Правило 5 Святых Апостолов

A bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, may not cast out his wife under the pretense of reverence. If he expels him, he will be excommunicated from the communion of the church; and remaining adamant, he will be expelled from the sacred rank. (Trul. 12, 13, 48; I Universe. 3; Gangr. 1, 4, 9, 10; Carth. 4). The Orthodox Church has always recognized, as it still recognizes, that clergy can live in a legal marriage. She bases this teaching on Holy Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church of early times. In the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 21:9) we read that St. Philip had four daughters. About app. Peter and the other Apostles we also have evidence from the time of St. Fathers that they were married 120. The Apostolic Decrees (VI, 17) speak of the marriage of clergy as a common occurrence. This rule strictly proclaims the legal significance of the marriage of a bishop, presbyter and deacon, and consequently of all other clergy. In the interpretation of the 13th canon of the Trullo Council we talk in more detail about this issue. At the time of publication of this Ap. rules, the opinion prevailed among some that marriage is something unclean and that it cannot be tolerated, especially among clergy. At the same time, Christian piety was pointed out, which requires that a person, especially a priest, devote himself entirely to God; if such a person has a wife and children, then, naturally, he must devote his love to them, and, therefore, cannot devote himself entirely to God 121. This rule condemns such a view of piety and considers it only an excuse; in essence, with such an understanding of piety, one of the decrees of divine law is violated. Under the pretext of such piety, undoubtedly, many bishops, presbyters and deacons divorced their legitimate wives, and this, naturally, created disorder in public life and served as a temptation among the faithful. This rule was issued against this, which threatens excommunication, i.e. the prohibition of priestly service for clergy who divorced their legal wives under this pretext; and those who persist in this and do not want to return to themselves their wife, who was illegally and under the mentioned pretext expelled from themselves, the same rule orders to be deposed from the priesthood. The decree of this rule, according to which a bishop can be married, does not contradict rule (12) of the Trullo Council, which prohibits a bishop from being married, since it is directed against the false views of that time, which, without a doubt, were widespread and threatened by a general infection; moreover, church discipline had not yet been fully established, and the rules sought more to eradicate bad customs than to establish and legitimize good ones that had already been existing in the church; The custom that bishops do not live with their wives dates back to the first times of the church. This rule speaks first of all about excommunication, then about the ejection of clergy, and in the 9th Ap. The rule again talks about the excommunication of the laity. It seems convenient to us here, at the beginning of our interpretations, to mention the ecclesiastical punishments imposed by the church on clergy or laity when they sin against its laws, in order in this way to make generally clearer the meaning of individual rules imposing various punishments. If there is a legislative power in the church that has the power to protect its legal relations, then, in connection with this, there must also exist in it the power that punishes any act that violates those relations and prevents the church from achieving its task in the world. One power without the other is unthinkable, since a law without external sanction will be an empty phrase, and every member of the church is absolutely obliged to obey its laws. If a known member of the church does not obey its laws of his own free will, he must be forced to do so if he wishes to remain a member of the church. The power of the church to punish those who are obstinate and opposed to its laws is based on divine right, like the power of the court. About someone who does not want to obey the church court, Jesus Christ tells His disciples that such a person should be like a pagan and a publican to them (Matthew 18:17). From these same words of Christ flows the power of the church to punish those who transgress its laws; they also indicate what the essence of church punishments is (cf. 1 Cor. 5:3–5; 1 Tim. 1:20) 122. The founder of the church, having mentioned the means that should be used to correct a person who breaks the law, added that, in case of persistence, he should be deprived of communication with the church, expelled from the church and considered alien to it. Deprivation of communion with the church (' ακοινωνησία, excommunicatio) consists, therefore, of the last and therefore the highest punishment that a church court can impose on persons who have violated its laws. The name of communion (κοινωνία, communio) refers to all the rights a person receives upon his entry into the church, and in particular the right to use the grace-filled gifts of the church, of which the highest is the sacrament of St. communion. These rights belong to every member of the church, regardless of the position he occupies in it, as long as he fulfills all the requirements of church laws, and the society that enjoys all these rights is called the society of the laity (κοινωνία των λαϊκών, communio laica). But in the church, in addition to the laity, there are also clergy, through whom gifts of grace are imparted, and who, due to their high position in the church, enjoy, in addition to the rights that belong to all other members, and some special rights. The corporation of clergy to whom these rights belong is called the society of clergy (communio clericalis) 123. Both in one and in another society, the degrees of rights enjoyed by their members are different: some of these rights are primary, and some are secondary. In this regard, when the established law is violated, criminals are deprived of their rights in a certain sequence, and the greater the violation of the law, the more rights are lost and the more church punishment the criminal is subjected to, and vice versa. Since the essence of every church punishment, whether it concerns a lay believer or a clergyman, is deprivation of communion, the degree of punishment will depend on the greater or lesser deprivation of communion that he enjoyed. However, here we must keep in mind the subject of the crime: if he belongs to the laity, then the punishments are the same, but if he belongs to the members of the clergy, then the punishments are of a different kind. This is determined by the position occupied in the church by both, laity and clergy. The highest church punishment that a clergyman can be subjected to is deprivation of the priesthood, and the highest punishment for the laity is excommunication. A clergyman, as such, cannot be subject to this latter, and if he is subject to it, then only after he has been defrocked and transferred to the ranks of the laity, and, already as a layman, has committed a crime leading to this highest punishment; but, belonging to the clergy, for the same crime a clergyman will be punished by deprivation of his rank, i.e. the highest punishment for the clergy. The reason for this is expressed in the 25th Ap. rule (Ap. 25), which mentions a place from Holy Scripture: “Thou shalt not avenge one thing twice” (Nahum. 1:9), and Basil the Great explains the same in his 3rd rule (Basily the Great. 3), speaking of a deacon who transgresses the law, that he should be defrocked, “but when he is deposed to the place of a layman, he should not be deprived of communion (τής κοινωνίας ούκ είρχθησεται), since there is an ancient rule that those who are deposed from their degree (hierarchical) should be subjected to only this one kind of punishment, and the ancients, as I believe, followed that law: “do not avenge the same thing twice” (Nahum. 1:9), - and also for another consideration, namely, that the laity deposed from a certain place are then again accepted into the same place, and the deacon is once and for all subjected to the punishment of ejection, which is why they limited themselves to this one punishment, since the office of deacon never returns to him. And this is done according to the regulations (ταύτα μεν ούν τα έκ τών τύπων)." In its essence, every punishment is vengeance (έκδίκησις, vindicta) for the evil done by the criminal. Christianity condemns the Old Testament rule: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (jus talionis), and, consequently, personal vengeance for harm caused 124; but at the same time it grants the church legal vengeance in the spirit of its teaching, and recognizes its right to punish criminals within certain limits, i.e. execution of legal vengeance through punishment 125. Ap. Peter speaks of submission to the authorities and reminds έκδίκησιν κακοποιών, the punishment of criminals 126; As for government officials, Ap. Paul reminds the Romans that those who do not submit to such should not forget that they are avengers to punish the one who does evil. The church fathers also understood punishment in this sense, which is especially clearly confirmed by one passage from the work of Bla. Augustine on true and false repentance: Poena enim proprie dicitur laesio, quae punit et vindicat 128. 25th Ap. The rule also mentions έκδίκησιν, vindictam, indicating that for some serious crimes it is enough to subject the clergy to the punishment of eruption and that he should not be subjected to another punishment for this, since έκδίκησις for the crime was already fulfilled in the first punishment. Based on the above about church punishment, we can conclude that this, like any legal punishment in general, is an evil that the church authority imposes on the offender of the law, as revenge for the evil he has done. This is the essence of church punishment 129. But bearing in mind the purpose for which the church authority imposes punishments, such punishments acquire in church law their own special meaning, determined by the very task of the church. The main and first goal of any church punishment is to direct to good the members of the church who accidentally strayed from the straight path. The Church, using coercive measures against its member who has violated any church law, wants to induce him to correct and reacquire the lost good, which he can only find in communication with her, and only as a last resort deprives him of this communication completely. The means used by the church for this purpose can be strong, depending on how much it can benefit it and its dignity. As in every society, so in the church, if the crimes of individual members were not condemned and the force of the law were not supported by the authorities, then such members could easily lead others along with them and thus spread evil widely. Moreover, order in the church could be disrupted, and its very life could be in danger if it did not have the right to excommunicate bad members from communication with itself, thereby protecting the good and submissive from infection. Many decrees of church legislation show us that the church was deeply imbued with this thought, and that as much as it tried to give people the means for correction, it also prevented with these means the possibility of further crimes in order to preserve the good of the entire church. In the same way, the provisions of church legislation tell us that when imposing punishments for various crimes, the dignity of the church must be taken into account. Both in the first centuries of the church and at the present time, Gentiles will honor it if its members are distinguished by moral life and exemplary behavior, and vice versa, their respect for the church will begin to disappear as soon as they see that there is no morality among its members and instead vice reigns; and a wide scope would have been opened for the latter if the Church had not dealt with all severity with those who transgressed its laws, i.e. If only I would tolerate criminals in my society. And, for the sake of preserving the dignity of the church, church authorities must use coercive measures against anyone who, by their actions, can humiliate this dignity and thereby give reason to non-believers to treat her disrespectfully. Basil the Great, advising in his 6th (Basily Vel. 6) rule the greatest severity in relation to clergy who fall into fornication, adds: “this will also be useful for the establishment of the church and will not give heretics a reason to reproach us that we attract to ourselves the forgiveness of sin.” The science of church law divides all types of church punishments into retributive (punitive) or vindicative (τιμωρίαι σωφρονίζουσαι, poena vindicativae) and corrective or healing (τ. διορθούσαι, ρ. medicinales). This division of church punishments into punitive and corrective has its basis in the legislation of the period of the ecumenical councils, which in this adhered to Greco-Roman legislation. The main task of the former, i.e. punitive punishment is to protect and preserve the authority of the law, and to avenge violations of legal order. Corrective punishment is also fundamentally punitive, since otherwise it would not be a punishment in the legal sense, but its main task is to correct the offender. This in itself reveals the difference between these and other punishments. The goal of the former is revenge for the evil caused, the goal of the latter is the correction of the guilty. With punitive punishments, the culprit must fully endure the evil determined by the court for the crime he committed, regardless of whether he repented and corrected himself; and with corrective punishments, evil stops at the moment when the punishment has achieved its goal, i.e. when the culprit reformed. Regarding the time of continuation of the punishment: in the first case, it is determined precisely either by the law itself or by the judge at the time of the announcement of the court decision; with the second, this time is not determined at all, but depends on the zeal shown by the condemned in his correction and in his insistence on the return of his lost right in the church; therefore, punitive punishment ends only after the expiration of the time determined by the court for revenge for the crime, while corrective punishment ends when the guilty person sincerely repents of the crime he has committed, and when he shows that he has truly reformed. Everything that has been said so far about the mentioned punishments has meaning only for members of the clergy, in accordance with their position and their special ministry in the church. This includes not only members of the clergy who have received sacramental ordination: bishops, presbyters and deacons, but also all other lower members of the clergy who, through prayer, have received a known place in the clergy and occupy a certain service in the church or in the church administration. This also includes monks, with the only difference that for them, in addition to disciplinary regulations that are important for all members of the clergy in general, they are also required to follow special monastic rules, for violation of which the mentioned punishments can be either punitive or corrective in nature. But the same cannot be said regarding the faithful laity, nor regarding their punishments, which can be either punitive or corrective in nature. A layman who has committed any ecclesiastical crime must bear vengeance for it in accordance with the decision of the ecclesiastical court and, therefore, be subject to punitive punishment. Such a punishment can be better and more corrective to help him improve, since he can repent every minute, voluntarily bringing the fruit of his repentance to the church, as proof that he has truly reformed and, therefore, is worthy to have those rights in the church of which he was deprived returned to him; if he does not want to do this voluntarily, but remains stubborn in his crime, then no corrective punishment can help, since the church does not have the means to force a criminal layman to undergo such punishment. Therefore, a faithful layman can only be subject to punitive church punishment, and every punishment imposed on him by a church court for any church crime is always punitive or vindicative in nature. From the above it follows that all church punishments are punitive, whether they are imposed on lay criminals or on members of the clergy: for the former in an absolute sense, and for the latter in a relative sense. For the laity, these penalties consist of lesser or greater loss of the rights that belong to them as members of the church, or the loss of all these rights, hence exclusion from church unity. For members of the clergy, these punishments consist of the deprivation of the rights they received upon joining the clergy, regardless of whether these rights arise from their clergy or church-administrative position, or whether they consist of a relative prohibition of the use of these rights, i.e. in the temporary cessation of the use of all or some of them until the purpose for which the punishment was imposed is achieved. In the latter case, these punishments take on a corrective nature. All the punishments that church courts, according to the teachings of church law, have the power to impose for known crimes are of a spiritual nature, with the exception of one, which is of a worldly nature, namely monetary punishment, which is not mentioned in the canons, but which can be justified in church judicial practice only by centuries-old use in church courts. Church punishments for the laity mentioned in the canons are as follows: Penance (μετάνοια, 'επιτιμία, poenitentia), as a punishment in the legal sense, consists in the fact that a formal church court imposes on a criminal for known crimes the mandatory execution of court orders, and first of all, as revenge for the evil that he, as a member of the church, committed by some of his criminal behavior, and then, as a means to regain through her those rights that he deprived himself of by his crime. The canonical basis for penance is found already in the Apostolic Decrees 130, and then in the 102nd rule of the Council of Carthage (Carth. 102) and in some other rules 131. Penance in this sense is an independent punishment. But it is often used along with other punishments. Thus, when one of the laity is sentenced to temporary excommunication, the ecclesiastical court, if it considers it necessary, may order such a condemned person, for the duration of his excommunication, to compulsorily perform one of the accepted types of penance, as an independent punishment, for example, the requirement of some kind of donation in favor of the church, the poor or some charitable institution, or the obligation to visit the sick and infirm and provide them with assistance, etc. Infamy ('ατιμία, infamia). This punishment was very important in Greco-Roman law, since its consequence for a given person was the loss of civil rights. This punishment has acquired even more importance in church law in view of the sacred nature of the church, each member of which must be free from everything that can diminish or destroy his good reputation in society (ύπόληψιν, existimationem). This punishment consists of the complete or partial deprivation of church benefits and rights, imposed by the church as a punishment on those who, by their unchristian behavior, show that they are not worthy to enjoy these benefits and rights. This punishment is based on divine law, which prohibits entrusting any service in the church to vicious persons 132. The 129th Carthaginian rule (Carth. 129) prescribes to carefully observe such persons: whether they have σπΐλος τής ατιμίας (infamiae labes). The same is mentioned in other rules 133. Infamy can occur for a well-known person either directly, after committing some dishonest act (infamia juris immediata), which does not require any special formal judicial investigation, or indirectly - after a court decision (infamia juris mediata). Excommunication (αφορισμ o ς, excommunicatio) consists in the fact that a church court deprives a known person of the right of St. communion for a certain time. This punishment is also called minor excommunication (αφορισμός μικρός, excommunicatio minor) in contrast to major excommunication (παντελής αφορισμός, excommunicatio major). The highest degree of this punishment is that a known criminal is prohibited, except St. communion, as well as participation in church services with the rest of the faithful, but it is only allowed to participate in these services together with the catechumens, i.e. before the Liturgy of the Faithful begins. Minor excommunication is based on those canonical decrees that were in force in the penitentiary system of the primitive church. The duration of this excommunication usually lasted no more than three years, and was imposed as a punishment for minor offenses, mostly of an omissive nature (i.e., for omissions) and always only for unintended (culpable) offenses. The subject of this punishment can be every person belonging to the church. But such a subject can be, due to some offense, several individuals together, or even an entire locality with its entire population, as evidenced by one letter (270) of Basil the Great, written after 374. A almost the same thing is said in the 36th Ap. rule (Ap. 36), which prescribes the excommunication of the entire clergy of a certain region, if they do not convince the people of this region to accept the bishop legally appointed to them. Complete exclusion from the church or great excommunication (παντελής άφορισμός, excommunicatio omnimoda sive major) is that a well-known member of the church for a serious church crime, obvious and proven, is completely deprived of church unity, i.e. loses: a) the right to common prayer with the faithful, b) the right to participate in any church service, and least of all in the divine liturgy, c) the right to perform any sacrament or church rite over him, and d) the right to be buried in an Orthodox cemetery after death. No faithful should have any religious communication with a person who has undergone complete excommunication, and clergy should not have private communication with him. This great church punishment in canonical sources is also called anathema. Deprivation of church burial. This punishment is imposed on those criminals who were subjected to complete excommunication during their lifetime and who, even at the moment of death, did not want to repent of their sin and reconcile with the church. The mentioned ecclesiastical punishments are imposed on laymen who have committed any ecclesiastical crime. Members of the clergy can also be subjected to the same punishments, but not as such, but only after, when, as a result of their final exclusion from the clergy, they ceased to belong to it, therefore, when they became laity. For members of the clergy, as such, there are special punishments in case of violation of well-known canonical regulations, and these punishments, depending on the nature of the crime, are either corrective or punitive. Corrective punishments include the following: Remark (παράκλησις, obsecratio, admonition). The remark is a reminder of the responsibilities that lie on clergy according to their position in the church. Every clergyman is subject to reprimand as soon as he commits the slightest offense, and the significance of the latter and the consequences awaiting him if he does not correct himself are shown to him. The remark is repeated two and three times, after which another punishment follows 134. A reprimand (έπίπληξις, απειλή, exprobatio, minae, reprimand) is made either personally by the bishop or by the council. In the second case, the reprimand is public, and therefore constitutes a greater degree of punishment than the reprimand of the bishop. a reprimand as a church punishment is mentioned in the most ancient ecclesiastical legal monuments 135. The movement of the guilty person from the place belonging to him at the time of ordination or production to the last place among those equal to him in rank. This punishment, in accordance with the 7th canon of the Council of Trullo, is imposed on those who boldly and illegally try to occupy a higher place in the church in comparison with the places occupied by persons of the sacred or governing hierarchy of the same degree, but who were previously ordained or promoted 136. Removal from the place of duty for a certain period of time. At the beginning, the guilty person who fell under this punishment spent the time of excommunication at the seat of the bishop and under his supervision. Subsequently, when they found that monasteries were more convenient for this, the guilty began to be sent to monasteries, under the supervision of monastic abbots, where, throughout the continuation of punishment, the guilty person must also bear a certain penance, which usually consists of strict execution of the monastic charter with double prayer and bows (Ap. 35). Temporary ban on religious ceremonies. This punishment is usually imposed either when the offender must repent of an offense committed in the exercise of his clergy duties, or during a judicial investigation, when someone is accused of a crime leading to defrocking. While serving this punishment, the guilty person, in addition to being deprived of the right to perform sacred functions, cannot enjoy other rights associated with a hierarchical degree; therefore, he cannot teach or participate in church government. He remains a priest only in name, without having any priestly rights (Ap. 5, Apo. 59; IV Ecum. 20; Trul. 3; Serdic. 14; Carth. 19, 133). Prohibition of certain specific rituals. This punishment is imposed on persons who have committed any crime, which, due to its nature or nature, they can never repent of in order to again receive the right to perform all sacred rites (Neokes. 9), or who have arrogated to themselves the right to perform any sacred rites, which they did not have the right to perform due to their position among the governing hierarchy (Antioch. 10) 137. The punishments mentioned so far, except for the last one, are used to correct clergy who have committed a minor ecclesiastical offense. The latter constitutes a transition to punitive punishments, which are as follows: Removal from the place of service forever. This punishment is imposed for negligent performance of duties assigned to clergy by the governing hierarchy and for violation of church discipline, e.g. when a bishop leaves his diocese for a long time (Dukr. 16), or when he forcibly takes possession of any diocese (Antioch. 16), when a presbyter, without the permission of his bishop, leaves the place of his ministry and arbitrarily takes a new place (Ap. 15), etc. But since in ancient times no one could be ordained without being assigned to a specific place (άπολελυμένως), when he forever renounced a certain place of service, then through this he fell under another heavy punishment, namely: Deprivation forever of the right to perform any sacred act, but with the right to bear a spiritual title and enjoy the honor that belongs to this title. This punishment is imposed for more serious crimes, especially for those that create temptation among the people, but were committed either out of ignorance, or for some extraordinary reason, and meanwhile those who committed them repented and corrected themselves. In the rules we find that this degree of punishment was subjected, for example, to those who, during persecution, apostatized from the faith, but later repented 138, or those who, out of ignorance, entered into an illegal marriage before their ordination (Trul. 36; Neokes. 8, 9; Basil the Great 27), etc. Eruption or deprivation of the right to perform any sacred act forever and, at the same time, deprivation of the name and honor of the priesthood. This punishment is imposed for particularly serious crimes against hierarchical rules, for example. for simony, and for guilt that brings on the laity excommunication from the church. A clergyman punished by eruption loses, first of all, all the rights and benefits that belonged to him due to the threefold nature of church power, i.e. the right of priesthood, teaching and shepherding (Antioch. 3; Basil the Great. 27, etc.); further, it loses all the rights of honor that belonged to it as a clergyman; then, his name is crossed out from the list of clergy (έκ τού ίερατικού καταλόγου), in which it was included at ordination (Ap. 8, 17, 18, 51, 63, etc.), and, finally, included among the laity, with granting him ecclesiastical rights, which are enjoyed only by the laity. The defrocking to which a clergyman is subjected continues forever, and the deposed person can never again be accepted into any hierarchical degree (Trul. 21; Basil Vel. 3, etc.), at least he repented and promised to fulfill his duties according to the rules. In the latter case, the rules only allow for a more lenient attitude of the church towards such perpetrators, but only “as to the laity.” Eruption with excommunication. A clergyman who falls under this punishment is subject not only to the above-mentioned consequences of eruption, but is also subject thereafter to the excommunication imposed on criminal laymen, i.e. is deprived for a more or less long period of church communion with the faithful in prayer. This great ecclesiastical punishment is usually imposed on a clergyman who, despite being defrocked, still dares to perform the priesthood (Ap. 28; Antioch. 4; Basil the Great 88), or after the eruption again commits the crime for which he has already been subjected to this punishment (Basily the Great 3, 88), or commits a crime that affects the foundations of faith and the church (Ap. 30, 64; Trul. 1, 86; In ancient times, persons subjected to this punishment were usually sent to a monastery, where they had to endure strict penance, or if they continued, despite the punishment, to violate the peace of the church and did not recognize its court, then the church authorities handed them over to the secular court for proper punishment (Antioch. 5; Carth. 48). Ambros., in II Sog. 11, 2 [Migne, s. l, t. 17, col. 320]. – Ignat., ep. ad Philadelphia. [Migne, s. g., t. 5, col. 697–708. – Clem. Alexandr. Strom. III, 6. [Migne, s. g., t. 8, col. 1148–1161]. – Euseb. Hist. eccl. III, 31 [Migne, s. g., t. 20, col. 280, 281] and τ. d. See Β e ν eregii in h. c., p. 18. Together with Dray (cit. cit., S. 340–341) and J. Zhishman (Eherecht, S. 453) thinks that this rule was issued against Eustathius of Sebaste (my “Collection” of rules, 2nd ed., p. XXXXIV), a fanatic of celibate life. Eustathius lived in the middle of the 4th century, therefore, after the 1st Universe. Council, and therefore it would be necessary to assume that Ap. Rules, or at least this (5) rule, published after I Om. Council, which is impossible, as can be seen from what we said about the origin of the collection of Ap. rules in general. Wed. archim. John, “Church Prohibition and Permission” (Right. Sob. 1860. III, 367 et seq.). – Yves. Milovanov, “On Church Crimes and Punishments” (Christ. Reading 1887. I, 508 e seq. 1888. I, 110 et seq.). - N. Suvorov, “On Church Punishments”, St. Petersburg, 1876. - Bishop. Nikodim Milas, “Crkveno executed right”, Mostar. 1911. – Nic. Munchen, “Das Kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht”, 2. Bde. Koln, 1865–66. –Dr. F. Kober, “Die Suspension der Kirchendiener”, Tubingen, 1862. – Dr. F. Kober, “Der Kirehenbann”, Tubingen, 1863. – Dr. F. Kober, “Die Deposition und Degradation”, Tubingen, 1867. – Dr. K. Kellner, “Das Buss-und Strafverfahren gegen Kleriker”, Trier, 1863 – Dr. Ed. Katz, “Ein Grundriss des kan. Strafrechts”, Berlin, 1881. – Dr. Paul Hinschius, “Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten”, Berlin, 1886 – 1897 (This book deals with criminal law in volume IV, pp. 691–864, in volume V and in the first part of volume VI). Communionis unum est nomen, sed diversi sunt actus. Aliud est communicare episcopum cum episcopo et alium communicare laicum cum eplscopo. Ορ tat. Μ ilev., De schismate Donatistarum. lib. VII, 6 [Migne, s. l., t. 11, col. 1093,1094]. Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38–39. Matt. 7:2; Mark. 4:24; Onion. 6:38; Ear. 3:25; 2Sol. 1:6, 8; Jacob 2:13. Hinschius, System., IV, 747. Anm. 10. We read something similar to this from Suvorov: “Church punishment is an impact (reactio) against a church crime” (On the Church. Nak., p. 13), and in connection with this he claims that “Church punishment can only consist in the deprivation of benefits or rights of the Church,” that is, in a certain evil. Wed. Hinschius., System., IV, 747, where this doctrine is expounded in detail. Wed. Ankir., 16, 17, 21, 24, 25; Neokes. 1; VII Universe 1, etc. 1 Tim. 3:2; 7:10; Titus 1 et seq. Ap. pr. 74; II Omni. 6; IV Omni. 21; Karf. 8, 19, 129, 131. Ap. the rule, speaking of the punishment that should be imposed on a presbyter who has fallen away from his bishop, adds that this should be done (Af. Synth., II, 39). Ap. post., II, 48; IV Omni. 19. In the sense of reprimand, which is mentioned by IV Omni. 19 Ave., should also be understood as 25 Ave. Antiochus. and 13 Serdik Ave. cathedral The rules for such crimes define the punishment of the perpetrator by dethronement from the highest hierarchical degree to the lowest (from episcopal to presbyteral, see Trul. 20, Laod. 10). But this contradicts the 29th rule of IV Omni. Council, which says that - ίεροσυλία , έπίσκοπον είς πρεσθυτέρο ” βαθμόν φέρειν ; and therefore, according to the interpretation of Zonara and Balsamon, 20 Trul. rule (Af. Synt., II, 349, 350) should be understood as stated in our text. For the main considerations about this, see the interpretation of 29 pr. IV Sobor. The rules mention another punishment, namely, that some cannot be elevated to the highest hierarchical degree for known accidental offenses committed by them (Trul. 3). However, this only served as a reason for issuing a positive law on a subject about which until then there had been no precise regulations. Ankir. The 1st rule of the Council regarding these persons prescribes: “let them not be deprived of the honor of their seats, but let them not have the power to make an offering, to preach, or to act in any priestly way in general.” You might be interested in: