On the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church

“The fate of Russian bishops is neither historically nor canonically connected with monasticism.” Thus, in the newspaper “Day” No. 25, 1862, the idea was expressed about the possibility for the Russian Church to elect bishops not from the monastics, but from the white clergy. In support of this idea, the rules of the Eastern Church are pointed out, namely: the 5th Apostolic Council, the 12th Rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the 2nd Rule of the Council that was in the Church of Wisdom, and the example of the Greek Church. “In Constantinople and Greece,” says the author, to this day bishops are chosen not from the monastic clergy, but from the white clergy, from persons who have devoted themselves to a celibate life. And if any bishop wishes to enter monasticism, he leaves the bishopric and retires to a monastery.” Subsequently, in the same newspaper No. 30 (p. 2), the opinion was expressed that, according to church decrees, a monk was completely prohibited from being a bishop. Upon further consideration of the issue, in private circles of society, free thought, without stopping at this decision, allows itself to guess about the complete removal of the condition of celibacy from the bishops. Such a diversity of opinions and interpretations prompts us to take a closer look at the attitude of the episcopal rank to the issue of marriage and celibacy and to monasticism, based on the rules and examples of the Eastern Church. About married and celibate life in relation to matters of piety in general, St. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians: he who is not married cares for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he who gets married worries about the things of the world, how to please his wife (1 Cor. 7:32.33). If St. The Apostle found it necessary to point this out to all the laity; then it was all the more necessary to expect a strict application of his words to the title of shepherd of the church, exclusively devoting himself to God and the word of His grace. And indeed, the Apostle himself, fulfilling his word on himself, remained celibate (v. 8). But his demands regarding those elected to bishops, in this regard, apparently were more lenient. He did not demand celibacy from them, but ordered his disciple to observe only that the husband chosen was of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2). However, in order to properly understand this condescension, one must keep in mind, as the blessed one says. Theodoret that “the sermon was in the beginning. The pagans did not practice virginity; the Jews did not allow it, because they considered childbearing a blessing. So, since at that time it was impossible to easily find those who observed carnal purity, the Apostle commands to ordain those who honored chastity from among those who were in a marriage state” 1 . Indeed, the Asian district, to which Ephesus belonged, entrusted to the pastoral care of Timothy, was the last of the enlightened Ap. Paul in the east. Due to the short time that elapsed from the time of enlightenment until Timothy was placed there, those who accepted the faith of Christ in their young years had not yet matured for the highest church service. Therefore, it was necessary to choose from those who had already entered into family life and raised children. Their very care in fulfilling their parental duty could serve as a reliable guarantee of fidelity to their new responsibilities assigned to them (Article 5). In such circumstances, the Apostle, at least, requires that the one chosen should not be a bigamist, but a husband of one wife. And this refers to the past, and not to the present position of the elected one. Having settled his children, he has already fulfilled one duty; now another is assigned to him. The Apostle Timothy ordered such men to be elected bishops. But this very disciple, whom he appointed as the shepherd of Ephesus, was brought to Ephesus from the outside, accepted the faith in his young years and was celibate. For the Apostle wrote to him: let no one care about your youth (4:12). Flee the lusts of young people (2 Tim. 2:22). Therefore, we can say that the tradition correctly conveys the Apostle’s thought when it expresses it in this form: “It would be good for one who does not have a wife to be a bishop; if it is impossible, then at least one wife for her husband.” It is in this form that the apostolic command is conveyed in the recently opened collection of “commandments” (διαταγαὶ) of the apostles with the name of Clement (Roman) 2. The antiquity of this collection, by the way, is also evidenced by the fact that Clement of Alexandria already cites one saying from it, under the name “scriptures” 3 . Not contrary to this tradition, another apostolic tradition says in the apostolic canons: “let not a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon cast out his wife under the guise of reverence. If he expels him, he will be excommunicated from church communion; and if he remains adamant, he will be expelled from the sacred rank” (pr. 5). The requirement of celibacy, as we have seen, was not expressed as an unconditional law for all degrees of the hierarchy. Consequently, for those elected to one or another degree in the marital state, the possibility of the previous marital relationship is left; and at the same time, the husband’s obligation to provide his wife with shelter and maintenance remained. Until now, church law did not make its decisive demands: but church practice gradually determined its application to the various degrees of clergy. This gradualism was based on that spiritual principle: the higher the hierarchical degree, the less rights it provides in relation to the flesh, the more it must be adapted to the inseparable and undistracted service of God and the Church, body and spirit. Thus, the rules of the ancient church still speak about the marriage status of a deacon; The Ancyra Council, due to circumstances, allowed itself to allow those standing at this level, which the Apostle did not allow, to enter into marriage, under certain conditions, even after ordination (right 10). But the rules of the councils say nothing about the marital status of those occupying the highest levels of the hierarchy. Times of persecution, which, according to the word of the Apostle, inspired the laity who had wives to be as if they did not have (1 Cor. 7:29), the lack of such institutions where the wives of those in the clergy could be looked after, separated from their spouses, protection from false teachers who forbid getting married (1 Tim. 4:3.) - all this inspired the church, for the time being, to adhere here to the same rule that the Apostle prescribed for other external positions: everyone in the rank in which he is called to abide, let him abide in it (1 Cor. 7:20). And this is why we read in the apostolic canons: “let not a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon cast out his wife under the pretense of reverence.” The change in the external state of the church, in its relationship to the state, since the time of Constantine the Great, immediately raised the question of the marital or celibate status of clergy. Less than fifteen years have passed since the Christian faith was openly recognized in the Roman Empire and the church was accepted under the protection of the state - at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, the fathers found it necessary to address this issue. On the one hand, the church has already begun to be concerned about moral unrest in the multiplying class of clergy, as a result of the immoderate expansion of the law of celibacy: this was revealed in the previous century, as we see from the letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, and other monuments. On the other hand, in the eyes of the church, monasticism arose as a new support for it, a new breeding ground for the shepherds it needed, who had subjugated the flesh to the spirit: and among the very members of the council there were virgins raised in the deserts of Egypt, such as Paphnutius. Due to the attention to those unrest, one should have expected from the council orders that would be more lenient to the natural weaknesses of the brethren: since, otherwise, with the constraint of everyone without exception by the strict rules of celibacy, the unrest, among the established peace, could have intensified even more. And bearing in mind the new hosts of spiritual ascetics, one could be carried away by jealousy in order to demand similar vows of celibate chastity from all members of the hierarchy. What did the Ecumenical Council do? “Trying to correct the lives of those serving in the Church,” writes church historian Sozomen, the council passed laws, and when they discussed this, some wanted to introduce a law so that bishops and elders, deacons and subdeacons, would not share a bed with wives who had been drunk before entering the priesthood” 4. But the spirit of wise moderation checked pious zeal in time. “The confessor Paphnutius,” continues Sozomen, “got up and began to speak in defiance. Calling marriage honest and cohabitation with his own wife chastity, he advised the council not to enact such a law: for it is difficult to bear.” The ascetic saw the difficulty in strictly observing this law both for the altar servers and for their wives, doomed to separation. “According to ancient legend,” writes Sozomen further, the celibate, having entered the spiritual rank, should no longer marry; and those who have taken holy orders after marriage should not distance themselves from the wives they have. The council approved his advice, and in this regard did not establish any rules, did not bind anyone with necessity, and left the celibate state to the will of everyone.” The story about this, unfortunately, was preserved not in the acts of the council itself, which have not reached us, but in tradition, and, moreover, not recorded in modern times: therefore, it could happen that the decision of the council, although not included in the canons, but which undoubtedly took place, was expressed not entirely accurately by the first narrator, and after him by others. The true rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council speak only about celibate clergy, that is, about those who took upon themselves the clergy either in virginity or in widowhood, and forbid them to have strangers with them, with the exception of the closest relatives and persons who are not at all suspicious. “The Great Council without exception decreed that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor anyone in the clergy in general, would be allowed to have a wife cohabiting in the house, except a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or only those persons who are free from any suspicion” (pr. 3). Having remained silent about the marriage of the clergy, the council did not define any special conditions for the highest rank in the church - episcopal. The establishment of monasticism was then limited almost exclusively to the borders of Egypt. And the election to the bishop of one or another region was usually made from members of the local church. It was to be expected that with the spread of monasticism throughout all regions of the empire, the attention of the church itself would everywhere focus on monastic monasteries: then, without any rules and regulations, it would be expressed in the preferential combination of the episcopal rank with monasticism. The Archbishop of Alexandria was the closest and most convenient to take advantage of this help from the monasteries, for the Egyptian churches. And St. Athanasius, well aware of the benefits that the free, unbound by any everyday ties, ready for all donations, activity of monks in the fight against heretics could bring to the church - no doubt, in accordance with the thought of the Ecumenical Council - he actually appointed many bishops from among the monks. Such was, by the way, the Bishop of Hermopolis Dracontius, to whom the letter of St. Afanasy, revealing the course of these affairs. In view of the approaching persecution from the Arians, Dracontius, either out of cowardice or out of desire to return to his beloved solitude, disappeared. Summoning him from there, St. Athanasius wrote to him: “before your appointment you lived for yourself, and after your appointment you are obliged to live for those over whom you were appointed.” Then, convincing him to appear to his flock, St. Athanasius pointed to the example of other monks who were elevated to episcopal sees. “You were not the only one appointed as a monk, you were not the only abbot in the monastery, or were loved by the monks. On the contrary, you know that Serapion is a monk and presided over so many monks. It is not unknown to you how many monks Apollos was the father of; you know Agathon; Ariston is not unknown to you; Do you remember Ammonius, who traveled with Serapion; heard, perhaps, about Movita in the upper Thebaid; You can inquire about Paul in Litopolis, and about many others. When they were appointed, they did not argue: but taking Elisha as a model, knowing how Elijah acted, taught by the example of the disciples and Apostles, they took charge and did not neglect the priesthood.” Thus, 30 years after the Council of Nicaea, when this epistle was written, we already see many monks in episcopal sees in Egypt. And they, according to St. Athanasius, met the expectations of the church: many were converted from paganism; With their instructions they made many true servants of the Lord 5 . Later, under Archbishop Theophilus, Abba Isaac had up to 150 monks, and Theophilus took seven or eight of them as bishops. Another Abba had up to 200 monks: many of them were appointed bishops, even more presbyters and deacons, writes Palladius 6. In Syria and Mesopotamia, where monasticism also quickly spread and multiplied, some shepherds elevated the most famous ascetics to the rank of bishop, without even assigning them a specific diocese, but in their monasteries, as Sozomen writes, “for the sake of honor and, as it were, as a reward for life.” This was during the time of the Arian persecutions 7. Such examples of respect for monasticism, there is no doubt, should have had an influence on the general character of the life of the clergy. In some countries, the requirements of chastity and celibacy began to extend not only to bishops, but also to lower altar servers. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, a student of the Egyptian monks, depicting the general customs and institutions of the Church, says: “the crown of everything is the priesthood, consisting for the most part of virgins, if not of virgins, then of monastics; and if there were no monastics capable of this service, then among those who abstain from their wives, or widowers after monogamy” 8. He writes in another place: “whoever lives in marriage and still gives birth to children, even if he had a single wife, is not accepted by the church as a deacon, priest and bishop, even a subdeacon, but only by abstinence, he has renounced his marriage, or he is widowed, especially where church canons are strictly observed. You will tell me: in some places, elders, deacons and subdeacons still give birth to children. This is not on the basis of a rule, but due to the relaxation, due to time, of the way of thinking of men and due to the lack of worthy servants, for the sake of the multitude. And as for St. church, then she, always keeping in mind what is most appropriate and guided by the good commandments of the Holy Spirit, recognized the need to take care that service to God was performed without distraction, and spiritual needs were fulfilled with a completely peaceful conscience. I say this because the priest, deacon and bishop, for the sake of sudden services and needs, must always be free for God. For if St. The Apostle also commands the laity to “abandon themselves for a time (σχολάσωσι) for prayer” (1 Cor. 7:5): how much more does he demand this from the priest, that is, he demands non-distraction for performing sacred acts according to spiritual needs, in accordance with the will of God “9. From these words it is clear that if condescendingly, in aversion to greater evil, the church allowed the marriage life of priests and deacons; then there should be no talk about the marital status of bishops. Ave. Isidore Pelusiot wrote to Bishop Palladius: “Avoid dating women as much as possible. For the priests must be holier and purer than those who have retired to the mountains: because they care about themselves and about the people, but these only about themselves” 10. True, at the end of the 4th century, the same Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria, who appointed monks to bishops, gave Synesius, Bishop of Pentapolis, at his request, permission to continue married life. But this was an exception, which could be excused by the desire to attract to the church a philosopher who was of great importance in the remaining pagan party and, at the same time, expressed a disposition to accept the Christian faith. And at the same time, St. John Chrysostom condemned and defrocked the Bishop of Ephesus, Antoninus, among other things, because he, “having renounced his wife (at the consecration), subsequently lived with her again and gave birth to children” 11. The church historian Socrates, writing in the first half of the 5th century, testifies that in his time the strictness of celibate life was fully observed by the clergy only in Thessaly, Macedonia and Greece: but in the east, Socrates assures, he knew many bishops who, during their episcopate, had children from their legitimate wives; and those who abstained from communicating with their wives did so of their own free will, without being forced to do so by an immutable law 12. Indeed, we do not see a law, or a general church decree on this subject, in the 5th century, just as there was none in the previous one. But the 4th century, rich in many great figures in the Church of Christ, presented the best shepherds from among the monastics. Athanasius Vel., Vasily Vel., Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom - all were pupils of the desert. This was a sufficient guarantee for subsequent times of the benefits of monastic lessons for those preparing for the highest church service. Basil the Great, himself a monastic bishop and compiler of the monastic charter for the entire East, combining high education with ascetic virtues, through his theological studies in the desert with his friend Gregory of Nazianzen, showed how and where it is better to be educated for his service to the shepherd, who should be a model for the faithful in word, life, love, spirit, faith, purity (1 Tim. 4:12). By ordering that children be admitted to monasteries for education and training, he opened a means of spreading good moral rules of life among the people. With the help of monks, having established a huge almshouse at his cathedral 13 and other smaller institutions of the same kind under the chorebishops 14, of whom he counted up to fifty, he taught to combine the feats of solitary piety with service to society. With such rules and regulations, monasticism in various ministries came closer to society and the opportunity opened up to see among the monks people capable of higher church service not only because of monastic virtues; so, on the other hand, the difference in the external lifestyle of the primates, who lived with their families, and the monastic bishops gradually decreased, and the episcopal rank became related to the requirements of monasticism. In the 6th century, civil legislation first prescribed that only those who had no children or nephews should be elected as bishops from among married people, so that worries about their upbringing would not distract the bishop from caring for his flock, and so that church wealth would not be spent on them 15 . Then the chosen one is forbidden to live with his wife 16. Finally, Emperor Justinian decreed in a novel that the one elected to the bishop must either belong to the monastic faith, or be a member of the clergy for at least six months, but having already separated from his wife and having no children or nephews. To this the short story added: “This we resolutely demand in the judgment of the most God-loving bishops, just as it was decreed in our two previous short stories, in which, without searching for those who have lived with their wives for a long time, leaving behind all the past, we forbade for the future, after the establishment of this law, the communication of such ordination to someone who has a wife. We renew this law now, under the fear that, otherwise, both the ordained person will lose his rank, and the ordained person will be subject to excommunication. Anyone who is ordained, whether a monk or a clergyman, must have a good testimony about his life,” and so on. 17. The condition required by law that a person elected to a bishop should not have children or nephews was subsequently abolished by Emperor Leo the philosopher 18 ; but the requirement of separation from one’s wife before ordination as a bishop was also confirmed by the Council of Trullo, due to the violation of this rule by some bishops. The rule says: “It has come to our attention that in Africa and Libya and other places some of the most God-loving primates who exist there, and after the ordination has been performed on them, do not leave living together with their spouses, considering this a stumbling block and a temptation to others. Having therefore great diligence to arrange everything for the benefit of the entrusted flocks, we recognized it as good, but from now on there will be nothing of the kind. We say this not to set aside or transform the apostolic law, but taking care of the salvation and progress of people for the better, and let us not allow any criticism of the sacred title... If anyone is seen doing this, let him be cast out” (right 12). Moreover, the council of Trullo decreed: “the wife of one promoted to episcopal dignity, having previously separated from her husband, by common consent, upon his ordination as a bishop, may she enter a monastery established far from the residence of this bishop, and may she enjoy maintenance from the bishop” (pr. 48). Strict observance of these rules, under some circumstances, was confirmed in the 12th century. Some thought to find a reason for violating them in the fact that Canon 48 speaks of the voluntary separation of the wife of a bishop ordained from her husband and her tonsure “with common consent.” And therefore, some of the ordained concubines, without expressing such consent, continued to live in their former homes, with their former spouses. “Metropolitan Kizicheski pointed out this disorder to Emperor Isaac Angel and the Patriarchs. He said: “Some of those elected and ordained to the metropolis or archbishopric, having a wife before their ordination, do not themselves refuse to accept the anointing of the bishopric; but their concubines continue to wear the same secular clothes, openly live in the same houses in which they lived before, and not only do not enter the monastery, but also do not devote themselves to God, and do not lead a solitary life: while the sacred and divine canons clearly command that those ordained to the rank of bishop must certainly abstain from the wives associated with them before ordination; and each of these persons, elected to the service of the church, not by coercion, but by voluntary consent, should decide either to lead a chaste and celibate life, for the sake of the dignity of the bishop, or to prefer immaculate cohabitation in an honest marriage.” – After a conference with the patriarchs and other bishops, the emperor confirmed: “the spouses of those ordained as bishops should immediately be sent to women’s monasteries located far from the bishop’s residence, so that they would be tonsured there and live according to monastic rules in the monastery where one of them was tonsured. If they do not want to voluntarily take tonsure, then those associated with them before consecration are deprived of the episcopal throne and dignity, and others are elected in their place to those dioceses. And henceforth, before ordination, a person who has a lawful wife can be ordained in no other way than if, by common written consent and verdict, they divorce each other, and the wife chooses the monastic life” 19. Thus, by the rules and regulations of the Eastern Church, the freedom of election to bishops is not limited only to the circle of monastics, but is significantly reduced by the requirement that those elected to this rank from among those living in marriage must certainly separate from their wives and the spouses of those ordained must be tonsured into monasticism. When the requirement of celibacy for the bishop came into full force, and compliance with this condition was protected by strict rules: when in this way those who did not enter monasticism, with ordination as a bishop, had to behave in their home life like monks: the order of one of the councils of Constantinople, which was under Patriarch Photius, may seem strange, as if reprehensible for monasticism. The last of these councils, convened to restore him to the patriarchal throne after St. Ignatius, with his second rule, decreed: “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 have been left without attention: but this holy and ecumenical council, limiting such oversight, and returning this out-of-order action to the church statutes, has determined: if a bishop, or anyone else of the episcopal rank, will desire to enter the monastic life, and go to the place of repentance: in the future, let him no longer seek the use of hierarchical 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: no one who is in the class of bishops and shepherds reduces his flock and the repentant to his place. If anyone dares to do this, after the proclamation and making known the definition now being pronounced, he, having removed himself from the bishop’s place, should not return to his former dignity, which he himself put aside” 20. At first glance, it seems as if the council considered the rank of bishop incompatible with the rank of monk. On one side is the duty of power, on the other are the vows of obedience; on one - the duty of teaching, on the other - the duty of student obedience. But the council here obviously has in mind the first, initial degree of monasticism, where it really appears without the power of teaching, with only vows of obedience. He considers monasticism to be incompatible with the rank of bishop, not in itself, but because it leads those who choose this path to degrees over which the bishop must rise. Starting from these degrees, he can raise monasticism with himself to the level of a saint; but, already standing at the level of a saint, he should not look for the virtues required of a new monk, since he does not yet have them. So, here monasticism is accepted not only in the sense of a church rite, which, through prayers and vows, gives strengthening and sanctification to those who choose a difficult path to the highest perfection, but as a set of duties that require unconditional fulfillment. According to the monastic rules, a new monk must be in unquestioning obedience to his elder and receive instructions from him. In ancient times, this was not just a formal requirement, but an essential obligation for anyone entering monasticism. To place a bishop in such a relationship with a person of lower rank, without giving up the highest rights and benefits that have a basis in the very duties of the priestly title, to which everything in the church is subordinate, and to maintain such a relationship indefinitely, would not mean upsetting the order of church government? This understanding of the rule in question is confirmed by the actions of this council. From them, although the circumstances that gave rise to the establishment of such a rule are not clear, its meaning and significance in the church is revealed somewhat more clearly. This is what the conciliar acts say: “The Most Holy Photius said: what do you think about those who, from the rank of bishop, descend by themselves to the place of monks? Having given themselves into obedience, can they retain the leadership of the shepherd? “The most holy locum tenens (of the Roman throne) answered: we do not have this, and it is not observed. Whoever, from the episcopal degree, will be numbered among the monks, that is, among the penitents, can no longer assign to himself the episcopal dignity. “Basily and Elijah, the locum tenens of the eastern thrones, said: this has never been seen among us either. On the contrary, monastics are elevated to bishops. And among the bishops, those who descend into the ranks of monks cannot remain bishops. It is necessary to establish a rule about this too: because we too often have perplexities on this subject. Some say that bishops, having become monks, can freely perform their bishop's duties, others do not agree with this. “The most holy locums said: draw up a canon” 21. From the words of the locum tenens, who did not encounter any objection at the council, it is clear that monasticism accepted before accession to the episcopal throne was never and nowhere considered incompatible with the episcopal rank: but there were doubts only about the bishops entering monasticism. Not only that. In the acts of the same council we find an even more decisive word in favor of monasticism for bishops before ordination. It is known that Pope John VIII, between the conditions of reconciliation with Photius, demanded that henceforth people of secular rank should not be elevated to the rank of bishop, as happened with Photius, who, after taking monastic vows, passed through all the degrees of clergy in a few days. Members of the council: Procopius of Caesarea and Zechariah of Chalcedon, defending the ordination of Photius with examples from previous times, tried to eliminate the pope's demand, pointing to the power of custom. “Custom,” Zechariah told the legates, can prevail over the law. We see many such examples today. You, the luminaries of the church, spreading your rays throughout the entire universe, looking and exploring around it, you can find that much is done contrary to the law, on the basis of custom. Often also one custom cancels another. In the East, if someone is not tonsured in Christ, he is neither a bishop nor a patriarch. And the West turns real monks into clerics” 22. Without going into explanation of the last remark here, as not relevant to our purpose, we will only note that the name of the east here refers to the actual districts of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. In Constantinople, as can be seen from this debate itself, it was different. So, the above rule of the council that took place in the Church of Wisdom does not say anything against the elevation of monastics to the rank of bishop - it refers only to bishops who take vows and monastic titles. In this sense, the interpreters of church rules also explained it: Zonara and Balsamon. The last of these interpreters, in addition to explaining, also includes consideration of some issues related to this rule. He raises the question: can a bishop appointed from among monks act episcopalally after accepting the great schema? And another question: can a priest who has taken monastic vows perform priesthood? – He resolves the first question negatively, on the basis that “the laying on of a great angelic image is actually tonsure; and the small image is the guarantee of it, the perfect one. So, if a small image sets a limit to the bishopric, then even more so should complete tonsure leave it inactive.” – The last question is answered in the affirmative on the basis that priests are not teachers, and therefore the power of the rule does not extend to them 23 . In the 15th century, one of the Greeks who accepted the Florentine Union, in his objections to Mark of Ephesus, tried to assure that this rule was not observed in the Greek Church. He wrote: “this rule was violated when it came to the Ugrovlahian Anthim: he, having assumed the angelic image, with the permission of the council, again acted as a bishop. The Gothic Olovol did the same at the end of his life, but was considered a bishop, and as a bishop he was buried in the monastery of the lover of mankind, in the presence of His Holiness Patriarch Matthew of Cyrus († 1415) and the bishops of Serres, Verria and others” 24. However, the very deviations from this rule in certain cases, permitted only with the permission of the council or the patriarch, do not indicate that in general it was maintained in church practice? As you can see, this rule is maintained in the Greek Church to this day. This is proven by the questions found in the Greek helmsman (Πηδἀλιον), when explaining this rule. So here the question is resolved: can a bishop, having become a monk, perform at least the actions granted to presbyters - and it is resolved in a negative sense 25. Having examined the rules of the Eastern Church about bishops in relation to the issue of marriage and celibacy and to monasticism, let us now turn our attention to history, or the implementation of these rules in the life of the church. – In order not to fall into one-sidedness, we will not choose examples in favor of one or another decision, but we will take the history of one department over a long time, and list its hierarchs, with an explanation from what rank they ascended to the hierarchal throne. It is most convenient to see this in the hierarchs of the see of Constantinople, since we have more information about them than about any other bishops. So, let's review a number of these saints after St. John Chrysostom, for a thousand years - until the Council of Florence. Arsaki 404 from the presbyters (Sozom. VIII, 23). Atticus 406 from the elders of the clergy of Constantinople; from a young age he was brought up in a monastery (Sozom. VIII, 27). Sisinnius 426 from the presbyters. Socrates writes (VII, 26): “after the death of Atticus, a great controversy took place regarding the ordination of a bishop. Some represented the presbyter Philip, others Proclus, who was also a presbyter; but all the people in general wanted to see Sisinnius bishop. This Sisinnius, although he stood at the level of presbyter,” and so on. Nestorius 428 from the presbyters of Antioch, monk (Histor. Chronolog. Patriarch. Constantinopol. in Actis SS. Augusti. T. 1. §. 194. et sq.). St. Maximian 431 “an ascetic by way of life, clothed in the dignity of a presbyter” (Socrates VII, 35). St. Proclus 434 from the presbyters (see above about Sisinnia), then bishop of Cysia. St. Flavian 446, presbyter and guardian of the Church of Constantinople (T h eophan. in Chronographia p. 84.). St. Anatoly 449, deacon and apocrisiary of the Alexandrian church (Theodori Lector. Historia in Patrolog. cursu T. 86. pars. 1. p. 217.). St. Gennady 1458, presbyter of the Church of Constantinople (Theodor. Lector, p. 172.). Akakios 471, trustee of the orphanage in Constantinople (Theodor. Lector.) and presbyter (S. Nicephori Chronographia brev. in Patrolog. cursu T. 100.). Flavita 489, presbyter of the church of St. Thekla (Liberat, breviar. sar. 18.). Euthymius 490, presbyter of the Church of Constantinople and trustee of the almshouse (S. Nicephori Chronograph. brevis.). Macedonius 496, presbyter and guardian of vessels, from the ascetics (Theodor. Lector, p. 189.). Timothy 511 presbyter and guardian of the Church of Constantinople (I bid. p. 199.). John II of Cappadocia 518 presbyter and syncellus (Nicephor. C h r.-Theophanis p. 140.). Epiphanius 520 presbyter and syncellus (Theophan. p. 142.). Anthimus 535 passed from the bishops of Trebizond (Histor. Chronolog. Patriarchar. §. 349 et sq). St. Mina 536, presbyter and head of the Samsonian hospice (S. Nicephor. C hr. brevis). St. Eutyches 552, presbyter from the celibates, then became a monk (Life in Patrolog. cursu T. 86 pars. 2 r. 2292). John III, scholastic 565, from the Apocrisiaries of Antioch, presbyter (H istor. chronolog. §. 372 et sq.). John IV fasting 582, deacon of Constantinople (S. Nicephor. Chr. brevis). Cyriacus 595 presbyter and steward of the Church of Constantinople (S. Nicephor Chron.). St. Thomas 607, deacon of the great church, sacellary and director of ordinations (Chronic c. Paschal. ed. 1832. p. 697.). Sergius 610, deacon of the great church and trustee of the almshouse (Chron. Paschal. p. 699). Pyrrhus 639, presbyter of the great church, monk, head of monasteries and abbot of Chrysopolis (S. Nicephor. Chronograph. br.). Paul II, 641, presbyter of the great church and steward (S. Nicephor. Chronogr.). Peter 655 presbyter of the great church (S. Nicephori, Chronogr.), according to others - deacon, trustee of the almshouse and referendar (Ephraem. in Angelo Maii Auctor, veter. T. 3. p. 232). Thomas II 667 g, deacon, chartophylax (Nicephori Chronograph.). John V 669, presbyter and guardian of the great church (Niceph. Chr.); according to others, presbyter, protecdicus and chartophylax (Nicephori Callis tiar. Bandur. I, p. 195). Constantine I 674, deacon of the great church, vessel guardian and steward (Nicephori Chronograph.). Theodore I 676, presbyter of the great church, syncellus and guardian of vessels (Nicep h ori Chron. br.). St. George I 678 presbyter, syncellus and guardian of vessels (i bid). Paul III 686, from the laity, secretary (άπο λαϊκῶν ἀσηκρήτης) (Nicephor. Chr. br.). St. Callinicus I 693, presbyter and guardian of the Blachernae church (ibid.). Cyrus 705, presbyter and hermit of Amastris (Theophan. Chronogr. p. 313). John VI 712, deacon and charterary economist (Nicephor. chron. br.). St. Germanus 715 from the bishops of Cysis, and previously was a member of the clergy of Constantinople (Act. SS. Maii T. 3. p. 155. et sq.). Anastasius 730, presbyter and syncellus (S. Nicephor. Chr. brevis). Constantine II 754 monk, bishop of Silean (Nicepbor. Chr. br.). Nikita I 766, presbyter of the Church of St. apostles, head of monasteries, eunuch (Nicephor. Chronographia brev.). Paul IV of Cyprus 780, reader (Theop h. Chronograph. p. 382), according to others deacon (Nicep h or. Chronogr. brev.). Theophan says about him: “having fallen ill, he left the throne, and having gone to the Florovsky Monastery, he accepted the monastic image” (p. 385). St. Tarasius 784, Secretary of State, (S. Nicephori Chr. br.). St. Nicephorus 806 secretary of state, then monk (S. Nicephori Chron. br.). Theodotus Cassiter 815, one of the Spharocandidates, tonsured before initiation (Auctor incert. in append. Theophan. p. 441). Anthony I, monk, metropolitan of Silae (Historia Chronogr. Patriarch. §. 609 et sq). John VII 832, abbot of the monastery of Sergius and Bacchus, then court priest and syncellus (Constantin. Porphyrogenet. Continuator. L. IV. p. 96). St. Methodius 842, monk (Vita in Patrolog. Cursu T. 100. p. 1213). St. Ignatius 846, monk (Vita in Conciliis). St. Photius 857 from the laity, tonsured before consecration (Vita S. Ignatii). St. Stephen 886, deacon and syncellus (Histor. Chronolog. Patr. §. 661 et sq.). Anthony II 893, monk (Ibid. § 664). Nicholas the Mystic 895, from the laity, but, according to the catalog of Ephraim, a monk (Angelo Maii p. 237). Euthymius II 906, syncellus and monk (Histor. Chronol. Patriarch. § 669 et sq.). Stephen II 925, of the metropolitans of Amasia, eunuch (Ibid. § 683). St. Tryphon 928, monk (Ibid § 686). Theophylact 933, son of Emperor. Romana, sincell. St. Polyeuctus 946 monk (Ibid. § 700). Vasily II 970, from the monks of the Olympic monastery (§ 703). Anthony III Studite 974, of the Studite monks (Ibid § 707). Nicholas II Chrysoverg 982. Nothing is known about his former rank. Sisinniy II 995 near Kedrin r. 702 is called μαγίςρος, i.e. magister officiorum - chief of court officials. Sergius II 999 abbot (Kedrin b. 702). Eustathius 1019, chief priest over the court clergy (Chronolog. Patr. Historia § 725). Alexy 1025, Abbot of Studium (§ 726. 732). Michael Cerularius 1043, monk (§ 738). Constantine III Lihud 1059 protovestiary, layman and eunuch (Γεωργ . Αμαρτωλ . r. 883 not). John VIII Xyphilinus 1064, monk from a young age (Histor. Patriarch. Chronolog. § 754). Kozma I 1075, monk of Svyatograd (§ 762). Eustratius Garida 1081, monk (§ 765). Nicholas III the Grammar, 1084, from the Monastery of the Baptist in Constantinople (Lequ. Oriens Chr. T. 1. p. 265). John IX, 1111 Hieromnemon, of the clergy of the great church, deacon (Hist. Patr. § 779). Leo Stipiot 1134, deacon and steward of the great church (Ephrae m. Angelo Maii b. 239). Michael II of Oxia 1143, abbot of the Oxia monastery (Ibid. § 790. 791). Kozma II Attic 1146, of the deacons (§801). Nicholas IV Mouzalon 1148, from the archbishops of Cyprus, and previously held various church positions (§ 811). Theodotus II, 1151, abbot of the Resurrection Monastery (§ 814). Constantine IV Chliaren, 1154, deacon of the great church and patriarchal sacellary (§ 829). Luke Chrysoverg 1156, monk (ib. § 834). Michael III Anchiali 1169, deacon and sacellary of the great church (§ 835. 844. 845). Khariton 1178, abbot of Mangan (§ 846). Theodosius Worradiot 1178 monk from Mount St. Auxentius (§ 854). Basil II Kamater 1183, deacon and chartophylax of the great church (§ 854). Niketas II Muntanus 1186 sacellarium of the great church (Ibid. § 856. 858). Leonty Theotokit 1189, abbot of the monastery of St. Apostles (§ 861). Dositheos 1190 from the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, was formerly a Studian monk (§ 862). George II Xyphilinus 1191, deacon and guardian of the great church (§ 869 Lequien 1, 275). John X Kamater 1198 deacon and charterary (§ 877−879). Michael IV Authorian 1206, deacon and sacellary (§ 920. 921. 924). Theodore II Irenicus 1213, deacon and hartophi lax of the great church (§ 925). Maxim II 1216, abbot of the Monastery of the Never Sleeping and the spiritual father of the emperor (§ 930. 931). Manui l I Saranten 1217, deacon (§ 936). Germanus II, 1222, deacon of the great church, then entered the monastery (Lequien. 1, 278). Methodius II, 1240, abbot of the monastery of Iakinthos (§ 951. 952). Manuel II Charitopulus 1244 court protopresbyter (§ 960). Arsenius Authorian 1255, monk (§ 966. 967). Nikephoros II, 1260, of the Ephesian metropolitans (§ 973), formerly the court archdeacon was a virgin in life (Ephraem). Herman III, 1267 of the bishops of Adrianople, was formerly a monk of the Montenegrin monastery in the east (Parhymeres, Pala e olog. Lib. IV. p. 12). Joseph II, 1267, abbot of Galasia (Histor. Patriarch. § 997). John XI Beccus, 1275, deacon and chartophylax of the great church (§ 1004. 1007). Gregory II of Cyprus, 1283, from the laity, before being ordained a patriarch, he was tonsured and passed through the lower degrees of the church (§ 1015). Athanasius II 1289, monk from Mount Ghana (§ 1020). John XII of Sozopol, 1294, in the world of Kozma, married priest; leaving his wife, he entered the monastery, was the abbot and confessor of the emperor (§ 1025. 1029). Niphon I-i, 1313, from the metropolitans of Kizi (§ 1014), was formerly the rector of the Lavra on Athos (Ephraem.). John XIII Glyka, 1316, from the laity, left wife and children; his wife took a haircut, and he himself wanted to take a haircut, but was restrained by the emperor due to weakness (§ 1050). Gerasim II, 1320, from the hieromonks of the Mangan monastery (§ 1054). Isaiah, 1323, from the monks of Svyatogorsk (§ 1061). John HI V Apren, 1333, from the presbyters of the court (§ 1065. Lequien. Or. C h r. 1, 297. 298). Isidore I Bukhira, 1347, from the monks of Athonite, then Archbishop of Monemvasia (See his will, published in Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopol. T. 1. p. 288). Callistus I, 1350, from the Iveron monastery on Mount Athos (§ 1077). Philotheus, 1354, from the Irakli metropolitans, previously ruled the Lavra from . Athanasius on Athos (Lequien Or. Chr. 1, 302). Macarius 1375, monk, then metropolitan of Sebaste (H istor. Patriarch. § 1096. Acta Patriarch. Constantinop. T. 2 p. 65). Nile, 1379, from the monks (Acta Patriar. Constantinopol. T. 2. p. 108). Anthony IV, 1389, of the monks (Ibid. p. 114). Callistus II, 1397, monk (Histor Patr. §1103. Lequien 1, 305. Acta Patriarch. Constant. T. 2 p. 292). Matthew, 1398, from the metropolitans of Kizi (Lequien T. 1. p. 305. Acta Patriarch. Constantinople. T. 2. p. 312). Euthymius II, 1410. Nothing is known about his former rank. Joseph II, 1416, of the metropolitans of Ephesus, died in Florence in 1439. From this enumeration of the hierarchs of Constantinople one can see: 1) During the fifth, sixth, seventh and part of the eighth centuries, before the beginning of iconoclasm, people were elevated to the throne of Constantinople mainly from the clergy of Constantinople; Rarely were outsiders called upon. Those elected from presbyters and deacons primarily belonged to the great church and served under the patriarch, or under this church, in various positions and titles. According to the order of presbyterate and deacon, those elected, of course, were not obliged to live a celibate life or to take monastic vows: but some positions and titles assigned to them, without a doubt, were entrusted only to celibates. This is the position of the sacellar, who, by the way, was entrusted with the supervision of male monasteries 26. This is the knowledge of the syncellus, which merited special closeness to the patriarch and being in the same cells with him. Meanwhile, in ancient times, according to Zonara’s remark, usually, “after the death of the patriarch, a sincellus took his place” 27. So, although during the said time, election to the patriarchate was, for the most part, limited to the clergy of the great church of Constantinople, and the records do not speak of the tonsure of those elected to monasticism before ordination to the patriarchate; but, of course, most often this election fell on those free from marriage, and, in any case, subjected them to conditions of monastic chastity, on the basis of existing customs and church rules. Meanwhile, in this and three centuries there are examples of the election to the patriarchal throne from ascetics or monastics. These were: Atticus 406, Nestorius 428, St. Maximian 431, St. Eutyches 552, Pyrrhus 639, Cyrus 705. 2) During the time of iconoclasm, when monasticism was persecuted and they wanted to completely exterminate it, there were patriarchs: Constantine 754, from the monks, Nikita 765, the head of the monasteries Theodotus Cassiter 815 from the military, but tonsured before initiation, Anthony 821 monk, John 832 abbot. 3) In difficult circumstances, when the breakdown of relations between the church and the state, due to long-term conditions, turned into a long-standing illness, the church accepted into the ranks of its hierarchy and statesmen who, with knowledge of the state of affairs and the ability to influence people, could quickly restore the disordered order and establish the rule of truth. In this sense, they were elected to the see of Constantinople in the age of struggle against the iconoclasts 28, St. Tarasiy and s. Nikifor. About Tarasius, his biography writer, disciple Ignatius, does not say that he was tonsured a monk before his initiation 29 . But about St. Nikifor, and it is known from his life, also written by a contemporary, that he himself expressed a desire to take on the monastic image and took monastic vows before initiation 30 . In a similar way, Photius was called to the patriarchal throne in the 9th century from the laity, and was also previously tonsured. 4) After the times of iconoclasm, when monasticism, in its suffering for Orthodoxy, was covered with new glory, until the end of the period under consideration, the predominant number of people elected and went on the side of the monastics: but some were elected to the patriarchs and from the clergy of the great church and the court clergy. Such elections of non-monastics are more common in the second half of the 12th century and in the first 13th century. It is positively known about some of these persons that they were not tonsured even before initiation. Thus, about Patriarch George Xyphilinus (1191), who was appointed one of the deacons of the great church, it was noted that, having already left the throne, he took monastic vows in the Frigan monastery 31 . John XIII wanted to take a haircut before his initiation, but was restrained by the emperor due to his illness, which did not allow him to give up eating meat; - and his wife was tonsured. – John XIV (1333) was chosen from among the court priests, with the special insistence of the ruler of the state, Cantacuzenus. Those who did not agree to his election pointed out that until now he had been busy with everyday affairs and lived with his wife and children. Cantacuzene replied that John would leave all this, and managed to achieve his goal; however, as can be seen, John was ordained without tonsure. Cantacuzene himself writes that John, on the occasion of his coronation, instead of the white hood worn by those appointed to patriarchs not from the monastic rank, began to wear a gold one, with the image of the Savior, the Mother of God and John the Baptist 32. Be that as it may, however, the number of those who came to the patriarchal throne from monks, or with monastic tonsure, is significantly higher than the number of those elevated from the white clergy. This preference of the monastics at times aroused displeasure and complaints among the white clergy. Under Patriarch John XII, writes Pachymer, clergy expressed displeasure that “although they were admitted to the altar and had them as co-servants, they were not allowed to the highest degrees, preferring monks in the election of bishops. The patriarch himself, before he entered into the management of affairs, while still a private person, considered this way of acting in relation to the clergy to be unfair and completely inconsistent with the rules; and usually made it clear that if he were in charge of affairs, he would destroy this injustice, as contrary to sacred rules and inspired by temporary unrest. But,” the historian adds, “when he himself became the head of the department, as if carried away by the determination of fate, he followed the examples of others” 33. Indeed, the order of affairs has not changed. The same preponderance on the side of the monastics is seen in subsequent times, and not only in the see of Constantinople, but also in other sees. This is proven, by the way, by the recently published “Acts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 14th century.” From them it is clear that in the last decade of this century the following were elevated: Hieromonk Joasaph to the metropolis of Vidin, Archimandrite Macarius to Monemvasia, Abbot Niphon to Paleopatria, Hieromonk Theophylact to Attalia, Hieromonk Macarius to Laodicea, Theognostos to Kizicheskaya, Theophanes to Iraklii, Macarius to Kherson 34. And of the presbyters, only two were elevated: George to the archbishopric of Imbra, George to the metropolitanate of Gangra 35. In agreement with this remark, Archbishop Simeon of Thessaloniki (in the first half of the 15th century) speaks about the preference of monastics. Having revealed the dignity of the monastic rank, he continues: “That is why the Church of Christ now adorns most of those who are elevated to the episcopate in advance with this divine image, and then appoints them as bishops” 36 . In another place, the same saint, discussing the height of the episcopal rank, writes: “this is the opinion of many and, even more, the opinion of the entire Church, and so it was established that the leadership of the church is almost everywhere entrusted to monks. If you want to investigate, you will rarely find anywhere that anyone living in the world has been awarded the rank of clergy: and for monks it seems to be destined by lot. If you see someone elevated from worldly life to the position of clergy, then even in this case the Church demands that he first put on monastic clothes. This is the general opinion of all the faithful, and especially the divine primates of the Church, who give honor to the divine schema, according to its establishment from above and according to its vows. But the unkind behavior of many ruined everything"… 37. Similar reviews about the relationship of the priesthood to monasticism are found in Greek writers later. On the one hand, the awareness of the possibility of achieving the rank of hierarch without monastic tonsure has not been lost. So John Nathanael, whose book “on the sacraments” was translated into Slavic in the 17th century and published under Patriarch Nikon in the “Tablet”, writes: “the monastic schema is special to repentance, it does not cleanse the sins of the faithful who have sinned and exalts him with virtue, but does not transform a monk into a priest. For this reason, there can be bishops even without the monastic schema” 38. Here we are not talking about the great schema only, but in general about the monastic image (σχήμα), as can be seen from its explanation in the sense of clothing of repentance, and from the fact that no other monastic image is spoken of here. On the other hand, the very remark about the possibility of being a bishop without being tonsured shows that in reality this was not usually the case. – In the same century, Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus, in his history of the patriarchs of Jerusalem, discussing the consumption of meat food, says: “in the beginning, when the bishops were not monks, then they had freedom - whether to eat meat food or to abstain. But from the time it became a custom not to be a bishop without first becoming a monk, they should not eat meat” 39. The interpreters of the Greek helmsman (Πηδάλιον), hieromonk Agapius and monk Nicodemus, repeating with approval this remark of the Patriarch of Jerusalem 40, make it clear that it can also have an application to the Greek hierarchy of the present century, as consisting, or should consist, if not exclusively, then predominantly of monastics. After this review of the rules and examples of the election of bishops in the Eastern Church, turning to those thoughts that prompted the study of the question of the relationship of the episcopal rank to monasticism, we have the right to draw the following conclusions: a) The opinion of those who consider it possible to allow marriage for bishops, on an equal basis with presbyters and deacons, is contrary to the spirit of the apostolic institutions, contrary to the clearly expressed decree of the Church at the Council of Trullo, contrary to the general conviction of the Church. b) The opinion of those who consider the episcopal rank incompatible with monasticism and think that a monk cannot be a bishop at all is based on a strange mistake. It is not clear how the defender of this idea did not think: if, according to church rules, a monk cannot be a bishop, then how could there be so many bishops from monks in the Orthodox Church? How many bishops have shone with holiness in monasticism? c) The opinions of those who claim that “the fate of the bishopric is not connected with monasticism either canonically or historically” cannot be considered fair. Not historically related? But isn't history in favor of monasticism? Is it possible to arbitrarily erase thousands of names of bishops taken from monasticism, and the valor of saints raised in monasteries? – Not connected and canonically? But isn’t the example of the holy fathers for the Church of subsequent times, in similar circumstances, the rule? Isn’t custom, in some countries - as we have seen from reviews and examples of all centuries - exclusively dominant, in others predominant, manifesting within itself the power of rule? History has shown us two particularly significant eras in relation to the hierarchical significance of monasticism: these are the disastrous times for the Church of Arianism and iconoclasm. Arianism, plotting to reduce the Son of God to the number of creatures, threatened to confuse Christianity with the pagan deification of man. At that time, monasticism was only just emerging in the field of church-historical activity. It took the side of the right faith of the Church, and its example had a huge influence on the Church. Sozomen writes: “the reason that the teachings of Eunomius and Apollinaris did not become dominant and did not spread far, in addition to the above, in all likelihood, must be sought especially in the monks of that time: for all the wise in Syria, and in Cappadocia, and in the adjacent regions, persistently adhered to the dogmas of Nicaea. The East, starting from Cilicia to Phenicia, was ready to take the side of Apollinaris; - and from the borders of Cilicia and Taurus to the Hellespont and Constantinople, he leaned toward the Eunomius heresy. But... the people, marveling at the virtue and deeds of the mentioned monks, believed that they thought right; and therefore, he turned away from people who thought differently as if they were infected with a false teaching. It was exactly the same with the Egyptians: following their monks, they opposed the Arians” (VI, 27). Thus, everyone who cherished faith in the Son of God, the Savior of the world, joyfully welcomed the appearance of a new warrior for the truth in monasticism. Seeing in the monks examples not only of a higher spiritual life, but also of strict fidelity to the truth given to God, the church began to choose pastors from among them. And indeed, the truth of Christ found its strongest defenders in those bishops who, in the school of monasticism, learned to understand Christianity not only as a system of dogmas, but also as a science of life, and who, through the purification of their hearts, rose to the contemplation of divine objects. Another difficult time for the Eastern Church was the time of the reign of the iconoclasts. Then it was not just a matter of abolishing the veneration of St. icons, but also about the installation of alien power in the church, deciding by the force of decrees what to recognize as Orthodoxy. The world was clearly invading the church's walls. All worship was subject to profanation; the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to an impious interpretation, lost its essential meaning. The imaginary converters broke ties with the tradition of the ancient church. To defend the independence of the church, the sacredness of its sacraments, the traditions of the fathers, and sincere piety, monasticism again appeared in the person of bishops who came out of monasteries, and in the person of simple monks. Unarmed warriors doomed themselves to all the suffering in the fight against the enemy, who, in his frenzy, did not shy away from any means to establish his principles, nor councils, which he illegally gave the name of ecumenical, nor the alphabet, which he filled with his destructive teaching, nor torment, nor exile. This struggle lasted for more than a century; monasticism introduced new hosts of martyrs and confessors. The truth of Orthodoxy prevailed, and the church gratefully recognized this merit of monasticism. In the historical review of the patriarchs of Constantinople, we noticed that it was from the time of iconoclasm that the predominance of election to bishops from among monastics began, or with the requirement of tonsure into monasticism. So, it was not accidental possession, not the harassment of the lust for power, but respect for the dignity of monastic life, the merits of the monks’ zeal for Orthodoxy, that were the reason for the election of pastors of the church in the east, mainly from among the monks. It remains to be said about the effect of the rules and examples we have considered within the Russian Church. G. Sp...kov, author of the article: “Did we have bishops who were not monks in ancient Rus'”? (Day No. 30) is of the opinion that in ancient Rus' those worthy of the episcopal degree were “searched for equally in the white clergy and in the monasticism,” and that those elected from the white clergy, with the exception of very few examples, were ordained bishops without first being tonsured into monasticism. This order of affairs, in the opinion of Mr. Sp...kov, was dominant among us in the pre-Mongol period: but then, little by little, with the weakening of the monastic charter, as a result of the selfish and ambitious aspirations of the monks, it changed, and the white clergy, with the decline of education, during the Mongol devastation, completely ceased to have influence on the election of bishops. Is it fair that in the Russian Church, in the beginning, bishops were elected from the white clergy, as well as from the monastics? Is it fair that those entering the priesthood were ordained into monasticism without tonsure? – Assuming the first position, and moreover, not only in the most ancient period of the history of the Russian church, but also in subsequent ones, we can recognize the validity of the latter only with significant limitations, and we affirm that the opinion of Mr. Sp...kov does not agree with either the order of affairs that prevailed among the Greeks at the beginning of our church, or with the testimony of our historical monuments. In reviewing Greek rules and examples, we have already noticed that from the 9th century in Greece, elections to the degree of bishop leaned predominantly in favor of monastics. It was natural that, with the introduction of Christianity in Russia, this order was established among us, and monasticism, as a special, extraordinary way of life, should have attracted all the attention of newly enlightened Christians. So, already in the example of the Greek Church, which was then legislative for us, we have reason not to allow, from the very beginning, those who have not been tonsured into monasticism to be appointed bishops in the same way as those who have been tonsured. If we pay attention to historical monuments, we will also not find in them any support for Mr. Sp...kov’s thought in all its breadth. In our chronicles, at the beginning, it is rarely shown where the bishops mentioned in them were elected from. The metropolitans who came to us from Greece, settling in Russia, undoubtedly tried to establish in us the same order of affairs as they saw in their country. But at the beginning, our chronicles do not present such definitive evidence either about the election of bishops or about the identity of those elected, which later chroniclers found for them. Therefore, strictly speaking, we cannot give their names in favor of either one or the other assumption. But as soon as the chronicles begin to provide information about where those newly elected to one or another episcopal see came from, the majority of elections everywhere turn out to be on the side of the monastics. And it is not difficult for us to list all the bishops, according to the chronicles, who came from the white clergy in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and about some of them, contrary to Mr. Sp...kov, we can prove that they were tonsured into monasticism before initiation. The first, both in time and in merit, is presented here as the first Russian metropolitan, Hilarion. Nestor writes about his former title: “he was a prosperer, a good husband, a scribe and a faster” 41. Whether he was tonsured, Nestor does not say: but we undoubtedly know that he entered the cathedral as a monk. Simon, Bishop of Vladimir, in his well-known letter to Polycarp, writes: “Metropolitan Hilarion is with me in the life of St. Anthony, as from him he was tonsured, and was thus honored with the priesthood” 42. Here it was not Anthony who was tonsured by Hilarion, although Hilarion gave him his cave, but Anthony, the tonsure of Athos, who tonsured Hilarion. And since Nestor testifies that Hilarion, being a presbyter, from Berestov went to pray secretly in a cave, therefore he was a presbyter before Anthony was installed in the cave and before his tonsure by Anthony, then one must think that in the words of Simon, by “priesthood” we mean the priesthood itself. Absolutely undoubted evidence of Hilarion’s monasticism before his appointment as metropolitan is provided by his own signature under the confession of faith, at the dedication, where he says: “I, by the grace of the man-loving God, am also known as Hilarion, from the pious the bishop was sacred...” 43. - So Hilarion was tonsured before he was appointed metropolitan, and Mr. Sp...kov in vain thinks in his example to find confirmation of his thought. “By electing a simple priest to a bishop, society testified to its deep respect for his holy and pious life. Could it demand at the same time that he take monasticism? This is how the author reasons, but this is not how the fathers reasoned, who said: a silver vessel is good, but one gilded is better. We do not see any other bishops from the white clergy in the Russian Metropolis in the 11th century. In the 12th century, John, Bishop of Novgorod, in some copies of the Novgorod chronicle, is called “popin” 44. In what sense this name was given to him is unknown. It could turn out that he was really ordained from the Novgorod priests. But even in this case, this nickname, as distinctive and only reserved for it, would show that such cases were considered something extraordinary, rare. In the same century, in Novgorod there was another saint named John; this is the first archbishop of Novgorod, and a saint. In the oldest copies of the Novgorod chronicle, he is constantly called Ilia 45; but in the later ones, either John or Elijah 46. In some, it is directly added: “and in the world there was Elijah, he lived on the Sofia side and served as a priest at the wooden church, at Blasius the Hieromartyr, on Volosov Street” 47. Even earlier, in a postscript to the Studite Charter, a 12th-century manuscript that belonged to the Annunciation Monastery, which he founded, it is said: “in the summer of 6694, Elijah, Archbishop of Novgorod, reposed, took monastic vows... and his name was given as John” 48. Following these notes, we must admit that St. John was indeed ordained a bishop without being tonsured a monk, and therefore at the cathedral he retained his former name: Elijah 49. In accordance with this, we must understand the testimony of the life of St. John, which, however, was compiled after the discovery of his relics in 1439. It is said here that before his death, he “took monastic vows as a monk, and was named John: for before his name was Elijah.” Assuming that St. John ascended the throne of Novgorod without tonsure, and we must say the same about his brother and successor Gregory (1187 - 1193). In the chronicles everywhere he is found under the name Gabriel. But, speaking about his death and burial, the Novgorod chronicle adds: “who was named in the monks: Gregory.” This is confirmed by the signature in the aforementioned manuscript of the Charter: “in the summer of 6701, his brother Gavril, Archbishop of Novgorod, passed away, and also took monastic vows, and his name was given to him in the name of Gregory.” During the life of this Gregory, the spiritual father of Grand Duke Vsevolod Yuryevich, John, was elevated to the throne of Rostov and Suzdal (1190). G. Sp. ..kov thinks that this John was also one of the un tonsured priests. He bases this on the news of the Suzdal chronicle (year 1214) that this bishop “resigned as bishop of all the lands of Rostov and took monastic vows in the monasteries in Bogolyuby” 50. But the accuracy of this last indication is not entirely doubtful. The modern entry in the Pereyaslavl chronicler only says: “that same summer the people of Volodymyr and their prince Gury expelled John from the bishopric, having done wrong” 51. Another chronicler, the Resurrection chronicler, says even differently: “Leave the bishop, go to the cell in Suzdal to Kozma and Damyan, and become a monk” 52. This last type of entry speaks only of John’s removal, after the misfortune that befell him, to a monastery to retire, where he, having relinquished control of the diocese, became a simple monk. There are other examples of the election of bishops directly from the white clergy in the 12th century. our chronicles do not represent. Princes often elevated their spiritual fathers to the episcopal throne, but these were monastics. In general, how great was the respect for monastic life at that time, how strong was the desire for the highest shepherds of the church to be monks, this is proven by the words of Simon Bishop of Vladimir. “From that, brother, Pechersk monastery,” he wrote to Polycarp, “many bishops were installed throughout the entire Russian land.” And having listed up to 15 bishops by name, he continues: “If you want to know everything, almost the chronicler of the old Rostov: there are more than 30 of them all, and then there are sinners before us, I think, close to 50.”53 – How many other monasteries have provided the Russian Church with worthy shepherds? The monasteries of Novgorod, Rostov, Suzdal and other cities prepared their saints. Meanwhile, the number of dioceses, compared with the vastness and population of the flocks, was very small. In the 13th century, among the bishops who came to the throne directly from the white clergy, we can only include John of Vladimir in Volyn, about whom the Volyn chronicle says: “Ivan the bishop was appointed by Prince Danil (of Galich) from the choir of the great church of the Holy Mother of God of Volodymyr” 54. However, we consider it necessary to note that at that time it was customary to include monastics among the clergy of the cathedral church, since they were entrusted with the affairs of the diocesan administration. So, when Bishop Kirill of Rostov came to a ripe old age, he led with his consent. the prince and the Rostov princes, with the blessing of Metropolitan Kirill (in 1261), “knew the archimarite of the Holy Epiphany Ignatius, and became the cleric of the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Rostov” 55. Another chronicle explains it this way: “Leave Bishop Kirill of Rostov as a bishop: he was already in old age, and elevated Archimandrite Ignatius of the Epiphany to his place” 56. The following year, after the death of Cyril, St. Ignatius was indeed installed as Bishop of Vladimir. In a similar way, the chronicle expresses itself about the abbot of the Annunciation Monastery in Novgorod, Theoktist, who, after being elected to the archbishopric, had to remain uninitiated for some time: “and became the cleric of St. Sophia of Novgorod” 57. Trying to prove that the election of bishops from the white clergy, in the pre-Mongol period, was not any exception, that bishops were chosen from priests “very often,” Mr. Sp...kov cites the words of the Novgorod prince Mikhail, who, having arrived from Chernigov in 1229, found his reign without a shepherd, and immediately proposed to start electing an archbishop: “you don’t have a ruler, and it is not fitting for a city to be without a ruler. Seek (look) for such a husband, whether in the pope, in the abbesses, or in the monks.” - But not to mention the fact that the election from among the priests might not exempt the chosen one from tonsure - it is enough to note that the Novgorod society responded to this proposal of the prince by electing three candidates for the archbishopric, none of whom, however, were from the white clergy. They were the monk Deacon Spiridon, Bishop Joasaph of Volyn, and Abbot Grechin of Yuriev 58. Here are all the known examples of the election of bishops from the white clergy in the pre-Mongol period! It is obvious to everyone how few such cases were, and how unfair it is, therefore, to think that monasticism, only later, through its own machinations and taking advantage of favorable circumstances, achieved predominance in elections to episcopal sees. But let’s continue the review for a little more time beyond the specified limit. In 1330, when it was necessary to elect an archbishop in Novgorod, in place of Moses, who accepted the schema, the clergy and people elected the priest of the Kozmodemyansk church in Novgorod, Gregory Kaleka. But before his installation, the chronicler says, “he commanded him to accept the holy angelic image” 59. And Gregory was named Vasily in monasticism. - Mr. Sikov completely unfairly classifies this Vasily among those who, having been elected from among the priests, remained for the rest of their lives with the same name that they had before their ordination as bishops. The election of bishops from widowed priests without tonsure is all the more difficult to expect in a century in which there are already prohibitions for widowed priests to officiate 60 . When Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich wanted to elevate his spiritual father, the Kolomna priest Mitya, to the throne of the All-Russian metropolis, after St. Alexy, then he arranged for him to take monastic vows, appointed him archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery in the Kremlin, and only after this he began to ask St. Alexy, to bless Mityai to be his successor at the metropolitan see. But St. Alexy, despite the fact that two years had passed since Mityai's tonsure, did not agree to respect this request, saying that he was still young in the monkhood 61. So weak was the memory then of that order of affairs when one could ascend to the episcopal throne without tonsure! “They also didn’t remember about this order, neither did the reverend. Joseph of Volokolamsk, nor St. Nil of Sorsky, when in a dispute about the retention of real estate for the monasteries, the abbot of Volokolamsk, contrary to Nil and other Kirilov elders, persistently imagined that, in the event of the taking away of the estates from the monasteries, the boyars would not become monks and there would be no place to take bishops from. The fear expressed by St. Joseph gives rise to an even different kind of remark. He found it necessary, in order to attract people to monasticism and to maintain the hierarchy, to preserve the estates donated to him by the monasteries and churches. Let us ask in turn: will those elected as bishops from the white clergy be more disinterested, remaining at existing salaries, and not being able to use the rights of abbots of any significant monasteries for their maintenance, since they do not belong to the monastic rank? Be that as it may, the history of the Russian Church does not provide evidence that in the first centuries the beginning of the election of bishops from the white clergy was strongly developed in our country. On the contrary, we must say that in our country it had even less force than in the Greek Church, where since the 9th century the election of bishops from the monastic community has been predominant. In the interpretation of the first letter to Timothy. Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimi. Ed. de Lagarde. 1856 p. 77. Clement. Alexandr Stromat. I.p. 138. Sylburg. de Lagarde Reliquiae p. 76. Creations of St. Afanasy part 1. p. 392. Vita s. Iohannis Chrysostomi. Opp. Ed. Montfaucon. T. XIII. p. 64. S. Epiphanii Panarium Haeres. 59.n. 4. S. Isidori epistolae II. 284. Palladii vita S. Joh. Chrysost. I. s. r. 50. For the monastics at the almshouse, see Garnier, vita S. Basilii. Cap. XXIV. n. 1. Vasily wrote letters. 137 and 138 (according to Russian translation) Codex Justiniani L. 1. Tit. 3. I. 42. ann. 528. Ζύνταγμα τῶν ἱερῶν κανοίων, ἐκδοθ ύπο Ράλλη κἀι Πότλη. T. 5. σ. 321. The cathedral that was in the Church of the Wisdom of God, Ave. 2. Τόμος χαρ ᾶ ς, τυπωθ, παρἀ Δουιθεκ τατρ, ίεροςολυμ. 1705. σ. 91. Balsamon also has a special answer about this between the questions given by Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria. Question 9. Allat. de octava Synodo p. 29. Words of Gregory the Hieromonk from his Responsa in professionem fidei Marci Ephesii. Πηδἀλιον. Ἀθην. 1841. σ. 210. About Ducange's position as sacellar in Glossar. mediae et infimae G r a e citat. p. 1320. From the Sacellarii there was Patriarch Thomas 607, later: Constantine - 1134, Nicholas - 1186, Michael - 1206. Glossar. mediae et infimae Graecitat. p. 1471. From the Syncelli there were patriarchs: John 518, Epiphanius 520, Theodore 676, George 678, later Anastasius 730, John 832, Stephen 886, Euthymius 906, Theophylact 933. Even earlier, at the end of the 7th century, Paul was elected patriarch from among the secular people. For what reasons? – We don’t know. The life speaks only of his clerical tonsure. Patrolog. Curs. T . 98. rub. 1393. Patrolog. Curs T. 100. rub. 67. 68. Historia Chronolog. Patriarch. § 869. I. Cantacuzen. Histor. L.II. cap. 21. Lib. III. cap. 36. Pac h y m eri, Histor. Andronici. L.II. With. 28. p. 123. Similar displeasure was expressed earlier L. 1. p. 34. r. 55. Acta Constantinopolit Patriarchatus ed. 1861, 1862. T. 2 p. 161. 273. 275. 276. 312. 313. 541. Ac t a Constant. Patriarchatus. T. 2. p. 272.491. “On the Sacraments”, ch. 266, according to the Greek edition p. 189. “On the priesthood to one pious monk.” In Greek With. 373. Book VIII. Ch. 4. § 5. p. 779. Full collection years. Vol. I. p. 67. Monuments of the 12th century, p. 256. Additions to Creation. St. fathers. T. II. p. 255. Full collection letop. T. 3. p. 179. In the 3rd chronicle. Novgor. "Popynin". There is also the 1st chronicle. Novgor. under 6673–6694 it is also called Ilia in the Kyiv chronicle. Full collection letop. T. 2. p. 93, and in questions of Kirik. Monuments of the 12th century pp. 200, 223. Novgor. 2nd summer. under 6671 and gave. Novgor. 3rd year., p. 215. Hand. synodal bib. No. 330. The postscript belongs to the 13th century. And on these icons St. John was written in a white hood. See East. State Ross. T. IX. pr. 94. However, we did not strictly assign the distinction of wearing a white hood to bishops who came from the white clergy without tonsure. Some of the Rostov saints, such as St. Leonty and Isaiah, undoubtedly tonsures of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, were also written in white hoods. Probably due to the same assignment of the right to wear a white hood, the Rostov bishop Theodore (1169), known for his cruelties, was nicknamed: “white hood” (Novgor. 4th chronicle in Poln., collected chronicles. T. 4. p. 12). But he was also tonsured at the Pechersk Monastery, one of the Kyiv boyars (Nikon. Chronicle. T. 2. p. 204). The Nikon Chronicle even assures us that in ancient times not only metropolitans and archbishops, but also all bishops wore white hoods (Vol. 4, p. 231). But it's incredible. In any case, the use of a white hood in our country does not prove anything regarding initiation without monastic tonsure. See Antiquities of Ross. State Section I. pp. 133 et seq. Lavrent. years. in Full collection letop. T. I. p. 185. Temporary Historical. Society 1851 T. IX. Chronicler p. 112. Full collection letop. T. 7. p. 119. See and Histor. hierarch. ed. 2. vol. I. p. 242. Full collection years. T. 2. p. 163. Mentioned in 1260. Ibid. p. 197 et seq. Lavrent. letop. page 204. Risen. letop. in Full collection letop. T. VII. With. 162. Novgorod. I. chronicle. T. 3 p. 45. Novgorod. I. chronicle. in Full collection letop. T. 3. p. 75. Nikon. letop. T. 4. pp. 66 et seq. You might be interested in: