Rules of St. Nikephoros the Confessor with interpretations by Bishop. Nikodima (Milasha)

The authorship of the canonical instructions and pastoral instructions collected in this publication is attributed to St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. The significance of the text is given by the detailed interpretations of Nikodim Milas, an outstanding Serbian canonist and bishop of the 19th-20th centuries. The work consists of 49 rules, which examine various aspects of church life and discipline: the order of performing the Sacraments, the rules of fasting, confession, issues of church court, the relationship between the clergy and the laity, as well as answers to many practical spiritual questions. Bishop Nicodemus' interpretations not only explain the historical context and meaning of the rules, but also reveal their theological depth and practical application in the life of the Church. Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 If, out of ignorance, the antimension is washed, then, as a result, it does not lose its sanctification and does not become unclean. The present and the following 37 rules are compiled, as mentioned above (vol. I, p. 43) 1, from various church regulations issued by Patriarch Nicephorus, himself or conciliarly 2. About the meaning of St. we spoke of the antimension in the interpretation of the 31st canon of the Trullo Council. The present rule understands the case when someone, out of ignorance, washes the antimension, and notes that it does not lose its holiness due to this, and therefore does not need a second consecration, just as no saint is consecrated again. chalice (bowl), nor other sacred vessels, if due to long-term use they need to be cleaned 3. A second-married person should not be married, but should be punished by excommunication from the most pure sacrament for two years, and for those who are in three marriages - for five years. (Ap. 7; Trul. 3; Ankyr. 19; Neoces. 3, 7; Laod. 1; Basil Vel. 4, 12). The initial words of the rule in the original read: ό δίγαμος ου στεφανούται (bigamus ηοη coronatur, in the Helmsman - a bigamist does not get married), which would essentially mean: a second-wed is not adorned with a crown, a crown is not placed on his head. When performing the sacrament of marriage, the main moment is when the priest, blessing the newlyweds, says: “Lord our God, I crown with glory and honor (Κύριε ό Θεός ημών, δόξη και τιμη στεφάνωσον αύτούς)”, and the priest pronounces these words immediately after he places the crowns on the heads of the bride and groom, so that the sacrament is then essentially completed. As a result of this, the sacrament itself is called wedding (στεφάνωμα). Therefore, the words of the rule “a second-married person does not get married” mean that someone who wishes to remarry cannot receive a church blessing, in other words: a church “sequence of wedding” cannot be performed on him (ακολουθία του στεφανώματος) and, therefore, according to the meaning of the present rules, the church does not bless a second marriage, but considers it unlawful. The civil authorities recognized the legality of such a marriage, which many Christians took advantage of and entered into a second marriage. The Church did not protest against this, but subjected such persons to penance, excommunicating them for a year or two from St. communion (Basily Vel. 4), which is repeated in this rule by Patr. Nikifor. And if he subjects second-weds to such penance, then how much greater penance should he subject to three-weds? As a result of this, he prescribes that such should be excommunicated from communion for five years. To understand the prescription of this rule, according to which only the first marriage is awarded the blessing and church wedding, and the second and even less the third marriage are not awarded this, one must keep in mind the strict judgment of the church of the first centuries about the second marriage, which we mentioned in the interpretation of the 1st rule of the Council of Laodicea. Such a judgment about a second marriage, apparently, had universal significance in the Eastern Church at the beginning of the 9th century, when Patriarch Nicephorus lived. It was also in force in the 10th century, as can be seen from the διάταξις συνοδική περί δευτερογαμίας of the Patriarch Sisinius II of Constantinople (995–998), where this rule of Nikephoros is repeated 4 . Only later, namely in the 11th or early 12th centuries, did this judgment of the church about the second marriage change, as can be seen from the canonical answer of Nikita, Metropolitan of Irakli, to the question of Bishop Constantine. In this answer, Met. Nikita says that, according to the exact teaching of the church, a second-wed cannot be honored with a wedding (τους διγάμους ουκ οΐδε στεφανουν), which, however, is not strictly observed in the Church of Constantinople, and crowns are placed on second-married (αλλά και τοις διγάμοις τους νυμφικούς στεφάνους έπιτιθησι), only second-married separated from St. communion for one or two years, and the priest is forbidden to take part in their wedding feast 5 . This practice of the Church of Constantinople has since become universal, which is why the corresponding “sequence on bigamy” was compiled, in which the placing of crowns on the heads of the newlyweds is exactly the same as that of the first-weds. To justify this departure from ancient church practice regarding second marriages, the publications of the Greek great Euchologions provide textual patras as the present rule. Nikifor, and the canonical answer of Metropolitan. Nikita 6. Whoever, out of need, rests for a short time in the church vestibule will not be punished; if he stays for a long time, he will be expelled and subjected to penance, and the church will take its toll. (Ap. 73; Trul. 74, 76, 97). One must accept pious donations that are made for the benefit of those who died without a will, and especially if they intended to do so during their lifetime. The Church has always prayed and continues to pray for its deceased members. This is prescribed in Ap. resolutions, and the time when this is to be carried out is specifically determined 7. In view of this, believers, even during their lifetime, gave up a certain part of their property in favor of the church, and this was considered a general norm, the legal force of which was also recognized by civil law. In the event that a famous person died without a will, then, according to the law of inheritance, the known part belonged to the church, to commemorate the soul of the deceased 8 . During the Iconoclasm, the church began to be denied this, and this prohibition was applied so strictly that in some churches it was by no means impossible to accept donations from persons who did this for the souls of their dead, when these latter did not leave appropriate instructions in their wills. By this rule, Patr. Nicephorus corrects the incorrect actions of various churches and their rulers, prescribing that the church can freely accept any donation for the soul of the deceased, without checking whether the deceased made any order about it during his lifetime. A related instruction from the civil authorities that a certain share of property can be taken for the repose of the soul of a person who died without a will was issued by Emperor Leo the Wise 9 . If the Feast of the Annunciation happens on Maundy Thursday or Maundy Friday, then we will not sin if we consume wine and fish on this day (οίνου μεταλαμβάνοντες και ίχθύων). An abbot with presbyteral rank can appoint readers and subdeacons in his monastery. (Trul. 33; VII Om. 14). According to this rule, St. Nikifor, an abbot who has presbyteral ordination, can also ordain a subdeacon in his monastery. This privilege of the abbot is mentioned for the first time in the rules, for the 14th rule of VII Ecumenical. The Council allows the abbot to make only readers in his monastery, and nothing more. We do not know on what basis St. Nicephorus recognized the right of abbots to produce subdeacons. It may be that the abbots were allowed to do this during the time of iconoclasm in the Church of Constantinople, when the monks rendered great services to the church in defending the veneration of St. icons, and as a reward for this, perhaps the monastic abbots were given this privilege. It must be remembered that Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople is known as a fighter against iconoclasm and as a great defender of the monasticism of that time. However, we cannot call this privilege of abbots, according to which they can produce subdeacons in their monasteries, non-canonical when we remember the difference between the degrees of the highest and lowest sacred hierarchy. The highest hierarchy includes bishops, presbyters and deacons. They become such through the sacrament of the priesthood (ordination). Members of the lower hierarchy, starting from the subdeacon and below, do not become such through ordination (χειροτονία), but through the laying on of hands (production, χειροθεσία, σφραγίς, προβολή), moreover, outside St. altar and before the beginning of St. Liturgy, meanwhile, the first to accept ordination as St. altar and during St. liturgy. And if, therefore, the mentioned rule VII Om. The Council grants the abbot the right to ordain readers in his monastery, then he could be given the right to appoint subdeacons, for these latter, like the readers, are not imparted divine grace, to which only a bishop has the right, for the appointment of subdeacons, like readers, does not take place in the altar. Regarding other things and the subdiaconal degree, see the interpretation of the 6th canon of the Trullo Council. Anyone who has lived depravedly for twenty years or more should not be ordained to the priesthood, even if he later demonstrates deeds of virtue, for the sacred must be undefiled. (Ap. 61, 80; I Om. 2; Neoces. 12; Laod. 3, 12; Serdic. 10; Duc. 17; Cyril Alex. 4; Timothy Alex. 6; Nicephorus 36). This rule confirms the church norm of ante-Nicene times, according to which one who is guilty of a grave sin that serves as a temptation to the world cannot be accepted as a priest. Several conciliar and patristic rules also speak about this. We specifically talked about this in the interpretation of the 61st Ap. rules. Children born from concubines, or from second marriages, or from triple marriages, if they prove worthy of the priesthood, can be ordained. The qualities of a candidate for the priesthood are not determined by the class origin of a given person, but concern him himself, namely: he must be impeccable and there should not be a shadow of suspicion of anything reprehensible in his name. Trullan Canon 33 dictates that when selecting candidates for the priesthood, attention should be paid to their personal qualities rather than to their origin. Bearing in mind this general canonical injunction, and the present (8) rule of St. Nicephorus states that nothing prevents persons descended from an illegal marriage from becoming priests, as well as persons descended from second-married and triple-married parents, if only such persons are worthy of the priesthood, and if they satisfy all other conditions that are required of them 10. A patient who is in danger of death should be given St. communion and after eating food. The Trullo Council in its 29th canon prescribes the giving of St. communion only on an empty stomach. From the fulfillment of this general injunction of St. Nikifor, by this (9) rule, releases only persons who are in danger of death, so that they do not lose “the last and most necessary parting words,” in the words of the 13th rule of I Omni. Cathedral. On Sundays and throughout Pentecost, no bows should be made, but one can only kneel, kissing St. icons (I Om. 20; Trul. 90; Petra Alex. 15; Basil the Great. 91). He who brings one prosphora for three, or lights one candle, will not sin. Apparently, there was a custom according to which an offering was made to the altar for each person who wished to be remembered in St. liturgy, one prosphora was lit separately and one candle was lit. In his present rule, St. Nikifor, in accordance with the instructions on the liturgy of Basil the Great, notes that one prosphora is enough even when a larger number of people are to be remembered for St. liturgy, and that one candle can burn for many. The holy chalice does not need to be blessed when the prayer of offering is recited. In the original, the present rule reads: το αγιον ποτήριον, which would literally mean: “you should not put a seal on St. cup when reading the skevophilakia prayer.” We translated the words σφραγίδα ποιεΐν this way, for σφραγίζω means, among other things, to bless, to signify with a cross, and this is the meaning of the mentioned words of this rule. We translated the word σκευοφολάκιον with the word “sentence”, following the Slavic translation in the 215th rule in the B. Breviary, which contains the present rule (12) of Nicephorus. A priest should not serve the Liturgy without warm water, except in important cases when it is absolutely impossible to get it. Drinking warm (hot) water (ζέοντος ύδατος, θερμού) during St. Liturgy dates back to the most ancient times of the church and has its own mysterious meaning. This meaning is indicated by Balsamon in his interpretation of the 32nd Trullian rule. The Latins and Armenians argued that warm water does not need to be poured into St. cup, for this is not required either by the Gospel or by the canonical instructions of the church. Balsamon answers: “the added heat does not change the connection (ενωσιν) of water and wine in the holy cup and is not anything different from water; but is poured in to further confirm that what flowed from the holy rib of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. blood and water are life-giving, not dead; because from this, in essence, the greatness of this miracle is revealed, for while warm blood usually does not flow from a dead body, warm blood and water flowed from the body of the Lord even after death, like life-giving from a life-giving body” 11. Balsamon repeats this same thing in his 19th canonical answer, adding: “Whoever does not do this, but drinks cold water along with wine, when performing the holy. sacrament, he does not glorify, as he should, the greatness of the miracle: by this he shows that he does not believe that even after the saving death of the Lord, divinity remained in His body, but that it moved away from Him, that His body, therefore, is the same with our body, and this means admitting a great heresy... Who, therefore, does not consecrate the divine cup along with hot water (μή δια ζέοντος ύδατος τελειουντες το θείον ποτήριον), such should be excluded, as heretics, from the lot of the Orthodox (ώς αίρεσιώται, της μερίδος των ορθοδόξων έκκηρυχθήσονται)" 12. One who has put aside the monastic image and returned again (to the monastery) should again be clothed in monastic attire, but without reading the established prayers. (Ap. 81, 83; IV Om. 3, 4, 6, 7; VII Om. 10; Carth. 16; Dvukr. 11). This rule is set out by St. Nicephorus in another place is more detailed and in this presentation it reads: “A monk who has left the holy schema and returned again, the brothers must teach him what is necessary, but not in the words of catechumen, but in the words of the Lord himself, sing in an indirect voice (5-8) the penitential canon, and his vestments are placed in the altar at the foot of St. meals, as if he was taking the rank for the first time; then at the liturgy, after the Gospel, the abbot tonsures him and dresses him in vestments, but without any exclamation (μηδέν έκφωνούντα)" 13. Nuns can enter the holy altar to light candles and lamps, to put the altar in order and to sweep it. (Trul. 69; Laod. 19, 44). Our translation is based on the text of the Athens Syntagma. In Kormchay this rule of St. Nikifor is stated in such a way that nuns are forbidden to enter the altar: “it is not proper for nuns to enter the holy altar, nor to burn candles...” 14. In the Armenopoulian canonical Ἑπιτομή the text is the same as in the Athenian Syntagma 15. We do not know where the said translation of this rule of St. came into the Slavic Helmsman. Nikifor; in any case, it seems to us that the prohibition of nuns from entering the altar, as stated in the Helmsman, corresponds much better to the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church than the permission contained in the rule according to the text of Af. Syntagma, Armenopoulov, also Pidalion 16. The basis for our opinion can be the argument that we gave, following Zonara, in the interpretation of the 44th Laodicean canon. And we believe that our opinion is confirmed by the question of the Athonite monks, which was posed to the Council of Constantinople under Patriarch Nicholas III, almost 300 years after Patriarch Nicephorus: can a monk enter the altar? The council, as we will see below, responded that a monk could enter the altar. And if in the 12th century it was necessary for a council to decide the question of whether a monk could enter the altar, then for the nuns this, it seems to us, was clear by itself, namely, that they could not; Having in mind the prescription of the 44th rule of the Laodicean Council, it seems incomprehensible to us how in the 9th century the Patriarch of Constantinople Nikephoros allowed nuns what in the 12th century Patriarch Nicholas had to allow regarding monks. As a result of all this, it seems to us that the text of the present (15) rule of Nikephoros is more correct in our Helmsman, i.e. in the Greek manuscript from which it was translated for the Helmsman than the text of the above-mentioned Greek editions. Monks should not engage in agricultural activities on Great Friday and, under this pretext, consume wine and oil, for this is gluttony 17 . In Kormcha, instead of “on Great Friday,” it is said: “on Great Pentecost,” and in Pidalion: εις τήν μεγάλην τεσσαρακοστήν, with reference to the 69th Ap. a rule, due to which the monks could not engage in agriculture during the entire period of Lent (Lent). That the edition of Pidalion and the Helmsman is correct is proved by another rule similar to this one of St. Nikephoros, which refers to Pentecost, and not Good Friday 18. A monk is allowed to leave the monastery for three reasons: a) if the abbot is a heretic, b) if women (freely) come to the monastery and c) if the children of lay people study in the monastery. For interpretation, see interpretation of rule 18 For it is inappropriate for what is happening in the monastery to be spread throughout the world through them. (IV Om. 4; VII Om. 21; Carth. 80; Dvukr. 4). These two rules (17 and 18) in Kormchay, as well as in Pidalion, constitute one rule, and absolutely correctly, for the present (18) rule is nothing more than a justification for the last point of the 17th rule, namely: why is a monk allowed to leave the monastery if the children of lay people study in the monastery (more precisely - έν τω κοινοβίω, in a hostel)? In another collection of Nikephoros' rules, both of these rules are listed under the same number, and here it is said that a monk is allowed to leave the monastery if the children of lay people study in it, because it is inappropriate for the good (καλώς) done in the monastery to be spread throughout the world, and to this is added a place from the Gospel of Matthew (6:2), where it is said: do not sound a trumpet before you when you do good 19. Monks who are under penance can eat food and pray with others, but they can only take blessed bread or kataklaston after confession. We talked about the blessed bread or antidor in the interpretation of the 14th Laodicean rule. This bread was also called κατακλαστόν (frustum panis benedicti, part of the blessed bread) 20. Monks living in the monastery, during the Fast of the Holy Apostles and the Fast of St. Philip, also on Wednesdays and Fridays, can eat food only once a day, in the evening; and those who are engaged in field work can have lunch and dinner in the evening after the sixth hour. Year-long fasts are discussed in the interpretation of the 69th Ap. rules. Fast of St. Philip (νηστεία του αγίου Φιλίππου) is the Nativity Fast (τών Χριστουγέννων), beginning after the day of remembrance of St. Philippa. The same rule (in a slightly expanded form) appears in another collection of rules of St. Nikephoros 21. A nun defiled by barbarians or disorderly people, if her previous life was impeccable, must be subjected to forty days of penance; if her previous life was not impeccable, then she is subject to penance, as for adultery. (Basily Vel. 49; Gregory Neokes. 1). In his 1st rule, Gregory of Neocaesarea says that women who were desecrated by disorderly people are not subject to penance; Basil the Great says the same thing in his 49th rule. Speaking about nuns and referring to the sanctification of their bodies, St. Nikephoros sentences them to forty days of penance for his desecration. But he is suggesting here that the nun was abused; if there was no violence on the part of the man, and in view of her previous faulty life, it can be assumed that she voluntarily committed fornication, then such a nun is subject to punishment as for fornication - eighteen years of excommunication from St. communion, according to the 4th rule of Gregory of Nyssa. A person who has entered the monastic rank in order to avoid military service, or for the sake of some other insidious considerations, and who has put this aside after need and hypocrisy, is subject, for mockery (of the rank), to penance for three pentecostals, after which he may be admitted to St. communion. The Helmsman only says: “for fourty days the ban is accepted”; in the Nomocanon under the B. Breviary (right 83): “three days are prohibited in Lent.” In our text it is correct, namely, that the person in question is subjected to penance for one hundred and twenty days 22 . Nuns should not receive communion from a young monk-presbyter when he is serving and administering communion. (Trul. 47; VII Om. 18, 20, 22). What prompted the fathers of the Trullo Council to issue the 47th rule, according to which neither women in monasteries nor men in nunneries have the right to spend the night, is the same thing that prompted the fathers of the 7th Ecumenical. The Council prohibited, by its 18th rule, women from staying in (male) monasteries, or by its 20th rule, prohibited the existence of “double monasteries” - this is what prompted Patriarch Nicephorus to issue his present (23) rule. The abbot should not remove the kukul from the student and expel him. By disciple (μαθητής) here we mean any monk who, by his position, depends on the abbot and is therefore considered his disciple. Kukul (κουκούλιον) is a veil with which all monks covered their heads in ancient times. Kukul corresponds to the modern καλυμμαύχιον (“helmet of the hope of salvation”) of ordinary monks (minor schema); now only monks of the great and angelic image receive the kukul: “will be clothed in the kukul of goodness (ενδύεται το κουκούλιον της ακακίας)” - we read in the rite of succession of the great and angelic image. One who has put aside the holy image (monastic) and does not correct himself should not be accepted under shelter, or greeted warmly (saying “Rejoice” to him). (Ap. 81, 83; IV Om. 7; Nikephoros 35). Based on this rule, one should completely abandon the monk who left the monastic image and not accept him into the monastery. However, this would contradict the 35th rule of the same patriarch, according to which a monk who left the rank must be returned by force and imprisoned in the monastery. We do not know what basis there could be for the present 25th rule; we are rather ready to recognize it as interpolation, and precisely because, in addition to the mentioned 35th rule of St. Nikifor, we find in another collection his rule number 91, according to which the “apostate” monk must be returned by force to the monastery, anathematized (τούτον άναθέματι καθυποβληθήναι) and forever imprisoned in the monastery. This thought also confirms us by what anathematizes the monk who left his rank and transferred to the civil service, and the 7th rule of the IV Ecumenical. Cathedral. Byzantine legislation, the prescriptions of which were adopted into the ecclesiastical legal collections of the Orthodox Church, applies the same strict attitude towards “apostate” monks. Anyone who is sick and wishes to accept holy baptism or a holy image (monastic) must immediately give what he asks and not hinder grace. (Timoth. Alex. 4; Trul. 43; Carth. 45). That anyone who desires it, or whom relatives ask for, should be baptized - this is stated in the rules: the 45th of the Council of Carthage and the 4th of Timothy of Alexandria, which was discussed above. In turn, Rule 43 of the Trullo Council prescribes that anyone who so desires should be accepted into the monastic rank, without paying attention to his previous life, and of course, if this is not prevented by any external circumstances. And as for the “grace” received upon entering monasticism, which is mentioned in the present (26) rule of St. Nikephoros, then it must be understood in the sense of the justification (for the choice of monastic life) given in the mentioned Trullian rule. A monk-presbyter cannot serve without a robe. Each monk receives a mantle (μανδύον) after “following the small schema,” and it is now worn during every church service in those monasteries where the rules are more strictly observed. The confessor who receives confession (of the penitents) must excommunicate those who confess secret sins, but must neither forbid them to attend church nor reveal their sins, but must meekly instruct them and encourage them to repentance and prayer, assigning them penances according to the spiritual state of each. (Carth. 132; Basil the Great. 34). This rule repeats the requirement to observe the secret that the priest learns in confession (sigillum confessionis), which we talked about in the interpretation of the 132nd Carthaginian rule and which Basil the Great also prescribes in his 34th rule, also indicating the motive for the prohibition, namely: “let us not give reasons for the death of those convicted.” Adulterers and bestialists, as well as murderers and the like, if they confess on their own impulse sins that have not become public, must be excommunicated from communion and subjected to penance, but they can remain in church only until prayer for the catechumens; if sins have become obvious, then, in this case, they must perform penance, according to church regulations. (Basily Vel. 34, 56, 58, 63, 74). As can be seen from this rule, the confessor must preserve the secret of the sin revealed to him and the most serious criminals. The only reason why outsiders can conclude that the conscience of a given person is burdened with sin is excommunication from St. communion and removal from the church along with the catechumens, but the extent to which it violated the law remains and should remain a mystery to outsiders. A layman who has confessed sins of his own free will must be treated with full attention by the confessor. (I Om. 12; Basil Vel. 74; Trul. 102). This is a wise canonical injunction. The laity, in fulfilling church commandments and moral precepts in general, are not bound by the same laws that bind members of the clergy; the fulfillment of these commandments and moral instructions depends on their good will, and therefore the church must pay full attention to the laity when they come to church to say that their conscience is burdening them and seek spiritual consolation from it. On this issue, the instructions of the 12th rule of the First Ecumenical Council and the 74th rule of Basil the Great, and in particular the 102nd rule of the Trullo Council, are especially important. With the permission of the bishop, the presbyter can perform (the rite of) stauropegia. (Ap. 31; IV Om. 18; Trul. 31). By stauropegia (σταυροπηγιον) we must here mean the erection of a cross at the foundation of a church, which can also be performed by a priest, “whom the bishop deigns to send” - as stated in the B. breviary (chapter 105). Those who are covetous should not be given the sacrament or eat food with them while they remain stubborn in their iniquity. (Ap. 44; I Om. 17; Trul. 10; Laod. 4; Carth. 5, 16; Basil the Great. 14; Gregory of Nyssa. 6); That extortion has always been strictly condemned by the church, this is evidenced by numerous conciliar and patristic rules (see parallel rules). How strictly the Eastern Church even in the 9th century looked at this crime even among the laity convicted of covetousness is shown by the present rule of St. Nicephorus, who prescribes that the faithful should not have any communication with the greedy, even in private life. Monks must fast on Wednesday and Friday of Cheese Week, but after the end of the presanctified liturgy they can eat cheese wherever they are, in refutation of the teachings of Jacob and the heresy of the Tetradites. Tetradits were discussed in the interpretation of the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council. By the followers of the teachings of Jacob we mean the Jacobites (Jacobites), which is the name given to the Monophysites: Copts and Armenians. And that, along with the tetradits, the Jacobite Armenians also misjudged cheese, the 56th Trullian rule tells us. Anyone who, having a concubine, does not want to let her go, or does not ask for the blessing of the priest to keep her, should not accept offerings into the church, for he offends the divine laws with his despicable deeds. (Ap. 17; Trul. 3; Basil Vel. 3). Until the second half of the 9th century, cohabitation (concubinatus) was still tolerated in the Byzantine Empire. And only then Basil the Macedonian issued an order according to which no one could have a concubine, but had to either marry her or let her go 24. From this (34) rule one could conclude that the church at the beginning of the 9th century still tolerated cohabitation and only demanded that the person in question turn to the priest for prayer and blessing to continue cohabitation with her. However, this rule lost all meaning after the indicated time (IX century). If a monk, having put aside the holy image, eats meat, takes a wife and does not want to return, then he should be anathematized, forced to put on the monastic robe and imprisoned in a monastery. (Ap. 81, 83; IV Om. 7, 16; VII Om. 10; Carth. 16; Dvukr. 11). We mentioned this rule in the interpretation of the 25th rule of the same Patriarch Nicephorus, and we think that this (35) rule should still have full force. One who has once committed fornication should not be ordained, even if he has given up this passion, for Basil the Great says that even if such a person raised the dead, he would not be a priest. (Ap. 18, 61; Trul. 3, 26; Basil the Great 3; Nikephoros 7). In his 7th rule, St. Nikephoros prescribes that no one who has lived dissolutely for many years should be ordained; in the same (36) rule, he reminds that one who has committed fornication at least once cannot be ordained, and refers to the words of Basil the Great, why this is unacceptable. The Apostle says: “If a certain brother is called a fornicator... with such is lower than food” (1 Cor. 5:11). By such a fornicator we should not mean a person who has been convicted of fornication by someone, but a person so called and known to everyone, for sins that are shamelessly committed are subject to much greater punishment. (Ap. 25; Neokes. 1; Basil the Great. 3, 32, 59, 70; Gregory of Nyssa. 4). In this rule, St. Nikifor interprets the words of St. Paul in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (5:11) and notes that these words mean that the fornication of a given person should be known to everyone, and only in this case, according to the 36th rule of Patriarch Nicephorus, this person should not be accepted into the priestly rank. When the wife gives birth, and the baby, three or five days later, is in danger, then he must be (immediately) baptized and given to another woman, baptized and pure, to nurse; Let his mother not enter the room where he is and not touch him until forty days are completed, until she is completely cleansed and receives prayers from the priest. (Dionysius Alex. 2; Timothy Alex. 7). Unnecessarily, or without compulsion, one should not travel on Sundays. This and the six following rules (up to 45) are taken from another collection of canonical prescriptions of St. Nikifor. One should not recognize the apocalypse of Paul, nor the books called vrontology, selinodromia or calandology, for all this is unclean. (Ap. 60; Trul. 63; VII Om. 9; Laod. 59). Among the many New Testament apocrypha was the Apocalypse of Paul. It was compiled in later times, moreover, on the basis of the words of St. Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 12ff.): “I will come in visions and revelations of the Lord.” Vrontology is a book that treats thunder, selinodromia – about the moon, and calandology – about the events of the next year. One should not recognize the apocalypse of Ezra and Zosimus, two descriptions of the martyrdom of St. George and St. the martyrs Cyricus and Julitta, and the book of Mark and Diadochos, for all this has been rejected and is not worthy of acceptance. One should not work during the entire Bright Week, nor sing “Immaculate” (Ps. 118) on the Saturday of Bright Week, nor should one celebrate Thursday. (Trul. 66; Laod. 29; Theophila Alex. 1). Whoever beats and intentionally kills his father is subject to the murderer's punishment - thirty-five years' penance. (Ap. 65; Ankyr. 22; Basil the Great. 43, 56; Gregory of Nyssa. 5). The rules do not specifically mention the crime of killing one's own father (πατροκτονία). For such a crime, according to Roman law, the culprit was tied together with a live snake or dog in a bag and thrown into the sea or river 25. Church legislation, therefore, did not have the need to issue any of its own special instructions about this; in the event that the parricide sought the protection of the church (jus asyli), and if the church was forced to judge him, according to the provisions of the present rule of St. Nicephorus, the culprit was then punished by excommunication for thirty-five years. In case of need, a simple monk can baptize, just as a deacon can baptize when necessary. The right to perform the sacrament of baptism belongs to the bishop or presbyter, as mentioned in the interpretation of the 49th Apostolic Canon. In this rule, St. Nikifor says that, if necessary, a deacon, as well as a simple monk, can baptize. We, in addition to what we said in the interpretation of the said Apostolic Canon, add that, in case of need, every layman, and even a woman, can baptize. If a priest cannot be found in any place, then unbaptized infants can be baptized by anyone who is present. There is no sin: whether the father baptizes, or anyone else, as long as he is a Christian. This rule is an addition to the 44th rule of St. Nicephorus, and it confirms what we said in the interpretation of the 49th Apostolic Canon about who can, in case of urgent need, baptize a baby if there is no priest. One can enter churches founded by heretics only out of necessity, like into a simple house, and only when a cross is placed in the middle can one sing here; however, one must not enter the altar, nor burn incense, nor pray, nor light lamps or candles. (Ap. 10, 11, 45, 46, 64; I Om. 19; II Om. 7; III Om. 2, 4; Trul. 11, 95; Laod. 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37; Basil the Great 1, 47; Timothy Alex. 9). You should not receive communion from a priest who does not fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, even if he seems Orthodox, for to be pious in one respect and defiled in another is not holy. (Ap. 69; Trul. 29, 56, 89; Gangr. 19; Laod. 49, 50, 51, 52; Dionysius Alex. 1; Peter Alex. 15; Timothy Alex. 8, 10). Monks staying during St. Pentecostal women at work can eat a little bread at the ninth hour, and have dinner in the evening. By this rule of St. Nicephorus supplements his prescription in the 20th rule on the fasts of St. Apostles and Rozhdestvensky. If it happens that in some place both the presbyter and the deacon and the reader are subject to an eruption, and a monk is present, then let him bless the meal. (Ap. 28; I Om. 5; II Om. 6; IV Om. 29; Serdic. 14; Antioch. 4, 12, 15; Carth. 29, 65; Basil the Great. 88). Here, of course, a monk (μοναχός), who has no hierarchical degree at all. Such a monk, according to the rules, does not have the right to bless, just as neither the deacon nor the reader, whom the rule mentions, have this right, and if it is said here that the monk ευλογεί (blesses), then this must be understood in the sense of reading pre-dinner prayers, which can be read by a pious layman, and even more so by one who has been honored with St. monastic image through prayers and blessings of the church. These last four (46–49) rules are taken from the second collection of rules of St. Nikephoros, where, judging by the numbering of some of these rules in the Athenian Syntagma, there were a much larger number of them (in any case, no less than 66 rules), but they have not yet been published in their entirety 26. In the Athens Syntagma the above rules are followed by the message of St. Nikifor in 17 questions and answers, the title of which (epistles) we gave above (vol. I, p. 43) 27 . Ancient writers attributed this message to Patriarch Nicephorus. It must be assumed that the publishers of Af also considered it as such, genuine. Syntagmas, for they made no remark about its origin. Meanwhile, it has been proven that the said message does not belong to Patr. Nicephorus, and his contemporary Theodore the Studite (†826), which is why we here print the translation of this epistle separately and differently from the other authentic rules of St. fathers. The Athenian Syntagma does not say to whom the present letter is addressed, but it is said in the Migne edition, where it is printed under No. CCXVI, namely: it is addressed to the monk Methodius. This must be kept in mind, otherwise the beginning and end of the message would be incomprehensible. This is the message of Theodore the Studite to the monk Methodius 28. Epistle of Theodore the Studite to the monk Methodius As much as your dignity desires to see our humility, just as much, rest assured, we desire a personal interview, but since it is written: “Neither willing nor apt, but a merciful God” (Rom. 9:16), then we must grant Him this desire and entrust care to Him; and He will “do,” when He pleases, “the will of those who fear Him” (Ps. 145:19). And now we need to properly answer the questions proposed by our spiritual brothers Hilarion and Eustratius, through your piety. But in order to make what is to be said more understandable, let the answer be placed along with each of the proposed questions. Question 1. Regarding elders who were ordained in Rome, Naples and Lombardy without notice and released: should such people be received and have fellowship with them, eat food together and pray together? Answer. During heresy, of necessity, not everything necessarily happens according to the rules established during peace. So, we see, the most blessed Athanasius and the most holy Eusebius acted, both of whom performed ordination of persons from outside their region. And now, we see, the same thing is happening under real heresy. So, those mentioned, if not clearly condemned, should not at all be rejected for being ordained in this way, but should be accepted in compliance with the four sentences (κατά τάς τέσσαρας προτάσεις). Question 2. Regarding elders ordained in a foreign region in Sicily: should such ones be received? Answer. This question is similar to the previous one, although it differs from it in relation to place. Obviously, he will have a similar answer. Question 3. Regarding churches desecrated by priests who entered into communion with heresy, and occupied by them: is it possible to enter them for prayer and psalmody? Answer. One should by no means enter such churches for these purposes, for it is written: “All things are abandoned... your house is desolate” (Matthew 23:38). Indeed, as soon as heresy was introduced, the guardian angel of those places flew away, according to the words of the great Basil 29; and such a church became an ordinary house. And not, says the psalmist, into the “church of the wicked” (Ps. 25:5). And the apostle says: “What is the building of the church of God from idols” (2 Cor. 6:16)? Question 4. Regarding churches desecrated by the same priests, but not occupied by them: is it possible to sing and pray in them? Answer. One may enter such churches for singing and prayer, provided they are no longer desecrated by heretics, but are occupied by the Orthodox forever. However, in this case, it was decreed that the opening of the church should be carried out by a non-seduced bishop or priest, with the utterance of a prayer. If this is done, then it is not prohibited to perform the liturgy there. An example is Saint Athanasius, who, when the Emperor Constantius asked him for one favor - to provide the Arians with one church in Alexandria for meetings, agreed to this if he also received the same mercy, so that in Constantinople the Orthodox could gather in one church occupied by the Arians. Question 5. Regarding the relics of saints: is it possible to enter their tombs, and pray, and venerate them if they are occupied by unclean priests? Answer. The rule does not allow, for the reasons stated above, to enter such tombs, for it is written: “in every way... my freedom is judged by another conscience” (1 Cor. 10:29); – is it possible to enter only out of necessity, only to venerate the remains of a saint. Question 6. About those who accepted the monastic form from unclean priests: how should such people be received? Answer. They must be received when they confess that they have sinned, and will be under penance for a while, and then in this way will be sealed by the priest who has not gone astray. Question 7. Regarding the monks and clergy who subscribed and had communion with the same heresy: how should such people be received, without penance, or with penance? If they promise not to perform sacred acts anymore, then can we impose penance on them? Answer. Obviously, with proper penances, for those who have not shown the fruits of repentance, how can they be worthy of joining the Orthodox body? It is not reprehensible for us to assign penances to such people; for it is written: “Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal.6:2). Question 8. About monks who treat (everyone) they meet with indifference, pray and eat food with them: is it possible to admit such people to the common meal and psalmody? Answer. When the Apostle commands “you must separate yourself from every brother who walks disorderly, and not according to tradition, which he received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6), then how come you did not judge on your own? So, if they abstain from sinful habits, undergoing proper penance, they can be accepted. However, it is necessary to observe who those whom you call meeting are heretics, or clearly reprehensible in life? The apostle speaks of such people: “if a certain brother be called a fornicator, or a covetous, or an idolater,” etc., “with such is lower than food” (1 Cor. 5:11). Question 9. Regarding elders who ate food with heretics once or twice, but did not enter into communication with them, or did not subscribe, or did not serve with them: is it possible to admit such people to the common meal and psalmody, with a seal (blessing), or without a seal? Answer. Regarding such people, it is necessary to observe: did the priests who ate food eat food with heretical priests, or with laymen, and with famous or Orthodox-minded people, but having communication with heretics? In relation to sacred persons, the court is stricter. But both of them, upon proper repentance, can be allowed to communicate (both in salt), and in prayers, and in the press. Question 10. Regarding the laity who have subscribed to the heresy and have fellowship with it: is it possible for Orthodox laity to eat food together with such laity? Answer. Indifference is the cause of evil. “I will not separate between the unclean and the clean,” says Scripture (Ezek. 22:26). Therefore, if the Orthodox are jealous, then they should not allow such people to eat food together until they first undergo penance for an ungodly signature and refuse to communicate with heretics. But since some are defiled by communication with heretics due to embarrassing circumstances, avoiding dangers, they can be allowed to eat food together if they confess that they did it by accident and repent; however, even then it is not indifferent, but with some appropriate conditions that bring benefit to both, and not mental harm. Question 11. Regarding those wishing to be baptized when there is no Orthodox or irreproachable priest: can they be baptized by priests who have fellowship with heretics, or those of whom there has been no notification, especially when death is threatened? Answer. Here the following rule is uttered by confessors, hierarchs and abbots: presbyters who have been removed from the priesthood for communicating with heretics, when there is no priest who has not seduced them, are allowed to baptize and teach the holy mysteries previously consecrated by an innocent priest, also communicate the monastic image, perform prayers at burial, read the gospel at matins and bless the Epiphany water, according to due to difficult circumstances, as it is said, so that the nations do not remain completely unheard of the gospel and unenlightened. If you like it, then let this rule be observed in those places too. Question 12. Regarding those who have separated and come running with repentance: is it permissible for us to impose penances on such people, or to accept them? Answer. The above has already explained what can be imposed; it is unnecessary to repeat the same thing twice. Question 13. If a bishop who has fallen into crime is deposed by the council, and then, after the deposition, ordains a presbyter, and this presbyter, having arrived at the monastery, accepts penance from his abbot for a while and after that begins to officiate, then we want to know whether it is possible to accept such a priest if he is innocent? Answer. Since there is obvious absurdity here, you should not even ask about such a crime. For Christ said: “For there is no evil tree, when it produces good fruit” (Luke 6:48). Therefore, even if such a person has accepted penance from any saint, and not just from his abbot, he is not allowed to serve in the priesthood. He is not a priest, and the one who permitted it is not a saint; for in this way all canonical decrees will be overthrown and disappear. Question 14. About the presbyters, ordained by the Orthodox, who did not subscribe and had no fellowship, but only ate food with Metropolitan Constantine 30. Answer. The above offers a judgment on this. So, whether it was with Constantine 31, or with any other of the other faiths, this eating of food took place, whoever ate it, after proper repentance, is freed from guilt not only to eat food together with those who have not seduced themselves, but also to the sacred rites with which he was awarded. Measures of penance cannot be definitely prescribed, due to the nature of one’s face and character; It is enough to bear him penance for two or three days of penance. Question 15. About the elders, who were also ordained Orthodox and, out of ignorance, ate food together with the elders who ate it together with the same metropolitan. Answer. It is written: every sin committed out of ignorance will be cleansed (Lev.4:2). Thus, they are not subject to any penance. Question 16. About the Orthodox presbyters, namely Hilarion and Eustratius the monk: do they have the power to assign penances? Answer. It is said above that (they) can be prescribed it. But since the question expresses whether one who does not have the priesthood should assign it in the absence of elders and by faith, then (I will say that) it is not contrary to the rules for a simple monk to assign penances. Question 17. About a monk who accepted a sacred image out of ignorance from a presbyter ordained by a deposed (bishop). Answer. Elsewhere it is said that every sin committed out of ignorance will be cleansed. Therefore, one should not turn away from eating food together with this and from anything else similar that promotes harmony and friendship. We have explained this to you, as far as possible, as our unanimous and companion. And you carefully tell the brothers who asked. “For not everyone has faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2), and this is not stated for many, not only because of the foolishness of the wicked, but also because of temptations from the rulers. For the many and beautiful parcels that the most pious people sent, may they receive reward from God, and these two baskets (are sent) as a memory of friendship. Be healthy in the Lord, most revered ones, praying also for us sinners for those who are “best and hold fast to salvation” (Heb. 6:9). Rules of Nikephoros the Confessor (†818). Nikephoros became Patriarch of Constantinople in 806 and ruled the church until 815, when he was deposed from the pulpit by the iconoclastic emperor Leo the Armenian because he wanted to remain faithful to the definitions of the 7th century. cathedral, and died in captivity. Some of his many writings are important for church law. We know: a) about the first (6) ecumenical councils, b) canonical regulations on various subjects, c) rules extracted from his type, and d) rules extracted from church decrees that he, together with other holy fathers, issued. Of all the rules of Nikephoros, Blastarus collected 37 main ones, which were included in the Pidalion, and according to another manuscript, 38 were included in the Athenian Syntagma. 7 more rules were added in both collections, then in the Athenian Syntagma 9 more from the general church decrees of Nicephorus, and 17 canonical questions and answers from one of his canonical epistles. The Helmsman (57 chapters) includes 23 rules collected by Vlastar. Some (but not all) of these rules were included in our Slavic Helmsman (cited ed., II, ch. 5). Ed. Wed. 81st answer of Simeon of Thessalonica [Migne, s.g., t.155, col.945 et seq. Cp. pyc. translation into ed. "Writings of St. Fathers and Teachers of the Church”, etc., III, pp. 218–221]. See article by prof. A.S. Pavlova about this synodal order of Patriarch Sisinius in the “Byzantine Temporary” (St. Petersburg 1895, II, 152–159); Wed also Zhishman, Eherecht, S.414, Anmerk.2. Crown. ed. 1891, p. 253. The same is in our B. breviary (ed. Moscow, 1808, 44 vol.). Wed. Af. Synth., IV,402. Helmsman, III, 14 (cited ed., I, 28). Wed. Nov.XXVI. Leon. et Constant. in ed. Zachar., III, 49 et seq. Nov.XL in ed. Zachar., III,128 et seq. On this issue, see 62 canonical response of Balsamon to the Alexandrian Patriarch Mark in Af. Synth., IIV,494, as well as an article by A.S. Pavlova: “Can illegitimate children be placed in priestly positions?” (Church Gazette, 1889, No. 9, p. 226 et seq.). Af. Synth., IV, 462–463. Wed. Alf. Synth. M. Vlastarya, K, 8 (Af. Synth., VI, 321). Rule 11. Mention ed., II,275. Leunclav., I,44. The same is true in the Nomocanon under the B. Breviary, ed. A.S. Pavlova, p.83. The publishers of Pidalion add that nuns are allowed to enter the altar only in their monasteries, and refer to the 69th Trullan Rule, which, however, has little to do with this issue. In the Helmsman (II, 205): “Is this gluttony the essence of tricks? (literal translation from Greek). See in Af. Sint, IV,431 β ’, note 1. Af. Synth., IV,431 β ’ (The Gospel text is not reproduced in this rule with literal accuracy). Suicerus, mention. ed., see under this word. See comments by A.S. Pavlova to the specified rule in reference. ed., p.99. See my “Tsrkveno executed right”, p.592. See my “Tsrkveno executed right”, pp. 471–472. See my “Tsrkveno executed right”, p.433. Af. Synth. IV, 431 α–β. The proposed Russian translation is borrowed from the edition of the St. Petersburg spirit. Academy “The Works of the Venerable Theodore the Studite in Russian Translation” (St. Petersburg, 1908), vol. II, pp. 622–627, with some minor changes indicated in the footnotes in relation to the text of Af. Syntagmas. Ed. Letter CXXXX [Migne, s.g., t.32, col.860. Cp. pyc. lane, part 7, p. 168]. So in Af. Syntagme (IV,431 θ), and in the Russian translation - Gregory (II, p.626). Ed. So in Af. Syntagma (ibid.), and in the Russian translation - Gregory. Ed. You might be interested in: