Правило 10 Василия Великого

Those who swear not to accept ordination when they have taken an oath, let them not be forced to break it. For although there seems to be some kind of rule condescending to such, we have learned from experience that those who act against an oath do not prosper. One must consider the image of the oath, and the words and disposition with which they swore, and the subtle additions in the words: and if on any side there is no relief from the power of the oath, then it is appropriate to completely abandon them. The case of Sevier, or the presbyter appointed by him, in my opinion (even if yours agrees with mine), receives some resolution of the oath in the following way. This village, to which this man was brought, subordinated until now to Mysthia, was ordered to be counted among the Masadas: for in this way he will not be an oathbreaker without leaving the place, and Loggin, having Cyriacus with him, will not abolish the church, and will not subject his soul to condemnation for the desolation of it: and we will not dare to do something against the rules, condescending to Cyriacus, who swore to stay in Mindan, but agreed to be transferred. For his return will be in compliance with the oath: and his obedience to the order will not be charged as a crime of oath: since his oath was not added to the fact that he would not leave Mindan for a short time, but for the rest of the time he would remain there. We will forgive Sevier, who apologizes through oblivion; reksha, as a leader of the secret, will not allow his church to suffer harm from someone who at the beginning did not act according to the rules, but bound himself with an oath contrary to the Gospel: who by moving taught perjury, now lies with feigned oblivion. But since we are not judges of hearts, but judge because we hear: then let us leave vengeance to the Lord, and we ourselves will undoubtedly accept it, giving forgiveness to oblivion, like human weakness. (Ap. 25; Trul. 95; Basil Vel. 17, 28, 29, 64, 81, 82). In several of his rules, Basil the Great talks about the oath, its meaning and those who violate it. In this rule he talks about the latter, and in 64 he defines the punishment for them. In the interpretation of this last rule we are talking about this subject. In this canon, Saint Basil tells Amphilochius his opinion about the oath of a certain Kyriakos that he will forever remain a presbyter in some village. It happened in the early days of the church that some took a vow that they would never enter the priestly rank, or, if they did, they would never leave the village or place for which they were ordained, and therefore would not accept any of the highest hierarchical honors. Many did this out of fear that they would subsequently not be forced to accept the episcopal rank, which seemed difficult to them and which, perhaps, they were unworthy of. Their vow, or oath, became generally known, which is why they subsequently had to take this into account. Such an oath, in itself, could not have any special significance, since it was difficult to justify it with reasonable arguments, and, therefore, the one who violated it would not be subject to the strict canonical punishment prescribed for violating a solemnly given oath (Ap. 25). However, Saint Basil disapproves of trampling such an oath, since from experience we know, he says, that it is rarely good for someone who does not fulfill his vows. However, adds Saint Basil, it is necessary, in such cases, to take into account how the oath was given: whether the name of God was invoked, in what words the oath was expressed, what was the mental state of the one taking the oath and, on the basis of all this, one must judge the oath itself. After these preliminary remarks, Saint Basil gives his conclusion about the oath of Cyriacus, as Amphilochius asked him to do. The point was as follows. A certain Longinus built a church at his own expense in the village of Mindanakh, Mysthian diocese. Sevier, bishop of Masada, ordained Cyriacus as presbyter of this church, who vowed to remain forever with this church. The Mysthian bishop forbade Kyriakou to serve in it, since he was ordained by someone else's bishop, and not by him, the diocesan bishop. As a result of this, Cyriacus transfers to the service of another church; and the angry ktitor Longinus threatened to close the church. It was necessary to prevent this: that is why Saint Basil concludes that the village of Mivdani should be subordinated to the Masada diocese, although it previously belonged to another, but Kyriakos should return to the church in Mindan, for in this way he will remain faithful to his vow and Longinus will not have reason to close the church and thereby cause harm to his soul. Bishop Sevier was also to blame in this matter, having ordained a presbyter for a church not in his diocese; but since Sevier, in his justification, referred to the fact that he did not know that the disputed church was not his diocese, Vasily recognized this explanation as respectful, leaving God's court to test the fidelity of the given justification 46 . Interpretation of Zonara in Af. Synth., IV, 125. You might be interested in: