Rules of Local Councils with interpretations

See our website: Church law: canons (rules) Rules of the Holy Local Council of Ancyra Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rules of the local council of Neocaesarea Rules of the Gangra Cathedral Rules of the Holy Local Council of Antioch Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rules of the Holy Local Council of Laodicea Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Rules of the Holy Local Council of Sardicia (Serdica) Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rules of the Holy Local Council of Carthage Rule 1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5) 6(6) 7(7) 8(8) 9(9) 10(10) 11(11) 12(12) 13(13) 14(14) 15(18) 16(23) 17(24) 18(27) 19(28) 20(29) 21(30) 22(31) 23(32) 24(33) 25(34) 26(35) 27(36) 28(37) 29(38) 30(39) 31(40) 32(41) 33(42) 34(48) 35(44) 36(45) 37(46) 38(47) 39(48) 40(49) 41(50) 42(51) 43(52) 44(58) 45(55) 46(56) 47(58) 48(59) 49(60) 50(61) 51(62) 52(68) 53(64) 54(65) 55(66) 56(67) 57(68) 58(69) 59(70) 60(71) 61(72) 62(78) 63(74) 64(75) 65(76) 66(77) 67(78) 68(79) 69(80) 70(81) 71(82) 72(83) 73(84) 74(85) 75(86) 76(87) 77(88) 78(89) 79(90) 80(91) 81(92) 82(93) 83(94) 84(95) 85(96) 86(97) 87(98) 88(99) 89(100) 90(101) 91(102) 92(103) 93(104) 94(105) 95(106) 96(108) 97(110) 98(111) 99(112) 100(113) 101(114) 102(115) 103(116) 104(117) 105(118) 106(120) 107(121) 108(122) 109(128) 110(124) 111(125) 112(126) 113(127) 114(128) 115(129) 116(130) 117(131) 118(132) 119 120(134) 121(135) 122(136) 123(137) 124(138) 125(139) 126(140) 127(142) 128(143) 129(144) 130(145) 131(146) 132(147) 133(147) Epistle of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome Rules of the Double Council of Constantinople (former Apostle in the Church of Saints) Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Rules of the Council of Constantinople (in the Church of the Wisdom of the Word of God) Rules of the Holy Local Council of Ancyra Rule 1 About the elders who sacrificed to idols, then resumed the feat for the faith, and, moreover, not by some trick, but in truth, without making preliminary preparations and agreements for this, let them show themselves as if subjected to torment, while they were used only for show and feignedly, it was reasoned: let the seats not be deprived of the honor, but let them not have the power to make offerings, preach and generally priestly things or act. In the historical note about this council, we indicated the reasons for which this council was convened. Among the many persons who made sacrifices to idols during the persecution of Christians under Maximinus, there were elders, and this rule speaks of such elders. Regarding elders who renounce the Christian faith out of fear of people, 62 Apostolic Canon decrees that such should be expelled from the church; if they repent, they can only be accepted as laymen. This Ancyra rule complements the prescription of the Apostolic Rule and mentions the elders who, having repented of their apostasy, truly (εξ αληθείας) showed zeal in the faith of Christ, without fear of any torment, i.e. They clearly underwent torture and bravely endured it, solemnly confessing the name of Christ. Regarding such presbyters, the rule determines that they can freely bear the priestly title and, in the circle of priests, enjoy the honor of the seat (της μεν τιμής της κατά την καθέδραν); but since, out of fear and cowardice, they nevertheless fell into sin by making a sacrifice to idols, and thus, although for a moment, desecrated their souls by apostasy, thus becoming unworthy to ever make a sacrifice and serve as priests to that God whom they had renounced, the rule forbids them to offer a holy sacrifice (προσφέρειν), to preach ( όμιλεΐν) and generally perform any kind of priestly service (όλως λειτοοργεΐν τι των ιερατικών λειτουργιών). However, these elders can enjoy the honor of the seat among other elders only if they have shown their zeal for the faith truly, and not in an evil way (μήτε εκ μεθόδου τινός). It happened that some elders, in order to show such zeal for the faith, and therefore to receive forgiveness for sacrificing to idols, resorted to cunning during torment. They entered into an agreement with the persecutors and bribed them before being tortured, so that when the time of the latter came, the persecutors dealt with them according to the agreement and subjected them to various tortures just for show, without causing them any harm. This is the kind of deceit of the presbyters that the fathers of the Ancyra Council have in mind and, pointing to it in their canon, they remind that mercy can only be shown to those who, as must be proven, repented sincerely and did not want to receive mercy only through deception. What the canon states regarding elders also applies to apostate bishops. Although the rule is not to say this, the latter is confirmed by the practice of the church of former times, which the present council undoubtedly adopts. One of Cyprian's letters mentions two Spanish bishops - Martial and Basilides, who were overthrown for their apostasy from the faith. Subsequently, both of these bishops tried to show their imaginary zeal for the faith and, with the help of deception, be restored to their rank, managing to win over Pope Stephen to their side (253-257). Having learned about this, Cyprian, at one of his councils, confirmed the overthrow of these bishops and the sentence pronounced on them, condemning all who defended them, and among them Pope Stephen. Like the deacons who sacrificed to idols, but then resumed the feat of faith, they had the honor assigned to them, but they ceased from all sacred service, from offering the bread and the cup, and from proclaiming prayers. If any of the bishops see in such a certain work, or humility of meekness, and want something more to give or take away: let this be in their power. (Ap. 62; I Universe. 10, 12; Trul. 102; Ankyr. 1, 3, 5, 12; Petra Alex. 10, 14; Basil the Great. 3; Gregory of Nyssa. 4, 5). Everything said in the 1st rule of this council regarding presbyters, extends in this rule also to deacons who, through misfortune, fell into the sin of apostasy, but then sincerely repented, namely: the rule allows such deacons to continue to enjoy the honor of deacon, forbidding them only from ever performing deaconal service in the church, and especially offering (άναφέρειν , offerre) of the Holy Gifts and reading the prayers prescribed during the service (χηρύττειν). Prescribing the latter as a general norm, the rule gives the power to the subject bishop to deal with such deacons at his discretion, in accordance with their zeal for the faith and their life, as a result of which he can allow more or less than what is provided by this rule, because “all mental healing is left to episcopal reasoning” (πασά ψυχική θεραπεία εις την έπισκοπικήν άνηρτήθη διάκρισιν ). Fleeing from persecutors, and caught, or betrayed from their household, or otherwise deprived of property, or suffering torment, or thrown into prison, moreover, crying out that they are Christians, and being tortured, and meanwhile, either something sacrificed to idols was put into the hands of the violence of the oppressors, or some food was taken under compulsion, but continuously confessed that they were Christians, and sorrow always expressing his thoughts about what happened to them with all modesty, attire, and humility of life, such as those who exist outside of sin, so that communication is not prohibited. Even if it was forbidden by someone, for the sake of great precaution, or due to the ignorance of some, they must immediately be accepted into fellowship. This applies equally to those from the clergy and to others, that is, to the laity. Moreover, it was also investigated whether the laity, who had been subjected to the same violence, could be promoted to the sacred rank, and it was reasoned: produce such as those who have sinned nothing, if their previous way of life will be found right. (Ap. 62; I Universe. 10, 11, 12; Ankyr. 4, 12; Petra Alex. 2, 10, 13, 14) The first part of this rule applies to all Christians in general, both clergy and laity. And the fathers of the council, speaking primarily of persons who escaped persecution, do not condemn them for this. In the interpretation of this rule, Zonara cites a place from the Gospel where Jesus Christ tells his disciples that when they are persecuted in one city, let them flee to another (Matthew 10:23), also mentions the words of Gregory the Theologian, who said that the law of martyrdom (νόμος μαρτυρίου) is not to go to torture unnecessarily; Thus Zonara proves why the fathers of the council did not condemn those who evaded persecution. Peter of Alexandria says the same thing in his 13th rule, proving that the one who, for the sake of saving his soul, i.e. for the sake of preserving his faith, he evades his pursuer. So, the rule does not condemn those who escaped persecution. It does not condemn them even when it happens that, as the Gospel says, a brother betrays his brother to death, and a father his son (Matthew 10:21), i.e. when they were betrayed by their family, or they were captured in some other way and subjected to torture, of course, only if during the torture they showed constancy in their faith and, despite all the suffering, still loudly and solemnly continued to confess themselves as Christians. If any bishop condemned such, as the rule says, either due to excessive severity or out of ignorance, then the fathers command that such condemnation should not matter, and such have the right to full communication in prayers along with the rest of the faithful, since there is no guilt on them (ως έξω αμαρτήματος οντάς). After such a prescription, the rule mentions that the question was raised: can a layman who has been subjected to such violence be accepted into the sacred rank, and the rule immediately answers that he can, as if innocent of anything, but, of course, if he possesses all the qualities required of a candidate for the priesthood. From this, by the way, it is clear how strictly the church observed in the first centuries what kind of persons should be accepted into the clergy, and how instructive the latter should be for our time, when they look at this quite easily. Even such fighters for the faith of Christ, or, better to say, such glorious martyrs of Christ, were not allowed into the clergy by the fathers of the cathedral, unless there had been some error in their previous life, despite the fact that by their martyrdom these warriors of Christ could completely atone for such guilt. About those who sacrificed to idols under compulsion, and moreover, those who feasted before idols, who were brought in and entered with a cheerful look, and wore clothes more precious than usual, and participated in the prepared feast carelessly, it was reasoned: that such should be among those who listen to the scriptures for a year, three years among those who fall down, have only communion in prayer for two years, and then enter into perfect communion. (Ap. 62; I Om. 11; Ankyr. 5, 8, 9; Laod. 2; Carth. 43; Gregory of Neoces. 2, 11; Basil the Great. 73, 75, 81, 84; Petra Alex. 2, 3; Gregory of Nyssk. 2). This rule refers to those persons who by force (προς βίαν) were forced to sacrifice to idols, and, having done this, did everything that their persecutors ordered them to do against the Christian faith. And if they did all this with a cheerful face, without showing any regret that thereby they were trampling on their faith, then the rule prescribes for such, in case of their conversion to the church and the desire to be in communion with it again, that they spend six years in repentance, remaining without holy communion, which they can only receive in the seventh year. During repentance, the rule orders them to spend the first year in the second stage of repentance with άκροώμενοι, then three years in the third with υποττίπτοντες and two years in the fourth and last stage with συνιστάμενοι . We spoke in detail about these degrees of repentance and what they consist of in the interpretation of Rule 11 of the First Ecumenical Council. And those who entered in sad attire and reclined ate, crying meanwhile all the time they reclined, those who have completed the three-year period of falling down, may be received into fellowship, except for the communion of the holy mysteries. If they did not eat, then having spent two summers between those who fell, in the third summer they should be in fellowship, except for communion, so that they would receive perfect fellowship for three years at a time. But let bishops have the power, having experienced the image of conversion, to be philanthropic, or to change the time of repentance. Most of all, let the life that preceded the temptation and the one that followed it be tested, and thus let love for mankind be measured. (Ap. 62; I Universe. 11; Ankyr. 4; Laod. 2; Gregory Neoces. 2, 11; Basil the Great. 73, 75, 81, 84; Peter Alex. 2, 3; Gregory of Nyssk. 2). From the very first words of this rule it is clear that it is a continuation of Rule 4 of the same council. Rule 4 speaks of those who, with a cheerful face, did everything prescribed to them by their persecutors, while this rule speaks of those who did all this with sadness and regret. Among the latter, the rule distinguishes those who ate idol offerings from those who did not, ordering the former to spend three years at the third stage of repentance and then some more time at the fourth, after which only St. communion, and the second - to remain only two years at the third stage and one at the fourth, and in the fourth year they were awarded holy communion. The rule grants the power to the subject bishop to deal with such with greater philanthropy (φιλανθρωπεύεσθαι), if they show sincere repentance and it is proven that their former life was moral; otherwise, he can continue the time of repentance for them (ή πλείονα προστιθέναι χρόνον). About those who, only from the threat of torment, or confiscation of property, or exile, wavered and sacrificed to idols, and have not repented to this day: and now, at the time of this council, they came and perked up the thought of conversion, it was reasoned: let them be accepted into the category of those who hear the scriptures until the great day of Easter: after the great day, yes, there will be three years in the category of falling, then two more years let them be in communion, except for communion, and thus let them enter into perfect communion, as if a whole six years of repentance will be fulfilled. If those who were accepted for repentance before this council, from that time count the beginning of their six years. However, if they are in danger and close to death from illness, or from some other accident, they will be accepted with conditions. (Ap. 62; I Universe. 11, 12, 13; Ankyr. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9; Neoces. 2; Carth. 7; Gregory of Nyssk. 2, 5). In connection with the previous rules, this rule speaks of those persons who bowed to idols solely out of fear that the persecutors might harm them in some way, and therefore renounced the faith of Christ out of their cowardice, repenting not immediately, as they should have, but only after the persecution, when they learned that the Ancyra council was busy deciding how to accept into the church those who repented of their apostasy. The rule orders such people to repent for six years, and from the first day of their conversion until the first feast of the Resurrection of Christ (Easter), called in the rule the “great day” (μεγάλη ήμερα), they must be at the second stage of repentance. Thus, if the council, according to the prescription of the 37th Apostolic Rule, was convened on the fourth week of Pentecost, and at that very time the apostates mentioned in the rule were converted, then there was almost a year before the first next holiday of Easter, which was counted by them as the first year of repentance. After this, they had to spend three years at the third stage of repentance, then two full years at the fourth, and only after that could they be awarded holy communion. For those who began repentance before this council, the rule prescribes that from that very time they should be given a six-year term. If it happens that one of the penitents is near death, then the rule prescribes in such cases to accept them into church communion according to the existing decree (επί όρφ), which, according to Zonara, in his interpretation of this rule, was that the latter had, in the event of their recovery, to continue repentance, and for the second time could be awarded holy communion only after they had undergone a full six-year repentance. We spoke about this resolution of the Ancyra Council in the interpretation of Rule 13 of the First Ecumenical Council. About those who feasted on a pagan holiday, in a place appropriated by the pagans, but brought and ate their own food, it was decided: they should be received into communion after two years of falling: but whether everyone should be received with the communion of the holy mysteries, it is the episcopal business to judge about this, and also to test the rest of everyone’s life. During the persecution, it happened that some of the Christians, in order to avoid torture, attended pagan feasts in honor of the idol, but in order to calm their conscience, they did not want to eat anything from the idol’s offerings, but ate the food they brought with them. Speaking about such, the council finds them guilty of feasting with the pagans, participating, therefore, in their holidays, and orders them to remain for two years in the third stage of repentance. After two years, the rule orders the bishop concerned to decide whether they can be worthy of holy communion, or whether they should spend some more time in repentance. Those who sacrificed to idols twice and thrice under compulsion may be among those who fall for four years, may they remain in communion of prayers for two years, except communion, and in the seventh year may they be received into perfect communion. (Ap. 62; I Universe. 11; Ankyr. 4, 5, 9; Laod. 2; Carth. 43; Gregory of Neoces. 2, 11; Basil the Great. 73, 75, 81, 84; Peter Alex. 2, 3; Gregory of Nyssk. 2). This rule, like the 4th and 5th, was issued regarding those who were forced by force to serve idols. Regarding those who were not able to overcome temptations, but, albeit forcibly, still bowed to idols two or three times, the rule prescribes six years of repentance, namely: four years at the third stage of repentance, two years at the fourth, and only in the seventh year allows them to receive holy communion. And those who not only became apostates, but also rebelled against the brethren and forced them to apostatize, or were the perpetrators of such coercion: for three years let them take a place among those who listen to the Scriptures, then for six years among those who fall, for another one summer let them be in communion, except for communion, so that after completing a decade they will receive perfect communion. However, at this time, let all their other lives be observed. (Ap. 62; I Universe. 11, 12, 13, 14; Ankyr. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Laod. 2, 19; Carth. 43; Gregory Neokes. 2, 11; Basil the Great. 73, 75, 81, 84; Peter Alex. 2 , 3; Gregory Nissk. This rule, like the 11th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, speaks of convinced apostates who not only violated their faith themselves, but also forced others to do so; Moreover, he orders those to spend ten years in repentance, namely: three years at the second stage of repentance, six at the third and one year at the fourth. Only after ten years does the rule allow them to be awarded holy communion if during this entire time they show sincere repentance and prove their good behavior. Those who have been ordained deacons, if at the time of their very ordination they testified and declared that they have the need to get married, and cannot remain without it: after this, having got married, let them continue in their ministry, since this was allowed to them by the bishop; deaconal ministry. (Ap. 5, 26, 51; IV Om. 14; Trul. 3, 6, 13, 21, 30; Neoces. 1; Carth. 16; Basil Vel. 69). From this rule it is clear that at the beginning of the 4th century in Galatia, the main city of which was Ancyra (now Anguri in Turkish Asia Minor), (ANKYRA (lat. Ancyra, modern Ankara), a city in Galatia (Phrygia), the site of the discovery of a bilingual text of an autobiographical description of the state activities of Augustus, the so-called Ancyra monument; founded in the 7th century BC. Ed.) existed a custom by virtue of which some deacons who were celibate could marry even after ordination, if only at the ordination they expressed to the bishop in question that they would marry in due course, since they could not remain celibate, and having married, they continued their service in the church; If, during ordination, they did not declare their desire, then they had to remain celibate forever, and having entered into marriage, they had to stop serving as deacons. Regarding this custom of the Galatian Church - to allow marriage after ordination - there is a note in the Book of Rules that it should be considered “as a local exception from the 26th rule of the Apostles.” Although this was only the practice of one local church, we nevertheless have examples of other churches following it. The Council of Trullo, with its 6th rule, destroyed this custom, restoring 26 Apostles in force. rule. Everything else concerning this custom is said by us in the interpretation of the indicated Trullian rule. Virgins who were betrothed, and then abducted by others, were ordered to be returned to those who had previously betrothed, even if they had suffered violence from those who kidnapped them. (Ap. 67; IV Om. 27; Trul. 92, 98; Basil the Great. 22, 25, 26, 30, 49, 69). Enough has been said about the subject of this rule in the interpretations of 67 Ap. rules and 98 rules of the Trullo Council. We should only add to this that subsequently, by the twenty-second rule of Basil the Great, it was decided that the betrothed is free to accept or not accept his betrothed, taken from him and desecrated by another. Before baptism, those who sacrificed to idols, and then those who were baptized, consider promoting them to sacred rites, as if they had washed away their sin. (I Universe 14; Neokes. 5; Cyril Alex. 5). This rule is in connection with the first 9 rules of this council, which dealt with clergy and lay believers who made sacrifices to idols. The same rule says the same thing in relation to those who have not yet been baptized, i.e. belonging to the category of catechumens. The 14th rule of the First Ecumenical Council speaks about the catechumens who renounced the faith of Christ for which they were preparing, and in the interpretation of this rule we have already said who these catechumens were, how they were divided and what punishment they were subject to for apostasy. After they had endured the temptation of repentance and they were rewarded with St. baptism, it remained to decide whether such persons could be accepted into the clergy, and this Ankyra rule decides this in the affirmative. The basis for this is the general dogmatic truth that baptism washes a person from all sin committed by him before baptism. It is not proper for chorebishops to appoint presbyters or deacons: but below the bishops of other cities in others, except with the permission of the bishop, through a charter for each diocese. (I Om. 8; VII Om. 14; Neoces. 14; Antioch. 8, 10; Laod. 57; Basil the Great. 89). We translated this rule from the Greek text as it was printed in the Athenian Syntagma; when translated into Russian, it means the following: chorebishops cannot ordain presbyters or deacons in another region, much less presbyters of a city, without the written permission of the underlying bishop. Judging by the text in the Book of Rules, this Ankyra rule should prescribe that just as chorescopists cannot autocratically ordain presbyters and deacons in their diocese, so bishops cannot ordain their clergy for the cities of foreign dioceses without a charter from the underlying bishop of those dioceses. However, such an understanding can only be approximately deduced from this text of the Book of Rules, because the text itself, both in words and in interpunction, INTERPUNCTION (Latin: Interpunctio; gram. Arrangement of punctuation marks in written speech; editor's note) does not at all make it possible to grasp the exact meaning of the rule's prescription. We do not know where such a text in the Book of Rules came from, but it is obvious that the text of the Athenian Syntagma is much more accurate and in itself makes more sense. Chorebiscopes (των χωρών επίσκοποι, vicorum episcopi, rural bishops, Land-Bischöfe) are mentioned in the rules for the first time in this Ancyra rule, i.e. at the beginning of the 4th century; but that they existed before - we have two, quite convincing, evidence of this. The first is Clement of Rome, who in his letter to the Corinthians speaks about the Apostles: τάς άπαρχάς αυτών, δοκιμάσαντες τψ πνεύματι, εις επισκόπους και διακόνους των μελλόντων πιστεύειν. We find another Evidence in the Church History of Eusebius, which speaks of the council of 269 in Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and in the acts of this council επίσκοποι των ομόρων αγρών και are mentioned πρεσβύτεροι, i.e., bishops of the nearest places and cities and presbyters; in the notes to the mentioned passage from the history of Eusebius, the publisher says that the επίσκοποι των ομόρων αγρών were the chorebiscopes. From the way this rule and other rules of the first half of the 5th century speak about chorebishops, it is clear that chorepiscopes were well known at that time, that the range of their activities was already defined, and therefore the very establishment of chorebiscopes dates back to the first centuries of the church. This establishment was caused by the very conditions in which the church found itself at that time. In order to spread Christianity as widely as possible and especially to prevent the expansion of Gnostic teaching, in the first times Orthodox bishops were installed everywhere, even in the most insignificant places, who were supposed to preach the faith of Christ and strengthen the people in it, encourage the Orthodox clergy in the fight against heretics, installing presbyters and other clergy everywhere. Because of this, there were city bishops and rural bishops. In the beginning, the power of all these bishops, both urban and rural, was exactly the same. Then, when hierarchical relations in the church began to be more accurately defined, the relations between urban and rural bishops were defined, and at first in approximately the same form as was defined by 34 Ap. rule between the first diocesan bishop (metropolitan) and the rest of the diocesan bishops. This Ancyra rule shows that already at that time these relations were clearly established. It shows that chorebishops could independently ordain presbyters and deacons in their designated places of service, and outside these places, i.e. in another region (έν έτέρα παροικια), could do this only with the permission of the underlying city bishop, and with such permission they could ordain elders even for the city, i.e. for the place in which the bishop had his residence, having the right to give the said permission to the subject chorebishops. Due to the right by which chorebishops, within certain limits, could independently ordain presbyters, the rules call them co-servants (συλλειτουργοί) of bishops (Neoces. 14). The position recognized by the rules of the first years of the 4th century for chorebishops in the church hierarchy little by little aroused in them a spirit of pride and they began to declare their equality with the city bishops and deny them the already established subordination, ordaining mainly willfully deacons and presbyters, without any communication about this to the subject city bishop. The unrest that arose on this issue prompted the fathers of the Council of Antioch (341) to issue a special rule requiring that the chorebishops remain strictly dependent on the city bishop, having the power to appoint only subdeacons and below, and presbyters and deacons can be ordained only after receiving permission from the city bishop (10 pr.), and cannot issue any canonical charters other than “peaceful letters” and then only if their behavior is in accordance with the canons (8 pr.). A few years later, the Council of Laodicea was forced to take up the issue of chorebishops and, in order to stop the incessant strife between city bishops and chorebiscopes, issued a special rule (57), prohibiting in the future the installation of bishops in villages (εν ταΐς χώραις) - with the intention of completely destroying the institution of chorebiscopes. However, the latter was not achieved, and the chorebishops continued to exist, similarly abusing their power, so that Basil the Great was forced to send a special message (89 pr.) to his chorebishops, defining in detail what the activities of the chorebishop should consist of and what should be his attitude towards the city bishop. However, after this, the importance of the chorebishop began to gradually diminish, and while in the first quarter of the 4th century they signed conciliar acts along with the rights of city bishops, a hundred years later they already occupied a completely different position at the cathedral, namely, simply as deputies of independent city bishops. Over time, they completely disappeared in the east and Balsamon, in his interpretation of this Ancyra rule, says that he would have written something else about this rule, but “since the degree of chorebishops was completely abolished (παντελώς ήπράκτησεν), we did not want to work in vain.” Those who are members of the clergy, elders or deacons, who abstain from meats, are ordered to touch them, and then, if they wish, to abstain from them. If they do not desire this, they will not eat the vegetables that accompany the meats, and will not obey this rule: let them be deposed from their rank. (Ap. 51, 53, 66; Gangr. 2, 21; Basil the Great. 28, 86). This rule concerns mainly the same subject that is discussed in Ap. 51 and 53. rules, the interpretation of which serves as the basis for the interpretation of this rule. This rule refers to some presbyters and deacons who wanted to always fast and never ate meat, and the rule basically does not condemn such abstinence, considering it a matter of piety. But in order for this abstinence to be truly credited to them, and there would be no reason to think that they do it following the false Gnostic teaching, and abstain from meat, abhorring it (ως βδελυσσομενους) as heretics, the rule prescribes that in any case they must taste the meat at a certain time, after which, if if they wish, they may not eat it again. This specific time was, according to Zonara in his interpretation of this rule, the time κατά τινας καιρούς συνάξεων, i.e. when Christians gathered for agapes (άγάπαι, love suppers). If the presbyters and deacons even then refuse to taste meat and carry their abstinence to the point that they do not want to eat greens (μηδέ λάχανα) boiled with meat (perhaps here we are not talking about greens boiled with meat in meat broth, but offered along with meat (provided with meats) as side dish lying with him on the same dish; ed.) then the rule deprives them of the right to continue in the rank (πεπαυσθαι αυτούς της τάξεως). From what belongs to the church, if the presbyters sold it when they no longer had a bishop, let the church claim it. It is left to the bishop to decide whether it is worthy to return the price or not: otherwise, it often happens that the proceeds from what was sold in excess have already been returned to those who bought it. (Ap. 38, 39, 40, 41, 73; IV Ecum. 22, 24, 25, 26; Trul. 35, 49; VII Ecum. 11, 12, 13; Antioch. 24, 25; Laod. 57; Carth. 22, 26, 33 , 81; Kirill Alex. 2; In the interpretation of the above parallel rules, we have already spoken in general terms about the subject of this rule; in particular, we spoke about the need for the inviolable preservation of church property in the interpretation of 12 rules of the VII Ecumenical Council. This rule deals with the case when, during the widowhood of a diocese (χηρευούσης της επισκοπής), the elders sell some things belonging to the church, and considering, as this in fact is, such a sale to be illegal, the rule commands to demand the return of what was sold back to the church. In the Greek text the word το Κυριαχόν is used twice, and both times to designate the owner, or more precisely, the subject of church property, which we translated as the word church. In fact, this Greek word means the Lord's; hence Κυριαχόν δβΐπνον - the Lord's Supper. In the first case, this word is used because all things belonging to the church, i.e. all church property is considered and is the property of the Lord, dedicated to the Lord (τψκοριψ ανατεθειμένα); the second time this word is used to designate a person who is a representative of the property of the church, and these are the faithful (without distinction of position) who constitute the church or otherwise the people of the Lord (ο τοδ Κυρίου λαός). The rule mentions only elders who illegally sold any of the church property; but by this name one must generally mean the clergy, who is primarily entrusted with the management of the church property of the dowager diocese (IV Ecumenical 22, 25); the rule mentions only presbyters, due to the elevation of their rank (δια το υπερέχον του βαθμού). The order for the return of things sold by the clergy to the church is usually entrusted to the bishop when the latter takes control of the diocese and he is given the opportunity to discuss whether or not it is necessary to return the amount received for the things sold, because, as the rule indicates, it may happen that the income from the sold exceeds its real value. However, regarding the sale of church property, we have said enough in the interpretations of 12 rules VII Omni. Cathedral and 26 Rules of the Council of Carthage. About bestiality, or bestiality. Those who fell into this sin before the age of twenty years, having been fifteen years between falling, may receive fellowship in prayers. Then, having remained in this communion for five years, let them begin to receive the Holy Mysteries. Let their lives be tested at the time when they are in the category of those who are depressed, and, depending on this, let them become like philanthropists. Those who have remained in this sin for a long time, long may they remain in the category of those who fall. And those who, having passed the designated age, and having wives, fell into such sin: those who remained for twenty-five years among those who fell, may receive fellowship in prayers. Then, having completed five years in the communion of prayers, may they be worthy of communion. If some, having wives, and having passed fifty years of age, have fallen into this sin: when they leave this life, may such be worthy of receiving communion. (Ankyr. 17; Basil Vel. 7, 63; Gregory of Nyssk. 4). The first words of this rule: περί των άλογευσοψένων actually mean: those who behaved unreasonably, as translated by Dionysius the Lesser: qui irrationabiliter versati sunt. Interpreting these words, Zonara says: τους ζώοις άλόγοις συμφθαρέντας, i.e. mixed with dumb animals (according to Beveregius: qui cum bestus ratione carentibus rem habuere). In accordance with this interpretation of Zonara, we translated the indicated words of the rule in this way. What the rule prescribes for such vile sinners is clearly evident from the text of the rule itself. The Holy Council commanded the capitalists and lepers, or lepers, to pray with those who were overcome. (Ancir. 16; Basil Vel. 7, 63; Gregory of Nyssk. 4). This rule deals with persons similar to those mentioned in the previous (16) rule, but who, in addition, infected others with their vile sin - the rule does not give forgiveness to such people and orders them to pray only with those who are overcome (εις τους χειμαζόμενους εδχεσ & αι, with the overcome, inter hybemantes). In his interpretation of this rule, Zonara says that he cannot say anything about what it means to pray with those who are overwhelmed. But Balsamon interpreted this, saying that those who are overwhelmed are those who stand in the vestibule and from there listen to the Divine Scriptures, taking the place of those who are overwhelmed and not having permission to enter the church haven of salvation. The latter interpretation should be considered correct. The place in front of the church, where, according to Balsamon, these sinners stood, was open, but fenced on three sides, so that the wind blew here and the persons forced to stand there endured the cold (χειμα). The latter is confirmed by Tertullian, who does not call the sins of these unfortunates delicta, but monstra, saying that libidinum furiasimpias et in corpora et insexus ultra jurana-turae, non modo limine, veram omni ecclesiae tecto submovemus. For a clearer idea of ​​where the place mentioned in front of the church was located, you should refer to the drawing of the ancient church given on page 218 of Volume I of this publication. If those who, having been appointed bishops, but not being accepted by the diocese to which they were appointed, want to attack other dioceses, oppress those appointed there, and raise indignation against them: such ones should be excommunicated from church communion. If they wish to sit with the elders, where they were formerly elders, do not take away this honor from them. If they stir up trouble against the bishops appointed there, deprive them of their presbytery honor and be removed from them. (Ap. 14, 36; I Om. 8; III Om. 9; IV Om. 29; Trul. 37; Antioch. 17, 18; Dvukr. 17; Cyril Alex. 1, 2, 3). We have already spoken in the interpretation of 36 of the Apostolic Canon about how one should act according to the rules in the case when they do not want to accept a legally elected bishop in the diocese assigned to him. This rule, bearing in mind the case when such a bishop (who did not have the opportunity to occupy the see assigned to him) begins to forcibly take away the diocese from another legitimate bishop, prescribes that such a bishop must be excommunicated (άφορίζεσθαι), i.e., he is deprived of the right to continue to enjoy the honor befitting bishops. If the latter, without plotting anything bad, while awaiting a council decision on the see for which he was elected, is content to remain in the ranks of presbyters with his former fellow presbyters, then the rule recognizes his full right to do so. By this it should not be meant that such a bishop is deprived of episcopal dignity (τού επισκοπικού αξιώματος.) on the grounds that the rule grants him the enjoyment of honor (της τιμής) equal to the presbyters; the rule grants him this only in the absence of a higher place than the presbytery ), since otherwise it would be sacrilege (ίεροσολία) to degrade a legally installed bishop to the presbyteral degree, as 29 canons of IV Ecumenical speaks about this. cathedral But if such a bishop stirs up trouble against the bishop on whose episcopal council he occupies a place, then he is deprived of this honor and must be expelled from the church. Those who have taken a vow of virginity and those who have broken the vow, let them perform the penance of bigamous people. We forbade this for virgins who unite in residence with certain people, like brethren. (Ap. 5, 26; I Om. 3; IV Om. 16; Trul. 5, 12, 13, 40, 44, 46, 47; VII Om. 18, 22; Carth. 3, 4, 25, 38, 44, 70; Dvukr. 3, 4; Vasily Vel. 6, 18, 19, 20, 60, 88). This rule applies to both men and women who have violated their vow of virginity. Women who made such a vow were called holy virgins (ίεραί παρθένοι) and declared their vow publicly in the church before the bishop (IV Ose. 16; Carth. 44); some of them were elected to deaconesses (IV Ecum. 15). Men who also made their vow solemnly before the bishop were called virgins (οι παρθένοι), became predominantly clerics and occupied high places in the church (Trul. 12). The crime of which the rule speaks, or the violation of the vow of virginity (άθέτησις της δια την παρθενίαν επαγγελίας), should not be understood in the sense of fornication, but in the sense of legal marriage into which consecrated virgins or virgins, as a result of which the rule prescribes for them the punishment of second marriages, and this was excommunication from holy communion for one year (Basily the Great 4); because, if they committed fornication, they would be subject to the punishment prescribed for fornication, and this is excommunication from holy communion for four years (Basily the Great 22). By the persons mentioned in this rule, one should not, however, mean monks and nuns, first of all, because at the time of this council monasticism had not yet been established and therefore did not have its own defined and approved rules, on the other hand, because the rules issued in the second half of the 4th century for monks and speaking about the same subject define more severe punishments (Basily the Great 60; cf. IV Om. 16 and Trul. 44). As can be seen from the second half of this rule, there were cases that some virgins who took a vow of virginity lived together with strangers, like sisters (ως άδελφαι), for mutual, in their words, exercise in goodness and piety. Naturally, such a joint life of young girls under the same roof with men was a subject of temptation and therefore is categorically forbidden by the rule. We talked about what kind of view there was on such girls in the interpretation of 3 rules of I Omni. cathedral If anyone's wife has committed adultery, and anyone has committed adultery, such must at seven years come into perfect communion, according to the degrees leading to it. (Ap. 48; Trul. 87, 93, 98; Carth. 102; Basil the Great. 9, 21, 31, 35, 36, 46, 48, 58, 77, 80; Gregory of Nyssa. 4). The rule is clear. Anyone who violates fidelity to his wife by communicating with another woman is deprived of holy communion for seven years, just like a wife who cheats on her husband by communicating with another man. This punishment for adulterers was confirmed by the Council of Trullo with its 87th rule, explaining those stages (βαθμούς) of repentance that, on the basis of this Ancyra rule, such sinners must go through, namely: one year at the first stage, two at the second, three at the third and one year at the fourth, and only in the eighth year can they be awarded holy communion. According to the previous definition, wives who conceived through adultery, destroyed the fetus, and were involved in the preparation of destructive poisons, were forbidden to receive the Holy Mysteries until their death: and this is what they do. Seeking something more lenient, we determined that such people should undergo a ten-year period of repentance, according to the degrees established. (Trul. 91; Basil Vel. 2, 8). Some unfortunate women (which, unfortunately, are still encountered today), secretly living with someone in fornication and thereby becoming pregnant, fearing that the latter would not be discovered, and wanting to protect themselves from shame, tried to kill the fetus in the womb (τα έμβρυα, foetum), tightening the stomach with various fetters or preparing and taking any medicines ( φάρμακα τίνα), damaging and killing the fetus. Regarding such women, even before this council there was a definition (ορός), by virtue of which they could not receive holy communion until their death. According to Western commentators, such a decree is rule 63 of the Council of Elvira in 306, although according to this rule such sinners could not be awarded holy communion even at the hour of death (nec in fmem dandam esse communio-nem); the latter would, among other things, contradict the injunction of the 6th rule of this council and the 13th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, according to which “one who is at the end of life is not deprived of the last and most necessary parting words.” However, the mentioned definition (ορός) in any case existed in church practice and, as the rule says, it was generally followed. The fathers of this council, wishing to be more lenient in this case, although they consider such an act to be deliberate murder, for which the guilty person is deprived of communion for the rest of his life (Ankyr. 22), nevertheless order that such a sinner be subjected to ten years of repentance, after which they are allowed to admit her to holy communion. Basil the Great, in his 2nd rule, explains the reason for such leniency of the fathers of the Ancyra Council by the fact that a woman who tries to kill the fetus exposes herself to danger, and women mostly die from such attempts. A woman who gives medicine to another to cause a miscarriage is also subject to a similar penance (73 rights in the breviary). Those guilty of voluntary murders, let them be in the category of the fallen; let them be rewarded with perfect communion at the end of their lives. (Basily Vel. 8, 56; Gregory of Nyssa. 5). In his 8th rule, Basil the Great explains who should be considered an intentional murderer. The rules impose various penances for intentional killings. The present rule is the most strict in this case, commanding the guilty person to remain at the third stage of repentance all his life and allowing him to receive holy communion only at death. The previous definition commands those guilty of involuntary murder to achieve perfect communion at the age of seven, according to the degrees established; the new definition commands them to fulfill a period of five years in repentance. (Basily Vel. 8, 11, 57; Gregory of Nyssa. 5). The rule cites two definitions that existed during this council regarding punishments for unintentional murders: the first and the second (ό πρότερος και δεύτερος ορός), and according to the first definition, the perpetrator had to endure seven years of repentance, and according to the other, five. These definitions were, in all likelihood, the same as those mentioned in the 21st rule of this council, since among the rules it is not known which definition is older than this Ancyra rule. Basil the Great, in his 57th rule, established penance for unintentional murders, assigning ten years of repentance for this. Those who practice magic, and follow pagan customs, or introduce certain people into their homes, for the sake of seeking magic, or for the sake of purification, are subject to the rule of five years of repentance, according to the degrees established: three years of prostration, and two years of prayers without communion of the holy mysteries. (Trul. 61, 65; Laod. 36; Basil the Great. 7, 65, 72, 81, 83; Gregory of Nyssa. 3). The 61st rule of the Trullo Council speaks in much more detail about the subject of this rule. This rule imposes a five-year penance on persons who believe in sorcery, and instructs them to remain three years at the third stage of repentance, two years at the fourth stage, and only in the sixth year allows them to receive holy communion. Someone who had betrothed a young woman to himself first corrupted her sister, as if she were pregnant: and then he married the betrothed, and the corrupted woman hanged herself. Those who were guilty were ordered, within ten years, according to the established degrees of repentance, to be accepted into the number of those standing in prayer with the faithful. (Trul. 54; Neokes. 2; Vasily Vel. 78). A special case was the reason for issuing this rule. This case is clear from the text of the rule itself. The rule subjects all those guilty of such a crime to ten years of penance at the first stage of repentance and only after this time allows them to move to the fourth stage. The rule does not say how long they should remain at this level, leaving, in any case, the latter to the decision of the underlying bishop, as has already been expressed several times in various rules. Zonara quite correctly sees the reason for the severity of the penance imposed by this rule in the fact that in this case several crimes are combined: dishonor of a girl, illegal marriage of a person having relations with two sisters, and finally murder, which was a consequence of the latter. Rules of the local council of Neocaesarea Rule 1 If a presbyter gets married, he will be deposed from his rank. If he commits fornication or adultery, he will be completely expelled from church communion and relegated to the category of repentants. (Ap. 5, 26, 51; IV Om. 14; Trul. 3, 6, 13, 21, 30; Ankyr. 10; Carth. 16; Basil Vel. 32, 69). The prohibition to marry someone who has entered the priesthood was the practice of many churches of ancient times, which was subsequently canonically approved at the Council of Trullo (6 rights). This rule mentions only elders, but that this decree applies to everyone belonging to the clergy, from subdeacon and above, is shown by one of the most ancient - 26 Apostolic Rule. And a clergyman who dares to marry, having already been included in the catalog of clergy, must be defrocked (της τάξεως αυτόν μετατίθεσθαι), that is, deposed (καθαφεΐται). If someone, being married, commits adultery, or, being unmarried, falls into fornication, then according to this rule he is subject to even more severe punishment, namely: he must be completely excluded from prayerful communication with the faithful in the church and join the ranks of the repentant. According to the interpretation of this rule by Zonara and Balsamon, clergy convicted of fornication or adultery must go through all stages of repentance from the first to the fourth (I Om. 11) and, only after passing them, can they be awarded holy communion, of course only with the laity (κοινωνία των λαϊκών). A woman who has had intercourse with two brothers will be excommunicated from church communion until death. But at death, if she promises to destroy the marriage upon recovery, let her be allowed to repent out of her love for humanity. If a wife or husband dies in such a marriage, repentance is difficult for those who remain. (Ap. 19; Trul. 54; Basil Vel. 23, 68, 76, 78, 87). The prescription of this rule that the same woman cannot marry first one brother and then another, and equally a man cannot marry two sisters, first one and then the other (Basily Vel. 23, 78), is based on divine law, as we saw in the interpretation of the 19th Apostolic Canon and the 54th Canon of the Council of Trullo. A woman (or man) who, after the death of her first husband (wife), marries his brother (sister), is excluded from common prayer with the faithful in the church for the rest of her life, unless she repents and dissolves the illegal marriage. If she, being near death, makes a promise that, in the event of her recovery, she will no longer live in an illegal marriage, then out of mercy she can be allowed to repent before the priest and give her holy communion. But can she be given holy communion at the hour of death if she does not make such a promise? Raising such a question in the interpretation of this rule, Balsamon answers: “the rule does not say anything about this, but it seems to me that it is merciless (άσυμπαθές είναι) not to deign her this wonderful parting word (χαλοδ εφοδίου) at her last breath, if she Orthodox. Therefore, even if she did not give such consent, she should be admonished with divine communion and if, having recovered, she dissolves the illegal marriage, she should be accepted among the penitents; if not, then she should be completely expelled from the church, as one who persists in evil.” Further, the rule cites the case when a husband or wife dies in such an illegal marriage, and says regarding it that the surviving party should have a hard time repenting (δυσχερής ή μετάνοια), which means that throughout their entire lives none of them can be worthy of holy communion and, being always among the repentant, will be allowed to receive holy communion only at death. The time of repentance determined for those who fall into polygamy is known: however, their conversion and faith shorten the time. (Ankyr. 19; Neokes. 7; Basil Vel. 4, 50, 80). The rule deals with persons who, having remained widowed after a second marriage, enter into a new marriage again, and it is said that the time of repentance for such an offense is known (σαφής). Since there is no more ancient canonical decree regarding this, Zonara and Balsamon believe that the neo-Caesarean fathers meant in this case a custom (την σονήθειαν), which was then followed, and the guilty were always subject to certain penances. In the interpretation of the rules (4, 50 and 80) of Basil the Great, we talk about this in more detail. This rule allows such people to shorten their time of repentance if they behave properly and are zealous in the faith. Even if someone, having lusted after his wife, decides to have sex with her, his intention will not be put into effect: apparently, he has been delivered by grace. Zonara says that the holy fathers distinguished four degrees of sin: preposition (προσβολή, impressio), struggle (πάλη, luctatio), will (συγκατά & εσις, assensio) and action (πραξις, actus), from The first two of them are not subject to penance, and the other two are subject to it, for neither the excuse nor the struggle is condemned if the thought (λογισμός, ratio), having accepted the excuse and subdued it, rejected the desire; consent is subject to trial and accusation, and the action is punished. So, if someone had a desire for a wife and, having been defeated, he accepted the permission to mingle with her, but did not get to the point, that is, did not fulfill the action; it is obvious that divine grace preserved him. The catechumen who enters the church and stands in the rank of the catechumens, having been convicted of sin, if he was numbered with those who bowed the knee, may he be relegated to the category of those who hear the scriptures, having been taken away from sin. If he sins while he is among those listening, he will be expelled from the church. (I Om. 2, 11, 12, 13, 14; Trul. 96; Laod. 19; Basil the Great. 20; Timothy Alex. 4, 6; Cyril Alex. 5). Everything concerning the catechumens was said in the interpretation of Rule 14 of the First Ecumenical Council. She who is pregnant should be enlightened by baptism when she desires. For in this there is no communion between the one giving birth and the one being born: since in confession each one’s own will is shown. During the Neo-Caesarean Council, there were some people who argued that a pregnant woman should not be baptized, but that it was necessary to wait for the time when she would be delivered from her pregnancy, because by baptizing such a woman, they would simultaneously baptize the child in her womb, which, having been born, could not be baptized again, since it would turn out that such a child was baptized twice. It is against such a statement that the present rule has been issued, ordering that a pregnant woman be baptized as soon as she wants (οπότε βούλεται). This rule is supported by the fact that the mother in labor, as a person, morally has nothing in common with the child and at her baptism she is baptized only herself, while the child she carries in the womb is not baptized through this, because each person must confess faith for himself before baptism, and this confession of faith must stem from personal free will. An elder should not feast at the marriage of a bigamist. The bigamist still needs to repent. What kind of presbyter would there be who would approve such marriages by participating in a feast? (Ap. 17; Trul. 3; Ankyr. 19; Neokes. 3; Laod. 1; Basil Vel. 4, 12). In the interpretation of Rule 1 of the Laodicean Council, we talked about second marriages and the fact that persons who entered into a second marriage after the death of the first wife are subject to penance according to the rules. Thus, if a second marriage, without corresponding penance, was considered prohibited, and penance was imposed at the discretion of the priests at a time when the second-weds themselves appeared to the priests for this purpose, then the rule prescribes that the latter should not be present at the wedding feasts of the second-weds, because - the rule asks - what would be the position of the priest who imposed penance on someone for what he himself approved by his presence? If the wife of a certain layman, having committed adultery, is clearly convicted of this: then he cannot come into church service. If, after the husband’s ordination, she falls into adultery, then he must divorce her. If he cohabits, he cannot touch the service entrusted to him. (Ap. 18; Trul. 3, 6, 13, 26; Basil Vel. 27). The rule cites the case when the wife is a woman caught in adultery, and shows what consequences this entails on her husband, who wants to enter the priesthood or has already entered into it. The principle that guides the fathers of the Neo-Caesarean Council in this case is the unity of husband and wife in marriage (Gen. 2:24) and the close connection between them. And since a wife who has her husband and is caught in adultery is considered defiled (μεμίανται), and a man who has bodily intercourse with such a woman becomes one flesh with her, then this defilement passes on to him, as a result of which he too is defiled (μεμιασμενος). Based on this principle, the rule prohibits the admission into the clergy of a man whose wife is known to be unfaithful and an adulterer. This rule confirms the definition of the 18th Apostolic Canon, according to which only one whose wife is distinguished by excellent behavior in all respects can be accepted into the clergy. However, the wife’s adultery must be clearly (φανερώς) proven. There were many laws in Greco-Roman law that dictated that a woman could only be tried for adultery if it was proven by clear evidence. These laws are what the fathers of the Neo-Caesarean Council had in mind when issuing this rule; namely, that only that woman can be called a real adulteress, in relation to whom the latter will be confirmed by clear evidence, but by no means one who can be suspected (ου μην την υποπτεοθεΐσαν) only because she talked with someone, met, or for any other reason. In this decree, the rule cites a case where adultery was committed by the wife of a priest, and instructs the latter to immediately drive away such a wife and dissolve the marriage relationship with her. Holy Scripture itself commands the priest's wife to be faithful and pure (1 Tim. 3:11). In her life, she must behave as wisely and prudently as her priest husband, especially since, having tied herself in marriage with her husband, who has received a grace-filled initiation, through marriage she herself becomes a participant in this initiation. If the priest’s wife does not live as it befits her, but defiles herself by adultery, then she thereby defiles her husband, who is one body with her, and deprives his priestly service of the holiness that distinguishes this service. Because of this, it is quite fair from both a religious and canonical point of view that this rule orders the husband to immediately divorce such an adulterous wife, and therefore such a reason for divorce is especially important in a priestly marriage. In connection with the last decree, the rule foresees the case when the husband-priest, despite the adultery committed by his wife, does not want to part with her, but wants to continue his married life with her. In this case, the rule orders him to leave the priesthood; because by his desire to live with his adulterous wife he shows that he has no human dignity, does not understand the full significance of his service and is indifferent to the fact that his wife’s defilement passes on to him - how can such a defiled person be allowed to do something divine? asks Zonara, finishing the interpretation of this rule. We often find confirmation of the ruling of this rule in the rules of later times, prohibiting such persons from performing priestly service even when they, out of ignorance (κατ᾿ αγνοίαν), were defiled by illegal marriage (Basily Vel. 27; Trul. 26). A presbyter, even if he has sinned in the body, confesses that he sinned before ordination, but does not officiate, preserving other advantages, for the sake of other virtues. For other sins, as many say, are resolved by ordination. If he himself does not confess, he clearly cannot be convicted: he is powerful within himself. (Ap. 25, 61; I Universe. 2, 9, 10; II Universe. 6; Trul. 4, 21, 23; Ankyr. 12; Neoces. 1, 8, 10, 12; Basil the Great. 3, 32, 51, 70, 82, 89; Theophilus Alex. 3, 6). In the interpretation of 61 of the Apostolic Canon, we have already talked about those qualities relating to the good name of a priest in society, what a candidate for the priesthood should distinguish, as well as the prohibition of accepting into the sacred rank persons who have been found guilty of any sins. Because of this, Canon 9 of the First Ecumenical Council prescribes that each candidate for the priesthood must be subjected to the strictest test before the latter is awarded ordination. This rule refers to an elder who was ordained without the mentioned test and, moreover, before his ordination, i.e. when he was a layman, who sinned in body (προημαρτηκώς σώματι), that is, fell into fornication (πορνευσας). In the case when the presbyter himself confesses his sin, the rule prescribes that he should be prohibited from making a sacrifice, i.e. sacred rite (ίεροοργεΐν), but retain the rest for him, namely the priestly honor, the right to sit between the presbyters and the right to receive communion at the altar. All this is left to him due to the fact that he himself repented of his sin and was diligent in performing other virtues. As for the minor sins that he could commit along with this main one, the rule says that, in the opinion of many (many argue: Ιφασαν οί πολλοί), since there is nothing generally accepted regarding this (ως όμολογουμενον), they are erased by ordination. If any doubt arises as to whether the presbyter actually committed fornication before his ordination, and he himself does not want to admit it and there are no reliable witnesses who can prove the latter, then the rule leaves it to the conscience of the presbyter himself to decide whether he is worthy of making a sacrifice to God or not. If the sin is proven, and he himself does not want to admit it, then such a presbyter must be immediately cast out and deprived of the honor and rights that he could otherwise enjoy. However, to supplement this rule, it is necessary to pay attention to what is prescribed by the 9th rule of the First Ecumenical Council and other rules of later times (parallel rules), and, in accordance with them, judge a priest who was ordained without testing and has some kind of sin. Likewise, if a deacon falls into the same sin, he will be relegated to the rank of a simple minister of the church. (Ap. 25, 61; I Universe. 2, 9, 10; II Universe. 6; Trul. 4, 21, 23; Ankyr. 12; Neokes. 1, 8, 9, 12; Basil Vel. 3, 32, 51, 70, 82, 89; Theophila Alex. 3, 6). This rule is a continuation of the 9th rule of the same council and prescribes for deacons the same thing that the 9th rule prescribes for presbyters: a deacon must be deprived of the diaconate and become a clergyman (υττηρέτης). A presbyter over thirty years of age, even though he is a worthy man in every way, should not be appointed: but let him remain in waiting. For the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in the thirtieth year and began to teach. This rule, word for word, was included in the 14th rule of the Trullo Council, the interpretation of which (at the same time as the 15th rule) says everything necessary on this issue. If someone in illness is enlightened by baptism, then he cannot be promoted to be a presbyter: for his faith is not from will, but from need: perhaps only for the sake of later revealed virtues and faith, and for the sake of poverty in worthy people. (Ap. 46, 47, 49, 50, 61, 75, 80; I Ev. 2, 9; II Ev. 7; Trul. 95; Laod. 3, 13, 47; Serdic. 10; Carth. 45; Dvukr. 17; Basil Vel. 1, 5, 89 ; Kirill Alex. 4, 5; Gregory Nissk. Some people, as Zonara says in his interpretation of this rule, postponed baptism, wanting not to be bound by the strictness of the Gospel, but to lead a freer life, and only when they became ill and fearing death did they accept baptism; such, as the rule prescribes, should not be accepted into the presbyteral rank, because their faith is not from will (εκ προαιρέσεως), but from need (εξ ανάγκης); The immediate reason for the publication of this rule was the disagreement that arose in the first centuries of the church over whether baptism received during illness could be recognized as valid at all, and whether such baptism needed to be repeated or at least supplemented when the person who received it recovered. This discord went so far that they did not even want to recognize those baptized during illness as true Christians, among other things, for the reason that they were not baptized by immersion in water, but only by dousing them. Cyprian raised the first decisive voice in this dispute. To the question of the pious Magnus: qui in infirmitate et languore gratiam Dei consequuntur, an habendi sint legitimi Christiani eo quod aqua salutari non loti sint, sed perfusi, Cyprian answered that, in his opinion (mea sententia), such should be recognized as true Christians. Cyprian's opinion is shared by other church fathers and teachers. This issue had to be resolved precisely in this sense, as soon as the baptism of children began to be introduced and this was established in the church. However, disagreement continued as to whether persons baptized in illness, i.e. on the bed (εν τη κλίνη) and therefore only modo adspersionis, to be accepted into the sacred rank. The first important case is described to us in his history by Eusebius in the words of the Roman Bishop Cornelius, speaking about the famous Carthaginian presbyter Novatus. Narrating the dishonesty of Novatus, Cornelius mentions how Novatus fraudulently received presbyterian ordination because, among other things, he was baptized during illness and on his bed through pouring (... did not have any that's right. This was in the middle of the 3rd century, but the controversy on this issue continued later. By this rule, the neo-Caesarean fathers resolved this discord for the church in Cappadocia. The first ecumenical council issued a similar definition in its 2nd rule. And since this neo-Caesarean rule was accepted by the universal church (Trul. 2), its prescription regarding the mentioned issue became church-wide. The rule allows for an exception only when a person baptized in illness reveals zealous fulfillment of the divine commandments, firmness and skill in the faith (Ap. 80 and interpretation), and when there is a shortage of people who have all the qualities prescribed by law for a candidate for the priesthood. Rural presbyters in the city church cannot officiate in the presence of the bishop or the city presbyters, nor can they serve the bread or the cup during prayer. If these are absent, and the villager is alone invited for prayer, then he teaches. (Ap. 15; I Ev. 15, 16; IV Ev. 6). Just as bishops were divided into urban and rural, so the presbyters were divided into urban presbyters (πρεσβύτβροι πόλεως) and rural presbyters (έπιχώριοι πρεσβύτεροι); and just as rural bishops had limited rights in relation to urban ones, so it was the same between urban and rural presbyters. According to definition 6 of rule IV Omni. Council, no one could be ordained without appointment (άπολελυμένως, absolute) to any specific place of service - and when interpreting the mentioned rule, we saw how every act contrary to this was categorically prohibited and considered invalid (ακορον). According to this decree, each presbyter could correctly perform services only in the place for which he was ordained. Rural elders at the place of their service had more limited rights than city elders, due to which the rule instructs them to know their boundaries and not to arrogate to themselves the rights of city elders, serving in city churches, moreover, in the presence of the bishop and city elders, because the latter, as Balsamon noted in the interpretation of this rule, leads to disorder (εις άταξίαν), to disrespect and insult to the bishop and city elders, as if they were guilty of anything. A rural priest can serve only if he is invited due to the absence of city priests, and then only with the permission of the underlying bishop. But even in the mentioned case, only those presbyters who belong to the same diocese and are subordinate to the same bishop, to whom the city presbyters are subordinate, can serve; in someone else's diocese, as established by general rules, they can serve only in certain, specific cases. But the chorebishops, installed in the image of the seventy apostles, as co-servants of the bishop, also serve as priests in the city church, accepting honor for the sake of caring for the poor. (I Om. 8; VII Om. 14; Ancyra. 13; Antioch. 8, 10; Laod. 57; Basil the Great. 89). What the 13th rule of this council prohibits rural presbyters in relation to city ones, this rule allows chorebishops in relation to city bishops, namely: they are allowed to freely serve in the city (episcopal) church, both because they are co-celebrants (συλλειτουργοί) of the bishop and enjoy what belongs to them according to their position in the church hierarchy with honor, and because, as the rule says, they are placed in the image of the seventy (εις τύπον των έβδομήχοντα) apostles. Regarding the latter, Archimandrite John makes the following quite thorough note: “and so they are called, of course, to distinguish them from the main diocesan bishops, who are recognized as the successors of the twelve Apostles; but this difference can only be understood in relation to the order of church government, in which the chorebishops were lower than the diocesan bishops, and in terms of their holy rank and spiritual rights as episcopal there is no reason to separate the chorebishops from other bishops, for the chorebiscopes had the same episcopal rank as others: and all bishops are equally the successors of the holy Apostles.” According to the original rule, there should be seven deacons even if the city was very large. This is confirmed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (I Om. 18; Trul. 7, 16; Laod. 20). Rule 16 of the Council of Trullo explains how this rule should be understood. Rules of the Gangra Cathedral Rule 1 If anyone condemns marriage, and abhors a faithful and pious wife who has intercourse with her husband, or blames her for not being able to enter the kingdom, let him be under an oath. (Ap. 5, 51; Trul. 13; Gangr. 4, 9, 10, 14). As is known, this council was convened against the followers of Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, who preached anti-evangelical asceticism, as a result of which all the rules of this council, caused by the false teaching of the Eustathians, condemn individually each point of this teaching, anathematizing each of its followers (ανάθεμα έστω), i.e. immediate and permanent excommunication from the church, This (1) rule condemns the false teaching of the Eustathians on marriage. In the interpretation of the 51st Apostolic Canon, we saw how at the very beginning of the emergence of the church, some Gnostic sects, based on a false concept of matter, due to their dualistic principles (good and evil), among other things, condemned marriage. So, for example, Saturninus taught that marriage is an invention of Satan. Like the Gnostics, the Eustathians taught that marriage is a sinful matter, and every Christian should avoid marriage, basing, however, their teaching not on the dualism of the Gnostics, but on their perverted understanding of the well-known passages of Holy Scripture on abstinence. If anyone, with reverence and faith, eats meat (except blood, sacrificed to idols and strangled meat), condemns, as if, because of the use of it, he does not have hope: let him be under an oath. (Ap. 51, 53, 63; Trul. 67; Ankir. 14; Vasily Vel. 86). This rule confirms resolutions 51 and 63 Ap. rules If anyone teaches a slave, under the pretext of piety, to despise his master, to shirk service, and not to serve his master with zeal and all honor: let him be under oath. (Ap. 82; IV Ev. 4; Trul. 85; Carth. 64, 82; Basil the Great. 40, 42). This rule concerns the time when slavery still existed, and serves as a confirmation of the decree 82 of the Apostolic Canon. If anyone argues about a presbyter who has entered into marriage that he is not worthy of receiving communion when he has celebrated the Liturgy, let him be under an oath. (Ap. 5; I Universe. 3; Trul. 13, 48; Gangr. 1, 9, 10; Carth. 4). Teaching about the need to evade marriage and considering it a sin, the Eustathians still had to consider it a sinful matter among clergy, and if such a sinful person as a married priest served the liturgy, then such a liturgy, in the opinion of the Eustathians, was not holy, just as the sacrifice he made was not holy, and therefore one should not receive holy communion from such a priest. We have talked enough about the legality of priestly marriage in the interpretations of 5 Ap. rules and 13 rules of the Trullo Council - and this rule of the Gangra Council condemns both the Eustathians and, in general, everyone who does not recognize priestly marriage as a legitimate matter. If anyone teaches without restraint to despise the house of God and the meetings that are held in it, let him be under a curse. (Trul. 80; Gangr. 20; Serdic. 11). Based on the literally understood words of the Holy Scriptures, that one can pray to God in any place (1 Tim. 2:8), the Eustathians taught that there is no need for churches and services performed in them, and this rule was issued against this. If anyone, apart from the church, forms a special meeting, and, despising the church, wants to do church work, without having a presbyter with him, by the will of the bishop: let him be under oath. (Ap. 31, 47; II Om. 6; III Om. 3; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Antioch. 2, 5; Serdic. 14; Carth. 10, 11; Dvukr. 13, 14, 15; Basil Vel. 1). Denying the significance of the Orthodox Church of God (τον οίκον τοδ θεού, Gangr. 5) and considering themselves chosen and holy, the Eustathians themselves gathered their own religious meetings and performed their own services in them (έκκλησιάζοντες ) according to their perverted concepts of serving God, thinking that at these meetings they do exactly what the church should do. At these gatherings, the Eustathians also had their own presbyters, who certainly had to be unmarried or separated from their wives, due to their disdain for marriage in general, and priestly marriage in particular (Gangr. 1, 4); but these presbyters, as such, were not legitimate (false priests, Ap. 47), therefore, they illegally performed their service, without the permission of the proper Orthodox bishop (Ap. 31 and par. rules). Such performance of a church service separately and independently of the highest legitimate church authority (ιδία, κατ᾿ Ιδίαν έκκλησιάζοι) is called in the rules παρασυναγωγή (unauthorized gathering, St. Basil the Great 1), - against this and this rule was issued. If anyone wants to receive church fruits or distribute them outside the church, without the will of the bishop or the one to whom they are entrusted, and does not want to do it according to his will: let him be under an oath. (Ap. 4, 38, 41; IV Om. 26; Trul. 35; VII Om. 11, 12; Ankyr. 15; Gangr. 8; Antioch. 24, 25; Carth. 26, 33; Dvukr. 7; Theophilus Alex. 10; Cyril Alex. 2). If anyone gives or receives fruits outside the bishop, or those appointed to administer the benefits, both the giver and those who receive, let him be under an oath. (Ap. 4, 38, 39, 41; IV Ecum. 26; Trul. 25; VII Ecum. 11, 12; Ankyr. 15; Dvukr. 7; Antioch. 24, 25; Carth. 26, 33; Dvukr. 7; Theophilus Alex. 10; Cyril Alex. 2). Both rules (7 and 8) reproduce and confirm the decisions of the Apostolic Rules (4, 38, 39 and 41) that it is impossible to dispose of church property without episcopal permission, and condemn the Eustathians who acted contrary to this instruction. If anyone is a virgin, or abstains, moving away from marriage, as if he abhors it, and not for the sake of the goodness and holiness of virginity: let him be under an oath. (Ap. 5, 51; I Om. 3; IV Om. 16; Trul. 13, 40, 48; Gangr. 1, 4, 10, 14; Carth. 4). If any of those who are virgins for the sake of the Lord exalt themselves above those who are married, let him be under an oath. (Ap. 5, 51; I Om. 3; IV Om. 16; Trul. 13, 40, 48; Gangr. 1, 4, 9, 14; Carth. 4). In Rule 1 of this council we saw how the Eustathians condemned marriage, considering it as something unclean for Christians. Based on this point of view, they recommended that everyone live in virginity and never marry. Virginity in itself is good and holy (καλόν καΐ αγιον), but it must be combined with piety and humility, and not with self-exaltation, as the Eustathians did - against this the two rules just cited (9 and 10) were issued. If anyone despises those who hold suppers of love according to faith, and those who convene the brethren in honor of the Lord, and does not want to have fellowship through invitations, considering what they do low, let him be under oath. (Trul. 74; Laod. 27, 28; Carth. 42). Agapae (άγάπαι), mentioned in this rule, were not those evenings of love that are spoken of in the 27th and 28th rules of the Council of Laodicea, but these were meals with all kinds of dishes, hosted by the rich (των πλουσίων χορηγούντων τα βρώματα) for the poor in honor of the Lord. The Eustathians, condemning these meals and not considering them meals in honor of the Lord, forbade their followers to attend them, finding such visits humiliating for Christians. It was against such a teaching of the Eustathians regarding the mentioned meals that this rule was issued. If any of the men, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, wears harsh outer clothing, and, as if receiving righteousness from this, condemns those who reverently wear silk robes and use common and customary clothing: let him be under an oath. (Trul. 27; VII Universe. 16). The Eustathians, based on their perverse view of asceticism (ασχησις), preached the need to wear a coarse robe (ρακενδοτεΐν), called in the rule περιβόλαιον (amiculum, pallium) and worn by some philosophers over other clothes for the purpose of manifesting contempt for all luxury, which the Eustathians also wanted to show. Prescribing the latter to their followers, the Eustathians taught at the same time that it is necessary to despise those who wear τοϋς βήροος, that is, silk clothes (σηρικά υφάσματα, ex serico contextas vestes), which were usually worn on ceremonial occasions by the Orthodox bishops and priests. This clothing, which, as Zonara says, was called in his time όλόβηρα, is not condemned in this Gangra rule if it is worn humbly and as befits a priestly rank, but the Eustathians and other persons who reverently reproach (ευλαβώς) those who wear such clothing and consider them sinners are condemned. If a certain wife, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, wears a robe and, instead of ordinary women's clothing, puts on a man's clothing, let her be under an oath. Considering, as we know, marriage to be a sinful matter (Gangr. 1, 4, 9, 10, 14), the Eustathians did not distinguish between men and women, but recognized everyone as equal. For the external manifestation of this, they recommended that their women, for the sake of imaginary asceticism (δια νομιζομένην ασκησιν), wear, instead of women's, men's clothing, which they wore themselves and which was περιβόλαιον, mentioned in the 12th verse of this cathedral The fathers of the Gangra Cathedral condemned this view and the basis for the condemnation was the teaching of the church that this is a sin before God and was condemned by the Old Testament Holy Scripture: A woman should not wear men’s clothing, and a man should not dress in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is abominable to the Lord your God. (Deut. 22:5). This was the teaching of all the church fathers. If a wife leaves her husband and wants to leave her, disdaining marriage, let her be under an oath. (Ap. 5, 48, 51; Trul. 13, 87; Gangr. 1, 4, 9, 10). Guided by the Eustathian view of marriage, wives had to leave their husbands and dissolve the marital relationship. This rule condemns wives who do this, and the basis for this condemnation is given in the interpretation of Rule 87 of the Trullo Council. If anyone leaves his children and does not nourish them, and does not, if possible, lead them to proper piety, but, under the pretext of being a hermit, neglects them: let him be under an oath. Children in relation to their parents are the fruit of their love and the blood of their blood. Because of this, the divine law itself imposes on parents the duty to take care of the maintenance of their children and their comprehensive education (Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 5:4,8,10; Gen. 18:19; Deut. 4:10; 6:7). Meanwhile, the Eustathians, without paying any attention to this, taught that those who have children should leave them and surrender to an ascetic life, caring only for themselves - for this the council anathematizes them, as they deserve. If any children, under the pretext of piety, leave their parents, especially faithful ones, and do not give due honor to their parents, let them be under oath. However, let the orthodoxy be observed by them preferably. Just as it is contrary to the divine law for parents to leave their children under the pretext of falsely understood piety, as stated in the 15th rule of this council, it is so contrary to the same law for children to leave their parents under the same pretext and not pay them due veneration. Honor your father and your mother; and: he who curses his father or mother shall die, says the Holy Scripture (Mark 7:10; Matt. 15:4; Eph. 6:2; Ex. 20:12, 21:15, 17). Children must sacredly observe such respect for their parents not only when their parents believe Orthodoxy, but also when the latter believe non-Orthodoxly, because the words of the rule μάλιστα πιστών show that it also implies απίστων, as a result of which children must honor their parents and help them, regardless of their beliefs, and no piety cannot serve as an excuse for children to disrespect them simply because they believe differently, for love for their parents is based on the eternal law, but piety that denies this love and thereby tramples this law is the false piety of the Eustathians, who despised this divine law of honoring parents, the rule anathematizes. This interpretation of this (16) rule naturally follows from the text of the rule itself. Zonara and Balsamon understood the words of the rule: - προτιμώμενης δηλονότι παρ᾿αύτοΐς της θεοσέβειας otherwise they said that θεοσέβεια should be considered higher than love for parents, because if parents do not believe Orthodoxy ( εάν γαρ χαχόδοξοι ώσιν οί γονείς ), then children should shy away from them and consider their own piety preferable to veneration parents (? Based on these commentators, the mentioned words were translated in the Book of Rules, and a special addition was made: “however, let the orthodox faith be observed by them preferably.” Regarding these words, we do not share the opinion of the commentators mainly because then we would not know how to reconcile such an interpretation of these words with the words of the rule μάλιστα πιστών, showing, as we indicated above, also on the basis of the Zonara, that the orthodoxy (θεοσέβεια) of children can never free them from the obligation to honor parents only because their parents by chance do not believe Orthodoxy. The translation of the Helmsman, much more than the Book of Rules, in this case corresponds to the original source of the text of the rules: “if children of their parents, especially those who are faithful, depart from the word of piety, and do not repay such honors to their parents, who honestly perform imaginary piety from them, let them be cursed.” This translation fully corresponds to our interpretation of this rule. If any wife, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, cuts off her hair, which God gave her as a reminder of subordination, such a one, as if violating the commandment of subordination, will be under an oath. The rule says that wives should not cut their hair, which is a sign of their subordination (της υποταγής). This is what the Apostle Paul teaches in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:3 et seq.). Since the Eustathians taught that a wife should not live with her husband, because marriage is sinful, and thereby destroyed the wife’s subordination to her husband, it followed that women could freely cut their hair, like men, considering themselves equal to them. This rule is against this. If anyone, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, fasts on Sunday, let him be under an oath. (Ap. 66; IV Om. 16; Trul. 55; Ancir. 14; Laod. 29, 49, 51). According to the teachings of the Eustathians, one should fast on Sunday, which, in their opinion, was a sad reminder of the liberation of matter, which, as a result of this liberation, became even more sinful. We saw how the church teaches about this in the interpretation of the 66th Apostolic Canon, which is confirmed by this rule of the Gangra Council. If any of the ascetics, without bodily need, ascends and permits fasts devoted to general observance and preserved by the church, while remaining in full reason: let him be under an oath. (Ap. 69; Trul. 29, 56, 89; Laod. 49, 50, 51, 52; Dionysius Alex. 1; Peter Alex. 15; Timothy Alex. 8, 10). The Eustathians thought that they had already achieved perfection in life and asceticism and therefore should not fast on those days when the church commanded to fast for the sake of repentance and forgiveness of sins. Condemning this teaching of the Eustathians, this rule confirms the definition of 69 Ap. rules. If anyone, having come to an arrogant disposition, disdainfully condemns meetings in honor of the martyrs, and the services performed in them and in their memory: let him be under oath. (Ap. 31; IV Om. 4; Trul. 31, 80; Gangr. 5; Antioch. 5; Serdic. 11). This rule is in connection with the 5th rule of this council; it mentions the martyrs and their memory (τάς μνήμας των μαρτύρων) because church services were usually performed over the tombs of the martyrs. We write this, putting barriers not to those who in the Church of God, according to the scriptures, want to become ascetic, but to those who accept asceticism as a reason for pride, rise above those who live simply, and, contrary to the scriptures and church rules, introduce news. Thus, we honor virginity, united with humility, and abstinence, observed with honesty and piety, is acceptable, and we approve of humble seclusion from worldly affairs, and we honor honest marriage, and we do not disparage wealth with truth and charity: and we praise the simplicity and low value of clothes, used only for the sake of caring for the body of the unsophisticated; We avoid wearing soft clothes. And we honor the houses of God, and the meetings that are held in them, as holy and useful, are acceptable, not confining piety in houses, but honoring every place created in the name of God, and going to the Church of God for the common benefit is acceptable: and the abundant good works of the brethren, according to legend, through the church, the poor come to the poor, we please: and, let us speak briefly, we wish that everything accepted from the divine scriptures may be in the church and apostolic traditions. (Ap. 31, 51, 53; IV Ecum. 4; Trul. 27, 80; VII Ecum. 16; Gangr. 5, 20; Antioch. 5; Serdic. 11; Carth. 83). This rule is the general conclusion of all the above (20) rules of this council. Explaining in detail the false teaching of the Eustathians and their followers, the fathers of the Gangra Council recall here successively all the individual points of this teaching. In their 20 rules, they specifically anathematize each of these points; in this rule (21), regarding this teaching, they set out general rules for every Orthodox Christian. Since the Eustathians preached the strictest asceticism, understanding it one-sidedly and contrary to the teachings of the church, the Gangra fathers immediately at the beginning of the rule say that asceticism (ασκησις) can only be in the true Church of Christ, and not outside it, that it must be such as the Holy Scripture depicts it, and that only such asceticism is holy and pleasing to God. Thus, as much as the fathers of the council respect and value those who strive in true piety, they condemn those who act contrary to Holy Scripture and church rules, showing human pride under the guise of asceticism, destroying the established order of church life and introducing innovations into the church (καινισμοός). Contrasting all this in general to the Eustathian view of asceticism, the fathers of the council in their present rule give several instructions that should henceforth have the meaning of rules, namely: it is necessary to honor virginity (παρθενίων), when it is combined with humility and is not presented to others as some kind of special personal merit; abstinence (έγκράτειαν) must be approved when it is observed with dignity and piety and when it is done sincerely and with Christian intention; It is good to shirk worldly affairs and indulge in a hermit's life, but all this must be done humbly and with good intentions. Marriage is ordained by God and is honorable, so it should be respected. Wealth should not be condemned if it is acquired honestly and if it is combined with charity to the poor. Simplicity and simplicity in clothing is commendable. Complete respect for the holy churches is necessary, as well as for any other place dedicated to the honor and name of God, therefore the fraternal meetings that take place there must be respected and attended; it is necessary to honor, as appropriate, the public service (συνέλευσιν) performed in every church, for the benefit of people and the whole world; We must also respect rich people who provide help to the poor brethren from their property, if they do this according to tradition (κατά τάς παραδόσεις) through the mediation of the church. Having set out all this in their present canon, the fathers of the council repeat at the end of it what they said at the beginning, namely, that it is necessary to protect the holy church from innovations and to take care that everything prescribed by the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition remains holy and inviolable in it, because otherwise the way will be opened for Eustathianism and other similar religious societies that cannot be called a church. Rules of the Holy Local Council of Antioch Rule 1 All those who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great council in Nicaea, which took place in the presence of the most pious and most God-loving Tsar Constantine, on the holy feast of the saving Easter, let them be excommunicated and rejected from the church, if they continue to curiously rebel against the good establishment. And this is said about the laity. If any of the heads of the church, a bishop or a presbyter, or a deacon, after this definition, dares to corrupt people, and to indignate the churches, to stand apart and celebrate Easter with the Jews: the Holy Council from now on condemns such a person to be alien to the church, as if he has become not only the cause of sin for himself, but also the cause of disorder and corruption of many. And not only do the council exclude such people from the priesthood, but also all those who dare to be in communion with them, after their expulsion from the priesthood. Those expelled are also deprived of external honor, which they were partakers of according to the holy rule and God's priesthood. (Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; II Om. 7; Trul. 11; Laod. 7, 37, 38; Carth. 34, 51, 73, 106). The fact that the Ebionites (a Judeo-Christian sect of the 2nd century) celebrated the Passover holiday on the day when this was commanded to the Jews under threat of curse (Ex. 12:6, 14, 18; Lev. 23:5; Deut. 27:26), i.e. on the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan), we saw in the interpretation of 7 of the Apostolic Canon. This belief of the Ebionites that it was on this day, whatever the day of the week, was to be celebrated, was shared by many Christians of the East, who were otherwise, generally speaking, Orthodox, especially in the churches of Asia Minor. In the West, and especially in the Roman Church, at one time the custom was established to celebrate this holiday on the first Sunday (die Dominico, χυριαχή ήμερα) after the fourteenth day of the same first month. The Asia Minor Christians, referring to the Apostle John, Philip and some of the Apostolic disciples, believed that, following the example of Christ, when He celebrated Easter with His disciples, they should also observe the remembrance of His death on the same day (πάσχα σταυρώσιμον), and in the same way as Christ did. For this purpose, they organized a special supper, which they connected with the Lord's Supper, and did this at the time when the Jews celebrated their Passover, i.e. on the 14th day of the first month, and the fast of Passion Week was interrupted at this time. After this, they again continued to fast until the third day, on which they celebrated the Resurrection of Christ (πάσχα άναστάσιμον), regardless of when this third day fell - on Sunday or on some other day of the week. Believing that in this case they were doing absolutely right, they considered the custom of the Western Church an innovation, contrary to historical truth. For its part, the Western Church justified its custom by the general freedom of Christians, who should not adhere to the Jewish ritual law. According to her, if Christians were not obliged to celebrate the Jewish Sabbath, even less could they be obliged to celebrate the Jewish Passover, because the Apostle Paul not only generally gave Christians freedom regarding the celebration of certain days, but especially said this regarding Easter (1 Cor. 5:7). Moreover, it is impossible for Christians to follow the Jewish Passover in everything, just as it is impossible to preserve all those rituals that are associated with it and which were not observed by Christians of Asia Minor. Finally, the Western Church considered it completely unauthorized and forbidden to interrupt fasting during Holy Week, as the Christians of Asia Minor did, because this fast, according to Apostolic tradition, could only end on the day of the Resurrection of Christ (Trul. 89; Dionysius Alex. 1) Regarding the aforementioned disagreements between the churches of Asia Minor and the West, a great dispute arose that lasted several centuries, and all those who followed the Asia Minor custom regarding the time of celebrating the Resurrection of Christ were called fourteen-dayers, which we talked about in the interpretation of the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council. This issue was first clearly discussed in the first years of the second half of the 2nd century, when Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, while in Rome, wanted to come to an agreement with the Roman Bishop Anicetas on various subjects of church life, which aroused different opinions on the part of the Asian and Western churches. At the same time, the question of the time of celebrating the Resurrection of Christ was raised, but both Polycarp and Anicetas, each for his part, defended the custom of his church and it was not possible to reach an agreement, since neither one nor the other wanted to make concessions, each referring to the Apostolic Tradition in their church. Nevertheless, the bishops parted in brotherly love, each remaining with his own custom. However, this issue was soon raised again and, moreover, with sufficient severity. Disputes about this arose in Laodicea, and Melito, bishop of Sardis (in Lydia), published an essay on this matter in defense of the custom of the churches of Asia Minor (περί του Πάσχα). This was the reason for the convening of many councils, most of which spoke in favor of the custom of the Western Church. Upon learning of this, the Roman Bishop Victor (189–199) wrote several letters to the churches of Asia Minor, threatening in some of them the excommunication of their bishops if they did not accept and recognize the practices of the Western Church. Such a threat irritated all the bishops of Asia Minor, and Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, wrote on behalf of all of them a sharp response to Victor, declaring that they did not intend to deviate from the Apostolic Tradition and despised his threat. After Polycrates’ answer, passions flared up even more, and the church world would have faced even more regrettable consequences if, fortunately, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, who came from Asia Minor, had not intervened in the matter. He wrote a letter to Victor, in which, while speaking out in favor of the custom of the Western Church to celebrate Easter on Sunday, he at the same time gives good advice to Victor (Victorem tanien decenter admonet) not to violate, for the sake of such ritual differences, of which there were quite a few from the very beginning of the Church, ecclesiastical peace and fraternal unity. The authoritative voice of Irenaeus managed to calm passions, and church peace was not disturbed. Disputes about the day of Easter celebration ceased for a long time and each church continued to follow its own custom. This issue was raised again in 325 at the first ecumenical council. The Council began to reconsider this issue with the intention of preventing, with one general decision, any dispute that might arise on this matter and to establish uniformity for the entire church. First of all, on the basis of the 7th Apostolic Canon, it was decided that Christian Easter should not be celebrated on the day when the Jews celebrate their Easter. Further, on the basis of the New Testament teaching on the seventh day, it was decided that Christian Easter should always be celebrated on Sunday. Finally, it was decided that the first full moon after the vernal equinox should always serve to indicate the time of year in which Christian Easter should be celebrated. Based on all this, the following decision was announced: 1) everyone should celebrate Christian Easter on a Sunday, 2) this resurrection should occur after the first full moon that occurs after the spring equinox. 3) If it happens that the Jewish Easter falls on the same Sunday, then the Christian Easter should be celebrated on the following Sunday. Matthew Blastar in his Alphabetical Syntagma writes the following about this: “Concerning our Easter, it is necessary to pay attention to four decrees, of which two are contained in the Apostolic Rule, and two originate from unwritten tradition. First, we must celebrate Easter after the vernal equinox (μετά ισημερίαν έαρινήν), second, we should not celebrate it together with the Jews on the same day; the third - not just after the equinox, but after the first full moon, which has to be after the equinox (μετά την πρώτην μετ᾿ ισημερίαν πανσέληνον), and the fourth - after the full moon not otherwise than in first day of the week." This decision of the Council of Nicea became binding for the entire church, and our Orthodox Church is now guided by it. In order that the previous unrest should no longer arise because of the day on which the Resurrection of Christ should be celebrated annually, and therefore that the whole church should celebrate this holiday on the same day, the Nicene fathers decreed that the bishop of Alexandria should declare every year at a certain time on what day of the current year the Resurrection of Christ should be celebrated. This was entrusted to the bishop of Alexandria because Egypt was then famous for its experts in the best calculation of time. The key to exactly when it is necessary to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ is the nineteen-year monthly circle taken for this purpose, the same one that was adopted in Alexandria and after which the full moon and phases of the moon fell on the same days of the month as the previous ones. The full moon after the vernal equinox during this nineteen-year circle occurred on various days of the months - March and April, and always from March 21 to April 18 ( άπριλι᾿ου ). During this time, the Jewish Passover occurs, i.e. one of these 39 days falls on the 14th day of the first month or the first full moon of spring. And since it has been established that the Christian Easter should not coincide with the Jewish one, but should be on the first Sunday after it, it may happen that the Christian Easter will occur after April 18; and if it happened that the Jewish Passover would fall on this very day, i.e. on April 18, which falls on a Sunday, then Christian Easter is celebrated on April 25, i.e. next Sunday. But it also happens that the Jews do not pay due attention to the excessive number of days after a certain number of turns of the month, as a result of which they sometimes celebrate their Passover earlier than the full 14 days of the first month have arrived, i.e. until March 21; in this case, says Blastar, the divine law (νόμος θείος) commands to completely leave this month and move to the full moon of another month, aligning with it the day of Christian Easter, so as not to celebrate at the same time as the Jews, but to cleanse and free our Easter from Jewish celebrations - this happened and happens now, so that there is a large period of time between ours and the Jews Easter. According to the resolution of the Council of Nicaea, the bishops of Alexandria began immediately after it to notify the entire Christian world about the day of Easter of a given year with special messages. Over time, these messages were replaced by a special canonion (κανόνων, Easter), which indicated for several years in advance when, in what year, Easter should be celebrated. The first such canonon was compiled and published in 388 by Timothy of Alexandria. Then Cyril of Alexandria issued a new canonion for 95 years (from 436 to 531), and this continued in the future. The decree of the Council of Nicea on the time of celebrating Easter, although it was a decree of the ecumenical council, nevertheless could not force all the churches of Asia Minor to obey it, so that even after this council we meet some even bishops who violated this decree and continued, as before, to celebrate Easter at the same time as the Jews. It was against such stubborn people that this Antiochian rule was issued, imposing the heaviest church punishments on all those, whether layman or clergy, who do not want to obey the definition of the Council of Nicaea; in this case, a layman is subject to excommunication and expulsion from the church, and clergy at higher hierarchical levels, such as bishops, presbyters and deacons, are subject to expulsion; those. These persons are not only deprived of the right to perform sacred functions, but also the priestly name itself, which is deleted from the priestly catalog, after which they are equated with the laity. Although the rule does not mention clergy of lower hierarchical degrees who violated the issued decree, such should be included among the laity who violated this decree, i.e. they should be excommunicated and expelled from the church. The rule subjects such punishment not only to those who committed the crime mentioned, but also to those who dare to have spiritual communication with such deposed already sacred persons. In this rule we see one special legal norm when imposing church punishments. Appropriate punishments for crimes committed are imposed by Orthodox church law either by damnatory (indictment) or by declaratory (explanatory) verdict. In case of a damnatory (accusatory) verdict, the absolute requirement is that the proper church court fulfill all the instructions regarding the trial, in order to thereby become familiar with and be convinced of the case to be punished and, accordingly, impose an appropriate punishment on the perpetrator. But it happens that a person guilty of a known crime is subject to punishment even without such a sentence, and this happens when, at the very moment of committing the crime, the criminal has already been subjected to punishment determined by law. In this case, the court does not need to start investigating the crime committed, because with the very commission of it, the corresponding punishment came for the criminal, and all that remains is to state the commission of the punishable act and the punishment, and the court verdict is only declaratory (explanatory). In accordance with this difference in sentences, the corresponding punishments are also called differently. When a sentence is of a damnatory (accusatory) nature, the punishment is called διχαστική ποινή, judicial punishment; if the sentence is of a declarative (explanatory) nature, then the punishment is called and is νομική ποινή, legal or legal punishment. This latter occurs when the crime puts the guilty person in a position in which the court does not need to judge him and punish him with deprivation of certain rights, since the crime itself is associated with the deprivation of them, and as soon as the crime is committed, the loss of rights occurs in itself. For some serious crimes, especially those concerning ecclesiastical unity or the legal capacity of a given person to perform certain duties in the ecclesiastical order, such punishment is imposed in itself by ecclesiastical law. So, for example, if a Christian has clearly renounced the Christian faith and transferred to some non-Christian religious society, then such a person, by the very act of his apostasy, has lost all the rights that belong to him as a Christian, as a result of which the sentence of the church court declaring him deprived of these rights is unnecessary. Or, if one of the members of the church for some punishable act of a worldly nature is sentenced by a proper secular court to imprisonment or other similar punishment, then this person is thereby subjected to canonical infamy (infamy), and the ecclesiastical court, on its part, does not need to specifically award this punishment. In such and similar cases, punishment occurs on its own, as a direct consequence of a known punishable act. From this, in church law, the concept of legal or legal punishment developed, in contrast to punishment imposed after a proper judicial investigation and declared by a proper church court. The basis for this kind of punishment is found in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Paul, reminding Titus of a heretic person who does not want to listen to the exhortation to turn to the Orthodox faith, but remains stubborn in heresy, says that such a person has become corrupted, being himself condemned, και άμαρτάνει, ων αυτοκατάκριτος (Tit. 3:10, 11). Also important are all the rules of the Gangra Council, which prescribe that all those who committed one of the crimes mentioned in these rules should be considered excommunicated. The Gangra rules do not say that only the church court should declare punishment for a crime, but regarding each such criminal, the proper rule, like the Apostle Paul, says: ανάθεμα έστω, that such a stubborn sinner has already been condemned. This (1) Antiochian rule best explains to us punishments of this kind. Establishing by this rule when Christians should celebrate the annual remembrance of Christ's Resurrection, the council at the same time commands that bishops, presbyters and deacons who decide to act against its definition be considered excommunicated ( ήδη άλλότριον έκρινε της εκκλησίας ). Consequently, the court has no need to summon and judge such persons, since they have already been condemned by this conciliar rule from the moment they violated the decree. In this case, the church court, if it ever deals with criminals who, thanks to their very actions, have come under punishment, can only state the punishment to which the guilty person was subjected for the act committed, and the corresponding sentence will have only a declaratory (explanatory) meaning. However, all of the above is important only for certain crimes, for which such legal punishment is categorically expressed in the rules. Regarding other ecclesiastical crimes, the verdict must always be of a damnatory (accusatory) nature, preserving all those legal regulations that are established in the formal ecclesiastical judicial process. All who enter the church and listen to the sacred scriptures, but, due to some deviation from order, do not participate in prayer with the people, or turn away from the Holy Communion of the Eucharist, may they be excommunicated from the church until they confess, show the fruits of repentance, and ask for forgiveness, and thus be able to receive it. Let it not be allowed to have communion with those who have been excommunicated from communion, or to gather in homes and pray with those who are outside the communion of the church: those who are alien to the gatherings of one church should not be accepted into another church. If any of the bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or anyone from the clergy, turns out to communicate with those excommunicated from communion, let him also be out of church communion, as if causing confusion in the order of the church. (Ap. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 28, 32, 33, 45, 48, 65; I Om. 5; IV Om. 11, 13; Trul. 17, 66, 80; Antioch. 4, 6, 7, 8, 11; Laod. 41, 42; Serdic. 9, 11; Carth. 9, 10, 23, 106). We said (I, p. 11) that most of the Antiochian canons were compiled according to the Apostolic canons, as a result of which the interpretations of the corresponding Apostolic canons serve at the same time as an interpretation of the Antiochian canons, which speak about the same subjects that were discussed in the Apostolic canons. This Antiochian canon says the same thing that was discussed in 9, 10, 11 and 12 Apostolic Canons. If a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general anyone from the sacred rank, leaves his parish, passes to another, then, having completely settled down, attempts to remain in another precinct for a long time: such a person should not officiate, and especially when his own bishop calls him and convinces him to return to his parish, but he does not obey. If he persists in disorderly behavior, he will be completely expelled from the priesthood, without the possibility of restoration to his former rank. If another bishop receives someone who has been deposed for this reason, then he too will be subject to penance from the general council, as a violator of church decrees. (Ap. 15, 16; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trul. 17, 18; Serdic. 15, 16; Carth. 54, 90). This rule repeats the decrees of 15 and 16 of the Apostolic Canons. The rule mentions παροικίαν, from which one priest or deacon transferred. This term in ancient canonical sources designated the area of ​​the bishop or the present diocese, while now the same term is used in the southwestern Orthodox churches to designate the area of ​​the priest, in Russian parish. The fact that this rule by the term παροικία actually means the present diocese governed by a bishop is clear from the context of the rule itself. In the 15th Apostolic Canon, to which this (3) Antiochian canon corresponds, the word is used: επαρχία. Regarding a bishop who violates the mentioned decree, the rule says that he must be punished by the court of a general council (υπό κοινής συνόδου). what this council is, which should determine the punishment of such a bishop, is stated in rules 16, 17 and 18 of this council, namely: this is the council at which the bishops of the underlying metropolitan region are present under the chairmanship of the metropolitan and which is also called a complete council, τελεία σύνοδος (rights 16 and 17), usually της επαρχίας, in the sense of the previous meaning of this word, i.e. metropolitan region. If any bishop, defrocked by a council, or a presbyter, or a deacon by his bishop, dares to perform any sacred service: whether a bishop according to his former custom, or a presbyter, or a deacon: such a one is by no means allowed, at another council, to have any hope of restoration to the former rank, nor is he allowed to exist until justification is brought. But let all those who communicate with him be excommunicated from the church, and especially when, knowing the condemnation pronounced against those mentioned above, they dared to communicate with them. (Ap. 28; I Universe. 5; II Universe. 6; IV Universe. 29; Antiochus. 12, 15; Serdic. 3, 4, 5, 14; Carth. 29, 65; Basil the Great. 88). This rule, renewing and supplementing the 28th Apostolic Rule, aims to ensure and strengthen the judicial power of the council and the bishop: the first, when he judges the bishop, and the second, when he judges the presbyter, deacon and other clergy. At the same time, it prescribes that if a bishop, convicted and deposed by legal means, i.e. council, and a presbyter or deacon as his bishop, dare to continue to perform any sacred service, then such a deposed person is deprived of all right to appeal for justification and defense to the highest court and, losing all hope of forgiveness, cannot think about returning to his former place. The rule extends the same sentence to all those who, knowing about the punishment imposed on any sacred person, nevertheless entered into communication with such a person and recognized as legal what he did in his previous service. The name of the sacred service (λειτουργία) mentioned in this rule should not imply sacred rites in the strict sense of the word (ίερουργίαν) or the offering of a bloodless sacrifice (της αναίμακτου θυσίας), but by this is meant everything that is connected with the position of a given person in the church hierarchy, and of all this he is deprived as a result of his condemnation to eruption (καθαίρεσις). If a bishop, or any other person of holy orders, recognizes the decision of the appropriate court against him as incorrect, then he is allowed to appeal to another high court or, as stated in the 12th rule of this council, to a larger council and demand a second review of his case and a new verdict. But until this highest court pronounces its verdict, the accused must remain under the penalty imposed on him by the lower court, otherwise he is subject to punishment according to the definition of this rule (cf. Carth. 29; Serdic. 14). This rule determines the punishment for a bishop, presbyter and deacon who, being deposed, still decide to perform any sacred service they have performed before. The 28th Apostolic Canon says the same thing. But neither one nor the other rule talks about how one should look at a sacred act performed by chance by one of the deposed clergy, and what significance such a sacred act would have in itself for those for whom or over whom it was performed. This question is especially important in the event that any bishop, canonically deposed and becoming a layman, similar to what he was before the final deposition, performed the mystery of the priesthood over one of the candidates for the clergy, i.e. would have ordained him as a deacon or presbyter. Since the rule is silent on this point, it might perhaps be possible to conclude that a clergy candidate ordained as a presbyter or deacon by a deposed bishop may still be considered ordained as if he had been ordained by a legitimate and full bishop. For many centuries such a question was not raised in church-canonical practice, either in the Eastern or Western Church, because it seemed completely clear to everyone that such an ordination could have neither canonical nor dogmatic significance. This question arose in the Western Church in the 7th century, and there was debate about it for a long time, especially in the 11th and 12th centuries, until it was finally resolved in this sense, that ordination must be recognized even if it was illegally performed by a deposed bishop. The latter now became the teaching of Roman Catholic ecclesiastical law, established in that church after the Council of Trent, when the rule about the non-recurrence of the priesthood, which St. Augustine motivated in his time by the indelible character of the latter, acquired the meaning that every action of a bishop, who had once received legal consecration, retains its inner force even if the bishop performed it after his eruption or even as an apostate (apostate). According to this teaching, formulated and established in the 6th century in the Roman Catholic Church, it turns out that the mystery of the priesthood, accepted by a certain person through ordination, leaves in his soul such a spiritual seal or such a character that can never again be erased from this person (cuua-racter spiritualis indelebilis), no matter what crime he has committed and no matter how severe the church punishment to which he has been subjected, because in him, like a seal baptism, the seal of the priesthood remains forever and he can never become a layman. Because of this, a bishop who has been deposed by a lawful synod and transferred to the position of a layman is essentially still not defrocked and always spiritually remains a bishop, because the indelible grace of the Holy Spirit abides in him, and therefore everything accomplished by this deposed bishop by the power of grace that always abides in him, all this, even if it was illegal, nevertheless has force in itself. Hence, a presbyter ordained by such a bishop should be recognized by the church in the same way as if he had been ordained by the most worthy bishop. In the Eastern Church, the question of whether the ordination performed by a deposed bishop has any significance arose only in modern times, and since the opinion was expressed that such an ordination υπό του καθηρημενου επισκόπου indeed, on the basis that such a bishop always carries within himself grace received by him during his ordination, we found it necessary to briefly outline the modern teaching on this subject of Roman Catholic church law. The mentioned opinion was expressed in 1874, when the question arose in the Patriarchate of Constantinople about the significance of the ordination of the priests there, ordained by the Bulgarian exarchist bishops, who were considered exiled in the opinion of the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople. This opinion was repeatedly discussed in the Patriarchal Synod from 1874 to 1881, and the synod until this last year did not come to any conclusion on this issue, and one could think that the Patriarchate of Constantinople considers it possible to recognize such an ordination, which is performed by a deposed bishop. With all this in mind, we find it necessary to cite the teaching of the undivided church on this important issue. Based on the teaching of the Apostle Paul about what a bishop must be in order to be a mediator of divine grace in the holy sacraments, Saint Cyprian of Carthage says that in order to perform his holy service worthily, the bishop, like other clergy, must not be defamed in anything: Oportet sacerdotes et ministros qui altari et sacrificiis deserviunt integros et immaculatos esse - he writes in one of his letters, and completely denies any ministry of a bishop or, in general, a clergyman convicted of a grave sin and condemned by the church for this. Teaching that in the sacraments it is not the bishop who sanctifies, but the Holy Spirit, and that, therefore, whoever no longer has the grace of the Holy Spirit within himself cannot give this grace to others, the same holy father writes in another epistle: Cum scriptum sit: Deus peccatorem non audit, sed qui Deum coluerit et voluntatem ejus fecerit, illum audit. Quis autem potest dare quod ipse non habeat, aut quomodo potest spiritalia agere, qui ipse amiserit Spiritum Sanctum? In another tradition, he mentions those who, thanks to serious crimes, lost the grace of the Holy Spirit, qui gravia delicta in se adduxerunt, and were expelled for this, and he considers invalid not only the ordination performed by the deposed bishop, but also his every prayer, nec cuiquam Dominus per ejus oratio-nes et preces prosit, qui Dominum ipse violavit. This teaching of Cyprian was accepted by the entire church, and it always had force in the Eastern Church, as it had force in its main features until the 16th century in the Western Church. A classic example of the latter is found at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. At this council, Iva, Bishop of Edessa, was deposed, among other things, because he was exposed in simonic ordinations, and a special (2) rule was issued regarding such ordinations: a bishop exposed in simony for the ordination of someone must be deposed; As for the ordination itself, it has no spiritual or legal significance, and the one who has received such ordination “may be alien to dignity or position (άλλ᾿εσω άλλο᾿τριος της αξίας, ή του φροντίσματος)". The latter refers to the ordination performed by the bishop while he was active, i.e. has not yet been convicted and defrocked. From here it naturally follows that the consequences are the same for any other ordination performed by a bishop convicted as a result of one or another similar guilt. Saint Gregory the Dvoeslov had to write in one of his epistles in 594 about the ordination performed by one of the deposed bishops, and he says: “one that was performed by one of the deposed cannot be called an ordination. We can in no way call ordination that which was performed by deported people.” And that this was not only St. Gregory’s personal opinion on this issue is evidenced by the fact that this opinion was included as a separate canon in the general Western canonical collection. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, also says something similar, who did not recognize ordination performed by deposed bishops, especially those deposed for simony, because such do not have the grace of the Holy Spirit (ουκ εστίν ή χάρις του αγίου πνεύματος), i.e. exactly the same as what the 21st rule of the Trullo Council says. Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, in one of his writings, specifically dealt with the issue of ordinations performed by bishops who did not belong to the Orthodox Church. In this work, he mentions various heretics and schismatics, whose ordinations can still be recognized under certain conditions, but does not say a single word about the question of whether ordinations made by a deposed bishop can be recognized, although he talks about such bishops. It was said above that the rules do not mention whether ordinations performed by a deposed bishop can be recognized as valid. However, there are several rules that can serve as indirect confirmation of the opinion that such ordinations can absolutely never be recognized as valid. At the Council of Serdica in 343, the case of certain people was considered: Eutychian and Musaeus, who arrogated to themselves episcopal rights and ordained several priests for different places, and the council had to decide how to look at the priests ordained by these liars. According to some members of the council, it was necessary to recognize these priests as true presbyters, “because no guilt was found on them,” i.e. it was proven that the presbyters did not know that these bishops did not have the right to perform ordination. However, the council did not agree to such leniency in relation to the mentioned presbyters, based on the principle that no one can give someone what he does not have; and since Eutychian and Musaeus were not legitimate bishops, they, therefore, could not ordain anyone, because only persons ordained by full bishops can be recognized as legitimate presbyters. If the latter (full-fledged bishops) were subsequently deposed for any crimes in which the presbyters who were ordained during the full rights of these bishops and before their deposition were not involved, then such presbyters are considered true and legitimate clergy. This conclusion is given by Zonara and Balsamon in their comments to the 19th rule of the Serdician Council, as a general canonical norm. It naturally follows from this that if any bishops ordain presbyters after their eruption, then such presbyters not only did not become, thanks to this ordination, clergy, but also did not acquire any rights at all in the sacred hierarchy, since those who wanted to give them these rights were themselves already deprived of them. An example similar to the one we cited from the Cathedral of Serdica we subsequently encounter at the Second Ecumenical Council. A certain Egyptian philosopher Maximus was incorrectly installed as a bishop in Constantinople, i.e. although he was installed by bishops who legally received their episcopal rights and were not deposed by any council, they did not have the right to do this in the Church of Constantinople, since they had no jurisdiction in this church, belonging to a foreign (Alexandrian) region. Having become a bishop in such an incorrect way, Maximus in turn ordained several clergy. The said council took up this matter and, having investigated it, declared in its 4th rule that Maximus was unworthy of the bishopric, and the ordination of the persons appointed by him was invalid. Regardless of these rules, this is also proven by the relationship of ordination to spiritual authority. According to the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church about the sacrament of the priesthood, as important as its spiritual side is the communication of divine grace to a well-known person, its legal side is equally important, i.e. that spiritual power by which this grace is communicated. This power is a public right, and when it is transferred to someone, this transfer is made by a solemn act of public law. As long as a certain person has this power, he can fully exercise it and everything he does by virtue of this power has significance, regardless of the fact that in itself it may be vicious and unworthy of power. This latter does not deprive him of power, but can only serve as a reason for it to be taken away from him. This power, again, can be taken away only by a solemn act of public law, by virtue of which this power ceases with all its legal advantages and, especially, every act committed by it is deprived of its effectiveness and all significance. Because of this, if a bishop begins to preach heresy or organizes a schismatic society, he is not thereby deprived of the right to ordain; but if such a bishop were condemned by the council for the same or any other grave crime and finally deposed from his rank, he would lose all his hierarchical rights, because he would lose the grace of the priesthood and the right to be a mediator of this grace for others, i.e. such a one can no longer ordain anyone, because the eruption, we mean the final eruption (παντελής αφορισμός), is that canonical act in which a famous person loses his sacred power, which belonged to him until then, and turns into a layman, as he was before his ordination. If, on the basis of the now proven “indelible character” of the priesthood, they wished to allow a canonically deposed bishop to retain the right of ordination, then the latter would not have any legal significance for the one who accepted it, because in it the one being ordained would not receive what is the result of canonical ordination, and would therefore be legally in relation to the church in the position in which he was before his illegal ordination. For the correctness and legality of any sacred-hierarchical action, it is necessary that the person who must perform this action belongs to the legal hierarchy, i.e. had the right to take this action. Consequently, one who does not belong to this hierarchy can neither enjoy rights himself nor transfer to others those rights of which he was deprived. The 21st canon of the Trullo Council commands that every bishop found guilty of any serious crime be defrocked and demoted to the ranks of the laity, and the 28th Apostolic Canon prescribes, like this Antiochian canon, that such a former bishop be excluded from church communion, i.e. such a one, having decided to fulfill something that was once characteristic of him as a bishop, completely ceases to be a member of the church. Is it then possible to assume that something communicated by such a person, who himself does not possess it, has any legal significance? Of course, it does not and cannot have any spiritual significance on the basis of the so-called indelible character of the sacrament of the priesthood, and indelible character, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, only means that this sacrament cannot be repeated to the same degree on the same person (cf. Carth. 29, Serdic. 14). If any presbyter or deacon, having despised his bishop, excommunicates himself from the church, and begins to hold special meetings, and sets up an altar, and the one called by the bishop does not submit, does not desire to obey him, and, having been called once and twice, does not listen: such a one will be completely expelled from his rank, and cannot at all be allowed to serve, nor will he accept his former honor. If the one who disturbs the church and rebels against it persists, then, like a rebel, let him be tamed by external power. (Ap. 31; II Om. 6; III Om. 3; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Gangr. 6; Serdic. 14; Carth. 10, 11; Dvukr. 9, 13, 14, 15; Basil Vel. 1). See the interpretation of Apostolic Canon 31, repeated in this Antiochian canon. The only thing added here is that the culprit, being deposed (τοδτον καθαφεΐσθαι παντελώς), must be handed over to the secular authorities, who will punish him as a rebel. This canonical definition is very important, since it shows that the secular government cannot punish any presbyter or deacon while he is in office, and only the church can do this with its own means, subjecting a well-known person to all the punishments that it has the right to impose (interpretation of Ap. 5). When these punishments do not help, the church authority, depriving the guilty person of his rank, demotes him to the category of laity and transfers him to the secular authorities, which punishes him not as a clergyman, but as a layman. The basis for such a canonical definition lies in the very concept of holy orders and the meaning of a clergyman while he is in office. As important as this decree is for presbyters and deacons, it is even more important for bishops, who by chance and misfortune find themselves in such a position that they have to be handed over to secular power. We talk about this in the interpretation of Rule 48 of the Council of Carthage. If someone is excommunicated from church communion by his bishop, other bishops should not first accept him into communion, unless he is accepted as his own bishop, or when a council is formed, and he, having presented himself, brings justification, and having convinced the council, he receives from him a different decision about himself. The same definition applies to the laity. and for elders, and for deacons, and for all those in the clergy. (Ap. 12, 13, 16, 32; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; Serdic. 13; Carth. 11, 29, 133). See interpretation of 32 Ap. rules. Do not accept any of the strange ones without letters of peace. (Ap. 12, 13, 32, 33; IV Ecum. 11, 13; Trul. 17; Antioch. 8, 11; Laod. 41, 42; Serdic. 7, 8, 9; Carth. 23, 106). The interpretation of Rule 11 of the IV Ecumenical Council talks about the meaning of the letters of peace (είρηνικαί έπιστολαί) mentioned in this rule. Rural presbyters do not send canonical messages: they only send messages to neighboring bishops. And the chorebishops who are without blemish give letters of peace. (Ap. 12, 13, 33; IV Om. 11, 13; Trul. 17; Ancir. 13; Antioch. 10; Laod. 42, 57; Carth. 32, 106). A canonical charter is any official certificate issued to famous persons by the subject spiritual authority. In the interpretations of the 12th Apostolic Canon, the 11th IV Ecumenical Council and the 17th Canon of the Trullo Council, we have already said that the rules mention three types of letters, what each letter means and in what cases they are issued. The right to issue canonical charters belongs to the subject bishop. As for chorebishops, the rule recognizes their right to issue only peaceful documents, but only if they themselves are blameless. Otherwise they cannot do this. The rule prohibits rural presbyters (πρεσβύτεροι εν ταΐς χώραις) from issuing canonical charters. By rural presbyters we should not mean ordinary priests who were in rural parishes, because then it would be unclear why the rule does not mention urban presbyters, who, as we know, have an advantage over rural ones in the church hierarchy. Regarding the rural presbyters mentioned by the rule, Aristinus in his interpretation of this rule says that these were the first among the rural priests (πρεσβοτέροις επί χώρας ... πρωτεύουσι), and Balsamon calls them archpriests ( πρωτοπαπάδες), and in our Kormcha, in the interpretation of this rule, they are called “elder presbyters” - or in the Russian church “dean”. Consequently, these elder presbyters, former εν ταΐς χώραις, apparently issued canonical charters before this council; the rule, considering this a non-canonical action, prohibits them from doing this in the future. If any cleric wishes to go to the region of a neighboring bishop, then the said presbyters are allowed to send to this neighboring bishop (προς έπίσκοπον γείτονα) their review or an ordinary letter (έπιστολήν), certifying that the identity of this person as a cleric and his behavior are known to them. Such letters did not have the meaning of formal canonical letters, because such letters, according to the rules, can only be issued by the proper bishop, or, on his authority, by the chorebishop. In each region, bishops should be in charge of a bishop who is in charge of the metropolis and has charge of the entire region, since everyone who has business flocks to the metropolis from everywhere. Therefore, it was decided that he should take precedence in honor, and that other bishops should not do anything particularly important without him, according to the ancient rule adopted from our fathers, except only that which applies to the diocese belonging to each of them, and to the villages within its borders. For each bishop has authority in his own diocese, and let him rule it with the prudence befitting each one, and let him take care of the whole country, which is dependent on his city, and let him appoint presbyters and deacons, and let him deal with all matters with judgment. Further, let him not attempt to do anything without the bishop of the metropolis, and also this one without the consent of other bishops. (Ap. 34; I Universe. 4, 6, 7; II Universe. 2, 3; III Universe. 8; IV Universe. 28; Trul. 36, 39). This rule is an addition and a more detailed statement of the 34th Apostolic Canon. The Apostolic Canon says that the bishops of each nation (εκάστου έθνους), i.e. The bishops of each individual local church must consider as their elder (τον εν αυτοις πρώτον) the bishop who occupies the first see among them. This Antiochian rule expresses the same thing, only in different words, in accordance with the terminology about church structure established after the first ecumenical council. It says here that in each diocese (καθ᾿ έκάστην έπαρχίαν) bishops must be in charge of the bishop in charge of the metropolis (τον εν τη μητροπόλει προεστώτα έπίσκοπον), i.e. must recognize and consider the elder of the metropolitan in a given metropolitan region. In ancient church times, the metropolitan region corresponded to the local church and was completely independent in its internal self-government. This is confirmed by the church history of the first four centuries until the half of the 5th century, when the fourth ecumenical council made some reorganization in this regard, about which Balsamon, in the interpretation of 2 rules of the Second Ecumenical Council, quite correctly notes that in ancient times all diocesan metropolitans were independent (το παλαιόν πάντες οι των επαρχιών μητροπολιται αυτοκέφαλοι ήσαν) and were supplied only by their cathedrals (υπο των οικείων συνόδων ). The Holy Council reasoned for the good that the primates of small towns or villages, or so-called chorebishops, should know their limits, even if they were ordained by the rank of bishopric: that they should govern only the churches subordinate to them, and limit their care and orders to them: that they should appoint readers, subdeacons and exorcists, and be content with the production only in these ranks, but they did not dare to install a presbyter or a deacon without the will of the bishop existing in the city, to whom the chorebishop and his district are subordinate. If anyone dares to transgress this definition, then he will lose the honor that he has. The chorebishop must be appointed by the bishop of the city to whom his district is subordinate. (I Om. 8; VII Om. 14; Ankyr. 13; Neoces. 14; Antioch. 8; Laod. 57; Basil the Great. 89). We talked about chorebishops in the interpretation of the 13th rule of the Ancyra Council, from which we saw that the latter often wanted to usurp the power of the main city bishops. Against this, the present Antiochian rule was issued, which thoroughly defines the circle of activity of chorebishops in their assigned places and threatens them with deprivation of the chorepiscopal honor in the event that they dare to step outside this circle of activity. If any bishop, or presbyter, or in general anyone from the clergy, without permission and letters from the bishops of the region, and especially from the bishop of the metropolis, dares to go to the tsar: let him be removed, and deprived not only of communication, but also of the dignity that he had, as if he dared, contrary to the rules of the church, to impede the hearing of our most God-loving king. If a necessary need forces someone to go to the king: let him do this with the consideration and permission of the bishop of the metropolis and other bishops of that region, and let him be guided by letters from them. (II Om. 6; Serdic. 7, 8, 9, 20; Antioch. 12; Carth. 104, 106). The disturbances generally caused in the church in the first half of the 4th century by the Arians and Semi-Arians, especially by the fact that the aforementioned heretical bishops and other clergy, removed by the Orthodox bishops, went personally to the king and sought his protection, served as the reason for the publication of this rule, strictly prohibiting bishops and other clergy from appearing in the royal palace unless absolutely necessary, while determining that anyone who transgresses this will not be punished. only excommunicated, but also erupted (μη μόνον άφορίζεσθαι, αλλά χαί χαθαφεΐσδαι). In the same case, if someone has an unavoidable need to go to the royal palace, the rule prescribes that this should not be done otherwise than with the knowledge of the relevant metropolitan and the episcopal council, which issues him the necessary letter for this. If any bishop is in the capital on official business with the knowledge of the appropriate higher authorities, then in this case, as Balsamon notes in the interpretation of this rule, no one can forbid him to go to the king to worship and express what he wants (περί ων βουλεται). If a presbyter, or a deacon, deposed from his rank by his bishop, or even a bishop deposed by a council, dares to trouble the royal ears, it is appropriate for him to turn to a larger council of bishops, and what he thinks he is right about, propose to the largest number of bishops, and from their acceptance, investigation and final judgment. If, having neglected these, the king will suffer from cold: let such a one not receive any forgiveness, let there be no place for his protection, and let him have no hope of restoration. (Ap. 28, 74; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 17, 29; Serdic. 7, 8, 9, 14, 20; Antioch. 4, 11, 15; Carth. 29, 65, 104, 105, 106). In interpretations of 28 Ap. rules, as well as 9 and 17 rules of the Trullo Council, we talked about church judicial authorities. This rule speaks to the same thing, mentioning the bishop's council as the highest authority to which anyone who is dissatisfied with the verdict of a lower authority can turn. A presbyter or deacon condemned by his bishop may appeal to a diocesan council presided over by the underlying metropolitan (ή της επαρχίας σύνοδος), and a bishop condemned by a diocesan council may appeal, as the rule says, to a higher council (επί μείζονα επισκόπων σόνοδον), i.e. a council composed of all the bishops of the subject ecclesiastical region (Antioch. 15), which may sometimes be strengthened by several bishops from the neighboring metropolitan region (Antioch. 14). The verdict of such a large council was final and after it all possibility of turning to any other court was lost. Having confirmed what was already established by the Apostolic Canons (28 and 74), the Council of Antioch draws its attention to the fact that some presbyters, deacons and even bishops, dissatisfied with the verdict of the proper church court, turned to the king (τώ βασιλει), petitioning him to change the last verdict. By this rule, the Council of Antioch most categorically condemns such an act and declares everyone who violates its decree to be forever deprived of any right to further justification and hope of receiving forgiveness. This rule deals with court cases of an ecclesiastical nature, and regarding such cases the rule forbids turning to the king, i.e. to a civil court. The rule prohibits clergy from turning to a secular court even in cases of a civil nature, ordering that these cases also be resolved in church courts, and exceptions are allowed only in some special cases (IV Ecumenical 9 and interpretation). Let no bishop dare to come from one diocese to another, nor appoint anyone in its church to perform sacred services, nor bring others with him, unless he arrives, having been called by the letters of the metropolitan and the bishops who are with him, into whose region he comes. If, having not been called by anyone, he goes out of order for the ordination of some, and for the organization of church affairs that do not belong to him: then everything he has done will be invalid: and he, for his outrage and for his reckless undertaking, shall suffer a suitable punishment, through immediate expulsion from his rank by the holy council. (Ap. 14, 35; I Om. 15; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; IV Om. 5; Trul. 17; Ankyr. 13; Antioch. 21, 22; Serdic. 3, 15; Carth. 48, 54). See interpretation of 35 Ap. rules. If a bishop is judged for any crime, and it happens that the bishops of that region are in disagreement about him, some deeming the defendant innocent, and others guilty: then, for the sake of putting an end to any doubt, it is desirable for the holy council that the bishop of the metropolis should call from the neighboring region some other bishops who would again judge the case and resolve the doubt, so that they, together with the bishops of that region, approve what will be decreed. (Ap. 28, 74; II Om. 6; III Om. 1; IV Om. 9, 17; Antioch. 4, 12, 15; Serdic. 3, 4, 5). The purpose of issuing certain rules of the Council of Antioch was to ensure and establish the authority of the episcopal council in every legal case, especially concerning the bishop (rights 4, 12, 15). If, regarding a complaint against a bishop, all members of the council, i.e. all the diocesan bishops, together with their metropolitan, agreed and their verdict was unanimous, then in such cases this verdict became unchangeable and there could be no appeal against it (Antioch. 15). If there was no agreement between the bishops and, during the council’s investigation of the complaint against the accused bishop, their opinions differed, then the rule instructs the metropolitan to invite several other bishops from nearby regions to jointly resolve the controversial issue and to join their votes to one side or another, on the basis of which the council finally decides the case and pronounces its verdict. The latter is prescribed by the rule to maintain impartiality in court and to eliminate any doubt regarding the correctness of the verdict (υπέρ απαλλαγής πάσης αμφισβητήσεως). If a bishop, being accused of certain offenses, is judged by all the bishops of that region, and they all unanimously pronounce a single sentence on him: he should not be judged by other bishops at all, but the unanimous decision of the bishops of the region remains firm. (Ap. 28, 74; I Universe. 5; II Universe. 6; IV Universe. 9, 17, 29; Antioch. 4, 12, 14; Serdic. 3, 4, 5; Carth. 29, 65; Basil the Great. 88). The verdict, unanimously recognized at the council by all the bishops, headed by their metropolitan, regarding a complaint against any bishop who is legally subordinate to that council, must be firm and unchangeable, says this rule, supplementing and completing with this what was said about this subject in the 4th, 12th and 14th rules. After such a verdict, appeal to any other court is prohibited. If a bishop who does not have a diocese invades a church that does not have a bishop and seizes its throne without the permission of a perfect council, let him be rejected, even if he were elected by the entire people whom he captured for himself. A perfect council is one at which the metropolitan is present with others. (Ap. 14; I Om. 15; IV Om. 5; Trul. 20; Antioch. 21; Serdic. 1, 2, 17; Carth. 48). Επίσκοπος σχολάζων (episcopus vacans) in general the canons call a bishop who is correctly elected and ordained for a certain church, into which, however, due to some external reasons, he cannot arrive, and therefore cannot perform his episcopal ministry in it. In the same way, ecclesia vacans, dowager church is called one that, according to the hierarchical structure, could have its own bishop, but there is none either due to the death of the former bishop, or due to some other external reasons. This rule speaks of a bishop σχολάζων, who arbitrarily occupied an episcopal see that had become vacant in a church and began to enjoy episcopal rights in it; for such an unauthorized act, the rule prescribes his expulsion (άπόβλητον εΐναι) and demands this even if the people of a given dowager church expressed a desire to have him as their bishop. This prohibition is based on the fact that the appointment and placement of bishops in certain places belongs primarily to the episcopal council, moreover, to the council in its entirety (τελεία σύνοδος) under the chairmanship of the subject metropolitan. Only such a full council does the rule recognize the right and authority in deciding the question of whether it is necessary for any σχολάζοντι bishop to be entrusted with the vacated episcopal see, providing him with all the episcopal rights. If a bishop, having been ordained a bishop and having been appointed to rule over people, does not accept the ministry and does not agree to go to the church entrusted to him, let him be excommunicated from the communion of the church until he is forced to accept the ministry, or until the perfect council of bishops of that region makes some determination about him. (Ap. 36; I Om. 16; IV Om. 29; Trul. 37; Ankyr. 18; Antioch. 18; Dvukr. 17; Cyril Alex. 1, 2, 3). If anyone, having been appointed bishop, does not go to the territory in which he is placed, not through his own fault, but either because the people do not accept him, or for another reason beyond his control: let him participate in the honor and service of the episcopate, without interfering in the least in the affairs of the church where he resides, and let him wait for what the perfect council of that region will decide about him, upon presentation of the matter to it. (Ap. 36; I Om. 16; IV Om. 29; Trul. 37; Ankyr. 18; Antioch. 17; Dvukr. 17; Cyril Alex. 1, 2, 3). Both of these rules (17 and 18) repeat the definition of 36 of the Apostolic Canon, the interpretation of which serves as the interpretation of these rules. Both rules add only that it belongs to the full diocesan council to decide the case of a bishop who does not want to accept the place assigned to him or who is not accepted by the people of a certain church (η της επαρχίας τελεία σύνοδος, Antioch. 16). The bishop is not appointed without the council and the presence of the metropolitan of the region. And when this one is present, it is better to be together with him and all his fellow servants in that region: and it is fitting for the Metropolitan to convene them by sending them. And once everyone has gathered, it’s better to eat. If this is not convenient, then let the majority of them be present, or by letters express their consent, and so, either in the presence or with the consent of a large number of bishops, let the ordination be completed. If anything is done differently, contrary to this definition, the decree has no force. But if the order is carried out according to a certain rule, and some, out of their curiosity, object: let the decision of the many prevail. (Ap. 1; I Om. 4, 6; VII Oz. 3; Laod. 12; Serdic. 6; Const. 1; Carth. 13, 49, 50) This rule repeats in its main features the decisions of Rules 4 and 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, the interpretation of which at the same time serves as an interpretation of this Antiochian rule. For the sake of the needs of the church, and for the sake of resolving doubtful cases, it is recognized as a good thing for councils of bishops to be held in each region twice a summer: for the first time, in the third week after the feast of Easter, so that on the fourth week of Pentecost the council would be held, and the metropolitan reminds the diocesan bishops of this: the second council will be on the pentagon of the day of the month of Octovria, which is the tenth ipervertea. Let presbyters and deacons, and all who consider themselves offended, come to these councils, and accept judgment from the council. But let no one be allowed to form councils on their own. without those bishops to whom the metropolises are entrusted. (Ap. 37; I Universe. 5; II Universe. 2; IV Universe. 19; Trul. 8; VII Universe. 6; Laod. 40; Carth. 18, 73). This rule repeats Decree 37 of the Apostolic Rule, adding to it only what has already been mentioned in several rules of this council, namely, that only the one convened by the underlying metropolitan is considered a full diocesan council. Regarding other things, see the interpretation of 37 of the Apostolic Canon and 5 of the First Ecumenical Council. Let the bishop not come from one region to another, neither by unauthorized invasion, nor by violence from the people, nor by coercion from the bishops: but let him remain in the church, which he received from God as his lot at the beginning, and let him not come from it, according to the definition already spoken about this. (Ap. 14; I Om. 15; IV Om. 5; Trul. 20; Antioch. 16; Serdic. 1, 2, 17; Carth. 48). See interpretations of the 14th Apostolic Rule and the 15th Rule of the First Ecumenical Council. Let a bishop not come to another city that is not subordinate to him, or to a village that does not belong to him, to ordain anyone, and let him not appoint presbyters or deacons to places subordinate to another bishop, unless with the permission of the bishop of that country. If anyone dares to do this, then the ordination will be invalid, and he will be subject to penance from the council. (Ap. 35; I Om. 15; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; IV Om. 5; Trul. 17; Ankyr. 13; Serdic. 3, 15; Carth. 48, 54). See interpretation of 35 of the Apostolic Canon. A bishop is not allowed to appoint another in his place as his successor, even if he were at the end of his life; if such a thing were to be done, then the appointment would be invalid. But let the church decree be observed, which determines that a bishop should not be installed otherwise than with a council and by the court of bishops who have the power to produce a worthy one after the death of the deceased. (Ap. 1, 30, 76; I Om. 4; VII Om. 3; Carth. 22, 49). See interpretation of 76 of the Apostolic Canon. There is a good deed, and church acquisitions are preserved for the church with all diligence and a good conscience, and with faith in the all-seeing and judge of God: and it behooves the bishop, who is entrusted with all the people and souls of those who gather in the church, to dispose of it with judgment and authority. Let that which clearly belongs to the church be open to the elders and deacons around him, so that they know and do not remain ignorant of what actually belongs to the church, and nothing is hidden from them. And so, if the bishop happens to resign from this life, which obviously belongs to the church, it will not be squandered and lost, and the bishop’s property will not be disturbed under the pretext of things belonging to the church. For it is righteous and acceptable before God and men that the property of the bishop should be given to whomever he pleases, and that the property of the church should be preserved, and that just as the church should not suffer damage, so the bishop, under the pretext of the property of the church, should not be deprived of his property, or that those close to him should not enter into litigation, and at the same time, after his death, he would not be subjected to disgrace. (Ap. 38, 39, 40, 41; IV Ecum. 22; Trul. 35; Carth. 22, 26, 81). See interpretations of 38 and 40 Ap. rules Let the bishop have power over church property, and dispose of it with all prudence and the fear of God, for the benefit of all those in need: and let him himself take the due portion from it, if he has a need for his own necessary needs, and for the needs of the brethren who are strange to him, so that they do not suffer deprivation in anything, according to the word of the divine apostle: having food and clothing, we will be content with these ( 1 Tim. 6:8). If he is not satisfied with this, but turns things to his household needs, and uses the income of the church, or the fruits of the fields belonging to it, not with the consent of the presbyters or deacons, but gives power over them to his household and relatives, or brothers or sons, from which there is noticeable confusion in church matters: let him present an account to the council of that region. And if otherwise there is a denunciation against the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, that they are turning what belongs to the church, either from the fields, or from other church property, to their own advantage, with the oppression of the poor, and with the infliction of criticism and dishonor on the church economy, and those who rule it in this way: then let such receive decent correction according to the reasoning of the holy council. (Ap. 38, 39, 40, 41; IV Omni. 26; VII Om. 12; Theophilus Alex. 10, 11; Cyril Alex. 2). See interpretation of 41 of the Apostolic Canon. Rules of the Holy Local Council of Laodicea Rule 1 Those who have freely and legally united in a second marriage, and not those who have copulated secretly, after a short time, and after practicing prayer and fasting, should, by leniency, be granted communication. (Ap. 17; I Universe. 8; Trul. 3, 87; Ankyr. 19; Neokes. 3, 7; Basil Vel. 4, 12, 22, 87). By the second marriage (δεύτερος γάμος), which this rule speaks of, we must understand the one into which a person enters after the death of his first spouse, freeing him by his death from the marriage bond. This second marriage, being concluded freely (ελευθέρως) and according to the law (νομίμως), and if there was no secret marriage before it (λαθρογαμία, occultae nuptlae), that is, according to Zonara in his interpretation of this rule, if the spouses had not previously carnal copulation is considered permitted by divine right (Rom. 7:3; 1 Cor. 7:39). However, over time, when the church began to consider celibacy a virtue superior to married life, they began to treat second marriage more strictly, allowing it, according to Basil the Great, only as a cure for fornication (87 pr.). This Laodicean rule is an expression of this view of the church on second marriage, which, although not prohibited by them, is allowed only with appropriate penance; namely, it determines that second-weds (δευτερογαμουντες) can be awarded, after the wedding, holy communion only after a certain period of time (ολίγου χρόνου παρελθόντος), which they must spend in fasting and prayer. According to the 4th rule of Basil the Great, this penance should last one year. Such a strict view of the church on second marriage is expressed in other rules, according to which: a) no second-wed can be ordained to the priesthood (Ap. 17; Trul. 3; Basil Vel. 12), b) a priest is forbidden to participate in the wedding feasts of second-weds (Neoces. 7) and c) a second-wed cannot be married according to the rite established for first-weds. Those who fall into various sins, and remain in prayer, confession and repentance, and who completely turn away from evil deeds, after, as they have sinned, they have been given time to repent for the sake of God’s mercy and goodness, bring them into fellowship. (Ap. 52; I Universe. 12; Trul. 43, 102; Ankyr. 2; Neokes. 3; Basil Vel. 74). Since there is no sin that would exceed the mercy of God, this rule, just like 52 Ap. The rule prescribes that everyone who sincerely repents and forsakes his sin should be accepted and honored with holy communion, moreover, according to Balsamon in the interpretation of this rule, not so much for the sake of the zeal (δια την σποοδήν) of the sinner in his repentance, but for the sake of the mercy and goodness of God. It is not appropriate for those recently baptized to be promoted to the priestly rank. (Ap. 61, 75, 80; I Universe. 2, 9; Neoces. 9, 10; Serdic. 10; Dvukr. 17; Basil the Great. 89; Gregory of Nyssa. 1, 4). See interpretation of rule 2 of the First Ecumenical Council. Initiates should not give on interest and charge interest, and the so-called imiolia, that is, half growth. (Ap. 44; I Universe. 17; Trul. 10; VII Universe. 19; Carth. 5, 16; Basil the Great. 2, 14; Gregory Neokes. 3; Gregory of Nyssk. 6). See interpretation of rule 17 I Omni. cathedral Election to church degrees should not take place in the presence of listeners. (I Om. 4; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19, 23; Laod. 12, 13; Serdic. 6; Const. 1; Carth. 13, 49, 50). The word χειροτονία, used in the original text of the rule, should, as Zonara says in the interpretation of this rule, mean election (φήφος). We spoke about the fact that in ancient times this word was often used in the sense of election, based on the words of the same Zonara, in the interpretation of 1 Apostolic Canon. So, according to the rule, when electing sacred persons, everyone should not be allowed to listen to what is said about the various candidates and, in general, to observe everything that happens there. By the word άκροώμενοι, used in the rule and translated in Latin by the word audientes, and in the Book of Rules “listening”, the old Latin canonists meant penitents of the second degree (άκρόασις), which we talked about in the interpretation of the 11th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, and some (Isidore) even the catechumens (14 rule of the First Ecumenical Council and interpretation). It is possible that this rule is aimed at ensuring that the election of sacred persons is carried out only by full members of the church, and not by those who, for their sins, were placed in the ranks of penitents or who, as catechumens (χατηχούμενοι), were also not full members, especially if we take into account that the word άκροώμενοι usually meant penitents or catechumens of the first category. However, if we take into account the definitions of the 12th and 13th rules of this council, especially the resolution of the 13th rule, which prohibits the “assembly of the people” (τοις όχλοις) from participating in the selection of sacred persons, then it is more natural to assume that with this (5) Laodicean rule the fathers wanted to prohibit everyone from being present indiscriminately (επί κοινή άκροάσει) when making the elections and did not have in mind either the repentants, much less the catechumens. Balsamon quite correctly expounds the meaning of this rule, saying: since during elections something unworthy is often said about those who are elected, elections should not be carried out while everyone is listening. Do not allow heretics who are stuck in heresy to enter the house of God. (Ap. 10, 45, 64; III Ev. 2, 4; Laod. 9, 32, 33, 34, 37; Timothy Alex. 9). Whoever is not with Me is against Me, says Jesus Christ (Luke 11:23; Matt. 12:30), and whoever is against Christ is also against His church. Every heretic is alien to the church, denying one or another basis of the Christian faith and thereby trampling on the revealed truth, and therefore the One who revealed this truth, i.e. Jesus Christ - Founder of the Church. Because of this, it is quite natural that such a person should be deprived of church prayer and that grace that only through the church, the Orthodox Church, a person can receive, and such, as the rule prescribes, should be forbidden to enter the church where this grace is given. When asked whether it is possible to perform divine services if there is a heretic (especially an Arian) in the church, Timothy of Alexandria replied that this could only be permissible if the said heretic promised to renounce heresy and believe Orthodoxy (9 ave.). Those who convert from heresies, that is, the Novatians, or Photinians, or the Fourteeners, both catechumens and those who are faithful in their opinion, are not received before they curse every heresy, especially the one in which they were: and then the faithful, who are already spoken by them, after studying the symbol of faith, may be anointed with the holy myrrh, and thus partake of the holy mysteries. (Ap. 46, 47, 68; I Ev. 8, 19; II Ev. 1, 7; Trul. 95; Laod. 8; Carth. 57; Basil Vel. 1, 5, 47). Those who are converting from heresy, the so-called Frigs, even if they were in their supposed clergy, and were called the greatest, were announced with all care and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the church. (Ap. 46, 47, 68; I Ev. 8, 19; II Ev. 1, 7; Trul. 95; Laod. 7; Carth. 57; Basil Vel. 1, 5, 47). Regarding these two rules (7 and 8), see the interpretations of 1 and 7 rules of the Second Ecumenical Council. Let the church members not be allowed to go to the cemeteries of all heretics, or to the so-called places of martyrdom, for prayer or for healing. And those who walk, even if they are faithful, will be deprived of church communion for a certain time. Those who repent and confess that they have sinned are received into fellowship. (Ap. 10, 11, 45, 46, 64, 70; III Om. 2, 4; Antioch. 1; Laod. 6, 32, 33, 34, 37; Carth. 83; Timothy Alex. 9). Like the Orthodox, the heretics also had their martyrs and glorified them, especially the Montanists and Frigs. Apollinaris of Hierapolis speaks about such heretical martyrs in the history of Eusebius. Such people existed in reality, and, belonging to one or another heresy and believing in the correctness of their teaching, during general persecutions they willingly went to torture, where the persecutors tortured them and put them to death along with the Orthodox. The places where heretical martyrs were buried were called, just like among the Orthodox, κοιμητήρια (coemeteria, tombs, cemeteries). This is what these places were called and are still called today, because Christians believe that death is nothing more than a temporary sleep in which a person remains until the day of the general resurrection. They were called μαρτύρια because of the relics of the martyrs resting in them. Honoring St. martyrs, Christians often visited these places, prayed there and performed divine services, and subsequently began to erect real churches there. Following the example of Orthodox Christians, heretics began to do the same in their κοιμητήρια or μαρτύρια. This rule of the Council of Laodicea prohibits the Orthodox or, as the text says, “church members”, everyone belonging to the church, from visiting such heretical places for the sake of prayer and worship, since otherwise he can be suspected of an inclination towards one or another heresy and not be considered Orthodox by conviction. The one who has transgressed this, if he is faithful (εάν πιστός), i.e. already baptized, he must be excluded from holy communion for a certain time and honored with the latter only after he has repented and confessed his sin. For a catechumen who fell into this sin, the time of his catechumen continued at the discretion of the bishop concerned. Church members should not indiscriminately couple their children in marriage with heretics. (Ap. 26, 45, 65; IV Ose. 14; Trul. 6, 72; Laod. 31; Carth. 21). Regarding mixed marriages, which are discussed in this rule, we spoke in the interpretations of 14 rules of IV Omni. Council and 72 Rules of the Council of Trullo. That such marriages are generally prohibited is clear from all the rules of the Orthodox Church that speak about this subject. The rule says that those belonging to the church (τους τη; εκκλησίας, qui suut ecdesiae), i.e. the faithful (πιστοί, fideles) should not indiscriminately (αδιαφορώ;, indiscriminatim) combine their children with heretics. This does not mean that one can marry some heretics, but not others, in accordance with the greater or lesser importance of a certain heresy, because heresy always remains a heresy, whether it teaches, for example, that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, since in all cases it equally offends the Gospel teaching about the fundamental dogmas of faith, as a result of which every heretic is anathema to Orthodox Church (II Universe 1; Basil the Great 1); Because of this, an Orthodox Christian never dares to enter into such a close relationship as a marriage relationship with a person who, according to his belief, should be anathema to the church. The word αδιαφορώ; - “indiscriminately” used in this rule must be understood in connection with the 31st rule of the same council, after which it will be possible to correctly understand what the Laodicean fathers thought about mixed marriages. In accordance with the teachings of the Holy Church, the Laodicean fathers generally prohibit mixed marriage, allowing it only if the person of a different faith promises to accept the Orthodox faith, i.e. become Orthodox (Laod. 31). Whoever takes this condition into account, wanting to marry a person of a different faith, acts according to the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church, and whoever does not have it in mind acts “indiscriminately” - this is the meaning of this word in this Laodicean rule. The so-called presbyterides (elders), or chairwomen, should not be installed in the church. Writers of modern times have had different opinions about presbyterides (eldresses, πρεσβότιδες) or chairwomen (προκαθήμενοι). According to some, these were former deaconesses, called presbyterides in this canon because of their advanced age, and chairwomen because they were entrusted with a certain supervision of women in the church. According to others, these were “superdeaconesses” (Oberdiakonissinnen), who were presiding over the other deaconesses. Both of these opinions regarding the fact that presbyterides or chairwomen are the same as deaconesses, although supported by relevant evidence from the most important works of the ancient church, nevertheless cannot be accepted, because if the rule wanted to extend its definition to deaconesses, who already represented an old and well-known institution during the First Ecumenical Council (I Ecumenical. 19), then it would also mention them, which it does not do, but only prescribes that henceforth there should not be presbyterides or chairwomen in the church (μη δεΐν εν τη εκκλησία καθίστασδαι), meanwhile the rules of later councils (as for example, the Trullian Council, convened three centuries after this Council of Laodicea) not only do not mention that it was ever forbidden to supply deaconesses, but speak of their service as a completely ordinary, normal phenomenon (Trul. 14, 48). For a better understanding of this rule, it is necessary to do as the Roman proofreaders did when issuing Gratian’s decree, drawing the reader’s attention to Balsamon’s interpretation of this rule. Mentioning in his letters to Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:2; Titus 2:3) the elders (elders), the Apostle Paul, among other things, says about them that they should be able to teach good (καλοδιδάσκαλοι, good-teacher). By this, the Apostle Paul points out the duty of the presbyterides to carry out the teaching work in the church within certain limits. We indicate these boundaries in the interpretation of Rule 70 of the Council of Trullo. Conforming to them, they could not carry out the preaching work, i.e. preach publicly in church, but they could perform catechism duties outside the church; that they fulfilled these duties, in addition to other evidence given by us in their place, is also testified by the Apostle Paul, speaking of Priscilla (Acts 18:26). Deaconesses were also involved in the catechization of women, especially in women's dormitories, but this was not their main ministry, which consisted of performing various duties during the baptism of women (interpretation IV Om. 15); and the matter of correct catechization of women, instructing them in how they should behave in accordance with Christian teaching, and especially preparing them for worthy acceptance of baptism belonged to the presbyterians - older and skilled women in Christian teaching, who, as observers of women in general and their Christian education, were called chairwomen. These presbyterides were appointed according to a specially established order, just as deaconesses were appointed, and about them, just like about the latter, records were kept in the church. During the Council of Laodicea, the fathers of this council noticed that the presbyterides did not use the goods entrusted to them for good (μη χρωμένων καλώς τφ καλφ) on the one hand, as Balsamon says in the interpretation of this rule, due to arrogance, and on the other, due to the fact that most of all they observed material benefit (δια υπεροψίαν ή αίσχροκέρδειαν); On the basis of this, the fathers of the council, by their rule, prohibit the provision of presbyterides in the future. Bishops, according to the court of metropolitans and surrounding bishops, should be placed in the leadership of the church, and, moreover, those who have long been tested both in the word of faith and in life in accordance with the right word. (Ap. 58, 80; I Om. 2, 4; Trul. 12, 19; VII Om. 2, 3; Antioch. 19; Laod. 5, 13; Serdic. 6, 10; Const. 1; Carth. 13, 49, 50; Dvukr. 17). See interpretations of 58 Ap. rules, 4 rules I Universal. Council, 19 rules of Trullo and 2 rules of the VII Ecumenical Council. Let it not be permitted for a congregation of people to choose those who are ordained to the priesthood. (I Om. 4; Antioch. 19; Laod. 5, 12; Serdic. 10; Carth. 50). By the word priesthood (ίερατεΐον, sacerdotium), according to the correct interpretation of Zonara, it is necessary to mean sacred persons of the highest hierarchical degrees, not excluding, therefore, bishops. In connection with the decrees of canons 5 and 12, the fathers of the Council of Laodicea forbid by this rule the participation of the “assembly of the people” in the election of priests. The Greek word όχλος, used in this rule and translated by us with the word “gathering of the people” (Serbian “svetina”), means a mixed (rabble) crowd of people and is used to contrast the chosen and respected part of the people (for example, in the Holy Scriptures, see Matthew 14:5; 21:26, 46, 27:15, etc.), generally means a gathering the common people producing rebellion and disorder (for example, Acts 24:18), in Latin turbis, or more precisely - tumultus, tumultuosa plebs, in Russian - a gathering of the mob. Such assemblies of the people also wanted to have their voice in the selection of sacred persons, and every time they succeeded in doing so, riots occurred, which inevitably must occur with the active participation of the ignorant and rabble mob. It is against the latter that the present Laodicean rule was issued. Regarding the fact that the rule did not thereby deprive the people of the legal right to participate, within certain limits, in the elections of clergy and especially bishops, we have already said in the interpretation of 4 rules of the First Ecumenical Council, citing evidence both from this century, when the Laodicean Council was convened, and from subsequent centuries. On Easter, do not send the holy mysteries to other parishes in the form of a blessing. (Ap. 9, 70; Antioch. 2; Laod. 32). This rule mentions τα αγία (sancta) and ευλογίαι (benedictiones), and instructs not to send the former instead of the latter to other parishes. The word αγία means the Eucharistic sacrifice, the holy mysteries. Δια παντός υμάς προσιέναι τοις άγιοις, says Chrysostom in his 17th discourse on the Epistle to the Hebrews; and Zonara, in the interpretation of this rule, says that τα αγία means in this rule the particles of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ (μερίδες του άγίοο σώματος και αίματος τοδ Χρίστου ). in our divine liturgy this corresponds to the words: Holy of saints, τα αγία τοις άγίοις. In the early days of the Church of Christ, there was a custom according to which the faithful, especially on the feast of the Resurrection of Christ, sent each other from one parish to another as a sign of church fellowship and brotherly love, particles of the holy sacrifice (τα αγία), following in this, in all likelihood, the Jews, who also sent each other holiday gifts (Ap. 70). Finding this custom unjustified, especially since thanks to it the shrine could easily be subject to profanation, the fathers of the council forbade doing so in the future. Having forbidden the first, they allow ευλογίας to be sent as before. This word has many meanings in the language of the holy fathers. In this rule it means blessed bread (panis benedictus), i.e. the bread remaining from the prosphora (five prosphoras, 213 rights under the B. Breviary), from which the Holy Lamb was taken out at the proskomedia, as a result of which this bread was consecrated and was called ευλογία (blessing, benedictio). After the Divine Liturgy, this blessed bread was divided among those who did not receive communion, as a sign of their communion with the church, and as a sign of the same communion, particles of this blessed bread were sent to the homes of those who, due to illness or any other reason, could not come to church for worship. Such blessed bread and such use are mentioned for the first time in the Apostolic Decrees (VIII, 31). This blessed bread was called, as now, άντίδωρον (antidor, and among the Latins - communionis vicarius, dona vicaria), distributed instead (αντί) of the gift (δώρον) of the holy Eucharist. At the beginning, as has already been said, the antidoron was distributed at the liturgy only to those who could not receive communion; later it began to be distributed at the end of the liturgy to all the faithful, as is done now. Apart from the singers who are members of the clergy, who enter the pulpit and sing according to the book, no one else should sing in the church. (Ap. 26; I Om. 16; Trul. 4, 33, 75; VII Om. 14; Laod. 59; Carth. 103). From the very first times of the church, there were certain singers in it (ψάλται, cantores, ap. 26), who received dedication from the bishop and, as such, belonged to the clergy, as a result of which they were included in the list of clergy (εν τψ κανόνι), which is why they are called canonical singers ( κανονικοί ψάλται, canonici cantores). These singers had the right to stand on the pulpit and sing in the church the prescribed hymns according to the book (από διφθέρας, leather book, 2 Tim. 4:13), containing everything that is sung during church services (Laod. 59; Carth. 103). Apparently, this right of canonical singers was arrogated to themselves by people who did not have any authority to do so. In the intention of preserving the necessary decorum and order (ευταξίαν) in the church in everything, the Laodicean fathers, although they do not forbid the people from singing divine hymns in the church by their rule, they forbid that the people do this themselves and that people who do not belong to the clergy stand on the pulpit and themselves begin the divine hymns (κατάρχεσθαι των θειων ψαλτωδημάτων, sancta cantica incipere), allowing the latter only to canonical singers; the laity were allowed to freely echo the singers after they began one or another church chant. The procedure for installing a canonical singer in the church was the same as for installing a reader. On Saturday, read the Gospel with other scriptures. (Ap. 66; Trul. 55, 56; Laod. 29, 49, 51). Due to the prevailing view of the Sabbath in the early days of the church (Ap. 66 and interpretations), and also due to the fact that during this council regarding the Sabbath many followed the Jews (Laod. 29), a custom was established in some churches according to which the divine liturgy was not celebrated on Saturday or, as Balsamon says, church meetings were not allowed ( εκκλησιαστικοί συνάξεις), as a result of which the Holy Gospel was not read on this day, as was done on other days, and there was no other reading at all. This custom is condemned by the Laodicean fathers, who prescribe serving in church on Saturday and, like other days, reading from the Holy Gospel and other holy books. In church meetings the psalms should not be combined continuously one after the other, but at intervals one psalm at a time should be read. “According to ancient tradition,” says Balsamon in his interpretation of this rule, the psalms of David were sung in the church continuously, as a result of which the people became overtired and left the church. Because of this, by this rule, the fathers prescribe not to sing psalms continuously, but among them there should be readings (αναγνώσεις), so that the rested people can begin singing again after this (πάλιν ψάλλειν). For this purpose, the entire psalter was divided into several kathismas. The same service of prayers should always be the same, both at the ninth hour and at Vespers. (Laod. 15, 59; Carth. 103). There were some people who, out of their vanity, composed prayers themselves and read them at Vespers, justifying themselves by the fact that by doing this they only expressed the feeling of their piety and did not in any way detract from the dignity of the prayers designated for reading at the ninth hour (έν ταΐς έννάταις). the fathers of the council determine that the existing prayers for both vespers and the ninth hour are quite sufficient, and therefore no one has the right to compose new prayers and read them in church (Carth. 103). It is appropriate, first, after the episcopal conversations, to especially say a prayer for the catechumens, and after the departure of the catechumens, to be a prayer for the repentant: when these too come hand in hand and depart, then perform three prayers of the faithful: one, that is, the first, in silence, and fulfill the second and third with an exclamation. Therefore, give peace, and when the elders give peace to the bishop, then give peace to the laity in return, and thus perform the holy offering. And only those who are sanctified are allowed to enter the altar and partake there. This rule sets out the order of the ancient liturgy, similar to that set out in Ap. decrees and which was subsequently replaced by the liturgies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom Fr. Regarding the rule at the end prohibiting anyone other than clergy from entering St. altar, see interpretation of Rule 69 of the Council of Trullo. It is not proper for a deacon to sit in the presence of an elder, but to sit down with the order of the elder. Like the deacons, have honor from the subdeacons and from all the clerks. (Ap. 15, 39; I Oe. 15, 18; Trul. 7, 16; Antioch. 5). See interpretations of rule 18 I Omni. Cathedral and 7 rules of the Trullo Cathedral. It is not appropriate for subdeacons to be in the place of deacons and to touch sacred vessels. (Trul. 4, 6, 15; Laod. 20, 22, 24, 25, 43). Neither in this rule, nor in other rules of the Council of Laodicea, parallel to this one, are the subdeacon called by this name, but υπηρέται (ministri, servants, lower servants); This last name should mean subdeacons, say Zonara and Balsamon. The latter, in his interpretation of this rule, writes: “The subdeacon is called a servant” (ΰπηρέται λέγονται οι υποδιά – κονοι). The establishment of the subdeaconal rank dates back to the first times of the church. Their duty was to stand at the church gates during services and watch that no one unworthy entered, to prepare and keep in order the sacred vessels, to vest the bishops when the latter had to perform divine services, and generally to help the deacons in the church. At the beginning, the subdeacons were appointed after the small entrance by the bishop in the diaconica (εν τω διακονικφ) near the table on which the sacred vessels stood. Under the Patriarch of Constantinople Manuel I (1217–1222), this was changed due to the fact that the subdeacon, based on his ordination in the diakonica, considered the latter his place and equated himself with deacons. To avoid this, the patriarch established that the consecration of subdeacons should be performed before the start of the liturgy, as is done now, and, moreover, not in the deaconry, but in the church. Considering themselves equal to the deacons, the subdeacon neglected their main duty during divine services and during the liturgy took a place in the altar between the deacons - the latter is indicated in the rule with the words: εχειν χωράν εν τψ διακονικφ (to be in the place of the deacons). To prevent such disorder, the Laodicean fathers prohibit subdeacons from doing this by this rule, instructing them in their 22nd and 43rd rules to stand at the church gates during the service of the liturgy and not leave there for a single hour (καν βραχύ). By the same (21) rule, the fathers also forbid them to touch the Sacred Vessels (απτεσθαι των ιερών σκευών). The latter, however, must be understood in such a way that subdeacons are forbidden to touch sacred vessels, i.e. to the holy paten and the holy chalice only at the time when the holy sacrifice is being offered, or to transfer them during the Great Entrance. But they are not forbidden to touch the same vessels during non-liturgical times, because, as Balsamon notes in his interpretation of this rule, it is the subdeacons who must take care of these vessels, remove them after the service and transfer them to their place in the σκευοφυλακεΐον (vessel-repository). A lowly clergyman should not wear an orarion or leave a door. (Trul. 4, 6, 15; Laod. 20, 21, 24, 25, 43). The same reason that led to the publication of Laodicean rule 21 against subdeacons also caused this (22) rule, which forbids subdeacons to wear the orarion (ώράριον), as they began to do. Orar, according to the interpretation of this rule by Valsamon, in the same way by Vlastar, comes from the word ώρώ, I listen, I observe; During the divine service, the deacons wore it on their left shoulder, giving them a sign when certain prayers should be read. Upon ordination, subdeacons were also given an orarion, but not with the meaning with which it was given to deacons, as a result of which they wore it, girding themselves with it, but not on the left shoulder, like the latter. By forbidding subdeacons to wear an orarion, the rule reminds them at the same time of their duty to remain constantly at the church gates (interpretation of the 21st canon of Laod.). Readers or singers should not wear an orarion, or read and sing. (Ap. 26, 59; I Om. 16; IV Om. 4; Trul. 4, 33, 75; VII Om. 14; Laod. 22, 59; Carth. 103). The reasons indicated in canon 22 prompt the Laodicean fathers to prohibit by this rule the wearing of the orari by readers and singers who, without performing any deaconal duties, were only supposed to read and sing in church. It is not appropriate for a sanctified person, from presbyter to deacon, and then to anyone from the church rank, even to subdeacons, or readers, or singers, or exorcists, or janitors, or from the monastic order, to enter an inn. (Ap. 54; Trul. 9; Carth. 40). See interpretation of 54 Ap. rules. It is not proper for a subdeacon to distribute bread or bless the cup. (Trul. 4, 6, 7, 15; Laod. 20, 21, 22, 24, 43). Apparently, the subdeacons began to appropriate to themselves such services during divine services that could only be performed by bishops and presbyters with the participation of a deacon. Speaking of this, this rule condemns subdeacons for such insolence, forbidding them to distribute holy communion to the people. Those who are not ordained by the bishop should not be exorcised either in churches or in houses. (II Om. 7; Antioch. 10). The spell (έφορχίζειν), which is referred to in this rule, must be understood in the sense of the announcement, catechization of the infidels (κατηχεΐν απίστους) before baptism, which was performed according to a specially prescribed rite by persons appointed for this purpose, belonging to the clergy and called έφορκισταί or έξορκισταί. The duty of these exorcists during baptism was that they prepared the catechumens to renounce the unclean spirit in whose power they were, as a result of their false faith. The exorcists performed this position in two stages: the first time, while the catechumens were just preparing for baptism, they, as a rule, did this in private houses, in which the catechumens usually studied, and another time in the church during the sacrament of baptism itself, when the baptized person was asked the question: do you deny Satan? after which the bishop or presbyter baptized him. The first duty of the exorcist ceased with the widespread introduction of infant baptism, but the second continued in our present succession of holy baptism. With the cessation of the first and most important duty of the caster, the need to appoint special persons for this purpose was also eliminated. But during the Council of Laodicea they still existed, carrying out a certain service in the church. As can be seen, this service was also performed by persons who had not received canonical appointment for this purpose, as a result of which the rule prohibits anyone from performing the duties of a spellcaster who has not been appointed for this purpose in the church according to a special prescribed rite by a bishop or chorebishop (Antioch. 10). It is not appropriate for consecrated persons, or clerics, or laity, called to the table of love, to take away parts of it: for this is an insult to the church rite. (Trul. 74; Gangr. 11; Laod. 28; Carth. 42). It is not appropriate to serve so-called meals of love in the churches of the Lord or in churches, or to eat or sit in the house of God. (Ap. 73; Trul. 74, 76, 97; Gangr. 11; Laod. 27; Carth. 41, 42). Both of these rules contain regulations about agapes (άγάπαι) or meals (evenings) of love. The first name comes from the word αγάπη - love, and these common meals acquired such a name because they were a consequence of love and its symbol, expressed in the common fraternal sharing of a meal. With many different opinions regarding the emergence of these meals of love in the Christian Church, the most fundamental and most natural is that they were introduced to preserve the memory of the Last Supper of Christ, at which the sacrament of St. Eucharist, as well as to achieve closer communion between the faithful, in which the difference between rich and poor followers of Jesus Christ is eliminated and the property of an individual becomes the common property of all. The Apostle Jude mentions these meals of love as a common occurrence in apostolic times (Jude 1:12), and the Apostle Paul reproaches the Corinthian Christians for rushing to eat and drink each separately, without waiting for the brethren, and thereby neglecting the Church of God and humiliating the poor (1 Cor. 11:21,22). At first, agapes occurred along with the liturgy, and they were usually performed before it began, and therefore before communion, in memory of the fact that Jesus Christ first celebrated supper with His disciples, and then communed with them His body and blood; subsequently, when it was established to accept St. communion on an empty stomach, agapes began to take place after the liturgy. Already at the very beginning of the emergence of meals of love, riots began to occur, expressed in the fact that the rich often showed their advantage over the poor, while some indulged in satiety and even drunkenness. As a result, during the 2nd century, love meals were completely separated from the liturgy and took place mostly in the evening in the church itself or in the churchyard. The clergy of the given church participated in these meals together with the bishop, and during the supper sermons were preached and the Holy Scriptures were read. However, even at these meals there were previous disturbances and their visitors even began to arrange “reclines” (άκούβιτα). Therefore, by rule 28 of this council it was forbidden to organize meals of love in the houses of the Lord, i.e. in churches, and by rule 27 of the same council it was forbidden for the participants of these meals held in private houses to take away food from them, as had become the custom to the detriment of Church Order ( την υβριν τη τάζει τη εκκλησιαστική ). Since the Separation from the Eucharistic sacrifice, agapes or meals of love have lost their symbolic meaning and turned into ordinary meals, arranged either on the occasion of the burial of the deceased (our current wake, convivium funebre), wedding, birth, or those meals that we mentioned in the 11th rule of the Gangra Council, i.e. those that were arranged by the rich for the poor (άγάπαι των πενήτων, agapes pauperum). It is not proper for Christians to practice Judaism or to celebrate on Saturday, but to do so on this day: but to celebrate Sunday primarily, if they can, like Christians. If the Judaizers are found guilty, let him be anathema from Christ. (Ap. 7, 64, 66, 70, 71; Trul. 11, 55, 66; Antioch. 1; Laod. 16, 37, 38; Carth. 51, 73, 106). In the interpretation of several rules, we have already said that Christians should not follow Jewish religious customs in anything (see parallel rules). This rule refers to the fact that even at that time (half of the 4th century) some followed the Jews regarding the celebration of the Sabbath, and, condemning this anti-Christian custom, instructs Christians to especially honor the resurrection (προτιμώντας). We have already talked about the celebration of Sunday in general in the interpretation of Rule 66 of Trullo. When establishing holidays, the main thought of the first Christians, which served in general as the starting point of all Christian life, was that in everything they should follow the crucified and risen Jesus Christ: follow Him in His death in order to be rewarded with the fruits of this death through repentance; to follow His resurrection, so that by faith in Him and His power man may be resurrected to a new, holy life, which, beginning here on earth, continues in heaven. It is natural from this that in the Christian consciousness the day of the resurrection of Christ was a day of triumph and joy. This idea found expression already in the first days of the existence of the Church of Christ. The Acts of the Apostles indicate that Christ's disciples gathered constantly on the first day of the week for public prayer and breaking bread (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 10:16 and Rev. 1:10). The Epistle of Barnabas categorically speaks of Sunday as a day of joy on which the faithful celebrate the remembrance of the resurrection of Christ (εν τη και ό Ιησούς ανέστη εκ νεκρών). in the letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians it is mentioned that the Jews who converted to Christianity should replace the Sabbath with the resurrection ( ζώντες ). Just as the Sabbath was the banner of Judaism, so now the resurrection has become a symbol of new life, the foundation of which was laid by the resurrection of Christ. On Sunday - as on a day of joy - we did not fast (Ap. 66), and during prayer we did not kneel (I Ev. 20), and Basil the Great in his 91st rule says that we do this because we have risen with Christ (Basily the Great 91). The ancient law prohibiting work on the Sabbath was immediately transferred at the very beginning of the church to Sunday, and Tertullian reproaches everyone who works on this day for sin. But in addition to celebrating Sunday, as a remembrance of the resurrection of Christ, some churches consisting of people who converted to Christianity from Judaism, i.e. of the so-called Jewish Christians at that time, wanted to celebrate to some extent the Sabbath, performing a solemn liturgy on this day and receiving Holy Communion. secret This custom continued even in the 4th century, showing a clear adherence to Judaism (ίουδαίζειν, judaizare, to Judaize) and serving as a temptation for many, as a result of which the Laodicean fathers were forced to issue this (29) rule. They forbid rest (σχολάειν, otiari) on Saturday, ordering to work on this day as on other days (έργάζεσθαι, operari), and threaten with anathema anyone who does otherwise. Further, it is prescribed to especially honor Sunday, not to work and to spend it in a Christian way. Regarding the latter, the fathers of the council add that they should do this if they can (ειγε δύναιντο, si modo possint), i.e., as Balsamon says in the interpretation of this rule, no one is forced to do absolutely nothing, because if anyone, due to poverty (εξ απορίας, εκ πβνία ;) or any necessity, will work on Sunday, he is not subject to condemnation for this. It is not proper for a sanctified person, or a cleric, or a monk, to wash in a bath with their wives, below any Christian or layman: for this is the first accusation from the pagans. This rule was repeated at the Council of Trullo (77), and punishment was determined for everyone who violated its instructions. Speaking about such vileness, which is prohibited by this rule, Zonara, in his interpretation of the aforementioned (77) rule of the Council of Trullo, cites the words of the Apostle Paul, who says that Christians should not give offense to Jews, Greeks, or the Church of God (1 Cor. 10:32), but must take care of what is good not only before the Lord, but also before people (2 Cor. 8:21); from this it is clear how indecent it is for a Christian, and even more so a clergyman, to act contrary to the prescription of this rule. It is not appropriate to enter into a marriage with any heretic, or to give such sons or daughters, but rather to take brothers from them, if they promise to be Christians. (Ap. 26, 45, 65; IV Ecum. 14; Trul. 6, 72; Laod. 10; Carth. 21). This rule is an addition to the 10th rule of this council on mixed marriages and prohibits mixed marriages in general, i.e. marriage of an Orthodox person with a person who does not profess the Orthodox faith. Moreover, rule (31) mentions that such a marriage can be allowed only if the person of a different faith makes a promise (βιέπαγγέλοιτο) to accept the Orthodox faith. This is discussed in more detail in the interpretation of Rule 72 of the Council of Trullo. It is not proper to accept blessings from heretics, which are more idle talk than blessings. (Ap. 10, 11, 45, 46, 64; I Om. 19; II Om. 7; III Om. 2, 4; Trul. 11, 95; Antioch. 1; Laod. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 31, 33, 34, 37; Vasily Vel. 1, 47; The fact that there should be no religious communication between Orthodox Christians and heretics is also stated in many of the rules of this council (see parallel rules). This rule prohibits accepting ευλογίας from heretics, i.e. blessed bread or pieces of prosphora. Heretics, like the Orthodox, had a custom of sending each other blessed bread on the feast of the Resurrection of Christ as a sign of fraternal fellowship (Laod. 14). Since the Council of Laodicea forbade the Orthodox to do the latter, it should have even more forbidden them to accept such blessed bread from heretics. This bread became “blessed” as a result of prayers read over it; but since the heretics could not have true prayer, because there was no true priesthood, but there were false priests (Ap. 47), then these heretical prayers, with which the heretics thought they would bless and sanctify the bread, are called in the rule άλογίαι, that is, nonsense (vain talk). It is not proper to pray with a heretic or renegade. (Ap. 10, 11, 45, 46, 64; I Om. 19; II Om. 7; III Om. 2, 4; Trul. 11, 95; Antioch. 1; Laod. 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 31, 32, 34, 37; Vasily Vel. 1, 47; Timothy Alex. This rule repeats the 45th Apostolic Rule, adding that there should also be no religious communication between an Orthodox Christian and a schismatic (σ χισματιχψ). It is not proper for any Christian to abandon the martyrs of Christ and go to the false martyrs, who, that is, are with heretics, or were themselves heretics. For these are removed from God: for this reason let those who resort to them be under oath. (Ap. 10, 11, 45, 46, 64, 70; III Om. 2, 4; Antioch. 1; Laod. 6, 9, 32, 33, 37; Carth. 83; Timothy Alex. 9). This rule is in connection with the 9th rule of the same council and mainly speaks of the same subject, namely the false martyrs to whom some Orthodox worshiped. The only difference is that in canon 9 the Laodicean fathers are referring to those Orthodox who did this out of ignorance or under someone else’s influence, as a result of which they impose temporary excommunication from St. communion (μέχρι τινός). in the same rule they speak about those who acted in this case intentionally or, as Balsamon says in the interpretation of this rule, όλοψόχψ διαθέσει (with full spiritual disposition), which is why they anathematize them as having apostatized from God. It is not proper for Christians to leave the Church of God, and to go away, and to name angels, and to hold assemblies. This is rejected. For this reason, if anyone is found practicing such secret idolatry, let him be anathema: he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has begun to practice idolatry. In ancient times, says Zonara in his interpretation of this rule, there were some heretics who argued that a person is not worthy to call on Jesus Christ for help, so as not to bring himself closer to God, but should call on Angels. It is possible that the heretics said this out of false humility aroused in them by the evil spirit. Mentioning this heresy in his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle Paul says: Let no one deceive you through self-willed humility and the ministry of angels (Col. 2:18). These words of the Apostle Paul mean that no one dares to deprive us of the reward for our faith and righteous life, turning us away from the right faith and forcing us, due to some false self-abasement, to honor Angels, i.e. to perform in honor of their service, considering ourselves unworthy to call the Son of God - our Guide to the Heavenly Father. The followers of this heresy called (ώνόμαζον) angels, i.e. called them (έπεκαλουντο) and organized a gathering in their honor. Condemning this heresy, the rule says that anyone caught in devotion to this secret idolatry shall be anathema. This, as the Apostle Paul says, service to Angels is called in the rule idolatry (είδωλολατρείαν), not because the veneration of Angels is really idolatry, but because in this way the evil spirit, distancing a person from the calling of Jesus Christ, thereby little by little, unnoticed by him, draws him into idolatry. It is not fitting for the sanctified or the clerics to be magicians, or charmers, or number tellers, or astrologers, or to make the so-called precautions, which are the bonds of their souls. We ordered those who wore them to be thrown out of the church. (Trul. 61; Ankyr. 24; Basil the Great. 7, 65, 72, 81, 88; Gregory of Nyssk. 8). We know the decree of the 61st rule of the Trullo Council regarding lay people engaged in fortune-telling. This Laodicean rule speaks on the same subject regarding persons who, belonging to the clergy, believe in fortune-telling or practice it themselves, and condemns this in the most categorical manner under the threat of excommunication. Nikita, a canonist of the early 12th century, when asked about this subject, refers to the 24th Ancyra rule and the given (36) Laodicean one, and calls fortune telling a pagan activity (της εθνικής συνε & είας), unworthy of the Christian world, and even less of the Orthodox Church (ούτε μην της ορθοδόξου εκκλησίας ). This rule, in addition, especially condemns the manufacture of “preservatives” (φυλακτήρια), calling these precautions or talismans the shackles of the soul (δεσμωτήρια των ψυχών, animarum vincula) and ordering everyone wearing them to be excluded from the church. The Holy Scriptures mention these precautions used by the Jews during prayer (Matt. 23:5), namely, they had two bandages, and on each of them the name of God and 4 verses from the Holy Scriptures were written. (Bishop Methodius (Kulman) has a different explanation for these “storehouses” - “they deliberately put leather boxes of extraordinary size on their forehead and left hand against the heart, in which extracts from the Law are enclosed,” the same with Lopukhin in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, only boxes made of parchment. Ed.) They tied the head of one of them, and the left hand of the other, believing that everyone who wears them thereby rejects evil and receives all that is good. It goes without saying that the latter is an obvious superstition, contrary to the teaching that in his life a person must devote himself entirely to God’s Providence and, doing good deeds, expect benefits only from the Provider. As such, the custom of wearing precautions had the meaning of fortune-telling, and it is natural, therefore, that it is designated along with fortune-telling by numbers, stars, etc. From the Jews, the custom of wearing precautions passed on to some Christians, who always wore them around their necks or during illness they bandaged a sore spot on the body with them. Given the importance that guards had at that time (in the 4th century), the severity of the punishment that the rule imposes on everyone who makes or wears them is quite understandable. (Apparently, these include the now widespread security belts with the text of Psalm 90... Ed.) One should not accept holiday gifts sent from Jews or heretics, nor should one celebrate with them. (Ap. 64, 70, 71; Trul. 11; Ancir. 9; Antioch. 1; Laod. 6, 9, 29, 33, 34, 38, 39). You must not accept unleavened bread from the Jews or partake of their wickedness. (Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; Trul. 11; Ancir. 9; Antioch. 1; Laod. 6, 9, 29, 33, 34, 37, 39). We must not celebrate with the pagans and join in their godlessness. (Ap. 71; Trul. 71, 94). Regarding these three rules, see the interpretations of 70 and 71 of the Apostolic Canons and parallel rules. It is not proper for bishops called to a council to be careless, but to go and admonish, or to be admonished for the improvement of the church, and so on. If he neglects it, he will blame himself: unless he stays because of illness. (Ap. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; Trul. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carth. 18, 76, 95). See interpretations of 37 of the Apostolic Canon and other parallel rules. A consecrated person or cleric should not travel without the correct credentials from the bishop. (Ap. 12, 13, 32, 33; IV Ecum. 11, 13; Trul. 17; Antioch. 6, 7, 8, 11; Laod. 42; Serdic. 7, 8, 9; Carth. 23, 106). A consecrated person or cleric should not travel without the order of the bishop. (Ap. 12, 13, 32, 33; IV Ecum. 11, 13; Trul. 17; Antioch. 6, 7, 8, 11; Laod. 41; Serdic. 7, 8, 9; Carth. 23, 106). For these two (41 and 42) rules, see the interpretations of 12 of the Apostolic Canon and other parallel rules. It is not proper for church servants to leave the door for a short time in order to practice prayer. (Trul. 4, 6, 15; Laod. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25). See interpretations of rules 21 and 22 of this council. It is not proper for a wife to enter the altar. Recalling in the interpretation of this rule the prohibition for any layman to enter the altar in general (Trul. 69; Laod. 19), Zonara adds that this should be even more prohibited for women who, regardless of their will, also experience the flow of menstrual blood (ή των εμμήνων αιμάτων ρύσις ). For two weeks of Pentecost, one should not be accepted for baptism. (I Om. 14; Trul. 78; Laod. 46). This rule speaks of the catechumens in general and in particular of those who, having been sufficiently trained in the Christian faith, should have, after spending a certain time in spiritual exercises, been completely prepared for baptism, i.e. to the “sacrament of enlightenment” (μοστήριον φωτίσματος, sacramentum illuminationis). These were the catechumens who are mentioned at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, at a time when, from Wednesday of the week of the Cross, the church prays: and for the enlightenment of the brethren who are preparing. Regarding how long the time of catechumen was for persons wishing to become Christians in adulthood, and how many categories of catechumens there were, we have already spoken in the interpretation of the 14th rule of the First Ecumenical Council. When, at the end of the announcement, the proper catechizers declared that their catichumen were sufficiently familiar with Christian teaching, then the latter had to present themselves to the appropriate bishop and expressed their desire to be worthy of holy baptism. The usual time of year when the Katichumens were baptized was Holy Saturday, as a day of remembrance when Christ lay in the tomb, as a sign that the old man was then buried in the death of Christ in order to rise to new life with the resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:4). In order to be worthy of holy baptism on this particular day (Holy Saturday), the Katichumens had to declare this to the bishop in the last days of the meat-eater. After such a statement, the bishop called them to himself on the first day of Lent (της τεσσαρακοστής), he himself put them to the test and, finding them worthy of becoming Christians, gave them a blessing, gave them Christian names and gave orders to include them in the number of φωτιζόμενων, i.e. for the holy enlightenment of those preparing, so that on Holy Saturday they can be baptized. From the day of receiving a Christian name, i.e. from the first day of Great Lent, throughout the entire period of Lent, the Katikhumen had to perform the strictest fast, pray unceasingly and go to church every day. If any katichumen did not declare his desire to be baptized immediately upon the onset of Great Lent, but did so later, and especially, as the rule says, after two weeks of fasting, then he could not be worthy of baptism on Holy Saturday, because he could not withstand the fast prescribed during the entire period of Lent. However, Zonara says in his interpretation of this rule, he could have been baptized later, because the words in the rule ού δει δέχεσθαι (should not be accepted) must be understood not without limitation, but about Holy Saturday. Those being baptized must study the faith, and on the fifth day of the week give an answer to the bishop or elders. (I Om. 2, 14; Trul. 78, 96; Laod. 19, 45). The text of this rule says only τη πέμπτη της εβδομάδος (quinta hebdomadis feria), but we translated this into the fifth day of “every” week, wanting to follow the Greek commentators Balsamon and Zonaras, in whose interpretations there are words εκάστης εβδομάδος, which we consider absolutely correct; Because of this, we cannot agree with Aristin, who says that by the words τη πέμπτη της εβδομάδος we must mean only Maundy Thursday: τη πέμπτη της εβδομάδος καθ᾿ήν μέλλει φωτισθήναι. We consider the interpretation of the mentioned commentators to be absolutely correct, since it is known that the catechesis of the catechumens took place quite systematically, and the latter had to periodically report to the bishop about their knowledge of the faith. In addition, the church had to be confident in the constancy of the catechumens, who wanted to accept the Christian faith only out of firm conviction, and this confidence, as Zonara notes in the interpretation of this rule, could be acquired by the fact that during the entire period of the catechumens, every Thursday, they gave an account to the bishop or presbyter of what they had learned during the week from Christian teaching - so that anyone who was not fully established in the faith would not receive baptism and would not be initiated into the faith. our secret (καθ᾿ήμας μοστβρίου). Those who were baptized in illness and then received health should study the faith and recognize that they have been granted a divine gift. (I Om. 2, 14; Trul. 78, 96; Neokes. 12; Laod. 19, 45, 46; Carth. 45). If one of the catechumens falls ill before the expiration of the time prescribed for the catechumen (I Om. 14; Laod. 46), then the rule allows him to be baptized, however, requiring that, in the event of his recovery, he must, after baptism, continue to study Christian teaching in order to understand what divine gift he has been awarded (θειας δωρεάς). It is fitting for those who are enlightened to be anointed with the heavenly unction, and to be partakers of the kingdom of God. (III Universe 7; Trul. 95). That Confirmation is a New Testament sacrament, Orthodox dogmatics tells us about this, as well as the fact that both a bishop and a presbyter can perform the Sacrament of Confirmation, and that it is performed on the person being baptized immediately after baptism. From this rule it is clear that some did not perform confirmation on those being baptized immediately after baptism, as a result of which the rule renews the decree that already existed at that time, ordering that after baptism everyone be anointed with holy chrism or, as the rule says, with heavenly unction (χρίσματι έποορανίφ) in order to become a participant in the kingdom of God and a true, active member of the church. It is not proper to bring holy bread on Lent, except on Saturday and Sunday. (Ap. 66, 69; Trul. 52; Laod. 50, 51, 52). See interpretation of Trullan Rule 52. It is not appropriate to allow fasting on Thursdays during the last weeks of Pentecost, and to dishonor the entire period of Pentecost; but one must fast during the entire period of Pentecost with dry eating. (Ap. 66, 69; Trul. 29, 89; Dionysius Alex. 1; Timothy Alex. 8, 10). See interpretations of 66 and 69 of the Apostolic Canons and others parallel to them. It is not appropriate to celebrate the birthdays of martyrs on Lent, but to commemorate the holy martyrs on Saturdays and Sundays. (Ap. 66, 69; Trul. 52; Laod. 49, 50, 52). It is not appropriate to celebrate marriages or celebrate birthdays on Lent. (Ap. 66, 69; Trul. 52; Laod. 49, 50, 51). In accordance with the meaning that Pentecost has in the church (Trul. 52), the Laodicean fathers prohibit celebrating the memories of the holy martyrs during it (51 rights), except on Saturday and Sunday (Ap. 66), getting married or celebrating a birthday (52 rights). It is not proper for Christians going to weddings to jump or dance, but to sup and dine modestly, as befits Christians. It is not fitting for the sanctified or the clerics to witness disgraceful performances at marriages or at feasts: but before the entry of the disgraceful persons, they must rise and leave. Taking into account the sanctity of marriage, these rules (53 and 54) require that Christian weddings be conducted modestly and reverently, therefore prohibiting both clergy and laity from participating in weddings at which things occur that are only suitable for pagans. It is not proper for the sanctified, or for the clergy, to have a feast when assembled, nor even for the laity. In an effort to ensure that the Christian life is consistent with the teaching of Scripture, the rule requires that everyone live modestly and godly. This rule requires both from every lay Christian, and especially from those who belong to the clergy and are obliged to serve as an example to everyone. It is not proper for presbyters to enter and sit in the altar before the bishop enters, but to enter with the bishop, except in cases where the bishop is infirm or absent. (Ap. 2, 31, 39, 55; IV Om. 8, 23; Trul. 17). We have already spoken in the interpretation of several rules (Ap. 2, 31, etc.) about the canonical obedience of the presbyter in relation to the bishop. As can be seen from this Laodicean rule, some elders, especially in the churches of Phrygia, forgetting about their subordination to the bishop, believed that they should not show him in the church the honor befitting his rank. To prevent such disorder, the fathers of the Council of Laodicea issued this rule, the meaning of which is clear from the text itself. It is not appropriate to install bishops in small towns and villages, but periodeuts; and those who have already been appointed should not do anything without the will of the bishop of the town. Likewise, presbyters should not do anything without the will of the bishop. (I Om. 8; Ankyr. 13; Neoces. 14; Antioch. 8, 10; Serdic. 6). “The rank of bishop is venerable: and to be a bishop in a small town or village, where there is no city and a sufficient number of people, this easily leads to the humiliation of the bishopric,” says Zonara in his interpretation of this rule. The latter served as the reason for the Laodicean fathers to issue a rule requiring small towns and villages (εν ταΐς κώμαις και εν ταΐς χώραις) to appoint not bishops, but periodeuts ( περιοδευτάς ). Periodevts, who held a special service in the church, existed already in the first times of Christianity. These were the highest presbyters who were attached to the city bishops and on their behalf traveled around (περιοδεόουσι) at a certain time to the churches of smaller places and villages of a given diocese, giving their bishop a report on the state of these churches. Over time, when the diocesan administration of churches reached full organization, the service of the periodeuts lost its significance and independence and they themselves were replaced by other persons, now mainly by district protopresbyters (among the Serbs) or deans (among the Russians). Having issued such a decree about the periodeuts, this Laodicean rule prescribes regarding the bishops who were at that time in towns and villages that they cannot do anything without the permission (άνευ γνώμης) of the subject city bishop, just like the presbyters (Ap. 39). It is not proper for bishops or elders to make offerings in houses. (Ap. 31; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34, 59; VII Om. 7, 10; Gangr. 6; Antioch. 5; Carth. 10; Dvukr. 12). See interpretation 31 Trul. rules. It is not appropriate in church to speak psalms that are not sacred, or books that are not specified by the rules, but only the books of the Old and New Testaments specified in the rules. (Ap. 60; Trul. 63; Carth. 108). In the first centuries of the church, many pious people composed special hymns in honor of Jesus, Christ (ιδιωτικούς ψαλμούς, pruuatos psalmos), which were sung during church services. But since later these hymns began to be compiled by heretics and were often used indiscriminately in the church, the Laodicean fathers, prohibiting the reading of such “special hymns” or “non-canonical books” in the church, order the use of only the “canonical books” of the Old and New Testaments, listed in the following (60) rule. It is appropriate to read these books of the Old Testament: 1) Genesis of the World, 2) Exodus from Egypt, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers, 5) Deuteronomy, 6) Joshua, 7) Judges, Ruth, 8) Esther, 9) Kings 1 and 2, 10) Kings 3 and 4, 11) Chronicles 1 and 2, 12) Ezra first and second, 13) Book of Psalms one hundred and fifty, 14) Proverbs of Solomon, 15) Ecclesiastes, 16) Song of Songs, 17) Job, 18) Twelve Prophets, 19) Isaiah, 20) Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle, 21) Ezekiel, 22) Daniel, New testament, four gospels: from Matthew, from Mark, from Luke, from John, the Acts of the Apostles, these seven epistles: James one, Peter two, John three, Jude one: Pauline epistles fourteen: Romans one, Corinthians two, Galatians one, Ephesians one, Philippisi one, Colossae one, Thessalonians two, to the Hebrews one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, and to Philemon one. (Ap. 85; Carth. 24; Athanasius the Great on the holidays; Gregory the Theologian on the books of the Holy Scripture; Amphilochius on the books of the Holy Scripture). Since in their 59th rule the Laodicean fathers forbade the reading of non-canonical books (ακανόνιστα βιβλία) and decided to read only the canonical ones (μόνα τα κανονικά), then in this (60) rule they list these books in order, and number 22 books of the Old Testament, which are still considered canonical by the Orthodox Church. All canonical books are listed from the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. This is explained by the fact that not all the writings of the Apostles reached all the local churches at the same time, and it may easily be that at the time of this council the Apocalypse was not known in Phrygia as the canonical book of the New Testament. Rules of the Holy Local Council of Sardicia (Serdic) Rule 1 Osiy Bishop of the city of Corduva rivers: it is appropriate to eradicate from the very foundations not so much the bad habit as the most harmful disorder in church affairs. Let no bishop be allowed to come from a small city to another city. For in this case the reason for which it is being undertaken is clear: because it was never possible to find a single bishop who would be transferred from a great city to a smaller city. From here it is clear that such people are kindled with a fiery passion for much acquisition, and pride works harder, so that they apparently receive greater power. So, will it please everyone that such corruption be punished more severely? I think that such people should not have communication below on an equal basis with the laity. All the bishops said: everyone pleases. (Ap. 14; I Om. 15; IV Om. 5; Trul. 20; Antioch. 13, 16, 18, 21; Serdic. 2, 17; Carth. 48). The rule refers to the disastrous disorder of church government (ή βλαβερωτάτη των πραγμάτων διαφθ o ρά), which occurred due to the fact that some bishops, trying to move to other sees, left those to which they had previously been placed. The reason why bishops did this was the passion for greater material gain and the desire to achieve greater power, because, as a rule, there was never a bishop who would insist on moving from a large city to a smaller one, from a rich diocese to a poor one, but always back again. Similar transitions of bishops were condemned even before this council (Ap. 14; I Om. 15); but, as can be seen, some bishops poorly observed the canonical decrees, as a result of which the fathers of the Cathedral of Serdica recognized the need to strengthen these decrees, which is why they order the bishop who acted in this way not only to be defrocked, but to be prohibited from even using the rights of a layman in the church, i.e. deprive of all communication with the faithful. If someone turns out to be so crazy or daring that he thinks of making some kind of apology in such a matter, claiming that a message was sent to him from the people: obviously there are, as if not many could, seduced by reward and price, form a crowd in the church, supposedly wanting to have him as a bishop. Therefore, I believe that these tricks and intrigues should be punished at all costs, and none of them, below, at their death, will be honored with communication, even on an equal basis with the laity. Is this opinion acceptable? answer. And they answered: what was said is acceptable. (Ap. 14; I Om. 15; IV Om. 5; Trul. 20; Antioch. 13, 16, 18, 21; Serdic. 1, 17; Carth. 48). This rule is a continuation of the first. According to the canonical practice that existed at that time, the people participated in the election of the bishop, and in general, the episcopal consecration was received by the one whom the people desired and demanded (I Oc. 4 et.). In order to evade canonical punishments, bishops who wanted to move from a smaller diocese to a richer one referred to the fact that the people of the given diocese had sent them written invitations to move to their diocese. The rule does not attach any importance to such arguments, finding it quite possible that in such cases several bribed persons can invite someone, supposedly at the request of the people. The rule calls such actions an obvious deception (ραδι o υργία), for which one should be subjected to the strictest condemnation and punishment, namely, the rule determines that such a guilty person cannot be awarded even worldly communication even at the hour of his death (μηδέ εν τω τέλει λαϊκής γ o δν άξι o δσθαι κ o ινωνίας ). Aristin calls such a punishment terrible (φρικτόν), because a person cannot receive holy communion even on his deathbed, and moreover, there is no other rule that would impose such a punishment for any other sin. This severity of punishment is explained by the fact that in the act about which the rule speaks, several crimes merge: the desire for profit, pride, bribery, deception, and on top of all this - simony. However, in this case one must keep in mind Resolution 13 of Rule I of the Universe. Council, that it is necessary to honor every person repentant at death with holy communion. This must also be added, so that none of the bishops comes from their own region to another region, which has its own bishops, unless he is called from the brethren who are in it, so that we do not dare to close the door of love. It is also appropriate to provide for this: if in any region, one of the bishops has to do with his brother and fellow bishop: let none of them call bishops from other regions as mediators. If one of the bishops, in some case, turns out to be condemned, but imagines that the case was not wrong, but righteous, and the trial will resume: then, if you wish, let us honor the memory of Peter the Apostle with love, and let it be written from those who judged to Julius the Bishop of Rome, so that the trial will be resumed, if necessary, through the bishops closest to that region, and may he appoint judges of the case. If the accused is not able to present his case as requiring a second judgment: then what has been awarded once should not be violated, but what has been done, then let it be firmly established. (Ap. 35; I Om. 5; IV Om. 5; Antioch. 13, 16, 21; Serdic. 2, 4, 5). Western canonists divide this rule into three, which is completely justified by its content, since in reality it speaks of three objects, each of which can stand completely independently. The first part of the rule says that no bishop has the right to move to another region to perform any sacred rite without the invitation of the bishop of that region. The second says that disputes between bishops should be resolved by a council of the region to which the bishops of a given region belong, but should not at all call for this a bishop from another region. The third part of the rule speaks of the case when a convicted bishop, considering his cause to be just, declares his dissatisfaction with the verdict of his diocesan bishops. In this case, the rule prescribes turning to the Roman Bishop Julius, who is left to decide whether the trial needs to be resumed, and in the affirmative case, to appoint appropriate judges from the bishops of neighboring dioceses. If the Roman Bishop Julius does not find it necessary to resume the trial, then the decision of the first court remains unchanged. We find this division of the Serdic rule in its main outlines in Balsamon, who, in the interpretation of this rule, after explaining its first part, cites the second chapter ( έτερ o ν κεφάλαι o ν ) of the rule, i.e. its second part mentioned above, after which he talks about the third part, i.e. about the case when the bishop is dissatisfied with the decision of the first court. Regarding the subject addressed in the first part of the rule, already during the Council of Antioch a detailed decree (13 rights) was issued on the basis of 35 Ap. rules, and interpretations of these rules (Ap. 35 and Antioch. 13) and serve as an interpretation for this part of this Serdic rule. Another subject of this rule was approved by another 5th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, the resolution of which is repeated in its main features in this rule. The third subject of this rule is completely new and exceptional in its essence. It was affected by this, as well as the 4th and 5th rules of the Council of Serdica, due to the religious relations of that time and in the interests of a famous person. As such, this (3) rule, as well as the two subsequent ones, does not belong to γενικ o ί or καθ o λικ o ί κανόνες, i.e. to those that are important for the entire universal church and at all times, but relate to ιδικ о ί κανόνες or, more precisely, to πρ о σωπικ о ί (personal), having meaning and importance only under the existence of certain conditions. In this part, this rule prescribes that Julius, the bishop of Rome, must decide whether in certain cases it is necessary to renew the trial of bishops, and therefore recognizes the right of the Roman bishop to accept some kind of appeal against the decision of a given diocesan council. In order to better understand such a decision, it is necessary to keep in mind the circumstances under which and for the sake of which the Council of Serdica was convened. As we have seen (I, 28), the Council of Serdica was convened in the case of Athanasius the Great, illegally overthrown by opponents of the Nicaean doctrine, mainly the Eusebians (the middle Arian party, named after its very influential leader Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia), and had the goal, on the one hand, of restoring Athanasius the Great, on the other, of condemning the non-Orthodox who dared to rebel against this “pillar of Orthodoxy.” Western bishops were to carry out this task at the council under the leadership of the Roman Bishop Julius (337–352) and under the patronage of the Western Emperor Constantine; this task was entrusted to the western bishops because the majority of the eastern ones were under the influence of the opponent of the Nicene doctrine, while enjoying the protection and patronage of the eastern emperor Constantius, the worst enemy of Athanasius the Great. As a result, the city of Serdica, located on the border between the eastern and western empires and at that time belonging to the “jurisdiction of the Roman bishop”, was chosen as the site of the cathedral. This explains the large number of Western bishops at the council, as well as the fact that its chairman was the Western, Corduban (in Spain) Bishop Hosius. In order to protect, in this state of affairs, the Orthodox bishops subordinate to the Roman Patriarchate from Arian self-will, the Serdic fathers were forced, by making an exception from the general canonical norm that existed regarding the independence of the court of diocesan episcopal councils and expressed in Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council, to limit the power of these councils for all regional churches of the Roman Patriarchate, also more or less infected with Arianism, or having at least one to a bishop inclined towards Arianism. and especially for the churches located mainly in eastern Illyricum (Iliiricum orientale). The chairman of this council, Hosius, wholly devoted to Athanasius and other Orthodox bishops, knowing from experience how often many Orthodox bishops, without any reason, but solely due to the anger of the Arians, were overthrown from their sees, proposed that the council give someone the power to review the decisions of regional councils against their bishops and appoint a new trial if the first decision is not approved by it. It is quite natural that the bishop to whom the council could entrust the said power was the oldest bishop of the patriarchate to which the city of Serdica belonged, namely the Bishop of Rome, especially the then Roman Bishop Julius, who openly defended Athanasius the Great and showed in one letter to the Eusebians how much he condemned their communication with the latter and with the rest of the Orthodox bishops. However, it seemed difficult for Hosius to force the entire council to limit the already established independence of the court of diocesan councils, and therefore, in order to persuade the fathers of the council to do this, he turns to them with a request (ει δωκεΐ υμών τη αγάπη, si vestrae dilectioni videtur, if your love pleases), saying that such by their actions they will pay respect to the memory of the holy Apostle Peter. Hosius' proposal was accepted by the council and, on the basis of it, this rule was issued, the meaning of which is now clear to us and will become even clearer when we consider rules 4 and 5 of this council. For greater clarity, we also cite the scholia to this rule from the Book of Rules: By the sixth rule of the first ecumenical council, according to ancient custom, many dioceses in the west were placed under the control of the Roman bishop, just as many dioceses in the south and east were given to Alexandria and Antioch. In accordance with this division, Bishop Hosius of the Spanish city of Corduba, belonging to the region of the Roman bishop, proposes to refer dubious cases of Western dioceses to his consideration. And in this sense, the local council of Serdica accepted his (Hosea’s) proposal, without deviating from the sixth rule of the first ecumenical council. If a bishop, by the judgment of neighboring bishops, is deposed from his dignity, and says that he again imposes on himself the duty of justification, then do not put another in his place, unless the bishop of Rome, having learned the matter, pronounces his ruling on it. (Ap. 14, 74; Serdik. 3, 5; Dikr. 16). This rule is in close connection with the last part of 3 of the rule of this council, regarding the right of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to subject to a new trial the decisions of the regional council on disputes between bishops. The rule says that if any bishop, being dissatisfied with the verdict of the regional council, turns on this matter to Julius of Rome and the latter finds it necessary to subject this verdict to a new revision, then before the corresponding verdict is pronounced, after a second trial, a new bishop should not be appointed to the cathedra of the previous one. The words of this rule: χρίσει των επισκόπων των εν γειτνία τυγχανόντων (judicis episcoporum qui sunt in vicinia), translated “by the court of bishops in located in the neighborhood” gave rise to a double interpretation of this rule. According to some, they mean a court composed of bishops of a neighboring diocese, namely such a court, which is mentioned in the 3rd rule of this council: episcopi). According to others, the same words mean a court of bishops, consisting of bishops of the same diocese (metropolitan region) from which the accused bishop comes, i.e. bishops neighboring him and dependent on the same metropolitan. The significant difference in these two opinions is that according to the first, the court of Julius of Rome would be the third instance in this case, and according to the other, only the second. Hefele and many others consider the second interpretation of this Serdic rule to be more correct. We also consider it correct, because with such an interpretation the complete connection and consistency between this and 3 and 5 rules of the same council, which speak about the same subject and in a certain sequence of cases, is preserved. Aristinus also explains this rule in the same sense, speaking only about των επαρχιωτών επισκόπων (provinci аles episcopi), who sentenced a bishop to be deposed, and without mentioning other bishops from a neighboring diocese (metropolitan region), who, as the second authority, says the 3rd rule of this council 11. After such an interpretation of these contradictory words, the rule becomes completely clear. It is nothing more than an addition and clarification of the 3rd rule regarding the bishop, who, having been condemned by the proper council and considering the latter’s verdict unjust, petitioned Julius of Rome for a new trial, and the rule orders that his see be left unoccupied until, by order of the Roman bishop, a new verdict is announced by the neighboring bishops of the given metropolitan region. If there is a denunciation against a bishop, and the surrounding bishops have gathered and depose him from his position, and he, transferring the matter, resorts to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, this one will be delighted to heed him, and recognizes it as righteous to resume the investigation of the case about him: then this should also be put down, and deign to write to the bishops adjacent to that region, so that they carefully and in detail delve into all the circumstances, and with conviction in truth, they pronounced judgment on the matter. If anyone demands that his case be heard again, and, at his request, the Roman bishop decides to send presbyters on his own behalf: let it be in the power of this bishop, since he recognizes and determines what is best and proper, for judgment together with the bishops, to send those who take the place of the one who sent it. Or, if he recognizes the previous consideration and decision of the case regarding this bishop as sufficient, let him do what his most prudent reasoning considers to be good. The bishops answered: what was said is acceptable. (Ap. 14, 74; I Universe. 5, 6; II Universe. 2, 6; IV Universe. 9, 17, 28; Antiochus. 14, 15; Serdic. 3, 4; Carth. 23, 28, 105, 125). This rule is the conclusion of what rules 3 and 4 say. Better to say: it presents a detailed explanation of what is said in canon 3 regarding the secondary trial ordered by Julius of Rome, as a result of the appeal to him of a bishop convicted by the proper diocesan court. Namely, the rule says that if any bishop deposed by his council appeals to Julius of Rome, then the latter, finding it appropriate to heed the request of this bishop, must order the subject bishops of the metropolitan region closest to the region to which the condemned person belongs, so that they, alone or with some other presbyter sent by Julius, subject the complaint to a new examination and pronounce the appropriate sentence. The right granted by the Serdic fathers to Julius of Rome to subject to his judgment the decisions of the diocesan councils of the Roman Patriarchate in those cases where suspicion might arise that Arian or Arian-inclined bishops had pronounced an unjust sentence on any Orthodox bishop to the humiliation of Athanasius the Great and to the detriment of Orthodoxy - this right the Roman bishops wanted to appropriate to themselves outside the borders of their patriarchate and in all cases, as if it belonged to them the power to accept appeals from bishops around the world and, in the final instance, to pronounce judgment on everyone. A typical example of this is offered to us by the Roman bishop Zosimus (417-418), regarding the famous case of Apiarius, presbyter of Sicus in proconsular Africa, who, having been deposed by his bishop Urban for various crimes and being dissatisfied with this, addressed a complaint to Rome, asking for protection. Proconsular Africa, with its main city of Carthage, constituted an independent ecclesiastical region, completely autonomous in its internal administration. Zosima of Rome knew very well how much the privileges of the churches should be respected, precisely approved at the First Ecumenical Council (I Ecumenical 6); however, he still found it possible to accept the complaint of Apiarius and subject to his judgment the decision pronounced by the proper authority in a church not under his jurisdiction. The basis for this could be only one of the rules of any ecumenical council; He found such a rule among the rules of the First Ecumenical Council. But since it was not possible to find such a thing among the reliable rules of this council, he found it in the collection he had and, satisfied with such a basis, not only took the deposed Apiarius under his protection, but when the African bishops reminded him that the latter was a violation of existing rules on his part, he sent special legates to Carthage, who, supposedly by the authority of the supreme elder of the church, were to subject to a new revision everything decided at this council African bishops. This was the reason for the convening of the famous Council of Carthage in 419 (VIII Local Council), at which it was proven that the rule that served as the basis for Zosima to exercise his rights was not Nicene at all, but this Serdician (5), which in Rome was mistaken for Nicene, i.e. It was considered a decree of the Ecumenical Council. The course of this matter is described by us elsewhere, and the very answer of the Council of Carthage (424) regarding the same matter is given at the end of its rules. In Rome they admitted their mistake and for a long time no longer asserted the right of the supreme court of the Roman bishop in matters not subject to his jurisdiction. This continued mainly until Pope Nicholas I (858-867), or rather until the false Isidore, when everything completely changed in the Roman Church and a new law began to dominate. If in a single region, which has many bishops, it happens that a single bishop hesitates, and he, due to some negligence, does not want to be in the assembly and agree to the decree of the bishops, but the assembled multitude of people will ask that the bishop they demand be installed: it is appropriate, firstly, through the message of the exarch of the region [I mean the bishop of the metropolitan area], to remember this delayed bishop, as the people ask give them a shepherd. I consider it good to wait for him to arrive. If, however, having been asked through a message, he does not come, and writes below, then it is appropriate to satisfy the desire of the people. But the neighboring regions should also call upon the bishops for the instruction of the bishop of the metropolis. On the contrary, it will by no means be allowed to install a bishop in any village or small town for which a single presbyter is sufficient. For there is no need to place bishops there, lest the bishop’s name and power be degraded. But the bishops of the region must, as I said above, install bishops in those cities in which there were bishops before. If a certain city appears, so large in number of people that it is recognized as worthy of having a bishop, let it receive it. Does everyone agree to this? Everyone answered: we agree. (Ap. 1; I Universe. 4, 6; Antioch. 16, 19; Laod. 12, 57; Carth. 53, 56). In Aristin, as well as in the Pilot, this rule is divided into three rules. There is nothing erroneous in such a division, since in reality this rule, judging by our (i.e., the Athens Syntagma) text, speaks of three subjects: a) about the election of a bishop, b) about the appointment of a metropolitan, and c) about the fact that bishops should not be appointed to insignificant places. The first part of this rule basically says the same thing as the 4th rule of I Omni. Council - and the interpretation of the latter generally serves as an interpretation of the first part of this rule. In the interpretation of the mentioned rule (I Om. 4), we said and proved that the people, i.e., had the right to vote in the election of bishops. the most respected persons, representatives of the people. New proof of the latter is given to us by this Serdic rule, which categorically speaks of a people who have elected, or more precisely proposed, a well-known person as their bishop, and due to the fault of one of the bishops of the same diocese, this chosen one cannot be immediately installed (for the installation to take place, γίνβσθαι την κατάστασιν, ut fiat constitutio). That this proof is of great importance is sufficiently clear from the words of Aristinus, who in his interpretation of this rule says: “now (the 12th century) the decree that the election of bishops should be carried out by clergy and the first in the city has lost force.” To install (πρ о ς την κατάστασιν) a metropolitan, our rule further says, it is necessary to invite bishops from the neighboring diocese. This happened, says Balsamon in his interpretation of this rule, for the sake of the importance of the metropolitan rank. The third decree of this rule repeats in its main features the 57 Laodicean rule regarding the fact that bishops should not be appointed to small towns and villages. The purpose of the latter, as the rule says, is not to diminish the name and power of the bishop ( ). If the population of a certain place increases and it itself turns out to deserve to have its own bishop, then the rule allows for one to be appointed there. Osiy Bishop said: our untimely, very frequent and unfair petitions have meant that we do not have as much grace and boldness as we should have. For many of the bishops do not bother to come to the military camp, and especially the African ones, who, as we learned from our beloved brother and co-bishop Gratus, do not accept useful advice, but despise so much that one person brings to the military camp the most numerous and varied petitions, which cannot be for the benefit of the churches, helps and patronizes, not the poor and commoners, or widows, as It would be proper and proper, but he seeks worldly virtues and positions for some. Such ignorance causes us harm, not without some temptation and shame. I consider it most appropriate for a bishop to give his help to someone who is embarrassed by someone, or if a widow is suffering an insult, or if an orphan is being deprived of what belongs to him, if, moreover, there is a fair request on these matters. If, beloved brethren, this is pleasing to everyone, then affirm that no bishop should come to the military camp except those whom our most pious king calls with his writings. But since it happens many times that some, for their crimes, sentenced to imprisonment or to an island, or subject to some other condemnation, resort to the church, demanding mercy: such should not be refused help, but immediately and without a doubt ask for leniency for them. If this is what you want, give everyone your consent to this. Everyone answered: let this be decreed. (Antioch. 11; Serdic. 8, 9, 20; Carth. 104, 106). Therefore, it was reasoned so that any of the bishops would not fall under condemnation when coming to the military camp: for this reason, if any of them have such petitions as we mentioned above, let them send them through their deacon. For an official is not subject to assurance and can rather convey what is entrusted to him. Everyone answered: let this be decreed. (Antioch. 11; Serdic. 7, 9, 20; Carth. 104, 106). If any region bishops deliver petitions to their brothers and co-bishops, then the one who is in a larger city, that is, in the metropolis, should forward them and their petitions to the deacon, giving him representative letters, that is, writing successively to our brethren and co-bishops who are at that time in those places or cities in which the most pious king personally administers public affairs. If one of the bishops has friends in the Tsar’s court and wants to ask for something appropriate, then let him not be forbidden to ask through his deacon and command them, so that they may give him good help in his petition. Those who come to Rome, as I said above, should present the petitions that they have to bring to the king to our beloved brother and fellow bishop Julius, and first consider whether some of them are shameless, and then send them to the military camp, adding their intercession and care. All the bishops responded that this was pleasing to them, and that this advice was most appropriate. (Antioch. 11; Serdic. 7, 8, 20; Carth. 104, 106). Everything we said in the interpretation of Rule 11 of the Council of Antioch is sufficient for the interpretation of these three rules. It is appropriate to observe with all accuracy and diligence that someone rich or learned from secular service, worthy of being a bishop, is not first appointed unless he has served as a reader, deacon, and presbyter, so that, passing through each degree, if he is recognized as worthy, he can ascend to the heights of episcopacy. It is obvious that for each degree of rank a not too short time should be provided, during which his faith, good behavior, constancy and meekness could be seen, and he, having been recognized as worthy of the divine priesthood, would receive the greatest honor. For it was not proper, boldly and frivolously that they set about hastily installing either a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon: and neither knowledge nor behavior gives the right to do this. For such a thing would justly be considered very new (1 Tim. 3:6), and not approved, especially when the most blessed Apostle, who was a teacher of languages, is forbidding quick promotion to church degrees: since inquiry in the long term can be more reliable than testimony and the behavior and disposition of everyone. They said everything as they pleased, and this should not be violated at all. (Ap. 80; I Om. 2, 9; Trul. 14, 15; VII Om. 2; Neoces. 9, 10, 11, 12; Laod. 2, 3, 12; Carth. 16; Dvukr. 17; Cyril Alex. 4). From the interpretations of 80 of the Apostolic Canon and 2 of Canon I Omni. Council, we saw how strictly it is forbidden to place persons in the highest hierarchical ranks who do not have sufficient guarantees that they are unshakable in the faith and are able to teach with their words and serve as an example for others with their lives. Resuming all this in its main outlines, this rule, like the two above, recalls the Apostolic Decree regarding the fact that persons who have just passed from exile and have been baptized should not be ordained into church service (νεόφυτ o ς, 1 Tim. 3:6), while also mentioning other Apostolic Decrees prohibiting ordination ( ταχέως) hastily (1 Tim. 5:22). The purpose of this rule is to strictly preserve the mentioned decrees of the Holy Scripture when installing someone as a bishop, especially when the latter concerns some rich man or a scientist from a civil rank. The rich (πλ o ύσι o ς), having sufficient means of living, is usually pampered, the poorer is devoted to worldly pleasures and has more passions, as a result of which the rule prescribes to pay attention to such a person with particular precision and care. checking whether the person is really capable of priestly service and whether he is generally suitable for this. The same rule prescribes regarding scientists of civil rank (σχ o λαστικός από της αγ o ράς, ex foro scholasticus). here we must mean people who, having received a secular education, conduct conversations at public secular meetings or as lawyers, or as leaders of public affairs, as a result of which it is clear that such people may be of little use for the priesthood. The helmsman in this case also means people engaged in trading and wealthy merchants in general. If it were to happen that such a person, by the will of the people (quia per populum postalatus), were to be made a bishop, then the rule allows for this to be carried out only if this person is generally worthy of the episcopate and has gradually passed through all the lower degrees of the priesthood: reader, deacon and presbyter, showing by his behavior at each of these degrees that he is worthy to become a bishop. In order to have full opportunity to verify this, i.e. to acquire complete confidence that his faith is unshakable, that his behavior is commendable, that he is constant in his convictions, meek, not picky and not hot-tempered, i.e. possesses all the qualities required of a bishop, the rule prescribes that he spend sufficient time at each of the mentioned degrees (o υκ ελαχίστ o υ χρόν o υ μήκ o ς, non minimi temporis longitudinem), or, as 17th rule IX says (const. 861) local council, - time prescribed by law (νεν о- μισμέν о ν χρόν о ν, tempus praestitutum). How much time a person should actually spend at each of these degrees, or, using the expression of Roman ecclesiastical law, interslitium, how much time should elapse between receiving one degree and another, the rules do not exactly say. If we take into account the canonical prescriptions regarding the age at which a well-known person can be placed in different church degrees, we see that the reader must be 18 years old, the subdeacon 20, the deacon 25, the presbyter 30 and the bishop 35 years old (Trul. 14 and 15 and interpretations), on the basis of which we can say that the interstitium between the reader and the deacon is approximately 7 years, between the deacon and the presbyter 5 and between the presbyter and the bishop also 5; therefore, a person who will be installed as a bishop must spend 17 years in the priesthood, or at least 15 (assuming that he simultaneously became a reader and subdeacon at the age of 20). This fifteen-year period was also prescribed by Emperor Justinian for persons who were previously in public service. However, the duration of a certain person’s stay at any hierarchical level is left to the discretion of the church authorities (Ap. 80; I Om. 2; Trul. 14 and 15 and interpretations). In any case, this time should not be particularly short under any circumstances, and especially in the case about which this Serdik rule speaks, because, as it notes, neither the knowledge nor the excellent behavior of any person gives the right to decide about him quickly and immediately from the spot ordain him to be a bishop, presbyter or deacon without thoroughly being convinced of what his faith, character and behavior are. A bishop, when he comes from one city to another city, or from one region to another region, for the sake of vanity, strives for his own praise or to perform divine services with greater importance, and wants to stay there for a long time, while the bishop of that city is not skilled in teaching: let him not neglect him and do not preach often, trying to shame and humiliate the person of the local bishop. For this pretext usually causes confusion, and by such cunning the bishop tries to entrust and seize the alien throne to himself, without hesitating to leave the church entrusted to himself and go to another. So, a certain time must be set for this: since not accepting the bishop would seem to be an unhumane and cruel act. At the same time, remember that in the previous time our fathers determined: if anyone who is a layman, while staying in the city, does not come to the congregation on three Sundays during three weeks, he will be removed from church communion. So, if this is decreed about the laity, it is not proper, it is not proper, and it is not useful for a bishop who does not have any important need or difficult task to leave his church for a longer time, and to upset the people entrusted to him. All the bishops said: and this opinion is very decent. (Ap. 8, 9, 14, 15, 33, 35; I Ev. 8, 15; IV Ev. 5; Trul. 20, 66, 80; Antioch. 2, 13, 16, 18, 21; Serd. 1, 2, 3, 12, 17 ; Carth. 48, 71 ; The definition of this rule regarding the fact that a bishop should not leave his diocese and move to another to preach or serve is contained in its main outlines in the 14th Apostolic Canon. As we have already said in the interpretation of several rules, the people had the right to express their desire regarding the appointment of a bishop, which the person desired by the people usually became, as a result of which those who wished to receive a well-known episcopal position tried, first of all, to win over the people of the given place. This was also done by some bishops who, being in poor and less honorable episcopal sees, sought to move to a richer and more honorable one, despite the fact that its legitimate bishop was still alive and well. In order to fulfill his desire, especially if the bishop of a certain diocese was not fully skilled in preaching the word of God and church service, one of such bishops went there without an invitation and tried in one way or another to undermine the influence and humiliate the legitimate bishop, attracting the people to his side, so that they, having rejected the legitimate bishop, would elect him in the place of the latter. To stop such evil, the rule determines how long the absence of a bishop from his region and stay in another can continue, since, says the rule, “not receiving a bishop would seem to be an unhumane and cruel act.” In order to determine in a more precise way the time of the allowed absence of a bishop from his region, the rule recalls the canonical decree of an earlier time, issued for the laity, namely: anyone who has not been in church on a single Sunday for three weeks without having a good reason for this is subject to excommunication. If such a decree exists for the laity, then all the more important should it be for priests in general and especially for bishops, since it is very harmful and inappropriate for a bishop to leave his church for a long time, thereby upsetting the people entrusted to him. Subsequently, 16 rule IX (const. 861) of the local council, this time was determined exactly, and it was prescribed that no bishop has the right to leave his see for more than 6 months. The ancient canonical decree mentioned by the rule regarding the obligation of the laity to attend church is none other than the 21st canon of the local council in Elvira (Eliberitanum, in Spain) in 307, at which one of the prominent members was the same Hosius, the chairman of the Serdica council, at whose proposal the present rule was established. The Trullo Council renewed this rule (Project 80), extending its decree to all members of the clergy, from the bishop and below. Some of the brethren and co-bishops in the cities in which they are appointed bishops apparently have very little property belonging to them, but in other places they have great acquisitions, from which they can help the poor. I believe that if they want to come to their possessions and collect the fruits, then they should be allowed to do this so that they remain in their possessions for three Sundays, that is, three weeks, but so that they are present and serve in the nearest church in which the presbyter is serving, so that they do not appear to be left without church services, and so that they do not often come to the city in which there is a bishop. For in this way, their own affairs will not suffer any harm from their absence, and they will obviously avoid accusations of pride and vanity. All the bishops said: this decree is also acceptable. (Ap. 36, 58; Trul. 19, 80; Gangr. 5, 20; Serdic. 11; Dvukr. 16; Carth. 71, 120, 121). This rule is an addition to rule 11, and as it contains a regulation on bishops going to foreign regions, it says that bishops who have their own possessions in foreign regions can freely go there to gather fruits in order to help the poor, and they can stay no more than three weeks, after which they must return to their own region. During his stay in the estates, this bishop must avoid frequent trips to the city in which the residence of the permanent bishop is located, so that what is mentioned in the 11th rule does not happen, i.e. so as not to cause any trouble to the resident bishop of the city. While in his domain, this visiting bishop must visit and serve weekly in the parish church closest to his estate (λβιτ o υργειν). This “to serve,” according to Zonara in his interpretation of this rule, does not mean that he must make a bloodless sacrifice, i.e. to perform the liturgy, but this means that he must be present at the liturgy performed by the relevant presbyters and pray together with the rest, because by performing this liturgy or any other bishop's service in another diocese without the permission of the proper bishop, he would have sinned against the decree of 36 of the Apostolic Canon. Osiy Bishop said: if anyone, a deacon, or a presbyter, or any of the clergy, is deprived of church communion, and resorts to another bishop who knows him, who also knows that he has been removed from communion by his own bishop: it is not proper, with offense for the bishop and his brother, to give him communion. If he dares to do this, let him know that he will be held accountable before the bishops when they gather. (Ap. 12, 13, 16, 32, 33; I Om. 5; Antioch. 6; Carth. 11, 29, 133; Const. Soph. 1). See interpretation of 32 of the Apostolic Canon. If a certain bishop appears prone to anger (which should not have a place in such a man), and suddenly being irritated with a presbyter or deacon, he wants to kick someone out of the church: it is appropriate to use protection, so that such a person is not immediately condemned and deprived of fellowship. All the bishops said: the one who is ejected has the right to resort to the bishop of the metropolis of the same region. If the bishop of the metropolis is not in place, resort to the neighboring bishop and ask, and the matter will be thoroughly investigated. For the hearing of those who ask must not be blocked. And that bishop, who righteously or unrighteously cast out such a person, must bear it complacently, so that the matter will be investigated, and his verdict will either be confirmed or receive correction. But before all the circumstances are carefully and correctly examined, the person excommunicated from communication until the case is considered should not appropriate communication to himself. If some of the clergy who have come together see in him disdain for authority and arrogance: then (since it is not proper to allow offense or unjust reproach) they should turn him to order with somewhat stern and heavy words, so that humility and obedience to the commander is due. For just as a bishop is obliged to show sincere love and affection to his subordinates, in the same way, those who serve are obliged to unpretentiously fulfill the duty of serving the bishops. (Ap. 12, 16, 28, 32; I Oed. 5; Antioch. 4, 6, 20; Serdic. 13, 15; Carth. 9, 10, 11, 20, 29, 132). The purpose of this rule is to come to the aid of presbyters and deacons who believe that the bishop under whose jurisdiction they are, in a time of irritation, cast out and excommunicated them without any valid reason, as a result of which the rule gives them the right to complain about this to the diocesan metropolitan. Rule 5 of the First Ecumenical Council speaks about this in its main features. This Serdic rule adds that, in the absence of his metropolitan, the deposed may turn to another nearby metropolitan (επί τ o ν πλησιόχωρ o ν χατατρέχειν, ad fmitimum concurrendis) for a detailed investigation of the matter. However, the latter should not be understood in a literal sense, because a metropolitan of another diocese can never judge as a proper judge a dispute between a bishop and a priest who is not hierarchically subordinate to this metropolitan (IV Ecumenical. 9, 17, etc.), but, according to the interpretation of this rule by Balsamon, this should be understood in the sense that the accidentally absent subject diocesan metropolitan authorized a neighboring metropolitan to investigate the feud, or the bishop and priest leading the feud themselves elected one of the neighboring metropolitans to be a mediator judge ( δικαστήν, electum judicem). The rule further notes that the bishop in charge, who has fairly or unjustly condemned a clergyman, must calmly accept the fact that his decision will be investigated and his sentence will be confirmed or changed, because this is required both by impartiality, which should distinguish the bishop when considering cases concerning clergy subordinate to him, and in general by the dignity and significance of the episcopal court (Ap. 74; I Ecum. 5; VII Ecum. 4, etc.). During the entire continuation of the investigation, until the metropolitan expresses his decision regarding the sentence to which the bishop awarded any clergy subordinate to him, the latter must remain under the punishment to which the bishop subjected him, because otherwise, i.e. while awaiting a new trial or appeal, church order could be disrupted and the fairest sentences pronounced by the authority of the bishop over the clergy subordinate to him would not be carried out. If the cleric thus condemned begins to say something against the bishop, rudely boasting of his righteousness and claiming that he was insulted and condemned unjustly, then, says the rule, it is necessary to subject the cleric to a sharp reprimand, teaching him that he must be obedient, submitting to the one who has the power to command, and without objection carry out every decree of his bishop. If any bishop, from somewhere else, wishes to appoint an alien minister of the church to any degree, without the permission of his bishop, then such an appointment shall be considered invalid and unsteady. If some allow themselves to do this, then they must be admonished and corrected by their brothers and fellow bishops. Everyone said: and let this determination be unshakable. (Ap. 35; I Om. 16; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; IV Om. 5, 20; Trul. 17; Ankyr. 13; Antioch. 13, 22; Carth. 48, 54, 90). See interpretation of 35 Ap. rules. Afti Bishop of Rivers: It is not unknown to you what and how great the Thessalonian metropolitanate is. Presbyters and deacons often come to one from other dioceses, and not content with a short stay, they remain and have permanent residence there, or only after a very long time are forced to return to their churches. And so it should be about these definitions. Bishop Hosea said: those definitions that were decreed regarding bishops, may they also be preserved regarding these persons. (Ap. 8, 9, 14, 15, 33, 35, 36, 58; I Ev. 8, 15; IV Ev. 5; Trul. 5, 20, 66, 80; Antioch. 2, 13, 16, 18, 21; Gangr. 5, 20 ; Serdik. 11, 12; Carth. 48, 71, 121; Resolutions 11 and 12 of the rules of the present council regarding bishops absent from their regions are applied by this rule to presbyters and deacons. If a bishop, having suffered violence, is unjustly deposed, either for his knowledge, or for confessing the Catholic Church, or because he defended the truth, and, avoiding danger, being innocent and subject to accusation, comes to another city: then it is according to his discretion, let him not be prevented from staying there until he returns, or is able to find deliverance from the insult inflicted on him. For it would be cruel and very difficult for us not to accept someone who has suffered an unjust exile: on the contrary, we should receive such a person with special goodwill and friendliness. (Ap. 15; I Universe. 15, 16; IV Universe. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trul. 17, 18; VII Universe. 10, 15; Ankyr. 18; Antioch. 3; Serdic. 11, 12, 16; Carth. 30). This rule constitutes an exception to the 11th and 12th rules of this council, that a bishop cannot leave his see for more than three weeks. According to Western canonists, this rule was issued for the sake of Athanasius the Great, whom the Eusebians, supported by the Emperor Constantius, expelled from his church and forced him to seek refuge in other places. Otherwise the rule is quite clear in itself. Gavdentius Bishop of the Rivers: You know, brother Afti, that when you were appointed bishop, the world flourished. So that there would not remain any traces of differences of opinion about the ministers of the church, fortunately it seems that those appointed by Musaeus and Eutychian, since no guilt was found in them, accept everyone. Hosea Bishop said: My measured opinion is this: since we must be peace-loving and patient, and have mercy sufficient for everyone: then those who were once promoted to the clergy of the church by some of our brethren, then only do not accept them when they do not want to return to the churches to which they were named. Let Eutychian not assume the name of a bishop below; let him not be considered a bishop below. If they ask for fellowship in the rank of the laity, they should not be denied this. Everyone said: we agree. (II Om. 4; Serdic. 19). This rule, divided in the Athenian Syntagma and in the author into two (18 and 19), speaks of the same subject concerning the Thessalonica Church of the contemporary moment of the cathedral. When Afti was appointed bishop of Thessaloniki, two presbyters, Musey and Eutychian, began to present both their rights to receive the same Thessalonian see. Both, although they were not consecrated (άχειρ o τόνητ o ι δντες), however, says Balsamon, as bishops, ordained some clergy. When this question was raised at the Council of Serdica, Gaudentius, Bishop of Nais, in order to preserve peace, proposed recognizing as valid clergy all those ordained by these two persons, since these clerics did not know that Eutychian and Musaeus were not legitimate bishops, and therefore there was no guilt on them personally. Gavdentius' proposal was not accepted (pr. 18), since the chairman of the council, Hosius, declared that although it is necessary to be lenient and moderate, only those who are ordained by true bishops can still be recognized as true clergy (παρά τίνων τη άληθεία μεν όντων επισκόπων ). If later these bishops were defrocked for any crimes, and the clergy ordained by these bishops, who were still legal at that time, would not have been involved in these crimes, then they (the clergy) must be recognized as legal, except for those cases when they do not obey their authority and resist its decrees. Regarding the clergy ordained by Eutychian and Musaeus, Hosius stated that secular communication could be retained for them, i.e. that they can only be in church communion as laymen, because those who ordained them not only were not bishops, but were not worthy of the episcopal name. This proposal of Hosea was accepted by the council (pr. 19). A resolution similar to this is found at the Second Ecumenical Council regarding Maximus the Cynic (pr. 4). Gavdentius Bishop of the river: these saving and prudent decrees, both decent to our priestly dignity, and pleasing to God and people, will not be able to retain their strength and strength, unless the decisions pronounced are accompanied by fear. For we ourselves know that often, due to the shamelessness of a few, the divine and venerable name of the priesthood has been neglected. And so, if anyone, contrary to what is recognized by everyone, dares to do anything else, trying to please pride and vanity more than God, let him already know that he makes himself guilty of a judicial response, and loses the honor and dignity of a bishop. Everyone answered: this opinion is decent, and we want it. (Antioch. 11; Serdic. 7, 8, 9; Carth. 104, 106). This will be especially known and fulfilled in the following way: if each of us, appointed bishops at the wayside or on waterways, sees the bishop, the question will be about the reason for the passage, and where he is directing the path. And if he finds out that he is marching to the military camp, then let him ask according to the categories established above (rights 7, 8, 9). And if he goes, having been called, then let there be no hindrance to him who goes. If, out of vanity, as was previously said to your love, or at the request of some, he hurries to the military camp: then he should not sign his letters, nor should he communicate with him. Everyone answered: let this also be determined. (Antioch. 11; Serdic. 7, 8, 9, 20; Carth. 104, 106). This rule, as can be seen from its initial words, is a continuation and addition of rule 19 (Af. Synth. 20). Both rules are in connection with the decrees of rules 7, 8 and 9 of this council, directed against bishops who sought to go to the imperial palace for any reason; The purpose of all these rules is to protect episcopal dignity and significance. Rules of the Holy Local Council of Carthage Rule 1 (1) The definitions of the Council of Nicaea must be observed in every possible way. We have these definitions in the lists that our fathers then brought with them from the Council of Nicea, and the subsequent definitions adopted by us, which are exactly in accordance with that council, are certified to be observed. (IV Universe 1; Trul. 2; VII Universe 1). The present council was convened, as we have seen (I, p. 29), at Carthage in 419 on the question whether the bishop of Rome could entertain appeals against the decisions of the councils of the African Church. The Roman bishop based his right on one of the rules (pr. 5) of the Council of Serdica, which he considered the rule of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. The fathers of this council had copies of the acts of the Council of Nicea, in which, however, there was no rule given by the Roman bishop; In order to better demonstrate the unfoundedness of the statement of the Roman bishop and his erroneous acceptance of one conciliar rule for another, they turned to Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, asking the local bishops to send them the original acts of the Council of Nicaea that were kept in their possession. While awaiting an answer to its request, the council, meanwhile, at the proposal of its famous chairman Aurelius, decided to preserve unchanged the definitions of the Council of Nicaea in the form in which they were set out in the manuscripts available to the fathers of the council, brought at one time from the Council of Nicaea by the African bishops who were there. The Council also decided to preserve all other canonical decrees issued after the Council of Nicaea, as well as those that will be issued by them, insofar as these decrees will be consistent with the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. This is the content of Rule 1 of this Council. The message sent by Aurelius on behalf of the council to the Roman Bishop Boniface on May 31, 419 tells us how the fathers of this council responded to the Bishop of Rome about his right to accept appeals from foreign ecclesiastical regions. Five years later, i.e. in 424, when the Roman bishop Celestius again asserted his right to accept appeals, the African fathers, led by Aurelius, sent a new letter to Rome, which, although temporarily, forced the Roman bishop not to make any more statements about his rights. According to the will of God, it is initially appropriate, with a consenting confession, to confess the church faith, which we have delivered in this glorious assembly. Then the church rite, by the consent of each and all together, must be observed. To confirm the thoughts of our recently installed brethren and co-bishops, we must add what we received from the fathers, as a firm definition: the unity of the Trinity, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, has no cognizable distinction. We hold this sacred in our minds, and as we have learned, so will we teach the people of God. (II Universe 1; III Universe 7; Trul. 1). This rule reminds us of how firmly and inviolably the confession of faith set out at the beginning by the holy fathers must be preserved. At the same time, the rule shows that the main purpose for which councils meet is the solemn confession of the holy faith, on the basis of which rules are then issued establishing church order, which must be strictly observed by everyone. About abstinence Bishop Avril speaks: At the former council, when the model of abstinence and purity was unasked for, it was decided that those appointed to these three degrees (that is, bishops, presbyters and deacons), through consecration themselves bound by the bonds of purity, as befits the holy bishops and priests of God and the Levites, and those serving at divine sacred rites, should be abstinent in everything: that they may be able to receive what is in simplicity They ask from God that the contents handed down from the Apostles and from ancient times be similarly preserved by us. (Ap. 5, 17, 26, 51; I Universe. 3; IV Universe. 14; Trul. 5, 6, 12, 13, 30; VII Universe. 18; Ankyr. 19; Neoces. 1, 8; Gangr. 4; Carth. 4, 25, 35, 70; Vasily Vel. 12, 27, 88). It was decided that the bishop and the presbyter, and the deacon, and everyone who touches holy things, should maintain chastity and abstain from wives... (Ap. 5, 17, 26, 51; I Om. 3; IV Om. 14; Trul. 3, 6, 12, 13, 30; VII Om. 18; Ankyr. 19; Neoces. 1, 8; Gangr. 4; Carth. 3, 25, 35, 70; Vasily Vel. 12, 27, 88; Timothy Alex. 5, 13). Both of these rules speak about the abstinence of clergy. The first (3) rule stipulates that bishops, presbyters and deacons, as those destined to perform divine services and offer a bloodless sacrifice, must observe abstinence in everything, i.e. They should not, abstaining from one thing, be indifferent to another, but they should observe themselves in everything, distinguished by all the virtues, in order to be able, as the rule says, to receive from God what they ask for, being, as Zonara says in the interpretation of this rule, mediators between God and people, propitiating the Divine to people and asking for salvation for the faithful and peace for the whole world. The second (4) rule commands the same bishops, presbyters and deacons to abstain from their wives; Rule 25 of this council also speaks about this, explaining that they must observe this at a certain time, namely, when preparing to approach the shrine. For other things, see the interpretations of rules 12 and 13 of the Council of Trullo. The lust of covetousness was properly restrained, which no one will doubt, calling the matter of all evils: let no one enter into alien boundaries, and for the sake of self-interest, let him not transgress the boundaries of his father, and no one from the clergy will be allowed to take growth from any thing. What is presented again, as not clear and completely hidden, will be examined by us, and a definition will be drawn up about it. And what the Divine Scripture has decreed very clearly, one should not have opinions about, but rather follow it. What is reproachful in the laity is much more worthy of condemnation in those belonging to the clergy. The whole council of rivers: no one acted comfortably against the prophets, no one against the gospel. (Ap. 44; I Om. 17; Trul. 10; VII Oz. 19; Laod. 4; Carth. 16; Basil the Great. 2, 14; Gregory Neokes. 3; Gregory Nyssk. 6). This rule speaks primarily against bishops who, pursuing selfish goals, cross the boundaries of their regions, seizing someone else’s property, and then generally against clergy who engage in usury. The interpretation of this rule is provided by the interpretations of 44 Ap. rules and 17 rules of the First Ecumenical Council, as well as other parallel rules. Let the presbyter not perform the perfection of peace and the consecration of virgins. And reconcile the repentant with the church, openly, at the liturgy, so that the presbyter will not be allowed. Everyone wants this. (Ap. 52; I Universe. 12, 13, 19; III Universe. 7; IV Universe. 16; Trul. 4, 31, 95, 102; VII Universe. 7; Laod. 48; Carth. 7, 43, 44). This rule prohibits the elders from the following: 1) preparation of the world (χρίσματος ποιησιν), 2) consecration of virgins (κορών καοιέρωσιν), 3) consecration of churches ( καθιέρωσιν των ναών) and 4) reconciliation with the church of penitents (καταλλαγήν μετανοούντων), leaving all this only to episcopal authority. 1) The preparation of the holy world means, as Zonara and Balsamon say in the interpretation of this rule, the action of consecrating the holy. peace (του άγιου μόρου τελετή), used during the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the early days of the church, confirmation was replaced by the laying on of hands on those being baptized. This laying on of hands was performed by the Apostles themselves, thus imparting to those baptized the grace of the Holy Spirit. Then the (Apostles) laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit - we read in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 8:17); and the Apostles did this with the special authority they received from the Savior. But already at the same apostolic time we find the basis for our present form of the sacrament of confirmation, namely, we find that those who were baptized were anointed with holy chrism. There is no definite evidence of this in the Holy Scriptures, but we find such evidence in the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the church closest to the apostolic time. As for the Apostolic decrees, they not only very often mention anointing, sometimes μύρον, βεβαίωσις της ομολογίας (III, 17), or sometimes μύρον, σφραγίς των συνθηκών (IV, 22), but there is even a complete prayer (ευχαριστία περί του μυστικού μύρου), which should follow after baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem gives detailed instructions about this (περί χρίσματος), comparing St. myrrh during confirmation with consecrated bread in the Eucharist, saying that the use of St. world has its source in the Apostolic Tradition. Thus, just as the right of the Apostles to lay hands on those being baptized passed to their successors - the bishops, so the right to prepare and consecrate the holy world for anointing (for the consecration of churches and antimins, etc.) also passed to the latter. This right of the bishop is based on his position in the church hierarchy, as a high priest, especially since the episcopal degree represents the fullness of the priesthood, and contains all the rights of sacred rites, from which all other degrees of the sacred hierarchy flow. The elders have authority in the church, conditioned by the episcopal authority, and, in relation to the performance of sacred services, the eldership acts only through those means that are sanctified by the pontifical episcopal authority, so that the elders can perform any action in the church, except that which constitutes the very basis of these actions. In addition, elders have the right to impart spiritual gifts to people through the sacraments, but only the high priest—the bishop—has the power to prepare the means by which a person becomes capable of receiving these gifts, namely holy myrrh for the sacrament of confirmation. This basic principle of Orthodox church law served as the basis for the decree of this Carthaginian rule that only a bishop can consecrate St. myrrh, but the presbyter has no right to do this. Over time, the right to consecrate the holy chrism passed to the patriarchs and to the bishops of only some churches who had special privileges. So, for example In the Russian Church, the Holy Chrism is consecrated for all of Russia in Moscow and in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, from where it is sent to all dioceses. 2) The second thing that this rule prohibits for presbyters is the consecration of virgins, which also constitutes the right of a bishop. Here, as Zonara says in his interpretation of this rule, deaconesses should not be meant, but at that time there was a custom according to which some virgins appeared in church and there made a vow to spend their entire lives in virginity; Bishops dedicated such virgins as having given themselves up to God with special prayer and took care of them, since after this they were separated from their parents. 3) Further, the rule forbids elders from consecrating churches, since the latter constitutes exclusively episcopal right. The basis of this episcopal right is the same principle that we indicated above regarding the right to sanctify the world. However, it is not superfluous to recall here what is said in the interpretations of 31 rules of the Trullo Council and 7 rules of the IV Ecumenical Council. 4) Finally, this rule prohibits presbyters from receiving repentants and publicly absolving them of their sins during the Divine Liturgy. Since in the ancient church the bishops had the right to impose penances, to receive penitents for this purpose and to determine the duration and degree of repentance, so it was the exclusive right of the bishop to publicly and solemnly accept into the church and honor the excommunicated with holy communion after they had endured penance. Subsequently, much changed in this regard when secret confession of sins and permission from them were introduced, which after such confession could be given by elders in ordinary cases. If anyone, being in danger of life, asks for reconciliation with the holy altar, in the absence of the bishop: then the presbyter, out of decency, should question the bishop, and so, with his permission, reconcile the one in danger. (Ap. 52; I Universe. 11, 13; Ankyr. 6, 22; Neoces. 2; Carth. 43; Basil the Great. 73; Gregory of Nyssk. 2, 5). Anyone who is dying should be honored with holy communion - prescribes the 13th rule of I Ecumenical. cathedral The previous rule (6) states that the presbyter has no right during the Divine Liturgy, i.e. publicly, to give forgiveness to those excommunicated from holy communion due to any sins; This rule determines that the latter should not apply to the case when someone is near death, since the presbyter can give permission to such a person, at the same time honoring him with holy communion, if the subject bishop is absent. The rule adds that even in this case, the presbyter must first contact the bishop and, only having received the latter’s consent, can allow the dying person to die or, as the rule says, “reconcile” the one who is threatened with death. From this it is clear that in this case we are talking about those penitents who have not yet completed the entire time of repentance, but, fearing death, want to be rewarded with St. participles. But there are cases when the bishop is far from a given place and the presbyter cannot obtain the proper episcopal consent so quickly - is it then possible to allow the penitent to die without holy communion? In this case, the presbyter can himself give permission for sins, without waiting for the bishop’s consent, as prescribed by Rule 43 of the same council. The point is that many ill-behaved people take it for granted, in any case, to bring accusations against fathers and bishops. Should they be accepted or not? From all the bishops it was said: if one is defamed, then do not accept him. (Ap. 34, 37, 74, 75; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trul. 8; Antioch. 14, 15, 20; Laod. 40; Serdic. 4; Carth. 128, 129, 130; Dvukr. 13; Theophila Alex. 9). Regarding this rule, see interpretation of 6 rule II Omni. cathedral; They talk about this in even more detail: 128, 129 and 130 of the rules of this council. If any bishop or presbyter accepts into communion those righteously expelled from the church for their crimes, let him himself be guilty of equal condemnation with those who deviate from the correct sentence of their bishop. (Ap. 11, 12, 13, 32, 33; I Om. 5; IV Om. 11, 13; Trul. 17; Antioch. 6, 7, 8, 11; Laod. 41, 42; Serdic. 13; Carth. 23, 106). See interpretations of 11 and 12 Ap. rules and 5 rules I Omni. Council, as well as other parallel rules. If any presbyter, condemned by his bishop, lifted up by a certain arrogance and pride, should think of bringing holy gifts to God separately, or intends to erect another altar, contrary to the church faith and charter: let him not be left without punishment. Council of Rivers: If any one be a presbyter, become proud against his bishop and create a schism: let him be anathema. (Ap. 31; II Om. 6; III Om. 3; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Gangr. 6; Serdic. 14; Antioch. 5; Carth. 11; Dvukr. 13, 14, 15; Basil the Great. 1). If any presbyter is condemned for his behavior, he must inform the neighboring bishops, so that they will listen to the matter, and so that through them he will be reconciled with his bishop. If he does not do this, but (from which God will protect), puffed up with pride, he will remove himself from communion with his bishop, and together with some, causing a schism, will bring a holy offering to God: such a one will be recognized as being under an oath, and may he lose his place, however, with consideration of whether he has just complaints against the bishop. (Ap. 31; I Om. 5; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Antioch. 4, 5, 6; Gangr. 6; Carth. 10, 29, 107; Dvukr. 13, 14, 15). Regarding these two (10 and 11) rules, see the interpretation of 31 Ap. rules, 6 rules of the Gangra and 4 rules of the Antioch councils. Regarding what is said in the 11th rule of this council, regarding the fact that a presbyter convicted by his bishop must report this to neighboring bishops in order to, if possible, be freed from the accusation with their help, Archimandrite John notes that in ancient times the general rule was that all such cases, before the official trial, were usually transferred to a mediating court, composed by agreement of elected persons who tried and often managed to reconcile the warring parties, and only in case of failure with on the part of the intermediate court, the case was transferred to formal investigation and the court of regional councils. Philix the bishop of the rivers: let it be included in the rules, in accordance with the definitions of the ancient councils, and this: if a bishop (even if there is not one) is subjected to some kind of accusation, and, due to great difficulties, it will not be possible for many bishops to gather: then, so that he does not remain under accusation for a long time, let twelve bishops listen to him at the trial, the presbyters - six bishops and his own: and the deacons - three. (Ap. 74; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Antioch. 4, 6, 14, 15, 20; Serdic. 13, 14; Const. 1; Carth. 14, 15, 20, 96, 107). To resolve controversial issues and in general to carry out court proceedings, in each diocese, according to the prescription of the rules, councils must meet correctly at a certain time under the chairmanship of the proper metropolitan (Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 19; Trul. 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch. 20; Laod. 40; Carth. 18). The rule anticipates the case when, due to some special difficulties, the usual council of all the bishops of a given diocese cannot be convened, and yet it would be desirable to resolve the case of any complaint filed against a bishop, presbyter or deacon. In this case, the rule prescribes the convening of an emergency court, which should consist of 12 bishops for a bishop, 6 bishops for a presbyter, and three for a deacon. We have seen the decree of the rule of the local council of Constantinople in 394 that a bishop can be deposed only by the decision of the great council and all the subject diocesan bishops ( επαρχίας ). The latter was and must always be observed in the church; As for the number of bishops required to sentence a bishop to deposition, the latter is determined in general by the number of bishops in a given church region (see, for example, canon 14 of the present Carthaginian Council). But in large ecclesiastical regions with many bishops, in order to overthrow one of them it was considered strictly necessary to gather exactly 12 bishops; This is shown to us by the case cited in the interpretation of this rule by Balsamon. John, Bishop of Amatun (on the island of Cyprus), was deposed by 11 bishops under the chairmanship of the archbishop. The convicted bishop filed a complaint to the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke (1156–1169) against such an illegal, in his opinion, sentence. The Patriarchal Council rejected this verdict on the grounds that, firstly, the entire episcopal council of the Cypriot Church was not convened, or at least a larger number of bishops, as was possible, and secondly, that there were not 12 bishops without an archbishop, but only eleven bishops and an archbishop. The second decree of this rule, that 6 bishops are needed to depose a presbyter and 3 bishops to depose a deacon, should not be understood in the literal sense, but in connection with other rules that speak of the deposition of a presbyter and a deacon. Those rules (4 Antioch. and other parallel rules) say and determine that the subject bishop has the power to depose a presbyter or deacon, and this is the general fundamental norm. The fact that this Carthaginian rule mentions 6 and 3 bishops should be attributed to the case when a deposed presbyter or deacon believes that he was treated wrongly, as a result of which he wants to turn to the highest court as a second instance; this highest court must be composed of the number of bishops mentioned, as well as the bishop to whom this presbyter or deacon is subordinate; It goes without saying that this happens when it is not possible to convene an ordinary diocesan council. Many bishops, having gathered, appoint a bishop. And according to need, let three bishops, in whatever place they may be, by order of the superior, appoint a bishop. And if anyone acts in anything contrary to his consent or signature, he will deprive himself of honor. (Ap. 1; I Om. 4; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19, 23; Laod. 12; Serdic. 6; Const. 1; Carth. 49, 50). In the Greek text of this rule the word χειροτονήσουσιν έπίσκοπον is used, which would literally mean: let him ordain a bishop, in the sense of Decree 1 of the Apostolic Canon, in which this word is also used. But the word χειροτονία is used in the rules and to designate election, as we said in the interpretation of the mentioned Apostolic Rule. That in this Carthaginian rule the word mentioned must be understood in this latter sense, is evident from the final words of the rule, which states that a person who acts against his signature (τη Ιδία υπογραφή), when installing a bishop, is deprived of the episcopal honor. The signature of the subject bishop does not take place at the ordination, but only at the election of the bishop, namely, when at a meeting of the synod the members of the latter give their signatures as confirmation that they cast their vote for a well-known candidate. This rule repeats the entire resolution of Rule 4 of the First Ecumenical Council on the election of a bishop, and the interpretation of this rule serves as an interpretation of the present one. The aforementioned Nicene Rule states that bishops who are for some reason deprived of the opportunity to personally appear at the council to elect a bishop can cast their vote through a charter (δια γραμμάτων). This Carthaginian rule cites a case where one of these bishops, who could not appear in person, but at the same time gave his consent to the election of a well-known candidate orally (εάν ώμολόγησεν), or signed the electoral act (ή υπέργραψεν εν τψ περί εκείν о υ ύηφίσματι ), will refuse the voice given to him and thereby become in contradiction with himself. The rule states that such a bishop deprives himself of honor (αυτός εαυτόν αποστερήσει της τιμής), i.e. is deposed, says Zonara in his interpretation of this rule, if, however, he does not justify his action and does not clearly and thoroughly prove that the one for whom he cast his vote is not worthy of the episcopacy. It was decided that from Tripoli, for the sake of the poverty of the country, one bishop should come to serve as locum tenens in the cathedral, and that there at the trial five bishops would listen to the presbyter, and three to the deacon, as stated above: clearly there is, as there will be a bishop to preside. (Ap. 74; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Antioch. 4, 6, 14, 15, 20; Serdic. 13, 14; Carth. 12, 15, 20, 96, 107). This rule contains two regulations: first, that councils must be convened annually, to which each ecclesiastical region must send its representatives, and Tripoli, as having a small number of bishops, can send only one representative; second, for the same reason, if in Tripoli a presbyter or deacon complains about the sentence of his bishop, then such presbyter must be tried in the second instance by the proper bishop with five other bishops, and the deacon by the same bishop with three others. This rule is an exception to the 12th rule of this council (419) and the interpretation of the latter serves as an interpretation of the present. 15 It was also decided that any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or clergyman, if he has an accusatory or litigation case that has arisen in the church, renounces the ecclesiastical court, and wishes to be justified before the secular tribunals, shall be deprived of his place, even if the decision were in his favor. And this, in an accusatory case, or in a litigation case, let him lose what he acquired by the decision of the case, if he wants to keep his place. 16 It was decided in the same way: if from any ecclesiastical judges the judgment case will be brought to other ecclesiastical judges who have the highest authority: let there be no reproach for those whose sentence is revoked, if they cannot be convicted, as either out of enmity, or out of partiality they condemned, or were deceived by some kind of gratification. 17 If judges are chosen by agreement of both parties to the trial, then, even if their number is less than that specified in the rules, it will not be allowed to bring judgment to others. 18 The children of priests should not be exposed to worldly disgraces, nor should they behold them. This has always been preached to all Christians, so that they should not enter where there is blasphemy. (Ap. 74; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 17; Trul. 24, 51, 62, 66; Antioch. 5, 12, 14, 15; Laod. 54; Serdic. 3, 5, 14; Carth. 12, 28, 61 , 97, 104, 122; This Carthaginian rule speaks of two completely different subjects: firstly, about trials for criminal and civil offenses, and secondly, about the behavior of children of the clergy. Regarding the first subject, there are three rules in the Russian Book of Rules (15, 16 and 17), as well as in the Greek Pidalion (rights 14, 15 and 16). The second subject constitutes the special 18th rule in the Book of Rules, and the special 17th rule in the Pidalion. In the Athenian Syntagma, both of these subjects are set out in one (15) rule, as a result of which we present all these prescriptions in one rule. 1) Rule Book 15; Pidalion 14. For all clergy, the proper court is the court of the bishop on whom these persons depend, and for a bishop, the court of the underlying metropolitan. This constitutes the general norm of canon law of the Orthodox Church. Based on this norm, the rule prescribes that neither the bishop nor other clergy have the right, having neglected their proper spiritual court, to turn to secular courts (δημοσίοις δικαστηρίοις), seeking justification in them (cf. II Om. 6 and parallel rules). The rule prohibits them from doing this even when the case concerns the area of criminal law (εγκληματικού πράγματος, crirninali controversia), or civil law (πολιτικού, civili), ordering that each such case be conducted exclusively in an ecclesiastical court ( έκκλησιαστικόν δικαστήριον, forum ecclesiasticum). If someone, neglecting the church court, turns to the secular court, then the rule prescribes to deprive such a place, i.e. deprive him of the priesthood and cast him out, even if the secular court ruled in his favor; and if this case were one that concerns civil law, i.e. as Zonara says, a monetary matter (χρηματικόν), then such, in addition to church punishment, loses everything that he accidentally received at the trial. However, this does not mean at all that the church always wants to free its servants from worldly court in everything and does not recognize that they may be subject to this court at all; because there are things that, by their very nature, are subject to secular court, such as, for example, everything relating to serious state crimes, regarding which the church has never assumed the right of court; on the contrary, the church itself brought to the worldly court clergy accused of any such serious crimes (Antioch. 5; Dicr. 9). The Church prohibits its ministers from turning to worldly courts only in those matters that, by their nature, are subject to decision by church authorities; because by their appeal to secular courts they would thereby violate the rights of this government, violating at the same time the canonical instructions of the church; at the same time, having managed to justify themselves before a secular court, these persons would thereby humiliate church authority and become unworthy of the priesthood, and having fallen under the sentence of this court, they, at the same time, like any other layman, would have to be subjected to corresponding punishment and thereby would humiliate the dignity of the priestly rank. This prohibition also applies to controversial cases that may arise between clergy; in similar cases between clergy on the one hand and laity on the other, the requirements of church-civil legislation generally mattered. In controversial cases with the laity of a private nature, clergy could be subject to secular court, just as laymen were subject to spiritual court; in such cases, the Greco-Roman laws adopted by the Nomocanon were generally applied. In criminal cases and serious state crimes, the guilt of famous clergy had to be recognized in court by one or the other authority, i.e. both spiritual and secular, and in such cases the guilty, having lost the priesthood, i.e. having been deposed by church authorities, they were handed over to the hands of secular authorities, which imposed appropriate punishments on them. 2) Rule Book 16; Pidalion 15. The rules repeatedly recognize the right of everyone, in case of dissatisfaction with the verdict of a lower court, to appeal to a higher court in the same case (I Om. 5 and parallel rules). The same right is recognized by this rule, which says that there is no insult to the judges of the first instance if in the highest court, i.e. in the second instance, their decision will be changed, except in the case where it is proven that these judges judged unfairly, or out of malice towards the accused, or biased out of friendship for the one who was acquitted, or as a result of bribery. The latter is indicated in the rule by the words: ή τινι χάριτι ύποφθαρήναι (vel gratia aliqua corruptos esse); Zonara translates this with the word δωροδοκία (largitio, δωροδοκηθέντες, mercede emptos), therefore we correctly called this bribery, since it is possible that the sentence is sometimes pronounced under the influence of bribery. If it is proven that the church judges of the first instance passed an illegal sentence, then they themselves, as Zonara notes, will be deprived of their dignity and, according to Rule 6 of the VII Ecumenical Council, must undergo the same punishment that they imposed on the innocent. 3) Rule Book 17; Pidalion 16. Although this rule, like others like it, allows an appeal from a lower court to a higher one, it at the same time prohibits an appeal against a sentence pronounced by judges elected by treaty. The legality of the court, consisting of judges elected by agreement, was solemnly recognized by the IV Ecumenical Council (Project 9). From the very beginning, the church attached great importance to such a trial, and it was enough that three worthy clergy, chosen by agreement by both parties (i.e., the accused and the accuser), pronounced the verdict, and the latter was considered unchanged. Taking this into account, the rule deviates from the quantitative norm of judges, which is established for the formal court by the 12th rule of this council, and admits that in such cases there may be a smaller number of judges, but there can be no appeal against the verdict of these elected judges. 4) Rule Book 18; Pidalion 17. Regarding the last ruling of this rule, see the interpretations of 24 and 51 rules of the Trullo Council. This rule prohibits the children of the clergy from attending spectacles where only blasphemy occurs, because priests, according to the Apostle Paul, must raise their children in obedience and fear of God and, as the Apostle Titus reminds, only faithful children can be presbyters, not reproached for debauchery or disobedience (Tit. 1:6, also cf. 1 Tim. 3:4), and those who attend theaters and the like they can easily be suspected of an inclination towards fornication, and about such a person it can no longer be said that he is distinguished by Christian modesty. If in general the rules recommend that all the faithful not visit those places where blasphemy occurs (Trul. 51), then all the more so should this be prohibited to the children of those persons whose main duty is to be preachers of God-worship and Christian modesty. 19 It has been decided that bishops and presbyters and deacons should not be ransomers for gain or stewards, and that they should not acquire their livelihood by doing something dishonest or contemptuous. For they must look at what is written: No warrior binds himself to the affairs of this life (2 Tim. 2:4). 20 Readers who come to adulthood are encouraged to either enter into marriage or take a vow of chastity. 21 It was also decided that the cleric who lent money should receive the same amount of money, and the one who gave things would receive as much as he gave. 22 Let no deacons be appointed before twenty-five years of age. 23 Readers should not bow to the people during worship. (Ap. 5, 6, 20, 26, 44, 51, 81, 83; I Om. 17; IV Om. 3, 7, 14; Trul. 6, 9, 10, 13, 33; VII Om. 10, 14, 15; Ankyr. 10; Laod. 4; Carth. 5, 126; Dvukr. 14, 69); This rule contains five different provisions. 1) Rule Book 19; Pidalion 18. Regarding the first decree prohibiting clergy from engaging in worldly affairs, see interpretation of 3 rules of IV Omni. cathedral and other parallel rules. At the same time, the rule also adds that no clergy has the right to earn his living by any shameful or dishonorable deed (αισχρού ή άτίμοο πράγματος, turpi vel vili negotio); and between such matters, Zonara also mentions the maintenance of the tavern (το προί᾿στασθαι χαπηλείοο). 2) Rule Book 20; Pidalion 19. By 26 Ap. According to the rule, readers were allowed to marry freely and whenever they wanted; therefore, the ruling of this rule that the readers, upon reaching maturity, were either to marry or take a vow of virginity forever, had only significance for the African Church. 3) Rule Book 21; Pidalion 20. Regarding the third provision of this rule, that no clergy should charge interest on money lent, see the interpretation of 44 Ap. rules and 17 rules of the First Ecumenical Council. 4) Rule Book 22; Pidalion 21. Also see interpretations of 14 and 15 rules of the Trullo Council that no one can ordain a deacon before 25 years of age. 5) Rule Book 23; Pidalion 22. Regarding the last decree of this rule that the readers should not bow (μη προσκυνώσι) to the people, Zonara says that they (the readers) during the service should only bow to the bishops and presbyters, and not to the people in the church, since they have accepted initiation, and the people are far away in their position from the priesthood βίσι ), Why it is necessary to give honor to them, especially during worship. It was destined that Mauretania of Sitifena should have its own leading bishop, since it asked for this from the leading bishop of the Numidian country, from which it was separated by the council. By the consent of all the primate bishops of the African regions and all the bishops, it is allowed for her to have her own primate, due to her remoteness. (I Om. 6; Carth. 86, 96, 127). The former political division of Africa in the strict sense (and freto Gaditano ad Cirenaicam regionem) underwent a change in the second half of the 4th century, and six separate provinces were formed: Africa proconsularis (with the main city of Carthage), Numidia, Byzacium, Tripolls, Mauritania Sitifensis and Mauritania Caesariensis. According to the political division of the lands, it was necessary to divide the church areas, which was done at one of the councils, not mentioned in this rule; and specifically Mauritania of Sitifen was separated from Numidia, with which it formerly formed one ecclesiastical region. The resolution of this council was reluctantly accepted by the Numidian primate, as a result of which this question was raised at the Council of Ippon in 393, and by a special rule (rule 17) it was established that all strife should cease and from now on Sitifenian Mauritania should have its own primate. Subsequently, this was the case in reality, and at the Council of Carthage in 407, among other representatives, we see the representative of Mauretania of Sitifena (96 rights of the Council of Carthage), as well as at the Council of Carthage in 418 (right 127). 25 It is well advised that those ordained to the rank of bishop or clergy first have the decrees of the councils placed in their ears, so that they do not act contrary to the decrees of the council and do not repent. 26 It is ordained that the Eucharist may not be given to the bodies of the deceased. For it is written: take, eat (Matthew 26:26), but the bodies of the dead cannot receive or eat. Likewise, let the ignorance of the elders not encourage them to baptize those who have already died. 27 It is appropriate to confirm at this holy council that, according to the rules of the Council of Nicaea, for the sake of church affairs, which are often carried out to the detriment of the people, a council should be convened every year, to which all those occupying the first in the areas of the see would send from their councils two, or as many as they choose, bishops to act as locum tenens, so that the assembly thus constituted could have complete authority. (Ap. 37; I Universe. 5, 9, 13; IV Universe. 9, 19; Trul. 8, 83; VII Universe. 2, 6; Antioch. 20; Carth. 76, 77, 95). This rule contains three separate provisions: 1) Rule Book 25; Pidalion 24. From the interpretation of 2 rules of the VII Ecumenical Council, we saw that a candidate for the episcopal see must have a good knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and canon law, and must testify to his knowledge during the test; We saw the same thing regarding the presbyter in the interpretation of canon 9 of the First Ecumenical Council. This rule says the same about all those persons who join the clergy, i.e. about all those who are preparing to accept ordination (τοις χειροτονουμενοις), and it is added that such should always remember well that they will have to show their knowledge at the appropriate test, and also ensure that later, in their priestly life, they do not act contrary to what is prescribed, for which they would have to repent, i.e. as Zonara says, so that they will not be punished later. 2) Rule Book 26; Pidalion 25. The second part of this rule (18) first of all says that holy communion should not be given to the dead, and to prove this, the words of Jesus Christ related here are cited from the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 26:26). The text of the rule says των τελευτώντων (morientium); This would mean, in exact translation, that one should not give holy communion to those who are near death, to those who are dying (who are dying). But that the rule is not talking about them, but specifically about the bodies of the dead (θανόντων, mortuorum), is shown, as Zonara notes, by the words supplementing the text of Holy Scripture: “the bodies of the dead (τα των νεχρών σώματος mortaornm corpora) neither they cannot accept or eat,” while everyone who is still alive, although there is no longer hope for his life and in a few minutes he will lose his breath, should still be honored with St. communion (I Ev. 18). The custom that once existed of placing holy communion into the mouths of dead people was based on the pious desire to admonish the body of the deceased with a shrine, in order to thus impart a certain holiness to this body. How rooted this custom is everywhere is evident from the fact that in the 7th century the Council of Trullo was forced to renew this decree of the Carthaginian (or more correctly, Ipponian) fathers (right 83). Further, the second part of this rule (18) states that a dead person should not be baptized. And this custom was also introduced for religious reasons and the belief that baptism regenerates the human body. It (the custom) passed on to Christians from the Montanists, who performed baptism over the dead, and spread not only in the African Church, but also in some other countries. 3) Rule Book 27; Pidalion 26. The third part of this rule contains a decree on the mandatory convening of councils every year, at which all bishops occupying first places in the dioceses must participate καθέδρας έπε᾿χοντες), i.e. all metropolitans; if the metropolitans themselves, due to any valid reasons, cannot personally appear at the council, then, according to the rule, they must send two bishops, by choice from each diocese (metropolitan region), as locum tenens (τοποτηρητάς), representatives of their dioceses, so that the perfect authority of church authority. From this it is clear that here we are not talking about ordinary diocesan or episcopal councils (Ap. 37; IV Ecum. 19, etc.), but about councils of large ecclesiastical regions, or about diecesal councils (ή σύνοδος της διοικήσεως, IV Ecum. 9 ); the Carthaginian (or Ipponian fathers) could issue a decree on such a council for their region, because proconsular Africa had independent government and consisted of the six provinces mentioned by us in the 17th rule of this council, and the metropolitan of its main city of Carthage was Primas universae Africae. However, the resolution on the annual convening of a general council was changed by rule 95 of this council, and this rule decided to convene such councils only in cases of extreme need, and otherwise - to convene ordinary diocesan and metropolitan councils. If any of the bishops is accused, let the accuser present the case to the chief in the region to which the accused belongs, and let the accused not be alienated from communion, unless, having been called to account by letter, he appears before the court of the elect to judge him at the appointed time, that is, within a month from the day on which, according to the inquiry, he received the letter. If he presents true and necessary reasons that prevented him from appearing to answer against what is presented to him, then without prejudice, let him have freedom to be justified during another month; but, after another month, let him not be in communication until he clears himself with evidence of the case. If the council does not wish to appear before the whole council of that summer, so that at least its work would be completed there, then it is destined to be condemned as having pronounced a verdict against itself. During the time in which he remains out of fellowship, let him not commune either in his church or throughout the border. On the contrary, the informer against him, even if he did not go anywhere during the consideration of his case, may not be prohibited from communicating. But if he leaves and reveals himself, then the bishop will be returned to communion, and the informer himself will be removed from communion, however, so that his freedom is not taken away. Confirm the accusation: if he can prove that he did not come to trial not out of reluctance, but out of impossibility. This, however, is obvious, as if during the progress of the case in the court of bishops, the face of the informer will be discredited: then we should not accept accusations from him, unless he wishes to consider his own, and not the church case. (Ap. 34, 37, 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trul. 8; Antioch. 14, 15, 20; Laod. 40; Serdic. 4; Carth. 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 59, 104, 107, 128, 129, 130, 132; This rule, which is divided into three parts according to its content, sets out mainly the course of a legal process initiated as a result of a complaint against a bishop - this process is similar to that described in the interpretation of 74 Ap. rules. When intending to complain against any bishop, the accuser is obliged to present his complaint to the proper court of that bishop, i.e. the metropolitan of the diocese under whose jurisdiction the bishop is located. Having been accused, the bishop does not yet lose his rights, but continues to use them until an appropriate decision is made, except for the case when, having been called to court, he would not appear there for a month, counting from the day the written invitation was delivered to him, because in this case, for disobedience to the court, he would have been subjected to the appropriate punishment. If it is proven that he did not appear in court and did not justify his absence in any way, due to truly important and valid, and not fictitious reasons, then he is given another month so as not to deprive him of the opportunity to justify himself before the court; If he does not appear after this second month, then the rule decides to deprive him of communication in this case (μη κοι - νωνήση, non communicabit) until it is proven that he is not guilty of anything and that the complaint against him was unfounded. Nevertheless, this diocesan council has not yet pronounced its verdict against the accused bishop, despite his failure to appear in court, but is waiting to see whether this bishop will appeal for his acquittal to a great general council (σόμπασαν σόνοδον, synodo universali). if the bishop does not do this, then, says the rule, he pronounces a sentence on himself and, while he is out of communion (εν ίφ καφφ, φ ου κοινωνεί), does not dare to perform divine services either in his church or in any other place, such as, for example, in one of the parishes subordinate to him. As for the accuser, the latter, as the rule decrees, can remain in full ecclesiastical communion, if only he submits in all respects to the decisions of the judges. If the accuser, evading the judges, hides so that they cannot find him, and the judges have reason to conclude that with his complaint he only wants to slander the bishop, who was subjected to excommunication for his failure to appear in court, then the accused bishop is accepted back into communion, and the accuser himself is expelled from communion and punished as a slanderer. If it is proven that the accuser unintentionally evaded the judges and did not appear at the trial on a certain day only for valid and valid reasons, then in this case he is not subject to any punishment, and he is given freedom to defend his complaint against the bishop before the court and at other times. As for the rest said in the rule about the qualities of an accuser, see 6 rule of the Second Ecumenical Council and 21 rule of the IV Ecumenical Council and the interpretation of these rules. If presbyters or deacons are accused: then, after a meeting of the legal number of elected bishops from nearby places, whom the accused question, that is, when there is an accusation against a presbyter, six, and for a deacon, three, together with these own accused, the bishop examines the accusations brought against them, in compliance with the same rules regarding days and periods, and investigation, and the persons accusing and accused. Let a single local bishop examine and conclude cases involving the faults of other clergy. (Ap. 14; IV Ev. 9; Antioch. 4; Carth. 12, 15). Just as Canon 19 contains a decree regarding accused bishops, so the present (20) Canon contains a similar decree regarding presbyters, deacons and other clergy. To understand the ruling of this rule that the presbyter is judged by 6 bishops, and the deacon by 3, you need to turn to what is said about this in the interpretations of the 12th and 14th rules of this council. It is well-decreed that the children of those in the clergy should not have intercourse with pagans or heretics. (IV Om. 4; Trul. 72; Laod. 10, 31). We already know the decree of Rule 72 of the Trullo Council, which generally prohibits the marriage of Orthodox Christians with heretics. If such a marriage was concluded earlier, then it had to be dissolved and it was considered invalid. The basis for such a ruling, this rule indicates that allowing such a marriage would be tantamount to the desire to unite a sheep with a wolf and the destiny of a sinner with the cause of Christ. So, if such a marriage is generally prohibited to any layman professing the Orthodox faith, then even more so it should be prohibited to the children of the clergy. This is the resolution of this rule of the Carthaginian (otherwise Hippo) council. Let bishops and those in the clergy not assimilate anything to those who are not Orthodox Christians, even if they are relatives; let bishops and those in the clergy not strengthen anything of their things, as has been said, by means of a gift. (Ap. 38, 40; IV Om. 22; Trul. 35; Antioch. 24; Carth. 81). This rule prohibits all members of the clergy, without distinction of their hierarchical degrees, from transferring any of their property to non-Orthodox Christians by will, gift, or in any other way, even if they were their relatives. Members of the clergy can dispose of their private property independently of church service, through inheritance, by gift, or in any other private way, freely, at their own discretion, but can always and exclusively give it only to persons, whether for physical or legal reasons, professing the Orthodox faith. This norm is established by the 40th Apostolic Canon and the 24th Canon of the Council of Antioch. The non-permission of clergy members to cede their private property to non-Orthodox Christians, even if the latter were their relatives, prescribed by this Carthaginian (Ipponian) rule, was also prescribed by Greco-Roman legislation. The relevant provisions of this legislation are given by Zonara in his interpretation of this rule. Even the natural children of clergy members, in the event of their apostasy from the Orthodox faith, could not become heirs to the property of their Orthodox parents, and this property, if there were no other Orthodox relatives, had to become the property of the local church. The latter is now normalized by secular legislation in accordance with inter-confessional laws in some states, and in accordance with the requirements of civil codes, but for Orthodox church law, what is prescribed by this Carthaginian rule is of fundamental importance. Α 81 rule of the Council of Carthage, which is in connection with this rule, decrees regarding bishops who made heretics or pagans their heirs, that such even after their death are subject to anathema, and their name should never be pronounced in holy churches. On this, see below the interpretation of the mentioned (81) rule. Bishops do not go overseas except with the permission of their bishop of the first throne for each region, that is, having received primarily from the most senior bishop the so-called letter of release, or approval. (Ap. 33; IV Om. 13; Antioch. 11; Carth. 28, 89, 105). In accordance with the position of Africa, the words rule “beyond the sea” (πέραν θαλάσσης, trans mare) designate Italy and mainly Rome. Bishops from Africa willingly went there when they needed to present themselves to the imperial court, or to file a complaint with the Bishop of Rome against the decisions of the African Councils; How willingly the Roman bishop listened to such complaints is shown to us, among other things, by the reason for which this Carthaginian council was convened (419). The rule does not generally prohibit African bishops from visiting Rome if they really had a need to do so, but it stipulates that they can do this only with the permission (μετά ψηφίσματ o ς) of the underlying metropolitan or, as the rule says, της πρώτης καθέδρας του ίδίοο εκάστης χώρας επισκόπου. The metropolitan, when the given bishop informs him of his intention, finds out the reason for which the bishop wants to go overseas, and, finding it valid, issues him written permission to travel, or the so-called letter of dismissal (vacation) (άπολυτικήν έπιστολήν). This letter is also called in the rule a confirmatory (certifying) letter (τετοπωμένη, formata), since it bore the seal and signature of the metropolitan; is also called approval (παράθεσις, commendatio), since it served as a recommendation of this bishop for those persons to whom he went, confirming and approving everything concerning the personality of this bishop. Further in the rule it is said that this letter of dismissal must be received by the famous bishop mainly (κατ έξαίρετ o ν, praecipue) from the metropolitan; the latter is said because, according to canon 11 of the Council of Antioch, a bishop, intending to leave his diocese, had to have a written certificate from all diocesan bishops, as well as from the metropolitan; therefore, the meaning of this rule is that the bishop must have it from all diocesan bishops, mainly (κατ᾿ έξαιρετον) from the metropolitan. It was also decreed that nothing should be read in the church under the name of divine scriptures, except the canonical scriptures. The canonical writings are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two Chronicles, Job, Psalms, four books of Solomon, twelve prophetic books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobiah, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra. New Testament: four Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen letters of Paul, two books of Peter the Apostle, three books of John the Apostle, one book of James the Apostle, one book of Jude the Apostle, one book of the Apocalypse of John. For the firmness of the rule laid down, let our brother and co-servant Boniface and the other bishops of those countries be informed about this: for we have received from the fathers that these books are appropriate to be read in the church. (Ap. 60, 85; Laod. 60; Athanasius the Great on the holidays; Gregory the Theologian on the books of the Holy Scripture; Amphilochius on the books of the Holy Scripture). This is the 36th rule of the Council of Hippo in 393, and in the form as it was set out at this council, i.e. his listing of all the books of Holy Scripture, which should be recognized as canonical, fully corresponds to the canon of the sacred books of the Latin Church, subsequently adopted at the Council of Trent. In the rule of this Carthaginian council (419), in our text, i.e. in the text of the Athens Syntagma, the Maccabean books are not mentioned, as is done in the rule of the Council of Hippo, but it does mention the books: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (ecclesiasticus), Tobit (Thobias) and Judith, therefore four books not included by the Orthodox Church among the canonical books of the Old Testament. Such a listing, or such a canon of the Old Testament sacred books, is a feature of the Carthaginian church, and the fact that this Carthaginian rule mentions all these books as canonical (χανονιχαι γραφαί, canonicae scripturae) must be understood in a broader sense of the word, namely, that these books, as useful and instructive, are allowed by the canon (rule) for reading in churches. In the Slavic Helmsman, the latter is quite accurately expressed in the translation of this Carthaginian rule, and the books mentioned are named: books named in the rules, rules named books; from the interpretation of 85 Ap. As a rule, we saw that both strictly canonical and non-canonical books of the Holy Scriptures were always revered and holy (σεβάσμια και αγια), and therefore useful for reading by pious people, if only they were allowed for use. Regarding other things, see the interpretation of rule 2, or the message of Athanasius the Great on holidays and the rule of Amphilochius in this edition. Avriliy Bishop said: to this, most honorable brethren, when discussing the abstinence of some of the clergy, except the readers, from their wives, I add what was approved at various councils: let those who touch the sacred mysteries subdeacon, and deacons and presbyters, and also bishops, according to the rule characteristic of each of these degrees, let them abstain from their wives, and yes will be as if they do not have them: and if they do not do this, then they will be cast out from the church rank. Other clerics should not be forced to do this, unless they are advanced in age. The whole council of rivers: we affirm that your shrine is righteously distributed, as befitting the priesthood and pleasing to God. (Ap. 5, 17, 26, 51; I Universe. 3; IV Universe. 14; Trul. 5, 6, 12, 13, 30; VII Universe. 18; Ankyr. 19; Neoces. 1, 8; Gangr. 4; Carth. 3, 4, 25, 35, 70; Vasily Vel. 12, 27, 88; Timofey 5, 13). This rule is in close connection with the 3rd and 4th rules of this council. Since bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons can be married, i.e. have their own legal wives, then this rule stipulates that they must abstain from intercourse with their wives at the time when it is their turn to serve, i.e. perform the holy mysteries, and at this time, according to the Apostle Paul, they who have wives should be as if they did not have one (1 Cor. 7:29). This ruling of this Carthaginian rule was literally given in the 13th rule of the Council of Trullo, which, as we know, was issued against the custom of the Roman Church, which required celibacy for all clergy. Along with bishops, presbyters and deacons, the rule also mentions subdeacons, saying that they, as “touchers of the sacred mysteries,” must also at certain times abstain from communicating with their wives. Regarding the subdeacons, in the 21st rule of the Laodicean Council (Laod. 20) it is said that they should not touch sacred vessels, of course only during the celebration of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, as we have already talked about this in the interpretation of the mentioned rule of the Laodicean Council. Judging by this, these two rules (25 Carthaginian and 21 Laodicean) contradict one another, since according to one of them, subdeacons are given the right to touch the sacred mysteries and sacred vessels during the offering of a bloodless sacrifice, and according to the other, they cannot do this. In our opinion, the decree of the Laodicean rule should be considered more correct, because, according to the general teaching of Orthodox church law, a subdeacon, without receiving ordination, does not constitute a special degree of the sacred hierarchy and, as such, does not directly participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic mystery, and therefore cannot touch the sacred vessels at this time. Taking all this into account, it is difficult to find a solid reason why this Carthaginian rule prescribes to subdeacons in relation to abstinence the same as bishops, presbyters and deacons who have accepted consecration and belong to the sacred hierarchy, and does not equate them in this regard with readers and other lower clergy who do not belong to this hierarchy. The contradiction between the mentioned rules was also drawn attention to by medieval Greek commentators of the rules, and Zonara expressed the opinion that the Carthaginian fathers issued a similar decree on the abstinence of subdeacons, in all likelihood, on the basis that in those places there was such a custom that subdeacons also touched the “sacred mysteries.” In general, Church Orthodox sources reveal uncertainty regarding subdeacons, their service and duties in the church during ceremonies, which explains the fact that some canonists, even of modern times, consider subdeacons to be a special (fourth) degree of the sacred hierarchy, i.e. clergymen (ιερωμένοι), and not clergymen (υπηρε᾿ται), as they really are. It is decreed that no one should sell church property: but if this property does not generate income, and there is a great need: then present this to the first bishop of the region, and consult with a certain number of bishops about what should be done. If there is a great need for the church, as if it is not possible to consult before tradition, then let the bishop call neighboring bishops as a witness, and let him make sure to present to the council all the circumstances that have befallen the church. If he does not do this, then the seller will appear guilty before God and the council, and will lose his honor. (Ap. 38, 39, 40, 41, 73; IV Ecum. 24, 26; Trul. 35, 49; VII Ecum. 11, 12, 13; Ankyr. 15; Antioch. 24, 25; Carth. 33; Cyril Alex. 2; Theophilus Alex. 10). Regarding the fact that church property must always be under the jurisdiction of the church and remain inviolable (άχινήτους καί άνεκποίητα, salvas et incolumes), say many rules and, by the way, the 12th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council, the interpretation of which should be paid attention here. In this Carthaginian rule, this injunction is expressed categorically: that no one should sell church property (πράγμα έκχλησιαστικόν μηδεις πνπράσκη, rem ecclesiasticam nemo vendat). if there is an extreme need in the church for something (πολλή τις ανάγκη), and the church has some property that does not bring in any income, but from the sale of which it would be possible to replenish what is missing, then in this case the rule allows for a deviation from the general norm and gives instructions on how to proceed when selling this property; namely, the rule decrees that the underlying bishop present all this to the metropolitan, who, by agreement with the bishops subordinate to him, will decide what should be done. If the matter is so urgent that the proper bishop does not have time to report it to the metropolitan and consult with the proper bishops, then he should at least invite the nearest bishops as witnesses to certify that the need is truly urgent and that the church property does not bring in any income and, therefore, can freely be sold to satisfy the needs of the church - and only after all this can he make the sale. But in this case, the bishop is obliged, as soon as the diocesan council meets, to present this case to him and justify it before the council. If he does not act in this way, he becomes guilty before God (Ap. 38), and the council for such an act will deprive him of the honor that he enjoyed, i.e. deprive him of his bishopric. It is also confirmed that presbyters or deacons convicted of some grave sin that inevitably removes them from the priesthood should not lay hands, as on repentants, or as on faithful laymen, and not allow them to be baptized again, and ascend to the rank of clergy. (Ap. 25, 47, 68; Trul. 21; Carth. 48; Basil the Great. 3, 32, 51). Some presbyters and deacons, having been defrocked for some crime and demoted to the ranks of the laity, sought to rejoin the clergy and take some place of service in the church outside the altar (έξω του βήματος), i.e. reader or other similar place obtained through chirophesy. At the same time, they argued that, having repented and stood alongside the faithful laity, they could, like the latter, receive service in the church. The rule does not recognize such arguments, and, according to its decree, the bishop should not lay hands on such defrocked persons (μη έπιτιθεσθαι αύτοΐς χείρας) to elevate them to any degree of clergy, despite the fact that they repented and were accepted into the church as laymen; because, having once been expelled from the clergy, for any crimes, they must forever remain outside it. From this decree stems an important canonical law, which prescribes that everyone, once correctly expelled from his hierarchical degree, can never again perform any clergy service, cannot even, as Balsamon says, read from the pulpit, read prayers to someone, or teach a blessing. Greek commentators understand the final words of this rule in the sense that deposed clergy cannot be accepted into the clergy even if they were baptized a second time, because first of all, baptism can only be accepted once. These words, as they are used in the rule ώστε άναβαπτιζομένους (tanquam rebaptizati), would seem to be more correctly understood in the sense that they do not mean those who actually intended to be baptized a second time, i.e. not baptized in the strict sense, but those who washed themselves from sin by repentance, which was also called baptism. Consequently, it is more correct to mean here persons who have proven that they are now clean from sin, and therefore, as newly baptized, can be accepted into the clergy. It is also determined that when presbyters and deacons and other lower clerics complain about the court of their bishops regarding matters that have arisen among them, neighboring bishops will listen to them, and that, with the consent of their own bishops, the displeasures that have arisen between them will be stopped by the bishops invited by them. For this reason, if even from these people they want to bring the case to the highest court: let them not bring it to the courts on the other side of the sea, but to the leading bishops of their regions, as this has been determined many times about bishops. And those who transfer the matter to the courts on the other side of the sea are not accepted into communication by anyone in Africa. (II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Antioch. 4; Carth. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 23, 105, 125). Regarding the fact that the proper court for every presbyter, deacon and other lower clergy is the court of the bishop to whom all these persons are subordinate, it has been repeatedly stated in various canons; in the same way, many rules say that all these persons are freely allowed to appeal to the diocesan council if they believe that their trial was carried out incorrectly. The rules of this council mention several times, instead of the usual diocesan council, as a court of second instance, a special court composed of several nearby bishops, mostly in cases where, due to some obstacles, the established diocesan council cannot meet (rights 11, 12, 14, 20, 125). From these rules, the 12th, 14th and 20th determine the number of closest bishops who are to form a court, namely, for a presbyter, 6 or 5 bishops, and for a deacon, 3 bishops, together with the underlying bishop of the person who is not satisfied with the pronounced sentence; 11, 125 and this (28) rule do not talk about a certain number of bishops, indicating only that it is necessary to invite several of the closest ones, of course, at the request of the persons filing the complaint, but in any case with the knowledge of the subject bishop (μετά συναινέσεως τοδ ίδιου επισκόπου, κατά συναίνεσιν των ιδίων αυτών επισκόπων, right 125). The ruling of such a court, as the rule says, should finally decide the case. If these persons, being dissatisfied with the decision of these judges, again begin to seek acquittal, then in this case they must turn to the appropriate metropolitan, who, at the next diocesan council, together with his bishops, will pronounce the final verdict. By this, this rule confirms the general norm of the church that any legal process must be considered and decided within the boundaries of a certain ecclesiastical region by the authority of its most important hierarchs. Referring to the fact that some elders and other clergy of the African Church, allowing themselves to neglect the court of their church and make complaints “across the Sea” (πέραν της θαλάσσης), i.e. to Rome, asking there to subject the decision of the African church authority to a new trial (we saw an example of this in the presbyter Apiaria, for whose sake this council was convened in 419), the rule reminds that if bishops are strictly forbidden to apply for court to Rome, then this should be even more strictly forbidden to presbyters and other clergy. This prohibition and, in general, the uncanonical nature of the fact that the hierarchs of one local church can interfere in the judicial affairs of another similar local church and change its judicial decisions, was solemnly expressed by the fathers of this council in their letter to Pope Celestine, which we have already mentioned (I, 193) and which we further present in its entirety. Regarding those who, having violated this decree, decide from the African Church to seek a new trial in Rome, the rule decrees that such persons should not be accepted into church communion by anyone in Africa. Thus, if Rome, Balsamon notes regarding this ruling, does not have the right to discuss the complaints of the African Church (which, by its geographical position, is closest to Rome), much less can it have this right in relation to other limits. However, in Rome they well understood the meaning of this canonical decree, strictly drawn up both in the spirit of divine and canonical law of the Christian Church, and therefore in their official canonical collection (Corpusjuris canonici) they brought this Carthaginian rule in their own way, adding a few words to the text of the rule, as a result of which the decree received a completely different meaning. They betrayed the words τα πέραν της θαλάσσης δικαστήρια (transmarina judicia) as if it were talking about the ordinary ecclesiastical courts of Italy, and not about the court of the Roman throne, and, in order to better express this, they added the following to the end of the rule: nisi forte Romanam sedem appellaverint. It is pleasing to the entire council that someone who has been excommunicated from communion for his negligence, whether a bishop or anyone from the clergy, during his excommunication, before hearing his justification, who dares to begin communion, should be recognized as having pronounced a sentence of condemnation on himself. (Ap. 28; I Universe. 5; II Universe. 6; IV Universe. 29; Antiochus. 4, 12, 15; Serdic. 3, 4, 5, 14; Carth. 19, 65; Basil the Great. 88). This rule resumes in its main features the same resolution of the 14th rule of the Serdica Council, which speaks of a bishop who, in an irritated state, subjected one of the clergy subordinate to him to ecclesiastical punishment, and gives this cleric the right to appeal to the highest court, adding, however, that this cleric cannot have ecclesiastical communion until this highest court pronounces its verdict. This Carthaginian rule deals with an ordinary ecclesiastical court of first instance, condemning a bishop or other member of the clergy, and those convicted are given the right to appeal to the highest ecclesiastical court; This rule, just like the one mentioned in Serdica, stipulates that everyone convicted by the first court must remain under the punishment imposed on him by the first court until the highest court releases him from this punishment. If the convicted person opposes the verdict of the first court, before the decision of the higher court, and neglects the punishment of the first court, then, as the rule says, he has pronounced a condemnation against himself, because he loses the right to appeal. The ruling of this rule is very important in the sense that it declares the verdict of every ordinary ecclesiastical court firm and unchangeable, until this verdict is changed by the highest ecclesiastical court. It is ordered: the accused, or the accuser, who fears some kind of violence from the restless crowd in the place where the accused is located, choose for himself the nearest place where it would not be difficult for him to present witnesses, where the case ends. (Ap. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trul. 17, 18; VII Om. 10, 15; Ankyr. 18; Antioch. 3; Serdic. 17). What this rule says about members of the clergy between whom a trial arose, one of them being the accuser and the other the accused, is evident from the connection that this rule has with the previous and three subsequent rules, which were all issued at the meeting of this council on May 25, 419, as well as from the reminder of this by Zonaras in his interpretation of this rule. It is not clear from the rule what kind of court the Carthaginian fathers were talking about, if we take into account that they mention the nearest place in which the case was to be investigated and decided, i.e. in which there was, therefore, an ordinary court. We assume that there can be no talk here of a metropolitan court, a primate court or a patriarchal court, since the places of usual residence of metropolitans or primates and patriarchs cannot be called closest to each other. This could not be said regarding the courts of diocesan bishops, because their usual places of residence, judging by the current diocesan structure in general, were not so close to one another that it would be easy to bring all witnesses to the court, as the rule says. The latter can only be assumed in relation to the then North African Church, in which there were many (466) episcopal sees, so that each larger town had its own bishop, and therefore its own diocesan court. It goes without saying that such a transfer of processes between members of the clergy to another place could only be permissible with the consent of the proper bishop. It is determined in the same way: if any clerics or deacons are disobedient to their bishops, who, due to the necessary circumstances of their churches, want to elevate them to the highest degrees in their church: let them not serve and to the degree from which they did not want to be elevated. (Ap. 39, 55; IV Ecum. 8; Trul. 34; Laod. 57; Basil the Great. 89). Regarding the canonical obedience of all clergy, starting from the presbyter and below, in relation to their bishop, it was stated, as we have already seen, in several rules. As the basis for this obedience, Zonara cites a passage from Holy Scripture where it is commanded to obey and submit to teachers (Heb. 13:17). This rule refers to all persons belonging to the clergy, who are dependent on the underlying bishop, while deacons are mentioned not in the sense of a hierarchical degree and service at the altar (εν τψ άγιφ βήματι), but in general in the sense of ministers of the church, i.e. performing a certain church service (διαχονίαν τινά, ήγουν υπηρεσιαν), as can be seen from the word διαχονεΐν (serve) used in the text of the rule. Concerning all such ministers of the church, the rule decrees that they must submit to their bishop when the latter, for the important needs of the church, wishes to promote them to the highest dignity, i.e. raise from one degree to another higher. If any of the clergy opposes this and does not want to submit to their bishop, perhaps for the reason that it is more profitable for him to be in the rank he holds, due to large monetary incomes, or because he does not want to take on more work, in this case the rule prescribes that they should be deprived of the service that they performed while in their previous rank (εν έκείνω τψ βαθμώ ). The rule says that this is how to punish clergy who do not want to obey their bishop when he wants to promote them to the highest degree for the important needs of their churches (δια τινας αναγκαστικά; αίτιας των εκκλησιών αυτών ). What if there is no such important need? And in this case, the bishop, on the basis of the established church order (κατά την έκκλησιαστικήν τάζιν, secundum ordinem ecclesiasticun), has every right to elevate his clergy to the highest degrees, even if they did not want it. It is determined: if bishops, presbyters, deacons, or any clergy who do not have any acquisitions, according to their appointment, during their episcopacy or clergy, buy lands or any lands in their name: then let them be considered the thieves of the Lord's acquisitions, unless, having received an admonition, they give them to the church. If anything comes into their possession by gift from someone, or by inheritance from relatives, let them do with it according to their own will. If, however, they willfully give something to the church, they will turn back: let them be considered unworthy of church honors, and rejected. (Ap. 4, 38, 40, 41; IV Om. 22; Trul. 23, 35; Antioch. 24, 25; Carth. 22, 26, 81; Dvukr. 7). Regarding bishops, it was already established by the Apostolic Canon that it should always be precisely indicated what constitutes their private property and what is church property; Moreover, as freely as they can dispose of their private property at will, they must protect church property, always remembering that God is watching over them (Ap. 40, and also cf. Antioch. 24). But even in this private property of the bishop, one must distinguish between what he acquired during his service as a bishop and what he acquired independently of this service. The bishop could dispose of this last property, acquired by inheritance or in some other private but legal way, at his own discretion; he cannot dispose of the same that he acquired from the income of his church service at his own discretion, but is obliged to transfer it to the church during his lifetime or after death. Everything that was established in this regard for bishops was extended by this Carthaginian rule to all clergy serving in the church. In the first times of Christianity, clergy performed the duties entrusted to them in the church without the right to demand reward for any of their services. Even in the 7th century, every clergyman who demanded money or anything else for performing the holy sacraments was punished by defrocking (Trul. 23). The clergy received their maintenance from general church income, made up of voluntary contributions to the church from the faithful, and from church property; at the same time, the bishop and his assistants took care of the maintenance of the clergy, giving to each as much as was due (Ap. 4). Due to this state of affairs, the clergy could not have enough money to acquire fields or any other property, and even less so if, as the rule says, the bishop or other clergy did not have anything of his own when entering the clergy. If there is a bishop or one of the members of the clergy who, being previously poor, has become so rich while serving in the clergy that he has acquired some real estate in his name, then there is doubt whether he did this with church money, as a result of which, according to the canon, he must be considered to have appropriated to himself what constitutes the property of the Lord (δεσποτικά πράγματα , ήγουν κυριακά), and as such be punished until he, having not heeded the demands of the proper authority, yields to the church all that he has acquired. The rule refers only to immovable property acquired by someone, but here, as Balsamon says, it is necessary to mean movable property, because when it comes to purchase, there is no difference between immovable and movable property. Everything said in this rule by the Carthaginian fathers is of great importance for those clergy who, during their service, think only about how to acquire more land, build houses and generally become as rich as possible. Regarding such persons, Blessed Jerome says that they must be avoided like the plague. Regarding the private property of members of the clergy, received by them from someone as a gift or by inheritance, the rule resumes in its main features the resolution of 40 Ap. rules. If, having promised some part of this private property, any of the clergy members, regretting it, takes back what was promised, such a one will be deprived of church honor (της εκκλησιαστικής τιμής), i.e., may he be expelled from the clergy as unworthy (ως αδόκιμοι). It is also determined that elders, without the permission of their bishops, should not sell things to the church in which they are ordained. Likewise, bishops were not allowed to sell church lands without the knowledge of the council or their presbyters. For this reason, apart from need, the bishop is not allowed to waste things that are in the church inventory. (Ap. 38, 39, 40; IV Ecum. 25, 26; Trul. 35; VII Ecum. 11, 12; Ankyr. 15; Gangr. 7, 8; Antioch. 24, 25; Carth. 26; Dvukr. 7; Theophilus Alex. 10; Cyril Alex. 2). This rule is mainly an addition to Rule 26 of this council. Just as no bishop can sell church property without the consent of the proper episcopal council, so no presbyter can sell anything belonging to the church in which he serves without the consent of the proper diocesan bishop. Speaking about the bishop, the rule reminds that he should not alienate church property, except in extreme need (μη ούσης ανάγκης), therefore, in case of need, he can do this. Regarding this, it is necessary to distinguish between movable property and immovable property. These latter the bishop can never alienate without the knowledge of the episcopal council, or at least without his presbyteral council; if extreme need forces him to do so for the sake of urgent church needs, then in this case he must thoroughly prove this to the council in order to obtain the latter’s approval for what he has done. If the matter concerns movable property, then for such a case the decree of 41 of the Apostolic Canon is relevant, giving the bishop the power, if necessary, to sell it without declaring this to the council and without listening to the opinions of his presbyteral council on this matter. The latter is also evident in the published Carthaginian rule, which mentions only church lands, i.e. immovable property, which the bishop should not sell without the knowledge of the councils or his presbyters, while there is no mention at all of movable property, which may be spoiled and unfit for the use of the church, but, if sold, could bring some income, having a price as dry material; such church property can be freely sold personally by the bishop, but, of course, only for the benefit of the church and for the sake of church needs. About the fact that nothing that was laid down at the Ippon Council requires correction. Epigonius Bishop Rivers: In this abbreviation, extracted from the acts of the Council of Hippo, I do not recognize anything that requires correction or addition, except that the day of Holy Easter was announced in advance during the council. (Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; II Om. 7; Trul. 11; Laod. 7, 37, 38; Carth. 51, 73, 106). By virtue of the resolution of the First Ecumenical Council, the bishop of Alexandria had to annually at a certain time announce to all churches the day on which the Resurrection of Christ was to be celebrated that year. Regarding the African Church, the Council of Hippo in 393 established that all regional churches must take care to receive notification of the day of Easter from the Carthaginian church. The latter was confirmed by the Council of Carthage in 397 and the Council of 419. Usually the general council of the African Church was convened in Carthage in the second half of August (right 73), therefore, it was possible to know a long time in advance when Easter should be celebrated next year. Bishops and clergy should not allow their children to go their own way, by separating them from themselves, unless they completely rely on their morals and age: so that their sins do not subsequently fall on the parents themselves. (Ap. 5, 17, 26, 51; I Universe. 3; IV Universe. 14; Trul. 5, 6, 12, 13, 30; VII Universe. 18; Ankyr. 19; Neoces. 1, 8; Gangr. 4, 15; Carth. 3, 4, 25, 70; Vasily Vel. 12, 27, 88; Timofey 5, 13). This rule is important because it shows how unfounded is the assertion of the Latin Church that the Council of Carthage, with its 3, 4, 25 and 70 rules, established the celibacy of the clergy. If the Council of Carthage established celibacy in reality, then the question arises: where did the bishops and other members of the clergy have children? The release of children from parental authority (δια έμαγκιπατιωνος, emancipatio) and granting them independence (full rights, αυτεξούσιους, sui juris) belonged to the field of civil law and was accomplished by a legal act (actus legitimus) of the proper court Such emancipation could occur when the son reached more or less mature age, but it often happened, as it happens now, that those who received freedom did not know how to wisely use their full position, so freedom often served them only to their detriment. The Carthaginian fathers remind the bishops and other members of the clergy about this ruling of civil law, recommending them not to grant their children freedom until the latter acquire full self-control and are able to behave in accordance with their position. The responsibility that the rule imposes on parents for the sins of their children must be attributed to God's judgment and spiritual punishment, because, as Balsamon says, for the sins of their children, whether they are committed under parental authority, or outside this authority, parents can neither be accused nor punished, since, according to the law, sins go behind the head (τα αμαρτήματα τη κεφαλή έπ o νται, peccata caput sequuntur). This rule is also important because it shows how the church authorities care not only about the clergy themselves, but also about their children and in general about all relatives (cf. 36 Carthaginian rights, etc.). Bishops and presbyters and deacons should not be appointed until they have made everyone in their house Orthodox Christians. (Ap. 58, 80; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11; Carth. 121, 123). The meaning of this rule is quite clear. If a clergyman must first of all be a teacher of the faith and take care not only to confirm everyone in the Orthodox faith, but also to spread this faith wherever possible, then what confidence can one have that this holy duty will be fulfilled by that person who, wishing to enter the priesthood and having someone from his family who does not profess the Orthodox faith, will not be able to convert him to the truth? Based on this, the rule prohibits accepting into the clergy someone who has one of his relatives who does not profess the Orthodox faith. Let nothing be brought into the sanctuary (εν τοις άγιοις) except the body and blood of the Lord, as the Lord himself betrayed, that is, except bread and wine dissolved in water. The first fruits, or honey, or milk, according to custom, are brought on one certain day, as a mysterious sign of infants. Although these things are brought to the altar: however, let them have their own blessing, being separated from the shrine of the body and blood of the Lord. Let no firstfruits be brought from anything except grapes and wheat. (Ap. 3, 4; Trul. 28, 32, 57, 99). We spoke about the establishment of this rule in general terms in the interpretation of 3 Ap. rules; and the decree of the rule that nothing else should be offered for the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist except bread and wine mixed with water was renewed by the Council of Trullo (Rule 32). The rule mentions honey and milk, brought according to custom on one specific day to the altar (εν θυσιαστηρίφ προσφέρεται) as a mysterious sign of infants (εις το των νηπίων μοστήριον ). To understand this, it is necessary to recall the ancient custom that existed in the church, according to which persons who had just received baptism, like infant children reborn in Christ, were given honey and milk. This custom was based, among other things, on the words of Holy Scripture: like newborn babies, desire the pure milk of the word, so that from it you may grow to salvation (1 Peter 2:2). Tertullian and Jerome testify to the same custom. This milk and honey were brought to the church on the day of Christ's Resurrection, when the baptism of the catechumens was mainly performed, placed on the throne along with the holy mysteries of the body and blood of Christ and consecrated in the same way as bread and wine, after which they were given to the newly baptized instead of holy communion. With this rule, the Carthaginian fathers abolished this custom, allowing honey and milk to be brought to the altar, but ordering that they be blessed separately, not mixed with the mysteries of the body and blood of Christ. The Trullo Council, with its 57th rule, forever forbade bringing honey and milk to the altar. Clergymen, or abstainers, should not enter widows or virgins, unless with the permission and consent of their bishop or presbyters: but even in this case, let them not enter alone, but with other clergy, or with those with whom the bishop or single presbyters have access to such wives: or let them talk with them where clerics or certain respectable Christians are present. (IV Universe. 3, 16; Trul. 4, 46, 47; VII Universe. 18, 20, 22). The clergy mentioned in this rule (κληρικοί) must be understood, judging by the rest of the text of the rule, as unmarried persons, from deacon and below; by abstinents (έγκρατευόμενοι) we mean monks (Basil the Great 19). Consequently, the rule forbids these clergy and abstinents from visiting widows and girls. By maidens (παρθένους), Zonaras says, one must mean the initiated maidens (καθιερωμένας, quae sacratae sunt), which we talked about in the interpretations of 16 canons of the IV Ecumenical Council and 4 canons of the Trullo Councils. As for the widows mentioned in this rule (χήραι, viduae), these were women who were under the special supervision of the church, which took care of their maintenance (IV Ecum. 3) and assigned them certain duties in the church. To prevent any suspicion or temptation (1 Cor. 10, 32), the rule stipulates that clergy and abstinents can visit such women only with the permission and consent of the underlying bishop (κατ᾿ ᾿ Ιπιτροπήν και συναίνεσιν), or, in the absence of the latter, with the consent of the presbyters ( των πρεσβυτέρων), located under the bishop and belonging to the members of his council. But even having received permission, these clergy and abstinents can visit the mentioned women only in the company of other clergy or those persons with whom the bishop visits these women, and talk with them again in the presence of other clergy or any respectable Christians. The bishop of the first see should not be called an exarch of the priests, or a high priest, or anything similar, but only a bishop of the first see. (Ap. 34; IV Om. 9; Serdic. 6). In the African Church, as we saw in the interpretation of the 17th rule of this council, there were several primary cathedras (or metropolitan churches). The bishops of these primary sees were called differently in Africa, but always bore high titles. Because of these titles, there were often quarrels between the mentioned bishops, especially due to the fact that after the Carthaginian bishop, who was called primas totius Africae, the first primate bishop was considered the oldest by consecration. To prevent this, as well as to eliminate all reasons for vanity and pride, the rule prohibits the bishop of the primary see from being called εξαρχ o των ιερέων (sacerdotum princeps), or άκρος ιερεύς (summus sacerdos), leaving only the title for him επίσκοπος της πρώτης κα & έδρας (primae sedis episcopus), prima. Clerics, for the sake of food and drink, should not enter inns, unless forced by the need for food on the way. (Ap. 54; Trul. 9; Laod. 24). Let the holy sacrament of the altar be performed by people who have not eaten. Excluded from this is the only day in the year on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated. If the memory is of certain people who died in the evening, bishops, or others, then let it be accomplished through prayers only when those who perform it are said to have dined. (Ap. 69; Trul. 29; Laod. 50; Antioch. 1; Carth. 47; Timothy Alec. 16). That Jesus Christ established the sacrament of the Eucharist after supper, i.e. after eating (μετά το δειπνήσαι), and not before supper, - testifies both Holy Scripture (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), and many fathers and teachers of the church. But at the same time, the fathers and teachers of the church testify to us that the sacrament of St. From the very beginning of the church, the Eucharist was celebrated by everyone only on an empty stomach (από νηστικών ανθρώπων, a jejunis hominibus). Apparently, in the African Church there were also persons who did not do this, as a result of which this rule was issued, decreeing that the divine service of the altar can only be performed on an empty stomach. The peculiarity of this rule is that it allows the celebration of the Eucharistic mystery once a year after eating, namely on Maundy Thursday. In all likelihood, this assumption is in connection with the custom of the Asia Minor churches to break the fast on the 14th day of the first month (Nisan), when the Lord's Supper was commemorated, for which they held a special supper (dinner), similar to the one that Jesus Christ performed with his disciples, and after it they partook of the holy mysteries (interpretation of 1 Antioch. Rule). Everything we have said is confirmed by the words of St. Augustine in his epistle ad Januarium: Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio dele-ctavit, ut uno certo die per annum, qno ipsam coenam Dominus dedit, tanquam ad insigniorem commemorationem post cibos offeri et accipi liceat corpus et sanguinem Domini... Custom this one, it seems, continued to be kept in the church even until the 7th century, when it was decisively prohibited by the 29th rule of the Council of Trullo. Continuing the decree that the Eucharist should always (except Maundy Thursday) be celebrated on an empty stomach, the rule also cites the case when after lunch it is necessary to perform a commemoration (παράθβσις, commendatio) for some of the dead, and the liturgy was also served according to custom. Regarding this, the rule stipulates that the liturgy can only be performed by a clergyman who has not had lunch, but if he has had lunch, then commemoration should be limited only to prayers without liturgy. Bishops or clergy should not feast in the church: unless it is possible to have rest in it due to the need of wandering. And to the laity, as far as possible, such feasts are prohibited. (Ap. 73; Trul. 74, 76, 97; Gangr. 11; Laod. 27, 28). This is the 29th rule of the Council of Japan in 393 and was published at this council at the suggestion of Blessed Augustine, who wrote a lot against the bad custom that had penetrated into the church, sometimes, especially on holidays, organizing feasts in the church (συμπόσια, convivia, more precisely epulae). These treats, arranged as if with a pious intention, to help the poor brethren, usually ended in drunkenness and riots. The same thing happened with the agapes, about which the 28th rule of the Laodicean council speaks, prohibiting them, just as this Carthaginian rule, confirming the decree of the Hippo council, prohibits these σομπόσια (feasts). From the fact that the rule nevertheless allows refreshments in church for persons on the road, it is clear how deeply rooted is the opinion that one can eat and drink in the church of God. A decisive prohibition of such feasts not only in the church, but also in its fence, was issued by the Trullo Council in its 74th rule. For those who repent, the time of repentance, according to the difference of sins, is appointed by the court of bishops: the presbyter, without the will of the bishop, does not allow the repentant, unless in time of urgent need, in the absence of the bishop. Let a hand be laid on everyone who repents, even if his crime was obvious and public, disturbing the entire church, in the vestibule of the church. (Ap. 52; I Universe. 11, 13; Trul. 102; Ankyr. 6, 22; Neoces. 2; Carth. 6, 7; Basil the Great. 73; Gregory of Nyssa. 2, 5). This rule speaks about three subjects. Firstly, about the power of the bishop to determine the time of repentance for penitents, according to the difference and degree of their sins. Trullian rule 102 speaks about this. Secondly, that the presbyter can release a repentant sinner only in case of extreme necessity and in the absence of the bishop who has this right (Carth. 7). Thirdly, that great sinners, whose crimes were obvious and served as a general temptation, after the expiration of the time of repentance assigned to them, receive forgiveness publicly before the church gates (προ της άψίδος), and only after that, having clearly propitiated the truth of God, they are allowed into the church with the faithful. Virgins dedicated to God, when they are separated from their fathers who watched over them, under the care of the bishop, or in his absence, the presbyter, may they be entrusted to the most honorable wives: or, living together, may they mutually guard each other, so that, wandering everywhere, they will not damage the good glory of the church. (IV Om. 16; Trul. 4; Carth. 6, 126; Basil the Great. 18). We know who these virgins dedicated to God were, about whom this rule speaks, we know from the interpretation of the 4th rule of the Council of Trullo; and from rule 6 of this council we saw that the right to dedicate girls who had bequeathed themselves to God belonged only to the bishop. This rule indicates how these consecrated virgins should live. That is, having been separated from their parents, who watched over them during their stay at home, they, having received consecration, should not be left to themselves, but the bishop, or, during his absence, the presbyter in charge, should entrust them to the supervision of God-fearing women, who would see that they lived according to their vow. If virgins dedicated to God live together in a dormitory, then the rule instructs them to observe each other, of course, under the supreme supervision of a bishop or presbyter - their confessor. As can be seen from the rule, this church supervision of the girls was not strict enough, since they were allowed to live separately and choose their place of residence at their own discretion, which aroused suspicion towards some of them and undermined the authority of the church. As a result, the Council of Hippo in 393 published this rule, which was also adopted by the fathers of the Council of Carthage in 419. 54 Those who are sick and cannot bear witness for themselves, let them be baptized when, according to their will, others testify about them, under their own responsibility. 55 Let those who disgrace and mock at shows and other such persons, or apostates who repent and turn to God, not be deprived of grace or reconciliation. (Ap. 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 61, 75, 80; I Ev. 2, 9, 11, 12; Trul. 24, 51, 95, 102; VII Ev. 8; Laod. 2, 3, 12, 17, 47 ; Neok. 12 ; Dvukr. 1, 5, 89; This rule contains two separate provisions: 1) In order for the baptism of adults (as such are spoken of in this rule) to have real significance, it is necessary that it be a matter of personal conviction and sincere faith (VII Om. 8), and therefore of the person; those who are seriously ill and unable to take responsibility for themselves cannot be awarded holy baptism. This idea is categorically expressed by this (45) rule. It allows baptism to be performed on such persons only if there is someone else, worthy of the trust of the church, who will testify that the known patient, while still conscious, really had a desire to be baptized and reported it. In this case, the rule allows for this sick person to be honored with holy baptism, but not otherwise than under the condition of the personal responsibility of the person who testified to the desire of the patient and guaranteed that, having recovered, he will truly be a sincere son of the Orthodox Church. Regarding baptism performed on the sick, see the interpretations of the 12th rule of the Neo-Caesarean and 47th rule of the Laodicean councils. 2) Actors (σκηνικοί) and comedians (μίμοι) are equated in this rule to apostates from the Christian faith (τοις άποστάταις). This means, of course, those actors and comedians who represent the things mentioned by the rule, as was also stated in the interpretations of rules 24 and 51 of the Council of Trullo. Regarding all these sinners, the rule states that if they repent of their sin and turn to God, i.e. If they endure the time of repentance assigned to them (I Om. 11), then in this case they should not be deprived of divine grace and reconciliation with the church. It is permitted to continue to read the sufferings of the martyrs on the days when their annual commemoration is celebrated. (Ap. 60; Trul. 63; Carth. 103; Athanasius the Great. on the holidays). In the interpretation of the 24th rule of this council, we said that it was composed of the 36th rule of the Ippon Council of 393. It listed those books of Holy Scripture that “according to the canon” are accepted for reading in church, and in conclusion it was said that at certain times stories about the sufferings of martyrs could also be read in church. From this conclusion this (46) Carthaginian rule was drawn up. The aforementioned 24th rule determines which books of the Holy Scriptures can usually be read in church, and it is forbidden to read any other books except those listed. This 46th rule also allows one to read on those days of the year when the death of the holy martyrs is commemorated, a description of their suffering (τα πάθη των μοφτόρων, passiones martyrum). 57. About the Donatists, and about children baptized by Donatists. We have decided to ask the brethren and our fellow servants, Siricius and Simpilicianus, about the infants who were only baptized by the Donatists, so that what was done to them, not by their own will, but by the error of their parents, would not hinder their production into the service of the holy altar, when they turn to the Church of God, with a saving disposition. 58. Onorat and Urvan, bishops from the country of Mauritania, Sitifensky, said: we have heard about the Nicene study of faith: about the sacred rite that happens after dinner, truly it is, but it is worthily done by those who have not eaten, and then this is approved. (Trul. 29; Ankyr. 3; Carth. 1, 41, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124; Basil the Great. 1). This rule speaks about two completely different subjects: the first part of the rule contains a regulation about the Donatists, the second about the sacrament of holy communion. 1) The question of the Donatists was raised at several councils, starting from the second decade of the 4th century. Apparently the Donatiots were the most daring schismatics that ever existed in the church. This schism arose in proconsular Africa immediately after the persecution under Diocletian. Several bishops, led by Secundus, primate of Numidia, condemned some clergy for allegedly not being determined enough to undergo torture and, although they always maintained their faith, nevertheless they were looking for a way to avoid their pursuers, which, however, was fully consistent with the law on martyrdom (Ankyr. 3). The determination with which the aforementioned bishops defended their views finally turned into the most severe fanaticism, reaching the point that they even began to shy away from church communion with those individuals who did not share their opinions, considering them traitors to their faith. Among others, they accused the pious Carthaginian bishop Mensurius, who worked hard for the benefit of the church, of treason for the reason that during the persecution, in order to save himself from torment, he gave the persecutors some heretical books instead of the Bible. At their insistence, a special commission was appointed to investigate this case and condemn Mensury. Meanwhile, Mensurius died, and control of the Carthaginian church temporarily passed to his first assistant, the learned and pious Caecilian. The commission demanded by the fanatics met in 312 in Carthage under the chairmanship of Donatus, bishop de Casis nigris, as the representative of the said Numidian primate Secundus, the patron of these fanatics. Of course, the commission condemned Mensurius, although he was already dead, which extremely irritated the Orthodox, who after that interrupted all relations with the fanatics. The latter, having meanwhile managed to attract many followers to their side in Africa, in turn broke off all contact with the Orthodox, especially after Caecilian was elected Bishop of Carthaginia. In the autumn of the same year, they convened in Carthage a fairly large council of their adherents, at which, having declared Caecilian unworthy of the bishopric, they immediately elected and dedicated their like-minded Majorinus to the Carthaginian see, affirming at the same council that, indeed, only those who profess their teaching should be recognized as true Christians. Having recognized as heretics all those who did not profess their teachings and finding that the holy sacraments were damaged everywhere and were correctly performed only by their clergy, they, on this basis, decided to baptize anew everyone who entered into communion with them, to ordain anew every clergy who wanted to be a priest or bishop in communion with them, and in general to renew all the sacraments performed on anyone outside their community. Thus a split was made in the church. Majorin lived very briefly and a certain Donatus was elected in his place. From the name of this Donatus (later called the great) and another, who was bishop de Casis nigris, these schismatics received the name Donatists. Having united at the beginning, they strongly rebuffed both the Orthodox in Africa and the state authorities in general, which could not approve of their fanaticism. Soon, however, disagreements arose among them, and over time we see them divided into several sects - circumcelliones (circumcellio nes or in short circelliones), Primianists, Maximianists, etc., which, however, were all of the same mind among themselves in hostility towards the Orthodox. Naturally, such a schism could bring nothing but harm to the church. Taking all this into account, especially since the Donatists did not sin in the fundamentals of the faith, the Orthodox bishops from the very beginning, and especially when the Bishop of Hippo, Blessed Augustine, came to the defense of the Orthodox Church, decided to deal with the schismatics in the most merciful way, using the gentlest means to return them to unity and to restore church peace (Carth. 66, etc.). The latter was achieved with great difficulty, and the Orthodox were often forced to turn to state authorities for help (brachium seculare). Among the rules of this council, many, as we will see later, are concerned with the question of the Donatists, and always in the sense indicated by us. The present (47) Carthaginian rule speaks of the baptism of the Donatists. Guided by the principle that one must be lenient towards these fanatical schismatics, the rule recognizes their baptism and allows those of them who, as children, were baptized by Donatists to be accepted into the Orthodox clergy, because, according to the rule, children are not guilty of the errors of their parents, and their error (πλάνη) did not concern the foundations of the Christian faith. However, the rule adds that this is possible only if a well-known person turns with a saving disposition (σωτηριώδει πρ o θέσει) to the Church of God and, recognizing the error of his parents, condemns them. 2) In the second part of this rule, the fathers of the council say that according to the Nicene decree (τοδ εν Νιχαία τρακτάτου), as they know, the Divine Liturgy can only be performed on an empty stomach, which is confirmed by this rule. There is no such resolution among the rules of the Council of Nicaea (I Ecumenical), but it is possible that this, as well as the day of celebrating Easter and the permission for priests to marry, was discussed at the Council of Nicaea and a corresponding conclusion was made, preserved in those acts that the African fathers who were at the council brought with them (Carth. 1). But we do not believe that with this rule, the Carthaginian fathers, as Archimandrite John states in his interpretation of this rule, wanted to refer to the decree issued by the 41st rule that on Maundy Thursday the liturgy can be served even after eating, firstly, because this (47) rule was issued at the same meeting of the council (May 25, 419), as well as the mentioned 41st rule, as a result of which it would not be clear why, having issued a well-known rule, the fathers of the council on the same day and at the same meeting would have issued another, refuting the first; secondly, if the mentioned (41) rule had been refuted by the Carthaginian fathers themselves, then, it seemed, it would have been completely unnecessary for the Trullian Council, with its 29th rule, to so decisively destroy the resolution of this (41) rule of the Carthaginian Council. We believe that with this (47) rule the Carthaginian fathers, referring to the decree of the First Ecumenical Council, only wanted to confirm that the Divine Liturgy in general can only be performed on an empty stomach; As for the exception regarding Maundy Thursday, it continued to remain, as a result of which it was destroyed by the Trullan Cathedral. According to the instructions given to us, we also propose this, which was determined at the council that took place in Capua, that it is not permissible for rebaptism or re-installation, or for bishops to transfer to another throne. Cresconius, the bishop of the Rekensky village, despising the people of his flock, invaded the Veken church, and even to this day, having been admonished many times according to the rules, did not want to leave this church, which he had invaded. We have heard about this announced above as reliable, and according to what was commanded to us, we ask your kindness to grant us permission, so that we may be allowed, at the request of necessity, to tame him, to approach the head of the country, according to the commands of the most glorious kings, so that anyone who does not want to submit to the meek admonition of our shrine, and to correct what is intolerable, will be immediately stopped by the power of the government. Bishop Avrilius said: after observing the established ritual, let him not be recognized as belonging to the council, if, having been meekly asked by your love, he renounces the place he admired: he has fallen to secular power with his contempt and disobedience. Bishops Onorat and Urvan said: is this pleasing to everyone? All the bishops answered: fair, whatever. (Ap. 14, 47, 68; Antioch. 5; Dicr. 9). First of all, this rule confirms Resolution 47 Ap. rules on the non-renewal of baptism, then - decree 68 Ap. rules on the non-renewal of correctly completed ordination and finally the decree of 14 Ap. rules prohibiting a bishop from leaving his see and arbitrarily occupying another. All these decrees were approved at the Council of Capua in 391, and then at the Council of Carthage, first in 397, and then at the Council in 419. Regarding the last question, the rule mentions the case of Cresconius, bishop of Requin (Vilares, Villa Bhegensis), who left his place and by force seized the vacant episcopal see in Tubuna (Tubunae, in Af. Syntagma τη Τοοβηχένη, in Beveregius - τη Βεκένης, Dionysius-Tubumensem ecclesiam, in Justel-Tubiensem ecclesiam, in Van Espen - Tribuniensem ecclesiam, in the Book of Rules - the Veken Church, in Kormchay - the horse, Vicean churches); since the said bishop refused to obey the resolution of the council to return to his former see, the rule prescribes that he should be handed over to the state power, which is authorized to deal with him according to its laws. This should not, however, be understood to mean that the bishop, as such, was handed over to the state authorities for punishment. The rule in the words of Aurelius says: “after observing the established rite (φολαχθέντος του τύπου της καταστάσεως), due to the reluctance of Cresconius to submit - “let such one not be recognized as belonging to the council” ( μη χριθη της σονόδοο υπάρχων )". This means that if everything established by law for such cases was observed, that is, if a famous bishop (in this case, Cresconius) was correctly summoned to trial and all the bad consequences of his obstinacy were presented to him, after which he still did not want submit to the ecclesiastical court, then he should be considered no longer under the jurisdiction of the council, that is, he should no longer be considered a bishop, and as such, that is, as deleted from the priestly catalog, therefore deposed, it is necessary to transfer him to secular power, since it is impossible to transfer for punishment to secular power a clergyman who has not been previously deprived of his rank. The same authority then punishes a well-known person, already deprived of the priesthood, for his obstinacy and disobedience to the proper ecclesiastical authority, approximately in the same sense as prescribed by the 5th Antiochian canon and the 9th canon of the double council. Let the ancient order be observed: less than three bishops, as defined in the canons, shall not be disdained for the installation of a bishop. (I Om. 4; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19, 23; Laod. 12; Serdic. 6; Carth. 13, 15). From the full text of this rule, as given in the Serbian edition (translated from Greek), it is clear that at the end of the 4th century in the Numidian church a rule was observed requiring the consecration (χειροτονία) of a bishop to be performed only in the presence of twelve bishops. This issue was considered at the Council of Carthage in 397, and since it was found that it was not always possible to gather such a number of bishops for the consecration of a new bishop, it was decided that the presence of three bishops was sufficient for this purpose, as a result of which this rule was published in this sense, adopted as its own by the fathers of the Council of Carthage in 419. However, the interpretation of 1 rule of the Holy Apostles should be compared. It is also appropriate to define this: if when we begin to elect a bishop, and some controversy arises, we have already had such cases under consideration: it will be bold for only three to gather together for the justification of one who is about to be ordained: but let one or two bishops be added to the above-mentioned number: and, among the people to whom the one being elected is to be appointed, first let there be an investigation about the persons who are in controversy: then yes He will add to the research what they announced, and when he appears clean before the people, then let him be ordained. All the bishops said: we completely agree. (I Om. 4, 6; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19, 23; Laod. 12, 13; Serdic. 6; Carth. 13, 49, 55). This rule is very important, confirming what we said in the interpretation of 4 rules of the First Ecumenical Council; namely, confirming the right of the people to participate in the most decisive manner in the matter of appointing a bishop for them. The right of the people to elect the person they want as a bishop, to offer this person to the episcopal council for the necessary canonical testing, then for approval and consecration (Carth. 55) - this rule considers this right of the people to be a natural and indisputable fact and only indicates the possibility of a dispute arising among the people regarding the appointed bishop (εάν περί του μέλλοντος χειροτονεΐσθαι επισκόπου άντιλογία γένηται, si de ordinando episcopo fuerit coutradictio). in this case, according to the rule, it would be extreme courage (τολμηρόν, nimis audax) on the part of these three bishops to decide such an important issue themselves, and therefore it is necessary that one or two more bishops join them and all of them (five or, in extreme cases, four) in the presence of the people for whom the bishop is to be appointed, learn about the reason for the opposition shown in relation to the intended candidate. First of all, the rule requires in this case to find out who the persons are who raised their voices against the specified candidate, whether they have the right to vote in the election of a bishop, and in general whether they possess those qualities that are required by law from anyone intending to act as an accuser against clergy in church matters (II Ecum. 6; Carth. 128, 129, 130). If it is indeed proven that the opponents have all the necessary data for this, then, as the rule prescribes, you need to find out what arguments they bring against the presented candidate, and if these arguments are unfounded and therefore the candidate turns out to be completely clean in the face of the people (δτε καθαρός φανειη επί δημοσίας προσόψεως, quando in aspectu populi pufus et innocens apparuerit), then let the consecration be performed on him. If it is verified that the arguments of the opponents are weighty, then, of course, new elections must begin. We find details about this in Chapter 8 of Title I of the Nomocanon in Title XIV, which contains decrees from CXXIII (p. 2) and CXXXVII (p. 3) of the novella of Emperor Justinian, which, having been adopted into the Nomocanon, received legislative force for the church. Let us first remember that we have long ago recognized that we must gather every summer for the purpose of conferences: when we gather together as one, then let the day of Easter be announced through the locums who are present at the council. (Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; II Om. 7; Trul. 11; Laod. 7, 37, 38; Carth. 34, 73, 106). Rule 18 of this council established that each diocese (metropolitan region) of Africa should send two bishops as its representatives to the general annual council of the African Church. This rule adds that through these representatives it is necessary to announce to everyone the day on which the Resurrection of Christ is supposed to be celebrated this year. Regarding other things, see the interpretation of Rule 34 of this council. Bishops Onorat and Urvan said: We have been verbally instructed to ask that, according to the definition of the Council of Hippo, as befits every region visited during the Council, Mauritania should also be visited in order, which you have been postponing from year to year. Avrilius Bishop of the Rivers: Then we did not determine anything about the Moorish country, since it lies on the edge of Africa and is adjacent to the barbarian land. May God grant that we will be able, without promising, to do this in abundance and arrive in your country. (Ap. 58; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11; Laod. 19; Carth. 71, 121, 123). Visiting each place and each church and observing them (επισκοπή, inspectio, visitatio), which, as was established from the very beginning of the church, is one of the first duties of every bishop, is made by this rule and the duty of the metropolitan, and it is prescribed annually, during the council, for himself or his deputy to go around all the episcopal churches of his metropolis, so that during these visits they can any disagreements and misunderstandings should be resolved. Epigonius Bishop of the Rivers: at many councils the sacred class determined that the people, who depend on bishops in their parishes and have never had a special bishop, should receive their rulers, that is, bishops, in no other way than with the consent of the bishop to whom they are first subordinate. For some, having entered into forcible possession of a certain place, turn away from communication with the brethren: when they are condemned for this, then, as if by some old right of predominance, they retain dominion. Many of the presbyters, arrogant and insane, raise their necks against their own bishops, with feasts and malicious advice inciting the people to make them, out of indecent affection, rulers. To your prudence, most faithful brother Avrilio, we owe the deliberately desired consequence that you repeatedly stopped such attempts, despite the malicious intentions, bad advice and agreements of such people. I propose this: as it is not appropriate to receive a special leader for people who, in the so-called limit, are subject to the ancient bishop, and have never had a special bishop. For this reason, if the entire Holy Council is pleased with what I propose, then let it be established. Bishop Avrilius said: I will not contradict the statement of our brother and co-bishop, but I confess that I have done and will do this, that is, among those who are like-minded, not only with the Carthaginian church, but with the entire sacred class. For there are very many who conspire with their crowd, which they, as has been said, mislead, flattering their ears, and by flattering attracting to themselves people of shameful life: moreover, puffing up and separating themselves from this class of ours, they, relying on their crowd, having been repeatedly invited to come to the council, renounce, fearing that their absurdity will not be revealed. For this reason, if you like, I propose: we must strive against them in every way, so that not only the districts they forcibly took possession of, but also their own churches, which incorrectly came under their power, do not remain in their power: let them be expelled openly with authority, and let the very throne of the leading bishops reject them. For justice demands that those who adhere to all the brethren and to the entire council not only retain their throne, but also receive control over such disputed districts: on the contrary, that those who imagine themselves to be satisfied with their crowd of people, and disdain brotherly love, should not only be deprived of the districts seized by them, but also, as I have said, their own places, like rebels, overthrown by the power of secular bosses. Onorat and Urvan bishops said: the greatest providence of our shrine has been planted in the minds of everyone: and we imagine that it is appropriate to approve your proposal with the answer of everyone. All the bishops shouted: we agree, we agree. (Ap. 31, 34; I Universe. 8; II Universe. 6; III Universe. 3, 8; IV Universe. 17, 18; Trul. 25, 31, 34, 38; Ankyr. 13; Neokes. 14; Gangr. 6; Antioch. 5, 8, 10; Laod. 57; Serd. 6, 14; Carth. 10, 11, 56; Many rules say that bishops should not be appointed to small towns, for which one presbyter is enough (Laod. 57; Serdic. 6, etc.). If the conditions of time or place require that a new episcopal see be opened (IV Ecum. 17, Trul. 38), then the latter can take place only with the consent of the bishop to whom the given place or region was previously subordinated. In this rule, the Carthaginian fathers were forced to renew this fundamental church law, which was violated by some power-hungry bishops and elders of the African Church. Forgetting this law, many bishops forcibly appropriated to themselves certain places subordinate to other bishops, justifying their act by the fact that these places belonged to them by some kind of invented right of prescription; when the subject bishops pointed out to them the violation of their legal rights, then these power-hungers proudly rejected all accusations and even, as the rule says, stopped communicating with the brethren (την των αδελφών χοινωνίαν αποστρέφονται). In addition to bishops, the mentioned church law was also violated by some presbyters and, moreover, to an even greater extent. The people, as we know, at that time had the right to indicate whom they would like to have as their bishop (Carth. 50). Therefore, some presbyters, “arrogant and insane” (φυσιούμβνοι καί μωροί), in pursuit of power, rebelled against their legitimate bishops, trying to incite the people of a given place against them and, through bribery and all sorts of persuasion, forced the same people to elect them as their bishops, which they sometimes succeeded in doing. The Carthaginian fathers rebel most decisively against such cases, which destroy the very foundation of church order, and order that such persons by force, i.e. through state power, they were deprived of both their powers and the right not only to the places they had illegally appropriated, but also to those that they had previously enjoyed “to their detriment” (κακώς) as bishops or presbyters. In this case, the bishop of the leading see must forever deprive them of the right to officiate, while the state power is left to punish them as rebels and violators of peace and order. Let no bishop adopt an alien clergyman, without the judgment of his former bishop. (Ap. 15, 35; I Om. 15, 16; IV Om. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trul. 17, 18; Antioch. 3; Serdic. 15, 16; Carth. 50, 90). This rule renews the decree of Rule 16 of the First Ecumenical Council, to the effect that no bishop should accept or ordain in his church a cleric who belongs to the jurisdiction of another bishop. Our interpretation of the mentioned Nicene rule serves as an interpretation of the present Carthaginian rule. Based on the full text of this rule (i.e., Rule 6 of the Council of Carthage in 397), one could conclude that the fathers of this council were unaware of the mentioned resolution of the Council of Nicea and that in general this issue, new to the Carthaginian fathers, was raised by them only as a result of Bishop Epigonius’ complaint against Bishop Julian, who had lured one of his clergy to himself and ordained him to the rank of deacon. This opinion is confirmed both by the decision of the council itself, in the form as it is set out in the rule, and by the demand of the council that this decision, having become general, be extended to all dioceses. Avriliy Bishop of the Rivers: Accept my word, brethren. It happened many times that churchmen asked me for deacons, or presbyters, or bishops. Remembering the rules, I follow them, turn to the bishop of the requested cleric, and I announce to him that those belonging to one or another church are asking for his cleric. To this day they have not contradicted me. But so that this does not happen even after, that is, so that those who ask me do not oppose me in this matter (for now you know that I have care for many churches and ordinations), when I approach one of my fellow pastors, with two or three witnesses from your class, if the one chosen is not unworthy, judge righteously for your love what is appropriate to do. For, as you know, brothers, by the will of God, I have care for many churches. Numidius the bishop said: this throne has always had this authority, and appoints a bishop, at will, to every church, from where it wants, and whoever is named to it. Epigonius Bishop of the rivers: goodwill moderates power: for you, brother, are less daring than you can, showing yourself to everyone that you are good and philanthropic. For your reasoning is left to show respect to the person of each bishop: but also in the first and one-time relationship with them, if you please, insist on what is in the power of this throne: since you have the need to strengthen all the churches. For this reason, we do not give you power, but we seal it with your will, so that you will always be allowed to brother whomever you want, and produce primates of churches, and other requests, from where you please. Postumetian Bishop said: If someone has only one presbyter, shouldn’t this also be taken away from him? Bishop Avrilius said: by the grace of God, one bishop can appoint many presbyters; a presbyter capable of episcopacy is not easily found. For this reason, if anyone has only one presbyter, and, moreover, one worthy of the episcopacy, then this one too should be given for ordination. Postumetian Bishop of the Rivers: But if one bishop has many clergy, then this many others should help me. Avrilius Bishop of the Rivers: Indeed, just as you helped another church, so the one who has a larger number of clergy will be encouraged from among them to devote you to ordination. (Ap. 15, 16; IV Oe. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trul. 17, 18; Antioch. 3; Serdic. 15, 16; Carth. 54, 90). In the previous (54) canon of this council, it was decided that no bishop has the right to ordain for his diocese a clergyman belonging to another diocese, except with the consent of the underlying bishop under whose jurisdiction the clergyman is located. This is a general canonical instruction for all diocesan bishops. The same prescription should also be followed in the case when it comes to the ordination as bishop of any diocese of a clergyman who does not belong to the metropolitan region of which this diocese is part. If it becomes necessary to invite a candidate from another metropolitan (or patriarchal) region to fill a vacated episcopal position in one of the regions, then the subject metropolitan (patriarch) of this region must turn to the metropolitan to whom the given clergy is canonically subordinate and ask for the appropriate consent from him. The bishop of Carthage was exempted from this general canonical norm during this council, as primas totius Africae, to whom the council, confirming this privilege by this rule, allows him to ordain as bishop of the liberated diocese anyone he wishes from other regions, without complying with the requirement to seek the consent of the bishop to whom the given candidate for bishop is subordinate. Such a privilege could not be considered a prescription of common law, but for all other regional churches whose leaders did not have the said privilege, the prescription of common law mattered; Thus, if there is a need to invite a clergyman from another region to a vacant episcopal see, then the head of the subject region, i.e. the synod must ask and receive the consent of the primate under whose jurisdiction the clergyman designated as a candidate for bishop is located. Failure to comply with this injunction would be a violation of the canonical injunction. For each bishop, what is appropriate is protected by a decree, so that from a certain composition of parishes, not a single place is torn away, and does not receive a special bishop, unless with the consent of the one who has authority over it. If this one allows a certain district to receive its own bishop, then the one promoted to this place should not extend his power to other districts: for this one, having been separated from the composition of many, is honored to have the honor of a special bishopric. (Ap. 31, 34; I Universe. 8; II Universe. 6; III Universe. 3, 8; IV Universe. 17, 18; Trul. 25, 31, 34, 38; Ankyr. 13; Neokes. 14; Antiochus. 5, 8, 10; Laod. 57; Serdic. 6 , 14 ; Carth. 10 , 11 , 53 , 98 ; According to precept 6 of the rule of the Council of Serdica, a bishop should not be appointed to any small city or town, for which one presbyter is enough. This rule cites the case when, at the request of the underlying bishop of the main city in the diocese, one of the smaller cities with a certain number of parishes receives its own special bishop. In this case, the rule determines that this bishop can exercise jurisdiction only in the city and in those parishes that are entrusted to him by the council, without at all extending his power to other, nearby parishes, and without thereby violating the rights of that bishop, with whose consent he received power only over the area precisely defined for him. A bishop who violates this injunction is subject to the sentence of Rule 53 of this council, namely, he is deprived of the right not only to the parishes illegally appropriated by him, but also to those that he received from the council, subject at the same time to the punishment of the secular authorities, as an appropriator of someone else's property. Your unanimity with me remembers what was determined at the previous council: in childhood their delusion is disastrous, but upon reaching an age capable of reflection, those who have come to know the truth, and those who are disgusted by their madness, according to the ancient rite, by the laying on of hands, may be received into the Catholic Church of God, spread throughout the world. The reproach of the previous error should not be an obstacle to their acceptance into the rank of clergy, when they, having come to faith, recognized the true church as their own, and, having believed in Christ in it, accepted the sacraments of the Trinity, which, as clearly are, are all true and holy and divine, and on which all the hope of the soul is established, despite the fact that the preceding audacity of the heretics foolishly sought to betray something the opposite, under the name of truth. This is simple, as the holy apostle teaches, saying: there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and what was once taught must not be permissible again. For this reason, after anathematizing the name of error, by the laying on of hands, let them be accepted into the one church, which, according to what is said, is the dove (Song. 2:12), the only mother of Christians, and in which all the eternal and life-giving sacraments are saved savingly received, however, those who are in heresy are subjected to great condemnation and execution. What in truth would lead them brighter to eternal life, in error becomes more darkening and condemning for them. Some escaped this, and having learned the direct path of the mother, the Catholic Churches believed and accepted all these holy sacraments, out of love for the truth. That such people, when evidence of their good life is added, can, without a doubt, be correctly established in the clergy to serve the holy mysteries, especially in such difficult circumstances, no one will dispute this. If some of the same, that is, the clergy who followed the Donatus teaching, wish to join us with their people, and in their degrees, out of love for honor, giving the people advice for life, and holding for themselves degrees for salvation: then I decide to leave this until the above-mentioned brethren, after careful reflection, give their opinion, so that in their most prudent consultation they examine the subject of our proposals, and deigned to support us in what we should decide on this matter. Now we limit ourselves only to those baptized by the Donatists in infancy, so that the above-mentioned brethren, if they please, agree with our decision to ordain them. (Ap. 46, 47, 68; I Om. 8; II Om. 7; Trul. 95; Carth. 47, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). In the interpretation of the first part of the 47th rule, it was said in general terms about what constitutes the subject of this rule, in which, regarding the sacrament of baptism, a remarkable idea is expressed that the sacraments have the full meaning and importance only when they are performed in the Orthodox Church. The question of whether it is necessary to accept Donatist clergy into the Orthodox clergy while preserving their hierarchical degrees, as indicated by the 68th rule of this council, should, in the opinion of Aurelius, who proposed this (57) rule, be left to the consideration of the elder, aforementioned brethren (των προλεχθέντων αδελφών), which should express her opinion about him. This brethren were bishops: the Roman Anastasius and the Milanese Venerius, who judged the Donatists much more strictly than the African bishops and denied the need to recognize the hierarchical degrees of the latter when they turned to the Orthodox Church. At the request of the council, the Roman Anastasius expressed his opinion about this matter in a special letter read at the council on September 13, 401, as we know from the introduction to the acts of this council. The contents of the letter are not known, but from the words of the opening speech it is clear that Anastasius does not approve of the connivance of the African fathers and advises them to beware of the guile and insolence of heretics and schismatic Donatists (της των αιρετικών και σχισματικών Δονατιστών επιβουλής και άναισχυντίας), who caused so much harm to the African Church. The African fathers expressed gratitude (χάριτας ομολόγου με ν) to Anastasius for this, but since circumstances forced them to deal kindly with the Donatists (right 66), it was decided to accept Donatist clergy into the clergy of the Orthodox Church (right 68). It is appropriate to ask the most pious kings to command the complete eradication of the remains of idols throughout Africa (For in many coastal places, and in various possessions, this delusion still unjustly retains its power). Let it be commanded to destroy idols, and their churches in villages and hidden places standing without any appearance, and to destroy them in every way. The above text is in essence not a rule at all, but only one of the points of the order, a reminder (commonitorium) to the delegates sent by the council to the emperors (Arcadia and Honorius) about what they must petition the latter. The remaining points of this mandate given to the delegates are the following six rules (59–64). The request contained in this (58) rule for the destruction of the remnants of idols in Africa was fulfilled, and the corresponding laws were issued for this purpose. This appeal of the Council of Carthage to the state power for help is generally an indicator of that fundamental principle in the relations between church and state, which, in the right state of things, should exist for the sake of the common good; In addition, it is clear from this that, for the sake of preserving faith and morality among the people, the church needs the help of state power and expects this help mainly in those cases where the direct moral influence of the church is insufficient. Due to its personal interest, state power has always responded to the requests of the church and provided it with the assistance that it had at its disposal, having armed force in its hands and forcing by force to carry out the decrees of the church authority aimed at establishing the faith and preserving good order, while the church itself, by its nature, has only moral means for this. From this relationship between church and state, an important right was established, or rather, the duty of the state authorities to protect the rights and laws of the church, to protect the faith and to ensure that good order is maintained in church life. It is appropriate to ask the most pious kings to be pleased to legitimize this: if some wish to have a trial in the church in some matter, which by apostolic right belongs to the churches, and perhaps one side will not be satisfied with the decision of the clergy: then let it not be allowed to call to the court to testify the clergyman who had previously considered this very matter, or was present at the consideration of it: and even none of the household Let no ecclesiastical person be brought into court with the obligation to testify. (Ap. 74, 75; IV Ecum. 9; Carth. 131). For a clearer understanding of this rule, or rather the request to the emperors, it is necessary to remember that Emperor Constantine the Great allowed every Christian to turn to the church court to resolve issues of private law, and the decision of this court had the same force as the decision of a civil court. This privilege of the ecclesiastical court was subsequently limited by the Emperor Honorius, who decreed by law (399): quoties de religione agitur, episcopos convenit judicare, caeteras vero causas, quae ad ordinarios cognitores vei ad usum publici juris pertinent, legibus oportet audiri. As a result of this imperial decree, the ecclesiastical court was generally deprived of the power to decide controversial cases of private law between Christians. In their commonitorium, the Carthaginian fathers remind the delegates that they must petition the emperors to return to the ecclesiastical courts the right to decide these cases, so that the decisions of these courts are considered final, so that after them it would be forbidden to turn to other courts in the same case. To justify their request, the fathers refer to Apostolic Law (άποστολικόν δίκαι o ν), namely the decree of the Holy Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:1-5) that Christians must resolve all their controversial cases before the church court. Having made such a decision, the Carthaginian fathers also refer to the fact that some persons who appealed to the ecclesiastical court and were then dissatisfied with its decision, appealed a second time in the same case to the civil court, demanding that the same clergy who had previously participated in the ecclesiastical court, or relatives of the subject clergy, appear there as witnesses. To prevent such an incorrect course of affairs, the fathers remind in their commonitormm that their delegates must also ask the emperors about this. In the same way, it is appropriate to ask Christian kings about this: since, contrary to the divine commandments, in many places, feasts brought in from pagan error are carried out, so that Christians are secretly attracted by the pagans to participate in them: then let them command that such feasts be prohibited, both in cities and in villages, and especially since in some cities they are not afraid to sin in this way, even on the days of remembrance of the blessed martyrs, and even in sacred places. In these days, even when there is shame in eating, they perform obscene dances in the fields and on haystacks, and with obscene words insult the honor of the mothers of families, and the chastity of other countless pious wives who gather on the holy day, so that one almost has to run away from the refuge of the holiest of faiths. (Trul. 24, 51, 62, 65; Laod. 54; Carth. 15, 45, 63). See interpretation of rules 24 and 62 of the Council of Trullo. It is appropriate to ask in the same way about this, that the performance of shameful games on Sunday and on other bright days of the Christian faith will be prohibited: especially since during the eight days of Holy Easter, people gather more at the horse show than in church. The days designated for spectacles should be used when they coincide with holidays, and no Christian should be forced to participate in these spectacles. (Ap. 9; Trul. 24, 66; Antioch. 2). See interpretation of Rule 66 of the Council of Trullo. It is fitting to ask for this too, that they may be pleased to legislate that a clergyman, no matter what his degree, convicted of any crime by a court of bishops, should not be allowed to be protected from punishment by the church in which he served, below any person: but that the punishment for this should be a monetary penalty, or deprivation of honor, and let it be commanded that neither age nor gender be accepted as an excuse for this. (Ap. 28; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Antioch. 12, 14, 15; Carth. 29, 65, 129). This rule confirms the general church norm that a clergyman, no matter what hierarchical level he is at, has the right to be judged by his bishop. If it seems to this cleric that the sentence pronounced on him is unfair, then he is allowed to turn to the highest church court and seek the truth there. The sentence pronounced by the church court had to remain unchanged, and no one had the right to take the convicted person under their protection and insist on his release from punishment. Meanwhile, it happened that such people were taken under their protection by the clergy of the church where the condemned person had previously served, or by some other noble persons. Because of this, the Carthaginian fathers, by this rule, decide to petition the emperors, asking them to issue a law against such uninvited defenders, who only undermine the authority of church courts and interfere with the execution of their sentences, for which they should be subjected to the appropriate punishment, namely, a monetary penalty, or deprivation of honor, and in their justification they should not cite either age, referring to irresponsibility in their action, due to extreme youth or old age, nor gender if committed by a woman. In this rule, the Carthaginian fathers mention the monetary penalty to which persons who took under their protection those convicted by the episcopal court must be subjected to by the state authorities, be it, as Balsamon says in the interpretation of this rule, clergy or any other persons. Monetary punishment is not, as a rule, imposed by the proper episcopal court, which would have the right to demand such violators of its sentences, but at the request of this court the punishment is imposed by state authority. From this we can see the nature of this punishment, which is a civil, and not a church punishment, and just as the church does not arrogate to itself the right to impose any kind of worldly punishment on the guilty, so it does not arrogate to itself the right when imposing monetary punishment. This is fully consistent with the general teaching of Orthodox church law about what punishments can be imposed on the guilty by the church court. Monetary punishment, being of a civil nature, can only be imposed by secular authority. If the ecclesiastical authority, in some cases of its judicial activity, encounters the need to subject well-known clergy or laity to such punishment for any crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court, then, not possessing any physical coercive means, it turns to the secular authority, which will use the means at its disposal in order to force the guilty person to carry out this punishment. In the latest church-judicial practice, this monetary punishment is considered as a completely independent punishment that can be imposed on the guilty by church courts. But the award of this punishment by church courts can have its executive force not in itself, but only because the corresponding modern church-judicial statutes have received state sanction, on the basis of which the state power has ceded to the church court one of its rights in the exercise of judicial-criminal power. The rule also mentions another punishment for the guilty, namely deprivation of honor, which is presented here in the same way as the punishment of secular (rather than ecclesiastical) criminal law. This is in fact a civil punishment, consisting in Roman law of that capitis deminntio, according to which the person guilty of certain crimes loses all, or some part of his civil rights, and becomes infamis for society, as a result of which the punishment itself is called infamia. This punishment, adopted by ecclesiastical criminal legislation, received even greater significance in ecclesiastical law than in Roman law, due to the sacred nature of the church, each member of which must be free from everything that could humiliate his honor or discredit his good name in society. As a punishment, according to church law it consists of complete or partial deprivation of church privileges and rights and is imposed by the church on those who, by their non-Christian behavior, have shown that they are unworthy of these rights and privileges. The person subjected to this punishment cannot, according to the prescription of Rule 129 of this council, file any complaints in court regarding public matters. It is also appropriate to ask about this: if anyone desires from some kind of playful exercise to begin the grace of Christianity, and to remain free from their impurity: then let no one be allowed to persuade or force him to do the same activities. (Ap. 52; Trul. 24, 51; Carth. 45). Regarding actors who were Christians, we saw the decree of rule 45 of this council, which ordered that they be reconciled with the church and honored with holy communion if they repent and leave their service. This rule refers to actors who were not yet Christians but have expressed a desire to be baptized. The service of actors was to some extent constant, and once signed up as an actor had to perform it steadily, since, according to the civil rules of that time, anyone who did not appear for service at a certain time was subject to punishment. With this rule, the Carthaginian fathers remind their delegates to petition the emperors for the publication of a law prohibiting the forced participation in theatrical service of persons who, having converted to Christianity, accepted baptism and wish to keep themselves clean from such wickedness (ελεύθερ o ς από των σπιλάδων των μίμων, purus a maculis mimorum). About the proclamation in the church of manumission, if it becomes known that our co-celebrants in Italy are doing this: then, out of trust in them, let us also follow their order without a doubt, by openly providing this inquiry to the sent custodian: and what can only be done, as consistent with faith, for the improvement of the church and for the salvation of souls: let us accept all of this with praise before face of the Lord. (Ap. 82; IV Universe 4; Trul. 85; Gangr. 3; Carth. 82). The subject referred to in this rule, namely the proclamation by the Church of the emancipation of slaves (περί ελευθεριών εν τη έχχλησία χηροκτέων, de manumissionibus in ecclesia proclamandis), refers to the time when slavery still existed among Christians. This rule ends the cominonitorium received from the council by the delegates who were supposed to go on the affairs of the Carthaginian church to the emperors Arcadius and Honorius. Adding to this commonitorium constitutes the following (65) rule. Avriliy Bishop of the Rivers: I also believe that the locum tenens sent to Italy should not ignore the affairs of Ekitius, who was justly condemned by the bishops long ago. If it happens to the one sent to find him in those places: then let this brother of ours be prepared to act against him in defense of the welfare of the church as he should and where possible. All the bishops answered: they very much agree with this proposal. (Ap. 28; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Antioch. 12, 14, 15; Carth. 29, 62, 78, 93). A certain Ekitios, a bishop, according to Aristinus, της sv Ί ππώνι καθέδρας επίσκοπος, having been condemned and overthrown by the proper council, did not want to submit to the decision of the court, but went from Africa to Italy, stirring up the people there and causing unrest. The Carthaginian fathers, drawing up for their delegates who went to the emperors, the mandate (guidelines) set out in the above rules (58-64), in this rule they prescribe that if they happen to meet the mentioned Ekitios in the places they pass, they must act against him and, for the sake of order and the authority of the church, take all measures to expel him, so that he stops disturbing the peace of the church. On the gentle treatment of the Donatists. After inquiring and studying everything, the benefit of the church’s ability to help, at the behest and inspiration of the Spirit of God, we chose for the best to deal with the above-mentioned people meekly and peacefully, although they, with their restless dissent, are very far removed from the unity of the body of the Lord. Thus, to the best of our ability, let it be made completely known to everyone, throughout all African regions, caught by their communication and friendship, with what pitiful delusion they have bound themselves. Perhaps then, as we with meekness gather together those who differ in their views, according to the word of the Apostle, God will give them repentance into the mind of truth, and arise from the devil’s snare, having been caught from him into his own will (2 Tim. 2:25–26). (Cart. 47, 57, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). It is good to send letters from our council to the rulers in Africa, and it is considered decent to ask them for assistance to the common mother Catholic Church in the case when the power of bishops is neglected in the cities, that is, so that they, with authority and trusteeship, and with zeal for the Christian faith, make a study of what happened in all the places where the Maximianists took possession churches, as well as about those who were rejected by them: and so that reliable information about these events for everyone is immediately ordered to be included in the records of people's affairs. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). On the acceptance of Donatist clergy into the clergy of the Catholic Church. Finally, it is good to send letters to our brethren and co-bishops, and especially to the apostolic throne, on which the aforementioned worthy honorable brother and co-servant Anastasius presides, so that, according to the great need of Africa, known to him, for the sake of peace and the benefit of the church, and from the most Donatist clergy, who have corrected their disposition and wished to come to a Catholic union, according to the reasoning and it is the will of every Catholic bishop who governs the church in that place to receive in his degrees the priesthood, if this turns out to contribute to the peace of Christians. It is known that in previous times this was how this schism was dealt with: as evidenced by the examples of many and almost all African churches in which this error arose. This is not done in violation of the council that was held on this subject in countries beyond the sea, but so that this is preserved for the benefit of those who wish to come to the Catholic Church, so that no obstacles are placed in their unity. Those who, in their places of residence, will be seen to promote and promote Catholic unity in every possible way, to the obvious benefit of the souls of the brethren: let not the determination made against their degrees at the council overseas be an obstacle, for salvation is not awarded from any person. That is, those ordained by the Donatists, once corrected, will desire to begin the Catholic faith, so that they will not be deprived of acceptance in their degrees, according to the definition of the council that was overseas, but even more so, let those through whom the Catholic union is promoted. On the appointment of an embassy to the Donatists for the sake of an agreement for peace. Then it was decided that, based on these deeds, for the proclamation of peace and unity, without which the salvation of Christians cannot take place, locum tenens should be sent from among us to the bishops of the Donatists themselves, such as they have, or to their laity. Through these locums, let it be known to everyone that the Donatists have nothing blessed against the Catholic Churches. Above all, for the sake of reliable proof, let it be made clear to everyone, through the records of city affairs, as they themselves did with the Maximianists, their renegades. In this case, if they want to see, it is shown from God to them that they then unrighteously fell away from church unity, just as unrighteously, as they cry, the Maximianists have now fallen away from them. From among those whom they condemned, by the explicit authority of their own council, they then accepted some into their degrees of priesthood, and recognized the baptism that had been performed by those condemned and cast out by them. This proves how insanely hearted they are in resisting the world of the church, spread throughout the world, doing so in favor of the Donatian side, and did not consider themselves defiled by communication with those whom they thus, out of necessity, accepted into the world, and meanwhile arguing with us, that is, from the Catholic Church, which extends even to the last limits of the earth, and was able to enlighten themselves through unclean communication with those whom they themselves had previously all condemned. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). The text of the above four rules (66–69) is clear enough in itself. All four rules concern exclusively the Donatists, about whom sufficiently has been said in the interpretations of 47 and 67 Carthaginian rules. What these four rules say can be seen from the text itself. It is well-decreed that bishops and presbyters and deacons, according to the rules characteristic of their degrees, abstain from the wives they already have: if they do not do this, let them be removed from the church rank, and let other clerics not be forced to do this. But the customs of each church were properly observed. (Ap. 5, 17, 26, 51; I Universe. 3; IV Universe. 14; Trul. 5, 6, 12, 13, 30; VII Universe. 18; Ankyr. 19; Neokes. 1, 8; Gangr. 4; Carth. 3, 4, 25, 38; Dionysia Alex. 3; Vasily Vel. 12, 27, 88). We have already spoken about the establishment of this rule in the interpretations of several rules and especially in the interpretations of the 12th and 13th rules of the Trullo Council. Regarding the fact that a husband and wife should at certain times, for the sake of prayer, abstain from each other, the Alexandrian Bishop Dionysius spoke out back in the 3rd century in his letter to Basilides (right 3); This Carthaginian rule applies this decree to bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, thereby confirming the injunction already issued by him (Rule 25). This rule only adds that the decree on the abstinence of clergy at the mentioned hierarchical degrees does not extend to lower clergy, as those who do not touch the shrine (ως μη ψηλαφώντας τα αγία), but let them follow the custom of their church in this. It is well-decreed that no bishop should be allowed to leave the main place of his see, and go to any church in his diocese, or to exercise his own business more appropriately, and abandon the care and diligence of his throne. (Ap. 58; IV Om. 25; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11, 12; Laod. 19; Carth. 121, 123; Dvukr. 16). The purpose of this rule is to establish the residence (residentiam) of each bishop at the cathedral episcopal (in the narrower sense of the word) church of a given episcopal region, i.e. in the city which, due to its significance, was awarded the episcopal see. In accordance with this, the rule prohibits each bishop from leaving the place that was assigned to him at the beginning for his permanent residence and being in any other place in the region entrusted to him. Some bishops did this for their own personal benefits, which it was more convenient for them to observe in some other place rather than in their permanent residence, therefore the rule reproaches those bishops who, being more interested in their personal affairs than they should, abandoned the care of their see. Regarding infants, when no reliable witnesses or contacts are found, as if they were undoubtedly baptized, and they themselves, due to their age, cannot satisfactorily respond to the sacrament given to them, it is reasoned that it is appropriate to baptize them without any doubt, so that such doubt does not deprive them of the purification of this shrine. Our Moorish locum tenens brothers recommended this because they buy many of them from the barbarians. (Ap. 49, 50; II Ecum. 7; Trul. 84; VII Ecum. 8; Carth. 45, 48, 110; Basil Vel. 1, 91). As can be seen from the rule, the baptism of newborns was considered at that time (401) the general law of the African church, therefore the rule prescribes the baptism of every child for whom it is not known whether he was previously baptized or not, of course, in the case when the child himself, due to his age, is not able to report whether he has been baptized, and there is no person who can attest to this; The Carthaginian fathers motivate such a decree by the fact that it is impossible, due to the unknown, to deprive a child of purification by such a sacred thing as the sacrament of baptism. The reason for issuing this rule was that many Christians bought slaves from non-Christian peoples, among whom there were often children, and in order for the latter to have the opportunity to become true members of the church, it was necessary to make the mentioned resolution. At present, this ruling is mainly relevant for foundlings. It was also decided that the day of the worship of Easter should be proclaimed to everyone through the attribution under the definitions of the council. Let the same day of the council be observed as that appointed at the Council of Hippo, that is, the twenty-first of August. And this should be written to the leaders of all regions, so that when they convene a council at home, this day will be left inviolable. (Ap. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 18; Trul. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carth. 34, 51, 95, 106). Based on the resolution of the 51st rule of this council, it was necessary to annually announce to all the churches of proconsular Africa, after the general council convened in Carthage, the day on which the Resurrection of Christ was to be celebrated this year. The latter was established at the Council of Ippon in 393, and then resumed by the 34th, 51st, and finally the given (73) rules of the present council in 419. At the same Council of Hippo it was also established at what time a general bishop's council for the African Church should be convened annually. The same is confirmed by this Council, and the day of the Convocation of the Council is indicated ή προ δέκα καλανδών Σεπτεμβρίων (ante decimum calendas Septembris), i.e. August 21. In the same rule, the Carthaginian fathers instruct all leading bishops (metropolitans) to strictly observe this day in their dioceses, i.e. convene their usual diocesan councils with the expectation that by the specified day, when the general council is to meet, all their affairs are completely completed. It is also determined that no temporarily governing bishop will be allowed to retain the throne that has been entrusted to him, as a temporary ruler, due to disagreement and discord among the people: but let him endeavor to elect a bishop for him within a year. If he neglects this, then at the end of the year another temporary manager will be elected. (Ap. 36; IV Om. 25; Trul. 35). The dowager church was usually ruled by the clergy of this church until a new bishop was appointed for it (Ap. 36; IV Ecum. 25; Trul. 35). But if it turned out that the clergy of the dowager church was not able to maintain proper order in it and parties appeared among the people regarding the candidate for the episcopal see, as a result of which disagreements arose, then the metropolitan would send there one of the closest bishops, who would take over the timely management of the dowager church, maintaining peace and order in it until a permanent bishop was appointed there. The rule calls such a bishop, who was temporarily entrusted with the administration of the dowager church, μεσίτης (intercessor). But it happened that those bishops, who were supposed to maintain love among the people and promote the election of a new bishop, themselves, for the sake of their personal benefits, encouraged unrest and aroused disagreement with the goal of leaving the church longer without a permanent bishop and being able to fulfill the duties of a manager in it for a longer time. To prevent such abuse, the Carthaginian fathers forbade the bishop to remain the steward of the dowager church for more than one year, and if during this time he failed to do everything necessary to ensure that a new bishop was installed, then, as the rule determines, such a bishop was deprived of control, and it was transferred to a new elected steward. Because of the oppression of the poor, who constantly plague the churches with complaints, everyone decided to ask the kings to choose for them, under the supervision of the bishops, defenders from the violence of the rich. (IV Universe 2, 23; Carth. 97). The duty of the bishop, says Zonara in his interpretation of this rule, is not only to teach the people entrusted to him, but also to intercede for them when they suffer untruth, and, if possible, to defend them. Seeing that some rich people oppress the poor and cause them all kinds of harm, and at the same time the bishops do not have sufficient strength to protect them from violence, the Carthaginian fathers decide in this rule to petition the emperors for the appointment of special defenders-ecdics (έκδίκους, defensores), who would be able, together with the bishops, to protect the poor from the violence of the rich and thereby save the church from incessantly listening to the complaints that the oppressed rich addressed to her. The same petition was renewed in Rule 97 of this council. The request of the fathers was satisfied by the emperors Theodosius and Honorius, who decreed that at each episcopal see there should be a special ekdic, jointly elected by the bishop, the clergy and prominent citizens. It is decreed that every time a council is to meet, bishops should come to it in good time, who are not prevented by either old age, illness, or any grave necessity: and let the superior ones, each from his own region, be informed about all the bishops, whether in two or three places, their meetings are formed, and from each of these private meetings, elected in turn, let them irrevocably come on the day of the council. When they are not able to come, due to many difficulties, how can this happen? Then, unless they explain to their superior bishop the obstacles they have encountered, they should be content with communion in their church only. (Ap. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; Trul. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Laod. 40; Carth. 18, 73, 77, 95). Here we are talking about such a council, which we talked about in the interpretation of the third part of the 18th rule of this council, i.e. about the general council of the entire African Church. In the latter there were so many bishops that all of them, of course, could not appear at the general council (κοινήν σύνοδον, geiieralem synodum), and representatives elected for this came from each diocese (pr. 18); from the same rule it is clear that the leading bishops, each in his own diocese, divided all the bishops subordinate to them into two or three groups and from each sent representatives to the general council, chosen one by one. These elected representatives were obliged to appear at the council, unless they could not do so for some very good reason. Moreover, they received forgiveness only if they declared this reason in advance to their first bishop, otherwise, as the rule decrees, they should have enjoyed communication only in their church ( εκκλησίας, suae esse ecclesiae communione contenti), which means that they were not deprived of the right to officiate, but were only excommunicated for some time from communication with the rest of the bishops. According to the resolution of Rule 19 of the IV Ecumenical Council, every bishop who did not appear at the council was subject to a fraternal reprimand. It was the will of all to inform the foremost bishop of Numidia about Cresconius of Villarecentia, so that he knows that he must, with his letter, warn the above-mentioned Cresconius about the coming, so that he does not delay appearing at the next general African council. If he neglects to come, let him know that judgment will be pronounced against him. (Ap. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; Trul. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Laod. 40; Carth. 18, 48, 73, 76, 95). Regarding Cresconius, which this rule speaks of, was already mentioned in the 48th rule of this council; but since even after that this bishop continued to persist and remain in the chair illegally occupied by him, the Carthaginian fathers in this rule order him to appear before the general council, since otherwise the sentence will be pronounced in his absence. The leaving of the Hipponian church without rulers should not be neglected for long: and since the local churches are in the power of those who have renounced illegal communication with Ekitium, it is good to send from the present council bishops: Ritinus, Alipius, Augustine, Materko, Theasius, Euodia, Plakiana, Urvana, Valerius, Ambivius, Fortunatus, Quodvultdey, Onorata, Iannuarius, Piita, Onorata, Ampelius, Victoriana, Evaggella, Rogatiana: and they must gather and admonish those who, out of reprehensible stubbornness, expect to wait for the end of the flight of that same Ekitius, and with common prayer appoint a bishop for them. If these people do not want to think about peace, let them not interfere with the election of a primate in order to install him for the benefit of the church, which has been left without a bishop for such a long time. (Ap. 58; IV Om. 25; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11; Carth. 65, 71, 74, 93, 121, 123). This rule deals with the condemned Bishop Yekitie, who was already mentioned in Rule 65 of this council. The rule decides to send several bishops to Ippon to restore the peace broken by Ekiti and to install a new bishop. Among these bishops, Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is also mentioned. To avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that in Africa there were two cities with this name: Hippo regius in Numidia, where Augustine was bishop, and Hippo Diarrhytus in proconsular Africa, where Ekitios was located. In the title of this rule, in the Collection of Dionysius, this church, the peace of which was so long disturbed by Ekitius, is called Ecclesia Hipponensium Diaretorum, and it is also named in the conclusion of the manual given to the delegates to the Donatists (Carth. 93). This is also determined: when there is a denunciation against those in the clergy, and certain accusations are announced: then, partly to reject criticism of the church, partly for the sake of the dignity of the clergy, for which reasons they are given leniency, partly to avoid the proud gloating of heretics and pagans, if they wish, as they should, to defend their cause and take care of the evidence of their innocence, let them do this within the year in which they should be outside communication. If during the course of a year they neglect to clean up their work, then after this no word will be accepted from them. (Ap. 74; II Universe 6; IV Universe 9). Every cleric, says St. Augustine, must always have two things before his eyes: conscience and a good name (conscientia et fama); for ourselves, conscience is enough, but for the sake of others we need a good name: “conscience is for you, and a good name for the sake of your neighbor” (conscientia tibi, fama proximo tuo). Since every cleric must enjoy a good name, the rule issued on this occasion prescribes the following: if a complaint is publicly filed against the clerics as a result of any crimes (δια τινά εγκλήματα έλεγχθέντας) or there is a rumor in society that they have committed any crimes, then, for the sake of their good name and the authority of the church, they must make every effort to justify themselves before the church court within a year and at the same time show their innocence before public opinion. If they do not manage to do this within the specified time, they lose the right to acquittal and are put on trial. And the fact that, as the rule stipulates, such clerics must be out of communion for a year, happens, as Zonara’s interpretation of this rule says, not because, on the basis of a complaint filed, their guilt has been proven (since in that case they would have been overthrown), but solely because they have brought people to doubt that they have committed a crime. This is also decreed: if anyone accepts someone from another monastery and wants to promote him to the clergy, or appoints him as abbot of his monastery, then the bishop who does this will be removed from communication with others, and may limit himself to communication only with his flock: and let him remain neither a cleric nor an abbot. (Ap. 14, 15, 16; I Universe. 15, 16; IV Universe. 4, 5, 10, 20, 23; Trul. 17, 18, 20; VII Universe. 19, 21; Antioch. 3, 21; Serdic. 1, 2, 13, 15, 16; Carth. 54, 90; Absolutely the same punishment, which is determined by the 76th rule of this council, this rule subjects every bishop who accepted without a letter of dismissal (vacation) from the subject bishop (επισκοπικής άπολυτικής γραφής) any monk in order to enroll him in your clergy or make him abbot of one of your monasteries; and if the latter brings with him a letter of dismissal, he can freely become both a cleric and an abbot. Regarding this, see the interpretation of Rule 16 of the First Ecumenical Council. This rule, as well as Rule 76 of this council, mentions one special punishment to which a bishop may be subjected for certain guilt, namely: restriction of communication “only with his flock.” This punishment for bishops is mentioned in rules 123 and 133 of this council. It consisted in the fact that the bishop was excommunicated for some time from communication with the other bishops, and was called, in accordance with the terms used at Western church councils, excommunicatio fraterna. No other rule of the Eastern Church mentions such a punishment for bishops, and it is also unknown (at least to me) that it was ever practiced in the Orthodox Church, with the exception of the ancient Carthaginian Church, as a result of which this punishment can only be considered a feature of the Carthaginian Church. This is also determined: if any bishop leaves heretics, or pagans, relatives, or those not belonging to the kinship as his heirs, and prefers them to the church: even after death, let such an anathema be pronounced, and let his name never be exalted by the priests of God. Yes, he cannot be justified even if he leaves without a will. Having already been appointed bishop, out of propriety, he had to arrange the assignment of his property in accordance with his rank. (Ap. 38, 40; IV Om. 22; Trul. 35; Antioch. 24; Carth. 22, 32). The 22nd rule of this council prohibited bishops and clergy in general from leaving their property to non-Orthodox Christians, even if the latter were their relatives, and the 32nd rule of the same council recommends that they bequeath to the church everything that is inherited, or otherwise in any way became their private property. This rule also deals with private property, and it sets out in more detail the decree of the 22nd rule about bishops who appointed non-Orthodox Christians as their heirs, namely heretics or pagans (αιρετικούς ή έλληνας), even if the latter were related to them; Regarding the fact that bishops had the right to bequeath their private property at their personal discretion, we saw the decree of 40 Ap. rule (cf. 24 Antioch.), which prescribes for this purpose to accurately inform and describe this property, which must be completely separated from church property, which is also mentioned in the conclusion of this Carthaginian rule. Thus, a bishop who allows himself to bequeath his property after death to some heretic or pagan, even though he is his relative, is subject, according to the rule, to terrible punishment, i.e. is anathematized, and even his name is not mentioned in church diptychs. We already know what anathema means (L 245–247). In this rule, it is pronounced against a bishop who has already died (μετά θάνατον ανάθεμα τ φ τοιούτφ λεχθείη). in church history we have enough similar examples when anathema was pronounced against certain persons even after their death. However, the anathema pronounced against the dead is not excommunication or exclusion from the church, which is the gravest church punishment usually imposed on known criminals. The imposition of anathema, as well as any other church punishment, can be carried out by church authority only in relation to those persons who are under its jurisdiction, i.e. only on the living members of the church, and not on the dead, who, having ceased to be members of the militant church, are no longer subject to its jurisdiction, but to the highest court. Church punishments are generally imposed mainly for the purpose of correcting and converting to good those members of the church who have strayed from the true path, and this goal can in no way be achieved in relation to the dead. The pronouncement of anathema against the dead, which we encounter in this Carthaginian rule and some other canonical decisions of the church authorities, is done for the sake of living members of the church, to whom it is shown that the famous deceased, due to his crimes, which became known only after his death, was unworthy of church communion, and therefore all spiritual connections with him must be interrupted, not pray for him and not make sacrifices for him, and his very name should be crossed out from church diptychs, and if perhaps it should also deprive him of a church burial place. Thus, the purpose of the church in pronouncing an anathema against some of the dead is to show its living members the full gravity of the crimes committed by these persons during their lifetime, so that they themselves will beware of falling into similar crimes, and mainly so that the living members of the church, seeing that the latter has not condemned the bad example shown by the dead, will not follow it themselves. The words of the rule “and let his name (a famous sinner) never be exalted from the priests of God” ( άνενεχθη) are reminiscent of church diptychs, still used today in the Orthodox Church. The word “diptych” (δίπτυχος) comes from δις - twice and πτύσσειν - fold, fold, thus meaning twice folded, folded. the adjective was used to designate everything twice folded or rolled, mainly to designate double tablets (Latin tabella, tabellae) or two sheets joined together, on which the names of persons commemorated at a certain time in the church were written. δίπτυχα ζώντων (viventilim) and δίπτυχα νεκρών or κεκοιμημένων (mortuorum). in the first, the names of all deceased bishops who were in a given church and Orthodox believers were written down; secondly, the names of all living members of a given church, especially the names of the church’s benefactors; in the third - the names of all those who have fallen asleep in Christ were entered (των εν Χριστφ κεκοιμημένων), and mainly, the names of those who, through their faith and good deeds, acquired merit in one or another church. The use of church diptychs is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 12), and we also find evidence from the fathers and teachers of the church of the most ancient period. They were used during the Divine Liturgy to commemorate the names inscribed there at those moments of the service when this is done now in our Orthodox Church. This (81) Carthaginian rule by the above words means δίπτυχον επισκόπων, commanding that the name of the bishop who committed the crime implied by the rule be deleted from it, so as not to remember him anymore during divine services. The fifth ecumenical council issued exactly the same decision, ordering the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia to be deleted from church diptychs. In the second half, the rule says that it is impossible to exempt from anathema that bishop who died without a spiritual will (αδιάθετος, intestatus), as a result of which his property, according to common law, was inherited by his relatives - heretics or pagans, because, as the rule says, he was obliged to take care of this in advance and dispose of the property according to the law, as befits his rank (Ap. 40; Antioch. 24; Carth. 32). It was also discussed about the releases that happen in the church; let there be a petition to the king. (Ap. 72; IV Om. 4; Trul. 85; Gangr. 3; Carth. 64). This rule resumes regulation 64 of the Carthaginian rule regarding the need to seek confirmation from the state authorities of the right of the church regarding the emancipation of slaves. This is also decreed: everywhere in the fields and in wind towns, altars supposedly erected in memory of the martyrs, at which no body or part of the relics of the martyrs are placed, should be destroyed, if possible, by local bishops. If they do not allow this to happen to the people, let us at least admonish the people so that they do not gather in these places, and so that right-minded people do not become attached to such places by any superstition. And the memory of the martyrs should not be celebrated at all, unless somewhere there is either a body, or some part of the relics, or, according to a legend from faithful ancient times, their home, or acquisitions, or a place of suffering. And altars placed anywhere, according to the dreams and vain revelations of some people, will be rejected in every possible way. (Ap. 31; IV Om. 4; Trul. 31; VII Om. 7; Antioch. 5). According to the decree of several rules (Trul. 31 and parallel rules), no church can be erected without the permission of the underlying bishop, who must directly or directly consecrate it by placing particles of the relics of the holy martyrs at the base of the altar. Since some, as can be seen from the rule, erected altars (θυσιαστήρια) in their fields and vineyards, guided by the fact that they saw something miraculous in a dream or that it was revealed to them by the prophetic gift of some people, and thus misled the common people and harmed the Orthodox faith, the rule prescribes, by order of the bishop, to destroy every similar altar built under the pretext of glorifying the martyrs, but in reality not only did not have the relics of the martyrs or a particle of them under the altar, but no one even remembered that any martyr had ever been there or suffered. If the people oppose the destruction of the altar and begin to rebel, then, as the rule says, it is necessary to teach them, instilling in them that it is a sin for Orthodox Christians to gather in such places, who should not be carried away by superstition and thereby offend the memory of the true martyrs of Christ. It is also good to ask from the most glorious kings that the remnants of idolatry be destroyed in every way, not only in statues, but also in any places, or groves, or trees. This rule resumes regulation 58 of the Carthaginian rule regarding the need to petition the state authorities for the destruction of the remnants of idols that still existed in Africa at that time. All the bishops said: if it pleases to write certain letters at the council, then the worthy bishop presiding on this throne, let him deign, on behalf of all that have been discussed, to write and sign the letters. Also, the locum tenens bishops who are to be sent to the African regions in connection with the Donatist matter will be given letters defining the strength of the commission given to them, from the strength of which they will not deviate. St. Augustine in one of his writings speaks of the equal importance of the Roman and Carthaginian churches and calls both of these churches eminentissimae ecclesiae. In addition, from Rule 55 of this council we see that Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, says regarding himself that he is responsible for the care of all the churches of Africa, on the basis of which this bishop was recognized by everyone as primas totius Africae. Due to this position, the Carthaginian bishop enjoyed many privileges, one of which is mentioned in this rule, namely, that he (the Carthaginian bishop) draws up on behalf of everyone and signs (όπαγορεύειν χαΐ όπογράφειν) every charter sent from the council. Since this is a common matter, to which our brother and co-servant has now drawn attention, let each of us know the rank assigned to him by God, and let those appointed after others give priority to those appointed before, and let them not dare to do anything without heeding their will: for this reason, I propose that it comes to my mind: those who neglect those appointed before them, and show some insolence, it is appropriate for the whole cathedral to tame according to decency. Xanthippus, bishop of the first throne of Numidia, said: the whole presence of the brethren, having listened to the reasoning of our brother and fellow servant Avrilius, what answer to this? Bishop Diathymius said: what was determined by the opinions of the ancients is offered to your consent: what is contained in the acts of the former councils of the Carthaginian churches, let it be fully confirmed by your consent and be observed by everyone. All the bishops said: this rite was observed from the fathers and from the ancients, and from us, by the will of God, we will observe it. But at the same time, let the right of the primacy of the bishops of Numidia and Mauritania be preserved, on the basis of the Numidian depository and the list of thrones. Then it was desired by all the bishops who signed the resolutions of this council that the list of thrones and the original Numidian decree should be found both at the first throne and in the metropolis of Constantine. (Ap. 34; I Universe. 4, 6, 7, 18; II Universe. 2, 3; III Universe. 8, 9; IV Universe. 9, 17, 28; Trul. 7, 36, 39; Antioch. 9; Laod. 20, 56; Serdic. 3, 4, 5; Karf. 17, 39, 89). According to the ancient custom of the African Church, the senior bishop was to be considered the one who had first received consecration. The latter is categorically proclaimed by Bishop Aurelius in motivating this rule. Meanwhile, some bishops, not wanting to adhere to this, flaunted the privileges and importance of their sees, and at general episcopal meetings tried to take places above the bishops of smaller sees, despite the fact that the latter were even older than them in consecration. Regarding this, this rule was issued, and the general voice of the council for the African Church approved the canonical significance of the practice that existed in this regard. In order to henceforth avoid disputes about seniority, this council, by one 89th rule, decides that each bishop, upon his consecration, must receive from those who supply him a special letter with their own signatures, where the exact day of his consecration must be indicated. The rule allows for an exception for certain primate sees of the African Church, as expressed by its concluding words regarding Mauritania and Numidia. About Quodvultdey and Kentiriath. As at the request of his rival to present him to our council, he was asked whether he wanted to have the matter before the bishops, at first he agreed, but on another day he answered that he did not want this, and withdrew: this pleases all the bishops, but no one will accept this Quodvultdey into fellowship until his work is completed. For, before the matter was decided on him, none of the Christians would have liked to take away the bishopric from him. (Ap. 74; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trul. 8; Antioch. 14, 15; Laod. 40; Serdic. 4; Carth. 8, 12, 15, 19, 96, 121, 128, 129, 130; Double 13, 16). Bishop Quodvultdeus, when asked whether he wished to appear at the council for a confrontation with his accuser, who had filed a complaint against him, initially agreed, but then refused the application and avoided appearing in court. Regarding this, the council decided to interrupt communication with Bishop Kvodvultdey until he was put on trial; nevertheless, the council does not deprive him of his bishopric, but decides to do this only if his guilt is proven in court, as established by general church rules. It was discussed about Maximian, Bishop of Vagen: let the council send letters to him and to his flock, so that he leaves the bishopric, and they look for another. (III Om. 9; Dvukr. 16; Petra Alex. 10; Cyril Alex. 2, 3). When the Karen people no longer wanted to accept Bishop Maximian (Maiximianus Vagiensis), who had previously been a Donatist and then turned to the church from a schism, the latter, in order to preserve church peace, voluntarily renounced his see and announced this to the council. For the sake of general peace, the Council approved Maximian's action and, accepting his resignation, decided to elect another in his place. This is also wished for: from now on, those ordained in the African regions should receive from the ordainers letters signed by them, indicating the consul, that is, the year and day of ordination, so that no doubt arises about the younger and older ones. The rule is quite clear; it was published in order to once again approve the resolution 86 of the rule of this council, which prescribes that the one who accepted the consecration earlier in time should be considered the eldest among the bishops at their general meetings. The charters mentioned by this rule are nothing more than the current singels (πιττάκια), received by bishops from the proper synod, and they indicate the time and place of acceptance of the consecration, and they are sealed with the signatures of the metropolitan and the remaining full members of the synod. This is also decreed: whoever reads in church even once should not be accepted into the clergy by another church. (Trul. 33; VII Om. 14; Laod. 15). From the interpretation of canon 14 of the seventh ecumenical council, we saw that church readers received initiation from the bishop before beginning to perform their service in a certain church, and only by virtue of this initiation became members of the clergy of a particular diocese and submitted to the authority of the underlying diocesan bishop. As members of the clergy of a certain diocese, all church readers could not voluntarily transfer to the clergy of another diocese, just as the bishop of another diocese could not accept them into his clergy without the consent and letter of dismissal of the bishop who made them readers and to whose clergy they belonged. Consequently, for the readers, as well as for the rest of the clergy, the general canonical norm regarding the transition from one diocese to another was important. From the words of the rule - “whoever read at least once in the church” one could conclude that it is forbidden to accept into another diocese only those readers who have already begun to fulfill their duties in the church, regardless of whether they have been performed or not, and therefore, that it is possible to accept them into another diocese without the permission of the underlying bishop in the event that they have only accepted ordination from their bishop, but have not yet begun to fulfill their official duties (readings) in his diocese. In this sense, as Balsamon says in his interpretation of this rule, the above words of the rule were understood by some; however, in his opinion, it would be more correct to understand this rule in the sense that anyone appointed as a reader in a certain diocese can no longer be accepted into another diocese without the consent of the underlying bishop, since he is already a member of the clergy of the diocese in which he was appointed. We consider this interpretation of Balsamon to be quite correct, especially since the very act of reading forms part of the ordination itself, at the moment of which the bishop hands over to the given person the book “Apostle”, from which he (who is being promoted to reader) reads a well-known passage; therefore, the above words of the rule must be understood only in the sense of production, regardless of whether or not the new reader has begun to perform his duties in a known church. All of you with a promise assumed that each of us in his own city, or one in particular, should enter into communication with the leaders of the Donatists, or join another neighboring bishop, so that we could also enter into communication with them in every city and place, through the mediation of those in command or leadership in those places. Whether this pleases everyone, let it be announced. All the bishops said: everyone wants. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). Bishop of the Catholic Church of the Rivers: an invitation, which from our honesty should be extended to the Donatists, with the grace to listen and include in the deeds, and send to them, so that later their answer through your deeds will be revealed to us. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). We legally enter into communication with you, having been sent from our lawful council, wanting to rejoice at your correction. For we know the love of the Lord: blessed are the peacemakers, for these shall be called the sons of God (Matthew 5:9). He remembered in the same way through the prophet, and even to those who did not want to be called our brethren, with the verb we: naturally our brethren. And so you should not despise this, our reminder comes from peaceful love. If you have any idea of the truth, do not hesitate to defend it: that is, gather your council, choose from among you those to whom it is appropriate to entrust the work of your justification: and we too can do the same, that is, let those who are in charge be chosen from our council with those elected from among you, in a certain place and at a certain time, to peacefully examine everything that is subject to question, and that separates you from ours communication, and with the help of the Lord our God, although late, let the ossified error come to an end, so that, following human assurance, weak and ignorant souls do not perish in sacrilegious division. For if you accept this brotherly, then the truth will conveniently appear; if you do not desire to do this, then your unbelief will immediately be recognized. And after reading this sample, all the bishops said: we completely agree, so be it. Instruction to the brethren, Theasius and Euodia, appointed envoys from the Council of Carthage to the most glorious and pious autocrats. When, with the help of the Lord, they approach the most pious kings: then they will show them how, during the council of last summer, the elders of the Donatists were invited with complete freedom, through city notices, to gather together, so that, if they had the boldness to defend their opinion, elect some capable ones from among their number, they would peacefully compete with us, and with Christian meekness they would undoubtedly show if anything was from the truth. kept to themselves, so that in this way the catholic sincerity, which shone from ancient times in past times, would now be similarly revealed from the confusion and stubbornness of those who contradict. But since they were almost overcome by hopelessness, they did not dare to answer anything. And so, since the episcopal and peaceful way of acting on such was used, and they, unable to answer against the truth, turned to absurd violent acts, so that many bishops and many clergy (let us keep silent about the laity) were constrained by slander, and some churches were invaded, and others were also attempted to be invaded: then the royal love of mankind will suggest that they take care that the Catholic Church, who gave birth to them with the pious womb of Christ, and raised them with the strength of faith, was protected by their providence: so that in their pious times daring people would not dominate the powerless people through some kind of fear, when they cannot seduce them through persuasion. For it is known and has been repeatedly declared by laws that vile gatherings of renegades are produced. This was condemned many times and by the orders of the above-mentioned most pious autocrats themselves. Therefore, we ask the fury of the fury of these renegades to give us divine help, not extraordinary and not alien to the holy scriptures. For the Apostle Paul, as shown in the true Acts of the Apostles, defeated the complicity of disorderly people with military help. And so we ask that the protection of the Catholic ranks of churches in every city and various places adjacent to each possession be strictly given. It is appropriate to ask the most pious autocrats about this, so that they observe the law issued by their father Theodosius, blessed in memory, about collecting ten pounds of gold from heretics who ordain and are ordained, as well as from the owners from whom their collection will be arranged. Moreover, let this law be commanded to be confirmed, with its force extended to those who have provided evidence against the slander of those who have taken care of the Catholic Church, so that, at least by this fear, those who subject themselves to purification and correction with the thought of eternal punishment will be kept from causing schisms and from heretical madness. It is also appropriate to ask for this, that by their piety the law that still exists may be renewed, which will take away from heretics the right to collect anything, either at ordinations, or by wills, or to leave, and simply decide, from those blinded by their insane prejudice, and who want to remain in the error of the Donatists, that the power to either leave something, or to collect their own, may be taken away. And those who, with the thought of unity and peace, want to correct themselves, may it be allowed, even if such a law exists, to receive an inheritance, even if it was a gift or inheritance that was given to them even while they were in heretical error, with the exception, however, of those who, upon being called to trial, considered it necessary to go to the Catholic Church. For such things must be considered, as if it were not out of fear of heavenly judgment, but out of hunger for earthly benefits that they desired catholic unity. On top of all this, help is needed from the authorities in every region. But even if the locum tenens sees something else that promotes the benefit of the church: we give authority to do and do this. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). As soon as unity has taken place in Carthage, let letters be sent to the rulers, and in other dioceses and cities these rulers will command that efforts be made for unity. From the Carthaginian churches, in the name of all Africa, may gratitude be sent to the royal chamber in the letters of the bishops for the rejection of the Donatists. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124). All of the above four rules apply to the Donatists, who were discussed in the interpretation of 47 of the Carthaginian rule. About the fact that there should not be a general and complete cathedral, except out of necessity. It was decided that it is not necessary to trouble the brethren every year from now on: but when the general need, that is, all Africa, demands, according to letters from somewhere coming to this throne, then it is appropriate for the cathedral to be in the area to which need and convenience call. The cases are not common, but are judged in each region separately. (Ap. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; Trul. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Laod. 40; Carth. 18, 51, 73, 76). We have seen that the 18th, 51st and 73rd rules of this council prescribe that a general council of the entire African Church should be held annually at a certain time, namely on August 21st. This rule, canceling these decrees, says that a general council should be convened only in those cases when some special matter concerning the entire African Church requires it, otherwise ordinary diocesan councils should be convened annually to resolve all matters that are not general (αί αίτίαι αί μη ουσαι χοινάί). By general affairs, as Balsamon says, are meant dogmatic matters (δογμα - τιχαί), all other matters are called ίδικαί (speciales seu privatae) and they must be decided in each area (εν εκάστη επαρχία). The reason for which the Carthaginian fathers issued this rule is very respectful, namely, so as not to bother the bishops in vain and not to leave the people without shepherds unless absolutely necessary. 107 On the prohibition of transferring cases from voluntarily elected judges. If the case is transferred to the highest court, and someone dissatisfied with the first decision elects judges, along with the one against whom he demands a new trial: then after this, none of them will be allowed to transfer the case to another court. 108 About church performers. In addition, it is good to ask that five executors for all church needs be selected and distributed among different regions. (Ap. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9; Carth. 15, 100, 122). This rule is divided into three parts, of which the first and third constitute the two rules in the Book of Rules (107 and 108), just as in the Pydalion (105 and 106). 1) The first part of this rule, which is a kind of addition to rule 95, says that all matters that are not of general importance should be resolved in the relevant dioceses; and since the previous rule did not mention the case of appeal, this rule decides that some cases decided at diocesan councils can be reviewed and decided a second time, and after the decision of the judges elected by mutual agreement, one can no longer appeal to another high court. The significance of such a sentence was recognized by the 9th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, and was also confirmed by the 15th and 122nd rules of the Carthage Council. 2) The second part of the rule mentions representatives sent by different regions of the African Church and joyfully received by the council. 3) The third part of the rule speaks of executors (έκβιβασταί, exactores seu executores), whose duties were to take care of church needs, especially the collection of church revenues in cases where some persons refused to give them voluntarily. The rule decides to petition the state authorities for the appointment of five such executors to be distributed among the different dioceses of the African Church. 109 It was also destined that the envoys sent on behalf of all the dioceses, Vincent and Furtunatian, asked the glorious kings to be allowed to establish learned ekdiks, who would have the duty of acting in defense of cases: and who, like the priests of the dioceses, who have taken upon themselves to intercede on the affairs of the churches, could freely, when need requires, enter the presence of the courts to refute objections, and to present what is needed. 110 It was decided that the elected locums sent to the royal chamber should have free locum tenens. (IV Universe 2, 23; Carth. 75, 93). This rule is also divided into three parts, of which the first two constitute two special rules in the Book of Rules (109–110), as well as in the Pidalion (107 and 108). 1) The first part renews the decision of Rule 75 of this council on the need to petition the state authorities for the appointment of ecdics to protect both church interests and the interests of the poor. 2) The council gives the delegates elected from the council to the imperial court (Rule 93) complete freedom of action, allowing them not only to request and report what is entrusted to them by the council, but also everything that they, at their discretion, find useful for the church. 3) The third part of the rule speaks of Bishop Primos, who, as an envoy from Mauritania of Caesarea, did not want to appear at the council, about which the rule decides to inform the elder (γέρων, senex) Innocent, who was then the first bishop (primas) of Caesarea of Mauritania, but not at all to notify about this, as Zonara says in the interpretation of this rule, the Pope of Rome Innocent, although the latter was at that time (402–417) pope in Rome. This was also decreed: a people who have never had their own bishop should not be given one, unless by decision of the entire council, each region, and the first bishop, and with the consent of the bishop in whose territory that church was located. (Ap. 34; Serdic. 6; Carth. 53, 56). This rule briefly resumes the resolution of the corresponding rule of one of the previous Carthaginian councils of 397. The mentioned Carthaginian rule is given by us in the collection of Carthaginian rules of 419 under No. 53 and we have interpreted it above. The statement of the rule is quite clear from its very text. A new diocese can be formed under this condition if there is a decision of the episcopal council of the given metropolitan region, chaired by the underlying metropolitan, and the agreement of the bishop to allocate from under his jurisdiction some places belonging to his diocese. About the people and dioceses converting from the Donatists. The people converting from the Donatists, having a bishop installed without the permission of the council, will undoubtedly be honored to have one. The people who had a bishop and, after his death, did not want to have their own bishop, but who, out of decency, wish to join the diocese of another bishop, should not be denied this. This is also proposed: as if the bishops, before the announcement of the royal law on unity, converted the people they had in charge to the Catholic faith, they should have retained power over them. According to the law of unity and further, all churches and their borders, and whatever may be the accessories legally assigned to those churches, should be assigned to the Catholic bishops located in those places that were taken over by heretics, who subsequently converted to the Catholic faith or did not convert. And if some of them appropriated it for themselves after the royal law, it must be returned. (Ap. 38; Carth. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 117, 118, 119, 124). This rule deals with the Donatists, whom we have already discussed in the interpretation of the 47th rule of this council. Maurentius Bishop of the Rivers: I ask that the most holy elder Xanthippus, the most holy Augustine, Florentius, Theasius, Oampsichius, Secundus and Posidius be appointed as judges: command that this be determined for me. The Holy Council agreed to the appointment of the requested judges, but the other judges needed in addition to the legal number, Elder Xanthippus will grant the election to the elders themselves of the new Germanys. (Ap. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9; Carth. 12, 15, 96, 121). From the full text of this rule (Af. Sint., III, 545–6) it is clear that certain elders (γέρ o ντες) from new Germany (από της νέας Γερμανού) in Numidia filed a complaint against their bishop Maurentius. As a result of this complaint, Maurentius appeared at the council, but by this time the accusers had disappeared. The Council, having recognized the latter as deserving of condemnation, did not want, however, “out of the meekness of the church” (ήμερότητα εκκλησιαστικήν) to pronounce a sentence on them, but decided, in order not to alienate Bishop Maurentius from his church for a long time, to carry out a trial on him in the region to which he belonged as a bishop, and in of which the first chair was occupied by the elder (ό γέρων, senex, otherwise primate) Xanthippus; at the same time, Maurentius himself was left to elect his own judges. Maurentius elected Xanthippus and six other bishops, to which the council expressed its consent, leaving the choice of the remaining judges necessary to replenish their canonically established number to the discretion of Elder Xanthippus. This canonical number of bishops necessary to carry out the trial of a bishop should, as the 12th rule of this council defines, consist of twelve bishops, therefore, five more were missing to those who had already been elected by Maurentius. A very important note in this rule is that one should not insult a bishop for the sake of the people subordinate to him ( ύποπέπτωκεν ό επίσκοπος ). On the pacification of the Roman and Alexandrian churches. The Roman and Alexandrian churches deigned to write about the disagreement between the churches to His Holiness Pope Innocent, so that both churches may mutually preserve the peace that the Lord commands. According to Western commentators, this conciliar decision of the Carthaginian fathers was caused by disagreements and hostility between the Roman and Alexandrian churches that arose due to the fact that the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus expelled John Chrysostom, and the Roman bishop Innocent decisively excommunicated him from communion with the church for such an act. Although the African bishops (especially Bishop Aurelius) were clearly on the side of John Chrysostom, nevertheless, the act of Pope Innocent still seemed inappropriate to them, as a result of which they decided at the council to write to him, asking for the establishment of peace in both churches, as the Lord commanded us (John 14:27). The way the rule is formulated indicates that the Carthaginian church always showed its independence in relation to the Roman bishops, who were reluctant to recognize its independence and constantly showed some advantage of power over it, as a result of which the Carthage Council of 419 was convened, which recognized as its own the given (101) rule, issued twelve years earlier also at one of the councils in Carthage. Decreed: Yes, according to the Gospel and Apostolic teaching, neither one left by his wife, nor one who has been sent away by her husband, are combined with another person: but either let them remain, or let them be reconciled with each other. If they neglect this, they will be forced to repentance. You need to ask, so that a royal law will be issued regarding this matter. (Ap. 48; Trul. 87, 93, 98; Ankir. 20; Vasily Vel. 9, 21, 31, 35, 36, 46, 48, 77, 80). According to the provisions of this rule, it is impossible to dissolve a legally concluded marriage on the grounds that the husband or wife has abandoned his or her marital half; such a marriage itself remains in force, and if the spouses do not reconcile, they must remain separated forever, without the right to enter into a new marriage with another person. In this case, as you can see, we are talking about the unauthorized termination of married life together, on the part of the husband or wife, which is quite consistent with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and our Orthodox Church. This rule does not say anything about the termination of joint married life, when there is a good reason for this, as a result of which one could conclude that neither the husband nor the wife can ever enter into a new marriage, although there would be some reason for which they stopped their joint married life. There is no doubt that this was practiced at the beginning of the 5th century in the Carthaginian church, which is confirmed by the very way this rule is presented. However, over time, the latter underwent a change, and at the end of the 7th century we see that one of the rules of the Council of Trullo (87) punishes a person who terminates marital cohabitation “without guilt,” which, therefore, is permissible in the presence of such guilt. But even in this case, according to the teachings of church law, the spouses cannot do this arbitrarily, since guilt must be proven in court, and if only it is truly justified, the spouses are separated and the marriage is not only declared invalid, but the innocent party is freely allowed to enter into a legal marriage with another person. The reasons for which a marriage can be dissolved are standardized by church and civil legislation, for which see the interpretation of the mentioned Trullo rule in this publication. At the conclusion of this rule, the Carthaginian fathers speak of the need to petition the state authorities to issue a special royal law regarding the decree they made. The latter serves as proof that the Christian Church recognizes certain rights in civil legislation in relation to marriage issues, just as it was in the ancient Roman Empire, because only one state can guarantee all the civil consequences of marriage, as well as any other legal contract in general. This is also decreed: let all the prayers approved at the council be performed, both initial and final, and prayers of proposal, or laying on of hands: and by no means let others ever be offered contrary to faith, but let those that have been gathered by the most enlightened be spoken. (Ap. 60; Trul. 63; Laod. 59). Even according to the resolution of the Council of Laodicea (Rule 59), it was allowed to read in the church only what was approved by the canons. This Carthaginian rule, renewing this decree, prescribes reading in church only those prayers that were reviewed at the councils and approved by the latter for use in the church, and prohibits reading any other prayers, as contrary to faith. The rule refers to all prayers in general, in particular the prayers with which the Divine Liturgy begins (πρ oo ίμια, praefationes), then the prayers of proposal (παραθέσεις, commendationes) and finally the prayers said by the bishop during the ordination (τάς της χειρός επιθέσεις, manus impositiones). The Book of Rules also mentions final prayers. It was decided: if anyone from the clergy asks the king to consider himself in secular courts, he will be deprived of his honor. If he should ask the king for episcopal judgment, let him not be forbidden to do so. (Ap. 74; II Om. 6; IV Ose. 9; Antioch. 12; Carth. 15, 96). Rule 15 of this council decides that controversial cases arising between members of the clergy can only be dealt with in church courts. And the 12th rule of the Council of Antioch contains a decree prohibiting turning to the emperor with a complaint about the verdicts of church courts. This rule, confirming the provisions of the two above-mentioned rules, prescribes the deprivation of the dignity due to him of every member of the clergy who, in the occurrence of any controversial matter, neglecting the proper ecclesiastical court, turns for a decision to the state authority and its civil court. The rule adds, however, that each member of the clergy is free to petition the emperor for the appointment of an episcopal court, but the latter is applied only in extremely important cases, since, according to the decree of the 9th rule of the fourth ecumenical council, the episcopal court at a certain time decides all controversial cases of clergy, and the latter do not need to turn to the emperor for this. However, we personally do not know what the circumstances might be that would necessitate a special imperial decree regarding the convening of a council of bishops for judicial proceedings, for it is known that episcopal councils meet annually twice, or at least once, to decide all, without exception, cases concerning members of the clergy. Whoever, having been excommunicated from church communion in Africa, sneaks into overseas countries in order to be accepted into communion, will be subject to expulsion from the clergy. (Ap. 12, 13; I Om. 5; IV Om. 11, 13; Trul. 17; Antioch. 6, 7, 8, 11; Laod. 41, 42; Serdic. 9; Carth. 23). According to decree 12 of the Apostolic Canon, every cleric who, having been excommunicated by his bishop, goes to another diocese and is received in it, despite the fact that he is under excommunication, is punished. In addition to the specified cleric, the one who receives such a person must also be subject to the same punishment. The 23rd canon of this council decrees that not a single bishop, and therefore not a single clergyman belonging to the African Church, should go to Italy and Rome without a letter of release confirming that he is not excommunicated from church communion. Based on the above rules, this rule prescribes the exclusion from the clergy of every cleric of the African Church who, despite excommunication, secretly makes his way “to overseas lands,” i.e. to Italy, in order to be accepted into church communion there. It follows from this that every overseas bishop who received such an excommunicated cleric without a letter of dismissal (dismissal) is subject to excommunication, in accordance with the above Apostolic Rule. 119 It is laid down: if anyone wishes to go to the royal chamber, then let this be indicated in the letter of release sent to the Roman Church, and from there let him receive the letter of release to the chamber. For this reason, if he who has received a letter of release to Rome only, having kept silent about the need prompting him to go to the chamber, wants to go straight to the chamber: let him be excommunicated. If, there in Rome, a sudden need arises to go to the chamber: let him show this need to the bishop of Rome, and let him bring the writings of the same bishop of Rome. Let the day of Easter be included in the letters of release from the superior bishops or from any bishops given to their clergy. If the day of Easter of that summer is not yet known, then the day of Easter of the past year will be designated, just as it is usually written in secular records: after the consulate. 120 This was also decided: let the locum tenens sent from this honorable council ask the glorious kings for everything that they see useful against the Donatists and Hellenes, and against their superstitions. (Ap. 12; Antioch. 11; Serdic. 7, 9; Carth. 97). In the Book of Rules, this rule is quite thoroughly divided into two rules (119 and 120), since it talks about two different subjects. 1) The rules prohibit bishops from addressing the imperial court without special need (Serdic. 7, 9); in case of such a need, they allow this to be done only with the consent of the superior bishop or metropolitan, and after receiving a special letter for this (Antioch. 11). This Carthaginian rule confirms these rules, adding appropriate explanations to them. We are talking about bishops and other clergy who went to the imperial court, which was then in Rome. At the same time, the rule prescribes that each person traveling to Rome be given a letter of release addressed to the Roman bishop, who, in turn, was supposed to issue such a letter for access to the court. If any clergyman appeared in the palace without first introducing himself to the Roman bishop, then the rule prescribes excommunication (άποκινη & ίτί της κοινωνίας) to be imposed on such person. 2) The second half of this rule repeats everything that has already been said in the second paragraph 97 of the rule regarding delegates sent to the court with a representation against the Donastists (Rule 98) and against the pagans. At this council it was decided that no one bishop should insist on the decision of his court. The acts of this council were not written because local affairs were considered, not community affairs. (Ap. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9; Carth. 12, 15, 20, 96). The statement of this rule is not clear enough, as is well noted in the Russian Book of Rules. According to Zonara’s interpretation, the meaning of the rule would be such that when two bishops have a lawsuit between themselves or one of the clergy accuses a bishop of something, then one bishop cannot take over the investigation of such a case, but the latter is subject to the trial of a regional council. It seems to us that in this case, the interpretation of Balsamon, which is also given in the mentioned Book of Rules, is much more correct, namely: “when a presbyter, condemned by a bishop, complains about this condemnation: then the bishop should not alone insist on his decision and strive to fulfill it, but must leave the matter to the consideration of a full council, or the number of bishops specified in the rules.” Balsamon offers this interpretation in accordance with the 11th rule of “the same Carthaginian cathedral.” At this time, a law was issued, so that by free will everyone will accept the feat of Christianity. (Ap. 80; Neokes. 12; Carth. 99). This rule in its text does not contain any canonical decree. Its meaning is as follows. In 409, Attila threatened to take possession of all of proconsular Africa. Emperor Honorius, fearing that the Donatists, due to their hatred of the Orthodox, would rebel and would make it easier for Attila to take possession of Africa, issued a law by virtue of which the Donatists could enjoy the same freedom in the state that the Orthodox enjoyed in it. The next year (410), when the danger from the enemy had passed, the African fathers convened a council against the Donatists, at which it was stated that Honorius had issued a law that everyone could, of their own free will, take on the “feat of Christianity,” which meant that they were free to be an Orthodox Christian or a Donatist at will. This is the rule according to its text. Zonara, quite thoroughly, extracts from this rule the general law of Christian doctrine. “Virtue,” says Zonara, “must be chosen, and not forced, not involuntary, but voluntary.” Therefore, those who wish to accept Christianity must do so freely, of their own free will, and not through force and not out of necessity, because everything that happens out of necessity and through violence is not firm and impermanent; On the basis of this, the neo-Caesarean council in its 12th canon says that one should not accept into the priesthood someone who has been baptized while in danger, since his faith is not a consequence of conviction, but a consequence of necessity. Council against the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius. It is recognized by all the bishops of the Carthaginian church who presented themselves at the holy council, whose names and signatures are included in the deeds, as Adam was not created mortal by God. If anyone says that Adam, the first-created man, was created mortal, so that even if he had sinned, even if he had not sinned, he would have died in body. That is, he would leave the body, not as punishment for sin, but out of necessity of nature: let him be anathema. (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 110 – 116). It is defined in the same way: whoever rejects the need for the baptism of little ones and newborns from the womb of children, or says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins, they do not borrow anything from Adam’s ancestral sin that should be washed with the bath of rebirth (from which it would follow that the image of baptism for the remission of sins is used over them not in the true, but in a false meaning), let him be anathema. For what was said by the Apostle: by one man sin came into the world, and by sin death: and so (death) came into all men, and in him all sinned (Rom. 5:12), should not be understood differently than the way the Catholic Church, scattered and widespread everywhere, has always understood. For therefore, according to the rule of faith, infants, who are not yet able to commit any sins of their own accord, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that through rebirth, what they took from the old birth will be cleansed in them. (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109, 111 – 116). It is defined in the same way: whoever says that the grace of God, by which we are justified in Jesus Christ our Lord, is valid only for the remission of sins already committed, and does not give help beyond that, so that no other sins are committed, let him be anathema. For the grace of God not only gives us the knowledge of what is appropriate to do, but also breathes love into us, so that we may be able to do what we know. (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109, 110, 112 – 116). In Pidalion they are found under Nos. 120–127; in the Book of Rules there are 123–130 rights, in the Helmsman there is no last rule, and the seven remaining rules are under the numbers 110–116. Likewise, if anyone says that the same grace of God, even in Jesus Christ our Lord, will help us, only so that we do not sin, since through it the knowledge of sins is revealed and revealed to us, so that we know what we should seek and what we should avoid, but that it does not give us love and strength to do what we have known we must do: so let it be anathema. For when the apostle says: understanding boasts, but love creates (1 Cor. 8:1): then it would be very wicked to believe that we have the grace of God for our boasting, but not for creation: whereas both are the gift of God, and knowledge of what is appropriate to do, and love for good, which is appropriate to create, so that with creative love the mind cannot be proud. For as it is written from God: teach man understanding (Isa. 93:10): so it is also written: love is from God (1 John 4:7). (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109 – 111, 113 – 116). It is defined in the same way: if anyone says that the grace of justification was given to us so that what is possible to be fulfilled by free will, we could more conveniently fulfill it through grace, since even without receiving the grace of God, we, although with inconvenience, could nevertheless fulfill the divine commandments without it: let him be anathema. For the Lord did not say about the fruits of the commandments: Without me you can do nothing, but He said: Without me you cannot do anything (John 15:5). (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109 – 112, 114, 116). The same is determined regarding the saying of St. John the Apostle: if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). Whoever thinks that he should understand this in such a way as to say: for the sake of humility it is not appropriate to speak, as if it were not a sin for imams, and not for the sake of it, as it truly is: let him be anathema. For the apostle continues and adds the following: if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, that he may forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Here it is very clearly shown that this is said not only out of humility, but in truth. For the apostle could have said: if we speak, we are not imams of sin, we exalt ourselves, and there is no humility in us, but when he said: we deceive ourselves, and we do not have the truth in us: then he clearly showed that he who says about himself that he has no sin is not truthful, but lies. (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109 – 113, 115, 116). This is also certain: if anyone says, as saints do, in the Lord’s Prayer, forgive us our debts (Matthew 6:12), they are not speaking about themselves, since they no longer need this petition, but about other sinners who are among their people, and as each of the saints does not specifically say, forgive me my debts, but forgive us our debts, so that this petition of the righteous is understood about others more than about himself: such one shall be anathema. James the Apostle was holy and righteous when he said: “For we all sin greatly” (James 8:2). For why is this word added: everything, if not so that this thought would agree with the psalm in which it reads: Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for every living person will not be justified before You (Ps. 142:2). And in the prayer of the wise Solomon: there is no man who has not sinned (1 Kings 8:46): and in the book of Saint Job: in the hand of every man he signifies, that every man may know his weakness (Job 37:7). Therefore, in the same way, the holy and righteous Daniel the prophet, in prayer, said multiple times: we have sinned, we are lawless (Dan. 9:5), and so on, which he humbly and truly confesses. So that they would not think, as some understand, that he speaks not about his own, but rather about the sins of his people: then he said, “I have prayed and confessed my sins, and the sins of my people, to the Lord my God” (Dan. 9:2). I did not want to say, our sins, but to say: the sins of our people, and our sins: since the prophet, as it were, foresaw that such people would appear, understanding this poorly. (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109 – 114, 116). This has also been determined: if anyone believes that the very words of the Lord’s Prayer, in which we say: forgive us our debts, are pronounced by saints out of humility, and not in truth: let him be anathema. For who would tolerate a person praying who would lie not to men, but to the Lord himself? With his lips he said that he wanted to have remission, but in his heart he said that he had no sins that should be forgiven. (III Om. 1, 4; Carth. 109 – 115). All eight of the above rules (109–116) contain condemnation of individual points of Pelagian teaching. We spoke about this teaching and its main teachers in the interpretation of 1 rule of the Third Ecumenical Council (I, 291–295). Regarding the condemnation of Pelagianism by the Council of Carthage (418), there is a letter - epistola Aurelii ep. adomnes episcopos per Bizacenam et Arbutianam provinciam constitutos de damnatione Pelagii atque Caelestii, which is in the canonical collection sent by Pope Adrian I in 774 to Charlemagne. Several years before this, in this church, a full council decreed that the churches belonging to any region, which had become catholic before the publication of the laws on the Donatists, should belong to those thrones whose bishops were convinced to join the Catholic unity: and after the publication of the laws those who joined should belong to the same thrones to which they belonged while in the country of Donatus. But since many disputes arose and are arising between the bishops about the limits, about which the previous discretion seemed to be imperfect: now at this holy council it was decreed: if anywhere there was a Catholic church, and belonged to the side of Donatus, and they belonged to different thrones: then at whatever time the union followed, or will follow there, whether before the laws or after the laws, let them belong to the throne to which they belonged. Since ancient times there has been a former Catholic church. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 118, 119, 124). About how catholic bishops, and converts from the Donatian country, divide dioceses among themselves. They divided it this way: if the bishops from the Donatists turn to Catholic unity, then let them equally divide among themselves the borders that are in this position, which included that people and other countries: that is, let some places be given to this one, and others to another bishop, so that the eldest in the bishopric divides, and the younger elects. If it happens to be a single place, then let it be given to the one to whom it is in greater proximity. If he is equally close to both thrones, then let him go to the one whom the people choose. If it happens that Christians, who have been catholic since ancient times, claim their bishop, and those who converted from the country of Donatus, theirs, then the election of a larger number will be preferred to the election of a smaller number of people. If both countries are equal in the number of electors, then let the place be assigned to the limit of the senior bishop. If many places are found that have people from both countries, but cannot be divided equally, since the number of those places is not equal: then first, equal in number, they will be divided, then the remaining place will be dealt with, as stated above, when discussing a single place. (Cart. 47, 57, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 117, 119, 124). This is also decreed: if anyone, after the publication of the laws, turned any place to Catholic unity, and for three years had it in his jurisdiction, and no one demanded it from him: then after that it will not be exacted from him, if, moreover, during this three-year period there was a bishop who was obliged to exact it, and was silent. If there was no bishop, then let the inclusion of this place in the list of parishes not be an obstacle to the search: but when the widowed see receives a bishop, let him be allowed to claim that place for the duration of three years. Likewise, if a bishop from the Donatist country converts to the Catholic Church, the list of parishes will not be reprehensible to him until a certain time: but from the day he converted, he has the right, for a period of three years, to seek a place for the next to his throne. (Cart. 47, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 117, 118, 124). The three rules above (117–119) concern the Donatists, regarding which see the interpretation of the 47th rule of this council. This is also decreed: if bishops, not through the judgment of other bishops, seek societies that they consider to belong to their throne, but extend power to people subordinate to another bishop, whether they want it or not, let such be punished by the loss of their business. That is, if those who committed this, and if the matter did not end with an agreement between the bishops, but still have a dispute about it, then let the one who is proven to leave the church judges and commit the invasion be deprived of the disputed place. And let no one flatter himself that he has a letter from the leading bishop about accepting that place under his jurisdiction: but even though he has a letter, even though he does not, let him establish relations with the one who has this place under his jurisdiction, and from him let him receive a letter, so that it may be clear that he is peacefully holding the church next to him. If he also makes a certain claim, then let this be resolved by the judging bishops, whom either the superior appoints to them, or they themselves, by agreement, choose from neighboring bishops. (I Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 17; Trul. 25). This rule is intended to prevent misunderstandings that arose between bishops regarding the boundaries of certain episcopal regions and the flock belonging to one or another region; Such misunderstandings arose especially often as a result of disputes with the Donatists. The rule decrees that no bishop will arbitrarily extend his rights to any people (τα πλήθη, populos; in Aristinus - παροικία; in Balsamon - ενορία; in the Book of Rules - society), which is de facto under the authority of another bishop; if the bishop finds that he has a right to this people, then he must turn to the court of bishops on this matter and wait for their decision; otherwise, i.e. having acted autocratically, he is punished by deprivation of his part (του ιδίου πράγματος την ζημίαν υπομείνωσι, causae suae jactura multentur), i.e. is deprived of any further right to acquire the desired parish (παροικία, ενορία). Consequently, the main idea of ​​​​this rule is that no one can, by autocracy or by inciting the people to do this, appropriate to himself any place that is under the authority of another, without achieving this by legal means, because, as Balsamon says in the interpretation of this rule, and at the request of civil law, one must deprive the property of the one who wishes to seize it arbitrarily. The rule further adds that in order to take possession of any place that is de facto in the power of another, it is not enough to present a metropolitan charter giving him the right to this place, but it is necessary to have one from the bishop who owns the disputed place; Moreover, the latter must certify in his charter that the first correctly (or, as the rule says, peacefully, εφηνικώς) occupied the church to which he claimed his rights. If the bishop, who de facto owns the parish, presents new arguments in his favor, then, as the rule states, these must be considered by the court of the underlying bishops. This is also decreed: if some neglect the acquisition of Catholic unity of places belonging to their throne, let them seek careful attention from neighboring bishops so that they do not put off this matter. For this reason, if during the six-month period, from the day of the meeting about this, they do nothing: then after this place they will be presented to the one who can purchase them. However, if the one to whom these places seem to belong, recognized as useful not to act, according to some opinion, because this was preferred by the heretics, so that he could receive them into the Catholic Church without the confusion of the people, and meanwhile others were warned of his action, the use of which earlier would have embittered the heretics more: then, after consideration of this by the judging bishops, those places will be returned to his throne. When the judging bishops must be from different regions, then the judges will be appointed by the leading bishop in whose region the place to be disputed is located. If by common consent they elect judges from neighboring bishops: then either one will be elected, or three. And if three are chosen and recognized: then let either all or two submit to the decision. (Ap. 58; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11; Laod. 19; Carth. 47, 71, 123, 124). This rule, bearing in mind in the same way as the previous one, the situation created in the African Church by the Donatists, is aimed at arousing the vigilance of the bishops, who must use every effort to bring the Donatists into catholic unity (εις την χαθολιχήν ενότητα). If the Orthodox bishops do not fulfill this, then, as the rule says, they should be convicted of their negligence by the more active neighboring bishops; those. bishops, zealous for Catholic unity, having gathered for a yearly council, must remind their neighbors of their duties. If the latter do not correct themselves within six months, even after such a reminder, and do not begin to act in favor of unity, then all the places belonging to their see and still infected with the teachings of the Donatists should come under the jurisdiction of the bishop who will be able to put in order what was neglected by his careless predecessor. However, the rule allows for deviation from the above-mentioned decree in the event that it is proven that the famous bishop acted this way not out of negligence, but with intent, calculating that, without using decisive measures, he could subsequently more easily and more surely, without any noise, achieve the conversion of the Donatists. As to who should judge this, it is stated quite clearly in the rule itself. The judges, who have been elected by common consent, will not be allowed to bring a case to the highest court. And if someone is found out because he stubbornly does not want to obey the judges: having learned about this, the bishop of the first throne gives a letter, but none of the bishops will accept him into communion until he submits. (Ap. 58, 74; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Carth. 15, 96, 100). This rule is not placed in the Pidalion as a separate rule, but constitutes the conclusion of the 121st rule (in the Pidalion 131), which we find quite reasonable, because this (122) rule speaks about those judges who were elected to resolve the issue that constitutes the subject of the 121st rule, and confirms the previously issued decree (Rules 15, 96) regarding the fact that after the trial of the elected judges it is no longer possible, under threat of punishment, to appeal to the high court. The fact that this rule is an integral part of the 121st rule is also shown by the particle “zhe” (δε, autem), which is located at the beginning of this (122) rule. If a bishop is negligent about the return from heretics of what belongs to the church according to the lists, or the very pulpits: then let the neighboring bishops admonish him carefully, and let him show him his negligence, so as not to have an excuse for him. If within six months, from the day of the admonition, while staying in the same diocese, he does not take care of those who must return to Catholic unity: let him not communicate with such until he has fulfilled this. If the helper does not come to these places, then let the bishop not be charged with inaction. (Ap. 58; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11; Carth. 47, 57, 71, 121, 122, 124). If it is proven that such a one falsely testified about the communion of them, that is, the Donatists, saying that they began to commune, while it was proven that they did not begin, and he knew about this: let such a one lose his bishopric. (Ap. 58; Trul. 19; Serdic. 11; Carth. 47, 57, 71, 121 – 128). Both of these rules (123 and 124) are in connection with the two previous ones (121 and 122), adding some details regarding the appeal of the Donatists to what was said about this in 121 rules of this council. This is also decreed: if presbyters, deacons, and other members of the clergy, due to matters they have, are not satisfied with the decision of their bishops: then let the neighboring bishops listen to them, and let those elected by them resolve their controversy, with the consent of their own bishops. If they also want to bring the case to the highest court, then let them bring it only to African councils, or to the leading bishops of their regions. And anyone who wants to take a business overseas will not be accepted into communication with anyone in Africa. (II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Antioch. 4; Carth. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 23, 28, 105). See interpretation of 28 Carthaginian rule. This is also decreed: if one of the bishops, out of necessity, is in danger of threatening the chastity of a virgin, when there is suspicion either about a strong lover, or about some kind of kidnapper, or when she feels herself in contrition from some deadly danger, at the request of her parents, or those who have care for her, will cover or have covered her with the robe of those dedicated to God, before twenty-five years of age, so that she does not die without a monastic image: such is nothing. will not submit to the cathedral decree that determines this number of years for protection. (IV Om. 16; Trul. 4, 40; Carth. 6, 16, 44; Basil the Great. 18). The conciliar decree mentioned in this rule, regarding the fact that a girl under 25 years of age cannot be accepted into the monastic rank, is something other than the decree of the Council of Hippo in 393, given in title 16 of the rule of the present Carthaginian Council. This rule allows for a deviation from the above-mentioned resolution in the case when the chastity of a girl is in danger, or when, being on the verge of death, she herself, or her parents or guardians, beg to honor her with mercy and not allow her to die without monastic rites (χωρίς του σχήματος). in this case, the rule allows the bishop, who has the right to accept girls into the monastic order and without whose permission no one can become a monk, to accept the girl and clothe her in monastic clothes before she turns 25 years old, and for such an act the bishop is not subject to condemnation. However, in such cases it is necessary to keep in mind the 40th rule of the Council of Trullo and the 18th rule of Basil the Great, being guided by the later decree, i.e. by the decree of the mentioned Trullian rule. In addition to the six rules (1, 29–33), which were actually issued by the present (419) council, this (126) rule is the last among the rules of the previous African councils, revised and adopted by this (419) council for the entire African Church. All these rules were read and adopted at the first meeting of this council on March 25, 419. Since it was difficult for all the fathers (217 in number), who had been at the council until then, to remain longer in Carthage for the upcoming resolution of certain issues, it was decided to leave 15 bishops for the final resolution of matters, allowing the rest to return to their bishoprics: This decision contains the following 127 rule. 141. It is pleasing to the whole council, so that all the bishops who came to the council will not be held back for a long time, by electing three judges from each region. 142. At the end of some matters, when many bishops complained about continuing the meetings, in order to complete other matters, and could not bear this, hastening to their churches, it was desired by the whole council, that they should be chosen from among all, from each region, to remain in order to complete other matters: and this was done. On the basis of the above-mentioned decision, three representatives were elected from each diocese, with the exception of Trypillian, from which only one representative was chosen (Project 14), and all these representatives, under the chairmanship of Aurelius, were to complete the work of the council. After this (127) rule in the Book of Rules there is another rule (142), which states that many bishops complained about the difficulty of continuing to stay in Carthage, as a result of which appropriate deputies were chosen for the council in their place, i.e. what was already said in the previous (141) rule is resumed in its main features. This rule was compiled in the Book of Rules from the concluding words of the opening speech at the next meeting of this council, which took place on May 30, 419. It is laid down by everyone: since in the previous resolutions of the councils there are definitions about persons from whom denunciations against those in the clergy should not be accepted, but it is not specified with precision from which persons they should not be accepted: for this reason we determine that denunciation from someone who, having been excommunicated from communion, still remains in this excommunication, is not accepted with precision, whether he is a cleric or a layman who wants to denounce. (Ap. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9, 21; Carth. 8, 19, 30, 129, 130). This rule refers to “clergy” against whom complaints from known persons should not be accepted. Among these persons in the clergy, bishops are in first place, due to which we can bring this rule in connection with the 8th rule of the Council of Carthage, which mentions only bishops, against whom some persons do not have the right to file complaints. In this last rule (8) it is forbidden to accept complaints against bishops from disgraced and disgraced persons, while in this (128) rule the latter is prohibited to all those, whether clergy or laity, who are under the penalty of excommunication from church communion. This rule does not say whether excommunicated persons are generally prohibited from filing any kind of complaint against persons in the clergy. Meanwhile, the latter was determined by another council, which was much earlier than the Carthaginian one, namely, the second ecumenical council. And the first of Constantinople, who, in his 6th rule, distinguishing complaints of a private nature from complaints of a ecclesiastical nature, prescribes regarding the former to allow them to be filed against members of the clergy, regardless of his faith or social status, because, as the mentioned rule says, “it is fitting in every possible way for the conscience of the bishop to be free, and for the one who declares himself offended to receive justice, no matter what his faith.” If the case concerns an accusation of an ecclesiastical nature, then it is necessary to take into account the personality of the accuser and, accordingly, decide whether the complaint from him can be accepted or whether it should be rejected. In the same sense, we must understand those “denunciations against those in the clergy” that this Carthaginian rule mentions. The following rule (129), which is in connection with this, speaks of the same thing. This is also ordered: not to accept denunciations from all slaves, from the very same freedmen on whom they want to denounce, and from everyone whom civil laws do not allow to denounce crimes: also from everyone on whom lies the stain of dishonor, that is, from disgraceful people and from persons involved in shameful deeds: also from heretics, or Hellenes, or Jews: however, everyone from whom such an accusation is not allowed, may the freedom to bring complaints about their affairs not be taken away. (Ap. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9, 21; Carth. 8, 19, 30, 62, 128, 130). The purpose of this rule is the desire to protect members of the clergy from complaints from those persons who do not deserve any attention in society, and these are all those persons who, according to civil laws, are not allowed to denounce crimes; The rule especially prohibits accepting complaints against members of the clergy from those persons who bear the stain of dishonor (σπίλος της ατιμίας, infamiae labes). We talked about what dishonor consisted of, as well as who and why could be subjected to deprivation of honor - infamia, in the interpretation of the 62nd rule of the Council of Carthage. Everything that has been said about persons who are deprived of the opportunity to file complaints against members of the clergy is important now, and will be important as long as those who are prohibited from doing so exist. What applies to the persons mentioned in the rule was relevant at the time the rule was issued, when slavery still existed. There is no doubt that even now the rule regarding the fact that complaints against members of the clergy should not be accepted from persons “touched on shameful matters” should be relevant. This is also decreed: when informers present many accusations against those in the clergy, and one of them, about which the investigation was carried out in the first place, could not be proven: after this, other accusations will not be accepted. (Ap. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9, 21; Carth. 8, 19, 30, 128, 129). This rule is in connection with Rules 128 and 129 of this Council. If someone simultaneously files several complaints against the same clergy, and the first of them, as having no evidence, is refuted, then, according to the rule, the accuser should not be allowed to file other complaints. The latter was a consequence of the fact that, according to ancient law, the accuser usually gave a written statement (έγγραφάς) that he would be subjected to the same punishment that the accused should have suffered if the complaint filed by him was not proven; in this case, i.e. if the complaint was unfounded, the accuser was considered deprived of honor (άτωθείς, infamis) and therefore had no right to file complaints against anyone. If the accuser did not give the previously mentioned written statement, and his complaint meanwhile turned out to be unfounded, then he was considered a slanderer (συκοφάντης, calumniator) and άτιμω & είς, therefore deprived of the right to file complaints. As for witnesses, do not accept for testimony those from whom denunciations are not supposed to be accepted: and also those whom the denunciator himself presents from his home. A certificate of less than fourteen years of age is not acceptable. (Ap. 75; I Om. 2; II Om. 6; Carth. 8, 19, 30, 59, 128 – 130, 132). As for witnesses against members of the clergy, they are mentioned in 75 of the Apostolic Canon, which says that only heretics cannot be such, of course, in cases that do not belong to the field of civil law, since in the latter heretics can also be admitted as witnesses, as can be seen from Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, which talks about accusers. This Carthaginian rule prescribes not to accept as witnesses against members of the clergy all those persons who are deprived of the right to file complaints against them, and these are all those persons mentioned in rules 128–130 of this council. To all that has been said, the rule adds that those persons whom the accuser presents from among his household and, above all, from persons related to him, cannot be accepted as witnesses; then – minors, i.e. as you say, as a rule, under the age of fourteen. The latter was changed by later church-civil legislation, which should be the guideline at the present time. Rules 132 and 133 (147). This is also decreed: if a bishop says that someone confessed his crime to him alone, but he does not confess, then let the bishop not take it as an offense that they do not rely on him alone for this. If he says that, due to the outrage of his conscience, he does not want to have communion with the unconfessed (132): then, until his bishop does not accept the one who has been excommunicated on this occasion into communion, until then let other bishops not accept this bishop into communion: and the more the bishop must be careful not to speak about anyone that he cannot confirm before others with evidence (133). It is not enough to have one witness against someone for some guilt and for some crime and for some sin that he commits: with the words of two witnesses, or with the words of three witnesses, [every] thing will take place, commands the Old Testament Holy Scripture (Deut. 19:15). Jesus Christ commands us the same thing in the New Testament (Matthew 18:16; John 8:17). This fundamental decree of Holy Scripture, which applies to each and every one without distinction, not excluding bishops, found canonical expression in this Carthaginian rule. It deprives the testimony of one bishop of importance and significance in the event that he says that someone confessed to him a crime he committed, which he does not want to admit. In this case, says the rule, the bishop should not take offense to the fact that the testimony of his alone will not be accepted on faith, even if he refers to the fact that his conscience does not allow him to be in communication with a criminal who confessed his crime to him in private, but, according to the Gospel teaching, with the words of two witnesses... [every] thing will happen. Balsamon connects the decree of this rule with the case when a bishop or any confessor in general reveals someone’s confession to him, i.e. secretly said, sin, and recalls on this occasion the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke (1156–1169), by which the latter deprives the abbot of the Giregrae monastery of the priesthood, because he revealed the sin confessed to him by his spiritual son. This rule, as well as the decision of the mentioned patriarch, are given in the 120th rule of the Nomocanon at the Great Book of Breviaries, and the following is also said: “a spiritual father, if someone has confessed a sin to someone, have a penance: let him be idle for three years, only let him receive communion in one month, and let him make one hundred bows every day; The civil law says, dig up the tongue behind the calico.” The preservation of the secret revealed to the priest in confession (sigillum confessionis) is now an indispensable law for every priest (“Book of the Positions of Parish Presbyters,” § 109). (Ap. 12, 16, 28, 32, 75; I Om. 5; VII Om. 4; Antioch. 4, 6, 20; Serdic. 13, 14, 15; Carth. 9, 10, 11, 20, 29, 132). This rule is in a logical connection with the previous one (132) and is its addition, as a result of which in the Russian Book of Rules both of them constitute one 147 rule. From the concluding words, and even more from the title of canon 132, it is clear that a certain person was deprived of communion by the bishop because he revealed his crime to him in private. Such an act in itself is illegal, and this illegality is indicated by this (133) rule; namely, it decrees that a bishop who has excommunicated someone unlawfully for a sin which he confessed to him in private must himself be deprived of communion by other bishops (αή σογχοι - νωνήσωσιν) until he enters into communion with the one whom he has excommunicated unlawfully. The rule also mentions the reasons for which such a decision was made, namely: they consist in the fact that the bishop should be more careful before accusing and excommunicating without being able to provide solid evidence. If it is proven that a bishop excommunicated someone from church communion solely out of his own malice, then such a bishop, according to the resolution of the 4th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council, is subject to even more severe punishment. This rule completed the work of the Council of Carthage in 419. After this, regarding the issue for which this great council of the African Church was convened, i.e. the question of an appeal to Rome against the decision of the African councils, the following message, attributed to Ephraim the Syrian, was sent through Eustinus, bishop of Ancona, and the Roman presbyters Elilip and Asella (who were the locum tenens of the Roman bishop at this council); As for the punishment of tearing out the tongue of a confessor who has revealed the sin told to him in confession, it is taken, in all likelihood, from Prochiron (XXXIX, 46; cf. in Helmsman ch. 48 gr. 39, 46, ed. citation, II, 166), where this punishment for false testimony is defined. Wed. in A. S. Pavlov, pp. 122–123. To the bishop of the Roman church, sent from the entire council in Africa through the locum tenens of the Roman church, bishop Faustinus and presbyters Philip and Asella. To the most blessed lord and most honorable brother Boniface: Avrilius, Valentinus, bishop of the first see in the Numidian diocese, and other bishops, numbering two hundred and seventeen, who came to the full council in Africa. Since it pleased the Lord that what our most holy brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and co-presbyters Philip and Asellus did with us, our humility should respond not to the blessed memory of Bishop Zosima, from whom they brought letters and orders to us, but to your honesty, which, by the will of God, took his place: then we consider it our duty to briefly show (to you) what was accomplished by our mutual consent, without touching on everything that is contained in the lengthy scrolls of deeds, and on which we dwelled for a long time, trying, not without difficult and long wrangling, but with the preservation of love, to include in the acts everything related to the (real) matter. And he (Zosima), if he had still remained in this body, would have accepted with greater joy, O dear brother, what he would have seen accomplished with great peace. Presbyter Apiarius, whose installation, excommunication and summons (to the council) caused considerable confusion not only in the Sik church, but throughout Africa, asked forgiveness for everything in which he had sinned, and was again accepted into communion. Beforehand, our co-bishop Urvan of Sik, without any hesitation, corrected what he should have corrected. And since it was necessary to take care of church peace and tranquility not only in the present, but also for the future, then we, in view of the fact that such matters have already arisen many times, and in order to protect ourselves from similar or even graver (cases), decided to remove the presbyter Apiarius from the Sicus church, while preserving his honor and degree, so that he, having received a letter (from us), could serve in any other place, at his own request and opportunity, and perform everything befitting the presbyterate rank. We agreed to this without any difficulty, at the own request of Apiarius himself. But before this matter was brought to such an end, we had, among other things, to deal with other issues that involved us in lengthy debates. Since the very essence of the issues required that we ask our brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and co-presbyters Philip and Asellus, to include in the church acts what they were entrusted to do with us; then they stated something verbally, not in writing; when we urgently demanded the written instructions they brought, they presented it, and this instruction, having been read before us, was attached to the acts now sent through them to you. It contained four points that they had to consider with us: the first - about the appeals of bishops to the (high) priest of the Roman church, the second - that bishops should not go to the palace (κομιτάτον) whenever they please, the third - that the cases of presbyters and deacons should be considered by neighboring bishops, the fourth - that Bishop Urvan should be deprived of communion and, in addition moreover, he is called to Rome if he does not correct what requires correction. Regarding the first and third of these points, i.e. that bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome and that the affairs of clergy were finally decided by local bishops, we took care in our letters last year to also explain to Bishop Zosima of venerable memory that, without any insult to him, we will observe both for some time while the (authentic lists) of the definitions of the Council of Nicaea are being found. And now we ask your shrine, that as this was decreed and determined by the fathers in Nicaea, so it would be observed among us; and there, with you, let what is contained in the instructions be fulfilled, namely: “If there is a denunciation against a bishop, and the surrounding bishops have gathered and depose him from his position, and he, transferring the matter, resorts to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, who will be pleased to heed him, and recognizes it as righteous to resume the investigation of the case about him: then this must also be laid down, and he will deign to write to the bishops adjacent to that region, so that they carefully and in detail delve into all the circumstances, and, being convinced of the truth, pronounce judgment on the matter. If anyone demands that his case be heard again, and, at his request, the Roman bishop deigns to send presbyters on his own behalf: let it be in the power of this bishop, since he recognizes and determines what is best and proper, for judgment together with the bishops, to send those who take the place of the one who sent it. Or if he recognizes the previous consideration and decision of the case regarding this bishop as sufficient: let him do what his most prudent reasoning considers to be good.” Equally - about presbyters and deacons: “If a certain bishop appears prone to anger (which should not take place in such a man), and suddenly being irritated with a presbyter or deacon, he wants to kick someone out of the church: it is appropriate to use protection, lest such one be immediately condemned and deprived of fellowship. All the bishops said: the one who is ejected has the right to resort to the bishop of the metropolis of the same region. If the bishop of the metropolis is not in place, resort to a neighboring bishop and ask, and the matter will be thoroughly investigated. For the hearing of those who ask must not be blocked. And that bishop, who righteously or unrighteously cast out such a person, must bear it complacently, so that the matter will be investigated, and his verdict will either be confirmed or receive correction.” These very rules, until we receive the most accurate copies (έξέμπλων) of the Council of Nicaea, are included in (our) acts. And if indeed there are such rules as are contained in the instructions presented to us to the brethren sent from the apostolic see, and such an order is observed among you in Italy: then we should in no way be forced to accept what we do not even want to remember; but we believe that by the grace of the Lord our God, while your shrine presides in the Roman church, we will not tolerate such an arrogant claim; on the contrary, in relation to us, those rules will be observed with brotherly love and without any quarrel on our part, which, according to the wisdom and justice given to you by the Almighty, you yourself find it necessary to observe, unless otherwise contained in the canons of the Council of Nicaea. For although we have reviewed many books and have not read them in any Latin copy (of the rules) of the Council of Nicea in the form in which they were sent from there in the above-mentioned instructions; however, not being able to find a single Greek copy here, we deliberately took care that they were brought from the Eastern churches, where, they say, these very definitions can still be found in the originals. Therefore, we also beg your venerability, that you deign to write on your own behalf to the (high) priests of those countries, i.e. to the bishops of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople and to others, if it pleases your shrine, that from there the canons established by the holy fathers in Nicea be sent to us. And it is especially fitting for you to provide, with God’s help, such a benefit to all Western churches. For who doubts that the most accurate copies of the Council of Nicea, which was among the Greeks, are those that, having been brought from different eminent churches and compared with each other, will turn out to be in agreement? Until this happens, we declare that until the issue is resolved, we will observe everything contained in the above-mentioned instructions regarding the appeals of bishops to the high priest of the Roman Church and the execution of affairs between clergy among the bishops of their region, and we hope that your beatitude, by the will of God, will help us in this. If you deign, our aforementioned brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and presbyters Philip and Asellus, will report to your shrine about everything else that has been done and approved at our council, since they carry with them (all the deeds). And they signed: May our Lord preserve you for us, beloved brother, for many years to come. Also signed by: Alypius, Augustine, Possidius, Marinus and other bishops. As we know, the presbyter Apiarius, due to various crimes, was deposed by his bishop Urban of Sicca in proconsular Africa. Then he turned to Rome, petitioning to have the sentence pronounced against him by Urban overturned. The Roman Bishop Zosima (417–418), having accepted the complaint of Apiarius, declared in one of his letters to the African fathers about his right to review and to his own court the decisions made at the councils of the African Church, and motivated his right by the rules of the Serdica Council, accepted by Zosima for the rules of the Nicene (First Ecumenical) Council; at the same time, he invited the fathers to inform him in detail about the progress of the case in order to be able to make their own verdict about it. Zosima sent his message to the African fathers through his above-mentioned deputies. On this occasion, a real Carthaginian council met in 419. We have already spoken about what was done by this council and why the message was adopted in the interpretation of the 1st rule of this council. Meanwhile, Zosimus died and his successor Boniface (418–422) took the same position in relation to the Africans as his predecessor. Thus, the African fathers sent this message to Boniface in response to the message of Zosimus, briefly informing him of everything that had been done at the council. Regarding Apiarius, they say that although they allowed him to enjoy the presbyteral honor, since, having admitted his mistakes and repented of them, he asked for forgiveness, they demand that he leave the Sik church and move from it to some other one. Regarding the issue of appeals to Rome raised by Zosima, the African fathers declare that they will not enter into disputes about this until they receive the original rules of the First Ecumenical Council, to which Zosima refers, and, having received it, they will adhere to what is prescribed by the rules; at the same time, they ask Boniface to turn to the east and look there for the original rules of the mentioned ecumenical council. A few months later, the original acts of the Council of Nicaea were received in Carthage with the same number of rules and with the same text that had been kept in Carthage until then and which fully correspond to our current text and number of rules. These acts, which constitute Rules 136 and 137 in Helmsman, were sent to Boniface on November 26, 419. The restless presbyter Apiarius, who retired after being expelled from Sica, settled with the Fabrakenians, but, having fallen into new crimes and being expelled for the second time, he went to Rome again at the end of 423 with a complaint against the decision of the African fathers. The Roman bishop Celestinus, who succeeded Boniface, received him and, returning to him all his rights, sent him, contrary to the decision of his proper spiritual authority, to Carthage with Bishop Favstinus, ordering that the decision made against this presbyter be reversed. Carthage immediately began reviewing this case, after which the following was sent to Celestine: To the beloved ruler and most honorable brother Celestine: Avrilius, Palatine, Antoninus, Tut, Servusday, Terentius and others who were present at the general council of Carthage. Just as your shrine expressed your joy at the arrival of Apiarius, with a scripture sent through our co-presbyter Leo: likewise we would like that with joy the present scripture about his justification would be sent. For in truth, both our and your disposition was alien to distrust, and it did not appear inquisitive, first leaning in favor of it, as if it had already been heard, while it still needed to be questioned. And so, when our most holy brother and co-bishop Favstinus arrived to us, we convened a council, and believed that he was sent with Apiarius so that, just as through his efforts, he was restored to the presbytery, and now, through his own care, he could be justified in the great accusations brought against him from the inhabitants of Favrakin. But our numerous council found so many and such great iniquities of Apiarius that they overcame the action of the above-mentioned Favstinus, although this was more patronage than a court, and an intercession more characteristic of an ekdic than justice, decent for a researcher. For first of all, Favstinus strongly opposed the entire council, inflicting various insults on it, as if defending the advantages of the Roman church, and wanting Apiarius, whom your shrine accepted into communion, to be accepted into communion by us, believing his complaint, which he could not prove: however, this did not help him much, as you will know better by reading the acts of the council. For when, over the course of three days, the trial was carried out with difficulty, at which we with contrition examined the various accusations against Apiarius: then God, the righteous judge, strong and long-suffering, very briefly stopped both the continuation of the case by our co-bishop Favstinus, and the twists of Apiarius himself, with which he tried to cover up his shameful iniquities. The annoying and vile stubbornness and shameless denial with which Apiarius wanted to block the benefit of so many voluptuous deeds became invalid. For when our God oppressed his conscience, and before all people revealed what was hidden in his heart, as if already condemned by the very heinousness of his crimes: then the one who had insidiously locked himself away suddenly confessed to all the accusations brought against him, and he finally voluntarily exposed himself in all the hardly probable defilements, and thus our very hope, to which we entrusted him, wishing that he could cleanse himself from such shameful spots, turned into crying. He softened our sorrow with one single consolation, the fact that he freed us from the burden of continuous lamentation, and for his own wounds, although involuntarily, and with the struggle of his conscience, he finally prepared a cure in his confession. And so, having first fulfilled the duty of due veneration, we beg you, lord brother, so that in the future you do not easily allow those who come from here to reach your ears, and do not deign to receive into fellowship those who have been excommunicated by us: for your venerability will conveniently find out, as this very thing was determined by the Council of Nicaea. For if this is so observed in relation to the lower clergy and laity, how much more does the council want this to be observed in relation to bishops. And so those who in their diocese are excommunicated from communion, let them not appear accepted into communion by your shrine, with the intention, and as it is not appropriate. Likewise, the shameless escapes of the presbyters and the clergy who follow them, may your shrine be destroyed, as this is worthy of you. For this is not forbidden for the African Church, by any definition of the fathers, and the definitions of the Council of Nicea, both the lower clergy and the bishops themselves, clearly refer back to their own metropolitans. Reasonably and righteously, he recognized that no matter what matters arise, they must end in their places. For the fathers judged that not a single region lacks the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which the truth is seen rationally by the priests of Christ, and is firmly maintained, and especially when everyone, if there is a doubt about the justice of the decision of the closest judges, is allowed to proceed to the councils of their region, and even to the ecumenical council. Is there anyone who would believe that our God can breathe in the justice of justice to just one person, while denying it to the countless priests who gathered at the council? Moreover, if a foreign court is firm, before which the necessary witnesses cannot be presented, it may be due to weakness, or physical constitution, or old age, or due to many other obstacles. That certain things should be sent, as if from the side of your shrine, we do not find a definition from a single council of the fathers. For what was previously sent to us from you, through our same co-bishop Favstinus, as if from the decrees of the Council of Nicea, we could not find in the most faithful copies of the rules of this council, taken from the originals, which we received from the most holy Cyril, our co-bishop of the Alexandrian church, and from the venerable Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, and which, even before this, through Presbyter Innocent and Subdeacon Marcellus, who brought them to us, were sent from us to Boniface, blessed in memory to the bishop, your predecessor. So, do not deign, at the request of some, to send your clergy here as researchers, and do not let this go, lest we appear bringing the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ, which, to those who wish to see God, brings the light of simplicity and the day of humility. Since the tear-worthy Apiarius, for his unforgivable indecencies, was excommunicated even by our brother Favstinus from the Church of Christ, we remain without fear that in the future, with the art and precision of your shrine in preserving brotherly love, Africa will not tolerate him at all. May our God protect your shrine for a long time, Mr. Brother, praying for us. The message is so clear and thorough that all the Roman bishops before Nicholas I (until the half of the 9th century) never again claimed such rights as Zosima and Celestine did. With Nicholas I, a new canon law began to operate in the West, and from that time on, naturally, everything took a different direction than it had during the period of the undivided church. We have already spoken about the highest church authorities, which had the right to deliver the final verdict in court cases, in the interpretations of 6 rules of the Second Ecumenical Council and 9 and 17 rules of the IV Ecumenical Council - and everything said there also serves as an interpretation of the above-mentioned letter of the African fathers to the Roman Bishop Celestine. Rules of the Double Council of Constantinople (in the Church of the Saints, the former Apostle) Rule 1 The creation of monasteries, a very important and praiseworthy task, wisely invented by our blessed and reverend fathers of old, is now seen as being poorly carried out. For some, having given their estates and estates the name of a monastery, and promising to dedicate them to God, describe themselves as the owners of the donated property. They cunningly intended to dedicate a single name to God: for they are not ashamed to acquire for themselves the same power even after the donation, which they were not forbidden to have before. And such mischief was mixed into this matter that, to the surprise and chagrin of those who saw it, much of what was dedicated to God was clearly being sold by the dedicators themselves. And not only do they not repent of the fact that they allow themselves to rule over what they once dedicated to God, but they also fearlessly pass it on to others. For this reason, the holy council determined: let no one be allowed to build a monastery without the knowledge and permission of the bishop: but with his knowledge and permission, and with the performance of the appropriate prayer, as was anciently ordained by God, the monastery should be built: everything belonging to it, together with itself, should be entered into a book, which is kept in the bishop's archive. And a donor without the will of the bishop does not at all have the courage to himself, or to install another in his place as abbot. For if someone cannot be the owner of what he has given to a person, then how can anyone be allowed to admire the possession of what he dedicates and brings to God? (IV Universe. 4, 8, 24; Trul. 49; VII Universe. 12, 13, 14, 17). Two main subjects are stated in this rule, namely, that no monastery can be founded without the knowledge and blessing of the underlying bishop, to whom, according to the rules, both all monasteries and all monks are directly subordinate, and then that monasteries and monastic property must forever remain inviolable, i.e. cannot be used for any other purpose or become private property. This was established at previous councils (see interpretations of parallel rules), and at the double council it was repeated and only more strongly expressed, in accordance with the circumstances of the time, also because many lost sight of the canonical regulations on the construction of monasteries and on monastic property. The construction or foundation (οικοδομή, aedificatio) of monasteries was always considered a charitable deed; the fathers of the present council call his respect a worthy and honorable (σεμνόν και τίμιον) deed. Whoever, out of his piety, wished to build a monastery and would give everything necessary for its maintenance, the church allowed such a pious Christian to carry out his intention and even credited him with this (VII Ecum. 17). The built monastery and everything that was donated for its maintenance immediately passed under the authority of the underlying bishop, who took care that life in the monastery flowed according to the rules, that the monastic property was kept inviolable and managed according to canonical regulations (IV Ecumenical 24). Meanwhile, there were those who, according to this rule, built monasteries and declared that they donated certain property and lands to the monastery they built, but at the same time they considered themselves to be the owners of what they donated, and even subsequently sold it, so that the monastery was left without everything and, of course, fell into desolation. And this, according to the rule, aroused surprise and grief among pious Christians who happened to see this (θάμβος και μίσος). The fathers of the council draw attention to such lawlessness and, recalling existing canonical regulations about this, decree that no one, without the knowledge and blessing of the underlying bishop, could build a monastery; and once the bishop agrees and gives someone permission to build a monastery and provide it with everything that is needed for its existence, then the monastery itself and everything that belongs to it was entered into an inventory book (βρεβιψ έγκαταγράφεσθαι), which should be kept in the episcopal archive, so that for all times it would be known what constitutes the property of the monastery, which remained forever in full possession of it (IV Om. 24; Trul. 49; VII Om. 13). The person who built and supplied the monastery with everything necessary (see interpretation of 17 rules VII Ecumenical. Cathedral), for that very reason ceased to be the owner of what was donated to the monastery, and even more so the owner of the monastery itself, therefore, it ceased to have any right of owner and could not appropriate to itself that power over the monastic property, which, according to the rule, it had enjoyed earlier, before the construction of the monastery and the donation of land to it. For, the rule adds, if someone cannot be the owner of what he gave to someone else, then how can he who devotes and brings something to God allow himself to again seek power over it. In addition to arrogating to himself the right to own the monastery and its property, the founder (ktitor, builder) of the monastery (δομήτωρ τοδ μοναστηρίου) arrogated to himself the right to autocratically appoint himself or someone else as abbot of this monastery. Condemning this as a second abuse, the rule prescribes that the famous founder (ktitor, builder) of the monastery could do this only with the knowledge of the local bishop. According to the general rules of monastic community life, the abbot is elected by his brotherhood, and the choice is approved by the bishop. From this rule it is clear that there were exceptions, namely, that the founder of the monastery could install (καβισταν) an abbot, of course with the knowledge and consent of the local bishop; in other words, the founder of the monastery was allowed to present to the bishop the person he would like to see as abbot. The church recognized this advantage for individual founders of monasteries, worthy of special attention, as a reward for their good deeds, and this advantage, among other things, was mentioned then in the founding (ktitor's) charter (τυπιχόν). These founding or ktitor's statutes are mentioned by Balsamon in the interpretation of this rule, and he cites different opinions on this issue, including one that shows that the abuses about which the rule speaks also penetrated into these founding statutes. Balsamon recognizes the right of the founders (ktitors, builders) of monasteries to draw up founding (ktitor's) statutes for the subject monasteries, only in these statutes everything must be in accordance with the canonical regulations for monasteries; if in these statutes there is anything illegal and non-canonical (παρανόμως καί άκανόνίστως), then it cannot have any force (ου κρατήσοοσιν). Founding (ktitor's) statutes for monasteries, usually, after descriptions - how the monastery was founded, who founded it and what was donated to it - contain: rules about worship, about food and drink in the monastery, about fasts and holidays, about benefits (Serb. “possessions”) of the monastery, on the appointment of persons to manage the monastery and the priesthood, on the monastic life of the monks, on the funeral service for ktitors and brethren, on the acceptance of new brethren into the monastic rank, on alms to the poor, on the hospital and the sick, on compliance with the regulations of the charter and on the fact that the monastic charter should be read at the beginning of each month. Some take on the image of monastic life only, not for the sake of serving God in purity, but for the sake of so that from the revered garment they will receive the glory of piety, and thereby find unhindered enjoyment of their pleasures. Having cast off only their hair, they remain in their homes, not fulfilling any monastic observance or rule. For this reason, the holy council determined: no one should be honored with the monastic image without the presence of a person who must accept him into obedience, and have authority over him and take care of his spiritual salvation. Let this be a God-loving man, the head of the monastery, and capable of saving the soul newly brought to Christ. If anyone is found tonsuring someone not in the presence of the abbot, who must be pleased with obedience: such a one will be subject to expulsion from his rank, as if he does not obey the rules and destroys monastic deanery; and if he is tonsured incorrectly and disorderly, he will be given over for obedience to a monastery in whichever the local bishop pleases. For unreasonable and sinful tonsure into the monastic image brought disrespect, and created an opportunity for blasphemy of the name of Christ. (IV Universe. 4, 24; Trul. 40 – 49, 85; VII Universe. 17 – 21; Gangr. 3; Carth. 63; Dvukr. 3 – 7). During the time of iconoclasm, monasticism was extremely widespread in the east and was highly respected for its services in defending Orthodoxy. However, not all monks knew how to maintain their honor and significance, as they should have done in view of the sanctity of their title. Much disorder both in the lives of individual monks and in the life of monasteries in general was discovered even when iconoclasm had just begun to decline, and therefore the VII Ecumenical Council was forced to issue several rules to restore good order in monasticism (rights 17–22). However, the unrest continued even after that, so that the present council was forced to recall the existence of the previous canonical regulations about monks and add several new ones to them. The motivation for issuing these rules is expressed in the final words of this rule, namely, that the significance of the monastic order has fallen, as a result of which the name of Christ has been desecrated. Among other disorders in monasticism, the rule draws attention to the hasty and imprudent acceptance of many into the monastic order. Just as with regard to clergy there was a rule according to which no one could be ordained (IV Ecum. 6) without appointment (άπολελυμένως) to a certain place, so it was with regard to monks, i.e. that no one can be tonsured a monk without assigning him a monastery, in which he will be accepted as one of the brethren. There was also a rule issued by Basil the Great, according to which, when tonsured as a monk, one of the oldest monks had to be present, who would accept the newly tonsured monk as a novice, teach him and confirm him in the monastic life. Many neglected all this and, not having the slightest calling to monastic life, still took monastic vows and put on the monastic robe, however, not at all in order, as the rule puts it, “so that they may serve God in purity,” but in order to acquire the name and honor of the holy monastic title in society and so that it would be easier to “enjoy their pleasures”; they lived outside the monastery, in private houses, and did not perform anything monastic. To prevent such disorders, the rule prescribes not to accept anyone into the rank, i.e. not to be honored with monastic tonsure (τινά άποχείρεσθαι μοναχόν) without the presence of the abbot of the monastery into whose fraternity the newly tonsured one will enter, and without the presence of a deliberate elder monk who would accept (άναδέχεσ & αι) under his direct leadership, taught and confirmed him in the exact fulfillment of all monastic rules. This oldest monk in Kormcha is called a guarantor, and in rule 79 of the Great Trebnik - a receiver (ανάδοχος, recipient), like a recipient who, at baptism, takes care of the upbringing of his godson. This rule also defines punishments for disobedience, namely: expulsion for someone who accepts someone into the monastic order contrary to the rules, and transfer to another monastery for obedience for someone who is accepted into the monastic order not according to the rules. It is decided to correct this disorder, which has been allowed, and what is even worse, spreading through negligence and negligence. If the abbot of the monastery does not seek out the fleeing monks subordinate to himself with great diligence, or, having found it, does not accept it, and does not take the trouble to restore and strengthen the fallen one in a manner appropriate to the ailment: the holy council has determined that such a person should be subject to excommunication from the sacraments. For even if he who has dumb animals in his care, having neglected the flock, is not left without punishment: then he who has assumed pastoral authority over the flock of Christ, and squanders their salvation with his negligence and laziness, how will he not be punished for his insolence? A monk who is called to return, if he does not obey, will be excommunicated by the bishop. (IV Universe. 4; Trul. 46; VII Universe. 21; Carth. 8; Dvukr. 2, 4). This rule repeats the provisions of 46 rules of Trullo and 21 rules of VII Omni. cathedrals This rule also prescribes punishment for an abbot who does not care about the return to the monastery of monks who have left him, namely: such an abbot is subject to excommunication (αφοριστώ). in the Pidalion, as well as in the Book of Rules, this rule also indicates punishment for a monk who left his monastery and does not want to return. This last addition is not in the Athenian Syntagma, but in the Syntagma (also in other collections) it is contained in the following 4th rule of this council. The evil one intensified in various ways to bring reproach on the venerable monastic image, and for this he found great help in the time before the former heresy. For the monastics oppressed by heresy, leaving their monasteries, moved to others, and some to the dwellings of worldly people. But what they did then for the sake of piety, and what therefore made them worthy of pleasing: it turned into a reckless custom, shows them worthy of ridicule. For even now, when piety has already spread everywhere, and the church has gotten rid of temptations, some of their monasteries are leaving, and, like some unstoppable stream, deviating here and there and overflowing, they fill the monasteries with many disgraces, bring with them great disorder, and the beauty of obedience is upset and destroyed. Stopping their fickle and rebellious desire, the holy council determined: if any monk, having run away from his monastery, escapes to another monastery, or moves into a worldly home: such a one, as well as the one who accepted him, will be excommunicated from church communion, until the one who fled returns to the monastery from which he criminally departed. However, if the bishop deigns to transfer some of the monks, evidenced in piety and honesty of life, to another monastery, for the sake of improving the monastery, or deigns to send them to secular houses, for the sake of saving those living in it, or deigns to place them in some other place: through this, neither these monastics nor those who receive them are made guilty. (IV Universe. 4, 23; Trul. 23, 41; VII Universe. 13, 21; Carth. 80; Dvukr. 2, 3, 6). The reason for the unrest in monastic life, which is mentioned in this rule, is the same that caused the publication of 18 rules of VII Omni. cathedral, namely, iconoclasm. This rule speaks in general about the same subject that the previous rule of this council also speaks about, and excommunicates (άφωρισμένος εΐη) any monk who leaves his monastery, as well as the one who accepts him; according to the 23rd rule of the Trullo Council, such a monk, if he does not want to return to his monastery, has to be expelled from the city by force by the ecdica of the underlying church and returned to the monastery. The prescription contained in the conclusion of this rule is very important. According to the rules (see rules parallel to this rule), a monk must remain in his monastery forever; An exception to this is indicated in the conclusion of this rule, according to which the bishop may, at his discretion, allow a monk to live outside his monastery and perform non-monastic services. We have already talked about this in the interpretation of 4 rules IV Omni. cathedral Balsamon, in the interpretation of the present Canon of Constantinople, speaks in detail about this power of the bishop, adding in conclusion that monks, with the permission of the bishop and at his discretion (κατά προτροπήν και δοκιμασίαν έπισκοπικήν), can be in any non-monastic service, whatever it may be (οία και αν ώοιν). We find that renunciation of the world, without reasoning and testing, does much harm to monastic deanery. For some recklessly plunge themselves into monastic life, and having neglected the rigor and labors of asceticism, they again miserably turn to a carnal and voluptuous life. For this reason, the holy council determined: no one should be honored with the monastic image before the three-year time allotted to them for testing shows them capable and worthy of such a life, and the council commanded this to be preserved in every possible way, unless the occurrence of some serious illness forces the time of testing to be shortened, or unless someone is a reverent man who spends the monastic life in secular attire. For for such a husband a period of six months is required to complete the test. If anyone acts contrary to this, then the abbot, after being deprived of his abbess, may serve as a punishment for deviating from the order: he who has entered monasticism must be transferred to another monastery, in which the monastic rules are strictly observed. (Trul. 40; Carth. 126; Basil Vel. 18; Dvukr. 2). Like the 2nd rule of this council, this too is directed against careless and hasty tonsures into the monastic rank. Some entered this rank, and subsequently repented and returned again to the worldly rank, which, of course, created a temptation among the people and undermined the meaning of monasticism. To prevent this, this rule prescribes that no one should be honored with the monastic rank (μηδένα τοδ μοναχικού καταξιοδσθαι σχήματος) until he has withstood a three-year trial ( δοκιμασία, probatio, novitiatus) in a monastery and will not prove in practice that his decision to devote himself to monastic life is unchangeable, and, finally, that he is worthy of the monastic rank. An exception was made if the subject became dangerously ill, so that the abbot was allowed to accept him into the monastic order without any delay. An exception is also allowed when a devout person who has been distinguished by an exemplary life in the world wishes to join this rank, and the rule prescribes that the period of probation for such a person can be reduced to six months. If the abbot acts against this instruction, the rule determines that he will be deprived of his abbess and demoted to the rank of lower monks, and those admitted without sufficient qualifications to the rank will be transferred to another monastery in which monastic rules are strictly observed. Balsamon, in his interpretation of this rule, as well as in the article Περί ρασοφόρων, considers the question of what kind of attire novices should wear (δοκιμαζόμενοι). At the same time, he notices that some novices put on monastic attire, and then only when performing a certain rite in the church at that end, but later, when they did not want to accept the rank, they took off the monastic attire and returned to the world in their former worldly dress. Condemning this as an outrage that serves only to humiliate the monastic rank, Balsamon notes that the novice, during his obedience, has the right to wear secular dress; if a novice, in any way, has put on a monastic robe (μελανειμονήσαντα) and lives like a monk, then he has no right to return to the secular rank, but must be forced to take monastic vows. This opinion of Balsamon was adopted by the church and, by the way, in canon 80 of the Great Trebnik we read: “The temptation (of one who has to become a monk) should be with worldly clothes, and not with monastic ones.” Monks should not have anything of their own, but everything that belongs to them should be assigned to the monastery. For blessed Luke says about those who believe in Christ, and who represent the image of the monastic community, that not one thing came from their possessions, but that all things were common to them (Acts 4:32). Therefore, those who wish to become monks are given the freedom to bequeath their property first, and transfer it to whatever persons they wish, to whom, that is, the law does not prohibit it. For upon entering monasticism, the monastery has power over all their property, and they are not allowed to dispose of anything of their own, nor to bequeath it. If someone finds himself appropriating some kind of acquisition for himself, without giving it to the monastery, and enslaved by the passion of covetousness: from such an abbot, or bishop, let him take this acquisition, and, having sold it in the presence of many, let him distribute it to the poor and needy. And the one who decided in his heart, like the ancient Ananias, to hide this acquisition, the Holy Council determined to bring him to his senses with a decent penance. It is obvious that the rules established by the Holy Council regarding monks, he recognized as righteous to observe also regarding the wives of monastics. (Ap. 40; IV Ecum. 22; Trul. 35; VII Ecum. 19; Antioch. 24; Carth. 22, 26, 81; Dvukr. 4). One of the vows that a monk takes when taking tonsure is non-covetousness. Basil the Great, in his rules for monks, prescribes, among other things, that monks should not have anything of their own, and bases this prescription on the Holy Scriptures (Acts 4:32). This rule repeats this prescription of Basil the Great and only develops it in more detail. In particular, it prescribes that a person who wishes to accept the monastic rank has the full right to dispose of his private property in advance, transferring it to whomever he wants, if only this latter person can, according to the law, accept it (Carth. 22, 81). If the person accepting monasticism has not done this before tonsure, then after tonsure he loses the right to transfer his property to strangers, and such becomes the property of the monastery. If a monk would like to retain for himself, as private property, his previous property, all or only part of it, then the abbot or bishop must take it from him and sell it publicly and distribute the money received from the sale to the poor; if the monk nevertheless concealed something from this for himself, then he should be subjected to exemplary punishment, and this punishment, according to the 13th rule of monastic penances prescribed by Basil the Great, is excommunication. At the conclusion of this rule there is a remark that everything that this council established and prescribed for monks (rights 2–6) should also be valid for nuns. This rule (6), apparently, speaks generally about a person who has something in the world and enters monasticism, but it does not apply to the cases: 1) when such a person has children or parents and 2) when he receives something as an inheritance after entering the monastic order. Regarding the first case, there were provisions of civil law, which this rule accepts and recognizes, but about the second, a special corresponding order was subsequently issued. Regarding a person who wishes to become a monk, but has a wife and children alive, Justinian's Novella CXXIII prescribes that such property should be divided, according to the law, among the children, and only the part remaining from this division becomes the property of the monastery. The same applies to the parents of those entering the monastic order. Regarding the second case, i.e. what should be done with property received by a monk by inheritance or in any other legal way - Emperor Leo the Wise (886–911) issued a special novel ordering that monks who received anything upon accepting the monastic rank (μετά το υπελθεΐν τήν Αοναδικήνπολιτείαν), can have one at will (είναι αυτούς περί των ύστερον if you gave something to the monastery when you entered him: if they did not give anything, they should be allowed to dispose of it (what they subsequently received) at their own discretion (αυτούς μενπερί τοδ διμοιροο εχειν opt ξ siv αδεκχν), but the third part should be left to the monastery. Michael Attaliatus, in the second half of the 11th century, introduced this novella, as obligatory for everyone, into his Ποίημα ναμιχόν, compiled by order of Emperor Michael VII Duca. Balsamon also cites this story in the same way in his interpretation of this rule. We see that many bishoprics are in decline and in danger of complete desolation because their primates devote the care and diligence they require to the creation of new monasteries, and, depleting the bishoprics and cleverly misappropriating income, they are trying to increase the monasteries. For this reason, the holy council determined: let none of the bishops be allowed to build a monastery special for themselves, to the ruin of their bishopric. If anyone is found daring to do this, let him be subjected to a decent penance, and his new construction, as if it did not even receive the right start to be a monastery, may he be counted among the bishopric as its property. For nothing that has crept in, contrary to law and order, can take advantage of deeds carried out in accordance with the rules. (Ap. 38; IV Om. 26; VII Om. 11, 12; Ankyr. 15; Gangr. 7; Antioch. 24, 25; Carth. 26, 33; Theophilus Alex. 10; Cyril Alex. 2). Many rules instruct the bishop to keep inviolable the property of the church to which he is appointed (Ap. 38 and other parallel rules). This rule speaks specifically about the episcopate, i.e. about the cathedral episcopal church and about the house in which the bishop lived, about the property of the bishopric, the income from which supported the church, the bishop and his court. Some bishops did not use these incomes for the needs of the bishopric, but for the construction of buildings for their own needs, giving these buildings the name of monasteries. The present rule rebels against this, prescribing that a bishop who builds monasteries to the detriment of the bishopric should be subject to appropriate punishment; and since such monasteries were built in a non-canonical way, they should not be recognized as monasteries, but should be assigned to the bishopric as its property. The Apostle recognizes the divine and sacred rule of the saints as suicides, and if they are priests, he casts them out, and if they are not, he blocks them from ascending to the priesthood. From here it becomes clear that if he who hoards himself is a suicide, then he who hoards others is, without a doubt, a murderer. You can righteously say that such an insult insults the very creation. For this reason, the Holy Council determined: if a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon is convicted of having castrated someone, either with his own hand or through a command, let him be expelled from his rank; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated from church communion, unless an illness that has occurred will force the sick person to be castrated. For just as the first rule of the Council of Nicaea does not punish those who are subject to the cutting off of members due to illness for the sake of their illness, so we do not condemn the priests who command the sick to castrate themselves, nor do we blame the laity who carry out the accumulation with their own hands: since we recognize this as a cure for illness, and not as an evil deception against the creature, or as a condemnation of creative action. (Ap. 22, 23, 24; I Om. 1). See interpretations of parallel rules. The apostolic and divine rule condemns priests who dare to beat the faithful who have sinned, or who have offended the infidels. Those who contrive to please their own anger, and transform the apostolic institutions, understand this only about those who strike with their own hands, although this rule does not signify anything of the kind, and the right sense does not allow such an understanding. For, in truth, it would be unreasonable and very sinful if he who struck three or four blows with his own hand was subject to eruption, and meanwhile, according to the given freedom to beat by command, the one who extended the torture to the point of cruelty and death would remain unpunished. So, since this rule determines the punishment for beating in general, then we also determine it in accordance. It is fitting for a priest of God to admonish the unbecoming with instructions and admonitions, and sometimes with church penances, and not to rush at human bodies with whips and blows. If some are completely disobedient and are not obedient to admonition through penance: no one forbids admonishing such by bringing them to trial by local civil commanders. The fifth rule of the Council of Antioch decreed that those causing indignation and sedition in the church should be brought to order by external authority. In the interpretation of 27 Ap. rules we saw that, according to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, a clergyman should not beat anyone. Speaking in detail about this, “The Book of the Positions of Parish Presbyters” quotes (§ 60) the words of Chrysostom from the interpretation of the letter of the Apostle Paul to Titus: “a teacher is a doctor of souls: a doctor does not beat, but he heals and heals the sick and wounded.” As can be seen from this canon, some tried to understand the injunction of the 27th Apostolic Canon in a different way, assuring that it was issued only against those who beat others with their own hands, and that it does not mention, and therefore does not forbid, clergymen ordering others to beat someone. Through this, such clergy tried to avoid the punishment determined by the mentioned Apostolic Rule, and at the same time give satisfaction to their anger, their passion for beatings. Against such people, a real rule has been issued, interpreting the true meaning of the Apostolic Rule and prohibiting, under threat of eruption, clergy from beating anyone, either with their own hands or through other persons. The rule further specifies what the priest should do with the disobedient; if moral measures and spiritual punishments do not help, then the disobedient person is handed over to the civil authorities for punishment, but the priest must neither beat him himself nor order others to beat him. This rule condemns the practice of church courts, which, especially in the Middle Ages, used corporal punishment for special types of criminals, as can be seen from the words of the rule: “according to the given freedom, beat by command,” i.e. those who gave orders that known criminals should be subjected to corporal punishment. Corporal punishment existed in Roman law, as later in Byzantine law. From this right, corporal punishment passed into the practice of church courts, first in the Western and then in the Eastern Church, especially when the state authorities allowed spiritual courts to judge independently for various crimes. This was introduced into church courts as a result of abuse of power, and such punishment of criminals sometimes turned into monstrous torture to which those punished were subjected. This usually happened in monasteries, where criminals were sent for penance, where they were mercilessly beaten with sticks, rods, and whips, so that it often happened that the person punished died from many blows, and no exception was made even for the sick and old women. But that this was a great abuse and that corporal punishment is contrary to both divine and ecclesiastical law - talk about this in the present rule, and even better and more clearly 27 Ap. rule. Those who have clearly given themselves over to their passions are not only not horrified by the punishment determined by the sacred rules, but they even dared to curse at them. For they transform them, and, for the sake of their passionate will, distort their meaning, so that, due to the excess of passionate seduction, as said by Gregory the Theologian, evil seems to them not only not condemnable, but even divine. The apostolic canon says: let no one take up a gold or consecrated silver vessel, or a veil, for his own use: it is lawless. If anyone is found guilty of this, he will be subject to excommunication. Setting out this rule to justify their iniquities, they say that they should not judge as worthy of eruption those who transform the venerable vestments of holy meals into their own tunic, or into some other clothing, or even those who use the holy cup - oh, ungodliness! - either the sacred paten, or something similar, is used for their own needs, or they are desecrated. For, they say, the rule recognizes as fair that those who commit this crime are subjected to excommunication, and not to expulsion. But who can bear such great blasphemy and wickedness? For the rule excommunicates those who take consecrated items only for use, and not those who steal them completely: and they exempt those who plunder the holy of holies and sacrileges from eruption, as well as those who desecrate the venerable paten or holy cups by using them for ordinary brushes, according to their reasoning, they recognize them as not subject to eruption, whereas this is obvious desecration, and it is obvious that those who do this are subject not only to eruption, but also to the guilt of extreme wickedness. For this reason, the holy council determined: those who steal the holy cup, or the paten, or the spoon, or the venerable vestment of the meal, or the verbal air, or any of the sacred and holy vessels or clothes located in the altar for their own gain, or convert it to non-sacred use, may be subject to complete ejection from their rank. For one of these is desecration of a shrine, and the other is sacrilege. And those who take for themselves or for others, for non-sacred use, vessels or clothing used outside the altar, the rule excommunicates, and we excommunicate them in bulk: but those who steal them we subject them to the condemnation of the blasphemers. (Ap. 25, 38, 72, 73; Antioch. 25; Gregory of Nyssa. 8; Cyril Alex. 2). According to 73 Ap. According to the rule contained in this rule, anyone who takes from the church for home use (εις οίκείαν χρήσιν) any consecrated thing is subject to excommunication (άφορισμψ). This Apostolic canon was interpreted in a peculiar way by some who were accustomed to using church utensils personally, or for non-church purposes, and in this, according to the 8th canon of Gregory the Theologian, they were so perverted that they considered evil to be good. Referring to the mentioned Apostolic rule, they justified such, pointing out that they are not subject to eruption (καδαιρέσει), but only to excommunication (άφορισμψ), even those who make themselves a dress from the vestments of the holy meal, use the holy cup in household use, generally appropriate church things for themselves, not paying attention to then whether these are sacred objects (ίερά και αγία αράγματα), or things that serve to decorate or maintain the church. The present rule rises up against those who have distorted the meaning of the mentioned Apostolic Rule. It makes a distinction between the use of certain church things in the home and the appropriation of these things, and the latter calls it theft, embezzlement, robbery of the church, and, explaining and complementing the meaning of the said Apostolic canon, it subjects to complete eruption anyone who dares to take and appropriate for themselves any church thing and, therefore, desecrate it, for such belong to the category ιερόσυλων (sacrilegorum), blasphemers; and the rule subjects to excommunication those who are outside the altar and serve church things for decoration or other needs, without appropriating them for themselves, for non-ecclesiastical, non-holy purposes, those, therefore, that cannot be called in the strict sense of the word - ιερόσυλοι. Presbyters or deacons who assume temporal positions of authority or care, or in the houses of temporal authorities the title of stewards, are subject to the dissolution of divine and sacred rules. We, confirming the same about others belonging to the clergy, determine: if any of them enters into secular positions of authority, or in the houses of officials, or in the city suburbs takes upon himself the title of steward: let him leave his clergy. For, according to what was spoken by Christ our true God himself, and the untrue word, no one can work for two masters (Matthew 6:24). (Ap. 6, 20, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 3, 7; VII Ecum. 10; Carth. 16). See interpretations of Ap. 81, IV Omni. Council 3 and other parallel rules. In this rule, only an addition is made, according to which lower clergy cannot engage in worldly affairs, therefore, no one who is included in the catalog of clergy. The Holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council exposes to eruption those of the clergy who, without the permission of the bishop, liturgize or baptize in prayer churches located inside the house: according to this we also determine. For then, as the Holy Church rightly rules the word of truth, and it teaches and defends, and maintains honesty of life, and teaches it, it would be indecent and criminal to allow those living in anarchy and impunity to dive into houses, and destroy the decorum of the church, and fill it with many confusions and temptations. For this reason, the present sacred and God-assisted council, in agreement with the holy sixth ecumenical council, determined: let those who serve the liturgy in the prayer churches located in the house be appointed, obviously, as this appointment is given to them by the bishop of that place. If anyone other than these, without the permission of the bishop, invading houses dares to touch the celebration of the liturgy: let him turn away, and those who were in communion with him shall be subject to excommunication. (Ap. 31; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34, 59; VII Om. 7, 10; Gangr. 6; Antioch. 5; Laod. 58). This rule repeats the prescription of Rule 31 of the Trullo Council, according to which presbyters do not have the right to serve the liturgy or perform the sacrament of baptism in house churches, without the permission of the local diocesan bishop; in case of disobedience, the culprit is subject to eruption. This canonical injunction was explained above in the interpretation of the mentioned Trullian rule. The latter's decree supplements the present 12th rule of the double council with the order that the appropriate bishop appoint special presbyters who should perform services in house churches, and for this appointment there must be a written order from the bishop. Nowadays, house churches are usually located at hospitals, at casemates, at various educational and charitable institutions and institutions, where there are usually priests specially appointed to perform services in them. The All-Evil One, having sowed the seeds of heretical weeds in the Church of Christ, and seeing how they are cut off from the roots with the sword of the spirit, having entered on another path of intrigue, attempts to dissect the body of Christ with the madness of schismatics: but even this slander of his is completely extinguished, the holy council has now determined: if a presbyter or a deacon, on some charges, has become suspicious of his bishop, before the conciliar examination and consideration, and complete condemnation of him, he will dare to retreat from communion with him, and will not raise his name in sacred prayers at liturgies, according to church tradition: such a one will be subject to eruption, and may he be deprived of all priestly honors. For he who is appointed to the rank of presbyter, and admires the court, left to the metropolitans, and, before the court, himself condemns his father and the bishop intensifies, is not worthy of any honor lower than the title of presbyter. Those who follow this, even if they are some of the sacred, will also be deprived of their honor: and if they are monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated from the church completely until they reject communication with the schismatics and turn to their bishop. (Ap. 31; II Om. 6; III Om. 3; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Gangr. 6; Serdic. 14; Antioch. 5; Carth. 10, 11; Dvukr. 14, 15). Instructions regarding the canonical obedience of the clergy to their bishop are contained in many canons, from the Apostolic canons to the present council of the 9th century (see parallel canons). In former times, it happened that individual presbyters unjustly raised accusations against the bishop, as if his actions were directed against piety and truth (εν ευσέβεια και δικαιοσύνη), and separated from their bishop and caused a schism (σχίσμα). for this, both these presbyters, as well as all their associates, were subjected to strict penalties (Ap. 31). When such restless presbyters failed to accuse their bishop of heresy, and on this basis to separate from him and refuse obedience to him, then they would find a reason to accuse him of any crimes, but, not expecting that these crimes would be investigated and proven, they arbitrarily interrupted communication with their bishop, stopped remembering his name during divine services and created a schism. Against such restless presbyters, this (13) rule has been issued, which prescribes that presbyters and deacons who dare to refuse obedience to their bishop be deposed and deprived of all priestly honors before their crime has been conciliarly examined and proven, before the proper church court has pronounced its final verdict; for, says the rule, he is not worthy of either the honor or the name of presbyter who accuses his bishop and father unfoundedly and without trial, and thereby arrogates to himself the power of the metropolitan, who is exclusively called upon to judge the crimes of bishops. The present rule subjects all other clergy who join the schismatic elders to such punishment; Regarding monks and laity, he prescribes that they should be excommunicated (άφοριζέσθωσαν) from the church until they come to their senses and return to their rightful bishop. If any bishop, using the guilt of his metropolitan as a pretext, retreats from communion with him before the conciliar consideration, and does not exalt his name, according to custom, in the divine sacrament: the holy council decreed about this: let him be deposed, if only he is convicted of having apostatized from his metropolitan, and created a schism. For everyone must know his own measure: and below the presbyter, let him despise his bishop, below the bishop his metropolitan. (Ap. 31; II Om. 6; III Om. 3; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Gangr. 6; Serdic. 14; Antioch. 5; Carth. 10, 11, 62; Dvukr. 13, 15). What canon 13 of this council says about the relationship of presbyters and other clergy to their bishop, the same rule prescribes (14) about the relationship of a bishop to his metropolitan. What is determined about presbyters and bishops and metropolitans, the same, and especially, befits the patriarchs. Therefore, if any presbyter, or bishop, or metropolitan dares to retreat from communion with his patriarch, and will not lift up his name, according to a certain and established rite, in the divine sacrament, but before the conciliar announcement and complete condemnation of him, he will cause a schism: the holy council has determined for such a person to be completely alien to any priesthood, if only he is convicted of this lawlessness. However, this has been determined and approved about those who, under the pretext of certain accusations, defect from their leaders, create schisms, and dissolve the unity of the church. For those who separate themselves from communion with the primate, for the sake of certain heresies, condemned by holy councils or fathers, when, that is, he preaches the heresy publicly and teaches it openly in the church, even if they protect themselves from communion with the said bishop, before conciliar consideration, they are not only not subject to the penance prescribed by the rules, but are also worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they condemned not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and did not stop the unity of the church by schism, but tried to protect the church from schisms and divisions. (Ap. 31; II Om. 6; III Om. 3; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31, 34; Gangr. 6; Serdic. 14; Antioch. 5; Carth. 10, 11, 62; Dvukr. 13, 14). Supplementing the 13th and 14th rules of this council, this (15) rule prescribes that if the indicated relationship should exist among the presbyter to the bishop and among the bishop to the metropolitan, then even more so there should be such an attitude towards the patriarch, who must have all metropolitans, bishops, presbyters and other clergy of the subject patriarchate in canonical obedience. Having defined this regarding obedience to the patriarch, this rule makes a general remark regarding all three rules (13-15), namely, that all these prescriptions are valid only in cases where schisms arise due to unproven crimes: the patriarch, the metropolitan and the bishop. But if any of the bishops, metropolitans or patriarchs begins to preach any heretical teaching contrary to Orthodoxy, then the rest of the sacred and clergy have the right and even the obligation to immediately separate from the underlying bishop, metropolitan and patriarch, and for this they will not only not be subject to any canonical punishment, on the contrary, they will be awarded praise, for by this they did not condemn or rebel against the real ones, legitimate bishops, but against false bishops, false teachers, and they did not create a schism in the church; on the contrary, to the best of their ability they freed the church from schism and prevented division. Archim. (afterwards) Bishop of Smolensk) John, in accordance with the historical circumstances of the Russian Church, quite correctly and in the strict sense of canonical science, in the interpretation of this rule, notes that the presbyter will not be guilty, but rather worthy of praise for separation from his bishop, if the latter “preaches any heretical teaching contrary to the Orthodox Church,” and if a) “preaches a teaching clearly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church and has already been condemned by the holy fathers or councils, and not any private thought that might seem incorrect to anyone and does not contain any particular importance, so it can easily be corrected, without being accused of deliberate unorthodoxy; then b) “if false teaching is preached (by them) openly and publicly in the church, when, i.e. it is already thought out and is directed towards an obvious contradiction of the church, and is not only expressed in a private way, when in the same private way it can be denounced and rejected, without violating the peace of the church.” If these conditions are not present, i.e. if, for example, a bishop expresses any of his personal opinions on issues of faith and morals, which may seem wrong to someone, but which is not particularly important and can be easily corrected, so that the bishop cannot yet be accused of unintentional unorthodoxy; or if a bishop in a close circle of individuals expresses his erroneous opinion, which can be corrected here, without violating the peace of the church, - in such cases, no presbyter has the right to arbitrarily separate from his bishop and cause a schism, and in case of disobedience, he will be subject to punishment in accordance with the 31st Apostolic Canon. Due to the strife and turmoil that occurs in the Church of God, it is necessary to determine this: by no means should a bishop be appointed in a church whose primate is still alive and remains in his dignity, unless he voluntarily renounces the episcopacy. For it is necessary first to bring to an end the legal investigation of the guilt for which he is to be removed from the bishopric, and then, based on his presentation, to elevate another to the bishopric in his place. If any of the bishops, remaining in his dignity, does not want to renounce, and does not want to shepherd his people, but, moving away from his bishopric, remains for more than six months in another place, not being restrained either by the royal command or by the fulfillment of the instructions of his patriarch, or, below, having been overcome by a serious illness that makes him completely immovable: such a one is not punished for any of the above reasons, but has withdrawn from his episcopacy, and staying in another place for more than six months, let him be completely alien to episcopal honors and dignity. For the one who neglects the flock entrusted to him, and in another place becomes ossified for more than six months, the holy council determined that the bishopric into which he was placed in order to shepherd should be completely alien, and that another should be elevated to his bishopric in his place. (III Om. 9; Antioch. 17; Serdic. 12; Carth. 71; Petra Alex. 10; Cyril Alex. 3). Two canonical issues are addressed by this rule: about the abdication of a bishop from his see, and about the duration of the bishop’s absence from his diocese. Regarding the first question, this rule prescribes that a new bishop cannot be appointed to a diocese while its bishop is alive and while he remains in his dignity (έν τη ιδία συνίσταται τιμή). a new bishop cannot be appointed even when the legitimate bishop voluntarily renounces his diocese ( in this case, it is necessary to first investigate in a canonical (κανονικώς) way the reasons that prompted the bishop to renounce the see, and only when it is proven before the appropriate council of bishops or synod that he is guilty of something, and when he is eliminated (μετά τήν αυτοΰ καθαίρεσιν), another bishop may be appointed in his place. In other words, an episcopal see is considered free only if its bishop dies or if he is deposed by a council of bishops; By simple voluntary renunciation of the bishop from his see, it does not become free, but only when the bishop’s guilt is proven at the local synod, and because of this he will be deposed and deprived of episcopal honor. Enough has been said about this issue in the interpretation of Epistle III Omni. cathedral to the Pameilian cathedral, the rules also speak about this - 3 Cyril of Alexandria and 10 Peter of Alexandria. Mentioning a certain Bishop Peter, who renounced his see, Cyril of Alexandria, in the mentioned rule, notes that “it is inconsistent with church decrees that some clergy present a handwritten renunciation; for if they are not worthy (ανάξιοι), let them be removed from service, not by renunciation (μή από παραιτήσεως), but rather by condemnation according to works,” i.e. if they have committed any crime for which the council of bishops will condemn them and depose them. In his interpretation of this (16) rule, Balsamon, mentioning the rule of Cyril of Alexandria and approving his prescription, notes: “for if it is allowed to accept the abdications of bishops, without considering the reasons, then, due to the abnormal course of affairs, there will be more ex-bishops than bishops, which will serve to great harm for the welfare of the church and, I dare say, to an insult to God Himself.” No matter how much the ancient church rules condemn the renunciation of bishops from their see, yet the present double council, by its rule, allows for the possibility of a bishop voluntarily renouncing his see. If a bishop, due to some extraordinary external circumstances, resigns from his see and if the subject synod does not accept it, because it cannot find canonical guilt in the bishop who resigned, and therefore cannot condemn him and depose him, deprive him of honor, what to do then? Or what will happen to a bishop who resigns from his see as a result of these circumstances, during the time until the subject synod has completed the canonical investigation of the guilt, “for which he has to be removed from the episcopacy,” in the words of this canon? The answer to both of these questions is very brief, based on the general canonical precepts of Orthodox church law. In the first case, if the synod does not accept the resignation, due to the lack of guilt and the impossibility of exposing the famous bishop from the pulpit, the latter must again take over the administration of the diocese and exercise his episcopal rights. If the bishop refuses to take over the administration of the diocese, then, according to the prescription of 36 Ap. rules, is subject to exposition and deprivation forever of the dignity and honor of a bishop. In the second case, a new bishop cannot be appointed to a known subject see, on the occasion of the simple resignation of a bishop, until a proper synod has brought to the end a canonical investigation into the cause of the abdication itself. Both of these solutions to the above issues are conditioned by the relationship that exists between the governmental and spiritual authority of the canonically installed bishop. The administrative power of a bishop depends on his spiritual power, which he received at consecration. This power can cease only when the underlying bishop, by decision of the synod, is deprived of it, i.e. when he is deposed. If he is not deprived of spiritual power by a synod resolution, i.e. the right to perform sacred functions, then he cannot be deprived of administrative power until he commits a crime, due to its gravity, entailing deposition. Everything that has been said so far applies only to the bishop who resigns from the administration of the diocese due to some extremely difficult external circumstances. preventing him from peacefully shepherding the flock of Christ and freely fulfilling his archpastoral duties. If a bishop resigns from the administration of his diocese due to inexplicable self-will, or in order to free himself from the labor associated with archpastoral service, in order to be able to live more peacefully without labor and worries, then such a bishop no longer has the right to serve as a priest, and for such an act he is subject to deprivation of the priesthood. In his interpretation of the 10th rule of Peter of Alexandria, Balsamon cites from the first half of the 12th century the example of the Cypriot bishop Nicholas Mouzalon, who, without any need, abandoned his see and lived quietly in Constantinople for several years, performing all sacred rites without hindrance and enjoying episcopal honor. Subsequently, this Bishop Mouzalon was elected to the see of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he was Patriarch for several years. Balsamon strictly condemns the present case, proving that Muzalon deserved the strictest church punishment, since he left his see for his own convenience, and yet he was even rewarded by being elected Patriarch of Constantinople. This judgment of Balsamon cannot but be called completely correct and canonically justified. The rules also mention idle (σχολάζων) bishops, although very rarely - and this is also an abnormal phenomenon in church life, which can only occur in the case when external circumstances (for example, when the pagans took over the church, according to Zonara and Balsamon in the interpretation of the 16th rule of the Council of Antioch) prevent the bishop from fulfilling his episcopal duties in his church area. However, even in this case, this temporarily idle bishop always retains all rights to his region, and in the first place the right to ordain and appoint clergy in his diocese. The second question that the present (16) rule of the double council talks about is the question of how long a bishop can be absent from his diocese. This was mentioned in the interpretations of rules 11 and 12 of the Council of Serdica. This rule determines the maximum period of six months for a bishop to be absent from his diocese, unless, however, it is delayed by some church matter that forces him to remain longer outside his diocese. If there is no such case, and if the bishop is healthy and still remains outside his diocese for more than six months, then the rule prescribes that he should be deprived of his bishopric and a new bishop installed in his see. Taking care to observe church deanery in everything, we recognized it as necessary and determined this: so that henceforth none of the laity or monks should be suddenly elevated to the height of bishopric, but so that everyone, after having previously been tested in church degrees, should be ordained as a bishop. For although to this day some of the monastics, or laymen, at the request of need, were soon awarded episcopal honors, and surpassed others in virtue, and exalted the churches entrusted to them: however, what rarely happens without putting it into the law of the church, we determine that from now on this will no longer be: but let him who is correctly ordained pass through all the degrees of the priesthood, fulfilling in each the time prescribed by law. (Ap. 80; VII Om. 2; Neoces. 12; Laod. 3, 12; Serdic. 10; Cyril Alex. 4). The fathers of this council draw attention to the fact that some laymen or monks were “suddenly” promoted to bishops without spending a certain time prescribed by law at each of the lower clergy levels, and consider such cases harmful to church deanery. However, such a practice, as we have already seen, is disgusting to other saints. rules, namely: 80 Ap. Rule and Rule 10 of the Cathedral of Serdica. The latter speaks about this in detail, and we, in interpreting it, have said everything that is needed to understand this canonical issue. In our interpretation, 80 Ap. We have given rules and examples of how some, following their transition to Christianity from paganism, were appointed bishops and yet, in the words of this (17) rule, “exceeded others in virtue and elevated the churches entrusted to them.” However, “what rarely happens” cannot be made church law, according to this canon, which is why it prescribes that everyone who is ordained should spend the “time prescribed by law” at every clergy level. We tried to explain how long the “time prescribed by law” (term) should be in the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Council of Serdica. In his interpretation of the 17th rule of the present two-fold council, Balsamon mentions the sermon on the day of Pentecost by Gregory the Theologian, in which this holy father says that “a priesthood is completed in seven days,” and on the basis of this he, Balsamon, concludes that “ordination for each degree must necessarily take place in seven days; and especially since it accepts the unwritten custom of the Church, allowing such ordination for each degree.” This conclusion of Balsamon could be adopted, however, only for emergency circumstances; and in the normal state of affairs, we think that the order should be the same as we indicated in the interpretation of the 10th rule of the Serdica Council. Rules of the Council of Constantinople (former in the Church of the Wisdom of the Word of God) Rule 1 The Holy and Ecumenical Council determined: if any of the Italian clergy, or laity, or bishops living in Asia, or in Europe, or in Libya, were subjected to either the bonds of excommunication from the sacraments, or expulsion from their rank, or anathema from the most holy Pope John: they shall also be subject to the same degree of ecclesiastical punishment from the most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, then is, let them either be cast out, or anathematized, or excommunicated. And whichever clergy, or laity, or bishop or priestly rank, Photius our most holy patriarch, to whatever extent, subjected to excommunication, or ejection, or damnation, may the most holy Pope John, and with him, the holy Roman Church of God recognize under the same condemnation as having undergone penance. Moreover, in the privileges belonging to the Holy See of the Roman Church and its chairman, there will be absolutely no innovation, either now or in the future. (Ap. 12, 13, 32; I Om. 6; II Om. 3; IV Om. 28; Trul. 36; Antioch. 6; Serdic. 14; Carth. 11, 29). The present council, which issued this and the following rules, calls itself, at the beginning of this rule, universal (οικουμενική σύνοδος, universalis synodus). By its composition, namely, by the fact that all the local churches of the then Christian world had their representatives on it, this council can be considered ecumenical, just as it can be considered so in terms of the main subject for which it was convened, namely: the reconciliation of the Western Church with the Eastern. In Western codes it is called universal. He did not subsequently retain this name due to the circumstances that took place between Rome and the Eastern Church; in the canonical collections of the latter, it occupies a place between local councils, the rules of which are accepted and recognized by the entire Orthodox Church. The reconciliation spoken of in this rule, by which rule it was approved, was caused by Pope John VIII. Pope John wanted to make amends for the wrongs that Rome caused to Patriarch Photius of Constantinople and the entire Eastern Church; He was prompted to do this by the interest of the Roman Church, so as not to leave his relatively small church separated from the great Eastern Church, which was all united around Patriarch Photius. Under the authority of the Pope in the second half of the 9th century, there were only 229 episcopal sees directly and indirectly another 268, for a total of 497 episcopal sees. Meanwhile, in the east at that time there were 1087 episcopal sees, of which 656 were under the direct authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, so that under the latter’s authority there were 159 more episcopal sees than under the authority of the Pope; if we take into account all the episcopal sees that were both directly and indirectly under the authority of the Pope of Rome, numbering 497, then in the east there were twice as many of them, namely 590 more sees than under the authority of the Pope. The interest of the universal church prompted Photius to forget all previous untruths and help restore peace in the church; this peace was now confirmed at this council by the unanimous voice of 383 bishops who gathered from all parts of Christendom and issued the present rule. Due to the strained relations between the Roman and Constantinople churches, starting from the time of Pope Nicholas I, it happened that some of the clergy, convicted of various crimes in one, found shelter in the other church, and such anti-canonical actions were supposed to further aggravate relations and arouse enmity between the two churches. And since they now wanted to eliminate previous misunderstandings and restore correct relations between the Roman and Constantinople churches, this rule established that those condemned by Patriarch Photius were considered as such by Pope John, and, conversely, those convicted of any crimes by Pope John should be considered as such by Patriarch Photius. In view of the fact that individual predecessors of John laid claim to some, until these times unknown, rights over the entire church, the present rule, confirming the definitions of previous councils about the advantages of the Roman see, prescribes that nothing new should be added to these advantages, neither now, nor after, never. And what these advantages were is indicated in Rule 6 of I Omni. Council, 3 rule II Om. Council, 28 rule IV Ecumenical. Council and Rule 36 of the Council of Trullo. But that was then, says Zonara in the interpretation of this canon, when the Roman Church had not yet sinned in faith ( έσφάλλετο) and had no quarrels with us; Now it is impossible for us to reach an agreement with her. Although until now some bishops, who had descended into the monastic form, have been intensified to remain in the high service of the bishopric, and such actions were left without attention: but this holy and ecumenical council, limiting such oversight, and returning this out-of-order action to the church statutes, determined: if any bishop, or anyone else of the episcopal rank, deigns to enter the monastic life, and in place of repentance: let him no longer seek the use of bishop's dignity. For the vows of monastics contain the duty of obedience and discipleship, and not teaching or leadership: they promise not to shepherd others, but to be flocks. For this reason, as stated above, we decree that none of the bishops and shepherds who are in the class of bishops and shepherds lowers their flock and the repentant to their place. If anyone dares to do this, after the proclamation and publication of the now pronounced definition, let him, having himself removed himself from the bishop’s place, not return to his former dignity, which he himself put aside. (IV Om. 4; Trul. 43; Dvukr. 5). As can be seen, some bishops who became bishops from laymen or from virgins (see interpretation of the 12th rule of the True Council) accepted monasticism and, therefore, took the required monastic vows. The present council, considering such a practice to be disorder (ατακτον πραξιν), which has reigned in the church due to oversight (παρόραμα), contrary to church decrees, notes that the monastic vows of obedience and discipleship are not consistent with the title of bishop, who is supposed to be a teacher, elder and shepherd of others, in contrast a monk who must be in obedience and submission to the shepherds and devote his entire life exclusively to repentance. And since monastic vows are unconditionally obligatory for all monks, meanwhile, these vows are incompatible with the position of the bishop as the supreme teacher and archpastor, the council, by its present rule, prescribes that the bishop should not accept monasticism and not give monastic vows and, thus, would not degrade himself from the height of the bishopric to the category of flocks and penitents. If any bishop does this, he immediately ceases to be a bishop and never again has the right to appropriate the episcopal dignity to himself. Since then, this rule has been in force throughout the entire church, both Eastern and Western. In his interpretation of the 3rd rule of the Ancyra Council, Balsamon cites the case of the Bishop of Amiclia (in Laconia) Nicholas Muzalon, who, by order of the civil authorities, was tonsured a monk and subsequently did everything possible to free himself from monastic vows and become again a full-fledged bishop; For this purpose, he finally appeared before the Synod of Constantinople. Patriarch Luke (1156–1169), seeing Nicholas in his bishop's robe, refused his request, citing the fact that although he could have been helped if he had waited for the synod's decision, now that he, contrary to the existing order, had taken off his monastic robe, in which, however, he had been clothed by force, it was no longer possible to help him. This incident shows us how strictly the present rule was looked upon in the 12th century. However, after the death of Patriarch Luke, Patriarch Michael III (1169–1177) respected the request of Bishop Nicholas and returned his episcopal rights with a special synodal letter. In his interpretation of this rule, Balsamon also touches on the issue of bishops from monks, and, recognizing, as it should, the power of this rule, he notes that this rule can be applied to such bishops only when they have accepted the great schema (μέγα οχήμα), in which case they cease to be bishops. Rule 90 at the Great Trebnik says the same thing. If any of the laity, having prevailed and neglected the commandments of God and the king, and scoffed at the reverent church statutes and laws, dares to beat, or imprison a bishop, either without guilt, or under fictitious pretexts of guilt: let him be anathema. (Ap. 55; IV Om. 18; Trul. 34). The immunity (freedom) of the church and its servants, in particular the bishop, was recognized by state power at a time when this power had just become Christian. As early as 313, there is an order from Emperor Constantine, by which he proclaims the immunity of the clergy in the state, so that they can freely and freely devote themselves to the service of God. Over time, this immunity increased more and more, and the Greco-Roman emperors, so to speak, competed with each other to see who would give more advantages to the church and its servants. Emperors were especially generous towards bishops. It was forbidden for civil authorities, among other things, to invite bishops to court, to consider them subject to their jurisdiction, much less to subject them to punishment. An insult accidentally inflicted on a bishop by civil authorities was considered an insult to the church itself, and the culprit was subject to punishment. And this was more the case when a simple layman allowed himself something like this. These various regulations of the civil authorities on the immunity of the clergy, in particular bishops, are what the council has in mind in its present rule. This rule also resembles divine laws. Do not slander the ruler of your people (Acts 23:5; Ap.55); and we have already mentioned the importance of the bishop in the church and in Christian society in general in several places in this publication (I, 45, 94, 129, 221, etc.). About the reverence that everyone is obliged to show to the bishop, Ignatius the God-Bearer writes: “Honor God and the bishop. He who honors a bishop will also be honored by God; “Whoever secretly does anything to the bishop serves the devil.” Based on the existing regulations of state power and the teachings of the church, the council issued this rule, and anathematizes (ανάθεμα έστω) anyone who dares to beat (τύψαι, verberare) or imprison (φυλάκισαι in custodiam tradere) the bishop. The punishment is terrible, for the culprit is not only excommunicated from the church, but also from God himself (χεχωρισμένος έστω του Θεοδ) and becomes the lot of the devil (προσκληρουται τω διαβόλφ ) 13 . And this punishment is fully deserved, for if state laws consider earthly princes inviolable (inviolabiles), then how can one not consider as such sacred persons who have dedication emanating from God, and who are distinguished from all other people by their holy calling and purpose? Priests. and especially bishops, are holy persons, about whom the psalmist says: do not touch My anointed (Ps. 104:15), and also the prophet: he who touches you touches the apple of His eye (Zechariah 2:8), and God’s punishment will inexorably befall everyone who dares to touch the servant of God. The rule says that anyone who dares to beat or imprison a bishop without cause, or as a result of a fictitious reason (χωρίς αίτιας ή και συμπλασάμενος αίτίαν) is subject to anathema. from these words, notes Balsamon in the interpretation of this rule, one cannot draw the conclusion that the ranks of civil power have the right, with a blessed reason (εξ ευλόγου αίτιας), to beat and imprison bishops, for from other regulations and state laws it is known that the ranks of civil power do not have any right to judge bishops, and therefore a secular official who would wanted to beat or imprison a bishop, even if he had the most blessed reason for this and even if his powers were the broadest, he still had to be punished; a blessed reason will never excuse such a layman, for only councils have the right to punish bishops. And the words of the rule - “without guilt” - are set for the sake of the anathema that it prescribes; in the event that any lay rank treats a bishop as stated in the rule, being confident that, as a result of some grave crime, the bishop deserved it, then such a lay rank is not anathematized, but is excommunicated from holy communion, and is allowed to be exempted from this punishment, i.e. Only the highest spiritual authority of the underlying regional church can admit him to holy communion, however, after strict penance. You might be interested in: