Об Антиохийском Поместном соборе

The convened Antioch Local Council [123] took place during the reign of Constantius (son of Constantine the Great) and in his presence in Syrian Antioch [124] in 341 [125]. It gathered, according to Socrates (Church History. Book 2, Chapter 8), 90 fathers 126, according to Sozomen (Book 3, Chapter 5) 127 - 97. and according to Theophanes 128 -120, under the leadership of Eusebius, first the Bishop of Berita, then of Nicomedia, and from Nicomedia he became the Bishop of Constantinople. The bishop of Antioch was then Plakot 129. Julius of Rome, as well as Maximus of Jerusalem, were not present at this Council either themselves or as representatives. So, this Council issued the real 25 rules that are necessary for church deanery and order. Most of them are not only consistent in meaning with the apostolic canons (see the preface to the apostolic canons), but also contain the same expressions. In addition, they are indirectly confirmed by the rules of IV Omni. 1 (however, this Council in the 4th act gives the rules of Antioch. 4 and 5 verbatim, as we will say) and VII Om. 1, and directly - by rule VI Omni. 2. Thanks to this confirmation, they in some way receive the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils [130]. 25 rules of the Antioch Local Council with interpretations All those who dare to violate the definition of the holy great Council, assembled in Nicaea in the presence of the most pious and most God-loving Emperor Constantine, on the holy feast of the saving Easter, may they be excommunicated and rejected from the Church if they continue to resist good institutions with even greater tenacity. And let this be said about the laity. If any of the heads of the Church - a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon - after this definition dares to separate himself from others and celebrate Easter with the Jews, which seduces people and disturbs the Church, the Holy Council condemned him from now on to be alien to the Church as guilty not only of his own sin, but also of the corruption and corruption of many. And the Council excludes from service not only such people, but also those who dare to be in communion with them after their eruption. Those expelled are also deprived of the external honor that is enjoyed by the holy title and God's priesthood. This rule excommunicates those laity who violate the establishment [131] and the definition of the Easter holiday, issued by the First Ecumenical Council in the presence of Constantine the Great (namely, the definition that Easter should be celebrated after the equinox and not simultaneously with the Jews), and not only violate it, but also stubbornly resist it. And bishops, presbyters and deacons who transgress this definition, causing confusion in the Church, and dare to celebrate Easter together with the Jews, the rule rejects and excludes both from all priestly rites performed inside the altar, and from all other external honors befitting clergy (i.e. the right to be called clergy, to sit with the priests and, in short, from the right to perform actions outside the altar [132], according to Balsamon, about which see Ankyr 1, 2 and Neokesar 9), since such people harmed themselves by this violation, and prompted others to violate the definition. The rule expels not only such violators from among the clergy, but also the clergy who entered into communication with them. Everyone who enters the church and listens to the Holy Scriptures, but in violation of the order does not participate in prayer with the people or evades communion of the Eucharist, should be excommunicated from the Church until they are able to receive it by confessing, bearing the fruits of repentance and asking for forgiveness. Let it not be allowed to have fellowship with those who have been excommunicated and to receive into one church those who are not accepted into the congregation of another church. If any of the bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, or any of the clergy is in communion with those who have been excommunicated, then let him himself be out of communion as violating the church rule. According to Apost. 9 also defines this rule. For it says that those Christians who go to church for the Divine Liturgy and listen to the Scriptures, but do not pray with the faithful or evade Divine Communion, that is, do not receive communion, not for a good reason, but in violation of order, should be excommunicated from the Church. Not because they hate Divine Communion and abhor it - get rid of such a thought! (after all, if they turned away from him for this reason, they would not only be condemned to excommunication, but also given complete anathema), but because they avoid him under the pretext of humility and reverence. This the fathers called evasion, according to the excellent Zonara. Such people are excommunicated until they repent and ask for forgiveness [133]. Since the rule mentioned excommunication, it also defines the following: no one is allowed to pray in a house with those excommunicated from the Church, be they clergy or laymen, or to receive them into the Church. And that bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who enters into communion with such excommunicated people, either in the house or in the church, must himself be excommunicated from others, because by this communication he violates and transgresses the church rules that make determinations about this. This means Apostle. 10, 11. Read them together with the Apostle. 9. If a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general anyone from the sacred order, leaving his episcopal region (παροικίαν), moves to another, and then, having completely moved, attempts to stay in another episcopal region for a long time, then such a person is no longer allowed to serve, especially if he does not obey his own bishop, who calls him and convinces him to return to his episcopal region. If he persists in outrage, he must be finally removed from service without the possibility of restoration. If another bishop accepts the deposed one for this reason, then the general Council will subject him to penance as a violator of church decrees. This rule defines: that presbyter, or deacon, or any other clergyman and cleric who leaves the church where he was ordained, moves to a church in another episcopal region and lives there for a long time, must be removed from ministry and can no longer serve, especially if his own bishop called him to return, but he did not obey. If he remains adamant in his outrage, then he must be completely removed from service, that is, from any sacred rite, so that from now on he will have no opportunity or hope of justifying himself. If, having been expelled for this reason, he is received by a bishop of another episcopal region, then he too must receive the appropriate penance from the general diocesan Council as a violator of church rules, that is, an Apostle. 15, 16, which you read. If a bishop, deposed by the Council, or a presbyter, or a deacon [ 134 ], deposed by his bishop, dares to perform any service - whether a bishop according to his former custom, or a presbyter, or a deacon - then there is no longer any hope for him to be restored at another Council, nor to be justified. In addition, everyone who is in communion with them should be excommunicated from the Church, especially if they, knowing the decision made against the above-mentioned persons, dare to have communication with them. This rule determines: if a bishop, deposed by the Council, or a presbyter, or a deacon, deposed by his bishop, dares after the deposition to perform any sacred act according to the previous custom (bishop - bishop, presbyter - presbyterian, deacon - deacon), before the decision on them is considered in another, higher church court, then they will no longer can hope for acquittal at another Council and have the opportunity to defend themselves, since they themselves turned every decision of the Council against themselves, not submitting to the council’s decision on the eruption, according to Carthage. 37. In addition, all those who entered into communication with the erupted, if they knew about their eruption, must be excommunicated from the Church [135]. See also Apost. 28. If a presbyter or deacon, having despised his bishop, separated from the Church, began to organize private meetings, set up an altar, and at the same time, when the bishop called him, did not submit to him and did not want to obey and obey, although the bishop called him once and twice [136], then such a one will be completely deposed and can no longer be admitted to ministry or enjoy his honor. If he persistently disturbs the Church and causes unrest in it, then correct him with the help of external authority as a rebel. (Apost. 31; IV Ose. 18; VI Ose. 31, 34; Dvukrat. 13–15; Carthage. 10, 11.) This rule is drawn up on the basis of the Apost rule. 31 and determines that if a presbyter or deacon, having despised his bishop and separated from the Church, begins to serve separately and does not want to obey the bishop who called him twice and thrice (about which see Apostle 74), and come to him to state the circumstances justifying him and to reconcile, then such a one must be completely cast out and can no longer enjoy the honor of the priesthood. If, even after the eruption, he does not cease to outrage the bishop and the Church, then he must be admonished with the help of the external power of the rulers [137]. From this rule, also draw the conclusion that bishops are forbidden to punish the disobedient themselves with imprisonment and canes, but are allowed to punish only with church penances. And if the disobedient do not obey, then they should be handed over to the rulers for admonition. See Apost. 31. If someone has been excommunicated by his bishop, others must not accept him before he is accepted by their bishop. Or when the Council meets and he, speaking, is justified and convinces the Council to make a different decision about him. This definition also applies to the laity, elders, deacons and all members of the clergy. (Apost. 32; I Om. 5; Constantinople. 879 1; Sardik. 14; Carthage. 11, 37, 141.) According to this canon, a presbyter, or a deacon, or a clergyman, or a layman who is excommunicated by his bishop should not be accepted into communion by another bishop, but only the one who excommunicated can accept him. The exception is the case when the excommunicated person appears before the Council and convinces it to make a different decision regarding the excommunication to which he was subjected. Do not accept any newcomers without letters of peace. This rule instructs the bishop to never accept a visiting cleric unless he has a letter of peace, that is, a letter of release from his bishop, for which see note. to Apost. 12. Even rural presbyters are not allowed to send canonical epistles, except when they send letters to neighboring bishops. But impeccable chorebishops can give peace certificates. This rule prohibits the presbyters of villages or small towns in which the bishop rarely visits, that is, the archpriests of the villages, according to Balsamon, and otherwise the chorebishops, from giving canonical, or representative, letters. They can only send messages to neighboring bishops, not to distant ones. Only bishops have the right to send messages to bishops in distant regions and give representative letters - so that it is possible to better check the persons to whom these letters will be issued. And the chorebishops themselves, if there have been no charges against them and their name has not been discredited, give the petitioners letters of peace, or letters of release, about which see in the note. to I Omni. 8. See also note. to Apost. 12. The bishops of each metropolitan region should know the primate bishop in the metropolis, and he should take charge of the entire region, since everyone who has business flocks to the metropolis from everywhere. Therefore, it was decided that he should have precedence in honor and that the other bishops should not do anything without him that exceeds their authority, according to the ancient established rule of our fathers, except only as regards the region of each of them and the places subordinate to it. For it is fitting for each bishop to have power in his own episcopal region, to govern it with the prudence necessary for everyone, and to have care for the entire area subject to his city, in order to ordain presbyters and deacons, and to deal with all matters with judgment, and moreover, not to try to do anything without the bishop of the metropolis, just as the latter - without the consent of other bishops. This rule is almost the same as Apost. 34 both in expression and in meaning: it also teaches that the bishops of each metropolitan region should recognize the metropolitan of the region as the first among them and not do any business without his consent (just as he should not do anything without their consent), except for those matters that relate to their episcopal areas, that is, except for the ordinations of presbyters, deacons and other clergy, the administration of churches, etc. About this see the mentioned apostolic canon. The Holy Council decided that those in small towns or villages, or (ἤ τούς) [ 139 ] the so-called chorebishops, even if they were ordained bishops, knew their limits and, governing the churches subordinate to them, limited themselves to the care and concern of them, supplied readers, subdeacons and exorcists, and, being content with producing only these ranks, They did not dare to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon without the bishop of the city, to whom the chorebishop himself and his region are subordinate. If anyone dares to violate this definition, let him be cast out and deprived of the honor that he enjoys. The chorebishop should be appointed by the bishop of the city to which his region is subordinate. This rule instructs the chorebishops of villages and small towns, even if they have accepted consecration as a bishop, nevertheless not to go beyond the scope of their rights, to govern only the churches subordinate to them and to ordain only readers, subdeacons and exorcists, i.e. catechumens [ 140 ], but not priests and deacons, without the permission of the city bishop to whom they are appointed and to whom they also submit themselves, and their locality. If they violate this definition, they must be ejected. See note. to I Omni. 8. If a bishop, or presbyter, or any member of the clergy in general, without the consent of the bishops of the metropolitan region, and especially the metropolitan, and without letters from them, dares to go to the emperor, let him be excommunicated and deprived not only of communication, but also of the dignity that he had, since he dared, contrary to the law of the Church, to bother the ears of our most God-loving emperor. If urgent need prompts one to turn to the emperor, then this should be done after consideration and with the consent of the bishop of the metropolitan region residing in the metropolis or the bishops located in it, moreover, let the one turning to the emperor be provided with letters from them. (Sardik. 7–9, 20; Carthage. 117.) This rule prohibits a bishop, priest or cleric from appearing before the emperor and bothering him with personal requests unless absolutely necessary. Even if necessary, you should first consult about this with your metropolitan and the bishops of the metropolitan region and then receive from them letters for the emperor indicating both the metropolitan region from which the petitioner comes and the need for which he is going to the emperor. If anyone dares to violate this definition, let him be excommunicated and cast out. Likewise, the rule of Sardik7 prohibits bishops from appearing in the emperor’s military camp to seek positions for their friends, except in cases where the emperor calls them with his letters or if they want to help widows and beggars, or any oppressed, or condemned to exile, or others who have similar needs. However, even then, in order for the bishop not to be reprimanded, he should not go himself, but send his deacon to the emperor with letters, according to Sardik. 8. And the rule is Sardik. 9 determines that if a bishop, for the sake of the above-mentioned needs of the poor, sends letters of petition to the bishop of the metropolitan region in which the emperor is located, then these letters must first be checked by the metropolitan of the first bishop and, if they are justified, send them to the addressee bishop. In addition, if the bishop has acquaintances at court, he is allowed to ask them through his deacon for assistance in his well-founded and necessary requests. And those sent to Rome must be sent to the court by the bishop of Rome, as Carthage defines. 117, for the emperor was then in Rome; in the same way, those who went to Constantinople appeared to the emperor through the mediation of the patriarch, according to the note. to IV Omni. 28. Canon 20 of the same Sardician Council says that if a bishop was not invited, but he goes to the emperor to show himself or make some petitions, then the bishops of those places should not sign his letters or even enter into communication with him. If a presbyter or deacon, deposed by his bishop, or even a bishop deposed by a Council, decides to trouble the ear of the Emperor, then he must appeal to the larger Council of Bishops, propose what he considers just to the larger number of bishops, and accept their investigation and decision. If, having shown disdain for them, he bothers the emperor, let him not be awarded any leniency, and have neither the opportunity to justify himself nor the hope of restoration. (II Om. 6; IV Om. 17; Carthage. 115.) It is clear from this rule that if a bishop deposed by the Council or a presbyter or deacon deposed by a bishop believes that he was treated unfairly, then he is allowed to appeal the decision to a larger court of bishops, as we said in the note. to Antiochus. 4. This rule adds that if such deposed people neglect the court of bishops and dare to disturb the emperor, asking him to sort out their case, then there is no excuse for them and they should not hope to ever be acquitted. And the rule is Carthage. 115 says that if someone asks the emperor that a decision about him, by imperial command, be considered by the bishops, this is not forbidden to him. See II Universe. 6, IV Omni. 17. Let no bishop dare to move from one region to another and ordain anyone in the church with his appointment to the ministry, even if other bishops agree with him, unless he arrives at the invitation set out in letters from the metropolitan and with him the bishops of the place to which he is going. If, not having been called by anyone, he disorderly goes to lay hands on someone and arrange church affairs that do not concern him, then what he has done will have no force, and he himself, for his outrage and reckless undertaking, will suffer the appropriate punishment: he will be immediately deposed by the holy Council. (Apost. 35; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; VI Ose. 20; Antioch. 22; Sardik. 3, 11, 12.) Various rules prohibit a bishop from going to another metropolitan region and ordaining or performing some other episcopal act there, just as the present rule prohibits this, saying that he should do this only when he is invited by letters from the metropolitan and the bishops of the metropolitan region to which he is going. And if he comes without an invitation, then those sacred rites that will be performed by him should be considered invalid, be it ordination [141] or anything else, and he himself, as punishment for his outrage, should be deposed. If a bishop is tried on any charges, and a disagreement arises regarding him between the bishops of the metropolitan region: some will declare the person being tried innocent, and others guilty, then, in order to stop any dispute, the Holy Council decided that the bishop of the metropolitan summon other bishops from the neighboring metropolitan region, who will conduct a trial and resolve the dispute, in order to approve their decision together with the bishops of this metropolitan region. areas. If, at a time when a bishop is being tried on some charges by other bishops of the metropolitan region, the latter will not all agree with each other, but some will condemn him and others will justify him, then, as this rule defines, in order to resolve any doubt, the metropolitan of the region should call other bishops from a nearby foreign metropolitan region, so that they, together with the bishops from the region of the accused, will consider the dubious issue and approve a fair decision. Read also Antiochus. 4, Apost. 74. II Omni. 6, IV Omni. 9, 17. If a bishop accused of certain offenses is judged by all the bishops of the metropolitan region and they all unanimously make one judgment against him, then let the other bishops no longer judge him, but let the unanimous decision of the bishops of the metropolitan region remain firm. (Apost. 74; II Ev. 6; IV Ev. 9. 17.) If, however, a bishop accused of misconduct is tried by all the bishops of the metropolitan region and they all unanimously make some decision against him, then, according to this rule, he can no longer be tried by other bishops, but the unanimous decision of the bishops about him must remain firm. After all, their agreement shows that his eruption is fair. And Zonara says that even if all the bishops of the metropolitan region participate in the court, but do not make a unanimous decision, then the defendant can transfer the trial to another, larger court of bishops [142], as we said in the note. to Antiochus. 4. See also Apost. 74. II Omni. 6, IV Omni. 9, 17. If an idle bishop, having invaded the idle Church, seizes the throne without the consent of the full Council, then let him be expelled, even if all the people whom he kidnapped elected him. A full Council is one at which the bishop of the metropolis is also present. An idle bishop is a bishop who does not have a Church or because he is not accepted due to the ill will of the inhabitants of his episcopal area (and not his own depravity), according to the Apostle. 36, or because his region is in the hands of barbarians and pagans, according to VI Om. 37[143]. And an idle Church is a Church that, for some reason, does not have a bishop. So, if an idle bishop goes to an idle episcopal region and seizes its throne, and does not receive it from a full Council, namely a Council at which the metropolitan of the region is present, then, according to the definition of this rule, he, even if the people of this episcopal region desire to have him as a bishop, must be expelled from it, because he received it predatory and selfishly [144]. If a bishop, having received episcopal consecration and the appointment to be the head of the people, does not accept ministry and does not agree to go to the Church entrusted to him, then let him be a stranger to communion until he accepts ministry under compulsion or until the full Council of Bishops of the metropolitan region makes a determination about him. If someone is ordained bishop of a certain episcopal region through the sacred rite of consecration, and he does not agree to go to the region entrusted to him, then, as this rule defines, he must be excommunicated from communication with his co-bishops until he agrees to go, or until the full Council in the presence of the metropolitan makes a proper determination. After all, it may happen that the Council will accept him and release him from penance, deprivation of communion, because he will present to the Council valid reasons [145]. If a bishop, ordained to an episcopal region, does not go to the region to which he was ordained, not through his own fault, but either because of the refusal of the people, or for another reason beyond his control, then let him participate in both honor and service, but not interfere in the affairs of the Church in which he was accepted into the assembly. Let him wait for what will be determined by the full Council of the metropolitan region, which will judge the matter that has arisen. The previous and present rules have almost the same content as the 36th Apostolic Canon. This rule says that if an ordained bishop does not go to his episcopal region not due to his own fault, which makes him worthy of condemnation, but either because of the outrage of the people, or for another external reason, then he must enjoy the honor of a bishop and perform sacred rites befitting a bishop, but must not bring temptations and disorder into foreign episcopal regions to which he will go (after all, without the consent of the local bishop he will not can neither teach, nor officiate, nor ordain, nor appropriate the income of the local Church). He should wait until the full Council (with the Metropolitan) determines provisions and means of subsistence for him. See Apost. 36. Bishops cannot be ordained without a Council and in the absence of the regional metropolitan. But even in the case when he is present, it is better that all the concelebrants of this metropolitan region are with him, and the metropolitan should convene them with a message. And if everyone gathers, it’s better; if this is difficult, then in any case it is necessary that the majority be present or express their consent by letters, and thus, in the presence of the majority or by its decision, the ordination takes place. If it is done differently, contrary to this definition, then the ordination has no force. But if the ordination is carried out in accordance with this rule, and some, out of ambition, begin to contradict, then let the opinion of the majority prevail. (Apostle 1; I Universe 4, 6.) This rule differs little from rule I Omni. 4: this rule, like that one, says that no bishop should be chosen or ordained in the absence of the metropolitan of the region. When the metropolitan is present, he must convene the rest of the bishops with letters, and it is better if they all come, but if it is difficult for everyone to gather, then at least the presence of the majority is necessary. And if the majority of the bishops are not present in person, let them express their consent to the consecration through letters. If the consecration is accomplished in a different way, then let it have no force, that is, it will be invalid. However, if the elections are carried out in this way, with the consent of the majority, but some of the bishops object, not for any good reason, but due to a tendency to disputes and stubbornness, then the opinion of these individual bishops has no force, and the choice of the majority has action and force, as I Om. says about this. 6. See also Apostle. 1, I Omni. 4. For the sake of church needs and the resolution of disagreements, it is considered good that Councils of Bishops in each metropolitan region be held twice a year. For the first time after the third week of Easter, so that the Council took place on the fourth week of Pentecost. The bishops of the metropolitan region are reminded of this by the metropolitan. Let the Second Council take place on the Ides of October, that is, on the tenth day of the Idle Day. It was also decided that presbyters, deacons and all those who believe that they have been treated unfairly should come to these Councils, and that the Council would decide their affairs. But no one is allowed to meet on their own, without the bishops to whom the metropolis is entrusted. (Apost. 37; I Om. 5; IV Om. 19; VI Om. 8; VII Om. 6; Laodice. 40; Carthage. 26, 60, 61, 81, 84, 85, 104.) And this rule differs little from Apost. 37: it determines that it is useful to hold Councils of Bishops in each metropolitan area twice a year in order to resolve disagreements and current ecclesiastical issues. One Council - on the 4th week of Pentecost after Easter, and the other - during the October Ides (about them, see note to VI Ecumenical 62), i.e. on the 10th. At these Councils all those who have been wronged must assemble to present their cases. But without the presence of metropolitans, the bishops themselves cannot organize such Councils. Let the bishop not move from one episcopal region to another, either by unauthorized intervention, or because of coercion from the people, or at the insistence of the bishops. But let him remain in the Church, which he initially accepted from God as his lot, and not leave it, according to the determination already made about this. (Apost. 14; I Om. 15; GU Om. 5; Sardik. 1, 2; Carthage. 57.) And this rule differs very little from Apost. 14. This rule says that a bishop should not leave his former episcopal region and seize another, either of his own free will, or even under strong pressure from the people of that other episcopal region or under coercion from the bishops. He should remain in the episcopal region originally entrusted to him by God and not move from it, according to the definition previously made on this matter, by which, as it seems to me, the mentioned Apostle is meant. 14, read it. Let the bishop not invade a foreign city that is not subordinate to him, as well as a village that does not belong to him, for consecration, and let him not install presbyters or deacons in those places that are subordinate to another bishop, unless with the consent of the local bishop. If anyone dares to do this, then let the ordination be invalid and let him himself be subjected to the penance of the Council. (Apost. 35; II Om. 2; III Om. 8; VI Ose. 20; Antioch. 13.) This rule is consistent with Antiochus. 13, for it says that a bishop should not go to a city or village that is foreign and not subject to him, for the ordination of presbyters or deacons, unless with the permission of the local bishop. And if the bishop dares to do this, then let the consecration he performs be void, and let him himself receive the appropriate penance from the Council. See also Apost. 35. A bishop is not allowed to appoint another as his successor in his place, even if he himself was at the end of his life. If something like this happens, then the decree will have no force. Let the church institution be observed, which determines that this should not be done otherwise than at the Council and by the decision of the bishops who have the power after the death of the deceased to produce a worthy one. According to Apost. 76 and this rule determines: the bishop is not allowed to ordain to his throne the successor he wants, even if the bishop himself was at the time of death [146]. And if someone does this, then the consecration should not be valid. The rule of the Church in this regard must be observed, which determines that a successor cannot be appointed in any other way than by the decision and election of the Council of Bishops, who have the power, after the death of the predecessor bishop, to ordain a worthy one. See also the mentioned Apost. 76. It is an excellent establishment that church property must be preserved for the benefit of the Church with all zeal, good conscience and faith in the all-seeing Judge God; and the disposition of them should be left to the judgment and authority of the bishop, to whom is entrusted the whole people and the souls of those who gather in the Church. Let what belongs to the Church be obvious and known to the presbyters and deacons surrounding the bishop, so that they know and do not remain in the dark about what actually belongs to the Church, and nothing is hidden from them. And in the event of the death of a bishop, neither what belongs to the Church, so far as it is known, would disappear or be lost, nor would the property of the bishop be affected under the pretext that it belongs to the Church. For it is righteous and pleasing to God and people that the bishop leave his property to whomever he wants, and that the property of the Church is preserved for her, and that neither the Church suffers damage, nor the bishop’s property is taken for public use under the pretext that it is church property, nor people close to him fall into litigation, and thus he is not subjected to disgrace after death. This rule is made up of two apostolic rules - the 38th and 40th. After all, it also says that the property of the Church should be preserved with all diligence and a good conscience, as before God, and that it should be disposed of, in accordance with his judgment and authority, by the bishop to whom the souls of the people have been entrusted. It is also appropriate that the presbyters and deacons should know the property of both the Church and the bishop, so that neither the former is lost, nor the bishop's property is stolen under the guise of church property, and so that the relatives of the bishop to whom he left his property (or other people to whom he wanted to leave it) are not led into temptation and thereby the name of the bishop is not blasphemed after his death. Read also the indicated apostolic rules. The bishop should have authority over the property of the Church in order to manage it for the benefit of all those in need with all reverence and fear of God. Let him take for himself what is required (if only required), for the necessary needs for himself and for the brothers he receives, so that they do not need anything, according to the word of the divine Apostle: Having food and clothing, we will be content with these (1 Tim. 6:8). If he is not content with this, but uses property for household needs and disposes of the income of the Church or the fruits of the fields not with the knowledge of the presbyters or deacons, but gives power over this to his household and relatives, or brothers, or sons, which is why disorder imperceptibly occurs in church records, then let him submit a report to the Council of the metropolitan region. If, however, the bishop and the presbyters who are with him are accused in another way of turning property belonging to the Church, consisting of income from fields or other church property, to their own benefit, thereby oppressing the poor and bringing criticism and reproach to church records and those managing the income, then let them be corrected in the way that the Holy Council recognizes as appropriate. Likewise, this rule is compiled from the rules of Apost. 38 and 41. It specifies that the bishop should have the power to distribute the income of the Church, with reverence and fear of God, among the poor and foreigners, so that they are not deprived of anything necessary. Let him himself use the income, but only for necessary needs (if he does not have his own means and is poor), because the apostle says that if we have food to eat and clothing to cover the body, then we should be content with only this and not look for what is superfluous. If the bishop is not content with only what is necessary, but squanders the property of the bishopric or metropolis for his own needs, without the knowledge and consent of the presbyters and deacons who manage the property, or gives power over it to his sons and relatives, so that the bishop’s economists cannot give an accurate account of the income from this property, or perhaps declare that the bishop and his relatives are plundering the property - so, if, I repeat, the bishop does this, he must be punished by the Metropolitan Council. And if the bishop, together with the stewards, priests and deacons, appropriates the income from church property, and the poor brothers are in need, deprived of their help, and in addition, this brings accusations and reproach both on the property managers themselves, and on the report that they annually give (because this report is not accurate, but false and fraudulent), if, I repeat, they themselves do so, then the Council should admonish them by appointing an appropriate penance to them and indicating how this property should be disposed of. Read also the mentioned apostolic canons. Many different councils, heretical and Orthodox, met in Antioch both before and after the present Council. See about them in volume 1 of the Synodikon (p. 263). The reason why the present Council met was as follows. Constantine the Great built a large octagonal church in Antioch, leaving it unfinished. Its construction was completed by his son Constantius. While in Antioch on the occasion of the Persian War, he wanted to consecrate this very church five years after the death of his father. Therefore, Eusebius of Constantinople, having found a reason, persuaded the emperor to convene a real Council, ostensibly so that the consecration would take place more solemnly, but in fact with the hidden intention of overthrowing the term “consubstantial,” as Socrates says (book 2, chapter 8) (PG 67, 196A.). Nevertheless, in its definition, this Council proclaims the Son of God to be true God, immutable and unchangeable, the exact image of the nature, will and glory of the Father. Therefore, the Second Ecumenical Council, in the 5th canon, adopted the definition of the present Council, for it does not contradict the Nicene faith, although it does not directly call the Son consubstantial. Obviously, a distinction is made between the present Council and the heretical Council held under the same Constantius in Antioch in 370, which Milias mentions in volume 2 of the “Synodikon” (Probably, there is a typo here by the publishers or an error by St. Nicodemus. Constantius ruled in 337–361. Under him, Councils were held in Antioch 338,341.344.358, 360–61, most of which were pro-Arian. It was not possible to determine which of these Councils St. Nicodemus is referring to.). Indeed, apart from the rules of this Council, there are no rules of another Council held in Antioch. Theophan the Confessor speaks of 190 fathers. See: Theoph. Chron. // PG 108, 132V. Better known as Flakyll (Plakent). For the rules of this Council, see Socrates (book 6, chapter 18) (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. VI, 5 // PG 67, 720A.) and Sozomen (book 8, chapter 26) (PG 67, 1588A.), as well as Dositheus (Twelfth Book, p. 133). The fact that the First Ecumenical Council made a determination about Easter is evidenced by the very message of the Nicene Council to the Alexandrians, which is found in the book. 1, ch. 9 "History" of Socrates. It reads: “We preach to you about agreement on the issue of celebrating the Holy Pascha: through your prayers this matter has also been arranged...” - etc. (PG 67, 81B-84B.) Epiphanius also testifies in the chapter on the 69th heresy (Epiph. Adv. haer. 69.11 // PG 42, 220A.); Eusebius in the “Life of Constantine” (book 3, chapter 18) (PG 20,1073C-1077A.) and in the “Ecclesiastical History” (book 1, chapter 9 or, according to other sources, 8) (No match found.); Sozomen (book 1, chapter 21) (PG 67.924V.); Socrates (book b, chapters 16 and 18) (No match found.). Epiphanius, in the chapter on the 70th heresy, says that the Abdiane heretics celebrated Easter together with the Jews on the basis “as if the Church had acted this way” since ancient times (Epiph. Adv. haer. 70.9 // PG 42, 353.). It seems to me more true that this external honor is an honor relating to the appearance of the clergy, which they retained even after the eruption. After all, after the eruption, not everyone was deprived of the external appearance of the clergy, but only those clergy who did not repent and forsake sin and who from then on took on the appearance of the laity, according to the VI Ecumenical. 21. But perhaps by external honor the rule also means the honor that was granted to priests at meetings outside the church. See also note. to VI Omni. 26. Since not everyone is ready to receive communion, it seems that for this reason the antidoron was invented, so that those who do not partake of the Mysteries would receive it from the priest for consecration, because the antidoron is consecrated bread and it is offered to God, and especially because it symbolizes the womb of the Mother of God, according to St. Herman (German Const. Contemp. rerum eccl. // PG 98, 452D.). After all, just as the Lamb of God came out of Her womb with flesh, so from the prosphora, which becomes the antidoron, a lamb is taken out, over which a mysterious sacred rite will be performed. The parts of the ascended prosphora are called antidor by the 5th rule of Nicholas (see also Theophilus Alexander. 8). Nicholas Kavasila speaks of the antidoron as follows: “Then the brought bread, from which the priest took out the sacred bread, he divides into many parts and distributes to the faithful as bread, which has become holy only because it is dedicated and brought to God. And the faithful accept him with all reverence and kiss the right hand of the priest, because she recently touched the all-holy Body of the Savior Christ and received the sanctification emanating from him and can pass it on to those who touch her” (Explanation of the Divine Liturgy. Ch. 46) (Nicol. Cabas. Sacr. Liturg. interpr. 53 // PG 150, 489BC.). Therefore, Christians must remain until the end of the Divine Liturgy to receive sanctification from the antidoron. After all, St. Herman says: “From the distribution of the bread of the body of the Mother of God (i.e., antidor. - St. N.), a spiritual blessing and another source of benefits comes and is entrusted to the Christian race” (German Const. Contemp. rerum eccl. // PG 98, 453A.). Almost the same blessing and source of benefits is also given to those who offer the Mother of God prosphora at meals on the feasts of martyrs and all saints. The Church inherited this custom from the time of the holy apostles, according to Symeon of Thessaloniki (Sym. Thessal. De sacr. precat. 257 // PG 155, 664C.). Other sources add “or generally on the list of clerics.” It is this rule that the IV Council mentions in the 4th act, read by Aetius, archdeacon and reconciler of the Great Church. I don’t understand why this rule is listed as number 83 in almost all books of the acts of the Councils. However, this is probably a typo (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 149). Note that since the chairman at this Council was the Arian Eusebius with his minions, he formulated this rule vaguely with the aim that it would help them in the fight against the fathers who were persecuted by them at that time, and especially against St. Afanasia. Therefore St. Athanasius, and besides him also John Chrysostom, according to Socrates (book 6, chapter 18) (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. VI, 18 // PG 67, 720A.), in refutation of this rule they said that it belongs not to the Catholic Church, but to the Arian Church. Indeed, on the basis of it, Athanasius was overthrown by the Eusebians, and the bishops who gathered against him in Constantinople sought to depose Chrysostom, because he supposedly took his throne after the eruption, although his case was not reviewed by another Council. And Pope Innocent, in the letter that he sends to the residents of Constantinople in defense of Chrysostom, condemns this rule, as Sozomen (book 8, chapter 2b) (PG 67, 1588A.) and Dositheos (On the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. P. 133) speak about. Since, I repeat, the mentioned saints did not recognize this rule, and the IV Ecumenical Council, as we said, accepts it, as well as the VI Council, there is a need to clarify this rule so that there is nothing to blame it for. A bishop who is deposed, firstly, justly and for obvious crimes (according to Apostle 28) cannot have the possibility of justification or hope of restoration; secondly, not by a Council of only some bishops of the metropolitan region, when one justifies and the other condemns (according to Antioch. 14; and in this case, the metropolitan should also invite neighboring bishops to consider the matter and at the same time resolve any doubt), but either by a Council of all bishops of the metropolitan region, who unanimously condemn and do not disagree (according to Antioch. 15), or by a Council of the patriarch of the diocese. Thirdly, the accused must be present at the Council and must be given the opportunity to defend himself, according to the Apostle. 74, unless he was invited, but did not respond, according to the same apostolic rule. Fourthly, his accusers should not be his obvious enemies and the same ones should not be accusers and judges, as happened in the case of the illegal eruption of Athanasius and Chrysostom (about which see the note to Apostle 28:32). Both presbyters, deacons, and lower clergy must first consider their case with their own bishops. If they complain about the court of the latter, then let the bishops convene other neighboring bishops so that they judge the matter, or even the metropolitans of their metropolitan regions, according to Carthage. 36 and Antiochus. 12. Other sources add “and three times.” The IV Ecumenical Council in its 4th act also mentions this rule (Synodikon. T. 2. P. 149), inscribing it with number 84 - probably a typo. This rule was used against the archimandrites Karos and Dorotheus and the Syrian monk Barsumas, because they, lame in faith, called Dioscorus a bishop even after his eruption. There the Council says about them that if they do not obey the Council, but run away, they must receive punishment from external authorities in accordance with this rule, which the bishops proclaimed as the rule of the holy fathers. Probably more correct is “taking upon oneself.” Here either the word “or” (ἤ τούς) is redundant, or the word “elders” is missing. In the latter case, the whole phrase would sound like this: “presbyters located in small towns or villages (modeled on the 8th rule of the same Council), or so-called chorebishops...”. Note that from these two canons (I mean the 8th and 10th) it is clear that some chorebiscopes were only presbyters, since those whom the 8th canon initially called rural presbyters, below it calls chorepiscopes. However, it seems that this rule also has this in mind, as we said. Other chorebishops had episcopal consecration, as the present 10th canon clearly shows. The catechumens (κατηχηταί) of infidels or heretics who come to faith are called exorcists and exorcists, because by announcing them, they conjure the evil spirits living in them in the name of the Lord, so that they move away from the catechumens. This is clear, on the one hand, from the example of the sons of Sceva, who pronounced the name of the Lord over the demons, saying to the demons: We adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches (Acts 19:13). On the other hand, this is clear from the incantatory prayers that the priest reads over those approaching baptism. A book 8, ch. 26 of the Apostolic Constitutions states that exorcists had the gift of healing; they are not ordained, this chapter says, but they are indicated by revelation from God (PG 1, P21B.). Rule of Laodice. 26 prohibits exorcism and proclamation by those who have not been promoted to this rank by a bishop. The statement that these consecrations should be considered invalid has the meaning in which Rule IV of the Universe understands it. 6, about which see in its place, as well as in the note. to Apost. 28. In addition to this rule, note also that if someone is called to perform a sacred act as a bishop in the region of another bishop, nevertheless, he is not allowed to sit on the sacred co-throne, according to the conciliar decision of Patriarch Michael, patriarch of philosophers, as stated in Armenopoulus in the “Summary of the Rules” (section 1, tit. 4) (Conciliar Acts. Vol. 1. P. 3). Note that the rule is Sardik. 4 does not contradict the present rule, contrary to the opinion of Balsamon, since the latter says that the one who has been tried by all the bishops of the region should no longer be tried by other bishops, and the rule of the Council of Sardica allows the decision on the judge to be considered in a larger church court due to the fact that the word “all” is not added. I will not say that this rule adds that all judges must agree with each other, as we said. However, generally speaking, such a bishop is not called idle, because even under John Komnenos there was a dispute whether John Apluheris, who was Patriarch of Antioch for twenty-eight years, should be considered idle because he could not go to Antioch, which was captured by the Franks. It was decided that he was not considered idle because he performed both consecrations and the election of many metropolitans subject to Antioch, despite the fact that he could not establish himself on the Antiochian throne. Because he was not idle, he did not become Patriarch of Constantinople, although he was nominated for this position, but became the great steward of the Great Church in 6642 AD, in 1134 AD. See also VI Omni. 37. This rule also quotes verbatim the IV Ecumenical Council in Act 11. Note that although Nikifor, Metropolitan of Gangra, having become abbot of the Cosmidian monastery, received Amastris as an idle man; the bishop of Leontopolis received Arcadiopolis as an idle man; the idle bishop of Axiopolis received Abydos and then Apros; the idle Cypriot bishop Nicholas Mouzalon, having been the abbot of the mentioned Cosmidian monastery for thirty-six years, became the patriarch of Constantinople (Dositheus. Twelve Books. p. 221), etc., however, they all received episcopal areas by decision and decree of the Council, and not in a predatory manner. The IV Ecumenical Council in Act 11 cites this rule verbatim, similar to the previous one. Of course, Bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem, being 116 years old and no longer able to serve, appointed Alexander of Cappadocia, who was the bishop of another metropolitan region, as primate of Jerusalem. However, he did not do this arbitrarily, but according to a Divine revelation that came to him at night, as Eusebius tells about this in the book. 6, ch. 10 and 11 of the “Ecclesiastical History” (Euseb. Hist. eccl. VI, u // PG 20, 541BC.). Also, Theoteknus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, according to the same Eusebius, taking care to leave a successor on his throne after death, ordained Anatolius, and for some time the two of them were bishops of Caesarea (Euseb. Hist. eccl. VII, 32 // PG 20, 729C.). However, these and similar actions, as non-canonical and rare, should not be imitated, and they are not law for the Church.