О Гангрском Поместном соборе

The Holy Local Council, convened in Gangra, the Paphlagonian metropolis in Asia Minor, took place, according to Pliny, Strabo and Stephen, in 340 [104]. 13 bishops converged on him, whose names (as they are in the message sent by the same Council to the Armenian concelebrants) are the following: Eusebius, Aelian, Eugene, Olympius, Bithynicus, Gregory, Philetus, Pappus, Eulalius, Hypatius, Proeresius, Basil and Vass. The Council gathered against a certain Eustathius, Bishop of Sebastia of Armenia [105], and his disciples, who thought heretically and taught others these heretical wisdoms (each rule of this Council reveals these wisdoms). Therefore, the aforementioned fathers, having excommunicated and anathematized these heretics, as can be seen from the above-mentioned message of the Council to Armenia, issued these rules [106], with which they anathematize [107] each of their heretical thoughts separately. These rules are directly approved by the VI Ecumenical. 2, and indirectly – IV Omni. 1 and VII Omni. 1, and thanks to this statement they in some way receive the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. 21 rules of the Gangra Local Holy Council with interpretations If someone begins to condemn marriage and disdain a faithful and pious wife who shares a bed with her husband, or speak of her with censure that she allegedly cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, let him be anathema. (Apost. 5, 51; VI Ecum. 13; Gangr. 4, 9,14.) Just as earlier the Manichaeans and other heretics [ 108 ] slandered legal marriage, so later did the disciples of the bad Eustathius, about whom the divine apostle prophetically said that in the last times some would depart from the faith... through the hypocrisy of false talkers, seared in their conscience, forbidding marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3.). Therefore, the present rule anathematizes those who condemn marriage and abhor as unclean a pious Christian wife who copulates with her Christian husband; they say that because of this carnal copulation she cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. See also Apost. 5:51. If someone condemns someone who eats meat with reverence and faith (without blood, not sacrificed to idols and not strangled) as having no hope because of this eating, let him be anathema. (Apost. 51, 63; VI Ecum. 67, Anchir. 14; Basil the Great. 86.) The Apostle prophesied that the followers of Eustathius, who condemned those who eat meat, would speak about this too. After all, further in the above-quoted apostolic saying it is said: Those who forbid the eating of that which God created that the faithful and those who know the truth should eat with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:3). Therefore, this rule anathematizes those who condemn the one who eats meat with thanksgiving and faith (excluding blood, sacrificed to idols and strangled meat), and who claim that he has no hope of salvation because he eats meat. See also Apost. 51, 63. If anyone, under the pretext of piety, teaches a slave to despise his master, to evade serving him and not to serve his master with good will and all respect, let him be anathema. (Apost. 82; IV Ecum. 4; VI Ecum. 85; Carthage. 73; Basil the Great. 40, 42.) The Apostle says, turning to Timothy: Servants who are under the yoke should consider their masters worthy of all honor... Those who have faithful masters should not treat them carelessly, because they are brothers; but much more should we serve them (1 Tim. 6:1–2), and to Titus: exhort slaves to obey their masters, to please them in everything (Titus 2:9). Since the apostle, I repeat, says so, and the Eustathians taught the opposite, the present rule, following the apostolic teaching, anathematizes those who taught slaves to despise their masters and avoid serving them with all love and respect. If someone does not dare to receive Holy Communion from a married priest, because he supposedly should not have the liturgy, let him be anathema. (Apost. 5; VI Ose. 13, 48; Carthage 4, 33) This rule anathematizes the Eustathians and all others who do not dare to partake of the Divine Mysteries from the hands of a married priest and evade this, arguing that because he is married, he should not perform the liturgy. If anyone teaches that the house of God and the congregation therein can easily be neglected, let him be anathema. (VI Omni. 80; Gangr. 20, 21; Sardik. 11, 12.) This rule anathematizes the Eustathians, who taught the people to avoid going to church and to neglect the meetings of Christians there under the pretext that one can pray anywhere, because St. Paul commanded us to pray in every place (see 1 Tim. 2:8). However, he said this not so that we would not go to church, but so that we would not limit prayer to just one place - Jerusalem, as Basil the Great interprets (Homily on Baptism. Question 8) 109. See also VI Omni. 80. If anyone organizes private meetings outside the Church and, neglecting the Church, wishes to perform church sacraments and rites without a presbyter present at the will of the bishop, let him be anathema. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; VI Ose. 31, 34; Dvukrat. 12,13, 14, 15; Antioch. 5; Carthage. 10, 11, 62.) The Eustathians, separately from the general meeting of the faithful in the Church, organized illegal private meetings, and their presbyters, neglecting the Church of God, without the will and permission of the local bishop, officiated separately. Therefore, the present rule anathematizes them and others like them, because they cause schism. If anyone wants to accept or distribute church fruit offerings outside the church, against the will of the bishop or the one to whom they are entrusted, and wants to do this without his consent, let him be anathema. In addition to other inconsistencies that the Eustathians committed, they also took the fruits that, according to custom, were brought to the church, and divided them among themselves, as if they were a shrine. Therefore, this rule anathematizes those who accept or distribute these offerings without the will and permission of the bishop or steward in charge of church property [110]. If anyone distributes or receives fruit without the knowledge of the bishop or the one appointed to administer the affairs of charity, then let both the giver and the receiver be anathema. This rule has the same meaning as the previous one, so the interpretation of that rule is sufficient to understand the present one. See also Apost. 38. If someone keeps virginity or abstains and withdraws from marriage because he abhors it [111], and not for the sake of the very virtue and holiness of virginity, let him be anathema. Virginity and chastity are beautiful, but they are beautiful when they are preserved for the sake of virtue itself and the sanctification that comes from them. If someone maintains virginity and chastity not for this purpose, but because he abhors marriage as unclean and defiled (as the Eustathians believed), then the present rule anathematizes such a person. See also Apost. 5, 51. If any of those who are virgins for the sake of the Lord begin to exalt themselves over those who are married, let him be anathema. This rule anathematizes those who, although they maintain virginity for love of the Lord, nevertheless despise those who are legally married, as the Eustathians behaved. If someone despises those who, by faith, organize agapes and convene brothers in honor of the Lord, and does not want to accept invitations, because they do not value this matter, let him be anathema. (VI Om. 74; Laodice. 27; Carthage. 49.) Christians of that time had a custom, after communion of the Holy Mysteries, for the sake of brotherly love, to organize agapes, that is, meals, and in honor of the Lord to call the poor brothers for refreshments. Therefore, the present rule anathematizes those who do not want to go to such meals (which are arranged, of course, not with some incongruous intention, but in honor of the Lord, for the sake of faith in Him and out of love for the poor brothers, moreover, not inside the church, for this is prohibited, but outside the church) and arrogantly condemns and humiliates them. As is known, the Eustathians were like this. Read also VI Omni. 74. If any of the men, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, wears rough outer clothing and, as if he becomes righteous from this, condemns those who reverently wear virs 112 and dress in generally accepted and ordinary clothes, let him be anathema. (VI Omni. 27; VII Om. 16; Gangr. 21.) In addition, the Eustathians also taught their followers to wear torn and beggarly outer clothing, not for the sake of true, but for the sake of hypocritical asceticism, so that, thanks to these clothes, appearing holy and righteous, they would be praised by many. The Eustathians also taught to condemn those who, with reverence and fear of God (that is, not for the sake of showing off to those who do not have such clothes, and not for the sake of carnal love or luxurious decoration of the body) wear virs [ 113 ] and generally dress in the way that is customary and familiar to everyone. Therefore, the present rule anathematizes the Eustathians and others like them because they exalt themselves above their brothers. See also VI Omni. 27. If a woman, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, changes her clothes and puts on men’s clothes instead of ordinary women’s clothes, let her be anathema. Many women, having learned from the Eustathians, took off the usual clothes befitting women and put on men's clothes, probably believing that this would make them righteous and holy. Therefore, this rule anathematizes those women who do this for the sake of the imaginary and hypocritical, and not for the sake of true asceticism [114]. See VI Universe. 62. If a woman leaves her husband and wants to live alone because she abhors marriage, let her be anathema. (Apost. 5:51; VI Ose. 13; Gangr. 21.) This also corresponded to the teachings of the Eustathians: they taught women to leave their husbands and, conversely, husbands to leave their wives and move away from them out of disgust for marriage. Therefore, the present rule anathematizes those who do this [115]. If someone abandons his children and does not raise them and lead them, as far as depends on him, to proper piety, but under the pretext of asceticism begins to neglect them, let him be anathema. If irrational animals, even predators and lions, care for their young, how much more should intelligent people care for their children? Therefore, the divine Paul says in one place: If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those at home, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8). And in another place: Fathers, bring up your children in the training and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). And he also says about the widow: “If she has raised children” 116 - and about the old women, so that they teach the young to love their husbands, to love children (Titus 2:4). But the heretic Eustathius and his followers, not heeding these apostolic commandments, taught parents to abandon their children and indulge in asceticism. Therefore, this rule anathematizes those parents who abandon their children, do not educate them and do not teach them piety and virtue. And the rule is Carthage. 42 stipulates that no cleric should give his children complete freedom until he is fully satisfied that they are of good character and of such an age that they are capable of reasoning about how they should act. See also note. to Double 6. If children, under the pretext of piety, leave their parents, especially believers, and do not give due honor to their parents, let them be anathema. However, let piety be preferred. Not only parents are obliged to take care of their children, but also children of their parents, to whom they must give due honor. To give honor also means to repose their old age and support them when they are weak due to old age and in need. With the words “especially believers,” this rule states that children should not leave even the parents of unbelievers or heretics, if they do not incline them to unbelief and heresy. Therefore, it anathematizes those children who, under the pretext of piety and virtue, leave their parents without care and do not honor them or do not rest in their old age. However, if parents - unbelievers or heretics - incline their children to unbelief and heresy or, even though they are believers, prevent them from living a virtuous life according to Christ and incline them to something harmful and obscene [ 117 ], then children should prefer piety and virtue to their carnal parents. In other words, in this case, the children should leave them without hatred and live separately. See also note. to Double 6 and VI Omni. 20. If a woman, for the sake of imaginary asceticism, cuts her hair, which God gave her as a reminder of her subordination, then she, as violating the command to obey, will be anathema. Paul, addressing the Corinthians, says: The head of a woman is her husband (1 Cor. 11:3) (because Eve was taken from Adam and he became her beginning), and further: “If a woman does not cover her head, let her cut her hair too. But if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, then let her cover her head” (see 1 Cor. 11:6). And again: “If a woman grows her hair, it is glory and honor for her” (see 1 Cor. 11:15). Eustathius and his followers taught women to cut their hair and said that in this way they acted piously and virtuously. Reckless, they did not understand that this teaching of theirs was contrary to nature itself, which considers hair so suitable for women that it never made any woman bald, as it did some men. Therefore, this rule anathematizes a woman who, for the sake of imaginary and hypocritical asceticism, cuts her hair, given to her by God as a reminder that she is subordinate to her husband. After all, by such an act she violates and violates the command to obey [118]. The fathers borrowed all these arguments from the apostle. Paul, who says that a wife should have on her head a sign of authority over her, 119 that is, a sign of her husband’s authority over her and a sign of submission to him. Such a sign is both the natural covering of hair and the external covering - headscarves. If anyone fasts on Sunday for the sake of imaginary asceticism, let him be anathema. The Eustathians even fasted on Sundays and taught others to fast in this way [120], which is unacceptable, because on this day the Lord rose again and resurrected human nature with Himself. For this reason, we should rather rejoice and thank God, and not fast, as on fasting days, because fasting is a sign of sadness and contrition, not joy. Therefore, this rule anathematizes the one who fasts on Sunday for the sake of imaginary and hypocritical asceticism. Read also the Apostle. 64. If any of the ascetics, not being forced by bodily illness, begins to arrogantly violate the fasts established by tradition for everyone and observed by the Church, because the thought of perfection has become established in him (ἀποκυροῦντος), let him be anathema. The Eustathians did everything contrary to divine rules and traditions: on Sundays and days of permission from fasting they fasted, and on fasting days they allowed fasting. Therefore, this rule anathematizes them and all those who, proud of the fact that they have supposedly become perfect, unnecessarily and not because of severe bodily illness, violate the fasts established according to tradition for everyone and observed by all Christians in general. And the words “because in him lies (ὑποικουροῦντος) the thought of perfection” means that these people break fasts for the reason that in their hearts there is such a thought and conviction that they have achieved perfection and therefore do not need to fast in the future, as we said. This opinion was shared by the Eustathians, the Messalians, and the Bogomil heretics. Or these words can be understood differently: they abolish and break fasts with the intent of contempt. Read also the interpretation of the Apostle. 69. If anyone condemns meetings in honor of martyrs or the services performed at them, as well as days of remembrance of martyrs, because he is proud and abhors them, let him be anathema. (VI Omni. 80; Gangr. 5, 21; Sardik. 11, 12.) The teaching of the Eustathians, among other things, consisted in the fact that they despised those places and churches where the holy relics of the martyrs rested, condemned the services and meetings of believers that took place there, and disdained them. Therefore, the present rule anathematizes the Eustathians and others like them, namely those who, out of pride, consider the days of remembrance of the martyrs and the solemn gatherings of believers that take place on these days to be vile and disgusting. After all, they are performed for the glory of God, the Lord of the martyrs, and for the glory of the holy martyrs themselves. Read also VI Omni. 80. We write this to reject not those who want to strive in the Church of God according to the Scriptures, but those who make asceticism a reason for pride, rise above those who live simpler than them and introduce innovations contrary to the Scriptures and church rules. So, we admire virginity, combined with humility, and abstinence, observed with holiness and piety, is acceptable, and we approve of withdrawal from worldly cares, performed with humility, and we respect honest marriage, and we do not despise wealth associated with justice and charity, and we praise modesty and simplicity of clothing, serving only to take care of the body, from excesses We also turn away from luxuries in clothing, and we honor the houses of God, and we willingly participate in the meetings that are held there as holy and useful, not because we practice piety in houses, but because we honor every place built in the name of God, and we approve of the meeting in the Church of God as serving for the common benefit, and we approve of the generous benefits of the brothers, which, according to tradition, they provide to the poor through the Church. We please, and, in short, we wish that the Church would have everything taught by the Divine Scriptures and apostolic traditions. (Apost. 51, 53; VI Ecumenical 27, 80; VII Ecumenical 16; Gangr. 5, 20.) Since the fathers of the present Council forbade much of what seems to be a virtue, for example: maintaining virginity, turning away from marriage, not fasting on days of permission from fasting, etc., now, in this last rule, they say in justification: “We made these definitions not in order to prevent those Christians who wish to lead an ascetic life in God according to the rules and Divine Scriptures, but in order to correct those who take upon themselves feat with pride, exalt themselves above others and bring something new to church rules. After all, we praise virginity if it is combined with humility, and we respect abstinence observed with humility, and we respect honest marriage, and we do not despise wealth combined with justice and mercy [122]. We praise poor clothes, which are worn not for decoration, but only for the necessary care of the body, but we reject and hate those that are soft and intended for decoration. We approve of the churches of God and the gatherings of believers that take place in them as holy and beneficial to the soul - not because we limit all piety and worship of God to them, but because we honor the churches built in the name of God in every place. And we are pleased with the abundant blessings and alms given to poor brothers through the Church according to the traditions of the fathers. In a word, we pray and ask God that in His Church and in His Christians everything that has been established by the Divine Scriptures and apostolic traditions remains effective.” Read also the Apostle. 51, VI Omni. 27, 8o and note. to Apost. 51. May abundant grace rest upon the unforgettable and most learned man Dositheus of Jerusalem, who was honored with a blessed fate, who alone writes that the real Council took place precisely in this year (Twelve Books, p. 976), while the rest say nothing about the time of its holding. Spyridon Milias in volume 1 of the Synodikon says that this Council took place either in 325 or 330, and in volume 2, as if refuting what he said earlier, he says that the time of the present Council is unknown, although Biniy says that the Council was assembled 36 years after the First Ecumenical Council, i.e. in 361. The named Eustathius was the bishop of Sebastia of Armenia, according to Socrates (Ecclesiastical History. Book 2, Chapter 43) (PG 67, 352BC). He was deposed by his own father, Bishop Eulavius ​​of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, for wearing clothes inappropriate for the rank of bishop, and after his deposition, St. Meletius, later Bishop of Antioch. This Eustathius fled to the Marathonians, who, like Macedonius, were Doukhobors, which is why he said: “Personally, I prefer not to call the Holy Spirit God, but I would not dare to call Him a creature” (Socrates. Book 2, Chapter 45) (PG67,36oAB.). As they say, Eustathius led an ascetic lifestyle and was such a strict ascetic that some even claimed that Basil the Great’s “Ascetic Words” was his work (this is a lie, because although Eustathius was a man of ascetic life, he was not at the same time skilled and strong in words and did not practice the art of eloquence with which Basil the Great’s “Ascetic Words” were written). However, from excessive severity and asceticism, he fell into absurd and heretical wisdom, which is mentioned in every rule of this Council. Therefore, this sacred Gangrian Council overthrew Eustathius, anathematized his dogmas and excommunicated from the Church not only him, but also his disciples, according to Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History. Book 3, Chapter 13) (See: Sozom. Hist. eccl. Ill, 14 // PG 67,1077C-1080C.) and Socrates (Ecclesiastical History history. Book 2, chapter 43) (PG 67, 353AB.). Vlastar says the same thing about him, using information from Sozomen. The author of the “Conciliar Book” says that the disciples of Eustathius adhered to the convictions of the Messalian Dado (see Canon 19 of this Council) and were fickle people, and also that the chairman of this Council was the glorious Dion (Synodikon. T. 1. P. 203). Zonara, Balsamon and Aristinus count 21 rules, but Photius and others - only 20, because they do not count the last one, which was compiled by the Council in defense of the other twenty rules, but it should also be counted among the rules. Anathema (ἀνάθεμα) is called both that which is separated from people and dedicated to God - this is what is also called an offering (ἀνάθημα) - and that which is separated from God and the Christian Church and dedicated to the devil. It is the latter that is predominantly called only anathema (ἀνάθεμα), and not offering (ἀνάθημα). What is brought (ἀναθεματίσθη), that is, dedicated to God, out of reverence for Him, no one dares to touch with their hands or even get close, for every offering that a person dedicates as a gift to the Lord is a great shrine to the Lord, as the Book of Leviticus says (Lev.27:28). In the same way, with that person who is separated from God and the Church and has become anathema (ἀνάθεμα), separated from the devil, no one dares to communicate, but all the faithful move away from him. So these two anathema, on the one hand, since they are separated by people, do not differ from each other, and on the other hand, since one is dedicated to God and the other to the devil, they are directly opposite to each other. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom, mentioning the second anathema in the word “On what should not be anathematized either by the living or the dead” (vol. 5), says: “What else does the anathema pronounced by you, man, mean, if not the wish: “let such and such be dedicated to the devil” and, moreover, “let there be no salvation for him, let him become a stranger to Christ”” (Ioan. Chrysost. De anathem. 2 // PG 48, 948.). And again: “Anathema completely excommunicates and cuts a person off from Christ” (Ibid.3//PG 48, 949.). And in volume 4 (p. 880. 3), in the interpretation on ch. 23 of Acts, which tells that forty Jews swore (ἀναθεμάτισαν) to kill Paul (See Acts 23:12), Chrysostom says: “What does “sworn” mean, if not that they declared themselves alien to the faith in God, if they did not carry out their plan against Paul? (Ioan. Chrysost. Hom. in Acta apost. 49. 1 // PG 60, 339.). Tarasius, in the apology of the VII Ecumenical Council, says: “Anathema is terrible, because it removes a person from God, expels him from the Kingdom of Heaven and sends him into total darkness” (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 724). So, based on all this, some (namely Blastar and Balsamon), citing the divine Chrysostom as testimony, inappropriately condemn the present Council for the anathema it proclaimed. Inappropriate - firstly, because although John Chrysostom in the mentioned word really forbids any person to anathematize anyone living or dead and says: “What?! That anathema, which none of those who received the power to do so dared to pronounce, you, man, dare to pronounce in spite of the death of the Lord and thus anticipate the judgment of the King?! (Idem. De anathem. 3 // PG 48, 948.), however, he does not prohibit this from the Council. Indeed, in the same word he says: “So why have you arrogated to yourself such great power to anathematize? That power that was received only by the apostles and those who became their exact successors in everything and are filled with grace and power?!” (Ibid.) In fact, it is obvious that the fathers of this Council, as successors of the apostles, had the power to anathematize, just as all the other fathers of other councils, especially Ecumenical councils, anathematized heretics in their acts due to the fact that they had the same power and were successors of the apostles, as can be seen from the acts of these councils. Secondly, this is inappropriate because at the end of the mentioned word, the same Chrysostom says that we must anathematize heretical dogmas and denounce them, although we must mourn about people, that is, heretics (Ioan. Chrysost. De anathem. 4 // PG 48, 952.) (and St. Barsanuphius adds that no one should anathematize not only heretics, but also the devil, because in this way a person, if he loves and fulfills the will and deeds of the devil, anathematizes himself). However, it is also true that the present Council used the anathema beyond measure: not only against the heretical and schismatic speculations of Eustathius, but also against those inappropriate actions that other rules cure only by excommunication for the laity and expulsion for the clergy. The apostolic rules of the one who fasts on Sunday and holds private church meetings are cast out if he is a clergyman, and excommunicated if he is a layman, and the present Council anathematizes such a person. He applied this punishment for two reasons. Firstly, as Vlastar says, in order to suppress with excessively severe punishment the evil that at that time multiplied excessively. Secondly, so that the adherents of Eustathius, when they convert to the Orthodox faith, anathematize each of their opinions as it is written in each rule, for example: “If anyone condemns marriage, let him be anathema. If anyone does such and such, let him be anathema.” And they had to say this in order to convince and certify that they truly hated their opinions and therefore anathematized them. And that all this is really so is shown by the message of the present Council to Armenia, for it says: “If the Eustathians repent and anathematize individually all that is condemned, let them be accepted. For this purpose, the Holy Council set out separately everything that they must anathematize in order to be accepted.” Pay attention to the fact that the apostle pronounced the anathema only four times. Once in the First Epistle to the Corinthians on those who do not love the Lord: Whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ is anathema (1 Cor. 16:22). Twice in the Epistle to the Galatians against those who preach something contrary to tradition (Gal.1:8-9.), and once in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom.9:3.). In other rules, the anathema is pronounced only eleven times. Canon 2 of the Council of Chalcedon anathematizes those laymen or monks who act as intermediaries in ordination purchased for money. Rule 7 anathematizes monks who enter military service or occupy secular positions and do not return to monastic life. Rule 15 of the mentioned Council anathematizes the married deaconess along with the one who took her as his wife. Canon 27 of the mentioned Council anathematizes those who kidnap wives. The Laodicean Council pronounces the anathema three times: in the 29th, 34th and 35th rules, and the Carthage Council - in two of its rules: the 10th and 11th (See also Carthage. 89). Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople in Hagia Sophia also anathematizes the one who strikes or throws a bishop into prison. And the rule of Vasily the Great. 88 says that Presbyter Gregory will be anathematized if he does not separate from his partner. Note also that since (according to Chrysostom) Christians should not be anathematized, it is implied that as long as they philosophize Orthodoxy about God, to that extent (according to Balsamon and Philotheus of Constantinople) both the tomos compiled under Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the tomos compiled under Manuel Komnenos and Palaeologus were abolished, due to the fact that these tomos anathematize those who rebel against the emperors (Greco-Roman Law, p. 288). In fact, St. Epiphanius, in chapter on heresy 23, says that Satornilus slandered marriage, claiming that it originates from Satan (Epiph. Adv. haer. 23.2 // PG 41, 300D-301A.). Irenaeus also says the same about the mentioned Satornil in the book “On Heresies” (Book 1, Chapter 22) (Iren. Contra haer. I, 24. 2 // PG 7a, 675A.). Basil. Magn. De baptismo II, 8. 3 // PG 31, 1601BC. Isidore Pelusiot also writes about this: “It should not be that what is intended for the poor should be distributed indiscriminately by those who should not, but the one who is put in charge of this property must know: if he spends anything in an inappropriate manner, it will make him guilty of the sin of sacrilege” (letter 44 to Bishop Moses) (Isid. Pel. Ep. I, 44 // PG 78, 209B.). In other sources: “because marriages are disgusting.” Βίρρος. (from Latin birrus or burrus) – a type of cloak. This was the name of ordinary clothing common in ancient times. Made from simple fabric, it was worn by all classes, while silk was worn by rich and noble people. Vir (ό βῆρος), according to Zonara, is one of the varieties of fabric, it was also called olovir (ὁλόβηρα), as we now have, for example, velvet, damask, teak, moire, etc. And Svida in an article on the word ἐφεστρίς (ephestrida) says that ephestrida is a Roman outer garment called mantle and vir. If she dreams, it foreshadows grief (Suda // TLG 9010/1, 3873. 1–2.), as the interpreter of dreams Artemidorus says (Artemid. Onir. // TLG 553/1, 2. 3. 70–73.). Therefore, many holy women who abandoned women’s clothes and put on men’s clothes do not fall under this rule, because they did so not for the sake of imaginary and hypocritical asceticism, but for the sake of true ones, so that women’s clothes would not hinder their asceticism. Moreover, they did this not openly, but unnoticed by the majority and remained in obscurity. The rule talks about women doing this openly. In fact, many women, having heard from the followers of Eustathius that there is no hope of salvation for those who are married, left their husbands, but then, not having the strength to abstain, fell into adultery and therefore were subjected to dishonor, as the message of this Council sent to Armenia shows. Therefore, the divine Chrysostom says that parents should not hinder their children if they want to enter monasticism (vol. 6, p. 170) (Ioan. Chrysost. Adv. oppugnat. vitae monast. 3.1 // PG 47, 349.). He says this to the believing father and pronounces a whole word about those who are hostile against those who attracted their children to monastic life (Ibid. 1 // PG 47, 319–332.). This word especially applies to the case when children are of a conscious age and, moreover, independent. See also note. to VII Omni. 21. Therefore, as Sozomen narrates (book 7, chapter 16), Emperor Theodosius issued a law that women who cut their hair should be expelled from the Church, and bishops who would accept them should be expelled from the rank of bishop (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII, 16 // PG 67, 1464A.). And those holy women who cut their hair for the sake of true asceticism (many such women are known from historical stories) are not subject to the penance of this rule, because they did it for the sake of true asceticism and with humility, not explicitly, but remaining unknown to many. The Eustathians not only fasted on the days of permission from fasting, but also did not eat meat at all - not because they abstained, but because they abhorred it. Socrates in the 42nd chapter. “Ecclesiastical History” says that Eustathius taught not to observe established fasts, but to fast on Sundays (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. II, 43 // PG 67, 353A.), i.e., he taught directly contrary to the general tradition of the Catholic Church. In other sources “hides” (ύποικουροῦντος), and this is more correct. The wicked Eustathius also said that if the rich do not leave all their property and indulge in asceticism, then they have no hope of salvation.