О Соборе, состоявшемся в храме Святой Софии

The Holy Council, which was assembled on the right side of the catichumen of the Great Church, i.e. the Church of Hagia Sophia [29], took place in 879 AD, in the 13th year of the reign of Basil the Macedonian. It was attended by 383 fathers [30], the main of whom were His Holiness Patriarch Photius of Constantinople; Prester Peter, cardinal and legate of Pope John, together with Paul and Eugene [31]; Presbyter Elijah, representative of Theodosius of Jerusalem; Presbyter Cosmas, Apocrisiary of Michael of Alexandria; Basil, Bishop of Martyropol and representative of Theodosius of Antioch. This Council was convened mainly to end the discord that arose between the Eastern and Western fathers regarding Bulgaria [32], and then so that the bishops, divided due to the expulsion of Ignatius and the installation of Photius, would unite. That is why this Council proclaimed the holy VII Ecumenical Council truly Ecumenical and ranked it among the other six Ecumenical Councils, and also anathematized all those who do not classify it among them (for there were such in Gaul), recognized His Holiness Photius and proclaimed him a legitimate and canonically installed patriarch, and the Councils that took place in Rome and Constantinople against Photius publicly condemned and rejected. So, the Council fulfilled this and justly and piously determined in its 6th and 7th Acts that no innovations should be introduced into the holy Creed and that it should remain unshakable forever, and on those who would dare to add anything to it or take away from it, they proclaimed terrible anathemas. In its 5th act, the Council also set out the real three rules necessary for the deanery and structure of the Church. Our entire Holy Church accepted these rules and still accepts them as authentic - this is jointly declared and confirmed by all interpreters of the sacred rules, as well as the “Nomocanon” of Photius himself [33]. 3 rules of the Council held in the Church of Hagia Sophia with interpretations This holy and Ecumenical Council determined that those of the Italian clergy, or laity, or bishops located in Asia, Europe or Libya, who are bound by penance, or deposed, or anathematized by the most holy Pope John, should also be with the most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the same degree of penance, that is, either deposed or devoted anathema, or excommunicated. At the same time, so that the most holy Pope John and his holy Roman Church of God recognize those clergy, or laity, or persons of the hierarchical and priestly rank, whom Photius, our most holy patriarch, in any area (παροικία) subjected to excommunication, or ejection, or anathema, recognized as being under the same awarded penance, because that among the privileges belonging to the most holy see of the Roman Church and its primate, there should be no innovations, either now or in the future. (Apost. 12, 13, 32; Antioch. 6; Sardik. 14; Carthage. i, 37, 141.) For the sake of establishing peace after many strife and disagreements that arose at that time in the Eastern and Western Churches between Nicholas and Hadrian of Rome and Photius of Constantinople, the root cause of which was, as we said, the Bulgarian diocese, the present rule of this Council determines that all those clergy, laity or bishops (both in Europe and in Asia and Africa) who were excommunicated, or deposed, or anathematized by Pope John, should also be excommunicated, deposed and anathematized by Photius of Constantinople. And conversely, all those who in any place were excommunicated, deposed or anathematized by the Patriarch of Constantinople must also be excommunicated, deposed and anathematized by the Pope of Rome. This does not affect the privileges of the Roman Church and its pope, either now or in the future, namely, that he is first in order of honor among the other four patriarchs. However, all this took place when the Roman Church was not mistaken regarding faith and did not differ from us Greeks in doctrine. And now we have no unity and communication with her because of the heretical teachings into which she fell. Although even to this day some of the bishops who descended to the monastic form made efforts to remain at the height of the bishopric, and such actions of theirs were left unnoticed, however, this holy and Ecumenical Council, both eliminating this oversight and returning this practice, which violates order, to church laws, determined: if a bishop or anyone else having episcopal dignity wishes to descend to monastic life and take a place repentance, then from now on let him no longer seek the rank of bishop. For monastic vows speak of obedience and discipleship, and not of teaching or presiding; The monks do not promise to shepherd others, but to be shepherds themselves. Therefore, in accordance with what was said above, we decree that none of those who belong to the ranks of bishops and shepherds should degrade themselves to the place of the flock and the repentant. If anyone dares to do this after the announcement and notification of the decision now pronounced, he, having deprived himself of the episcopal degree, should not henceforth return to his former dignity, which he rejected by the deeds themselves. This rule prohibits bishops and pastors from descending from the heights of episcopal dignity to the low level of monasticism (they are also prohibited from renouncing their episcopal areas, except in cases of canonical crimes that serve as an obstacle to episcopal service and which they confessed to their spiritual father. For it happened that bishops first renounced the see and then descended into the monastic rank). If anyone dares to do something like this in any way after this decree, he can no longer have high hierarchical dignity or perform any hierarchical sacred act. After all, firstly, the promises that monks make when taking monastic vows are promises of obedience, discipleship and repentance, and not of power, teaching and impeccable life, which is inherent in the rank of bishop. It is impossible to combine these two opposites at the same time. Secondly, these monks themselves deprived themselves of the degree of bishopric and, therefore, it is impossible for them to again receive the degree which they rejected by their deeds. And although until today some bishops committed this unlawful act, from now on, let nothing like this happen [34]. If any of the laity, having gained power (αὐθεντήσας) and not only despising the Divine and Imperial commands, but also mocking the awe-inspiring church statutes and laws, dares to strike any bishop or imprison him without guilt or for an imaginary guilt, let him be anathema. Evil has never left the world. And therefore, the thought of one sage is true, saying that most people are evil. So in ancient times, the laity beat and imprisoned bishops. O impudence! Therefore, the present rule makes a ruling: if any layman, having received power (αὐθεντίαν) and dominion or having become the culprit of his own spiritual death (since the word αὐθέντης - “ruler” also refers to a suicide), neglects the imperial decrees and at the same time subjects the unwritten traditions and written laws of the Church to ridicule and dares (for it is truly great audacity and impudence to hit a bishop) to strike any bishop (that is, not only the famous and famous, but also the less famous and poorer, and indeed anyone) or imprison him without any guilt or for a false guilt invented by himself, let him be anathema [35]. And what is anathema, look in the preface. to the Gangra Cathedral, read also the Apostle. 55. 0b this Cathedral mentioned St. Mark of Ephesus in controversy with Julian at the 6th meeting of the Council of Florence. He speaks more clearly about it in his confession of faith as follows: “I accept and welcome, in addition to the mentioned seven Councils, the Council assembled after them under the pious Basil, Emperor of the Romans, and the Most Holy Patriarch Photius, called the VIII Ecumenical Council, etc.” (Antipope. P. 172; Twelve Books. P. 731). However, despite the fact that in general it was called the VIII Ecumenical Council, the name “Council under Photius” came into general use (it would be better to call it the Council in Defense of Photius, since other Councils took place under Photius, as we said), because it did not set forth a new dogmatic definition, as at the other seven Ecumenical Councils, as we said in the preface to the First Ecumenical Council. There are so many fathers in the protocols of this Council, which are contained in Act 7 (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 929). Others talk about 405 fathers, like Dositheus, who added those 22 (or 23) fathers who signed in Rome in favor of the restoration of sacred Photius. Two of them, Paul and Eugene, were sent to Constantinople even earlier by Pope John on the issue of the Bulgarian diocese, and Peter was sent specifically to the Council. With him, according to Veccus, John sent Photius the bishop's vestments, omophorion, surplice and sandals. The reason why discord arose regarding Bulgaria was, briefly speaking, the following. Emperor Michael, the son of Theophilus, after the victory over the Bulgarians, thanks to the spiritual support and labors of Patriarchs Ignatius and Photius, baptized the Bulgarian rulers and gave the first of them the name Michael. And for this reason, and because Bulgaria from the very beginning was subordinate to the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, who in turn was subordinate to the Archbishop of Constantinople, the Patriarchs of Constantinople Ignatius and Photius sent an archbishop there. And Pope Nicholas began to strive to gain power over Bulgaria out of envy, but since Photius prevented him from this and wrote that all the affairs of Bulgaria were in the power of the emperor, the pope, having assembled a Council in Rome, overthrew and anathematized Photius and excommunicated those who were in communion with him. And he sent presbyters to Bulgaria, who anointed for the second time those already anointed by the priests of Constantinople and taught there about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. Therefore, Photius, having convened a Council in Constantinople, responded by expelling Nicholas, and he himself received those excommunicated by Nicholas everywhere. After the death of Michael and Nicholas and the exile of Photius, Ignatius returned to the throne. But, due to the fact that he did not agree with the papal orders in Bulgaria, Pope John, Hadrian's successor, did not recognize the Councils held in Rome and Constantinople against Photius. Photius returned to the throne after the death of Ignatius. In order to show the world the falsity of all the slander raised against him and to eliminate the impious opinion about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son (which was secretly discussed in the West and which was preached in Bulgaria), and also for the sake of peace and unity of the Churches and bishops, some of whom called themselves Ignatians, others - Photinians, Photius persuaded Emperor Basil to allow him to convene a real Council, after which wrote with his own hand a statement of faith (λίβελλον) to Pope John VIII and the other patriarchs. Regarding Bulgaria - since Pope John again sought it, did not want the Patriarch of Constantinople to perform orders in it, and even sent an omophorion there - the fathers, extremely tired of the discord, declared that this was the emperor’s business, and thus this time avoided a dispute. See about this in the “Chain of Interpreters on the Octateuch”, in the chapter “On the Compilers of Commentaries” (vol. 2, p. 1), and in the “Twelve Books” of Dositheus. Addition (For the origin of this addition, see in this edition: vol. 2, p. 358.): at the same time, Patriarch Ignatius sent two brothers, originally from Thessalonica, Cyril and Methodius, to the pagans of Bohemia to preach the Gospel, who converted this people and their ruler to piety. One of the brothers, Cyril, became the first bishop of Prague. The brothers also invented the Slavic alphabet. That is why it is called Cyrillic, and by some, out of ignorance, Illyric (Illyricum is the name of one of the Byzantine provinces). The popes of that time were very jealous of this godly deed, as is clear from the historical narrative about this, kept in the sacred monastery of Hilandar. Andronikos the Younger, Emperor of the Romans, in one of his chrysobulos, which he gave to the Xiropotamus monastery, writes that Paul, the son of Emperor Michael Rangave and the brother of Patriarch Ignatius, converted the Serbian people to piety. Therefore, in his honor, the Serbian king built a monastery in the name of St. Paul. This divine Paul was a eunuch, like his brother, Patriarch Ignatius, since they were castrated by the tyrant Leo the Armenian. As for this Council, note that it, like a two-edged sword, pierced the hearts of the West with its amazing and brilliant proclamations and divinely inspired definition of the inviolability of the holy Creed, since no other Council, like this one, expressed and explained those absurdities that could have followed if omissions or additions had been made in the holy Creed. Therefore, the Westerners fight in many ways to prove the falsity of this Council, and use 27 arguments against it, which the ever-memorable Dositheus superbly refutes on p. 730 “The Twelve Books.” They say that there was no such Council at all and that Photius invented it. They are led to such great audacity by their own madness, caused by the bitter reproof to which they were subjected at this Council. But the light cannot be hidden, for in addition to the interpreters of the rules who lived earlier, even the Latin wise Veccus himself mentions the Council and gives excerpts from its acts. But in particular and above all, the most learned didascal and theologian Joseph Bryennius, who lived at the end of our empire, gives a detailed account of it in his word on the Trinity (Years of life of Joseph Bryennius: 1350–1431. The Byzantine Empire ceased to exist in 1453, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks.). In conclusion, Bryennius reports that before his time, the acts of this Council were still kept in the Great Church with the handwritten signatures of Peter, Paul and Eugene - the legates of Pope John, in Latin. After him, one of the saints, Mark of Ephesus, at the 6th meeting of the Council of Florence, presented this Council (i.e., the Council in the Church of Hagia Sophia.) as true and holy, for, according to him, from the time of this Council to the present day the following has been read in the Great Church of Constantinople: “Everything that is written or spoken against the most holy patriarchs Photius and Ignatius is anathema.” After these words of the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Cardinal Julian, who had been arguing with Mark, was forced to remain silent, since he had nothing to object to. In addition, many of the Latins testify to the holding of this Council, such as Yves, Bishop of Carnovia, and the monk Gratian. However, instead of all this, the epistles of Pope John are sufficient, one of which is addressed to Saint Photius, the other to the Augustans. They are found in the acts published by Binya (vol. 7, p. 93). This is what this Council proclaimed about the Creed in its 6th and 7th Acts (we would be sorry to omit this): “We honor the Symbol of the purest Christian faith, which has come down to us from ancient times from the fathers, both in reason and in word, and we proclaim it loudly to everyone, without subtracting anything, without adding anything, without changing anything, without distorting anything.” And again: “So, if anyone reaches such a degree of madness that he dares, as stated above, to publish another Symbol and call it oros or to make an addition or omission in the Symbol transmitted to us by the holy Ecumenical First Great Council of Nicaea, let him be anathema.” See other definitions about the Symbol of this Council in the notes. to III Omni. 7. On accepting monasticism, perform sacred rites, but only the sacred rites of a presbyter. We are not talking about those who were expelled by the Council for crimes committed or renounced the pulpit because of their hidden or even privately confessed unworthiness to their spiritual father, but only about those who renounced due to negligence or inaction (they did this contrary to the rules, but achieved their goal, as see in the message of the Third Ecumenical), and not because of any other hidden or obvious unworthiness, and after the renunciation became monks. These people confirm their opinion by the fact that, firstly, the obedience inherent in the monastic rank and the chairmanship befitting the episcopal rank are opposite to each other and for this reason are mutually exclusive, so that one person cannot combine them at the same time, according to this rule. The presbyterate rank, which is not characterized by chairmanship, does not contradict obedience and, therefore, both of them can be combined in the same person. Secondly, we see that presbyters, even after accepting monasticism, perform the actions of a presbyter and the monastic image does not prevent them from doing this. And thirdly, rules VI Omni. 20, Ankir. 18 and I Omni. 8, although they depose the bishop from his episcopal dignity, they still do not prevent him from performing the sacred rites of a presbyter. This is their opinion. However, Patriarch Nicholas, in his 8th answer, insists that a priest who voluntarily renounces the priesthood due to accusations of conscience should not proclaim “Blessed be God...”, should not abdicate “Christ the true God...”, should not receive communion at the altar, and should not even perform incense, which is the work of the lower rank of deacons, but should take the place of the laity. Based on this, one can conclude the following: just as a priest, after voluntarily renouncing the priesthood, cannot perform the sacred rites of a deacon, so a bishop who voluntarily renounced the bishopric and descended to the monastic form cannot perform the sacred rites of a presbyter. After all, even if he has no other sins that cause reproaches of conscience, then this renunciation of his, committed contrary to the laws and rules, is enough for it to expose him daily. Not to mention the fact that the reduction of a bishop to the rank of presbyter is called sacrilege, according to IV Ecumenical. 29. And rule VI Omni. 20 demotes a bishop to the rank of presbyter so that there will not be two bishops in the same city, according to I Om. 8 and IV Omni. 12. Ankir rule. 18 deposes a bishop if he, being in a foreign diocese, causes discord and rebellion (see also Apostle 35, 36). Since these rules degrade a bishop to presbyter for a reason, but for certain faults, one should stop referring to these rules indiscriminately. However, not only those who, at their own request, became monks from among the bishops cannot perform any sacred rites, but even those bishops who were tonsured due to certain circumstances, or because of illness, or by force, do not again perform what is characteristic of the episcopal rank, according to Balsamon (interpretation of Ankir. 3), if they at least once recognized what was done to them under duress (for tonsure in illness, like committed not under duress, valid in any case). Therefore, when Nikolai Muzalon, who was formerly the bishop of Amyklia, after being tonsured a monk by force of the authorities, repeatedly begged to ignore this forced tonsure and allow him to perform episcopal actions again, the Council of that time and Patriarch Luke did not heed him, but rejected his request. Balsamon says that even bishops clothed in the small schema cannot perform hierarchical rites, especially those who have become great schema monks. The reason why the majority, even after accepting monasticism, perform sacred rites, is, according to him, that presbyters are not primarily teachers, like bishops. Therefore, they are not forbidden to be at the same time both presbyters and disciples, that is, novices, according to the 9th answer of the same Balsamon to Patriarch Mark of Alexandria. But for bishops there are obstacles, since, according to this rule, discipleship and teaching are opposite to each other. For the fact that Balsamon incorrectly divides the monastic image into small and great, see note. to VI Omni. 43. If bishops who renounced the see not because of hidden or overt crimes cannot officiate after accepting monasticism, then how much more so are those who entered monasticism because of their crimes? See also the sample canonical statement of renunciation at the end of the book. Therefore, Ignatius the God-Bearer wrote to the Smirnians: “Honour,” says Scripture, “the son of God and the king (cf. Proverbs 24:21). I say: honor God as the cause of everything and the Lord, and the bishop as the bishop of God, bearing the image of God in authority, and Christ in his sacrament. And after him the emperor must be revered. For just as among all things there is no one more powerful than God, or like Him, so in the Church there is no one greater than the bishop, consecrated to God for the salvation of the whole world... He who honors the bishop will be honored by God. Just as anyone who does not honor him will be punished by God... For the priesthood is the top of all good things in people. He who hates him dishonors not man, but God and Christ Jesus, the First-Born and Only Hierarch of the Father by nature” (Ign. Er. ad Smyrn. 9 // PG 5, 853A.). The ruler says that even if the accusation brought against the bishop deserves attention in everything, even the greatest ruler cannot punish him, but must present this accusation to the council, which has the power to punish the sinning bishops (he first casts them out and then transfers them to the secular authorities, according to Antioch. 5). Imperial laws decreed that anyone who strikes a priest, whether in church or during a religious procession, should be sent into exile.