Третье каноническое послание Василия Великого к епископу Амфилохию Иконийскому Правило 51 Василия Великого

The rules regarding those in the clergy are indifferent. They command that the fallen be given a single punishment, removal from service, whether they are in the degree of the priesthood, or are serving in a service that does not have the ordination of the priesthood. (Ap. 25, 30; Trul. 4; Carth. 27; Basil Vel. 3, 32, 44). As we have already said, Basil the Great sent two canonical epistles to Amphilochius of Iconium, and these two epistles make up the 50 rules above. Upon receiving these messages from Saint Basil, Amphilochius again turned to him with various canonical questions, to which Basil answered him with a new message, which is divided into 35 rules, of which the first is this (51) rule. Following a brief introduction, Saint Basil answers each question posed separately, and first of all the question of whether there is any difference in the punishments of clergy. Saint Basil classifies all ministers of the church in general as clergy, just as it is said in the 16th canon of the first ecumenical council, where clergy are designated as: τεταγμένοι, therefore, placed in the service of the church either through consecration or consecration alone. Regarding all these clerics in the broadest sense of the word, Saint Basil, repeating the issued instruction in his 32nd rule, says that if they commit a crime, they are subject to removal from service (εκπτωσιν τής ύπηρεσίας, amotionem a ministerio), which means that they should be punished by eruption (διά καθαιρέσεως, per depositionem) 96 . This injunction must be understood in connection with the 32nd rule of St. Basil, according to which the cleric is sufficiently punished by eruption, so that he does not need to be punished also by excommunication from communication with the faithful laity in the church. Regarding other things, see the interpretation of 32 rules of St. Vasily and other parallel rules. Regarding the difference in the rule between persons who “are in the degree of priesthood” and those who “serve without having the ordination of the priesthood,” Zonara, as well as Balsamon, in the interpretations of this rule, write: “he does not punish more strongly those who occupy the highest degree, namely presbyters, deacons and subdeacons who have been ordained” (Zonara); “all clerics are punished equally - through one eruption, i.e. deprivation of the priestly service that belongs to them, even if they were ordained as presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, even if they performed church service only by virtue of blessing, as readers, singers, observers and the like” (Balsamon). As can be seen, these two Greek commentators firmly stand on the point of view that subdeacons belong to the highest sacred hierarchy and in it, like deacons and presbyters (and bishops), constitute a separate sacred degree, for they too are appointed by ordination (χειροτονία), and not only through the laying on of hands (χειροθεσία), like members of the lower hierarchy. those. as readers, singers, etc. In the interpretation of the 6th rule of the Council of Trullo, we showed the complete incorrectness of such a judgment about the subdeaconal degree of the mentioned Greek commentators 97 and we repeat this here. Much more correct is what we read in Aristine’s interpretation of this canon: “The ministers of the church, whether they are in the rank of presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, singers and readers, or if they have not been ordained, such as the observers, the candilo-burners and those entrusted with keeping the holy doors of the altar, if they fall into fornication, have one punishment - expulsion from their ministry,” for here a distinction is made between clergy who take a direct part in divine services, and clergy who perform only material services in the church during church services. And such an interpretation is more consistent, in our opinion, with the thought that Basil the Great wanted to express in his present rule, which, moreover, is strictly canonical, than the interpretations of the two mentioned commentators. Interpretation of Balsamon in Af. Synth., IV, 206. See Vol. I, pp. 449–453 of this edition. You might be interested in: