Ecumenical i Cathedral. History of the Church 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils

Ecumenical Councils

Ecumenical Councils - meetings of the higher clergy and representatives of local Christian churches, at which the foundations of Christian doctrine were developed and approved, canonical liturgical rules were formed, various theological concepts were evaluated and heresies were condemned. The Church, as the Body of Christ, has a single conciliar consciousness, guided by the Holy Spirit, which receives its definite expression in the decisions of church councils. The convocation of councils is an ancient practice for resolving emerging church issues (in Acts 15, 6 and 37, the canon of St. App.). Due to the emergence of issues of general church significance, Ecumenical Councils began to be convened, by which a number of basic doctrinal truths were precisely formulated and approved, which thus became part of Holy Tradition. The status of a council is established by the Church on the basis of the nature of the decisions of the council and their conformity with church experience, the bearer of which is the church people.

The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Councils as "Ecumenical":

• I Ecumenical Council - Nicaea 325
• II Ecumenical Council - Constantinople 381
• III Ecumenical Council - Ephesus 431
• IV Ecumenical Council - Chalcedon 451
• V Ecumenical Council - Constantinople 2nd 553
• VI Ecumenical Council- Constantinople 3rd (680-) years.
• VII Ecumenical Council - Nicaea 2nd. 787

FIRST Ecumenical Council

SIXTH Ecumenical Council

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680, in Constantinople, under the emperor Constantine Pogonates, and consisted of 170 bishops. The Council was convened against the false teachings of heretics - Monothelites, who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, Divine and human, but one Divine will. After the 5th Ecumenical Council, the unrest produced by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Greek Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, desiring reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to make concessions to the Monothelites, and by the power of his power commanded to recognize in Jesus Christ one will in two natures. Defenders and interpreters true doctrine Sophronius of Jerusalem and Constantinopolitan monk Maximus the Confessor appeared to the Church. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites, and determined to recognize in Jesus Christ two natures - Divine and human - and according to these two natures - two wills, but in such a way that the human will in Christ is not opposed, but submissive to His Divine will.

After 11 years, the Council reopened meetings in the royal chambers called Trulli, to resolve issues primarily related to the church deanery. In this regard, he, as it were, supplemented the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, and therefore is called the Fifth-Sixth. The Council approved the rules by which the Church should be governed, namely: 85 rules of the Holy Apostles, rules of 6 Ecumenical and 7 local Councils, and rules of 13 Church Fathers. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils, and made up the so-called "Nomocanon", and in Russian "The Pilot Book", which is the basis of the church administration of the Orthodox Church.

At this Council, some innovations of the Roman Church were condemned, which did not agree with the spirit of the decrees of the Universal Church, namely: forcing priests and deacons to celibacy, strict fasts on the Saturdays of Great Lent, and the image of Christ in the form of a lamb (lamb).

SEVENTH Ecumenical Council

The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787, in the city of Nicaea, under Empress Irene (the widow of Emperor Leo the Khazar), and consisted of 367 fathers. The Council was convened against the iconoclastic heresy that arose 60 years before the Council, under the Greek emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to convert the Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons. This heresy continued under his son Constantine Copronymus and his grandson Leo Khazar. The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to supply and believe in St. temples, along with the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, to revere and worship them, elevating the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the Saints depicted on them.

After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again raised by the subsequent three emperors (Leo the Armenian, Michael Balba and Theophilus) and worried the Church for about 25 more years. Veneration of St. The icons were finally restored and approved at the Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora. At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established, which is supposed to be celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent and which is celebrated to this day in the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

A number of councils were convened as Ecumenical Councils, but for some reason were not recognized by the Orthodox Church as Ecumenical. Most often this was due to the fact that their decisions refused to sign the Pope. Nevertheless, these councils enjoy the highest authority in the Orthodox Church, and some Orthodox theologians believe that they should be included in the composition of the Ecumenical Councils.

• Fifth-sixth Cathedral (Trullsky)
• IV Council of Constantinople -880
• 5th Council of Constantinople

Trull Cathedral

Trullo Cathedral was created by Emperor Justinian II in 691 in Constantinople. The Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils did not issue any definitions, focusing on the dogmatic needs of the Church and the fight against heresies. Meanwhile, the decline of discipline and piety intensified in the Church. The new Council was conceived as an addition to the previous Councils, designed to unify and supplement church norms. The council was assembled in the same hall as the VI Ecumenical Council, presenting with clarity, as it were, its continuation, and with the same ecumenical significance. For its meetings, the same hall with vaults, the so-called "trulli", and the entire cathedral was officially given the name of Trullsky in the documents. And the task of replenishing with the canons of two ecumenical councils - V and VI - is indicated by an addition to its name: "Fifth-Sixth - πενθεκτη" (Quinsextus).

The result of the activities of the Trullo Council was 102 canonical rules adopted by it (some of these canons repeat the rules of previous Ecumenical Councils). They formed the basis for the development of Orthodox canon law.

The Orthodox Church united the Trulli Council with the VI Ecumenical Council, considering it as a continuation of the VI Council. Therefore, the 102 canons of the Council of Trul are sometimes called the Rules of the VI Ecumenical Council. The Roman Catholic Church, recognizing the Sixth Council as Ecumenical, did not recognize the decisions of the Council of Trullo, and of necessity considers it as a separate council.

The 102 canons of the Trullo Cathedral frankly draw a broad picture of the ecclesiastical and moral disorders and strive to eliminate them all, thus recalling the tasks of our Russian councils: Vladimir in 1274 and Moscow in 1551.

Canons of Trullo Cathedral and the Roman Church

Many of the canons were polemically directed against the Roman Church or, in general, were alien to it. For example, canon 2 affirms the authority of the 85 canons of the apostolic and other Eastern councils, which the Roman Church did not consider binding. The Romans used a collection of 50 apostolic rules of Dionysius the Small, but they were not considered binding. Canon 36 resumed the famous 28th canon of Chalcedon, not accepted by Rome. Canon 13 went against the celibacy of the clergy. Canon 55 went against the Roman fast on Saturday. And other canons: the 16th about the seven deacons, the 52nd about the liturgy of the pre-sanctified, the 57th about giving milk and honey into the mouth of the newly baptized - all this was against the customs of the Roman Church, sometimes so openly called.

The papal representatives in Constantinople signed the acts of the Council of Trullo. But when these acts were sent to Rome for signature to Pope Sergius, he flatly refused to sign them, calling them delusions. Subsequently, before the division of the churches, Constantinople made repeated attempts to persuade Rome to accept the acts of the Council of Trullo (from an attempt to bring the Pope of Rome from Rome to Constantinople by force to “solve” this issue, to persuasion to revise 102 canons, correct, reject what the pope finds necessary, and the rest to accept), which gave variable results, but in the end the Roman Church did not recognize the Council of Trulli.

Rogue cathedrals

Rogue councils are called church councils that the Church rejected as heretical, often such councils were held under external pressure or with violations of procedure. Below are the robber councils that were organized as ecumenical:

• Ephesus "robber" cathedral 449
• iconoclastic cathedral
• Robber Cathedral of Constantinople 869-870
• Florence Cathedral 1431-1445 - revered by Catholics as Ecumenical.

Commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council celebrated by the Church of Christ since ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left the Church a great promise: "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It" (). In this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication that, although the life of the Church of Christ on earth will pass in a difficult struggle with the enemy of salvation, victory is on Her side. The holy martyrs testified to the truth of the words of the Savior, enduring suffering for the confession of the Name of Christ, and the sword of the persecutors bowed before the victorious sign of the Cross of Christ.

From the 4th century, the persecution of Christians ceased, but heresies arose within the Church itself, to combat which the Church convened Ecumenical Councils. One of the most dangerous heresies was Arianism. Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter, was a man of immense pride and ambition. He, rejecting the divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, falsely taught that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, but was created by the Father in time. The Local Council, convened at the insistence of Arius, condemned the false teaching of Arius, but he did not submit and, having written letters to many bishops complaining about the definition of the Local Council, he spread his false teaching throughout the East, for he received support in his error from some Eastern bishops. To investigate the turmoil that arose (Comm. 21 May), he sent Bishop Hosea of ​​Kordub and, having received from him a certificate that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most basic dogma Church of Christ decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. At the invitation of Saint Constantine, 318 bishops, representatives of Christian Churches from different countries, gathered in the city of Nicaea in the year 325.

Among the bishops who arrived there were many confessors who suffered during the persecution and bore marks of torture on their bodies. The participants in the Council were also the great luminaries of the Church - (December 6 and May 9), (December 12), and other holy fathers revered by the Church.

Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon, later Patriarch of Alexandria (Comm. 2 May), called the Great, as a zealous fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy. Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was present at the sessions of the Council. In his speech, delivered in response to the greeting of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said: "God helped me overthrow the impious power of the persecutors, but incomparably more regrettable for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious internal internecine strife in the Church of God."

Arius, having 17 bishops as his supporters, held himself proudly, but his teaching was refuted and he was excommunicated by the Council from the Church, and the holy deacon of the Church of Alexandria Athanasius in his speech finally refuted the blasphemous fabrications of Arius. The Council Fathers rejected the creed proposed by the Arians. The Orthodox Creed was approved. Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine proposed to the Council to introduce into the text of the Creed the word "consubstantial", which he often heard in the speeches of the bishops. The Fathers of the Council unanimously accepted this proposal. In the Nicene Symbol, the holy fathers formulated the apostolic teaching on the Divine dignity of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity - the Lord Jesus Christ. The heresy of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected. After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council also established twenty canons (rules) on issues of church administration and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha was resolved. By the decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one, and without fail on the first Sunday after the day of the spring equinox (which in 325 fell on March 22).

Only a few documents have survived from the Council, partly in translations and paraphrases: the Symbol, rules, incomplete lists of the fathers of the Council, the message of the Council of the Alexandrian Church, 3 messages and the law of imp. equal to ap. Constantine I the Great (CPG, N 8511-8527). Exposition of the acts of the Council in the "Syntagma" (476) Gelasius, ep. Kizichesky cannot be considered reliable, although its authenticity has been defended (Gelasius. Kirchengeschichte / Hrsg. G. Loeschcke, M. Heinemann. Lpz., 1918. (GCS; 28)). Gelasius' text reflects the climate of the Christological controversy and is clearly anachronistic in terminology. Even the Paschal decree of the Council has not been preserved in letters. form (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 26). Records of the conciliar sessions were probably not kept, otherwise they would have been cited in the most extensive post-conciliar controversy. Information about the Council and its documents are found in the writings of his contemporaries - Eusebius, ep. Caesarea of ​​Palestine, St. Athanasius I the Great and later historians - Rufinus of Aquileia, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, blzh. Theodoret, ep. Kirsky.

Historical situation

The initial successes of Arianism are explained not only by the outstanding abilities of Arius, but also by his position as a presbyter: in the metropolis of Alexandria there were churches in every district and the presbyters of these churches had great independence. As a student of ssmch. Lucian of Antioch, Arius maintained ties with his comrades - "solukianists", one of whom was Eusebius, ep. Nicomedia, not only the bishop of the city that served as imp. residence, but also a relative of the imp. Licinius and a relative of imp. St. Constantine. When ok. In 318, a dispute arose in Alexandria about the teachings of Arius and parties of his supporters and opponents appeared, St. Alexander, Ep. Alexandria, at first took the position of a neutral arbiter (Sozom . Hist. eccl. I 15). But when St. Alexander, during the discussions, proposed the formula “in the Trinity the Unity”, Arius accused him of Sabellianism (see Art. Sabellius). Convinced of the heretical views of Arius, St. Alexander convened in 320/1 a Council of ca. 100 bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, to-ry anathematized Arius and several. his supporters. This Council, condemning the heresy of Arius, who claimed that the Son is a creation, proposed the formula: the Son is “like the essence of the Father” (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 6). Arius did not humble himself and expanded the spread of his teachings. Supporters of Arius acted either directly defending him, or offering ways of "reconciliation". The epistle of St. Alexander of Alexandria Alexander, ep. Thessalonian (ap. Theodoret. Hist. eccl. I 4). Imp. St. Konstantin, to-ry to con. 324 established his power over the entire Roman Empire, was deeply disappointed with the church struggle in the East. In the message of St. Alexander and Arius (ap. Euseb. Vita Const. II 64-72) the emperor offered his mediation. The message was delivered to Alexandria by the chief church adviser at that time, the imp. St. Constantine St. Osius, Ep. Kordubsky, the advantage of which was that this app. the hierarch had no personal predilection for the people, parties, and theological schools of the East.

Imp. St. Constantine, while still in the West, took part in the conciliar activities of the Church. At the request of the Donatists (see Art. Donatism), he convened the Council of Rome in 313, which condemned them, and then, at the appeal of the Donatists, the Council of Arelat in 314. This Council again condemned them. He was the closest prototype of the First Ecumenical Council, bringing together the bishops of the whole West. It is not known who owned the idea of ​​the Ecumenical Council, but imp. St. Konstantin from the very beginning took the initiative into his own hands. The council was convened by the emperor, and all subsequent Ecumenical and many others. local councils were also convened by the emperors. Catholic historiography has long tried to prove one or another participation in the convening of the Cathedral of St. Sylvester, Ep. Rimsky, but there is no indication of a consultation with imp. St. Constantine with the Bishop of Rome before the convocation of the Council. At first, Ancyra in Galatia was supposed to be the place of convocation, but then Nicaea Bithynska was chosen - a city located not far from the imp. residences. In the city there was an imp. the palace, which was provided for the meetings of the Cathedral and the accommodation of its participants. Imp. a message with an invitation to the Council was sent to con. 324 - beginning. 325

Composition of the Cathedral

There were approx. 1000 in the East and ca. 800 in the West (mainly in Latin Africa) (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 24). Their representation at the Council was far from complete and highly disproportionate. The West was represented minimally: one bishop each from Spain (St. Hosius of Cordub), Gaul, Africa, Calabria (Southern Italy). Elderly bishop. Roman St. Sylvester sent 2 presbyters as representatives. There was one bishop from the neighboring empires east. countries - Gothia and Persia. The bishop of the largest city in Persia, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, sent several representatives as representatives. presbyters. But most of the fathers of the Council were from the East. parts of the empire - Egypt, Syria, Palestine, M. Asia, the Balkans. Sources name a different number of participants in the Council: approx. 250 (Euseb. Vita Const. III 8), ca. 270 (St. Eustathius of Antioch - ap. Theodoret . Hist. eccl. I 8), more than 300 (imp. St. Constantine - ap. Socr . Schol . Hist. eccl. I 9), more than 320 (Sozom . Hist. eccl. .I 17). The exact number of participants included in the tradition - 318 was the first to be named by St. Hilarius, Ep. Pictavian (Hilar. Pict. De synod. 86), and soon St. Basil the Great (Basil. Magn. Ep. 51. 2). St. Athanasius the Great once mentioned 300 participants, but in 369 he named the number 318 (Athanas . Alex . Ep. ad Afros // PG. 26. Col. 1032). This number was immediately assigned symbolic meaning: such is the number of warriors - servants of Abraham (Genesis 14.14) and, more importantly, Greek. the numbers T I H (318) depict the Cross and the first 2 letters of the name Jesus. Thus, more than 6 parts of the ecumenical episcopate were present at the Council. Persecution, especially in the East, ended quite recently, and there were many confessors among the Fathers of the Council. But, according to V. V. Bolotov, they could turn out to be “too unreliable, weak” defenders of the faith in theological disputes (Lectures. vol. 4. p. 27). The outcome depended on who the majority would follow. While there were few bishops who sympathized with Arius, the situation was alarming. The entire East was already immersed in the dispute, spread by the pre-conciliar correspondence of the episcopal sees.

Progress of the Cathedral

The bishops were supposed to come to Nicaea by May 20, 325, on June 14 the emperor officially opened the meetings of the Council, and on August 25. The cathedral was declared closed. The last meeting of the fathers coincided with the beginning of the celebration of the 20th year of the reign of imp. St. Constantine. Having gathered in Nicaea and awaiting the opening of the Council, the bishops conducted the unofficial. discussions, in which clergy and laity could participate. The question of presiding over the Council was not very interesting for contemporaries and closest historians, who did not give any specific information on this matter, but it is of fundamental importance for Catholics. historiography, to-heaven, in the spirit of the later doctrine of papism, wanted to prove that the Council was led by the pope through his representatives. The honorary chairman at the Council, however, was the emperor, who actively participated in the meetings (at that time he was neither baptized, nor even catechumens, and belonged to the category of "listeners"). This does not contradict the fact that one of the fathers took precedence at the Council. Eusebius speaks vaguely about the "chairmen" (προέδροις - Euseb . Vita Const. III 13), as well as about the "leading" of each of the two "parties" (πρωτεύων τοῦ τάγματος - Ibid. III 11). Possibly presided over by St. Hosius, however, certainly not as a representative of the Bishop of Rome, which he was not, but as the chief ecclesiastical adviser at that time to the imp. St. Constantine. It is St. Hosea appears in the list of the fathers of the Cathedral in the 1st place. In second place are the envoys of the Bishop of Rome, but they did not play a prominent role at the Council. Speculation has been made about the presidency of St. Eustathius of Antioch, Eusebius of Caesarea.

Official meetings took place in the largest hall of the imp. palace. At their opening, all those gathered silently waited for the imp. St. Constantine. A few courtiers entered, then announced the arrival of the emperor, and they all stood up. Coming out to the middle, imp. St. Konstantin sat down in the golden chair given to him; then the others sat down. One of the bishops greeted the emperor with a short speech of thanks. Then imp. St. Constantine addressed the Council in Latin, calling for unity. His short speech was translated to the Council into Greek. language, after which the emperor gave the floor to the "chairmen". “Then some began to accuse their neighbors, others defended themselves and blamed each other. While many objections were made on both sides and at first a great dispute arose, the king listened to everyone patiently, carefully accepted the proposals, and, analyzing in particular what was said by both sides, little by little reconciled those stubbornly competing ... Convincing some, others admonishing with a word, others who spoke well, praising, and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, he adjusted the concepts and opinions of all regarding disputed subjects ”(Euseb. Vita Const. III 10-13). Imp. St. Konstantin, thus, acted as a “conciliator”, behind which, however, stood all the fullness of imperial power. First of all, the frankly Arian confession of faith of Eusebius of Nicomedia was considered. It was immediately rejected by the majority. The Arian party at the Council was not numerous - no more than 20 bishops. There were hardly less enlightened, with a clear dogmatic consciousness, defenders of Orthodoxy, such as St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Hosius of Kordubsky, St. Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius I, ep. Jerusalem. There is no reason to consider a supporter of Arius Eusebius, ep. Caesarean. Being an Origenist, in his moderate subordinationism he did not reach the recognition of the Son of God as a creature. The like-minded primate of Caesarea, who made up the 3rd influential group, was characterized by the desire to preserve traditions. wording taken from St. Scriptures. The question was who the majority of the Council would follow. That "traditionality", which was offered by the supporters of Bishop. Eusebius of Caesarea, meant a departure from the answer to the Arian challenge into dogmatic uncertainty. It was necessary to oppose the teachings of Arius with a clear confession of Orthodoxy. faith. Eusebius offered as such a confession the baptismal symbol of his Church (Theodoret . Hist. eccl. I 12; Socr . Schol . Hist. eccl. I 8). It was a strong move: Eusebius, the first hierarch of the Palestinian district, had in his jurisdiction the church of St. city ​​of Jerusalem. The emperor approved the symbol, but suggested adding “only” one word to it - “consubstantial” (see Art. Consubstantial). In all likelihood, the term was proposed by St. Hosius of Kordub (cf.: Philost. Hist. eccl. I). For the West, the term was quite Orthodox. Tertullian, speaking of the Holy Trinity, speaks of "substantiae unitatem" (the unity of essence), "tres... unius substantiae" (the united essence of the Three) (Tertull. Adv. Prax. 2). The history of the term in the East has been complicated by its heretical usage. The Council of Antioch in 268 condemned the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, developed by Paul of Samosata, who merged the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Athanas. Alex. De decret. Nic. Syn. // PG. 26. Col. 768). At the same time, many attempts to find orthodox in the ante-Nicene East. the use of the word "consubstantial" suffers from tendentiousness. Thus, the late apologist of Origen, Rufinus, in his translations, distorting the Alexandrian teacher, wanted to anachronistically present his theology in full conformity with Nicene Orthodoxy. In Rufinov lane. "Apology of Origen" schmch. Pamphilus is the place where the term is used by Origen in connection with the trinitarian dogma, but in application not to the Holy Trinity, but to its material analogies: evaporation” (Pamphil. Apol. pro Orig. // PG. 17. Col. 581). In the pre-Nicene works of St. Athanasius this word is not used. And after. in the East, the term "consubstantial" was not always understood in the Orthodox way. The modalist trend was discovered by Marcellus of Ancyra, the most active opponent of Arius at the Council of Nicaea. He was stubbornly persecuted and condemned by the Arians, while the Orthodox always justified him; however, after his death (c. 374), he was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council (right. 1). Unexpected, in view of the overwhelming east. majority at the Council, the adoption by his fathers of the term "consubstantial" is explained, apparently, by preliminary meetings before the official. the opening of the Cathedral, on which it was possible to enlist the support of the leaders of the Orthodox. sides. The emperor's authoritative proposal, supported by the "chairmen", was accepted by the majority of the Council, although many might have liked the dogmatic vagueness of the Caesarian symbol. The Symbol edited by the Council, which ended with an anathematization of the Arian doctrine, was signed by almost everyone. Even the most militant leaders of the Arian party, Bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, put their signatures under the threat of exile. The report of Sozomen is doubtful (Hist. eccl. I 21) that these 2 bishops, having recognized the Symbol, did not sign the excommunication of Arius: at the Council, this and others were strictly connected, although the name of Arius was not mentioned in the Symbol itself. Only two, Theon, ep. Marmarik, and Secundus, ep. The Ptolemaidian, rather out of solidarity with his countryman Arius (all three were Libyans), refused to sign the Symbol, and all three were exiled.

The condemnation of Arianism is the most important, but not the only, work of the Council. He also dealt with various canonical and liturgical issues. In the Epistle of the Council "To the Church of Alexandria and to the brethren in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis" (ap. Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 9), in addition to condemning Arianism, it speaks of a decision regarding the Melitian schism. "The Council wished to show Melitius more philanthropy." Melitius himself retains his dignity, but is deprived of the right to ordain and participate in the election of bishops. Those ordained by him can be accepted into communion, "affirming with a more mysterious ordination." Archbishop Peter (L "Huillier) believes that this ordination is of a sacramental nature, making up for the defectiveness of schismatic ordinations, but at the same time their complete invalidity was not categorically affirmed (The Church. p. 29).

The council also decided on the date of the celebration of Easter. These 2 decrees were circulated in the form of epistles. Part of the resolutions of the Council is formulated in the form of 20 canons (rules). Imp. approval gave all the decisions of the Council the force of the state. law.

The Council was undoubtedly aware of its authority as the “holy and great” Ecumenical Council, but in fact the reception of the Council in the Ecumenical Church stretched for more than half a century, until the Second Ecumenical Council. Being ahead of its time, the Nicene Creed with its terminology did not correspond to the theological tradition of the East. The adoption of this Symbol is a providential and inspired moment, but when it was necessary to insert the Symbol into the context of the previous East. theology, revealed their significant discrepancy. This explains the fact that a considerable number of bishops who approved the Symbol at the Council, later. he was refused. Imp. pressure is excluded here: church policy imp. St. Constantine and his sons did not at all consist in imposing on the Church completely alien formulations. It was a policy of adaptation to the church majority. Taking the side of one of the church parties, imp. St. Constantine strove not to impose on one the opinion of others, but with all his might to create church unanimity. The difficulties of the reception of the Council cannot be explained by the intrigues of heretics alone. The conservative majority in the East, easily rejecting pure Arianism (only 30 years after the Council did it begin to reveal itself again), was frightened by the Nicene "consubstantiality", because it demanded a decisive revision of the entire pre-Nicene theology. For Orthodoxy, the decades after the Council are an extremely fruitful time for elucidating the dogma of the Trinity, not only in the aspect of anti-Arian polemics, but above all in its positive disclosure. The Nicene Council gave a brief Symbol. By the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, the Church was enriched by the Trinitarian theology based on this Symbol in the works of 2 generations of defenders of Orthodoxy - St. Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocians.

Theology of the Council

Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century. began as a direct continuation of the triadological controversy of the first 3 centuries, where the doctrine of the equal honor of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, expressed already in the revelation of the New Testament (Mt 28.19; Jn 1.1; 10.30, etc.) and affirmed in the church consciousness (schmch. Irenaeus of Lyon), was periodically disputed by representatives of various types of subordinationism. The era of Constantine brought completely new opportunities to the Church: the verification of the Church's doctrine at the Ecumenical Council and the approval of the revised doctrine on a universal scale. However, representatives of different views and schools sought to use these new opportunities. Therefore, dogmatic disputes became more intense and their radius began to expand to the limits of Christ. universe. The teaching of Arius was an extreme form of subordinationism: “The Son, born out of time by the Father and created and established before the ages, was not before birth” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 69. 8). Thanks to the decisive actions of St. Alexander of Alexandria, much more moderate subordinationists were also involved in the dispute.

The Nicene Symbol was based on the baptismal symbol of the Caesarean Church: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only-begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten of the Father, through whom all things happened, who became incarnate for our salvation and lived among men , suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the Father and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Spirit.

The result of its significant revision was the Symbol of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things happened , both in heaven and on earth, for the sake of us humans and for the sake of our salvation descended, became incarnate and became human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who say that “there was when [He] was not,” and “before the birth He did not exist,” and that He originated “from those who do not exist,” or those who say that the Son of God “from another hypostasis” or “essence,” or that He is "created," or "changed," or "changed," such are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church."

The most significant thing introduced into the new Symbol is the expressions "consubstantial" and "from the essence of the Father." The editing of the Caesarian symbol also consisted in the removal of all expressions, which in the context of the Arian dispute could look ambiguous.

The expression ἁπάντων... ποιητήν of the Caesarian symbol in Nicene is changed to πάντων... ποιητήν, since ἅπας has a more comprehensive meaning and can, if desired, be understood as an indication that the One God the Father is the Creator and the Son. Unique in St. In Scripture, the expression "Word of God" (τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος - Revelation 19:13) is replaced by the ubiquitous "Son of God" (ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ). Added: "The true God is from the true God" - an expression incompatible with the Arian understanding of the Son of God as God in an improper sense. "Begotten of the Father" is explained as uncreated and consubstantial with the Father ("from the essence of the Father"). “Firstborn of all creation” (cf.: Col 1:15) is omitted, because in the eyes of the Arians it meant the first and most perfect of all creations. Although most scholars accept the relationship of the Caesarean and Nicene Symbols, some have suggested that some other baptismal symbol was taken as the basis of the Cathedral Symbol. Litzmann (Lietzmann H. Kleine Schriften. V., 1962. Bd. 3. S. 243) and Kelly (Early Christians Creeds) insisted that it was the Jerusalem Symbol, which is included in the Catechistic Discourses of St. Cyril, Ep. Jerusalem, pronounced in the 50s. 4th century This Symbol belongs to the post-Nicene era and is very close not to the Nicene Symbol, but to the K-Polish Symbol of 381. The characteristic absence of the term “consubstantial” in it is explained not by the archaism of the Symbol, but by the hesitation of St. Cyril, difficulties - not only external, but also internal - of the reception of the Council of Nicaea. The symbol of St. Cyril, therefore, is not a forerunner of the Nicene Symbol, but a milestone on the difficult path from I to II Ecumenical Council. The whole force of the Nicene expressions "consubstantial" and "from the essence of the Father" lies in the fact that they can be accepted or rejected, but cannot be reinterpreted in the Arian way, as the Arians reinterpreted many others. other expressions.

Regarding the terms “essence” and “hypostasis” used in the Symbol, St. Basil the Great, who together with his associates approved the doctrine of a single essence and three Hypostases in God, believed that the Nicene Fathers distinguished them and compared them as different in meaning in the final part of the Symbol. However, the more authoritative interpreter of Nicene terminology, St. Athanasius the Great, uses these words as identical. In one of his last works, “Message to the African Bishops on behalf of the Bishops of Egypt and Libya” (371/2), it says: “Hypostasis is essence and means nothing more than being itself ... Hypostasis and essence are being (ὕπαρξις)” ( Athanas, Alex, Ep ad Afros, PG 26, Col 1036). The beginning of the distinction between the terms "essence" and "hypostasis" caused a dispute, which was considered by the Council of Alexandria in 362 under the chairmanship of St. Athanasius. Those who taught about three Hypostases in God were accused of Arianism, and those who traditionally identified essence with hypostasis and spoke of one Hypostasis in God were accused of Sabellianism. Upon examination, it turned out that both of them, using different terms, think in the same way. Having recognized the Orthodoxy of both currents, the Council of 362 advised not to introduce terminological innovations, being content with the sayings of the Nicene Confession (Athanas. Alex. Ad Antioch. 5-6). Thus, St. Athanasius with his Council testified that the Nicene Council did not define the meaning of the words "essence" and "hypostasis."

After the Cappadocians established a clear distinction between the two terms, the consciousness of their original identity nevertheless remained in the thought of the fathers. To the question “what difference does essence have from hypostasis?” blzh. Theodoret answered: “For external wisdom, no ... But according to the teachings of the fathers, essence differs from hypostasis as general from particular ...” (Theodoret. Eranist. // PG. 83. Col. 33). Rev. says the same. John of Damascus in Philosophical Chapters (Ioan. Damasc. Dialect. 42). V. N. Lossky notes: "... the genius of the fathers used two synonyms to distinguish in God the general - οὐσία, substance or essence, and the particular - hypostasis or person" (Théologie mystique. P., 1960. p. 50). According to St. Pavel Florensky, “the immeasurable greatness of the Nicene Fathers was expressed in that they dared to use statements that were completely identical in meaning, defeating reason by faith and, thanks to a bold take-off, having received the power even with pure verbal clarity to express the inexpressible mystery of the Trinity” (Pillar and assertion of truth, Moscow, 1914, p. 53). The Nicene Symbol affirmed forever the doctrine of the unity and equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, thereby condemning both subordinationism and modalism, two constant theological temptations of the pre-Nicene era. Cutting off heretical deviations, the Council, approving the terminology borrowed from "external wisdom", approved the creative development of Orthodoxy. theology, which consists in comprehending Revelation through the efforts of a believing mind.

Prot. Valentin Asmus

Rules of the Council

The Council issued 20 rules, which deal with various issues of church discipline. These rules were accepted by the whole Church after the Council. The First Council of Nicaea was also credited with other canons that did not belong to it. For a long time in the West, he was also assimilated the rules of the local Sardic Council (343), which took place on the border between the west. and east. halves of the empire and among the fathers to-rogo, the majority were Western. bishops, presided over by St. Osius Kordubsky. The Sardic Council also issued 20 canons. One of the reasons why in Zap. The Council of Sardica had such a high authority for the Church that among these canons there are those that give the Bishop of Rome the right to receive appeals (4th and 5th canons). However, the Sardic Council was the local Council of the West. bishops. The area of ​​the Bishop of Rome at that time also included the Illyrian diocese, where the city of Sardica (Serdika, now Sofia) is located. According to the Orthodox canonical sense of justice, these rules apply only to areas that are part of Zap. Patriarchate, subordinate to the Bishop of Rome, as John Zonara writes (XII century) in his interpretation of these rules. The application of these canons in other Patriarchates is possible only by analogy, and not by letter. In any case, the rules of the Sardic Council only in the era immediately following this Council were assimilated by the First Ecumenical Council.

According to the content, the canons of the First Ecumenical Council can be divided into several. thematic groups. One of the most important themes of the rules is connected with the status of clerics, with the moral qualities of candidates for the priesthood, the absence of which is regarded as an obstacle to ordination. 1st right, thematically in contact with Ap. 21-24, establishes the order regarding the possibility of being in the holy order or the ordination of eunuchs to it. The rule reads: “If anyone has limbs taken away in illness, or who is castrated by barbarians, let such one remain in the clergy. If, however, being healthy, he castrated himself: such, even though he was numbered among the clergy, should be excluded, and from now on none of those should be produced. But just as it is obvious that this is said about those who act with intent and dare to castrate themselves: so, on the contrary, if they are castrated from barbarians, or from masters, however, they turn out to be worthy, such a clergy admits a rule. Those who have castrated themselves, thus, cannot be ordained, and if they have performed the corresponding act while already in the clergy, they are subject to defrocking. According to John Zonara’s interpretation of this rule, “not only the one who cuts off this member with his own hands is called castrated himself, but also the one who voluntarily and without compulsion gives himself to another for castration.” In Ap. 22 contains the rationale for this norm: "For a suicide is also an enemy of God's creation." However, the physical condition of the flock, when it is not the result of the voluntary will of the eunuch, does not prevent the fulfillment of his pastoral duties, which is a clear divergence from the norms of the Old Testament law regarding the priesthood (cf.: Lev 21.20).

2nd right. also devoted to the topic of obstacles to ordination, declaring the inadmissibility of placing neophytes on the sacred degrees of bishops and presbyters, without establishing the minimum necessary period, which must pass from baptism to ordination. The rationale for this prohibition to consecrate neophytes is the consideration cited in the canon: "Because time is needed for the catechumen, and further testing after baptism." It also contains a quote from the 1st Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy: "For the apostolic scripture is clear, saying, 'She who is not newly baptized, lest she become proud fall into judgment, and into the snares of the devil' (1 Tim 3:6)." A similar rule is contained in Ap. 80: “Because, out of need, or because of other motives of people, many things happened not according to the rule of the church.” The “church rule” in this text can also be understood as an indefinite reference to the order established in the Church, but it is formulated precisely in Ap. 80.

In the 2nd and also in the 9th canon there is a provision that upon discovery of “a certain spiritual sin” (2nd right), the ordained person is subject to defrocking. At the same time, the 9th is right. provides for a preliminary test before delivery, a cut in the crust. time is made in the form of a protege confession. In accordance with the 9th right. both those who were ordained without a preliminary test, and those who were ordained, even after confessing their sins, but when, contrary to the established procedure, those who decide the issue of ordination, neglected this, are not allowed to the priesthood. Such strictness is motivated by a clear and obvious consideration: "For the Catholic Church certainly requires purity", which is meant in this case - from the clergy. The 10th right, compiled in addition to the previous one, concerns the most serious sin - falling away from the Church, or renunciation of Christ, qualifying it as an absolutely insurmountable obstacle to ordination: : this does not weaken the power of the rule of the church. For such, upon inquiry, are cast out from the sacred order. A similar prohibition is provided in Ap. 62, in which differentially listed different types apostasy, and which concerns not only fallen clerics, but also fallen laity.

The 3rd and 17th rules are devoted to the lifestyle of clerics. To avoid temptation 3rd right. forbids widowed or unmarried clergy to keep strangers in their homes: “The Great Council, without exception, decreed that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, and in general none of those in the clergy, should be allowed to have a wife cohabiting in the house, except a mother, or sister, or aunt, or those only persons who are alien to any suspicion. In the 17th right. covetousness and covetousness are condemned and a categorical ban on clerics from engaging in usury under the threat of defrocking is contained: shameful self-interest, such was cast out from the clergy, and alien to the clergy." In Ap. 44 A similar measure is provided only for those who, being convicted of the sin of covetousness, remain incorrigible.

Canons 4 and 6 establish the order in which bishops are appointed. 4th right. reads: “It is most appropriate to appoint a bishop to all the bishops of that region. If this is inconvenient, or because of an urgent need, or because of the distance of the journey: let at least three gather in one place, and those who are absent, let them agree by means of letters: and then perform the laying on of hands. To approve such actions in each area befits its metropolitan. In accordance with this rule, the bishops of the region gathered at the invitation of the metropolitan, who, obviously, presided over the electoral council, to elect a bishop to the widowed see; those who were absent had to submit their opinion in writing. This canon also entrusts the metropolitan with the approval of the elect. John Zonara in the interpretation of the 4th rights, agreeing this canon and Ap. 1, wrote: “The present canon seems to be contrary to the first canon of the Holy Apostles; for the former prescribes that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops, while the present, by three... But they do not contradict one another. For the canon of the Holy Apostles calls ordination (χειροτονία) the consecration and the laying on of hands, and the canon of this Council calls the ordination and the laying on of hands the election... And after the election, the confirmation of the onago, i.e., the final decision, the laying on of hands and the consecration, the canon leaves the metropolitan of the region... » Theodore IV Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, in the interpretation of the 4th rights. expresses the opinion that the fathers of the Council established new order elections: “In ancient times, the election of bishops took place in the assembly of citizens. But it was not pleasing to the Divine Fathers that the life of the initiates should not be subjected to the gossip of worldly people; and therefore they determined that the bishop should be chosen by the regional bishops of each region. However, before the First Ecumenical Council and after it, the clergy and people gathered to elect a bishop, the clergy and people were given the right to nominate their candidates, and most importantly, they had to testify to the merits of the protege. Nevertheless, the votes of the hierarchs were of decisive importance in the election of a bishop both in the era of persecution and after the Council.

For the first time, the term "metropolitan" is mentioned in the rules of the Council. However, the ecclesiastical status of the metropolitan was the same as that of the “first” bishop of “every nation”, in the terminology of St. 34. John Zonara in the interpretation of Ap. 34 calls the pre-eminent bishops "bishops of the metropolis", and metropolitans on adm. the language of the Roman Empire called the centers of the provinces (dioceses). The title of metropolitan is also mentioned in the 6th and 7th canons. In the 6th right. The Fathers of the Council confirm with particular categoricality that the election of a bishop cannot take place without the consent of the metropolitan. This rule provides for an order, according to Krom, if disagreements are found during the election of a bishop, the matter is decided by a majority of votes: “... if anyone, without the permission of the metropolitan, will be appointed bishop: about such a great Council determined that he should not be a bishop . If, however, the general election of all will be blessed, and in accordance with the rule of the church; but two or three, out of their own quarrel, will oppose it: let the opinion of the greater number of those who elect prevail.”

The main theme of the 6th rights, as well as the 7th, is connected with the diptych of the primordial thrones of the Universal Church. 6th right. insists on the inviolability of the privileges of the Bishops of Alexandria: “Let the ancient customs of Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all of them... Likewise in Antioch, and in other regions, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved.” N. A. Zaozersky finds here evidence that “the legislator left inviolable the ancient synodal-primary structure wherever it had already been formed and had its past; the primate remained with his former importance throughout his district; consequently, the synodal-metropolitan structure was introduced as a new organization centralizing church administration only as a supplement to the previously existing structure, and by no means as a replacement form ”(Zaozersky, p. 233). In fact, however, as established by church historians and canonists, the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria in the era of the First Ecumenical Council were precisely the rights of the metropolitan, despite the vastness of his area, since there were no mediators between the Bishop of Alexandria and the bishops of other cities of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. instances (Gidulianov, p. 360). The special authority of the throne of Alexandria cannot be derived from the rights of the primate and reduced to these rights. The high authority of the department of St. The brand was distributed throughout universal church. Therefore, the fact that the bishops of Alexandria stood out from a number of other metropolitans cannot be used as an argument to prove that they were the heads of the Church, which already included in the 4th century. several metropolia.

“Primas” is not a title, but only an archaic name for the first bishops, who in the Nicene era almost universally began to be called metropolitans. Karf. 39 (48) reads: “Let the bishop of the first throne not be called the exarch of the priests, or the high priest, or anything like that, but only the bishop of the first throne.” The fathers of the Council of Carthage (419) were highly characterized by a tendency to resist the desire of influential bishops, primarily of Rome, “to bring the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ” (Message of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome // Nicodemus [Milash], ep. Rules T. 2, C. 284). The titles of exarch or high priest are rejected by the fathers of the Council, and the title of the first hierarch as the first bishop (primate) is preferred to them, since it contains only a real description of the position of the first hierarch among other bishops equal to him, in it the nature of the title was not yet noticeable to the fathers of the Carthaginian Council. Otherwise, if the title of primate meant a bishop who had a higher authority than that of the metropolitans, there would be no need to prefer it to other titles. Chronologically, the appearance of the title "metropolitan" really coincides with the Nicene era; this, however, does not at all indicate that the First Ecumenical Council introduced a new ecclesiastical structure.

The 8th and 19th rules establish the procedure for joining the Orthodox Church. Churches of clerics and laity who broke with heresies and schisms. In the 8th right. the validity of ordination among the Cathars (Novatians) is recognized: “O those who once called themselves pure, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is pleasing to the Holy and Great Council, yes, after the laying on of hands, they remain in the clergy.” John Zonara, in his interpretation of this rule, wrote: "If they are ordained bishops or presbyters or deacons, then those who join the Church from them remain in the clergy in their degrees." According to the 8th right, the Novatian clergy are received into the Church in their existing rank through the laying on of hands. Aristinus, interpreting this rule, wrote that "the laying on of hands" signifies the anointing of St. the world. However, when at the VII Ecumenical Council in connection with admission to Orthodoxy. The Church of Iconoclast Bishops faced the question of interpreting this rule, St. Tarasius, Patriarch of K-Polish, said that the words about "laying on of hands" meant blessing. According to ep. Nikodim (Milasa), “taking into account the interpretation of Tarasius, the meaning of these words in this Nicene canon is that when Novatian clerics pass from a schism into the Church, the underlying Orthodox bishop or presbyter must lay hands on their heads, as happens during the sacrament of Penance” (Rules. T. 1. S. 209).

The Fathers of the Council judged differently about the heretics-Paulians - the followers of Paul of Samosata. 19th right. The Council, not recognizing the validity of their baptism, demands the re-baptism of "former Paulians" who "have resorted to the Catholic Church." The canon further states: “But if those who in former times belonged to the clergy; such, being blameless and irreproachable, after baptism, let them be ordained bishops of the Catholic Church.” Thus, the rule did not exclude the possibility, after baptism, of the ordination of those Pauline clerics who, in their moral qualities, have no obstacles to ordination.

A significant part of the rules of the Council is devoted to questions of church discipline. So, 5th is right. says that those excommunicated by one bishop should not be accepted by others (cf. Ap. 12, 13, 32). Then an explanation is made that in such cases it is necessary to find out whether “it was not through cowardice, or strife, or any similar displeasure of the bishop, that they fell under excommunication.” But such clarification cannot be the business of one bishop, whose jurisdiction does not include an excommunicated cleric or layman, for this is already the business of an episcopal council (cf.: Antiochus 6). In this regard, as the canon says, “in order that a decent study could take place about this, it is recognized as a blessing that there should be councils in every region twice a year” (cf.: IV Ecum. 19).

Rules 11-13 are also devoted to the topic of church prohibitions. In the 11th right. it provides for the excommunication of the fallen from church communion, "who apostatized from the faith not under duress, or not because of the seizure of property, or danger." The Council prescribed not to allow them to receive communion for 12 years, during which the fallen one went through 3 stages of repentance. Stage 1 is characterized as follows: “Those who truly repent will spend those three years between those who hear the reading of the Scriptures.” In the disciplinary practice of the ancient Church, there were 4 stages of repentance, which are accurately described in Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12) (cf. Basil 22:75). The 1st, and most difficult, step, those standing on the cut are called weeping, is described here as follows: “Weeping happens outside the gates of the prayer temple, where the sinner standing must ask the incoming believers to pray for him.” The 1st Ecumenical Council of Condescension provides for the penitents who have fallen away from the Church at once the 2nd stage - “hearing”. According to Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12), “hearing takes place inside the gate in the porch, where the sinner must stand until praying for the catechumens, and then go out. For the rule says: having listened to the Scriptures and teaching, let him get married, and let him not be worthy of prayer. Then, in accordance with I Universe. 11 those who repent of falling away must stay for 7 years at the level of “falling down”, to-heaven in Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12) is characterized as follows: "The rank of those who fall down is when the penitent, standing inside the gates of the temple, goes out together with the catechumens." And finally, the penance is completed by a 2-year stay at the stage of “stand-ups”, when “the penitent stands together with the faithful, and does not go out with the catechumens”, but, as provided for by the First Universe. 11, "participating with the people in prayers", does not yet partake of St. Mystery. Having gone through all the steps of repentance, repentant sinners were accepted into church communion.

12th rights. provides for the excommunication from Communion of a special category of the fallen - "those who put off their military belts, but then, like dogs, returned to their vomit." The reason for compiling this rule was the fact that during the times of persecution initiated by imp. Diocletian, which continued even under imp. Licinius and preceding the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council, an indispensable condition for admission to military service was the renunciation of Christ. Thus, according to this rule, military service is not subject to condemnation, but the conditions that accompanied it, connected with forcing Christians to apostasy.

In the 13th right. it is envisaged without fail to commune penitent sinners who are near death, however, if they recovered after Communion of St. Sacraments, then they had to resume penitential work, starting from the stage at which they were caught by a death-threatening illness: . But if, being desperate in life and worthy of communion, he will return to life again; let it be between those who participate in prayer only. In general, to anyone who departs, whoever it is, who asks to partake of the Eucharist, with the trial of the bishop, let the Holy Gifts be given. Since this rule, according to the interpretation of Aristinus, John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, which follows from its direct meaning, requires that every faithful, even those under penance, unrestrictedly receive the Communion of St. Tain, a priest, through whose negligence a Christian died without a parting word, is subjected to strict rebukes. In his interpretation, John Zonara emphasizes that a dying person can be "admitted with reason, that is, with the knowledge and reasoning of the bishop." Speaking of the bishop, the fathers of the Council proceeded from the church structure in the 4th century, when the bishoprics were small, and the bishop was easily accessible. Compliance with this reservation is in its letters. sense became, of course, completely impossible in conditions when the dioceses grew territorially and quantitatively. With regard to anathematized persons, the words about the test by the bishop remain valid in their letters. sense. According to the interpretation of Theodore Balsamon, the decision of the fathers that the one who took communion of the Holy Gifts at death and returned to life “let it be only among those participating in prayer” should be understood in such a way that “he who is under penance after recovery can be admitted to prayer together with the faithful when he prayed with them before his illness; and if he stood in the place of the listeners, then after his recovery he should have the same place.

14th right. concerns penance for the fallen from among the catechumens, but not the baptized. For them, penance is limited to 3 years at the stage of “hearing the Scriptures”, after which they return to the rank of catechumens with all the rights that they had before falling away.

In the 15th right. transfers of bishops, presbyters and deacons from one city to another that are not sanctioned by church authorities are strictly prohibited. forbids bishops to receive presbyters, deacons, and all clerics in general who have arbitrarily left their parishes. Ordinations performed on such clerics by the Council are declared invalid.

18th right. forbids deacons to teach the Holy Gifts to presbyters and to receive communion before bishops and presbyters, as well as to sit in church at divine services in the presence of presbyters. The publication of this rule was due to the fact that some deacons, being the closest assistants to bishops who occupied the highest position in the Church, for example. Roman or Alexandrian, in some cases imagined themselves to be hierarchically higher than presbyters and even bishops, who occupied less significant chairs. The Rule stops such inclinations by pointing out to the deacons that their position in the Church is lower than that of a presbyter.

In the 20th right. there is a ban on kneeling prayers on Sunday.

One of the main questions discussed at the Council, and one of the reasons for its convocation, was the question of the timing of the celebration of Pascha. The celebration of Easter on different days in different local Churches caused embarrassment, which had to be eliminated. This problem was also preoccupied by imp. St. Konstantin. The most significant discrepancy in determining the day of celebrating Easter was found between the Churches of Asia Minor, which celebrated Easter on the night of Nisan 14-15, regardless of the day of the week, and most other Churches, including the Roman and Alexandrian, which celebrated Easter not earlier than Nisan 14, but certainly on Sunday, the day following Saturday (see Paschalia). The question of the time of the celebration of Easter was in the II century. a subject of dispute between Polycrates, ep. Ephesus, and St. Victor I, bishop. Roman. But, according to church historians L. Duchesne (Duchesne) and Bolotov (Lectures. Vol. 2. S. 428-451), by the time of the Council, Easter was already celebrated almost everywhere on Sunday, and the question at the Council was already about determining the full moon of the month of Nisan , in the calculation of which there was a discrepancy.

The Council issued a resolution, the text of which, however, has not been preserved. An indirect way to judge the text of the Nicene Decree on the time of the celebration of Passover is Antiochus. 1, which says: “All who dare to violate the determination of the holy and great Council, which was in Nicaea, in the presence of the most pious and most God-loving king Constantine, on the holy feast of saving Pascha, may they be excommunicated and rejected from the Church, if they continue to rebel against the good establishment with curiosity . And this is about the laity. But if one of the primates of the Church, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, after this determination, dares to corrupt people, and to the indignation of the churches, separate himself, and celebrate Pascha with the Jews, such a holy Council already condemns from now on, to be a stranger to the Church, as if he had done not only the fault of sin for itself, but also the fault of the disorder and corruption of many” (cf. Ap. 7).

The nature of the Nicene decree on the time of the celebration of Easter can also be judged from the message of imp. St. Constantine to the bishops who were not present at the Council. The message is preserved in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea: “First of all, it seemed to us indecent to commit this holy feast in the manner of the Jews. The Savior showed us a different path. Accordingly, holding on to it, beloved brothers, we ourselves will remove from ourselves the shameful opinion of the Jews about us, that regardless of their decrees, we can no longer do this ”(ap. Euseb. Vita Const. III 18).

The 1st Epistle of the Fathers of the Council to the Church of Alexandria says: "... all the eastern brothers, who previously celebrated Easter together with the Jews, will henceforth celebrate it in accordance with the Romans, with us and with all who from ancient times keep it in our way" ( ap. Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 9). St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that in determining the day of the celebration of Easter in accordance with the calendar resolution of the First Ecumenical Council, one should be guided by 3 factors: full moon, equinox, resurrection (Epiph. Adv. haer. 70. 11-12).

Difficult to interpret is the question of what meaning the decision of the Council had not to celebrate Easter "together with the Jews" (μετὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων). This decree entered the life of the Church with a meaning, which at a later time was expressed in the interpretation of John Zonara on Ap. 7: “It is necessary that their non-holiday feast be celebrated first, and then our Passover should be celebrated,” that is, as a prohibition to celebrate Passover together with the Jews and before them. This is also the opinion of Theodore Balsamon.

However, some modern orthodox the authors (Archbishop Peter (L "Huillier", Prof. D. P. Ogitsky) draw a different conclusion in interpreting the rules on celebrating Easter. Archbishop Peter writes: to celebrate this holiday based on the Jewish calculation, but contrary to what they began to think later, this prohibition, however, does not apply to the coincidence of dates ”(Decrees of the Nicaean Council on the joint celebration of Easter and their significance at the present time // VRSEE. 1983. No. 113 P. 251). According to Prof. Ogitsky, "the mistake of Zonara and other interpreters of the canons was the result of the fact that, in fact, Christian Easter in Zonara's time was always only after Jewish Easter. In this factual state of affairs, the canonists saw confirmation of their interpretations" (Canonical norms of the Orthodox Paschal and the problem of dating Easter in the conditions of our time // BT. 1971. Sat. 7. P. 207. According to Archbishop Peter, “we should consider that, in accordance with what was decided at the Council of Nicaea, Christians must all together, on the same day, celebrate Easter. This day is Sunday, following the first full moon after the vernal equinox ... As for the correct determination of the date of the vernal equinox, then for the same reasons of loyalty to Tradition and the spirit of the Nicene decrees, it should be left to the competence of astronomers ”(VRZEPE. 1983. No. 113 pp. 261). The position of John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, as well as the majority of Orthodox who wrote on this topic. scientists, corresponding to the Paschalia now used in the Church, seems more convincing in interpreting the actual meaning of the resolution of the First Ecumenical Council on the time of celebrating Easter. At the Moscow meeting in 1948, an official was issued. the decision concerning the calendar problem, according to Krom for the whole right. the world must celebrate the feast of St. Easter only according to the old (Julian) style, according to the Alexandrian Paschalia.

As you know, despite the decision on the issue of Paschal at the Council, disagreements on the issue of the time of celebrating Easter resumed after it, which in the end was reflected in what is still Catholic. Church and others. churches celebrate Easter, not in accordance with the time of its celebration by the Jews.

Source: Opitz H . G. Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328. b.; Lpz., 1934-1935; Keil V. Quellensammlung zur Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen. Darmstadt, 19952, pp. 96-145.

Lit.: Duchesne L . La question de la pâque au conсile de Nicée // Revue des questions historiques. 1880. T. 28. p. 5-42; Berdnikov I . WITH . A note on how to understand the eighth canon of the First Ecumenical Council // PS. 1888. Vol. 1. S. 369-418; Smirnov K . Review of the sources of the history of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Yaroslavl, 1888; Zaozersky N . A . About church authority. Serg. P., 1894; Gelzer H. et al. Patrum Nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice. Lpz., 1898; Spassky A . A . The initial stage of the Arian movements and the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea // BV. 1906. V. 3. No. 12. S. 577-630; Beneshevich V. N . The Sinai List of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea // IIAN. 1908. S. 281-306; he is. Prayer of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea // Ibid. pp. 73-74; Gidulyanov P . IN . Eastern Patriarchs during the period of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1908; Al è s A, d ". Le dogme de Nicée. P., 1926; Opitz H. Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfangen bis zum Jahre 328 // ZNW. 1934. Bd. 33. S. 131-159; Honigmann E. La liste originale des Pères de Nicée, Byzantion, 1939, Vol.14, pp. 17-76; Ortiz de Urbina, J. El simbolo Niceno, Madrid, 1947; H ΟΜΟΟΥΣΙΟΣ // ZKG 1954-1955 Bd 66 pp 1-24 Ricken F Nikaia als Krisis des altchristlichen Platonismus ThPh 1969 Bd 44 pp 321-341 Boularand E L "hérésie d" Arius et la "foi" de Nicée. P., 1972-1973; Voronov L., prot. Documents and acts included in the "Acts of the First Ecumenical Council" of 325 // BT. 1973. Sat. 11. P. 90-111; Θειδᾶς Β. ῾Η Α´ Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος. ᾿Αθῆναι, 1974; Peter (L "Huillier), archbishop. Decrees of the Council of Nicaea on the joint celebration of Easter and their significance at the present time // VRZEPE. 1983. No. 113. S. 251-264; Stead G. Homousios // R.A.C. Vol. 16. S. 364-433; Brennecke H. Nikaa. T. 1 // TRE. bd. 24. S. 429-441. (For a general bibliography, see Art. Ecumenical Council.)

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin

First Ecumenical Council was collected by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325 in the city of Nicaea, a suburb of Constantinople, which is why it is also called Council of Nicaea. Commemorated on May 29 and on the 7th week after Easter.

The Council was convened primarily in order to resolve the theological dispute between the supporters of the Alexandrian Protopresbyter Arius with the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander and his supporters, regarding the Triune Essence of God. This dispute quickly spread beyond the borders of Alexandria and captured a large part of the Roman Empire, threatening peace in the Church. Emperor Constantine, seeing in the Church the basis of the stability of the Roman Empire, hastened to convene bishops from all over the continent to resolve this dispute and establish peace in the Church and the empire.

Cathedral members

Liturgical tradition fixed the number of participants in the Council as 318. The Holy Tsar Constantine the Great in his speech to the Council expressed: "More than 300." St. Athanasius the Great, Pope Julius, Lucifer of Calabria speak of 300. A member of the Council, St. Eustathius of Antioch, speaks of 270. Another participant, Eusebius of Caesarea, calls the figure "more than 250". In the manuscript lists that have come down to us in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic and other languages, we find up to 220 names.

I Ecumenical Council. Icon of the 17th century.

The minutes of this council have not come down to us. However, what the disputes were about at this Council and its decisions are known quite well from the works and correspondence of its participants.

From the side of the Arians, in addition to Arius himself, his closest associates Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the local bishop of the city of Nicaea Theognis, Marius of Chalcedon, came to the Council. Together with Eusebius of Caesarea, his conciliar associates were also present: Peacock of Tire and Patrophilus of Scythopol, there were Arius' fellow countrymen, the Libyans who supported him: Secundus of Ptolemaida (Cyrenaica) and Theon of Marmarik.

The Orthodox side was represented at the Council by outstanding bishops, both in learning and in asceticism and confession: Alexander I of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Eustathius of Antioch, Markell of Ancyra. Leontius of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia and James of Nisibis were known for the holiness of their lives. The confessors were Amphion of Epiphany of Cilicia, Paul of Neocaesarea with burnt hands, Paphnutius of Thebaid and Potamon the Egyptian with gouged out eyes. Potamon's legs were also dislocated, and in this form he worked in exile in the quarries. He was known as a miracle worker and healer. Spyridon Trimifuntsky arrived from the island of Cyprus. He was a holy simpleton who continued to shepherd in the bishopric; he was known as a seer and miracle worker. (According to some evidence, St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra of Lycia, took part in the Council. But strictly speaking, there are no exact indications of the participation of St. Nicholas in this Ecumenical Council. There is a legend about the “bearing” of Arius by St. Nicholas, which we give below.)

Since the Arian disputes disturbed the calm only in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, the Western Church did not consider it necessary to send many of its representatives to this Council. Pope Sylvester delegated two presbyters as his deputies: Vincent and Viton. Apart from this, only St. Hosius of Corduvia from Spain (according to some reports, the chairman of the Council), Mark of Calabria and Eustathius of Milan from Italy, Kekilian of Carthage from Africa, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from Dalmatia arrived from the Latin-speaking provinces.

From outside the Roman Empire, delegates arrived at the Council from Pitiunt in the Caucasus, from the Vospor (Bosphorus) kingdom (Kerch), from Scythia, two delegates from Armenia, one - James of Nisibis - from Persia.

Progress of the Cathedral

According to Socrates, the Cathedral opened on May 20, and the solemn closing of the Cathedral was timed by the emperor on August 25, the day he celebrated the 20th anniversary of his reign. But some historians refer to June 14 as the beginning of the Council. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) date the adoption of the Nicaean Ordinance on 19 June.

Historians propose to coordinate the stages of the Council on dates as follows:

"May 20 is the opening parade of the Cathedral. A church parade, inserted into the framework of the court parade, an unprecedented "review of the forces" of the church until then. The plenum of the Council was determined and formal voting began only on June 14. And on June 19 the main creed was voted. On August 25, already the triumph of the closing of the Cathedral. Then Eusebius of Caesarea delivered his laudatory speech to the emperor, placed by him in his Life of Constantine. The celebration ended with a sumptuous dinner."

The Council began with a speech by Emperor Constantine in Latin. “Do not hesitate,” said the emperor, “oh, friends, servants of God and servants of our common Lord Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your disagreement at the very beginning and resolve all disputed issues by peaceful resolutions. Through this you will do what is pleasing to God and bring the greatest joy me, your companion."

There are references to the fact that St. Nicholas and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who was then still a deacon and who suffered from them all his life for zealous opposition to heretics, struggled most in refuting the God-opposing Aryan Teachings.

Other saints defended Orthodoxy using their enlightenment, with the help of theological arguments. Saint Nicholas, on the other hand, defended the faith by faith itself — by the fact that all Christians, beginning with the Apostles, believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

According to legend, during one of the conciliar sessions, unable to endure the blasphemy of Arius, Saint Nicholas struck this heretic on the cheek. The Fathers of the Council considered such an act an excess of jealousy, deprived Saint Nicholas of the advantage of his episcopal rank - omophorion and imprisoned him in a prison tower.

But soon they were convinced that Saint Nicholas was right, especially since many of them had a vision when, before their eyes, our Lord Jesus Christ gave Saint Nicholas the Gospel, and the Most Holy Theotokos placed an omophorion on him. They freed him from prison, returned him to his former dignity and glorified him as a great Pleasure of God. The adoption of the Creed was very dramatic.

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, on the issue of the creed during the debate, Arius and his like-minded people expressed their position directly and boldly, counting on the religious tolerance of the emperor and hoping to convince him and win over to their side. Their blasphemous speeches outraged the Orthodox. The intensity of passions grew. At the right moment, a cunning diplomatic proposal was made ((Eusebius of Caesarea), which consisted in taking the text of the baptismal creed, familiar to most, as the basis for the definition of the Council:

"We believe in the One God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of all (άπάντων) visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the Only Begotten Son, the Firstborn of all creation ( Col. 1:15), before all ages from the Father, Born, through Whom everything happened ... Incarnate ... We believe in one Holy Spirit.

Eusebius's cunning plan was to help Arius reduce this Council to the formal adoption of a formula familiar to everyone, to which the majority would easily have to agree. However, the wording left room for the heretical teachings of Arius.

But Emperor Constantine did not allow this trick to take place. Having approved the text, he, as if by the way, proposed to enrich it with only a small addition, in one word "consubstantial" (omousios). With the support of authoritative Orthodox bishops, the majority of the episcopate, who, being Orthodox, were nevertheless not sufficiently educated to penetrate and understand all the subtleties of this issue, supported and voted for this addition proposed by the emperor, reliably cutting off the Arian heresy from Orthodoxy.

Results of the First Ecumenical Council

At this Council, which lasted about two months, the Creed was introduced into general church use, (subsequently supplemented and completed at the Second Ecumenical Council, which was in Constantinople in 381 after the Nativity of Christ).

At the same Ecumenical Council, Meletius was condemned, who appropriated the rights of a bishop, being himself a violator of church rules.

Finally, at this Council the teachings of Arius and his followers were rejected and solemnly anathematized.

First Council of Nicaea - council of the Church, convened by the emperor Constantine I. Held in June 325 in the city of Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey) and lasted more than two months, becoming the first Ecumenical Council in the history of Christianity. adopted at the council Symbol of faith, Arian and other heresies were condemned, separation from Judaism was finally proclaimed, the day off was recognized Sunday instead of Saturday, the time of celebration is determined christian church Easter, 20 canons have been drafted.

Interpreters about the cathedral

Zonara. The holy and ecumenical first council was in the reign Constantine the Great when in Nicea Bithynian gathered three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers against Aria, a former presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, who blasphemed against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ and said that He was not consubstantial with God and the Father, but was a creature, and that there was (a time) when He was not. This holy cathedral erupted and anathematized this Arius, together with his like-minded people, and approved the dogma that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and is the true God and Master and Lord and Creator of all created things, and not a creature and not a creation. First called this Nicaea Cathedral among the universal. Although before it there were various local councils, but insofar as it is the first of the ecumenical; then he was placed before others that were earlier than him, that is, Antioch against Paul of Samosata, gathered under the emperor Aurelians, Ancyra, on which there was a study about those who rejected the faith during the times of persecution and after those who repented - how they should be accepted, and Neo-Caesarian, which decreed the rules on church improvement.

Balsamon. This holy and first ecumenical council was in the reign of Constantine the Great (in the tenth year of his reign), when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea of ​​Bithynia against Arius, the former presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, who uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ and said, That He is not consubstantial with God and the Father, but is a creature, and that there was (a time) when He was not. This holy cathedral erupted and anathematized this Arius, together with his like-minded people, and approved the dogma that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and is the true God and Master and Lord and Creator of all created things, and not a creature and not a creation. This Council of Nicaea is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although before it there were various local councils, but insofar as it is the first of the ecumenical; then he was placed before others who were earlier than him, that is, Antioch against Paul of Samosata, who gathered under the emperor Aurelian, Ancyra and Neocaesarea.

Slavic helmsman. The Holy Ecumenical Council, already in Nicea, was the first council in the kingdom of Constantine the Great, who gathered three hundred fathers, against the wicked Arius, who blasphemed the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy fathers cursed him. And set out the rules committed here. The first Council ruled twenty.

Rules of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicene)

1. If someone in an illness has been taken away by doctors, or who has been castrated by barbarians: let such one remain in the clergy. If, however, being healthy, he castrated himself: such, even though he was numbered among the clergy, should be excluded, and from now on no such should be produced. But just as it is obvious that this is said about those who act with intent and dare to castrate themselves, so on the contrary, If they are castrated from barbarians, or from masters, however, they will turn out to be worthy: such a clergy admits a rule.

Zonara. Various and civil laws prescribe the same thing as the present rule. But even after these rules, this matter was often neglected - and some who castrated themselves were promoted to the clergy, while others who were forcibly castrated by others were not promoted. Therefore, the fathers of this council set forth the present canon, prescribing the same thing as the Apostolic Rules and Laws, that is, not to accept into the clergy and not to raise to the priesthood those who have given themselves up for castration, or handed themselves over as eunuchs with their own hands; and if before they were numbered among the clergy, cast them out of it; those who are damaged from others and deprived of childbearing members, if they are recognized as worthy of the priesthood, because of this, do not forbid the production of the priesthood. And not only the one who cuts off this member with his own hands is called castrated of himself, but also the one who voluntarily and without compulsion gives himself to castration. More extensively explained about this in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Apostolic Canons.

Aristen. Eunuchs can be accepted into the clergy, but those who have castrated themselves cannot be accepted. It is also said in the Apostolic Canons, namely in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th, that it is not forbidden for a person worthy of the priesthood to enter the clergy if he is involuntarily castrated; he who voluntarily castrated himself as a murderer of himself should not be accepted into the clergy at all, and if he is a cleric, he should not be cast out. That is the meaning of this rule.

Balsamon. The Divine Apostolic Canons 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th have sufficiently taught us how to deal with those who have cut off their seed containers. In accordance with them, the present canon also prescribes not to accept into the clergy and not to raise to the priesthood those who have given themselves up for castration or made themselves eunuchs with their own hands, and if they were previously numbered among the clergy, they should be cast out of it; those who have been damaged by others and deprived of their reproductive members, if they are found worthy, because of this, do not forbid the priesthood. Consider also the 8th canon of the council, which was in the church of the Holy Apostles, and is called the first and second. When explaining the Apostolic Canons, we wrote that one who, after ordination, castrated himself due to illness, is subject to punishment. And as the real rule says: if someone in illness has his limbs taken away by doctors, let him remain in the clergy", and than: " if, being healthy, he castrated himself: such, even though he was numbered among the clergy, should be excluded”, then some said that one who, after joining the clergy, is castrated due to illness, is not subject to punishment. We answer that this rule speaks of those who were castrated not after receiving the priesthood, but before receiving the priesthood, but about whom doubt arose after they received the priesthood. And if anyone still contradicts and wants to provide indulgence due to illness to the castrated after receiving the priesthood, let him listen to how the 142nd Justinian short story stops him, placed in book 60, title 51, chapter last, which is included in the 14th chapter of the first title of this collection. We are talking about the case if someone is castrated after receiving the priesthood without the knowledge of the church; for if someone is castrated with church permission and after joining the clergy; that, it seems to me, will not be subject to condemnation, although I did not know that any of the initiates were allowed to be castrated due to illness, and this while many asked the Synod about this, and at the time when I was acting as hartophylax and later, during the patriarchate, out of fear that the performance of this healing is connected with danger.

Slavic helmsman. Skoptsi will be taken into account. Themselves, cutting off their childbearing uds, are not pleasant.

Interpretation. This is what is said about in the Apostolic Canons, in the 22nd, and 23rd, and 24th: a eunuch worthy of the priesthood, do not forbid it to come into account, if it was not accumulated by one’s own will. But if someone, by his own will, cuts off a childbearing ud for himself, such a person is by no means pleasant, as he was his own murderer. But if the clerk does such a thing, they will pervert it. The same ugly sense and this rule is.

2. Inasmuch as, out of necessity, or due to other motives of people, much happened not according to the rule of the church, so that people who have recently come to the faith from a pagan life, and who were catechumens for a short time, are soon brought to the spiritual font; and immediately after baptism they are raised to the bishopric, or presbytery: therefore it is recognized as good, so that nothing like this should happen again. Because the catechumen needs time, and after baptism a further test. For the Apostolic Scripture is clear, saying: not a newly baptized one, but without becoming proud he will fall into judgment, and into the devil's snare. If, in the course of time, some sin of the soul is found in a certain person, and is convicted by two or three witnesses: let such one be excluded from the clergy. And he who acts contrary to this, as if daring to resist the great Council, exposes himself to the danger of being expelled from the clergy.

Zonara . And the eightieth canon of the Holy Apostles determines: from the pagan life of one who has come, or from the vicious way of life of one who has converted, a bishop is not suddenly produced. And the great Paul in his epistle to Timothy, prescribing what should be done for the bishopric, says that he should not be newly baptized (1 Tim. 3, 6). Therefore, these fathers also define how one who comes to the faith should not be baptized immediately, if he is not sufficiently instructed in the faith, and the baptized one should not immediately be counted among the clergy, because he has not yet given proof of what is in faith and what is in life. If, however, he is numbered among the clergy and with a trial, appearing to be impeccable, but in the course of time he is convicted of some spiritual sin, the fathers prescribe such a person to be excluded from the clergy. It seems bewildering - what does sin of the soul mean, and why is it mentioned only about sins of the soul; but there is no mention of carnal sins, and this is when, in general, carnal sins more often expel those who have fallen into them, while spiritual sins less often. Some say that the Holy Fathers, who laid down this rule, called spiritual sin any sin that harms the soul. Others call the sins of the soul such sins that arise from spiritual passions, for example, from pride, arrogance and disobedience; for even these sins, if they are not healed, are subjected to eruption. This is clear from the example of the so-called Navatians; for they did not sin in dogma, but out of pride, calling themselves pure, they did not accept the fallen during the persecution, even if they repented and did not have communion with the two-married; that is why they were excluded from communion with the faithful because of their pride and fraternal hatred. So, if they were excommunicated for these sins, how can he who, out of pride, disobeys his bishop, and remains uncorrected, remain undefiled? And the 5th canon of the Holy Apostles commands to excommunicate those who cast out their wives under the pretext of piety, and if they remain adamant, to cast them out. And the 36th Apostolic Canon prescribes that those who are called by the election of bishops to the presidency, but do not accept this ministry, should be excommunicated until they receive, so that if they did not accept, they would remain excommunicated for life, and those who are excommunicated for life do not differ in any way from igneous. I think it is better to say that every sin can justly be called spiritual, since it has its origin in the corruption of spiritual forces. For if what is seen in the soul is divided into three forces, into the force of the mind, the force of desire and the force of irritation, then virtues and vices are usually born from each force; the first, when we use these powers correctly and in the way they were given to us from the Creator, and the vices, when we abuse them. So, virtue and the perfection of the power of the mind is piety, our thoughts befitting the divine, the unmistakable distinction between good and bad, and what should be chosen and what should be rejected; deviation from this is evil and sin. And the virtue of the power of desire consists in loving what is truly worthy of love, I speak of the divine nature, in loving deeds that can bring us closer to Him. Evasion from this and striving for earthly things is a sin arising from the power of lust. In a similar way, the virtue of the power of irritation is resistance to evil and enmity to it, resistance to carnal desires, opposition to sin even to the point of blood, and the struggle for right teaching and virtue, according to the word of David: they saw the unreasoning and the truth (Ps. 118, 158). And the vice from this force that occurs is anger at one's neighbor, hatred, a tendency to quarrel, rancor. So, if, as it is said, sins arise from spiritual forces, then well the Holy Fathers called sins of the soul, following the great Paul, who says: there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44), and he calls that spiritual the body, which is controlled and dominated by the soul, which serves its natural forces, which indulges in anger and lust, which clings to the earthly, and does not think of anything higher than the earthly.

Aristen. Those who have come from pagan life should not soon be elevated to the rank of presbyters, for the newly baptized, who has not been put to the test for a certain time, is bad. And if, after the ordination, it is discovered that someone has sinned before or after (the ordination), such a person must also be excluded from the clergy. And this canon also says that the eightieth canon of the Holy Apostles, namely, that a newly baptized person should not immediately be promoted to a bishop or a presbyter, so that, as a newly baptized one, he would not fall into the trap of the devil and be condemned. Such, according to the eleventh (tenth) rule of the Sardic council, in each degree, that is, in the degree of a reader, subdeacon, and so on, must remain at least for the duration of one year, and thus, if recognized worthy of the divine priesthood, can be awarded the highest honor . But on the other hand, if someone after ordination turns out to have sinned, he is deprived of his rank.

Balsamon. From the 80th canon of the Holy Apostles, we learned that neither one who came to the church from a pagan life, nor one who converted from a vicious way of life, is immediately made a bishop. Read what is written there. But the present canon adds that such a person is not immediately a presbyter, and that not a single unbeliever is admitted to baptism before he has been sufficiently trained in the faith, because this requires time for testing. Whoever does not act according to him, the rule commands to spit. And as a rule, he punishes spiritual sins that will be revealed after baptism; then some asked what sins of the soul and why did the rule mention sins of the soul and not of the flesh? And some said that spiritual sins are those that are born from spiritual passions, for example, from pride, disobedience, and other similar things; for even this exposes the eruption, as, for example, the heresy of the Novatians and the inappropriate abstinence from marriage and eating meat according to the 5th canon of the Holy Apostles and according to other canons. But I say that every sin that harms the soul is called spiritual, even if it comes from the bodily, if only from the spiritual attraction, it received its origin. For this is why the Church calls all sins spiritual falls, and the rule mentioned only spiritual sins, because they embrace the fleshly. And about the fact that a baptized person who has entered the clergy is not subject to punishment for fornication or murder committed before baptism, read the 20th canon of St. Basil and the interpretation on it, and the 17th canon of the Holy Apostles.

Slavic helmsman. Rule 2 (Nikon 63). From the vile life of the one who came, he would not soon be appointed presbyter. If time does not tempt, the evil of the new besieged. But if anyone, even after the appointment of the presbytery, is convicted of former sins, and so let him cease from service.

Interpretation. Like the eightieth canon of the Holy Apostles, and this canon says, as if newly baptized, it is not worthy to soon appoint a bishop, or a presbyter, but not as a newly-begotten blindly fall into sin and fall into the network of the devil. It is fitting, therefore, for such, according to the tenth canon, which is already in the heart of the cathedral, the first to go through all the degrees; That is to say, I was appointed to be a reader: and then a subdeacon, and a deacon, and a presbyter, and stay in such a single summer time. And if he is worthy of hierarchy, he will appear, and he will enjoy great honor; already there, let there be a bishop. And as if, before setting him up, he will sin that of renounced sins, and, having hidden, he will be set up, and after setting up in that sin, having been convicted, let him be deprived of his rank.

3. The Great Council, without exception, decided that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, and in general none of those in the clergy, should be allowed to have a woman cohabiting in the house, except a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or those only persons who are strangers any suspicion.

Zonara. This rule wants initiates to be impeccable, and that no one should have even a pretext for suspicion against them. Therefore, it forbade all initiates to live with women, except for the persons mentioned. And this is forbidden not only to the said (that is, initiated) persons, but also to all who are in the clergy. And in a letter to Gregory the Presbyter, he mentions this rule, and commands him to remove from himself the woman who lives with him. " But if, he says, without correcting yourself, you dare to touch the sacred service, then you will be anathema before all the people". And the fifth canon of the Ecumenical Council of Trulli decrees the same, adding the following: let the eunuchs observe the same thing, protecting themselves from censure. And those who transgress the rule, if they are from the clergy, let them be cast out, but if they are worldly, let them be excommunicated.". The same thing as these sacred canons is legitimized by the short story placed in the third book of Vasilik. And the eighteenth chapter of the seventh council does not allow the bishop or abbot to enter country houses where women serve, unless the women are removed from there while the bishop or abbot is there. And the nineteenth canon of the Ancyra Council at the end says: virgins, united by habitation with some, like with brothers, we forbade this».

Aristen. No one should have a cohabiting woman, except the sister's mother and persons who remove all suspicion. Except for persons who cannot give any suspicion of unchastity, that is, mothers, sisters, aunts and the like, this canon does not allow another person to live with any of the initiates, and also this fifth canon of the sixth Council of Trullo, 18th and the 22nd Canon of the Second Council of Nicaea and Basil the Great, who ordered Presbyter Gregory to separate from the woman who cohabited with him, although he was seventy years old, and it was impossible to think that he lived with her passionately.

Balsamon. Concerning cohabiting wives, read the 14th chapter of the 8th title of this collection, and what is contained in it, and from the 123rd novel of Justinian cited there, you will learn that clerics, after exhortation, are not separated from the women cohabiting with them, whatever they may be. were, besides the persons indicated in this canon, subject to eruption, and bishops, if they happen to be cohabiting at any time and with any woman, are expelled for this. And notice it. There has been much talk about cohabiting women at different times; and some said that an adopted or cohabiting one is brought instead of a lawful wife and living with someone fornication; while others said that a cohabiting woman is any woman who lives with someone completely alien, even though she was free from suspicion; and it seems to be much more true. For therefore, they say, Basil the Great, in a letter to Presbyter Gregory, convinces this priest to remove the cohabitant with him and does not determine that he should be subjected to eruption for this, as undoubtedly and obviously sinning.

Slavic helmsman. Priest and deacon and other church clerk, do not keep other wives in their houses, just mother and sister, and aunt (Nikon. 33). Renounce the great council by no means, neither the bishop, nor the presbyter, nor the deacon, nor any existing clerk, is not worthy to have another wife in his house: but only a mother, or a sister, or an aunt; this is more than three faces, except for the essence of any gap.

Interpretation. The rule commands the priest to be sinless, and not have a sinful gap. And it’s better to remember by some, as if it’s not for them to eat. By the same to all the sacred, it was denied to be, undead with other wives in their house, except for the predicted persons: now there are, mothers, and sisters and aunts: tabo is one, three faces of every gap run away. Not only the priest, who was a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, but also the other clerk, he was denied to be. And the great Basil, sending to Gregory the presbyter, I will remember this rule, command him to excommunicate him from his wife living with him, in other words, drive him out of the house. If you do not correct your speech, dare to serve, but you are cursed by all people. And the fifth canon, like that in Trulla, the sixth Ecumenical Council, also commands. Having added this: let them keep the eunuchs and the eunuchs, undefiled their lives, providing for themselves. Those who transgress the rule, if they are the clerk, let them erupt. And if the worldly people, let them go away. And in the third books of the kings there is a new commandment, which also commands the same with the sacred rules. The Seventh Council, the 18th canon, nor the whole court, where the wife is working, does not leave the bishop, or the hegumen to come, if the wife does not first depart from there, and remain outside, until the bishop, or the hegumen departs from them. And the cathedral of others in Ancyra, 19, as a rule, at the end of the speech, converging girls with some men, like with the brethren, that one was taken.

rule book. As the purpose of this canon is to protect sacred persons from suspicion: then the prohibition laid down in it should apply to those presbyters, deacons and subdeacons who do not have wives: for the presence of a wife with a husband removes suspicion from another female person living with his wife.

4. To supply a bishop in the most proper way to all the bishops of that region. But if this is inconvenient, or due to proper necessity, or because of the distance of the way: at least three will gather in one place, and those who are absent, let them agree by means of letters: and then to perform ordination. To approve such actions in each area befits its metropolitan.

Zonara. The present canon seems to contradict the first canon of the sacred Apostles; for the former prescribes that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops, but the present one by three, with the permission and consent of those absent, expressed through letters. But they do not contradict one another. For the Canon of the Holy Apostles calls the laying on of hands the consecration and laying on of hands, and the Canon of this Council calls the ordination and the laying on of hands the election, and determines that the election of a bishop should take place only if three bishops come together, having consent and those absent, expressed by means of letters in which they testify that they too will follow the election that is to be accomplished by the three bishops gathered together. And after the election, the confirmation thereof, that is, the final decision, the laying on of hands and consecration, the rule leaves the metropolitan of the region, so that he approves the election. And he affirms when he ordains one of the elect, whom he himself chooses, together with two or three other bishops, according to the Apostolic Canon.

Aristen. The bishop is supplied by all the bishops of the area. If not, at least three, with consent to the election of others, expressed through letters, and the metropolitan should have the power of approval. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops according to the first canon of the Holy Apostles, and is elected by at least three, if perhaps all the bishops of the region cannot be present due to urgent need, or because of the distance of the journey. However, those who are absent themselves must express their agreement with the bishops present and making the election by letters. And the metropolitan has the power after the election, from the three elected to choose one whom he wants.

Balsamon. Here it is a question of how to ordain, that is, elect a bishop. In ancient times, the election of bishops took place in the assembly of citizens. But it was not pleasing to the divine fathers that the life of the initiates should not be subjected to the gossip of worldly people; and therefore they determined that the bishop should be chosen by the regional bishops of each region. And if this is difficult for any good reason, or because of the distance of the way, the election should be made only if three regional bishops come together, having the consent and those absent, expressed in written opinions. His ordination, that is, the consecration, the Holy Fathers granted in the form of honor to the first, that is, the metropolitan, and not only the ordination, but also the confirmation of the election. For this is why he who performs consecration from among the three chosen ones also makes an indication of one whom he himself wants, and not, out of necessity, the one appointed first and then the others are indicated. This is the essence of the rule. Some metropolitans who made the election of their bishops in the reigning city with three foreign bishops, or their own, without turning to the other bishops of their region, to the question: why they do this, used the 13th canon of the Carthaginian council to help themselves. Read what is written in this canon, and the 19th canon of Antioch. This happens when a metropolitan has many bishops in his area. If, however, as with many metropolitans, there is only one regional bishop, or two, then, of necessity, the election must be with real and visible regional bishops and with foreign bishops.

Slavic helmsman. The bishop, from all bishops existing, is supplied in the region. Ashchel is neither, both from three. By the rest of the scripture that has developed, let the metropolitan have power.

Interpretation. From two, or from three bishops, a bishop is appointed, according to the first canon of the Holy Apostles: both are appointed from three, and even if all the bishops who are in the region, or those who have found for the sake of need, or longitude for the sake of the way, cannot come: both must be the essence of it. And if he did not come, by writing letters to be formed for the election of those who came as a bishop, and the judgment and election of those who create, the chosen ones are two, or three. And then the metropolitan will have the power, as if he would put one of the three chosen ones, he wants a bishop.

5. With regard to those who have been removed from the communion of the Church by the bishops of each diocese, whether they belong to the clergy or to the ranks of the laity, one must adhere in judgment to the rule that it is decreed that those who are excommunicated by one should not be accepted by others. However, let it be investigated whether it was not through cowardice, or strife, or some similar displeasure of the bishop, that they fell under excommunication. And so, in order that a decent investigation could take place about this, it is recognized for good that there should be councils in each region twice a year: so that all the bishops of the region in general, having gathered together, would investigate such perplexities: and thus proved to be unjust against the bishop, they are thoroughly recognized by all were unworthy of fellowship, until the assembly of bishops pleases to pronounce a more lenient decision about them. Let there be councils, one before the fortecost, and after the cessation of all displeasure, a pure gift is offered to God; and the other around autumn time.

Zonara . And various canons of the Holy Apostles prescribe that no one should receive those who have been excommunicated by their own bishops. And how it happens that some are excommunicated unjustly, perhaps because of the anger and cowardice of the excommunicator, or because of some kind of predilection, which he also calls displeasure, then the holy fathers set forth the present rule, commanding the excommunication to be subjected to investigation, of course, when the excommunicated complain about the excommunicated, as if excommunicated without justice; and the study should be from the bishops of the region - or all, or most of them in the event that it will not be possible for some to come to the council with the others, perhaps due to illness, or due to a necessary absence, or for another urgent reason. The holy fathers determined that cathedrals should be in each region twice a year, as it should be and the rules of the Holy Apostles. But the Holy Apostles commanded one of the councils to be on the fourth week of Pentecost, and the other in the month of Iperverete, that is, October. And the holy fathers of this council changed the time, instead of the fourth week of Pentecost, having determined the council to be before Fortecost, and they brought this reason, so that, they say, all displeasure would be stopped. For he who considers himself wrongly excommunicated will certainly complain about the one who excommunicated; and he who has excommunicated, hearing that the excommunicated one accepts penance with indifference, but grumbles against him, will not treat him impassively. And when they are thus disposed towards each other, how can a gift be offered to God purely? That is why it is arranged for one cathedral to be before the forty, and the other in the fall; and October is the month of autumn. At these councils, the holy fathers decided to investigate such complaints. And those who are certain and undoubtedly proved to be unjust (for it is common for a person who has undergone penance to shut himself up in the sin of which the bishop accuses him), thoroughly, that is, justly, will be deprived of communion by all, until the assembly of bishops decides to do something more humane about them. But perhaps someone will say: why does the rule leave the decision on the excommunicated not to the excommunicated, but to the assembly of bishops? I think that this is said in the case when the excommunicator persists and does not want to allow the person from penance in time, or if the excommunicator may be dead without allowing the person who has been given penance. For then it should be allowed for the council, if it considers that the time of penance is sufficient, and the repentance of the subjected to penance corresponds to the sin, to make a decision about it, and to release the person from penance, even if his bishop does not relent and remains adamant, even if he has already ended his life. The thirty-seventh canon of the Holy Apostles and the present command to have councils twice a year, and the eighth canon of the sixth ecumenical council, resuming this decree, determines in each region to be a council once a year from Pascha until the end of October, in the place that the bishop of the metropolis will determine . And the bishops who do not come to the council, although they are in good health and are in their cities, and do not have any other blessed and urgent occupation, brotherly express a rebuke, or subject them to a light penance. Now the work of these councils is completely neglected, so that they never exist. On the penance of those who did not appear at the councils, read the 76th (87th) canon of the Carthaginian council.

Aristin. Those who are excommunicated by one should not be accepted by others, unless the excommunication was due to cowardice, or strife, or something like that. Therefore, it is well-advised to have cathedrals twice a year in each region, one before the forty, the other around the autumn. According to the parable, whoever inflicted a wound must also give healing. Therefore, others should not accept the excommunicated by their bishop in this way - without investigation and without consideration, but they should consider the reason for the excommunication, whether the excommunication was pronounced thoroughly, or not out of cowardice, or strife, or some other displeasure of the bishop. Therefore, in order that neither those who are excommunicated should be excommunicated, as it happens, nor the bishops who excommunicate them be neglected, if other bishops receive those who are excommunicated without examination, it was pleasing to this holy council that in every region there should be a council twice a year, so that the common opinion of all bishops in the same area, every ecclesiastical question and every perplexity was resolved, as the 37th canon of the Holy Apostles prescribes. However, as we wrote there, the eighth canon of the sixth council of Trull, and the sixth of the second of Nicaea, taking into account the difficulties of the gathering bishops and the shortcomings of the need for travel, decided that a council should be in each region once a year, where the bishop of the metropolis will judge, between the feast of Holy Pascha and the month of October.

Balsamon. It was determined that those who were excommunicated by some bishops and not allowed, should not be accepted by others. And just as it is common for an excommunicated person to say that he has been unjustly excommunicated, or it may happen that the excommunicator has died, this canon commands (as other canons have also determined) that all bishops meet twice a year to the first of them, and at the same time resolve doubts about those who have been deprived of communion and other church issues. questions. Displeasure is here called addiction. However, we do not set out here in detail what is contained in the present canon about annual councils, because this is no longer valid, and because the 8th canon of the Trullian council, as well as the short story of Justinian, that is, the 20th and 21st chapters of the 1st the title of the 3rd book of Vasilik is determined to meet the bishops one day. Read these chapters. Look also for the 37th Canon of the Holy Apostles, and the 14th Canon of the Sardic Council. Read also the 8th chapter of the 8th title of this collection.

Slavic helmsman. Rule 5. (Nikon 63). Bound by your bishop, let it not be accepted without guilt. His bishops are excommunicated, let them not be accepted. Either way, if not for cowardice, or for some kind of strife, or for something else, such excommunication was. For this, for the sake of it, it was commanded to be, two in summer in every region of the cathedral to be. The first ubo is before the forty days of holy and great fasting, while the second is vegetable.

Interpretation. It befits, according to the inflowing word, which has wounded a person, the same heal him. It is the same with one’s bishop, having received the commandment from excommunication, from another acceptance of being without trial and without exaction of guilt, it is not worthy to bear: but it is fitting to look at the guilt of excommunication, but once excommunication was not inflicted according to the property, but from cowardice: now there is, from episcopal rage, or from some strife, or for the sake of guilt I will do it, passionate will of the episcopate; but there is a passionate will, if you say, you did not do this to me, but you will be excommunicated. But let them not be excommunicated, except for such guilt, they are excommunicated: neither the bishops who excommunicate them will be offended by another bishop who accepts without such a trial. For this reason, twice in the summer in each region, the Holy Council commanded the council to be, and by the common will of all the bishops of that region, any interrogation, and torture of the church, and all controversy will be resolved: and the 37th, rule of the saints, the Apostle commands. In addition, as there was written there, the osmoe canon, like in Trulla, on the plate of the sixth cathedral. And the sixth canon of the seventh council, having already gathered in Nicaea the second, for the sake of poverty for the sake of the needs, the gathering bishops want to have a good procession, to be commanded to be one in the summer of the council, even if the metropolitan deigns. The time for the council is between the feast of the holy Pascha and the month of October. Toy bo has a vegetable for a month.

6. May the ancient customs adopted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these. This is usually the same for the Bishop of Rome, as well as in Antioch, and in other regions, so that the privileges of the Churches are preserved. In general, let this be known: If anyone, without the permission of the metropolitan, is ordained a bishop: of such a great Council has determined that he should not be a bishop. If, however, the general election of all is blessed, and in accordance with the rule of the Church, but two, or three, of their own volition, will contradict it: let the opinion of a larger number of electors prevail.

Zonara. The rule wants ancient customs to remain in force, which is determined by later rules and civil laws. Thus the canon decrees that the Bishop of Alexandria should have precedence over the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, and that of Antioch over the bishops of the regions subject to him, that is, Syria and Coele-Syria, both Cilicia and Mesopotamia, and that other bishops should also have authority over the countries subject to them, as and to the primate of the Roman church custom gave authority over the western countries. And the rule wants these bishops to have such great advantages in their areas that it gives a general decree that without them nothing can be done that relates to church government, in which the greatest and most important thing is the ordination of bishops. So, the rule says: if a bishop is appointed without the permission of the metropolitan, such a person should not be a bishop. For although in ancient times the assembly of city citizens elected a bishop, but even then, after the election, they informed the metropolitan about him, and it was approved by him, and whoever he approved, he was awarded ordination. Then the rule adds that if even in the election that was according to the rules, the majority will agree and be of one mind, and two or three will disagree out of curiosity, and not for a good reason, and will be opposed by others, the election of a larger number of electors should have effect. So it is decided by the civil laws in money matters. The nineteenth canon of Antioch concerning the contradiction of bishops also prescribes.

Aristen. Over Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority, the Roman over the regions subject to Rome, and the Antioch and others over their own. If anyone is made a bishop without the permission of the metropolitan, let him not be a bishop. And if the election of a larger number, which is carried out according to the rule, will be contradicted by three, their opinion should not be valid. Each patriarch should be content with his own advantages, and none of them should delight in another area that was not previously and from the beginning under his authority, for this is the arrogance of worldly power. But the bishops of each region must also know their first one, that is, the bishop present in the metropolis, and without his permission not to elect a bishop; but if they elect anyone without his consent, such a person shall not be a bishop. And if the bishops, who have gathered by the Metropolitan's permission to make an election, do not all come to the same idea, but some, out of their own quarrel, disagree, then the opinion of a larger number of electors should be valid. Look also for Canon 8 of Ephesus, Canon 34 of the Apostles, Canons 2 and 3 of Antioch, and Canon 3 of Sardic.

Balsamon The present 6th canon and the seventh stipulate that, according to ancient customs, four patriarchs should be honored, that is, Roman, Alexandrian, Antioch and Jerusalem (Constantinople will be explained in other canons), and that Alexandrian should have precedence over the regions of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis ; likewise Antioch over the regions of Syria, Coele-Syria, Mesopotamia, and both Cilicia, and Jerusalem over the regions in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia, because, he says, the Roman bishop also has precedence over the western regions. Thus, the rules want the patriarchs to have an advantage over the metropolitans subordinate to them, and the metropolitans, in turn, over the bishops subordinate to them, so that the bishops subordinate to them do nothing without them that exceeds their power. For this is why the canons command that he who is ordained a bishop without the permission of the first should not be a bishop, adding that when the election is made according to the rules, and some will contradict, the opinion of a larger number of electors should, according to the laws, prevail. When this is so determined, someone, asking: the present rule determines that in all matters the opinion of a larger number prevails, and the new statute of the sovereign and holy our king, Mr. Manuel Komnenos, published in July 14 of the indicton of the year 6674, by the way, literally determines the following : if not everyone agrees, but some disagree with the majority, or the votes are divided equally, then the opinion of those with whom the chairman of the court agrees should prevail. What should be kept? Some said that the novel should not be followed in church affairs, and therefore the ancient laws and rules set forth in accordance with them should be valid in these matters; while others, on the contrary, argued that the short story was published for the whole world and for every business, and there is a general legal provision. But it seems to me that the rules of this short story have no place in relation to church elections and church affairs, so that canonical election would not be perverted through it. Look for the 19th Canon of Antioch. The Patriarch of Jerusalem is called Bishop of Eliya, because the city of Jerusalem was once called Salem and Jebus, and after King Solomon built a famous, divine temple and shrine in it, it was called Jerusalem. Then the people of Jerusalem were captured by the Babylonians and the city was destroyed to the ground. When the Roman emperor Aelius Hadrian renewed it, it was named Eliea after his name. By a common name, the city of Jerusalem itself and all the country subject to it is called Palestine. Some asked: what does the word rules mean: “ Yes, he has a succession of honor, with the preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis? - And they received in response that the metropolis in Palestine was Caesarea, and the Jerusalem church was once her episcopate. So, the rule wants her rights to be preserved for the metropolis, although Elia is separated from her and her bishop received honor for the sake of the saving sufferings of Christ. Look also from the Acts of the 4th Council, Acts 8, and find out that, by agreement of Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, it was recognized for the good of Antioch to have two Phenicia and Arabia, and Jerusalem three Palestines; and then it was decreed so, but now a change of circumstances, as is the custom, has changed this also.

Slavic helmsman. Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis, let the Bishop of Alexandria rule. And the bishop of Rome who exists, under Rome, let him rule. Both the Bishops of Antioch and other bishops have their own. If, however, a bishop, besides the will of the metropolitan, will be appointed, let there be a bishop, then many courts for the election of a bishop are commanded to rule. But if three nations speak against it, they will not obey.

Interpretation. Every patriarch must have his own limits. And none of their other regions can admire what was not higher from the beginning under his hand, for this is the pride of worldly power. Befits the bishop of some region, the oldest of their nobility and veneration; there is already an existing bishop in the metropolis, and without the will of his bishop, do not elect. But if someone is elected without his will, such a person cannot be a bishop. And if, according to the will of the metropolitan, the judgment and election come together to create, they will not come together in one will, but the nations, dispersed contrary to what they say, will begin, let the judgment and election hold on to the greatest. And they also have an opinion, but they will not listen. And to this, look for those like you in Ephesus of the third council, canon 8th. And the Holy Apostles canon 34th. Councils like Antioch canon 9th. Council of the ecumenical second, like in Constantine city, the third rule. And the cathedral ilk in the heart rule 3rd.

7. Since the custom, and the ancient tradition, has been established to honor the bishop who is in Jerusalem: then let him have the succession of honor, with the preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis.

Zonara. Just as the previous canon granted privileges to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch in their regions, so the present canon conferred on the bishop of Aelia to have honor in his own region, and determined that the city of Jerusalem, which is called Aelia, should be preserved in its own dignity, as superior to the cities of Palestine, Arabia, and Phenicia. For both in ancient times and now this whole country was and is called Palestine. And the city in ancient times was called Salem and Jebus, and later called Jerusalem. After it was taken by the Romans and destroyed to the ground, the Roman emperor Hadrian, having rebuilt the city, called it Eliea after his own name; for he was called Aelius Hadrian; so he named it. Some say that the rule called Caesarea metropolis, and specifically Caesarea of ​​Palestine, which in ancient times was called Straton's.

Aristen. The Bishop of Elia has the honor of preserving her dignity for the metropolia. The one hundred and twenty-third novella, found in the first title of the first book, calls the bishop of Jerusalem, who is called Elijah, the patriarch. So, according to the present rule, the bishop of Elia should be given the honor of the patriarch. And how Caesarea is the first metropolis of Palestine and the holy city; then this patriarch must also have his own honor, and Caesarea, the metropolis (to which he was previously subordinate), her own dignity must be preserved. Look for the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

Balsamon. This rule is explained in interpretation of the preceding sixth rule.

Slavic helmsman. Yes, the Bishop of Ely is revered, I am whole and the metropolis of Palestine rank.

Interpretation. The 100 and 23rd new commandment, lying in the first line, of the first royal books, names the bishop of Jerusalem (Elia Bo, Jerusalem is called) the patriarch. Befits, therefore, this rule, the Bishop of Elijah, the rector of Jerusalem, the patriarchal revered honor to be: after Caesarea, the verb to be Stratonov, the first metropolis is Palestine: and under it there is a holy city. Therefore, it is fitting for the Patriarch of Ely to have his honor, but I keep my whole life, and the rank of the metropolitanate of Caesarea, and to have his property, under which was the holy city. And to this look for the rules, the 12th ilk in Chalcedon of the fourth council. Cheso, for the sake of Elijah, is a holy city, and the rule is said to be; from ancient times, Salim was called: and then Evus called: after that, Jerusalem was named. When the Romans came, they took captivity and dug up and: and then the king of the Romans Adrian, called Eli, created a city, not calling it Jerusalem, but calling it by his own name, Elia.

8. About those who once called themselves pure, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is pleasing to the holy and great Council that, after the laying on of hands, they remain in the clergy. First of all, it is necessary for them to confess in writing how they will join and follow the determinations of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, they will be in church communion both with bigamists and with those who have fallen during persecution, for whom both the time of repentance has been set and the period of petition has been appointed. It is necessary that they follow the determinations of the Catholic Church in everything. And so where, either in the villages or in the cities, all who are found in the clergy will be ordained of them alone: ​​let them be in the same rank. If, however, where there is a bishop of the Catholic Church, some of them come to the Church: clearly there is, as the bishop of the Orthodox Church will have episcopal dignity; but the one who is called a bishop among the so-called pure ones will have presbyter honor: unless the local bishop pleases that he also participates in the honor of the name of the bishop. But if it is not pleasing to him: then for the visible reckoning of such a clergy, he invents for him a place either as a chorepiscop or a presbyter: let there not be two bishops in the city.

Zonara. Navatians are called pure; and Navat was a presbyter of the Roman church, who did not receive the penitent from the fallen during the persecution and did not enter into communion with the double-married. Therefore, although he sinned not in regard to faith, but because of the unmercifulness and fraternal hatred of the council that was in Rome under Cornelius, pope of Rome, in the reign of Decius, he was excommunicated and anathematized, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. So this canon determines that the adherents of his heresy, when addressing the church, be acceptable with a written confession, that they will observe the dogmas of the Catholic Church and will receive those who have rejected Christ out of necessity, and will arrange them at certain times determined for the repentance of the fallen (for such a meaning have the words: “for whom both the time of repentance is set, and the period of forgiveness is appointed”), and that they will be in communion with the double-married. If they are ordained bishops, or presbyters, or deacons; then those who are joined to the church remain in the clergy, in their degrees, if there are no others in the churches in which they are ordained. How they sinned not by deviating from the faith, but by fraternal hatred and not allowing repentance for the fallen and converting; wherefore the council also accepted their ordination, and determined that they should remain in their degrees, unless there was a bishop in the catholic church of that city. And if they are in a church where there is a bishop, or presbyter; then this bishop must have the dignity and name of a bishopric, and one who is called a bishop among the Pure must have the honor of either a presbyter, or even a chorepiscop, so that he is listed together in the list of the clergy and not be excluded from it, unless the bishop of the catholic church, by condescension, wants, that he should have the name and honor of a bishop; but even so he must not act as a bishop, lest there be two bishops in the same city.

Aristen. The so-called Pure ones who join (to the church) must first confess that they will obey the ordinances of the church, and will have fellowship with the double-married, and will have indulgence towards the fallen. And in this way, those who were ordained should remain in their rank, that is, a true (that is, Orthodox) bishop should be a bishop, and the bishop of the Pure should be either a chorepiscop, or let him enjoy honor - either a presbyter or a bishop, for in one church they should not be two bishops. Of those who come to the holy, divine, catholic and apostolic church, some are baptized, others are anointed with chrism, while others only anathematize their own and any other heresy. Seduced by Navat and called by him Pure, as not accepting the repentance of those who have sinned and forbidding a second marriage, if they come to the church and confess that they will accept two-married people, and show indulgence to those who have sinned, but repented, and in general follow all church dogmas and anathematize their heresy and others must be acceptable and anointed with one holy ointment. And if some of them are either bishops or chorepiscopes, they again remain in the same dignity, if where in the same city there is no other bishop of the catholic church who was ordained before their conversion. For this bishop, right from the beginning, should have the preeminent honor, and he alone should occupy the episcopal throne; because there should not be two bishops in one city; and he who is called a bishop among the Pure must have the honor of a presbyter, or, if the bishop pleases, let him also have the name of a bishop, but should not have any episcopal right.

Balsamon. This Navat was a presbyter of the Roman church, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. When there was persecution and many fell for fear of death, but then repented, he, puffed up by a demon, did not want to accept them, and did not have communion with the two-married, allegedly jealous of chastity. Those who thought according to him are called Navatians, and in derision Pure. At the council that was in Rome under Cornelius, the pope of the Roman church, in the reign of Decius, Navat was anathematized, as well as those who held his heresies. Therefore, the canon says that if any of them, with pure repentance, leaves the former evil, and undertakes to keep the dogmas of the Catholic Church, he should be accepted. And if these are clerics, then they must certainly retain their degrees, for they do not sin in relation to faith, but are condemned for fraternal hatred. If they have episcopal dignity, and in the country in which they were excommunicated there are other (Orthodox) bishops, they should not act anything episcopal, but it will be in the care of the (Orthodox) bishop whether they have one name of a bishop, or be called by another name; and when there are no local bishops, they must rectify the affairs of the bishops. Expression: " for whom both the time of repentance is set and the time of forgiveness is appointed”, used about the fallen during the persecution and about the double-married. And clerics, after being accepted into the church, can be numbered among the clergy to whom they were previously ordained, but only when no other clergy have been assigned to take their place; and if there are any, then they should be dealt with in the same way as it is written above about bishops. - Perhaps someone will ask: if some of them wish to be elevated to the highest degree, will this be prevented by the present rule, which at the beginning says: “ pleasing to the holy council, but after the laying on of hands on them they remain in the clergy”, or can they get higher degrees without hindrance? Solution. In the 80th Apostolic Canon and in the 2nd Canon of this Council, it is decreed that even completely unbelievers receive degrees of priesthood. So why can't the Navatians, who are also called Pure, in relation to faith, as it has been said, not having errors, but condemned for lack of compassion, can not receive the highest degrees? And that they should remain in the clergy, I think, this is determined in particular about them. For perhaps some have said that they ought to be received, but only to be them as simple laymen, and not to exercise the rights belonging to their former degrees. This is not accepted by the council, but it is supposed to restore them to their degrees. The rule of raising to higher powers is also connected with the name of restoration.

Slavic helmsman. Pure heretics who come to the cathedral church, let them first confess that they obey church law, and commune with bigamists, and forgive sinners. And if there be a true bishop of that city in any city, there will also be other bishops or presbyters appointed from these, who are said to be pure, in his rank. But both appointed from the pure bishop, or like a presbyter, yes to have honor; or if the bishop wants that city, let him give him an episcopate somewhere in the village; there is no more powerful way for two bishops to be in one city.

Interpretation. From the heretics who come to the holy council of God of the Apostolic Church, they are completely baptized: friends, who are only anointed with the world: others only curse their own and other heresies. These words, clean the temptations of the former into such heresy, from Navat the presbyter of the Roman church: from him and the pure name of the former, for this reason: they do not accept the repentance of those who turn from sin. And the second marriage is forbidden. A bigamist is by no means acceptable for communication. And if so, they will come to the holy cathedral of the Apostolic Church, and confess a bigamist to accept communion, and do not blaspheme a second marriage, and forgive sins to sinners and penitents; and simply say, by all subsequent church orders, your own heresy and all others, let them accept, and only anoint themselves with holy chrism. But if the nets from them are also bishops, let them continue in their rank, only if in that city the other bishop of the catholic church does not become: such a true bishop will be honored from the first, and sit alone on the episcopal throne. Even a bishop who is called from the pure, as a presbyter, let him be honored: for he is not worthy of two bishops in one city of being. And if it be a year for that city to the bishop, as if by a rech, let him command him to be called a bishop: the episcopal work cannot be touched. If he wants, he will arrange for his bishop somewhere in the village.

rule book. The heretics, the followers of Navat, the presbyter of Rome, called themselves pure, who taught that those who fell during persecution should not be accepted for repentance, and bigamists should never be accepted into the communion of the Church, and in these proud and not philanthropic judgments believed the purity of their society.

9. If some, without trial, were promoted to presbyters, or although during the trial they confessed their sins, but, after confessing them, people moved against the rule and laid hands on them: the rule does not allow such people to serve in the priesthood. For the Catholic Church certainly demands purity.

Zonara. The Rule wants those who are ordained to the priesthood to be irreproachable and clean from offenses that forbid consecration, and that their life and behavior be tested. And if some, perhaps, will be made to the order of the priesthood without probation, or when they have confessed their shortcomings, but those who ordain against the rule will ordain them; about such, the rule decrees that they should not be received, and that there is no benefit to them from illegal ordination; for they must be subject to eruption.

Aristin. Without trial, those ordained, if later they are convicted that they really have sinned, should be removed from the priesthood. If someone, having sinned, concealed his sin, and without trial was promoted to the rank of bishop or presbyter, and if after ordination he is convicted that he has sinned, he must be removed from the priesthood.

Balsamon. The obstacles to receiving the priesthood are different, among them there is fornication. So, if anyone is condemned as having fallen into the sin of fornication, whether it will be before the consecration, or after; he erupts. Therefore, says the rule, to the consecrated without trial, or even though he confessed his sin before ordination, but was ordained contrary to the rules, there is no benefit from ordination; but, upon inquiry, it erupts. For some have said that just as baptism makes a baptized person new, so the priesthood atones for sins committed before the priesthood; but this is not accepted in the rules.

Slavic helmsman. (Nikon. 13). Without testing, put it before, and after putting the denunciation, it was about the first sins, let them stop.

Interpretation. If someone sinned, and did not confess to the spiritual father such sins that forbid him from hierarchship, and hid himself, and without testing for presbytery, or for episcopal rank, he will be elevated. If, however, he will be reproved after the appointment, as if he had sinned such a sin, and let the hierarchship remain.

10. If some of the fallen are made into the clergy, out of ignorance, or with the knowledge of those who produced it, this does not weaken the strength of the Church's rule. For such, upon inquiry, are cast out from the holy order.

Zonara. Those who have rejected our Lord Jesus Christ and then repented should not be promoted to the priesthood. For how can one be a priest who does not merit the Holy Mysteries throughout his life, except at death. And if he is worthy of the priesthood, whether the one who ordained did not know about the obstacle, or knew, the present canon prescribes to cast out such a person, if after this it will be known about it. For the expression: "Illegally done does not weaken the power of the rule" is put in place of: " does not hinder, does not harm».

Aristen. Those who have fallen and been promoted to the priesthood, either through ignorance or with the knowledge of those who ordained, must be deposed. Whether those who ordained did not know about the falls of those who were ordained, or, knowing about them, neglected this, through this the church canon is not condemned. But when, even after this, it is found out about the ordained that they have fallen into sin, they must be cast out.

Balsamon. Apostates, sincerely repentant, we accept; and we do not allow consecrating, but if they are clerics, we cast them out, as the 62nd Apostolic Canon says about this. Therefore, if some of them are ordained, through the ignorance of those who ordained, or with knowledge, such must be cast out by knowledge, so that they would not have any benefit from the ordination, even if it took place with the knowledge of the one who ordained. For perhaps someone said that they benefited because they were ordained by such people who knew their sin, and resolved it by the laying on of hands. This should apply to priests, deacons, and others; but not to the bishops: about them look for the 12th Canon of the Council of Ancyra, and what is written there.

Slavic helmsman. (Nikon. 13). Those who have fallen away, or those who are ignorant, or those who lead them, put them in the past, let them be cast out.

Interpretation. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who have rejected and repented, is not fit to be accepted into the priesthood. How can a saint be such, even the holy Mysteries at all the time of his belly is not worthy to partake, unless death is in time. But if an ignorant one who delivers, or leads, the priesthood is honored, this rule perverts such a person, if he will be led away after the appointment. Even if it was lawless, the rules do not harm.

11. About those who apostatized from the faith, not under duress, or not because of the seizure of property, or danger, or something like that, as happened in the torment of Likiniev, the Council determined to show mercy to them, If they are not worthy of philanthropy. Those who truly repent: they will spend those three years between those who listen to the reading of the scriptures, as if they are faithful: and let them fall in church for seven years, asking for forgiveness: for two years they will participate with the people in prayers, except for the communion of the holy mysteries.

Zonara. Other rules speak of those who renounced the faith due to great violence and coercion, and the present rule discusses those who committed this crime without compulsion, whom it calls unworthy of philanthropy; however, he also accepts these with goodness, if they truly repent, that is, truly, and not feignedly, not by deceit, with warmth and much zeal. Such a rule commands to be listeners for three years, that is, to stand outside the temple, in the porch and listen to divine writings; to be crouching for seven years, that is, to enter the inside of the church, but stand in the back of the pulpit and go out with catechumens; for two years to stand and pray together with the faithful, but not to receive communion of the Holy Mysteries until two years have passed.

Aristen. Those who deviate from the faith unnecessarily, although they are not worthy of forgiveness, are rewarded with some indulgence and must be crouching for 12 years. Those who have rejected the faith without compulsion, although they are unworthy of philanthropy, are nevertheless awarded some indulgence, so that those who sincerely repent of them must remain among the hearers for three years, that is, stand at the doors of the temple ( The Greeks still call the royal doors the middle doors in the western wall leading to the temple.) and listen to the divine scripture, after a three-year time they should be brought inside the walls of the church and spend seven years together with those who fall in the back of the pulpit and, when proclaimed to the catechumens, go out with them; and after the seven years have elapsed, they may be entitled to stand with the faithful for two years, and have fellowship with them in prayer until the sacrament is performed; and in divine communion they should not have participation in these two years; but after this they may also be awarded the communion of the Holy Mysteries.

Balsamon. The Apostolic canon 62 speaks of clerics who apostatized from the faith under compulsion, and the present - about those who rejected Christ without compulsion, and says that such people are accepted if they really, that is, truly repent, and stand outside the church for three years and listen to hymns to God, and for seven years they fall down, that is, they stand inside the church, but behind the pulpit, and go out together with the catechumens. Upon completion of the seven years, they can constantly pray with the faithful, and the Holy Mysteries will be honored after two years.

Slavic helmsman. Elitsy, without any need, have transgressed, if they are not worthy of the besh’s mercy, both of them were pardoned by some former, let them fall for 12 years.

Interpretation. The figurines of faith are rejected without any need, if they are not worthy of besh's philanthropy, either way they will be honored with some kind of mercy. And if anyone repents from them kindly and with all his heart, let him abide in those who listen for three years; already there, let him stand outside the church doors, and listen to the divine scriptures. According to the time of three years, let him be brought inside the church: and with those who fall standing on the back of the pulpit, let him create seven years. The deacon speaks every now and then, go out as soon as the catechumens, and let him go out of the church. And after the lapse of seven years of time, let him stand with the faithful for two more years, partaking of prayer with them, even until the end of the service; already there, and before divine communion; but not in that two years let her take communion, but at the end of her communion of the holy Mysteries, let her be vouchsafed.

12. Called by grace to the confession of faith, and the first impulse of zeal showed, and put off military belts, but then, like dogs, returned to their vomit, so that some even used silver, and through gifts achieved restoration to military rank: let such ten years fall in the church, asking for forgiveness, according to the three-year time of listening to the scriptures in the porch. In all these it is necessary to take into consideration the disposition and image of repentance. For those who, with fear, and tears, and patience, and doing good, show conversion by deed, and not by outward appearance: those who, after completing a certain time of hearing, will decently receive prayers into fellowship. It is even permissible for a bishop to arrange some sort of philanthropy for them. And those who indifferently suffered their fall into sin, and imagined the sight of entering the church to be satisfied with their conversion: let them wholly fulfill the time of repentance.

Zonara. This rule talks about militants who have thrown away their belts, that is, signs of military rank, and who have shown a desire for martyrdom; He also calls them called by divine grace, because by it they are excited to declare the confession of faith. Then they left the begun feat, and again returned to their former military rank, and acquired it with silver or gifts. Silver means money; and under gifts, or benefices, gifts and favors of every kind. This Latin word translated into Greek means " beneficence". And the one who does good is the one who either gives money or fulfills some desire of another. It is quite clear that none of these could be again accepted into the military rank, if he had not expressed his consent to the error. Such a rule commands, after a three-year hearing, to be among those who fall for ten years and go out together with the catechumens; but he grants to the court of the bishop and reduce penances, if he finds that the penitent shows the warmth of repentance, propitiates God with tears, learns to fear Him, endures labors connected with penances, and exercises himself in good deeds, that is, in performing virtues, in distributing property to the needy, if he has wealth in his hands, and in a word, if it is true, and not just by appearance, he shows repentance. But if a bishop sees that he who is under penance treats punishment indifferently and carelessly, and considers it completely sufficient for himself that he is allowed to enter the church, he does not grieve and does not grieve that he does not stand with the faithful, but considers it sufficient for himself who stands behind the pulpit and comes out with catechumens (for this is the meaning of the expression: " entry type", since it is not true who enters in this way); - such a rule commands all the ten-year time to fulfill in penance seizures.

Aristen. Those who were coerced and showed resistance, but then succumbed to wickedness and re-entered the military rank, should be excommunicated for ten years. But everyone should pay attention to the image of repentance; and to those who, having undergone penance, repent more warmly, the bishop should be more philanthropic, and more severely to those who are colder. Those who, having been called by divine grace at the first inclination, resisted, although they were forced to agree to wickedness, so that they put aside the military belt as well, but then, yielding, expressed their readiness to think in accordance with the wicked, so that they received their former honor and again accepted the military belt. rank, - three years should be among those who listen, ten years should be among those who fall, and thus should be awarded forgiveness. But bishops are allowed to both reduce and increase penance, depending on the repentance of those who turn, whether it is done with fear and patience and tears, or with disdain and indifference.

Balsamon. The Latins call every gift and good deed a benefice. So, inasmuch as some soldiers, during the persecution, moved by divine zeal, laid down their military belts and rushed to martyrdom, but in the end, on the movement of demonic regret, evaded martyrdom, followed the unfaithful persecutors, money or other gifts (this, as it is said , and there is a benefice) received their former military ranks, and returned to their vomit, - the rule says about such that if they come to the church with sincere contrition, they must be accepted, with the obligation to stand outside the church for three years and listen to divine writings , and for ten years to be crouching, that is, to stand behind the pulpit and go out with the catechumens, and after that to pray together with the faithful. However, they should in no way be honored with the Holy Mysteries before the expiration of two years, as we said above, because they also belong to the number of voluntarily fallen. But the canon gives the bishop the right to reduce the penance, depending on the conversion of the person subjected to the penance.

Slavic helmsman. Formerly compelled, and ostensibly resisting, and then attached to the infidels, and once again they received the army, let them be absent for ten years. Look, likewise, there are images of repentance about all. And I will accept the prohibition warmly to the penitent, let the bishop give a commandment to the philanthropic: to the negligent, the most cruel.

Interpretation. Elitsy was called from divine grace, and in the first torment, the compulsion was to attach itself to the wicked, and resisted, and threw down the belts; that is to say, military signs: and then humbled, having applied wisdom with the wicked, so that their packs were arranged in the first honor in the army: such are the three years that they will be obedient. Ten years falling: and tacos of the commission, the rekshe of the divine Mysteries of communion will be worthy. It is worthy of being a bishop to diminish and increase penance; rekshe, prohibitions, contemplating the repentance of those who turn, if it happens with the fear of God and with patience and with tears, it is less to give a commandment to such. If he is negligent and lazy, give such a most severe commandment.

13. As for those who are at the exit from life, let the ancient law and rule be observed even now, so that the departing one does not deprive him of the last most necessary parting word. If, however, being desperate in life and worthy of communion, he returns to life again: let it be only among those who participate in prayer. In general, to anyone who departs, whoever it is, who asks to partake of the Eucharist, with the trial of a bishop, let the holy gifts be given.

Zonara. The Holy Fathers, having made decrees on penances, and how and to what extent those subject to penances should be out of communion, in this canon determine that, even if some were under penance, depriving them of communion, but if they are at the end of life, the saints should teach such mysteries, so that they may have them as parting words and not be deprived of their sanctification. If someone, being in danger of life, is awarded communion, as someone who is already dying, and then escapes death, such a person can pray together with the faithful; but should not partake of the Holy Mysteries. However, everyone who is under penance, if he is at the last exodus, says the rule, and if he demands to partake of the holy offering, he can be admitted to communion with reason, that is, with the knowledge and reason of the bishop.

Aristen. Those who are at the end of their lives can be communed; and if one of them recovers, let him have fellowship in prayer, and nothing more. Every faithful one, who is at his last breath, can receive a good parting word; but if he recovers, let him have communion in prayers, but he must not partake of the divine Mysteries. When he fulfills the appointed time in prayers, then he can be awarded this grace.

Balsamon. This rule is general: it commands everyone who is under penance and is not allowed to partake of the Holy Mysteries, to honor this good parting word of holy communion, at the last breath, with the test of the bishop; and if there is no bishop, with the trial of the priests, so that the person is not deprived of this good parting word due to the absence of the bishop. But the rule adds: if such a person, after the communion of the Holy Mysteries, escapes death, he can pray together with the faithful, but should not be allowed to receive the Holy Mysteries until the appointed time of penance is completely fulfilled. I think that one who is under penance, after recovery, can be admitted to prayer together with the faithful when he prayed with them even before his illness; and if he stood in the place of those listening, then after his recovery he should have the same place.

Slavic helmsman. The dying, let them take communion. But if anyone avoids such and lives, let it be only with those who partake of prayer.

Interpretation. Everyone is faithful, in penance this, and excommunicated from holy communion, having been in his last breath, let him take communion of good conduct; that is, the holy body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if he gets rid of it later and will be healthy, let it be with those who partake: let him not partake of the divine shrines: but having fulfilled the time in the divine standing, from then on such grace will be honored.

14. Concerning the catechumens and the apostates, it is pleasing to the holy and great Synod that they should only be between those who hear the Scriptures for three years, and then pray with the catechumens.

Zonara. If some, having joined the faith and having been catechumenized, fall away, the holy fathers determined to bring such people down from the rank and state of the catechumens, and subject them to penance of those who listened for three years, and then again return them to their former rank and state, and pray to them together with the catechumens.

Aristen. If a catechumen falls away, let that one listen for three years, and nothing more, and then let him pray with the catechumens. There are two types of catechumens: some have just begun, while others have already become more perfect, having been sufficiently instructed in the truths of the faith. Therefore, a more perfect catechumen, if he falls away and sins, is not left without penance, although holy baptism is sufficient for washing away all spiritual defilement; but he is put into the category of hearers, and after three years he again prays together with the catechumens. Look for the 5th canon of the Neocaesarea Council.

Balsamon. The Holy Fathers determine: from unbelief, one who converted to the true faith and was catechumenized, but after the catechumens again fell into error and desired the former idolatry, if he again converts, not only take the catechumens in place, but first stand outside the church with those who listen for three years; and after the fulfillment of this time, restore it to its former rank and state of the catechumens.

Slavic helmsman. If someone falls from the catechumens, let him only remain in those who listen for three years: then let him pray with the catechumens.

Interpretation. Two ranks are catechumens. First ubo, ilk again come to the cathedral church. The second one, who was more perfect, and learned faith enough. A perfect catechumen, if he falls into sin, is not left without a ban: if it is holy baptism, it is enough to wash away all the filth of the soul, but let him be reckoned with those who listen, and for three years with the catechumens, let him pray. And to this look for the rules, the fifth, like in the new Caesarea Cathedral.

15. In view of the many turmoils and disturbances that are taking place, it is prudent to completely stop the custom, contrary to the apostolic rule, found in some places: so that neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon passes from city to city. But if anyone, according to this determination of the holy and great Council, undertakes such a thing, or allows such a thing to be done to himself: let the order be completely invalid, and let the one who has transferred be returned to the church in which he was ordained to the bishop, or presbyter, or deacon.

Zonara. That neither a presbyter nor a deacon should pass from one church to another, this is also established by the holy Apostles. But this ordinance, which was not observed and neglected, was renewed by this holy council, determining that even if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon attempts to move from one city to another, even if he crosses over and puts his attempt into action, this is an action. he has no power, and he returns to the city in which he was named when he was ordained. For another rule prescribes that no one be ordained without appointment, that is, without a name (place), but to such and such a bishopric, or church, or monastery.

Aristen. Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon should move from city to city; because they should again be given to those churches to which they were ordained. This rule not only completely destroys the movement of bishops, but also of presbyters and deacons; and those who have undertaken to do something like this, he returns again to the churches to which they are ordained. Meanwhile, the first and second canons of the Sardic council punish these more severely, subjecting them to penance of deprivation of communion.

Balsamon. The Apostolic Canon 15 says: let no longer serve a cleric who, without the will of his bishop, has moved from city to city. And the present canon, defining the same thing about bishops, says that what can be done not in accordance with it is not valid.

Another interpretation . Apostolic Canon 14 forbids the invasion or intrusion of bishops from one diocese to another, but the transfer is allowed for an important and good reason. And the 16th canon of the Council of Antioch determines that a bishop who does not have a diocese - to a diocese that does not have a bishop - passes with the consideration and invitation of a perfect council. Likewise, the first and second Canons of the Council of Sardis severely punish him who, by cunning and bad means, leaves the church that received him, and delights the greater one. And the present 15th canon of the first council completely forbids the passage of bishops, presbyters and deacons from city to city; but he does not punish for this, but determines that such an undertaking should not have effect, and that the bishop, presbyter or deacon should be returned to the former church to which they were ordained. With all these rules in mind, another may say that these rules contradict one another, and decide different things. But it's not. Distinguish among themselves movement, transition and invasion. The transfer is a transition from diocese to diocese, when, perhaps, a bishop adorned with a variety of wisdom is called by many bishops to help the dowager church, which is endangered in relation to piety. Something similar happened with the great Gregory the Theologian, who was transferred from Sasim to Constantinople. Such a transfer is permissible, as can be seen from the 14th canon of the Holy Apostles. A transition happens when someone who is free, that is, who does not have a diocese, which, for example, is occupied by pagans, will be prompted by many bishops to transfer to an idle church, as promising great benefit for Orthodoxy and other church affairs. And this crossing is allowed by the divine rules of the holy fathers who gathered in Antioch. An invasion is called unauthorized, or even with the use of bad means, an illegal occupation of a widowed church by a bishop who does not have a church, or who has a church; and this is what the Holy Fathers, who gathered in Sardica, condemned so strongly that they determined that he who acts in this way should be deprived of communion with every Christian, and even with his last breath, not worthy of communion with him as a layman. And the 15th canon of the first council, without mentioning anything of the kind, does not contradict any of the above canons; for he speaks not of moving, not of crossing over, and not of intrusion, but forbids a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, to move from one city to another, belonging to the same diocese, as once the Bishop of Derk, Mr. John, attempted to transfer his throne from Derk to his own. archopopia Filey, because it is more crowded; but the council forbade it. Therefore, the bishop who undertook this is not punished, but returns to his former chair. And that this is true, this is evident from the very words of this rule, which mentions the city, and not the dioceses; for it is possible for one and the same bishop to have many cities within a diocese, but many dioceses are in no way possible. And from what the canon mentions about presbyters and deacons, the truth is clearly revealed. For what kind of displacement, crossing, or intrusion can be spoken of in relation to them? Of course, nothing. Is it only about one transition from city to city, not someone else's, but belonging to the same diocese in which they were clerics. Therefore, they are not subject to eruption, as if they were serving the priesthood beyond their limit, but return to the former church, to which they were ordained.

Slavic helmsman. Bishop and presbyter and deacon by his own will, do not pass from the places where the former was first appointed. Let neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon pass from city to city, because the packs want to be converted to the church, and put a former in them.

Interpretation. This rule, not only as a bishop to transgress from city to city, is by no means denied, but also by a presbyter and a deacon. And those who have done something like this, in their own city, and in their own churches, put a former in them, he commands them to return again. The first and second rules of the council, those who are in the heart, severely torment those who are such, setting them aside from holy communion, and forbids such penances.

16. If some presbyters, or deacons, or generally ranked among the clergy, recklessly and not having the fear of God before their eyes, and not knowing the church rule, move away from their own church: such should by no means be acceptable in another church: and every compulsion against use them, so that they return to their parishes; or, If they remain stubborn, it befits them to be a stranger to fellowship. Likewise, if anyone dares to rapture another belonging to the department, and ordain in his own church, without the consent of his own bishop, from whom the numbered clergy has evaded: let the ordination be invalid.

Zonara. The foregoing canon determines those who depart from their own churches and who pass away to others, to return to the church to which each one is ordained. And this legitimizes that those who do not agree to return should be deprived of fellowship. This, apparently, contradicts the 15th canon of the holy Apostles, for it does not allow clerics who have left their dioceses and, without the will of their bishop, with everything transferred to another diocese, to serve, but allows them to be in communion there as laymen. . I think that in this rule the words: alien being communication"should be understood as follows: not to have communion with them by clergymen, but to remove them from joint sacred rites with them. The Holy Fathers here called communion not the communion of the Holy Mysteries, but participation, common action and co-service with those to whom they came. With such an explanation, this canon will not seem to anyone contrary to the Apostolic canon. Then the rule adds that if a bishop ordains a cleric who has moved from one city to another, raising him perhaps to the highest degree, but without the will of the bishop from whom he left, there should not really be an ordination.

Aristen. Presbyters and deacons who retire from the church should not be received in another church, but should return to their dioceses. And if someone who has passed from another ordains without the will of his own bishop, the ordination has no effect. And this rule determines the same as the previous one, that is, that no presbyter or deacon who has retired from the church in which he was a member of the clergy should not be received by another bishop, but return again to his diocese. And if a bishop accepts a cleric who has passed from another, and, having ordained him, promotes him to the highest degree in his church, without the will of his own bishop, the ordination will have no effect.

Balsamon. From the end of Canon 15 it is clear that all those who are ordained are numbered in the clergy, that is, they are ordained - either in the episcopacy, or in monasteries, or in divine temples. Why, according to this, canons 6 and 10 of the Council of Chalcedon determine that clergy should be produced in the same way - and the laying on of hands, which would not be in accordance with this, was not valid. Therefore, it was decreed that no clergyman has the right to move from diocese to diocese and change one clergy for another without a letter of dismissal from the one who ordained him; and those clerics who are called by those who ordained them, but do not want to return, must remain without communion with them, that is, it is not allowed to perform the priesthood together with them. For this means: be out of touch”, and not to deprive them of entry into the church, or not to allow them to receive the Holy Mysteries, which is in full accordance with the 15th Apostolic Canon, which determines that they should not serve. And the 16th Apostolic Canon excommunicates a bishop who has received a cleric from a foreign diocese without a letter of absolution from the one who ordained him. In this way the hartophylax of the great church does well, which does not allow priests ordained in another place to officiate, unless they bring letters of representation and vacation letters from those who ordained them. Read also the 35th Apostolic Canon, Canon 13 and 22 of the Council of Antioch, Canon 8 of the Council of Ephesus.

Slavic helmsman. Let the presbyters and deacons from their own church not be accepted in another church, but let the packs turn to their own dwelling places. But if a certain bishop from another authority appoints someone, without the will of his bishop, the appointment is not firm.

Interpretation. And this canon equally commands him: as if no presbyter and deacon left his church, he would be numbered. And if he departs from her, let him not be received from another bishop, but soon turn to his dwelling. But if a certain bishop, having come to him from another bishop, accepts a clerk, and puts him on a higher level, raises him in his church, without the will of his bishop, and this is not a firm appointment; that is to say, let it be cast out.

17. Since many who were numbered in the clergy, following covetousness and covetousness, they forgot the Divine Scripture, which says: do not give your money with interest; and, lending, they demand hundredths; the holy and great Council judged, so that if anyone, after this determination, turns out to take growth from what was given on loan, or give another turn to this matter, or require half the growth, or invent something else, for the sake of shameful self-interest, such one would be cast out from the clergy, and alien to the clergy.

Zonara. The old law also forbade everyone to lend for interest, for it says: do not give your brother more than your money (Deut. 23, 19). And if so legitimized less perfect (law); the more perfect, and the most spiritual. For this church is more here (Matt. 12:6). So, everyone is forbidden to lend for interest. And if to everyone, then all the more so it would be indecent for the initiates, who should be an example and encouragement in virtue for the laity. Therefore, this rule forbids those who are on the list, that is, those who are in the clergy, to demand hundredths, that is, hundreds of growth. Numerous types of interest; but of these, the hundredth is heavier than the others. Now we have seventy-two coins in a liter (a pound of gold), while the ancients counted a hundred, and the growth from a hundred coins was twelve coins, which is why it was called a hundred, which was required from a hundred. And so, the council, having forbidden those who are in the clergy to take growth, those who will not observe the rules, appoints penance. That is, “the holy council judged”, it is said - instead of: “ recognized as fair”, to punish if anyone, after the determination that took place then, turns out to be taking an increase from a loan, or plotting some enterprise to collect an increase, or giving another turn to this business (for some, avoiding to say about them that they take growth, give money to those who wish and agree with them to share the profit together, and call themselves not usurers, but participants, and not participating in the loss, participate only in the profit). So the rule, forbidding this and everything similar to this, commands to expel those who invent such tricks, or invent something else for the sake of a shameful profit, or require half growth. Having said above and a hundredth growth, which, as noted above, is the heaviest growth, as a rule, descending lower, he also mentioned a lighter one - a half, which is half a whole growth, that is, twelve coins, which make up a full and whole percent of a hundred . Let anyone who wants to count half the height and in arithmetic: in arithmetic, some numbers are called integers with thirds, others are integers with quarters, fifths and sixths, and others are half, such as six and nine, because they contain whole numbers and half of them, for six, for example, has in itself four and half of four, that is, two, and nine has six and half of six, that is, three. So, by the expression: half, as it is understood, the rule expresses only that those in the clergy should not take not only a heavier height, but also no other more moderate one.

Aristen. If anyone takes a height, or half, he, by this definition, must be excommunicated and deposed. Hundreds of growths, which are recognized as the largest of all growths, are twelve gold coins, and half of them, six. And so if any of the initiates, having given someone a loan, demands either the heaviest interest, that is, hundredths, or half, that is, half of this or six, he must be expelled from the clergy, as if he had forgotten the divine Scripture, which says: his money is not give in interest (Psalm 14:5); although the 44th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 10th Sixth Council of Trullo do not immediately vomit such a thing, but when, after exhortation, it does not cease to do so.

Balsamon. The Apostolic Canon 44 of presbyters, or deacons, who demand growth for what they have loaned, commands to cast out if they do not stop doing so. And the real rule of all clerics, lending with growth, or demanding half growth, or inventing for themselves some other shameful profit, judged, that is, it was considered just, to spew. Look also for the Apostolic Canon written on the aforementioned Apostolic Canon, and the 27th chapter of the 9th title of this collection, which says in particular that even the initiates can demand growth precisely in case of slowness and delay. And how the Apostolic Canon and others define the initiates who take interest to spew, if they do not cease; then another may ask: should they be kept, or of the present rule, which prescribes the expulsion of such immediately? Solution: it seems to me that the cleric who, even after exhortation, does not leave shameful covetousness, according to the more philanthropic definition of the Apostolic Canon, should be cast out. Note this rule also for those initiates who sell wine, maintain bathhouses, or do something similar to this and put forward the last defense for themselves that does not have a canonical meaning - poverty. And the words contained in this rule: “either giving this matter a different turn, or requiring half growth” - have the following meaning: some of the initiates, knowing this rule and wanting to get around it, observe its letter, but violate the meaning; they give someone money and agree with him to take a certain part of the profits, and those who take the money take upon themselves the risk of doing business; and thus those who gave money, being in fact usurers, hide behind the name of the participants. So the rule forbids this as well, and those who do anything like that are exposed to an eruption. Under the name of half-growth, understand the lighter demands of interest; for he says, although the cleric does not require the hundredth growth of the heaviest, that is, for each liter of iperpyr (gold coins), twelve iperpyr (hundredths in the rule is called the growth charged from a hundred, since a liter in ancient times did not have 72 sextules, as it is now, a 100), but asks for half the full height, that is, six gold coins, or even less - and in this case he must be cast out. Know that, since a liter now has 72 sextules, and not 100, as in ancient times, then one who agrees to take a hundredth growth per liter should not require 12 coins, but is reasonable for the current account.

Slavic helmsman. About lenders, and those who embrace usury. Anyone who takes profit or accepts bribes, according to this rule, is a stranger to the church, and will be deposed from his rank.

Interpretation. Hundreds of ubo extras, even more and more all sorts of extras are known. If a lender gives someone a hundred folds in return: but he wants to return the packs, the top of a hundred of them gives another, twelve folds, which is a hundred more. But if someone wants more mercifully, he will raise more than half of it, if there are six pereper per hundred: the same similar to those, or little, or much that has been given, and small and great interest will be taken up: the same is true of vestments, and of other booty. The essence of wealth, or gold, or some kind of booty giving to each other by a merchant, and saying, go, and I’ll do it, and we’ll take it with interest: but if you get something, let’s divide it into floors: if some harm happens, then you have it, but our whole yes it abides: and behold, they create, they will take up the worst profit, they will partake of the profit, but there is no death. Such a slaughter, or a similar one, or otherwise, provides for itself a stingy profit: if anyone turns from the sacred, as if having forgotten the divine scripture, he will not give his money in interest, and bribes on the innocent will not be accepted (Psalm. 14), such from the parable Yes, let it erupt, and let the rules be alien, and even the 44th, the rule of the Holy Apostles, and the tenth rule of the sixth council, which is in Trulla, do not soon command them to pervert, but when the commandment is received, they will not leave this doing.

18. It has come to the attention of the holy and great Council that in some places and cities deacons administer the Eucharist to presbyters, while it has not been passed down by rule or custom that those who have no authority to offer should teach those who bring the body of Christ. Likewise, it became known that even some of the deacons, even before the bishops, touch the Eucharist. Let all this be cut short: let the deacons remain in their measure, knowing that they are servants of the bishop, and lower presbyters. Let them accept the Eucharist in order after the presbyters, administered to them by the bishop or presbyter. Deacons are not allowed to sit among the presbyters. For it happens not according to the rule, and not in order. But if anyone, even after this determination, does not want to be obedient: let his deaconship cease.

Zonara. It is very necessary to observe good order everywhere, and especially in sacred objects and persons who perform sacred things. Therefore, by this rule, a deed that was out of order was corrected; for it was not according to order that the deacons gave the priests the holy gifts, and before them, or even the bishop, they were communed. Therefore, the rule commands that this should not happen in the future, so that everyone knows his own measure, so that the deacons know that in sacred actions they are the servants of the bishops, as their very name teaches them about, and that the rank of presbyter is higher in comparison with the rank of deacons. How, then, will the lesser ones teach the Eucharist to the greater, and those who are unable to offer to those who offer? For, according to the word of the great Apostle, without any contradiction, the lesser of the greater is blessed (Heb. 7:7). So, the holy council determines that the presbyters should first commune, and then the deacons, when the presbyters or bishops present to them the holy body and blood of the Lord. He forbids the rule for the deacon and to sit among the presbyters, since this happens not according to the rule and not according to the rank, and he commands those who do not obey, to deprive them of the diaconate.

Aristen. Let the deacons remain in their measure, and let them not administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, and let them not touch it before them, and let them not sit among the presbyters. For it is contrary to the rule and order, if something like that should happen. The present canon corrects, having found something that may be indecent and profane, which happens in some cities, and determines that none of the deacons should teach divine communion to the presbyters, and that they should not be the first to partake of communion, but after the presbyters receive this Eucharist either from the bishop or from presbyters, and that they should not sit among the presbyters, lest they should be found to be sitting above them.

Balsamon . That the rank of priests is great, and still more the rank of bishops, and that they should have the advantage of honor over deacons, this is evident from the very actions; for one is served, and the other is served. How, then, should those who receive service not have the advantage of honor over those who serve? And as some deacons, says the rule, in some cities, breaking the order, commune before the bishops, and administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, and in general those who are supposed to receive consecration from the bishops and priests (for the Apostle also says: the lesser of the greater is blessed), do not stay in given limits, and in assemblies they sit down among the priests; - then, according to all this, it is determined that the deacons were to be communed from the bishop, or presbyter, and they were honored with the Holy Mysteries after the priests, and did not sit among the presbyters, otherwise those who disobey this should be deprived of the diaconate. According to this definition of this canon, the deacons are not allowed to commune before the bishops, or to teach the Eucharist, that is, the holy mysteries, to the presbyters, and in the holy altar the deacon sits among the priests. But we see in reality that some of the church deacons, in meetings outside the temple, sit higher than the presbyters. I think that this happens because they have positions of authority, for only those who have been awarded positions of authority by the patriarch sit above the priests. But this is also not done correctly. Read the 7th Canon of the Sixth Council. And the chartophylax of the most holy great church, in meetings, except for the synod, sits above not only priests, but also bishops, at the command of the glorious king, Mr. Alexius Comnenus, which says the following: the establishment of the deanery and throughout the state, and especially making efforts to ensure that this deanery acts in divine affairs, desires and favors that the advantages originally established for each church degree and until now their current structure be and remain unchanged for the next time, because it adopted for so many years, acted for a long time, strengthened as unchanging by transitions from one to another even to this day, and established itself well. And how now my royal majesty has learned that some bishops from the competition are trying to belittle the advantage of hartophylax, and, exposing the rules, they prove that he should not sit higher than the bishops when they should gather for some business, and sit with them together before the entrance of your shrine; - it seemed to my Tsar's Majesty it was intolerable that a case approved for such a long time and accepted as a result of long-term silence both by the former patriarchs and other bishops, and even by those who are now unreasonably arguing against him - that such a case should be canceled, as superfluous and delayed, as done out of negligence. So, it is determined that this case is thorough and quite fair. And it would be good if the bishops would not continue to shake the immovable and legitimized by the fathers, but, as it were, kept from changing what they themselves recognized as pleasing through their long-term silence and through the preservation of this matter to this day. And thanks be to them for putting aside strife and preferring peace. But if some of them, jealous of the letter of the rule (for they have departed far from its meaning), will still try to fulfill their desire, and will not turn order into outrage in a good way; then my royal majesty deigns to interpret and explain the composition of the rule, which can be very conveniently discovered and well recognized by those who delve into the exact mind and feel the canonical thought. This same rule threatens the bishops with penance: why, knowing the rule and carefully fulfilling its letter, did they unreasonably deceive their conscience, and in violation of the rule, tolerated and approved that they were sitting lower than the former chartophylaxes? In retribution for the neglect of the sacred rules, my royal majesty orders those to retire to their churches, and in this case, exactly in accordance with church rule, and in vengeance on those who disregard the rules, deducing the same sacred rules. For in this way the bishops who preside in the west, who for a long time did not care about the flocks entrusted to them and did not manage them properly, can say that the fury of the enemies, raging in the east, has reached them, and that as a result of this they have lost the opportunity to have supervision of verbal sheep. And thus, having arranged this matter, my royal majesty leaves the judgment on its execution to them. - In addition to this, it has come to my ears that some who are elected in the church at regular elections are bypassed and others are preferred to them, perhaps - both younger in age, and not equal in their way of life, and not much work for the church. And this deed seems unworthy of the sacred council of bishops. Therefore, my royal majesty lovingly and at the same time royally demands of everyone not to make a joke of what should not be joked, and not to be guided by passion in divine affairs. For where the soul is in danger, where else can care be taken? Those should be preferred to others and given preference in elections, who, along with the word, are adorned with an impeccable life, or those who, in the absence of a word, make up for the lack of a long-term service and many labors for the church. For in this way they will make sound elections and their souls will not be condemned, since they make elections before God.

Slavic helmsman. (Nik. 13). Do not make a priestly deacon, below their chair. Let the deacons abide in their standards, but neither prosfira proskomis, nor give communion by the presbyter, nor before they touch the shrine: and in the midst of the presbyter, let them not sit down; through the rule, for there is, and without order, but what will be.

Interpretation. The holy fathers set forth this rule, having found something not pretentiously and without order, in some cities they sometimes correct it: and they command the deacon not to bring any offering; That is to say, the prosfiers cannot be swayed, neither give divine communion by the presbyter, nor touch them before them, but according to the presbyters such gratitude should be received by them, either from the bishop, or from the presbyter: neither in the midst of the presbyter to sit, but not sitting above them, it seems more honest to be; sebo is disorderly. But if anyone does not remain this, let him erupt by this rule.

19. About those who were Paulians, but then resorted to the Catholic Church, a decree is decreed that they should all be re-baptized in general. But if those who in former times belonged to the clergy: such, being blameless and without reproach, after the cessation, let them be ordained bishops of the Catholic Church. If, however, the test finds them incapable of the priesthood, they must be cast out of the sacred rank. Similarly, in relation to the deaconesses, and to all those generally ranked among the clergy, let the same mode of action be observed. Of the deaconesses, we have mentioned those who, according to their attire, are accepted as such. For, by the way, they do not have any ordination, so that they can be completely counted with the laity.

Zonara. This canon commands those who come to the Catholic Church from heresy to baptize Paulicans again. The definition is the rank and the rule. If some of them happened to be numbered among the clergy, perhaps out of ignorance of those who ordained about their heresy, about such a rule determines after baptism to make an inquiry and again discuss their life after baptism, and if they turn out to be blameless and impeccable, ordain them to the bishop of that church, in which they have joined. A former ordination performed while they were heretics does not count as an ordination. For how is it possible to believe that one who is not baptized according to the Orthodox faith could receive the influx of the Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands? If, according to the study, they turn out to be unworthy of ordination, the council commands them to be cast out. The word: eruption, I think, is not used here in its proper sense, for it is the one who has correctly received ordination and is raised to the height of the priesthood who is expelled; but he who is not truly ordained from the beginning, how, whence, or from what height will he be cast down? So, instead of saying: let him be expelled from the clergy, in an improper sense it is said: let him be cast out. The same is established by the rule with regard to deaconesses, and generally ranked among the clergy. And the expression: but we have mentioned deaconesses, those who, according to their attire, are accepted as such”and so on means the following: in ancient times, virgins came to God, promising to keep cleanliness; their bishops, according to the 6th canon of the Council of Carthage, consecrated, and had care for their protection according to the 47th canon of the same council. Of these virgins, at the proper time, that is, when they were forty years old, deaconesses were also ordained. On such virgins, in the 25th year of their age, the bishops assigned a special robe, according to the 140th canon of the aforementioned council. It is precisely these virgins that the cathedral calls deaconesses, who are taken for such according to their attire, but who do not have the laying on of hands; and commands them to be counted among the laity when they confess their heresy and leave it.

Aristen. The Paulineists are baptized again. And if some of the clergy among them turn out to be irreproachable after a new baptism, they can be ordained; and if they do not prove blameless, they must be cast out. The deaconesses, deceived into their heresy, since they do not have ordination, must be tested as laymen. Those who joined the church from the Pauline heresy are baptized again. If some of them have acted as clerics among the Paulianists, and if they lead a blameless life, they are ordained by the bishop of the catholic church, and those who prove unworthy are cast out. Their deaconesses, since they do not have any ordination, if they join the Catholic Church, they are numbered with the laity. The Paulineists are descended from Paul of Samosata, who thought derogatoryly of Christ, and taught that he was an ordinary man, and originated from Mary.

Balsamon. Paulicians are called Paulineists. So, the Holy Fathers set out the definition, or the rule and order - to baptize them again. And after this, the rule adds that if, as it should be expected, some of them are ignorantly numbered among the clergy, the bishop should baptize them again, and after baptism, examine their behavior with great attention and, if he finds them irreproachable, honor them with the priesthood, and if not , to deprive them of the ordination that they had before baptism. The same was decreed for deaconesses. Virgins once came to the church and, with the permission of the bishop, were protected, as consecrated to God, but in worldly attire. This is what the expression means: to recognize them by their attire. Upon reaching the age of forty, they were honored with the ordination of deaconesses, if they turned out to be worthy in everything. So, says the rule, if some of them may fall into the Pauline heresy, then it must be the same with them, as was previously defined regarding men. Look also for the Council of Carthage, Rules 6 and 47. In view of such a definition of the rule, another may say: if the laying on of hands that took place before baptism is considered not to have taken place (for this is why it is also determined to ordain a Paulicianist after baptism); then how does the rule determine to cast out one who, by examination, proves unworthy of ordination? Solution. Name: - "eruption", not used here in the exact sense, instead of moving away from the clergy. For veneration to the clergy before baptism is not veneration. And if you don’t want to say this, then accept that these words about the eruption do not refer to the laying on of hands before baptism, but to the one that took place after baptism. For must be subject to eruption, say the Fathers, and after baptism unworthily ordained according to general rule which exposes sinners to eruption after ordination. There was a question about the Paulianists: who are they? And different people spoke differently. And I found in various books that the Manicheans were later called Paulicians, from a certain Paul of Samosata, the son of the wife of a Manichean, named Kalliniki. He is called Samosata because he was the bishop of Samosata. He preached that there is one God, and one and the same is called the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirits. For, he says, there is one God, and His Son is in Him, as the word is in man. This word, having come to earth, dwelt in a man called Jesus, and, having fulfilled the dispensation, ascended to the Father. And this inferior Jesus is Jesus Christ, as having originated from Mary. This Paul of Samosata was cast out in Antioch by Saint Gregory the Wonderworker and some others. There is still doubt as to whether those Orthodox Christians infected with Paulicianism should be baptized again? Some say that the rule prescribes the re-baptism only of those who from birth are Paulicians, and not those who, being Orthodox, accepted the heresy of the Paulicians, for these latter should be illuminated only by one world, and in support of their opinion they point to many who arbitrarily accepted Mohammedanism, who were not baptized again, but only anointed with myrrh. But it seems to me that the rule determines this advantage in relation to those of the Orthodox who fell into the heresy of the Paulicians, and were baptized according to their unclean rite; and this is precisely what real Paulicianism is, and not when someone was a Paulician from the very beginning. Therefore, on the basis of this canon, they must be baptized again. And the very word: baptism again agrees quite a bit with what has been said. Look also for the 47th Canon of the Apostles, which says that a bishop, or presbyter, is cast out who baptizes a faithful person twice, and does not baptize the defiled by the wicked. Read also the interpretation of this canon and the 7th canon of the 2nd council.

Slavic helmsman. The Paulicians are baptized; and the verbs from them, the clerks, if the demon of blemish appears, after baptism they will be appointed. And if there are vicious ones, they will erupt. And the deaconesses, deceived by them, since they have no appointment, let them be tortured with worldly people.

Interpretation. From the Paulician heresies that come to the cathedral of the Apostolic Church, let the second one be baptized: the first baptism, not baptism, is rather heretical. Baptized, and if there are bishops from them, or presbyters, and deacons besha in the Paulicians, if they have an immaculate life, from the cathedral church of the bishop, they are baptized in it, but they will be appointed each to their own rank. But if the unworthy ones turn up, and from that the besha will be rejected in it. The deaconesses who exist in them, because they have no appointment, if they approach the cathedral church and are baptized, they will have reckoning with worldly people. And also about the deaconesses, look for the sixth, and the 44th canon, a council like that in Carthage. The Paulicians, on the other hand, are called those who received heresy from Paul of Samosata, who were humble and wise in Christ, and who preached the simpleness of that person, and did not begin from the Father before the age, but from Mary.

20. Since there are some who kneel on the day of the Lord and on the days of Pentecost: so that in all the dioceses everything should be observed equally, it is pleasing to the holy Council, so that they offer prayers to God worthily.

Zonara. In order not to kneel on Sunday and on the days of Pentecost, this was established both by other sacred Fathers and Basil the Great, who adds the reasons why it is forbidden to kneel on the said days and commanded to pray standing, and which are the following: our resurrection with Christ, and our duty flowing from this is to seek those on high, and the fact that Sunday is an image of the expected age, for it is one day and the eighth day, just as in the world-being Moses called it one, and not the first day, since it represents it, indeed the only and true eighth non-evening day, the never-ending future age. Therefore, the Church, guiding its children, to remind them of that day and to prepare for it, decided to pray standing up, so that, looking at the highest reward, they would incessantly have it in their minds (Creator of St. Vas. Vel. vol. 3, p. 334–335). Inasmuch as the institution not to bow the knee on the said days was not observed everywhere, the present rule legitimizes that it be observed by all.

Aristen. On Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, one should not kneel, but pray to people in upright position. One should not kneel on Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, but stand up and offer up prayers to God.

Balsamon. The Apostolic Canon 64 of a fasting person on any Sunday or on any Saturday, except for the one and only Saturday, that is, the great one, commands the clergy to expel, and the layman to excommunicate. The present rule, however, determines every Sunday and all the days of Pentecost to celebrate and pray while standing by everyone, as those who have risen together with Christ and seek the higher abode. I ask: from the aforementioned Apostolic canon, which determines not to fast on any Saturday, nor on any Sunday, and from the present canon, which determines not to kneel on Sunday and all Pentecost, is it not also revealed that we should not fast all of Pentecost, but allow all the days of the week, as well as on Sunday? And some said that since the whole of Pentecost is revered as one day of the Lord, then we should therefore celebrate, and not fast, and not kneel. And I think that the rules are valid in relation to what they have decided.

Slavic helmsman. All the weeks, and all the days of the fiftieth, it is unworthy to kneel: but forgive standing all the people, let them pray.

Interpretation. Do not bow your knee every week, and on the days of holy Pentecost; but there is, from the resurrection of Christ, until the descent of the Holy Spirit, and other sacred fathers were commanded to be, and the great Basil: who even offers words, they also forfeit to bow the knee in the said days; that is to say, in all weeks, and fifties days: he commands those who are standing to pray, if they are, as if risen with Christ, and we must seek those on high. And also to the fact that the image of the dying age is the resurrection day, that is, the holy week; that for there is one day, and osmyi. Like Moses in the books of Genesis, one, and not the first one, was named: the speech was, and there was evening, and there was morning, the day was one: and one in truth and truth, osmorites in the image, and not the evening day, of the infinite of this age who wants to be. The same arranging churches, I will remember the day of it, and to persuade it, and command those standing to pray: yes, looking at the heavenly stay, unceasingly in the mind of the imam, behold, there is, if you don’t bow your knees in the appointed days, if it’s not observed everywhere , keep this rule for everyone and observe lawfully all commands.