty of what was alleged against him. But deposed, he appealed to Rome, and here the accusation was found completely unproven. Ilarius also arrived here on foot. In his explanations with the pope, Hilary, in the opinion of his supporters, expressed only the truth in all its harsh undisguisedness, completely unvarnished, and the pope found that Hilary explained himself to him in a language that was impossibly impudent. As far as is known, Hilary stated directly that he came to Rome not at all to support his accusation against Celidonius or to conduct a trial with him, but to protest against Rome’s interference in the affairs of Gaul. His protest was not respected; the case was proposed for trial at the Roman Council (445). Hilary was looked upon as a restless man, with claims to jurisdiction over all Gaul; They even thought about arresting him. But before the end of the trial, Ilarius fled. The Roman Council restored Celidonius, depriving Hilary of power over the province of Vienne and the right to consecrate bishops, but not the episcopal see. The Constitution of Valentinian III, written almost under the dictation of the pope, gave legal significance to this sentence. However, this did not damage the high authority that Hilary enjoyed among his flock. His attempt to reconcile with the pope was, as far as we know, unsuccessful. In 449 he died and was canonized by the Western Church. This was the first any noticeable success of the popes in extending their authority over Gaul. Celidonium, apparently, was restored by the verdict of the Roman Council, and this is the most important aspect of the matter for the popes. But as can be seen from other details of this entire process, this victory of papal authority was one of the modest ones. The mere fact that it was possible to so sharply defend the autonomy of the Gallican churches indicates that papal ecclesiastical power had not yet taken firm roots here. Hilary is a determined opponent of the popes; he is suspected of seeking to subjugate all of Gaul to his ecclesiastical authority and of completely denying the authority of the apostolic throne; he flees from Rome without waiting for a conciliar decision, and eo ipso - the pope comments - as if he were cutting himself off from communion with the Roman Church, which he is not worthy of; the pope in his message depicts him in the darkest colors, and yet Hilary dies, surrounded by general love and respect, with the aura of a saint. Perhaps another detail is even more important: the pope deprived such and such a zealous opponent of only a certain part of his metropolitan rights, but - by the mercy of the Apostolic See, pro sedis apostolicae pietate - not only did not excommunicate him, but did not even try to deprive him of the episcopal see - moderation for Rome is very remarkable. And even in his letter to the Gallican bishops, the pope descends almost to the point of ingratiation and carefully notes in his orders the detail that he does not arrogate to himself the right of consecration in Gaul, as Hilary may lie as usual, in order to confuse the Gallic bishops, but only protects the legitimate metropolitan rights from the encroachment of such arrogant people as Ilarius; that he, the pope, stands up not so much for his honor as for the privileges of the Gallic bishops themselves, that in this whole matter the apostolic see gains nothing except feelings of gratitude and love on the part of Gaul for the restoration of the indignant church world. After this, the struggle between Gallican autonomy and Roman centralization was not repeated. The Gallic bishops maintain good relations with Rome. The popes successively send the pallium to the bishops of Arles and assign them the rights of apostolic vicar. Thus, the popes themselves restore the successors of Hilary to the privileges that they deprived the latter of, and thus assert their authority, adhering to existing relations. The African fathers turned out to be the most persistent fighters against the Roman bishops. In the practice of fighting the Roman bishops, the African bishops left undoubted examples of fighting tactics, and it is doubtful whether the Roman bishops would have been able to become what they became if they had not taken advantage of favorable historical circumstances - namely, if the Vandals had not broken the forces of Africa. According to the political division of the Roman Empire, Africa was part of the prefecture of Italy. But it was difficult for the Roman Church to exert its influence here. Christianity spread early in Africa and developed a unique church system here in a form that is not found anywhere else. As in southern Italy, there were many bishops here. The main bishop in Africa was the Bishop of Carthage - primas in the see itself; in the provinces, the bishops were headed by the senex, the senior bishop by consecration; moving from one department to another was not allowed. To know which of the bishops was older, special lists were kept, stored in church archives, where the year and date of each bishop's consecration were entered. Every bishop in Africa understood perfectly well that the see in itself meant nothing; everything depended on the age of the bishop. The bishop of any village did not feel at all insignificant in comparison with the bishop of any big city, if he was contemporaneous with him in consecration. Thus, the African church system promoted a spirit of equality among bishops. Therefore, it was not easy to carry out the idea in Africa that all bishops should submit to the Roman one. In this regard, this phenomenon is observed in Africa. In Africa, Roman authority has been recognized and proclaimed for a long time, but only theoretically - it is proclaimed that Rome is the center of Christian unity and the decisions of the Roman see should be considered final, but only when Rome stood on the same side with the African bishops. When Rome stood at the opposite point or even went against it, then the African bishops made themselves felt quite noticeably by the Roman bishops. The manner in which Roman claims were defeated by the African bishops is illustrated quite satisfactorily by several cases. In 416, the Carthaginian bishops sent a message to Rome, wanting to secure the authority of the Roman high priest on the issue of the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius. Pope Innocent took advantage of this opportunity to show his authority, and thanked the African bishops for the fact that, following the traditions of their fathers, despite their distance, they fulfilled their duty towards the apostolic see, to which they should turn. The bias of such gratitude is obvious. The distance of the African church from Rome was invented in order to have a stronger effect on the African bishops, for it is known that the dates brought from Africa to Rome were so fresh that they seemed to have been picked in Italy. Likewise, the deference of African bishops to Rome is too exaggerated. The fact is that almost simultaneously with the sending of African bishops to Rome, five African bishops made a confidential remark to Innocent that he did not fight the Pelagians energetically enough. Innokenty's successor Zosimus made even more mistakes. As an unimportant dogmatist and not understanding this issue well, he fell into a trap. The heresiarchs appealed to Rome. They set out in detail everything that is not relevant to the matter, and they expressed themselves more than succinctly about grace; but with their expression of respect and submission to the pope, they completely charmed him. And Pope Zosimus, suspecting nothing, gives the most severe reprimand to the African bishops because they argue and condemn pious people like Pelagius and Celestius over trifles, and at the same time conveyed how many, when reading the latter’s Orthodox confession of faith, shed sincere tears. Such a reprimand from the pope was met with strong opposition, so that the pope even agreed to postpone his further decision until he received detailed explanations from Africa. This opposition was then expressed at the Council of Carthage in 418. The fathers of this council, not caring about the papal court, submitted their decision against the heretics for the approval of the emperor Honorius and, in addition to all communications with the pope, sought an edict against the Pelagians. The Pope found himself in a very deplorable situation and, without going into any investigations, hastened to retroactively adhere to the imperial edict, after which he sent out his circular against heretics (epistola tractoria). Around the same time, a new business arose in Africa. The African presbyter Apiarius was deposed by the Sicca bishop Urban (a student and friend of St. Augustine). Based on Rule 5 of the First Ecumenical Council and according to the practice of the African Church, the condemned man, if he could appeal, could do so only to a council of local bishops. The same idea, at the suggestion of Eusebius of Caesarea, was carried out at the Council of Antioch. In a word, overseas courts were not recognized in Africa, and the person who filed his appeal ad transmarina judicia should not be accepted into ecclesiastical communion by anyone. Apiarius in 418 appealed to Rome to Pope Zosimus. The Pope looked favorably on the appeal and took it under his powerful protection. From a canonical point of view, it was difficult to justify the illegal act of Apiarius. However, in Rome some canonical points were selected in his favor. 1) 17 rule of the Council of Serdica: if any of the clergy is unjustly convicted, he can turn to neighboring bishops for justice, but for now no one should accept him into communion. 2) Rule 3 of the same council gave bishops the right to appeal to the Roman Bishop Julius. 3) Based on rules 5 and 7, the Roman Church has the right to send a legate from among its presbyters to local councils. Zosimus, although completely inappropriate, brought up one more rule: bishops should not appeal to the court of the emperor. The rules given here relating to bishops were applied by the Roman Church to presbyters. The pope sent his legates, a bishop and two presbyters to the council in Africa. And so in 418, this Roman protégé appeared in Africa, accompanied by three legates of the apostolic see: Faustin, bishop of Potenza (ecclesiae potentinae, provinciae Italiae Piceni) and presbyters Philip and Asellus (Asellus). The instruction (commonitorium) handed to them vested them with the authority to conduct business as if he, the Pope himself, were present in Africa - ita ac si nostra, imo quia nostra ibi in vobis praesentia est, cuncta peragite. It ended with a categorical demand - to restore Apiaria, to excommunicate Urban (excommunicando) and even to summon him to Rome for trial by the pope. But as soon as the trial of this case began in Carthage in 418, the weakness of the canonical foundations on which these government orders rested was immediately revealed. The Serdica canons in the papal instructions were called Nicene. Of course, this could have happened without any malicious purpose, but due to a purely archaeological misunderstanding. The fathers could not find the rules of the pseudo-Nicene Council, to which Zosimus referred, in their codes, no matter how much they searched. In this sense, they responded to Zosimus in Rome, who soon (December 26, 418) died. His successor Bonifatius had to withstand the fight against antipope Eulalia. Until his position was strengthened, the Roman legates in Africa were also inactive. Finally, in the spring of 419, Bonifatius confirmed their authority and instructed them to conduct the business according to the instructions of Zosimus, as if according to his own. Then, on May 25, a council was held in Carthage, at which more than 217 bishops were present. Aurelius of Carthage presided. The legates who represented the Roman bishop occupied Faustinus in third place, Philip and Asellus in last place. Faustin, for the glory of the Roman name, would like to reduce the matter mainly on the basis of oral instructions given to him by the Roman bishop, and then good customs that exist along with the canons and govern church practice. The African bishops insisted that first of all the text of the alleged Nicene rules, as written in the Roman instructions, should be examined. Faustin would like the question of both the disputed canons and the appeal of presbyters and deacons not to be a subject of wrangling, but to be resolved in the spirit of brotherly love - charitate fraterna - by transferring it to the discretion of the Bishop of Rome. The African fathers thought somewhat differently. The Numidian legate Alypius, bishop of Tagaste, turned to “holy Pope Aurelius” with a statement that it was imperative to send commissioners not only to Constantinople, but also to Alexandria and Antioch, so that they could take copies from the bishops of these places from the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Their agreement among themselves will categorically resolve the issue of controversial canons. Bonifatius should be asked to do the same. This proposal was approved. Augustine set the stage for investigation of the matter at this moment, declaring that African bishops recognize the Nicene canons as binding for themselves, and will follow the rules read in the papal instructions, as soon as they turn out to be truly Nicene. The canon on the appeal of presbyters and deacons was adopted only in its strictly literal meaning - in the sense of permission to appeal to “neighboring bishops.” Boniface was made aware of the results of the council's deliberations in a letter from the fathers of the council. Urban, Bishop of Sicca, regarding whom the papal instructions contained the most strict demands - either to excommunicate him or send him to trial in Rome if he did not correct himself - did everything possible to correct him. Apiarius himself apologized for the turmoil he had caused, and was forgiven and restored. But since his reputation was nevertheless shaken, the fathers decided to restore him to the rank of absolute presbyter, without the right to live in Sikka, that is, he had to look for a bishop who would agree to accept him. The offer was accepted and the matter was over for the time being. Apiarius retired to the bishop in Tabrak. The African fathers promised to investigate the matter in good faith. Indeed, it is known that they sent ambassadors to Constantinople to Atticus, and to Alexandria to Cyril. Regarding Antioch, it is unknown whether they sent ambassadors there or not, since no documents remain on this subject. Atticus of Constantinople, showing them the rules of the Council of Nicaea, added that there were no more rules under the name of Nicene. However, it is known from church history that at this council there was a discussion about the time of celebrating Easter. The embassy returned to Africa with copies of the Nicene rules and letters from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople. All these documents, translated into Latin, were forwarded to Bonifatius to Rome on November 26, 419 - without comment. That Zosimus's instructions did not quote Nicene rules was thus proven. Meanwhile, Apiarius, already a presbyter of Tabrak, was again deposed and again appealed to Rome. Celestine I took him under his protection, and again Apiarius appeared in Carthage, accompanied by the same legate Faustin. At the council (after July 425), Faustin behaved like a true advocate of Cpiarius and zealously defended the rights of the Roman bishop (to accept appeals). The meetings continued for three days; Finally, Apiarius confessed to such crimes that there could be no talk of reinstating him to the priesthood. Thus, Faustin had to confess that he defended an unjust cause. The result was a new letter from the African fathers to Celestine of Rome. He was advised not to accept appeals too hastily and to return church fellowship to those convicted. The Council of Nicaea subjected not only the presbyters, but also the bishops themselves, to the local court. The interests of justice are sufficiently protected by the fact that the offended can appeal to a provincial council, or even to a general council (concilium universale). The African Church has full canonical authority to decide ecclesiastical affairs in its area; transmarinum judicium is not a satisfactory guarantee of justice simply because all witnesses cannot appear at such a trial. The fathers hope that legates will no longer be sent to them a latere to carry out Roman sentences: such a premise is not prescribed by the canons and too clearly shows worldly lust for power. A similar case arose in Africa around the same time. Blazh. Augustine opened a new see in Fussal and appointed a certain presbyter Anthony as bishop there, because he knew the Numidian language. But the newly installed bishop turned out to be an unworthy man in all respects: he was a cruel man who allowed himself impossible excesses. Therefore, he was deposed from the pulpit while retaining his rank, at the suggestion of the blessed one. Augustine, otherwise he would have been condemned to resign. Anthony appealed to Pope Celestine. The department was closed. The appeal case turned out peacefully in this case, because according to the decision of the African bishops, the department had to be closed. Only the Vandal conquest (429) broke the mighty fortress of the local life of the African church and weakened its sense of independence. Leo the Great was the first bishop of Rome to exercise his jurisdiction outside of Europe; he wrote decretals in an authoritative tone to Africa as well. But flashes of the former persistent independence were here in subsequent eras. 5. The claims of the Roman bishop to primacy in the Universal Church: the Roman bishop as pope While developing their patriarchal power within the intended territory, the Roman bishops did not stray from the path of general historical and canonical development. Their desire for the formation of the papacy was of a different nature. Patriarchal power rests on the natural attraction of the peripheries to their centers. The power of the pope, as episcopus universalis (and other bishops take the position of his delegates to him), rests on the assumption of special powers granted to Petrov's successors. The Patriarch says about himself only that he exists; the papacy believes there must be. The patriarch is a fact, the papacy is already a dogma. But the historical papacy and patriarchate not only developed in parallel, but also intertwined with each other beyond recognition, and it cannot be said that they ever came into conflict with one another. The aspirations of the papacy were at first always hidden behind the desire to assert patriarchal rights, and therefore remained invisible to contemporaries. If we illustrate this state of affairs, we can point out the following. When it comes to a loan and the creditor wants to check the property of his debtor, it makes no difference to him how much the latter’s property exceeds the amount of the debt. Once the Roman bishop motivated his rights as a Roman patriarch, they did not pay attention to the conclusions from these rights that did not directly follow from them, as from premises. But for the future it was not indifferent; for when the living tradition of the church grew dim and it became necessary to turn to monuments, all such advantages served an important service for the elevation of the Roman bishop; something that had previously been overlooked played a very important role. The advantages that the Roman bishops actually enjoyed, although they were not asserted on any immutable grounds that could be discerned in written monuments, due to their usual nature, seemed completely legitimate, and for the actual power of the Roman bishop it became indifferent whether it rested on the fact that the Roman bishops were the successors of the ap. Peter, or on any other grounds. From the 4th century the position of papal power begins to change in parallel with the change in the political position of Rome. At the beginning of this century, the residence of the Roman emperor was transferred from west to east - to Constantinople; with the division of the empire into eastern and western, the emperors of the western empire live either in Gaul, or in Milan and Ravenna. The change in the political position of Rome served an important service for the bishop of Rome: the pope remained the only representative of the highest authority in Rome. But this also had its dangerous side. In the eyes of true Romans, Rome towered above all the cities of Rome, and the concept of the universe - orbis - was identified with the concept of Rome - urbis; and when urbs Roma fell during the invasion of the Goths, they said that orbis should soon fall. That Rome had ceased to be the center of life of the ancient world was not yet clearly recognized, but an instinctive feeling forced the popes to apply themselves to their new position. It could happen that, after it lost its political significance and transferred it to other centers, private provincial churches would no longer flock to Rome, and therefore the Roman bishops needed other prerogatives that would not depend on historical fluctuations. From the 4th century dads are starting this business. Innocent I, in a letter to Alexander of Antioch, points out as a special advantage of the Roman see that the Roman bishops are the successors of the apostle. Petra. It was important to develop this view, which motivated the rights of popes in this way, because these rights were the rights of the Roman Church. Since ancient times, Roman bishops have recognized that Rome is the place of death of the two apostles Peter and Paul. But over time, the name of Paul seems to fade away and the name of Peter comes to the forefront, from whom the Roman bishops begin to trace their succession. The proper concept of the Roman bishop as pope is made up of several links. Each link is subject to special inspection. The first basis of the dogma of the papacy is that the Apostle Peter is princeps apostolorum, and, as such, has special powers. The second thesis is that these powers granted by Ap. Peter, should have always existed. And since Peter had to die as a person, and institutions must exist unceasingly, there must be his successors. Since this was allowed, it was necessary to prove that these successors were the Roman bishops. This is the third thesis of the papacy. 1) Resolution of the issue of the powers of the appellant. Peter comes down to the interpretation of the famous passage Matthew 16:18: “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” With these words, Christ seemed to confirm the primacy of Peter in the circle of the apostles. One of the most energetic explanations of this passage is found in the XII book of the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew Origen. This interpreter, always so calm, in this case takes on a polemical tone. In the end, Origen cuts off any further conclusions and claims that Christ did not establish anything like primacy among the apostles. According to Origen, “every disciple of Christ is a stone,” and we become (γενόμεθα) Πέτρος when we confess Christ like Peter, and the words apply to us: “thou ecu Peter,” for we all feed on the spiritual stone (1 Cor. 10:4). “If you think that the whole church is based only on Peter, then what do you say about John, the son of thunder, or about any other apostle? If Peter was told that the gates of hell would not prevail against him, would they prevail against others? Is this true? If Peter alone was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, then none of the blessed ones will receive them? If these sayings have a general meaning, then why not interpret everything said in such a way that everyone is named (παρώνυμοι) to Christ - the spiritual stone, that what was said to Peter was said to every Peter (λέλεκται τω Πέτρω, και πάντι Πέτρω), and, consequently, Peter is only a name for every disciple, and every disciple is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Even the Western fathers do not answer the question of Peter's powers with clarity satisfactory to the claims of Rome. Cyprian († 258), admitting that the church was founded on Peter, does not at all think about any primacy of his power. When Paul entered into reasoning with Peter, he did not make any arrogant and exclusive claims, did not say: “The primacy belongs to me, and others must obey me.” Ambrose of Mediola († 397) uses, however, the expression: “ubi ergo Petrus, ibi ecclesia,” and calls Peter “petra et fundamentum” 55 of the church. But this is what he calls Peter in a place that is inconvenient for the Roman bishops to refer to, namely, in the morning hymn, which says, among other things, that the ap. Peter atoned for his denial with tears. Ambrose explicitly ascribes to Peter primatum confessionis utique, non honoris primatum fidei, non ordinis - the primacy of confession, not honor, faith, not rank. In a word of praise on the day of St. Peter and Paul, he does not dare to place Peter above Paul, calling both “principes ecclesiae”. bl. Jerome († 420) calls Christ the stone and the head of the church, who gave the name of the stone to Peter, as the representative of the apostles, and with him to all the apostles. In his opinion, Peter's primacy has only disciplinary significance - to prevent sectarian divisions. He emphasizes with particular emphasis the equality of the rank of all bishops and explains the actual difference in their authority from the difference in the political significance of their cities. He does not know of a bishop who would stand to the entire universal church in the same relationship as each bishop to his church, or as an emperor to the empire, and in relation to other bishops would occupy the same position as, for example, an archpriest to the presbyters. He knows one captain on a ship, one general in an army, one emperor in a state, one bishop in a city - but he says nothing about one spiritual center in Rome. Therefore, his respectful attitude towards Pope Damasus does not have a dogmatic character. bl. Augustine († 430) gives two opinions regarding the meaning of the words of Matthew 16:18. Some, he says, consider Peter a stone, for example, Ambrose of Milan in his morning hymn: “at the cock’s crow, even the very rock of the church mourned its guilt.” Others, on the contrary, mean Christ by the stone. Augustine himself does not resolve the issue apodictically, but draws attention to the fact that Peter is called in the Greek text Πέτρος, and the church was founded by επί ταύτη τη πέτρα, and that from the last word comes Πέτρος, just as the word “Christian” comes from the name "Christ." According to him, the main stone of the church is Christ, while Peter himself is based on this stone. The expression “I will give you the keys” indicates his advantage (excellentia), since he bears the image of the whole church (quia ipsius universitatis et unitatis ecclesiae figuram gessit). On the personification of the church in Peter Bl. Augustine says more than once. But nevertheless, according to Augustine, it was not homo unus, sed unitas ecclesiae 56 who received the keys. Peter is given the same thing that is given to everyone, for everyone is told: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). The advantage of an indestructible stronghold, thanks to which it does not fall, belongs to the universa ecclesia. In Peter, Augustine does not see either the head or the head of the church, but still the highest concentration of the benefits of the church and, it seems, a necessary focus. In app. Peter - the beginning of the ecumenical episcopate. On the succession of the high position of Peter the Great. Augustine doesn't think so. bl. Augustine, as we know, was the soul of the Carthaginian councils, which defended their freedom against Roman centralization. But there are nuances in his writings that popes could benefit from. Supporters of Rome read with pleasure the words of Augustine: the Roman Church in which “the primacy of the apostolic see has always flourished” (semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus). The question arises: how is it possible for such a mind as the mind of bl. Augustine, such inconsistency? This is explained by the fact that in ancient times in polemics an excessive breadth of view was often allowed, things were allowed that would not have been allowed if the teaching had been carried out positively. bl. Augustine used the authority of Rome with great loftiness (μεγαλοφωνία) when it was necessary to direct speech against sectarians. Especially often the defenders of papism interpret in favor of their views his saying regarding the case of the Pelagians. Augustine tells his flock what has been done in the church in relation to the Pelagians [sermo 131]. Two cathedrals were composed; their decrees were sent ad sedem apostolicam; received from there rescripta. Thus “causa finita est” - “the matter is over”; "utinam aliquando error finiatur" 57 . At a later time, before “causa finita est” it was added: “Roma locuta est”, “Rome said - and the matter is over.” It is as if Rome had the last word, and as if these words express a principle, and not a separate fact. Thus, the first premise of the Roman Catholic view is far from sound. 2) The second parcel is also not particularly strong. If Christ established the principate, granting special powers to Peter, was it for all times, or as the personal prerogative of the Apostle Peter? Everyone understands that it is difficult to verify this thesis with patristic opinions. Fathers and teachers have rarely had occasion to pronounce on the limits of this advantage. It is therefore completely coincidental that one vote is cast on this issue, and this voice belongs to Tertullian in his essay on chastity (de pudicitia p. 21). As you know, this work was caused by the fact that the Roman bishop weakened the ancient practice in relation to those who had sinned by carnal sins. “And regarding your verdict, I will ask where did you get such a right in deciding church affairs? Who are you that you subvert and change the self-evident intention of the Lord, who delivered it personally (personaliter) to Peter? “On you,” he said, “I will build my church, and I will give you the keys, not the churches, and those you will loose or bind, and not those you will loose or bind.” Thus, assuming that ap. Peter occupied an extraordinary position in the circle of the apostles; it is impossible to deduce from this the advantages of the Roman Church, since with the death of Peter these advantages, as Tertullian thinks, ended. 3) The third question: are these advantages really acquired through the successive inheritance of the Roman see? Using the method of remainders, it can be decided in favor of the Roman Church. Bishop of Rome, as successor to St. Peter, also enjoys its advantages. The question comes down to whether there was an ap. Peter the Bishop of Rome? It should be recognized that those Protestants who said that St. Peter was never in Rome, they are wrong and [too] suffer from a lack of conservatism, because the tradition about Peter’s stay and death in Rome stands firm, and to reject it would mean to rebuild the entire history of the church. Eusebius, on the other hand, without hesitation, suggests that the ap. Peter served as a bishop in the Roman church for 25 years and died a martyr’s death here. But at present, for anyone who has undergone a tolerable historical school, it is clear that this is a legendary tale. Here another question is raised whether the apostles can be considered bishops of local churches. In this case, app. Peter would be the bishop of the churches of all those cities where he preached. He also acted in Antioch, where he met with St. Pavel; hence Peter and the Bishop of Antioch. There are two chairs of Peter. What are the extraordinary benefits associated with? If with the one to which the longer stay of the apostle refers, then in Holy Scripture there is no indication of the long stay of the apostle. Peter's in Rome. The question of the Babylonian church is one that can never find a satisfactory solution. The legend about his death in Rome can be understood in the sense that he appeared here only before his death. The Apostle Paul considers himself obligated to do something for Rome, and he adheres to such tactics as not to create on someone else’s foundation. The question is raised through whose medium—Petrovo or Pavlovo—Christianity was brought to Rome. The succession of the Roman bishop to the See of Peter is, therefore, rather conditional. History does not see sufficient grounds to consider the Roman bishop as the successor of St. Petra. Ancient church writers did not single out Peter as the sole founder of the Roman see, but emphasized that the Roman church was founded by two apostles. By introducing Paul, they destroyed Roman claims. It took a lot of trouble for Rome to make them forget that Paul also participated in the founding of the Roman see. And Chrysostom presents the Bishop of Antioch as the successor of the apostle. Peter in a sense no less exalted than in which a Roman bishop could call himself that. As for the Roman high priests themselves, at every opportunity they try to remind you that they are the successors of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and they have the right and duty of very broad supervision in church affairs. Siricius († 399) wrote to Spain that he has more than all others zeal for the Christian faith, major cunctis zelus, and bears the burdens of all; but he believes that the apostle also carries them in his face. Peter, who supports his heirs in all matters of their government. Innocent († 417) reminds the Italian bishops that they must follow the Roman Church in everything and it alone; it was founded by the prince of the apostles and faithfully preserves all his traditions; that bishops act correctly when they report church affairs to him, as the head and pinnacle of the bishopric (ad nos quasi ad caput atque ad apicem episcopatus referre). They base their actual advantages precisely on the succession of the Ap. Petra. They could not ignore, of course, that their high position they owed much to the civic importance of Rome; but they constantly prove that the political moment in church affairs is of secondary importance. And contrary to the practice that existed in the east, they did not care at all about harmonizing the ecclesiastical division of the provinces with the civil one. In their relations with other bishops, a certain church aristocracy was visible, because they paid attention not to the apostolic origin of the churches, but to their origin from the prince of the apostles Peter, and from this point of view they were disposed to look as equals only to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, reserving for themselves the advantage over the Antiochian church that it had Peter as its bishop, as it were, at the crossroads, and Rome - at the very end his earthly feat. These views are expressed with all clarity in the correspondence of Innocent with Alexander of Antioch, and undoubtedly give the Roman theory of the church system a majestic and stable character, which could not have actually had a more correct idea of ​​it in the East. In general, the papal theory is expressed here very modestly and secretly. All these unfinished thoughts and expressions about the primacy of the bishop of Rome are finally completed in the remarkably clear, strongly expressed and complete system of the first doctor ecclesiae in the Roman see, Leo the Great (440-461). He expounded this teaching mainly in his church sermons, which he delivered die natali ipsius (on the day of his consecration) before a meeting of Italian bishops. Some passages are repeated literally in these words. These are the main points of this teaching. 1. Apostle Peter a) is the princeps of the entire rank of apostles, superior to all others in power (with equality of honor and election - par electio, in similitudine honoris - there was also a quaedam discretio potestatis (some difference in power) between the apostles). The danger of falling threatened all the apostles, but Christ especially, proprie, speciali cura (with special care), prays for Peter: the princeps apostolorum will remain unshakable, - and the firmness of others is ensured in his firmness, b) Ap. Peter is the foundation of the whole church. He himself rests on the indestructible fortress of a single foundation, Christ, but this firmness, characteristic of Christ propopria potestate (by his own power), is imparted to Peter participatione (by participation). Peter is taken into the closest communion of indivisible unity with Christ - in consortium individuae unitatis assumptus - and represents the mediation between Christ and the whole church. Connected to the latter like the head to the body, he concentrates within himself the gifts of grace, which only through him descend to the apostles themselves. The fullness of grace and power is abundantly communicated first of all to Peter, and through him, as the head, it organically flows, manat, onto the entire body of the church, c) Thus, Peter is the totius ecclesiae princeps 58, primas of all bishops. He is entrusted with the care of all the sheep, he is entrusted with the care, sollicitudo, of all the shepherds of the church. “Everything,” says sermo IV, “earth and heaven, was obedient to the incarnate Word; everything served the purposes of the divine economy. However, from the whole world, Peter alone is chosen and placed above all the apostles and all the fathers of the church. The Lord asks all the apostles what people think about him, and only as long as they answer all together, as long as they convey the wavering opinions of human ignorance. But as soon as one asks what the disciples themselves think, the first in confessing the Lord is the one who was first in apostolic dignity. And when he said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus answered him: “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because blessed are you, because My Father taught you that I am His only begotten Son. And just as My Father revealed My divinity to you, so I confess to you your superiority. You are Peter. That is, I am the indestructible rock, I am the cornerstone that creates both. one, I am the foundation beyond which no one can lay anything else. However, you too are a rock, because you are strengthened by My power, so that what is characteristic of Me, by virtue of My power, I have in common with you by participation. And on this stone I will build an eternal church, and the height of My church, rising to heaven, will be erected on the firmness of this faith." Thus, "as a reward for faith, the Lord gave the most blessed Apostle Peter the primacy of apostolic dignity, on this strong foundation, on the firmness of Peter, establishing the universal church." Consequently, there was not complete equality between the apostles: "And between the most blessed apostles, in their similarity there was some difference in power, and although the election of all was the same, yet one was given priority over the others.” Peter is the prince of the apostles, their head and center, in which the spiritual interests and advantages of their council are organically concentrated, and the mysterious mediation between Christ and them. Before the suffering of Christ, all the apostles faced a common danger of temptation and seduction. “And yet the Lord primarily cares about Peter, actually praying for his faith, as if showing that the position of others will be safer if the mind of (their) prince remains unshakable. So, in the person of Peter, the strength of all is protected, and the help of divine grace is distributed so that the strength that Christ bestows on Peter is communicated through Peter to the apostles.” For this purpose, taken into communion of inseparable unity with Christ, Peter was favored preeminently: he alone received much, and nothing is communicated to anyone else except through communication with him. In him, as the supreme apostle, are concentrated, first of all, the rights and duties of the apostleship common to all apostles, and from him, as the head, these gifts flow to the whole body. Peter is the organic focus of the priesthood and shepherd. “The Lord has honored him with such communication in His power that if Peter has anything in common with other leaders of the church, to these latter it is only through Peter himself that He gives what is not denied to them.” “He is the prince of the whole church, and to him belongs the care of all the shepherds for the sheep entrusted to him, so that, although among the people of God there are many priests and many shepherds, yet in the proper sense Peter rules them all, just as Christ in the primary sense rules them.” 2. All other shepherds of the church, apostles and priests, received their authority from Christ Himself. He is its source. Therefore, they are not delegates of the supreme apostle. But a) all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood and shepherding are given fully and first of all to Peter and through him and no other than through his mediation are given by Christ and all the other apostles and shepherds, b) Although there are many priests and many shepherds in the people of God, the entire universal church is ruled by the principaliter Christ Himself and proprie an. Peter. At these points, jus proprium episcopatus (the proper right of the bishopric) approaches jus delegatum (delegated right) (not in principle, but de facto). 3. Primatus, principatus an. Peter's is not a temporary institution, but a permanent one, because the truth of his confession is eternal: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And just as Christ is the Son of God forever, so Peter, having taken the reins of the church, does not leave them. Invisibly, without any doubt, he still (personally) shepherds the flock of Christ, and now even more fully fulfills what was entrusted to him and fully fulfills his duties in Christ Himself and with Christ Himself, who glorified him. And apparently he shepherds the church through his successors in the Roman see, in which power lives and his authority shines. 4. The communication of the Roman bishops with the Supreme Apostle is very close - both in depth and in results - reproduces the consortium potentiae 59 an. Peter with Christ, a) In depth, because this communication is almost personal: the Roman Church, in the person of the new bishop, receives Peter in the chair of Peter; moral dignity does not diminish in the successors of the apostle, despite their moral personal shortcomings; Peter speaks through the mouths of his successors, b) According to the results, because the grace-filled power granted to Peter through this consortium se transfundit 60 overflows to his successors: they are heirs of his plenitudo potestatis 61. Not along with others, but before all bishops, they succeed Peter. The Roman see is the spiritual center of the entire Christian world. While other bishops are obliged to take care only of the flocks entrusted to them, Petrov’s successor is required to have that all-encompassing love with which the entire universal church is entrusted, and “cura cum omnibus communis” 62, and there is no church unit in the management of which he would not take part. Thus, the gaze of Leo the Great is presented to the universal church, governed in parts by bishops, generalized in metropolitans, through the vicars of the apostolic see, coming into contact with its center and united in it. The entire church system is a reflection of the relationships that existed between the apostles. Just as there, with equality of election, there was no equality of power, so bishops are equal among themselves in (hierarchical) dignity, but not in their canonical rights, but not in their participation in church government. Among them there are metropolitans, whose jurisdiction is limited to a separate province. Above them rise those whom the Roman bishop appointed as his vicars, calling them to participate in the work of church government, although without full power. They must be mediators in the relations of the provinces with the single center of the universal church, the See of Peter, on which sits the successor of the chief apostle, endowed with plenitudo potestatis. The care of all churches belongs to the Roman bishop principaliter ex divina institutione 63. But Leo the Great also recognizes metropolitan power as “divinitus data” 64, and only the pope’s vicars have their power in the strict sense of jure delegato. The Episcopatus universalis of the Roman high priest, outlined by Leo the Great, does not exclude the hierarchical (sacramental) equality of all bishops; the latter does not belong only to the plenitudo potestatis. From this theory Leo the Great drew the following practical consequences (against Hilary of Arles): 1) Since the entire church is based on the firmness of Peter, he who moves away from this stronghold places himself outside the mystical body of Christ - the church. 2) Whoever encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses obedience to the apostolic throne does not want to obey the blessed Apostle Peter. 3) Who rejects power and primacy, principatum an. Peter, he cannot in the least diminish his dignity, but, arrogant with the spirit of pride, casts himself into the underworld. At the same time, Valentinian III (dated July 8, 445), under the influence of Leo the Great, wrote to Gaul: “Let no one attempt anything prohibited by this throne, and let it be law for everyone that the authority of the apostolic see has decreed. A bishop summoned to trial in Rome must be compelled to appear by the civil authority. For only then is church peace possible everywhere when the entire universe recognizes its ruler... And is there anything in church affairs that exceeds the authority of such a high priest?” The expressions of other Roman bishops pale in comparison with this developed system and only from it receive full illumination. If the idea of ​​​​the infallibility of the Roman bishop was beyond the ideas of Leo the Great, then on a legal basis all the prerogatives were already given, which were later approved at the Vatican Council. The trial of the Roman bishop is not necessary: ​​even if he had shortcomings, they are atoned for, covered by the merits of Peter, who was a bishop in the Roman see. Thus, it is assumed that there should be no serious sins in the Roman bishop. How Leo the Great looked at his predecessors, some of whom even renounced the true faith, would be very interesting to know, but Leo the Great does not speak out about this. Leo's speeches on the day of his dedication were all the more important because the bishops of the regions closest to Rome came here and brought congratulations to the pope. From later monuments it is clear that it was even considered indecent for bishops not to be in Rome on the anniversary of the consecration of the pope. Pope Gregory the Great even wrote letters of dismissal to some bishops. Therefore, Leo the Great spoke, weighing every word. If some of his expressions are not distinguished by the desired definiteness, then we must remember that the church at that time was still living in the forms of classical education, and Leo the Great was a distant successor of Cicero and Julius Caesar. A special feature of this education is the aesthetics of the language. The mathematics and logic of our presentation were tasteless for the concepts of that time. In our country, for the sake of accuracy, the same term is used throughout the entire speech, and any addition is an attempt to change its meaning. Dad, for aesthetic purposes, to avoid repetition, varied the words. Leo the Great expressed the position that all the apostles received the highest powers from Jesus Christ, but received them through the mediation of the apostle. The pope compares Peter, as his head, and his relationship with other bishops with the relationship of St. Peter, but it is unclear. We expect the pope to answer the question: are the powers of other bishops transferred to them through the bishop of Rome, or not? Dad did not give an answer, and this would have been very important. Subjects receive their powers from the sovereign and lose them with his death; the successor must restore them. And the legate enjoyed the powers of the pope only during his lifetime, and after his death he had to expect new powers. If all powers were obtained through the living pope, then how to explain the state of the church after the death of the pope? All these questions, so necessary for us, did not arise for Leo’s contemporaries or did not appear with such persistence. What has been said is enough to survey the breadth of conclusions that flowed from the views of Leo the Great. If Peter's powers are exclusive, then the popes necessarily have plenitudo potestatis not only in relation to the West, but also to the East. History must answer to what extent this need was recognized and put into practice. Two questions remain: a) to what extent have such views been recognized in the West, and b) to what extent have these tendencies been stated and recognized in the East? 1) The Council of Serdica (343), ecumenical in its original intention, which was the voice of most of Western Christianity, constitutes one of the bright pages in the history of the Roman throne. Julius I himself, under well-known pretexts, did not appear at the council. “It is highly appropriate,” says the council itself, “that bishops will report on the affairs of individual provinces to the head (ad caput), i.e., to the department of the apostle. Peter" (the beginning of the sermon that the pope is more important than the council?). The fathers of the council gave the Roman bishop the advantage of accepting appeals from all bishops who consider themselves unjustly deposed in order to either confirm the verdict, or cassate it and refer the matter to a council of local bishops for review with the right to send there a Roman presbyter as a legate a latere (pr. 3). The significance of this rule should neither be exaggerated nor weakened. aa) The fathers of the council, at their free discretion (si vobis placet, honoremus), bestowed this privilege on the bishop of Rome as a new honor, and did not merely state the existing right of the “head” of the church. bb) The privilege was given by the rule to Julius of Rome personally and in view of the exceptional situation of the moment (suspicion of Arianism was heavy over the entire East; for Orthodox bishops in the East there was no impartial tribunal of appeal). But centuries) this prerogative was used to honor the “memory of St. ap. Peter": this privilege could, therefore, pass to the successors of Julius. From our point of view, there is a contradiction here: on the one hand, they mention Peter, as if pointing to something eternal, and on the other, Julia, as if it had a temporary meaning. There is no doubt that this rule with its consequences was poorly thought out by its drafters, but the fact was caused by circumstances: amid the Arian unrest, Rome alone could be decisive. Let's imagine that in an entire province there was only one Orthodox bishop. At the council, the Arian bishops could find fault with some of his canonical faults and treat him unfairly. It is clear that such a bishop could find justice only with the intervention of a Western Orthodox bishop. Therefore, there is no point in limiting these privileges to Julius alone, especially since at the time of the Council of Serdica Julius was old and could soon die, d) The Council forwarded the rules to Julia with instructions (disponere debet) to publish them in the metropolitan district subordinate to Rome (ergo the bishop of Rome is not more important than the cathedral, but the metropolitan subordinate to the cathedral?). dd) In Africa, the Serdic rules were not only not accepted for leadership, but were even forgotten. But in Rome they did not forget about them, but mixed them even with the Nicene ones, and used them as a fulcrum for the development of their power. 2) An even more important recognition was made by the Roman synodus Palmaris (502, 4th meeting on October 23), convened by Theodoric the Great to resolve the dispute between the two popes Symmachus and Lawrence. Theodoric asked the fathers to restore the church peace of Italy and pronounce a sentence sive discussa sive indicussa causa, either entering or not entering into the investigation of the issue itself, since the bishops had doubts about their right to judge the pope conciliarly. And they, fulfilling the commandments of God, gave Italy its ruler (in the person of Symmachus), totam causam Dei judicio reservantes, “submitting the most controversial matter to the court of God.” The principle that guided the council was defended by Deacon Ennodius († 521 Bishop of Ticin) in a special apologetics. “Who can doubt,” he wrote, “the holiness of that man who stands at the height of such a rank? Yes, even if he lacked personal good deeds, they were made up for by the merits of his predecessor (Apostle Peter). Perhaps God wants the affairs of other people to end here in human judgment; but there can be no question that He provided the archpastor of this see to His court (sedis istius praesulem suo, sine questione, reservavit judicio).” No matter how flattering the synodus Palmaris was for the papal throne, the bishops in Gaul were already dissatisfied with the fact that the pope’s case was transferred to the court of the bishops (therefore, the apologetician Ennodius was required). This speaks of the success papal authority has made in the consciousness of Western Christianity. 3) At the Roman Council of 531, Theodosius of Echinus from Thessaly (hence, the Greek bishop) declared as a thing known to everyone (constat), that “the apostolic throne rightfully assumes primacy (principatum) in the whole world and to it alone appeals on ecclesiastical issues must be made from everywhere.” According to the system of Leo the Great, the power of the Pope extends to the entire universal Church, and therefore to the Eastern Church. Did those in the East know what the Roman bishops thought about themselves, and did they recognize the validity of such views? How did the Eastern Church react to the conclusions of Leo the Great? The Eastern Church did not react in any way. The most difficult thing for a historian in the history of the division of churches is that it did not appear ex abrupto, like a deus ex machina 65, but was prepared by the entire previous history. One cannot look at the communication between the Eastern and Western churches in ancient times as complete. It was like this only in the first three centuries. But this was explained, firstly, by the sameness of the language: the Roman Church was essentially Greek. The Greek language was incomprehensible only on the remote outskirts of the west and was a documentary language. Most of the Gallic churches were Greek. In the churches of Carthage, the language used was Greek 66. From the end of the 3rd century. Western churches became more and more Latin. The worst thing was that the east knew little about the life of the west. Perhaps the division of churches would not have taken place if the East had been interested in the life of the outskirts of the West. The West was very warm and interested in the East. After the division of the churches, many learned abbots in the west talked about one church, not knowing that the church was divided. Proof of such interest is, further, the Greek element in Western liturgical practice - in the Mass (Κύριε ελέησον). Bishops of seedy Western bishoprics who visited the East describe in detail and with interest what they saw there. But in the east there was none of this. Another feature of the West should be noted. The Eastern emperors were the oldest in the empire. The popes sent referendarii and apocrisiarii to Constantinople to report to the emperor or his minister on church affairs in the West. Through them, the popes were well informed about the patriarchs of Constantinople and about life in the east. For the Patriarchs of Constantinople there was no need to turn to Rome, relations between Constantinople and Rome were accidental, and the Apocrisiaries of Constantinople in Rome are an unthinkable phenomenon, and they could have done a great service to their patriarch. Then, the unrest that arose in Rome due to the choice of a bishop was settled by local authorities, and not by the entire church. The reason for this non-interference of the East in the affairs of the West was partly the violent disputes over heresies in the East; The most important church misunderstandings in the West occurred due to the division of churches. Thus, the circumstances were such that the West, represented by Rome, expressed a desire to control the church life of the East, and the latter had to resist this. The East did not interfere in the life of the West, not only for moral reasons, but also out of indifference, and mainly due to extreme ignorance of the circumstances of church life in the West. Historically, inequality has been established in the relations between the Eastern and Western churches, and only in favor of Rome alone. It is remarkable that there were cases of Western intervention in the church affairs of the East even before Leo the Great, and his predecessors found it possible to start directly from the second premise, without needing the full views of Leo. For the West, the ideas of papism were facts, but for the East they were just beautiful rhetorical phrases. The first case of papal intervention was under Athanasius the Great, but this case was such that the matter began directly from the second premise. Athanasius the Great had to leave Alexandria, otherwise he would have been driven out by armed force. In Rome he did not look like a supplicant, as can be seen from his encyclical, where he does not consider himself subject to the judgment of Rome; he simply notified the pope of the fact of his expulsion and said that if the new Alexandrian bishop had sent a letter of communion, the bishops should tear it up. At the same time, very important circumstances occurred in the east. Hoping for the sympathy of Emperor Constantius, the easterners gathered at the beginning of 340 for a council in Antioch and, in place of the retired Athanasius, they elected some Cappadocian Gregory, who, under the cover of military force, entered Alexandria and, after many bloody violence, took possession of the church. The fathers of the Council of Antioch, having done this, sent a message to Julius in which they announced this event. The calculation of the fathers was that their ambassadors would find Julius unprepared, but it happened differently: they encountered the ambassadors of Athanasius the Great, and they exposed them. The shame was so great that one of the eastern ambassadors shamefully fled, and the rest humbly asked Julius to postpone the investigation of the matter for a year. Neither Athanasius the Great nor the fathers of the Council of Antioch demanded a trial; the ambassadors asked for it ex tempore without the knowledge of those who sent them. When Julius reminded the Eastern fathers of this a year later, they kept Julius' ambassadors until the expiration of the year and then wrote him a message in which they disparaged his right to interfere in the church affairs of the East. They presented him with a dilemma: to be in communication either with the whole East, or with Athanasius alone. The revision of the eastern case at the western council is an unusual matter: the eastern fathers did not interfere in the matter between Cornelius and Novatian; Likewise, the case of Paul of Samosat was resolved in the east without the intervention of the west. The Bishop of Rome in vain assumes that he is more important than other bishops: if on his side is the advantage of wealth, then on the side of the East are the advantages of higher theological knowledge and virtue; and it is not for the eastern bishops to follow the western ones: the light of faith from the east has spread to the west. Thus, in their letter they conveyed the malicious idea that Julius was interfering in other people’s affairs, arrogant with the greatness of the city of his department. Julius did not remain in debt. He did not dispute the last thesis, but only sarcastically recalled that if in the east all departments were equal, then there would be no transitions from smaller departments to larger ones. He motivated his challenge by appealing to the council from the eastern ambassadors themselves. Finally, he pointed out that custom (τοΰτο ήθος ην) required that the case of the bishop of the apostolic see of Alexandria be first written to the bishop of Rome and then decided upon, rather than sending an already completed verdict for signing. Julius did not explain the reasons for this “custom” at all. Thus, the first premise was not covered here either. The case of Athanasius the Great was decided by the Council of Serdica (343), which met when Athanasius's case was complicated by the affairs of other eastern bishops, expelled by the Arians and seeking protection in the west. During the era of the decay of Arianism, Roman authority rose in the east. Simple believers, incompetent in dogmatic subtleties, began to desire external guarantees of the Orthodoxy of their bishops, especially those who were suspected of Arianism. Communication with Rome was considered such a guarantee because in the West the Arians had no power, and the orthodoxy of the Roman Church was considered untainted. This opinion was more flattering for Rome than fundamental: the Orthodoxy of the Romans looked strong because they did not take a serious part in the theological struggle against the Arians; but in times of trial, Liberius signed the semi-Arian symbol and Vincent of Capua in Ariminum allowed the abolition of the Nicene symbol. With little acquaintance with the dogmatic parties in the east, Rome accepted everyone who signed the Nicene symbol, and thus often only increased the eastern unrest. And in the eyes of highly enlightened persons, the Roman see discredited its authority by not understanding that Meletius of Antioch stood at the head of the Catholic movement in the east, and Peacock represented only a sect, and took the side of the latter. As is known, the attempt of the popes to regulate with their influence the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council ended unsuccessfully. In the same way, Flavian of Antioch did not appear at the pope's court at his request, and his case ended peacefully due to the influence of Chrysostom. Pope Innocent's intervention in the matter of Chrysostom was unsuccessful, mainly due to the fact that the emperor himself took part in this matter, although the reason for the pope's intervention was the most legitimate. It was caused by a message to the pope from Chrysostom himself. The most characteristic lines of this message are its final words. Showing that this incident concerns not only him, but is a church-wide matter, Chrysostom adds at the end of the letter: “... I wrote the same to Venerius, bishop of Mediolan, and Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia. Be healthy in the Lord." This addition is very unfavorable for the claims of the Roman bishop. In general, one cannot exaggerate certain parties in such appeals to Rome. We must remember how things usually stood here. When a bishop from the east appealed to the pope, he usually occupied a high position in his church, so that in case of need he had nowhere to appeal but to the west. This was the position of Chrysostom. He could turn for help to Flavian of Antioch, who was higher in position than him, but he could not do anything for him due to his old age. Naturally, Chrysostom had to look for support and protection from his strong enemies (Theophilus of Alexandria) only in the west. Many phenomena seem simple only because they have already been settled. Two plaintiffs, having argued over payment of a bill, turn to the judge and do not thank him for the hearing of the case, since the judge is assigned to this. In the same way, the person sending letters by mail does not thank postal officials, because they are obliged to forward paid correspondence. But in the ancient times we are talking about, relations were not regulated to such an extent. In the absence of formal authorities, the living energy of some influential person was needed. In the above case, a person was needed who, with his influence, could facilitate the meeting of a large council. Dad was just such a person. One of Chrysostom's successors, Nestorius, also had to meet with the authority of the pope, who was then Celestine. Perhaps the latter held Leo's views on the power of the pope, but he did not express this clearly. It should be noted that he did not have a theological education and therefore could not adequately understand the dispute between Nestorius and Cyril. Long later, in the West, Nestorianism was confused with Pelagianism. But Nestorius did not even think of turning to Celestine as an authority. The Pope's ambassadors appeared at the council on this matter with instructions that were not particularly correct. The Pope ordered them to behave as judges, but not to engage in debate. The ambassadors expressed themselves: “No one doubts, but all centuries know that the holy and most blessed Peter, the prince (έπαρχος = ύπαρχος, which means, in fact, the prefect of the praetorium, the second person after the emperor) and the head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the church, who received from the Lord the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lives to this day and judges in the person of his successors.” Cyril remained silent on this statement and gave the matter such a turn as if the legates had spoken out in this way as representatives not only of the Roman see, but of all Western bishops. This understanding greatly diminished the trend pursued by the legates. The participation of Leo the Great in the affairs of the East regarding Eutychianism seems particularly interesting. Everything we know about Leo the Great seems to lead us to expect that he would fully express papal claims. Everything, apparently, turned out in the most favorable way for the most energetic statement of this idea he was pursuing about the complete power of the Roman bishop. On the one hand, the pope is a true Roman, with a strong character, with a rich supply of many years of administrative experience, with an ardent belief in his primacy, who has declared himself with glory in the spread of Roman jurisdiction in the West. On the other hand, never before had the name of the Roman pontiff stood so generally recognized as in this era of Cyril and Celestine, when even representatives of intellectual circles in the East were predisposed to look at papal authority from a Roman point of view. And then - extreme confusion in church relations: unreasonable fear of the specter of Nestorianism, the extremely exaggerated views of the defenders of Alexandrian views to the point of heresy, zeal for the faith, resolved by the robber council. And meanwhile, there is general trust in Rome: the Monophysite Eutyches appeals here; Flavian of Constantinople resorts to the pope. One of the most famous eastern bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus, in a letter not devoid of even flattery, submits his case to the judgment of the Roman high priest. Anatoly of Constantinople, through good relations with Rome, is trying to make up for the suspicious legality of his election, his too close connection with the leaders of the second Council of Ephesus. Despite all these favorable signs of the times, Leo the Great acts with amazing caution. Firmly and clearly developing his church-administrative ideas before those from whom one could not expect objections, before the Western bishops, he was very moderate in his correspondence with the East. Leo the Great did not speak clearly, and if we encounter some pretentious phrases, such as the phrase: “St. Peter speaks through the mouth of Leo,” then these phrases represent only oratorical decoration, in no way expressing the ideas of the papacy. It is known how Leo's intervention in this matter followed. He received an appeal in 448 from Eutyches, who had been condemned by Flavian, and had to do something. At first he did not show insight and did not understand that Eutyches was heretical, so he even took him under his powerful protection. We see the strongest expression of his claims in the fact that he reproaches why he was not given all the information about the temptation that took place. But compiling information about heretics required a lot of time, and Flavian was in no hurry to do it and received a letter from the pope in which Leo the Great asked him to hurry, since he, the pope, could not make a decision until a mature study. “We are surprised how you could keep silent about this temptation, and did not, on the contrary, take care to notify us first of all, so that no doubt about this would be possible. We wish to know the reasons for your behavior in this matter. We are naturally concerned about him; hasten to inform us in all completeness and clarity, which you should have done already before. For we, considering matters concerning sacred persons to be very important, until they have been thoroughly examined, cannot speak out in favor of one side or the other without hearing everything with all fairness.” Here we encounter a very weak resemblance to the conflict that occurred between Julius and the Antiochian bishops. Flavian wrote to Leo the Great on this matter only so that the pope would not remain in the dark that Eutyches was excommunicated at the Council of Constantinople; The patriarch of Constantinople asked the pope to notify the bishops subordinate to him about this, so that one of them would not mistakenly accept Eutyches into church communion. In a word, Flavian informs the pope of the definition of the council only for information and, perhaps, even for execution. And Leo the Great is thinking about reconsidering this whole matter. But from his words it is far from clear whether he intervenes in this matter as an arbitrator, as a judex ex compromisso, or by virtue of his jure divino right of supreme supervision over the entire universal Church. With true tact, he shields his papist claims from protest and objections with the obscurity of the phrase. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 in the history of Roman primacy is a double-edged fact in its meaning. Here the ecclesiastical authority of Rome rose to a height to which it had not reached before. And yet it was here that the heaviest and deepest blow to Roman claims was dealt. Due to this two-sidedness, the Council of Chalcedon is a true product of the national character of the Greeks, indirect, almost crafty. The entire appearance of the cathedral, its decorative side, constitutes one of the brilliant pages in the history of the papacy. Leo was invited to the council: he did not appear - for the same reasons for which Julius avoided participating in the Council of Serdica. “This was not in accordance with established customs.” The pope's legates held his name truly honestly and formidably. The words “such and such a bishop was received into communion by the most holy pope of the city of Rome” were a harbinger of a successful outcome of this matter. Anatoly himself declared that Dioscorus was deposed not for his faith, but because he dared to pronounce an anathema on the pope - and they did not object to this. Several documents read at the council were addressed to “the most holy and most beloved ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome, and the holy ecumenical council assembled at Chalcedon,” which places the ecumenical council in the position of an advisory assembly under the pope. The letter of the Council of Chalcedon to the pope - literally - constitutes one of the most inconvenient documents for defending the position that the ecumenical council is superior to the pope. “You were for everyone the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter. On your initiative, we showed the children of the church the heritage of truth.” “You, in the person of your governors, ruled us with favor, like a leader over members.” “This is what we did together with you, who was present with us in spirit, sympathized with us brotherly, and was almost visible in the wisdom of your locums. Deign, Most Holy and Blessed Father, to recognize our definition of the See of Constantinople as yours, amiable and suitable for improvement. The whole matter began from your holiness, and by your constant favor we dared to affirm, knowing that any correction made by children applies to their own fathers. So, we beg, almost our judgment by your statement. And just as we declared our agreement with you in all good things, so may your holiness give the children their due.” But - under this slyly flattering form, Leo was presented with a ruling from the council that the Archbishop of Constantinople has advantages equal to those of Rome, against which the papal legates protested with all determination, finding in it a limitation of the advantages of the Apostolic See, allegedly established by the fathers of the Council of Nicaea. The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place partly through the influence of Leo, but he was inclined to exaggerate the significance of his message. The Eastern bishops signed this letter in commemoration of him and their Orthodoxy, and the pope pretended that they were deciding the whole matter. Some bishops, subject to the exarch of the Thessalonian vicariate, which belongs to the Roman Church, spoke out against the “tomos” (confession of Leo the Great) with doubts about its full Orthodoxy. And strong measures were needed to calm these doubts. In general, the question of the Orthodoxy of the said message remained open until the Ecumenical Council recognized that it was strictly Orthodox. At the council it was read and discussed, and then approved by vote. This is only because it is recognized as an Orthodox monument, and not because it came from the pope. The strongest blow to the pope came with the approval of Rule 28. The question of the advantages of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Council of Chalcedon matured gradually. Initially, a different program of church structure was outlined, and Constantinople was not supposed to be given the high position that it actually occupied. A draft of Rule 28 was drawn up, and during its discussion, events occurred that revealed the course of the matter. If the details of the actions of this council had not been preserved, then, apparently, one could assume that this rule was met with universal consent and did not encounter obstacles when it entered church canonical life. But it appears that the papal legates protested against this rule; They solemnly left the meeting, assuming that this would create confusion among the fathers of the council, consistent with their intention, and that everyone would then agree with them. But the rule was adopted, and such an outcome could have been foreseen. The Roman ambassadors behaved authoritatively and menacingly, and this does not always evoke sympathy in their interlocutors. Therefore, it is natural that their displeasure did not find an echo in the Eastern fathers. At the next meeting, the ambassadors made a statement that in their absence a resolution was made that disagreed with the instructions given to them by Leo the Great, and that moral violence was done to the fathers of the council. At an additional meeting, this issue was considered, and the fathers demanded that the ambassadors indicate with what opinions Leo did not agree with the resolution of the council. The ambassadors referred to the instructions of the pope, which commanded to preserve the hierarchical order of departments existing in the church and to protest against its violation. When they were asked for canonical grounds, they referred to canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, which begins with the words: “Let the ancient customs be preserved.” The legates read this rule with an addition in favor of the primacy of the Roman bishop: “The Roman Church has always had primacy.” When the original Greek rule was read, there was no increase. It should be noted that if this fact had happened in Carthage, they would have acted differently: the papal legates would have been forced there to drink the cup of humiliation to the dregs. The Eastern fathers stated the correct reading of this passage, but did not make historical references; references would have been unfavorable for Roman prestige. Less than 40 years have passed since Rome laid claim to dominance in Carthage. To clarify the exact text of the rules of the Council of Nicaea, African bishops then sent to the east for the original canons, and they were sent to Rome in an accurate Latin translation. But this aspect of the matter was not emphasized at all at the Council of Chalcedon. Rule 28 remained in force despite the objections of the legates. In addition, the fathers stated that they made this decision completely voluntarily. It was not easy for Leo the Great to come to terms with this. He protested sharply against this canon in letters to the emperor, empress and Anatoly himself, but the grounds for his protest were weak. Schaff fairly assessed the false position in which Dad found himself in his polemics. “Leo declared the elevation of the Bishop of Constantinople to the rank of Patriarch a matter of pride and ambition - he, a humble and modest pope - an invasion of the rights of other eastern metropolitans - he, who allowed himself such invasions in Gaul - and above all in the rights of the Roman throne guaranteed by the Council of Nicaea - on the basis of later Roman interpolation - and a violation of the church peace - which the popes never violated"*. * Ph. Schaff, Geschichte der alten Kirche. Leipzig 1867. S. 659. The rights granted by the Council of Chalcedon to the Patriarch of Constantinople insulted, in Leo's opinion, the rights of metropolitans, although in fact they did not exceed the rights, for example, of the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, especially since Leo himself did not care about respecting the rights of metropolitans. He recently (in 451) asked Anatoly of Constantinople to take care of Eusebius of Doryleia, but Doryleia was under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Sinnad, and the latter to the Exarch of Ephesus in the Asian diocese. Thus, Dorilea was outside the influence of Constantinople. The pope persistently put forward the ecclesiastical significance of the sees and considered their elevation for political reasons to be unfair, while political motives were generally the main reasons for the elevation of the sees, and Rome itself rose thanks to this. One of the papal legates, Julian of Cos, advised Leo the Great to recognize the accomplished fact, but the pope did not agree to recognize the 28th rule. Thus ended the first act of this struggle between Rome and the East. Anatoly of Constantinople wrote a peace-loving message to Rome. This circumstance, incomprehensible at first glance, will be clear if we recall the ethnographic and psychological characteristics of the types of East and West. The psychology of these types was completely disparate. In this case, the east lost because the Greeks were generally capable of conceding. A difficult historical past weighed heavily on the Hellenes. The East has not developed a solid historical character for itself, so that it could face Rome and defend itself on legal grounds. The Greeks overestimated those aspects of their nature that they recognize as the most characteristic: flexibility of mind, subtlety of observation and faith in the power of their eloquence. If a similar incident had occurred in Carthage, the prestige of the pope would have been dealt a direct blow, but here it turned out differently. The Council and Anatoly, having decided to stand firmly for the 28th rule, did not speak out decisively against the pope, so the blow was dealt indirectly. The pope was not challenged as a person interfering in something other than his own business, but they began to appease him as an angry ruler. The council presented the matter in such a way that the papal legates did not understand it. Pope Leo did not seem to let his legates know the secret of Rome's relations with Constantinople. According to the fathers of the council, Leo will even be happy about the rise of Constantinople, because this rise tends to the honor of Rome itself. Constantinople - the second Rome; By elevating the second Rome, the cathedral thereby elevated the first. Thus, the whole matter looked as if the council, on the one hand, by the elevation of Constantinople, and on the other, by the adoption of the “tomos,” honored the pope, and on its own behalf asked him to honor them (the fathers of the council) by approving the Chalcedonian definition of Constantinople. But such eloquence did not move the pope at all. He wanted to destroy this decree by his silence about the council. Emperor Marcian intervened in the matter, who was put in an awkward position by the pope’s attitude to the matter. Marcian demanded that Leo speak out definitely, and Leo had to speak. But even before the approval of Pope 28, the rule of the Council of Chalcedon in the east entered church life, and in Rome the message of Anatoly was looked upon as an appeal to the pope for resolution of the issue of the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople. During the Acacian unrest, Gelasius quoted the Epistle of Anatolia as a rejection of the definition of the Council of Chalcedon. This is how this matter appears in history. We, the East, can refer to the meaning of the fact, and this fact speaks in our favor: the rule is read in the list of resolutions of the council, although the phrases and floweriness do not speak in our favor. But here only the difference in the characters of the East and West is manifested. Heads that evaluate facts by their meaning will adhere to the Eastern understanding of the Chalcedonian definition. In any case, the peace was not broken this time. But church discord soon followed due to the Acacian schism. Akaki Constantinople phenomenon is quite problematic. He more or less sympathized with the Monophysites and served the civil authorities. The Council of Chalcedon issued "όρος" and the 28th rule. Basilisk, wanting to annex the Monophysites, decided to abolish the “ ́ρος ”, but Akakios raised a storm, because to shake the Council of Chalcedon meant to reduce the significance of the See of Constantinople to insignificance. He imposed mourning in the churches, and the emperor had to initially yield, and then even lost his throne due to the opposition of Acacius and the Orthodox. The matter came down to the fact that the government, represented by Zinon, the new emperor, had to reckon with the need to act in favor of Orthodoxy. Akaki himself was ready to make peace with the Monophysites, but could not now openly take their point of view; so he is confused in his relationships. In Alexandria, the patriarch at this time was Peter Mong, a moderate Monophysite who, unfortunately, was under the influence of the Egyptian monastic masses. In Antioch, the patriarch was Peter Gnafevs, a Monophysite so zealous that Akaki himself boasted that he had never had communication with him. On this basis, one can doubt that the composition of ένωτικόν 'a belongs to Akaki. Meanwhile, ένωτικόν served as the basis for the Roman bishop to accuse him of heresy. It was easy to condemn Akaki. He spoke favorably about Peter Monga, who accepted ένωτικόν and was recognized as bishop of Alexandria. And this latter was in communication with Peter Gnafevs, although Akaki himself boasted that he had never had communication with him. In Rome there were no heads capable of dogmatic subtleties, but there were good lawyers who immediately saw the inconsistency of Acacius. They looked at heresy as contagies - leprosy, infection. If Akaki was not in communication with Gnafevs, then he had contact with Mong, who had communication with Gnafev, and, therefore, through contact, the infection of heresy through a third party makes Akaki a heretic. The reason for bringing charges against him was the flight of John Talaya to Rome. The personality of John Talaya is least worthy of comparison with Athanasius, in whose position he found himself. His past was not a bright one. He sympathized with the Monophysites, and, perhaps, was already ready to openly go over to their side, but the Orthodox elected him to the see of St. Brand. There were two charges against him: political rebellion and perjury. He participated in a conspiracy against Emperor Zinon and upon pardoning, he swore an oath not to occupy the Alexandrian see. That is why his election as Patriarch of Alexandria in Constantinople was not recognized as legal. John Talaya sent his authorized deacons for approval and gave them secret instructions to be guided in everything by the advice of the nobleman Illus. This one happened to be in Antioch at that time. The ambassadors, not daring to present the sociable letter to Acacius without Ilus, went to Antioch. Akakiy was offended that the people who had apparently come to him disappeared. Meanwhile, from Rome they demanded news from Acacius about the state of Egyptian affairs. Peter Mong, who recognized the henotikon, was installed as bishop of Alexandria, and John went to Rome with a complaint to Felix II. The Pope condemned the henotikon, excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople Acacius from church communion, as well as Peter Mong, saying to the first: “Know that by the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the apostolic authority you will never be removed from the bonds of anathema” (July 28, 484). This excommunication, brought to the attention of Acacius, caused fermentation, and a rift began between the churches. Acacius's successors, Patriarchs of Constantinople Macedonia and Euthymius, were completely Orthodox, were deposed for their struggle against the Monophysites and were even canonized as confessors. But Rome, having created a scheme of contagion, held fast to it. During this so-called schism of Acacia Gelasius I of Rome loudly declared papist tendencies before the Greek Illyrian bishops. Acacius, according to him, without the permission of Rome, did not have the right to conduct the matter of restoring the Alexandrian bishop Peter Mong, who had previously been deposed, since Acacius is only the suffragan of the Metropolitan of Herakleia, and the bishop of Alexandria, as the bishop of the second apostolic see, is subject only to the bishop of the first apostolic see, the Roman one. By virtue of Petrov's primacy, the Bishop of Rome approves the verdicts of the councils, decides many things without councils, accepts appeals from everywhere, but no appeal is possible from the Roman verdict. This Latin message from Gelasius was probably not known to everyone in the east, and did not cause any formal protest. The Acacian schism ended in triumph for the Roman bishop. This is not difficult to understand, since the so-called “Acacians” were not Monophysites at all, but Orthodox, and were burdened by such an abnormality as a break with Orthodox Rome. General Vitalian, who abandoned Emperor Anastasius, took advantage of this discontent, and through a series of victories forced Anastasius to enter into negotiations with Rome, which, under Anastasius, were, however, unsuccessful. And when the Orthodox Justin reigned (April 9, 518), on the very first Sunday the Orthodox insistently demanded from the Patriarch of Constantinople John of Cappadocia anathema to Severus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, and the solemn glorification of the memory of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. The anathema was pronounced, σύναξις in honor of the Council of Chalcedon was performed on July 6. On this day, the people demanded that the names of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Euphemia († August 5, about 500) and Macedonia II († April 25, 516), who died in exile for Orthodoxy, be included in the diptychs. And this request was then fulfilled. This triumph of Orthodoxy over the temporarily prevailing Monophysitism was finally expressed at the Council of Constantinople (of 40 bishops) on July 20, which considered and recognized as subject to satisfaction a petition of 5 points: 1) restore the names of Euthymius and Macedonius II in diptychs and transfer their mortal remains to Constantinople, 2) return to the sees of all bishops exiled for supporting Euthymius and Macedonia, 3) include four ecumenical councils in the diptychs, 4) also the name of Leo the Great of Rome, and 5) anathematize Sevirus. The resolutions of the councils of Jerusalem (August 6, 518), Tire (September 16, 518) and Apamea were of the same nature. The only thing left for the Orthodox Eastern Church to do was to formally restore communion with the Orthodox West. For this purpose, negotiations were started with Rome, and before Easter 519 (Easter - March 31), the ambassadors of Pope Hormisda, bishops John and Germanus, Presbyter Bland, and deacons Felix and Dioscorus, arrived in Constantinople with very specific instructions that suggested abuse of the benefits of their position. The legates' path to Constantinople resembled a triumphal procession. Arriving in the capital, they insisted that Patriarch John sign the libellus brought from Rome or the so-called formula Hormisdae, in which, among other things, the following lines are read: “Prima salus est rectae fidei regulam custodire, et a patrum traditione nullatenus deviare; quia non potest Domini nostri Jesu Christi praetermitti sententia, dicentis: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Haec quae dicta sunt rerum probantur effectibus: quia in sede apostolica inviolabilis semper catholica custoditur religio. De hac igitur fide non cadere cupientes, sed patrum sequentes in omnibus constituta, anathematisamus omnes haereses.– Anathematizamus similiter Acacium quondam Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopum, complicem eorum [Eutyches – Dioscorus – Mongas] et sequacem factum, nec non et perseverantes eorum communioni et participationi.– Spero in una communione vobiscum, quam apostolica sedes praedicat – me futurum, promittens in sequenti tempore sequestratos a communione Ecclesiae catholicae, id est in omnibus non consentientes sedi apostolicae, eorum nomina inter sacra non recitanda esse mysteria. Quodsi in aliquo a professione mea deviare tentavero, his quos condemnavi, per condemnationem propriam consortem me esse profiteor" 67. On Maundy Thursday (March 28), in coena Domini (at the Lord's Table), John signed this libellus. On the same day, in the presence of the legates, the names of Acacius and his successor bishops, as well as the emperors Zeno and Anastasius, were crossed out from the diptych. Thus Rome celebrated its victory over the imaginary Monophysites in Constantinople. But the province turned out to be more resistant than the capital: they had nothing against the anathema to the Monophysites, but they did not want to hear about the exclusion of Orthodox bishops from diptychs simply because they had communication with Akakios and his Orthodox successors. And the legates were forced to give in and not insist. The great church subsequently joined the provincial point of view: Euthymius and Macedonius II were canonized (August 5 and April 25). The vanquished are usually outraged not so much by the enemy’s victory itself as by the immoderate triumph of the victors. The legates had to experience this where they, perhaps, expected the least resistance - in Thessalonica, from the pope's vicar, Bishop Dorotheus. This bishop had contact with the Church of Constantinople, and during the legates' journey to the capital he refused to sign the libellus he was carrying, promising, however, to do so later, when he received notification from Constantinople. The ambassadors probably irritated the Thessalonian flock quite a bit by staying with a certain John, a zealous champion of Roman views, who therefore “semper separatus fuit a communione Dorothei propter synodum Chalcedonensem” 68 . When, having completed the matter in Constantinople, the legates returned to Thessalonica to collect subscriptions to the libellus, Dorotheus called the bishops subordinate to him to a council and apparently wanted to somewhat impress the legates with a popular demonstration against them. In any case, for some reason it was forbidden to serve the liturgy outside the city limits, and the masses of the surrounding population crowded into Thessalonica. Dorotheus had some objections to libellus and allegedly spoke of a danger threatening faith. The agitation swept the city. Mothers were advised to quickly bring their babies to baptism so that, with the onset of persecution, the children would not die as pagans, and two days before the arrival of the ambassadors, as if on a new Easter, Dorotheus baptized over 2000 souls. Spare St. gifts began to be distributed to the people (due to the threatening confusion) in whole baskets. This excited the mob so much that when the arriving legates stayed with their John catholicus, a riot suddenly broke out against them. Ioannes catholicus was killed, the legate Bishop John was wounded, and all the legates could barely escape in the Baptistery of St. Brand. Placing responsibility for everything that happened directly on the “heretic” Dorotheus and the outstanding presbyter Aristides, the legates wrote to Gormisda about everything that happened. A letter immediately arrived from the pope to the legates who had returned to Constantinople: the “heretic” Dorotheus should no longer be considered a bishop; petition the emperor to send Dorotheus to Rome for trial before the pope; to elect a trustworthy person and not Prester Aristides to fill the vacant position of Bishop of Thessalonica. But it so happened that Dorotheus was summoned by the emperor to Constantinople, apparently acquitted, and in any case was not sent to Rome, but returned to Thessalonica, where he died as an archbishop revered by the people (ό άγιώτατος). And his successor was precisely Aristide, as it became known from the monument published in 1887*. * V. Rose, Leben des heiligen David von Thessalonike. Berlin 1887. There is no doubt that under Justinian (at the beginning of the dispute about the three chapters) respect for the Roman bishop in the east was very high, but there is also no doubt that Roman prestige was dealt a blow when Vigilius, having become in decisive opposition to Justinian, was sent into exile. Pelagius, his successor, was on good terms with the east. But this cannot be said generally about the Western Church. This time could be called a crisis if the East had a correct view of the affairs of the West. In the east they valued Rome precisely because, entering into church communion with this center of the west, they entered into communion with the entire Western church. But since the V Ecumenical Council, relations in the West were such that these Eastern expectations did not correspond. Relations between East and West were, so to speak, half-hearted. The bishop of Rome had relations with the Eastern and Western churches, but some Western bishops did not have relations with him. Actually, the opposition lasted longer than other regions in northern Italy and ended after 681 (about 700). Opposition to the V Ecumenical Council in Gaul and Spain had died down earlier and did not reach schism; but in any case the Spanish councils in the 6th and 7th centuries. ignore the V Ecumenical Council. A few strokes falling on the interval between the V and VI Ecumenical Councils clarify the nature of Rome’s relations to the east. It is known that the Bishop of Rome and other important bishops had their representatives in Constantinople - άποκρισιάριοι, responsales, whose position was largely civil. They could be called agents of the Roman Church at the court of Constantinople, but also under the bishop of Constantinople. The Roman apocrisiaries had to vigilantly ensure that the see of Constantinople did not make great strides that were unfavorable for Rome. After the flight of Patriarch Sevier, the see of Antioch in 519 became vacant. They appointed Paul bishop and wanted to ordain him - against the canons - in Constantinople (the Patriarch of Antioch, according to the canons, had the right to ordain metropolitans, and all the metropolitans of the east ordained him). The energetic protest of the papal legate Dioscorus led to Epiphanius of Constantinople going to Antioch and ordaining Paul there. In 538, the success of the Patriarch of Constantinople was more significant. Mina of Constantinople, in the presence of the Apocrisiaries - Roman, Antioch and Jerusalem, ordained Paul as bishop of Alexandria in Constantinople. We learn that this person was put forward by the Roman apocrisiary Pelagius. There was a division of influences here. The Roman bishop could see his influence here in the fact that he ordained the Roman elect, the Patriarch of Constantinople - in the fact that he ordained the bishop of Alexandria in Constantinople. However, Roman success here was ephemeral. One sad story led to the deposition of Paul, and the Roman apocrisiary was entrusted with the duty by Emperor Justinian, together with the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem and Ephesus, to go to the east and remove the omophorion from Paul. And in 572, John IV of Alexandria accepted consecration from John Scholasticus of Constantinople. In Rome they took care that the See of Constantinople did not spread its influence among other Eastern churches. The clash between the east and Rome occurred in the second half of the 6th century*. * Wed. N. Geizer, Der Streit über den Titel des ökumenischen Patriarchen, in Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, XIII (1887), S. 549–584. Around 588, canonical accusations were brought against the Patriarch of Antioch Gregory. The emperor transferred this matter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was John the Faster (582, † August 30, 595). He was an ascetic in the strict sense of the word, and in appearance he was as dry as a sliver. His humility was precisely monastic. He was a sacellar and deacon of the Church of Constantinople. And when, after the death of Eutyches, the choice fell on him, he energetically refused, and he had to be taken under a kind of arrest to the palace. Not agreeing to be a patriarch, he put forward, among other things, the reason that he could not see the people until 3 o’clock in the afternoon. But he, being very strict with himself, was at the same time lenient with others. The penitential rules of John the Faster were recognized (at the council of 1081 in Constantinople) as a model of leniency towards human weaknesses. He showed a broad mind and a warm heart in the department. It is a fact that he took an energetic part in the persecution of pagans by the government of Constantinople, but this paganism was combined with magic. But he also opposed persecution of heterodox Christians. When, upon entering the department, he was asked to allow police persecution of Monophysites and referred to the fact that this was the case under Eutyches, he did not agree and answered very cleverly (he recommended asking Eutyches now whether he allows these persecutions). Subsequently, when Emperor Mauritius spoke about the same thing, John became sad. “Why are we going to persecute the diacrinomenes? What have they said or done other than what is in accordance with their religion?” With this John stopped the persecution. The Roman bishop Pelagius II (578–590) and then Gregory Dvoeslov (590–604) clashed with this John the Faster. This struggle began over the case of Gregory of Antioch. The acts of the court were sent to Rome. The Pope was indignant that the Patriarch of Constantinople in these acts “se universalem appellare conatus est” 69, and forbade his apocrisiary (archdeacon) to officiate with him, and “ejusdem synodi acta ex auctoritate sancti Petri apostoli cassavit” 70, with the exception, however, of the acquittal of Gregory. How these tense relations established under Pelagius ended is unknown, but Gregory the Great remained on good terms with John for a long time. Around 593, disputes resumed. Two elders were charged with heresy. The acts were sent to Rome. From these, Gregory saw [that John “se paene per omnem versum οίκουμενικόν patriarcham nominaret” (“superbum ac pestiferum oecumenicum, hoc est, universalis vocabulum”)] 71. Gregory accused him of pride, ambition, exaltation, etc., but it is difficult to indicate what exactly the corpus delicti 72 consisted of, the very fact for which John was accused. In the sacramental sense, all patriarchs are only bishops. Thus, at all councils, from the III to the VII Ecumenical Councils, the patriarchs were signed by the bishops. But in addressing them and speaking about them (at councils - from the IV Ecumenical Council), the title of archbishop comes into force, but there is no fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople calls himself an archbishop. Even later the name of the patriarch appeared. From the end of the 5th century. it began to be given to the main bishops and came into force more and more, and in the 8th and 9th centuries. is finally established (of Constantinople in the 6th century they are titled αρχιεπίσκοπος και πατριάρχης). As for the title “ecumenical”, for the first time it was adopted by Dioscorus at the robber council (as Bishop Olympius of Evasus from Asia called him), then at the Council of Chalcedon Leo the Great was called “ecumenical”, but not by the fathers of the council, but in the complaints of the Alexandrians against Dioscorus, filed in the name of Leo and the ecumenical council (in the signature of the legate Paschasinus, Leo the Great called "universalis [Greek translation οικουμενικής ] ecclesiae papa"). Then this title is found applied to John of Cappadocia, Patriarch of Constantinople, in 518 and 519, but already amounts to something completely ordinary. Apparently, this custom was established during the “Akakian schism.” The same title, without any doubt, is also given to the popes in the east: Gormisda (514–523), Bonifatius II (530–532), Agapitus I (535–536), Theodore I (642–649), Martin I (649–655), Domnus (676–678), Agathon (678–681), Leo II (682–683), John V (685–686) and John VI (701–705). The meaning of this title is, of course, very broad. The title of “ecumenical patriarch,” of course, does not denote episcopacy only over a certain part of the universe, because all bishops could also be called ecumenical, but over the “universe.” The ecumenical bishop is the one who stands in the center. Byzantine emperors were titled δεσπόται της οικουμένης 73. By analogy with this, the title “ecumenical patriarch” appeared. Therefore, when in Rome they learned about the title with which the Patriarch of Constantinople was called, there was discontent. From a comparison of all the places in the correspondence of Gregory the Great, the conclusion is that John himself did not call himself ecumenical and did not sign with such a title; therefore, he did not introduce any innovation. Gregory demanded from John “ne stulto ac superbo vocabulo appellari consentiat” 74 . It is easy to understand that under the acts sent to Rome, John signed “επίσκοπος”, but in the patriarchal office he was constantly titled ecumenical, in phrases such as “ό άγιώτατος αρχιεπίσκοπος και οικουμενικός πατριάρχης ειπεν", or "προκαθεξομένου του άγιωτάτου ημών αρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως και οικουμενικού πατριάρχου Ιωάννου "75. John allowed himself to be called this way. But by the time of John the Faster, this title was current; John could, precisely because of his character (humility), not renounce this title, because such a renunciation would only emphasize the important meaning of the title. Gregory interpreted this title essentially, philologically, and exaggerated it. He said that if John is an ecumenical bishop, then he is the only bishop in the universe, and, therefore, other bishops are not bishops, that this, in any case, humiliates the eastern bishops - Antioch and Alexandria, and therefore wrote a letter to the emperor and empress, and to John the Faster, and to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and to Anastasius of Antioch, thus adding to this matter general church significance. He ordered his apocrisiary (deacon) to stop serving in Constantinople with John the Faster. But the answer to this appeal from the east was most unexpected for Gregory. Eulogius of Alexandria, out of politeness, seemed to share the opinion of Gregory, but at the same time he gave the ecumenical title to Gregory himself as the bishop of Rome. Gregory zealously protested against such politeness and developed the idea of ​​​​the equality of all bishops. But Anastasius of Antioch (in a letter not preserved, but the meaning of which is known from Gregory’s answer) made Gregory himself responsible for the unrest that he “for no reason” caused in the church: “me dicitis morum meorum debere reminisci et maligno spiritui quaerenti animas cribrare pro nulla causa locum dare” 76. Emperor Mauritius also replied: “ut pro appellatione frivoli (empty, walking, beaten) nominis inter nos scandalum generari non debeat” 77. So, the East reacted to these Roman appeals with complete indifference. When, after the death of John, Cyriacus (595–606) took the throne, he, not recognizing the gap between the churches, sent his sociable message to Rome and was supported by the emperor, and Gregory made some concessions. Gregory, in a reply letter to Kyriacou, praised him for his Orthodoxy, but advised him to renounce the title “ecumenical”. He did not allow his apocrisiary to serve together with Cyriacus, but he accepted the bearer of the synodics, Cyriacus, into his community*. * With this synodical incident came an incident which illuminates the weakness of Roman erudition in ecclesiastical history. In his sociable letter, Cyriacus among other things listed the heretics whom he recognized as condemned, and among them was the name of Eudoxius of Constantinople (an Arian). Gregory the Great became suspicious of Cyriacus at this point, fearing that he might anathematize someone Orthodox, and turned to Eulogius of Alexandria to resolve the question of who this unknown Eudoxius in Rome was. And when Eulogius reassured the pope that Eudoxius was a heretic, and referred to the story of Sozomen, Gregory again fell into hesitation, since Sozomen, allegedly, “is not accepted by the Roman Church.” During the ill-fated reign of Phocas, the Roman bishops continued to agitate against the title "ecumenical", and, apparently, not without success. Boniface III (606–606) managed to obtain a decree from Phocas: “ut sedes apostolica beati Petri apostoli caput esset omnium ecclesiarum, id est ecclesia Romana, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat” 78. That Phocas forbade the bishop of Constantinople to give the title οικουμενικός is not clear from this news (but Phocas could have had displeasure with Cyriacus for the latter’s strict protection [this is a fact] of the church right of asylum); and the right to the title of “ecumenical” was never denied to the bishop of Constantinople and Rome. In any case, the Patriarch of Constantinople, despite all sorts of Roman protests, retained the controversial title to this day. The Roman meaning of the opposition against the title “ecumenical” in the correspondence of Gregory I was closed by the fact that Gregory raised the issue on a common basis, understood it as the matter of all bishops; his humility did not allow him to display his own advantages. However, humility also has two ends. Gregory called himself “servus servorum Dei” 79, but this title is more pretentious than οικουμενικός πατριάρχης: from Mark 10:44 it is clear that this is what “primus” should be. But this, which Gregory kept silent about, was explained by Adrian I (772–795) in his letters to Empress Irene and Tarasius of Constantinople (dated October 26, 785). Empress Irina, notifying Adrian about the installation of Tarasius as Bishop of Constantinople, called, according to custom, Tarasius “ecumenical patriarch.” In response to this, Adrian asks: what should he think about this title? Is there imperitia, or schisma, or haeresis hidden in it? 80 If the one who is called “ecumenical” thereby makes it clear that he is superior to the bishop of Rome, supra praelatam sibi sanctam Romanam ecclesiam, quae est caput omnium Dei ecclesiarum, describatur 81, then he, without a doubt, exposes himself as an opponent of St. councils and heretic; if he is “ecumenical”, then he - funny to say - has primacy even over the pulpit of the Roman Church. In the end, the pope speaks very categorically: whoever calls himself ecumenical is alien to the Orthodox faith. So, the struggle against the title “ecumenical” turned out to be a struggle for Roman supremacy. Thus, the communication between the Roman see and the See of Constantinople, which was restored this time, was complicated by not at all peaceful inclinations, which led to the separation of the churches. The same was the relationship between Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. If in the question of the appointment of Photius, Nicholas did not express his view on the title “οικουμενικός”, then in his letter to the Bulgarians he raised the question of the See of Constantinople clearly. To the question of the Bulgarians: how many real patriarchs (veraciter patriarchae) are there, Nicholas I answered that there are three: Roman, Alexandrian and Antioch; there are two more bishops: Constantinople and Jerusalem, who are called patriarchs, but they do not have the same authority as veraciter patriarchae; they are patriarchs, so to speak, honoris causa. The reason for this is that the real patriarchs are the successors of the sees founded by the supreme apostles (principes apostolorum) Peter and Paul. And the See of Constantinople 1) was not founded by the apostles, 2) was not mentioned at the first ecumenical council, which is more glorious and honorable than all others (on May 11, 330, Constantinople was just founded), and 3) its advantages owe to the political significance of Constantinople. And the see of Jerusalem, although mentioned at the Council of Nicaea, is not under the name of Jerusalem, but under the name of Elia (that is, the pope puts forward here against the see of Jerusalem precisely that motive [the political significance of the city], the use of which in favor of Constantinople he considers inappropriate). Of course, if the Jerusalem church under the pen of the pope already appears without clear signs of an apostolic see, then the bishop of Constantinople could never become veraciter patriarcha. Thus, by the time of Photius, Rome's views on Constantinople were firm, having a long series of precedents, and the new moment in history constitutes the transition of the bishop of Constantinople to the offensive. With the encyclical of 867, Photius invited the eastern patriarchs to an ecumenical council to judge (no one, according to Gelasius, subject to jurisdiction) the Pope of Rome, and accused him of heresy. This heresy was the word Filioque. This Western view of the procession of the Holy Spirit has long confused the Eastern. Even Maximus the Confessor (c. 650), in his letter to Marinus, tries to explain this expression, which the Monothelites met with Pope Martin and explained in such a way as to cast a shadow on Martin’s Orthodoxy. This incident was of little consequence because the objections came from the misguided. In 767, during the iconoclastic unrest, the east sent an embassy to the west, about which a council was convened in Gentilly (Gentilliacum), at which the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was discussed. What was decided at this council is unknown, because the acts of this council have not survived to us. But from this time on, literature appeared in the West (Alcuin, Theodulf of Orleans, Peacock of Aquileia, Libri Carolini) in defense of the Filioque. At the beginning of the 9th century. From the Western monks on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, Leo III (795–816) received a complaint against the Eastern ones, who suspected the Western ones of heresy because of the use of the Filioque. The Council of Aachen in 809 spoke in favor of Western monks. The maneuvering policy of the popes finally ended with them becoming defenders of the Filioque. Photius looked at this view as heresy. The Western Church did not abandon Filioque. The eruption of Etna or Vesuvius cannot be covered with sand. So the palliative peace agreements between East and West did not bring any real benefit. This is the significance of 867 as an era. Finally, on July 16, 1054, the final break took place. Counting the period from the Edict of Milan to Photius (312–857), we have 545 years of relations between the Eastern and Western churches. If we calculate the time required for peaceful relations, we get about 300 years, the remaining 200 years are during the breakup. Precisely, with the Council of Serdica-Philippopolis in 343, the break that had been planned since 340 began. For the entire east, this gap did not cease at the same time. It can be assumed that it stopped in 379, when the Antiochian fathers signed documents sent from the west and entered into communication with Rome. But at the council of 381, the issue of Paulinus and Meletius of Antioch became aggravated again, and because of this, communication between the Roman and Antiochian churches was broken, and this gap lasted until 398, when, with the assistance of John Chrysostom, communication was restored. Thus, for the Patriarchate of Antioch the gap lasted 55 years (343 + 55 = 398). Because of the enoticon of Zinon, a gap arose that lasted 35 years. It is difficult to determine the duration of the break itself caused by the dispute over the three heads, because the break continued sporadically and did not end simultaneously in the West. Because of the title "universal" the gap lasted about 15 years (588–604). Then, the excitement about the Monothelites - from 640 to 678 = 38 years. And finally, the gap lasted for about 82 years during the iconoclastic unrest (730–785 and 815–842). Thus, 55+35+38+82210 years, not counting the turmoil over the three chapters and the universal title. If we add to this that in the rest of the time relations between the West and the East were not always particularly cordial, then the transition to relations after Photius and even after Cyrullarius loses the character of contrast. Thus, the patriarchal power of the Roman bishop over the Western churches and the consciousness of ecclesiastical primacy strengthened and developed in parallel. These two aspirations intertwined and supported each other. In both respects, the Roman bishops achieved a lot, but the development of the papist idea almost outpaced the strengthening of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the West. As a Latin patriarch, the Bishop of Rome extended his influence over the largest of the church dioceses - from the Balkans to the Atlantic Ocean, from the Rhine to the sandy Moorish deserts, and only in the north of Italy was his power not strengthened. Even greater were the ideas that Rome wanted to build on. On the throne of St. Peter was not seated as an ordinary bishop, with a purely nominal primacy among his equal brothers. No, the Roman bishops saw in themselves the living embodiment of the prince of the apostles - and that’s how others looked at them, especially in the West. Ex divina institutione they arrogated to themselves the right of supervision over the entire universal church. No one should have raised his head to equality with them; they should have had the last, decisive word in church matters, to which there was no one else to appeal; Their judge was recognized only by God, and none of the bishops. Here the idea of ​​ecclesiastical primacy reaches the proportions in which it was presented to the minds of medieval popes; this image still lacks the colors, the vitality that historical facts later gave it, the difference between a word justified by historical facts and a simple claim - but its outline is the same here and there. The Roman bishops achieved success in a way that was not always pure; they were not averse to an alliance with the worst elements of Christian society, as long as it led to the establishment of their authority. Their goals have been well served by even the most political disasters that have befallen private Western churches. But the connection that had been established between Rome and the Western churches was already so strong that it made one forget about its beginning. The Gallic bishops of the Council of 501 were only separated by half a century from Hilary of Arles; but the difference in their views was enormous. Such successes cannot be explained by some isolated, not entirely pure trick. The future of the Roman see in the west was destined to be brilliant: the autocephalous bishops of northern Italy did not want to recognize the jurisdiction of Rome, but they recognized the idea of ​​Roman primacy, the non-jurisdiction of the Roman bishop to his fellows. The struggle under such conditions could only be waged on factual, and not principled, grounds. And autocephalous impulses were devoid of solid logical foundations. The successes of the Roman high priests in the east were weak, but not to the extent that appears from the point of view of later relations. More than one fact would have to be curtailed in order to bring it under the modest frame of the doctrine of primacy among equals, and the primatus honoris of Rome in the East finds its expression in events in which the primatus potestatis is strongly mixed. In any case, it is indisputable that the papacy quickly reached its peak only after the final break with the Eastern Church, which means that the influence of the latter delayed this historical process. The fact that the popes, who spoke with such authority in the West, very much lowered their tone when they addressed the bishops of the East, speaks precisely of this influence of the East, as an opposing and slowing force. But it is precisely these facts that give us the right to think that the Eastern Church, represented by its representatives, remained not indifferent in the development of the papacy. The latter, of course, is the result of the history of the Western Church, favorable circumstances; but among these circumstances, a prominent place is occupied by the tact of the high priests of Rome and the tactlessness of the eastern hierarchs. We are not talking about the positive influence of the East on the growth of the papacy, although in kind letters to the popes from the East there are expressions about which their authors could only think and reflect; let the influence of these excesses of Greek floridity be negligible. The East rendered an important service to Rome in a negative way - through its various types of allowances, through the fact that it did not fully demonstrate its significance as a slowing, resisting force. In fact, relations between the two halves of the Christian world have long assumed a character that can hardly be called completely healthy. The Eastern churches are beginning to withdraw into the circle of their own life and see nothing beyond certain dogmatic interests. The theory of non-intervention is practiced in the East to an exaggeration; There is no noticeable desire here to take a closer look at the spiritual life of the West. It is impossible to point out a single church issue that would have been resolved there under the influence of the Eastern churches. How many times have popes declared themselves in disputes alone about the most important sees in the East! On the contrary, although in Rome itself the elections were more than once controversial, these unrest were settled by their own, local means, without any interference from the hierarchs of the east. Not to mention the Priscillianists, the case of Leporius - even the most Pelagian dispute was resolved in the West, one might say, without the knowledge of the Eastern Church - and this was when history itself called on the Eastern Church to participate in this matter (because it was initiated at the Council of Diospolis), when, by the very content of the dogmatic difference, the Eastern Fathers with their sustained synergy were the best, the most desirable mediators in this matter - when the Pelagians sought support for their views in the teachings of Chrysostom, when they directly appealed from Rome to the court of the eastern bishops, and for this purpose traveled to the east. And as a result of all this, only Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius responded to this appeal with an essay. The very matter of the Pelagians in the east remained unknown; the Western decision was made here with complete formalism, and the name of Celestius was included among the notorious heretics. Obviously, all this could be an eloquent factual lesson for Western Christians on the topic: “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” 82. There is no point in expecting support from anywhere against the Roman verdict; All that remains is either to submit, or to fight at your own risk and not on legal grounds. It is not surprising that the church life of the West and its vital interests were terra incognita in the East. The struggle for the autonomy of the Gallican and African bishops went unnoticed in the east; not once do we see anyone in the east trying to support these churches the way the popes supported the bishops of Alexandria against the attacks of Constantinople. In the East, apparently, they did not pay attention to what kind of ideas are gradually entering the church consciousness of the West, what character the church organization takes here. The very clear teaching of Leo the Great about Roman supremacy over the entire universal church did not cause alarm in anyone in the east, and it was unlikely that it became known here in a timely manner. On the contrary, in the east they acted directly in the interests of Roman centralization. It is enough to pay attention to the fact that relations between the East and private Western churches have now ceased, at least, history does not speak about them. While resolving the most important dogmatic issues at the ecumenical councils, they cared little about ensuring that the Western Church was represented with sufficient completeness. Neither at the Council of Ephesus nor at the Council of Chalcedon do we meet plenipotentiary representatives of the churches of Gaul and Spain. Inviting not only Eastern metropolitans, but also bishops to the council, the emperors do not care about attracting Western bishops to a more active role, to the most active participation; Relations with them are conducted through the popes, which, of course, elevated their importance as a church center. The very struggle with the popes from the east was not carried out with the energy that would have been desirable. Only the Council of Antioch in 341 spoke to the Roman hierarch in a firm and decisive language, expressed without any extravagance the views of the Eastern Church and protested the intervention of the popes on the merits, and it was, unfortunately, a semi-Arian council. In the following time, the eastern bishops never raised their voices to the note that the church was accustomed to hear in the messages of the Roman high priests; they were most often addressed in a tone of feigned humility, applying to the point of exaggeration the rule: “a bad peace is better than a good war.” In the east, it was as if they did not want to understand that every Roman claim matters not only for the present, but also for the future. There is no example where the eastern bishops looked at such claims as seriously as the fathers of the Council of Carthage, and promptly took measures to finally resolve the controversial issue. The Roman bishop demands Nectarius of Constantinople and Flavian of Antioch to appear before him for trial. This claim, perhaps, only arouses a smile in the East; but no decisive answer in the spirit of the Council of Antioch; the entire struggle is limited to passive resistance. It did not require special insight to understand that from their systematic avoidance of participation in ecumenical councils, the Roman bishops create a special privilege of the apostolic see. And yet in the East no serious attempt is made to oblige the popes to appear at the council and thus make them feel that they are equal to other bishops. On the contrary, papal legates appear at councils with impossible instructions, not as brothers, but as judges, and they are surrounded with all kinds of honor. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon inflicts a strong defeat on the papal species, but - unfortunately - it was not a direct and open blow, but a little crafty. The whole matter was given the appearance on paper as if the well-known definition had been issued by mistake, and the Eastern fathers acted without awareness of their right. The Pope refused to recognize Canon 28, intending to strike the Patriarch of Constantinople with his thunder. In response to this, Anatoly writes with the air of a guilty child and makes excuses; the emperor also speaks to Leo respectfully and modestly. Instead of showing the forgotten hierarch his boundaries, reminding him that in the east they are aware of their rights as clearly as 110 years ago, Leo the Great is appeased like an angry ruler. In a word, the Byzantine οικονομία with its unattractive features appears on the stage - not as a mode of action of a force condescending to adapt to the circumstances of the time (this is the usual character of the Roman dispensatio), but as a cowardly ingratiation of a party not entirely sure of its right. The consequences of this manner of action for the future were disappointing. If the East, defending its doctrine of church freedom, relied on facts that spoke in its favor undoubtedly only in a certain light, then the West, preaching its doctrine of Roman supremacy, could bombard its opponents with quotes, the literal meaning of which was immediately clear. Each Roman claim, not protested in time, entered the church consciousness of the West - and over time only gained in significance. Rome knew how to interpret every twist of Byzantine oikonomy in its favor. Qui tacet, consentire videtur (He who is silent seems to agree). And 50 years later, Pope Gelasius cited the respectful writings of Anatolius and Marcian as proof that the see of Constantinople renounced the rights granted to it by the Council of Chalcedon, but not recognized by the pope, and transferred the entire matter to the authority of the Roman throne. The consequence of these Byzantine tactics was that in the East they thought of a serious polemic against the papal claims too late, when they had received the authority of time-honored antiquity, when these ideas had penetrated the consciousness of the Western Christian world, when the Western Church, submissive to him, stood behind the pope. Thus, the papacy, feeding on the beginning of church separatism, finally strengthened the division of churches. The general state of the church system in the present period is characterized in the East and West by the victory of centralization at all levels of the hierarchical ladder. The developing independence of parishes did not particularly increase the importance of presbyters, because at the same time the authority of bishops increased. The high position acquired by various church officials (such as archdeacons, economists), this triumph of the bureaucratic, so to speak, principle over the hierarchical one, also speaks of the growth of centralization: these small luminaries received their importance from the fact that they were close to the bishop, shining with the light borrowed from him. The strengthening of the metropolitan system was accompanied by a sensitive limitation on the independent activities of bishops: the authority of the latter lost as much, if not more, in the ascending order as it gained in the descending order. Finally, the formation of four patriarchs in the east, the beginning of the predominance of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the others, and the development of the power of the Roman high priest over the west - complete the overall picture of the hierarchical process that took place during the period under review. The highest representation of the church system in the present period is found in church councils. Their supremacy over private hierarchies was recognized in the East and tolerated (though not without some mental restrictions) in the West. One can distinguish three degrees of the cathedral institution: 1) metropolitan council (provincial, diocesan, 2) diocesan council and 3) ecumenical. The first two forms began in the previous period. According to usual practice, provincial councils were held twice a year. An example of a diocesan council would be African councils; for example, in 256, 87 bishops took part in the Council of Carthage on the issue of baptism of heretics. Both types of cathedral usually managed the current affairs of the subordinate territory. A special branch of the diocesal council is represented by the σύνοδοι ένδημοΰσαι in Constantinople, which was attended by bishops who happened to be in Constantinople, no matter what metropolitanate and diocesan they belonged to. The highest body of the church in matters of justice, administration and doctrine were the ecumenical councils. This kind of [councils] could arise only in the present period, when the right to exist was recognized for the church. Due to the very difficulty of compiling them, they met only on the most important church issues, and specifically dogmatic ones. By its very meaning, the ecumenical council (οικουμενική) is the one at which the voice of the entire universal church was correctly expressed - a very base definition from the logical side (the unknown in the defined is repeated in the defining), but it is not possible to go further than it. All the most particular, external signs of the universality of the council turn out to be deceptive. An ecumenical council does not, of course, require its convening by the pope, nor his participation, nor the participation of representatives of all private churches, nor even immediate recognition of it in this capacity by all private churches. Just one thing is needed for the truth contained here to be expressed by the entire universal church. And this is sometimes learned only through a long-term historical process. Church life itself, history, imposes this stamp on cathedrals, and not some external marks. This was the case with the councils of Nicaea, both of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. The very process of conciliar activity does not quite correspond to the ideal that is drawn up about this highest church representation, when it is looked at through the prism of the great significance of those Christian truths that found their expression at the councils. Yes, this is essentially completely natural. The councils were composed of the visible members of the church, with their strength and weakness, and just like their members, they carried heavenly treasures in meager vessels. The very time and purpose of their meeting suggests that their procedure cannot be idyllic. They were convened when church excitement reached its extreme limits, dogmatic passions were excited to the last degree; cathedrals were seen as the last resort to calm the church. There is one more feature in the conduct of ecumenical councils, which gives some reason to think about the restriction of the freedom of their members. This is the participation in councils either of the emperors themselves, or of their authorized government officials. At first glance, this interpretation seems very solid. Indeed, the opinion of the emperor - even if not supported by rude means, as was the case with Constantius - could not but impress some weak-hearted bishops, and should have given direction to their decisions. The Comites of Constantius, who were his representatives at the councils, earned a bad reputation in history for their zealous support of the Arian party. But if we look at this question more carefully, it turns out that it is resolved into another, more general one - into the question of the methods of state protection of the church, and then, the main evil, both there and here, is still in the bishops themselves. After all, one way or another, the latter should have known in which direction the dogmatic sympathies of the court were leaning, and if these representatives of the church did not have persistent courage, they were morally weak people, even without the participation of the authorities in the council meetings, when casting votes, they would have conformed to the demand of the moment. And if we compare the various councils according to their mode of action, then the harmful influence of government officials on their freedom will be reduced to a minimum. In the era close to the time of the Council of Nicaea, the most famous defenders of church freedom spoke out against the participation of officials in councils. “Do not write decrees,” instructed Hosius of Corduba, “do not send comites.” Athanasius the Great opposes the council with the participation of officials to the true church synod as heretical to the Orthodox. “If the emperor wants church peace,” said the Pope of Liberia, “then let a church council meet far from the palace, let the emperor not be present at this council, let the comite (court official) not appear, and the governor of the province not come with threats.” The second ecumenical council of 381, Constantinople, fully satisfied this ideal: neither the emperor nor his representatives were present at it. It was truly a “cathedral of bishops.” However, things here were not entirely quiet and peaceful: some of its meetings seemed to Gregory of Nazianzus to be a meeting of cranes. Subsequently declining one invitation to the council, he wrote: “I have made it a rule not to attend these meetings. I have seen many cathedrals in my time, but I don’t remember a single one after which things would have gone better than before.” The Council of Ephesus in 431 was also very close to the ideal that was presented to the mind of Pope Liberius. The imperial commissioner came here with the most favorable instructions for church interests. He protested against the opening of the first council meeting. Here he was tricked into reading the imperial sacra and then unceremoniously escorted out the door. Council meetings took place without the participation of imperial governors. However, anyone who has not acquired an unshakable faith in the obvious rationality and necessity of every historical fact can hardly resist regretting that in this case the victory did not belong to the imperial commissar: he stood on the side of true church freedom - his church opponents were blinded by the interests of the party. At the next proposed ecumenical council, Ephesus 449, imperial commissars were present, but these were completely colorless individuals, their role was the most insignificant. Dioscorus was in charge of everything. However, this was truly a cathedral of robbers, although here they were in awe not of the representatives of the emperor, but of the Patriarch of Alexandria and his faithful church comrades. When a new ecumenical council convened in Nicaea in 451, the papal legates, who had previously opposed Dioscorus with such honor, made it an indispensable condition for their participation in future meetings that the cathedral be located near the imperial residence. Otherwise, they wanted to return to Italy, and it is known that the IV Ecumenical Council was called not Nicaea, but Chalcedon. Thus, the legates of the great Pope Leo I, in the interests of ecclesiastical freedom, demand exactly the opposite of what Liberius wanted a hundred years ago. The meetings of the Council of Chalcedon took place in the presence of imperial representatives, and it must be fair that they honorably fulfilled the assignment entrusted to them, both as Christians and as representatives of jurisprudence. They have always been supporters of order and decency; They did not demand from the fathers of the council anything contrary to justice; they limited their role to raising questions and formulating the results of the council’s deliberations. They influenced the decisions themselves as little as the chairman of the current criminal court, putting the issue up for discussion by the jury. Thus, here too we can recall the words of the Savior: the kingdom of God does not come openly, it is within you. Freedom, the truly ecclesiastical character of councils, does not depend on the observance of certain external formalities, but on the spirit, the moral character of the bishops themselves. From a dogmatic point of view, the ecumenical council is the organ of the Holy Spirit living in the church. The belief that the Holy Spirit would not abandon his divine guidance to those gathered always animated them. “It has pleased the Holy Spirit and us” is the most general form of conciliar decisions. But from the historical point of view, which deals only with the human element in the church, councils represent only one of the means for clarifying to the consciousness of church members the eternal truths contained in the church. Taken in connection with the historical conditions of a given era, cathedrals cannot always be assessed on the same scale. Persons inspired by sincere love for the truth and good of the church, like Gregory of Nazianzus, sometimes fell into grave doubts regarding the appropriateness of this type of church representation. Obviously, the best aspect of the council was that it provided an opportunity for personal explanations between the supporters of different parties. Various types of misunderstandings can most accurately be eliminated precisely in this way. Then, a joint study of the foundations of faith laid down in church tradition could have a beneficial effect on theological thought. But along with this light side there is also a dark side. The council could have been convened too early: the opponents, in the excitement of a dogmatic dispute, did not yet have time for a calm discussion of the views of the opposite camp. This, obviously, did not promise an impartial, friendly attitude towards them at the council itself. Instead of the expected reconciliation, the result was only even more intense discord. From this side, Gregory the Theologian’s remark is quite fair. 7. Changes in the form of church union A characteristic feature of the church system of the era of ecumenical councils is that it is based on facts. There are absolutely no pre-conceived systems here. Church governance is created on the basis of historical data. Once there is a need for councils, a person who represents the largest religious figure (the oldest or most influential bishop) is appointed as the head of the church - the chairman of the council. If this person was not there, then his place was taken by the bishop of the central city (the advantage of the see). Thus, the basis of the church system was the beginning of naturalness, free from preconceived theories. The political significance of cities was important. It formed the basis of the metropolitan system, but not as a theory, but as a living fact, which, as can be seen from the 9th rule of the Council of Antioch, could not be ignored: the city, which occupied the main position in civil terms, was at the same time a natural place for meetings of district bishops. But this political moment did not have universal significance. This is proven not only by individual facts of the presidency of the oldest bishops at the councils, but also by the fact that, for example, in Africa the metropolitan system did not take root at all: senes, the oldest bishops of the province by consecration, replaced the metropolitans. Nor did a purely ecclesiastical theory, the theory of the significance of departments based on their origin, have one-sided significance. Jerusalem was surrounded by a halo of glory and honor, as the “mother of churches.” However, since he was relegated to the modest significance of Aelia Capitolina and lost his central position in the Christian world, there is no question of any superior authority of the Jerusalem bishop over all. Antioch, where the church is glorified by the presence of the chief apostles, where Christians themselves first received this name, is ecclesiastically lower than Alexandria, the see of which dates back only to St. Mark, student of St. Petra. But politically, Alexandria was considered more important than Antioch, and therefore, although “a student is above his teacher” (Matthew 10:24), even the most one-sided defenders of church theory, the Roman bishops, do not try to place the hierarch of Antioch above the Alexandrian. From what was said earlier it is clear that in the consistent development of the church system according to the model of the civil division of the empire, discord occurred. The concept of diesezus did not find application here, since the diesezal system was destroyed in the bud due to the development of patriarchies. The result was such a state of affairs that dioceses had no meaning in the church and were replaced by patriarchates. But this says nothing about the strength of that unit of the church union that the metropolis represents; the diocese could be strong both in church and civil terms. However, this was not the case here either. It turned out that she could not stand the course of history. The viability of this form of church union can be verified on two points: first, to what extent the diocese has declared itself to be an active participant in church life; secondly, how strong it was in itself. 1) An important aspect of the metropolitan system were diocesan councils. The metropolitan was thought of as acting together with his suffragan bishops (έπαρχιωται). Apostolic Canon 37 (36, 38) establishes two councils per year (on the fourth week of Pentecost and on October 12). The Council of Nicaea, rule 5 (before Pentecost and autumn) and the Council of Antioch, rule 20 (in the fourth week of Pentecost, that is, after the third week of Easter, and October 15) confirm this requirement. But Canon 19 of the Council of Chalcedon already sounds dissonant. It came to the ears of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon that in some dioceses there were no established annual metropolitan councils, as a result of which stagnation occurred in church affairs. The Council of Chalcedon decrees that councils of bishops must be convened twice a year (no date is set) in the city designated by the metropolitan, and imposes a fraternal reprimand (άδελφικώς έπιπλήττεσθαι) on those bishops who do not appear at the councils without a good reason. But the Chalcedonian rule could not destroy the disorder that had begun, and from the 123 (155) novella (546) of Justinian we learn that even a hundred years after the council, the sad phenomenon was repeated very often. The novella insistently demands that bishops meet once or twice a year (no date is specified), and points to omissions in church affairs as a result of bishops avoiding councils under various pretexts. Twenty years later, in the 137th (174th) novella (565) of the same Justinian, we again come across the same phenomenon. The novella, pointing out these disorders and recognizing their elimination as most necessary (των άναγκαιωτάτων εστίν έπανορθώσαι), charges bishops with the obligation to meet at least once a year (in June or September); the patriarch undertakes to convene councils in the area under his personal jurisdiction, and the metropolitan is obliged to invite all his subordinate bishops. But this time, no longer relying on the reality of his suggestions, Justinian provides his novella with a special paragraph (§a), which instructs the civil commanders of the regions (τους των επαρχιών άρχοντας) to ensure that the metropolitans convene councils in a timely manner, and to encourage them, as well as subordinate bishops, to appear at the council; and if the metropolitan postpones the convening of the council despite the encouragement, bring it to the attention of the emperor himself; in order to stop the very possibility of an agreement between the metropolitan, the bishops and the head of the region, other officials (officium, τάξις) are invited to observe the metropolitan, under pain of severe punishment for concealment. But another hundred and fifty years pass, and from Rule 8 of the Council of Trullo (692) we learn that diocesan councils are convened incorrectly. The fathers of the Council of Trulla charged the metropolitans with the obligation to convene diocesan councils at least once a year (between Easter and the end of October) and repeat the punishment prescribed by the Council of Chalcedon ("fraternal reprimand") of bishops for evasion without a good reason. Finally, the VII Ecumenical Council, in canon 6, insists on the same thing: councils should be convened at least once a year. The Council, considering the reasons for the absence of bishops, assumes obstacles on the part of civil authorities (archons who would interfere with the gathering of bishops for councils were supposed to be excommunicated), but does not consider the metropolitans to be completely innocent in this omission and imposes punishment on them. Thus, a rather dark picture appears over the space of several centuries; The cathedral institution is increasingly declining, despite the efforts to support it on the part of secular and ecclesiastical authorities. The general reason for this phenomenon should be seen in the character of the administration of that time. The successes of centralization were already very significant in the structure of church government by the time of the Council of Chalcedon. All the most important functions of church life were concentrated in the hands of the metropolitans. Meanwhile, the diocesan council was an institution that was a counterweight to the centralization principle and introduced a moment of decentralization into the metropolitan system. Even those measures that were taken by the Metropolitan for the current needs of the church were presented to the council for judgment and evaluation. The Council was thus the highest court in comparison with the metropolitan court. The Council, to a certain extent, controlled the metropolitan and limited the centralization aspirations of the metropolitans. But if some metropolitans were not inclined to support the vital energy of the conciliar principle, then some bishops also had their own motives for evading the councils. Having passed over the reason that is put forward by the bishops themselves, that is, the difficulty of travel, we point out that the bishops at the councils limited not only the metropolitan, but also each other. True, the faulty bishop, having avoided participating in the council, should have expected an unpleasant visit from the metropolitan, but this visit might not have happened. And there is no doubt that for offenses on the part of the bishops it was possible to find court and justice not at the council, but at the metropolitan himself. However, the cathedral, open court was able to reveal a greater number of offenses than the metropolitan closed court. The Metropolitan took into account individual complaints; At the council regarding these complaints, one could expect indications of similar, although not so outstanding, facts of misconduct, and particular facts received the significance of characterizing the general state of the diocese at a given time. If there were incentives not to resist the successes of (further) centralization, then one of the important consequences of the successes already achieved was that the bishops felt their weakness to act independently and, if necessary, to fight against the central authority of the metropolitan. In the west, always strong in practical sense, at the Council of Serdica (pr. 6 [4]) it was decided not to install bishops in small towns, so as not to diminish the authority of their dignity (aut in vico aliquo, aut in modica civitate, cui sufficit unus presbyter, ne vilescat nomen episcopi et auctoritas 83). This practice has not been used in the east. Here we meet many bishops. For example, in Asia (according to the map in Atlas sacer Wiltsch, about 10,300 sq. versts = slightly less than the Lomzhin province) there were 43 bishops, and in Lydia (about 16,700 sq. versts = slightly more than the Kara region, so Asia and Lydia together = Tula province) - 25. Numerical numbers are not always an indicator of strength. With so many bishops, the metropolitan could exercise real authority, without whose permission sometimes the suffragan bishops did not even dare to take a step. This also affected the Council of Chalcedon. When the draft statement of faith was approved on October 22, 451, voices were heard: “Let the metropolitans sign it immediately.” And the bishops of Egypt, where centralization reached its zenith, not only Monophysitists, but also Orthodox, pointing to the custom existing in the Egyptian district - “not to do anything like that without the instructions and opinion of the archbishop,” flatly refused to sign the tomos of Leo until the election of the Archbishop of Alexandria (successor to Dioscorus), and asked to give them a deferment, “so that we, according to the ancient custom, would follow it (archbishop’s) opinion,” and the council was forced to grant this reprieve. And since the cathedral institution no longer showed much vitality, there were plenty of reasons not to gather for diocesan councils. For example, there was a custom in the east according to which a bishop invited neighboring bishops to visit him on the annual holidays of his cathedral city (usually the memory of local martyrs); at these holidays, no doubt, they discussed the current needs of the church and affairs, which made a secondary discussion of the same matters, of which, of course, there were not always many, at the upcoming diocesan council unnecessary; At these same congresses, the bishops could find out that there were no particularly important matters in church life, and therefore a council was not required for this year. And the struggle of Monophysitism with Chalcedonian Orthodoxy with the constant fluctuations of the Byzantine government even made the councils undesirable for Orthodoxy. An Orthodox bishop could live peacefully in his diocese, even if he was subordinate to the Monophysite metropolitan; By appearing at the diocesan council, he risked finding himself faced with an alternative: either, willy-nilly, speak out more definitively and for this give up his place to the Monophysite, and incur persecution himself, or at the council, subscribe to some dubious dogmatic definition of religion and again wait for trouble and grief. 2) The Metropolitan system is based on the political, administrative structure of the empire. The metropolis, the main city of the ecclesiastical diocese, was also the main city of the civil diocese (επαρχία, provincia). The merging of political centers with the centers of church life was natural, because the main point of a certain area in political terms naturally also served as a gathering point for clergy. The importance of civil division for the church system was sanctioned at the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Chalcedon, which elevated the see of Constantinople precisely on political grounds. The church-administrative system was basically a break from the political administrative system, which was based on the fact that the rulers of individual cities were subordinate to the head of the province (judex), and this latter was subordinate to the vicar of the diocese, and the diocese was part of one of the 4 prefectures. The same threefold gradualism was introduced into church government. But there is no doubt that in the ecclesiastical spheres the inconvenience of this non-ecclesiastical foundation, from which ecclesiastical division flowed, was vividly felt. Even Basil the Great protested - but without success - against the fact that the division of Cappadocia into two civil dioceses led to the same division in church terms. When (c. 415) Alexander of Antioch turned to Innocent of Rome with the question whether civil division should lead to a corresponding church division, a negative answer was received from there. The Council of Chalcedon also adopted the same point of view, deciding that the division of church dioceses should not reproduce all the changes in the civil division (on this basis, the Virite metropolis was again recognized as a simple bishopric, dependent on the Tyrian metropolitan). At this council another step was taken in the direction of separation from the political system; out of respect for the See of Chalcedon, as being located in the city where the council took place, the bishop of Chalcedon was given the title of metropolitan, although without removing it from subordination to the Metropolitan of Nicomedia. This created the situation that 1) there could be not as many metropolitans as there were civil judices, and 2) the ecclesiastical position of the metropolitans themselves was not the same. This introduced ambiguity and then fluctuations into the old metropolitan system. Subsequently, the emperors became increasingly convinced of the inconvenience of the three-degree dependency system (provincia, dioecesis, praefectura). The need to defend the empire first from the Persians (under Justinian and Heraclius), then from the Arabs, who took away one region after another, forced the abandonment of the traditional system, the unification of both military and administrative power in one person, and the introduction of division into themes (θέματα = legiones) or military districts 84. Of course, with the varying successes of weapons, the central points of these topics also changed, and together - due to the connection of the metropolitan system at its basis with the administrative civil system - the question was raised about the convenience of the previous metropolitan system in church terms. The new civil system also affected the church organization: the movement of civil centers led to the movement of dioceses and metropolises. The new system, of course, significantly shook the old one: the old cities became impoverished: the church authorities had to move the metropolis to other cities or grant the right to one person to manage two cities. In parallel to this order of things, one can point to the state of affairs in Russia. There are three metropolitans in Rus'. The Metropolitan of Kyiv is an established figure, recognized in Greece. Then the Metropolitan of Moscow, strictly speaking accidental, is the same Metropolitan of Kiev, who moved, so to speak, to his dacha, first to Vladimir, and then to Moscow. The result was a bifurcation of the Kyiv metropolitanate according to the demands of historical Russian life. But when St. Petersburg rose, a new third metropolitan appeared - Novgorod and St. Petersburg. This was none other than the Novgorod archbishop, elevated to the rank of metropolitan. The Novgorod archbishop could not have had primacy if he had remained in Novgorod, which gave the metropolitan only an important ancient title, and he had significance and power only as the metropolitan of St. Petersburg. This was the case in Byzantium. But even earlier, the state allowed frequent arbitrariness in the division of dioceses: although church statutes and rules spoke out for the immutability of the church system, however, as soon as the state created a new metropolis, the church formed a new center, and in the newly opened dioceses a new title was received. When people begin to gravitate towards Tsarskoye Selo, it is difficult to make them gravitate towards Narva. In general, the question of what attitude to take to the political basis of the metropolitan system has historically been resolved far from consistently. For example, Justinian made three out of two Syrias, calling the third Theodorias, in honor of his wife, with the main city of Laodicea, which previously belonged to the first Syria, but in his edict he directly said that this political division should not lead to the formation of a new [Laodicean] metropolis. But the same Justinian made three out of two Cappadocias, and this led to the formation of a new church metropolis (in Cappadocia III with the main city of Mokiss or Justinianople). It was difficult to solve the question posed fundamentally because the consequences of one or another decision were radical. To maintain the church status quo, ignoring subsequent changes, meant to be at odds with the letter of the canons (for example, Antioch. pr. 3, Constant. I pr. 3, Chalk. pr. 28), in which the political moment is expressed very clearly, and with life itself, which - contrary to programs - could put forward new central points. And to recognize the political moment in all the fullness of its significance meant making very large changes that would result in a break with the church past. For example, the position of the Alexandrian see shortly after the Council of Chalcedon was outlined in strokes that prevented reinterpretation. When the Monophysites fell hopelessly away from Catholic communion, the Orthodox Egyptian flock remained small and consisted of fickle, commercial and alien elements. If we take the point of view of the political moment and accomplished facts, then we had to recognize the Alexandrian patriarchy as no longer existing. The bishop of Alexandria was now to occupy a very obscure place in the ranks of bishops. The position of the Antioch and Jerusalem churches was also shaken, so that the east after Heraclius was, in essence, limited to the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But even in the post-Heraclian period, the church people of Byzantium stood for the old order of things. This is clear from the resolution of the issue of the Cypriot Church at the Council of Trullo (Project 39). The Church of Cyprus, on grounds that are not entirely firmly substantiated historically, received autocephaly at the Third Ecumenical Council. Peter Mong wanted to subjugate it again to Antioch, but the discovery of the relics of St. ap. Barnabas was stopped by this matter. Since 649, Cyprus was conquered by the Arabs, and in 690, Emperor Justinian II ordered Cypriot Christians to move to the Hellespont. The question arose: what position should the Cypriot Church now occupy? The Trullo Council decided that the Cypriot (i.e., Constantinople or New Justinian Metropolitan of Cyprus) Bishop John takes precedence in the Hellespont, is ordained by his own bishops (former sees on the island of Cyprus), and the Cyzican bishop himself (Metropolitan of the Hellespont) receives consecration from the proedron - the bishop of Cyprus and is subordinate to him along with other bishops Hellespont. How long this was practiced is difficult to say, since the bishop of Constantine returned to Cyprus when it was again retaken by Greek troops. The strength of the new historical current took its toll in a very unique way. If we return to the Council of Chalcedon, we will see that the metropolitans contributed to the destruction of church dioceses: they agreed to be consecrated in Constantinople, and not in Caesarea, Ephesus and Irakli. The three exarchates became zero and remained only as titles. But if the metropolitans subordinate to the exarchs willingly contributed to the elimination of this highest authority, now the bishops subordinate to the metropolitans are shaking the metropolitan system, trying to remove themselves from dependence on their metropolitan and become in direct relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople. This desire on the part of the bishops to obtain titular autocephaly is understandable: they exchanged subordination to nearby authority for dependence on distant authority. It is easy to explain that this craving was met with sympathy in Constantinople. This expanded the influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople and was also beneficial for the Great Church in material terms. Income from ordinations was a long-known phenomenon. Even at the Council of Chalcedon, when the metropolitans expressed their pleasure at the fact that, according to the 28th rule, they would receive consecration not from the exarchs, but from the Patriarch of Constantinople, the remark of Metropolitan Eusebius of Ancyra (in Galatia I) sounded dissonant that he did not stand for the consecration of the exarchs, but only asks that the cities not pay a heavy fee for ordination; since if those elected by the city are ordained not in the city itself by a council of diocesan bishops, then a ruinous fee is charged (λύονται αϊ ούσίαι). “I speak,” added Eusebius, “from experience, since I paid a huge sum for my predecessor.” One Constantinople presbyter was heard shouting: “This is forbidden by the canons! The altars are clean!” But Eusebius objected that he had the best opinion of Anatolia, but “no one is immortal.” This matter at the council was completed by the proposal of Thalassius of Caesarea - to meet with Anatoly and draw up rules regarding this. However, already in 459, Anatoly’s successor Gennadius convened a council against simony, mainly referring to abuses of this kind in Galatia. We find the next attempt to regulate income of this kind in the story 123 (155) (546) of Justinian. From it we learn that at that time there was a firmly established custom according to which the bishop being consecrated made a donation to the benefit of the church of the consecrated one. Justinian does not forbid this and does not look at it as simony, επειδή τουτο ουκ εστίν άγορασία, άλλα προσφορά 85 - and of course he is right in this: sale (simony) happens where there is a buyer; and in this case, the “offering” came from everyone who was ordained, and, therefore, the metropolitan was not at all interested in ordaining a certain person and not someone else; this “offering” is not a purchase, just as a stamp on a petition is not a bribery of a judge. Justinian in his short story defines maximum “offerings”. “Προσφορά” consisted of two contributions: a) “ordinary” (έξ εθους, εκ συνήθειας) 86, which actually went in favor of notaries and other employees ( υπηρετούντες) 87 of the ordaining bishop, and b) “for enthronement” (υπέρ ένθρονιαστικων) 88, a contribution in favor of the ordaining bishops (or metropolitan?). Justinian decrees that the patriarchs should contribute no more than 20 liters of gold for the table and the usual. For other bishops, offerings were determined by rank. All churches were divided into 6 categories based on their income. The first category included those churches whose income was at least 30 liters, with our money 12,540 rubles*. * A liter equals 418 rubles. It is composed of 72 chervonets or solidi, Byzantine νομίσματα, and νόμισμα cost about 5 rubles. 80 and 1/4 kopecks. The last category includes churches whose income fell below 2 liters, with our money 836 rubles. One can imagine how dismal the position of the Episcopal churches was. Bishops of the first category were obliged to pay 100 for canonization and 300 νομίσματα ordinary - 18% of all income of the church to which the bishop was supplied. Bishops of churches of the last rank were not required to make any contribution. From the 5th category, whose income was no more than 3 liters and no less than 2 liters - 12 νομίσματα for serving and 16 ordinary. Thus, the minimum contribution as offerings was [about 13%] of the annual income of the church to which the bishop was supplied. This “offering” was completely openly accepted from the ordained protopresbyter or archdeacon who was consecrated. Since the rules of the VII Ecumenical Council reveal to us the serious economic disorder of the Eastern Church (of the 22 rules of the council, 6 or 7 provide for “bad love of money”), we have the right to assume that the material benefits from the “offerings” did not remain without influence on the course of the struggle between the old system and the new trend. Under the influence of these two opposing forces, life naturally moved diagonally. Byzantine chronography has preserved very few individual facts of the struggle*; but the result of the movement is generally known: a) The Patriarchs, broken by history, nevertheless retained the historically inherited prerogatives, b) The Metropolitans defended their position with less success, aa) True, history was respected in relation to them, but sometimes in a rather peculiar way. For example, after Perga (metropolis of Pamphylia II) declined in importance, the town of Silay grew in importance; then the See of Perga was closed, and the Bishop of Silei began to be titled Metropolitan of Silei or Perga. But bb) new metropolitans appeared, whose dioceses stood out from the previous ones, c) Some ancient metropolitans were lowered in the lists, for example, the vicar of Thessalonica, who previously at the III, IV, V and VI Ecumenical Councils occupied the place directly after the Patriarch of Jerusalem, above the protophron of Caesarea, descended to 16th place among the metropolitans, d) Some new metropolitans occupy a place above the ancients, for example, the titular Chalcedonian already at the V Ecumenical Council is higher than many actual ones, dd) But the formation of autocephalous archdioceses was especially important. * Wed. N. A. Skabalanovich, The Byzantine state and the church in the 11th century. St. Petersburg 1884, pp. 416, 417, nos. 69, 71; Wed p. 157; fact May 25, 1029 Between the monasteries, over time, so-called stauropegial monasteries began to appear. A monastery, as a community of monks, cannot be independent of bishops. He needs to get elders from somewhere. Stavropegia freed the monastery from subordination to the bishop of a given area and subordinated it directly to the patriarch. Cases when patriarchs established monasteries in bishoprics were not uncommon. Autocephalous bishoprics are something similar to these stauropegial monasteries. In the middle of the 5th century, 30 metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the three dioceses under his control: 12 in Pontus, 12 in Asia and 6 in Thrace. [Document inscribed with the name of St. Epiphany of Cyprus and attributed by Gelzer to the 7th century, “Epiphany already lists 33 metropolitans]. But what constitutes a characteristic phenomenon is that [now] there are 34 archbishoprics subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which from the point of view of the 5th century were a completely new phenomenon, and they are great indicators that the metropolitan system could not withstand the pressure of history and was heading towards final elimination. In the 9th century. in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, there were 41 αυτοκέφαλοι (i.e. αρχιεπίσκοποι) for 34 metropolitanates. [At the beginning of the 10th century. the number of metropolitans was already 51, and there were the same number of archbishops] 89 90. Too few facts are known about the history of the emergence of these archdioceses; therefore, hypotheses to explain this phenomenon are inevitable. Apparently, their autocephaly was fictitious. One person in the church cannot be “in charge.” After the death of an archbishop, someone had to appoint a successor to him. And, probably, they were ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople (although in the 11th century the metropolitans vigorously defended their rights) and the “autocephalous” during the divine service “raised the name” only of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and not of his diocesan metropolitan. Their dependence on the metropolitan was nominal, or simply zero. Whether they were obliged to take part in metropolitan (local) councils is another question. They were only members of the synod in Constantinople. The percentage of these archdioceses is curious: comparatively, most of them appeared near Constantinople. It turns out, for example, that in Thracian Europe, i.e. in the diocese where Heraclius and Constantinople lie, there were 5 autocephalous (archbishops) and only 5 more simple bishops subordinate to the metropolitan. But there were also remote autocephalous churches. Every see that ever had a holy bishop or martyr's relics strove for autocephaly. Thus, the formation of autocephalous churches constituted a whole series of spots that broke through the dense network of the metropolitan system. But the autocephalous archbishopric represented only the beginning of a movement in the episcopal ranks. By comparing the subject lists in their chronological order, one can notice how bishops are first made archbishops and then metropolitans. So, for example, it happened with the bishop of Smyrna. First, the bishop, επαρχιώτης of Asia (subordinate to the Metropolitan of Ephesus), in the 9th century. already αυτοκέφαλος (αρχιεπίσκοπος), finally, μητροπολίτης. The same story with Κοτυάειον της Φρυγίας Σαλουταρίας, with Μιτυλήνη των Νήσων. All these transformations were carried out very logically at first. The consistency was expressed in the fact that the metropolitans (as opposed to the archbishops) had some kind of θρόνος υποκείμενος (subordinate diocese), and if an archbishop became a metropolitan, then in order for him to have his own subordinate diocese, it was allocated from the same the diocese has several bishoprics (the Metropolitan of Kotiaia had only 3 θρόνοι υποκείμενοι). But in the end, the matter came down to a simple title, and metropolitans appeared like the Euchaite in Elenopont, who had θρόνος υποκείμενος ουκ έστι. In parallel with this, the following phenomenon is observed: the lists of metropolitans take a strictly defined form (become rank lists), and in them metropolitans are either promoted to several places or demoted, and this is done according to the decree of the Constantinople σύνοδος ενδημούσα. This rank list determines the "τάξις πρωτοκαθεδρίας", the order in which metropolitans sit at councils. The Council of Chalcedon may be considered the norm for this list in its most ancient form. Notes were made on these lists: Metropolitan such and such, then occupied such and such a place, then promoted or demoted. Of the cathedras, Thessalonica was the largest; she occupied such a high place that Theodore the Reader even calls this bishop a patriarch. When it came under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, it took a lower place in the lists (eventually 16th). The new order created new terminology, which also affected Russia. In the course of history, things should stand like this: the highest position of a bishop is denoted by the word “archbishop,” who was higher than the metropolitan (had metropolitans subordinate to him); the names εξαρχος and πατριάρχης are simple variants of the name αρχιεπίσκοπος. This is how it was in ancient times. The concept of “archbishop” was certainly associated with the idea of his autocephaly, and when the Metropolitan of Cyprus was recognized as not subordinate to the Archbishop of Antioch (at the Third Ecumenical Council), he, as an autocephalous one, began to be called not μητροπολίτης, but αρχιεπίσκοπος. But then nominal self-governments appeared; but according to the existing usus, these αυτοκέφαλοι began to be called archbishops, and αρχιεπίσκοπος turned out to be lower than the metropolitans. This later terminology came to us in Russia. At first we had only one Metropolitan of Kiev, then the titular Archbishop of Novgorod appeared; Subsequently, one title of metropolitan was divided into three, but “archbishop” became lower than “metropolitan” in our country. In essence, Russian metropolitans, having no subordinate bishops, were only simple titled persons. The title of Archbishop of Belgrade and Metropolitan of Serbia is not logical (it should be: Archbishop of Serbia and Metropolitan of Belgrade, for Belgrade = μητρόπολις). The Metropolitan of Montenegro should have been called the Archbishop of Montenegro, as the “most important” one, but not having any episcopal sees under his command. Thus, it is now difficult to determine, as a result of this changed title, what position this or that “archbishop” occupied in history, because the word “archbishop” began to be used incorrectly. For example, Basil the Great, in terms of the scope of his power, should be called an “archbishop”; but it is unknown whether he actually bore this title, since titles were still being developed at that time. And St. Nicholas of Myra was never an archbishop, because the Myra (τα Μΰρα της Λυκίας) bishops were always only metropolitans of the diocese of Lycia. In addition to these changes, the successes of the ancient See of Constantinople were expressed in the expansion of its area to include other patriarchates. Under Leo the Isaurian, eastern Illyricum, which formerly depended on Rome, and the diocese of Isauria (with the metropolis of Seleucia and 23 bishoprics), which previously depended on the Patriarch of Antioch, were annexed to it. Thus, all matters were brought to Constantinople. The local cathedrals were in charge of the affairs of the entire Eastern Church. The third rule of the VII Ecumenical Council dealt a blow to the people’s right to participate in the election of a bishop, which historically came down to the influence of “secular leaders” in these elections. The Council delegates these elections to the bishops. But some Patriarchs of Constantinople made attempts to exclude bishops from this participation and decide matters of election individually. Posthumous edition edited by prof. A. Brilliantova. “I, Elijah, Bishop of Adrianople, having determined, signed with the hand of Roman, Bishop of Mir, due to ignorance of literacy”; “I, Kayuma, Bishop of Feno, having determined, signed with the hand of my co-bishop Dionysius [Sicamazonian], because I do not know the letter” (lat.). – 151. “It is appropriate that subdeacons who deal with the holy mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters, as well as bishops, in accordance with previous decrees, should abstain from wives” (Latin). – 153. “You, bigamous, baptize, you, bigamous, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice? And how many bigamous people among you are in charge, mocking the apostle himself?” (lat.).– 157. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, “Paravolans”? (Spelling question). “Christ. Thu." 1892, II, 18–37 (From the church history of Egypt. Issue III. Archimandrite Victor of the Tabennisiots at the court of Constantinople in 431. St. Petersburg 1892:235–254). Page 26–27: in ancient monuments παραβαλανεΐς, parabalani, parabalanin παραβαλανεΐν οι παρά βαλανεΐ [ο] ν, “paravalanians”, those “who are at the bathhouse, at the bathhouse, near (near) the bathhouse.” 34: “The religious brotherhood of the Paravalanians initially consisted, in all likelihood, of the so-called “workers,” that is, for the most part, of pious commoners who devoted their physical labor to the service of the church. At the direction of the church authorities, they performed various menial tasks. The bishops of Alexandria, apparently, took domestic servants from the Paravalanians. As the name itself indicates, these workers are settled “at the [church] bathhouse”; heating it, looking after it, serving those who wash, were the usual duties of the Paravalanians, from which the noblest goal of this brotherhood, caring for the sick, naturally developed.” 35: “The historical existence of the Alexandrian Paravalanians from 416 to 534 is documented. Without a doubt, they appeared earlier than 416, but exactly when is unknown. It is incredible, however, that this brotherhood appeared before Constantine the Great; since they were settled near the “bathhouse,” it means that the state had already acquired certain privileges for church property. It is also incredible that this institution survived the defeat that Alexandria suffered from the Arab conquerors.” “The spelling of the name οι παραβαλανεΐν is established on solid documentary data. On the contrary, the beloved parabolani was invented by later scientists without any serious reason” (A. B.) - 164. “It is not proper for a deacon to sit before the presbyter, but only by order of the presbyter” (Greek). – 174. “Of course, the one who is the first among the ministers (deacons), since he speaks alone before people and does not leave the pontiff, will consider it unfair if he is appointed presbyter” (lat.) – 174. “Management of all church affairs and concerns; was in charge of church affairs” (Latin). – 176. “Deposed under the guise of honor; committed an innocent overthrow under the guise of advancement, adding in the sense of dishonor that by handing over the cemetery to him, he condemned him to exile” (Latin). – 176. “By voting and testing God-loving bishops, God’s mercy bestows” (Greek). – 185. “An unheard-of struggle and immoderate zeal arose among the majority” (Greek). – 195. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, From the history of the Syro-Persian Church. Excursion B. The most ancient metropolises in the Persian Church. Christ. Reading, 1899.1, 346–349 (separate reprint, 51–54). (A.B.) – 202. Wed. I. I. Sokolov, Election of patriarchs in Byzantium from the half of the 9th to the half of the 15th century (843–1453). Christ. Reading, 1907, March-July (and separately). His, The Election of the Alexandrian Patriarchs in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Christ. Reading, 1911, July-December (A. B.) - 202. See the image of the bulletin, for example, in A.P. Lopukhin, History of the Christian Church in the 19th century. T. 1. St. Petersburg. 1900, p. 41 (A. B.) – 205. “If a deacon, ruling the flock without a bishop or presbyter, baptized someone” (Latin). – 210. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Chorepiscopes and periodeuts. Church Vedomosti, 1906, No. 4, 149–154. Wed. also No. 10, 486–402 (A. B.) - 210. Augustini ep. 209 ad Codestin, η . 2: “Fussala is a fortress adjacent to the region of Ippon (forty miles from Ippon). Previously there had never been a bishop there, but together with the surrounding area it belonged to the parish of the Church of Hippo” (Latin). – Vita Caesarii arel. 2, 16 (ibid. 1033): “Not only in the city, but in all parishes” (Latin). Innocentius lad Decentium: “As for the true communion (fermento), which we distribute to the parishes, your desire to give us advice is unnecessary, since all our churches are located inside the city, the elders of which [cf. Athanas. apol. With. arian. n. 20: “The bishops who gathered in Rome, more than fifty, where Presbyter Viton gathered [them], received us into communion and treated us with love” (Greek).] - since on that very day they cannot gather with us because of the flock entrusted to them - they receive the communion made by us through the Akoluths, so that they do not consider themselves separated from our communion especially on this day - which, I believe, should not happen in wigs, for the sacraments should not be carried far, and we do not intend them for the presbyters placed in different cemeteries, and their presbyters have the right and permission to make it” (lat.). Sops. Carth. 419, code. can. eccl. afr. With. 33: “Let the presbyters not trade in the property of the church where they are placed, let neither the bishop of the cathedral church (lit. mother church) nor the presbyter be allowed to usurp the property of his parish” (Latin). – Athan. apol. With. arian. n. 85: “The region of Mareota belongs to Alexandria and there has never been a bishop or chorebishop in this region, but the churches of the entire region are subject to the bishop of Alexandria. Each of the bishops has his own large villages numbering about ten or more. (“Ptolemy counts eight cities or districts” (Latin).) The place where Ischir lives is the most insignificant and sparsely populated, so there is no church there, but only in the neighboring village” (Greek). - Theodor. Lector, 1.13. Migne, Patr. gr. 861, 171: “After the death of Anatoly, Gennady, presbyter of the church, was appointed, and Akaki, the trustee of orphans, was also proposed as a candidate. And Gennady proposed Marcian as a steward, who adhered to the piety of the pure and went over to the church. And he, having become a steward, proposed that local clergy should leave offerings in each church, but until then everything should be delivered to the main church” (Greek). – Theophan. Chronographia, a. M. 5855 (355) sub Julianö “And Theoteknos, a presbyter on the outskirts of Antioch, who enjoyed trust in the church (Chron. pasch.: “a certain Theoteknos, a presbyter of the church in Antioch), deceived by his promise, unwittingly turned to idolatry” (Greek). Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret are silent, (lat.). – 212. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Dioceses in the ancient church. Church Vedomosti, 1906, No. 3, 99–105 (A. B) – 213. The text of the lectures is borrowed here from the course 1892/3. According to the 1897 census, the population in the indicated provinces was about 10,892,000 inhabitants. Wed. D. Mendeleev, Towards the knowledge of Russia. 4th ed. St. Petersburg 1906, p. 18 (A. B.) – 214. Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire par l'abbe L. Duchesne. T. I. Paris 1886, p. 169, n.4. Cp. L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chretien. 3 ed. Paris 1903, p. 185. (A.B.) – 216. Wed. about the cardinals V.V. Bolotov, From the history of the Syrupersian Church. Christ. Thurs. 1899.1, 100–101 (separate from 6–7), approx. (A.B.) – 218. Nick. 5: a) before Pentecost, β) in the autumn. Ant. 20: a) after the third week of Passover, in the fourth week of Pentecost, β) on the Ides of October. (Greek).– 219. “Legates of Augustus, propraetors with consular powers” ​​(lat.) - 221. Here V.V. Bolotov confuses Patriarch Paul, installed at the see of Antioch in 519, with Paul Tabennisiot, the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, ordained in the late 30s. VI century Patriarch Mina of Constantinople. For more information about this, see: present edition, pp. 315 (A.S.) – 243. In the recording of his lecture on October 15, 1899, corrected by V.V. Bolotov himself, the number “331” is left in this place, but, apparently, this is only an oversight, since not only in the recording of the (uncorrected) next lecture on October 20 is the date “333”, but also in his report to the commission on the issue of calendar reform at the meeting on May 31, 1899 (Appendix V, p. 35) reads: "about 333". The same is in the work “From the history of the Syro-Persian Church. Excursion G. What does history know about the beginning of Christianity in Persia?” Christ. Thurs. 1900.1, 436 (department 108), approx. 43. Wed. also his note about the book: Canons of the most important ancient church councils together with the apostolic canons, ed. prof. Fr. Lauchert. Chr. Reading, 1896, II, 183, where only the supposed Ballerini and the date “332” accepted by Wasserschleben are mentioned. (instead of "Schelstraten" the name "Ballerini" should appear here). Priest D. A. Lebedev in Bogosl. Encyclopedias of Prof. A. P. Lopukhina, ed. edited by prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, vol. XII (1911), 910: “between 330–335.” E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. VIII, in Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenchaften zu Göttingen. Philol.-historische Klasse. 1911. Heft 4, S. 389–397 (cf. also VI, 1905, Heft 3, S. 281 Anm. 1) is inclined to attribute this cathedral to an even earlier time, to 328 or 329 (A.B.) - 227. “Maternal rights of the city” (Greek).– 247. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, From the church history of Egypt. Vol. III. Archimandrite Victor of the Tabennisiots at the court of Constantinople in 431 Christ. Thurs. 1892.1, 343–346 (separate from 216–219) (A. B.) – 247. “Believers from everywhere” (Latin). – 260. From the course 1898/9. For different opinions on this issue, see K. Lübeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgange des vierten Jahrhunderts. Münster i. W. 1901. (A. B.) – 266. “Allowed to be” (lat.) – 266. “Behind the hundredth stone” (lat.) – 266. Wed. P. Leporsky, History of the Thessalonian Exarchate until its annexation to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. St. Petersburg 1901. (A.B.) – 270. Wed. N. Malitsky, The struggle of the Gallic church against the popes for independence. M. 1903. (A. B.) – 271. “Where Peter is, there is the church” ... “rock and foundation” (Latin). – 284. Not “one man, but the unity of the church” (Latin). – 285. “Oh, if only delusion would one day end!” (lat.) – 286 . “Prince of the whole church” (lat.) – 290. “Community of power” (lat.) – 292. “Community pours out” (lat.) – 292. “Fulness of power” (lat.) – 292. “Care common to all” (Latin). – 292. “Primarily on the basis of divine decree” (Latin). – 293. “Given divinity” (lat.) – 293. “Suddenly,” like “god ex machina” (lat.) .– 297. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, On the issue of Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum. “Christ. Thu." 1903, II, 60–68 (separate print 34–42) (“Language of acts. – In what language were the services performed in Carthage?”). The opinion on the use of the Latin language in the worship of the Western Church already in ancient times was expressed by A. I. Sadov, The Latin language in the worship of the ancient Western Church. “Christ. Thu." 1912.1, 157–179. On the question of Greek influence in northern Africa in general, cf. W. Thieling, Der Hellenismus in Kleinafrika. Der griechische Kultureinfluss in den römischen Provinzen Nordwestafrikas. Leipzig und Berlin. 1911. (A. B.) – 297. “The first salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith and in no way deviate from the tradition of the fathers; because we cannot neglect the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (Matthew 16:18). These words are confirmed by the occurrence of events: because the Apostolic See always keeps the Catholic faith inviolable. So we, wishing not to fall away from this faith and following in everything the institutions of the fathers, we anathematize all heresies. In a similar way, we anathematize Acacius, once the bishop of the city of Constantinople, who became a follower of those and an accomplice, and all those who are in communion with them and in participation... I hope that I will remain with you in that one communion that the apostolic throne preaches... I promise for the future not to communicate with those excommunicated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, with those who do not agree in everything with the apostolic throne, we promise not to remember their names during sacred ceremonies. If I ever try to doubt anything from my confession, then I confess that through my own condemnation I become an accomplice of those whom I condemned” (translated from Latin by F. Kurganova). – 312. “I was always separated from communication with Dorotheus because of the Council of Chalcedon” (lat.) – 313. “I tried to call myself universal” (Latin). – 316. “He annulled the acts of his council by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (lat.) .– 316. “In almost every line he calls himself an ecumenical (οίκουμενικόν) patriarch” (“The word oecumenicum, that is, universal, is arrogant and pernicious”) (Latin). – 316. “Crime elements” (lat.) – 317. “Lords of the universe” (Greek). – 317. “So that he does not allow himself to be called a stupid and arrogant word” (Latin). – 318. “The most holy archbishop and ecumenical patriarch spoke,” or “under the chairmanship of our most holy archbishop of Constantinople and ecumenical patriarch John” (Greek). – 318. “Are you saying that I should consider my actions and, without any reason, give room to an evil spirit that seeks to sift through souls?” (lat.) – 318 . “There should not be confusion between us because of naming with an empty name” (Latin). – 318. “So that the apostolic see of blessed Peter the Apostle, that is, the Roman Church, should be the head of all churches, because the Church of Constantinople wrote that it is the first of all churches” (Latin). – 319. “Servant of the servants of God” (lat.) – 319. “Ignorance, or schism, or heresy?” (lat.) – 320 . “Ascribing to himself supremacy over the primacy of the holy Roman Church, which is the head of all the Churches of God” (Latin). – 320. “Rome has spoken, and the matter is over” (lat.) .– 325. “Neither in any village, nor in a small town, for which one presbyter is enough so as not to diminish the name and authority of the bishop” (Latin). – 337. Wed. N. Geizer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung. Leipzig 1899. Yu. Kulakovsky, On the issue of themes of the Byzantine Empire. “Kyiv Izbornik”, 1904, pp. 95–118 (and separately). (A.B.) – 339. “Because this is not a sale, but an offering” (Greek). – 343. “Income of the church of the one being consecrated” (Greek).– 344. “Offering” (Greek).– 344. “For setting the table” (Greek). – 344. “For all other usual procedures” (Greek). – 344. Wed. N. Geizer, Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte der Notitae episcopatiim. (Aus den Abhandlungen der k. bayer. Akademie der Wiss. I. Cl. XXI. Bd. III. Abth.). München 1901. Also Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani. Ed. H. Geizer. Lipsiae 1890. (A. B.) – 345.