О Карфагенском Поместном святом соборе

The Holy Local [ 219 ] Carthage [ 220 ] Council [ 221 ] was assembled in 418 or 419 A.D., in the twelfth year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Honorius and in the eighth year of the reign of the Constantinople Emperor Theodosius the Younger, in the meeting hall of the Church of St. Favsta. The Council was attended by such outstanding fathers as Bishop Aurelius of Carthage, who presided over everyone (in many places of the proceedings of this Council the fathers call him pope), Valentine, bishop of the first see of the Numidian region, Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and representative of the Numidian region, and other representatives of all African episcopal regions. Their number was, according to the acts of the Council, 217, according to Photius - 225, and according to others - 214. Representatives of Zosimas of Rome were also present at this Council: Favstinus, bishop. Picenae Potentia, Church in Italy, and presbyters Philip and Asellus. It was assembled mainly against Pelagius and his disciple Celestius [222] and against Donatus [223], and then also against Apiarius, presbyter of Sicus [224]. The Council lasted a full six years: starting in 418, it ended in 424. It turned out that during the entire time of the Council, three popes were replaced in the Roman See: Zosimus, Boniface and Celestine (although the acts of the Council also mention a fourth pope - Anastasius; see also the 66th rule of this Council). So, after much research and discussion, the Council laid down 141 rules concerning church deanery and organization. Next are the rules [225], approved and approved directly and indicating the name of this Council by Rule VI Omni. 2, and indirectly and in general – by the rules of IV Omni. 1 and VII Omni. 1. And the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council quotes verbatim the 89th rule of this Council. And thanks to this statement, these rules in some way acquire universal force. Rule 141 of the Carthage Local Holy Council with interpretations These definitions are contained in this form in our lists, which our fathers then brought with them from the Council of Nicaea; our subsequent definitions, if they correspond to the models of this Council, being approved, may they be observed. At this Council, both the confession of faith, i.e. “I believe...”, and the 20 rules of the Holy First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea were read. Therefore, the first rule determines that in those lists of the above confession of faith and rules that are in Africa, everything read is contained in an unchanged form. The African fathers who then participated in the First Council brought these same lists with them to Africa. In fact, as can be seen, bishops from Africa were also present at that Council [227]. So, if the definitions made by us, that is, by our Council (especially the definition on the appeal of presbyters and deacons; doubting its correctness, as we said, the fathers of the Council of Carthage wrote to the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria asking them to send them the authentic and most reliable lists of the Council of Nicaea, which, obviously, had not yet been sent to them) or those definitions that will be made, follow the patterns of I Ecumenical Council, they will be confirmed and unchanged. According to the will of God, at this glorious meeting, first of all, the church faith transmitted through us must be confessed with the same confession, then, with the consent of each and all together, let the church order be observed. To confirm the way of thinking of our recently ordained brothers and co-bishops, we need to add what we received from the fathers as a firm instruction: we sacredly hold wisdom about the unity of the Trinity, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, a unity that has no cognizable difference, and as we have learned, so we will teach the people of God. This rule determines that at this Council, first of all, the Orthodox faith must be proclaimed, preached by the entire Church, which, through the bishops, is transmitted to other people in the same confession: either because this is the confession of both the First Ecumenical Council and the entire Church in subsequent times, or because this confession is common to all those present at the Council and all the fathers agree with it. And then it must be proclaimed that church order and rules should be observed both by each bishop individually and by all together. For the confirmation and teaching of newly ordained bishops, the rule makes a brief definition of what they should think about the Holy Trinity: they must imprint in their minds the conviction that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - are one in essence, glory, power and all other essential properties, without any distinction between them. And just as these bishops have learned and believe, so let the Christ-named people teach. It was desirable that these three degrees, bound through consecration by certain bonds of purity (meaning bishops, presbyters and deacons), as befits venerable bishops, priests of God, Levites and ministers of the Divine Mysteries, should be abstinent in everything, so that they could receive what they simply ask from God, and so that what was handed down through the apostles and established from ancient times, we would equally observe least. (Apost. 5; VI Ose. 12, 13, 30, 48; Gangr. 4; Carthage. 4, 19, 33.) The abstinence that this rule requires from bishops, priests and deacons is that at their ordination they promise, with the consent of the wives themselves, never to have bodily intercourse with them and to abstain from them, that is, to maintain chastity, as becomes clear from the following 4th rule of this Council, as well as from canon VI Ecumenical. 30. This is necessary, says the rule, so that, thanks to such constant abstinence and purity, which should be in the ministers of the bloodless Sacrifice dedicated to God, and thanks to abstinence from all other vices, the clergy can receive from God the fulfillment of their petitions for the salvation of the people, which they bring as intermediaries between God and people. This is also necessary so that they themselves equally observe the apostolic [ 228 ] tradition that has been established since ancient times, in other words, both written and oral traditions, according to Balsamon and Zonara. The VI Ecumenical Council, captivating into obedience to Christ 229 this abstinence of clergy prescribed by this rule, and making an ecumenical rule out of this local custom, in its 13th rule interpreted this abstinence as befitting priests during their turn of performing divine services, and determined that only bishops should always abstain from their wives. Read VI Universe. 12 and 13, as well as Apost. 5. It is desirable that the bishop, presbyter, deacon and everyone who touches holy things - the guardians of chastity - abstain from their wives. (Apost. 5; VI Ose. 12,13, 30, 48; Gangr. 4; Carthage. 3, 19, 33.) And this rule similarly determines that bishops, priests and deacons, as well as those who touch holy things, i.e. subdeacons (according to Carthage 33), must completely abstain from carnal intercourse with their wives with their consent. And this custom, adopted in Rome, according to the 13th rule of the XVI Roman Council, came to Africa through Roman representatives. This rule was proposed at the Council of Carthage by Favstinus, bishop. Picenae Potentina, a region in Italy, he is also the representative of the Pope of Rome, as can be seen from the actions of the present Council. Read VI Universe. 12 and 13 and Apost. 5. The passion of greed, which, without a doubt, is the mother of all vices, must be restrained, so that no one takes advantage of someone else’s property or, for the sake of profit, transgresses the definitions of the fathers, and so that no cleric is in any way allowed to receive growth from any thing. Regarding recent statements, since they are obscure and completely incomprehensible, a determination will be made based on our consideration. And what the Divine Scripture has clearly established does not need to be decided, but rather it needs to be followed. Accordingly, what is worthy of condemnation in the laity should be condemned even more so in the clergy. (Apost. 44; I Om. 17; VI Ose. 10; Carthage. 20; Laodice. 4; Gregory Neocesar. 3; Basil the Great. 14.) The present rule, before decreeing that clergy should not take interest, begins the argument from afar and from a more general point - with covetousness, which is the mother of all vices, and therefore usury, and says that this sin must be suppressed so that, under the plausible pretext that money is lent - and this is already a vicious and inappropriate thing - not to take someone else's profit from what is borrowed. The rule also determines that no cleric has the right to take interest either on money or on any other type of property that he borrows, and for the sake of this profit to violate the paternal rules prohibiting usury. The recent statements made at this Council, since they are dark and unclear, we will consider and make a decision [230]. And about what both the Divine Scripture and the sacred rules command, clearly prohibiting the taking of interest by both the laity and the clergy, we must not make a decision, but we must follow it. After all, if the Divine Scripture and rules condemn the laity for taking interest, then even more so they condemn the clergy for this. Read also the Apostle. 44 and Gregory Neokesar. 3. The preparation of peace and the consecration of virgins must not be performed by presbyters, and the presbyter shall not be allowed to reconcile anyone openly at the Liturgy. This pleases everyone. (Apost. 39; Carthage. 7, 50, 51, 135; I Om. 19.) This rule prohibits priests from performing three sacred rites: preparing holy myrrh from various aromatic substances [231], prayerfully dedicating to God those virgins who, according to the 51st rule of this Council, when leaving their parents, take a vow of virginity [232], and allowing the penitent from penance for sin. Consequently, they are forbidden, through the communion of the Mysteries, to reconcile him with God, Whose sin has made him an enemy, to allow him to stand with the faithful and openly participate in the liturgy, that is, to pray with them, take communion together and worship God with the singing of hymns (for both prayer and praise to God are called liturgy). After all, these three actions must be performed by the bishop, especially the preparation of the holy myrrh. With the permission of the bishop, the presbyter can also reconcile the repentant with the Church. Read also the Apostle. 39 and I Omni. 19. If someone, finding himself in danger, asks to reconcile himself with the sacred altar in the absence of the bishop, then the presbyter, as he should, should ask the bishop about this and then, by his order, reconcile the person in danger. (Apost. 39; Carthage. 6, 50.) Since the previous rule stated in general that it was not the presbyter, but the bishop, who was given the right to bind sinners, who would allow penitents to do penance, the present rule then determines that if a penitent is in mortal danger and wishes to commune, but the bishop is absent, the presbyter must ask the bishop about this (if, of course, a dangerous illness allows time for this) and then allow him to commune. If the bishop is far away, and the sick person is already dying and cannot wait, the presbyter can forgive the sick person even without the bishop’s command, according to the 50th rule of the same Council (see also the story of Dionysius, found in the note to I Ecumenical 13), so that the sick person will not be deprived of the farewell necessary for this terrible departure - namely, Divine Communion, according to the same I Ecumenical. 13. There are many people of bad behavior who believe that they should blame fathers and bishops at every opportunity. These should not be accepted. (Apost. 74; VI Ose. 6; IV Ose. 21; Carthage. 27,137–139.) The meaning of this rule is as follows: vicious people and those who live improperly are not allowed to accuse bishops in a case of a crime of a general or ecclesiastical nature; only people who are trustworthy and impeccable are allowed. The rule calls bishops fathers because they revive the believers through their instructions, and mainly through the performance of the sacraments. For the same reason, the disciples of the prophets are called their sons, according to Cyril of Alexandria. If a bishop or presbyter accepts into communion those who have been deservedly expelled from the Church for their crimes, from that moment he himself will show himself guilty of the same crime as those who evade the lawful decision of their bishop. (Apost. 10–13, 32; Antioch. 2, 6; Constantinople 879 1.) This rule determines that if a bishop or presbyter remains in communion with those who by their bishop have been excommunicated from the Church, or deposed, or justly anathematized for their crimes, then those who receive such people will themselves fall under the same excommunication, or expulsion, or anathematization. See also Apost. 10, 11 and 32. If it happens that a presbyter, condemned by his bishop, considers, having become pompous and arrogant, that he must offer the Holy Gifts to God separately, or plans to erect another altar in opposition to the church faith, let him be anathema. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; VI Ose. 31, 34; Dvukrat. 13–15; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 11, 62.) If it happens that a priest, as defined by this rule, condemned by his bishop for his way of life (i.e., for living viciously), becomes so arrogant and pompous that he separates from him, officiates alone and erects another altar and church on his own without the permission of his bishop, let him be anathematized. What he is doing is contrary to both church order, which requires priests to submit to bishops, and faith, since because of this, non-believers, seeing such outrage of the clergy, blaspheme and ridicule our faith. And generally speaking, his actions cause a split in the Church. Read also the Apostle. 31. If a presbyter is accused of his behavior, he must report this to neighboring bishops, so that they will hear his case and, through their mediation, he will be reconciled with his bishop. If he does not do this, but - which may not happen - rises up in arrogance, separates himself from communion with his bishop and, together with some causing a schism, brings the Holy Gifts to God, let him be anathema and let him lose his place - but after it has been considered whether his complaint against the bishop is fair. (Apost. 31, 32; I Om. 5; IV Om. 18; VI Ose. 31, 34; Dvukrat. 13–15; Antioch. 5, 6; Gangr. 6; Carthage. 69.) This rule is related to the previous one. It says that a presbyter who separates himself from his bishop should be anathematized and deprived of his place, that is, expelled. However, this is done if he does not first inform the neighboring bishops located nearby about the matter for which the bishop accuses him, in order to reconcile with him through their mediation, but, arrogantly despising his bishop, retreats from him. At the same time, however, it should be investigated whether the presbyter avoids communication with his bishop because he rightly accuses him of crimes. Read also the Apostle. 31 and 32. If a bishop - which may not happen - falls under some kind of accusation and a very difficult situation arises in which it will be impossible for many bishops to gather, then, so that he does not remain under accusation, let him be heard by twelve bishops, the presbyter by six bishops and his own, and the deacon by three. (Apost. 74; II Ose. 6; IV Ose. 9; Antioch. 4; Carthage. 16, 28, 105, 118.) The accused bishop, as determined by the rule of Antiochus. 4, must be judged by the Council of the Metropolitan Region. If it is difficult for many bishops to gather, then let his crime, as this rule states, be examined by twelve bishops and his own [233], so that the bishop does not remain under the accusation that is brought against him, that is, so that he, as being under accusation and not having received an acquittal, is despised by his own people. The trial of the crime of the presbyters must be carried out by six foreign bishops and their own. There are three deacons [234] and their own. Read also the Apostle. 74. II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. Let many bishops gather for the ordination of a bishop. If this is difficult, then let the bishop be ordained, by order of the primacy, by three bishops, no matter where they are. And if anyone does something contrary to his own consent or signature, he will deprive himself of honor. (Apost. 1; I Om. 4, 6; VII Oz. 3; Antioch. 19; Constantinople 394 1.) Both the election and the prayerful rites that occur during the ordination of a bishop must be performed by many bishops, in accordance with this rule. If it is difficult for many to gather, then at least three bishops must be elected and ordained to the rank of bishop, by order and with the consent of the metropolitan of the region, to whom they and the one who is to be ordained are subordinate. If one of the bishops who participated in the election, although he orally acknowledges and confirms with his own signature that the one preparing to become a bishop is worthy of episcopacy, and then, contrary to his consent and signature, begins to say that he is not worthy (perhaps because the elector learns of some crime of his, which is an obstacle to becoming a bishop), such a person will deprive himself of the episcopal honor, i.e. deposed, however, if he does not prove the accusations that he brings against the candidate for bishop. See also Apost. 1, I Omni. 4 and end of rule I Omni. 6. It was convenient: everyone, no matter who he was, from bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or clergy, if a case of a crime or a civil case was brought against him in the Church and, having refused the church court, he wishes to be justified through secular courts, even if the verdict is pronounced in his favor, he must nevertheless lose his own place. This is in the case of a crime, but if the case is civil, let him lose what he gained by winning the case if he wants to keep his place. (Apost. 74; I Om. 6; IV Ose. 9; Antioch. 12; Carthage. 115.) All clergy and clergy, when they have any case: either a crime case that may entail defrocking, or a civil case, that is, concerning property damage, whether they initiate the case themselves or it is brought against them, must, as this rule defines, consider the case in the ecclesiastical court of the bishop or metropolitan to whom they are subordinate. Otherwise, if one of them neglects the ecclesiastical court and wants to clear himself of charges in civil secular courts, then, even if he is acquitted in them, he should be defrocked if it was a case of a crime. If the case concerned property and he won the lawsuit, then if he wants to maintain the degree of holy orders and avoid eruption, he must lose the monetary profit that he received through secular courts. If he does not give up this profit, let him be expelled for neglecting the ecclesiastical court. Read also the Apostle. 74, I Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. It was also desirable that if an appeal is made against the verdict of any ecclesiastical judges to other ecclesiastical judges who have greater power, let those whose verdict is overturned suffer no harm in any way, since it will be impossible for them to be convicted of having passed the verdict out of enmity or partiality, or of having been bribed by some favor. (Apost. 74; I Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9.) If clergy who have been tried appeal the decision of lower judges to higher ones, for example, the decision of a bishop to a metropolitan or patriarch, and after the verdict of the lower judges is reviewed, the higher judges cancel it, then in this case the present rule determines: these lower judges should not suffer damage, unless, however, it turns out that they passed the verdict out of enmity, or out of friendship, or for the sake of some kind of favor and bribe. After all, if they were condemned for this reason, then their honor is damaged. See also Apost. 74, I Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. If the judges are chosen by agreement of the parties, even if there are fewer of them than determined, no appeal will be allowed. (Apost. 74; I Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Carthage. 12, 105, 111, 131.) If the clergy and clergy, both those accusing and those accused, turn to elected judges to hear the case, then, even if there are fewer such judges than previously determined (for a bishop - twelve, for a presbyter - six and for a deacon - three), the defendants are not given the right to further appeal against the sentence passed on them and to refer it to the highest court for consideration. On the contrary, they must accept the decision of the judges they have chosen. The 105th rule of the same Council, as well as civil laws, also speaks in accordance with this rule [236]. Rule 111 of this Council says that the Council agreed with the elected judges who were elected by the bishop. Maurentius and Xanthippus, and the 131st canon of the same Council determines that the bishop who does not submit to the decision of the court of elected judges remains alien to communion until he submits. See also Apost. 74. I Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. The children of the priests should not arrange worldly spectacles and should not look at them. And all Christians have always been warned not to come to places where there is blasphemy. (Apost. 42, 43; VI Ecum. 24, 51, 62, 66; Laodice. 13, 54; Carthage. 70.) This rule commands that the sons of priests do not organize games that take place in theaters with horse racing and battles of animals and wild animals (it is understood that in this case they themselves supervise horses and such animals), and also that they do not look at such games at all when they are arranged by others [237]. However, not only the sons of clergy, but also all Christians in general are always taught not to approach theaters, in which there is a lot of obscenity and because of which unbelievers and the wicked blaspheme and insult the Christian faith. See also VI Omni. 24 and Apost. 42. It was desirable that bishops, presbyters and deacons should not become employers or managers and should not earn their living by any shameful and dishonorable deed. They must heed the words of Scripture: No soldier of God binds himself to the affairs of this life (2 Tim. 2:4). (Apost. 6, 81, 83; IV Ecumenical 3, 7; VI Ecumenical 9; VII Ecumenical 10; Double Ecumenical 11.) Clergy should not rent, i.e. rent other people's property or become managers, i.e. trustees and managers (προκουράτορες) of the property of the laity (shiga in Latin means “care” and “management”), as defined by this rule, and they should not earn their living by any shameful means and a dishonest occupation. A shameful occupation is, for example, to be the owner of a brothel, and a dishonorable occupation is to own an inn or a shop selling incense, or to heal and do other similar things. If, according to Paul, no warrior interferes in extraneous affairs in order to be pleasing to his earthly king, much less should God’s warriors, the priests, bind themselves to worldly concerns in order to become pleasing to their heavenly King. Read also the Apostle. 6 and VI Omni. 9. It was desirable that readers reaching adolescence should be encouraged either to marry or to take a vow of abstinence. (Apost. 26; IV Ose. 14; VI Ose. 6, 14; Carthage. 33) This rule specifies that readers, when they reach the age of 14, are encouraged either to marry or to promise to remain virgin and celibate. This rule was probably valid only in Africa, according to Zonara, and not in other places [238]. See also Apost. 26. It was desirable that the cleric, if he lent money, would receive the same money, and if it was an item, he would receive as much as he gave. (Apost. 44; I Om. 17; VI Ose. 10; Laodice. 4; Carthage. 5; Basil the Great. 14.) And this rule, like the 5th rule of this Council, prohibits clergy from taking interest. Let them receive as much money as they borrow, and if they give you anything else, bread or beans, or the like, let them take back the same amount, but no more. It was advisable not to ordain a deacon until the age of 25. According to this rule, no one should be ordained as a deacon before reaching the age of 25. Read VI Universe. 14. It was desirable that the readers did not bow to the people. (VI Omni. 23; VII Om. 14.) This rule prohibits the readers, after reading the Divine words, from turning to the people and bowing to them, since they are obliged to bow only to bishops, priests and deacons, but not to the laity, especially during their service. Read also VI Omni. 33. It was desirable that Mauretania of Sitifensky should have its own leader, as she asked (the leader of the Numidian country, from which it was separated by the Council). With the consent of all the leaders in the African regions and all the bishops, she was allowed this because of her remoteness. The present canon has a local significance, because it says that Mauritania should not be subject to the metropolitan of Numidia because of the distance of one region from another, which would make it difficult to gather for the Council, but that Mauritania should be allowed to have its own metropolitan [239]. However, despite the fact that the rule has a local and particular meaning, it can extend to all territories and concern everyone: from it we learn that, for the same reasons, any locality located far from another should be allowed to have its own metropolitan. It was convenient: when ordaining a bishop or cleric, let those ordaining them first let them listen to the decisions of the Councils, so that, acting according to the decisions of the Council, they would not repent. Those who ordain a bishop or clergy must, according to this rule, before ordination, present to them the definitions of the Holy Councils, Ecumenical and Local, both about the right faith and about the right life, church decorum and order, so that those ordained, through such training, learning the definitions and rules of the fathers and acting and living their lives in accordance with them, do not repent as their violators, either in this life, if they are punished and imposed by the council. penance on them, nor in the future, if they are subjected to torment. Since there is a reading “acting against the conciliar definitions of the rules,” the meaning of the last words of the rule can be successfully interpreted in this way: so that they will not have to repent either in the present or in the future if they act against the rules and definitions that were taught to them, for in this case they will sin in knowledge. See also VII Universe. 2. It was desirable that the Eucharist should not be taught to the bodies of the dead. For it is written: Send, eat (Matthew 26:26), but the bodies of the dead cannot be received or eaten. It was also desirable that the ignorance of the elders should not baptize those who had already died. From this rule the VI Ecumenical Council drew up its 83rd rule, namely, borrowing the words only that no one should give communion to the dead (see interpretation in its place). This rule also determines that a priest, out of ignorance, should not baptize the deceased [240], since the dead cannot unite with Christ, nor renounce Satan, nor do anything else required during the sacred rite of baptism. However, as long as a person breathes, he can be awarded Divine baptism, according to Zonara. According to the Nicene definitions, let a Council be convened annually on ecclesiastical issues, which are often postponed to the detriment of the people, to which all those occupying the first sees of the regions should send from their Councils as representatives two bishops, or as many as they choose, so that the assembled assembly can have full rights. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carthage. 81, 84, 85, 104.) So that periodically arising church issues to the detriment of the people do not remain unsolved and unrest does not intensify over time, this rule, as well as the 5th rule of the Council of Nicaea, determines that a Council of Bishops should be held annually, to which all metropolitans should send from the Council of their region two or more bishops as representatives (τοποτηρητάς), i.e., guardians (τηροῦντας) and those taking their place (τόπον). The latter is necessary so that the decisions of this Council are made authoritatively - as if they were approved by all the metropolitans. In the acts of this Council it is written that one representative should be sent from Tripoli to this annual Council due to the small number of bishops in that area. Balsamon says that it is not forbidden to send presbyters and deacons as representatives of metropolitans, as was the case at some Ecumenical Councils. Read also the Apostle. 37. If any of the bishops is accused, let the accuser present the case before the leaders in the same area, and let the accused not be disfellowshipped, unless, having received messages inviting him to answer in court before the elected judges, he does not appear at all on a certain day, namely, within the appointed month from the day on which he received the messages. If he presents some true and convincing reasons that prevent him from appearing to justify himself in the charges brought against him, let him have the inviolable right to justify himself within another month, and after the expiration of the second month, let him be deprived of communication until he proves his innocence. If he does not want to appear at the general annual Council, so that at least there his work will be brought to an end, then it will be considered that he pronounced a verdict of guilt against himself. And while he is deprived of fellowship, let him be a stranger to him both in his church and in the parish. His accuser, if he has not gone anywhere during the days when the circumstances of the case are being examined, should not be deprived of communication in any way. But if the accuser goes somewhere and hides, then let him be deprived of communion, and the bishop will be restored to communion. At the same time, the prosecutor is not deprived of the opportunity to make an accusation in this case if he can prove within the appointed time that he did not appear not because he did not want to, but because he could not. However, it is obvious that if, when considering the circumstances of the case in the court of bishops, the person of the accuser is discredited, then he is not allowed to bring charges, unless he wants to consider a private case, and not a church one. According to this rule, when a bishop is accused, the accuser must present the accusation to the metropolitan of that bishop. However, immediately after the accusation, the accused bishop should not be deprived of communication with other co-bishops, unless he appears at trial after the expiration of a period of one month, counting from the day on which he received messages from the metropolitan calling him to trial. If he proves that he was prevented from coming by compelling and serious reasons, and not fictitious ones, then let him be given another month. If after two months he does not come, let him be excommunicated for his disobedience until he proves that he is innocent of the accusation leveled against him. If he does not want to be judged either by his metropolitan or at the annually meeting Council, then he will condemn himself for disobedience and contempt. While the bishop is under the penance of excommunication, no one, either in his episcopal region or in another, should enter into communion with him. And this is all about the accused bishop. And his accuser, while he is making an accusation, should not be excommunicated for one accusation. If he secretly leaves the court and does not attend it, let the penance of excommunication be lifted from the accused bishop, and the accuser excommunicated. However, if he proves that he was absent not of his own free will or out of contempt, but for some good reason, then he is not prohibited from making an accusation again. Moreover, it is obvious that if the reputation of the accuser is tarnished or doubtful, then he should not be allowed to accuse the bishop on an ecclesiastical and internal issue, but on a private matter, monetary and external, anyone can be allowed. See Apost. 74, II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. If presbyters or deacons are accused, let the bishop of the accused himself examine the case together with the lawful number of bishops from the nearby area whom the accused may request (when examining the case of a presbyter - six, and three of a deacon), and the same decree regarding the terms and delays and consideration of the persons of the accusers and the accused is observed. Let one local bishop consider and make a decision on the cases of other clergy. (IV Om. 9; Antioch. 4; Carthage. 12, 16.) The previous rule speaks about accused bishops, but the present one speaks about presbyters and deacons, determining that if they fall under accusation, they should elect six presbyters and a deacon three foreign bishops from a nearby area, and that, together with these bishops, the accusations against the presbyters and deacons should be examined by their own bishop. In addition, let the previously adopted decree and rule (i.e., canon 27) concerning the bishop be observed in relation to presbyters and deacons, namely, it is necessary that they be given the same term and a similar investigation be made of the persons who accuse them. Let the accusations against the rest, the lower clergy, be examined by one local bishop of the accused and pass judgment himself. Read also IV Omni. 9 and Carthage. 12 and 16. It was desired that the children of clerics should not marry pagans or heretics. (IV Om. 14; VI Om. 72; Laodice. 10, 31.) This rule prescribes that children of clergy and clerics should not marry either unbelievers or women who adhere to heresy. Read also IV Omni. 14. Let bishops and clergy not give anything to non-Orthodox Christians, even if they are their relatives, and through the donation of their property, as has been said, let bishops or clergy not give anything to them. (Apost. 40; Carthage. 89, 102.) This rule, following the previous one, also makes a determination regarding pagans and heretics, saying that bishops and clergy should not, when they are dying, include in their wills as heirs of their property [ 241 ] their believers and Orthodox relatives, together with non-Orthodox - unbelievers or heretics - even if these unbelievers and heretics are their relatives. In other words, bishops and clergy should not leave in their wills to their heretical relatives either an inheritance or a legacy, i.e., a gift, and also, while still in good health, they should not give their property to heretics. Civil laws also prohibit Orthodox Christians from leaving any inheritance or legacy to heretics. Bishops should not be sent overseas, unless by decision of their bishop of the leading see in each region, that is, only if the bishop receives primarily from his leading bishop the established (τετυπωμένην) letter, which is called a letter of release, i.e., a recommendation. (Apost. 12, 33; IV Om. 11, 13; VI Ose. 17; Antioch. 6–8, 11; Laodice. 41, 42; Sardik. 7, 8; Carthage. 97. 116.) This rule decrees that African bishops should not be sent overseas, that is, to Italy, and that no other bishop should leave his province to a place remote from it. They should better remain in their churches and take care of the flock entrusted to them every day. They can leave their region only if they have letters from the other bishops, and most importantly and primarily a so-called letter of release from their leading bishop, metropolitan or patriarch. This letter confirms and shows that the bishop’s absence is necessary and permitted, that is, it is not forbidden. Or the word τετυπωμένην denotes a signed letter which introduces and recommends bishops to those to whom they are sent. See also interpretation and note. to Apost. 12. It was decided that nothing should be read in the Church under the name of Divine Scriptures, except the canonical Scriptures. The canonical Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, four books of Kings, two books of Chronicles, Job, Psalms, four books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra. New Testament: four Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Epistles of Paul, two of St. Petra, three - ap. John, one - St. Jacob, one - ap. Jude, Apocalypse of John, one book. (Apost. 85; Laodice. 59. 6o; Carthage. 54; Gregory the Theologian verses; Athanasius the Great. 39th canonical letter; Amphilochius iambic verses.) This rule determines that in the Church nothing should be read under the name of the Holy Scriptures, except for those canonical books whose names are listed in the rule. See also Apost about them. 85 and note. to him. Subdeacons who touch the Sacred Mysteries, deacons and elders, as well as bishops, according to their definitions, should abstain from wives, should be as if they had not (1 Cor. 7:29). If they do not do this, let them be removed from church office. The rest of the clergy should not be forced to do this, except in old age. However, every Church must observe the custom accepted in it. (Apost. 5; VI Universe. 12, 13, 30, 48; Gangr. 4; Carthage. 3, 4, 19) Like the 3rd and 4th rules, the present rule determines that subdeacons (see about them in the note to VI Ecum. 15), who touch the Mysteries, deacons and bishops, must keep themselves pure from their wives by mutual consent [244], in accordance with the rules they accepted before ordination, and the promises they made at that time. Let them, according to the well-known apostolic saying, even if they have wives, be as if they did not have them at all. If they do not observe this, let them be deprived of the rank and degree of the priesthood, that is, deposed. And the rest, the lower clergy, that is, readers, singers, gatekeepers, spellcasters, etc., should not be forced to abstain from their wives, unless in old age. After all, if, according to Basil the Great, chastity in old age is not chastity, but the impossibility of being incontinent 245, then, of course, one who does not maintain chastity even in old age is very incontinent, which a cleric should not be. However, let everyone follow the customs of the Church in which he is a cleric. And the VI Ecumenical Council in its 13th canon understood the expression “according to its definitions” as “during its turn to perform divine services.” Read VI Universe. 12, 13, and also Apost. 5 and Carthage. 19. It was decided that no one would sell church property. If the property does not generate income, and yet extreme necessity forces it to be sold, you need to announce this to the head of that metropolitan region and consult with a certain number of bishops on what to do. And if necessity forces the Church to be in such a hurry that there is no possibility of conferring before the sale, let the bishop call at least neighboring bishops as witnesses, and at the same time take care to inform the Council about all the circumstances that have developed in his Church. If he does not take care of this, then he will be guilty before God and the Council and deprived of his honor. (Apost. 38, 41; VII Om. 12; Ancyra. 15; Antioch. 24; Carthage. 41; Cyril Alexander. 2.) Church property must be inalienable and inalienable from the Churches to which it belongs. Therefore, this canon commands that bishops should not sell the property of their Church. If it happens that some church property will not generate income and profit, while an urgent need arises to sell it, the bishop should notify the metropolitan about this and arrange a council with twelve bishops. But if the need of the Church is so urgent that there is no time left to ask for advice, the bishop should at least call neighboring bishops as witnesses, so that, having secured their testimony, he can report at the annual Council about all the circumstances and needs of his Church that forced him to sell the estate. And if he does not do this, let him be guilty before God and the Council and deposed from the rank of bishop. It is also stated that if presbyters or deacons are convicted of some grave sin (βαρύτερᾳ ἀμαρτίᾳ) [ 246 ], for which it is necessary to remove them from ministry, then one should not lay hands on them as repentant or faithful laymen and allow them, having received baptism a second time, to ascend to the degree clergy (Apostle 25, 47. 68; Basil the Great, 3, 32, 44. 51; VI Ecum. 21; Carthage. 57) There was the following custom: when those who had sinned repented and came to church, confessing their sins, the bishops or, with their permission, the priests in the church laid their hands on their heads [247] and then, with the reading of prayers, excommunicated them and assigned them to the places of the penitents, depending on the sins committed. It is precisely this laying on of hands that this rule prohibits from being performed on presbyters and deacons who have been convicted of a serious crime and expelled from the priesthood for this. In addition, it is forbidden to place them in places where repentant lay faithful stand after excommunication. And in fact, for the clergy, one punishment is enough - eruption, according to the Apostle. 25, the interpretation of which read. The mentioned outcasts should also not accept a second baptism, wishing to be cleansed of their sins and again accept the ordination of priests and deacons, since repeating holy baptism (see Apostle 47 on this) and the ordination of clergy (according to Apostle 68) is impiety. It was decided: if presbyters, deacons and other lower clergy complain about the courts of their bishops due to litigation they have, let neighboring bishops listen to them, and disputes between them, with the consent of their own bishop, are settled by the bishops invited by them. Therefore, if they want to appeal against the decision of these judges, let them appeal not to the courts on the other side of the sea, but to the superior ones of their metropolitan regions, which has been repeatedly determined for bishops. And those who appeal to the courts on the other side of the sea, no one in Africa accepts into fellowship. (II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Carthage. 11, 134) This rule specifies that presbyters, deacons and all lower clergy must have their legal cases examined by their bishop. If they have complaints against the judicial decision of their bishop, they should call neighboring bishops from nearby places so that they, together with the condemning bishop, will consider their dispute. And if the accused do not like the decision of the bishops invited from nearby places, let them transfer the case and appeal to the metropolitan of their region, as we have commanded the bishops to do. And those who appeal to the courts overseas, that is, to Italy, to the Pope of Rome [248], and, generally speaking, to the courts of distant regions and beyond the borders of their district, may they be deprived of communion by all the bishops of Africa. The 134th rule of this Council is very similar to this rule. Read also II Omni. 6, IV Omni. 9 and Carthage. 11. See also note. 2 to Antiochus. 4. It was the will of the entire Council: if someone excommunicated from communion due to his own negligence, be it a bishop or any clergyman, dares to enter into communion during his excommunication before being heard, then it must be considered that he has pronounced a guilty verdict on himself. (Apost. 12, 13, 32; I Ose. 5; Antioch. 6; Sardik. 14.) A bishop or any other cleric who is excommunicated for a sin committed through carelessness, even if he claims to have been excommunicated unjustly, must remain under the penance of excommunication until his case has been tried by other, higher judges. And if, even before it is examined whether he is deservedly excommunicated or not, he himself dares to enter into communication with others and trample on excommunication, it will be obvious that by his contempt he brings upon himself a just verdict of guilt, as determined by this rule. See also Apost. 32. Resolved: If the accused or accuser fears violence from an uncontrollable crowd in the place where the accused is, let him choose the nearest place to which he can easily bring witnesses. There the matter will be completed. (Apost. 75; I Om. 2; Carthage. 140.) When clergy are suing each other because of some disagreement and one of them, namely the accuser, fears that if the trial is held in the place where the cleric against whom he has brought proceedings on some charge is located, then the relatives and friends of the accused will rebel against him or he himself, the accuser, will not be able to bring witnesses for the prosecution there, in this case, this rule allows him to choose another place nearby where the trial should be held. I said “nearby” so that the judges could easily come to judge, and the witnesses could easily come to testify, and so that, therefore, the case would be brought to an end. Choosing a remote place, where it is difficult for witnesses and judges to reach, because of which it is impossible to complete the case (as some cunning people do, realizing that they are wrong and wanting to avoid trial), is not allowed. Resolved: if any clergy and deacons do not obey their bishops when, due to the forced circumstances of their Churches, they want to elevate them to a higher rank in their Church, then let them not serve in that degree that they did not want to leave. Whoever has become a reader, singer, subdeacon or any cleric and minister of the Church should be so worthy that, if necessary, he can be promoted to a higher degree of priesthood, as Basil the Great says in his canonical letter to the chorebishops, which constitutes his 89th canon. Therefore, this rule makes a determination about clergy and deacons, i.e., ministers (according to Zonara, the name “deacon” (διάκονος) is used here in a general sense and means any minister, and not specifically the one who is ordained a deacon, as indicated by the verb “let them not serve” (διακονήσωσι), used later in the rule). So, clergy and ministers who do not obey their bishops, who, due to the forced circumstances of their Churches, want to elevate them to higher degrees, for example, subdeacons to the degree of deacons, and deacons to the degree of presbyters, let them not remain at the lower level that they did not want to leave. They didn’t want to, not out of reverence, according to the anonymous interpreter, and not because of their unworthiness, but because of neglect and disobedience, and perhaps because at a higher level they had to work harder. Simply put, such should be expelled from their degrees and removed from ministry [249]. It was decided: if bishops, presbyters, deacons or any other clergy who had nothing, after their installation, during episcopacy or service in the clergy, buy fields or any land in their name, then they must be considered the thieves of the Lord's property, except in the case when, after exhortations, they give it to the Church. If they personally receive a gift from someone or an inheritance from relatives, let them do with it as they please. And if, having expressed the intention to give this to the Church, they return back, let them be recognized as unworthy of church office as outcasts. (Apost. 40; IV Ecum. 22; VI Ecum. 35; Antioch. 24; Carthage. 30, 89.) This rule defines: if bishops, presbyters, deacons and clergy in general, who were previously poor, upon entering the episcopal see or the clergy, acquired estates or some fields and estates and, after admonition, do not want to dedicate this property to the Church of which they are bishops or clergy, then they should be cast out as thieves and robbers who have appropriated church property. After all, they purchased it with money received from the Church. And from the property that they received as an inheritance from relatives or as a gift left by someone out of diligence to them personally, they should give to the Church as much as they wish. What is meant here is not the property that was left to them for distribution to the poor or the ransom of captives (of course, they are not required to dedicate it to the church), but that which was transferred to them for personal use. If they first wish to give away part of this property, and then change their minds, let them be considered unworthy of the ecclesiastical degree they occupy, as unfit and outcasts. It was decided that presbyters, without the will of their bishops, should not sell the property of the church in which they were installed. Likewise, bishops are not allowed to sell church lands without the knowledge of the Council or their presbyters. Thus, the bishop is not allowed to unnecessarily squander the property included in the church inventory book. (Apost. 38, 41; IV Om. 26; VII Om. 11, 12; Antioch. 24, 25; Ankyra. 15; Gangr. 7; Carthage. 34; Theophila Alexander, 10; Cyril Alexander. 2.) Presbyters, according to this rule, are not allowed to sell the property of the church to which it is dedicated without the will of their bishops. In turn, bishops, without the permission and knowledge of the Council or their presbyters, do not have the right to sell, if there is no need, or to misuse any of the property included in the book (τίτλος) - the word τίτλος sometimes means the title, sometimes the topic, and sometimes the book - the church inventory (μάτριξ) [250], in other words, in the inventory of the bishopric. After all, the presbyters and the Council, and above all the economists, must have information about the management of church property. Bishops and clergy should not allow their children to leave them to live independently by the right of emancipation, unless they are completely confident in the constancy of their morals and maturity of age, so that the sins of the children do not subsequently fall on the parents. The word "emancipation" is Latin. It means the liberation of sons from their father's authority. This rule says that bishops and clergy should not allow their children to be completely independent and release them from their care, unless they are first convinced from their actions that they have common sense and have reached the age when they can learn what they should and govern themselves. Otherwise, if they provide their children with freedom, without raising them to be good and without teaching them virtue, at an age that is not yet characterized by understanding and prudence (see note 1 to VI Ecum. 40), then they will become accomplices in their sins, which they can commit after receiving complete freedom [252]. Bishops, deacons and presbyters should not be ordained until they have made everyone in their household Orthodox Christians. If the duty of bishops, deacons and presbyters is to teach all infidels and followers of false teachings and bring them to Orthodoxy, then how much more so the infidels and heretics living in their home, such as children, wives or slaves? Therefore, the present rule determines that no one should be ordained as a bishop, presbyter or deacon if he has not yet made all his household Orthodox Christians. Who - says the ap. Paul, - does not know how to manage his own house, will he care about the Church of God? (1 Timothy 3:5). In the holy sacrament, let nothing be offered except the Body and Blood of the Lord, as the Lord Himself commanded, that is, except bread and wine mixed with water. And the firstfruits, either honey or milk - for the sacrament of infants - although they are mainly brought to the altar, let them have their own blessing in order to be distinguished from the shrine of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And let them not bring the firstfruits of anything except grapes and wheat. (Apost. 3, 4; VI Ev. 28, 32, 57, 99) This rule decides not to bring anything else for the Holy Mysteries, except bread - for its transubstantiation into the Body of Christ, wine - for its transubstantiation into the Blood of Christ, and water, which is mixed with wine in the image of the water that flowed from the side of the Lord. But since it is customary on a certain day for the sacrament of infants to bring milk and honey to the altar as firstfruits, let them be brought, but not combined with the Body and Blood of the Lord, but placed and blessed in a special separate place as firstfruits. The expression “for the sacrament of infants” means “for the maintenance of the life of infants,” who are usually fed on milk and honey, according to the well-known prophetic saying: the child, that is, Jesus, will eat butter (made from milk) and honey 253 - as a proof of the truth of His humanity (as Coressius interprets it). Of the other firstfruits, cereals and fruits, only grapes and ears of wheat can be brought to the altar when they are ripe. Read also the Apostle. 3 and VI Omni. 32, in which this rule is given verbatim. This custom of bringing honey and milk was abolished, or rather, corrected by Rule VI Omni. 57. Let clerics or abstinents not come to widows or virgins, unless by order or with the permission of their bishop or presbyters. And let them not do this alone, but accompanied by fellow clerics or such persons with whom the bishop or only presbyters can come to such women, or let them meet with them in the presence of clergy or any respected Christians. (I Om. 3; VII Om. 18, 22; Anchir. 19; Basil the Great. 88.) This rule decrees that clergy or abstinents [ 254 ], in order to avoid the suspicion of the crowd, do not enter the houses of widows or virgins, unless they come either with the permission and on behalf of the bishop (i.e., if he needs to send them), or with his consent and approval (i.e., if they themselves ask to go there). In addition, when the bishop allows them or agrees to their request, let them not enter the houses of these women alone, but accompanied by their fellow clerics or those with whom the bishop and presbyters usually enter such women; or let them, so as not to serve as a temptation, talk to them in those places where there are clergy and other respected Christians. See also I Omni. 3. The bishop of the first see should not be called the exarch of the priests, or the supreme priest, or any similar name, but let him only be called the bishop of the first see. To eradicate arrogance and arrogance, the present rule determines that the bishop of the first see should not be called exarch of the priests, or high priest [255], or a similar pompous and proud name, because this is alien to bishops, imitators of the humble-hearted Jesus, but be called only the bishop of the first see. See note. to Apost. 34. Clerics should not come to eat or drink in taverns, unless necessity forces them during travel. (Apost. 42, 43. 54; VI Ecum. 9, 50; VII Ecum. 22; Laodice. 24.55) According to this rule, clerics should not go to taverns to eat and drink, unless they come there forcedly: while traveling and having no place to stay. Let the sacrament of the altar be performed only by those who have not eaten anything, with the exception of one day in the year on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated. If there is a commemoration of someone, whether bishops or others, who died in the evening, then let it be done with prayers alone, if it turns out that those performing it have already tasted food. (Apost. 69; Laodice. 49–52; Timothy Alexander. 8, 10; VI Ose. 29, 89; Dionysius Alexander. 1.) The first part of this rule, which states that on Maundy Thursday the priests should perform the liturgy after eating food, corrects and repeats verbatim the rule of VI Ecumenical. 29, its interpretation and see in its place. The second part of the rule, obviously, is as follows. On the day when someone died, it was customary to celebrate a liturgy, probably to remember the deceased. So, the rule says: if one of the bishops or laity dies in the evening and it turns out that the priests, who were supposed to entrust the souls of the departed to God through prayerful commemoration and reconcile them with Him, have already tasted food, then the sacred liturgy should not be served. But let a sequence of funeral chants be performed with only the prescribed prayers (namely, what is now commonly called parastas). Bishops or clergy should not have meals in church, unless they happen to have to stop there while traveling for rest. And to the laity, as far as possible, let this kind of meal be prohibited. (VI Om. 74, 76, 88; Laodice. 27; Gangr. 11.) According to the definition of this rule, it is not appropriate for bishops and clergy to host meals in churches. They can eat in church only out of necessity, when they are in a strange place and have nowhere to rest. The laity should also be prohibited from hosting such meals in church. Read also VI Omni. 74. The time of repentance for those who repent, depending on the type of sins, is appointed by the decision of the bishops. The presbyter, without the knowledge of the bishop, should not permit the penitent, unless it is forced in the absence of the bishop. If the crime of the penitent, no matter who he is, is public and known to everyone, disturbing the entire Church, then you should lay your hand on him before entering the church. (Apost. 39; Carthage. 6, 7.) Since the Lord gave the power to bind and decide to the apostles, and the image of the apostles is to the bishops, the present rule decrees that the bishop, depending on the type of sins (see I Om. 12 and, above all, VI Om. 102), assigns to the penitents a time of repentance, that is, a period during which they must be bound by penance. The presbyter, without the knowledge and permission of the bishop, should not release any of the penitents from prison, unless the penitent is in mortal danger, and the bishop is absent and located far away. If someone is in a public sin, that is, committed publicly (this is precisely the meaning of the Latin word publicus) and generally known, so that the extremeness of the vice prompts all Christians to either imitate this sin or talk about it - and if, I continue, such a sinner repents, then let the bishop or, with the consent of the bishop, the priest lay his hand on him not inside the church, as on the rest of the repentant (see Carthage. 35), and at the “entrance to the church,” that is, outside the porch and vestibule (hands were also laid on the heretics who converted outside the church) (see II Om. 7). This is necessary so that the penitents stand and cry outside the church gates, because such people, since they sinned publicly and openly, are not considered to be confessing. After all, confession is the announcement of a secret sin. How can we assume that they are confessing a sin that is known to everyone even before their confession? Read also the Apostle. 39 and Carthage. 7. Let the sacred virgins, when they are separated from their fathers who protected them, be entrusted to the care of the bishop or, in his absence, the presbyter, to the most respectable wives. Or let the virgins, having settled together, protect each other themselves, so as not to wander around and thereby damage the good name of the Church. (I Om. 3, 19; IV Om. 16; Carthage. 6, 135) The consecrated virgins of whom the 6th canon of this Council speaks are the same sacred virgins of whom this canon speaks. It determines that after the virgins leave the care and protection of their father according to the flesh and devote themselves to God, taking a vow of virginity, the bishop or, in his absence, the priest must take care of them and entrust them to respectable and pious women, so that the virgins live with them and learn virtue. And even if the virgins do not live with them, then they should at least all live together, look after each other and protect each other, so as not to wander around randomly and thereby not arouse bad suspicions among unbelievers about the Church, that is, the assembly of believers. See also I Omni. 3 and 19 and IV Omni. 16. Sick people who cannot answer for themselves, let them be baptized when, at their discretion, a testimony is given about them at their own risk. This rule defines: if the catechumens, due to some illness, become speechless and when asked whether they wish to be baptized, cannot answer due to illness, then they must be baptized when they themselves give a sign that they want to be baptized of their own free will and ask for holy baptism at their own peril, i.e. if they do not maintain the faith, they will put themselves in danger. This is how Zonara, Balsamon, Aristinus, and Armenopulus interpret this rule (section 5, tit. 10). I prefer a different interpretation of this rule, proposed by an anonymous interpreter. He says that those who, due to illness, are not able to pronounce for themselves, with their own lips, the sacred answers that are supposed to be given at divine baptism, should be baptized when the recipients, asking to baptize the sick and ready to give answers in their place, testify that they expose themselves to danger in the future if these sick people did not want to be baptized of their own free will [256]. If the sick were already seeking baptism before illness, but for some reason postponed it, then, according to Zonara, they should be baptized, even if at that moment they cannot pronounce the answers themselves. Read also Neokesar. 12. Actors, mimes and other persons of the same kind or apostates, if they repent and turn to God, should not be denied grace or reconciliation. Those who set up tents with scenes and play various roles in them, and those who portray either slaves, or military leaders, or women, etc., as well as other similar organizers of games, dancers and magicians, as well as those who have renounced Christ, the bishop or confessor, according to this rule, must accept if they repent and turn to God, but, accepting them all equally, he must give them grace, i.e. that is, remission of sins, given by the grace of God, and reconciliation, that is, liberation from the corresponding penances, thanks to which God is reconciled with them. Let it be permitted to read about the sufferings of the martyrs every year on those days when their memory is celebrated. (Apost. 85; Laodice. 51. 6o; Carthage. 32; Athanasius the Great. 39th message; verses of Gregory the Theologian and Amphilochius.) This Council, in its 32nd canon, determined which books should be read in the Church under the name of the canonical Scriptures, and now in this canon it adds that when the memory of a martyr is celebrated, along with the canonical Scriptures it is also permitted to read the Synaxari, which contain descriptions of the suffering of the martyrs for Christ. See also Apost. 85. It was decided to ask our brothers and co-servants Siricius and Simplician only about the infants baptized by the Donatists, whether what they did not do of their own free will, the error of their parents, would not become an obstacle to their elevation to the service of the holy altar, when they turn to the Church of God with a saving disposition. (Carthage. 66, 75–78, 99–103, 110, 128–129.) In the present canon, this Council decides to ask the co-bishops in Italy how they should receive infants baptized by Donatist heretics [257], and whether it is appropriate for them, baptized by heretics, to receive the priesthood when they, having reached a conscious age, convert to Orthodoxy. In the 66th canon, this Council determines that such people should be accepted into Orthodoxy without rebaptism, through the laying on of the hand of a bishop or priest and pronouncing an anathema to the error of the Donatists; if they show an example of good behavior, they can become clergy. Canon 75 says that the fathers decided to treat the Donatists meekly and peacefully, so that in this way they could be led to the truth. In the 76th rule, the Council asks the rulers of Africa to consider the issue of those Orthodox churches that are owned by Maximianists, who come from the Donatian heresy. In Canon 77, the Council accepts those ordained by the Donatists and recognizes their consecrations (even though the Council convened on this issue in Italy did not recognize them). He accepts them for many reasons, mainly because of the acute shortage of priests in Africa. In the 78th canon, the Council orders that representatives be sent to the Donatists who would call them to reconciliation and unity with the Catholic Church. In addition, in Canon 99, the Council determines that each bishop in his episcopal region should talk with the leaders of the Donatists about unification. In the 100th rule, the Council asks the emperors for help and alliance in the fight against the Donatists, just as the captain helped the apostle. Pavel. In Canon 101, the Council asks them to confirm the law of Emperor Theodosius also in relation to the Donatists. This law determines to collect 10 liters of gold from those who ordain heretics, or will be ordained by them, or will admit them to ministry. In Canon 102, the Council asks for the Donatists to renew and observe the law prohibiting heretics from receiving an inheritance or gift. In Canon 103, the Council demands that letters of gratitude be sent, since unity with the Donatists took place in Carthage. And finally, in canon 110, the Council determines: when the bishops and laity convert from the Donatists, then if the laity want to have these former bishops of theirs, do not interfere with them. And in the 128th and 129th rules, the Council makes a determination regarding the places that the Donatists owned before or after the publication of the imperial laws. We have heard about the study of faith in Nicaea: as for the Holy Mysteries, which are not performed after eating food, it is true that they should be offered, as they should, by those who have not eaten food. It was approved then. (VI Omni. 29; Carthage. 48.) The Latin word tractatus, according to Zonare, means “plan” and “intention”, and according to Balsamon - “consideration”, “research” 258. So, the present rule says: “We heard that during the consideration and study of faith that was carried out by the First Ecumenical Council, it was also confirmed that priests should not offer the Holy Mysteries, that is, perform the Liturgy, after eating food, but should do this on an empty stomach.” However, this is not among the rules of the First Ecumenical Council. See also VI Omni. 29. Re-baptisms, or re-ordinations, or transfers of bishops are prohibited, and anyone who did not wish to obey the gentle admonition of your holiness and correct the lawlessness, let him immediately be stopped by the authority of the rulers and, after the established order has been observed, may not be considered to belong to the Council. (Apost. 14, 27, 47, 68; Dvukrat. 9; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 62, 76, 83, 92, 100, 106, 107.) This rule decides that those baptized Orthodox should not be rebaptized, according to the Apostle. 47, and those ordained by the Orthodox were not re-ordained, according to the Apostle. 68, and so that bishops do not move from one episcopal region to another, according to Apost. 14. Read these rules together with the agreement, which sets out other, parallel rules. Since a certain bishop named Cresconius, leaving his own episcopal region, invaded a foreign one, called Vecenskaya, and, despite the fact that he was repeatedly admonished on this matter, did not want to leave it, the present rule determines that he, since he did not want to obey and correct this unacceptable evil, should be expelled from the foreign Church by the secular power belonging to the rulers. However, if the established order was observed in relation to him, that is, he was admonished according to the rules, and he remained disobedient, then he must first be expelled from the Council of Bishops and deposed, and then, deposed, he should be handed over to the ruler as a layman. See also all the above apostolic rules. Let the ancient order be observed: for the ordination of bishops, no less than three bishops are required, as defined. (Apost. 1; I Om. 4; VII Om. 3; Antioch. 19; Carthage. 13; Constantinople. 394) One must observe the ancient rule of the apostles and the rules of subsequent Councils, especially the rule of the First Ecumenical. 4, which the Council of Carthage promises to follow in its 1st canon. As this rule defines, less than three bishops should not ordain another bishop through sacred rites with prayers [259]. If we proceed to elect a bishop and some objection arises (since such cases have been considered by us), then in this case it would be insolence for only three bishops to gather to justify the one who is to be ordained. But let one or two bishops be added to the number mentioned above; and before the very people for whom they intend to ordain him, let them first examine the identity of those objecting, and then add what they have presented. And when he turns out to be pure in the face of the people, only then let him be ordained. (Apost. 61; VII Universe. 3; Carthage. 138.) This rule is connected with the previous one: it says that if three bishops, who are enough to perform ordination, elect and approve a candidate for bishop (see also I Ecumenical 4), but at the same time someone else begins to object, bringing charges against the candidate (we have considered such cases many times), then it should not be only these three bishops who judge and acquit him, but let there be one or two more bishops together with them. And first of all, let them, before the people for whom they intend to ordain a candidate, examine what the reputation of the accusers is (see Apostle 74 on this), and if they are blameless, then let them examine the charges brought by them. And after the candidate appears clear of accusations in the eyes of the people, let him be ordained a bishop. We must meet annually for conferences; and when we gather together, then through the representatives who will be at the Council, the day of Holy Easter will be announced. (Apost. 37; I Omni. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Carthage. 26, 61, 81, 84, 85, 104.) This rule does not determine anything other than that a Council should be convened annually to consider ecclesiastical issues and that this Council, through the episcopal representatives present at it, should announce on what day of the current year Holy Easter will fall [260]. See Apost. 37. and also Apostle. 7. During the Council we are obliged to visit every episcopal region. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carthage. 26, 60, 81, 84, 85.) This rule prescribes visiting each episcopal region during the annual Council, i.e., examining the issues arising in it, for which representatives of the Council personally go to each region and consider these issues. The Holy Assembly at many Councils determined that the people who are subordinate in parishes to bishops and have never had their own bishop, without the consent of the bishop to whom they are initially subordinate, should not receive their own stewards, that is, bishops. For some, as we know, having achieved some kind of dominance by violence, turn away from communication with the brethren; when they are dishonored, they, as if by right of long-standing dominance, defend their power. Likewise, many presbyters, arrogant and insane, raise their necks against their own bishops, inciting the people with feasts and malicious advice to, by their disorderly disposition, install themselves as rulers. Therefore, we are obliged to fight against them in every possible way, so that they do not retain not only such areas, but also their own churches, which passed to them unlawfully; and that they should be publicly expelled by the authority of the authorities and removed by the very chair of the leaders. This rule determines that those Christian people who from the very beginning did not have their own bishop in their city should not accept one (the rule calls him a steward, since he guides the believers to faith and virtue) without the knowledge and permission from the very beginning of the bishop who ruled them. Many bishops, wishing to episcopate in such cities that do not have a bishop, avoid communication with their fellow bishops (whose cities were obviously subordinate), and after they are rejected and their malicious intent is revealed, they strive to rule over these cities by force, tyrannically, as if, according to ancient custom, they have the right to do so. In addition, many presbyters rebel against their bishops and with feasts that they arrange for the people, and with wicked advice they incite the people to install these presbyters as their bishops, supposedly attracted by their unruly and illegal love for them. So, with all of them, says the rule, the Council must fight not only to stop such abuses and not allow them in the future, but also to openly expel them with the help of both secular and metropolitan or patriarchal authorities from those cities that they have tyrannically taken possession of. Or the word “regions” means that those who so tyrannically acquired the bishopric should be expelled not only from the cities they pillaged, but also from their original regions. It is clear that in this way those expelled are also expelled, according to the 57th rule of this Council. Read also the Apostle. 27, 31. 34 and Sardik. 6. Let no bishop appropriate another's clergy without the permission of his former bishop, otherwise let him not enter into communion with strangers. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; IV Oz. 5, 10, 20, 23; VI Oz. 17, 18; VII Oz. 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15, 16,19; Carthage. 98.) This rule decrees that no bishop should appropriate someone else's clergy without the consent and release letter of his bishop (Apostle 12). If he does not comply with this, let him not enter into communication with strangers. This can be understood in two ways. Or this: let him not appropriate this foreign cleric, but force him to return to his church; or this way: let other bishops not accept such a bishop into communion, that is, let him be deprived of communion [261]. This throne has always had the power, at the request of each church, to ordain a bishop, from where he wants and for whom he is asked, calling him by name. However, benevolence moderates this right so as to show respect to the person of each bishop. Therefore, if it turns out that someone has only one presbyter and he is capable of bishopric, then he must give even this one for ordination. And the one who has a larger number of clergy will be encouraged to give him one of them for ordination. Other bishops do not have the right to take someone else’s clergy without the permission and letter of release of his bishop, but the See of Carhidon from the very beginning had such a privilege - to take clergy from any region [ 262 ] and ordain them as bishops, no matter who was asked by name, and any region subordinate to him wished, as the present canon says (see also the interpretation of Apostle 16). However, the goodwill of the Carhidon throne requires using this privilege and right moderately, that is, not taking other people’s clergy autocratically, but for the sake of peace and brotherly love, respecting the feelings of their bishops and taking clergy with the consent and permission of these bishops. Therefore, if it turns out that a bishop has only one presbyter and he is worthy of the bishopric, then the bishop must give him to the See of Carthage for ordination as a bishop. But if another bishop has more clergy in his bishopric, then he, in turn, will be forced to provide that bishop with one of them for ordination as a presbyter in the place given. See also Apost. 15 with a number of parallel rules. What is proper for each bishop has been observed, so that no one is separated from the general composition of the parishes for the purpose of obtaining his own bishop, unless with the consent of the one who has authority over him. If he allows this region, having received permission, to have its own bishop, let the one promoted not encroach on the other regions, since one region was separated from the totality of many, and only this one was worthy to receive the honor of a separate bishopric. (Sardik. 6; Carthage. 62, 109.) According to this rule, since each bishop is assigned a corresponding entire region, it should not be that any small parish is separated from the entire region and receives a separate bishop without the will and consent of the bishop of the entire region, i.e., the metropolitan. If the metropolitan agrees that this new bishop should be installed, then the latter should not appropriate other parishes and localities of the metropolitan region, since only one part and territory was separated from the full composition of the entire region, worthy of becoming a bishopric, in which alone the new bishop should reside. All other parts of the region must be subordinate to one head, that is, the metropolitan, and remain integral from him. Those who were baptized by the Donatists in infancy, when they could not yet know the destruction of their error, but upon reaching an age capable of reasoning, knew the truth and were disgusted by their depravity, may they be received into the Catholic Church of God, spread throughout the whole world, according to the ancient rite - through the laying on of hands. They should not, under the pretext of their error, be prevented from entering the rank of clergy if they, having come to faith, recognized the true Church as theirs and, having believed in Christ in it, accepted the sacraments of the Trinity, which, which is completely clear, are all true, holy and divine and on which all the hope of the soul is based. Although the hasty insolence of heretics most of all strives, under the name of truth, to shamelessly teach some contrary sacraments, but since the sacraments are simple, as the holy Apostle teaches, saying: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and it is impossible to repeat what should be taught once, then let them, anathematizing this error by name, through the laying on of hands, be accepted into the one Church, which, as it is said, is the dove and the only mother of Christians (see Song 6:8). In the Church, all the sacraments, eternal and life-giving, are accepted for salvation, but to those who remain in heresy, they bring great condemnation and punishment, which is why what in truth should have become for them a radiant companion into eternal life, in error will lead them to greater darkness and condemnation. This is precisely what some escaped and, having learned the highest truth of the common mother Church, out of love for the truth, believed in all the holy sacraments and accepted them. Such people, when their good life is proven, will undoubtedly be allowed to enter the clergy to serve the Holy Mysteries, especially since in such difficult circumstances there is no one who would not agree with this. If some clergy from the followers of Donatus’ teaching want to come to us together with their people and in their degrees, out of love for honor, giving the people advice on life and keeping them with them for salvation, then the question of this, we believe, should be clarified upon more detailed consideration, when the above-mentioned brothers express their opinion - so that they, at their most prudent meeting, examine the subject of our appeal to them and deign to confirm us in what should us to rule on this matter. And we are content with the fact that, if they please, only in relation to those baptized in infancy, they agree with our decision to ordain such. (Apost. 46, 47. 68; I Om. 8; II Om. 7, VI Om. 95; Carthage. 55. 75–78, 99. This rule determines: if those baptized in infancy by Donatists, after reaching conscious age, come to know the truth of Orthodoxy and hate false teaching, then there is no need to rebaptize them, since they were baptized with baptism performed according to Orthodox Tradition (and there is only one baptism, as Paul says). But let them anathematize the Donatus heresy and, after the laying on of the hand of a bishop or priest, according to the ancient church rite (see I Ecumenical 8), be accepted into the Catholic Church, which has spread throughout the whole world, the common mother of all Christians and the only perfect dove of Christ, as stated in the book of Songs. If those accepted in this way also demonstrate a virtuous life, worthy of ordination and rank, then one should ordain them without hesitation. Despite the fact that they were previously heretics, they should not be prevented from entering the clergy, firstly, because, having turned away from heresy, they recognized the true Catholic Church as their own, believed in Christ Orthodoxy and with ardent, unfalse love accepted, as true and holy, the sacraments of the Trinity [263], that is, the most pure Mysteries, on which all hope and salvation of the soul depends. Moreover, for those who remain in heresy, these sacraments turn out to be darkness and greater condemnation, but for the Orthodox - light and eternal life (although a daring bunch of heretics dares to teach some supposed sacraments that contradict the truth or bear its name, but in fact are false and devoid of Divine grace). Secondly, they should also be ordained because of the extreme shortage of priests and clergy in Africa [264]. If the clergy and priests of the Donatists want to convert to Orthodoxy with the people subordinate to them and in their degrees and, first of all, in order to possess these degrees, they will advise the people to convert to Orthodoxy, if, I repeat, this happens, what should they do? However, this, the rule adds, will be explained to us later by Pope Anastasius and Venerius of Milan [265]. For the moment, we will be satisfied with the one thing that they will tell us whether they want the converted Donatists to be ordained. See also Canon 55 of this Council, Apost. 46, 47 and 68. The most pious emperors must be asked to order the final destruction of the remnants of idols throughout Africa, because in many coastal regions and in various possessions this impious error still flourishes. Let them order the destruction of the idols and order that their churches, which stand in the fields and in secluded places without any decoration, be destroyed in any way. Despite the fact that the mental serpent was struck to the very head by the economy of the incarnation, it still moved its tail: in some places, even after the spread of the sermon, idol churches remained, and especially in coastal regions, private estates and other secluded places in Africa. Therefore, this rule prescribes that a petition be submitted to the most pious emperors, that is, Honorius and Theodosius the Younger, so that they order the complete destruction of all these remains of idols in Africa, as well as to completely destroy the idol churches, including those that do not have any decoration 266 and are already half destroyed. The same thing is discussed in Canon 92 of this Council. We should also ask the emperors to deign to make a ruling that if anyone, according to the apostolic right belonging to the Churches, wants to litigate some case in the Church, and one of the parties, perhaps, does not like the decision of the clergy, in such a case, let it not be allowed to call to court to give testimony the clergy who tried the same case before or was present at its trial, and let them not be obliged to give testimony of someone who is related to a church person. (Apost. 75; I Om. 2; Carthage. 38.140.) Al. Paul dares to speak with words: who among you will sue the wicked, and not the saints? (1 Cor. 6:l) commands that Christians be tried in internal church courts, and not in secular ones. So, if the clergy, in accordance with this apostolic right and privilege, try any case in the Church, but one of the litigants is not satisfied with their decision, this rule asks the emperors to make a ruling so that the dissatisfied person does not have the right to summon to another court to give testimony in this case the cleric who tried it or was present at the trial, and that he does not have the right to bring to testimony someone who is a relative of the cleric. On the one hand, because clergy and clerics do not testify against their will, and on the other, because the one who examined the case is forbidden to testify on it [267]. It is appropriate to ask Christian emperors about the following: since, contrary to divine commands, feasts are held in many places, stemming from pagan error, so that even Christians secretly gather together with the pagans for their celebration, then let the emperors command that this be prohibited both in cities and in private possessions, especially since in some cities, even on the very birthdays of the blessed martyrs, and, moreover, in the sacred places themselves, this lawlessness is revealed. On these days (which is even shameful to talk about) they organize disgusting dances in the fields and squares, so that with their obscene insolence they encroach on the honor of the mothers of families and the dignity of the other numerous reverent women who come there on the holy day - to the point that they almost have to flee from the haven of the holy faith. (Apost. 42, 43, 54; VI Ecum. 9, 50, 62; VII Ecum. 22; Laodice. 24, 53, 55; Carthage. 47) In many places, pagan feasts 268 were still held, so that Christians secretly gathered together with the pagans, and in addition, on the days of celebrating the memory of the martyrs, [269] these feasts and dances were so disorderly that their participants dishonestly and shamelessly attacked pious women who, out of reverence, went to the holidays, which is why women were even forced to avoid going to church. Therefore, the present rule prescribes asking the emperors to order with their authority the prohibition of all such riots both in cities and in country estates, and in front of the holy churches dedicated to martyrs, and in the courtyards of these churches. Read also the Apostle. 42. It is also necessary to ask that theatrical games be prohibited on Sunday and other bright days of the Christian faith, primarily because during the eight days of Holy Easter people gather at the hippodrome rather than in church. Shows scheduled for those days on which Christian holidays also fall should be postponed, and no Christian should be forced to attend these shows. (VI Om. 24, 51. 62, 66; VII Om. 22; Laodice. 53. 54; Carthage. 17.) In this rule, the Council asks that, by imperial command, horse racing or games with the participation of other animals should not be held on Sundays and other holidays, especially on Bright Week, since Christians for the most part gather for these spectacles, and not for church. And let no Christian be forced to attend them, but let the spectacles be postponed to other days. See also VI Omni. 24. We must also ask that they be pleased to determine that a cleric, no matter what his degree, if he is convicted by a court of bishops for any crime, cannot defend either the Church to which he belonged or any person, under threat of punishment in the form of a fine and deprivation of honor. Moreover, let them command that neither age nor nature be considered an excuse. By this rule the Council asks the emperors to decree that neither the Church nor any person, such as a ruler, shall have the right to defend any cleric who has been condemned by the bishops for a crime worthy of condemnation [270], and that whoever does so shall receive the punishment of a fine and deprivation of honor and degree. And let neither his age, be he an old man or a youth, nor his nature, be he a man or a woman, nor his health, nor his physical weakness, be used as an excuse (i.e., does not mitigate his guilt). It should also be asked that if anyone wants to move from any theatrical art to the grace of Christianity and remain free from the former defilement, no one will be allowed to again persuade or force him to the same activities. In this rule, the Council also asks the emperors that if a pagan, being an actor, for example, a stage actor, or a mime, or some other person, becomes a Christian and no longer wants to participate in unholy games, they forbid again forcing or inducing him to these activities. Indeed, in those days, such actors were obliged to perform their service on holidays (since they received payment for this), and if they did not want to, they were forced to do so. As for the proclamation of manumission in the church, if it turns out that our colleagues in Italy are doing so, then we too will follow their order with unconditional trust, when the right to do so is openly given to the representative sent, so that everything that is worthy of trust and that can be done for the sake of church dispensation and the salvation of souls, we too will receive with praise before the Lord. (Apost. 82; IV Ecum. 4; VI Ecum. 85; Gangr. 3; Carthage. 90; Basil the Great. 40, 42.) The Fathers of this Council, doubting whether it is necessary to proclaim in the church that masters set their slaves free, decide by this rule to send a representative to Italy. And if the co-bishops there do this, then they will boldly follow this order and accept this deed as trustworthy, laudable and done for the sake of church deanery and the salvation of slaves who receive freedom. I also believe that the case of Ekitius, who has long been deservedly condemned by the decision of the bishops, should not be left aside by the embassy: if our brother finds him in those parts, let him take care that for the sake of church order, as it should and where possible, act against him. Since the mentioned bishop. Ekitius, having been justly and deservedly condemned by the bishops, withdrew to the borders of Italy, but did not calm down there either, the present rule instructs the envoy and representative who was supposed to go there to try to track down Ekitius, wherever he is, so that he does not violate church order. Therefore, by this rule, although it has local significance, we are taught that if there are other similar bishops, they should be subjected to the same punishment. After everything that seemed to be directed to the benefit of the church had been examined and taken into account, by the motion and inspiration of the Spirit of God we chose to deal with the said people meekly and peacefully, although they, due to their disobedient way of thinking, are completely separated from the unity of the Lord's body. Thus, as far as it depends on us, let it be known to all those caught in communion and fellowship with them throughout the African episcopal regions, by what miserable error they are bound. Perhaps, if we meekly gather together those who differ in their opinions, as the apostle says, God will give them repentance so that they may know the truth and so that those who were captivated by the snares of the devil and submitted to his will will be freed (see 2 Tim. 2:25–26). (Carthage. 65, 66, 76–78. 99–103. 110, 128, 129.) The Fathers, having written to the Bishops of Rome and Milan, in accordance with the 66th canon, and having received from the Bishop of Rome a message in which they were told to deal peacefully with the Donatists (as can be seen from the 4th Act of this Council), now in this canon they agree, by the will of the Holy Spirit, to deal meekly with those who have separated themselves from the body of the Lord, that is, from the Church (or from the sacraments, because the Donatists in in this they were different from us, as we said). They agree with the goal that these people, ashamed of such meekness, would recognize their pitiful error by which they were bound, and that for the sake of this kindness, according to the apostle, God would grant them repentance to learn the truth and free themselves from the devil’s snares by which they were caught and did the will of the devil. See also Rule 55 of the same Council. So, it was desired to send letters from our Council to the rulers of Africa - it was considered decent to ask them for the help of the common Mother, the Catholic Church, in cases where episcopal authority in the cities is neglected. Namely, to ask that they show zeal for the Christian faith and the power given to the rulers, conduct an investigation into what happened in all those places where the Maximianists took possession of the churches, as well as about those who broke away under their influence; and that information about this, reliable for everyone, must be included in public records. (Apost. 27; Carthage. 55, 66, 76–78, 99–103, 110, 128, 129; Antioch. 5; Double 9.) So, by this rule, the fathers decide to send letters of petition to the rulers of Africa so that they help the common mother of the Church and with the power given to the rulers, they tried with diligence to find the Maximianists (at first they were Donatists, but then they separated from them and formed their own sect), and also to reveal all the other evils that they committed, neglecting the authority of the bishops and seizing their churches. And let them include reliable information about all this in public, civil acts, because this is necessary and useful. See also Canon 55 of this Council and the Apostle. 27. It was desirable to send to our brothers and co-bishops, and first of all to the apostolic see, which is headed by the aforementioned venerable brother and fellow minister Anastasius - since he knows that Africa is in great need - letters to the effect that for the peace and benefit of the Church and from the Donatists themselves, any clergy who, having corrected their will, want to move to Catholic unity, should be accepted into their degrees according to the choice and decision of each the Catholic bishop governing the Church in that place, if this appears to promote peace among Christians. It is known that in previous times this schism was dealt with in this way, as evidenced by the examples of many and even almost all African Churches in which this error arose. This is not done in order to abolish the Council held on this issue in countries overseas, but so that it is preserved for the benefit of those wishing to return in this way to the Catholic Church, so as not to create any obstacles to their unity. Let those who in every possible way, with obvious benefit to the souls of the brothers, contribute to the establishment of Catholic unity in the places where they live, not be hindered by what was determined regarding their degrees at the Council overseas, because no person is forbidden to be saved. In other words, those who are ordained by the Donatists, if they reform and want to return to the Catholic faith, let them not refuse to accept them in their degrees, according to the definition of the Council overseas, and in particular let them accept those who care about Catholic unity. (Carthage. 55, 66, 76–78, 99–103, 110, 128, 129.) And this rule makes a determination about the Donatists, saying that letters should be sent to the bishops of Italy who did not recognize the consecrations of the Donatists, especially Anastasius of Rome, in defense of the fact that in Africa the consecrations of the Donatists should be recognized for the following reasons: 1) Africa, where they could serve, is experiencing extreme need and shortage of clergy (see Canon 66 of this Council); 2) in all places where these heretics appeared before, they were received in their degrees and dignity; 3) as a result of this, the Donatists themselves will want to convert, and thus the unity will be strengthened and the flock of the Catholic Church will grow; 4) their consecrations are recognized, on the basis of all the listed reasons, for oikonomia, and not out of opposition to the Council in Italy or in violation of its resolution. In addition, after all these acts, it was desired to send representatives from our midst to the bishops of the same Donatists, if they have them, or to the laity to proclaim peace and unity, without which the salvation of Christians cannot take place. Let it be known to all through these representatives that the Donatists have no grounds for opposing the Catholic Church. Especially, for the sake of greater persuasiveness, let everyone know from the city protocols how they themselves dealt with the Maximianists, their renegades. There, if they want to object, for them, by the will of God, there is proof that then the Donatists broke away from church unity just as lawlessly as the Maximianists have now lawlessly broken away from them, which is what they are shouting about. Some of those whom they had clearly condemned by the authority of their council they thereafter received in their former degrees. They also recognized the baptism that was performed by those condemned and cast out by them, and thereby proved how recklessly they themselves opposed the peace of the Church, which had spread throughout the entire earth. For in favor of the society of Donatus, they do this and do not say that they are defiled by communication with those whom they received in this way, having been forced to reconcile with them, while with us, that is, with the Catholic Church, which has spread even to the last limits of the earth, they quarrel and cannot bring themselves to reason through unclean communication with those whom they themselves previously condemned. This rule is also about Donatists. It determines that Orthodox representatives should be sent to their bishops and laity to call upon them to reconciliation and union with the Catholic Church, and also to expose them and prove to them by civil records that the Donatists themselves recognized both the baptisms and consecrations of the Maximianists who illegally separated from them (as the Donatists foolishly separated from the Catholic Church) and were condemned by them for this. And yet, the Donatists do not consider that they are defiled by communication with them, but, on the contrary, they are at odds with the Catholic Church, without having any solid accusation against it, and they turn away from communication with it. Read also Rule 55 of the same Council. It was desirable not to allow any bishop to leave his main see and move to any church located in his region, or, having been busy with personal affairs for a long time beyond what was proper, to abandon diligent care of his see. (Apost. 58; IV Ose. 25; VI Ose. 19; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 131–133; Petra Alexander, 10; Gregory Nis. 6.) This rule defines: no bishop is allowed to leave his main see, that is, his original see (even if it is poor and sparsely populated), and settle in another parish subordinate to him (even if it is richer and more populous than the city where his see is located) [ 272 ] or spend more time in this parish than is prescribed and determined, neglecting the care and concern for the city in which his see is located. throne It was convenient: whenever there are no reliable witnesses who claim that infants have undoubtedly been baptized, and because of their age they themselves are not able to properly give an answer about the sacrament given to them, they should be baptized without hindrance, so that the resulting bewilderment does not deprive them of such purification through sanctification. (Apost. 47; VI Ecum. 84.) This rule is repeated by Rule VI Omni. 84, its interpretation and read. This rule is given there verbatim. It was desirable that the day of the adored Easter be announced to everyone through a postscript under the definitions of the Council. And let the day of the Council remain the same as it was determined at the Council of Ippon, namely: ten days before the calendar days of September. It is also necessary to write to the leaders of all regions so that when they convene the Council, they have this day in mind. (Apost. 7, 37; Carthage. 60, 117.) This rule determines that the day of the future Easter should be annually announced to everyone through a postscript under the definitions drawn up by the annual Council. The day on which this annual Council should meet should be August 21 (after all, the first 10 days of the month are called kalends; see note to VI Ecumenical 62), as was determined at the Council of Hippo [273]. Whenever there is a Council, this day must be kept in mind. See also Apost. 7 and 37 and note. to the 60th rule of this Council. They also decided not to allow any temporary governing bishop (μεσίτῃ) to retain the see to which he was appointed temporary governing due to any unrest or dissension among the people, but he must try to find a bishop for this people within a year. If he neglects this, then let another temporary manager be elected after a year. (Apost. 58; IV Ecum. 25; VI Ecum. 19; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 79. 86, 131–133) In ancient times there was a custom: when a bishop died or an episcopal region remained widowed for some other reason and unrest arose among the people, a bishop was sent there, who was called μεσίτης, (mediator) (probably because he occupied an intermediate position between the deceased bishop and the one who would be ordained in his place) to calm her rebellious and indignant people or for other purposes. So, the present rule determines that this temporary bishop, within one year, will see to the installation of its own legitimate bishop in this episcopal region. If he neglects this, let another temporary bishop, more zealous, be appointed after a year. This temporary bishop, in all likelihood, enjoyed, like the legitimate bishop, all the episcopal rights in this bishopric and throughout its entire region, except for the right to sit on the sacred co-throne, according to the conciliar decree of Manuel of Constantinople Charitopulus (Greco-Roman Law, p. 241) 274. See also Antiochus. 13 [275] and Apost. 58. Everyone decided to ask the emperors, due to the mistreatment of the poor, who with their complaints constantly disturb the Church, that ecdics be elected for them, at the discretion of the bishops, to protect them from violence by the rich. (Apost. 27; Dvukrat. 9; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 57, 62, 76, 99. 100, 106, 107.) Since bishops are obliged not only to instruct, but, to the extent possible, to protect their people when they are offended, and the offenders, due to their power, do not take the bishops into account, then by this rule the Council asks the emperors to appoint ecdics [276], that is, officials who would receive from the emperors the power to stop, together with the bishops, the violence of the lawless rich. Thus, the poor would not bother the Church with daily requests to help them and protect them from serious insults. It was desired that whenever a Council was to meet, the bishops, who were not hindered by age, illness, or any difficult circumstance, would come to it in a timely manner. And let the primacy of each region be declared regarding (περί) [ 277 ] all bishops - two or three meetings will be held, and let the bishops from each meeting, how many of them will be elected, alternately and with insistence come to the day of the Council. If they cannot come because unexpected circumstances may arise, and the reason that prevented them from coming is not announced in the face of their superior bishop, then they are obliged to be content with the communion of their own Church. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carthage. 26, 6o, 81, 85, 104; Laodice. 40.) This rule requires that when a Council takes place, the bishops of each region must certainly gather at it, with the exception of only those cases when they are prevented either by very advanced age, or by illness, or by another important circumstance, and that after they gather, they notify their metropolitans about this. And if two or three meetings take place (because, perhaps, due to a lack of premises or other necessary things, they did not meet all together in one city, but in two or three close to the metropolis), then let bishops be elected from each meeting and in turn: first some, then others - with insistence, that is, without delay (or in order to make convincing speeches), appear at the Council. If it happens that they cannot gather due to difficult circumstances, they must inform the metropolitan about what is preventing them. If they do not do this, then let them remain out of communication with everyone else, limiting themselves to communication only in their Church. See Apost. 37. Concerning Cresconius of Villarecentia, it was decided by all: in the future, also to bring to the attention of the foremost bishop of Numidia that he should, by his message, persuade the said Cresconius to come so that he would appear at the next general African Council without delay. If he neglects this and does not come, let him know that a sentence will be pronounced against him. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Antioch. 20; Carthage. 26, 6o, 81, 104.) This rule, citing as an example the behavior of one bishop, Cresconius, obliges all bishops to participate without fail in the annual Councils. And those who neglect them and do not come, the rule threatens with church condemnation. See also (Apostle 37.) Since it should not be neglected for a long time that the Church of Hippo remains without trustees, and since the churches there are in the power of those who asked (παραιτησαμένων) for criminal communion with Ekitius, it was pleased to send from this Council the bishops: Reginus, Alipius, Augustine, Maternus, Theasius, Euodia, Plakian, Urvanus, Valeria, Amvivia, Fortunata, Quodvultdeya, Onorata, Iannuaria, Apta, Onorata, Ampelia, Victoriana, Evangela and Rogatiana. After they have gathered and brought to their senses those who, with a reprehensible stubbornness, believed that they should expect the same Ekitius to return from flight, let them ordain a bishop for them with common prayer. If they do not want to think about peace, let them not interfere with the election of a primate, so that he can be ordained for the benefit of the Church, which has been abandoned for such a long time. (Apost. 58; IV Ose. 25; VI Ose. 19; Dvukrat. 6; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 79, 82, 131–133.) The mentioned Ekitius, being the bishop of one of the two Ippon, cities in Numidia Africana (see note to the 81st canon of this Council), was rightly deposed for his crime (according to the 74th canon of this Council) and retired to Italy. Some, seeking [ 278 ] criminal, i.e., illegal and uncanonical communication with Ekitius, stubbornly and boldly awaited his return, neglecting the fact that he had been deposed by the council. Therefore, the Council, by this rule, decides to send the listed bishops in order to pacify the opponents and, in addition, to ordain another bishop to the Ippon See, which, because of these troubles, was deprived of a bishop for so long and became a widow. See also Apost. 58. It is determined: whenever clergy are exposed and accused of crimes, if they, as they should, want to defend themselves in their case and prove their own innocence, then either for the sake of protecting the Church from censure, or for the sake of respect for their rank (which is why they are shown leniency), or because of the excessive arrogance of heretics and pagans, let them do this for a year, remaining out of communion. If within a year they do not take care of their justification, then henceforth not a single word from them will be accepted in any way. (Apost. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9.) This rule states: if clergy convicted of crimes and awaiting sentencing ask for time to justify themselves and prove their innocence, let them be treated sympathetically and mercifully for the sake of respect for the priesthood and so that pagans and heretics do not rise up, blaming the Church and despising the Orthodox priesthood. And for this let them be given a period of one year, during which they must remain out of communication. If within a year they do not prove their innocence of crimes, henceforth no excuse should be accepted from them. See also Apost. 74. II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. It was convenient: if a bishop accepts someone from a foreign monastery and wants to promote him to the clergy or appoint him as abbot of his monastery, then let him, if he does so, be deprived of communication with the rest and be content with communication only with his own people, and the one appointed will remain neither a cleric nor an abbot. (IV Universe 4; VII Universe 19, 21; Double 3, 4.) This rule determines: if a bishop accepts a monk who has left his monastery, which, according to Balsamon, is located in a foreign episcopal region, and either makes him a cleric or appoints him as abbot of his monastery [ 279 ] without a letter of release from the bishop to whom this monk is subordinate, and from the abbot who tonsured him, then the bishop who did this is deprived of communion with other co-bishops and remains in communion only within the limits own Church, and that fugitive monk is not recognized either as a cleric or as an abbot. Read also VII Omni. 21. It is determined: if a bishop leaves heretics or pagans as heirs, whether they are related to him or not related to him, and prefers them to the Church, even after his death anathema will be pronounced against him and his name will never be exalted by the priests of God. And let there be no excuse for him even if he did not leave a will, since, having become a bishop, he, of course, had to make a disposition of his property in accordance with his rank. (Apost. 40; IV Ecum. 22; VI Ecum. 35; Antioch. 24; Carthage. 30, 40, 102.) If a bishop makes heretics or pagans the heirs of his property, whether they are relatives or strangers to him, giving them preference over the Church, then this bishop, as prescribed by this rule, should be anathematized even after death, and the priests should not remember him. In addition, his will, as illegal, should be considered invalid, and the property left to the heretics should go to the Church [280]. If, for example, he is still alive after his will becomes invalid, he cannot justify himself by saying that his will became invalid and he had to die without a will, or by the fact that he does not have the opportunity to distribute his property as he wants. After all, being an Orthodox bishop, he is obliged to manage the division of his property in accordance with his rank, dividing it among the Orthodox, and not between pagans and heretics. See also Apost. Rules 40 and 30 of this Council. It was convenient to submit a petition to the emperor regarding the liberations that took place in the Church. (Apost. 82; IV Ecum. 4; VI Ecum. 85; Gangr. 3; Carthage. 73; Basil the Great. 40, 42.) This Council, having said earlier, in the 73rd canon, about the liberations of slaves proclaimed in the Church, now, in this canon, asks to remind the emperor of these liberations so that they remain in force, and the former owners of slaves cannot enslave them again. It was desirable that the local bishops, if possible, destroy the altars that supposedly in memory of the martyrs are installed everywhere in the fields and vineyards and in which there will be neither the body nor part of the relics of the martyrs. If popular indignation does not allow this to be done, nevertheless, the people must be admonished not to gather in such places, and so that the right-minded do not bind themselves to any superstition about these places, and so that even the memory of the martyrs should not be celebrated anywhere at all, except in those places in which the body or some part of the relics is located or about which an ancient tradition is preserved. And altars built anywhere because of the dreams and false revelations of some people should be rejected at all costs. Some, allegedly out of reverence or because of some visions and false revelations that they saw in their dreams, built houses of prayer in the fields and vineyards in honor of the martyrs. Therefore, the present rule determines that if in these houses of prayer and altars the whole body or part of the relics of the martyrs is not preserved and if there is no ancient tradition that they were once there [281], in other words, if these houses of prayer are not consecrated on the relics of the martyrs and were erected without the prescribed prayers of the bishop or priest, then, if possible, they should be destroyed. If the crowd prevents this, then the bishops need to admonish people so that they do not hold pious meetings in such places and do not fall into superstition and delusion, believing that these altars were built according to divine revelation (for the devil, being darkness, often disguises himself as an Angel of light, according to the word of the divine Paul (2 Cor. 11:14), in order to mislead human souls, hiding behind the appearance and name of reverence). And let the martyrs not be commemorated there, but, on the contrary, let these sanctuaries be rejected by any means and not give them reverent veneration. See also VII Universe. 7. It was pleasing to ask the most glorious emperors that by all means the remnants of idolatry should be destroyed: not only statues, but also everything that remained in any place, in groves or on trees. And this rule, like the 67th, determines that the emperors should be asked that, by their command, all remnants of idolatry be destroyed to the ground: both statues and idol altars located in forests, on trees and in any other places [282]. All the bishops proclaimed: if it is desired to draw up any documents at the Council, then let the venerable bishop who occupies this primacy see draw up and sign them on behalf of all. This rule defines: whenever there is a need to write letters from the Council to the emperor or any other persons, let the archbishop and the pope of Carthage draw up and sign them on behalf of all. For all bishops to sign all conciliar charters is burdensome and difficult. Since the Holy Church has one body and all members have one Head, it happened that by the will of God, who strengthens our weakness, we came to this Church out of motives of love and brotherly love. Therefore, I urge your love (since it must believe that our meeting with you is not useless, although not very pleasant for everyone), as a sign of our common consent, to approve the previous decrees, which were either approved at the Council of Hippo, or passed after that at the more important Council of Carhidon, as well as those that are now read to us in order. After all, the unanimity of your brotherhood will shine brighter than the light when you approve the decisions legally adopted by us at previous Councils not only with your agreement with the present deeds, but also with your signatures. By this rule, Pope Aurelius of Carchidon, that is, of Carthage, calls on all bishops not only to verbally approve the definitions of both the Council of Ippon and the more significant Council of Carthage, but also to confirm them with their own signatures (which the fathers did), so that thanks to their approval and signatures their unanimity will shine brighter than light and they will show that they are a single, integral body, which consists of many members united under one Head - Christ. From this particular rule we learn the following: in order for the statements of the Council to have meaning and force, they must be signed by its bishops [284]. Let none of the brothers dare to foolishly prefer themselves to those who were ordained before them, but let everyone know the rite assigned to him by God. Let those ordained later turn to those ordained earlier and not dare to do anything contrary to their opinion. And those who disdain those ordained before them and act impudently, the whole Council must properly hinder. In the primary African regions that had an advantage, such as Numidian, Mauritanian, Constantine, etc., the order of senior and junior bishops was observed, as can be seen from the 5th act of this Council. In other areas, this order of precedence was not observed, but those bishops who were ordained earlier were preferred to those ordained later. This is what this rule defines: those ordained later should not do anything without the consent of those ordained earlier. Let the council prevent anyone who dares to do otherwise. About Kvodvultdey, aka Kentiriat. When his adversary petitioned to appear before our Council, he was asked whether he wished to be tested with him by the bishops. At first he agreed, but the next day he replied that he did not like it and left. Therefore, all the bishops wanted that no one would accept this Kvodvultdey into communion until his work was completed. And not a single Christian would consider it right to deprive him of his bishopric until his case is resolved. (Apost. 74; II Om. 6; IV Om. 9, 17, 21; Dvukrat. 16; Antioch. 14, 15; Sardik. 4; Carthage. 8, 12, 16, 27, 105, 131, 137–139) Apparently, someone accused the named bishop of a certain matter and asked him if he wanted to sue him before the Council. The bishop initially agreed to this, but then, changing his mind, refused to come to the Council. Therefore, the Council, by this rule, determines that no one should accept this bishop into communion until his work is completed. However, Kvodvultdey should not be deprived of his bishopric, that is, deposed, before the end of his trial, because this is unjust. From this particular rule we learn that those bishops who neglect the court of their fellow bishops must be punished, and that if a bishop is under accusation and excommunicated, he is not expelled from the episcopal region and is not deposed until the trial in his case is completed. Read also the Apostle. 74 and Double. 16. It was acceptable: those who will henceforth be ordained in African regions should receive from those ordaining them letters signed by the latter’s hand, indicating the name of the consul and the day, so that there would be no confusion about who is younger and who is older. The Council, having said above that greater honor should be given to bishops ordained earlier than those ordained later, now, in order that there may be no doubt as to the time of the ordination of each bishop, by this rule determines that those who are ordained should take from those who ordain them letters, personally signed by the latter, indicating the day of ordination and the name of the consul who reigned in Africa at the time they were ordained. Time was also calculated by consuls, because the civil inventories indicated the reign of each consul. See also note. to Apost. 12. It was decided that anyone who reads in church at least once should not be accepted into its clergy by another church. (Apost. 15; I Om. 15, 16; VI Oz. 17, 18; IV Oz. 5, 10, 20, 23; VII Oz. 15; Antioch. 3; Sardik. 15, 16, 18; Carthage. 63.) Apparently, some justified themselves by the fact that the rules prohibit other churches from accepting foreign clergy who served in their churches for quite a long time, and not for a short period of time. Therefore, the present rule, rejecting this justification, determines that even such a reader who has read only once in his church should not be accepted into the clergy of another church. The promise of all was as follows: each of us undertakes to meet in his own city with the leaders of the Donatists independently or to unite with a neighbor in order to also meet with them in each city and place, through the mediation of the officials or rulers of those places. (Carthage. 55. 66, 75–78, 101–103, 110, 128, 129.) By this rule, the Council determines that each bishop in his episcopal region should meet with the leaders of the Donatists himself or together with some other bishop and talk with them [286]. If the Donatists do not want to meet voluntarily, let them be forced to do so by the authority of the imperial officials and rulers. See also Canon 55 of this Council. We must ask that the Catholic Church be strengthened by the care of the pious in Christ, whom her womb gave birth to and raised in the firmness of the faith, and that in their pious times unbridled people do not oppress the weak people with intimidation, since they cannot seduce with persuasion. For it is known and has been repeatedly proclaimed by laws what kind of deeds are done by the nasty crowd of those who form an illegal assembly. This was also repeatedly condemned by the decisions of the above-mentioned most pious autocrats themselves. So, against the frenzy of such, we wish to enlist your divine help, which is not contrary to customs and not alien to the holy scriptures, after all, St. Paul, as can be seen from the original Acts of the Apostles, overcame the unity of the rebels with the help of soldiers (see Acts 21:33–40; ch. 23–25). We therefore ask that the protection of the Catholic ecclesiastical ranks be provided without delay in each city and in the various places that are in the domains adjacent to each city. (Carthage. 55. 66, 75–78, 99, 101–103, 110, 128, 129.) The Donatists did not want to heed the peace-loving words of the bishops who were sent by this Council, as stated above, but, moreover, they began to build numerous intrigues against many bishops and clergy, took possession of some churches by force and intended to take possession of others. For all these reasons, the present Council sent representatives on its behalf, Bishop. Theasias and Euodia, and gave them instructions, in other words written instructions, indicating what they should do. They had to ask Emperor Honorius for what is reported in this canon, namely: to provide reliable protection for all churches located in the cities of Africa and city suburbs, as well as through their care and most radiant (this is what the word “divine” means here) intercession and help to strengthen Orthodoxy, which they themselves were spiritually reborn in baptism, raised in a strong faith and nourished by the sacraments. It was also necessary to ask that the unbridled Donatists during the reign of Honorius not oppress the weak people, intimidating them, since they could not persuade them to their vicious error by persuasion, and that they would not do everything that was customary among schismatics and that is known from the laws of the emperors themselves, who repeatedly condemned all this. At the same time, the help that the representatives of the Council are asking for is not something unusual, but attested to by the holy scriptures. When the divine Paul, after cleansing, entered the church and the Asian Jews encouraged the people to kill him, the apostle was also given military assistance: the captain, coming with soldiers, rescued him. And when more than forty people swore not to eat or drink until they killed Paul, even then the commander, learning about this, sent him, accompanied by soldiers, to Caesarea to Felix. Read also Carthage. 55. Emperors must also be asked to observe the law issued by their father Theodosius of blessed memory, regarding the collection of 10 pounds of gold from ordaining and ordained heretics, as well as from the owners of the places in which their gathering will be. Let them command that this law be established so that its power extends to those against whom, because of their intrigues, the bishops of the Catholic Church were forced to testify in their testimony (δια μαρτυρίαν ἀπέθεντο) [ 287 ], and so that at least with such fear these people who are slow to be cleansed and corrected when reflecting on eternal punishment, were kept from schisms and the depravity inherent in heretics. (Apost. 68; Carthage. 55. 66, 75–77, 102, 105, 128, 129.) By this rule, the Council also asks the Emperor Honorius to order the observance of the law that was issued by his father Theodosius the Great: to levy a fine of ten pounds of gold both from those who ordain heretics, and from those who themselves receive ordination from heretics, and in addition, from those who in their estates allowed heretics to perform services. The council also asks the emperor for an order to observe this law also in relation to the Donatists, so that if they do not correct themselves out of fear of punishment, at least out of fear of a monetary fine, they will stop causing schisms and plotting intrigues, which prompted the Orthodox bishops to testify against them. It should also be asked that the piety of the emperors be renewed the hitherto existing law, which deprives heretics of the right to receive anything by consecration or by wills or to leave an inheritance. And, generally speaking, let this law deprive those who are blinded by their insane convictions and wish to remain in the error of the Donatists, of the right to bequeath anything or acquire property. Those who, thinking about unity and peace, want to correct themselves, despite this law, let them be allowed to receive an inheritance, even if they received something as a gift or inheritance while they were still in heretical error. Of course, we should exclude those who considered it necessary to convert to the Catholic Church after they were called to trial, because such people, one must think, desired Catholic unity not out of fear of heavenly judgment, but out of greed for earthly benefits. In addition to all this, assistance is needed from the authorities of each region. If the representatives see anything else that serves the good of the Church, then we give their representation complete freedom to implement and carry it out. In addition to the above, by this rule the Council also asks that, by imperial order, the law that had been observed until then be renewed, namely: that heretics cannot receive anything as a gift or as an inheritance through wills, that they cannot take anything from those ordained, and also that no one has the right to leave anything to heretics. Moreover, the Council asks that this law also apply to those who are in the error of the Donatists. If any of them wants to convert to Orthodoxy, let this law not apply to them and they receive gifts and inheritance, both those that they received upon conversion to Orthodoxy, and those that were intended and left to them when they were still in error, and which, according to this law, they did not receive because of their heresy. If any Donatists want to convert to Orthodoxy after they are brought to trial by people who want to take away from them, as heretics, the inheritance or gifts left to them, then let them not receive any benefit from such a hypocritical conversion, which they desired not out of fear of punishment, but out of a desire to gain earthly benefit. This rule also requires that each region of Africa receive assistance from its ruler. And at the end, the rule adds that the named representatives receive complete freedom of action in order to undertake everything else that they themselves consider useful for the structure of the Church, as determined by the 8th rule of this Council [288]. See also Apost. 40 and Carthage. 55. Since unity took place only in Carthage, it was desirable to send letters to the rulers, so that in the regions and cities the rulers themselves would order efforts to be made for unity. And let the Carthaginian Church, on behalf of all Africa, together with the letters of the bishops, send thanksgiving to the imperial chamber for the expulsion of the Donatists. (Carthage. 55, 66, 75–78, 101, 102, 110, 128, 129.) This rule also speaks of the Donatists. It orders that letters be sent to the rulers of Africa, which would encourage them to try to ensure that in other regions, just like in Carthage, unity with the Donatists is achieved. Another rule stipulates that the Carthaginian Church send to the imperial chamber, that is, to the palace, gratitude from all of Africa for the fact that the Donatists were expelled from it with the imperial assistance. It was convenient: in the future it is not necessary to bother the brethren every year, but the Council should be held as often as the general need, that is, affecting all of Africa, requires (when letters are sent from somewhere), in the area where the need requires and where it will be convenient. Cases that are not general should be dealt with in their own areas. According to the anonymous interpreter, this rule allows for a private Council to be held in each region to resolve special private issues and difficulties that arise annually. After all, these private issues relating to one area are resolved no other way than at the Council, and in this this present rule is in accordance with the other rules that make decisions about Councils of this kind. But it does not permit that henceforth, annually, as defined by the 26th rule, a general Council of all regions of Africa should be held, since traveling to such a Council is associated with difficulties and hardships. However, it can be convened when any general need arises, once a year or every two years. And it must be convened when letters are sent to the Bishop of Carthage and he appoints a suitable place for holding the Council. If an appeal is filed and the one who filed it elects judges together with the one against whom he demands a new trial, then from now on none of them will be allowed to appeal. (Apost. 74; II Om. 6; IV Ose. 9; Carthage. 16, 111, 131.) This rule determines that if the plaintiff and the defendant elect elected judges to consider their case, then after that they can no longer review their verdict in another court, but both must be content with their decision. See also Carthage. 16, Apost. 74" II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. In addition, it was desirable to ask for the election of five executors for all church needs, who would be distributed among different areas. The executors named in this rule were apparently imperial dignitaries who carried out the decisions and sentences passed by the bishops. These dignitaries had the power to hinder those who were disobedient and opposed the named decisions and sentences, and to admonish them or their patrons with punishments [289]. The council asks the emperor to elect and send five such executors to distribute them among different regions of Africa. It was also desirable that the envoys Vincentius and Fortunatian, sent on behalf of all regions, should ask the illustrious emperors for permission to appoint learned ecdics, whose occupation would be the actual defense of cases and who, like priests [290] in the episcopal regions, could, since they took upon themselves the defense of church affairs, at the request of the need to freely enter judicial presences (τὰ σήκρητα) to confront attackers and report on what is necessary. And this rule, like the 83rd rule of the same Council, determines that the representatives sent on behalf of all regions of Africa ask the emperors to appoint learned ecdics, who, according to their duty of service, would actually be engaged in defending church affairs and interceding for them, confronting opponents and transferring necessary cases by means of letters or in person in the presence (τά σήκρητα), i.e. courts, for in Latin secerno means “to distinguish, to disassemble.” See Apost. 27 and Carthage. 83. It was desirable that the elected representatives sent to the imperial court should have complete freedom in their representation. The information that we receive from this rule is not unimportant, for we learn from it that representatives sent to the emperor or to the Council have freedom of action not only in what they were instructed and determined to do, but also in what they themselves recognize as useful and good both for themselves, those sent, and for those who sent them. It was also desirable that the people, who had never had their own bishop, should not accept him at all, except by the decision of the entire Council of each region and the leading bishop and with the consent of the bishop under whose control this Church was. (Apost. 34; Sardik. 6; Carthage. 62, 65.) And this rule determines not to install bishops in small parishes and cities where there was initially no custom to place them. A bishop can be placed there only when the metropolitan or patriarch, together with the entire Council of the metropolitan region or diocese (see note to II Ecumenical 6) elects him, and the bishop in whose region this parish is located agrees to this. See Sardik. 6 and Apost. 34. It was desirable that the people who convert from the Donatists and who had a bishop installed without the permission of the Council should, without any doubt, be honored to have him. If the people had a bishop, but after his death did not want to have their own bishop, but wished to come under the control of another, then they should not be denied this. In addition, it was said that the bishops who, before the publication of the imperial law announcing unity, converted the people subject to them to the Catholic Church, should maintain their authority over them. After the publication of the law of unity, from now on, all Churches with their parishes and with all the privileges that rightfully belong to these Churches should be assigned to the Catholic bishops in those places that the heretics have taken possession of, whether the latter convert to the Catholic faith or not. And if some have abused anything after the publication of the imperial law, what was appropriated must be returned. This rule determines that if, before the publication of the imperial law ordering the Donatists to unite with the Catholic Church, any Donatist bishops converted to the right faith, as their flock did - independently or with their assistance - and if after the conversion the flock accepted their converted bishops, who they had before the conversion, then they can have them without any doubt, even if they accepted them without the permission of the Council. If, after the death of such bishops, the people no longer want to have their own separate bishop, but want to come under the control of another bishop to whom they belong, let them not be prevented from doing so. However, after the publication of the said law of unity, all Churches located in the areas of the converted Donatists, with their parishes and privileges, must be under the control of Orthodox bishops, whether they converted the Donatists or not. And if the Donatist bishops took away any property from the Churches, squandered it or sold it (note that the rule calls the alienation of church property an abuse), then they are obliged to return it to the Churches to which it belonged. See also Apost. 38 and Carthage. 55. Bishop Maurentius said: “I ask you to appoint as judges the most holy Xanthippus, the most holy Augustine, Florentinus, Theasius, Sampsychius, Secundus and Posidius. Command this to be decreed for my sake.” The Holy Council agreed to appoint the requested judges. Elder Xanthippus will let the elders of the new Germany choose the other judges necessary to fill the number. (Apost. 74; II Ose. 6; IV Ose. 9; Carthage. 16, 105, 131.) From this particular rule we learn that the Council gives the right to bishops accused by anyone to demand elected judges whom they themselves want, since such a right was then granted to the accused Bishop Maurentius. By replenishing the number we mean increasing the number of bishops to twelve. This number of bishops is ordered to judge any bishop, according to the 12th canon of this Council. See also Carthage. 16, Apost. 74; II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. It was desirable to write to His Holiness Pope Innocent about the disagreement between the Roman and Alexandrian Churches, so that both Churches would observe peace towards each other, which the Lord commands. As is clear from this canon, a disagreement arose between the Romans and the Alexandrians, because of which this Council considered it necessary to write to Innocent, who was pope at that time, so that the Churches would cease hostility and be reconciled among themselves, as the Lord commands, saying in one place: Peace I leave with you (John 14:27), and in another: Have peace with one another (Mark 9:50). Pay attention to how here the Local Council corrects and instructs the Roman autocrat. It was desirable that, in accordance with the Gospel and Apostolic teaching, neither a husband abandoned by his wife nor a wife abandoned by her husband should enter into marriage with another person, but either remain so or are reconciled with each other. If they neglect this, let them be forced to repentance. It is necessary to ask for an imperial law to be issued on this subject. (Apost. 48; VI Ose. 87; Anchir. 20; Basil the Great. 9, 25, 35, 77.) This rule prescribes that marriages should not be dissolved except on the grounds of adultery. If the husband leaves his wife or the wife of her husband, let them not have the right to enter into a new marriage, but either they will love each other again and unite, or, otherwise, both will remain celibate, as the Lord teaches in the Gospel: Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate (Matt. 19:6) and whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery (Matt. 5:32). And the apostle, having learned this from the Lord, says to those who have entered into marriage: It is not I who command, but the Lord: a wife should not divorce her husband, but if she divorces, she must remain single, or be reconciled with her husband, and the husband should not leave his wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11). If those who separated enter into a new marriage, they must be forced to repent, that is, convince them both to repent of adultery. The council says that it must ask the emperor to issue a civil law regarding this subject. See also Apost. 48. It was also desirable that everyone should perform the prayers approved at the Council, be they initial, concluding, presentation prayers or prayers for the laying on of hands, and should not say others contrary to the faith. Let those prayers be read that were compiled by the wisest people. The prayers that priests offer to God during church services are different: some are called pre-initial, because they are read before the service and at the beginning of it [291], others are called final, because they are read after the prayers themselves, others are prayers of presentation, since they place the people before God and dedicate them to Him [292], and, finally, other prayers are said during the laying on of hands. The latter include both those that the bishop says during the ordination, placing his hand on the head of the person being ordained, and the prayers of permissiveness, which the bishop or, with his permission, the priest must read, placing his hand on the head of the penitent (for this, see I Ecumenical 8). So, the present rule determines that everyone should read precisely these prayers, approved by the Council and the wisest men, and not new ones, compiled by someone contrary to faith and not approved by the council. It was desirable for anyone who asked the emperor to consider his case in public courts to deprive him of his degree. If he asks the emperor for episcopal court, let nothing hinder him. (Apost. 74; II Ose. 6; IV Ose. 9; Carthage. 14; Antioch. 12.) All clergy should be tried in ecclesiastical courts, not secular ones. Therefore, the present rule decides to depose the bishop or cleric who asks the emperor to have his case heard in a civil court. If he asks the emperor for a church court, that is, that by order of the emperor, bishops should gather and consider his case, then he will not be punished as having done something criminal. After all, all Ecumenical and Local Councils were convened in the same way, that is, by imperial command. See also Apost. 74; II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. Anyone who, being deprived of communion in Africa, secretly penetrates into regions overseas with the aim of entering into communion, will lose the degree of cleric. This rule determines that if a cleric, being deprived of communion, that is, excommunicated, in Africa, secretly goes to the Italian borders and there, by cunning, achieves that he will be accepted into communion and unity, for example, he lies that he is in communion, then for his deception and deceit he will be cast out. Read the Apostle. 12, 32 and especially 13 along with parallel rules. It was desirable that anyone who wished to go to the imperial court should have confirmation of this in a letter of release addressed to the Roman Church. Therefore, if someone who took a letter of release only to Rome, keeping silent about the matter for which he needs to go to court, wants to go to court directly, he will be excluded from communication. If there, in Rome, the need unexpectedly arises to go to the court, let him announce this matter to the Roman bishop and bring with him a letter from the same Roman bishop. And in the letters of release that primate or other bishops issue to their clergy, let the day of Easter be indicated. If the day of Easter of the current year is not yet known, let the day of Easter of the past year be indicated, just as it is customary to write “after the consulate” on civil documents. This rule defines: the bishop who wants to go to the imperial court must receive, firstly, a letter of release from the metropolitan or the Council of the episcopal region for the emperor and the Roman bishop (this letter will justify his stay there), and secondly, another letter of release from the Roman bishop for the court. If the one who took the letter of release only for the Roman bishop remains silent and does not tell the latter why he needs to go to court, but goes there without his knowledge, then let him be excommunicated. If the need to go to the court arises during his stay in Rome, and was not previously expected, let him announce this to the Roman bishop, receive letters from him, and then set off. On these letters of release, which are issued by metropolitans to bishops or bishops to clergy, instead of the year that we usually indicate, the day of the upcoming Easter should be indicated. But if the date of the upcoming Easter is not yet known, let them indicate the day of the previous one. This is necessary, on the one hand, so that everyone knows the date of this holiday, and on the other hand, so that the time when the documents were written is recognized by this day, just as the consulate of each consul is indicated on civil documents and the time when the documents were drawn up is determined by the consulate. See also Antiochus. and, Apost. 7 and note. to Apost. 12[293]. It was desirable that one bishop did not insist on the decision of his court. (Apost. 74; II Ose. 6; IV Ose. 9; Carthage. 12, 16, 28, 105.) This rule determines that a bishop alone cannot judge a bishop who has a dispute with someone else, or a presbyter or any other clergyman who has a disagreement with himself, according to IV Omni. 9. The bishop alone cannot also depose a presbyter or deacon who is accused by someone else, according to the 12th canon of this Council. See also Apost. 74, II Omni. Rules 6 and 16 of this Council. A law was issued that everyone should take upon themselves the feat of Christianity according to their free will. (Neo-Caesar. 12; Carthage. 110.) According to the 110th canon of this Council, an imperial law was issued which decrees that the Donatists should enter into union with the Catholic Church, and in some way compels them to do so. Therefore, the present canon says that a law was issued (meaning imperial, see the preface to the apostolic canons 294) that everyone should accept Christianity [295] of their own free will and will, because virtue (ή ἀρετή) by its very name is something that should be chosen (αίρετή) voluntarily, and not impose by force and force. After all, what happens under duress and necessity is not reliable and durable, but temporary and short-lived. That is why the Lord says: Who wants to come after Me (Matthew 16:24) - etc. Notice that the rule called the Christian faith a feat, showing by this that a Christian must strive in every virtue: abstinence, humility, love, etc. After all, the one who does not strive in this is a Christian only in name, and not in deed. See also Neokesar. 12. It was pleasing: anyone who says that Adam, the first-created man, was created mortal, so that, regardless of whether he sinned or not, he would die bodily, that is, he would leave the body not as a punishment for sin, but by necessity of nature, let him be anathema. This rule refutes the heresy of Pelagius and his disciple Celestius. Since, in their opinion (as the divine Augustine testifies in the book on ancestral sin, chapters 5 and 6), original sin is not transmitted with the birth of man and consists of an error not of nature, but of the will, then Adam, they concluded, died this natural death not as a result of voluntary sin, but according to the necessity of nature, which was originally created mortal and had to die regardless of whether Adam would have sinned or not sinned voluntarily. Refuting this heretical opinion, the Council anathematizes those who affirm it. After all, if Adam had been mortal by necessity of nature, then, firstly, God, who created his nature such, would have become the creator and cause of death. But God did not create death (Wis. 1:13), according to Scripture. Secondly, the flesh that Adam had before the crime would not differ from ours - and it would be just as plump, mortal and rebellious as ours, since we, in the state after the crime, are mortal by the same necessity of nature and will certainly die. But Gregory the Theologian (in his homily for the Nativity of Christ) asserts that Adam did not have that white, mortal and rebellious flesh that we wear now before the crime - it became like that only after the crime 296. And thirdly, if death came from nature, how does Paul say that death entered the world through sin (Rom. 5:12), and Solomon - but through the envy of the devil death entered the world (Wis. 2:24)? This means, according to this rule, God created man not mortal by natural necessity, but immortal by nature [297]. And since goodness does not tend to force anyone to good, He created man with an autocratic soul, so that man would strive for good voluntarily and remain in it not out of necessity and compulsion, but freely and voluntarily, and, thus remaining in good voluntarily, would therefore retain the natural immortality of his body. But since he, of his own free will, rushed towards evil, he was no longer able to keep his body in its natural immortality in which it was created. And from this came bodily death. And to express myself more clearly, I will say following the great Gregory of Thessaloniki: since the best and highest part of man, the soul, because of sin [ 298 ] and crime, was separated from true life, which is the grace of God, and deviated towards true death, that is, to evil, then the lower part, the body, was separated from natural life and suffered an unnatural death 299 . And just as the soul, by nature subordinate to God, ceased to obey Him, so the body, by nature subordinate to the soul, came out of subordination to it, which was expressed in the disorder of its feelings, passions and, finally, in its disintegration into the elements of which it consists, that is, in death. Along with this rule, the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius refute the following rules of this Council, namely rules from 121 to 127. It was pleasing: anyone who denies the need for baptism of small and recently born babies from the mother’s womb or says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins, they did not borrow anything from the sin of the progenitor Adam that should be cleansed by the bath of regeneration (and from this it follows that the image of baptism for the remission of sins in this case is considered not true, but imaginary), let him be anathema. After all, the words of the Apostle: Just as by one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned (Rom. 5:12) should be understood no differently than they have always been understood by the Catholic Church, which has spread everywhere and filled everything. According to this rule of faith, infants who themselves cannot yet commit any sin are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order to purify in them by rebirth what they have received by origin. And this crazy heretical thought was the product of the Pelagians. They said that newborn babies are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes. And if someone says that they are baptized for the remission of sins, then nevertheless they are in no way involved in the defilement of Adam’s ancestral sin, which for its purification needs baptism [300] (since, as we said, the Pelagians believed that this ancestral sin is not born with man, because it was an error not of nature, but of will). So, the heretics who say this are anathematized by the Council by this rule because, firstly, in their opinion, the image of baptism for the remission of sins, which is performed on infants, is not true, but false and imaginary, since, they believe, infants have no sins to forgive. Secondly, the words of the apostle “by one man, i.e. By Adam, sin entered the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all people, because everyone sinned like Adam” 301 cannot be understood differently than the Catholic Orthodox Church understands them. She believes that even newborn babies, although they did not sin voluntarily, nevertheless borrowed the ancestral sin from Adam, which is why they need it to be cleansed by baptism, so that they are truly, and not imaginary, baptized for the remission of sins. It was pleasing: anyone who says that the grace of God, by which one is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, has power only for the remission of sins already committed and does not, in addition, give help in not sinning in another, let him be anathema. (Carthage. 120, 121, 123–127.) The Pelagians presented their heretical views in three points. First, a man by his own natural powers alone can keep the whole law, be justified, abide in righteousness, and taste eternal life. The second position: a person does not need any hidden grace of God that encourages good, or helps, or justifies, but for salvation, autocracy, law, instruction and example are enough for him. And the third point: even if grace is given by God, it is, however, given for the sake of the dignity of autocracy. From the second position of the Pelagians follows what is said in this rule, namely: the grace of God, through Jesus Christ justifying a person in baptism, only grants remission of previous sins, but does not provide help in not sinning anymore. Those who claim this are anathematized by the rule. After all, the Catholic Church believes completely differently: the grace that is given in Baptism through Jesus Christ gives us both the remission of past sins, and the strength and help to no longer sin, unless we, through our own negligence, indulge in sins. That's why David says: God! Hasten to my aid; God! Do not hesitate to help me (Ps. 69:2) and my help is from the Lord (Ps. 121:2) - etc. And Paul said: The Spirit strengthens us in our weaknesses and Himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). In the Divine Scriptures one can find countless other similar sayings. It was pleasing: anyone who says that the same grace of God, which is given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord, helps us only in not sinning, because through it the knowledge of sins is revealed and revealed to us, so that we know what we should strive for and what to shy away from, but besides this, through it we are not given love and strength to do what we know we should do - let him be anathema. After all, when the apostle says that knowledge puffs up, but love edifies (1 Cor. 8:1), it is extremely wicked to believe that we have the grace of Christ for our arrogance, but not for creation, although both are the gift of God: both knowledge of what we should do, and love of what we should do, so that with creative love knowledge could not puff up. For as it is written from God: He teaches man understanding (Ps. 93:10), so it is also written: love is from God (1 John 4:7). By this rule, the Council also anathematizes the Pelagians and followers of Celestius, who say that the grace of God helps us only in not sinning, since thanks to it we learn what we should strive for and what we should do, that is, good, and that which should be avoided, that is, evil, but at the same time it does not give us love and strength to fulfill the good that we have come to know. After all, both are equally gifts of God: both knowledge and love, because David speaks about knowledge: he teaches a person understanding, and about love - the beloved disciple: love is from God. After all, otherwise it is wicked to believe that the grace of God gives us knowledge, which, if it alone, according to Paul, is arrogant, that is, causes conceit, but at the same time does not give us love, which creates and gives us the power to do good. Therefore, both knowledge of what one should do and love of what one should do are equally a gift of Divine grace. Knowledge is given to the mind, and love is given to the will, these two first and main forces of the soul. It was pleasing: anyone who says that the grace of justification is given to us so that what we can do with the help of autocracy, with the help of grace we do with greater ease, as if if grace were not given, then we, although not with ease, could still fulfill the Divine commandments without it - let him be anathema. After all, when the Lord spoke about the fruits of the commandments, he did not say: without Me you can do with difficulty, but said: without Me you can do nothing (John 15:5). (Carthage. 120–123, 125–127.) And this rule anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians for their following opinion: since God created us autocratic [ 302 ], then even if not with ease, but with difficulty, we can still fulfill the commandments without Divine grace, but with the help of Divine grace we can fulfill them [ 303 ] with greater ease. After all, the Lord, speaking about the Divine commandments, did not say: “Without Me you can fulfill them with difficulty,” but said directly: Without Me you cannot do anything, neither with ease nor with difficulty. This means that everything depends on Divine grace, and without it we cannot accomplish anything [304]. It was pleasing: anyone who considers and says that the words of the holy Apostle John, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8) should be understood in this way: we should not say “there is no sin in us” out of humility, and not because it is truly so, let him be anathema. After all, the apostle continues and adds the following: If we confess our sins, then He, being faithful and righteous, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). It is clearly shown here that this is said not only out of humility, but also out of truth. After all, the apostle could have said: If we say that we have no sin, we exalt ourselves and there is no humility in us, but by saying we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, he clearly showed: the one who says that there is no sin in him does not speak the truth, but lies. (Carthage. 120–124, 126, 127) The views of the Pelagians in some ways coincided with the views of the Messalians [ 305 ] (both of them believed that the beginning of salvation was mainly not in Divine grace, but in human power). The Messalians, in their evil wisdom, believed that the Holy Spirit, coming to a person in a sensual and visible way, frees him from passions, so that a person no longer needs to observe fasts or perform other godly deeds. So the Pelagians, reasoning in exactly the same way, said that the saints utter the words of John “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and do not speak the truth” not because it is so (after all, having been freed from passions with the help of the Holy Spirit, the saints are henceforth sinless and cannot sin), but solely out of humility. Therefore, the present rule anathematizes those who say this, since they misinterpret this saying. After all, John himself further says that if we confess our sins, then the Lord is faithful and righteous, who will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. From these words it is clear that the saints pronounce this expression not out of humility, but out of truth. In fact, the apostle could say: “If we say that we have no sin, then we are exalted and there is no humility in us.” And without saying this, he shows that he who claims that we have no sin is not telling the truth, but is lying 306. It was pleasing: anyone who says that the saints in the Lord's Prayer say forgive us our debts (Matthew 6:12) not for themselves, since they no longer need this petition, but for others, sinners from their people, and that none of the saints says forgive me my debts, but says forgive us our debts, so that it is clear that the righteous asks rather for others than for himself - let him be anathema. After all, ap. James was holy and righteous when he said: “We all sin in many ways” (see James 3:2). Why is “all” added, if not so that this thought would be in agreement with the psalm in which we read: Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no one living will be justified before You 307, and with the prayer of the wise Solomon: “There is no man who has not sinned” (see 1 Kings 8:46), and with a saying from the book of St. Job: “He puts a seal on the hand of every man, so that every man may know his own weakness” (see Job 37:7)? For the same reason, the holy and righteous prophet Daniel, speaking in the plural: We have sinned, we have acted wickedly (Dan. 9:5), etc., which he humbly and truly confesses there, after this, so that they would not think (as some understand) that he is not speaking about his own sins, but rather about the sins of his people, said: “I prayed and confessed my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God” (see. Dan.9:20). He did not want to say “our sins,” but “my people’s” and “my own,” since the prophet seemed to have foreseen that those would appear who would understand this incorrectly. And this rule speaks of the crazy thought of the Pelagians, which is similar to the previous one: it anathematizes those who say that the saints, reading the words forgive us our debts in the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father,” pronounce them not for themselves, since they do not need this petition as dispassionate and sinless, but for the sake of the sins of others. After all, God’s holy brother James says: “We all sin a lot”; and David: “Do not enter, O Lord, into judgment with me, Your servant, for not a single living person can prove righteous before You”; and Solomon in the prayer with which he turned to God after the construction of the church: “There is no man in the world who has not sinned”; and Job: “He sets a seal on a man’s hands, so that every man may know his own weakness” [308]. Also the prophet. Daniel in prayer first says in the plural: “We have sinned, we have acted wickedly,” and then adds in the singular: “I have confessed my sins and the sins of my people” - and he says this with such clarity so that no one would think that he was speaking about the sins of his people, and not about his own. Thus, with prophecy, he stops the lips of those who would speak so wickedly. It was pleasing: anyone who declares that the words of the Lord’s Prayer, in which we say forgive us our debts (Matthew 6:12; Luke 11:4), are spoken by the saints out of humility, and not out of truth itself—let him be anathema. After all, who would tolerate such a praying person who lies not to people, but to the Lord Himself, says with his lips that he wants forgiveness, but says in his heart that he has no sins for which he needs forgiveness? And this rule anathematizes the Pelagians, who claim that the saints do not say forgive us our debts out of truth itself, since they have no sins and debts, but out of humility. After all, who, says the rule, will tolerate the saints, when they say this, to lie, not to people, but to God, and with their lips they ask for forgiveness of their sins, but in their hearts they think that they have no sins? This is called blasphemy, not prayer, and to think this way about the saints is monstrous [310]. Some years ago in this Church it was decreed by a full Council that any churches founded in the region which had become catholic before the laws concerning the Donatists were issued should belong to those sees whose bishops had induced them to enter into communion with the catholic unity. And those who entered into communion after the publication of the laws should belong to the departments to which they belonged when they were on the side of Donatus. And since after this many disputes arose and are arising between the bishops regarding areas about which then, as it seems, there was insufficient care shown, now this holy Council was pleased: wherever there were a Catholic Church and a church belonging to the side of Donatus, and they belonged to different sees, at whatever time the unification occurred there or will happen, before the publication of laws or after it, let them belong to the see to which the Catholic Church that existed there from ancient times belonged [311] . Of course, in this way: if the Donatist bishops have turned to Catholic unity, let them equally divide among themselves the areas that are in this situation and in which the flock of both sides resides, that is, so that some places belong to one bishop, and others to another, and so that the senior in the episcopate divides, and the younger chooses. If there is one place in this situation, let it go to the one to whom it is located closer. If it turns out to be equally close to both sees, it must be ceded to the one whom the people choose. If initially the Orthodox want their own bishop, and those who converted from Donatus want theirs, let the opinion of the majority be preferred to the opinion of the minority. And if both sides turn out to be equal, let the place be assigned to the senior bishop. If there are so many places in which the flock of both sides are located that it is impossible to divide them equally, since the number of these places is odd, first let them divide the even number, and in relation to the rest they observe the same as was said above when discussing one place. Since many disputes arose between the bishops regarding which of them would receive converts from the Donatists, the present rule states: those who converted before the publication of the royal laws of unity are ordered (canon 110) to obey the bishop who converted them, and those who, after the publication of the laws, are ordered to submit to the Catholic bishops closest to the Donatists. Now again, for the sake of the final cessation of the emerging disputes, the Council determines that the places of converts from the Donatists should be subject to the bishop to whom the Orthodox Church, originally located in the place of the Donatists, was subject. This must be done in this way: if the seats are between the sees of two bishops who converted from the Donatists, let the two of them divide them equally, with the eldest dividing and the younger choosing. If the place over which they argue is one, let it be subject to the nearest bishop. If it borders equally on both sees, let it be subject to the bishop whom the people want. If they both demand the same place in its entirety, let the opinion of the majority prevail over the opinion of the minority. If both sides are equal, let the seat belong to the senior bishop. If there are many places, let both bishops divide them equally, and if only one place remains, let it be subordinate either to the nearest bishop, or to the one whom the people prefer, if it is at an equal distance from both. Read also the 55th rule of this Council. It was convenient: if someone, after the publication of the laws, converts any locality to Catholic unity and holds it for three years (even if no one demands it back), in the future this locality should no longer be demanded from him, however, provided that during this three-year period there was a bishop obliged to demand it, but he was silent. If there was no bishop, then let him not suffer damage due to the inventory, but when the widowed locality receives a bishop, from that day on he will be able to claim this locality for three years. Likewise, if a bishop of Donatus converts to Catholic unity, let him not suffer damage because of the list due to the fixed period, but from the day on which he converts, let him have the right to claim the places that belong to his see for three years. (IV Om. 17; Carthage. 55. 66, 75–77, 101, 102, 110, 128, 131.) Finally, this rule makes a determination about the localities that belonged to the Donatists and generally converted heretics. It says: if any Catholic bishop, after issuing the laws of unity (canon 110), converts a locality belonging to heretics to Orthodoxy and holds it for three years, and no one demands it back, then after three years no one can take it away from him. If there was no bishop in the episcopal region to which the locality belonged and he was appointed there during these three years, he has the right to claim that locality as his own and will not suffer damage due to the inventory, that is, he will not suffer a loss and will not lose the locality due to the fact that it was included in the original list of a foreign church that came under his jurisdiction, but will receive this locality back if he claims it within three years [312]. Likewise, if a Donatist bishop converts to Orthodoxy, then from the day of his conversion he can claim the territory belonging to him, which was held for three years by another, Catholic bishop. See also the 55th rule of this Council and IV Ecumenical. 17. It was convenient: bishops who demand back the people who, as they believe, belong to their see, and do this not through the court of bishops, but by seizing the people belonging to another bishop, whether the people want it or not, let them suffer damage in this. And if anyone has done this when the matter between the bishops has not yet ended in agreement, but they are still arguing about it, let the one who has been proven to have entered there bypassing the ecclesiastical judges leave thence. And let no one deceive himself by the fact that he received charters of ownership from the leading bishop: whether he has charters or not, let him come to an agreement with the bishop who holds the area for himself, and receive the charters from him, so that it is clear that he received the church under his control peacefully. If he initiates a case in response, let it be decided by a court of bishops, whom either the leading bishop will give to them, or they themselves, by mutual agreement, will choose from their neighbors. This rule prohibits bishops from acting arbitrarily; let them claim for themselves the people that they believe belong to them through the court of bishops. If they try to seize the people arbitrarily, whether they want these bishops or not, let them lose this people for their despotism, even if they had the right to it. Moreover, if two bishops who are at enmity over this people come to the court of bishops, but before the end of the proceedings, when the dispute is not yet resolved, one of them leaves the court of bishops and arbitrarily invades, let him lose this people, even if he had a right to it. Let no one be deceived, that is, deceive himself and act arbitrarily under the pretext of having received charters from the metropolitan of that people to take over the people. Whether he had such a charter or not, it is also necessary to obtain a charter showing that he received the church subordinate to him from the bishop who previously owned it peacefully (if he does not do this, let him lose his rights) [313]. If the accused bishop accuses his accuser in this way, let the case be examined by the bishops whom the metropolitan will provide or whom they themselves will choose from among the neighboring and nearest bishops. Read also IV Omni. 17. It was convenient: those who are careless about acquiring places for catholic unity that are subordinate to their see should be encouraged by the zealous bishops neighboring them with reproaches so that they do not postpone this matter. Therefore, if within a period of six months, starting from the date of the meeting on this issue, they do nothing, let these places be transferred to someone who can acquire them. However, if the one to whom it is known that these places belong, decided to leave them without attention deliberately, due to some economy, since the heretics preferred that he acquire them without noise, and at this time another bishop warned his care, which, if he had used it earlier, would only have embittered the heretics, then, when all this becomes clear at the court of bishops, the places will be returned to his see. If bishops from different regions judge, the judges will be appointed by the leading bishop in whose region the very place in question is located. If, by mutual agreement, they elect neighboring bishops as judges, let them choose either one or three. And if they choose three and are satisfied with them, let them follow the decision of either all or two [314]. Moreover, it is impossible to appeal against the decision of judges chosen by mutual agreement. If it turns out that someone stubbornly does not want to submit to the judges, the bishop of the primary see, having learned about this, will distribute letters so that none of the bishops will enter into communication with him until he submits. (Apost. 58; IV Om. 25; VI Ose. 19; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 16, 79. 82, 86, 132, 133; Gregory Nis. 6; Petra Alexander, 10.) Bishops should not be negligent about the heretics in their area, as they are obliged to give an account, 315 but should try in every possible way to win them over and convert them to Catholic unity [ 316 ], that is, to the Catholic Church. If they hesitate, let the neighboring bishops reproach them for this delay. If, even after the rebuke, they are careless and do not convert any of the heretics within six months, then let these heretics, along with their places, be transferred to another bishop who is capable of converting them. But if the bishop, to whose area the heretics belong, showed imaginary indifference for reasons of oikonomia, the heretics asked for this in order to convert more peacefully and without violence (since if the bishop had shown care and excessive diligence, the heretics would have become embittered from this), and another bishop, not knowing about this oikonomia, preceded him and converted them, if, I repeat, this is revealed during the proceedings and trial of the bishops, the converted heretics and all their places should be transferred to the bishop in whose charge they were. And let the bishops who will judge be either appointed by the metropolitan in whose area the area being the subject of the dispute is located and the people infected with heresy, or by mutual consent elected by both disputing bishops. And if they choose one bishop, then they must be content with his decision, as the decision of an elected judge, and if they choose three, then if the three agree, let them follow their decision, and if one of the three disagrees, let them follow the decision of the two who agree with each other and not appeal their decisions in another court. And with the one of the two disputants who, out of stubbornness, does not submit to these elected judges, let, following the letters of the metropolitan, not a single bishop enter into communication until he submits. See also Apost. 58 and 16th rules of this Council. If in relation to inventories (ἐν τοῖς ματρικίοις), i.e. in relation to sees, a bishop neglects heretics, let neighboring zealous bishops remind him and point out his own neglect, so that he has no excuse. If, from the day he was reminded, for six months, while remaining in the same area, he does not take care of those who need to be returned to Catholic unity, do not enter into communication with such until he does this. If there is no executor in these places, let this not be imputed to the bishop. (Apost. 58; IV Om. 25; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 79, 82, 86, 131, 133; Gregory Nis. 6; Petra Alexander, 10.) The bishop is obliged without negligence to take care of the conversion to Orthodoxy not only of the remaining places where heretics are located, according to the previous rule, but also of the cathedras and metropolises themselves (in which the original codes and inventories of their property are kept: this is what the word τά ματρίκια means; see the 41st rule of this Council). And for those who neglect them, the present rule is determined, let neighboring bishops give reminders, so that later he will have no excuse. If, within six months after the reminder, while in these heretical pulpits, he does not try to take all possible measures to convert the heretics, let him be deprived of fellowship [317] until he does this. If the ruler of the country, who can carry this out and bring the heretics to justice even against their will [318], is absent, let the bishop not be blamed for such a delay in converting them, since it was not through his fault. If it is proven that he lied about their communion, saying that those who, as it turns out, are not in communion are already in communion, and he knew about it, let him also lose his bishopric. (Apost. 58; IV Ecum. 25; VI Ecum. 19; Dvukrat. 16; Sardik. 11; Carthage. 79. 82, 86, 131. 132.) This rule continues the previous one. It says that if a bishop who is careless about the conversion of heretics, in response to accusations, lies that they have converted and are in communion with the Catholic Church, although they have either not fully converted, or have converted, but without his knowledge and not through his own efforts, such a one will be finally deposed both for negligence and for having lied. It was convenient: if presbyters, deacons and other lower clergy complain about the decisions of their bishops regarding the litigation they have, let neighboring bishops listen to them and the cases between them be resolved by those invited by them with the consent of their own bishops. If the clergy want to file an appeal against their decision, let them submit it only to the African Councils or the primaries of their metropolitan regions. And whoever wishes to appeal to the Councils on the other side of the sea, let no one in Africa accept him into fellowship. (II Om. 6; IV Om. 9; Carthage. 11, 36.) This rule is almost no different from the 36th rule of this Council, so read its interpretation in its place. This rule only adds that those wishing to appeal against the decision of neighboring bishops must appeal to the African Councils or to the primate bishops, etc. [319]. See also II Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 9. It was convenient: if any of the bishops, out of necessity, when the chastity of the virgin is in danger because there is an influential admirer, or someone arouses suspicion that he will kidnap her, or the virgin herself feels that she is struck by mortal danger, at the request of her parents or those in whose care she is entrusted, clothe or clothe the virgin in the monastic image before she is 25 years old, so that she does not die without the monastic image, then let this bishop The Council, which passed a resolution on such a number of years, will not harm in any way. (I Omni. z, 19; Carthage. 6, 51; IV Om. 15; VI Om. 40, 45; Basil the Great. 18.) We said that, according to VI Omni. 45, monks and nuns underwent the experience of monastic life in lay robes. From the present rule this can be seen even more clearly, because it determines that those virgins who are consecrated to God by the bishop, according to the 6th rule of this Council, should not wear monastic clothes until the age of 25 (about which see VI Ecumenical 40). If some influential person has fallen in love with one of these virgins, or there is a suspicion that some libertine intends to kidnap her, or she is in mortal danger and she herself and her parents ask that she not die without accepting the monastic image, then the bishop is allowed to clothe her in the monastic image before the age of 25. And for this untimely action, let him not suffer any damage from the Council, which passed a resolution on such a period, because he violated this resolution not without permission, but involuntarily. See also I Omni. 19 and 6th rules of this Council. It was the will of the entire Council: in order not to delay for a long time all the bishops gathered at the Council, three judges should be elected from each metropolitan region. Since the assembled bishops stayed for a long time at this Council (it lasted, as we said, for six whole years), but there were still some questions requiring consideration, this rule declared that it seemed prudent to elect three bishops from each metropolitan region: the rest should go to their regions, and these chosen ones would stay and consider the remaining questions. Everyone wanted it: since in the previous council decrees there were definitions about persons who should not be allowed to accuse clergy, but it was not specified which particular persons should not be allowed, we determine that one who, being deprived of communion, is still in this excommunication, - whether a cleric or a layman, wants to become an accuser - cannot be allowed to accuse. (Apost. 74; II Ose. 6; IV Ose. 9, 21; Carthage. 8, 27, 138, 139.) This rule determines that not all people should be allowed to accuse, but only those who are impeccable and irreproachable, so that any excommunicated cleric or layman, while under excommunication, should not be allowed to accuse the cleric. Read also the Apostle. 74 and II Omni. 6. It was desirable not to allow any slaves and one’s own freedmen to be charged, and all those whom civil laws do not allow to be charged with crimes; as well as everyone who bears the stain of dishonor, that is, actors and persons devoted to immorality; also heretics, or pagans, or Jews. However, anyone who is denied the right to make such an accusation should not be denied the right to accuse in their own cases. (Apost. 74; II Ecum. 2, 6; IV Ecum. 9, 21; Carthage. 8, 27, 139.) Moreover, no slaves or freedmen are allowed to accuse their masters and liberators [320], according to this rule; and all those whom civil laws do not allow to accuse anyone are also excluded. In the same way, people are dishonest and engage in dishonest and shameful arts, that is, mimes and other actors and performers, or martial artists and animal fighters and other similar people; also heretics, or schismatics, or pagans, or Jews - all these people are not allowed to accuse bishops and clergy in cases of church crimes. In property and their own affairs, they all have the right to blame them. See also Apost. 74 and II Omni. 6. It was convenient: whenever the accusers brought many accusations against the clergy, if one of them, which was considered first, could not be proven, after that they were not allowed to add other accusations. (Apost. 74; II Ose. 6; IV Ose. 9, 21; Carthage. 8, 27,138.) If someone brings various accusations against bishops and clergy and cannot prove the truth of one of them, considered first, then this rule prescribes that such an accuser, as unreliable, should not be allowed to make other accusations. See also Apost. 74 and II Omni. 6. Do not allow as witnesses those who are ordered not to be admitted to the accusation, as well as those whom the accuser himself brings from his own home. Certificates from persons under 14 years of age will not be accepted. (Apost. 75; I Om. 2; Carthage. 8, 27, 38, 68, 138, 139.) Not only the accusers of clergy and clergy must be impeccable, but also those who will testify against them, as determined by this rule. Consequently, the same persons who, as we said above, are not allowed to accuse clergy, are not allowed to testify against them. Those whom the accuser brings from his home (especially those who are subordinate to him) are also not allowed to testify, because they do not inspire confidence due to their proximity to the accusers. In addition, minors are not allowed to testify until they reach the age of 14, because they do not yet have judgment and strong convictions. It was convenient: if the bishop says that someone confessed his crime to him in private, and he denies it, let the bishop not consider it an insult that he alone is not trusted. If he says that, out of confusion of his conscience, he does not want to be in communion with the one who denies [321], then until his bishop accepts the excommunicated person into communion, let other bishops not enter into communion with this same bishop, so that the bishop would better beware of saying against someone what he cannot confirm with evidence before others. (Apost. 32; I Om. 5; Antioch. 6; Constantinople. 879 g-1; Sardik. 14; Carthage. 11. 37.) This rule defines: if someone privately confesses to a bishop his sin, for which he deserves disfellowship and excommunication, and then the bishop declares that sin, but the confessor, having heard about it, denies that he confessed it to the bishop - if, I continue, this happens, one should not trust the bishop alone. In addition, you need to force the bishop to be in communication with him and not consider it an insult to yourself that others do not trust him alone. If he does not want to remain in communion with the one who confessed and denies, because of confusion of conscience, which reproaches him for being in communion with a person who should be deprived of fellowship and excommunicated, then until he enters into communion with the one who denies, let the other bishops not enter into communion with him. And let this be done so that the bishop will beware of talking about someone’s crime, which he cannot prove to others with the help of witnesses or in some other way. Read also the Apostle. 32 and note. to Neokesar. 9. First Epistle, addressed to Boniface, Bishop of the Roman Church, from the entire Council in Africa through the Locum Tenens of the Roman Church, Bishop Favstinus and Presbyters Philip and Asella Since it pleased the Lord that our most holy brothers, co-bishop Favstin and co-presbyters Philip and Asellus, had done with us, our humility should give a written answer to Bishop of blessed memory. Zosima, from whom they brought us letters and instructions, but your honesty, by the will of God, took his place, then we consider it our duty to inform you in a few words about what we have accomplished in unanimity with each other. However, we will not touch on what is contained in the lengthy scrolls of deeds and which we discussed for a long time with love, but not without some tedious word debates, trying to include in the deeds everything relevant to the matter. After all, Father Zosima, Mr. Brother, when he was still in this body, more kindly accepted what he saw happen more peacefully. Presbyter Apiarius, whose ordination, excommunication and complaint caused considerable temptation not only for the Sicca Church, but also for the entire African Church, asked forgiveness for everything in which he had erred, and was restored to communion. And our first co-bishop Urban of Sikka without hesitation corrected what needed correction. Since it was necessary to take care of church peace and tranquility not only at the present time, but also for the future (after all, there were many similar cases in the past), then, in order to protect ourselves from such or even more serious incidents, we decided to remove Presbyter Apiarius from the Sikka Church. Of course, he retains the honor of the rank and, having received the diploma, he will carry out presbytery service in any other place where he wishes and has the opportunity. We agreed to this without any displeasure at the request of Apiarius himself, who wrote about this in his letters. But before concluding the matter in this way, we encountered, among other questions, those that gave rise to lengthy discussions. At the same time, the very essence of the matter required us, when compiling church acts, to ask our brothers, co-bishop Favstinus and co-presbyters Philip and Asellus, to report everything that they were entrusted to do with us. They explained some things orally, in words. When we demanded the written instruction, which they brought with them, they presented it. After reading it, we included it in the deeds that they brought to us this time. According to this instruction, they were ordered to consider four questions with us: 1) about the appeals of bishops to the bishop of the Roman Church; 2) that bishops should not go to the imperial court whenever they please; 3) that the affairs of presbyters and deacons be considered by neighboring bishops if their own bishops thoughtlessly deprived them of communion; 4) that ep. Urban should be disfellowshipped or even summoned to Rome if he does not correct what needs to be corrected. About the decisions on the first and third of all these questions - about allowing bishops to appeal to Rome and that the affairs of clergy should be finally decided by local bishops - we took care to inform last year in our letters, also sent to the venerable memory of Bishop. Zosima, in order, without insulting him, to adhere to these decisions for some time, until the definitions of the Council of Nicaea are found. Now we ask your shrine to help ensure that, as it was decreed and determined by the fathers in Nicaea, so it is observed among you, and we also ask you to order that what is stated in the mentioned instruction be fulfilled there. And it says: “If a bishop is accused and the bishops of the same metropolitan region, having gathered, condemn him and defrock him, and he decides to appeal and resorts to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, who is willing to listen to him and recognizes it as fair to resume the consideration of his case, then let the bishop of Rome deign to write to the bishops of the nearest neighboring metropolitan region, so that they carefully examine everything and, being convinced of in truth, a determination has been made. If the one who asks that his case be heard again, by his prayers induces the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter from himself, let it be in the power of this bishop to act as he pleases and judges. And if he chooses those who, having all the rights of the one who sent them, should judge together with the bishops, this is left to his discretion. And if the court of bishops finds it sufficient to complete the matter, let him act according to his wisest judgment” 322. Likewise, it is said about presbyters and deacons: “If a bishop is hot-tempered (which should not be) and suddenly (or strongly) angry with his presbyter or deacon and wants to expel him from his Church, caution must be exercised so that he is not condemned and disfellowshipped unjustly. Therefore, let the deposed person have the right to appeal to neighboring bishops, and let his case be heard and investigated in the most careful manner, because anyone who asks to hear him should not be refused. And the bishop, whether he deposed him fairly or unfairly, may accept without complaint that this matter is being reviewed with the aim of either confirming or correcting his decision” 323. Of course, this was included in the acts before receiving the most reliable copies of the Council of Nicaea. We in no way want to imagine and are in no hurry to agree with the assumption that there these rules are preserved in the same form as in this very instruction, which was presented to us through the brothers sent from the apostolic see, and that they prescribe the same order as is observed among you in Italy. But we believe that by the grace of the Lord our God, while your holiness presides over the Roman Church, we will no longer tolerate such arrogant treatment. Let even without our requests be observed in relation to us that which should be observed out of brotherly love, and if it happens that the rules of the Council of Nicea have a different content 324, then you, by the wisdom and righteousness that the Most High has given you, already realize that you must observe them too. After all, although we have reviewed many books, nowhere in the Latin books have we read the cited rules of the Council of Nicea in the form in which they were sent to us from there in the mentioned instruction. However, since we could not find them here and in any Greek book, we most of all wish that they were delivered to us from the Eastern Churches, where, they say, these same decrees can still be found in the originals. So, we also beg your honesty: deign to write yourself to the bishops of those places, that is, the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople, and if it seems necessary to your holiness, then to others, so that from there they send us the rules compiled by the holy fathers in Nicaea, thereby, with the help of the Lord, you will provide a special benefit to all the Western Churches. Indeed, who doubts that the most faithful Greek copies of the Council of Nicaea will be those which, when brought from so many different places, from the famous Greek Churches, after being compared with each other, turn out to agree? And until all this is realized, until the matter is resolved, we agree to observe the instruction proposed to us in the above-mentioned instruction about appeals of bishops to the bishop of the Roman Church and about the affairs of clergy, which must be decided by the bishops of their own areas - and we boldly rely on the fact that your beatitude, by the will of God, will help us in this. And about everything else that was done and approved at our Council, your holiness, if you wish, will be informed by our above-mentioned brothers, co-bishop Faustinus and presbyters Philip and Asellus, since they will bring with them deeds. And they signed: “May the Lord keep you with us, most blessed brother, for many years to come.” Alypius, Augustine, Possidius, Marinus and the rest of the bishops signed in a similar manner. Second Epistle of the African Council, to Pope Celestine Just as your holiness, in a letter sent to us through our co-presbyter Leo, expressed her joy at the arrival of Apiarius, we also wanted to joyfully send real letters with the news of his acquittal. And indeed, our and your disposition towards him was completely unshakable and did not seem inclined to question: when it was yet time to listen to him, she took his side, as if he had already been listened to. So, upon the arrival of our most holy brother and co-bishop Favstinus, we convened a Council and were sure that he was sent along with Apiarius so that now, through his own works, Apiarius could justify himself in so many accusations brought against him by the inhabitants of Favrikin. Our numerous Council, faced with so many and great crimes of Apiarius, discovered that they overpowered both the patronage of the mentioned Favstinus, which bears little resemblance to a court, and his zeal, which is more characteristic of a defender than a fair investigator of the case. For first of all, Faustinus rebelled with all his might against the entire Council, inflicting various insults on it, as if to defend the privileges of the Roman Church. He insisted that we receive into communion Apiarius, whom your shrine restored to communion, believing a complaint which he could not prove. However, Faustin did not succeed in achieving this, as you will learn better by reading the deeds. The difficult litigation lasted for three days, and all this time we sadly examined the various charges brought against Apiaria. Then God, the righteous Judge, strong and long-suffering, in an instant stopped both the procrastination of the case by our co-bishop Favstinus, and the tricks of Apiarius himself, with which he tried to hide his wicked abominations. Both the disgusting, fetid stubbornness and the shameless denial with which Apiarius wanted to cover up the impurity of so many of his voluptuous deeds became invalid. For when our God oppressed his conscience and revealed to all people the secrets of his heart, since they had already been condemned by the very heinousness of his crimes, then the cunning denier suddenly burst out with a confession of all the crimes charged against him and he voluntarily exposed himself to such vices that could hardly be believed. Thus, he turned our hope into lamentation, because of which we did not lose confidence in him and prayed that he could be cleansed of such shameful stains. This sorrow, Mr. Brother, he eased with one single consolation: he saved us from the burden of continuous lamentation and finally took care of healing his own wounds, since he confessed everything, albeit involuntarily and with the resistance of his conscience. So, having first fulfilled the duty of due reverence, we beg you in the future not to so easily receive and not to listen to those who come from here to you and not to accept into fellowship those whom we have excommunicated, since this is also determined by the Council of Nicaea, as your honesty can easily verify. After all, if in those definitions this is observed in relation to the lower clergy and laity, then how much more desirable is it to observe this in relation to bishops? So, let not those deprived of fellowship in their area be hastily and contrary to what is due, restored to fellowship by your holiness. In the same way, let your holiness, as befits your dignity, pursue the shameless escapes of the presbyters and the clergy who follow them, because the African Church is not denied this by any definition of the fathers, and the decisions of the Council of Nicea most obviously send both the lower clergy and the bishops themselves to their own metropolitans. Reasonably and fairly, this Council decided that no matter what matters arise, they should be ended in their places. The fathers reasoned that there is no area where there would be no grace of the Holy Spirit, by the power of which the priests of Christ intelligently discern and firmly maintain justice. And besides, anyone and everyone, if he does not agree with the verdict of local judges, is allowed to appeal to the Councils of his metropolitan region and even to the Ecumenical Council. And will anyone really believe that our God can instill justice in one person, but refuse this to the countless number of bishops gathered at the Council? Moreover, how will this foreign trial be thorough, at which the necessary witnesses cannot be present, either because of the weakness of nature, or because of the infirmity of old age, or because of many other obstacles? And about sending someone as if from your very holiness, we do not find a definition in any Council of the Fathers. After all, we could not find anything similar to what was previously sent to us through the same co-bishop Favstinus from you as the alleged decree of the Council of Nicaea, we could not find in the most accurate, taken from the original, copies of the council in Nicaea, which we received from our co-bishop, the Most Holy Cyril, Primate of the Church of Alexandria, and the Venerable Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and which even earlier we sent to your predecessor, Bishop of venerable memory. Boniface through Presbyter Innocent and Subdeacon Marcellus (they also brought us these lists from the mentioned bishops). Therefore, be kind enough not to send your clergy here as investigators and do not agree to this, even if they ask, so as not to turn out to be introducing childish worldly arrogance into the Church of Christ, which brings the light of simplicity and the day of humility to those who want to see God. Since the lamentable Apiarius has already been excommunicated from the Church of Christ by our brother Favstinus for his lawless and shameful deeds, we are convinced that with the experience and ability of your holiness to maintain brotherly love, Africa will not tolerate him in the future. Signature: Our God, Mr. Brother, preserve your holiness, offering prayers for us, for many, many years! The reason for writing these two epistles was given by a certain presbyter of Sicca named Apiarius. We intend to interpret them briefly and concisely, explaining only the meaning and not every word, in order to avoid verbosity. Undoubtedly, the work of this Apiarius was arranged providentially, so that the present Council would pillory the arrogant innovations that were to be invented by the popes of Rome: infallibility, autocracy, the mythical right of appeal - and, in addition, so that it would become obvious that since then the Westerners have tried to forge and distort the writings of the sacred Councils and individual fathers, and among the Greeks and Eastern Christians in general, on the contrary, the same books were preserved in an undistorted form. All this is proven by two messages of this Council. But let's talk in order. The aforementioned Apiarius, presbyter of the Sicca episcopal region in Africa, was conciliarly convicted of the canonical crimes he had committed and excommunicated from communion with his co-presbyters, bishops and clergy. Twice he went to Rome - both under Pope Zosima and under Pope Celestine - and there he was accepted into communion by these popes. Moreover, having received representative letters from them, he returned to Africa, accompanied by the papal representative Bishop. Favstina, who, although he made every effort to clear Apiarius of the charges brought against him, acting more as a patron than as a judge, and rather as a defender than as one who tries to investigate the case, he worked in vain. And indeed, Apiarius, convicted by his own conscience, openly admitted that he was in fact guilty of what he was accused of, as stated in the second letter to Celestine. And so, we see how the infallibility of the pope is nailed to the pillory: two popes and their representative - the third - unlawfully entered into communication with the excommunicated and, therefore, sinned. And the present Council denounces Pope Celestine, saying that no one will believe that God can give all justice into the hands of one bishop, that is, of Rome, and not into the hands of so many bishops gathered at the Council: “No one will believe that our God can instill justice in one person, but will refuse it to the countless number of bishops gathered at the Council.” So the autocracy of the pope has been overthrown. Pope Zosima gives his representative Favstinus an instruction, in other words, a written order and command, in which he gives the rule of Sardik. 5, defining: “If a bishop is accused and the bishops of his metropolitan region condemn him, let him appeal for his conviction to the bishop of Rome, who will send judges from himself to judge this bishop.” The Pope also cites the 14th canon of the same Sardician Council, which determines that presbyters and deacons excommunicated by a hot-tempered bishop should have the right to transfer their judgment to neighboring bishops. Zosima falsely inscribes both of these rules as belonging to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. However, the Council of Carthage compared these two rules with the list of rules that Caecilian brought with him from the very beginning, as well as with the authentic and most accurate copies of the same Nicene rules, which were later sent by Atticus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria through the presbyter Innocent and the subdeacon Marcellus (these same persons were sent by the Council of Carthage to take the original copies to Boniface of Rome), and I found that the Nicene rules do not define anything like this. Thus, the Council proved that Zosima was lying and, therefore, the right he defended to accept appeals from bishops, presbyters and deacons not subject to him was fictitious and false. Therefore, in order to decisively put an end to appeals to the Bishop of Rome in the future, the Council not only deliberately dedicated two canons to this issue, 36th and 134th, but also wrote with insistence to Celestine: “Please do not send your clergy here as investigators and do not agree to this, even if they ask, so as not to find ourselves introducing a futile worldly arrogance into the Church of Christ, which brings the light of simplicity to those who want to see God.” and the day of humility." And again: “In the future, do not so easily receive and listen to those who come from here to you, and do not accept into fellowship those whom we have excommunicated.” And about Apiaria, the Council wrote that, even if the pope wants his acquittal, Africa will no longer tolerate him, but will despise him as a criminal. And finally, the Council proves that Western books are distorted, while Eastern books are true. The letter to Boniface puts it this way: “Who doubts that the most faithful Greek copies of the Council of Nicaea will be those which, when brought from so many different places, from the famous Greek Churches, after being compared with each other, will turn out to agree with each other?” Please note: despite the fact that representatives of the pope were present at this Council, the Local Council remained Local and did not become Ecumenical, because neither the Eastern Patriarchs themselves nor their representatives were present at it. Consequently, the pope is only a member of the Ecumenical Councils, like the other patriarchs, and not higher than the Council, as the Roman pontiffs now invent. Carthage was once the most glorious city of the specially distinguished Proconsular (i.e., “Vicarious”) Africa - also known as Carhidon, since it has two names: the Latins call it Carthago or Carthagena, and the Greeks - “Carhidon”, because five years before the capture of Troas, Xoros, Carhidon and other Phoenicians settled in it. The city was founded by Dido, who brought there many people from Tyre. Being honored by the metropolitan see, under which there were 125 bishops, Carthage for this reason headed all African episcopal regions. Now it lies in ruins, and after its destruction the famous city of Tunis was built, located 12 miles east of Carthage (see: Meletius. Geography. P. 588). The Carthaginian bishop had the privilege, given to him initially, according to ancient custom, to take foreign clergy from any episcopal region (of course, subordinate to him) and ordain them as bishops, according to Carthage. 64. And Justinian, having defeated the Vandals in Africa and captured it, by his novel granted to the bishop of Carthage the privilege of having autocephaly and receiving ordination from his bishops, as he granted the same to the First and Second Justinians, although others say that the bishop of Carthage had this privilege from the very beginning, and Justinian only restored it. Carchidon is older than Ohrid herself. In fact, Justinian in the 131st novel says that he grants the bishop of Ohrid the right of bishopric, which he had already granted to the bishop of Justiniana of Carhidon. See also “Syntagmation” by Chrysanthus on p. 84 and note. to III Omni. 8. Theophylact in his interpretation of the book of the prophet. Jonah says that Carchidon was called Tarshish by the Jews (Theoph. Bulg. In Ionam l, 3 // PG 126, 920B.). Please note that in the proper sense, a cathedral is a collection of many meetings. And the acts of the present Council and each individual of the ten meetings that took place therein are called councils in the improper sense, while in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils they are called acts. The first Council against Pelagius was assembled in Jerusalem by Patriarch John, according to the monk Orosius, the second Council, in Lydda (which is also called Diospolis), consisted of 14 bishops in 415, in the presence of Patriarch John of Jerusalem. On it, Pelagius was accused by two bishops from Gaul - Neporus and Lazarus. How did this Council end? The divine Augustine talks about this. Pelagius pretended to anathematize his 12 heretical chapters and, since he seemed to repent, was forgiven. But the heresiarch still remained a heresiarch. Therefore, when, after a short time, his heresy became obvious and began to spread in Africa, the present Council, meeting on this occasion in Carthage, anathematized his heretical views in eight rules: from the 120th to the 127th - see them in their place. Together with Pelagius, he anathematized Celestius, his disciple, who philosophized like him. Therefore, according to Photius, the followers of this heresy are sometimes called Celestians, and sometimes Pelagians. And they thought, to put it briefly, like this: free will precedes grace, and human will is sufficient to fulfill the divine commandments. See also note. to III Omni. 1. After this Council, another Council met in Constantinople against Pelagius. The Third Ecumenical Council, which met after this one, condemned Celestius. Donatus and his Donatist followers are mentioned in the following canons of this Council: 55, 66, 75–78, 99–103, 110, 128–129. See them in your place. See the interpretation of the two messages of this Council about this. We inform lovers of learning and readers of these rules: in addition to the fact that their number and numbering differ (interpreters have 137 rules, Dositheus has 138, some of the Latins have 148, and others have a different number), rules that differ on a topic can be connected, and those concerning the same issue can be separated. Quite often, even Zonara, Balsamon, Aristin and the anonymous interpreter, instead of the actual rules, number and interpret names, headings or summaries of the rules. It is amazing how these blessed interpreters fell into such deep error and did not bother to distinguish the titled rules themselves from their titles. And that's not all. Moreover, the present rules were not really rules and definitions in the proper sense of the word. For the most part they are only the reasonings and interviews of the fathers in questions and answers and, generally speaking, acts and protocols, such rules as are in the process of being formulated, and not such as have already been formulated. For all the above reasons, we took care, as far as it was in our power, to put these rules in order with great diligence: those relating to different issues were divided, and those devoted to one subject were combined, titles were excluded, and reasoning and question answers were presented concisely in definitions and rules and, to put it briefly, thereby turning them into rules, because before that they were actions. So, let no one condemn us for this, but rather thank us for our work, firstly, because we did it, following the example of those who in the same way concisely stated and made definitions and rules the 29th and 30th rules of the IV Ecumenical Council, which in fact were acts and answers to questions, as well as those who concisely presented the questions and answers of the Sardician Council, formulating rules from them. And secondly, because we did this not according to our own understanding, but on the advice of people wiser and more sensible than us. The second number, indicated in brackets, is the number according to the interpreters Zonare and Balsamon, so that anyone can easily find these rules in ancient Greek. They were, in all likelihood, Caecilian of Carthage, who lived under Constantine the Great, and with him 20 bishops. Dositheus speaks about this (Twelve Books, p. 997), as well as the famous Eugene in “Logic” (p. 304). The same is noted at the beginning of the acts of this Council in ancient Greek. It seems to me that this apostolic tradition, according to the thoughts of this Council, is the words of the divine Paul to the Corinthians: Those who have wives should be as if they do not have (1 Cor. 7:29). The Council itself cites this saying of his in its 33rd canon, which speaks of the same abstinence of clergy. These statements made at the Council, in all likelihood, represented the confused reasoning of some who were inclined to believe that it was possible to take interest. Dionysius the Areopagite in the 4th chapter. The “Church Hierarchy” calls the making of the Holy Chrism a sacred rite and a sacrament (Dion. Ageor. De eccl. hierarch. IV, 2 // PG 3, 473A.). Today in our Church this sacrament - I don’t know why - is performed extremely rarely, once every many years. In Muscovy, as we have heard, it is celebrated every two years on Maundy Thursday. Please note that, according to the rule, this sacred act cannot be performed by a priest, but it is performed only by bishops, who, although they can consecrate the chrism themselves, for the sake of obedience and obedience to the patriarch, gather for this in the Great Church. John of Kitras says that it is allowed to mix the oil with a small amount of the remaining myrrh, so that the oil, which has thus increased in volume, will be enough to sanctify those who need it (answer 15). But this, of course, is the case if those who ask for sanctification are in a hopeless situation and if there is no other world there, moreover, this is sometimes allowed, not just like that and not always. See also note. to Laodice. 48. Above, I said that to prepare the ointment, more oil is taken than any other aromatic substances, but the ointment should not consist of almost only oil. Therefore, those priests who, by adding one pure oil to vessels with a very small amount of myrrh, almost turn it into oil, act badly. Therefore, we urge them and the holy bishops, for the love of God, to take care to have holy myrrh in abundance in their parishes and in their episcopal areas, since by leaving Christians without it or anointing them with oil and myrrh prepared in an improper way, they commit a mortal sin. And besides, many, not knowing that they were anointed, as we happened to see in the metropolitan regions of Arta and Bulgaria, strive to receive confirmation later, which is extremely incongruous. Please note: some say that the dedication of these virgins through prayer is performed only by the bishop, but not by the priest. And their acceptance through the monastic schema, the reading of the sequence of the schema and tonsure over them is carried out by the priest, with the permission of the bishop. Some say that the dedication of virgins, with the permission of the bishop, can be performed by a priest. So, of these three sacred rites, which this rule speaks of, the priest is not allowed only to prepare the world, which can only be performed by a bishop, and the other two are allowed to be performed by a priest. The making of Chrism differs from the sacred rite of peace, according to Simeon of Thessaloniki (chap. 71 and 72), since the making of Chrism is performed on Great Wednesday with the double blessing of the patriarch at the beginning and end of the preparation (Sym. Thessal. De sancto unguento 71 // PG 155, 240AD.), and the sacred rite of Chrism is performed on Maundy Thursday at the end of the liturgy (Ibid. Ch. 73) (Ibid. 72 // PG 155, 240D, 243–244A.). And Dionysius the Areopagite also testifies to the fact that to perform the sacred rites of the world is the exclusive right of bishops, saying: “So, the sacred rites now chanted by us, as I said, belongs to the perfect hierarchical rank and power” (Church hierarchy. Ch. 4) (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. IV, 3. 3 // PG 3, 476C.). Gabriel of Philadelphia in his book “On the Sacraments” says that anointing with myrrh is the exclusive right of bishops, but this was also allowed for priests with the aim that none of those baptized would be left without being sealed with the world. After all that has been said, I am surprised how St. Maxim, interpreting the 6th chapter. "Church Hierarchy" of St. Dionysius, could say: “It is not right for a bishop to put on a monastic image, but only a presbyter can do this” (Maximus Conf. Scholia in “De eccl. hierarch.” VI, 2 // PG 4, 169C.). And the basis for this, he says, is the fact that the divine Dionysius mentions there a priest tonsuring a monk, and not a hierarch. I am surprised, I repeat, how he could say this, while the real Council says that this is the business of the bishop. But maybe St. Dionysius spoke about the priest because, by order and permission of the bishop, the priest can also tonsure monks, since the letter to the confessor with the blessing to accept confession contains a separate permission for this, which you can read about at the end of the book. See also note. to Apost. 1 definition of the concept “bishop”. Read also the 51st and 135th canons of this Council to find out that entrusting virgins to venerable women and covering them with the monastic schema is the job of the bishop. That is why the eruption of John, Bishop. Patriarch Luke did not recognize the Amafuntsky event as valid under Manuel Komnenos, according to the interpretation of Armenopoul (title 6). After all, the Archbishop of Cyprus did not depose him with twelve bishops, as should have been the rule, but with only eleven, while it was easy for all the bishops of Cyprus to gather. Balsamon says the same thing. Rule of Antiochus. 4 determines that a presbyter and a deacon should be judged and deposed by his own bishop, and the present canon says that a presbyter should be judged by six bishops and his own, and a deacon by three. Therefore, some, harmonizing these rules, say that the rule of the Council of Antioch determines that first their own bishop judges the presbyters and deacons subordinate to him and pronounces sentence on them, and the present rule gives them permission and the right to demand judgment from a named number of bishops in the event that they themselves claim that their own bishop has condemned them and cast them out unjustly. Under number 14, the interpreters have the following rule: “In Tripoli, due to the lack of bishops, let the presbyter be judged by only five bishops and his own, and the deacon by two and his own, as it is written in the acts of this Council.” From this we draw something like a conclusion and say that just as the present Council allowed the clergy to be judged by a smaller number of bishops, for the reason that there were few bishops in those places, in other words, due to the difficult situation, in the same way it was allowed that the holy consecration of oil was performed in some villages and localities of Bulgaria, as well as another metropolitan region, not only by three priests, but also by two, and even by one, for the reason the small number of priests in those places, in other words, due to the difficult situation. It is better for a single priest to perform the sacrament than for local Christians, especially the sick, to be completely deprived of it (and thereby deprived of the remission of sins that the sacrament bestows on them). In addition, if the priest alone performs all other sacraments, and moreover, greater than the blessing of oil, then why cannot he alone perform the divine blessing of oil? And when the divine James says: Let him call the elders of the Church (James 5:14), then he means those clergy who exist, and not those who do not exist and cannot be found in those places. Difficult circumstances are not subject to rules and laws, as long as there are difficulties. Armenopoul in the book. 1, tit. 4 says that whoever has recourse to an elected judge must be content with his decision, whether it is just or not. If he is not satisfied with it, then he pays the fine that was agreed upon when he approached the elected judge, and let him blame himself for choosing such a judge. The decision of elected judges cannot be reconsidered or overturned, either by imperial order or by these judges themselves. Even if they made a mistake when they passed the sentence, they can no longer correct it, because after they have passed the sentence once, they cease to be judges. However, please note: if the elected judges make an unfair decision due to ignorance of the laws, the accused is obliged to be content with it or pay the agreed fine. If they rendered it for a favor or by accepting gifts, the one who lost the court does not obey their decision and does not pay the fine, now called “nazer” (νάζερ). See the indicated place at Armenopoul. About elected judges (who are also called arbitrators in Latin), Aristotle says that they are appointed so that they consider the case leniently and more philanthropically. After all, the mediator, he says, is guided by leniency, and the judge by the law; For this reason, a mediator was installed so that condescension would prevail (Rhetoric. Book 1, Chapter 19) (TLG 86/38, 1374b, 20–22.). And the imperial laws say that if there are two mediators and they do not agree with each other, then a third must be elected and satisfied with his decision and sentence. Therefore, the apostle writes to Timothy, so that the priests keep their children in obedience with all honesty (1 Tim. 3:4), and to Titus, so that they have faithful children, not reproached for debauchery or disobedience (Titus 1:6). It is obvious that those children of priests who go to spectacles and watch the outrages and obscenities committed there should be accused of debauchery, disobedience and uncleanness, which the divine apostle prohibits. It is necessary that the children of priests be more pious than the children of laymen. Therefore, Chrysostom (vol. 6, p. 50) says that if the daughter of a priest sins, she is punished more severely than other women: “For the daughters of priests, who have nothing to do with the priesthood, nevertheless, due to the dignity of their fathers, are subject to much more severe punishment for the same sins” (Homily 6 on the priesthood) (Ioan. Chrysost. De sacerd. 6.12 // PG 48, 687.). And God says: If the daughter of a priest defiles herself with fornication, then she dishonors her father; it must be burned with fire (Lev.21:9). And in the 22nd chapter. Deuteronomy He commands that the daughter of a commoner who commits fornication should be stoned (see Deut. 22:21). Burning is a greater punishment than stoning. Some say that just as the custom of bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons to abstain from their wives came to Africa from the Romans, which we spoke about in the 3rd and 4th canons of this Council, so the custom of encouraging readers approaching consecration to either marry or take a vow of virginity came to Africa from the same Romans. And in all likelihood, this was actually the case, as indirectly indicated by Rule IV Omni. 14 and what is clear from the acts of the present Council of Carthage. Therefore, what is meant here is not those readers over whom ordination has already been performed, but those who are yet to receive it, just as the bishops, presbyters and deacons mentioned in the 3rd and 4th rules meant those bishops, presbyters and deacons who were about to be ordained. However, keep in mind that since the same Council in the 33rd canon requires that, in addition to bishops, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, other clergy are free from this obligation to abstain, and since the need to abstain is contrary to the rule of Apostle. 26 (this rule prescribes that readers and singers have the freedom to marry even after ordination), then this obligation must be captivated into obedience to Christ (See 2 Cor. 10:5.), just as the need to abstain for elders, deacons and subdeacons was captivated by rule VI Omni. 13. In other words, the readers are given the freedom to marry even after ordination, according to the Apostle. 26 and Carthage. 33. Therefore, both in the acts of the Council of Carthage following this rule, and in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” (Book 10, Chapter 6), Mauritania is mentioned separately from Numidia and vice versa (PG 20, 892A.). Therefore, Balsamon, in the 22nd answer to Mark of Alexandria, says that those who first anoint dead bishops and priests or anyone else with myrrh, and then bury them, deserve severe punishment, since by their act they either accuse those who baptized and anointed these bishops and priests of not being Orthodox, or they themselves are not yet sure that the dead were in communion with Orthodox. Both are ridiculous. The Divine Chrysostom in his “Sermon on the fact that one should not bitterly mourn the dead” (vol. 6, p. 944) says: we see off the dead with psalms and hymns, thus giving thanks to the Lord Christ for their death. We dress the dead in new shrouds, signifying the new garment of incorruption they receive. We pour myrrh and oil and baptismal anointing on the dead, believing that it will help them on their way to the next life. We see them off with incense and candles, showing that they have freed themselves from the darkness of real life and headed towards the true light. We turn the coffin and body to the east, which marks the resurrection that awaits them (Ioan. Chrysost. De patient. // PG 6o, 725.). Keep in mind that the ointment, oil and baptismal anointing mentioned here by the saint should be understood only as the oil with which those being baptized anoint the whole body. After all, Dionysius the Areopagite (On the Church Hierarchy. Ch. 2) says that the consecration of water for baptism ends with a threefold cross-shaped libation of myrrh (Dion. Areop. De eccl. hierarch. II, 2. 7 // PG 3, 396C.), while he uses the word “mirror” instead of the word “oil”, as interpreted by Simeon of Thessaloniki (Ch. 63) (Sym. Thessal. De sacrament. 62 // PG 155, 225–226B.). See also the rule of St. Cyprian. According to the 35th book. “Basilik” (tit. 8, ch. 38) even heretical children cannot inherit from their Orthodox parents. Parents also, if they are Orthodox, cannot leave an inheritance to their heretical children, but can only leave it to Christians. If the parents (being Orthodox) appointed their heretical sons as heirs, having no other Orthodox relatives, then let their property be transferred to other Orthodox relatives. If the deceased, being clerics, had neither children nor other relatives, then a year after their death their property is received by the primates of the church to which the deceased clergy belonged. And in the 1st book. “Basilik” was written so that the Samaritans, and heretics in general, would not receive any inheritance or gift. In the 11th chapter. 3rd tit. 5th book. it is said that no heretic should receive real estate from a church or other sacred house, either by rent, or as an emphyteusis (Emphiteusis - long-term lease with the transfer of real rights), or by purchase, or in any other way. And under the 3rd point in the same book, title and chapter it is said that if an Orthodox Christian, having an estate on the territory of which a church is built, in any way bequeaths it to an unbeliever and a heretic, then let his estate pass into the power of the local church. Since we have mentioned heirs, it is appropriate to say something about them in general terms here. So, according to the 35th book, 10th tit., 36th chapter, relatives in the ascending line are preferred in inheritance to relatives in the descending line, that is, the children of the deceased, whether they are male or female. A child who inherits the property of his father, in order to receive support from him, must give this property to his grandfather, who will use it in business. If the grandfather dies and after him there remains a son and grandchildren from his other deceased son, then the grandchildren also enter into inheritance rights with their uncles and receive a share of their father. However, if there are no children, then preference is given to the parents and grandfathers of the deceased and they are the heirs, with the exception of only the brothers of the deceased, born from the same mother and father. In turn, among relatives in the ascending line, those who are closer in degree of relationship are preferred. And those who are on the same degree of relationship, let’s say, on the third or fourth, all together receive the same inheritance. The novella of Patriarch Athanasius determines that if a husband or wife dies and leaves an inheritance to a child, and then he also dies, then the surviving spouse should not inherit all of the child’s property, but let one part of it be given to commemorate the deceased, the other should be received by the parents of the deceased spouse, and the third should be taken by the surviving spouse. If the parents of the deceased are not alive, then the rights of inheritance include collateral relatives, i.e., brothers and sisters, and of these, in turn, brothers who have one mother and one father are preferred to half-brothers. Similarly, in inheritance from an uncle, the children of a full brother, i.e., nephews, are preferred to the children of a half-brother. If there are no blood brothers and sisters descended from the same father and mother, and there are no children of such a brother, then half-brothers and sisters will inherit from their brother. If the deceased has no brothers and sisters, but has nephews, then they are all equally his heirs (Armenopul. Book 5, tit. 8). If a husband or wife dies without leaving a will and without having any relatives or heirs, the surviving spouse is the heir of the deceased, even if they live together for only two months (Armenopoulos, ibid.). Both illegitimate and adopted children are equally heirs of their parents who died without a will. As much as anyone leaves to his illegitimate children, having at the same time brothers and sisters and a mother, so much he leaves to his adopted children, or at least a quarter of his property (ibid.). In the 41st book. “Basilik” (tit. 10, ch. 8) contains a definition so that no father shows one or some of his children excessive favor, leaving them as an inheritance more property than the rest of the children. But let him give all his children an appropriate amount and not give more to those he loves (unless one of the children turns out to be ungrateful and insults, or beats, or accuses, or does something else against his parents). If he nevertheless gives them (those whom he loves especially), let the other children receive their rightful share from this gift. Likewise, Basil the Great (Conversation 8 on the Sixth Day) determines that parents, just as they equally gave existence and life to all their children, should equally equally distribute to them the means of living (Basil. Magn. Hex. 8.6 // PG 29b, 180A.), i.e., their property and estates, and not give some more and less to others. Therefore, by many penances it is necessary to prevent the accursed custom, which exists in many different places, and especially on the islands. I am referring to the custom of parents giving the eldest son or eldest daughter most of their property, and leaving the remaining children deprived of their legal inheritance, as if they were illegitimate and not relatives. The greatest lawlessness! Unnatural cruelty, which even animals do not have! A pernicious vice that harms both the souls of the parents who do this and the unfortunate children who endure hardships! Fathers or children who take monasticism cannot be deprived of their inheritance on the grounds that it was left before they became monks; funeral expenses are withdrawn from the funds of the one who died (Armenopoulos, ibid. Tit. 9). See note. to the sample will at the end of the book and notes. to VI Omni. 6. From legatum (lat.) – intended by will. And the 102nd canon of the present Council of Carthage commands that heretics should not receive inheritances or gifts under a will, and also that no one else should leave them anything. From this rule it is clear that the clergy, even after they promised to abstain from their wives and live in virginity, continued to live with them. After all, the rule does not say that they should not live with their wives, but that they should live with them in virginity. The VI Ecumenical Council prohibited such cohabitation for bishops in the 12th and 48th canons, and for clergy in canon 30. Basil. Magn. Hom. 13.5 // PG 31, 436B. In other sources βαρυτέρῳ ἀμαρτήματι. See I Omni. 8 and note. 2 to him. This rule, firstly, undermines the very foundations on which is based the arrogant and proud autocracy of the popes, who presumptuously imagine that they have the right to accept appeals from the Churches of the entire universe. Indeed, if the present rule prohibits the bishops of Africa from appealing to the courts of Italy and the Pope, located on the other side of the sea, that is, almost in the neighborhood of the African bishops, then does it not much more prohibit those who live in countries even more distant from Italy from appealing to the Pope? Secondly, the rule clearly shows that the rules of the Council of Sardica, which speak of an appeal to the Pope of Rome, namely 3, 4 and 5, apply not to those bishops who do not obey the Pope of Rome, but to those who obey him, as we have interpreted these rules. Thirdly, it is confirmed here that the rule to which the papal legates referred at the beginning of this Council and which spoke of the right of the Pope to accept appeals was fraudulent and did not belong to the First Council of Nicea, as the legates falsely claimed (this was also revealed by the authentic lists of rules sent by the primates of Constantinople and Alexandria). In fact, if the mentioned rule had belonged to the First Ecumenical Council, then the Council of Carthage would certainly have fulfilled it exactly in accordance with the promise given in the 1st rule. See the preface to this Council and the interpretation of its two messages. And in the mentioned rule of Vasily the Great. 89 chorebishops complain that in rural churches, out of so many ministers, not one is worthy to accept the service of the altar, that is, to become a deacon or priest. Μάτριξ (inventory) is a word derived from the Greek or Latin word for “mother” (μήτηρ, mater). In its proper sense it means the original archive of documents from which lists and copies are made, as, for example, in the acts of this Council there is an original inventory of Numidia. Therefore, the inhabitants of the islands call such an inventory μάνα (mother), while others call it πλάκα (tablet). “Nothing from the acts of the Ippon Council requires correction” - rule 34 among the interpreters. It is of no interest: it says that the definitions of the Ippon Council should not be corrected, nor should anything be added to them. Please note that in order to provide a son with freedom and independence, the father’s consent alone is not enough, but it is necessary to draw up a legal act, that is, a written statement in the presence of a judge, according to Chapter. 3 tit. 3 "Basilik". Namely, the father, according to Armenopoul, must go with his son to the judge and say: “I give this son of mine independence and release him from my custody.” If the father is condemned to death, if he becomes a patrician, or an eparch, or a military leader, or a bishop, the son is released from his custody. A situation is possible when the son receives freedom, and the grandson remains under the guardianship of the grandfather, if the woman became pregnant from this son when he was subordinate, and the grandson was born when the son became free (see: Armenopul. Book 1, tit. 17). Zonara says that the abstinents mentioned in this rule are monks, because we do not know, says Basil the Great in his 19th rule, about the vow (i.e., the promise to keep virginity) of any other men except those who are ranked among the rank of monks. Others, citing Paul's saying as evidence: if they cannot abstain, let them marry (1 Cor. 7:9), they say that laypeople who have not yet made a firm decision to marry are called abstinent. But in my opinion, it is more likely that these abstinents were presbyters, deacons, subdeacons or readers who, being married, at ordination promised to abstain from their wives, as their abstinence is stated in canons 3, 4, 19 and 33 of this Council. If the rule says that the elders must come accompanied by someone, then this speaks about the other, lower clergy mentioned in the rule, accompanied by whom the elders must come. Let the Roman Pontiff, who wants to be called the supreme pontiff and other pompous names befitting God, be ashamed of this rule, and let him know that he contradicts this Council, at which his representatives were also present, in other words, he contradicts himself. However, as some wisely say, if the sick are unable to speak, then those intending to baptize them should loudly ask them if they wish to be baptized, and at the same time squeeze their hands and give other signs until the sick indicate with a nod or some other sign that they want baptism voluntarily. The same should be done by confessors when they need to confess such sick people. When they receive from the sick any sign expressing a desire to confess, then, so that the sick do not die without communion, the confessors must, for the sake of their illness, absolve them of their sins and give them communion, even if in fact they did not confess. The Donatists got their name from a certain Donatus who appeared in Africa, who wickedly believed that sinners in the Church infect others with their sins, just as sick members of the body infect healthy ones. Therefore, the Donatists argued that sinners, especially those Christians who, during the persecution of Diocletian, for fear of death, gave up the sacred books to be burned, should be cut off from the body of the Church and ecclesiastical communion. Donatus taught his followers that during communion they should hold some human bone in their hand and first kiss it, and then take communion. Various Councils were convened against the Donatists in Italy and especially in Africa; Many saints wrote against them, especially the divine Augustine. Jerome, in his work against the Luciferians, also writes against the Donatists, because they had the same heretical beliefs as the Donatists. Note: there is a scholium which says that the Donatists and the Messalians, that is, the Euchites, are one and the same, because Massalia (modern Marseilles) is opposite Libya, when viewed from Rome, located on the Tiber River (Obviously, the wrong etymology is given here. Translated from Syriac, the word "messalians" (or "massalians") means "prayers", the same as and “Euchites” translated from Greek.). Among other things, they argued that the Church, which had previously been visible, had become impoverished and now existed only in its prayer meeting. By the way, this idea was borrowed from the Donatists by the Calvinist Lutherans (Dositheus. Twelve Books. P. 1156). And St. Epiphanius, in the chapter on the 59th heresy, says that the Donatists philosophized in the Arian way (Epiph. Adv. haer. 59–13 // PG 41, 1037C.), i.e., in their heresy they were mistaken regarding the primary dogmas of the faith. Therefore, they were not only schismatics, but also heretics, as the present Council calls them in its 66th canon. It can be understood differently: the verb τρακταΐζω means “to conduct business.” Then the treatise is the act of some court or council. Therefore, the expression “about the study (τρακτάτου) in Nicaea” means “about the action in Nicaea regarding faith.” This rule speaks more about the consecration of a bishop, which is accomplished through prayer, than about election, because in the acts of this Council it is mentioned that such ordinations were performed on Sundays, when the liturgy was served at which the worthy were ordained. However, it would not be a mistake to assume that the rule also speaks about the election of a bishop, since the next rule says that only three bishops can also elect a bishop. It may be puzzling why the rule says here that at each annual Council it must declare on what day Easter of the current year falls, whereas the First Ecumenical Council, according to Antiochus. 1, made a determination regarding the day of Easter, in other words, compiled Paschal, so that there would no longer be a need to discuss this issue every year, especially since the 1st rule of this Council says that the African fathers who were present at the First Ecumenical Council brought with them to Africa lists of the definitions adopted at it. To resolve the confusion, let us say that the African fathers probably brought with them only the rules and definition of faith of the First Ecumenical Council, but not its acts, which, according to Balsamon, contained the Paschal, as can now be seen in the acts of the First Ecumenical Council, set forth by Gelasius. It is also possible that this Paschal was not yet so widely known, and therefore was not entirely understood and was not compiled in such an easy way as it is now, and therefore needed a conciliar review. Therefore, when the Council of Carthage was perplexed about the day of Easter, it wrote to Cyril of Alexandria and from him learned about this day, as can be seen from the letter of St. Kirill to this Council. That is why in the acts of this Council it is written that a certain bishop. Julian for taking from the bishop. Epigonia of the reader and ordained him a deacon, was deprived of communion until he returned the cleric. By any region, the rule means a region subordinate to the throne of Carhidon, and not one that is subject to the control of another patriarch or independent metropolitan, so that the rights of the Churches are not violated. The rule calls all seven sacraments the sacraments of the Trinity, but mainly the Body and Blood of the Lord, since, sanctified by the common action of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, bread and wine are transformed: bread into the Body of Christ, and wine into the Blood of Christ. Therefore, the excellent theologian Mark of Ephesus stood up for those priests who, when giving communion to Christians, said: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (from Meletius Sirig). He argued that they say this correctly, because although the Body and Blood received by hypostasis are the Body and Blood of the Son, and not the Father or the Spirit, but since the Son is in essence and energy inseparable from the Father and the Spirit, therefore, those who receive the Body and Blood also receive the Holy Spirit, that is, the common grace and energy seen in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It, according to theologians, is aimed at everything that is outside the Holy Trinity, although it itself is not something separate from It. However, grace is attributed primarily to the Holy Spirit, according to Coresius, because although it comes from the Father as the immediate Cause and proceeds through the Son, it is manifested and directly imparted to the creature in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to the same theologians, primarily the great Gregory of Thessaloniki, the Holy Spirit is called the one who accomplishes everything. In Africa, as we read in the acts of this Council, there was such an extreme shortage of clergy that in some churches there was not a single, even illiterate, deacon, much less there were no presbyters or bishops. Christians day after day complained about this shortcoming and grieved because of it, and therefore the Council, in response to their complaints, showed leniency according to oikonomia and recognized the consecrations of the Donatists. These were the ones who organized the Council in Italy and forbade the recognition of the consecrations of the Donatists, as can be seen from the acts of this Council and its 77th canon. If even those idolatrous churches that are stripped of their decoration must be destroyed to the ground, then even more so those that are decorated! Here it is appropriate to recall the prophecy of Zechariah: And it will come to pass in that day: I will remove the names of idols from the earth, and there will be no remembrance of them (Zechariah 13:2). Civil laws (book 21, tit. 1) also list persons who must not testify against their will. That is, the kind that happened at the festivals of Kronos, Dionysus and other pagan imaginary gods. “Birthday” (This is how the days of remembrance of martyrs are called in the text of the rule) (γενέσιον) is also called the day of death. See Barin's article on the word γενέθλιος and Laodice. 51. According to Balsamon, such a cleric does not receive assistance even in the form of an appeal to another court. The interpreters give the following rule under number 70: “Bishops, presbyters and deacons should abstain from their wives, and those who do not do this should be deprived of their degree.” We omitted this rule because it was passed twice in the 3rd and 4th rules. After all, if, as the saying goes, you don’t boil cabbage twice, then you certainly can’t cook it three times. Balsamon says that the original episcopal throne can be transferred from one city to another by royal decree and conciliar decision, but without them it cannot. Therefore, when the Bishop of Derk asked to move the throne from Derk to a trading, more populous city, and when many other bishops asked to move their thrones from poor cities to richer ones, then, by virtue of this rule, they were not listened to, according to the same Balsamon. Read also the chrisovul of Alexius Komnenos, who determines that when the emperor bestows a higher dignity on a church, for example, a metropolitanate or an archbishopric, it follows that the patriarch and the Council honor the primate of this church as a metropolitan or archbishop. See Vlastar about this. Please note: from this rule it follows that in Africa, in addition to the Council of Carthage itself, Councils were also held in Ippon and other places. There were two Ippons in the African province of Numidia. In one of them, the bishop was Saint Augustine, a wonderful man known to everyone, the greatest theologian of the Church. In Ippon, he died as a 76-year-old old man, completely immersed in prayer and being in exhaustion and great sadness due to the fact that the Aryan Vandals had captured Africa. Although Ippon himself was burned by them, his library, not by human, but by Divine power, was preserved unharmed. Therefore, the works of St. Augustine, which are more valuable and durable than any cedar, survived the fire, although after that they were distorted by heretics. For this reason, the Eastern Orthodox do not accept all of his writings indiscriminately, but only those that agree with the general faith of the Catholic Church. Please note that the present rule increases the time for deferring the ordination of a bishop to one year due to disagreements and discord among the people, in other words, out of necessity, since when there is no such need, bishops should be ordained within three months after the death of their predecessor, and no later, according to IV Ecumenical. 25. About these ecdics, the 15th novel of Justinian determines that they should deal with monetary matters concerning amounts of no more than 300 coins, and the most light criminal cases, and also that they should not allow those in power to persecute the weak and poor, and tax collectors to collect anything in excess of the imperial taxes. This novel also determines that every two years new ekdiks should be elected in a number sufficient for the people of each city, and also gives ekdiks other rights. See also note. to IV Omni. 2. It is possible to read παρά (“from, from the side”). The word παραιτησαμένων (“asked”), used in this rule, must certainly be understood in the sense of “sought” in order to coordinate the meaning of this word with the subsequent part of the rule. And the prefix παρά here is either unnecessary or indicates that the request was reckless (παράλογον). If we understand it in the sense of “avoided,” as Balsamon and Zonara interpret, then this goes against the meaning of the rest of the rule. Therefore, a good interpretation of the word παραιτησαμένων was given by an anonymous interpreter: “protected.” Perhaps I will have to pronounce, in relation to the interpretation of the rules of this Council, the famous wise saying of Zonara, which he used when interpreting the 64th rule: “Although this is not the proper meaning of the expressions, such an understanding is required by the development of thought.” The verb παραιτοῦμαι (“to ask”) instead of the simple αἰτῶ (“to ask”) was also used by the divine Chrysostom (Word to an unbelieving father): “... having asked (παραιτησάμενος) them not to be annoyed and not to be angry if someone will say that he knows better than they themselves what is good for their children” (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. oppugnat. vitae monast. 2.2 // PG 47, 332.). Please note: from this particular rule we learn that any episcopal region should not remain widowed, without a bishop, for a long time. The words “his monastery” can be understood both in the sense of “that monastery from which this monk left” and in the sense of “another monastery belonging to the bishop himself.” Both are prohibited. Some say that a bishop who accepted a foreign monk and ordained him is not expelled (as should be according to VI Ecumenical 17), because he did not accept a cleric of another bishop without a letter of release from him, but a monk from a monastery without a letter of release from the abbot, which is less important. And the fact that this rule speaks specifically about a monk from a foreign episcopal region is also indicated by the words “foreign monastery” contained in it. In a similar way, the 63rd rule of this Council requires that the bishop not take on someone else’s clergy, that is, a cleric from another episcopal region. See also the conciliar decree of Patriarch Luke (Greco-Roman Law. P. 222) (PG 119, 780AB.), which determines: “Tenures of other monasteries (but located in the same region) can become abbots in the monasteries of the patriarchal region if there are not enough people capable of governing, although the monastic charters determine that a tonsured person of another monastery does not become abbot.” In addition, the rule is twice. 4 allows the bishop to transfer the abbot from one monastery to another for the sake of the improvement of the latter. Zonara, calling the next part of the rule difficult to explain and incomprehensible, says that the following may be meant here: if a bishop dies without a will, then his successor should be deprived of any opportunity to justify himself if he does not properly dispose of the property of the deceased. However, the interpretation of Balsamon given above is more correct and corresponds to the text of the rule. The V Ecumenical Council, approving the present rule contained in the message of Emperor Justinian, cites it with some changes: “It is determined: if a bishop leaves as heirs heretics or pagans, be they his relatives or people not related to him, and prefers them to the Church, let him be anathematized even after death, and let his name not be remembered among the priests of God. He is not exempt from condemnation even if he dies without a will, since, having become a bishop, he should in no way have delayed the disposal of his property in accordance with his rank.” This means that even if a bishop died without leaving a will, according to which his heretical relatives would be the heirs, but had the intention of drawing it up, postponing the fulfillment of his intention, then, although he died without a will, after his death he still falls under anathema, since he, as a bishop, should have legally disposed of his property, and not put it off until time (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 392.). It is also added there that not only those who have sinned against the faith, but also those who have sinned against the sacred rules are anathematized even after death, and this is truly very scary and should frighten everyone. Zonara and Balsamon interpret the words “about which an ancient tradition is preserved” in the sense that these houses of worship must have been built in ancient times. Note that many such houses of worship can be seen on the islands called the Dodecanese. They are usually called chapels. They are built in mountains, vineyards, fields and desert places, either because their builders saw some dreams, or, as others say, because someone, having sinned, received a penance from his confessor to build a chapel. So, according to this rule, such chapels should not be built in the future. After all, they are in such neglect (due to their great multitude and abandonment) that hardly for many years the sacred liturgy has been celebrated in them. Most of them, since they do not even have doors, become shelters for donkeys, bulls and other livestock. O great sin! And if liturgies are celebrated in them, they should be performed on consecrated antimensions, or rather, on antimensions with particles of martyr’s relics sewn into them (see also note to VII Ecumenical 7). This rule does not prescribe the consecration of these unconsecrated chapels by placing holy relics in them, as determined by the VII Ecumenical. 7, but says that it is better to destroy them at once, firstly, because they were originally built from bad motives, and secondly, because due to their abandonment, as we said, they are neglected and dishonored. Perhaps the Council also made such a determination due to the fact that Christians who gather in these chapels commit a lot of outrages in them (especially in our times). This rule apparently teaches the blessing that God promised to give Jacob when he destroyed all the remnants of idols. And this will be his blessing... when they have crushed all the stones of the altars and turned them into flying dust, and their trees will no longer stand, and their idols will be cut down like distant oak groves (Is. 27:9). The present 94th (according to the numbering of the “Pidalion”) sacred rule in Rallis-Potlis (vol. 3, p. 513) is given under the title “Fifth Act” between the 85th (according to the numbering of the “Pidalion” 93rd) and the 86th (according to the numbering of the “Pidalion” 95th) rules. – Note. publishing house AETNR. The words “our meeting with you is not useless, although it is not very pleasant for everyone,” perhaps means that the Council organized by the fathers in Carhidon was not useless, since it met for the sake of pressing problems, but it did not turn out to be very pleasant for everyone, because for many, especially those who came from afar, it caused anxiety due to the tiring journey. So, Aurelius says that since the Council was so necessary and at the same time so exhausting, everyone should approve with signatures that for the sake of which it was necessary to undertake such tedious labor. Please note that the interpreters under number 88 contain the following rule: “Let the Council draw up letters ordering Maximian of Wagen to leave his episcopal region, and for his flock to find another bishop.” This rule is so insignificant that interpreters have not deigned to explain it. That's why we didn't include it among the rules and didn't give it a number. What should he talk to them about? About what is said in the resolution regarding the meeting with the Donatists, which is contained in the Acts (Act 5): “We have received from the Council the authority to speak with you, wanting to rejoice in your correction, since we know that the Lord pleases peacemakers and through the prophet (Is. 66:5) commands us to say to those who hate us and disdain us these words: “You are our brothers.” Therefore, you should not neglect our a peaceful reminder we give you out of love. Even if you think that your views are true, elect people according to your desire, and we, in turn, will choose people according to our desire, and then let a Council be held at a certain place and at a certain time, with the participation of both sides, and peacefully consider what divides us, so that through this peaceful consideration, when with the help of God the truth is revealed, an end to error may be put an end to error and so that so many weak and simple souls will not perish, thievely and even sacrilegiously separated from the Catholic Church due to the stubbornness of some people. If you don’t do this, it will become clear to everyone that you are infidels.” Please note that this ruling is included in the 92nd rule among the interpreters. Or “to present evidence” (διαμαρτυρίαν ἐπέθεντο). In the 5th act of this Council it is noted that the named bishops were also given representative conciliar letters addressed to the emperor, members of the synclite and the bishop of Rome. These letters certified that representatives were sent by the Council. The fact that such letters should be provided to those who go to the emperor is also determined by the rule of Sardik. 9, and especially Antiochus. 11. From the name itself it is clear that the performer is different from the ekdik. Photius (tit. 9, ch. 1) reports the following about the performers: 32nd decree of 3rd tit. The Code says that in minor court cases, bishops and clergy give no more than one coin to the executors for summons to court. If a performer insults or oppresses any cleric, he is deprived of his position and subjected to extreme punishment. And Justinian decrees that if someone is suing a cleric, monk, deaconess, nun or ascetic, then he must turn to the bishop, who will make a decision satisfactory to both parties, and a secular official is obliged to carry out the sentence, according to Chapter. 35 tit 1. book. 3 “Basilik” (the same chapter is the 123rd short story). Please note that those who in the translation of the Seventy are called overseers (And Jesus gave commandment to the overseers (τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν) of the people (Josh. 1:10)), in the translation of Aquila are called doers (ἐκβιβαστάς). Procopius says that among the Romans they are called secretaries (ἐκσκέπτορες) and through them the rulers make their will known (Chain of Interpreters on the Octateuch. Vol. 2. P. 7). In other sources, “as the priests of the episcopal region... they themselves took upon themselves the protection...”. These include the opening psalm at Vespers and all the prayers that are read before the performance and consecration of each sacrament. The final prayers are read after consecration and the completion of the sacraments. What prayers of presentation are is most clearly shown in the well-known proclamation, “Let us commend ourselves, and each other, and our whole life to Christ our God.” Balsamon says that the prayers of presentation are the prayers that are in the middle of every chant addressed to God. So, in churches and general meetings one should read the ordinary approved prayer books, and not other, newer ones. However, in private, no one is forbidden to read other, newer prayers, such as the theological hymns and prayers of Ficara, the prayers of St. Augustine, filled with love, and the prayers of many other authors, since there is nothing contrary to faith in them, unlike those prayers about which this conciliar rule decrees. Moreover, they are touching, soul-helping and composed by wise and holy men. And St. Callistus in the Philokalia (p. 1041) instructs us to read this kind of prayer to Christ and the Mother of God (Callist. et Ign. Xanthopul. Op. ascet. 26 // PG 147, 688AB.). See also note. to the 60th rule of this Council. Obviously, Rev. Nicodemus means “Preface on sacred rules in general. What is the rule? (see this edition: vol. 1, pp. 165–167). Christianity, according to the definition of one God-bearing father, is “contempt for everything human for the sake of confessing Christ.” And again: “Christianity is the knowledge of piety, leading to eternal life.” And Basil the Great gives the following definition: “Christianity is assimilation to God, as far as this is possible for human nature” (Six Day Conversation 10) (Basil. Magn. De hominis struct. 1. 21 // PG 30, 33B.). Greg. Nazianz. From. 38. 12 // PG 36, 324C. That’s why Gregory of Sinai says (Philokalia, p. 880): “Man was created incorruptible without moisture, and as such he will be resurrected. Not unchangeable, but not changeable either. He possessed the power (about this power, see the note to the 124th rule on free will. - St. N.) the ability to desire, in order to change or not” (Greg. Sinait. Cap. acrostich. 8 // PG 150, 1241A.). Therefore, those who believe that man was created in a state between mortality and immortality say incorrectly - whoever claims this, firstly, shows that mortality and immortality equally exist, are good and equally exist in the existing - which is false. Immortality - it exists, and is good, and abides in the existing; and mortality does not exist, is evil and does not exist in the existing. Secondly, did God, having created man in such an intermediate state, really want him to strive equally towards immortality and mortality? This is also incorrect. If they declare that Gregory the Theologian in his homily for the Nativity of Christ says that man was created between greatness and humility (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 38. 11 // PG 36, 324A.), then we answer: The Theologian covers in his speech not only the state of Adam before the crime, but also the state of man after the crime, as Nikita interprets. And by greatness we mean the soul, and by humility the body, just as the apostle said: our body is humble (Phil. 3:21). This means that God, who is immortal by nature, also created man immortal by grace, in a state of immortality alone, and in no way between immortality and mortality. That’s why Solomon said: God created man for incorruption (Wisdom 2:23), and on Wednesday in the seat of the Octoechos in the 4th plagal tone (In the tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church, the 4th plagal tone corresponds to the 8th tone.) The Church sings: “...having tasted the first fruit, incorruption exists, and becomes corruptible.” Abba Macarius also says that man was created incorruptible (Macar. Aeg. Not. 15.39 // PG 34.601D.). Adam did not have any natural ability to undergo corruption: firstly, because this ability, strictly speaking, is not an ability, but rather its absence, deficiency and weakness. Secondly, if this ability were natural, then God would be the culprit of corruption and death, since he gave such a natural ability, and, on the contrary, a person who underwent corruption would be innocent of this. And thirdly, if Adam had a natural ability to be subject to corruption, then it is obvious that he was corruptible by natural necessity, since any natural ability, if it does not encounter obstacles, must necessarily come into action. And this contradicts the present rule, which anathematizes those who claim that Adam is mortal by natural necessity. So, all this is absurd, which is why the premises from which all this follows are absurd and false. Therefore, the famous words of Augustine (About the book of Genesis literally. Book 6, ch. 28) that the body before the Fall was both mortal and immortal, could die, or could not die, must be understood in the sense that it could die if a person, because of the ability to make a free choice, turned to evil. I wonder how Coressius could say that Adam was corruptible by nature because of the matter with which privation is associated, and because of natural heat and moisture, and the opposition of natural elements. For in that body there was no opposition in the substance between the warmth and the moisture of the elements, since in a state of innocence all this moved harmoniously and orderly and was subject to the dominion of the soul. Probably, those who said that Adam was capable of dying meant Adam's ability to freely choose and wish, just as the Gospel of the Lord says that He could not hide (Mark 7:24), that is, He did not want, according to the explanation of Blemmids. And the fact that Adam was created in a state intermediate between corruption and incorruption is said, perhaps, taking into account the state of human nature after the crime, in which we are, by natural necessity, corruptible; and the state after the resurrection, in which we are by natural necessity incorruptible; and the state before the crime, in which we could or could not undergo corruption not by natural necessity, but only by choice - and this state is, as it were, an average between the first and second. Sirach says that Adam's sin was pride: The beginning of pride is the removal of a person from the Lord and the retreat of his heart from his Creator; for the beginning of sin is pride (Sir.10:14-15). And Tertullian says that it consisted of unbelief and choice (Book 2 against Marcion). However, Saint Augustine (On the Book of Genesis. Book 11) disagrees with Tertullian on this issue, since, according to the Apostle, it was not Adam who was deceived, but the wife, having been deceived, fell into crime. If you look carefully, this sin consisted of unbelief, negligence, and violation of order, because the ruler, i.e. the husband, submitted to the subordinate, i.e. the wife. And all theologians in general call Adam’s sin disobedience. The sin of the first parents was great because: 1) they remained in holiness and perfect righteousness; 2) their mind was enlightened by the purest knowledge; 3) their free will was most perfect, since it stood above passions and the attacks of lust; 4) it was easy for them to keep this commandment, not difficult and not burdensome; 5) this sin caused the greatest harm, corrupting the entire human race. Theologians believe that Eve is more guilty of this sin than Adam, since she deceived him. On this occasion, Sirach says: From the woman the beginning of sin and through her we all die (Sir 25, 27). There is a theological opinion that if a person had not sinned, he would have passed on to immortal bliss in heaven, although no one knows exactly when he would have passed on. After all, he was not always supposed to be in the earthly paradise. See, for example: Greg. Pal. Ad Xenam. // PG 150, 1048C, 1049B. Many heretical opinions arose about involvement in ancestral sin and its transmission. The Carpocrats, the Pelagians themselves, the Armenians, the Albigenses, and later the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians believed that not a single person was involved in this sin. Calvin, Martin Bucer and Beza said that only babies born from believers are not involved in this sin, and those born from unbelievers inherit it. And Spangenberg, Illyricus and others called the ancestral sin the ignorance of truth inherent in the mind and the inclination of the will to evil - but this is not an ancestral sin, but a punishment for it, the bitter fruits of the poisonous root of ancestral sin. These fruits are also called blameless natural passions. Others also said that this sin is the very essence of man, it is transmitted to everyone due to the action of evil will, and this action has turned into the essence and nature of everyone. And the Pelagians, who are discussed in this rule, despite the fact that they denied the presence of ancestral sin in the entire human race, argued that sin is transmitted through imitation alone. Finally, the teaching of the Catholic Church is this: ancestral sin is not an essence, but a deviation from sound reason and a violation of the obedience that should be shown to the commandments of the Creator. It is also not ignorance of the mind or inclination of the will to the worst, but their cause and root. It is transmitted to all people, even to those sanctified from the womb, and even to our Lady Theotokos Herself, and not only to babies born from unbelievers, not through attitude and imitation alone, but through genuine and real participation. Therefore, according to this rule, infants are truly and in the proper sense baptized for the remission of this sin, as truly and truly participating in it. Therefore, the divine Cyprian in the 59th letter says that the baptism of infants should not be forbidden, because they more easily receive remission of sins, because they are forgiven not their own sins, but those of others. He calls original sin foreign, which by choice is considered foreign to infants, but by participation and succession, as a result of which they received it, as their own. The holy Firmilian of Caesarea says the same about babies (among the works of Cyprian, message 75). And Olympiodorus in the catenas on the book of Job (p. 289) says: “Even in infants there is ancestral sin” (Olympiod. Alex. In lob 41, 9 // PG 93, 441B.). And in another place in these catenas it is the same: “Infants are baptized for this purpose, in order to wash away the filth of Adam’s disobedience.” How can we explain why this continuity and involvement take place? Strictly speaking, this is unknown to anyone and known only to God. But theologians, considering this issue, say that since Adam was the father and beginning of the entire human race, his body by nature potentially contained the bodies of all people descended from him. With the soul the situation is different, since the soul of Adam did not give birth to the soul of Abel, so that Adam could thus transfer his own sin to the soul supposedly born of him. Indeed, according to the Church, Abel’s soul received existence from God and was created by Him. Not only did God create the soul of Abel, but He also creates all human souls. Some believe that He does this as the Creator and directly, while others believe that He does this indirectly and through Providence, i.e., according to Gregory the Theologian (Baptismal Word), through the initial life-giving inspiration (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 40.2 // PG 36, 361A.), which, once breathed into Adam, acts in all his descendants, since, according to the interpreter Nikita, it became the law nature. The God-bearing Maxim says the same thing: “The soul does not arise from existing substance, as happens with bodies, but by the will of God through a life-giving inspiration, ineffable and incomprehensible, as only its Creator knows. The soul, receiving being at the moment of conception together with the body, is produced for the completion of one person” (Maximus Conf. Ambig. // PG 91, 1324C.) (in the word of Gennady, on p. 91; but the opinion of the latter is preferable). Although, I continue, the souls of Adam’s descendants were not by nature contained in his soul, however, in it, as in the soul of the founder and head of the human race, all human souls were conventionally meant. And God, giving the covenant and commandment to Adam, gave them not only to him, but through him and in him gave them to all people seen in the person of Adam. Therefore, if Adam had kept the covenant, then through himself and in himself he would have transmitted its observance to his descendants, and through this observance - accordingly, the promised bliss. But since he transgressed what was commanded, in the same way, through himself and in himself, he passed on this crime to all his descendants, who, together with him and through him, received and transgressed the commandment. Consequently, he handed over to them the punishments promised for this crime, both temporary in the present life and eternal in the future. Jerome, great in the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, after research, discovered that the Scriptures say that in the person of Adam, all his descendants received and violated the covenant of God. The famous saying of Hosea, which in the translation of the Seventy reads: But they are like a man who breaks the covenant, there they despise Me (Hosea 6:7), he translated from the Hebrew original as follows: “But they, like Adam, broke the covenant.” This means that just as Adam transgressed the commandment he received not to eat from the tree, so his descendants, through him and in him, transgressed this commandment, which God bequeathed to everyone through Adam. When God gave the law and covenant of circumcision to Abraham, He at the same time gave it to all who would come from him. Therefore, the newborn baby, if he is not circumcised, must be, as God himself commands, destroyed, for he has violated My covenant (Gen. 17:14), because, while still in the loins of Abraham, the baby received the covenant through him and in him, despite the fact that he himself could not sin of his own free will. In the same way, God, giving the commandment to Adam, simultaneously gave it to his descendants. So, since Adam transgressed it, even those who are in the womb transgress it as having received it through Adam. Therefore, they need sacramental circumcision in baptism. But why talk a lot? The Apostle Paul, in one expression, all have sinned, showed that in Adam all his descendants sinned. Theophylact speaks about this in his interpretation: “After the fall of Adam, through him those who did not eat of the tree became mortal, as if they themselves had sinned because he sinned” (Theoph. Bulg. In Rom. 5, 12 // PG 124, 404C.). In general, theologians say that the material way in which this ancestral sin is transmitted is the passionate outflow of the seed associated with sensual pleasure from which we are conceived. Therefore, we recognize our Lord Jesus Christ as being born without seed as being free from ancestral sin. The above note is borrowed from an unpublished theological work of the famous Eugene. Many of our newest theologians and metaphysicians, I don’t know how or for what reason, speak incorrectly about the concept of autocracy, but some of them give the following definition: autocracy is a certain rational force, thanks to which the soul autocratically strives for good and evil; and others are like this: autocracy is the freedom of the soul, and thanks to this freedom the soul equally desires both good and evil. Obviously, these definitions are incorrect. After all, if autocracy is a force thanks to which a person strives for good and evil, then, firstly, this force for evil is not and is not called force in the proper sense. Rather, it is powerlessness, weakness and lack (Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names. Chapter 4) (Dion. Areop. De divin. nomin. IV, 35 // PG 3, 736A.), because the soul did not receive power for evil. She falls into evil from powerlessness, weakness and lack of strength to being in goodness. This force for evil cannot also be considered reasonable, or rather, it is unreasonable and reckless, because, according to the same Areopagite (ibid.), evil comes from unreason. Secondly, if a person received such power for evil, therefore, God, who gave it, would become the author of evil, and the person using such power would be innocent. And how does God punish the guilty person, while the innocent person who wills evil suffers punishment?! After all, this is unfair. Thirdly, if such a power for evil were granted to the soul by nature, then it would rather create rather than destroy the soul that uses it. Fourthly, evil is accepted as existing on an equal basis with good, and this is absurd. And fifthly, evil itself, which is supposed to be the goal of the spiritual power of will, should, like a good goal, not destroy, but improve the soul striving for it. However, all this is absurdity, blasphemy and heresy. This means that the above definitions, from which all this follows, are incorrect. The same absurd conclusions accompany the opinion of those who claim that autocracy is the freedom of the soul, thanks to which it equally desires both good and evil. After all, God, Goodness Itself, never gave man the freedom to strive for evil! Away with such a thought! For the Holy Spirit says: He commanded no one to act wickedly and gave no one permission to sin (Sir.15:20). The truth, finally, is this. God, the only good one, or better yet, Goodness Itself, created man good. However, He did not want to force him to good (since this is not characteristic of good), but created him autocratic, in His likeness (after all, He Himself is autocratic), that is, He gave man the natural ability of rational striving (as the divine Maximus says in his dispute with Pyrrhus) (PG 91, 293B.), so that with its help he would strive for good not forcibly and by force, but autocratically both voluntarily and to good he was attracted by both the innate reason, the goal of which is truth, and the innate will, the goal of which is good, as Aristotle says: “Good is what everything strives for” (Arist. EN I, 1 // TLG 86/10, 1094a, 3.). Perhaps Sirach meant the same thing when he said: He created man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his will (Sir. 15:14), that is, he allowed him to autocratically, out of his own impulse, desire good, so that his reward would be greater and the good would be considered his own, “so that,” in the words of Gregory the Theologian, “the good belonged to the one who made the choice no less than to the One who gave the seeds” (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 45. 8 // PG 36, 632C.). God is so far from giving man autocratic power or freedom to strive for evil that he even gave him a commandment protecting him from striving for evil, and threatened him with death for such a striving. From all that has been said, it follows that God created man as autocratic, however, so that he would strive only for good, and not equally for good and evil, and that man has the power and freedom to do only good deeds, and not bad. Explaining exactly this, the apostle said: We were created for good works (and not for evil too), which God prepared for us to do (Eph. 2:10). If anyone refers to the words of Sirach (or some other fathers): He has offered you fire and water: you can stretch out your hand for whatever you want, and before a man there is life and death, and whatever he desires, that will be given to him (Sir. 15:16-17), in which, as it may seem, the sage assumes that there is a certain willpower standing between good and evil, thanks to which a person inclines towards good and evil, then we answer as follows. Firstly, he says this about the state of man into which he brought himself after the fall: he wants either good or evil, and not about the state in which God created and wants to see man. Secondly, Sirach himself, who first says this, at the end of the same chapter, as if correcting what was said, concludes the will only in good, and not in evil too, and says that God did not give anyone the commandment to be wicked and permission and freedom to sin: He did not command anyone to act wickedly and did not give permission to anyone to sin (ibid.) (Sir. 15:20.). The semi-Pelagians also held the same opinion, who differed from the Pelagians in the following: the Pelagians believed that all of our salvation depends on our autocracy, and the Semi-Pelagians said that the beginning of our salvation depends on autocracy, but subsequently grace is also necessary, but there is no need for preliminary grace, except in individual cases. But this opinion is refuted both by this rule and by Scripture. The Apostle, for example, says that God works in you both to will and to do according to His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). And one more thing: Not because we ourselves are able to think something from ourselves, as if from ourselves, but our ability is from God (2 Cor. 3:5). Referring to the last saying, Augustine in his polemic with the semi-Pelagians (Book of the Predestination of the Saints. Chapter 2) says: “Let those who believe that the beginning of faith depends on us, and its fullness on God, carefully delve into these words. Who doesn’t know that first is reflection, and then is faith?” So, according to the same Augustine (Book of John), “man cooperates with Christ working in him in eternal salvation and justification.” And Solomon also said: ...and (my) desire is prepared from the Lord (Proverbs 8:35). Since the previous rules mentioned different types of grace, we decided to give some general information about them. To do this, leaving aside the various types of grace identified by the scholastics, we will name the common ones and recognized by all theologians. Another grace is called prevenient and illuminating. It is given to all people without the assistance of autocracy: it precedes it, so that a person freely agrees with the truth of Divine commands. Theophylact of Bulgaria speaks about this prevenient grace in his interpretation of the verse And each one will not teach his neighbor, saying: know the Lord (Heb. 8:11): “Since God deified our nature through perception, He kindled in the souls of all the light of true knowledge of God, and by grace it was as if some ability to know the true God was implanted in human nature” (Theoph. Bulg. In Hebr. 8, and // PG 125, 296AB.). Another grace is called strengthening grace. It strengthens the human will in the love of good, not forcing it, but pleasantly inclining it. The other is the assisting one, who assists the doer of good in bringing the good deed to result and completion. The other is called supporting and justifying. It contributes to the fact that a person remains in goodness to the end, and is given only to the predestined. The other is called constant and learned as a result of skill. It is imprinted deeply in a person, remaining in him both when he does good and when he does not do it. It is also given only to the predestined and in Holy Scripture is called Divine love, betrothal and gift, and in Basil’s book “On the Holy Spirit” (chap. 26) (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 26. 61 // PG 32, 180C.) and in Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on Isaiah. Book 4) it is likened to art, which is always inherent to the master as a result of skill, but is not always and not continuously manifested in action. So, the first three types of grace, that is, prevenient, strengthening and promoting, are also given to those who remain in virtue and grace for some time, but then may fall away and undergo torment. The last two types, supporting and constant, are granted only to the predestined, whose autocracy is firmly rooted in goodness and virtue, therefore only these two types imprint predestination and are called the deeds and results of predestination in the proper sense. The first three types are called works of predestination in an improper sense, since they facilitate the salvation of the one being saved (set out according to the theological work of Coresius). Therefore, the Third Council, together with the Celestians and Pelagians, also deposed the Enthusiasts and Euchites, that is, the Messalians. See Dositheus, p. 278, as well as Acts III Om. Pay attention to the fact that the rule here does not mean mortal sins (because if saints commit them, they cease to be saints), but excusable ones, which do not destroy love for God and neighbor and do not turn a person into an enemy of God, subject to eternal death. Even saints (with the exception of Christ and the Mother of God) are subject to excusable sins, while remaining saints. Such sins, according to Coresius and Chrysanthus, are: an idle word, the initial movement of anger or lust, a lie told in jest, etc. After all, God alone is completely motionless to evil, while angels and saints, if they are perfect, are not completely motionless to evil, but are inflexible. And especially the saints, since they are clothed with bodies and endure abuse from the enemy, can turn to evil more easily than angels. These words have a different reading in the book of Job: Both the weak rain and the strong rain are in His power. He places a seal on the hand of every person, so that every person may know his weakness (Job 37:6-7). Olympiodor, interpreting this passage (catenas on Job), says that the storm puts a seal, that is, it kind of ties people’s hands, preventing them from working in the open air, and this happens by the Providence of God, so that a person humbles himself and recognizes the weakness and weakness of his nature (Olympiod. Alex. In lob. 37, 7 // PG 93, 385D-387A.). However, the fathers of the present Council understood by “weakness” here the inclination and attraction of man to sin. The words “whatever he wants for release, he says with his heart” (θέλειν άφεθῆναι, τῇ δέ καρδίᾳ) in the “Pidalion” are omitted and restored according to the Athenian syntagma. See: Ράλλης, Ποτλής. T. 3. Σ. 570. The words of this rule are very suitable for those insane blasphemers who, while still alive, order funeral services for themselves, as if they were already dead. After all, who will tolerate these people who lie not to people, but to God and are remembered with their lips as dead and long deceased, but in fact are alive? Can there be stupidity and blasphemy greater than this? So let those who act like this henceforth abandon this madness. The subsequent part of the rule, although it is connected with the previous one, is separated by the interpreters and is rule 118. The expression “will not suffer damage because of the list” can also be understood this way: the host bishop will not suffer loss and will not lose any of those localities that are recorded in the original list of his church, due to the fact that another bishop owned the locality for three years. No, but he will get it back. This is not in the rule, but Zonara adds it. The rest, annexed, part of the rule is separated by the interpreters and is rule 122. Balsamon and Zonara, connecting the words “towards catholic unity” with the following word “to encourage with reproaches,” say that these careless bishops should be reproached among the catholic unity, that is, at the annual Council. But we, in view of the fact that everywhere in the rules of this Council this expression “Catholic unity” is always used about the Catholic Church and never about the Council, we interpreted it this way. The anonymous commentator says that this negligent bishop should be deprived of communion if there is no other, more diligent bishop who would convert the heretics, according to the 131st canon. Probably we are talking about the ecdike and the performer, which are mentioned in the 106th and 107th rules of this Council and which the fathers asked from the emperor. It seems to me that the Council, by two rules, forbade presbyters and deacons to appeal to Rome because of the great concern that Presbyter Apiarius caused this Council, and also because the Pope of Rome tried in every possible way to illegally obtain the right to accept appeals from the judicial decisions of African bishops and all bishops, presbyters, deacons and other clergy not subject to him, as we said in the introduction to the Sardician Council and say in the interpretation of the two messages of this Council. Slaves and freedmen also cannot blame the children or heirs of their masters and liberators, nor can they blame all patrons who have rights to them. Patronage among the Latins means patronage. The next part of this rule is incorrectly separated by interpreters and is considered rule 137. Let us remind readers that in the numbering of the rules of interpreters the publishers made a mistake, both in the Pandects and in Balsamon. Instead of 137 rules, they have only 133 - the mistake was made somewhere in the middle. That is, not the same as the Roman Church attributes to them.