Правило 1 Василия Великого

And so regarding the question of the Kafars, it was said before, and you judiciously mentioned that it is appropriate to follow the custom of each country, because their baptism was thought differently by those who judged this subject in their time. The baptism of the Pepusians, in my opinion, has nothing in its defense: and I was surprised that the Great Dionysius, being skilled in the rules, did not notice this. For the ancients decided to accept baptism, which did not deviate in any way from the faith: therefore they called something else heresy, another schism, and another self-inflicted gathering. They called heretics those who had completely rejected and were alienated in the faith itself: schismatics, divided in opinions about certain church subjects, and about issues that allowed for healing: and they called assemblies composed of disobedient presbyters, or bishops, and uneducated people, as unauthorized assemblies. For example, if someone, having been convicted of sin, is removed from the priesthood, does not submit to the rules: but he himself retains the position and the priesthood, and with him some others retreat, leaving the Catholic Church: this is an unauthorized gathering. To think about repentance differently than what exists in the church is a schism. Heresies are, for example: Manichaean, Valentinian, Marcionite, and these very Pepusians. For here there is a clear difference in the very belief in God. Why, from the beginning, the former fathers wanted to completely sweep aside the baptism of heretics: accept the baptism of schismatics, as if they were not yet alien to the church: and correct those who were in unauthorized gatherings with decent repentance and conversion, and again join the church. Thus, even those in church ranks, having retreated together with the disobedient, when they repent, are often accepted back into the same rank. The Pepusians are clearly heretics. For they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, impiously and shamelessly appropriating the title of comforter to Montanus and Priscilla. Therefore, if they idolize people, they are subject to condemnation for this: if they insult the Holy Spirit by comparing Him with people, and in this case they are guilty of eternal condemnation, for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven. What consistency would there be in recognizing the baptism of those who baptize into the Father and the Son, and into Montanus or Priscilla? For those who were baptized into that which was not handed down to us are not baptized. Therefore, although the Great Dionysius did not notice this, we should not observe the imitation of the wrong: for the absurdity is obvious by itself, and is clear to everyone who has at least some reasoning. The Kafars are one of the schismatics. However, it was desirable for the ancients, such as Cyprian and our Firmilian, to subordinate all these to a single definition: the Kafars, the Encratites, the Hydroparastats, and the Apotactites. For, although the beginning of the apostasy occurred through a schism, those who apostatized from the church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit on themselves. For the teaching of grace has become scarce, because the legal succession has been cut off. For those who were the first to apostate received initiation from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands, they had spiritual gifts. But those rejected, having become laity, had no power to baptize or ordain, and could not teach others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen. Why did the ancients command those who came from them to the church, supposedly baptized by the laity, to be cleansed again by true church baptism. But since some in Asia decidedly desired, for the edification of many, to accept their baptism, then let it be acceptable. It is fitting for us to discern the evil deception of the Encratites. They, in order to make themselves inconvenient for the church, decided to precipitate their own baptism, through which they changed their own custom. And so, since nothing is clearly stated about them, I think that it is fitting for us to reject their baptism: and if anyone received it from them, such a one coming to the church should be baptized. But if this has the potential to be an obstacle to the common good, then it is still appropriate to adhere to custom and follow the fathers who prudently arranged our affairs. For I am afraid that, while we want to keep them from hasty baptism, we will not discourage those who are being saved by the severity of delay. If they retain our baptism, let this not put us to shame: for we are obliged not to give them gratitude for this, but to obey the rules with precision. Let it be established in every possible way that, after their baptism, those who come to the church are anointed by the faithful, and thus proceed to the sacraments. However, I know that we accepted the brethren Zoin and Satornin, who were in their company, into the episcopal see: why we can no longer alienate those associated with their society from the church by a strict court, having decided, by accepting bishops, as if some kind of rule of communication with them. (Ap. 46, 47; I Om. 8; II Om. 7; Trul. 95; Laod. 7; Basil the Great. 47). This and the following rules up to the 16th inclusive constitute the first canonical letter (επιστολή κανονική) of Basil the Great from 374 to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium in Phrygia, in which Basil gives answers to various canonical questions put to him by Amphilochius, and explains, according to him please, some passages of Holy Scripture. The present message of Saint Basil begins with the following words: “To a fool, as it is said in Scripture, who asks about wisdom, wisdom will be imputed (Proverbs 17:28), but the questioning of a wise man, it seems, makes even a foolish man wise. This, by the grace of God, happens to us every time we receive the writings of your hardworking soul. For I become more knowledgeable and more reasonable than myself, learning from the question itself much that I did not know before. Taking care of the answer is done for me by the teacher. Truly, even now, never preoccupied with the subjects of your questions, I am forced to consider them with accuracy, and bring to mind what I have heard from the elders, and on my own, come up with something consistent with what I have learned.” The first question posed by Amphilochius to Basil was how one should judge baptism performed in individual non-Orthodox communities: should persons converting from these communities to the Orthodox Church be rebaptized? Saint Basil's answer constitutes the present 1st rule. In order to be able to judge the reality of baptism performed in non-Orthodox communities and, therefore, know how persons converting from these communities should be received into the Orthodox Church, Basil the Great points out how the holy fathers of former times established that attention should be paid to the extent to which these communities deviate from the Orthodox Church, and act accordingly. All apostates from the Orthodox Church are divided into 1) heretics, 2) schismatics and 3) parasynagogues. Saint Basil clearly and definitely distinguishes between these apostates, based on the decrees of the ancients (τών παλαιών). Heresies (αίρέσεις, haereses) are those that have completely separated from the church and have lost the faith itself (κατ αύτήν τήν πίστιν άπηλλοτριωμένους). Referring to this rule of St. Basil, Zonara expressed this in more detail, saying: “heretics are everyone who thinks contrary to the Orthodox faith (παρά τήν όρθόδοξον πίστιν δοξάζοντας), at least a long time ago, at least recently they were excommunicated from the church, even if they held ancient heresies or new ones” 1 . This teaching, contrary to the Orthodox faith, should not, however, necessarily concern the foundations of the Orthodox faith in order for a given person to be considered a heretic - it is enough that he sins in at least one dogma, and by virtue of this he is already a heretic. “By the name of heretics we mean those who accept our sacrament (μυστήριον), but in some parts of the teaching they sin and disagree with the Orthodox” (διαφερομένους τοϊς ορθόδοξοις), says Zonara in the interpretation of 14 rules IV Omni. cathedral 2. In general, according to the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church, whoever is not Orthodox is a heretic: αίρετικός εστί πάς μή ορθόδοξος 3 . Schisms (σχίσματα) are those who think differently about certain church subjects and issues, which, however, can easily be reconciled. This is what Basil the Great says in this canon: when saying that the baptism of schismatics must be recognized, he refers to the fact that they belong to the church (ώς έτι έκ τής εκκλησίας όντων). In interpretation of 6 rules II Om. Council of Zonar repeats these words of Basil the Great about the schism 4, but in the interpretation of the 33rd Laodicean canon he supplements them: “Schismatics (σχισματικοί) are those who think sensibly regarding faith and dogmas, but for some reason (διά τίνας δέ αίτίας) move away and organize their own separate meetings” 5 . In general, the church has always looked at schisms as one of the biggest crimes against the church. So, for example, Optatus the Milevite (IV century) considered schism one of the greatest evils, greater than murder and idolatry. Catholicam (ecclesiam) – writes Optat – facit simplex et verus intellectus, intelligere singulare ac verissimum sacramentum, et unitas animorum. Schisma vero, sparso coagulo pacis, dissipatis sensibus generatur, livore nutritur, aemulatione et litibus roboratur, ut deserta matre catholica, impii filii dum foras exeunt, et se separant (ut vos fecistis) a radice matris ecclesiae, invidiae falcibus amputati, errando rebelles abscendun 6 . Comparing schism with heresy, John Chrysostom says that breaking the unity and completeness of the church (τό πλήρωμα τό έκκλησιαστικόν) is no less evil than creating heresy 7 . And since schism, in view of this, is worthy of condemnation, it deserves even greater condemnation for its consequences, for in the end every schism turns into heresy. We cited the corresponding thoughts about this by Jerome and Augustine in the interpretation of rule 6 of II Om. cathedral (I, 261) 8. A parasynagogue (παρασυναγωγή, falsa synagoga, illicitus conventus, unauthorized gathering) is when any of the disobedient bishops or elders, together with the common people, gather separately from the church for prayer meetings (συνάξεις), for example, when a clergyman is prohibited from serving in the priesthood subject to spiritual authority and not wanting to submit to it, he will gather others around himself, separate from the Catholic Church (καταλιπόντες τήν καθολικήν έκκλησίαν) and begin to perform sacred acts on his own. This definition of the parasynagogue of Basil the Great is reminiscent of those disobedient clergymen who, bypassing their legitimate bishops, arbitrarily want to serve in the church and against whom many rules were issued (Ap. 31; IV Ecum. 18; Trul. 31, etc.). As you can see, the parasynagogue is slightly different from the schismatics, as they are characterized by Saint Basil, which is why in the 7th rule of I Om. Cathedrals and parasynagogues are not mentioned, but only say how heretics and schismatics should be accepted into the Orthodox Church, meaning by the latter also parasynagogues, which, however, include instructions for many other rules. Having listed all types of apostates from the Orthodox Church, Saint Basil instructs Amphilochius on how these apostates should be received into the Orthodox Church if they convert to it. Essentially, this was subsequently accepted and approved by the Trullo Council (Rule 95), and the prescription of this Council is still in force in our Church. In his present canon, Saint Basil lists by name all the apostates from the Orthodox Church: the Pepusians, Manichaeans, Valentinians and Marcionites - as heretics, and the Cathars, Encratites, Idroparastatians and Apotactites - as schismatics. We have already mentioned the Pepusians in the interpretation of the 7 rights. II Omni. Council (I, 269–271). The Manichaeans come from Manes (lat. Manichaus), who lived in the 3rd century and preached his teaching first in Persia, from where it later spread throughout Europe. Manes belonged to that group of Gnostics who were against Judaism and sought to restore, supposedly in all its purity and independence, the Christian teaching, and make it the only world religion. Manes built his system on the basis of the Old Persian Zoroasterian dualism: light and darkness, with the zones related here in a certain gradualness. He considered himself a comforter, sent to cleanse the science of Christ, perverted by the apostles; as a result, he threw out from the New Testament writings everything that did not agree with his system. Manichaeism existed until the 7th century, although secretly in recent times (Trul. 95) 9. The Marcionites were of the same anti-Jewish Gnostic trend, descending from Marcion of Pontus, who preached his teaching first in Rome in the second half of the 2nd century, which subsequently spread throughout Italy, Egypt and, finally, in the east 10. The opposite, i.e. Judaistic, the direction were Gnostics, Valentinians, who traced their origins to the Egyptian Valentinus, around the half of the 2nd century. In the Valentinian system there was no dualism in the Eastern sense, but he developed the parallelism of the heavenly, ideal world with the visible, earthly, in a form that can be considered the most complete and perfect of all Gnostic systems. The Valentinian system, as such, was respected in its time; From his school came quite a few famous people who deceived many and were dangerous to Christianity 11. Of the schismatics whom Saint Basil mentions in this canon, we talked about the Kafars in the interpretation of 8th canon of I Om. Council (I, 207–210), and about the hydroparastats - in the interpretation of Trullan Rule 32 (I, 515). The rest - Encratites and Apotactites - were sects that emerged from the Gnostic school of the Assyrian Tatian in the second half of the 2nd century. Along with the Gnostic teaching about the origin of the world, similar in the main to the system of Valentinus, Tatian preached the strictest asceticism so that the human soul could free itself from matter and approach God. According to his teaching on morality, a true Christian is obliged to strictly abstain from everything earthly, especially from marriage, meat and wine, as evil and unclean objects that only alienate a person from God and bind him to matter. As a result of this abstinence (έγκράτεια) from everything, Tatian’s disciples were called έγκρατϊται 12, and because, literally following the teaching of Christ about renunciation (αποτάσσεται) from everything worldly (Luke 14:33), they were called άποτακτΐται 13 and, finally, due to the use in St. communions, instead of wine, water, were called ύδροπαραστάται 14. Regarding the latter (Cathars and other schismatics), Basil the Great in this rule says that baptism performed in these communities by a priest should be considered baptism performed by a layman, and emphasizes one of the main canonical thoughts about the sacred hierarchy in the church, namely, when this hierarchy can be considered legitimate. Regarding the schismatics mentioned in the rule, Saint Basil says: “For, although the beginning of the apostasy occurred through a schism, those who apostatized from the church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit on them. For the teaching of grace has become scarce, because the legal succession has been cut off. For those who were the first to apostate received initiation from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands had spiritual gifts. But those rejected, having become laity, had no power to baptize or ordain, and could not teach others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen.” Thus, the power of the bishop to ordain others, to impart to them the grace of the priesthood, depends on succession, i.e. from the extent to which he, the underlying bishop, has accepted and inherited this power from persons who can transfer it to him legally, and since he knows how to preserve this inherited power and, in turn, pass it on to others as an inheritance. Once a bishop loses this power, whether as a result of schism or heresy, then, of course, he is not able to transfer it to others, so that in this bishop the succession has ceased, i.e. he lost the inheritance, of which he became an accomplice through consecration, along with other Orthodox bishops. This canonical idea about the sacred hierarchy in the church, touched upon by Basil the Great in this canon, is nothing more than a briefly formulated teaching about this from the Holy Scriptures, the holy fathers and teachers of the church. In the interpretations of 47 and 68 of the Apostolic Canons it is already said that the basis of the legal priesthood is the uninterrupted succession of hierarchical authority from the Apostles to the present day. The Apostles transferred this power to the bishops, their immediate successors, and these latter, in turn, to their successors, and so on, through all centuries, until now; thus, the bishop is the apostolic successor (αποστολικός διάδοχος, apostolorum successor), who received from the Apostles successively (άλληλοδιαδόχως, successione continua) the same power 15. After His resurrection, Jesus Christ teaches His Apostles about their Great Mission in the world (Luke 24:46–48; Acts 1:8), gives them the power to forgive sins (John 20:23), gives them the commandment to go and teach all nations and, through baptism, bring everyone into His kingdom, and promises to be with them always until the end of the age (Matthew 28:19–20). When Christ ascended, the Apostles then elected a new co-apostle, to replace the lost Judas, to replenish their former number (Acts 1:21–26), and, then receiving the Holy Spirit promised to them (Acts 2:4), they immediately began to fulfill the service entrusted to them by Christ, starting from Jerusalem, where they founded and established the first Christian community (Acts 2:41–44). At the head of this first community was the Apostle James (Acts 21:18; Galatians 1:19); the rest of the Apostles went to found other communities outside Palestine, having care and concern for them all constantly (2 Cor. 11:28). When subsequently, little by little, Christianity spread far and wide, so that the Apostles themselves were not able to personally take care of the communities they founded, then they chose, from among people tested in the faith, helpers for these churches and gave them the authority to do, on their behalf, everything possible to strengthen the faith and streamline Christian life (1 Tim. 1:3-4, 5:19-22; Tit. 1:3, 5, 2:15 ). These apostolic assistants (συνεργοί) of individual churches are called επίσκοποι; there was only one of them in each church; each of them was considered the authorized and heir of a famous apostle, and was himself called an apostle (Phil. 2:25). We meet several such bishops, apostolic heirs, in the Holy Scripture itself: Titus on Fr. Crete, to whom the Apostle Paul writes that he left him in Crete in order to appoint elders in all the cities (Tit. 1:5), Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 5:19–22), Epaphroditus in Philippi (Phil. 2:25), Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), bishops of the seven churches of Asia Minor (Apoc. 1:20). On the basis of everything that is only partly cited from the Holy Scriptures, the canonical teaching of our church was built on the succession of the power of bishops from the Apostles. The teaching of the Holy Scriptures about this was subsequently interpreted in the most perfect way by the fathers and teachers of the church. Thus, the apostolic disciple, Bishop Clement of Rome, in his messenger to the Corinthians, writes: Χρίστου, ότι έ'ρις εσται επί του ονόματος της επισκοπής. → τους προειρημένους, και μεταςί έπινομήν δεδώκασιν, όπως, εάν κοιμηώ;σιν, διαδέξωνται έ'τεροι δεδοκιμασμενοι άνδρες την λειτοργιαν αυτών 16. The church writer of the 2nd century Hegesippus preserved, in his 'Υπομνήματα, mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, traces of the actual application in the life of the church of the apostolic doctrine of episcopal succession (διαδοχή) from the Apostles, preserved, namely, a list of bishops of several churches in the order of their succession one after another, starting from the Apostles, and how successively apostolic power passed continuously to the bishops of the known church 17. Irenaeus of Lyons, refuting the heretics of his time, invites them to prove that their bishops also received their power through succession from the Apostles, just as the Orthodox bishops received it. In one place of his famous work against heresies, Irenaeus writes: Traditionem apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam, in omni ecclesia adest respicere omnibus, qui vera velint viderë et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi et successores eorum usque ad 'nos 18 ..., More: Obaudire oportet his, qui... cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris acceperunt: reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principali successione et quocunque loco colligunt, suspectos habere; – vel quasi haereticos, et malae sententiae 19 .... And again: Agnitio vera est apostolorum doctrina, et antiquus ecclesiae status, in universo mundo, et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus illi eam, quae in unoquoque loco est, ecclesiam tradiderunt 20 .... In addition to Irenaeus, Tertullian also says the same thing, who, refuting heretics, invites them to prove the continuity (continuatam successionem) of their bishops from some Apostle, or at least an apostolic disciple, as churches professing the Orthodox faith can prove 21. The classic church writer on the unity of the church, the famous Cyprian writes: Hoc enim vel maxime et laboramus et laborare debemus, ut unitatem a Domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam, quantum possumus, obtinere curemus 22. Potestas peccatorum remittendorurn apostalis data est et ecclesiis, quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt, et episcopis, qui eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt. Hostes autem unius catholicae ecclesiae, in qua nos sumus..., qui apostolis successimus 23. Jerome: Apud nos apostolorum locum tenent episcopi 24. Omnes episcopi apostolorum successores sunt 25. Augustine: In apostolorun loco constituit nos 26. We could cite much more evidence from patristic literature showing that episcopal power in the church is legitimate because it maintains uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, or apostolic disciples, to the present day. The symbolic teaching about this of our church is set out in the 10th paragraph of the Message of the Eastern Patriarchs. It also has decisive force today in the Orthodox Church, as soon as the question arises of whether to recognize or not recognize the priesthood of one or another religious society, as we saw in the interpretation of 47 Ap. rules. Interpretation of Rule 6 II Omni. cathedral in Af. Synth., II, 182. Nomocanon in XIV tit., XII, 2 (Af. Synt., I, 261). Alf. Synth. M. Vlastarya, A, 2 (Af. Synth. VI, 74). De schismate donatistarum, I, 11 [Migne, s. l., t. 11, col. 906]. Hom. 11 in epist. ad Ephesios [Migne, s. g., t. 62, col. 79 et seq.]. Wed. about Roman Catholics in the interpretation of 95 Trullan canon (see vol. I, pp. 589–591). Epiphan., Haer. 46 (al. 66) [Migne, s. g., t. 42, col. 29 et seq.]; Cyrill. Hierosol., Cat. 6 [Migne, s. g., t. 33, col. 572 – 80, 593 – 604); Photii contra Manichaos, lib. IV [Migne, s. g., t. 102, col. 177 et seq.]. Wed. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, I, 685–875; Neander, Geschichte der Christl. Religion, II, 186 et seq. Epiphan.,Haer. 22 (al. 72) [Migne, s. g., t. 41, col. 695 et seq.]; Tertull., Adver. Marc. [Migne, s. l, t. 2, col. 246 et seq.]. Cp. Walch, I, 488 et seq.; Neander, II, 160 et seq. Epiphan., Haer. 31 [Migne, s. g., t. 41, col. 473 et seq.]; Clem. Alex., Stromat. VII, 17 [Migne, s. g., t. 9, col. 546 et seq.]. Cp. Walch, I, 335 et seq.; Neander. II, 105 et seq. Epiphan., Haer. 27 (al. 47) [Migne, s. g., t. 41, col. 849 et seq.]. Wed. Walch, I, 437; Neander, II, 160. Epiphan., Haer. 26 (al. 46) [Migne, s. g., t. 41, col. 835 et seq.] et haer. 41 (al. 61) [Migne, s. g., t. 41, col. 1039 et seq.]. Cp. Walch, I, 440; Neander, II, 157 et seq. Theodoret., Haer. fabul. I, 20 [Migne, s. g., t. 83, col. 369 et seq.]. Cp. Walch, I, 437; Neander, II, 160. They were also called saccophores (Basily the Great right. 47), because they were always dressed in a kind of bag, in order to show that they spend their whole lives in repentance. Wed. 10 ch. Messages of the Eastern Patriarchs. Ad Corinth. I, 44. Ed. Hefele Euseb., Hist. eccl. IV, 22 [Migne, s. g., t. 20, col. 377 et seq.]. Cp. Hier., De vir. ill. c. 22 [Migne, s. 1., t. 23, col. 639 et seq.]. Iren., Contra haeres. III, c. 3, 1 [Migne, s. g., t. 7, col. 848]. Ibid., IV, c. 33, 8 Migne, s. g., t. 7, col. 1077. Tertull., De Praescript., c. 22 Migne, s. 1., t. 2, col. 33–5. Surrian., er. 42 (al. 2) ad Cornel. Migne., s. 1., t. 3, col. 707). Ep.75 (al. Ep. Firmiliani ad Cyprianum) ad Firmilianum Migne, s. 1., t. 3, col. 1168–9). Hieron., ep. 41 ad Marcellum Migne, s. 1., t. 22, col. 476. Ep. 146 ad Evangelum Migne, s. 1., t. 22, col. 1194. Augustin., de Verbo Domini, sermo 24 al. 102 Migne, s. l., t. 38, col. 611. You might be interested in: