Приложения

It is possible, therefore, that he who is deposed for sin will continue to sin; then he is considered as not accepting the perfection of repentance (that is, the same άκρίβεια with its synonym άκρότης, which has just been accepted in the sense of indicating the exact requirements of the rules regarding the timing of repentance?), - the literally strict canonical rule about eruption is applied to him (that is, again the same άκρίβεια?), without any further medical measures, which he does not take (i.e. άκρίβεια already without άκρίβεια?). Or, on the contrary, it is possible that someone deposed for sin will try to tame his passions - such a patient, who himself strives for a cure, cannot be left without medical help, but a medicine must be indicated to him, in accordance with the state of his spirit” (p. 116). Regarding the first member of this dilemma, we note that, in addition to the incidentally indicated confusion in the interpretation of the same word άκρίβεα, it is generally not easy for us to understand. one defrocking: under the specified condition, any other spiritual healing of a sinned and deposed cleric (healing - of course, in the sense of additional church penance) would be unjustifiable cruelty, a violation of the biblical commandment given in the first half of the explained rule: do not take revenge twice for one. In general, Prof. Suvorov did not sufficiently understand the logical and substantive relationship to their halves of this rule. The first (we repeat again) sets out the current general church rule about the deposition of clergy guilty of fornication; in the second, sinners in this category are required to “perfect repentance” (τὰ τῆς άκριβείας), which should consist of complete and undoubted healing from sin. But at the same time, the prescriptions of the current canon are not lost sight of: the defrocking of a sinned cleric must be carried out in such a way that it serves as a means for him to heal the spiritual illness into which he has fallen. Thus, concludes St. the relation of both halves of it to the same concrete case; 2) the parallelism of two opposing saints is strictly maintained. the father of concepts, each of which is expressed by two, different in appearance, but completely identical in meaning: on the one hand άκρίβεια and άκρότης, on the other συνήθεια and παραδοθεὶς τύπος. That by άκρίβεια Basil the Great could not mean “the exact requirements of the rules regarding the timing of repentance,” as interpreted by Prof. Suvorov, it is clear from the fact that in the literal sense of the first half of the rule, no terms and no types of external or public repentance were applicable to clergy who were deprived of their rank for any sin. It is even more difficult to agree with the venerable professor that the word συνήθεια in the explained rule of Basil the Great means the internal state or mental disposition of the sinner. The generally accepted rule of legal interpretation requires that each word of a given law, which itself allows for the possibility of different interpretations, be accepted in the sense in which the legislator himself uses it in the text of the same law. The word “custom” (συνήθεια, consuetudo) in the sources of law expresses a very specific concept that is well known to every lawyer. This word is used in no other sense in the rules of Basil the Great. It was not far to look for examples. In the next (4th) rule of St. father says: άφορισμὸν. which in our book of Rules is translated as follows: “We are not from rules, but from following their predecessors, they adopted the custom of excommunicating trigamists for five years.” Here συνήθεια is again identified with παραδοθεὶς τύπος, only other words are used to express this last concept: άκολουθία τῶν προειληφότων. However, much to our surprise, Prof. Suvorov, after just one and a half pages, deviated from his original interpretation of the word συνήθεια and “found it possible to say that if the thought of custom is associated with this word, then by custom we mean ancient canon law, the severity of which lies in the fact that it precisely proportions the punishment to the crime, in addition to considerations about the possible spiritual healing of this sinner, which can be achieved with decent penance (and not defrocking?), on the assumption that the sinner himself strives for perfection, for perfect repentance, or perfect healing. This is what Prof. concludes. Suvorov’s interpretation is indeed the meaning of the rule of Basil the Great” (p. 118), that is, as the reader sees, the meaning is directly opposite to that which was established above: συνήθεια from the subjective mental mood of the sinner turned into something strictly objective - into ancient canon law, which did not take into account the sinner’s personal readiness to receive spiritual healing through decent penance. Turning then to the interpretation of the 102nd rule of the Council of Trullo, Prof. Suvorov rightly notes that this rule is “not about a deacon deposed for fornication, but in general about the sins of believers, and the above words of Basil the Great are generalized by applying them to all believers” (p. 118). But this very generalization should have led our learned canonist to the idea that the cathedral, repeating the words of Basil the Great. could give them not the meaning that they had from the original author, but another, which was required by the general meaning of the entire conciliar rule and by those changes in the very discipline of church repentance that occurred in the East from the era of the abolition of the office of the penitential presbyter until the Council of Trullo (691). Indeed, άκρίβεια in the cathedral rule does not mean what it means in Basil the Great - not “perfection of repentance”, expressed in the readiness of the sinning cleric to accept, in addition to the canonical punishment already incurred for his sin, another, additional penance, but has the meaning that was mistakenly given to this word by Prof. Suvorov, in his interpretation of the 3rd rule of Basil the Great, precisely means “the exact requirements of the canonical rules regarding the timing of repentance.” Even the word συνήθεια - custom received a special connotation in the cathedral rule, which it did not have in the rule of St. father. For Basil the Great, συνήθεια is a strictly defined and uniformly observed ordinary church charter (τύπος), to which he could and did give an equally definite literary form, indicating the motives of its origin. The Council, contrasting custom with the exact requirements of the canonical rules regarding the timing of repentance (άκρίβεια), with the word συνήθεια made only a general indication of the practice of its time, which weakened the force of these requirements, of course, on the same grounds as indicated in the cathedral rule, but was not and could not be brought to complete uniformity. There the beginning of the development of a new system of church penances was supposed; here this system received formal confirmation, as already included in the general church custom. Thus, the custom that the Council of Trulla mentions in its last canon and the influence of which, as we have seen, was reflected in the council’s own decrees on penances, had almost as long an effect in church practice as the ancient άκρίβεια that was opposite to it. and that in relation to those who do not accept the perfection of repentance, one must hold on to τύπος and άκρίβεια” (p. 120). In other words: the old interpreters would have to, for the sake of their future critic, perform the following two logical operations on both rules: 1) strictly distinguish between the concepts that Basil V. and the Trullo Council clearly identify (τύπος and συνήθεια), and, conversely, 2) identify what St. the father and the council are distinguished even more clearly (άκρίβεια and τύπος). The result of the last operation would be very interesting: the final words of the rule of Basil V. and the Council of Trullo: άκρότητα τᾷ παραδουέντι τύπῳ would receive the following meaning: “in relation to those to whom the requirements of perfect repentance are not applicable (άκρίβεια and άκρότης in the meaning of the rule of Vasily V.), or the demands of strict penance rules (the same words within the meaning of the rules of the Trullo Council), one must follow these very requirements "262. Here, as the reader sees, there is not much meaning, although Prof. Suvorov assures that he speaks “in the language of the cathedral” (p. 127) and, of course, the Holy Father. Let's now see how Prof. uses it. Suvorov with his interpretation of the 102nd rule of the Trullo Council as proof of the “arbitrariness and untruth” allegedly committed by us in establishing the material and chronological relationship between this rule and the nomocanon of the Postnik. He admits that there is some similarity between the passages from both sources of church law that we have compared, but very little, namely: “from the point of view of external literary form, the similarity lies only in the fact that in one extract from the nomocanon the word άκρίβεια is mentioned (sic)” (p. 121). Is it only “mentioned” and not used to express any concept, identical, or, conversely, in some way inconsistent with the concept expressed by this word in the canon of the council? In general, it should be noted that in the present case our opponent in vain took the “point of view of the external literary form” of the passages we cited from the nomocanon and the conciliar rule: we compared them not according to this form, but exclusively according to their internal meaning and content, and found that the word άκρίβεια, used in the nomocanon with the qualifying words τῶν θειων κανόνων, here expresses the same concept that is associated with it in the rule of the Trullo Council, i.e. means precise definitions of ancient church rules about the timing of repentance. But Prof. does not find this. Suvorov (and therefore formally accepts our point of view). Agreeing with us that “the penitential statutes (why the plural, when we have previously and now only talked about one nomocanon of the Faster?) and the Trullo Council develop the same idea “about not giving unconditional force to the definitions of the canonical rules on the timing of repentance in view of the individual differences in the qualities and circumstances of each person subject to healing” (p. Just as with a system of long-term repentance, according to which, for example, a 15-year repentance is imposed for adultery, the individuality of the person punished must be taken into account, so that the one imposing the punishment rotates freely within this period, and with a system of short-term, for example, 3-year repentance, enhanced by the performance of various pious deeds, the same free conversion of the confessor is possible within the period defined in the penitential statutes. By άκρίβεια τῶν θείων κανόνων, the compilers of penitentiaries do not mean strict ancient canons, but precise definitions of penitential statutes, from which the confessor can evade” (pp. 128–129). It must be admitted that one cannot agree with this very intricately composed interpretation for the simple reason that the name θεῖοι κανόνες in the language of the entire church has always been adopted only by the generally accepted rules of councils and St. fathers, subsequently approved in the 2nd rule of the Trullo Council, and even the councils themselves never gave their own decrees the epithet θεῖοι. His further discussions on the question of the relationship of the 102nd canon of the Council of Trulla to the nomocanon of the Faster present a wonderful example of what is metaphorically called “sailing between Scylla and Charybdis.” In fact, insisting on the idea that the words of the conciliar rule about “those who have accepted the power to bind and decide” refer not to confessors, but exclusively to bishops, Prof. Suvorov then finds it possible to assert that “this, of course, does not mean that during the Trullo Council no spiritual practice existed (pp. 129–130). What, however, does this say? – Apparently, that along with the bishops, “bodies of disciplinary and at the same time sacramental power to bind and decide,” who exercised this power in the sphere of open church court (in foro externo), there were also bodies of the same power that acted with it in foro interno, i.e. at the secret court of confession. But all this is only “apparently”. For, as far as bishops are concerned, their “disciplinary and at the same time sacramental power to bind and decide”, if we are to believe the statement of Prof. However, Professor Suvorov even here finds it possible to object: “The author... seems to deliberately avoid naming both bishops and presbyters, and speak vaguely about “spiritual men” and “holy people” 272. But if Anastasius of Sinait ascribes to these “spiritual men” and “holy people” the performance of the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist and generally calls them “builders of the mysteries of God,” then how can we understand his words about “monks who do not have the priestly rank”? However, in another, composed by the same writer - “περὶ τῆς άγίας συνάξεως” (about the liturgy) and directly speaks of priests as performers of sacramental confession. “Don’t you know, we read here, that the Church of God is a medical clinic?.. So, if you remain sick in a medical clinic, where will you receive healing later? Confess your sins to God through the priests. Condemn your deeds, and do not be ashamed... Accuse yourself before people, so that the Creator will justify you before the angels and the whole world” 273. In the same way, it is difficult to decide which of the existing editions of this nomocanon comes closer to its now unknown prototype: all bear traces of layers, amendments and alterations at different times - common phenomena in the history of the text of every monument similar to the present one. Nevertheless, this monument still retains some features that do not allow us to attribute its origin to the 10th or 11th centuries, as does Prof. Suvorov followed some Western scientists. For example: the nomocanon of the Faster does not yet know the Dormition fast, which is already mentioned by St. Theodore the Studite (Migne, Patrol, graec. t. 99, col. 1697); Many of the rules of this nomocanon regarding the food and drink of penances on holidays and fasts differ sharply from the church regulations that came into general use in the east in the above-mentioned era (X-XI centuries). The Most Reverend Archbishop and Metropolitan, the God-loving Bishop, the Most Reverend Archimandrite, the reverent Hegumen, the Venerable Hieromonk, the Most Honorable Archpriest, the Honest Priest, the Orthodox holy cathedral apostolic eastern churches, a true worshiper and honorer, and the true shepherd and builder of human souls, It is the blindness of the judges to create a preface in the Book of the Nomocanon, about the Eminence, the God-loving, the Reverend, and the Most Honorable of the sacred spiritual class, to whom the structure of the Church and the flock of the sheep supplied with the blood of Christ are entrusted. For every sin has multiplied more than the sand of the sea, and iniquity has surpassed the head, but immeasurable boldness has come, and cold and fear of God have fled far away, as many are against the canon and conscience of daring to ascend to the level of the priesthood for the sake of self-interest and vanity: but, according to the Apostle, the cold and the glory of them (on the field: Philip. 3). For this reason, both gold and mammon, for the sake of their own will and ignorance, resolve inconvenient sins: to their destruction, just like Simon the Magus. In the same year, there are not just words from the lips, but also writings to expose and forbid sins and iniquities, so that sinners will accept repentance, and the demon will be put to shame. Unrevealed sin grows in number and brings on ulcers and death. The good Spirit of God speaks through the reigning prophet, as from above: I will reprove you and bring your sins before your face. The same prophet Isaiah commands to proclaim sins and iniquities with a trumpet. From here, Isiah walked naked and barefoot through the city, exposing sins, and preaching for this captivity (on the field: Isaiah, 20). The same Adonai is the Lord and the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, the inhabitants of Jerusalem even to the cold and shameful reproof, although to bring the fornicating to repentance (on the field: Ezek. 16). For this reason, this Nomocanon in the Holy Athos mount was briefly collected by the God-inspired fathers from many rules, through prayer first and persuasion from many zealots, for the teaching of the priests, and for the correction of those who confess, who are overcome by various sins, but with the blessing and advice of the Orthodox bishop, the second more diligently corrected himself, and published the wise art of Tupar deeds. This Nomocanon contains in itself the remembrance and teaching of how to come to the priesthood, how to receive and correct those who come to confession, what kind of healing to do to each person and the healing of taxes. It is appropriate for you, the spiritual father, to send this, from spiritual and canonical reasoning, since the sins are grave and incompetent to correct the repentant, to the bishop and to the most perfect and prudent: in some with the most skillful advice, do not be disgraced; The sins of the priests and deacons, even the eruptions induce languor, are subject to judgment by the bishop: let the confessor not dare to resolve them. As if it were impossible for him to be ordained, for those lower in the priesthood, the degree of the fallen pack could be returned. Even though in sins I was cast out to forgive and allow the existing priestly act, it is still more appropriate to elevate to the priesthood. Other and that in response with the verb: As if in this book there is nothing in this book that is either reasonable or inconvenient for him, or anything that tempts him, except for platitudes and contradictions, he will accept in foolishness. For the sake of understanding, mothers-in-law strive to understand, as if for the weakness and unfaithfulness of many, and the mysterious essence of many other άνέκδοτα being: they understand, as I say, the mysteries, and like many reading many and different books, written in different languages, they are skillfully found. And below: the law is not only a gift from God, but God himself, who has given the gift, as he repents of the law, repents and obeys God. To whom would it be more fitting that the path leading to God be brought, as you are spiritual, who are the leader of all who follow it? to whom is the ruler of all those who are saved and the prince given, if not you, who more perfectly obey and follow them? Whose rule, which is the essence of all human actions, will be rewarded, if not you, whose rule is to correct all obstinate human actions, not only words, but also words and thoughts themselves, are you forced to use in every way? To whom, I say, can the law, which is designated by God, be bestowed, if not you, who will keep the knowledge in your mouth, and will demand the law from your mouth, as the angels of the God of hosts are? (on the field: Malakh. 2). canons); answers from Canon Timothy, Most Holy Bishop of Alexandria; The Nomocanon of John the Faster and others, which are numerous: having acquired these and read them often, you will be prosperous in your spiritual construction and will be undisturbed by the grace of Christ. It is most convenient for the sake of acquiring things that are laid out here, the word is literally, “si”, rely on the register at the end, and often delving into it, you can find what you want and get used to it. Therefore, having given thanks to this Nomocanon, collected and composed from the saints, you will accept it kindly, and more reverently, use it for the benefit of human souls; we are not like the law-givers who are insatiable, having received everything from the holy men filled with the Holy Spirit. beloved brothers and servants, these lawful Rules brought to you from the heart, accept with a friendly heart, and granting forgiveness to us who have sinned, bless and pray to the Lord God, that with you and us He will give health, strength and wisdom for this new fate, not only this, but also the greatest in His grapes, and the salvation that is all our labors and deeds intentionally, in heaven with the saints bestows. Amen. In St. the great miraculous Laura Pecharskaya of Kyiv. 1 Iannuaria. 1629. d) To the Lvov edition of 1646. Is the cure 298 enough for the offering, and the reward 299 for the efforts and guardianship of human souls (for which the Son of God poured out his most precious blood and lifted up his humble death) upon himself, if he were thoughtful, pious and learned? It would be better. The truth is, the rabbit and the muzzle are inappropriate, as the eden said (on the field: Pyotr Bleseny), there is a lod without a stud 301, and a bird 302 without a feather. And another expression (on the field: Dionysus Carthusnianna, parable rose. 54): Translated and the owner in the letter is not flowery 303 There is a donkey, crowned with a crown of honor 304 . What it contains, most of all, is additional information and frequent reading, the same conversion, albo-coating, for flowering, inappropriate with the most skilled, you will show and teach from above 352: how much the same and the register of speeches, down to the bottom obsessed, put at the end, may it help. That demand and duty on you, honest readers, forcefully extorts 353, and quickly so in all the letters of the saints and in all the law of Gnhi, as in the law, that is, in the canons of that book they taught day and night, knowing that you are by nature a teacher of the law and a judge of human doubt. But who can teach someone if he doesn’t teach himself? For how can one be a judge who does not understand the statutes of ships? The image of a judge among the Egyptians was without eyes, without hands, and at his feet languishing books, in about zeushond 355 decomposition (on the field: Celius Rodigius of old-time readings, chapter 18): without eyes, so that the judge did not loom at the greedy 356 person, he judged everyone for nothing and fairly; without hands: so that the judge does not extend his hands to gifts and promises; What would books mean? Latvian speculation: the judge is not bookish and ignorant, a hairy ass of coronations. ’Οσιώτατοι πνευματικοὶ καὶ θεοσεβέστατοι ίερεῖς τῆς θεοσώστου νήσου Κρήτης, κατὰ πνεῦμα υίοὶ τῆς ἠμῶν μετριότητος χάρις εἵη ύμῖν ἅπασι καὶ είρήνη άπὸ Θεοῦ Παντοκράτορος. Τῇ ἡμῶν μετριότητι ἀνηνέχθη, πῶς τινες τῶν ἱερέων τε καὶ πνευματικῶν εἰώθασιν ἐν τῷ βαπτίζειν τοὺς τιστιανῶν οἳ τὸν παῖδα, ἐξ ἴσου πάντες, οἱ ἀνάδοχοι βαστάζουσι, καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ἀποκρίνονται, καὶ ὡς ἀνάδοχοι πάντες λογίζονται ὅπερ ἔνι παρὰ νόμον τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως καὶ τάξεως. Διὰ τοῦτο γράφομεν πρὸς ὑμὰς πάν τας καὶ ἀποφαινόμεθα, ἵνα ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μηδόλως τοιοῦτόν τι γίνητα ι αὐτόθι, ἀλλὰ εἷς μόνος ἔστω ἀνάδοχος, ὡς οἱ θεῖοι καὶ ἱεροὶ νόμοι διακελεύ ονται καὶ ὁρίζουσιν ὲπεὶ καὶ πνευματικὴ συγγένεια έκ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος γίνεται, καὶ εὶς βαθμοὺς καὶ πρόσωπα άπαραιτήτως κεκώλυνται, καὶ υίὸς πνευματικὸς ό δεχθεὶς τοῦ άναδόχου ύπάρχει. Εὶ δέ τις μετὰ πολλῶν έθελήσειεν, ἥ καὶ ήθέλησε βαπτίσαι τινὰ, ἵνα εἵη μῆνας τοσούτους άργὸς, ὅσοι οί τοῦ παιδίου άνάδοχοι τύχωδιν εἶναι. Ὄς δ’ ἅν ούκ έθαλήσῃ φυλάξαι τὴν άργίαν, ἵνα εἵη άργὸς πάσης ίεροπραξίας οί δὲ παιδίου άνάδοχοι ἕστωσαν ύπόδικοι καἰ αύτοἰ τῷ ήμετέρῳ άφορισμῷ μετἰ πάντων τῶν συναινούντων. ’Αλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ήμῖν δὲ ἕστω τὸ σπουδάσαι, ἵνα μήτε αύτοῖς, μήτε ἅλλοις γένησθε πρόξενοι τῶν τοιοήτων κακῶν, ἵνα καἰ ή χάρις καἰ τὸ ἕλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ εἵη μετὰ πάντων ύμῶν, άμήν. Μηνἰ Μαΐῳ, ίνδικτιῶνος ιδ’. The use of this aorist, which the 12th-century interpreters replace with the present participle (μἠ καταδεχομένων), can only be explained by the assumption that it indicates the factual peculiarity of the particular case proposed to the decision of Basil the Great by Amphilochius of Icopius, and that the former in his answer retained the expression of the latter. But in fact, here, just as in the first passage, the opposition of concepts expressed by the words άκρότης and συν’ηθεια is maintained. Only Balsamon correctly understood the thought of the holy father. According to his interpretation, both halves of the rule of Vasily Vel. refer to a deacon who fell into fornication. But Balsamon also sins against the true meaning of the rule in that he finds in it the idea of ​​​​the possibility of subjecting a deacon guilty of the said sin not only to defrocking, but also to public repentance on an equal basis with lay fornicators. At least at the end of his interpretation, he refers to rule 59 of Vasily V., relating to this subject. It has already been noted above that in the interpretation of the 3rd rule of Vasily V. Zonara and Balsamon disagree with each other: the first interprets this rule both as special, relating only to clergy, and as general, relating to all believers; and the latter understands it as one rule that applies exclusively to clergy. It is impossible not to notice that, amazing in its originality of interpretation, Prof. Suvorov was partly inspired by the official translation of the words άκρίβεια and άκρότης in our Book of Rules. In the 3rd rule of Vasily V., both of these words are translated the same way: “perfection of repentance,” which is quite consistent with the general meaning of the entire rule. But it has already been noted above that in the rule of the Trullo Council, these words, translated in the Book of Rules: “zeal of the penitent” (άκρίβεια) and “perfection of repentance” (άκρότηε), in connection with the context of the entire conciliar speech, receive a different meaning, namely they mean “the exact requirements of the canonical rules regarding the timing of repentance,” as the word is understood άκρίβεια and prof. Suvorov and, moreover, not only in the Trul rule. Cathedral (p. 118), but also Vasily V. (p. 116). We consider it necessary to quote this passage from Postnikov’s nomocanon in full: “These are the definitions of the slightest and extremely lenient penances given by me. And help in this reasoning was given to us by Basil the Great, who said: “We write all this in order to experience the fruits of repentance. For we do not judge this by time alone, but look to the image of repentance. If those who stubbornly adhere to their morals, and would rather serve the pleasures of the flesh than the Lord, and do not accept living according to the Gospel, then we have nothing in common with them. For in relation to a disobedient and prophesying people we have been taught to hear: when you save, save your soul” (Gen. 19:17). So, we will not agree to perish with the sins of others, but fearing a grave judgment and having a terrible day before our eyes, we will not want to perish along with them.” For the Greek text see Min in Patrol, graec. t. 88, col. 1917. In other, more mature and thoughtful, scientific works of their profs. Suvorov held on! still the opposite view. See his master's thesis “On Church Punishments” in St. Petersburg. 1876, p. 76) and doctoral thesis: “The scope of the disciplinary court of the church during the period of ecumenical councils” (Yaroslavl 1884, pp. 127–128). But then, being carried away by some new issues and polemics with those who did not agree with him in resolving these issues, he abandoned his previous view as outdated (On the issue of Western influence, pp. 176–177). Are the scientific views of the venerable professor getting old too quickly? These scholia are known so far only in the Latin translation, in which the passage quoted reads: Quia confiteri simpliciter peccata tenemur ex necessitate divini mandati, patet ex apostolicis traditionibus et regulis ab eis propositis Ecclesiae catholicae per Spiritum Sanctum, quorum canones et instituta tenentes, Dei sacerdotibus (juxta eorum praeceptum) peccata confitentes, indulgentiam et remissionem accipere efficimur digni. Migne, Patrol, graec. t. 88, col. 1222. Let us recall the similar words we cited above from the nomocanon of Fasting (see pp. 24–25). Migne, Patrol, graec. t. 89, col. 373. (Question and answer 6th). Using this work, Prof. Suvorov did not pay attention to the following evidence of its falsity, presented by the learned publisher of the authentic works of John of Damascus (Lekenem) in a special preface to the text of the said work: 1) John of Damascus, in his undoubtedly authentic work on heresies, condemns in the teachings of the Messalians as heresy, what is attributed to himself in the work on confession, precisely accuses the Messalians of being τοὺς άμαρτάνοντας, καὶ αὺτοῖς προσιόντας, ἄνευ καρποῦ τινος μετανοίας, ἄνευ ίερέως αύθεντείας, ἄνευ βαθμῶν τῶν τοῖς κανόσι τοῖς ὲκκλησιαστικοῖς διηγορευμενων, τάχιστα καθαίρεν παντὸς άμαρτήματος ὲπαγγέλλονται ((i.e., all sinners who come to them, without any fruit of repentance, without the mediation of priestly authority, without observing the degree of repentance established in church rules, are immediately declared clean from all sin). See Migne, Patrol, graec. t. 95, col. 282: cfr. t. 733. 2) Patriarch of Antioch, who lived at the end of the 11th or beginning of the 12th century. and who thought about monks in agreement with the pseudo-John of Damascus, dates the origin of the custom of confessing to monks to the times of the first iconoclasts, and therefore to the times of John of Damascus himself. Meanwhile, the pseudo-Damascene claims that the right of monks to be confessors is attested to by the inspired writings of the ancient fathers of monasticism. The testimony of Patriarch John is to some extent confirmed by the testimony of one of the outstanding church writers of the iconoclastic era - St. Theodora Studite. To the same question that was proposed to pseudo-John of Damascus, he answered: “in the absence of elders and those who come to confession by faith, it is not indecent for a simple monk to give penance” (κατὰ άπορίαν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ πίστιν τοῦ προσιόντος, ούκ ἔξω τοῦ είκότος καὶ τὸν άπλῶς μοναχὸν ὲπιτίμια διδόναι. Patrol, t. 99, col. However, if the forgery of the literary monument that occupies us is proven undoubtedly by the authentic words of John of Damascus himself, then we can do without other evidence of this forgery.