Правило 14 Святых Апостолов

It is not permissible for a bishop to leave his diocese and move to another, even if he were convinced by many, unless there is some blessed guilt that compels him to do this, as if he can bring great benefit to those living there with the word of piety. And this is not by choice, but by the judgment of many bishops and by the strongest conviction. (Ap. 33; I Om. 15; IV Om. 5; Trul. 20; Antioch. 13, 16, 18, 21; Serdic. 1, 2, 17; Carth. 48). As soon as, as a result of the preaching activity of the Apostles, individual, small church areas were gradually organized, the concept of a permanent priesthood in these areas immediately began to take hold. This was to some extent determined by the very emergence of these areas. Each of the then church regions received its beginning either directly, or through someone else, from one of the Apostles, and a new spiritual life strengthened and developed in it through the bearers of the Holy Spirit, so that church communities or regions, constantly emerging, constituted, as it were, separate spiritual families, in which the bishop was the father, and the rest of the clergy were his assistants, taking care that Christian thoughts and feelings grew stronger in these spiritual families. As a result, anyone who left this spiritual family and left this closely united holy community was considered an apostate and traitor. But this constant presence of the clergy in one place was also caused by the practical benefit of the church itself, since the activity of the bishop, together with him and his assistants, can be really useful only when the bishop of a given church knows his people and the latter knows his bishop. If we add to this that the bishop at that time was elected by the people and, therefore, as the chosen one of the people, was truly among his own, then it is easy to understand what the connection was between the bishop and his church, and how sacred and inextricable this connection was revered. But it must be assumed that not everyone always looked at this connection as sacredly as it was at the beginning of the existence of the church, and therefore, already in the first times, it was necessary to issue a special law regarding this, expressed in this Apostolic Rule. This rule prohibits a bishop from leaving the diocese in which he was placed by divine grace and moving to another diocese, even if both the clergy and the people of the latter invited him to do so. The rule allows exceptions only in the case where there is a good reason for moving a bishop from one diocese to another, as, for example, if in some diocese faith and piety were shaken and disorder began, and in order to revive and strengthen faith it would be considered necessary to appoint another bishop, known for his zeal and capable of establishing order there. Due to this reason, such movements have always been carried out, and are still being carried out to this day 158. But no bishop can ever do this without permission, but only and exclusively by decision of the proper episcopal council. Regarding this, we speak in the interpretation of the 15th rule of I Omni. Council and other parallel rules. According to Zonara’s interpretation, it turns out that the rule allows a bishop, distinguished by experience and zeal, “to go temporarily (προσκαίρως) to another diocese for the purpose of teaching and instructing the people there,” even if the bishop of this diocese himself was alive and well. This opinion of Zonara is not justified by anything, and Balsamon quite thoroughly says about this: “How do they conclude this, when the rule does not say anything like that? And what will be the benefit to the people of the dowager church from the teachings of a bishop who teaches there once or twice or even for a whole year, if he does not perform any other episcopal action there, even if many bishops convince him to do so? If the called bishop does not teach according to the hierarchal right, then conviction is not required from many bishops, for even one can preach piety” 159. In the Greek original of this rule, the word παροικία was used, but we translated it with the word “diocese”, following the current canonical terminology, especially since this rule refers specifically to such a church region as we now call a diocese. Παροικία in ancient times was the general name for a region under the jurisdiction of one independent bishop, and only later, when all the constituent parts of the Universal Church received a broader and more permanent organization, the word παροικία began to mean our current parish, and for the region of a bishop the name 'επαρχί &#945 160' was adopted. See Patriarch Manuel II of Constantinople (13th century) on the transfer of bishops, and Demetrius Chomatianus for his 1st reply on the same subject to Archbishop Constantine Kavasila (Af. Synth., V, 116–118. 428–429, cf. and pp. 391–394). – Synth. Vlastara A, 9 (Af. Synth., VI 84 et seq.). – Balsamon, in another interpretation of this rule, mentions, among others, the example of Gregory the Theologian and St. Proclus (Ath. Synth., II, 20). Wed. decision Const. Synod Sept. 1348 (Miklosich et Muller, “Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani.” Vindobonae, 1860. I, 274–275). Af. Synth., II, 18, 20. See Van Espen schol. in h. can., pag. 54. Ducange, Glossarium ad scriptores med. et inf. graecitatis (Ed. Wratislaviae, 1891), col. 1122. - J. C. Suiceri, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, I, 1159, II, 597. You might be interested in: