Church law-forming activities of the holy fathers

Contents St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (Wonder Worker) St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria On what basis could a rule compiled solely by the Holy Father be recognized as a church rule? Life and rules of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Life and rules of St. Gregory of Neocessarie. Life and Rule of St. Peter of Alexandria. Notes on the codification of canon law in the 4th and 5th centuries. If in our previous studies 1 we tried to prove as a basic proposition the idea that the only competent church-legislative institution (namely, as an interpreter of divine law) is the council of bishops, which develops and formulates its definitions in the presence and even with some participation of the entire church, that is, the clergy and the faithful; even if we tried to provide factual confirmation of this position in the history of the councils of the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries: then at this time we would like to draw the attention of our readers to another important phenomenon in the history of canon law, which apparently goes in decisive opposition to the position expressed now. There is no doubt that during the same period of time, next to the councils, some of the bishops - fathers and teachers of the church - acted individually with their law-forming activities. They single-handedly draw up the rules, in the form of messages, words, instructions, answers to questions; These rules are initially in force in one local church, then adopted by another and a third, and finally, no later than in the 7th–88th centuries, ecumenical councils are elevated under the name “rules of the holy fathers” to a dignity equal to the canons of local and ecumenical councils. The fathers and teachers of the church who received this honor are the following: St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (miracle worker), St. Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria (hieromartyr), St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Amphidochius of Iconium, Timothy of Alexandria, Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gennady Constantinople, St. Tarasius of Constantinople. So, why did the canonical writings of these bishops receive the force of “rules”, when during their lifetime and even by themselves, a principle directly opposed to this was repeatedly proclaimed, namely, “not from a single bishop, but by a common bishop to all those gathered”? 2 In response to this, it must be said, firstly, that the canonical writings of these men received the power of rules in the whole church only after their approval by the ecumenical council (Trullo): and the ecumenical council can establish and approve what it pleases, using its right: plasuit nobis Sancto Spiritu suggerente. From a formal – legal point of view, this answer is sufficient to resolve the antinomy raised. But the Christian consciousness, which is always imbued with deep respect for the activities of the fathers of the ecumenical councils, cannot at all come to terms with the idea that these fathers used their placuit unaccountably. In addition, it is historically certain that the canonical writings of the above-mentioned fathers in local churches were applied in the force of church rules much before the Council of Trullo, without being approved (at least historically this cannot be proven) by any local council. How could local churches assimilate individually formed opinions to the power of church rules? The following solution to our bewilderment, expressed by the anonymous author of the Syntagma in the XIV titles (a writer of the 7th century), seems more satisfactory. Introducing into his Syntagma the rules of some St. fathers and placing them next to the cathedral rules, this ancient cantonist, in his justification, says the following: “I considered it useful in this book to bring to mind something established by some Saints. Fathers privately: in messages, questions and answers, which in some way can also have the force of a rule. For I am not unaware, regarding these great (fathers) Basil and Gregory, that their writings are church rules, which not one of them alone, but very many saints. the fathers came together and decided. I think precisely that such (private) writings of these teachers either relate to what has already been expressed by the conciliar and are of great benefit for clarifying what (in these conciliar sayings) may seem incomprehensible to some, or they discuss some completely new subjects with written conciliar questions and definitions that are neither directly nor indirectly revealed. Therefore, those who have received the lot to express opinions on certain such subjects are worthy of having their judgments become generally known, not only impeccable, but also worthy of all praise, both according to the authority of those who expressed them, and according to the spiritual light shining through the action of God in their very writings” 3. So easily and naturally this explanation resolves the antinomy we have put forward! The VIth Ecumenical Council approved the canonical significance of the private writings of the named St. fathers on the same basis on which he established the canonical meaning of the rules of some local councils, sweat. that these private writings of the fathers are in essence a written law or rule, not individually compiled by the named fathers, but multiplied by bishops at their local councils, but hitherto observed without writing, by tradition and practice itself. The historical possibility of this phenomenon for the period of time we are considering is beyond any doubt: at this particular time, the rule about annual councils meeting twice in each region in order to resolve all church affairs, questions, and controversy was observed more accurately than ever before by the metropolitans and the bishops subordinate to them. At these annual councils, each metropolitan could become well acquainted, even if he was not previously familiar, with the local uncopied church law, just as a metropolitan skilled in law, more than anywhere else at these councils, could acquire the authority of a person knowledgeable in church tradition and a “skilled cantonist”: for the metropolitan had to be present at these councils, while each of the bishops assigned to him might not always attend these councils. Therefore, the metropolitan’s writings, concerning issues of church law, could very rightly be revered as an expression of unwritten, customary law, and, moreover, not only of one, but also of many local churches 4 . All the above-mentioned fathers and teachers of the church were, with the exception of one Gregory of Nyssa, either metropolitans, or archbishops, or patriarchs, in any case, by their ecclesiastical position, they had subordinate bishops and the right to preside over the councils of their region. All of them, with the exception of Theophilus of Alexandria, were highly educated, deeply pious and zealous shepherds; Their writings in themselves had power for their contemporaries both by the ecclesiastical authority of their authors and by the dignity of their content - “by the spiritual light shining in them through the action of God.” The positions expressed so far find full justification in the life and rules of the named saints. fathers. St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. “Great Bishop of Alexandria” - but in the word of Eusebius, “teacher of the Catholic Church” - as St. Athanasius calls him, “skilled in rules” - but in the words of St. Basil the Great, Dionysius was born around 195, the son of pagan parents, rich and honorable. A brilliant worldly career was opening up for him, but reading the epistles of St. Apostle Paul and the personal influence of Origen on him convinced him to become a Christian. He was baptized by the Bishop of Alexandria Demetrius and entered the catechetical school, becoming one of its best decorations. Origen was succeeded in charge of this school by Herakles in 231, and in 233 Herakles was elevated to the bishopric of Alexandria; then Dionysius became the head of this school and, in the rank of Presbyter, held this position for 14 or 15 years, until around 248 he became the successor of Iraklos in the rank of Bishop of Alexandria 5. Died in 264 after ruling the Alexandrian church for sixteen years. In all likelihood, this was a family-man bishop - an unusual phenomenon today, but not so in the ancient church. At least his marital status is indicated by some of his genuine expressions in his letters. “I left,” he says in a letter to Germanus, describing his misfortunes during the persecution of Decius, “together with the children (πᾶδες) and with many of the brethren.” 6 Almost the entire time of his bishopric he personally endured persecution, sometimes in exile, sometimes fleeing, sometimes living in Alexandria itself. So he once wrote about his life here: “Is it any wonder that it is difficult for me to talk even through messages with distant inhabitants, when it became not easy for me to talk with myself and consult with my own soul? Truly, with my own family and like-minded brethren, with members of the same church, I must communicate through letters and I can’t even imagine how it would be easier to send them not only to foreign lands, but from East to West, than to go from Alexandria to Alexandria. But he was a man whose heart was tormented by the misfortunes of others more than by his own. And in the age of Dionysius there were an innumerable number of these misfortunes. His single-family and unanimous brethren had to endure persecution, either from the government, or from popular disturbances, or from terrible epidemics; heresies and schisms, which were tearing the church apart at that time, completed the sorrows of the good shepherd. As soon as the government decree on the persecution of Christians was announced in 251, “everyone was struck with fear: the nobles themselves hurried to the curia, or to the courts, to listen to the decree; others who held public positions were called to this by necessity, and some were led by their friends and family. Those who came were called by name and proceeded to unclean and nasty sacrifices: some were pale and trembling, not with the intention of making a sacrifice, but as if they themselves were supposed to become victims of idols, so that they aroused ridicule in the crowd of people surrounding them, showing everyone their cowardice both in the face of death and at the sight of the sacrifice; others approached the altars with great readiness, trying to prove with their very boldness that they had not been Christians before... Of the others, some followed those, others followed others: others ran away, and some were captured, and of the latter, some survived to the chains and prison, while others, although they had been in custody for many days, but then, not yet waiting for the trial, renounced” 8 . True, these negative phenomena of Christian life in the age of persecution alternated with phenomena of the opposite nature - discoveries of invincible courage and heroism and elevated the spirit of the shepherd as victorious triumphs: but behind this bright side stood a dark, joyless side; in the person of the martyrs, the church lost its best members. “Know,” Dionysius wrote about the persecution under Valerian, “that men and women, young men and old men, maidens and old women, warriors and villagers, people of both sexes and ages received crowns as victors who mastered the field, sometimes through whips and fire, sometimes through iron. For others, even the longest time was not enough to become favorable to the Lord, just as it is still lacking for me.” 9 “Persecuted and killed by everyone, we once celebrated at that time. Every place of our sorrow was for us a place of solemn gathering, whether it was a village, a desert, a ship, an inn or a prison. The most luminous holiday of all, the deceased martyrs celebrated at a heavenly feast” 10. Distressed, persecuted, hiding, reproached during persecution, Dionysius did not know peace and joy even in times of peace for the church: it is rare to meet such a practical figure as Dionysius was. He was the most popular - in the language of the present time - of the bishops and teachers of the church of the 3rd century. What local church did not know the name of Dionysius? Who didn’t turn to him with their perplexities, questions, requests for mediation, and who didn’t he satisfy? So enmity arose between very prominent representatives of the church - the Roman Bishop Stephen and the Cappadocian Bishop Firmilian: and Dionysius, through his mediation, pacified them. He competes with the Sabellians, with the Novatians, with the Chiliasts, with Paul of Samosata; “I studied,” he says about himself, the writings and traditions of heretics; for how long he had defiled his soul with their disastrous opinions: however, he received the benefit from them that he himself refuted them and was even more disgusted by them. His advice was sought, his opinion was valued by both the most famous leaders of the church of that time, and the heretics themselves: the strongest of the schismatics of that time, Novatian, addressed him with a message. The impression of some surprise is produced by the rules of St. Dionysius, recognized by the Orthodox Church as one of the main sources of law. It would be natural to expect from a courageous confessor of Christ, a fighter for Orthodoxy and a guardian of church unanimity and rules that deal with the most important issues of church structure and discipline. Meanwhile, the actual 4 rules of St. Dionysius discuss the most ordinary subjects of the private life of a Christian. So, the 1st rule solves the question: at what time should fasting break on the day of Easter? The 2nd rule resolves the question: is it permissible for women in a state of purification to enter the house of God? 3rd - how should Christian spouses behave in order to keep their marriage chaste and holy? 4th - is it permissible for a Christian to begin receiving Holy Communion? secrets after temptation in a dream? The Holy Father wrote these rules at the request of one of the bishops subordinate to him, named Vasily. The deep importance and interest of the rules of St. Dionysius lies not in the importance of the issues they consider, but in the quality and method of solving them. And in this respect they are filled with the spirit of apostolic simplicity, clarity and strength; In some places, Christian church life of the 3rd century was imprinted in them, and in this regard, they are a precious historical monument. The first rule, the most extensive, is a complete treatise that resolves the issue of the hour of the Lord’s resurrection. The evangelists do not say definitely at what hour Christ was resurrected; they only tell about different persons at different times who came to the tomb and found the Lord already risen. Therefore, not daring to directly satisfy those who want to know at what hour, or at what half of an hour or quarter of an hour to begin the rejoicing about the resurrection of the Lord from the dead, the Holy Father is very disapproving of those cowardly ones who, although “not long before midnight, break from fasting”; For this reason, he fully approves of those who extend the fast until the “fourth watch of the night,” i.e. until the morning. The St. does not blame Father and those who allow fasting in the period of time after midnight and until the morning: the basis for deciding the question of who should stop earlier and who later (during this period of time) the feat of fasting should be how someone prepared for the Easter holiday, how they behaved in the previous week. And here in the rule of St. Dionysius a precious testimony is revealed about the life of Christians of the primal church. “And the six days of fasting - St. Dionysius - are not celebrated equally and uniformly: but some, being without food, miss all of them, others two, others three, others four, and others not even a single one. Those who have labored completely in missing entire days without food then become tired, and are almost deprived of all strength, are forgiven for eating as soon as possible. And some who not only did not let days pass without food, but who fasted or even indulged in luxury in the four previous days, then reached the last two days and these only two days, Fridays and Saturday, having spent without food, imagine doing something great and bright when they remain in fasting until dawn: I don’t think that such people have accomplished a feat equal to those who labored in fasting for a greater number of days.” This is how the Christians of the primal church prepared for the bright celebration of Holy Easter. In the second rule, the Holy Father decides the question: should women, during their usual cleansing, enter the house of God, approach the holy table (throne) and partake of the Body and Blood of Christ? Having said that he considers it unnecessary to even ask about this, the Holy Father, citing the example of a wife who, according to the Gospel, suffered from bleeding for 12 years and, out of her piety, decided to touch only the hem of the Lord’s vestments, says that anyone who is not completely pure in soul and body should be prohibited from entering the Holy of Holies. Considering this rule, you truly don’t know what to give preference to: whether the rule is of extreme antiquity, apparently compiled at a time when not only men, but also women had the opportunity to approach St. without any restrictions. throne, which traces. was not separated by the iconostasis, and received communion of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ at the altar itself; - or give preference to a wise solution to the issue. For St. The father here avoided, on the one hand, those extremes of Jewish purism, according to which a woman experiencing such a state was forbidden to leave her seclusion until the expiration of seven days, or, in general, until the end of purification 11, on the other hand, he avoided the extremes of rational liberalism, for which everything that is natural is sinless. And the Holy Father does not consider this natural state to be either sinful or unclean, but affirms that those who are not entirely pure in soul and body should be prohibited from entering the Holy of Holies. This is how this issue was resolved in the age of persecution 12. In the same spirit, in canons 3 and 4, St. Dionysius resolved questions about the life of Christian spouses and about testing the conscience of those preparing for Holy Communion. Mysteries and subjected to sleepy temptation “Those who have entered into marriage should be their own independent judges: by common agreement they should, remembering the commandment of the Apostle 13, abstain from each other for the exploits of prayer and then be together again. – And those who have suffered temptation in a dream “also let them follow their conscience and examine themselves - whether they are in doubt about this or not, just as the Apostle says about food: if you doubt food, you are condemned” 14 . St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (Wonder Worker) A contemporary, although younger, of St. Dionysius, St. Gregory the Wonderworker appears in his life as a remarkably original, highly sympathetic, highly moral personality. The most characteristic features in him are, on the one hand, selfless, ardent patriotism, on the other, a personal, highly moral life, the height of the Christian spirit, marked by extraordinary talents during his lifetime. For his fatherland, he was a missionary and a pioneer of Christian citizenship: his authority here was extraordinary; the legend about him was alive and active for a very long time after his death. A century after his death, his personal moral perfections found panegyrists in the person of the most famous church fathers, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa. “Gregory never - gov. St. Basil, in his letter to the clergy of Neocaesarea, did not cover his head during prayer, like a true disciple of the Apostle Paul; he avoided oaths, contenting himself with the words: yes and no; He did not call anyone stupid, he abhorred slander.” And in chapter 29 his treatise on St. In the same spirit, St. Basil exclaims, “Where will we see Gregory and his broadcasts? Is it not among the Apostles and Prophets that one Spirit speaks with them? Have you not walked in the footsteps of the saints all your life? Did he not observe the strictness of evangelical living throughout his entire life? But because of the abundance of gifts in him, the Spirit working in him with all power, signs and wonders, he was nicknamed the second Moses by the very enemies of the truth.” St. Gregory was born around 221 in the city of Neokesarea (currently Niksara on the Lika River) in the Pontic region. His real name was Theodore i.e. God-given; His parents, however, were not Christians, but zealous pagans, were rich and occupied an honorable social position. Until the age of fourteen, Theodore was brought up in the home of his parents and was destined by them for social activities in the rank of orator or lawyer, for which purpose it was intended to send him to law school in Berita for education. This year his father died, and his son-in-law was offered a very prominent position in Caesarea in Palestine. Circumstances developed in such a way that Theodore, completely unforeseen for himself and his mother, also ended up in Caesarea. The fact is that his son-in-law wanted to call his wife to him so that she could be accompanied by her brothers Theodore and Athenodorus. Taking advantage of the position of their son-in-law, they received public chariots and passports (σύμβολα), sent from Caesarea with one soldier. During their journey, they passed through many cities and finally arrived in Verit, from where, for some reason, which Gregory considers directly the work of his highest thoughts, they went to Caesarea and here they soon came under the care of Origen, who was living here at that time. Noticing the outstanding abilities of the two brothers, Origen paid special attention to them; he instilled in them a love of philosophy and through it gradually led them to the faith of Christ. They spent five years under the leadership of Origen, became his disciples and zealous Christians. After this they went back to their fatherland. Here, soon after his return, something very unexpected and extraordinary happened to Gregory: he was elected bishop of Neocaesarea; Frightened by such an accident, Gregory disappeared, but Fedim, Bishop of Amasia, defeated his reluctance by an extraordinary measure, first electing and ordaining him in absentia and then persuaded him to submit to the usual procedure for election. The desire of voters, the requests of compatriots, and most of all, according to the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, the gracious appearance of the Mother of God and the Holy Apostle John the Theologian, prompted Gregory to accept the episcopal title. According to a legend attested by very competent persons and preserved in the church for a very long time, St. Gregory was taught a short creed at this appearance 15. This symbol was in common use for a long time in the Neo-Caesarean Church. St. Basil the Great says that he and his brother were taught this symbol by their grandmother St. Macrina 16, and St. Gregory of Nyssa in his panegyric in honor of Gregory the Wonderworker, passing on the symbol itself, says that he also saw its original autograph 17. St. Gregory the Wonderworker was ordained bishop around the year 240. Although there were already Christians in the Pontic region during the time of the Apostle Peter, Neokesarea was still so pagan in the 3rd century that when Gregory became bishop, there were only 17 Christians in it. This circumstance determined the direction and character of St. Gregory’s episcopal ministry: he became a missionary, a zealous educator of the Russian city. The power of his preaching, accompanied by miracles, which is why he received the predominant title of Wonderworker, was so great that at the time of his death, St. Gregory counted no more than 17 pagans in all of Neocaesarea. In the year 250, the terrible persecution of Decius against Christians began and Gregory withdrew from the city, advising everyone who was in danger to flee, or otherwise hide from persecution. He himself was pursued to the place where he had taken refuge, but, according to one legend, those sent to arrest him and his deacon saw only two trees in front of them. In 257 he returned to Neokesarea; the next year he established annual holidays in memory of the martyrs, hoping by this measure to attract to Christianity the pagan population, accustomed to the festivities. In 266, his church suffered from the invasion of the Goths and Borads, who took with them many captives, and it was even more depressed by the base and greedy behavior of many imaginary Christians, who took advantage of this misfortune to satisfy their grossly selfish interests. In 264, St. Gregory was present at the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata and again at the council in 269, unless Theodore, who signed the acts of this council, was Gregory. He probably died around 270, having ordered that no land be purchased for his grave: he was buried in the Magnificent Church, built by himself 18. St. Gregory earned love and respect from his compatriots not only as a teacher of the faith and a good shepherd, but also as a wise and merciful judge and organizer of civil order. “While all the inhabitants of the city - says St. Gregory of Nyssa about him - as well as the surrounding area, were amazed by his apostolic miracles and believed that everything he said and did was done and said by the power of God: even in controversial everyday matters, they did not know any other court of justice above him, but every dispute and all intractable and confusing matters were resolved by his advice. From here, through his beneficial influence, legal justice and peace were established in the city, both for everyone in general and for everyone in particular; much good came to everyone, because no evil violated mutual agreement” 19. The rules of St. Gregory were written at the request of one of the bishops of the Pontic region, due to some special circumstance. The wild peoples of Gotha and Borada in 266 flooded the region of Asia and occupied the Pontic district. Robberies, violence against women, all kinds of fury on the part of the barbarians in the general confusion had a demoralizing effect on the newly enlightened Christians. There were examples that Christians entered into communication with barbarians, shared bread and salt with them, attacked their compatriots for the same thing, or, taking advantage of troubled times, satisfied their greed by taking possession of the property of those who fled and took refuge, even Christians enslaved. Naturally, immediately after the pogrom subsided and the local population began to sort out their affairs, little by little individuals were discovered who had stained themselves with unworthy behavior, and the court of St. Gregory was filled with accusers and accused of various kinds. Gregory's fame as a wise and impartial judge was sufficient in itself for neighboring bishops, whose churches suffered a similar disaster, to turn to him for advice on how to act in similar circumstances, not to mention the fact that among the episcopal sees of the Pontic diocese, Neokesarea soon occupied a prominent position. In response to a request from one of these bishops, St. Gregory wrote his rules 20. The eleven rules of St. Gregory provide answers to the following questions; 1) should those Christians be considered defiled who, having been captured by pagan barbarians, necessarily had to eat the same food as them? 2) Should those Christian women who, having been captured by barbarians, have been molested by them, be allowed to communicate in prayer? 3) How to deal with Christians who stained themselves with covetousness during the barbarian invasion? 4) Is it permissible to turn into someone’s property a thing they have found? 5) Do those who keep someone else’s thing they found instead of their lost one act well? 6) About those who forcibly captured captives who escaped from their enemies. 7) About those Christians who, during captivity from the barbarians, for one thing with them, attacked their compatriots, killed them, or showed the barbarians the houses of their compatriots and the roads to them. 8) About those who took advantage of the property left by the barbarians. These are the subjects revealed in the 11 rules of St. Gregory. In "The Book of Rules" ed. Of the Holy Synod, another 12th rule is attributed to St. Gregory, which is not in the printed Helmsman’s book, and the authenticity of which is recognized by the Helmsman’s book of the Eastern Church (Πηδαλιον 21). In terms of its content, it is a scholium that explains the essence of the four degrees of repentance that were in use in the ancient church, compiled in all likelihood on the basis of the 75th rule of St. Basil the Great. It is therefore impossible not to recognize the following note from the editor (A.S. Pavlov) in the edition as very appropriate. rules of St. Gregory by the Society of Spiritual Lovers. enlightenment: “There are no rules for this in the so-called Greek. Aristin's synopsis, neither in our printed Helmsman, which is a translation of the same synopsis, nor in the most ancient Slavic handwritten Helmsman (XII century) containing the full text of the rules without any interpretations and stored in the Moscow Synodal Library (under No. 227). In Greek manuscripts of the same composition as the now indicated synodal helmsman, the present rule is either not found at all, or appears in the form of a later scholia (see Rout, Reliquice Sacrae, ed. 1846. Ill, 283; Pitra, Juris ecclesiastici graec. historia et monumenta. I, 566). The content of this scholia is borrowed from the rules of Basil the Great, to whom it, in a somewhat widespread edition, is indeed attributed both in the Greek synopsis (see Συνταγμα IV, 405) and in our printed Helmsman (chap. 23). The closest to the scholium are the 56th and 75th rules of St. Basil the Great.” In Πηδαλιονѣ this is the so-called. The rule is accompanied by the following clause: “This rule does not contain anything other than a description of the four places in which the penitents stood. Note that although it is considered a rule, it is not genuine. Firstly, because what was said in it was borrowed literally from the 75th rule of the later great Father Vasily; secondly, because the most excellent of the interpreters of Zonar did not write an interpretation for it and did not mention it at all; thirdly, because in some manuscripts it is called scolia. However, by the permission and research of my wise master Dorotheus, it is also included as a rule, as is found in the pandects and other (collections)” 22. All the genuine rules of St. Gregory represent in their content the exact application of the divine law expressed in the books of the Old and New Testaments to those special cases in Christian life for which he was called upon to draw up rules. Questions about imputation or not imputation of a certain act, the degree of severity of various sins are resolved solely on the basis of Holy Scripture; Therefore, in his definitions, the Holy Father expresses himself decisively and categorically. Only in one case did he indicate only a temporary measure, leaving a decisive judgment to a council of bishops, remarkably expressing himself this way: “until the holy fathers, together, and before them the Holy Spirit, will do anything for them.” (Ex. 8) 23 St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria “Peter is the beginning of the Apostles, Peter is the end of the martyrs.” They say that at the moment of the martyrdom of St. Peter, someone’s voice was heard, uttering the above words. His death really ended the most severe and final persecution of Diocletian. He was ordained Bishop of Alexandria in 296, succeeding Bishop Theone. “He ruled the church for less than three years before the persecution, but spent the rest of his life in the strictest labors and, not without glory, took care of the general benefit of the churches, for which in the ninth year of the persecution he was beheaded and adorned with the crown of martyrdom” 24. Outstanding events during his management of the Alexandrian church, which subsequently had significance in history, were: the deposition of Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis in Thebaid, the deposition of Deacon Arius, later a famous heresiarch, and the most severe persecution of Diocletian - events that deeply depressing the good shepherd, all the time he ruled his church, intertwined in an unbroken chain of suffering of the hieromartyr. Deposed by the council, Meletius did not submit to the verdict of the church court, continued to serve as a priest with all the rights of a bishop - to ordain presbyters and deacons to the churches, thus forming a large party of schismatics, which caused quite a few disturbances in the Alexandrian church, until the 1st Ecumenical Council put an end to them with decisive measures. As for Arius, St. Peter himself initially drew favorable attention to him, marveling at his deep zeal for the teaching of Holy Scripture and ordained him as a deacon, but then he deposed him and expelled him from the church for his adherence and like-mindedness with Meletius. They say that when St. Peter was already in chains, preparing for martyrdom, Arius and his friends begged the saint for forgiveness for a long time, but the Savior, who appeared to him in a vision in a torn tunic, warned him against yielding, and the St. martyr died without giving peace to the flattering heretic, who subsequently tore apart the Church of Christ. The most important feat of St. Peter was serving confessors and martyrs and encouraging the faint-hearted during the most severe of persecutions. Our domestic hagiologist St. Demetrius depicts this feat of St. Peter this way: “When the martyr of Christ’s bonds and prisons were tight, and their blood was poured all over the streets, and cities, and fields, in such a terrible time, filled with grave troubles and sorrows, St. Peter ruled this church of God with patience and inscrutable labors: with teaching and manner He strengthened the courage of many who were not overcome by faith, the cowardly and fearful, but he snatched away from apostasy and death and brought many to the crown of martyrdom... Serving the prisoners of faith in prisons, numbering six hundred and sixty, among them many elders and clergy, and all of them were killed by various deaths, because of their suffering, which they endured to the end, Peter became omnipresent in spirit.”25 St. Peter ended his exploits with martyrdom on November 24, 311. Rules of St. Peter are formed from his lengthy speech on repentance, which is believed to have been delivered in 305 at the onset of Pentecost. The persecution of Christians in the bishopric of St. Peter had already lasted for three too many years; The persecutor managed to reap many victims in the Church of Christ, through fear of torment, or through the cruelty of torture, having managed to force many weak in spirit to renounce the faith and force them to become desecrated by offering idol sacrifices. The persecutor's goal, however, was not achieved at all; his successes were only at first; and then the victorious triumphs of the confessors and deceased martyrs had a strengthening effect on the remaining firm Christians, new ones often emerged from among the very tormentors and shamed the weak-hearted who could not withstand the first attack of the enemy. The latter, with repentance, shame and sincere tears, turned to the primates and confessors with requests to be accepted back into the church, expressing their complete readiness to mourn their first fall through acts of repentance or even a new feat of martyrdom. It was these last ones that St. Peter had in mind in his speech of the year 305, teaching and instructing his flock by joining St. days of Pentecost, it is worthwhile to prepare for the celebration of the fourth Easter during the period of Diocletian’s persecution. When reading the rules of St. Peter, separate groups of third-century Christians mourning their fall seem to rise before us. The Holy Father singles out a whole group of Christians who, at the beginning of the persecution, were subjected to denunciation, were imprisoned, endured cruel torment, unbearable, almost incurable wounds, and who were finally betrayed by the weakness of the flesh; they denied Christ. But they soon repented; and now they have been in excommunication for three years, mourning their renunciation. According to the judgment of the Holy Father, this time of excommunication “is sufficient for them.” But remembering that the Lord was in the desert for 40 days, being tempted by the devil, and they must continue their crying and prayerful contrition of heart about their fall for another 40 days, reflecting on what was spoken from the Lord to the tempter; “Follow me, as Satan is written; Worship your Lord God and serve that One.” (Right 1). Here is another group who also mourned their sin of renouncing Christ for three years: but these showed less courage and fortitude than their predecessors. They endured the sorrows and stench of imprisonment, but they were afraid of torture and renounced. What kind of judgment does the Holy Father give them? They must add one more year of mourning to the previous three: for on the one hand, “they also completely gave themselves up to suffering for Christ, but despite the fact that they received great consolation from the brethren in prison, they still fell; for this may they be repaid with much interest, wanting to be freed from the bitter captivity of the devil, especially remembering the one who said: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for his sake, I have anointed Me to bring good news to the poor as My ambassador... to preach the year of the Lord is pleasant and the day of recompense.” (Right. 2). The third of those who fell “now come to repentance” renounced Christ without suffering anything and without showing the fruit of faith. To them the Holy Father, in all accuracy, appends the Gospel parable about the barren fig tree, which the master had already ordered to cut down, having waited in vain for three years for fruit from it and only at the request of the vinedresser left it for another year for testing. (Luke XIII, 6–9). “By placing this parable before your eyes,” the Holy Father concludes, “and showing the fruit worthy of repentance, in the continuation of that time, that is, four years, you will receive even greater benefit” (Prav. 3). Some of the Christians, in order to avoid torture and at the same time wanting to be faithful to Christ, laughed at the pagans - they seemed outwardly to have given themselves over to paganism, or simply deceived their tormentors, for example. they pretended to make a sacrifice, but did not, or they gave a written renunciation of Christianity, but not openly, directly, but through some kind of trick they scolded those who forced them, or they put pagans in their place. Comparing them with David, who took on the appearance of a holy fool and thereby saved himself from death, or with smart children who sometimes laugh and mock children who are not smart and stupid. The Holy Father assigns them six months of repentance for such a lack of courage (characteristic of children), explaining the purpose of such a period as follows: “for in this way these also receive greater benefits, reflecting on the prophetic saying: when I was a child, I gave birth to us, a son, and was given to us, his authority to be on his frame... This child, as you know, in the sixth month after the conception of another child, who preached before his entrance repentance for the remission of sins, was also conceived in order to preach repentance,” and so on. (Right. 5). There were cases that some Christians put Christian slaves in their place, and the latter, out of fear of their masters, renounced Christ. The Holy Father prescribes excommunication for such slaves for one year, and for masters who were responsible for their fall - excommunication for three years. (Prov. 6 and 7). – Some of the Christians, having been sold to the pagans, initially fell, but then they themselves came to the feat, confessed themselves as Christians, and for this they were thrown into prison and tortured. The Holy Father commands us to have full communion with them in prayers, communion of the body and blood of Christ and in the consolation of the word. (Ex. 8). – Full communion should also be awarded to those Christians who themselves volunteered to suffer for Christ, when the persecution had not yet opened but was only preparing, and the more embittered the persecutors against themselves and their brethren. They thereby showed their love for Christ, but St. the father calls this zeal of theirs unreasonable and proves with numerous examples from the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles that Christians should in every possible way avoid assassination attempts and persecution, and not ask for them; and to do this not so much for one’s own sake, but in order to save one’s life for the benefit of others. Both the general idea of ​​this rule (9th) and its argumentation very vividly resemble the 5th book of the Apostolic Rules and, in all likelihood, this is the source of this rule. As a direct conclusion from this rule, the Holy Father forever prohibits the priesthood of those clergy who voluntarily, and not forced by necessity, embarked on the feat of martyrdom and fell, and then resumed the feat again: “for they abandoned the flock of the Lord and disgraced themselves, which none of the apostles did.” (Ex. 10). The persecution of Christians during the persecution gave rise to certain phenomena in Christian life that aroused doubts in the Christian conscience and therefore required pastoral resolution. The latter is what St. Peter gives in canons 11, 12 and 13. Thus, some of the Christians, inspired by the invincible courage of the confessors and martyrs, and on the other hand, seeing many being carried away and falling away from the faith, were inflamed with zeal for these latter and, wanting to prevent the exaltation of the persecutors, who saw their triumph in the fall of these cowardly ones, they themselves volunteered for the feats of confession and martyrdom. But then, enduring terrible torture, they, overcome by the weakness of the flesh, did not have the strength to resist the feat and fell themselves. Hence the question arose for some: should one accept offerings and requests for prayers from friends and relatives who sympathize with them for these fallen ones? The Holy Father says that “we had compassion and sympathized with those who weep and groan for those who were overcome in their struggle by the great power of the evil devil... not in the least harmful to anyone. for we know that through the faith of others some have received the goodness of God” (Proverbs 11). – It happened that some wealthy Christians gave their property to the persecutors in order to thereby get rid of persecution; Hence, for some, questions arose: shouldn’t such people be charged with a kind of ransom from a personal achievement? Are they not sinners in that, having delivered themselves personally, they thereby became the culprits of the misfortune of others? The Holy Father resolves these issues this way: those who gave silver in order not to be disturbed by any malice with it should not be blamed in the least for this; for they have suffered damage and loss of money, so that they may not waste or destroy their souls, which others, out of selfishness, did not do” (Rev. 12). They should not be accused of taking others for them. From the book of Acts and from the Gospel, the Holy Father provides enough examples of what kind of saint. Other apostles were sometimes subjected to suffering, and the children of Bethlehem were destroyed by Herod for the one Child he sought for destruction, who, at the command of the Angel of the Lord, fled, just as for John, who fled with his mother Elizabeth, his father Zechariah was killed: but for this no one blames them (Rev. 18). Canon 14 vividly depicts the suffering and martyrdom of those Christians who in the ancient church were awarded the title of “confessor.” Who was awarded this title? These are those who endured much violence and oppression, and spun iron in their mouths and bonds, and remained steadfast in their love for the faith and courageously endured the burning of their hands, brought against their will to the unclean sacrifice, which the blessed martyrs wrote to me from prison about those in Libya, as well as other fellow servants. Such, especially when other brethren also testify with them... let them be among the confessors, just like those who were dead from many torments and could no longer utter a word or voice or move to resist those who force in vain.” This rule has in mind those who doubted whether the dignity of confession was not diminished by the fact that the tormentors forcibly poured wine from libations into the mouths of some of the martyrs, or put in parts of meats sacrificed to idols, or, putting the palm of their hand in their hands, drew them to the altar and holding their hands by force, poured the palm of their hand onto the altar, etc. 26 and thus made them, as it were, participants in “sacrifices, desecrated them? The Holy Father says that such violent actions do not in the least diminish the martyrdom of the confessors: for their thoughts did not agree with the action. Canon 15 is derived from the word of St. Peter on the day of Easter; it reminds Christians of the apostolic commandment to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays and joyfully celebrate Resurrection Day. In all likelihood, the source of this word was the 5th book of the Apostolic Constitutions 27. As can be seen from the presented review of the rules of St. Peter, they for the most part have as their subject matter very special phenomena of Christian life and define them exclusively; they are not so much rules in the proper sense as pastoral measures, or better yet, judicial decisions of the spiritual judge of the shepherd, applying the general gospel law to the various good and bad actions of his flock - the laity and clergy. St. Peter, as the highest archpastor of the Church of Alexandria, solemnly expressed them in the form of a word (allocutio) about repentance, based on an accurate understanding of the law of the Gospel and dissolved in truly pastoral love for the fallen, but sincerely repentant. And without a doubt his word was listened to with deep reverence both by those who were directly concerned and by the various representatives of the entire Alexandrian church who were present in its sacred assembly on the day of its utterance, and did not encounter any obstacles to its actual application. Similar words or instructions were spoken or written both before and after St. Peter by other leaders of the church, and if these words were acceptable - in the language of the book of Acts - before everyone, 28 then, in addition to all the usual measures of ensuring execution to which legislators resort, they entered into the consciousness of the church with the own light of the grace of God shining in them and received the power of rules. The personal, highly moral life, sometimes martyrdom and posthumous glorious memory of their authors gave their writings even more power after their death than they had during their lifetime. Naturally, therefore, it happened that the 4th century, the century of life and work of the most famous fathers and teachers of the church, left behind the greatest number of patristic rules. As we noted at the beginning of our research, the matter of codifying church law in the Eastern Church has always been in the hands of predominantly private individuals, it was their private matter, a personal feat: the initiative, plan and choice of material belonged to them personally. But it is natural that one or another compiler of a canonical collection, having before his eyes a rich store of rules and decrees of councils and famous church fathers, chose for his collection only in this mass of material what was most vital, that is, what retained its significance despite the change of persons, time and circumstances. This is how it is explained that, despite private initiative, private arbitrariness, possible randomness of choice, collections of church rules are distinguished by a remarkable similarity in the composition of articles and their choice with everything else is not accidental: on the contrary, from the mass of raw material, they select and offer in their collections rules that are more valuable for the merits of their content, often preferring the rules of a lesser-known council to the rules of the most famous and even famous, and the rules of a father or teacher of the church to the rules of the council. This process of gradual penetration into canonical collections and, together, the process of assimilation by different churches was experienced equally by both the rules of the councils and the rules of St. fathers, which they compiled individually to satisfy the temporary needs of their churches and did not initially intend to be general rules or church laws, until the Ecumenical Councils of the VI and VI gave them this exact meaning with their authority. The names of these fathers are too well known to describe their lives and the content of the rules they wrote in the same detail as we did for the fathers of the 3rd century 29 . Our task is only to indicate and characterize those factors of church legal formation, the works of which in the form of general church canons and regulations of church law of other forms have reached the present day in the codes of church law. Meaning Dov. a detailed presentation of the content of the patristic rules and the circumstances under which they were published in the “Experience of the course c. Bishop's rights John of Smolensk,” we reject the work of our own presentation of this matter and finish our review of the history of the canonical sources of law of the Orthodox Church with remarks on the experiences of codification of church law over the indicated period of time. According to the currently studied historical data, the codification of conciliar rules for the period of time under consideration had the following history. Whether any collections of conciliar rules were compiled during the 3rd century - there is no reason to answer this in the affirmative. From the fragmentary evidence of the patristic and conciliar rules of the 6th century, one can only see that in individual local churches at that time more or less integral definite ecclesiastical legal norms were in effect, which were clearly recognizable in some external forms. But in what exact forms is absolutely not known. In the rules of St. Basil the Great we find, for example. with the following expressions: “regarding the issue of the Kafars, it is appropriate to follow the custom of each country (δεἷ τῷ ἔθει τῶν καθ΄ ἑκάστην χώραν ἓπεσθαι), because about their baptism those who discussed this subject in their time thought differently."... About St. Dionysius of Alexandria he expresses himself: "I was surprised that the great Dionysius did not notice this, being skilled in the rules (κανονικόν ὄντα τόν μεγαν Διονύσιον)" 30. “It was pleasing to Cyprian and our Firmilian to subordinate all these to a single determination (μια ψήφῳ ὑποβαλεῖν) 31 . In the 3rd rule, having set out some of the requirements of ancient church law regarding deacons, St. Basil expresses: “tako according to the statutes” (ταῦτα... τα ἐκ τῶν τύπων). In another rule he says: “about the fallen virgins... our fathers simply and meekly laid down the law (ἐνομοθέτησαν)” 32; or: “our fathers forbade the wives of adulterous women to commit open acts” 33 ; “The rules regarding those in the clergy are laid down indifferently (ἀδιορίστως οἱ κανόνες ἐξέθεντο)” 34. “The rules of our fathers laid down that such people should cry for one summer, listen for two summers, fall down for three, etc.” 35. At present, there is no way to find out how St. Basil the Great knew these church legal norms: but at the same time, from these expressions it is clear that he had in mind a more or less integral body of church law. The fathers of the Ancyra Cathedral in their rules refer to the “previous definition” (πρότερος ὃρος) 36: at present it is not possible to say to which council this definition belonged (we are talking about the poisoning of the fetus and involuntary killings), even for the year 314, and from what source it was known to the fathers of the Ancyra Cathedral. – The Fathers of the Neocaesarea Council in their 3rd canon say: “the time of repentance determined for those falling into polygamy is known”; fathers 1 Universe of the Council in the 13th rule they say: for those who are at the end of life, let the ancient law and rule be observed even now (ὁ παλαιός και κανονικός νόμος) what rules the fathers of these councils have in mind is absolutely not known. - Undoubtedly, from these testimonies it is clear that the fathers of the councils of the 4th century and bishops in general, who dealt with practical church issues, had before them more or less complete legislation and may even be in the form of a certain number of rules inherited from the previous century; but in what written forms this church legislation was known is not known. Only the conciliar practice of the ancient Carthaginian Church sheds some light on this issue. There was a custom at each council to read the definitions of previous councils and draw up new definitions no other way than taking into account these ancient ones, or those of previous councils: among these definitions, from the very beginning of the 4th century, κανόνες are also found. If other churches also adhered to this custom, then there is reason for us to admit that the code of conciliar acts of each church region was during this time the most important formal source of its law. But there are no solid grounds for such a generalization. The first ecumenical council gave a noticeable impetus to the isolation of purely canonical material from the entire content of conciliar acts into special collections. There is no doubt that the 20 rules of this council, if not immediately after its end, then very soon after, were isolated from the entire body of acts of this council and in such a separate form were copied for some time in the equal churches of the universe and became the first article in the special canonical collections of local churches that began to be compiled. Traces of such initial collections appear. noticeable in collections of later times. In the East, soon after the 1st Ecumenical Council, a canonical collection containing 20 rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council was in circulation. cathedrals and rules of local councils of Ancyra, Neocaesarea and Gangra. True, a canonical collection with such a composition of rules has not been preserved to this day, but clear traces of it have been preserved in later collections: for in the latter, before the rules of these councils, there are invariably notes that determine the chronological relationship of these councils to the Council of Nicaea, for example. so: this council was earlier than the Council of Nicea, but in terms of the importance of the ecumenical council it was decided after it 37. No such note is found before any of the other councils: it is clear from this that once in the canonical collection, apart from the rules of these three councils, together with the rules of the Council of Nicaea, no other conciliar rules were contained. Traces of this collection are also found in the oldest collections of the Western Church. In the oldest collection of the Spanish Church, the so-called. Isidorov, the rules of eastern local councils are in two translation editions: literal (ancient) and distributive (latest); the first contains the rules of only the first three eastern councils; in the second, in addition to them, the rules of the councils of Antioch and Laodicea are given. Ancient canonical collections of other Western churches (Roman, Gallic), which had as their source these editions of Isidore's translation, present the rules of these five councils, sometimes in one dissemination edition, sometimes in different ones; sometimes the rules of all five councils in a row, sometimes the rules of the first three councils, given in the ancient edition, are separated from the rules of the last two, given in the later edition, by the rules of some Western councils. From this it is clear that this is the name. Isidorov's translation “was done in two steps, at different times: the first time, when the collection of eastern rules contained only the rules of three local councils; the second time, when it had already been ruled by five councils 38 . And in the Western Church, the rules of the Council of Nicaea began to be combined with the rules of local native councils, especially with the rules of the Sardician Council, and the latter were sometimes cited in a row with the first, as if they were a continuation of them. In the Far East, among Christians - Syrians and Arabs - the influence of the Nicene rules on the codification of their canon law was reflected even more strongly, although unfortunately in a direction unfavorable for the truth; there, next to the original Nicene rules, rules of local origin began to be placed, which had practical significance under the name also of the rules of the Council of Nicaea. In addition to the Nicene rules, up to 85 39 are given in Arabic codes. However, a similar phenomenon, i.e., the adoption by the Council of Nicea of ​​some rules other than the original 20, occurred, only on a smaller scale, in the Western Church, even among its best representatives. This happened without any malicious intent on their part due to two reasons; firstly due to the fact that in the ancient Western codes the rules of the Council of Sardicia, due to the ignorance of the codifiers, were not separated from the Nicaean 40; in 2, in addition to the 20 rules, the Council of Nicea made many other decisions, for example. about the celebration of Easter, meanwhile, its complete deeds in its entirety were probably not officially published. It could easily have happened as a result of this that many church fathers referred to such decrees of the Council of Nicea, which undoubtedly belonged to it, but which were not preserved in those fragments of acts that have come down to our time. So St. Ambrose of Milan says that the Council of Nicaea decided as a rule not to accept bigamous people into the clergy; Blessed Jerome testifies that at the same council the number of canonical books of Holy Scripture was determined. Popes: Julius (IV century) and Leo (V) in their letters to the eastern bishops referred to the rules of the Nicene fathers, so that the acts and definitions of some councils were considered by others - smaller councils by larger ones 41. The above-mentioned primary code of rules of the eastern councils was then supplemented by the rules of the eastern councils of Antioch (341) and Laodicea, and in this composition was already in practical use by the beginning of the 5th century. By the time of the Chalcedonian (IV Ecumenical) Council, it was increased, as we will now see, by adding the definition of the 11th Ecumenical. cathedral At the Council of Chalcedon we already encounter the use of a code of rules by the fathers of the Eastern and Western Churches. Thus, at the 16th meeting of this council, the fathers of the Eastern Church proposed reading from the book of rules the definition of the Second Ecumenical Council on the advantages of the honor of the Bishop of Constantinople, after reading which the representatives of the Pope noticed that there was no such definition in their codes. Meanwhile, when in previous meetings the rules of the Council of Antioch were read from the same code of rules by the Eastern Fathers, the representatives of the Roman Church who listened to this reading did not make any objection; It is clear that these rules were also in their codes. More data for characterizing the canonical code that was at the Council of Chalcedon is provided by readings from its rules proposed in the 4th and 11th sessions of the council. At the 4th meeting, Archdeacon Aetius read from the book of rules (βιβλίον) rules 83 and 84, under the name “rules of St. father”, without the name of the council that issued them. But in the Acts the full text of these rules was also given, from which it is revealed that these were the 4th and 5th rules of the Council of Antioch. At the 11th meeting, rules 95 and 96 were read from the same book, which turned out to be the 16th and 17th rules of the same Antioch Council. From this it is clear, firstly, that in the Chalcedonian canonical code the rules of different councils were located under a continuous general account and that, secondly, the rules of the Council of Antioch began with No. 80 (and ended, of course, with No. 104) 42 . The rules of which councils occupied places from 1 to 79 in this code - this is easy to see, taking into account the sum of the rules of the Council of Nicaea and the three most ancient local councils of the Eastern Church. Taking into account the guess that the rules of the Council of Laodicea were included in the canonical code simultaneously with the rules of the Council of Antioch (for they are found in Western collections in a translation made at the same time), we must assume that they were also in the Chalcedonian code. Thus, its full composition contained the rules of the following councils: the 1st Ecumenical Council - 20, Ancyra - 24, Neocaesarea - 15, Gangra - 20, Antioch - 25, Laodicea - 60, or 59 and the definition of the Second Ecumenical Council. 50 years after the Council of Chalcedon (it was around 496 that a new Latin translation of the Eastern Canonical Code 43 was published in the Western Church) by the monk Dionysius the Lesser at the request of Bishop Stephen of Thessaloniki. In the preface to the publication of his translation, Dionysius gives a description of the Greek codex from which he made his translation. According to this description, the Greek canonical code contained the following articles; in first place, under a special count, are the 50 Apostolic Canons, then, under a continuous count, from 1st to 165th canons of the councils; Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea and Constantinople (II Ecumenical) 44. So the canonical code of the Eastern Church was not yet complete at the end of the 5th century, in comparison with the abundance of canonical material that had the meaning of current law in local churches. See add. to creativity St. Father 1980, book 4. Νομοκ. Φωτίου, Τιτ. Ι, κεφ.4: “οὐχ ὐφ ἑνός ἐπισκόπου, ἀλλά ὑπό τῆς κονότητος .. κανόνες ἐκτίθενται" Helmsman. l. 14, gr. 1, ch. 4. St. Vas. Vel. right 47, St. Grieg. Nissk. Ave. 6. See preface. to Sing, in the XIV volume. St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in a letter to one of the subordinate bishops, Rufinian, wrote among other things: “since you kindly and churchly inquired about those who were carried away by need but not corrupted by evil, and you wanted me to write to you what was ordered about them at councils and everywhere: but know, my most desirable lords, that in the beginning, after the cessation of former violence, there was a council of bishops those who came from outside countries; It was the same among the fellow servants living in Hellas, as well as among those who were in Spain and Gaul, and it was decreed, both here and everywhere,” etc. See also rights. 1 and 47 St. Basil the Great. F W. Farrar Life and works of St. fathers and teachers of the church. Prnlog. IV, pp. 856–857. Transl. from English. A. II. Lopukhina. St. Petersburg 1891 Eusebius, Ts.I. VI, 40. Some believe, however. (Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse von Alexandrien. Freib. 1867.) that the word παιδες simply means the disciples who lived in the house of Dionysius. See in the named book. Farrar, p. 857. II. See the detailed commentary on this rule in Πηδαλιον t. Rom. XIV, 23. In addition to these four rules, St. Dionysius is taught in the Greek synopses of the rules and in our printed helmsman’s book one more rule, borrowed from the epistle of St. Dionysius to Konop - that someone who is in excommunication and, due to the danger of death, has been awarded reconciliation and communion of the Holy Mysteries upon recovery no longer goes through the time of repentance assigned to him, but has full communion. This rule is not found in collections containing the rules in the full text of the tracks. was never accepted by the church in force as church rules, remaining only the private opinion of this Holy Father. In all likelihood, this happened because it was in conflict with the rules of the councils of 1 Om. 13, and Ankir. 6; see also rights. 5 St. Gregory of Nyssa. Here is the text of this symbol according to ed. Πηδαλιον΄α: “Εἷς θεός πατήρ Λόγου ζῶντος, Σοφίας ὑφεστώσης, και δυναμεως, και χαρακτήρος αἰδίου, τέλειος τελίου γεννήτωρ, Πατήρ Υἰοῦ μονογενοῦς. Εἷς Κύριος, μόνος ἐκ μόνου, Θεός ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτήρ και εἱκών τῆς θεότητος. Λόγος ἐναργής, Σοφία τῆς τῶν ὄλων συστάσεως περιεκτική, και δύναμις τῆς ὄλων κτίσεως ποιητική, Υἱός ἀληθινός ἀληθινοῦ ἀόρατος ἀοράτου ἀφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου, ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου, και αἴδιος αϊδίου Ἔν Πνεῦμα ἄγιον ἐκ θεοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, και δί Υιου πεφηνός δηλ. τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, Εἰκών τοῦ Υιοῦ τελείου τελεία, Ζωή ζώντων αἰτία, Πηγή ἁγία, ἀγιο΄τητος, αγιασμοῦ χορηγός. Ἐν ᾧ φανεροῦται Θεός ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ ἐπί πάντων και ἐν πᾶσι. Και Θεός ὁ Υιός, ὁ διά πάντων. Τριάς τέλεια, δόξη, αἰδιότι ακι βασιλείᾳ μή μεριζομένη μηδέ ἀπαλλοτριουμένη. Οὔτε οὗν κτιστόν τι, ἤ δοῦλον, ἐν τῆ Τριάδι, οὔτε ἐ πεισακτον, ώς πρότερον μέν οὐχ ὑπάρχον ὓστερον δέ ἐπεισελθόν. Οὔτε οὔν ἐνέλιπέ ποτε Υιός Πατρί, οὔτε Υιῷ τό Πνεῦμα, οὔτε ηὐξήθη μονάς εἰς δυάδα, και δυάς εἰς τριάδα, ἀλλ΄ ἄτρεπτος και ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτή Τριάς ἀεί. Πηδαλ. σελ. 327. However. the authenticity of it and the symbol given by St. Gregory of Nyssa (precisely in the text presented above) is not absolutely reliable. Farrara, op. book pp. 865–869. A Word on the Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, page 159. in Created. St. Gregory. Nyssa, part VIII. Moscow. 1872. The name of this bishop is not indicated in the rules; St. Gregory, in addressing him, calls him: ἱερώτατε Πάπα. This last gave rise to the publications of the IIndalion to express the opinion that St. Gregory wrote his rules for the Archbishop of Alexandria Dionysius, or for his successor Maximus. See Πηδαλιον, schol. to right St. Gregory, page 327. We are talking about Christians who, during captivity from the barbarians, attacked their brothers in faith and compatriots for the same thing as them, killed them and assisted the barbarians in every possible way. The Holy Father considers them unworthy of entering the church “until the holy fathers will anything about them,” and so on. Book of Lives of Saints for November 24th. See the statement of the rule in the interpretation of Zonara. In the Eastern Church, doubts have never been expressed about the authenticity of the considered rules of St. fathers. But in Western theological literature they did not escape attacks from negative criticism, along with other monuments of ancient Christian writing. In particular, Marcelin Molkenbourg sharply proved the inauthenticity of the considered rules in 1791 in his dissertation on the ancient penitential canons of some saints. fathers. The main argument for the inauthenticity of these rules, he puts forward the lack of evidence of their ownership by the said fathers until the Tula Council. The argument is not particularly strong, especially if we take into account that Molkenbuhr always means Western fathers, such as Jerome, Augustine, etc., when he speaks of the lack of evidence from antiquity about the ownership of the named rules by the said fathers. But it is not surprising that the West might not have known those messages or words of the ancient fathers of the Far East, from which the rules assigned to them were formed. These messages and words by no means amounted to anything particularly outstanding in the literary and church activity of these saints. fathers. In any case, to conclude inauthenticity solely from the lack of evidence is not very reasonable when the signs of antiquity, the dignity of the content and the indisputable age of the legend speak for authenticity. Therefore, the only objection that seems most worthy of attention is Molkenbur’s objection to the authenticity of the rules of St. Peter of Alexandria, based on criticism of their very content. So Molkenbur hotly attacks the 13th rule of this Holy Father, finding in it something that is supposedly unworthy of him, namely; The rule makes 1) a reference to the legend that Herod, scolded by the Magi, killed Zechariah, the father of John, between the church and the altar, that when the infants were beaten, the child John the Baptist was saved in flight by his mother Elizabeth. Why was this legend included in the penitential canon, which St. Jerome, already at the end of the 4th century, declared it apocryphal 2) He calls this same Herod the king of Assyria and adds that when the newborn Savior, by flight to Egypt, freed himself from the hands of Herod, then what was said by Isaiah VIII was fulfilled: “he will take away... the gain of Samaria before the king of Assyria. 3) Text of Acts. XII, 19: jussit eos duci renders it like this: jussit eos suffocari. – But against these objections, it is quite enough to limit ourselves to the following remarks of Binterim to protect the authenticity of the rules of St. Peter: 1) in the Alexandrian church there was Ven. The generally accepted opinion is that Zacharias was killed by Herod for saving his son by flight. This legend is also cited by Cyril of Alexandria in his work on anthropomorphites; Jerome himself testifies that very many accepted this, although not an incorrect legend. 2) The ancients often called the Syrians and Assyrians, and since Herod’s kingdom embraced the borders of Syria, he could also be called the king of Assyria; It is also possible that St. Peter called him so ironically or allegorically. As for 3) the inaccuracy of quoting the text of Acts, the rule of St. Peter has nothing to do with it. The Greek text is: ἀπαχθῆναι (in some ἀπαγχθῆναι) which the Latin translators convey with the expressions: ad supplicium duci, or strangulari, or as b Molkenbur read – suffocari = to strangle. The Latin translator is to blame here, perhaps for mistakenly reading ἀπάγχθῆναι (to choke) instead of: ἀπαχθῆναι (to bring) and not St. Peter. See A. I, Binterim. Die vorzuglichsten Denkwurdigkeiten der christ katholischen Kirche. V. V. Th. 3. S. 363 Mainz. 1829. Only regarding the various rules and canonical articles, with the name of St. Basil the Great included in various chapters of our Helmsman's Book, it would be necessary to enter into detailed research (regarding their authenticity). But this subject, due to its importance, requires a special monograph, which, as we reliably know, will be published in a short time. Ankir. Sob. right 21.23. In the printed Helmsman's book about the rules of the Ancyra Cathedral it is noted: “this Holy Council of the Council of Nicaea was first, but dividing the powers of the lords of the Ecumenical Council, a second one was established according to it”; about the rules of the Council of Gangra: “This same Holy Council according to the First Council of Nicea came and set out the rules.” For more details on this, see Maassen: Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des kanonischen Rechts. Gratz. 1870. They can be read in the publishing house Lyabbe (Sacrosancta concilia T. II.); Beveridge has some information about them - Synodicon, T.I. These codes are described by Maaseen in cit. book Kur's experience. C. Law Bishop. Smolensky John, Vol. I, p. 324. According to the counting accepted in our book of rules, the sum of these rules is 81. According to the counting accepted in the printed Kormcha, it is 80: for the number of rules of the Gangra Cathedral here is 20, not 21; in many ancient codes of rules of the Ancyra Cathedral, it is not 25, but 24. It is believed that in addition to Isidore's translation, before Dionysius the Less, a Latin translation was also made in the middle of the 5th century, the so-called. "versio prisca" (former translation) published by Eustell in the first volume of his Bibliotheca juris canonici. It is believed that this was the same Latin translation that Dionysius the Less had in mind when he wrote in the preface to his collection; “confusione translationis (or versionis) priscae offensus.” See this preface to the ed. Yustella. Dionysius brought another trace of himself into the translation and into the original. articles; 27 rules of the Council of Chalcedon, 21 rights. Council of Sardica and 138 rights. so-called Council of Carthage 419 You might be interested in: