Правило 17 Святых Апостолов

Whoever, after holy baptism, was obliged to marry two times, or had a concubine, cannot be a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, or lower in the list of the sacred rank. (Ap. 18; Trul. 3; Basil Vel. 12). The prescription of this rule stems from divine law, according to which only one who has been married only once can perform the priestly service. In the Old Testament we find such a prescription for the Levites (Lev. 21:7, 13), and the Apostle Paul clearly says in his letters that only monogamous people can be clergy (1 Tim. 3:2–13; Tit. 1:5–6). We find the same in the Apostolic Decrees (VI, 17). The impetus for such a prescription was the high concept of abstinence that has always prevailed in the church, which was considered more sublime than marriage; a second marriage was looked upon as such a weakness that could never be tolerated by a servant of the Divine altar. When it was noticed that the injunctions of the Holy Scriptures on monogamy of clergy were not observed by some of them in all severity, then it was considered necessary to issue this injunction in the form of a law, which is this Apostolic Canon, and to prohibit everyone who married a second time from joining the clergy. From the very beginning of the church, the prescription of this rule was of great importance, as many fathers and teachers of the church of that time testify to us, 163 and then it was renewed by St. Basil the Great in his 12th canon, and the Council of Trulla, which in its 3rd canon quotes it verbatim, as we will see below. The rule says “after baptism”, i.e. One who, as a Christian, has married twice cannot be accepted into the clergy; if someone was married once before baptism, and after baptism married a second time, then the latter was not considered an obstacle to his acceptance into the clergy. In interpreting this rule, Zonara gives the following arguments: “We believe that the divine bath of holy baptism washes away every defilement with which those baptized were defiled before baptism, and no sin committed by anyone before baptism can prevent a newly baptized person from receiving him into the priesthood.” 164 As for the reminder of the rule that the first marriage before baptism does not need to be taken into account, this is explained by the time of publication this rule, when almost the entire church of that time consisted of newly baptized people who converted to Christianity or from Judaism or paganism, and, therefore, lived for a long time in both Judaism and paganism, in the corresponding conditions of the religious society from which they then came. The rule, without a doubt, prohibits the admission into the clergy of someone who, after baptism, had a concubine (παλλακή, concubina). Concubinage is fornication, and if a second marriage cannot be tolerated in the clergy and should not officiate before St. throne, the less can such a person be tolerated in the clergy who keeps a concubine and, therefore, is an obvious fornicator. According to the prescription of this rule, a bigamous man or one who has had a concubine not only cannot become a bishop, presbyter or deacon, but generally cannot take a place among the clergy included in the lists of the holy order (ή όλως τού καταλόγου τού ίερατικού ). The same thing is said in the next 18th rule. In the priestly catalogs in the early times of the church, as well as later, in addition to bishops, priests and deacons, also subdeacons, readers and singers were entered. The latter, in any case, must be understood as the persons in the priestly catalogue. If we take into account the severity of church discipline in the first times of Christianity, it is easy to explain why the rule extended its instructions to these individuals 165. In later times, some of these persons, generally bearing the name of clergy (ύπηρέται), were allowed to enter into a second marriage 166. Tertull., de exhort. castit. c. 7 [Migne, s. l, t. 2, col. 921–923] – ad uxorem I. 7 [Migne, s. l, t. 1, col. 1285–1287]. - Origenes, hom. 17 in Luc. [Migne, s. g., t. 13, col. 1842–1847]. – Epiphan, Expos. fidei n. 21 [Migne, s. g., t. 42, col. 821–825], – Cp. archim. John, Ι, 160, approx. 225 and 226. – J. Zhishman, Eherecht. S. 417 et seq. See in Pidalion (p. 19) third note. in the interpretation of this rule. Wed. Zhishman, mention. cit., S. 424–428. Another interpretation of this rule by Balsamon (Af. Synth., II. 24). You might be interested in: