The exact meaning and significance of the 34th Apostolic Canon

The proposed article has the task of revealing and establishing the exact meaning and significance of the 34th Apostolic Canon and stands in close connection with our own article, under the title: “The topographical meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon" 1, precisely as its continuation. There we presented evidence to refute the opinion that the 34th Apostolic Canon should be understood in a topographical sense and found out the inconsistency of the arguments presented Prof. N. Glubokovsky in favor of this strange opinion. Now, using the response article of Mr. Glubokovsky, only as a reason to return to the 34th Apostolic Rule, we will try to more fully clarify its positive meaning and significance in canonical legislation. In terms of its ideological side and its significance, even simply as a historical document, it fully deserves 2. To establish the correct interpretation of the rule that concerns us, as well as all 85 rules in general, known as the Apostolic Rules, the most strict adherence to the basic principle of interpretation is required: to understand the rule literally, treating each of its terms with full respect. This requirement is based on two properties of the rule: a) on its editorial perfection, because there are no unclear, mutual expressions in it: both stylistically and logically it is impeccable; b) on the fact that in its very terminology it bears the stamp of deep Christian antiquity - the stamp of the church structure of the first three centuries. Meanwhile, the main drawback of the interpretation defended by Mr. Glubokovsky and, unfortunately, Dov. widespread among our Russian canonists, and consists in the fact that it grossly distorts the text of the interpreted rule, replacing its original terms ἔθνος (people) and πρῶτος (first) with completely different ones, namely: ἐπαρχία (region, civil province) and μητροπολίτης (metropolitan, bishop of the main city of the civil province). Having made such a substitution of terms, the interpreters decisively declare that the 34th rule refers to the metropolitan system of church structure 3, introduced, by the way, only by the first ecumenical council (325), i.e. at the beginning of the 4th century. The question naturally arises: by what right is the Apostolic Canon so grossly distorted? Is such an attitude to the law conceivable? in civil law? It’s strange to even pose such questions, and yet necessity forces us to do this and forces us to take such a strange interpretation of the basic church laws into account. What do the defenders of this strange interpretation present as its justification? In response, they refer to the 9th rule of the Council of Antioch and to the medieval Byzantine scholastics. But regarding the 9th rule, Antiochus. Council should say that it is not engaged in the interpretation of the 34th Apostle. rules, but only refers to it as authority, as “a canon accepted from ancient times by our fathers" and applies it as a principled guide and basis in determining the rights and advantages of the honor of the metropolitan. Is this an interpretation?! 4 As for the Byzantine scholastics, only one of them, I. Zonara, actually identifies the concepts πρῶτος and μητροπολίτης 5 , but two others, Aristinus and Balsamon, distinguish them. This means that the only support for the strange interpretation of the 34th Apostle. Only I. Zonara remains the rule. I. Zonara is truly an authoritative interpreter of the rules; in our opinion, even more authoritative than both of his comrades, and his sin against the Apostolic Rule is all the more unexpected since I. Zonara is primarily an objective interpreter and is primarily engaged in the philology of the terms of the interpreted rules. But why he changed his method in the commentary to the rule in question is completely unclear and inexplicable. It must have been sin that led me astray! It is also impossible not to mention that the Roman Catholic canonical theory of the primacy of the pope also provides significant support for such a strange interpretation. But in this theory, primacy in the strict sense of the word (primatus honoris et jurisdictionis) is the exclusive property of the Pope and only in an improper sense can belong to the head of any region or national church. As for the title "mitropolitanus", it occupies a very insignificant place in the church-governmental hierarchy - the highest level only in relation to the diocesan bishop. And it would be good if the metropolitan (equally archbishop, patriarch) represented only the middle authority between the diocesan bishop and the pope: no, according to the Catholic view, the pope, as primate, has “full power” (plenitudo potestatis), and all other ranks of the episcopal degree (metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch) are subordinate to him, from him as a single source ecclesiastical power flows over them. In a word, primatus is something like the fourth degree of priesthood. Naturally, taking this point of view, the 34th Apostolic Canon, which legitimizes that each national church should have its own primate, whom other bishops of the people should honor as their head, will either have to be completely rejected as false, as a falsification, or explained in the sense that by the name πρῶτος it is not a primacy in the Catholic sense, but an ordinary one. Metropolitan. How strongly this artificial, ahistorical point of view is reflected in the interpretation of church rules even by our Russian canonists - we will indicate this later, and now we will move on to a closer analysis of the 34th Apostolic Canon. Analyzing the content of the 34th rule, we can easily identify the following main elements of it: a, Christian people (local national church); b, bishops are representatives of communities; in, their primate; g, a council chaired by a primate, as the highest government body of the local church. a, That the basis of church self-government or church autonomy here is based on nationality - this is expressively indicated by the term ἔθνος - people, nation, language 6. And it should be noted that this way of designating the limits of a self-governing church is an exceptional feature of the rule in question among the Greek rules of the entire era of ecumenical councils. True, an echo of such language is heard in the rules referring to the churches of barbarian peoples, or non-Hellenized peoples, such as. in right 28th Chalcis. Cathedral 7, Trullo Cathedral in right. I, 30, 32, 33, 55, 8 but in the vast majority of rules for delimiting the limits of church government, the political territorial distribution of the Greco-Roman Empire is used, such as ἐπαρχία (region, province) and διαίηκσις (diocese, district), and is recommended as a general rule when delimiting limits c. management to follow the city and state structure 9 . What does the difference we note between the 34th Apostolic Rule and other rules written in the same languages ​​and published by ecumenical and local councils indicate? – In our opinion, here is clear evidence that the 34th rule belongs to a different era, namely, more ancient than the era of the ecumenical councils - the era of the first three centuries. And it is not difficult to explain why it was in these two different eras that the church structure of the Hellenized Christian peoples of Asia and the Balkan Peninsula adapted in the first era to the national structure, and in the second – to the political one. The fact is that at the time of the emergence and spread of Christianity, the Greek half of the Roman Empire was nothing more than a multitude of separate nationalities (ἔθνος), living, although under the rule of the Roman people, but internally self-governing and not standing in such an internal connection with each other, in which they began to live later, under the influence of Christianity and culture, united into one political whole - the state of the Romans (Byzantium). There was no internal political connection at this time; the political division into provinces was not consistent with ethnic differences and was so changeable, random and unsystematic - that there was no incentive for the church to adapt to it. We pointed out this circumstance in our previous article, based on the book of Cassius Dio; Now we consider it useful to present some tirades from the historical research of Prof. P. Gidulyanova - “Metropolitans of the first three centuries” - as completely confirming our thought. "Roman administration in the East, says Mommsen, was never systematically organized, and as individual regions became part of the empire, Roman administrative districts were formed from them without any significant change in their previous boundaries. In 133 BC, the last king of Pergamon, Attalus III, died, bequeathing his kingdom to Rome. In 124, it was organized into a Roman province under the name of Asia. This province included Mysia with Aeolis, Lydia, the Ionian cities, Caria and the Dorian cities, except for Rhodes and the country of Rechas, which were independent. As for other parts of the kingdom of Pergamon, they suffered different fates; Thracian Chersonesus was annexed to Macedonia Greater Phrygia was first given to Mithridates V, king of Pontus, and then after his death it was declared. free”... 10. Just as there was no definite plan in the distribution of provinces, there was certainly no system in the administration of the Roman provinces. In some - Asia, Africa, Macedonia, Achaia, Crete and Cyrenaica, Cyprus and Bithynia - there was senatorial government, in others - Dacia, Cappadocia, Syria, Galatia, Pamphylia - imperial government. But in each of them the controls were not the same. In the Senate provinces there were: in some - proconsuls (Asia and Africa), in others - propraetors (Macedonia, Crete and Cyrenaica, Cyprus, Bithynia). The imperial administration was especially diverse: in some there were legati Augusti with the title of procurator (Dacia, Syria), in others - praetors (Galatia, Cilicia) in others, for example. in Egypt, the organization of administration was completely new, having nothing in common with other parts of the empire. Finally, there were countries where native rulers from ancient royal families survived and acted, for example. Armenia." "All these numerous forms of Roman administrative control did not in any way affect the internal life of the province 11. Thanks to the strict conservatism of the Romans, the absence of any initiative and the existence of the principle of maintaining their own structure for the conquered peoples, the countries from which the province was made up lived their own special life. The provincial connection was a purely external circumstance, and sometimes even accidental. Contrary to Lübeck's assertion, there was no basis in historical, ethnographic and linguistic features in the administrative division of the empire into provinces at this time (the first three centuries). The unification of several countries into one province was also hampered by frequent changes in the boundaries of Roman provinces and the repeated transfer of some countries (for example, Isauria, Lycaonia) from one province to another. In view of this, each country that was part of the Roman province lived a special, independent life 12. Due to the weakness of provincial ties, ethnic historical, geographical and other characteristics prevailed. Hence, the center of gravity lay not in the provincial, but precisely in this connection across individual countries. From the listing of many countries from one province to another, we can conclude that each country was, as it were, something whole. It lived separately and did not merge with other parts of the province. Each of them had its own history, its own nationality, its own language, its own law, its own gods 13. The only thing that united them was the power of the Roman governor. But we leave it to the reader to judge how firmly the power could unite individual countries, the principle of which was complete non-interference in the internal life of the country. The attraction of the entire province in the first three centuries to the metropolis, as the center of the administrative life of the province, in our opinion, was not at all as strong 14 as Lubeck thinks. Given the extreme simplicity of social and economic relations, all needs were satisfied locally. This means that the only thing that could attract the inhabitants of the province to the metropolis was the power of the governor. But how did this power actually manifest itself for individual residents? Mainly, of course, in the trial of cases. But for this there was no need for the inhabitants of the province to travel to the main city of the province, since for the administration of justice and other official functions the governor himself, as Bakkel knew, from time to time traveled around the provinces, stopping for a more or less long time in certain districts, where all residents of the nearest district who had business with him had to flock. The consequence of this was the division of the province into special districts, which received the name διοικήσεις dioeceses, conventus, or - according to its main purpose - ἀγοραῖ δίκων, fora, juridici. If we now compare the individual countries that were part of the Roman provinces with these judicial districts, we will see that the area of ​​the former (countries) always coincides with one or more judicial districts (conventus), depending on the size of the country, and the main city of the latter is always the center of one of the judicial districts. “But what especially brought the inhabitants of a certain country closer together, maintained close connections and mutual communication between them, was religion, and various religious unions, partly resurrected, partly developed again thanks to the imperial cult, which provided the legal basis for their existence” 15. "The Church developed freely and was not constrained by any mandatory norms in developing its structure. Naturally, it followed the line of least resistance. And this easiest and most natural way was the spread of Christianity throughout the countries into which the Roman provinces actually broke up. The Apostles, as we have seen, preached the Gospel mainly in the large cities of the Roman Empire. Under them, Christianity had already spread throughout the surrounding areas. But we saw that by these cities were not only provincial metropolises, but all the large cities of the Roman Empire, and for the most part they were also the centers of known countries into which the provinces were divided. Hence, it is natural that this distribution should have been carried out in districts corresponding to those national, historical and other circles, the centers of which were these cities. service. Particularly important factors in this regard were the language spoken by the population of the known district, a language often incomprehensible to all other parts of the province.” "We will confirm our hypothesis about the correspondence of metropolitan districts to ethnic countries by the history of the spread of Christianity in the first three centuries of our chronology. The excellent new work of A. Harnack: Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christemtums in den ersten drei Iahrhunderten in this regard will be our guide." to preach the Gospel to “all nations.” Of course, the places of their apostolic activity, in addition to Palestine, were mainly the large cities of the Roman Empire and mainly those that were located along the Roman roads 16 “. So, according to the exact meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon, the entire Church of Christ is a spiritual union or federation of national, self-governing churches. This is the first great principle of the true Apostolic Church, proclaimed by the rule under consideration. We do not find it either in the law of the Roman Catholic Church, or in any other Christian denomination, so clearly and categorically formulated. b) The autocephalous people's church is made up of Christian communities led by a representative and primate - a bishop. The territory of the bishop is called παροικία - that is, the city (πόλις) and the adjacent villages (χώραι) 17. Within these limits, each of the bishops has care for the people entrusted to him (λαός, right. 36) and performs ministry (λείτουργίαν) completely independently of each other, even from the primate. The only superior over the bishop is the council, which necessarily meets twice a year (right 37, sn. 74). Both of these features are also characteristic of the church structure of the first three centuries: for in subsequent times the freedom of bishops was significantly limited by the administrative influence of the metropolitan. As for the obligatory annual councils, they necessarily presuppose a very small territorially popular church, precisely small, which was the case with the peoples that made up the eastern half of the Roman Empire in the first three centuries, so small that they were included in twos and threes in one province. For a large church, such a requirement of two councils in one year would be very burdensome. c) Equal and mutually independent bishops must nevertheless recognize the first among them - πρώτος ἐν αὐτοῖς - and honor him as the head - ὡς κεφαλήν, and do nothing that exceeds their diocesan competence without his knowledge, but also he without known to them. The term πρῶτος ἐν αὐτοῖς is used as a technical term in Greek sources of canon law except for the 34th Apost. rules only in the VIII book of the Apostolic Constitutions (it would be better to say “Rules”), and even here it seems to compete with another term - πρόκριτος (praelatus, princeps = “elder”). This passage reads like this: „οῦ ὀνομασθέντος καὶ ἀρέσαντος συνελυών ὸ λαὸς ἅμα τῷ ? ??? σιωπῆς ηενομέμης εῖς τῶν πρώτων ἐσκόπων ἅμα καὶ δυσὶν ἑτέροις πλησίον τοῦ θυσιατηρίου ἐστώς, τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων 18 [To him, who was named and guessed, the people gathered together with the presbytery and with those who belonged to the bishops on the day of the week that comes before the rest, let the people inquire about the presbytery and the people……. and in silence the former bishop became one from the first, together with the other two near the altar, becoming the other bishop and presbyter silently praying... let him speak] 19. In other rules of the Ecumenical and local councils, the term πρῶτος ἐν αὐτοῖς is not found, so this term seemed to disappear among the Byzanians, giving way to others, for example, μητροπολίτης, ἀρχιεπίσχοπος, πάππας, ἔξαρχος, πατριάρχος and καθολικός (among Georgians). This really happened, and it happened because church centralization moved forward, adapting to political or state centralization, which was quite natural, since the church itself became from a free and independent - a state confession, an imperial church. But the title πρῶτος, abolished in the east, remained for a long time in the west - a sign that the institution of primacy was once a ubiquitous institution in the Christian church. In the West, however, the title itself was somewhat modified: here the πρῶτος ἐν αὐτοῖς was called episcorus primae cathedrae (bishop of the first see) 20 - the modification is not significant. How staunchly this institution of primacy was defended here is clearly demonstrated by the following data: a) In the ancient Latin translations of the rule of the 6th 1st Ecumenical Council, which established the institution of metropolitans and used this term for the first time, the following words are used as the title: “De primatibus, qui ad quasdam perinet civitates”; or like this: “Ecclesia romana semper habuit primatum”, or: “De primata honoris urbium” 21. It is obvious that the innovation of the 1st Ecumenical Council was reflected in the consciousness of Western Christians only as a modification of the original institution of primacy, as a universal and public church institution. b) The Carthaginian Church, in its flourishing times, was distinguished by its remarkable steadfastness in defending its autocephaly from the pressure exerted on it by a very powerful seeker - the Roman Church, went so far in this regard that at one of its councils it decisively prohibited the term “metropolitan” and any other, and ordered that we be limited to the ancient primordial title: episcopns primae cathedrae 22 This is the case with the term “πρῶτος ἐν αὐτοῖς”: it was developed on the purely ecclesiastical soil of the first three centuries - and in this regard, the same undoubted and clear seal of antiquity of the 34th Apostle. rules, like the term ἐθνός. But no less interesting is the concept connected by the rule with this term. What is a “primate” as a body of church and government power? Following the exact wording of the 34th Apostolic Canon, it must be said that this is, in the first place, an honorable title: the bishops of the autocephalous people's church must give him exceptional honor - honoring him “as the head.” Let them use whatever names they like to express this respect, for example. Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, Catholicos, etc. The point is not in the name: the principle of Orthodox primacy also obliges - and this is the main thing - that bishops should be far from subservience to the primate, as the highest, fourth degree of the priesthood. The primate is not the highest church-governmental or church-judicial authority over them, much less a legislative authority - only the council of the local national church serves as such. What is a primate as an imperious, ruling body? “He is only the chairman of the cathedral and nothing more.” This is the exact meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon. The 34th Apostolic Canon is a very remarkable formula for the power of the primate, which grew out of the purely ecclesiastical soil of the first three centuries (it is impossible to indicate a more specific moment). From the outside, it can be considered as a formula of customary law, which has retained the stamp of time in its very style; from the internal, ideological side, it remains forever the guiding principle for constructing the rights and position of primate of the autocephalous church, both small and very large (such as the Russian Orthodox Church). As for how the power of the primate was actually applied in the first three centuries, the following considerations can, in our opinion, give some idea of ​​this. As noted above, the institution of "primate" at the beginning of the 4th century was modified by the legislative activity of the 1st Ecumenical Council (rules 4, 5, 6 and 7) and some local ones. Its closest modification was the establishment of the rank of metropolitan. Both this term and the term "diocese", as defining the area of ​​power of the metropolitan, were introduced into the canonical language only by the First Ecumenical Council. This is a historically irrefutable fact. How did the metropolitan of the 4th century differ from the primate of the first centuries? The main differences are the following: 1) The Metropolitan is the first bishop (προεστώς) not of an entire national church, but only of a state administrative unit - a “diocese” (provincia, ἐπαρχία). 2) The metropolitan has residence and is the bishop of the main city of the state province: in this city he becomes a metropolitan 23. 3) The Metropolitan is not only the chairman of the provincial council, but also the sole superior over each of the bishops of the province, single-handedly restraining their self-will 24 . So easily and naturally the question of the gradual stages of development of the centralization of church government is revealed, if you adhere to the correct interpretation of the monuments of church legislation! 25 1) His canonical message to St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria to Bishop Basilides, one of his subordinates, ends like this: “You, beloved, as though you honor us (τιμῶν ἡμᾶς), for without a doubt, not as if you are ignorant, have proposed these questions to us, disposing us to be like-minded and unanimous with you, just as we are. I am not like a teacher, but since it is proper for us to talk to each other with all simplicity, I proposed my opinion on Wednesday. Think about this, my most prudent son, and write to me if something fair and better presents itself to you, or if you see such a thing to happen. I wish you, my beloved son, good health and serve the Lord in peace." 26 In our understanding, these words of the canonical or official - in modern language - epistle represent such an application of the 34th Ap. rules for life, that the one who wrote them seemed to have this rule before his eyes. b) In the canonical message of another primate of the 3rd century, St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, special attention is drawn to the greeting to the addressee: “most sacred father (ἱερώτατε πάπα). In the absence of any data, the person to whom the message was written, one would think, judging by this greeting, that the addressee was at least At least the Bishop of Alexandria, later, like the Bishop of Rome, was actually adorned with such a title as a privilege. However, other places in the letter very convincingly indicate that the addressee was a subordinate person - a simple diocesan bishop, let’s even say a presbyter 27. Rule 6 reads as follows: "Others deceive themselves by keeping the property of others that they have found instead of their lost property. Thus, since the Vorads and Goths dealt with them as enemies, they became Vorads and Goths for others. For this reason we sent to you our brother and fellow elder Euphrosynus (ἀδελφὸν καὶ συγγέροντα), so that, following the example of the local way of action, he would introduce a similar one, and from whom accusations should be accepted, and who should be excommunicated from prayers.” Questions of deep importance arise: 1) who was this brother and fellow elder Euphrosynus in his ecclesiastical status - legate primate bishop, presbyter or even 1st deacon? – The most likely thing is that this is a person from the local presbytery. 2) The addressee is presented as a person who has the right to accept accusations and excommunicate from prayers; most likely, this is a bishop subordinate to the primate 28. But it is not incredible that the presbyter, even the rural one, to whom the country is subordinated, is a χῶρα (or chorebishop?). That rural elders had the right to excommunicate from church meetings even in later times—we see this from the 14th canon of Arch. Theophilus. Alexandriysky 29. One cannot ignore the rule of the 8th, which clarifies the meaning of the measures proposed by the primate only as a provisional measure, which is valid only until the only competent church ruler of the district - the council - develops a legislative norm: “until,” the end of the rule says, “the saints (fathers) gathered together will deign about them and before them the Holy Spirit: μέχσις ἄν κοιωῆ περὶ αὐτῶν τι δόζη συνελθοπῦσι, καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν τῷ Ἀγίῳ Πνεύματι. [As long as it pleases the saints who came together and the Holy Spirit before them to determine anything about them."] 30. c) In agreement with these data, but much more fully, the relations of the primate to the diocesan bishops and vice versa are depicted in the letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage - to different persons. To them we refer the reader 31, limiting ourselves here to citing his brief speech as chairman at the council of 256. “You have heard, beloved co-bishops,” said Cyprian, “what Yubayan (Iovianus), our co-bishop, wrote to me, asking the opinion of our measure about the lawless and wicked baptism of heretics, and what I wrote to him, believing that those who come to the church heretics must be baptized and sanctified, as we discussed this once, twice, and many times. Yubayan’s second letter was also read to you, in which, in his piety, he not only agreed, but also expressed gratitude for clarifying the truth. Now it remains for us to express to each one in particular how he thinks about this subject, without condemning anyone in this matter, without removing anyone from the right of communication. anyone if he thinks otherwise. For none of us bishops has appointed himself, and let no one with the insolence of a tyrant force his comrades to submit to himself, because every bishop has the power to freely do as he thinks. For just as he himself cannot judge another, so he cannot be judged by another; but we all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint a bishop in his church, and to test and judge the actions of everyone” 32. In our opinion, the presented excerpts from the writings of three third-century primates serve as the best commentaries on the 34th Apostolic Canon and authorize the formulation of the meaning of primate in this way. According to the exact meaning of the 34th canon and according to the practice established already in the 3rd century, the primate of the people's (autocephalous) church was distinguished from other bishops of it primarily by the advantage of honor, the bishops were obliged to honor him “like the head,” as a result of which he had the right in his relations with them to greet everyone: “my son.” How such relations could be created when the principle of the equality of all bishops was in force is easy to explain: after all the primate, according to the meaning of the VIII book of the Apostle, performs the consecration of the bishop - hence it is very natural for the latter to consider his eldest ordainer as a father, and for this latter his protege as a son. Both the obligation of one and the corresponding right of the other rest on a purely moral basis and in themselves are of a more moral nature than legal. That is why the form of their expression, as can be seen in the practice of the 3 indicated primates, produces a very pleasant impression of high delicacy, high respect for the personality of the elder to the younger and vice versa: not a shadow of the bossy cold tone characteristic of the relations of later times is noticeable here. As for the ecclesiastical legal powers of the primate, they are limited only to the following two: 1) the primate has, so to speak, the right of the senior and permanent member during the performance of episcopal consecration and 2) the right of the chairman of the council. The rank of primate is limited to these advantages only; it cannot be assigned to him, strictly adhering to the meaning of the canon and the presented examples of its actual application, even the right of initiative to convene a council. This is how it turns out according to the 8th rule of St. Gregory of Neocessary: ​​“until – we read here – the saints gathered together will deign to do something.” – This is the only authority over the bishops – each individually. The primate apparently does not know and cannot know when the saints will gather at the council. True, it would be natural to assume the use of the right of initiative in matters of election and consecration of a bishop: but as can be seen from some letters of St. Cyprian, and here the initiator is an independent flock (presbyterium and people) το πρεσβυτέριον καὶ λαός 33, which then turns to the primate with an invitation to come with a council of bishops to test the chosen one and his consecration. A council can be formed, apparently, at the initiative of each bishop, since church life presents a reason (some out-of-the-ordinary event, or a puzzling question) for this, and the local bishop feels that he is not able to cope single-handedly with this issue or event. In a word, the primate is, in the proper sense, only the first among equals, but by no means the superior of the latter; their superior is only the council of saints, or the council of the local church. This is the principle of the primacy of the truly catholic, Apostolic Church (in contrast to the Catholic principle of primacy), developed by the very church life of the first three centuries and forever imprinted by the exact formula of the 34th canon of the Holy Apostles. Considered from this fundamental point of view, the canonical significance of the 34th Apostolic Canon is no longer limited to any centuries, but remains forever the canonical criterion for the structure and administration of the church for every historical moment, not excluding the present time. Here we could end the attempt to establish the exact meaning and significance of the 34th Apostolic Canon. But we will allow ourselves to make a few comments about the attitude towards the 34th Apostle. the rule of the fathers of the Council of Antioch, expressed in their 9th rule. G. Glubokovsky and other interpreters, not excluding, perhaps, the medieval Byzantine scholastics, are inclined to see in the 9th Canon of the Anpochian Council only an interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Canon. But it is enough to pay due attention to the texts of the compared rules in order to clearly see that o.o. The Council of Antioch did not interpret the 34th canon (for there is nothing to interpret it, it is so clear!), but only applied it, as a general principle of church structure, to a particular new phenomenon of church life - to the establishment of metropolises and metropolitans. How did they apply this principle? Being strict followers of the First Ecumenical or Nicene Council in the establishment of metropolitans (as well as in the establishment of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha, see right. 1) o.o. The Council of Antioch, on their part, wanted to consolidate this new institution by referring to the “ancient rule accepted from the father” (i.e., the 34th Apostolic), and on the other, to significantly expand the sole power of the metropolitan in comparison with the rights of the primate. For clarity, we will present both rules in parallel, dividing both into their main components. No effort is needed to see that the individual power of the metropolitan of the region is stronger than the power of the primate of the bishops of the people; Rule 9 also indicates the motive for such a departure from the 34th Apostle. rules, namely: since, he says, all wealthy affairs (that is, civil and church) flock to the metropolis. Meanwhile, the primate of the first three centuries did not even have the opportunity to take care of the entire metropolis, since the area of ​​his power was not the whole province, but for the most part - a part of the province, and his place of residence was not a provincial city, but often an insignificant town, where everyone with business did not flock. This part of the compared rules deals with the attitude of diocesan bishops to the primate and to the metropolitan. in both, this relationship is defined by almost the same words, expressing the idea that diocesan bishops should give honor to their primate and metropolitan and not do anything beyond their diocesan competence without his knowledge. The difference is reflected in the following points: 1) the primate should respect the bishops of the people as the head (hence every national church is autocephalous), while the metropolitan of the province should be given only general respect by the diocesan bishops, as the closest superior (i.e. it is assumed that there may be a higher one above him - the primate). That such an assumption is also valid for oo. Council of Anpochia, it is clear from the fact that the 1st Ecumenical Council, having established the equality of metropolitans among themselves, mentioned the advantages of churches (more precisely, their primates), such as Alexandria, Rome and Antioch - formed through ancient custom. Thus, with the introduction of the metropolitanate in these churches, the power of their ancient primates should not have lost anything from the innovation established. 2) It is noteworthy that the 9th canon of the Council of Antioch considered it necessary, with remarkable distinction, to further enumerate the powers of diocesan bishops, such as: care of the entire diocese (or supervision), ordination of presbyters and deacons and the court (ἔκαστα διαλαμβάνειν) 34 , - while the apostolic rule is again limited to the general formula: “do to everyone what concerns only his parikia and the villages belonging to it.” In this part, both rules define the relationship of the primate and metropolitan to their subordinate bishops and define briefly, in the same words, namely, that neither the primate nor the metropolitan can do anything without the consent of their bishops. But at the same time, one cannot help but notice the following circumstance: 1) The end of the Antiochian rule is in some contradiction with its beginning: for at the beginning of the rule it is said that the metropolitan has sole custody of the entire region, and at the end - that he cannot do anything without the consent of the other bishops. There is no such contradiction in the Apostolic Canon. 2) The Apostolic Rule, limiting the presiding rights of the primate to a conference with the bishops, has in mind the motive - may there be unanimity between the bishops and may God be glorified. The Antiochian rule motivates the power of the metropolitan with an interest in order and convenience (for everyone who has business flocks to the metropolis) and with a reference to “the rule of ancient times adopted from our fathers." What kind of rule is this? The Council does not call it the Apostolic 34th, but introduces almost its entire text. After this, can doubt arise in resolving the question: were the fathers of the Council of Antioch guided by the 34th Apostolic Canon, or, on the contrary, the unknown author of the Apostolic Canons was guided by the rules of the Council of Antioch? We think that anyone who begins to read these and other rules without prejudice, treating them with full respect for their text, as one should read not only church laws (in this case), but also historical documents in general, will hardly be tormented by such doubts. Theological Bulletin 1907, June. We do not find it possible to dwell in detail on Mr. Glubokovsky’s article for the following reasons: 1) His article is striking in its very sharp discrepancy between the content and its title; the last one reads: “The meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon,” meanwhile, in the article itself, a long one, nothing is said about the meaning of the 34th Apostolic Canon, and all of it is occupied with “apologetic-explanatory notes,” in which the author tries to defend his scientific authority, allegedly undermined by my objections. 2) The tone of the article is abusive, irritable, reminiscent of Russian polemics of the 16th–17th centuries. Wanting to show off his superiority over me and humiliate me, the author does not even stop at such means as distorting my words (eg p. 741) or insinuations about my political unreliability (p. 743). Such polemical techniques of a 20th-century professor can only be explained by extreme overwork and can evoke not a desire for academic competition, but only regret for an ailing opponent. This is precisely how this rule was understood by the majority of members of the Pre-Conciliar Presence, to which Mr. Glubokovsky also joined. Below we will make a detailed comparison of both rules. “This canon (34th Apostle) commands that the leading bishops in each diocese, i.e., the bishops of the metropolis, be considered by other bishops to be the head.” We take this opportunity to present the following excellent Slavic translation of the rule: “The bishops of each language should lead and befit the first being in them and have him as the head and nothing more than his actions except his mind, the same thing of each tree of its parochia belongs to those who exist above it. But below that, apart from all reason, he does this: for there will be like-mindedness and God will be glorified by Christ in the Holy Spirit.” The translation belongs to Metropolitan Dosifei Sogovsky. The best edition belongs to the Kievosof Library. Cathedral. No. 63. Information about the life of Dosifei – in the book of the Reverend. Arsenia, Bishop. Pskovsky: Studies and monographs on the history of the Moldavian Church, pp. 52–56. St. Petersburg. 1904. Chalcis. 28th rule: τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς (ἔθνεσι) τ̔πισκόπους. Trul. personal 1st rule: χώρας. Trul. personal right 30th: Ἐν ταῖς βαρναρικαῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Trul. personal right 32 and 33, speaking about the Armenian Church, they express it this way: it has come to our attention that in the Armenian country Ἐν τῇ τῶν Ἂρμενίων χώρᾳ. Trulsk. personal Canon 55 is expressed about the Roman Church as follows: “since we have seen that those who dwell in the city of Rome Ἐν τῇ Ρομαίων πόλευ on the Saturdays of Pentecost they fast ... as desired, and in the Roman Church ἀπι τῇ͂ Ρωμαίων έκκλησίᾳ the rule is observed... IV Omni. right 17: τοίς πολιτικοῖς καί δημοσίοες τυποις τῶν εκκλησιαστικῶν παροικιῶν ή τάξις ἀκολουθείτω [Let the distribution of church parishes follow the civil and zemstvo (?) order]. This is precisely the έυνος of the 34th Apostleio canon. Our note. Παροικία from παρὰ and οἴκος actually means temporary residence outside the home, on a foreign land, or side, hence παροιχία - wanderer (advena) and sojourner (colonus). The choice of such a term to designate the territory in which the bishop-governed church (έκκλησία) lives was probably based on the view of Christians of the first centuries that they were strangers and strangers in this world. This thought is replaced by, for example. in the 1st letter of the Roman Bishop Clement, which begins like this: The Church of God is παροικούσα (living or wandering) in Rome; the Church of God is παροικούσης (living or wandering) in Corinth.” Fr. Funk: Didascalia et constitutions Apostolorun. Vol I, P. 472. Paderbornae. 1906. Translation by Met. Dositheus Sogovsky cit. RKP. l. 129 See Sob. Elvir. 305 pr. 58. Kare. personal 13, 24, 27, etc. For these translations see Maassen: Gesehichte d. Quellen und Litteratur des kanonischen Rechts. Gratz. 1870. “The bishop of the first throne should not be called an exarch of the priests, or a high priest, or anything similar, but only a bishop of the first throne.” Rule 48. The eastern bishops reacted differently to the innovation of the Ecumenical Council: here the title of metropolitan not only quickly took root, but even gave rise to a new even louder title of “exarch of the diocese.” Rule. The 6th Council of Sardicia in the Greek text reads: [λέγω δὴ τοῦ ἐπισκόπον τῆς μητροπόλεως] It is interesting to compare the Latin texts “Primum oportct cam, qul remansit, per litteras pvimitis cpiscopi provinciae, hoc est metropolitani commoveri." See eg. right 12th IV-ro Omni. personal See eg. right 4 and 6 I Omni. sob., VII Universe. personal 11, etc. But the situation is not so easy when the above-mentioned Catholic tendency about the primacy of the pope and a disdainful attitude towards the Apostolic Rules intervene here. Prof. P. Gidulyanov is a fan of this trend - in cit. The book, which essentially correctly revealed the meaning of primacy in the first three centuries, leads the reader to considerable confusion with the following game in terminology. The title of the book and a separate section in it read: metropolitans of the first mp of the centuries, meanwhile, the book itself states that the term μητροπολίτης is found for the first time only in the rules of the Council of Nicaea, and in the 3rd century metropolitans were called πρῶτοl (i.e. primates). Where can this be seen? This can be seen from the 34th Apostle. rules (p. 180), meanwhile on page 176 it is noted that this rule is “nothing more than a reworking of Antioch. Rule 9” - traces. it appeared at the end of the 4th century or in the 5th century. It turns out like this. It appears that in the 3rd century there were metropolitans, but they were called primates, and in the 4th or 5th century primates are mentioned, but they should be considered metropolitans. Rule 3 mentions representatives (προεστώται) and the people (λαὸς): “lest wrath come upon all the people, and first on the representatives themselves.” 2 This assumption is also supported by Canon 7, which represents the country (χῶρα) as so vast that it more closely resembles an episcopal district of a diocese than a rural parish. Regarding the word “Saints,” Zonara gives the following comment: “He calls either bishops or the faithful in general according to the great Apostle Paul saints.” Balsamon sees bishops here See also our book: Historical review of the sources of law of the Orthodox Church. Historical Review of history rights, pp. 123, 124 VIII book. Ap Post.: συνελθῶν ὁ λαὸς ἄμα τῷ πρεσβυτεριῳ (ch. IV, p. 3). “And with justice every time,” translates the ancient Slavic Kormchaya Beneshevich, p. 256. In more ancient editions there is no such double doxology, but only one, or: “ὁ Θεὺς διὰ Κυρίου [or διὰ Χριστῦ] ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, - or: ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Ὑιὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα Ἄυιον You might be interested in: