Ordination as an obstacle to marriage

See also: Deuteronomy of clergy (critical review) by prof. S.V. Trinity (Canonical study of Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatia) Last spring, one of the authoritative persons abroad turned to me with a request to resolve the following two questions: 1) about the twelfth rule of the Council of Trull, which states that a bishop cannot be married, and 2) about the sixth rule of the same council, that widowed priests also cannot marry a second time, in other words, that ordination serves as an obstacle to marriage. Both questions seem to be very important, especially if we take into account modern views on the Church and the priesthood; and I find that they deserve deep study, therefore, I readily answer the above request. As a matter of fact, I could draw the attention of my petitioner to my works: “Orthodox Church Law”, and “Rules with Interpretations”, which talk about these canonical rules; but I could not do this because in these writings, in addition to their practical purpose, the positive law of the Church is set forth without a meritorious (in the sense of a critical analysis) judgment about these decrees; Meanwhile, this latter is now necessary in order to trace the origin of these decrees and reflect on their radical change. For this purpose, I wrote two monographs, on each issue separately. Of these monographs, the one that treats ordination as an obstacle to marriage, I am now publishing in Serbian. I do this because this issue is a burning issue for the Serbian priesthood and has many times served as a reason for passionate debates that have had great publicity. Everything said in this study can be useful for church authorities, which one way or another should study the issue of marriage of widowed priesthood. On the other hand, it will also be important for government authorities in those states where marriage law and legislation is of a confessional nature - precisely in the case when it wants to review and re-decide its decisions on the marriage issue. Main thoughts of the study: I. What is the teaching of Holy Scripture about marriage in general and about the marriage of priests in particular; how in the early times of the Church various sectarians taught about marriage, what church writers say, and what was the teaching about second marriage. II. What, starting from the 4th century, were the state and church authorities issued decrees on the marriage of priests; when and for what reasons was it canonically forbidden to marry after ordination, and what obstacles were encountered in the implementation of this prohibition. III. Is it possible, according to the teachings of the canon law of the Orthodox Church, to destroy or change this prohibition and IV. If the answer is yes, how would it be possible to accomplish all this? The question we are addressing in this study is not new in the Orthodox Church. It was practiced in the Russian Church in the last years of the 18th century; in the Greek Church - in the first half of the 19th century; in the Serbian church - since the first years of the 19th century. But it has not yet been resolved because the old encratism in a modified form is more or less authoritative in this regard to this day. Zadar (Zara). Oct. 1906 E.N. For a long time in the Christian Church there has been a rule that no one who has been ordained to the priesthood can marry again and, as a result, ordination is a legal obstacle to marriage. This rule still matters today in the Orthodox Church and in the Roman Catholic Church, with some distinction. How does this matter stand, in particular, in the Orthodox Church, let’s say later. In the Roman Catholic Church, the law establishes that 1) strictly speaking, unmarried people or widows after their first marriage are accepted into the priesthood 2); They can also be married, but with the condition that the wife agrees to promise to always be a virgin, and 3) marriage after the ordination of a subdeacon is prohibited, and whoever breaks this is subject to canonical prohibition. Celibacy, then, in the full sense 1. Among Protestants, after they separated from the Roman Catholic Church, this issue is resolved differently. For them, ordination has its own special meaning, which is fundamentally different from the ordination of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and the laws on the marriage of Protestant priests are in all respects the same as the marriage regulations of the laity 2 . Old Catholics, who separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1870, rejected celibacy and their priests could be married 3 . Rome allows Uniate priests to marry if they accept it before ordination; after ordination, marriage is absolutely prohibited 4. But recently, in some places, Rome has also subjected Uniate priests to the law of celibacy 5 . The view (attitude) of state marriage law on ordination as an obstacle to marriage varies depending on whether this right in certain states has or does not have a confessional character. Starting from the time of Justinian and several centuries after him, marriage laws in all states of the East and West were of a confessional nature. The secularization of marriage in the West began in the 16th century. Currently, in all Orthodox countries, except Romania, marriage legislation is of a confessional nature, due to which ordination is considered by the state as an obstacle to marriage 6 . In the West, this confessional character of marriage laws was maintained only in Austria and Spain 7 ; in other states, marriage legislation does not have this nature, as a result of which ordination in these states does not serve as an obstacle to marriage 8 . This is the current situation with the question of ordination, as an obstacle to marriage. Our further study will present the historical development of this issue and its assessment. A bishop must be the husband of one wife, ruling his house well, keeping his children in obedience with all truth; for whoever does not know how to manage his own house will care for the church of God? The same goes for priests and deacons 9. If some sacred person may be without a wife, let him be; and if he can’t, let him get married, because it’s better to get married than to get inflamed 10. But he should not marry someone who does not have a good name in society, as was decreed in the Old Testament for priests and high priests 11 . That's the main thing that St. Scripture speaks of the marriage of sacred persons. In the Orthodox Church there is currently the following decree: that 1) bishops cannot be married; 2) that priests and deacons can live in marriage only if they were married before ordination, and 3) that neither priests, nor deacons, nor subdeacons, if widowed, can marry a second time. This decree, which now has the meaning of law in the Orthodox Church, was approved by the church in the last years of the 7th century: and as can be seen, it does not follow directly from the teaching of St. Scriptures on the Marriage of Holy Persons. The emergence of such a decree is explained from the view that the heads of churches had on marriage in general in the first times of Christianity, as well as from the fact that during the reign of strictly encratic principles, the advice of the Apostle Peter was understood very one-sidedly, that one must protect oneself from bodily lusts that overwhelm the soul. According to the teaching of Holy Scripture, marriage is a high divine institution. The Old Testament teaching about the height and holiness of marriage, as a divine institution 12, was confirmed by Jesus Christ 13 and Himself blessed it when, together with His Mother and disciples, he was present at one marriage in Galilee, where he performed the first miracle 14, and then, when he called children a gift of God and a heavenly inheritance 15 Condemning adultery and fornication, the priest. Scripture says that marriage should be honorable for everyone, 16 since it symbolizes the union of Christ with the church, 17 and that marriage is not only not a sinful matter, 18 but a matter by which salvation is achieved. 19 The teaching of St. The Scriptures on marriage are fully consistent with the natural law of marriage, a forced departure from which would be an abnormal phenomenon; as a result of which this law must extend to all people, not excluding sacred persons who, like other mortals, are bound by this law. Its interpretation is that passage from St. Scripture, which says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, as well as a priest and a deacon. And we see that almost all of Christ’s apostles were married and had offspring 20. Of course, this teaching about the holiness and sublimity of the marital state does not at all command everyone to marry. This is decided, first of all, by the nature of individual people, and then by the free will of each person. Holy Scripture also speaks about this. When Christ was asked what He thought about marriage, He said that marriage is a law of nature to which all people are bound; and whoever can live without marriage in a virgin state does good because he lives on earth, imagining himself living in heaven, where they neither marry nor are given in marriage 21 , but this is not for everyone, but only for some to whom this is given and who, by their nature and free will, prefer the state of virginity to marriage 22 . As can be seen, this teaching about virginity does not stand in any contradiction with married life: just as the first is commendable and good for those who are able to devote themselves to it and remain faithful to it until the end of their lives, so the other is sublime and good, since this fulfills one of the purposes for which God created man. But since people have always been able to pervert every lofty and pure teaching, some people also perverted the teaching about virginity, even at the very time when Christ Himself, by a divine miracle, exalted the glory of the wedding in Cana of Galilee and when He blessed children, calling them a gift from God and an inheritance from heaven. The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, said that marriage is not only a sinless matter, but that salvation is given to them; declaring that priests should also be married, he further notes that some will apostatize from the faith, listening to seducing spirits and demonic teachings through the hypocrisy of false talkers, burned in their consciences, forbidding marriage 23; and then he adds in another place: whoever preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be accursed. 24 Thus, Holy Scripture calls the teaching that prohibits marriage satanic; Such a doctrine can only be preached by liars and hypocrites who have a conscience, as the apostle puts it. Paul, burned. These lying spirits, who preached such a doctrine and brought much evil to Christianity, preventing the wide dissemination of pure Christian thought, were, first of all, the Gnostics. As their main principle, they pointed to the need for complete liberation from matter, since it represents, in their opinion, evil produced by the demiurge; as a result, they condemned marriage and demanded absolute abstinence and asceticism 25. Satisfaction of sexual desires was considered as a fall or immersion in matter, the birth of children was considered a sin, and marriage was an ungodly matter and an invention of the devil. 26 The Manichaeans had a similar teaching and had many followers. Like the Gnostics, they also rejected marriage and viewed it as the work of the devil; if necessary, these teachers allowed the possibility of sexual intercourse with a wife, but so that this relationship would not produce fruit, since, according to their teaching, fruit is a sin and a dangerous and devilish thing 27 . Like the Gnostics and Manichaeans, another sect from the first times of Christianity taught about marriage, whose followers history associates with the name Encratita, and the teaching itself is called encratism from the Greek word: ἐγκρατεία (continentio), abstinence. Encratism preached asceticism in the absolute sense: abstinence from meat, from wine and all bodily pleasures, and, in the first place, from sexual intercourse, believing that the devil invented marriage, which kills the human soul 28. According to exegetes, the above words of St. Paul in his first letter to Timothy spoke against this teaching. Since encratism did not deviate from Orthodoxy in matters of faith, the church looked at its followers not as heretics, but as schismatics and therefore treated them condescendingly. In a more or less strict form, encratism lingered in the church for a long time and in subsequent times became almost identical with Christian asceticism. He spoke with particular force at a time when church teachers needed to raise their voices against public licentiousness; hence its influence extended to the marriage legislation of church and state in the subsequent centuries of the church's existence. The followers of Encratism made an attempt at the first ecumenical council to introduce universal priestly celibacy, but, as is known, they failed, thanks to the Thebaid bishop Paphnutius 29 . Christian apologists with all the strength of their minds rebelled against the mentioned and similar teachers; but they themselves defended marriage with special enthusiasm, although they stood more for the virgin life, which they considered as a special gift of God, the best means by which a person devotes himself entirely to God and receives salvation, valuing, on the other hand, those people who lived chastely in the marriage state. The reason for this view of Christian apologists on marriage and celibacy must be sought in the then social life of the Roman state. Moral debauchery, which reigned in full force, especially among high society, general fornication, which was not considered shameful, adultery, which was not only not condemned, but, on the contrary, was boasted of in noble houses, almost universal oblivion of legal marriage, marital divorces that happened for an insignificant reason - all this could not help but attract the attention of St. fathers and teachers of the church, and could not but cause, on the other hand, a reaction from them against such general moral laxity. And this reaction of Christian apologists and, in general, the fathers and teachers of the church seemed so strong and decisive that for some it received the opposite extreme in such a sense that everything that had anything to do with the natural sexual relationship of people began to be considered a sin, and vice versa - good and saving - only that which was far from all this. Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, admits the idea that marriage is honest, but he immediately feels how much more valuable virginity (agamy) is, and how eternal bliss is undoubtedly achieved by a virgin life 30. Justin Martyr views marriage as something that is in conflict with law and stems from sexual desire, and therefore, being such, marriage cannot have any moral meaning 31. This is how most writers of that time judged and thought about marriage. It is quite understandable that with such an opinion about marriage, they had to come to the idea that only the virgin state is sublime and pleasing to God, and that in such a state anyone who truly desires to serve God will serve and receive salvation. And this teaching of the first Christian writers was adopted by the majority of teachers of the church of the later times of the East and West, and they unanimously exalted the primary importance of virginity before marriage. Remaining faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture, they, of course, could not condemn marriage and married life, and in certain cases they spoke approvingly of marriage; 32 but they always emphasized the idea that marriage is less pleasing to God than virgin life 33 . To a greater or lesser extent, such views on marriage and celibacy were adopted even by such church figures as in the east, for example, Athanasius V., Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and others, or in the west - Ambrose of Milan, Blessed Jerome, Blessed. Augustine and others. Everything we have said so far concerns the first marriage. From this one can easily see what the view of a second marriage could and should have been at that time, when the husband or wife became a widow. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is there any mention of any difference between the first and second marriage; and the second marriage of a widow, or the second marriage of a widower, was not considered illegal, since the law of the first marriage no longer bound them. This is what the Holy Scripture says 34, and not only that, it also advises young people who become widows to enter into a second marriage 35. But what happened to the views of Christian writers on the first marriage was also reflected in the judgments about the second. The not entirely correct judgment about the first marriage became even more incorrect in the judgments about the second. The Gnostics and Manichaeans, whose views on marriage in general we know, considered simply the children of Satan those husbands and wives who married a second time. This opinion was also established among some Christian sectarians, such as the Novatians, who looked at a second marriage as adultery, 36 and even earlier, the Montanists, according to whom, the connection between husband and wife continues spiritually even after the death of one of them; thus, the marriage is not dissolved by the death of one of them; therefore, anyone who desires to enter into a new marriage is an adulterer; They considered children from the second marriage to be unclean and the offspring of the devil 37 . The first, the Novatians, were condemned for their teaching by the 8th canon of the first ecumenical council, and the second, the Montanists, by the 8th canon of the Laodicean Council. Under the influence of those social and family conditions that prevailed then and which we mentioned, neither Christian apologists, nor after them certain prominent and influential church writers, could judge the second marriage better. If for them virginity was much higher than marriage in general, then how far behind in morality, in their opinion, was that person for whom it was not enough to marry once, but was required, after the death of his first wife, to enter into a second marriage. In their eyes, this was a clear sign of low morality and spiritual weakness in the fight against bodily passions. Clement of Alexandria notes that a second marriage is not prohibited by law, but adds that whoever enters into a second marriage thereby shows his reluctance to fulfill the commandment of spiritual perfection 38 . Cyril of Jerusalem does not want to reproach those who marry a second time, but adds that it would be better for those to remain widows, because it is easier to please God this way 39 . Vasily V. went even further in this: he allows a second marriage as a “healing from fornication,” but orders that the person who entered into a second marriage should be under canonical prohibition for one year and under no circumstances be accepted into the clergy 40. Chrysostom wrote two books on purpose 41, in which, if he does not completely condemn the second marriage, then he does not spare words of reproach for those who do not want to be content with the first marriage, but desecrate the memory of the deceased marriage partner and show that they are not able to cope with bodily passions. His book on Monandry (monogamy) is all directed against the second marriage. In this sense, individual local councils spoke about the second marriage. In the 19th canon of the Ancyra Council, the one who violates the vow of virginity is subject to penance, and this penance should be the same as that to which. persons who entered into marriage for the second time are subject to it. And what the penance was can be seen from other similar canons issued at the same time. The Neo-Caesarean Council, which took place a little later than the Council of Ankyra (314–325), with its 7th rule prohibits priests from attending the wedding of second-married laymen, who, because the church allowed them to enter into a second marriage, are subject to penance. The Council of Laodicea in the first canon speaks of second-married laymen and, allowing them to enter into a second marriage, deprives them of St. Communions, and they must spend the time of prohibition in fasting and prayer 42. And this continued, as St. Basil the Great in his 4th canon, according to some, one year, and, according to others, two years. The immediate consequence of all this was the prohibition to admit into the clergy a person who had been married twice 43 . From everything that has been said so far, the judgment of society in the early times of the Church of Christ, and especially the church hierarchy, about marriage in general and about second marriage in particular seems clear. Under the influence of such an opinion and judgment, church legislation on the marriage of priests developed in the direction that still exists in the Orthodox Church on this issue. In the churches founded by the apostles, in which the pure and uncorrupted gospel teaching and apostolic tradition were preserved and which, therefore, were free from encratistic ideas, in the first three centuries of Christianity on the question of the marriage of priests, general decrees prevailed, based entirely on Holy Scripture and fully consistent with the natural law of marriage. Bishops, priests and deacons were allowed to be married, and not only if they married before ordination, but they were allowed to marry after ordination in the same way as was allowed for persons from the lower clergy. If a bishop, priest and deacon, or anyone else from the clergy remained a widow, he was allowed, if he wished, to remarry. This is the teaching of the divine law, as expressed in the aforementioned letters of the Apostle Paul, that the bishop, as well as the priest and deacon, “must be the husband of one wife.” The main idea of ​​this teaching is monogamy, which is of absolute importance for every sacred person and which, of course, excludes digamy, or bigamy. But this teaching, which is clear as the sun, in those churches where encratism took deep roots, was interpreted by the latter in their own interests, which have nothing to do with the direct meaning of Holy Scripture. The encraticism of the Apostle’s words: “a bishop must be the husband of one wife” is understood not in the sense of prohibiting digamy, that is, living together with two wives, but in the sense of prohibiting remarriage, or second marriage. A similar understanding of the cited passage from the Holy Scriptures was noticed already in the 3rd century. In one of Origen’s conversations we read: “not only adultery, but also marriage removes one from church positions, for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon can be bigamists” 44 . Tertullian, when he adopted and began to defend Montanist views and condemn second marriage even for the laity, especially demanded monogamy for priests in the sense that these persons could only marry once 45. A similar interpretation was adopted in the West, by the way, by Ambrose of Milan and Jerome of Stridon. The first writes: “What can I say about chastity, when only one union is allowed, and not two, and in the marriage itself the law is indicated - not to repeat the marriage and not to arrange a union with the second wife”; and, drawing attention to the fact that some pointed out the need to take into account if someone was twice married before baptism, since after baptism he could be accepted into the clergy, he condemns such an opinion and continues: “It seems surprising to many why even a second marriage before baptism creates obstacles to preferential election to a position (church) and initiation, when, also, (this) vice is not erased when the sacrament of baptism is given absolution; but we must understand that in baptism guilt (misdemeanor) can be forgiven, but the law cannot be destroyed; in marriage, it is not guilt, but the law: what relates to guilt is erased in baptism, but what relates to the law is not destroyed by marriage” 46. Jerome shared a similar opinion; he writes: “The preacher of abstinence will not arrange marriage; Why is it that he who (literally) follows the apostle stays with his wife, if not his wife - therefore he encourages the girl to get married? And the one who advocates monogamy, why exhorts the widow to remarry? 47. And in another place the same Jerome writes: “Look why a widow is not chosen if she is the wife of more than one husband, and we think that the priesthood is such an advantage that no one can be brought to the altar except one who has one wife. For a bigamist is deprived not only of the priesthood, but also of the grace of the church, when she is considered unworthy who is admitted to the second marriage: this law continues to be subject to this law, it must be such that he can be admitted to the priesthood. For the one who was a bigamist is not elected? Priests are then elected from the people: but the people are also subject to the law, thanks to which they are allowed to the priesthood” 48. Over time, this interpretation of the prohibition of the Apostle Paul was generally adopted in the Western Church and was maintained in it until the obligation of celibacy was established for priests under the authority of the Pope. In the Eastern Church, the words of the Apostle Paul were interpreted differently: “a bishop must be the husband of one wife.” Here the words of the apostle were understood in the sense that it is forbidden to accept the priesthood for those persons who at the same time had more than one wife, that is, were polygamists, as well as for those who, without sufficient reason, expelled their legal wives and took others. This is what Jews and pagans did during the time of the Apostle Paul, and, as an illegal and bad thing, the apostle in his epistle condemned such behavior, and for Christian bishops, presbyters and deacons he issued a decree - not to have two or more wives at the same time, in addition to his lawful wife. A similar interpretation of the apostolic words was authoritatively confirmed by John Chrysostom, and after him by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. The first of them, in his famous conversation on the quoted passage from the letter of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, writes: “The husband of one wife.” By this the apostle did not want to say that the bishop should be without a wife, but only wanted to establish what should be; Jews were allowed to marry a second time and at the same time have two wives, completely legal. For this reason, it was said, as it was understood by others, that only someone who is the husband of one wife should be accepted into the episcopal rank." 49 In a conversation on a well-known passage from the letter of the Apostle Paul to Titus, Chrysostom writes: "With this the apostle wants to stop the mouths of those who condemn marriage, thereby showing that marriage is not a sinful matter, but, on the contrary, an honest matter, and therefore whoever remains in marriage is can freely be on the episcopal throne. By this the apostle also reproaches those careless people who forbid receiving the power and dignity of a shepherd after a second marriage... And, despite the fact that according to the law, a second marriage is allowed, still some condemn it, and therefore he recommends it so that there is no censure of the elders 50. There is no doubt about the fact, attested by many examples both in history and in long-term church practice, that many who married twice were not subjected to any censure or condemnation and, while remaining in the clergy, competently performed pastoral duties. Tertullian himself, who spoke so harshly about the second marriage, as we saw, admitted that there were many second-married bishops: “How many bigamous people preside over you, insulting, of course, the apostle!” 51. The Roman bishops Siricius 52 and Innocent 53 also remember this, noting how many of the bishops in Italy and Greece accept second-weds into the clergy. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus performed the episcopal consecration of the second-married Irinius. But when this was pointed out to him, he justified himself by saying that his action did not contradict either the commandment of the apostle or the practice of other churches. “As for digamy,” writes Theodoret, “we follow the example of our elders.” For Alexander of blessed memory, who then ruled this (Antiochian) apostolic see, together with blessed Akakios, bishop of Beria, also dedicated his second marriage to Diogenes of blessed memory; in the same way, Heraclius dedicated Domnus of Caesarea, who was also a second-marriage, to blessed memory. In this case, we, therefore, followed the custom and example of people famous in science and glorious in life. Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, of blessed memory, acted in the same spirit many times; he himself dedicated second marriages and praised others who did the same. All the metropolitans of the Pontic region and Palestine acted like them, and no one condemned them, and there was no temptation about this” 54. And in another place, interpreting the several times mentioned words of the Apostle Paul, the same Theodoret writes: “At that time it was a custom among the Jews and Greeks that some among them had two, three, or even more wives at the same time. And since this is now prohibited, since the king’s laws do not allow having two wives at the same time, some replace polygamy with concubinage and cohabitation with harlots. And the Divine Apostle commands that only the one who lives exclusively with one wife and if he is worthy can be a bishop. The Apostle does not condemn the second marriage, but, on the contrary, often even prescribes, encourages it τοῦτο γενέσθαι καλεύσας), and this especially for the purpose of not having any complaints against the priests” 55. With such an interpretation of the indicated passage of Holy Scripture, which is given to us by the brightest minds of the Eastern Church, and which was justified by the practice of many centuries of the existence of local churches of the East, the teaching of the divine law, to which we pointed out at the beginning of this chapter on the marriage of sacred persons, remains unshakable. The unshakable stability of this teaching is confirmed by the silence of Holy Scripture that the mystery of the priesthood (ordination) excludes the sacrament of marriage. This law prohibits, under threat of anathema, from having another wife in addition to the lawful one. Moreover, sacred persons should take as wives only those who were morally free from all suspicions and complaints, since otherwise the sacred persons were excluded from the clergy 56 . From this general teaching, church legislation retained the last two prohibitions, giving them a sharper character; it normalized the rest in the following sense: 1) that a bishop cannot be married, 2) whoever is ordained a subdeacon unmarried does not have the right to marry, and 3) a subdeacon, deacon and priest, if widowed, cannot marry a second time. This last will be the task of our further research. The first ecclesiastical legislative decree prohibiting persons of holy orders from marrying after ordination was issued by individual local churches in the 4th century; the decrees themselves were different, according to the views on the marriage of priests that existed in a certain local church. In the Galatian Church, persons who entered the clergy unmarried were allowed to marry after ordination; all that was required was the permission of the head of the church and a preliminary statement at the time of ordination that the initiate intended to marry. Then, this decree was confirmed by the 10th rule of the Council of Ancyra in 314 regarding deacons 57. But that it concerned not only deacons, but also presbyters, is evidenced by the Council of Gangra, which took place around 340. The Eustatians, an Asia Minor sect, by the way, preached the same encratism that the apostle condemned. Paul and they, condemning marriage, argued that those who are married cannot have hope of salvation and their homes do not have God's blessing, and that a married priest is not worthy to perform the liturgy 58. The Gangra Council condemned Evstatian and in its 4th rule utters anathema to all those who claim that there is no need to accept St. communion from a married presbyter. And what we need to understand here is a presbyter who entered into marriage after ordination, and not just before ordination - this is evidenced by the text of this rule and the message of this council, which lists the errors of the Eustatians and their teaching, which condemned priests who entered into a second marriage 59 . This is evidenced by the church writer of the 5th century, Hermias Sozomen, who studied the history of the Eustatian sect 60. And that there were examples of individual bishops marrying even after their ordination and even without the permission of any church authority - this is evidenced by Tertullian, who complains and reproaches the bishops for not wanting to spend their lives in virginity 61 . In the Cappadocian Church there was an even stricter view on this issue. The Council of Neocaesarea, which was convened before the Council of Nicaea, between 314 and 325, dealt exclusively with the question of what kind of moral priests should be, and expressed its disapproval of second marriage, forbidding priests even to attend the weddings of laymen 62. If this was the judgment of the members of the neo-Caesarean council about the second marriage of the laity, then it is easy to understand from here that they will react negatively, first of all, to the second marriage of priests. This was in fact the case when the fathers of this council, in the first rule, stated a prohibition for widowed priests to remarry and a decree on the expulsion from the clergy of anyone who violated this, without, however, subjecting the guilty to a canonical ban 63. A similar judgment on the second marriage, which we see in the Cappadocian Church, also existed in the Syrian Church, where around the middle of the 4th century the so-called apostolic decrees (Constitutiones Apostolorum) were issued. These decrees indicate that persons who have married once should be ordained as bishops, presbyters and deacons, regardless of whether their wives are alive or have already died; but after ordination they were forbidden to marry at all if they were unmarried, and to marry a second time if they remained widowed 64 . These decrees say nothing about why marriage after ordination is prohibited, especially since the sacrament of ordination did not exclude the sacrament of marriage, as is stated clearly and definitely in the 10th rule of the Council of Ancyra, and this prohibition arose in accordance with the incorrect view and judgment about second marriage in general, established in the local Syrian Church. From these apostolic decrees, the 26th apostolic canon was created, which establishes that of the unmarried who have entered the clergy, only readers and singers can marry 65. In other local churches, and there were a lot of them, in resolving this issue, they were guided by the general norm that ordination is not an obstacle to marriage, and therefore there were cases of frequent marriage of bishops, priests and deacons; this was also permitted if they entered the sacred hierarchy unmarried, or if they remained widowed after their first wife and wished to remarry. The ecumenical councils of that time did not consider it necessary to deal with this issue, nor to define this with a special canon that would have significance for the entire universal Church. At the first ecumenical council, some of its members raised the question of the need to establish and determine that no sacred person could be married. But this apparently radical proposal was not only not accepted by the council, but was not even revised, much less decided on 66. The Fourth Ecumenical Council dealt with the issue of mixed marriages and, with its 14th rule, legalized the impossibility for lower members of the clergy to marry persons who do not belong to the Orthodox Church. From the text of this canon it seems to be clear that in “some dioceses” even the lowest members of the clergy, readers and singers, were forbidden to marry, and that, as a result, rigorism on the issue of marriage of clergy members generally crossed all boundaries. How unfair and groundless this was is self-evident and this is noted with special emphasis by the commentators of this canon, who otherwise were not so enthusiastically in favor of the marriage of priests 67 . The Council did not consider this unusual prohibition in well-known dioceses, just as it did not deal with the issue of marriage of priests at all, limiting itself only to legitimizing the impossibility for members of the clergy to marry non-believers. But what the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries did not find necessary to do and legitimize what in itself was not and could not be free from criticism, was done by the Byzantine legislation of the 6th century. This was during the time of Emperor Justinian I, who took into his own hands not only what concerned church administration and the clergy, but also religion itself. This sovereign considered the question of the church hierarchy to be one of the main ones in his legislation and, considering himself the bishop of the external affairs of the church, as Emperor Constantine declared himself, and as such, due to his position, he sought to issue, first of all, laws that would ensure the permanent structure of this hierarchy in his huge state. The question of the marriage of priests seemed to Justinian to be a matter of first importance, and therefore he issued 4 decrees on the marriage issue over a short 16-year period. The direction in the spirit of which he issued these laws gave him a strict judgment that took possession of the church consciousness of that time and encratic principles that took on an orthodox character in the Church. As the basis for his decrees issued on the issue of the marriage of priests, he based the two rules we have already mentioned: the 1st rule of the Neocaesarea Council and the 26th apostolic rule, and therefore, as the first law, on October 18, 530, he issued a decree on the need to exclude from the clergy the presbyter, deacon and subdeacon who married after ordination 68 . Justinian repeated this decree in two novellas dated March 10, 535 and March 18, 536 69. But these laws, despite the state sanction, did not have the desired success, since even after their publication, sacred persons continued to marry freely, as they had done before the publication of these decrees. Ten years later, in the month of May 546, in order to prevent violations of the law, Justinian, prompted by the Patriarch Minus of Constantinople, a man devoted in soul and body to asceticism, published a second novella on the same subject, but with the threat of confiscation of the estate of every presbyter, deacon and subdeacon if they decided to marry after ordination 70. This new law of Justinian worked successfully, and therefore no widowed priest dared to marry, fearing the punishment that state officials inflicted on every guilty person. But this did not last long, a little time later, the previous state of affairs was established, i.e., that elders, deacons and subdeacons, like the rest of the lower members of the clergy, if they remained widows or if they entered the clergy celibate, accepted the marriage state even after ordination. This situation lasted for approximately 150 years, and neither church nor state legislation in the East at that time attached any significance to it. At the end of the 7th century, in view of the fact that no one was paying any more attention to the laws issued by Justinian, and also because there was no canonical decree that would be binding for the entire Church, this issue was again raised in order to resolve it, since the two laws mentioned were considered only as decrees of local churches. Marriage after ordination was considered a completely normal phenomenon, and in the period we are talking about, there were many hierarchical persons who married after ordination. This gave the state power a reason to restore the force of its laws issued regarding the second marriage of members of the clergy. The issuance of a new law seemed to be an unreliable means, since the same thing that happened with the laws of Justinian could happen to the new law. Therefore, the then Byzantine Emperor Justinian II Rhinomet set out to resolve this issue in final form by defining an ecumenical council, to the decision of which all persons of the holy order had to submit. From the beginning of 691, Trullo's fifth-sixth ecumenical council was assembled. The emperor invited the members of the council to resolve this issue and issue a well-known rule regarding this; the council agreed. By the way, it was attended by representatives of the Roman Church, who proposed to prohibit the priesthood from living in marriage and introduce celibacy. The council rejected the proposal of representatives of the Roman Church; but, nevertheless, paying attention to the fact that then there were a considerable number of priests (οὐκ ὀλίγων πλῆθος, non exigua hominum multitudo) who married twice, as well as those who, even after ordination, entered into marriage (μετά τήν χειροτονίαν γάμῳ ἐνί προσομιλήσαντας, qui post ordinationem uni motrimonio se applicarunt), the council issued as a necessary decree on the question of the marriage of priests after ordination, ordering that such priests be subjected to prohibition for some time (ἐπί βραχύν τινα χρόνον, brevi aliquo tempore) separating them from their wives, and after the end of the prohibition, restore them to a hierarchical degree (αὖθις αὐτοῖς ἔν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀποκατασταθῆναι βαθμοῖς, rursus propriis gradibus restituit). This resolution contains the third rule of the Trullo Council 71. And for the future, this same council, by its 6th canon, decided not to allow (μηδαμῶς ἔχειν ἄδειαν, nulli penitus liceat), neither a subdeacon, nor a deacon, nor a presbyter to marry after ordination; and if anyone dares to allow this, let him be cast out 72 . And this decree of the 6th rule of the Trullo Council was to have the meaning of a general norm for the entire Eastern Church and for all future times; and as a positive church law, it actually has meaning to this day in the Orthodox Church. Since that time, this decree has recognized ordination as a canonically approved obstacle to marriage. If we compare these two rules - 3 and 6 in their content, we will see that the Ecumenical Council, in principle, recognizes the possibility of marriage for a priest after ordination, and that therefore ordination, in theory, is not an obstacle to marriage; in practice, this council found it necessary to prevent the repetition of such facts, since this could cause criticism of the clergy in general, which the Trullo Council expressed in its 12th canon, prohibiting bishops from living in marriage. The first (3) rule expresses the fundamental point of view in the doctrine of the marriage of sacred persons, the second (6) rule determines what the practice should be in accordance with the concepts of the time. The first of these two canons, regardless of its ruling regarding married priests, is very important in the sense that it expresses the opinion and recognition of the ecumenical council that a priest, if after his ordination he entered into marriage, can still remain a priest and perform his priestly duties; This means that ordination cannot fundamentally be an obstacle to marriage. This council, as an authoritative body of the universal church, could not but express such an opinion and recognition, since it is the teaching of Holy Scripture and, therefore, a prescription of the divine law. Taking all this into account, we must look at the third and 6th canon of this council, firstly, as a decree that, if it existed in individual local churches, was caused by the circumstances of the time in which the council met, and corresponded to the concepts that the fathers of the Council of Trullo had about the marriage of priests, and, secondly, as a decree that is subject to change when other circumstances of the time arise and when they return to legislators of the church those concepts about marriage in general and about the marriage of priests that the writers of the sacred books of the New Testament had. The aforementioned decree of the 3rd canon of the Council of Trullo on the need for divorce from their wives for those priests, and there were many of them (non exigua multitudo), who entered into marriage after ordination, received state sanction several years after the council by a novella of the same Emperor Justinian II dated January 15, 706 (in this novella the text of the 3rd canon of Trullo is repeated word for word cathedral). This novella was published regarding the complaint of Patriarch Cyrus; that the majority of priests, especially in the Western dioceses of the patriarchate, resist voluntarily submitting to this decree of the council and do not want to leave their wives. It is not known whether the priests agreed to obey this decree after its publication; but it is known that among the clergy there was great discontent regarding him, not only because many did not want to subject themselves to punishment, to renounce family life, which they were already accustomed to look at as a legal right, but also because of the general prohibition for a subdeacon, even one who had not been ordained, to marry already in the office of subdeacon. This was the cause of considerable unrest among the clergy, since many openly opposed this canonical decree, and the church authorities were not able, even with state support, to force the clergy to obey. In many dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and almost all of Alexandria, the bishops, in order to calm the clergy, allowed them to act in the spirit of the previously mentioned rule of the Council of Ancyra; i.e. allowed to marry those who entered into marriage unmarried, and if they declared at the time of ordination to the bishop their desire to marry; Moreover, this entry had to take place no later than two years after ordination. This custom spread, as a general law, to all other dioceses of the Eastern Patriarchate 73. The fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council (787) did not even find any incentive to deal with this phenomenon in order to stop it, although they issued many rules regarding the discipline of the clergy. This issue was not addressed even a hundred years after the council. And only during the reign of Leo the Wise was it raised again. At the very beginning of his reign, at the request of Patriarch Stephen, he published one novella in 886, from which it is clear what the situation was with the question of the marriage of priests after ordination. This novella states the existence of the custom of accepting unmarried persons into the clergy, who were allowed to marry two years after ordination. The emperor finds that such a custom goes against the decree, and therefore orders that the ancient decree on the marriage of priests should remain valid for the future; and this decree is, in all likelihood, the 6th rule of the Trullo Council, although this is not mentioned in the novella itself 74. But neither this novella of Leo, nor the rest of the decrees of church and state legislation were able to prohibit priests from marrying even after ordination, and that such a situation existed even after, by the way, is testified by Patriarch Mark of Alexandria, who makes the following request to Theodore Balsamon: do deacons and subdeacons have the legal right to marry? Balsamon answered him in the spirit of the aforementioned short story by Emperor Leo 75. There is evidence of this from the 13th century. In the parishes of the Corinthian church at that time there were many priests who lived in a second marriage and, having become widowed, being already priests, remarried. This phenomenon did not catch the eye of anyone, and nothing criminal was found in it until one of the priests fell into adultery and thereby caused open temptation. One of the then monks, named Theodosius, taking advantage of this circumstance, i.e. adultery of a priest, raised the question of whether a priest can generally remain in his position if he marries after ordination; and made a request to Patriarch Chartophylax Nicephorus, well-known at that time in Constantinople, so that he would express his opinion on this issue. Chartophylax responded to Theodosius’ request and in 1255 wrote him a letter in which, among other things, he writes that according to canonical discipline, spiritual service cannot be performed by those who have fallen into fornication and who have married twice 76 . From these given evidence it is clear that until the thirteenth century it was impossible to force the clergy to submit to the decree of the Trullo Council, which speaks of ordination as an obstacle to marriage, and that a widowed priest can no longer marry; and from the Council of Trulla to the time of publication of the letter of Chartophylax Nicephorus, more than five and a half centuries passed. Were there any occasions in individual local churches after the 13th century? to ask the opinions of learned canonists in order to clarify this issue, as the Alexandrian Patriarch Mark and the Corinthian monk Theodosius asked, and whether the marriage of widowed priests was still practiced in individual local churches - we do not know. The fact is, nevertheless, that neither before the Council of Trullo, nor five and a half centuries after it, in practice did they pay attention to the prohibition of this council on the issue of the second marriage of priests. The resolution of the 6th canon of the Trullo Council, as a resolution of the ecumenical council, has a universally binding significance for the entire Orthodox Church, and no one has the right to arbitrarily evade the execution of this resolution. Meanwhile, we see that such obedience was not everywhere and always, and that very often a voice of discontent and even open protest arose among the clergy against the prohibition of marriage for widowed clergy; we also saw the reason for all this. This reason still exists today; proof of which is the manifest dissatisfaction of the clergy, which sees in this prohibition an act based neither on the teaching of Holy Scripture nor on natural law, and the clergy thinks that a little desire on the part of the highest church authority is enough to help this. Let's see how this could happen. The prohibition of second marriage for widowed priests does not flow directly from divine decree, but is based solely on the positive right of the church, and it must, therefore, be viewed as an ecclesiastical law issued by the church by virtue of its legal right. There is a difference between laws based on divine law and laws issued by ecclesiastical authority, as ecclesiastical law teaches. The first laws concern faith and morals and are of absolute importance for every member of the church without exception. They are based on Holy Scripture and, as such, have and should have meaning at all times, and anyone who changes and does not obey them ceases from that moment to be a true member of the church. Church laws concern the external aspect of the life of the church and are established to maintain order in the church and to carry out the purpose for which the church exists. Hence, in the science of church law, these laws are called disciplinary, that is, church laws related to the discipline of the church. At the great Council of Constantinople in 920, where there were representatives of all churches, the church canons of all councils, from the earliest council of 314 to the Council of Constantinople in 879, were revised, and their bindingness for the entire church was recognized. But the council of 920 did not recognize this in an absolute sense, as neither the Trullo Council, which speaks about this in its 3rd rule, nor the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which also mentioned this in its 1st rule, did so. The legislative power has always had, as it will always have the right, depending on the circumstances and needs of the church, to destroy old and issue new decrees, while remaining, of course, faithful to the basic principles that are expressed in the basic commandments of Holy Scripture regarding the structure and life of the church. The prescriptions of the three great councils mentioned do not limit the legislative power of the church to change old laws, but only limit the arbitrariness of individual people in some hierarchical position, who, catering to human passions, destroy and change, contrary to the spirit of general ecclesiastical law, the laws adopted by the church; but these same councils do not limit the right of the church to issue new laws and give a different form to previous laws, if this does not run counter to the general needs of the church, while preserving at the same time the general spirit of the legal decrees of the church. The truths of faith and morality, of course, can never be destroyed and must remain unchanged forever. But disciplinary decrees concerning the external life of the church, establishing its external relations, can always change and have changed along with the life of the church itself. The Holy Spirit, who dwelt in the fathers when at councils they issued the laws necessary for that time, will not cease to dwell in them when they gather at another time in order to change some laws, or issue new ones, according to the needs and needs of the church. Since the laws of faith and morality are unconditionally binding for every member of the church and therefore must have and remain forever unchanged. Disciplinary decisions cannot be immutable and therefore have changed over the course of many centuries. The history of the church gives much evidence of this; Of these, we will point out only some of the Rules: the fifth of the first ecumenical council, the nineteenth of the fourth ecumenical council and the 37th apostolic council require the convening of episcopal councils twice a year in each metropolitan district; and the Trullo Council, with its eighth rule, just like the Seventh Ecumenical Council with its sixth rule, changes this decree, due to new circumstances of church life, and makes a decree that in the future these councils should be convened only once a year. The 15th rule of the Neocaesarea Council decreed that each local church should have no more than seven deacons, but the Trullo Council, with its 16th rule, abolished this decree. A very important evidence of changes in church disciplinary decrees, which is of direct significance for our question, is given to us by the sixth canon of the Trullo Council, which we have already mentioned several times. The Neo-Caesarean Council, by its first rule, prohibits only presbyters from marrying after ordination, without mentioning deacons and subdeacons, and the Ancyra Council, by its tenth rule, allows deacons to marry after ordination; The Trullo Council, with a well-known rule, changed all this and forbade deacons and subdeacons, in addition to priests, to marry. What criterion was used by church legislators when they changed existing disciplinary decrees and replaced them with new ones is best seen from the 12th canon of the same Trullo Council. At the sixth Council of Carthage in 401, a decree was issued giving the right to bishops to live in marriage with their wives, with the condition only of abstaining from intercourse with their wife at certain times for the sake of sacred service. This rule was adopted at the Council of Carthage in 419 and constitutes the 70th (81st) rule of this council. That a bishop can be married and cannot separate from his wife for the sake of feigned piety is established by the 5th and 51st Apostolic Canons. The Trullo Council, with its 12th canon, abolished this and decided that a bishop could not be married. This was a major change that went against the reality of that time: at that time (the end of the 7th century) in almost the entire Alexandrian patriarchate the bishops were married, there were married people in other patriarchates, and yet the fathers of the council found that this served as a “subject of stumbling and temptation,” and therefore issued the rule known to us, and they justify their act as follows: “And this we do not affirm for destruction or perversion of what was established by the apostles (and they established that a bishop should be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) but taking care of salvation and prosperity for the best and to prevent any criticism of the sacred title. For the divine apostle says: "Do everything for the glory of God. Do not give offense either to the Jews or to the Greeks, or to the church of God, since I also please everyone in everything, seeking not my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. " (1 Cor. 10:31-33; 11:1). This decree indicates the norm of the activity of the church under the occurrence of such and similar circumstances in the future, and when there is a need to change or completely destroy existing disciplinary regulations. If, therefore, the mentioned rules could be changed and replaced by others (and many other apostolic and conciliar decrees could be pointed out, which, like these, were changed by the legislative power of the church), then any other disciplinary rule may be subject to change, if only there is a need for this and the interests of the church, good order and peace in it require it. This means that the rule prohibiting widowed priests from marrying may be subject to the same change, since it is nothing more than a rule of church discipline. Without touching on the formal side of the change, but speaking only about the change in the canon, it is enough just to compare it with the aforementioned twelfth canon of the Trullo Council in order to see how much more insignificant such a change could be than the change made by the Trullo Council. Of course, the question of the marriage of widowed clergy or, in other words, of ordination, as an obstacle to marriage, is not as important as the question of the marriage of bishops. It is not so important because the right of a bishop to have his legal wife and his family is based on the Holy Scriptures, and that a widowed priest cannot enter into a second marriage, or that ordination is generally an obstacle to marriage, this is not stated anywhere in the Holy Scriptures; the prohibition is based on only one church rule, issued under special circumstances of the time, when a one-sided view of the marriage of priests prevailed among the highest hierarchy. Therefore, if the church authority has found it possible to change something that has a basis in the divine law, then it can sooner and much more freely change one decree that has no basis in the divine law. The twelfth rule of the Trullo Council, which we know, says that a bishop cannot be married, since this, i.e. marriage would not serve “for the salvation and advancement of people for the better, but for criticizing the sacred title.” Recognizing and respecting the authority of the authorities who expressed such a motivation for the rule, we would say something completely different if the matter concerned the issue of allowing marriage for widowed clergy. Such a resolution would not serve as an obstacle to the salvation of people and their success in goodness; it would not cause any complaints about the priestly title, but rather, it would be a means of reassuring those who care about morality and the salvation of people, and the actual destruction of various complaints about the clerical title in general and about widowed priests in particular. Moreover, if we pay attention to the sacramental nature of the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the priesthood (ordination), we will see that nowhere in the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church will we find any thought about the superiority of one sacrament over the other and that one sacrament excludes the other. Both sacraments are of divine origin and both are equally holy and saving. And no one can prove that ordination in itself serves as an obstacle to marriage, or that this obstacle is a direct or indirect consequence of ordination. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which established celibacy for its clergy 77, does not teach anything of the kind. Ordination can never be repeated, and a second marriage is recommended by the Apostle Paul himself for the sake of protection from carnal lusts. Only a select few can receive ordination; and marriage is a law of nature for all people. When God said to the first people: “Be fruitful and multiply,” then in their person He said this to all people living in the world; and for priests who were accidentally widowed to be excluded by this commandment, nothing is said about this in the Holy Scripture, just as the Holy Scripture does not say that the church has the right to deprive a person of his natural freedom and force him by force to submit to the yoke of the law. If marriage is the normal state of all people, then priests are not excluded from it, and if a married person can be ordained, he is allowed, as a priest, to live in marriage, and the secret of marriage does not exclude the sacrament of ordination, then there is no reason to prohibit widowed priests from marrying, and also to prohibit an unmarried person from marrying after ordination. This prohibition can be justified by hundreds of proofs, as Roman Catholic theologians do when they justify the celibacy of priests, but they all fall and must fall before the natural law of marriage, proclaimed by God himself and confirmed in Christianity by the Son of God. It will be unnecessary to talk about the practical side of this issue, since in all the Slavic churches, and, above all, in the Russian one, and, one can say with confidence, that in none of the local Orthodox churches there is currently no educated person who clearly understands the conditions of normal life in society, who would not understand how terrible and pitiful the life of widowed priests is, and how unfounded in itself is that law of the church, which to this day has absolute significance for all Orthodox Church, which prohibits priests from remarrying, and, as a result, how great is the need to change this decree in order to allow priests to marry after ordination, as was the case for many centuries in the ancient church. Let this practical side of the question be told by what was said about it earlier by Bishop Zivkovic in his brochure published in 1877: "The life of a widowed priest is the most pitiful, and, in particular, the life of one who has small children left. He cannot manage his house without a legal friend, as the Apostle Paul demands, nor be a stranger; since without the ear of a wife, feasts and treats are deaf, says the Serbian people; and other people's bees are pulled apart and pulled each in their own direction, and thus, under his management, his house will be lost, and with the house his children, and with children and the largest contingent of our priestly generation. The unfortunate priest cannot be without a stranger, so that illnesses and various family disorders without the watchful eye of his wife cannot torment and upset him. What can we say about the moral damage for the people and the church that will result from the ban? In the meantime, as things stand in this order, it is impossible to prevent or influence it. It is also impossible to do this because, in addition to the neat and well-behaved life of the priest, a heavy doubt falls on such a situation, which the church itself, on the one hand, cannot tolerate, and, on the other, it must, to its own detriment, endure everything as long as this situation continues. Such abnormal phenomena do not exist with other sacraments, for example, with the sacrament of marriage and with the situation that this mystery creates 78 . This is how the Serbian high priest wrote about this important issue, who was a real bishop of the people, sharing every pain of his people and clergy. And it is hardly possible to find a person who looks at things with his own eyes, who has been given the mind to correctly judge things, who would deny this real and unshakable truth spoken by Bishop Zivkovic. Now the important question is how to change this resolution. This decree states that neither a subdeacon, nor a deacon, nor an elder can marry after ordination. This decree can be changed in the sense of allowing a subdeacon, deacon and presbyter to marry even after ordination; and to allow marriage not only to those who entered the clergy unmarried, but also to those who entered the hierarchy as widows. That such a change is quite fundamental, we have seen, just as we have seen that the rule containing this decree has a changing character, like any other law of church discipline. This change can occur either in the sense that it is necessary to completely destroy this decree and replace it with a new one in the spirit of discipline, which was important in the early days of the Church of Christ, or to adopt something that can, under certain circumstances, provide a dispensation from such a strict canonical requirement. The first, according to the rules of the Church, could only happen if this decree were canceled by the authority that issued it. This resolution was made by an ecumenical council, which means that only this council could destroy it and replace it with a new one. But there is no point even thinking about convening an ecumenical council at the present time, given the political circumstances existing in the Orthodox world. This issue could be resolved only if all the autocephalous churches met in writing on this issue and decided it with a common voice. This method of resolving church issues, sometimes even concerning faith, is found more than once in history. It happened that an issue concerning faith and church discipline, which was important for the entire church, was put forward for decision, and the hierarchs, in whose dioceses it was raised, subjected it to consideration at a local council and only then communicated their decision to the rest of the local churches, which, in turn, accepted it and were guided in practice by this decision. It also happened that a local council, not considering itself to have the right to individually issue resolutions, asked the opinions of the rest of the local churches and, if everyone agreed with a certain resolution, it was proclaimed on behalf of the entire church and had the same meaning as if it had been approved at an ecumenical council 79 . In the same way, the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in the Eastern Church” appeared in the 17th century, in which some church customs that previously had only local significance received a general church character, and individual decrees were changed in the direction required by the then state of the church 80. This is the best way in which the decree prohibiting marriage for sacred persons could be changed; it is only necessary for any of the autocephalous churches, for example, Serbian or Russian, to raise this issue; Other autocephalous churches would agree with them, and in this way the change would become generally binding for the entire Orthodox Church. This resolution could be changed by one or another autocephalous church. It will be unnecessary to speak here separately about the significance and rights of any one autocephalous church in comparison with the rights and significance of the universal church 81. Each autocephalous church has full legislative power only if it preserves the principles and principles underlying the universal church 82. Regarding this legislative power of the autocephalous churches, the rules prescribe to strictly ensure that their legislative decrees not only do not offend the foundations of the universal church structure, but are also not contrary to the true spirit of the Church of Christ, that is, the spirit of Orthodoxy, holiness, moral purity and hierarchical rights, but only concern in the rules certain private aspects, and not their main thought, only their external application, and not internal force, only the form of church government, and not its essence. Accordingly, the legislation of autocephalous churches at councils cannot touch dogmatic, liturgical and spiritual-moral subjects, which are based on divine law and sanctified by the authority of the universal church. The universal church has always strictly monitored the fulfillment of this; She paid special attention to preserving them forever and in everything in the local churches, as they were established at the Ecumenical Council, exposing and correcting even the most insignificant deviation that appeared in one or another local church. In matters of discipline, church legislation had to pay attention to the main church legislative regulations and allow any change in matters of discipline only on condition that these basic regulations were preserved, at the same time always keeping in mind the good of the church, peace and love between the clergy and the people, and so that there were no complaints about the spiritual title 83. On the basis of these canonical decrees on the legislative power of the autocephalous churches, the latter exercised this power throughout all centuries. This is evidenced by numerous church laws that were issued, especially by the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, on diocesan bishops, their election and relation to other bishops and metropolitans, on the rights of the metropolitan, on church property and its management, on monastic and monastic discipline, on marriage - conditions and obstacles to marriage, on marital divorce, on the discipline of priests, etc., - laws that had full force and were therefore recognized by all other autocephalous churches 84. And therefore, if any of the autocephalous churches took the initiative to publish a new law on the marriage of priests, in order to eliminate the complaints against them, as the Council of Trullo speaks of in its 12th canon, and if this was done in such a sense that it would exclude any possibility of stumbling and temptation, by issuing such a law the clergy would be elevated and morally could serve as an example for the people, then by this by doing so, the well-known autocephalous church will not sin at all against the canonical decrees on legislative activity; with this law she would not only “not destroy or change what was established by the apostles,” as the canon notes, but, on the contrary, would put in order and restore in essence what the Holy Scripture of the New Testament commands and what had the meaning of law in the Apostolic Church, and, following its example, in subsequent times, in the Church of Christ. One example from the recent past most illuminates and clarifies for us the question of the right of one autocephalous church to independently change any legislative resolution. It concerns not only the disciplinary side, but also a subject that deeply affects the dogmatic side of church teaching. According to dogmatic teaching, baptism must be performed by immersing the baptized person in water three times, although baptism performed through pouring is not denied as incorrect, and the person being baptized in this way is considered a Christian, and therefore it is no longer possible to baptize him a second time. This has the meaning of a binding law for the entire church. This practice had the same significance for the Greek Church until the second half of the 18th century. At this time, at the Council of Constantinople, chaired by Patriarch Cyril V, it was decided not to recognize as a Christian those who were baptized through pouring (and not immersion), and such persons should be baptized again. In accordance with this decree of the Council of Constantinople, the Greek Church began to rebaptize every Roman Catholic who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy. This resolution remains in force to this day 85. As we see, such a decree is a matter of church legislation, but a matter by which the church violated one of the fundamental laws of the universal church by allowing the possibility of repeated baptism of the same person. But this decree was limited only to the Church of Constantinople, since none of the autocephalous churches accepted it, as a result of which both Roman Catholics and Protestants are recognized as Christians, even if the latter were baptized. And, despite all this, none of the autocephalous Orthodox churches condemns or deprives the Greek Church of communion with the universal church for such a course of action, recognizing the possibility of the existence of good reasons for issuing such a decree and, at the same time, the right to modify known laws within its own limits. Thus, if this change in the decree of the autocephalous church, even in such a matter that concerns the dogmatic foundations of the church, can be justified, then, even more so, this approval can be expressed where the question of changing church laws is raised. And we saw above that this right has always been recognized and should be recognized as consistent with the character of the Orthodox Church. It is unnecessary to prove that the prohibition of marriage for subdeacons, deacons and elders is a disciplinary ruling. The complete abolition of this decree (abrogatio legis) could only happen if instead of it a decree was issued allowing the said persons (of course, if they did not make a solemn promise to always maintain virginity) to marry both after ordination (Ordination) as deacons or presbyters and after consecration (ordination) as subdeacons, and this permission should also extend to those who entered the clergy celibates, and those who remained widows after their first marriage. Each autocephalous church has the right to make such a change within its region, and in this it will not sin at all against the fundamental principles of Orthodox Church law; just as it would not have overstepped the boundaries of its canonically recognized legislative power. If this change were adopted by the rest of the autocephalous churches, it would become universal; if the other churches did not adopt this for some reason of their own, then the church that made the change would be left alone with its separate practice on the issue of marriage of priests and would occupy the same position that the Galatian and Cappadocian churches occupied in this matter for many centuries, which, despite this, never ceased to be prominent and important part of the universal church. If they do not want to soon abolish this outdated law, which sooner or later the Orthodox Church will have to come to, then the council of the autocephalous church can do this in the sense that, without formally destroying this law, it, as the late Bishop Zivkovic proposed, under given circumstances and when a fundamental need is felt, can authorize the diocesan bishop to give a dispensation (permission to deviate) from the implementation of this law and, thus, allow the priest to enter into a new marriage and after ordination, and I will add to this the fact that the diocesan bishop must seek from the council the right to permission to marry for that subdeacon, deacon and presbyter who entered the clergy unmarried and did not bind himself in advance to a vow of perpetual virginity. In this matter, we must never forget that the prohibition on persons of clergy rank to marry is not a decree of divine law, and that, according to the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, the secret of the priesthood does not exclude the sacrament of marriage. Anyone who clearly understands this will easily resolve the issue of ordination as an obstacle to marriage. Cons. Tridentini sess. XXIV (II Nov. 1563) can. 9 de sacram. matrimoniï “Si quis dixerit, ciericos in sacris ordinibus constitutes, vel regulares castitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse non obstante lege ecclesiastica vel voto; et oppositum nil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium, posseque omnes contrabere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiam si earn voverint, habere donum: anathema sit, quum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget nec patiatur nos supra id, quod possumus. tentari." Can. 10: "Si quis dixerit, statum conjugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitatis vel coelibatus, et non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut coelibatu, quam jungi matrimoniö anathema sit." (Ed. Lipsiae 1839. col. 71). On celibacy see Thomassini Vetus, et nova ecclesiae disciplina (Neap. 1770–1772). P. I. lib. 2.cap. 60–66. A. de Roskovany, Coelibatus et breviarum, duo gravissima clericorum officia. Pest. 1861 vol. 4. An excellent and complete historical study of the issue of celibacy is found in Dr. P. Hinschius System des Kath, Kirchenrechts (Berlin. 1869) I, 144-163, which, among other things, speaks of strong dissatisfaction with priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church; during the French Revolution there were many Roman Catholic priests and even married bishops; In view of this, in the month of August 1832, Pope Gregory VI was forced to issue a special encyclical in defense of priestly celibacy. Roskovai, in the above-mentioned work (III, 452), recalls the encyclical of Pope Pius IX of November 9, 1846, in which this pope: “molimina adversus coelibatum cleri reprobat et damnat,” which serves as proof of the idea that discontent and hostility towards priestly celibacy have not ceased to this day. This is also evidenced by various local councils of recent times, two of which were in Austria; one in Vienna 1858, presided over by Cardinal Rauscher, and the other in Marburg 1883, presided over by Prince-Bishop Stepischneg. The Augsburg Confession (de Abus. II, 22) notes that the divine decree on marriage is “nulla lex humana pes votum potest tollere,” indicating as “in tanta infamia inquinati coelibatus audent adversarü non solum defendere legem pontificiam impio et falso praetextu nominis divini, sed etiam hortari Caesarem et principes ne tolerent conjugia sacerdotum ad ignominiam et infamiam romani imperü; and continuing in the same tone, he says the following: “si mundities proprie opponitur concupiscentiae, significatf munditiem cordis, hoc est mortificatam concupiscentiam, quia lex non prohibet conjugium sed concupiscentiam, adulterium, scortationem; si ita intelligunt, coelibatum munditem esse quod justificationem magis quam conjugium, maxime reclamamus. Aufl. (Leipzig, 1903) § 56 and 138. The Old Catholics made this decision at their church-people's council in 1878. See Ae. L. Richter, Lehrbuck des kathol. und-evang. Kirchenrechts. VIII, Aufl. (Leipz., 1886) §116. Anm. 24. Decree of Pope Benedict XIV of May 26, 1742 Etsi pastoralis § VII. no. 26: “Etsi expetendum quam maxime esset ut Graeci qui sunt in sacris ordinibus constituti, castitatem non secus ac Latini servarent, nihilominus ut eorum clerici, subdiaconi, diaconi et presbyteri uxores in eorum ministerio retmeant, dummodo ante sacros ordines, virgines, non viduas neque corruptos duxerint, Romano non prohibet ecclesia"; nr. 27. "Si quis subdiaconus, diaconus vel presbyter post sacram ordinationem uxore mortua, aliam duxerit vel si uxorem non habeat, ducere praesumpserit nedum excommunicationis latae sententiae poena aliisque nostro et successorum nostrorum Romanorum pontificum arbitrio infligendis, severissime punietur, verum etiam statim ob ordine erit deponendus et ab illegitima uxore separandus Matrimonium enim post recensitos ordines contractum, nullum irritumque declaramus." Bullarium. 1746. 1, 179. Known resolutions of the Propaganda Congregation dated April 1, 1890, June 13, 1891 and May 10, 1892, see Archiv fur kath. Kirchenrecht. Bd. 67. S. 475. Bd. 68. S. 442. cf. Bd. 69. S. 117–120: Die Coelibatspflicht des griechuniretn Klerus in Nordamerica. Regarding Russia, see N. Suvorov. Church course Rights. Yaroslavl 1890. Pp. 281. Regarding Serbia, see Dr. Ch. Mitrovic. O marriageable young lady. Beograd. 1906. 1. 59. Regarding Montenegro, member. 173, 2. consistory charter. Regarding Austria § 63. Code of Civil Laws: “Geistliche, welche schon hohere Weihen empfangen, wie auch Ordenspersonen von beiden Geschlechten, welclie feirliche Gelübde per Ehelosigkeit abgelegt haben, können keine giltigen Eheverträge schliessen.” Refers to Spain, part 83, 4. Code of Civil Laws of 1889. Friedberq Kirchenrecht S. 409. Hinschius, System. 1, 162, 163. 1 Tim. 3:2–6: μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον. τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ μετὰ πάσης σεμνότη. But the bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, chaste, decent, honest, hospitable, teacher, not a drunkard, not a murderer, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but quiet, peace-loving, not money-loving, ruling his house well, keeping his children in obedience with all honesty; for whoever does not know how to manage his own house will care about the Church of God? He must not be one of the new converts, lest he become proud and fall into condemnation with the devil. Titus 1:5, 6 ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην. ? μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you would complete what was unfinished and install elders in all the cities, as I ordered you: if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, has faithful children, not reproached with debauchery or disobedience. 1 Corinthians 7:7, 8, 9: For I desire that all men should be as I am; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this way, the other another. To the unmarried and widows I say: it is good for them to remain as I do. But if they cannot abstain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to become inflamed. Matt. 19:4, 5: He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who created in the beginning made them male and female? And he said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Mark 10:6: At the beginning of creation, God created them male and female. John 2:1, 2, 11 Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἦν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ , ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν γάμον. ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν. On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and His disciples were also invited to a wedding... Thus Jesus began miracles in Cana of Galilee and revealed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. Matt. 19:13–15: Then the children were brought to Him, that He might lay His hands on them and pray; the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said: Let the little children come and do not hinder them from coming to Me, for to such is the Kingdom of Heaven. And laying his hands on them, he went away from there. Wed. Mr. 10:14. OK. 18:16. Heb. 13:4: Marriage is honorable for everyone and the bed is undefiled; But God judges fornicators and adulterers. Ephesus 5, 23–25. 31. 32: The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the Head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body; but just as the Church submits to Christ, so do wives to their husbands in everything. Husbands! love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her. Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). This mystery is great; I speak in relation to Christ and the Church. 1 Cor. 7, 28: Even if you do not marry, you will not sin. 1 Tim. 2, 15: A woman... will be saved through childbearing if she continues in faith and love and in holiness with chastity. That the Apostle Peter was married, see Matt. 8.14: about Philip - Acts p. 21, 8. 9; They entered the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the 7 deacons, and stayed with him. He had four virgin daughters who prophesied; and that most of the rest of the apostles were married, see the first letter to the Corinthians 9, 5:... Or do I not have the power to have a sister as a companion, a wife, like the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? In his interpretation of Paul's second letter to the Corinthians (11:2), Ambrose of Milan writes: “Omnes Apostoli, exceptis Ioanne et Paulo, uxores habebant.” (All the apostles, except John and Paul, had wives) M f. 19, 10–12: λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἀλλ᾿ οἷς δέδοται. εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως. His disciples tell Him: if such is a man’s duty to his wife, then it is better not to marry. He said to them: Not everyone can receive this word, but only those who have been given it, for there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it. Wed. 1 Κορ. 7:8, 9. 1 Tim. 4:1-3: The Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith, listening to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of false talkers, seared in their consciences, forbidding marriage and eating what God created to be eaten by the faithful and those who know the truth with thanksgiving. Γ al. 1:8, 9: Εὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ᾿ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾿ ὃ παρελάβετε ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. But even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: whoever preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be accursed. Clemeus Alexandr., Stromata, lib. III. cap. 5. Clemens Alex., Stromata. III, 6: “Adversus autem alterum genus haerelicorum, qui speciose per continentiam impie se gerunt, turn in creaturum, sum in sanctum Opificem, qui est solus Deus omnipotens, et, dicunt non esse admittendum matrinionium et liberorum procreationem, nec in mundum esse indueendos alios infelices, nec suppeditandum morti nutrimentum"... (Ed. Migne). The most ardent Gnostics on the issue of denying marriage and the birth of children were Saturninus and Marcion. See Irenaeus Lugd., Contra haereses. lib. cap. 24 et 27 (Ed. cit.) Epiphan., haer. XXIII, 2 Theoderet., haeret. fabul. 1. V, 14 et al. Augustin, de haeres. With. 40 p. 12. 13. Contra Faustum lib. XXX. c. 6. XXII c. 30. De moribus Manich. lib. II c. 18. Epiphanii Adversus haereses. haer. 46 (sive 66). Epiphan., Adv. heereses, haer. 27 (sive 47) apv. Encratitas: "Xtiptiarum auctorem diabolum manifeste constituunt." See about this in S. I. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, II Aufl. (Freiburgi V. 1883) I, 431–435. Strom, lib. III, cap. IÏ Legis et Ohristi mandatum de non concupiscendo. Apologia prima pro Christianis nr. 15. Ex libro de resurrectione nr. 3: “sed et quae minime abinitio steriles virginitatem coluerunt abstinuerunt a congressu, aliae vero a certo tempore; viros item alios quidem ab initio, alios autem a certo tempore castimoniam observantes iutuemur, ita ut ab ipsis dissolvantur per cupiditatem initiae citra legis praescriptum nuptiae.” Lactantius, Inst-itut. divin. lib. VI. c. 23. Cyrillus Hierosol. Cateches. IV. § 23–26. Origenes hom. XI. cap. 5. in Ierem. Gregorius Nissen. de virginitate cap. 4. Ambrosius de virginitate ad Marcell., de virginitate perpetua Mariae. Hieronymus adv. Iovinianum, Origenes in the 17th conversation on the Gospel of Luke says: “secundae nuptiae nos de regno Dei ejiciunt.” About Origen, who emasculated himself and sharply condemned marriage in general, see Eusebü hist. eccl. lib. VI, cap. 8. Rome 7, 3. 1 Cor. 7, 8. 39–40. Epiphanü haer. 39 (s. 49). Augustini ge haeresibus, cap. 38. See about the Montanists. Epiphanii, haer. 38 (s. 48). Clemeus Alexander. Stromata Ш, 12; “Si cui Apostolus propter intemperantiam et ustionem, veniam secundi concedit matrimonii, nam hie quoque non peccat quidem ex testamento, non est enim a lege prohibitum, non implet autem surnmam illam vitae perfectionem, quae agitur ex evangelio.” As Origen judged the second marriage, see his words in note 33. Cyril. Hierosol. Cateches. IV. s. 26. See 4, 12 and 87 rules of St. Vasily and the interpretation of these rules in the book: “Rules with Tumachenima Bishop. Nicodemus" (Novi Sad. 1895. 1896) II. 354, 367, 425. Cf. ap. rule 17 and neokes. rule 7. One has the title: “To the Young Widow”, the other: “On Monandry” (monogamy). Both books were written around 380. See the interpretation of this canon in the book “Rules” II, 70–71. Apostle Canon 17: “Whoever, after Holy Baptism, was obliged to marry two times, or had a concubine, cannot be a bishop, a presbyter, a deacon, or even be on the list of the sacred rank.” See the interpretation of this canon in the book “Rules” I. 74–46; and compare the resolution of the Council of Constantinople under Patriarch Alexis (1025–1043) in Greek. canonical Syntagma (published in Athens 1852–1859 in 6 volumes) V, 28. Origen. horn. XVII in Lucam: “Ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio sed et nuptiae repellunt: neque enirn episcopus, nec presbyter, dog diaconus possunt esso digami.” Tertull. de monogamy e. 11; de poenit. c. 9; de exhortat. oastit. s. 7; ad uxor. lib. I p. 7. Ambros. de offic. lib. 1 p. 50: “De castimonia quid dicam, quando una tantum, nee repetita permittitur copula, et In ipso ergo conjugio lex est, non iterare conjugium, nec secundae conjugis sortiri conjunctionem; and in another place: “Quod plerisque mirum videtur, cur etiam ante baptismum iterato conjugio ad electionem muneris et ordinationis praerogativam impedimenta generentur, cum etiam delicta obesse non soleant, si lavacri remissa fuerint sacramentö sed intelligere debemus, quia in baptismo culpa dimitti potest, lex aboleri non potest in conjugio non culpa, sed lex est: quod; culpae est. in baptismo relaxatur quod legis est, in conjugio non solvitur.” Hieron. er. II. ad Nepotian.: "Praedicator continentiae nuptias ne conciliet; qui apostolum legit, superest, ut qui habent uxores sic sint, quasi non habeant: cur virginem cogit ut nubat? Qui de monogamia sacerdos est, quare viduam hortatur ut digama fit?" Idem, er. XI ad Geront.: "Considera, quod vidua non eligatur, nisi unius viri uxor, et nos putamus, sacerdotum hoc esse tantum privilegium, ut non admittatur ad altarem, nisi qui unam habuerit uxorem. Non solum enim ab officio sacerdotis digamas excluditur, sed et ab elemosyna ecclisiae, duin indigna putatur stipe, quae ad secunda conjiigia devoJuta est: quamquam lege sacerdotali teneatur et lacius, qui talem praebere se debet, ut possit eligi in sacerdotium, si digamus fuerit. sacerdotes: ergo et laicus tenetur mandato, per quod ad sacerdotium pervenitur." Chrysostom Sermon. Χ. on 1 Timothy. 3, 2. ἀλλά τήν ἀμετρίαν κωλύων: ἐπειδή ἐπί τῶν ἰουδαίων ἐξῆν καί δευτέροις ὁμιλεἷν γάμοις, καί δύο ἔχειν κατά ταυτόν γυναῖκας τίμιος γάρ ὀ γάμος: τινές δέ, ἓνα μιᾶς γυναικός ἀ Chrysostom Sermon II on Titus 1, 6. Ἐπιστομίζει τοῦς αἱρετικούς τούς τον γάμον γιαβάλλοντος, δεικνύς: ὃτι τό πρᾶγμα οὔκ ἐστιν ἐναγές, ἀλλ΄ οὕτω τίμαν, ὡς μετά αὐτοῦ δίνασθαι καί ἐπί τόν ἃγιον ἃναβαίνειν θρόνον, ἐν ταυτῶ δέ καί τούς ἀσελγεῖς κολάζων. καί οὐκ ἀφιείς μετά δεύτέρου γάμου τήν ἀρ Quot enim et digami praesident vos, insultantes utique apostolo!” Tertull. de monogamy, cap. 12. Sirici epist. 1. Ad Himer. Tarrac. Innocent, ep. XXIII. ad episc. Maced. cap. 1. Theodoreti ep. CX ad Domnum On this issue, see the article entitled “A sore point” in the St. Petersburg academic journal: “Church Bulletin” for 1906, No. 15 pp. 471–472, which also states that the Russian Holy Synod in 1795 expressed that a second marriage cannot be an obstacle to the priestly office. For the decree of this rule, see the interpretation of the rule of the Trull Cathedral in the book “Rules from Tumachenima”, I, 440, II, 12. About the Eustatians in general and how they taught about marriage in particular, see “Rules with Tumachenima”, II, 37. γεγαμηκτος, ὡ μἤ χρῆναι, λειτουργήσαντος αὐτοῦ, προσφορας μεταλαμβάνειν, ανάθεμα ἐστω. The words of the text - πρεσβυτέρου γεγαμηκότος, in connection with the understanding of priestly marriage on the part of 12th century commentators, were understood in the sense that it meant priests who married after ordination. So Balsamon paraphrased this saying in ιερέων εχόντων γυναιχας, the same thought was expressed by Aristin in the words - πρεσβυτέρων ΰπογυναίων - that means: “married priests”; The Latins, according to Beveridge, paraphrased it as qui habent uxores, matrimonio junctis. Dionysius the Younger, in accordance with the understanding of the Roman Church that existed here already in the 6th century - understanding in the sense of prohibiting priests from living in marriage, except for the time before ordination - translated these words as follows: - qui uxorem habuit, that is, who had a wife before ordination, but separated from her, or she died. But could those people who had no interest in binding the clergy to celibacy, or in preventing priests from marrying after ordination, really talk about the marriage of priests in this way? The main proof that in the indicated 4th rule of the Gangra Council we are talking about priests who entered into marriage after ordination, and from them, as the Eustatians taught, one cannot receive holy communion, is the message of the Gangra Council itself, which reads: πρεσβυτέρων γεγαμηκότων ὑπερφρονοῖτες (Am. Siit. III, 99), which in Latin is translated as follows: presbyteros, qui matrimonia contraxere, spernunt (Bevereg. Synodik. 1, 416). The old Latin translation of this rule from the time before Dionysius testifies to this understanding, it was called: Prisca, vercio canonum, where these words are translated as follows: presbyteros, qui uxorem duxit. This passage is also translated in this sense in the Russian book of rules: “about a presbyter who has entered into marriage.” Ed. Moscow. 1862. p. 238. Hist. eccl. III, 14: “hi (Eustatiani), nuptias damnarent et in aedibus conjugatorum orare recusarent, et presbyteros qui uxores duxissent contemnerent.” Canon 7: Πρεσβύτερων ἑστιασθαι, ἐπεί μετανοιαν αἰτοίντος τοῦ διγαμου, τίς ἔσται ὁ πρεσβυτερος, ὁ διά τῆς ἑστίασεως συγκατατιθέμενος τοῖς γαμοις. Syntagma III, 80. Πρεσβύτερων ἒαν γήμῃ τῆς ταξεως αυτόν μετατίθεσθαι. Syntagma, III, 70. Διαταγαί τῶν αγίων Ἀποστολων ΥΙ, 17: Ἐπίσκοπον καί πρεσβυτερον καί διακονον εἴπομεν μονογαμους καθίστασθαι, κάν ζῶσιν αυτῶν αἱ ἤ ἀγαμοις οὖσιν ἔτι ἐπί γάμον ἔρχεσθαι, ἢ γεγαμηκόσιν ἐτέραις συμ Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. Paderbornae. 1905. 1, 339, 341. Τῶν εἰς κλῆρον προσελθόντων αγαμων, κελευομεν βουλομένους γαμεῖν, αναγνώστας καί ψαλτας μονους. Synth. II, 33. See the interpretation of the 3rd rule of the First Ecumenical Council. Rules I. 170. See Balsamon's interpretation of this rule. Sint, II, 253. This law of Justinian, stated, moreover, very sharply says the following: “Sacris canombus lieque Deo amantissimis presbyteris, neque reverendissimis diaconis aut subdiaconis nuptiae contrahere post hujusmodi ordinationem bermittentibus, sed solis reverendissimis psaltis et lectoribus id concedentubus: animadvertimus quosdam displicientes quidem sacros canones, pueros autem generantes ex quibusdam mulieribus, quibus conjungi secundum sacerdo talem censuram non possunt, quoniam igitur poena facinoris hujus in sola sacerdotfl erat amissine, sacros antem canoues non minus, quam leges, valere, etiam nostrae volunt leges: sancimus obtinere in illis, et quae sacris visa sunt canonibus, perinde ac si civilibus inscriptum esse legibus: et omnes istiuraodi homines tam sacerdotio, quam divino ministerio, atque etiam dignitate ipsa, quam habent, nudari, quemadmodum enim sacris canouibus prohibita sunt talia, sic et secundum nostras leges, remipsam prohibeir...” (Edition D. Gothofredi. Frauct. a. M. 1688. col. 40–41). Nov. VI. cap. 5.Nov. XXII. cap. 42 (ed. Goth.). "....Si vero post ordinationem presbyter aut diaconus, aut sub-diconus uxorem duxerit: expellatur a clero, et curiae civitâis illius, in qua clericus erat cum propriis rebus tradatur." Nov. CXXII1. cap. 14 (Ed. Gothotr.). Syntagma II, 312. 313. τῶν δέ ὑπό τόν τῆς θεοφθλάκτου ταύτης καί βασιλίδος πόλεως θρονον, τόν τῆς φιλανθρωπίας καί συμπαθείας, εἰς ἔν ἀμφότερα μίξαντες πατρικῶς ὁμοῦ καί θεοφι Syntagma II, 318. κλῆρον προαγομένων ἀγάμων μονους ἀνάγνωσιας, καίψάλτας γαμεῖν καί ἡμεῖς τοῦτο προφυλάττοντες, ὁρίζομεν· ἀπό τοῦ νῦν μηδαμῶς ὑποδιάκονον. ἤ διάκονον, ἤ πρεσβύτερον, μετά τήν ἐπ΄ αὐτῷ προερχομένην χει This is known from one short story by Emperor Leo the Wise (8S6–912), which will be given below. Printed in the original by S. E. Zachariae a Ling., Novelle Constitutiones emperatorum post Iustinianum. Lipciae, 1857. pag. 71. Prof. I. Φ. Schulde, citing the decree of the Council of Trent on the celibacy of priests, writes the following: “Die Kirclie hat nicht erklärt, dass aus dem Wesen der Obrdination die Hichtigkeit der Elie eines Priesters folge, m. a. W. dieselde hat nicht die absolute Nothwendigkeit des Cölibats zum Dogma erhoben, konnte dies auch nicht, lifiy solche Eben lange Zeit hindurch als gultig von del Kirclie angesehen worden. Das Ehehinderniss des geistlichen Standes, soveit er die hoheren Wiehen umlasst istzdurch ein positives, allgemeines Desetz der Kirche aufgestellt, aber ein nothlorneiger Asiluss der Oreination.” Hadbuch dis katholischen Eherechts. Diessen, 1855. S. 208. 209. Opinion about marriage and happiness of Sveshtenstvo. Pancevo, 1877. Pp. 14–15. Opinion on the marriage of widowed priesthood. A review of this work by Bishop Zivkovic was written by Dr. Pejčić and it was published in Pančev the same year. In this review, he addresses the Serbian bishops and in conclusion writes the following: “Forgive and deliver, gentlemen, these (widowed priests) unfortunate but innocent Christian slaves from those heavy church chains, the judgment and condemnation of which has long been pronounced by the entire civilized spiritual and secular world.” Dr. N. Milash, Crkveno law § 51 and 83. For example Part I 87 and the following answers, which talk about church commandments. Milash, Crkveno law § 85. “For,” writes the Council of Carthage in 424 to Pope Celestine, the Council of Nicaea recognizes that in no ecclesiastical region will the grace of the Holy Spirit be curtailed, through which the priests of Christ clearly see the truth and firmly preserve it... or is there anyone who could believe that our God can inspire with truth the judgments of one, no matter who he may be, but refuse this to numerous priests convened at the council? Rules II, 267. Milash, Tsrkveno is right. Page 482. See Apostolic Canon 37, Antioch Council – Canon 20, Laodicean – 40, Carthaginian – 95 and the interpretation on them. Compare the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Sisinius of February 21, 997 (Ap. Sint. V, 11–19), Patr. Sergius of 1010 in the interpretation of Balsaman 13 of the rule of the seventh ecumenical council (ibid. II, 614·); Patr, John XIV. (Acta patr. Conplt. 1, 206–210); Patr. Philotheus 1.1353 (ib. 1, 354): Patr. Gregory VI, February 10, 1839 (Sint. V, 164). The right of autocephalous churches to issue laws for their region was confirmed in due time by state power, as evidenced by the short story of Emperor Justinian Nov. cited in the Basilica of the 9th century. 137 cap. (Basilicor. III, 1. 17). Rules I, 584–586, cf. 1, 27. You might be interested in: