Second Vatican Council. The Second Vatican Council: history The tenacity of the Monophysites and their sects

15.02.2024

The defeat of Arianism within the eastern borders. part of the Roman Empire was predetermined by death in the Battle of Adrianople, August 9. 378, patron of Arianism, eastern. imp. Valens. The Orthodox in the East were given the opportunity to restore their positions on the basis of the law of 378 Western. imp. Gratian on religion. freedom was given to everyone except the Manichaeans (see Art. Manichaeism), Photinians and Eunomians (see Art. Eunomius). In Jan. 379 at the negotiations of the emperor. Gratian with the military leader Theodosius (later Emperor St. Theodosius I the Great), during which Theodosius was appointed eastern. Emperor, undoubtedly, it was about church affairs, about the possibility of a new Ecumenical Council. The deep divisions between the Orthodox two parts of the empire made their common Council impossible. But the policy of both emperors was now directly aimed at the triumph of Orthodoxy. New edict of the imp. Gratian from 3 Aug. 379 allowed only the Nicene faith to be practiced and prohibited all heresies. Imp. St. Feodosius 28 Feb. 380 ordered to follow “that religion which was given to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter... and which will be followed by Pontiff Damasus and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness, that is, that we believe, according to the apostolic and evangelical teaching, in the one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity (sub pia Trinitate)” (CTh. 16. 1. 2). Arian bishops Lucius of Alexandria, Dimophilus of K-Pol and others were expelled. Orthodox ep. Peter II of Alexandria was able to return to Alexandria. In the K-field orthodox. the community has already invited St. Gregory the Theologian, but his entire flock could fit in the hall of a private house where St. Gregory built a church. After the ceremonial entrance into K-pol, imp. St. Theodosius (Nov. 24, 380) all the churches of the capital were given to the Orthodox; St. Gregory describes how the emperor himself, accompanied by many soldiers, with the indignation of the Arians, introduced him into the Cathedral of the Holy Apostles (Greg. Nazianz. De vita sua // PG. 37. Col. 1119-1121). The unity of the Orthodox in K-pol was overshadowed by the fact that Bishop. Peter of Alexandria tried to replace St. Gregory the Theologian by his protege, Maxim Kinik. St. was able to return to Antioch. Meletius, bishop Antiochian. However, Orthodox sire community the capital was split. If the majority supported St. Meletius, who was once supported by St. Basil the Great, the true leader of the Orthodox in the East. parts of the empire, for the enemy St. Meletia, ep. Antiochian Paulinus III, were Damasus I, Pope, and Bishop. Peter of Alexandria. After the death of St. Vasily the most authoritative Orthodox. St. became a hierarch in the East. Meletius of Antioch, who convened a Council of 153 bishops in the fall of 379. This Antioch Council dogmatically preceded the Second Ecumenical Council, establishing the Cappadocian teaching about the Holy Trinity (the deity of the Holy Spirit, God - “one Nature in three Hypostases”). Imp. St. Theodosius, who ruled the east. part of the empire, appointed the opening of the Cathedral of the East. bishops in K-pol for May 381

Progress of the Council

In the few weeks of May - June, the Council changed 3 chairmen. The first was St. Meletius of Antioch, leader of the New Nicenes. Of the 150 Council Fathers, approx. 70 were followers and supporters of St. Meletia. The Council was attended by Saints Cyril, Bishop. Jerusalem, Gregory, bishop. Nyssa, Amphilochius, bishop. Iconian. There were also Ascholy, bishop. Thessalonian, who arrived at the Council later, upon returning from the Council in Rome, Diodorus, bishop. Tarsian, Akakios, bishop. Verrian (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII 7). Despite the widespread belief that the Council was convened to condemn the Doukhobor Macedonians (cf. VI Ecumenical Council, Act 18 // ACO. II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 768; DVS. T. 4. P. 219) , in fact, he summed up the Arian disputes and condemned a wide range of heresies, with the Macedonians (see Art. Macedonius I) being closest to the Orthodox, “especially in Constantinople, after an agreement with [Pope] Liverius, they differed little from the dogma-loving ones who gathered at Nicaea; in the cities they mixed with them, as fellow believers, and had communication” (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII 2). It was expected that at the Council their final union with the Orthodox would take place, and in addition to 150 Orthodox Christians were summoned to it. 36 Macedonian bishops (Ibid. VII 7). But doctrinal agreement was not reached, and the Macedonians left the Council (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. V 8).

At the 1st meeting in the imperial palace. Theodosius recognized Meletius, whom he had seen in a dream, and “kissed him many times” (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 7). Under the chairmanship of St. Meletius, things were going well: his opponents, Egypt. bishops have not yet arrived at the Council. The consecration of Maximus Cynic to the Polish throne was declared invalid (4th right), although he was supported in Alexandria and Rome. During the Council of St. Meletius fell ill and died, his relics were solemnly carried to Antioch (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII 10). The Chairman of the Council was St. Gregory the Theologian. His right to the K-Polish department was disputed on the basis of the First Ecumenical. 15, prohibiting bishops from moving to another see. Arrival of those absent at the beginning of the Council of Egypt. bishops made the position of St. Gregory is even more complex. Egypt and Rome supported the enemy of St. Meletius Peacock and believed that Peacock's right to the Antiochian See was now undeniable. But the vast majority of Orthodox Christians. The Antiochians preferred to see one of the presbyters, the deceased St., in the pulpit. Meletia - Flavian I. St. Gregory, ready to support Peacock for the sake of church peace, began to insist on his retirement. The Emperor and the Council agreed, and the question arose about replacing the capital's department. There were different opinions on this matter, and a long list of candidates was drawn up. The choice of the emperor fell on the last one on the list - the old senator Nektarios, not yet baptized, whose candidacy was proposed by the bishop. Diodorus of Tarsus. Many praised this choice, made “by God's knowledge” (Ibid. VII 8). Nektary stood outside the church parties and, having political experience, could influence their reconciliation. Under the chairmanship of the new capital bishop, the Second Ecumenical Council ended. First of all, the Council resolved questions of doctrine, while simultaneously dealing with complex and urgent canonical issues. The main task of the Council was the formulation of the Creed, which received the name Nicene-Constantinople Creed. In the era of hypercriticism, the theory of Caspari - Hort - Harnack appeared (see the latter's article in: PRE. 1902. Bd. 11. S. 12-28) that the Symbol did not belong to the Council: it appeared before it and was accepted by the Church much later. The reason for the emergence of this theory is the scant documentation of the Council and the difficulties of its reception. Currently the time at which the Symbol belongs to the Council is not disputed (COD. p. 21-22). Saved blzh. Theodoret message of the K-Polish Council of 382 z. certifies to bishops the dogmatic works of the Council of 381. : “...tomos... drawn up in Constantinople by the Ecumenical Council, in which we professed the faith more extensively and anathematized in writing the heresies that had recently arisen” (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 9). Anathematization is in the 1st right. II Ecumenical Council, and the “more extensive confession of faith” is the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol. On July 9, the Council addressed a short message to the Emperor. St. Feodosius, asking for approval of his resolutions (Beneshevich V. N. Syntagma XIV titles. St. Petersburg, 1906. P. 94-95). The Emperor, having approved all the decisions of the Council on July 19, in an edict of July 30, 381, ordered “to immediately transfer all churches to bishops who profess one greatness and power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one glory and one honor, and who are in communion with Nektarios in Church of Constantinople, in Egypt with Timothy of Alexandria, in the East with Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Tarsus, in the diocese of Asia with Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus, bishop. Antioch of Pisidia, in the diocese of Pontus with Helladius of Cappadocia, Otrius of Melitene and Gregory of Nyssa, in Mysia and Scythia with Terentius, bishop. Tomsk, and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. All who do not enter into communion with the named bishops, as obvious heretics, should be expelled from the churches” (CTh. 16. 1. 3). This edict differs significantly from the edict of 380, where, in order to please the papist tendencies of Rome and Alexandria, the bishops of these 2 cities were declared universal centers of communication. Neither Pope Damasus nor any other Westerner is mentioned here. bishops. The West, which tried to impose its dictatorship in alliance with Alexandria, is opposed to the local principle of the church system. It is noteworthy that the edict does not name any bishop. Flavian, neither ep. Peacock, who challenged each other for the See of Antioch, the main one in the East. The emperor left the path of reconciliation open for the two parties. Decrees rejecting the canonical claims of the 2 most significant sees of the ancient Church could not but meet with opposition. Meeting almost simultaneously with the Second Ecumenical Council, Zap. Council in Aquileia, chaired by St. Ambrose of Milan (Mansi. T. 3. Col. 599-624) addressed a letter to the emperors, thanking them for the restoration of Orthodoxy, but condemning the East. bishops for their actions and decisions at the Council of 381. The Fathers of the Council of Aquileia believed that Timothy I, bishop. Alexandrian, and Pavlin, bishop. Antioch, a great offense has been caused; the decisions taken against them harm the ecclesiastical communion that should prevail in the Church. The message demanded a revision of the acts of the Polish Council by the Council of all Orthodox Christians. bishops and asked the emperors to convene such a Council in Alexandria. Several later St. Ambrose and other Italian bishops wrote to the imp. St. Theodosius, defending the rights of Peacock to Antioch and Maximus Cynic to the K-Polish See (Ambros. Mediol. Ep. 12, 13 // PL. 16. Col. 947 sqq.). Referring to imp. Gratian, they proposed convening a Council in Rome, where controversial issues would be discussed together by the bishops of the East and West. Important church issues should be resolved by all bishops together - this is the main idea of St. Ambrose in his protest against the Second Ecumenical Council. He said nothing about the primacy of the department of ap. Petra. On the contrary, Pope Damasus was highly conscious of his primacy, and in the East they knew this already from his correspondence with St. Basil the Great. Despite the fact that the pope was more reserved than St. Ambrose in his protests against the Council, he definitely expressed the doctrine of the primacy of the “apostolic see.” In 382, Councils were convened in K-pol and Rome. The Polish Council of 382 addressed the Roman Council with a message outlining the results of the Second Ecumenical Council (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 9). At the Roman Council, in addition to 3 envoys of the K-Polish Council, the east arrived. opponents of the K-field - ep. Timothy of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. In Rome they abandoned the support of Maximus Cynicus and entered into communication with Nektarios. But Rome supported the bishop for a long time. Peacock of Antioch. Trying to seize the doctrinal initiative from K-pol, the Roman Council adopted the “Tomos of Damasus to Paulinus of Antioch” - a very substantial doctrinal document, which, however, did not have universal authority: there is doubt whether this text of the “Tomos” is authentic, or whether it is a reverse translation from Greek translation included in the “Church History” of Bl. Theodoret (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 11) (Denzinger. 1965. p. 68-70). The Council of Rome is credited with the first official proclamation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome by divine right (Vries. p. 57).

The reception of the Second Ecumenical Council was especially difficult, primarily because of its 3rd law, which was unacceptable neither for Rome nor for Alexandria, since it, placing the K-Polish bishop in priority of honor after the Roman one, justified this was the political significance of the “new Rome” and thereby rejected the doctrine that the primacy of the Roman see was based on the fact of its establishment by St. ap. Peter, and Alexandria lost its primacy in the east. parts of the empire. The most important church and political events from then until the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs were associated with Alexandria's resistance to Polish primacy. The III Ecumenical Council, which was the church-political triumph of Alexandria, did not mention the II Ecumenical Council. On the contrary, the IV Ecumenical Council, which brought victory to the K-field, referred to the II Ecumenical Council: at the 2nd meeting of the Chalcedon Council on October 10. 451 the Symbol of St. 150 fathers (ASO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (2). P. 276; DVS. T. 2. P. 230; cf.: ASO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (2). P. 324; DVS. T. 3. P. 46-47). The Nicene-Constantinople Symbol gains recognition not only among supporters, but also among opponents of Chalcedon, who opposed the previous tradition to it as something monolithic (cf. the “expanded” version of the Symbol in the Armenian Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Illuminator (SDL. Part 2. P. 191- 192)). The West did not want to recognize the Second Ecumenical Council for a long time. For Pope Felix III (5th century) there were only 3 Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon (Mansi. T. 7. Col. 1140). The dogmatic definitions of the Second Ecumenical Council were officially recognized in the West under Pope Hormizdes (PL. 69. Col. 166), which was Rome's concession to the K-field for the sake of restoring communion (519) after the Acacian schism. The canonical decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council were ignored subsequently. Only Pope St. Gregory I the Great (Dvoeslov), informing the East about his election (590), was the first to notify the K-Polish Patriarch, thereby actually recognizing his primacy among the East. primates (PL. 77. Col. 468). However, with the expansion of papal claims to universal power in the Church, the recognition of the K-Polish Patriarch as “next in honor” after the Pope of Rome became less and less common in the West (cf. the Latin version of the 21st right of the K-Polish Council of 869-870: СOD . p. 182; and “Bulla unionis” of July 6, 1439 of the Council of Florence: COD.

Theology of the Council

The main dogmatic definition of the Council is its Symbol, which in ancient times was called “the faith of 150 fathers,” and later. became more accurately called Nicene-Constantinople. The influence of the Ecumenical Councils on Christ. the consciousness of subsequent centuries was expressed most powerfully and widely in this Symbol, which was accepted not only by Orthodox Christians. Church, but also the Oriental non-Chalcedonian Churches and, with the addition of the Filioque, the Catholic. The Church and moderate Protestants - Anglicans and Lutherans, i.e. the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Nicene-Constantinople Symbol: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, unmade, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being. For the sake of us humans and for the sake of our salvation, He came down from heaven and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose Kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets. Into one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. Tea of the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the next century. Amen" (ACO. II. Vol. 1 (2). P. 276).

The symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, to protect which so much Orthodox effort was expended. hierarchs and theologians, formed the basis of the Symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council, but later. ceased to be used, although the Third Ecumenical Council only knows it and does not mention the Symbol of 381 (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 12-13; DVS. T. 1. P. 222). The idea of completing the Nicene Symbol was expressed by the Cappadocians. St. Basil the Great, who repeatedly declared the sufficiency of the Nicene Symbol (Basil. Magn. Ep. 114, 125, 140), at the end of his life spoke in favor of including “doxology” to the Holy Spirit in the Symbol (Ep. 258. 2). One of the main participants of the Council, St. Gregory the Theologian, testified that the fathers of the Council were faithful to the Nicene Creed, but “did not detail what was said enough” (προσδιαρθροῦντες τὸ ἐλλιπῶς εἰρημένον) in it about the Holy Spirit (Greg . Nazianz. 102 // PG. 193). These two holy fathers mainly prepared, in the decade preceding the Council, additions to the Nicene Creed. St. Basil justifies the “worship” of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son and His “supremacy” (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 9-24). St. Gregory calls the Holy Spirit Lord (in the neuter gender in accordance with the gender of the Greek Πνεῦμα - Greg. Nazianz. Or. 41. 11). Noteworthy is the closeness to the Symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Symbol of the Church of Jerusalem, as it is reconstructed from the text of the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350; Cyr. Hieros. Catech. V (appendix) // PG. 33. Col. 533). On the contrary, almost identical to the Symbol of 381. The Symbol given by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in “Ancorat” (374; Epiph. Ancor. 118), is not the basis of the Symbol of the 150 Fathers, as has often been asserted (Quasten. P. 544): those elements of the text that do not distinguish the Symbol of 381 from the Symbol of 325 g., are absent in ancient Ethiopian. translation and, more importantly, in that extensive symbol, which St. himself offers here. Epiphanius (Ancor. 119; Παπαδόπουλος . Σ. 727), and are a rather crude later interpolation, replacing St. Epiphany Symbol of 325 on the Symbol of the Council of 381 (Spassky, pp. 594-596). The Symbol of 381 also reflects the intense trinitarian disputes of 341-360, when numerous Councils tried to replace the Nicene Symbol with new symbols, which, being more or less Arian, often included completely Orthodox. expressions. The revision of the Symbol in 381 was also based on private expositions of the Symbol of 325, made in previous decades by the Orthodox - not with the goal of replacing the Nicene, but in order to answer new questions that arose. The symbol of 325, which was a μάθημα, a doctrinal text consisting of positive statements and anathematisms, was processed into a baptismal symbol, in which there should be no place for anathematisms. It was necessary to add provisions about the Church, Baptism, general resurrection and eternal life, traditionally present in the baptismal symbols of local churches. Without thinking of replacing the Symbol of 325, 150 fathers wanted to place next to it a Symbol that had another purpose. However, the new Symbol has become much more perfect than the old one. Having eliminated the words of the Nicene Creed “and in one Lord Jesus Christ... through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth,” the fathers excluded the possibility of understanding the words “both in heaven and on earth” in the sense of indicating the Logos as Demiurge, the Creator, completing the work of the Father, Who created only the basic elements of the world - visible and invisible. In the new Symbol, the Father is the Creator in the full sense (“of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”), while the Son participates in the entire work of creation (“through Whom all things came into being”). The expression of the previous Symbol “from the essence of the Father” was removed, because it could be understood incorrectly - either in the subordinationist-emanation sense, where the Father was superior to other Divine Persons, or in the spirit of Sabellianism, where there were no Persons at all who were really different from the Father . The Cappadocians, based on the fact that all Three Persons equally possess the Divine Essence, did not use this expression. Some expressions have a polemical orientation. One of the defenders of the Council of Nicea, Marcellus of Ancyra, understood “consubstantial” in the Sabellian, monarchist-dynamist sense: God is a Monad, the Word is not born and is not a Person, but is always inherent in the Father, and only the God-man Christ becomes a Person. The Nicene Fathers did not include the words “before all ages” in the Symbol, fearing to give rise to the idea that the existence of the Son had a beginning in time, distancing itself from the existence of the Father. The appearance of Marcellus's false teaching made it necessary to include in the Symbol the indicated words, which were already found in several centuries. anti-Nicene symbols of previous decades, where these words are also directed against Marcellus. The words of the Symbol “of the kingdom of which there will be no end” also have an anti-Marcellian meaning (according to Marcellus, the Son, having brought everything to the Father, will again indistinguishably merge with Him); similar expressions are also found in several. anti-Nicene symbols (Spassky, pp. 611-612). A special concern for the fathers of the Council was the refutation of Apollinaris (the younger), bishop. Laodicean, who taught about the incompleteness of humanity in Christ: the Son of God took on a human body and an “unreasonable soul,” but the highest spiritual principle of man, the spirit (mind, “reasonable soul”), was absent from Him, being replaced by God the Word. Refuting Apollinaris, the Church began to develop in detail the Christological dogma. The answer to Apollinarianism was given back in the Nicene Creed, which speaks not only of the “incarnation”, but also of the “incarnation” of the Son of God, which indicates the perfection, the fullness of humanity in Him. The fullness of incarnation is emphasized by many. additions in the K-Polish Symbol: “... from the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary... and crucified for us... and buried.” Christ is God and Man, heavenly and earthly: “... from heaven... to heaven...”. Having entered human history, Christ becomes its Center, and what happens in a short historical moment “under Pontius Pilate” is accomplished “according to the Scriptures,” in fulfillment of God’s promises to the human race. The Son of God, made man, “sits at the right hand of the Father” and must come “again in glory” to judge the living and the dead.

A completely new part of the Symbol is after the words “and in the Holy Spirit.” One of the main goals of the Council is to affirm faith in the Holy Spirit, equal in divinity to the Father and the Son. Priest Scripture calls the Spirit the Life-Giving One (John 6:63), but the same is said about the Father and the Son (John 5:21). That. this word shows the equal deity of the Three Persons. Moreover, the Symbol was a product of its time. The Trinitarian disputes had not yet subsided, and the task of the Church was to unite everyone in a single confession. The Council continued the economy practiced by St. Basil the Great with the approval of St. Athanasius the Great. But not everyone approved of this direction. Among the dissenters was St.'s closest friend. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian, one of the main participants in the Council of 381. The line of St. dominated at the Council. Basil, while St. Gregory wanted the Fathers of the Council to directly confess the divinity of the Holy Spirit and His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. de se ipso // PG. 37. Col. 1245-1250). However, without directly calling the Holy Spirit God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Council unambiguously expressed this confession by other means, affirming the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, symmetrical to the birth of the Son from the Father, affirming that we worship and glorify the Holy Spirit along with the Father and Son, which in the theological language of the era quite definitely meant the equality of the three Divine Persons. The descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father is incompatible with the ascending to the beloved. Augustine zap. the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. And this very subordinationist teaching, and especially the insertion made on its basis into the Filioque Creed, became the most important dogmatic reason for the division of Catholics. and Orthodox Churches. The following is a list of 4 properties of the Church: one (unique), holy, catholic and apostolic. The confession of a single Baptism reflects long-standing debates about Baptism beyond the canonical boundaries of the Church. The symbol is determined not only by Christ. faith, but also hope (“tea”). Ancient symbols often spoke of the “resurrection of the flesh” (cf. the symbol of St. Cyril of Jerusalem). The fact that the Symbol of 381 does not say about the bodily resurrection does not mean at all that the fathers of the Council understand the resurrection somehow differently: ancient Christ. the concept of resurrection was quite unambiguous and diverged from Platonic spiritualism.

The most important doctrinal significance is the Epistle of the Polish Council of 382 to the Roman Council (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 9), announcing the Second Ecumenical Council, testifying to the adherence to the evangelical faith “established by the saints and God-bearing 318 fathers in Nicaea of Bithynia.” “corresponds to baptism and teaches us to believe in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is, to believe in the Divinity, the power and being of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to believe in the equal dignity and co-eternal reign of the three perfect Hypostases, or three perfect Persons to believe in such a way that neither the disease of Sabellius, who confuses the Hypostases and rejects personal properties, nor the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians and Doukhobors, who dissect the being, and nature, and the Divinity, which are into the uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity, take place here. they introduce some kind of nature, either post-born, or created, or alien. And regarding the incarnation of the Lord, we preserve the uncorrupted teaching: we accept the dispensation of the flesh and not without a soul, and not without a mind, and not imperfect, but we admit integrity, that is, that the Word of God, perfect before the ages, in the last days for our salvation became perfect man.” Unlike the Symbol, which is intended for everyone and therefore is not unnecessarily overloaded with scientific theological terms, it is the theological confession that is presented here. Message addressed to the Orthodox, in its expressions is much more specific than the Symbol, compiled taking into account the goals of oikonomia, intended not only for those who are firm in confessing the equality of the three Divine Persons, or Hypostases, but also for those who are hesitant, who cannot immediately and directly confess the Consubstantial Trinity.

Prot. Valentin Asmus

Rules of the Council

7 rules of the Council are known, but at the Council itself they were not compiled as separate ones: the fathers of the Council issued a message of canonical, church-disciplinary content, cut in the beginning. VI century was divided into 4 rules; 2 other rules, last. included in the canons of the Second Ecumenical Council as the 5th and 6th rules, were published by the K-Polish Council in 382; 7th rights is an excerpt from a letter sent from Ephesus to Nestorius, Archbishop. K-Polish (428). After the condemnation of Nestorius by the Third Ecumenical Council, the odious name of the addressee was removed from the message. The reason for the connection of this text from the canon of the Ephesian Church with the rules adopted in 381-382, according to Archbishop. Peter (L"Huillier), was that he seemed to meaningfully continue II Universe 1 (L"Huillier. P. 111). Rules 5-7 were not included in the ancient records. collections. Recognizing that the 3rd is right. published by the Council itself, the Roman Church nevertheless rejected it, since it elevated the status of the Polish Church, but nevertheless later. Rome was forced to recognize the place of the K-Polish see in the universal diptych established by this rule. In the "Helmsman's Book" 7th rights. divided by 2, etc. There were 8 rules.

In the 1st right. The Council confirms the immutability of the Creed of “the three hundred and eighty fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea in Bithynia” and anathematizes any heresy that diverges from this Symbol, and then follows a list of these heresies: “Eunomians, Anomeans, Arians, or Eudoxianus, Semi-Arians , or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians." In the most reliable version of the Greek. text reproduced in the edition of the “Rules of the Holy Ecumenical Councils with Interpretations”, the Eunomians are identified with the Anomeans (Εὐνομιανῶν ἤγουν ᾿Ανομοίων), which is not in the parallel Slavic-Russian. text, where those and others are listed separated by commas, as different heresies (p. 78). The word "Symbol" was added to Russian. translation: in Greek it speaks only of “the faith of the 318 fathers,” which can mean both faith as such and the Creed.

In the 2nd right. we are talking about the inviolability of canonical territorial boundaries between churches: “Regional bishops should not extend their authority to churches outside their region, and may they not mix churches.” It contains obvious parallels with Ap. 35, which reads: “Let the bishop not dare to perform ordinations outside the boundaries of his diocese in cities and villages that are not subordinate to him. If he is convicted of having done this without the consent of those who have those cities or villages under his control, let him also be cast out and those appointed by him”; cf.: I Omni. 5 and especially with I Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 17.

2nd right It is also important in the sense that for the first time in the language of the canons, larger local formations are mentioned in it than church regions headed by metropolitans, which were discussed in the rules of the First Ecumenical Council - dioceses. Here it is said about the dioceses of only one prefecture - the East: “... let the bishop of Alexandria rule only the churches of Egypt: let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian church, recognized by the rules of Nicaea: and let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia: Let the Pontic bishops have in their jurisdiction only the affairs of the Pontic region, and the Thracian affairs only of Thrace.” Regarding churches outside the empire, “among foreign peoples,” the Council decided to maintain the previous order - “the hitherto observed custom of the fathers,” which was that churches in Ethiopia were under the jurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria, churches within Iran, beyond the east. borders of the empire - under the jurisdiction of the Throne of Antioch, and the Church of the East. Europe depended on the first bishop of Thrace, who had a see in Heraclius of Thracia.

3rd right establishes a place in the diptych of Bishop K-Paul. It says: “Let the bishop of Constantinople have the precedence of honor over the bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.” Rome associated the inequality of honor of departments not with the political significance of cities, but with the apostolic origin of the communities, therefore, the Roman, Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches, founded by the apostle, were placed in the first places in the diptych. Peter and his disciple ap. Mark. In this regard, the Roman bishops for several years. for centuries they stubbornly resisted the rise of the capital's department of K-field. But how is the 3rd right. Council, and IV Ecumenical. 28 and Trul. 36 speak unambiguously about the political and, therefore, historically transitory grounds for the rise of thrones. The civil status of the city determined, according to these rules, its place in the diptych. Rome rejected in ancient times and rejects now the political conditionality of the rank of the church see, which is explained by the peculiarities of the church history of the West: “In view of the absence in the West of communities founded by the apostles, due to the fact that the only such community here was Rome, the primacy of the Roman bishop was derived from the foundation of the Roman Church the apostles and especially Peter, the prince of the apostles” (Gidulyanov, p. 494). To the East is the west. the teaching is inapplicable: the origin of the Corinthian Church is no less worthy than the origin of the Church of Alexandria; Meanwhile, the Corinthian bishops never claimed equal honor with the Alexandrian Church. However, the generally accepted tendency in the East to explain the ecclesiastical rank of a see by the political situation of the city also extends to the West: Rome is the capital of the empire, Carthage is the capital of Rome. Africa, Ravenna - residence of Western Rome. emperors. Thus, eastern t. zr., directly expressed in the 3rd law, has every reason to claim general church significance.

A peculiar interpretation of the 3rd rights. Alexius Aristinus suggests: “The bishop of Constantinople should have the same advantages and the same honor with the Roman bishop, as in the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon this rule is understood, because this city is the new Rome and received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite. For the preposition “by” (μετά) here does not denote honor, but time, just as if someone said: for many times the bishop of Constantinople received equal honor with the bishop of Rome.” Objecting to such a far-fetched interpretation, John Zonara noted: “Some thought that the preposition “by” does not mean a derogation of honor, but the relatively later appearance of this institution... But the 131st novel of Justinian, located in the fifth book of Vasilik, title 3, gives reason to understand these rules differently, as they were understood by this emperor. It says: “We deliver, in accordance with the definitions of St. Councils, so that the most holy pope of ancient Rome should be the first of all priests, and the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, would occupy the second rank after the Apostolic See of ancient Rome and have the advantage of honor over all others.” This clearly shows that the preposition “by” means derogation and reduction. Otherwise, it would be impossible to maintain the identity of honor in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that when the names of their primates are raised, one should take first and the other second place, both in the cathedras, when they come together, and in the signings, when they are needed.” Theodore IV Balsamon also agrees with John Zonara in everything. However, in the “Helmsman’s Book” this view was reflected. Aristina. In the interpretation of “The Helmsman” it is said: “And if the rule speaks... it does not say that it is more honorable for the Romans to be, but it is said about telling the times. As if someone, as if for many years, the bishop of Constantine was honored with equal honor to the bishop of Rome and the city of Constantine.”

In 4th right. The Council rejected the validity of the consecration of Maxim Kinik to the K-Polish See, occupied by St. Gregory the Theologian. Among the crimes of Maximus Cynic, John Zonara mentions simony. The presence of the sin of simony during ordination to the sacred degree, according to the canons, abolishes the effect of grace and makes the ordination invalid (cf.: Ap. 29, IV Ecum. 2, Trul. 22, VII Ecum. 5, 19, Basil. 90). The canonical principle, which follows from the text and context of the 4th law, is, first of all, that it is unacceptable to occupy the same chair for 2 or more. bishops, and therefore until the legal liberation of the department following. death, dismissal, transfer to another see, or deposition by court of the bishop who occupied it, the appointment of other persons to it is illegal and invalid.

The 5th law, which reads: “Concerning the Western scroll: those who are in Antioch are also acceptable, confessing one Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” - has been interpreted differently. The “Scroll”, or tomos of the “Western”, is one of the dogmatic documents, but what kind of document it is talking about, different opinions have been expressed on this issue. According to the interpretation of John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, the canon speaks of the “confession of faith” of the Sardician Council of 343, which included mainly Western. fathers and whose original materials were compiled in Lat. language. However, most modern scientists do not share this view. Ch. arr. because the definitions of the Sardician Council do not even mention the Antiochian Church, and moreover, 38 years passed between the Sardician and Second Ecumenical Councils, i.e., this would be a too late reaction. In accordance with the interpretation of the circumstances that led to the drawing up of the 5th law, the rules were given by Beveregius, Valesius, K. J. Hefele, G. Bardi, as well as Orthodox. canonists Bishops Nicodemus (Milash) and John (Sokolov), Archbishop. Peter (L" Huillier), the rule deals with the events that took place under Pope Damasus I. In 369, a Council was held in Rome, which outlined its confession of faith, sent a message to Antioch, asking the Eastern Fathers to express their judgment about This confession. At the Antioch Council of 379, agreement was expressed with the confession. According to Archbishop Peter (L" Huillier), “the fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 382, having adopted the tomos, approved already in Antioch, sought to show the unity of faith with the West. The text of the 5th rule should not be seen as showing any openness regarding Peacock and his group, contrary to the statements of some authors. For the fathers of the Council of 381, the correctness of Flavian’s appointment was beyond any doubt, as is clear from their conciliar message... Rome decided to recognize Flavian only around 398.” (L"Huillier. P. 124). In this case, Archbishop Peter argues with F. Cavallera (Cavallera. P. 248. Not. 2) and Bardi, who, however, expressed more on this issue cautious t.z., believing that the “Easterns” were not ready to admit, as the West insisted, the illegality of the installation of St. Meletius, but in the 5th they expressed their readiness to accept the Paulians, who would join the Meletians. Peter is convinced that this rule has nothing to do with the schism in Antioch. It has no actual legal content and is one of the documents of church history, its canonical meaning is based on the historical context, without which it is impossible to discern any formulation in it. whatever the church legal norm.

6th right. is of exceptional importance for the ecclesiastical court. It first of all establishes the criteria that a person applying as an accuser of a bishop or as a plaintiff with a complaint against a bishop to a church court must meet. In this regard, the rule distinguishes between complaints and accusations of a private nature, on the one hand, and accusations of committing church crimes, on the other. Complaints and accusations of a private nature, in accordance with this rule, are accepted regardless of religion. convictions of the accuser or plaintiff: “... if anyone brings some kind of personal, that is, private complaint against the bishop, such as his claim to property, or some other injustice suffered from him: with such accusations, do not accept any person for consideration the accuser, nor his faith. It is fitting in every possible way for the bishop’s conscience to be free, and for the one who declares himself to be offended to receive justice, no matter what his faith.” But if we are talking about church crimes, then this rule does not allow the acceptance of accusations of such from heretics, schismatics, organizers of illegal gatherings (arbiters), deposed clergy, excommunicated laity, as well as from those under church trial and not yet acquitted.

This provision is taken into account in the adopted Holy. Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church 1 Oct. 2004 “Temporary Regulations on Church Legal Proceedings for Diocesan Courts and Diocesan Councils Performing the Functions of Diocesan Courts”, which states: “Applications received from... outside ecclesiastical communion are not accepted for consideration (in the case of consideration of doctrinal cases , pastoral or liturgical nature)" (II 3. 13. 2), similarly, according to the "Temporary Regulations", the same persons are not subject to being brought to church court as witnesses in matters of a doctrinal, pastoral or liturgical nature (II 5. 25 .3).

Complaints and accusations against bishops are submitted, according to the 6th law, to the regional council, that is, to the court of the council of the metropolitan district. In the event that the decision made by the regional council does not satisfy the accuser or plaintiff, he can appeal to the “greater council of bishops of the great region,” in other words, the council of the diocese, of which in the East in the era of the Second Ecumenical Council there were Asia (with its center in Ephesus), Pontic with its capital in Caesarea in Cappadocia, Thracian (with its center in Heraclius), on the territory of which K-pol was located, as well as Syrian (with its capital in Antioch) and Egyptian with Libya and Pentapolis (the main city is Alexandria) . See also having parallel content IV Universal. 9, Antioch. 14, 15, Sardik. 14, Karth. 19 (28). 6th right. At the same time, the Council categorically prohibits filing complaints against bishops and appeals to the king, “secular leaders” and the Ecumenical Council (cf. Carth. 104 (117)).

The rule contains one more provision that corresponds to both the nature of church legislation and the norms of Rome. rights, but alien to modern secular legislation. state, which is that the accuser, in the case of proven slander, is himself subject to the responsibility that is provided for the one who committed the crime for which he accuses the bishop: “... but not before they can insist on their accusation, as having put themselves in writing under pain of the same punishment as the accused, even if, in the course of the proceedings, they turned out to be slandering the accused bishop.”

7th rights refers to the topic of former heretics and schismatics joining the Church. It summarizes the contents of previously published I Omni. 8 and 19, Laodice. 7 and 8, Vasil. 1 and 47. According to this rule, the Eunomians, the Montanists, called “Phrigians,” the Sabellians and “all other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country) ... are accepted as pagans” through Baptism. And the Arians, Macedonians (see Art. Macedonius I), Novatians (see Art. Novatian), Savbatians, Quaternaries and Apollinarians - through anathematization of heresy and Confirmation (cf. Trul. 95). It may be puzzling that the fathers of the Council decided to accept not only the Doukhobor Macedonians, but even the Arians, obvious heretics, without Baptism. This is probably explained not only by the fact that the Arians did not distort the baptismal formula, but also by the fact that the extreme Arians, who blasphemously called the Son created and unlike the Father, by the time of the Council had degenerated into the Eunomian sect (see Art. Eunomius), for -ry, during their transition to Orthodoxy, the Council provided for rebaptism, for it placed them on an equal basis with the pagans, and those named in the 7th were right. Arians did not call themselves Arians. After the First Ecumenical Council, their leaders said: “How can we, bishops, follow Presbyter Arius?!” (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. II 10). At that time they considered Eusebius, bishop, their teacher. Nicomedia, and later. Akakiya, ep. Caesarea. The Akakians confessed the Son to be similar to the Father and even Orthodoxy called Him “the indistinguishable image of the Father,” but they rejected him as consubstantial with the Father and in this they agreed with the very instigator of the heresy.

In the 7th right. those reunited with the Church both through Baptism and Confirmation are called the same - heretics, which does not coincide with the terminology of St. Basil the Great, who distinguished between heretics, schismatics and arbitrators (Basil. 1). However, the word “heretics” then and subsequently, right up to the present day. time, was and is used in different senses, which sometimes introduces unnecessary purely terminological confusion into the debate on the issue of heresy and schism. In some cases, the word “heresy” is used to describe a radical perversion of dogma, in others it is used to designate any deviation from Orthodoxy. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council used the word “heretics” precisely in the latter sense, and perhaps even more broadly - in relation to any separation from the Church. It is difficult to judge this, because the rule does not mention self-initiators at all. There is a discrepancy in the use of the word “heretics” in Vasil. 1 and II Omni. 7 is not associated with k.-l. a real discrepancy between these rules, for it is obvious that the Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, etc., who are accepted through Confirmation and curse “every heresy that does not philosophize, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes.” (II Om. 7) - these are those whom St. Basil in the Canonical Epistle to St. He called Amphilochius of Iconium “schismatics.” When comparing rules, one should proceed not from their unstable terminology, but from their real content, and in the case of the rules on the accession of apostates - from the reception of ceremonies. In the 7th right. The Second Ecumenical Council does not speak about admission into the Church, but about “those joining Orthodoxy and part of those being saved.” Perhaps the fathers of the Council did not use the word “Church” because they did not want to declare heretics who were accepted through Confirmation, i.e., schismatics, completely alien to the Church, but with the words “those who join... part of those being saved,” the Council quite definitely warns those who remain in separation from the Orthodox Church. The Church about the spiritual danger that threatens them, for those who are “saved” are not where they are.

Lit.: Cavallera F. Le schisme d "Antioche. P., 1905; Ritter A. M. Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol. Gött., 1965; idem. Arianismus // TRE. Bd. 3. S. 692-719; idem. The Dogma of Constantinople (381) and its Reception within the Churches of the Reformation // ThQ. 1981. Bd. 228-232; idem. Das Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) in seiner und unserer Zeit // ThPh. . Bd. 56. S. 321-334; TRE. 19. S. 518-134; , 1982; Hauschild W.-D. Das trinitarische Dogma von 381 als Ergebnis verbindlicher Konsensbildung // Ganoczy A., Lehmann K., Pannenberg W. Glaubensbekenntnis und Kirchengemeinschaft: Das Modell des Konzils von Konstantinopel (381). Br. ; Gött., 1982. S. 13-48; Nicäno-Konstantinopolitanisches Glaubensbekenntnis // TRE. S. 444-456; P., 1987. Vol. 3; Hanson R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381. Edinb., 1988; Drecoll V. Wie nizänisch ist das Nicaeno-Constantmopolitanum? // ZKG. 1996. Bd. 107. S. 1-18; Hammerstädt J . Hypostasis // RAC. Vol. 16. S. 986-1035; Bienert W. Dogmengeschichte. Stuttg., 1997. S. 188-205; Staats R. Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizäa-Konstantinopel: Historische und theologische Grundlagen. Darmstadt, 19992. (For general bibliography, see article Ecumenical Council.)

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin

Participants

150 Orthodox bishops were present at the Council. Theodosius also invited 36 Macedonian bishops to the Council, led by the eldest bishop Eleusius of Cyzicus, hoping that they would agree in their confession of faith with the Orthodox. But the bishops of Macedonia and Egypt directly stated that they do not and will not allow “consistency” and left the Council. Emperor Theodosius did not even notify Pope Damasius (from the Gratian Empire) about the opening of the Council.

Among the main participants of the Council were: Meletius of Antioch, Timothy of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gelasius of Caesarea-Palestine (nephew of Cyril), Ascholius of Thessaloniki, Gregory of Nyssa (brother of Basil the Great), Amphilochius of Iconium, Optimus of Antioch of Pisidia, Diodorus of Tarsus, Pelagius of Laodicea. The Council was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, who died shortly after the Council began and was replaced by Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330-c.390), known in the church under the name of the Theologian, and after he left the Council - Nektarios, Gregory’s successor on See of Constantinople.

Council resolutions

The Council issued an Epistle, which was subsequently divided into 7 rules. In the Helmsman's Book, the 7th rule was divided into two.

About heresies (1st rule)

The struggle between the Orthodox and the Arians, which resumed after the end of the First Ecumenical Council and initially focused on the resolved question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, over time gave rise to the emergence of new heresies, of which the most dangerous were the heresies associated with the names of Apollinaria and Macedonius. The heresy of Apollinaris and the heresy of Macedonius aroused new questions of a dogmatic nature, the first about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, and the second about the Holy Spirit, the third hypostasis of the Trinity.

The Second Ecumenical Council condemned and anathematized heresies (1st rule of the Council):

Eunomians - followers of Bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus (c.), who taught that “The Holy Spirit is not God. He was created according to the will of the Father through the Son.”
Anomeev - they were also called Eunomians, because they denied the consubstantiality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, arguing that the second and third persons are in no way similar to the first person.
Arians, who taught that the Son of God was not born of the Father, but was created and only like the Father. The Council identifies them with the Eudoxians, followers of Eudoxius (first half of the 4th century), who was the bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. The teaching of Eudoxius is similar to the Eunomian, but he went further than the Arians, arguing that the Son is not even like the Father.
Poluarians or Doukhobors (pneumatomachians) - followers of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople (355-359), who taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that he is created and like the angels. The Council identified the two heresies, which at that time acted together, but in fact the Polu-Arians went further than the Doukhobors, who did not deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, while the Polu-Arians denied this too.
Sabellian - who taught that there is no hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that they constitute one Person. The founder of this heresy was Sabellius, Bishop of Ptolemais of Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century.
Marcellian - followers of Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (half of the 4th century), who denied the eternal hypostasis of the Son and taught that with the advent of the end of the world there would be an end of the kingdom of Christ and even his very existence.
Photinians - followers of Photinus, Bishop of Srem, disciple of Marcellus, who especially focused their teaching on the assertion that Jesus Christ was just a man in whom the Divinity dwelt with special fullness, but he was not eternal.
Apollinarians - followers of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who lived in Syria around the half of the 4th century. Based on the doctrine of the three-component nature of the human being, Apollinaris attributed to Jesus Christ a human body and a human soul (similar to animals), but not a human spirit, instead of which he recognized the Logos in him. He merged in him the divine and human nature, denied the human will in him and, thus, in essence, denied God-manhood itself.

On the autocephalous governance of local Churches (2nd rule)

The Council prohibited bishops of some local churches from interfering in the affairs of other churches.

On the status of the Bishop of Constantinople (3rd rule)

Almost until the time of the Second Ecumenical Council in the East, the first see was considered to be that of Alexandria, therefore the order in the ancient Church in which chairs were listed and given honor was as follows: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. But due to the fact that Constantinople became the seat of the emperor and the capital, the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople increased, and the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council put Constantinople in second place after Rome, citing the fact that Constantinople is the New Rome.

Although only the eastern dioceses were represented at the council, the Greeks declared this council an Ecumenical Council. This rule of the Second Ecumenical Council was not recognized by the popes. Pope Damasus I in Rome accepted the creed, but not the canons, at least he did not accept the canon about the precedence of Constantinople after Rome. This marked the beginning of church legal polemics, and in fact, the great division of the church East and West. In reality, Rome only accepted the precedence of Constantinople after Rome at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 during the Latin Empire of Constantinople created after the Fourth Crusade.

About Maxim Cynic (4th rule)

The Council, first of all, began to consider the next issue of replacing the vacant See of Constantinople. At the request of the emperor and the people, Gregory the Theologian was recognized by the Council as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. However, soon after the death of Meletius, controversy arose again about the church schism, which had long troubled the Church of Antioch. This schism arose in Antioch in the early 60s of the 4th century, when two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, simultaneously appeared in it, they both shared control over the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian Church and were in irreconcilable enmity with each other. Gregory the Theologian suggested that the Council not choose a successor to replace the deceased Meletius. He proposed to postpone this choice until the time when the warring parties of the Antiochian Church could, by mutual consent, choose a bishop for themselves. But Gregory’s proposal was rejected by the Council, so a misunderstanding arose between him and the bishops participating in the Council, which ended with Gregory voluntarily renouncing the See of Constantinople. In addition, the bishops of Egypt and Macedonia, who arrived at the Council late and therefore did not give consent to the election of Gregory the Theologian as bishop of the capital, questioned the question of the correctness of this election, referring to the 15th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which prohibited bishops from moving from one see to another (Gregory the Theologian, before enthronement of the Church of Constantinople, was the bishop of the town of Sasim). In June 381, after delivering a farewell speech to the delegates of the Council, Gregory retired to Nazianzus, where he died on January 25. The Council sharply condemned (4th rule of the Council) the actions of Maximus the Cynic, who laid claims to replacing the See of Constantinople, which at that time headed by Gregory the Theologian. At the call of Maximus, two bishops arrived from Alexandria and consecrated him, but it was never recognized by anyone. As a result, at the suggestion of Emperor Theodosius I, a secular official, the praetor of Constantinople, Nektarios, was elected to the capital's see.

About the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (5th rule)

First Council of Constantinople

The dogmatic activity of the Second Ecumenical Council found its expression in the composition of the symbol, known in the history of the church under the name of Nicene-Constantinograd. The confession of faith approved at the Roman Council, which Pope Damasius I sent to Bishop Paulinus of Antioch, was proposed for consideration by the delegates of the Council. Having discussed the text of this confession, the Council unanimously approved the apostolic teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a serving being, but “The Lord, the Life-Giving One, who proceeds from the Father, is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son.” Until the eighth member, that is, before the presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council is the Nicene Symbol, modified and supplemented by the Council to refute the heresies that necessitated the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council. The Symbol adopted by the First Ecumenical Council did not speak of the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit, because the Doukhobor heresy did not yet exist.

In the doctrine of God the Father in the Nicene symbol, the Council after the word "Creator" entered words "heaven and earth" . In the doctrine of the Son of God the words were replaced after “begotten of the Father” "from the essence of the Father, God from God" words "before all ages" . If there are words in the symbol "True God from true God" expression "God from God" was in some way a repetition that was excluded from the text. At the same time, the expression was omitted "in heaven and on earth" , following the words "through whom all things were made".

In the teaching about the Son of God, contained in the Nicene Symbol, the Council inserted some words (in bold), more clearly expressing the Orthodox teaching about the carnal nature of the God-man, directed against certain heresies:

“...for our sake man and for our salvation came from heaven and incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and made human, crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered, and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures, and ascended to heaven and him who sits at the right hand of the Father and again he who has to come with glory judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom will have no end».

Thus, the activity of the Second Ecumenical Council, apparently, was not aimed at abolishing or changing the essence of the Nicene Symbol, but only at a more complete and definite disclosure of the teaching contained in it.

The Nicene symbol ended with the words “(I believe) also in the Holy Spirit.” The Second Ecumenical Council supplemented it by adding to it the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Church, baptism, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century; the presentation of the teaching about these truths of faith constitutes the content of 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 members of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.

On complaints of a private and church nature (6th rule)

On the form of ecclesiastical court and the acceptance of heretics into ecclesiastical communion (7th rule)

In conclusion, the Council decided on the form of ecclesiastical judgment and the acceptance of heretics into ecclesiastical communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through confirmation, depending on the severity of the error. (7th rule of the Council).

Although in Greek, Slavic and Russian editions 7 rules are attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council, in reality only the first four belong to it, which are also mentioned by church historians of the 5th century. Rules 5 and 6 were compiled at the Council of Constantinople in 382; Rule 7 is an abbreviation of the message made by the Council of Trullo (692) on behalf of the Church of Constantinople to the Bishop of Antioch, Martyrius.

Links

A.V. Kartashev. Ecumenical Councils. Paris, 1963 // Chapter: Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople 381
A.V. Kartashev. Ecumenical Councils. Paris, 1963 // Chapter: Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.

Ecumenical councils
Eastern and Western churches	First Council of Nicaea \| First Council of Constantinople\| Ephesus Cathedral \| Chalcedon Cathedral \| Second Council of Constantinople \| Third Council of Constantinople \| Second Council of Nicaea
Eastern Church	Great St. Sophia Cathedral \| Trullo Cathedral
Western Church	Fourth Council of Constantinople \| First Lateran Council \| Second Lateran Council \| Third Lateran Council \| Fourth Lateran Council \| First Lyon Cathedral \| Second Lyon Cathedral \| Vienne Cathedral \| Cathedral of Constance \| Ferraro-Florence Cathedral \| Fifth Lateran Council \| Council of Trent \| First Vatican Council \| Second Vatican Council

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what the “Second Ecumenical Council” is in other dictionaries:

- (9th century miniature to the works of Gregory the Theologian) Second Ecumenical Council, I Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of the Church; convened in 381 by Emperor Theodosius I (379,395) in Constantinople. Both in the East and in the West it is recognized... ... Wikipedia

Date 553 Recognizes Catholicism, Orthodoxy Previous Council Council of Chalcedon Next Council Third Council of Constantinople Convened by Justinian I Presided over by Eutyches Number of those gathered 152 (including 7 from Africa, 8 from Illyria, but ... Wikipedia

Date 1962 1965 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Vatican Council Next Council none Convened by John XXIII Presided over by John XXIII, Paul VI Number of those gathered up to 2540 Discussion ... Wikipedia

Date 1139 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Lateran Council Next Council Third Lateran Council Convened by Innocent II Presided by Innocent II Number of those present 1000 Topics discussed ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Council of Nicaea. Second Council of Nicaea Date 787 Recognizes Catholicism, Orthodoxy Previous Council (Catholicism) Third Council of Constantinople (Orthodoxy) Council of Trullo Next... ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Lyon Cathedral (meanings). Second Council of Lyon Date 1274 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Council of Lyon Next Council Council of Vienne Convened by Gregory X Presided over... Wikipedia

The Second Vatican Council is the last Council of the Catholic Church, the XXI Ecumenical Council on its account, opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and lasting until 1965 (during this time the pope was replaced, the council closed under Pope Paul VI).... ... Wikipedia

Second Council of Nicaea- ♦ (ENG Second Council of Nicaea) (787) The Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, convened by Empress Irene to resolve disputes surrounding iconoclasm. It established the veneration of the images of Christ, Mary, angels and saints, but not... ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms

Seven Ecumenical Councils, with the Creation of the World and the Council of the Twelve Apostles (19th century icon) Ecumenical Councils (Greek Σύνοδοι Οικουμενικαί, lat. Oecumenicum Concilium) meetings primarily of the episcopate of the Christian Church in its universal fullness ... Wikipedia

The Seventh Ecumenical Council (17th century icon, Novodevichy Monastery) The Second Council of Nicaea (also known as the Seventh Ecumenical Council) was convened in 787, in the city of Nicaea, under Empress Irene (widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 ... Wikipedia

Books

Seven Wonders of the World Biblical Rus' Calendar and Easter Nativity of Christ and the Council of Nicaea Prophecy of Daniel Underground Moscow of the 16th century - the prototype of the famous ancient labyrinth, Nosovsky G.. This publication is published in a new edition made by A. T. Fomenko in 2013. It differs markedly from previous ones and is a new study in mathematical chronology and reconstruction...

Plan
Introduction
1 Purpose of the cathedral
2 Liturgical reform
3 Final documents

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council is the last of the Councils of the Catholic Church, the XXI Ecumenical Council according to its account, opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and lasted until 1965 (during this time the pope was replaced, the cathedral closed under Pope Paul VI). The council adopted a number of important documents related to church life - 4 constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations.

1. Purpose of the cathedral

Opening the Council on October 11, 1962, John XXIII stated that the purpose of the Council was the renewal of the Church and its reasonable reorganization, so that the Church could demonstrate its understanding of the development of the world and join this process. The Pope expressed the wish that the result of this Council would be a Church open to the world. The task of the Council was not to reject and condemn the realities of the modern world, but to carry out long-overdue reforms. The transformations adopted at the council caused the rejection of the most conservative part of the Catholic community, some of which found themselves in a virtual schism with the Church (the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X), some support the movement for the preservation of the pre-reform rite within the Church (Una Voce).

2. Liturgical reform

For Catholics, the most notable results of the council were changes in the liturgical practice of the Church, in particular the introduction of worship in national languages along with Latin and a new, more open position in relations with non-Catholics.

The goal of the reform of worship is greater participation of the people in the Mass. Now a large place in it is given to sermons, readings of the Holy Scriptures, general prayers, and the clergyman during the mass stands facing the worshipers.

3. Final documents

The Second Vatican Council adopted 16 documents (4 constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations):

Constitution:

· “Sacrosanctum Concilium” - constitution on the sacred liturgy

· “Lumen gentium” - dogmatic constitution on the Church

· “Gaudium et Spes” - pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world

· “Dei Verbum” - dogmatic constitution on divine revelation

Decrees:

· “Ad gentes” - decree on the missionary activities of the Church

· “Orientalium Ecclesiarum” - decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches

· “Christus Dominus” - decree on the pastoral ministry of bishops in the Church

· “Presbyterorum ordinis” - decree on the ministry and life of elders

· “Unitatis redintegratio” - decree on ecumenism

· “Perfectae caritatis” - a decree on the renewal of monastic life in relation to modern conditions

· “Optatam totius” - decree on preparation for the priesthood

· “Inter mirifica” - decree on mass media

· “Apostolicam actuositatem” - decree on the apostolate of the laity

Declarations:

· “Dignitatis humanae” - declaration of religious freedom

· “Gravissimum educationis” - declaration of Christian education

· “Nostra aetate” - a declaration on the attitude of the church towards non-Christian religions

Literature

1. Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Moscow, 2004.

2. The Second Vatican Council: intentions and results, Moscow, 1968.

3. History of the Second Vatican Council, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo, in 5 volumes, Moscow, 2003-2010.

4. Casanova, A., Second Vatican Council. Criticism of the ideology and practice of modern Catholicism, Moscow, 1973.

Convened in 381 in the Church of St. Irene in Constantinople by the Emperor Theodosius I(379–395) in Constantinople. He established the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son. He supplemented and approved the Nicene Creed, which later received the name Nicene-Constantinople (Nicene-Constantinople). In addition, he established the status of the Bishop of Constantinople as the Bishop of New Rome, second in honor to the Bishop of Rome, surpassing the Bishop of Alexandria, who had previously been considered the first in the East and bore the title “Pope”. As a result, the so-called pentarchy was formed - the five main episcopal sees (local Churches) of the Christian world: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Interpreters about the cathedral

Zonara and Balsamon. The second holy and ecumenical council took place under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, in Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered against the Doukhobors, who set out the following rules.

Slavic helmsman. The Holy Ecumenical Second Council took place under Tsar Theodosius, in the city of Constantine, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers came together from various places in Macedonia, the Doukhobor. You laid out the same rules, osm. The proclamation of that holy council was addressed to the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great, and the rules laid down by them were added to it. To the God-loving and pious Tsar Theodosius, the holy council of bishops from various regions who have gathered in Constantine City: we begin to write a hedgehog for your piety, thanksgiving to God who has shown your piety, the kingdom, for the common peace of the churches, and sound faith for the affirmation: giving But due thanksgiving to God with diligence, and who was at the Holy Council, we send to your piety by writing, as if they came to the city of Constantine, according to the writing of your piety: first we renewed it, connecting to each other, then we briefly set out the rules. And the holy fathers confirmed the faith in Nicaea, and the heresies that were erected on them were corrupted. In addition to this and about the deanery of the holy churches, the rules of the commandment are clear, which are also added to this charter of ours. We now pray to your meekness, through the certificate of your piety, to confirm the judgment of the holy council. Yes, just as you honored the church by convening us with letters, so you also sealed the end on the council of those who were created. May the Lord establish your kingdom in peace and righteousness. And may you add pleasure to the earthly kingdom of the heavenly kingdom. May you be healthy and shining in all goodness, may God grant to the universe, through the prayers of the saints, as a truly pious and God-loving king. These rules were set forth in the city of Constantine, by the grace of God, bishops gathered, 150, from various regions, by the command of the pious king Theodosius the Great.

Rules of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople)

1. The Holy Fathers, gathered in Constantinople, determined: let not the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea, in Bethany, be abrogated, but let it remain immutable: and let every heresy be anathematized, namely: the heresy of Eunomian, Anomeev, Arian, or Eudoxian, Poluarian or Doukhobor, Sabellian, Marcellian, Photinian, and Appolinarian.

Zonara. The second council was assembled against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son, whom the present rule also calls semi-Arians, for they contain half of the heresy of the Arians. They taught that the Son and the Spirit are a different being than the Father and are creatures; The Doukhobors thought sensibly about the Son, but taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, as if He was created and does not have a divine nature. Those who considered both the Son and the Spirit to be creatures were also called Semi-Arians, but added: “ "; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial, but co-essential with the Father. This second council, by this rule, confirmed the Orthodox faith proclaimed by the Holy Fathers who were in Nicaea and decided to anathematize all heresy, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus; but he thought the same as Arius, and even bigger and worse; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servant, and in everything is not like the Father. He again baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head down and turning their feet upward, and during baptism he did one immersion. And he spoke absurdly about future punishment and about Gehenna, as if this was not true, but was said in the form of a threat, to intimidate. They were also called Eudoxians from a certain Eudoxius, who shared the Eunomius heresy, who, being the bishop of Constantinople, installed Eunomius as bishop of Cyzicus. They were also called Anomeans, because they said that the Son and the Spirit essentially had no similarity with the Father. The Council determines to anathematize the Sabellians, who received the name from Sabellius of Libya, who was the bishop of Ptolemyidas of Pentapolis, who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged into one person the three hypostases of one being and deity, and honored one tri-named person in the Trinity, saying that one and the same one sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit, transforming and taking on a different form at different times. In a similar way, the council anathematizes the Marcellian heresy, which received its name from the heresy leader Marcellus, who came from Ancyra of Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Savelius. He also anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was a bishop there, but thought in the same way as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not recognize the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only the Spirit, and thought about the Word that it is something pronounced by the mouth divine command, serving God to accomplish everything, like some kind of mechanical instrument; about Christ he preached that He was a simple man who accepted the Word of God, not as having a being, but as coming from his mouth, and taught that He received the beginning of being from Mary. And many other absurdities were said by Paul of Samosata, who was deposed by the Council of Antioch. Along with others, the council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was a bishop in Syrian Laodicea, and taught blasphemously about the economy of salvation; for he said that although the Son of God received an animated body from the Holy Mother of God, he was without a mind, since the Divinity replaced the mind, and he thought about the soul of the Lord as if it had no mind; and thus, he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Savior had one nature.

Aristen. The Nicene faith must be firmly preserved, and heresies must be anathema.

Valsamon. The present holy second council was assembled against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son, whom the present rule also calls semi-Arians, for they contain half of the heresy of the Arians. They taught that the Son and the Spirit are creatures and a different being from the Father; The Doukhobors thought sensibly about the Son, but taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, as if He was created and does not have a divine nature. Those who considered both the Son and the Spirit to be creatures were also called Semi-Arians, but added: “ we think that they received existence not in the same way as other creatures, but in some other way, and we say this so that there is no thought that through birth the Father was involved in Suffering "; - and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial, but co-essential with the Father. This second council, by this rule, confirmed the Orthodox faith proclaimed by the fathers who were at Nicaea and decided to anathematize all heresy, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was the bishop of Cyzicus, and thought the same as Arius, and even greater and worse; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servant, and is not at all like the Father. He again baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head down and turning their feet upward, and during baptism he did one immersion. And he spoke absurdly about future punishment and about Gehenna, as if this was not true, but was said in the form of a threat, to intimidate. They were also called Eudoxians from a certain Eudoxius, who shared the Eunomius heresy, who, being the bishop of Constantinople, installed Eunomius as bishop of Cyzicus. They were also called Anomeans, because they said that the Son and the Spirit essentially had no similarity with the Father. The Council determines to anathematize the Sabellians, who received the name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was the bishop of Ptolemias of Pentapolis, preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged into one person the three hypostases of one being and deity, and honored in the Holy Trinity one tri-named person, saying that the same one sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit, transforming and taking on a different form at different times. In a similar way, the council anathematizes the Marcellian heresy, which received its name from the heresy leader Marcellus, who came from Ancyra of Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Savelius. He also anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was a bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not recognize the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only the Spirit; and I thought about the Word that it is a certain divine command pronounced by the lips, serving God to accomplish everything, like some kind of mechanical instrument; about Christ he preached that He was a simple man who accepted the Word of God, not as having a being, but as coming from his mouth, and taught that He received the beginning of being from Mary. And many other absurdities were said by Paul of Samosata, who was deposed by the Council of Antioch. Along with others, the council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was the bishop of Syrian Laodicea, and taught blasphemously about the economy of salvation; for he said that although the Son of God received an animated body from the Holy Mother of God, he was without a mind, since divinity replaced the mind, and he thought about the soul of the Lord as if it had no mind; and thus, he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Savior had one nature.

Slavic helmsman. Even in Nicaea, the father of the saints, may faith firmly hold and abide. Spoken and written in nude by a heretic, and heretics be damned. This rule is reasonable.

2. Let regional bishops not extend their power to the Churches outside their region, and let them not confuse the Churches; but, according to the rules, let the Bishop of Alexandria govern only the Egyptian Churches; let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian Church, recognized by the rules of Nicaea; also let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia; let the bishops of Pontus have jurisdiction only over the affairs of the Pontic region; Thracian only Thrace. Without being invited, bishops must not go beyond their area for ordination or any other Church order. While maintaining the above-described rule regarding the Church regions, it is clear that the affairs of each region will be regulated by the Council of the same region, as determined in Nicaea. The churches of God among foreign peoples must be governed according to the custom of the fathers that has been observed until now.

Zonara. And the holy Apostles and then the divine fathers used many cares so that there would be prosperity and peace in the churches. For the Apostles, in the fourteenth canon, decreed that it is not permissible for a bishop to move to the territory of another, leaving his own. And the fathers, who gathered at the first council in Nicaea, laid down in the sixth and seventh rules that ancient customs should be preserved - and each throne would govern the dioceses belonging to it. This also defines the present rule, and commands that the bishop not extend his authority beyond his area, that is, beyond the diocese belonging to him, to churches outside his diocese, that is, those located outside the limits indicated to each, (denoted by the expression: “ extend power", for example, a robber and disorderly invasion), and did not come into the area of another. Expression: " outside your area" - means that the bishop cannot carry out any hierarchical orders not called; but he can if he is called and receives this commission from many bishops, according to the indicated Apostolic Rule. Matters of church administration in each diocese, such as elections, ordinations and the resolution of perplexities during excommunications, penances and other such things, the rule decides to be in charge of the cathedral of each region. And since even among the barbarian peoples there were then churches of the faithful, where, perhaps, there were few bishops so that there were enough of them to draw up a council, or it was necessary, if there was someone distinguished by eloquence, to often visit the region other bishops, in order to instruct those who turn to the faith and confirm them in it; then the holy council allowed them to act in subsequent times in accordance with the custom that had been established among them until that time.

Aristen. No bishop of another region should confuse the churches by performing ordinations and enthronements in other churches. But in the churches that are among the pagans, the custom of the fathers must be preserved. Many rules say that a bishop should not invade another's bishopric; but everyone must stay within their own limits, not cross their own into someone else’s and not mix churches. But in the churches of the pagans, in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, according to the sixth rule of the Council of Nicaea, ancient customs must be preserved.

Valsamon . The sixth and seventh rules of the First Council established which areas should be subject to the pope, the bishop of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. And the present rule determines that the bishops of Asia, the Pontic region, Thrace and others should manage affairs within their own limits, and that none of them has the power to act outside their limits and confuse the rights of the churches. If need requires that some bishop from his region move to another for ordination, or for some other blessed reason, then he should not invade it disorderly and, so to speak, predatorily, but with the permission of the local bishop. And since at that time even among the barbarian peoples there were churches of the faithful, where, perhaps, they did not ordain many bishops so that there would be enough of them to draw up a council, or perhaps it was necessary, with distinguished eloquence, to often visit such dioceses of other bishops in order to confirm those who were converting to faith: then the holy council allowed us to continue to be guided by this custom, in view of the necessity of this matter, although this is not according to the rules. So, note from this rule that in ancient times all metropolitans of dioceses were independent (autocephalous) and were ordained by their own councils. And this was changed by the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, which determined that the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian regions, and some others specified in that rule, should be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople and subordinate to him. If you find other independent (autocephalous) churches, such as Bulgarian, Cypriot and Iveron, do not be surprised at this. Emperor Justinian honored the Bulgarian Archbishop: read his 131st novella, located in the 5th book of Vasilik, title 3, chapter 1, placed in the interpretation of the 5th chapter, 1st title of this collection. The Archbishop of Cyprus was honored by the Third Council: read the 8th rule of this council and the 39th rule of the Sixth Council. And the Archbishop of Iveron was honored by the determination of the Council of Antioch. They say that in the days of Mr. Peter, the most holy patriarch of Theopolis, that is, the great Antioch, there was a conciliar order that the Iveron church, then subordinate to the patriarch of Antioch, should be free and independent (autocephalous). And Sicily, which a little before these years was subordinated to the throne of Constantinople, is now torn away from it by the hands of tyrants. And I pray that she, too, will be returned to her former rights, with the intercession of our God-governed autocrat, like some captive daughter to a free mother. By this rule, as it should be, the annexation of other churches that are in the power of the pagans to one church for the sake of better governance is permitted. And recently the Synod of Constantinople gave the Ancyra church to Metropolitan Nazianza, and other churches were given to various other bishops. And some were given the right to sit on the bishop’s throne in the holy altar of the affiliated church.

Slavic helmsman. For the sake of the limit, let no one confuse the church, neither appoint a presbyter nor a bishop, but let those who exist in the pagan Church of God, the holy fathers, keep the custom.

Interpretation. In many rules it is said that it is not proper for a bishop to find an alien bishopric, but let each one remain within his own limits, and let him set them within his own limits. Bishop and presbyters and deacons. Likewise, let the metropolitan and his bishops, in their area, not overstep their boundaries, and let them not crush the churches. Let those who exist in the foreign churches of God, even in Egypt, and Libya, and in Pentapolis, keep the ancient custom of their fathers, like the sixth rule of the first ecumenical council, which it commands in Nicaea.

3. Let the bishop of Constantinople have the advantage of honor over the bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.

Zonara . After the previous canon had given instructions about other patriarchal thrones, this canon also mentioned the throne of Constantinople and decreed that it should have the advantages of honor, that is, primacy, or superiority, like the new Rome and the king of the cities, according to the Roman bishop. Some thought that the preposition “by” did not mean a derogation of honor, but the relatively later appearance of this institution. For although Byzantium was an ancient city and had independent government; but under Severus, the Roman emperor, it was besieged by the Romans and endured war for three years, and was finally taken due to a lack of necessities for the prisoners there. Its walls were destroyed, civil rights were taken away, and it was subjugated to the Pirinthians. Pirinthos is Heraclius: why the bishop of Heraclius was also given the ordination of the patriarch, since he ordained the bishop of Byzantium. Subsequently, this great city was built by Constantine the Great, named after him and called the new Rome. That is why some said that the preposition “by” means time, and not a diminishment of honor before ancient Rome. To confirm their opinion, they use the twenty-eighth rule of the Council of Chalcedon, which mentions this rule and adds: “We also decree the same thing about the benefits of the most holy church of Constantinople, the new Rome. For the Fathers gave decent advantages to the throne of ancient Rome: since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of new Rome, righteously judging that the city, which had received the honor of being the city of the king and synclit and had equal advantages with the old royal Rome, would be exalted in church affairs likewise, and would second on it." So, they say, if he is given equal honors, then how can one think that the preposition “by” means subordination? But the 131st novella of Justinian, located in the fifth book of Vasilik, title three, gives reason to understand these rules differently, as they were understood by this emperor. It says: “We decree, in accordance with the definitions of the holy councils, that the most holy pope of ancient Rome should be the first of all priests, and the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, new Rome, should occupy the second rank after the Apostolic See of ancient Rome, and have the advantage of honor over all others. So, from here it is clearly seen that the preposition “by” means derogation and reduction. Otherwise, it would have been impossible to maintain the triumph of honor in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that, when the names of their leaders are raised, one should take first place and the other second place, both in the cathedras when they come together, and in the signings when they are needed. So, the explanation of the preposition “by”, according to which this preposition indicates only time, and not derogation, is violent and does not come from a right and good thought. And the thirty-sixth canon of the Council of Trullo clearly shows that the preposition “by” denotes derogation when it says that the throne of Constantinople is considered second after the throne of ancient Rome, and then adds: “ after this, let the throne of Alexandria be numbered, then the throne of Antioch, and after this the throne of Jerusalem».

Aristen. The Bishop of Constantinople is honored after the Bishop of Rome. The bishop of Constantinople should have the same advantages and the same honor with the Roman bishop, as in the twenty-eighth rule of the Council of Chalcedon this rule is understood, because this city is the new Rome and received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite. For the preposition “by” here does not denote honor, but time, just as if someone said: according to much time, the bishop of Constantinople received equal honor with the bishop of Rome.

Valsamon. The city of Byzantium did not have the honor of archiepiscopal, but its bishop in ancient times was ordained by the Metropolitan of Heraklion. History reports that the city of Byzantium, although it had independent government, was not conquered by the Roman Emperor Severus and was subordinated to the Pirinthians; and Pirinthos is Heraclius. When Constantine the Great transferred the scepters of the Roman kingdom to this city, it was renamed Constantinople and the new Rome and the queen of all cities. That is why the Holy Fathers of the Second Council determined that his bishop should have the advantages of honor as a bishop of ancient Rome, because this is the new Rome. When it was defined in this way, some understood the preposition “by” not in the sense of derogation of honor, but accepted it only in the meaning of a later time, using, to confirm their opinion, the 28th canon of the Fourth Council, which says: equal advantages with the most holy the throne of ancient Rome should have the throne of Constantinople, which is second to it. But you read the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in the 5th book of Vasilik, in the 3rd title, and is placed in the scholia of the 5th chapter, 1st title of the present collection, and the 36th canon of the Council of Trullo, in which it is said that the throne of Constantinople is the second. Look also for the first chapter of the 8th title of this collection: there we have placed various laws about the advantages of ancient and new Rome and the written decree of St. Great Constantine given to St. Sylvester, then Pope of Rome, about the advantages granted to the church of ancient Rome. And the fact that now the Most Holy Patriarch of Constantinople is ordained Metropolitan of Herakleia does not originate from anything else, but from the fact that the city of Byzantium, as said above, was subordinated to the Pirinthians, that is, the Heraclians. Notice also how it is proven that the Bishop of Heraklion has the right to ordain the Patriarch of Constantinople. The chronicle of Skylitzes says that Patriarch Stefan Sincellus, brother of Emperor Leo the Wise, was ordained by the bishop of Caesarea, because the bishop of Herakleia had died before that time. We know that during the reign of Isaac Angelos, a certain Leontius, a monk from Mount Saint Auxentius, for the same reason, was ordained Patriarch of Constantinople by Demetrius, Bishop of Caesarea. Note that the throne of Constantinople was honored by the Second Council, and read the seventh chapter of the first title of this assembly and what is written in it.

Slavic helmsman. Bishop of Constantine, according to the Romans, he is revered.

Interpretation. The same eldership, and the same honor as the bishop of Rome, and the bishop of Constantine, receives communion, and we honor the same, just as the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon equally commands this canon. Since Constantine is the city of the new Rome, and the kingdom was honored for the sake of both the bolyars, the king and the bolyars, who left Rome, moved away from Rome, and as the rule says, according to the Roman it is honorable, it does not mean that, as it is a great honor for the Romans to be, and according to it I honor the city of Constantine to be, but there is a saying about the legend of time. As someone would say, as if for many years equal to the honor of the Roman bishop, the bishop will be honored with the city of Constantine.

4. About Maxim the Cynic, and about the outrage he caused in Constantinople: Maxim was not or is not a bishop, nor those he appointed to any degree of clergy, and what was done for him and what was done by him: everything is insignificant.

Zonara. This Maxim was an Egyptian, a cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called cynics for their arrogance, insolence and shamelessness. Having come to the great Father Gregory the Theologian and being announced, he was baptized. Then he was numbered among the clergy, and was completely close to this holy father, so that he had food with him. But, having desired the episcopal throne in Constantinople, he sends money to Alexandria, and from there he calls on the bishops who were to ordain him as bishop of Constantinople, with the assistance of one of those closest to the Theologian. When they were already in the church, but before the dedication took place, the faithful found out about this and drove them away. But even after their expulsion they did not calm down, and having retired to the house of a musician, they ordained Maxim there, although he did not derive any benefit from this atrocity, for he could not commit anything. So, by this rule, he was excommunicated from the church by the holy fathers who gathered at the second council, who determined that he was not and is not a bishop, because he was ordained illegally, and that those ordained by him are not clergy. And finally, when it was discovered that he held Apollinarian opinions, he was anathematized. The Theologian also mentions him in one of his words, which are not read in churches.

Aristen. Maximus the Cynic is not a bishop, and anyone who is appointed to the clergy by him does not have the priesthood. For he caused discord in the church and filled it with confusion and disorder, appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and in everything unquestioningly showing mercy to those who were in error, as long as they adhered to wrong dogmas, according to the word of the great theologist Gregory. So, Maximus himself must be deprived of his bishopric, and those ordained by him to any degree of clergy are deprived of the priesthood.

Valsamon. The content of this fourth rule concerns a particular case and does not require interpretation. It is known from history that this Maxim was an Egyptian, a cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called cynics for their arrogance, insolence and shamelessness. Having come to the great Father Gregory the Theologian and being announced, he was baptized, numbered among the clergy and brought closer to him. But having desired the patriarchal throne in Constantinople, he made efforts to obtain ordination through money that he sent to the bishops of Alexandria. When these bishops came to Constantinople and attempted to do as Maximus wished, they were expelled from the church by the faithful. But after this they retired to the house of a musician and ordained Maxim there, contrary to the rules. So, this holy council excommunicated him from the church and determined that he was not and is not a bishop, because he was ordained illegally, and those ordained by him are not clergy of any degree. This Maximus, when it was subsequently discovered that he held Apollinarian opinions, was anathematized. It is written about him in the life of St. Gregory the Theologian, which was composed by his disciple Gregory; The Theologian also mentions him in one of his words, which are not read in churches.

Slavic helmsman. Maxim, the so-called cynic, is alien from the bishops, and everything is not sacred, which from him is accepted as honorable.

Interpretation. This cynic Maxim says he is reckless, discords the Church of God, and fulfills this much rebellion and rumor. The wolf appears instead of a shepherd, and is ready to forgive all sins to those who sin. For the sole sake of being dishonest in commandments, choosing to transgress the commandments. As the great theologian Gregory says, for this Maximus is alien from the episcopate, and all the appointments of presbyters and deacones from him, and other clerics, are alien to the priesthood.

5. Regarding the Western scroll: those who are in Antioch are also acceptable, professing one Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Zonara. Emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, having been seduced into Arianism, sought to destroy the First Council. The Pope of ancient Rome informed Constantius, Constantius's brother, about this. Constant in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not stop shaking the right faith. As a result, both emperors agreed that a council should be convened and that it would judge the Nicene definitions. So, three hundred and forty-one bishops gathered in Sardica, who set out a decree confirming the holy symbol of the Nicene fathers and excommunicating those who think otherwise. This is precisely the definition that the Second Council calls “ Western scroll", and receives those who accepted this scroll in Antioch. The council calls the bishops gathered in Sardica Western. Sardica is called Triaditsa. The definition called the cathedral " Western scroll“because some Western bishops stated it: for 70 Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council unless Saint Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great left the meeting. And when the Western ones did not allow this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the cathedral. Why did the Westerners alone approve the Nicene definition, anathematize the heresy of the Anomeans and condemn the Eastern bishops. Note from what is said here that the Sardician Council was before the Second Council.

Aristen. The Western scroll, which affirms the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, must be accepted. Clear?!

Valsamon. And this is a private rule. It is known from history that Emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, having been seduced into Arianism, sought to destroy the First Council. Constans, his brother, who ruled the western parts of the empire, having learned about this, in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not stop shaking the right faith. As a result of this, the emperors agreed that bishops should gather in Sardica, or Triadice, and judge the dogmas set forth in Nicaea. At the meeting of three hundred and forty-one bishops, the holy symbol of the Nicene fathers was confirmed, and those who thought differently were anathematized. This definition, adopted by the Antiochians, is called by the Second Council “ Western scroll"; A " Western scroll" was named because it was stated only by Western bishops: for 70 Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council unless Saint Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great left the meeting. And when the Western ones did not allow this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the cathedral. Why did the Westerners alone approve the Nicene definition, anathematize the heresy of the Anomeans and condemn the Eastern bishops. Note from what is said here that the Sardician Council was before the Second Council.

Slavic helmsman. The Western bishops commanded that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit be of one essence and one to confess the Divinity. I wrote this down on the letter, and let it be favorable from everyone.

Book of rules. Here, of course, is the scroll of the Western Bishops, containing the decree of the Sardician Council, which recognized and confirmed the Nicene Symbol.

6. Since many, wishing to cause confusion and overthrow Church deanery, hostilely and slanderously invent some guilt against the Orthodox bishops ruling the Churches, with no other intention than to darken the good head of the priests and create confusion among the peaceful people; For this reason, the holy Council of bishops gathered in Constantinople decided: not to admit accusers without investigation, not to allow anyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, but not to forbid everyone. But if someone brings some kind of personal, that is, private complaint against the bishop, such as his claim to property, or some other injustice suffered from him: with such accusations, do not take into account either the person of the accuser or his faith. It is appropriate in every possible way for the bishop’s conscience to be free, and for the one who declares himself to be offended to receive justice, no matter what his faith. If the guilt leveled against the bishop is ecclesiastical, then it is appropriate to examine the face of the accuser. And firstly, do not allow heretics to bring accusations against Orthodox bishops in church matters. We call heretics both those who have long been declared alien to the Church, and those who have since been anathematized by us; Besides this, there are also those who, although they pretend that they profess our faith soundly, but who have separated themselves and gather assemblies against our properly appointed bishops. Also, if any of those belonging to the Church, for some guilt, were previously condemned and expelled, or excommunicated from the clergy, or from the ranks of the laity: and thus let it not be allowed to accuse the bishop until they clear themselves of the accusation to which they themselves have fallen. Likewise, from those who themselves have previously been subjected to denunciation, denunciations against the bishop, or against others from the clergy, may not be acceptable unless they undoubtedly demonstrate their innocence against the accusations brought against them. If some, who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from the communion of the Church, nor convicted, or previously accused of any crimes, say that they have something to report against the bishop regarding church matters: the Holy Council commands such, firstly, to present their accusations to everyone bishops of the region, and before them to confirm with arguments their denunciations against the bishop subject to the answer. If the bishops of the united dioceses, beyond hope, are unable to restore order based on the accusations brought against the bishop: then let the accusers proceed to a larger Council of Bishops of the great region, convened for this reason; but they cannot insist on their accusation until they have put themselves in writing under pain of the same punishment as the accused, if, in the course of the proceedings, they were found to have slandered the accused bishop. But if someone, having despised, after a preliminary inquiry, the decision made, dares to disturb the royal hearing, or the courts of the worldly rulers, or the Ecumenical Council, to insult the honor of all the bishops of the region: such a one will not be accepted at all with his complaint, as if he had caused an insult rules, and violated Church decorum.

Zonara . Here the Divine Fathers decide who should be accepted as accusers of the bishop or clergy, and who should not be accepted, and they say that if someone brings a private case against the bishop, accusing him, for example, of injustice, that is, of taking away immovable or movable property property, or offense, or anything like that; then the accuser must be accepted - no matter who he is, even if he is an infidel, or a heretic, or excommunicated, or even completely cut off from the Catholic Church. For all who declare themselves wronged, whatever their religion or condition, must be admitted and must receive justice. The fathers spoke about private matters in contrast to cases of crimes, or public matters. Cases involving monetary loss are called private; and cases of crimes (criminal) are those that cause damage to the rights of the accused; which is why the holy fathers added: if the guilt brought against the bishop is ecclesiastical, that is, such, for example, as would subject him to deprivation of the priesthood, such as: sacrilege, or ordination for money, or the commission of some kind of hierarchical action in a foreign region without the knowledge of the local bishop and the like; in this case, a thorough investigation should be made about the person of the accuser, and if he is a heretic, not accepted. He calls heretics all those who think contrary to the Orthodox faith, no matter how long ago, no matter how recently they were excommunicated from the church, no matter how ancient or new heresies they adhere to. And not only does the rule not allow those who sin in relation to sound faith to accuse the bishop of a crime, but also those who separated from their bishops and gathered assemblies against them, although they seemed Orthodox. Dissenters, according to the rule of Basil the Great, are those who are divided in opinions about certain church subjects and about issues allowing for healing. In a similar way, the rule does not allow those who are expelled from the church for certain faults or are deprived of fellowship. By erupted we must mean those completely cut off from the church; and those who were excommunicated for a time were designated by the divine Fathers with the word: excommunicated, even if they were clergy, or even laymen: and such cannot be allowed to accuse bishops or clergy until they eliminate the accusation against themselves and put themselves beyond the accusation. The rule commands that bishops or clergy and such persons who themselves are under any accusation relating to the rights of their state should not be allowed to be accused, unless they prove their innocence of the crimes charged against them. If the accusers are not hindered by any of the above reasons, but they turn out to be impeccable on all sides; then, if the accused is a bishop, the bishops of that diocese, having gathered, must listen to the accusation, and either decide the case, or, if they cannot decide, they must turn to a larger council, and the rule calls the bishops of an entire region a large council. By diocese, for example, we should mean Adrianople, or Philippopolis and the bishops in the vicinity of these cities, and by region - all of Thrace, or Macedonia. So, when the bishops of a diocese are not able to correct the accused, then the rule decides that the bishops of the region should meet and resolve the accusations against the bishop. If the accused is a cleric, the accuser must present the accusation to the bishop to whom he is subordinate, and if his case is not resolved, then in the future he must act as stated above. At the same time, the sacred fathers, following the civil law, determined that the one who begins the case should not first present the accusation, as when the accuser certifies in writing that, if he does not prove the accusation, he himself is subject to the same punishment that the accused would suffer if if the accusation against him had been proven. Having determined this, the divine fathers added that anyone who would not comply with this conciliar rule, but would either turn to the emperor, or to the secular authorities, or to the ecumenical council, should not be allowed to face charges at all, as having dishonored the bishops of the region, inflicting an insult to the rules and a violation of the decorum of the church.

Aristen. And an evil-doer in a money matter can accuse the bishop. But if the accusation is ecclesiastical, he cannot bring it. No one else can bring charges if he himself has previously fallen under condemnation: even those deprived of fellowship, rejected, accused of anything cannot bring charges until they clear themselves. An Orthodox Christian who is in communion and who has not been convicted or under accusation can make an accusation. The accusation must be presented to the diocesan bishops; and if they are unable to resolve, the accusers must appeal to a larger council, and can only be heard when they give a written undertaking to undergo the same punishment to which the accused should be subjected. Anyone who, without observing this, turns to the emperor and troubles him, is subject to excommunication. About persons who accuse bishops or clergy, an investigation must be made: is he not a heretic, is he condemned, is he not excommunicated, is he not deprived of communion, is he himself accused by others of crimes and has not yet been cleared of accusation; and if the accusers turned out to be such, do not allow them to accuse. But if the one bringing an ecclesiastical complaint against the bishop is Orthodox and has a blameless life and is in communion; then it must be accepted and must be presented to the diocesan bishops. And if they, perhaps, are not able to make a decision on the charges brought against the bishop, then the accuser must turn to a larger council, having previously given a written undertaking that he must subject himself to the same punishment if he is convicted of slander, and then present the accusation. Whoever does not act in accordance with this, and when accusing the bishop bothers the emperor, or brings the accusation to the courts of worldly authorities, should not accept the accusation. But a heretic, if he suffers an insult from a bishop, can easily bring charges against him.

Valsamon . Note this rule for those initiating legal proceedings for crimes (criminal) against bishops and other clergy. Read also the 129th (143–145) rule of the Council of Carthage and the laws contained in the interpretation of this rule; and you will learn from this rule and from them who is prohibited from initiating cases of crimes against sacred persons. Our enemy Satan has never ceased to desecrate the intentions of good people, and especially bishops, with slander. For this reason, the fathers determined that every person, honest and dishonest, faithful and unfaithful, who has a private case against the bishop, that is, a monetary one, is allowed to file a complaint and receives justice in the proper court. And in a case of a crime or in any ecclesiastical matter subjecting a bishop to eruption or penance, he is brought to trial only if the person of the accuser is first examined. For heretics are absolutely not given the right to accuse the bishop. But those who have been excommunicated or who have previously been subjected to some kind of accusation cannot bring charges against a bishop or cleric until they themselves clear themselves of the accusation. But even then, when such is the accuser, the rule wants the bishop or cleric to be brought to trial not simply and haphazardly, but with all legal precautions and with a written undertaking, or consent to be subjected to the same punishment, if he does not prove the accusation brought against him. The accusation of a bishop or cleric is first presented to the metropolitan; but if the local council cannot decide the matter, then, according to the rule, the larger council must hear the matter. Anyone who does not act in accordance with him, but turns either to the emperor, or to the secular authorities, or to the ecumenical council, is not allowed to be accused as an insulter of the rules and a violator of church decorum. The rule calls monetary cases private cases, in contrast to cases of crimes, which are called public because they are initiated by each of the people, which does not happen in monetary complaints, since such cases are initiated only by the one who has the claim. And when you hear that the present rule calls heretics those who pretend to profess our faith soundly, but who have separated and are gathering assemblies against our properly appointed bishops, do not think that you are contradicting the second rule of Basil the Great, which does not call schismatics heretics, but say that the present rule calls heretics such schismatics who think completely the opposite, but pretend to be Orthodox, but in reality they are heretics; and the rule of St. Basil speaks of other schismatics who are in fact Orthodox, but under the pretext of some kind of church bewilderment, they separated, out of conceit, from the integrity of the brotherhood. Read the said rule of the Holy Father. From the last words of this rule, which states that anyone who does not comply with the rule should not be accepted with accusations as an offender of the rules, some have come to the conclusion that he is subject to deprivation of honor. But it seems to me that it does not follow from this that someone who has acted in such a way, inconsistent with the order, is subject to condemnation for insult and, consequently, deprivation of honor and after this eruption, on the basis of the rule that says: “ what is said explicitly is harmful, what is implied is not harmful"; otherwise how will he be punished at the discretion of the judge? When one bishop was brought to the Holy Synod of Constantinople for a crime and filed an appeal to the court of his metropolitan and his council, according to the force of this rule; then some said that if the metropolitan present at the council wants his bishop to be judged at the great council, then let him be judged before him; and others objected that his trial is not in the power of the metropolitan, but belongs to the council under him, and that it is much more advantageous for a bishop to be judged by his own council, and not to be brought to another council - and for this there is no need for the permission of the metropolitan . Some also said that the rule speaks of an ecumenical council, but the great synod of Constantinople or council is not ecumenical, and therefore the content of the rule has no place in the present case. But it seems to me that although the synod in Constantinople is not an ecumenical council, since other patriarchs are not present at it, it is larger than all synods, and its archbishop is called the ecumenical patriarch - and it is not the metropolitan who benefits, but the bishop, or those brought to trial his cleric. Therefore, none of them will suffer damage from the metropolitan permission according to the force of the law, which says: what one does does not serve either to benefit or harm others.

Slavic helmsman. And he is evil even if he is extremely offensive, and speaks against the bishop. If he speaks about an ecclesiastical sin, let him not speak. Let no one speak, who was previously known to be in the dark. Let no one who is rejected from fellowship, or slandered for anything, speak, until he puts aside his own. Let the true believer speak, and share in it, and be ignorant of blame, and not slandered, and let the sin be revealed to those in power. If they cannot correct it, let it go to a larger cathedral. And if you speak without scripture, you will suffer, even if you speak crookedly, let it not be heard. Coming to the church through the calico and spreading rumors, he is rejected.

Interpretation. It is appropriate to torture the person and life of those who slander and speak against the bishop or the cleric, so that such a heretic will not be, or in some vice we know, or rejected from the church, or from communion, or because of other sins we slander, and have not yet recouped our guilt. And such will be those who slander, reject them, and accuse the bishop. If he is faithful, and is blameless in his life, and is a member of the Catholic Church, whoever brings ecclesiastical guilt upon the bishop, let him be accepted, and let his sin be reported before all those in power by the bishop. If they are not able to correct the sins inflicted on the bishop, let him proceed to a larger council, speaking slander against the bishop, and give the first council a charter, writing on it that if I am convicted of a lie slandering the bishop, I will suffer this or that execution, and this will be done, and it will be certain about its verbiage. If he does not do this, but comes to the princess, and makes rumors against the bishop, or at the courts of the world the boyars, about this he comes, such an unpleasant one, to slander the bishop. If a heretic is offended by the bishop, it is not forbidden for him to say Nan, and recover.

7. Those who join Orthodoxy and part of those saved from heretics are acceptable, according to the following rites and customs. Arian, Macedonian, Savvatian and Pavatian, who call themselves pure and best, the fourteen-day diaries or tetradists, and the Apolinarists, when they give manuscripts and curse all heresy, which does not philosophize, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes, by sealing, that is, anointing with the holy world. first the forehead, then the eyes, and the nostrils, and the lips, and the ears, and sealing them with the verb: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Eunomian, who are baptized by a single immersion, and the Montanists, here called Frigians, and the Sabellians, who hold the opinion of the fatherland, and who do other intolerant things, and all other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country), all who of them they want to join Orthodoxy, they are acceptable like the pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second we make them catechumens, then on the third we conjure them, with three blows blowing on their faces and ears: and so we announce them, and force them to stay in the church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them.

Zonara. This rule teaches how one should accept those who come from heresies to the right faith. Some of these are ordered not to be rebaptized, but to require records from them, that is, written evidence in which their opinions are anathematized, their evil faith is condemned and anathema is pronounced against all heresy. These include: the Arians, and the Macedonians, and the Navatians, who call themselves Pure, whose heresies we defined before; - and the Savvatians, the head of which was a certain Savvatius, who himself was a presbyter in the heresy of Navat, but had something more than him, and surpassed the teacher of the heresy in malice, and celebrated together with the Jews; - and the people of fourteen days, who celebrate Easter not on Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, no matter on what day it happens to become full; and then they celebrate with fasting and vigil; - and Apollinarians. These heretics do not cross themselves, because regarding holy baptism they are in no way different from us, but they are baptized in the same way as the Orthodox. So, each of them, anathematizing his own heresy in particular and all heresy in general, is anointed with holy myrrh, and does the rest according to the rule. Subject to rebaptism. And the Eunomians and Sabellians, whose heresies have already been explained by us, and the Montanists, who received their name from a certain Montanus, were called Phrygians either because the leader of their heresy was a Phrygian, or because this heresy originally appeared from Phrygia, and there were many seduced into it. This Montanus called himself a comforter, and called the two women accompanying him, Priscilla and Maximilla, prophetesses. The Montanists were also called Pepusians, because they considered Pepuza, a village in Phrygia, to be a divine place, and called it Jerusalem. They ordered the dissolution of marriages, taught to abstain from food, perverted Easter, united and merged the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixed the blood of a perforated baby with flour and made bread from it - they brought it and received communion from it. So, the holy fathers decided to baptize these and all other heretics: for they either did not receive divine baptism, or, having received it incorrectly, received it not according to the charter of the Orthodox Church; That’s why the holy fathers honor them as if from the beginning unbaptized. For this is what the expression means: “ we accept them like the pagans" Then the rule calculates the actions performed on them, and that they are first announced and taught our divine sacraments, then they are baptized.

Aristen. Rule 7. Quadruple diaries or tetradits, Arian, Navatian, Macedonian, Sabbatian and Apollinarian should be accepted with notes, after the anointing of all senses with myrrh. They, having written down and anathematized all heresies, are received through the anointing of the eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth and forehead only with the holy ointment. And when we seal them we say: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Rule 8. The Eunomians, Sabellians and Phrygians, baptized in one immersion, must be accepted as pagans. They are baptized and anointed with myrrh, because they are accepted as pagans, and for a considerable time before baptism they are in a state of catechumen and listen to the divine scriptures.

Valsamon . This rule divides heretics who come to the church into two categories: - and commands some to be anointed with myrrh so that they first anathematize all heresy and promise to believe as the Holy Church of God thinks; and determines others to baptize correctly. And among the first, who should only be anointed with the world, the rule included the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians and Navatians, called Pure Ones, whose heresies we explained in the first canon of this Second Council. The Navatians were also called Savvatians from a certain presbyter Sabbatius, who kept the Sabbath according to the custom of the Jews; They are also called leftists, because they abhor the left hand and do not allow themselves to accept anything with this hand. Those who celebrate Passover not on Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, no matter what day this happens, which is characteristic of the Jewish religion, are called tetradites or tetradites. They are also called tetradites, because when celebrating Easter, they do not allow fasting, but fast like we do on Wednesdays; and this is done according to the custom of the Jews. For these, after the Passover, fast for seven whole days, eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread, according to the prescription of the old law. And those subject to rebaptism, according to the rule, are the Eunomians, baptized in one immersion, and the Montanists, so named from a certain Montanus, who called himself a comforter and through two evil women, Priscilla and Maximilla, uttered false prophecies. Among them are the Sabellians, so named from a certain Sabellius, who, among some other absurdities, said that there is one and the same Father, one and the same Son, one and the same Holy Spirit, so that in one hypostasis there are three names, like in a person there is body, soul and spirit, or in the sun there are three actions: sphericity, light and warmth. They are called Montanists and Phrygians either from some Phrygian heresy leader, or from the fact that this heresy originally came from Phrygia. Moreover, they are called Pepusians from the village of Pepuza, which they honor as Jerusalem. They dissolve marriages as vile, they fast strangely, they pervert Easter; they unite and merge the Holy Trinity into one person, and, mixing the blood of a perforated baby with flour and preparing bread from it, they make an offering from it. And so it is. And if an Orthodox Christian becomes a Montanist or a Sabellian and accepts the baptism of heretics or does not accept it, should he be anointed with chrism or baptized again, like other Montanists? Look for this in the 19th canon of the 1st Council and the 47th canon of the Holy Apostles. And from this rule, note that everyone who is baptized in one immersion is baptized again.

Slavic helmsman. Rule 7. The fourteeners, likewise and the middle ones, are spoken of, and the Arians, and the Navatians, and the Macedonians, and the Savathians, and the Apollinarians, the scripture in the past, pleasant, anointing only all the senses.

Interpretation. These are all the heresies: and they will also come to the conciliar church, and having written their heresy, and read it before everyone and cursed it, and with it all heresies, so that they may be accepted: only anointing the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and lips with holy oil, Whenever we signify them with peace, we say, the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The middle ones are called names, they eat less meat on Wednesday, and fast on Saturday. These days they are called Pentecostals; they celebrate Easter on the 14th day of the moon.

Rule 8. (50 Apostle Saints). Baptism not in three immersions is not baptism. Those who are baptized by immersion are united, the Eunomians, and the Sabellians, and the Phrygians, as the Hellenes will receive.

Interpretation. And these heretics are baptized by one immersion, and not by three, as in Orthodoxy: these, if they come to the Catholic Church, as if they would accept abominations, and before baptism, they study for a long time, and listen to the divine scriptures, and then they are completely baptized, and anointed; But I am acceptable to you, just like the Hellenes. On the first day of slaughter we create as Christians. In the second, what I do is announced, so that they may learn faith. On the third day we cast a spell, and a breath of thrush is on the face and ears. And so we teach them, and command them to do enough time in the church, and listen to the divine scriptures, and then I baptize. But first of all, let them curse their heresy with the scriptures, and all others, just as they were called heretics.

Rules of the Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople

Rule 1

The Holy Fathers, who gathered in Constantinople, determined: let the creed of the three hundred and eighty fathers who were at the council in Nicaea, in Bithynia, not be abolished, but let it remain immutable; and let all heresy be anathematized, namely: the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apolinarians.

(II Om. 7; Trul. 1, 75; Gangr. 21; Laod. 7, 8; Carth. 2; Basil the Great. 1).

We have given this rule, adhering to the text of the Athenian Syntagma. This text is the same as the text in Beveregius, while in other, especially the newest printed editions, the text is somewhat different. Thus, in both Russian synodal publications (1843 and 1862), in the Bruns edition (1839) and in the Pitra edition after the Eunomian heresy, the heresies of the Anomeans and Arians are mentioned, and in these same publications, after words about the Nicene symbol, the text reads: “and let every heresy be anathematized, and namely: the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomeevs, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians...” We will now see that this addition does not change the general meaning of the rule at all.

With this rule, the fathers of the Council of Constantinople supplement their creed, which they set out at the council, and anathematize all heresies, especially those mentioned in the rule.

The heresy of the Eunomians is anathematized in the first place. Until the middle of the 4th century, when considering the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, exclusive attention was paid to the relationship of the second Person of the Holy Trinity to the first Person. The question of the relationship of the third Person to the first and second, the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, was not raised. The Arians did not touch upon this issue in their teaching, so the Council of Nicaea had no particular reason to speak in its symbol about the Holy Spirit more than: πιστεύομεν καΐ είς τό Πνεύμα το Άγιον. But over time, Arianism, taking a negative point of view in the doctrine of the Son, could not evade the question of the Holy Spirit. Denying the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, it was necessary to touch upon the question of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. The thought of a certain being who is a mediator between God and the world could still have in itself at least some shadow of possibility, as was taught about the Son; but it was impossible to determine the place of the Holy Spirit among the Persons of the Holy Trinity, denying His deity, except by considering the Holy Spirit to be an even more subordinate member of the Holy Trinity than the Son. This was declared by Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus, around 360, who proclaimed that the Holy Spirit is third in order and nature, that He was created by the will of the Father and with the participation of the Son and should be revered in third place, as the very first and greatest among those created and, moreover, as the only one whom the Only Begotten created in this way; but he is not God and does not have the power to create. From this Eunomius the heretics Eunomians received their name.

In this rule, the Eudoxians are identified with the Eunomians, who accepted and professed the false teaching of Eunomius. They received their name from Eudoxius, who lived in the first half of the 4th century and was, first of all, the bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. While he was bishop of Constantinople, he appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. The teaching of the Eudoxians was similar to the teaching of the Eunomians. About the Son they taught that He was not even like the Father, therefore, in this respect they went further than even the Arians. They baptized those who came into their society through a single immersion (Ap. 50) and taught that the Orthodox teaching about future punishment and eternal torment makes no sense. The Eunomians are also called Anomeans, since they denied consubstantiality, teaching that the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity are in no way similar in essence to the first Person.

Further, the Semi-Arians are anathematized, whom this rule identifies with the Doukhobors, who served as the reason for convening this ecumenical council. The head of this heresy was Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople. He taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that He is like the angels and, finally, that He is created. Taking advantage of the reign of Julian, the Doukhobors (otherwise Macedonians) spread their teaching so widely that at this Ecumenical Council there were thirty-six Doukhobor bishops. Due to the fact that the Semi-Arians taught about the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Doukhobors, this rule could identify the latter with them. But the Semi-Arians were more heretics than the Doukhobors, since the latter recognized at least the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, while the former denied the consubstantiality with the Father of not only the Holy Spirit, but also the Son. However, identifying the Semi-Arians with the Doukhobors, this council, in any case, has in mind the time after 360, when many councils were convened in Asia Minor by the Dukhobors together with the Semi-Arians and when the latter, at least for a short time, abandoned their teaching about the likeness of the Son with the Father.

The rule then mentions the Sabellian heresy. Defending the deity of the Son of God against the theory of subordinationism and wishing to further prove the equality of the Son with the Father, Sabellianism went so far as to deny the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son, so that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the teachings of the Sabellians, constitute one hypostasis without any difference between the persons of the Holy Spirit. Trinity. The founder of Sabellianism was Sabellius, the Libyan bishop of Ptolemais of Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century. During the time of Callistus I (218 to 223) he was excommunicated for the first time, and was subsequently excommunicated at several 4th-century councils. Among the Western fathers, the Sabellians are also called Patripassiani (Patripassiani), since, according to their teaching, if the Father is one hypostasis with the Son, and the Son suffered on the cross, then the Father, as personally indistinguishable from the Son, should have suffered on the cross, as and Son.

The Patripassians appeared in the last years of the 2nd century, when Praseus began to preach his anti-Trinitarian teaching in Rome. The essence of the teaching of Praxeus, according to Tertullian, is as follows: Christ the Savior is God the Father himself (ipse Deus Pater), the Lord Almighty himself. In itself, in His being, this God is Spirit, invisible, immortal, unlimited, who is not subject to space, time, suffering, death, or generally any conditions or changes to which man is subject. In Christ the Savior this God personally took on a body, so that one and the other constitute one and the same hypostasis; God the Father was born from Mary, lived with people, suffered, was crucified on the cross, died and was buried. “Patrem crucifixit,” says the same Tertullian about Praxeas, expressing his displeasure against these heretics. The second main representative of the patripassian anti-Trinitarians was Noit, who also preached in Rome in the first half of the 3rd century. The first among church writers to speak about Noites are Hippolytus and Epiphanius, after them Augustine, Theodoret and others. The teaching of Noites is basically the same as the teaching of Praxeus, only Noites developed it more and gave it a more complete form.

A further representative of the patripassian anti-Trinitarians was Sabellius, who transformed the teachings of Praxeus and Noitas and gave it a new, more perfect and scientific character. The Sabellians are also spoken of in the 7th rule of the same council, and their baptism is considered invalid and therefore, upon entry into the Orthodox Church, they must be accepted as pagans.

This rule also anathematizes the Marcellians, who received their origin from Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, who lived around the middle of the 6th century. Marcellus was present at the First Ecumenical Council and there he turned out to be an ardent opponent of Arius and a zealous defender of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He continued to argue with the Arians after the Council of Nicaea, mainly with the Semi-Arians. Against one of the main representatives of Arianism, Asterius, Marcellus wrote a large work, preserved in passages cited by Eusebius of Caesarea in his work - Contra Marcellum. In this work, Marcellus rebels not only against Asterius, but also against Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Origen, Narcissus, and even against Eusebius of Caesarea himself. But, refuting the Arian and semi-Arian teachings about Christ, Marcellus became too carried away by polemics with his opponents and fell into Sabellianism, and logically approached the teachings of Paul of Samosata... Eusebius of Caesarea, in his essay on “church theology,” directed exclusively against Marcellus, outlined the teaching in detail Marcellian heresy. The same doctrine is expounded by Eusebius in two books directed against Marcellus. In addition to the well-known Sabellian teaching about Christ, which, with few exceptions, was shared by Marcellianism, Marcellus, through the logical development of the principles he laid down about the Son, went so far as to deny the eternal hypostasis of the Son and, accordingly, taught that when the end of the world comes, the end will also come the kingdom of Christ and even His very existence. That this really was the teaching of the Marcellians is testified to by, in addition to Eusebius, Athanasius in his book De synodis, Cyril of Jerusalem in the catechetical teaching De secundo Christi adventu, Hilary, Basil the Great, Socrates, Theodoret and many others. We purposely list all the mentioned fathers and teachers of the church who wrote about the Marcellian heresy, because some of the latest Western theologians wanted to prove the orthodoxy of Marcellus, based on the fact that he was acquitted at the Roman Council of 341 and that his teaching was recognized as Orthodox at the Council of Serdicia, mainly on the protection that Pope Julius provided to Marcellus. However, with the ancient fathers and teachers of the church regarding the recognition of the falsity of the teachings of Marcellus, many outstanding modern Western theologians stand at the same time, so that the question of Marcellus’s heresiarchy has already been completely settled, and the validity and fairness of the verdict pronounced against the Marcellians by the Second Ecumenical Holy Council has been fully proven . Beveregius expresses the idea that, undoubtedly, as a result of this heresy, the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople introduced into the Nicene Symbol the words Ού τής βασιλείας ούκ έσται τέλος - and there will be no end to His kingdom, which are not in the wording of the Nicene Symbol. We fully share this thought of Beveregius, which he confirms with the following argumentation: “the words mentioned,” he says in his notes to this rule, “as set forth by the Council of Nicea, are not in any edition of this symbol; they (the words) are found in all editions of this symbol, as added by this council (II Ecumenical Council) and approved along with the other additions. This assumption of ours is best confirmed by the fact that Marcellus himself, in his confession of faith, declares that he recognizes in everything the faith set forth at the Council of Nicea, saying: “we do not and never have thought otherwise than the ecumenical and ecclesiastical rule established by at the Council of Nicaea" (apud Epiplian. haer. LXXII sect. 10). If these words “and of His kingdom there will be no end” had already been included in the Nicene symbol at that time, Marcellus, who denied the eternity of Christ’s kingdom, could not have declared his recognition of this symbol - therefore, these words were added by this council, in accordance with the decision made against the Marcellian heresy, which appeared during the time between the Council of Nicaea and this Council of Constantinople."

Next, the council anathematizes the Photinians. Photinus was a student of Marcellus. He was born in Ancyra and, having served for a long time in the rank of deacon, finally became the bishop of Srem. His teaching differed only slightly from the teaching of Paul of Samosat. He did not recognize the Holy Trinity; He called God the Creator of all things Spirit, and about the Son he taught that He is only the Word through which God expresses His will in carrying out His works; in other words, that He is some kind of mechanical instrument necessary for God during creation. He taught about Christ that He is a simple man who served as an instrument in fulfilling the will of God on earth, that He is not similar, and much less consubstantial with God, therefore, that He is not eternal, but received its beginning from Mary. One western council in 345 anathematized Photinus, and two years later another western council confirmed the anathema pronounced against Photinus.

At the end of the council, Apollinarians were anathematized. Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicea in Syria around the middle of the 4th century. The fathers and teachers of the church mention him as a profound scientist. To Christology, he applied the principles of trichotomy, which he gleaned from Plato’s psychology, on the basis of which he argued that just as a person consists of three factors - body, soul and spirit, so the God-man also consists of body, soul and logos. This latter replaces the human spirit in the God-man. With such reasoning, Apollinaris reached a clear exposition of the union of human and divine nature in Christ, moreover, in such a way that they are not in Christ one next to the other, but united in Him. If, he said, we recognize the spirit of man in Christ, then we must recognize freedom in him, and therefore changeability (mutabilitas), and this would call into question faith in our redemption. But Apollinaris, thinking this way, forgot that he thereby denies God-manhood and goes so far as to completely deny humanity in the Redeemer. The falsity of the Christological teaching of Apollinaris was proven and refuted by many church fathers and especially Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius, who clearly proved the full Divinity, and also, what was especially against Apollinaris, the full humanity of Christ, who, therefore, has the soul of man, completely the same as other people. In 362, at a council in Alexandria, convened by Athanasius, Apollinaris's teaching on the humanity of Christ was condemned. In the same way, at the councils of 374, 376 and 380, convened in Rome under Pope Damasus, the teaching of Apollinaris was condemned and everyone who shared his teaching was ejected; Finally, the teaching itself was anathematized by the council. However, as we will see later, when considering the 7th rule of this council, the baptism of the Apollinarians was recognized as valid, and they were accepted into the church only through confirmation after they presented a written renunciation of their teaching. “These heretics,” says Zonara, “are not cross themselves, since in relation to St. they do not differ in any way from baptism, but they perform it like the Orthodox.”

All the above-mentioned heresies are anathema. Άνάθεμα - the same as άνάθημα among the Greek classics, comes from the word άνατίθημι and means a gift dedicated to the gods and placed in the temple. This word is also used in this sense by writers of the Christian Church. Evangelist Luke, speaking about the Jerusalem temple, writes that it was decorated with expensive stones and deposits (άναθήμασι). Eusebius describes the Church of the Resurrection of Christ, erected by Constantine, in the following words: “It had twelve pillars, according to the number of the Apostles of Christ, and all were decorated with large silver vessels, a rich gift (κάλλιστν άνάθημα), brought by the king to his God.” Zonara describes a virgin dedicated to God: “she is the bride of Christ and dedicated to God (καί άνάθημα τώ Θεώ) as a sacred vessel.” But this word was most often used in the New Testament (and then in the first form - άνάθεμα) in the sense of condemnation, excommunication from society, eternal death. So, in the 1st letter to the Corinthians, St. Pavel writes: “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be cursed.”(16:22); in the same message: “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”(5:5). In the letter to the Romans: “I prayed for I myself would be excommunicated from Christ according to my brethren”(9:3); and in the letter to the Galatians he writes: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, brings you good news, even better than this good news to you. anathema be it"(1:8) - and in all the places mentioned the word άνάθεμα is used. Chrysostom gives us the most precise concept of anathema in his 16th conversation on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. Speaking in this conversation about ap. Pavle, Chrysostom defines the meaning of anathema as follows: “What is anathema (excommunication)? Listen to what he himself says (Paul): If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be cursed, anathema, that is, let him be excommunicated from everyone and become a stranger to everyone. Just as no one dares to touch with just his hands or approach the gift that is dedicated to God, so (the apostle) called by this name, in the opposite sense, the one who was excommunicated from the church, cutting him off from everyone and distancing him as much as possible, commanding everyone to withdraw with great fear and run away from such a person." Anathema, in the sense of the mentioned passages. Paul, has two meanings: firstly, final removal (exsecratio, separatio, abalienatio), and secondly, eternal death (aeternum exitium). Balsamon, in his interpretation of the 3rd rule of the Council of Constantinople in 879, says: “anathema is separation from God.” Theophylact says exactly the same: “anathema is removal, excommunication.” This includes the words ap. Pavla: “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”. To these words of the Apostle, Theodoret notes: “anathema, that is, let him be excommunicated from the common body of the church who is not attached by ardent love to Christ the Lord.” And Balsamon, in the preface to the Gangra Council, says: “What is anathema, if not that such a person should be betrayed to the devil, that there is no longer any salvation for him and that he is completely alien to Christ.” Athanasius the Great interprets the aforementioned words of the apostle as follows: “Excommunicate him from the church and from the faithful, and let every unbeliever be removed from the people.” The 29th canon of the Council of Laodicea, referring to those who adhere to Jewish customs, says: “Let them be anathema from Christ.” Zonara explains these words as follows: “let them be separated and excommunicated from Christ.” In the interpretation of the mentioned rule of the Council of Constantinople, Balsamon says: “let such be anathema; let him be excommunicated from God and let him be given over to the devil as anathema.” This is where the form of expression arose, both in Greek and Latin, and in our language: “to anathematize.”

In addition to excommunication, removal, rejection, anathema also means eternal death. So the Apostle Paul declares that he himself would like to be anathema for his brothers, relatives to him according to the flesh. Chrysostom interprets this message. Paul in the sense of eternal destruction and writes: “That is why I am tormented, says the apostle, and if it were possible to be excluded from the face of Christ, but alienated not from the love of Christ (let this not be so, because he did it out of love for Christ), but out of bliss and glory, I would agree to this, on the condition that my Master would not be subjected to blasphemy... I would gladly lose the kingdom and that ineffable glory and would suffer all the disasters.” In his other writings, Chrysostom explains that in the place mentioned by the apostle, the word anathema is used in the sense of eternal death. In the book or words about the priesthood, Chrysostom speaks about the apostle. Paul: “after such exploits, after countless crowns, he would like to descend into Gehenna and be given over to eternal torment ει), if only... the Jews would be saved and turn to Christ.” After this, it is now clear to us what anathema is. In the rules we will have to encounter this word, and we will always understand by it final excommunication from the church, the consequence of which is eternal death.

Rule 2

Let regional bishops not extend their authority to churches outside their region, and let them not mix churches: but, according to the rules, let the Alexandrian bishop govern only the Egyptian churches; let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian church, recognized by the Nicene rules; also let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia; Let the Pontic bishops have in their jurisdiction only the affairs of the Pontic region, and the Thracian affairs only of Thrace. Without being invited, bishops should not go beyond the boundaries of their area for ordination or any other ecclesiastical order. While maintaining the above-mentioned rule about ecclesiastical regions, it is clear that the affairs of each region will be regulated by a council of the same region, as determined in Nicaea. The Churches of God among foreign peoples must be governed according to the custom of the fathers that has been observed until now.

(Ap. 34, 37; I Om. 4, 5, 6, 7; II Om. 3; III Om. 8; IV Om. 17, 19, 28; Trul. 8, 25. 36, 38, 39; VII Om. 3, 6; Antioch. 9, 19, 20, 23; Carth. Double 14).

In the first place the rule mentions διοίκησις (dioecesis, diocese), and then έπαρχία (provincia, diocese). By the first rule, a larger ecclesiastical area is meant, and by the second, a smaller one. Both of them corresponded exactly to the civil-political division of the state, so that all political names passed into church practice. Διοίκησις - the diocese was composed of several small areas, that is, from several dioceses, while the έπαρχία - diocese constituted one part of the diocese. The primate of the diocese was subordinate within certain limits to the primate of the diocese; the primate of the diocese had under his command a precisely established number of diocesan primates, also within certain boundaries. This is the meaning of the rule when it speaks of diocese and diocese.

There is some difficulty in interpreting the words with which the rule begins - ή έπιέναι, which are translated: “Regional bishops should not extend their authority to churches outside their region.” We adhered to the Athenian text, which is the basis for our work. Our translation is consistent with the translations of all critical editions of the rules in the West. Beveregius translated it as follows: Episcopi ultra dioecesin in ecclesias extra suos terminos ne accedant. This place is translated in exactly the same way by Woel and Justel, and by Hefele. In the collection of Dionysius the Small it is translated differently. The word ύπέρ is translated by him with the word super (over), which gives the rule a completely different meaning: Qui sunt super dioecesin episcopi, nequaquam ad ecclesias, quae sunt extra praefixos sibi terminos accedant. Cardinal Pitra rewrote the text from Dionysius, as a result of which he also got a different meaning of the rule. We completely disagree with such a transfer of the meaning of the rule, firstly, because both the oldest reliable manuscripts and the most critical newest editions of these rules justify our edition, and secondly, because both in the translation of Dionysius, so, therefore , and in Cardinal Pitra's edition the translator's error is quite obvious. According to the edition of Dionysius, there is a contradiction between the first words of the rule and what is said in it further, whereas with the edition that we follow, the contradiction cannot exist. Based on the text of the rule itself and on the interpretation of the Zonara to it, we can assert that the fathers of the council, when issuing this rule, did not apply the mentioned words only to some of the highest bishops, but to all bishops without distinction. The next place in the canon: “without being invited, let bishops not go beyond the boundaries of their area for ordination, or any other church order” - best proves this to us.

This rule, in its essence, is nothing more than a repetition of the 6th and partly the 5th rules of the Council of Nicaea. According to the historian Socrates, the reason for issuing this rule was that many bishops, wanting to avoid persecution, moved from their area to another and thereby violated the hierarchical order in the church. If this, to some extent, could have been the reason for issuing this rule, then the main reason, in any case, was different. Shortly before the council, Meletius of Antioch appeared in Constantinople and here, by the way, he ordained Gregory of Nazianzus as bishop to the see of Constantinople. Soon after this, Peter of Alexandria sent several bishops to Constantinople to install Maximus, a Cynic philosopher, in the same see. In civil-political terms, these three places: Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople were in three different dioceses. Antioch, where Meletius was from, was in the East, Alexandria - from where the bishops were sent by Peter - was in Egypt, and Constantinople, in which the mentioned ordinations took place, was in the Thracian diocese. Since this caused great unrest in the church, the fathers of the council, having analyzed the state of affairs and the reasons that created such a situation, found it necessary to establish by law that in relation to the boundaries of the church administration be guided by political division, for which purpose this rule was issued, which establishes the boundaries of church regions completely identical with the boundaries of political regions, so that the civil-political division could be applied with complete accuracy to the church; and just as civil-political leaders were not allowed to extend their power beyond the boundaries of their diocese, so this was precisely prescribed to the leaders of individual church dioceses. During the time of Emperor Constantine, the entire Roman Empire was divided into four prefectures, among which one was the prefecture of the East. The Prefect of the East had under his authority five, which in turn consisted of several provinces, dioceses. These were the dioceses: East, Egypt, Asia (Asia proconsularis), Pontus and Thrace. The first had fifteen provinces, the second six, the third ten, the fourth eleven and the fifth six. The council mentions these political provinces, recognizing their independence in ecclesiastical terms, and prescribes that just as Egypt is subject to the control of the Alexandrian bishop, so similarly other regions should be under the control of their chief bishops, none of whom should cross the borders of their own. region for the sake of ordination or anything else related to church government, but each should only be in charge of the affairs of his own region. This limitation of power within their area for the first bishops served as a standard for other lower bishops in their area, and just as the first were forbidden to extend their power beyond the established boundaries, so this was not allowed for the second. The first bishops of the diocese, or the highest metropolitans, or, as they were called after the subjugation of Thrace, Pontus and Asia to the throne of Constantinople, the patriarchs, extended their power within certain boundaries to their diocese, that is, to the heads of the provinces, or, as they are called in the rule, to the primates of dioceses or, in other words, metropolitans; these metropolitans extended power, again within the borders of their diocese, to the bishops located in it. Bishops enjoyed the same rights within the boundaries of the smaller region under their control. Thus, the rule establishes the boundaries of power for the highest metropolitans (afterwards patriarchs), metropolitans, and bishops. Recognizing the seniority (πρεσβεία) of the highest metropolitans, the council does not concentrate in them unconditional power over each metropolitan or bishop of their region, but recognizes for them supreme supervision in their diocese, primacy among all other bishops of the diocese and the right to preside over diocesan councils, where everyone gathered metropolitans of the diocese with their bishops. Administration in the individual metropolitan areas of the diocese is outside their jurisdiction, but belongs exclusively to the council of the constituent bishops, chaired by their metropolitan. In issuing this instruction, the Council of Constantinople fully follows the definition of the Council of Nicaea.

As for the churches located among the barbarian peoples (έν τοίς βαρβαρικοίς έθνεσι, in barbaris gentibus), the council determines to govern them in the same way as they were governed until then. These churches, located outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, were too few in number to form a special diocese, and therefore the council, without defining anything new about them, left their government as before, namely, that they be subject to individual diocesan or diocesan bishops, as was, for example, Abyssinia subordinated to the bishop of Alexandria, or to be governed independently, regardless of this or that bishop.

Based on the words of Socrates describing this council - "they (the fathers of the Council of Constantinople) established patriarchs" - and taking into account the time when Socrates wrote, one might assume, as some do, that this council established five or six patriarchates in the east and that in general the formal establishment of the patriarchate belongs to him. However, this cannot be asserted by examining the authentic written monuments that have come down to us from the time of the cathedral. It is indisputable that the fathers of the Council of Constantinople laid the foundation for the establishment of the patriarchate, which later entered into life, but the act of establishment itself still cannot be attributed to them. With the above words, Socrates does not intend to indicate the establishment of patriarchs, but he wants to point out those bishops whom Emperor Theodosius mentions in his laws as Orthodox and who, like the Old Testament patriarchs, were supposed to lead the faithful. At the conclusion of the council, Theodosius issued the following law: “We command that all churches be handed over to bishops who confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as one Divinity, of equal power and glory, and who do not think anything wicked, but who are of one mind with Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople , with Timothy of Alexandria in Egypt, with Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Terek in the east, with Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in proconsular Asia and the diocese of Asia, with Helladius of Caesarea, Oterius of Melitene and Gregory of Nyssa in the diocese of Pontus, and finally with Terentius of Scythia and Martyrius Marcianopolis in Moisia and Scythia. All who are not of the same mind with the said bishops should be considered excommunicated heretics and as such should be expelled from the church without the right to ever receive episcopal power in the church.” Speaking about patriarchs, Socrates undoubtedly meant the mentioned bishops as extraordinary commissioners, whose task was to strengthen the faith in certain church areas. If Socrates really meant the patriarchs, who, as such, appeared later in church government, then, listing the mentioned bishops, he, in any case, should have named them one for each diocese, whereas he mentions several of them in one and in the same place; so, for example, in the Pontic diocese he mentions Helladius and Gregory, in the Asian diocese Amphilochius and Optima, which clearly shows that his words did not designate actual patriarchs, but special representatives, representatives of pure Orthodoxy. It is in this sense that the words of Socrates should be understood: “they established patriarchs.” Consequently, the beginning of the “establishment of patriarchs” was laid, as we have already said, by the 6th and 7th rules of the Council of Nicaea, and then by this rule of the Council of Constantinople; but the present formal establishment of the patriarchate dates back to a later time, which will be discussed in its place.

Rule 3

Let the bishop of Constantinople have the advantage of honor over the bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.

(VI Om. 28; Trul. 36).

Socrates confirms to us the authenticity of this rule, saying: “The fathers of the council decreed a rule according to which the bishop of Constantinople should enjoy primacy of honor after the Roman one, because Constantinople is the new Rome.” Sozomen also says: “They (the fathers of the council) decided that after the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Constantinople should have primacy of honor, because he governs the bishopric of the new Rome. In the West, despite this and other similar evidence, the authenticity of this rule is questioned, the reason for which is quite understandable. However, this doubt arose only at a later time. In Prisca canonum versio we find this rule along with other genuine rules. In the Codex canonum universae ecclesiae we find the same; as well as in the Codex canonum ecclesiasticorum Dionysii and in the Decretum Gratiani. Cardinal Baronius wanted to shake the authority of this rule, in all likelihood in order to justify the note made to it by the Roman censors in Gratian's Decree. Baronius' attempt remained unsuccessful, and the authenticity of the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council was recognized by the best Western scientists.

What was the reason for issuing this rule can be seen from its concluding words. “The city of Byzantium,” says Balsamon in his interpretation of this rule, “did not have the honor of archiepiscopal, but its bishop in former times was ordained metropolitan of Heraklion. From history we know that Byzantium, although it previously had independent government, was subsequently conquered by the Roman Emperor Severus and subordinated to the Pirinthians, and Pirinth is Heraclius. When Constantine the Great transferred the scepter of the Roman Empire to this city, it was called Constantinople (Constantinople), the new Rome and the queen of all cities.” In the history of Sozomen we read: “Constantinople, like ancient Rome, had not only a senate, citizens and magistrate, but the relations of Constantinople citizens were governed by Roman laws in force in Italy; in a word, Constantinople enjoyed all the rights and privileges to the same extent as ancient Rome." Taking into account this elevation of Constantinople over other cities, the fathers of the council found it appropriate to honor the bishop of Constantinople before other bishops, and therefore recognize for the bishop of Constantinople the primacy of honor among all bishops, after the bishop of Ancient Rome - such a primacy of honor (πρεσβεία τής τιμής, prioris honoris partes) approximately, which the fathers of the Council of Nicaea recognized for the bishop of Jerusalem. The meaning of this rule is best seen by comparing it with the 2nd rule of the same council. In this rule, the fathers of the council express themselves quite precisely and recognize for the bishop of Constantinople τά πρεσβεία τής τιμής (primatum honoris), but do not yet recognize for him τά πρεσβεία τής εξουσίας or π ρεσβεία in general, i.e. they recognize that he can take first place before others at general meetings, but at the same time they do not give him any power over the others. Since all the rights of the metropolitan are reduced either to the primacy of the τής έξουσίας, or to the primacy of the τής τιμής, the fathers of the council recognize this latter primacy for the Bishop of Constantinople; they could not admit more to him after the previous rule was issued. Based on the words of Socrates, who considers Nectarius of Constantinople the main champion of the faith in Thrace, and referring to a similar place in Theodoret, one must assume that it was not just honor, without any power, that was recognized as a rule for the bishop of Constantinople. He could not have primacy of power over other bishops, without recognition of this power by the council, but he had this power in his area, which, undoubtedly, was considered Thrace. In addition to Socrates and Theodoret, we are also testified to the power within certain boundaries of the bishop of Constantinople and his right to appoint bishops, for example. Eunomius - Bishop of Cyzicus, Euphronius - Bishop of Bithynia, etc. “Those who believe that during the Second Ecumenical Council the bishop of Constantinople did not have his own diocese are very mistaken,” says Valesius regarding this in his notes on the history of Socrates. Consequently, the bishop of Constantinople had within the borders of his region power equal to all metropolitans, and the primacy of honor belonged to him over all bishops, after the Roman one. This rule laid to some extent the foundation of that patriarchal power, which only later at the Council of Chalcedon the bishop of Constantinople received. In this sense, all subsequent bishops of Constantinople and, most importantly, John Chrysostom, Nektarios’ successor, understood this rule. Based on the same rule and for the same reasons, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon subsequently recognized for the bishop of Constantinople the power that should have belonged to him according to his position. It is worthy of attention that the fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, when issuing this rule, do not talk about any sacred or ecclesiastical privileges of the see of Constantinople, for example, about apostolic succession, or anything similar, but exclusively about the external state importance of the place occupied bishop of Constantinople, “because this city is new Rome” and nothing more, as a result of which the fathers of the council put his see above other elders and apostolic ones, which were, for example, the sees of Antioch and Alexandria. Therefore, in the very honor recognized for the bishop of Constantinople, they mean exclusively the hierarchical order and the external significance of the hierarch. The same thing is obviously meant by the fathers of the council when they speak of the primacy of the Roman bishop and recognize this primacy in him over other bishops, not for any special reason, but only because his see is located in the ancient capital. In this, the fathers of the council were guided by the same principle that guided the fathers of the Council of Nicaea when establishing the external church structure, according to which they applied the political division of the Roman Empire to the church division. We will have to speak in detail on this issue in the interpretation of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon and the 36th canon of the Trullo Council.

Rule 4

About Maximus the Cynic, and about the outrage he caused in Constantinople: below Maximus was, or is, a bishop, below him placed on any degree of clergy: both what was done for him, and what was done by him, everything is insignificant.

We find details about Maximus and the disturbances he caused in the church in the biography of Gregory of Nazianzus, in the poems of Gregory the Theologian himself about his life and in the history of the church of Sozomen. Maxim was born in Alexandria from pious parents in the middle of the 4th century; fundamentally belonged to the philosophical school of the Cynics and, due to the severity of his life, managed to gain fame among his contemporaries. Among others, he managed to initially win over Basil the Great himself, who praised him in one of his letters. Extremely crafty and basely ambitious, he presented himself as a strict zealot of Orthodoxy and even a confessor of the faith. Jerome mentions one of Maximus's works, De fide adversus Arianos liber, which he gave to Emperor Gratian in Milan. Having managed to gain the favor of the Alexandrian Bishop Peter by cunning, he obtained from him a letter in which the latter recommends him to the faithful of Constantinople, where he soon goes. In Constantinople, Maximus finds Gregory of Nazianzus, whom he so charms with his words and behavior that he takes him into his home, invites him to a meal, baptizes him, little by little introduces him to his clergy and gives him after himself the first place in the church of Constantinople. However, this did not satisfy the ambition of Maximus, who was maliciously plotting to remove Gregory from Constantinople and take his episcopal see. With this intention, he sends a letter and money to Alexandria with a request to send two or three bishops to Constantinople who could ordain him to the place occupied by Gregory. Alexandria responded to his request and two bishops were immediately sent. As soon as the Egyptian bishops arrived in Constantinople with powers from Peter of Alexandria, the ordination of Maximus should have immediately taken place, and, undoubtedly, would have taken place if the faithful, having learned about this and become furious against the impudent usurper, had not expelled him from the church along with bishops. However, Maxim did not calm down, but together with the Egyptian bishops retired to the house of a certain musician (in choraulae cujusdam aedibus), where an illegal ordination was performed on him, “however,” Balsamon and Zonara note in this regard, “from this crime he did not could have no benefit”, since no one wanted or could recognize him as a bishop, except for several of his adherents and enemies of Gregory of Nazianzus, whom he hastened to ordain to various degrees of clergy. The indignant people forced him to leave Constantinople and return again to Alexandria; but since there he began to rebel the people and form a party against Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, and also to ordain indiscriminately, he was expelled by decree of the prefect. It was against this Maximus that the Council of Constantinople issued this rule, and it was decided that Maximus could not be considered a bishop, since his ordination was illegal, and all ordinations performed by him should be considered as such, because he had no power to perform them. “When it was subsequently discovered that Maxim, in addition, was also a follower of the Apollinarian heresy, he was anathematized,” adds Balsamon in his interpretations of this rule. Consequently, as Beveregius says in his comments on this rule, there were two reasons why the Council of Constantinople issued this injunction regarding Maximus. Firstly, that Maximus used the money in order to receive from the Bishop of Alexandria Peter the episcopal see of Constantinople, as evidenced by both Zonara and Balsamon in their comments already mentioned above, and by the scholiast Armenopulos, who says: “This Maximus, a cynical philosopher, baptized Gregory the Theologian, was ordained bishop of Constantinople with the help of money.” Another reason is that he was not installed by bishops of the same region, but by outside bishops who came from Egypt. Both offenses were a violation of two rules (4 and 6) of the Council of Nicea: the first orders all regional bishops to participate indirectly or directly in the installation of a bishop, whereas in this case they not only did not participate in it, but were even against it; and the second prescribes that any ordination performed without the knowledge of the underlying metropolitan should be considered invalid. As for Maximus, not only was he not installed as metropolitan of Heraklion, to whom the bishop of Constantinople was then subordinate, but the said metropolitan did not even express his consent to this. Because of this, the ordination of Maximus should have been considered illegal, and therefore invalid, and this invalidity is confirmed by this rule.

The behavior of the Roman Church in this matter was not entirely impeccable. Having received his ordination from the Egyptian bishops in Constantinople, Maxim immediately informed the bishops of Italy in writing about his ordination, sending them a letter from Peter of Alexandria confirming his unity with the Alexandrian church. The Italian bishops, who had gathered at that time for the council in Aquileia, having read Maximus's letter, accepted him into their communion all the more willingly because they treated Gregory unkindly because of his fame and considered his installation to the see of Constantinople allegedly illegal. In addition, after the ejection of Maximus by the fathers of the council and the election of Nectarius in his place, the fathers of the western council, having received notice of this, solemnly refused to recognize Nectarius and addressed a letter to Emperor Theodosius, asking him to order the eastern bishops to appear at the council in Rome to resolve the issue of Nektaria and about Maxim. “A convenient opportunity,” Petrus de Marca notes about this, “at which the Western bishops, led by Damasus, pounced greedily (avide) in order to extend their power to the see of Constantinople.”

Apparently, Damasus condemned the election of Maximus at the beginning, at least this can be judged from two letters he sent to Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica; but later, when it seemed to him that this opportunity could be used to raise the authority of the Roman see, he again went over to the side of Maximus and began to defend his election against Nectarius. In the east, they acted at that time in accordance with the requirements of the then state of affairs, and instead of satisfying the desire of the pope and helping him achieve his intentions, the bishops themselves convened a council and approved the election of Nektarios, after which the emperor sent his ambassadors to Rome in order to inform there is a decision of the council that they would be pleased to take into account. The consequence of this was that Damasus and the Italian bishops, although against their will, were forced to renounce their intentions and accept the decision of the council.

Rule 5

Regarding the Western scroll: those who are in Antioch are also acceptable, who confess one Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(II Universe 1; Trul. 1; Carth. 1, 2).

This rule has been interpreted very differently. The word “scroll of the West” (τόμος τών δοτικών, volumen occidentalium, tomus occidentalium) has been understood in different ways: some, namely the Greek medieval commentators, claim that the “scroll” means the confession of faith of the Council of Serdica in 343, while the latest scholars argue that under This must be understood as the message of the Roman Council to the eastern bishops of 369, which in 378 was adopted and signed at the Council in Antioch. We cannot accept the first statement, because it is not at all justified by modern data. Zonara, the first to express such an opinion in his interpretation of this rule, says this: “Emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, having converted to Arianism, sought to destroy the First Ecumenical Council. The Pope of ancient Rome reported this to Constans, the brother of Constantius. Constant threatened his brother with war in a letter if he did not stop shaking the true faith. The consequence of this was that both emperors agreed to convene a council to judge the Nicene definitions. So, 341 (376) fathers gathered in Serdic, who set out in writing a decree confirming the Nicene Creed and the excommunication of all those who believe differently. This written presentation of the Council of Serdica is called by the Second Ecumenical Council the “Western scroll” because it was signed only by Western bishops, while 70 Eastern bishops (Arians) declared that they did not want to participate in the council until St. Paul left it Confessor and Athanasius the Great". Balsamon says the same thing. The scholiast of the collection of Armenopoulos says the following about this rule: “When Constantius converted to Arianism, the Roman bishop convened a council of 341 bishops in Serdica, at which this scroll (hic tomus sive scriptum) was compiled, approved by Constant, the brother of Constantius.” One cannot agree with such a statement, firstly, because this “Western scroll” should, in any case, talk about the state of the Antiochian church, and secondly, it should have touched in detail on the division of the faithful in Antioch, namely the Meletian schism. Meanwhile, in the definitions of the Serdic Council there is no, and there could not be, any mention of anything like this, for the simple reason that this council was convened no more or less than seventy-four years before the Meletian schism arose. At the same time, the fathers of this council, apparently, had in mind some recent council, and by no means the Serdic Council, which was convened 38 years earlier. Consequently, it is not the definitions of the Council of Serdica that should be meant by the “Western scroll,” but some other manuscript. Peter de Marca, Valesius, Beveregius, Cavus, Hefele and Archimandrite. John holds almost the same opinion regarding this. In accordance with them, we express our opinion.

In 369, a council was convened in Rome, the main task of which was to proclaim, on the one hand, faith in the consubstantial Persons of the Divine, and on the other, to anathematize Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, the main defender of Arianism in the West. Having outlined its confession of faith, the council sent a letter to the eastern bishops in Antioch, informing them of the conclusion of the council and asking them to express their judgment about it. Nine years later, a large council was convened in Antioch, which was attended by 146 Orthodox bishops, who gathered with a dual purpose: firstly, to destroy the schism that had arisen among the Orthodox, and secondly, to find means for the church to quickly achieve victory over Arianism. Especially to achieve the latter, the assembled bishops first of all dissected, then, having familiarized themselves well, signed the message of the Roman Council of 369, adding several more dogmatic interpretations to those that were already in the message. The Council (of Antioch) then sent to Rome, as a supplement to its written report, a copy of the same message of the Council of Rome (369), signed and with its statement regarding the belief in consubstantial beings. Soon after this, the Western bishops wrote to the Eastern ones regarding the discord that had arisen again among the Orthodox, and in the letter reminded them of their first letter (tomus), in which they announced that they recognized both sides as Orthodox in Antioch. The Eastern Fathers, who gathered at the Council of Constantinople and were prompted, among other things, to talk about the Antiochians and because they feared that the then discord between the two local bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, would cause harm to Orthodoxy, declared, as if in response to a Western statement made in their first letter about the Antiochians, that they also recognize the Christians in Antioch as Orthodox. Consequently, this Western scroll, this τόμος τών δοτικών (tomus occidentalium, volumen occidentalium) is not the confession of faith of the Council of Serdica, as the Greek commentators assert, but it is the message of the Roman Council of 369, accepted and confirmed by the signatures of the Eastern Fathers at the Council of 378 in Antioch. Therefore, this rule, which, it must be admitted, is not entirely clearly stated, could be formulated in this way: “As for the scroll, τόμος, received by us from the Western and compiled at the Roman Council of 369 and adopted and signed at the Council of Eastern bishops in Antioch in 378, we declare that we recognize as Orthodox in Antioch those who confess the one Divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

In the collection of rules of John Scholasticus, the following was added to this rule: “The bishops who expressed this recognition are: Nektarios of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria and the other one hundred and fifty fathers.” This addition to this rule is of particular importance because it refutes the opinion of those who consider the publication of this rule by the Second Ecumenical Council doubtful, trying to prove that it was published after the end of the Second Ecumenical Council and that, therefore, it is not genuine.

Rule 6

Because many, wishing to cause confusion and overthrow church decorum, hostilely and slanderously invent some guilt against the Orthodox bishops ruling the churches, with no other intention than to darken the good glory of the priests and create confusion among the peaceful people: for this reason, holy The council of bishops who flocked to Constantinopolis decided: not to admit accusers without investigation, below to allow everyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the church, but not to forbid everyone. But if someone brings some kind of personal, that is, private complaint against the bishop, such as his claim to property, or some other injustice suffered from him: with such accusations, do not take into account either the person of the accuser or his faith. It is appropriate in every possible way for the bishop’s conscience to be free, and for the one who declares himself to be offended to receive justice, no matter what his faith. If the guilt brought against the bishop is ecclesiastical, then it is appropriate to look at the face of the accuser. And firstly, do not allow heretics to bring accusations against Orthodox bishops in church matters. We call heretics both those who have long been declared alien to the church, and those who have since been anathematized by us; Besides this, there are also those who, although they pretend that they profess our faith soundly, but who have separated themselves and gather assemblies against our properly appointed bishops. Also, if any of those belonging to the church, for some guilt, were previously condemned and expelled, or excommunicated from the clergy, or from the ranks of the laity: and thus let it not be allowed to accuse the bishop until they clear themselves of the accusation to which they themselves have fallen. Likewise, from those who themselves have previously been subjected to denunciation, denunciations against the bishop, or against others from the clergy, may not be acceptable unless they undoubtedly demonstrate their innocence against the accusations brought against them. If some, who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from church communion, nor convicted, or previously accused of any crimes, say that they have something to report against the bishop regarding church matters: the Holy Council commands such to first present their accusations to everyone bishops of the region, and before them to confirm with arguments their denunciations against the bishop who was subject to the answer. If the bishops of the united dioceses, more than they hope, are not able to restore order according to the accusations brought against the bishop: then let the accusers proceed to a larger council of bishops of the great region, convened for this reason: but not before they can insist on their accusation, as in writing putting themselves under threat of the same punishment as the accused, lest, in the course of the proceedings, they would find themselves slandering the accused bishop. But if anyone, having despised, after a preliminary inquiry, the established decision, dares to disturb the royal hearing, or the courts of the worldly rulers, or the ecumenical council, to offend the honor of all the bishops of the region: such a one will not be accepted at all with his complaint, as if he had offended the rules and violating church decorum.

(Ap. 34, 37, 74, 75; IV Ose. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trul. 8; Antioch. 14, 15, 20; Laodice. 40; Serdic. 4; Carth. 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 59, 104, 107, 128, 129, 130, 132;

From the 74th and 75th Apostolic Canons we saw what the church court over clergy was like and on whom it depended in the first centuries of the life of the church, and at the same time we saw who could file complaints against clergy. In this rule, both the prescriptions of the mentioned Apostolic Rules and others that speak about the same subject and published at various councils convened before the Second Ecumenical Council are renewed and supplemented.

The reason for issuing this rule is clearly visible from the first words of the rule itself. In order to eliminate in the future this kind of phenomenon, which is mentioned at the beginning of the rule, the holy fathers together found it necessary to publish this rule. In it they talk, firstly, about the difference between complaints of a private and ecclesiastical nature, secondly, about persons who can file certain complaints against bishops, and finally about the competent courts.

By complaints of a private nature we mean those that do not concern the church and with which the church has nothing to do, such as, for example, complaints against the bishop for injustice, for taking away property or for causing offense, etc.; by complaints of an ecclesiastical nature we mean those that entail excommunication or removal from the priesthood, such as, for example, sacrilege, simony, etc. The rule allows everyone to file complaints of a private nature against bishops without distinction, because in this case every member society has its own rights, which are ensured by precise civil laws: “with such accusations, do not take into account either the person of the accuser or his faith. “It is appropriate in every possible way for the bishop’s conscience to be free, and for the one who declares himself to be offended to receive justice, no matter what his faith,” says the rule. As for complaints of an ecclesiastical nature, the rule commands that the strictest attention be paid to persons who are accusers, and categorically prohibits bringing such complaints to: a) heretics, b) schismatics, c) organizers of illegal gatherings, d) deposed clergy, e) excommunicated laymen and f) on trial and not yet acquitted.

In their rule, the fathers use the general name of heretics not only for those who teach falsely about the faith, but also for schismatics and those who organize meetings against the bishop. In his letter to Amphilochius of Iconium, Basil the Great accurately distinguishes heretics from schismatics and from those who form illegal assemblies. As Basil the Great says, αϊρεσις happens when someone preaches something completely contrary to the Orthodox faith, and is completely alienated from the church - σχίσμα happens when someone, although he thinks differently about individual church subjects and issues, but there is a possibility to come to an agreement - παρασυναγωγή happens in those cases when a rebellious presbyter or bishop forms illegal meetings with the people, opposing the orders of the authorities (1 pr.). From a comparison of the words about heretics in this rule, where schismatics are also named by the same name, with the mentioned words of Basil the Great, “strictly distinguishing schismatics from heretics, one could derive a certain contradiction, which Balsamon, in interpreting this rule, tries to justify as follows: “When You hear,” he says, “that this rule calls heretics those who pretend to profess our faith in purity, but who have separated and are organizing assemblies against our canonically appointed bishops, do not think that by this you are contradicting the second (a. 1. first ) the rule of Basil the Great, which does not call schismatics heretics, but say that this rule calls heretics those schismatics who think completely differently, but pretend to be Orthodox, being in reality heretics; meanwhile, the rule of St. Basil speaks of other schismatics who are in fact Orthodox, but who, due to some kind of bewilderment, arbitrarily separated from the brotherhood.” This desire of Balsamon to harmonize the rule of the council with the rule of Basil the Great is completely unnecessary and cannot be justified. If it were possible to interpret the meaning of this rule in this way, then it would be completely unnecessary, as Beveregy rightly notes, to add special words in the rule regarding schismatics. This rule not only does not contradict the rule of Basil the Great, but, on the contrary, rather confirms it. In it, the fathers clearly indicate that it is necessary to distinguish heretics from schismatics and from those who organize illegal meetings, because the rule separately mentions both one and the other, and the third. But the fathers here do not mean heretics in the usual narrow sense of the word, but in a broader sense, so that this concept includes only recognized heretics, but also schismatics and those who organize illegal meetings. The thought of the fathers could therefore be expressed as follows: “we forbid bringing complaints against bishops to all heretics, meaning by this name heretics not only those who are such in essence and whom we or our fathers condemned for their false teaching, but also all who have crossed into schism, as well as those who illegally form meetings against canonically appointed bishops, despite all the fact that they pretend to profess the Orthodox faith.” In the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the church, schismatics are quite often designated by the name of heretics. In fact, we find many schisms that, when they arise, still adhere to Orthodoxy, but then little by little they retreat from it and adopt this or that heresy, from which they never separate again. This explanation finds confirmation, for example, in the interpretations of Blessed Jerome on the letter of the Apostle Paul to Titus and in Augustine. Thus, it is quite clear in this rule that, along with heretics, schismatics are also designated as having no right to bring complaints against Orthodox bishops in church matters, because they, by their nature, can no longer help but accuse of all sorts of fictitious crimes those bishops from whom completely separated. Because of this, Athanasius the Great does not allow the Meletians, as schismatics, to be his accusers.

So, heretics, then schismatics and, finally, organizers of illegal meetings against canonically appointed bishops are prohibited by this rule from filing complaints against bishops. This rule has been followed by all Christian churches since ancient times. This is evidenced by the rules of the Antioch, Serdik and Carthage councils (Carth. 128, 129; Antioch. 14; Serdik. 3, 4, 5). Athanasius the Great, in his apology to the Emperor Constantius, denies all significance of the complaints made against him by the Arians. Augustine speaks in exactly the same way about the complaints of heretics against the Orthodox. Imbued with the idea of preserving the dignity of the Orthodox, Justinian issues a law prohibiting heretics not only from being accusers of the Orthodox, but also from being witnesses against them. The same law was then included in the Vasiliki (Royal Books) and reached the point that among the heretics, the Manichaeans could not be witnesses in any matter. In the Nomocanon in the XIV titles we find a detailed statement of all legal regulations relating to this issue.

In addition to the above, the rule prohibits deposed clergy, excommunicated laymen and those on trial from bringing complaints against bishops. Such a prohibition is quite understandable, because all such, being under legal trial, as accused, have no right to testify, much less to file complaints themselves. Such persons were prohibited from filing complaints according to ancient rules, such as, for example, according to the rules of the Council of Carthage. In general, church practice was guided in this case by the same rules that were applied in civil matters by civil laws. All others, the rule adds, who are “neither heretics, nor excommunicated from church communion, nor convicted, or previously accused of any crimes,” are allowed freely, if they have a reason, to be accusers against the bishop. However, even here the prescription of the rule is not unconditional. It requires that they give a written promise that they put themselves “under pain of the same punishment as the accused, even if, in the course of the proceedings, they were found to slander the accused bishop.” This condition was required by both church and civil laws. In the Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, as well as in the Nomocanon in the XIV titles, special sections are devoted to this issue. In the first we find title XVI under the title: De episcopis, qui accusantur et de iis qui ad accusandum debent, aut non debent admitti. In the second we encounter a separate chapter under the title: Τίνες, καί παρά τίσι κατηγορούσιν έπισκόπων. In the Code of Justinian, under the title De calumniatoribus, we read the law of Honorius and Theodosius: Quisquis crimen intendit, non impunitam fore noverit licentiam mentiendi: cum calumniantes ad vindictam poscat similitudo supplicii. We read the same in Vasiliki.

Only after all the above conditions have been met, according to the rule, is it permissible to file a complaint against the bishop. Regarding the conduct of the trial itself, the fathers of the council resume and supplement the previous rules: 74th Apostolic, 5th rights. I Council of Nicea, 14th, 15th, 20th Council of Antioch, etc. The complaint must be submitted to the council of all bishops τής τής επαρχίας, i.e., a council consisting of all bishops of one metropolitan region, on which the presiding place is rightfully belongs to the Metropolitan. By επαρχία in the rules, as has already been mentioned several times, a well-known ecclesiastical region with several bishops dependent on one main bishop, usually called the metropolitan. Επαρχία gives us the concept of the metropolis in the sense in which the 34th Apostolic Canon presents it to us. Consequently, a complaint against a bishop must first of all be submitted to the diocesan or, in other words, the metropolitan council, where it is decided. If this council cannot give its conclusion regarding the complaint, then the matter should be transferred to the council of bishops τής διοικήσεως, that is, to a council composed of all the bishops and metropolitans of a large ecclesiastical region or patriarchate, where the chairmanship rightfully belongs to the patriarch . Διοίκησις corresponds, as we have seen from the interpretations of the Nicene rules and the 2nd rule of this council, to the concept of the present patriarchy, as a result of which the diocesan council corresponds to the patriarchal council, the members of which are all the metropolitans and bishops of the patriarchate under the chairmanship of the patriarch. All the metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Constantinople - Cretan, Heraclian, Thracian, Thessalonica and others, about seventy-eight others, with the bishops subordinate to them, together form one διοίκησις, headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and gathered together they form the diesesal (patriarchal) council. At this diocesal council, as the rule prescribes, the final decision must be made on any complaint filed against the bishop. There was nowhere else to appeal against the verdict of this council, except in extreme cases, when the issue, due to its special importance, was decided by an ecumenical council.

The fathers of the council end this rule with a categorical prohibition to accept as accusers against bishops those persons who, neglecting this decree, decide to turn to the secular authorities. To such, the fathers of the council basically remind us of the prescription of the 12th rule of the Council of Antioch. At that time, many clergy and laity, bypassing the church court, addressed their complaints regarding church matters directly to the civil authorities and, having been condemned by the church court, tried to get the civil authorities to cancel the church verdict. As a result, much unrest and injustice arose in church government, and the church court lost its power. Those convicted under the law by their ecclesiastical authority, by deception or in any other way, managed to win over the civil authorities, which, especially during the reign of the non-Orthodox emperors Constantius, Julian and Valens, overturned the sentences of not only individual bishops, but even entire councils, and the guilty were acquitted, and the innocent were subject to undeserved punishment. The rule determines that at the great council of bishops every matter must be completed without further appeal; those who neglect this legitimate authority of the church and decide to turn to the civil authorities themselves become guilty and lose all the rights that they previously enjoyed, as “one who has offended the rules and violated church decorum.” The interference of civil authorities in church affairs has always been condemned in the most decisive manner by the rules. Among countless examples, let us take the act of John Chrysostom and Athanasius the Great, who, having been condemned by many councils, did not want to occupy their sees again, although they were restored by the royal power, until they were completely justified by the councils, which were larger and more important in comparison. with those who condemned them. The principle of the inappropriateness of interference by secular authorities in church affairs has always been sacredly guarded by the church, and civil authorities themselves, in most cases, were very reluctant to take on the decision of church affairs. Even non-Orthodox civil authorities, at least in later centuries, avoided interfering in such matters, leaving them to the church authorities and recognizing their full competence in such cases. This injunction of the Second Ecumenical Council, prohibiting the transfer of church affairs to civil authority, was solemnly repeated at the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Rule 7

Those who join Orthodoxy, and some of those saved from heretics, are acceptable, according to the following rites and customs. Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, and Navatians, who call themselves pure and the best, the Quadrants, or Tetradites, and Apolinarists, when they give manuscripts and curse all heresy, not philosophizing, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes, acceptable, sealing, that is, , anointing with the holy oil first the forehead, then the eyes, and nostrils, and lips, and ears, and sealing them with the verb: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Eunomian, with a single immersion of those who are baptized, and the Montanists, here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who hold the opinion of filial paternity, and those who create other intolerant things, and all other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country), all who of them wish to be annexed to be Orthodox is acceptable, just like the pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second we make them catechumens, then on the third we conjure them, with three blows blowing in their faces and in their ears: and so we announce them, and force them to stay in the church and listen to the scriptures, and then we baptize them.

(Ap. 46, 47, 68; I Ose. 8, 19; Trul. 95; Laod. 7, 8; Carth. 57; Basil Vel. 1, 5, 47).

The great multitude of heretics who existed in the 4th century prompted the church fathers to incessant legislative activity. At every step, the desire of the fathers to eradicate heresies and persuade heretics to convert to the Orthodox Church was manifested. This desire, by the way, explains the comparative leniency of the fathers in the matter of accepting heretics into the church, a leniency that could not otherwise be justified, if we take into account the special gravity of some heresies. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, listing in their rule the most important heresies that still existed at that time, established the order according to which various heretics should be accepted by the Orthodox Church. However, in this case they do not issue any new special regulations, but confirm a custom that already existed before, giving it only legal force.

The method of accepting heretics into the church was, as we see from this rule, different. This difference depended on the fact that some of the heretics only damaged the basic tenets of the faith in some way, but did not completely deny them, while others completely destroyed them. While some had, at least in outward form, correct baptism, others did not recognize it as a sacrament, and still others distorted Orthodox baptism so much that not a trace of correctness remained in it. As a result of this difference, some, when converting to Orthodoxy, were not baptized a second time, but were only anointed, of course, after the solemn renunciation of heresy, while others had to be baptized again, like pagans or Jews. The first fathers of the council include: Arians, Macedonians, Savvatians, Novatians, Tetradites and Apollinarians; to the second - the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, and in general all the heretics who appeared in Galatia. Of the first heresies, we have already talked about the Arian, Macedonian, Novatian and Apollinarian, and of the second - about the Eunomian and Sabellian. They also mentioned the heresies, which, as the council says, arose in Galatia, because they mean the Marcellian and Photinian heresies. Here we will dwell on the other three heresies mentioned by the fathers, namely, the Savvatians, Tetradites and Montanists.

The Savvatians received their name from their founder Savvatius, who was a follower of the Novatian teaching, which was sufficiently discussed in the interpretation of the 8th rule of the Council of Nicaea. Savvaty, who converted from Jews to Christianity, was ordained as a presbyter by the Novatian bishop Marcian. Being extremely ambitious, he planned to achieve the episcopal degree at all costs, but since during the life of Marcian, who was already destined for a successor in the person of Sisinius, this was impossible, he decided to form a circle of his adherents and, taking advantage of the connivance of the then Novatian bishops, began to preach a new severity of life and introduce Jewish customs, especially during the celebration of Easter. Two of his friends, Theoktist and Macarius, began to act together with him. He soon spread his influence so much and created such chaos in the Novatian community that a Novatian Council was convened in Bithynia around 380, at which he was condemned and deposed. “It would have been better if I had laid my hand on the thorny bush than on Savvatius at the time when I ordained him as a presbyter,” Marcian says about Savvatiya in the history of Socrates.” Zonara says the following about the Savvatians: “the head of the Savvatians was a certain Savvatius, who was a presbyter in the Novatus heresy, but he had something more than the teacher of the heresy himself, whom he surpassed in malice; he celebrated with the Jews."

The Quadrudent Diaries or Tetradites (τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατιται ήτοι τετραδίται, quartadecimani sive tetraditae) taught that Passover should be celebrated on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, whatever day of the week it falls, and fasted on this day. Balsamon, in his interpretation of this rule, says: “Those who celebrate Easter not on Sunday, but, like the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the month, no matter what day of the week it falls, are called tetradits. They are also called tetradits because they do not allow fasting during the celebration of Easter, but they fast as we fast on Wednesday, again according to Jewish custom.” We have already spoken about the time of celebrating Easter in the interpretation of the 7th Apostolic Canon, and we will also talk about it in the interpretation of the 1st Canon of the Council of Antioch, where the definition of the First Council of Nicea is set out regarding this. But this definition could not lead to general unity, and we find many sects that continued to stubbornly adhere to the ancient custom regarding the time of celebrating Easter. Church historians mention the Ebionites, the Tetradites, the Savvatians, the Avdians, and many others, known under the general name of the fourteen-dayers. Some councils even before this were forced to issue special rules regarding them, such as: Antioch (1 ave.), Laodicea (7 ave.), etc. Finally, the fathers of the Council of Constantinople also issued rules about them, without, however, designating , what kind of fourteen-dayers they mean in their rule, meanwhile during the council, that is, in the last quarter of the 4th century, there were a lot of them and, moreover, they differed from each other in their teaching. Epiphanius helps us learn what we do not know from the fathers, and mentions many of the fourteen days of that time, different in their teaching. In terms of faith, they are Orthodox, says Epiphanius, but they are too carried away by Jewish fables and are overly afraid of the words of Moses (Ex. 12:15) [cf. Number 9:11 and 13; Wed Deut. 27:26]. From everything that Epiphanius said about the fourteen-dayers in his work Contra quartadecimanos, we can conclude the following about them at the time of the Second Ecumenical Council: “They celebrate Easter only for one day, contrary to the Orthodox, who celebrate the whole week, and on this day they fast and receive communion. Some of them, living in Cappadocia, always celebrate Easter on March 25, no matter what day of the week it falls, adhering to this Acta Pilati, which says that Jesus Christ died on March 25." These were the fourteen-day diaries mentioned by Epiphanius. Based on the fact that the council allows them to be accepted into the church without a second baptism, we can easily conclude that these were precisely the fourteen-dayers whom Epiphanius mentions, and whom he recognizes as Orthodox by faith.

The Montanists trace their origins back to Montanus, who began preaching his teachings in Phrygia around the middle of the 2nd century. In ancient sources, the Montanists, according to the place from which they originated, are called Phrygians or Cataphrigians. In Theodoret they are also called Pepusians after the place Pepuza, which they call Jerusalem and is especially inhabited by them. Insufficient data that has survived to us does not allow us to accurately characterize the personality of Montanus, and even less so the two prophetesses always mentioned with him - Maximilla and Priscilla, who were his constant companions and helped him in his preaching. The newest criticism considers the companions of Montana to be an abstraction of the rigoristic trend that is associated in church history with the name Montana. However, the question of the personality of Montanus, as well as the question of whether his companions belonged to the realm of myth or they existed in reality, is indifferent to us; it is enough to state that Montanism existed as a special direction in the history of the Christian church, which was the subject of active attention of many councils, starting from the 2nd century. Visions in ecstasy and prophecies based on direct divine revelation, the passive instrument of which Montanus was, the prediction of soon-coming bliss and a new heavenly Jerusalem, the need for the strictest ascetic life and strict repentance - this was the main essence of the Montanistic teaching at the first time of its appearance. At first, Montanism found particular support in Asia Minor and was not yet condemned by the church. As Eusebius says, this doctrine found many adherents, among whom he mentions Proclus, a person highly respected and called “Proculus noster” by Tertullian. Tertullian himself was infected by this teaching, although he did not change his Orthodox faith. Epiphanius also testifies to the Orthodox teaching of the Montanists at the beginning of their appearance, assuring that they teach about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the same way as the Orthodox. But over time, the Montanist teaching about the Holy Trinity began to lose its purity and was condemned by the church fathers. The excessive exaltation of the personality of Montanus in the teachings of the Montanists of later times and especially their uncertainty in the way they presented the doctrine of the Holy Trinity led to the fact that some began to identify the Holy Spirit with Montanus. Tertullian himself, as can be seen from his speech, was not clear about this, and, mentioning one saying of Montanus, he says: “The Paraclete speaks.” Firmilian, Cyril of Jerusalem and others. This identification of the Holy Spirit with Montanus was especially condemned in Montanism. Basil the Great rebelled against them most decisively in his letter to Amphilochius: “The baptism of the Pepusians (Montanists) cannot be justified by anything, and I am surprised that the Great Dionysius, so knowledgeable in the rules, did not notice this. The Pepusians are obvious heretics, since they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, impiously and without any shame appropriating the title of Comforter to Montanus and Priscilla. For deifying a person, they are subject to condemnation, and for insulting the Holy Spirit, identifying him with people, they are subject to eternal condemnation, since blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. Is it possible in any way to recognize as correct a baptism performed in the name of the Father, the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? And despite the fact that Dionysius the Great did not notice all this, we, in any case, should not adhere to what is wrong. The inappropriateness here is obvious and clear to anyone with even a little intelligence.” About the middle of the 4th century we already see all the Montanists infected with Sabellianism, so the Laodicean Council was forced to issue the following rule against them: “those who convert from the heresy of the so-called Phrygians (Montanists), even if they were in their supposed clergy, and were called the greatest, with every diligently announce and baptize to the bishops and elders of the church” (8 pr.). Finally, the Second Ecumenical Council directed its rules against them.

Of all the heretics mentioned, the rule allows the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Savvatians and Tetradites to be admitted into the church without baptism. The first, that is, the Arians, Macedonians and Apollinarians, although they preached against Orthodox teaching, performed baptism correctly in form, namely, they performed it in the name of the Holy Trinity, which they did not deny, although they understood it somewhat distortedly. It was enough that their baptism was recognized as correct, because according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church it is and has been that any baptism performed in the name of the Holy Trinity is considered correct and valid, no matter who performed it. Anyone who performs baptism is only an instrument that Christ chooses to win a person into His kingdom. This instrument performs the ritual, but grace descends from God. Only thanks to such a view, the church could and did recognize the baptism of such heretics as the Arians and Macedonians. The rest, like the Novatians, Savvatians and Tetradites, in the literal sense, were not heretics, but schismatics: they separated from the Orthodox only by some special views, and had the same dogmas. If the fathers of the council did not find it necessary to prescribe secondary baptism for the former, then still less could they prescribe it for the latter. All the above-mentioned heretics, as required by the rule, could be accepted into the church subject to two conditions: firstly, a written renunciation of heresy and, secondly, confirmation of chrismation performed on them.

Such a written renunciation upon entry into the church was required, as we have seen, from the Novatians by the Council of Nicaea: “First of all, they must confess in writing that they will cleave to and follow the definitions of the Catholic and Apostolic Church” (8 pr.). From the history of Socrates, we see that Liberius of Rome demanded a written statement from the followers of Macedonius, with which they certified that they adhered to Orthodoxy: “After their statement, Liberius called them to set out their confession in writing. Then they gave him a letter in which the words of the Nicene faith were written.” Sozomen mentions a written letter from Valens and Ursacius, in which they anathematize the Arian heresy and certify their belief in the consubstantial. Basil the Great, in his letter to the Evesenians, mentions heretics who want to justify themselves, and says: “If they say that they have come to their senses, let them convey in writing that they repent and anathematize all heresy.” The fathers of the second Omnibus also demand the same written statements. Council from the mentioned heretics, if they wished to be accepted into the church. Upon presentation of such a written renunciation, the rule prescribes that they be anointed and after that accepted into church communion. The order regarding the anointing of certain heretics upon their entry into the Orthodox Church was issued at the Council of Laodicea (7th Ave). The custom according to which, when performing this rite, the body had to be anointed in several places, as this rule says, was common throughout the Eastern Church. This is best evidenced by Cyril of Jerusalem in his secret words. The meaning of anointing in this case is explained to us by Simeon of Thessaloniki: “then the bishop anoints him with divine myrrh, which is not simple oil, but is composed of many fragrant parts, symbolically representing the abundance of power and variety of gifts of the Spirit, and at the same time as the incense of His shrine. Myrrh is taught as a seal and sign of Christ. How Christ Himself calls Himself anointed precisely because He physically had in Himself from the Father all the power of the Spirit, as Isaiah tells us: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for his sake anoints me(61:1), so they too, having received grace from him through the ointment, are called Christians and become Christ (anointed) of the Lord... Anointing him, the bishop says: Σφραγίς δωρεάς Πνεύματος Άγιου, Αμήν - seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit ago, showing that the anointing there is a sign of Christ, because the anointing itself takes the form of a cross, and in this way one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In the West, when heretics were accepted into the church, they were not anointed with holy chrism, considering in this case the laying on of hands to be sufficient. This connivance of the West is explained by the view according to which all baptism was considered correct, no matter who performed it - a view that was the cause of many disputes between Eastern and Western bishops. The leniency of the Westerners is evidenced, among other things, by the rules of concilii Arausiaci. The cathedrals of Arelat (Arles) and Epaon also recommend the same. We find the same in the epistle of Siricius of Rome. The only thing that is not clear is how Siricius can refer to the Second Ecumenical Council, when this council categorically and in the most detailed manner speaks specifically about anointing. Leo of Rome speaks in the same sense. We also read about this difference between the East and the West, who believe that, when accepting heretics, his laying on of hands corresponds to the anointing of the Eastern Church.

Having issued such an order regarding the admission into the church of the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Savbatians and Tetradites, the fathers of the council issue a completely different order regarding the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians and those heretics who are from Galatia, namely the Marcellians and Photinians. They demand that the above-mentioned heretics and others like them be first denounced and then baptized a second time. Before indicating what rite was performed when accepting these heretics, let us dwell briefly on the question of the baptism of heretics, as it appears to us in the primitive church.

The question of the baptism of heretics and the struggle that arose on this occasion between the fathers of the East and the West in the first centuries of Christianity represents an important moment in the development of the idea of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments. As soon as the church realized its unity and universality, and, consequently, its infallibility in relation to various heresies, when it felt itself to be the only custodian of the revealed truth, then, naturally, in its struggle against heretics the question of the correctness of the sacraments and especially the sacraments of baptism. The consistency of the Orthodox point of view could lead to only one single conclusion, namely: if heretics are deprived of participation in salvation, then they are thereby directly deprived of the opportunity to be mediators in the salvation of people. The baptism of heretics is not baptism; it not only does not cleanse, but, on the contrary, defiles, just as the heresy itself, into which a person enters through such false baptism, defiles. Because of this, all those baptized by heretics should be considered as if unbaptized and, upon transition to the Orthodox Church, should be baptized again. A great number of church fathers and teachers in the first half of the 3rd century strictly adhered to this view. Clement of Alexandria calls the baptism of heretics unsuitable, and that such a view was significant for the entire Egyptian church is proved, by the way, by Dionysius of Alexandria in the story of his predecessor Heraclius, who did not baptize only those heretics who were previously Orthodox, then went over to heresy and subsequently again returned to Orthodoxy. Tertullian recognizes only one baptism and one church, completely denying the meaning of heretical baptism: “firstly,” he says, “because they are outside the church, and secondly, because they do not recognize either the God or the Christ whom the Orthodox recognize.” ". Cyprian mentions this council, chaired by Agrippinus, convened at the beginning of the 3rd century in Carthage and unanimously proclaiming the invalidity of heretical baptism. Eusebius mentions two councils in Asia Minor from the first half of the 3rd century at which the same conclusion was reached. How ancient this decree was already at that time can be seen from the words of Firmilian, who claims that no one will remember whether it ever had a beginning: “they have always recognized only one church and one baptism, which can only be performed by this church.” . In the same way, the Apostolic Decrees do not at all recognize the validity of baptism performed by heretics. In general, everyone considered the baptism of heretics unclean and demanded, according to this rule, that they be baptized again before being accepted into the church. The Roman Church took a completely different view on this issue. In Rome they looked at heretics, even though they were baptized outside the church, only as those who had fallen away from Christianity, and accepted them into the church simply by laying hands on them, like any other sinners. When the Novatians, following a completely unfounded view of the sanctity of their church, decided to rebaptize newly converted Orthodox Christians, Rome began to defend their practice even more zealously. This led to the confusion of many Numidian bishops, who began to doubt the correctness of the actions of the Egyptian bishops, who shared the view of the Roman Church on the issue of heretical baptism; Therefore, they, eighteen in number, turned to Cyprian, who was then at the council in Carthage with his bishops, begging him to clarify their doubt. After considering this issue, the council unanimously declared the invalidity of heretical baptism. In the same sense, Cyprian answered a similar question to the Moorish bishop Quintus. The second council of the same year, at which seventy-one bishops gathered, confirmed the previous decision and sent its message to the Roman bishop Stephen, who was then at odds with the eastern bishops on this issue. At several councils of Asia Minor, the principle of the invalidity of heretical baptism was again adopted, and Helen, Bishop of Tara, and Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, showed particular zeal in this matter. Stephen, who tried in every way to win over the bishops of Asia Minor to his side, went so far that he even began to threaten them with excommunication from church communion. The arguments of Dionysius of Alexandria also remained unsuccessful; “He could not stop the struggle, willfully and recklessly caused by the pride and passion of the Roman bishop,” notes one modern scientist on this occasion. The opposition of the eastern bishops against Rome reached its highest pitch when Stephen, who proclaimed himself episcopus episcoporum, wished to force all bishops to submit to his authority. Persecution under the Emperor Valerian in 257 put an end to this struggle, to which the great Cyprian fell victim.

Dispute between East and West arose again over the question of baptism by the Donatists, who, based on the Novatian point of view on the holiness of the church, taught that a priest who had fallen into mortal sin could not perform any sacrament. As a result, they rebaptized everyone who came to them from the Orthodox Church. The issue of the Donatists was resolved at the Council of Carthage in 348 (al 345), and here some concession was already revealed in comparison with the teaching of Cyprian, and the 1st rule established that secondary baptism should not be considered necessary for every heretic without distinction. From the concluding words of the chairman of the council, Bishop Gratus, it is clear that the council considered both the direction of the east, of which Cyprian was a representative, and the direction of the west, of which Stephen was a representative, to be an excessive extreme. For peace and unity of the church it was necessary to find the middle of these two directions, which was done. The Council of Nicea was the first to show reasonable leniency in this case, issuing its famous 8th canon. Socrates and Sozomen testify that the example of the Council of Nicea met with the sympathy of the entire church, subsequently becoming a general rule for it. The best proof of this is the rule of the Second Council of Constantinople, which was subsequently, with minor additions, renewed at the Council of Trullo.

Therefore, guided in the question of baptism performed in a non-Orthodox society by the general instructions of councils and fathers, the principle of the Orthodox Church can be outlined as follows: baptism, as an institution of Jesus Christ, can only be performed in His church and, therefore, only in the church can it be correct and saving; but if other Christian societies outside the Orthodox Church have the conscious intention of introducing the newly baptized into the Church of Christ, that is, they have the intention of imparting to him through baptism divine grace so that by the power of the Holy Spirit he becomes a true member of the body of Christ and a reborn child of God , then baptism received in such a society will be considered as valid as it is performed on the basis of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because where such baptism is given and accepted with faith, there it should be valid gracefully, and there the help of Christ will not fail to appear. Any society that distorts the teaching about God and does not recognize the trinity of holy Persons in the Divinity cannot perform correct baptism, and baptism performed in it is not baptism, because such a society is outside Christianity. Because of this, the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid and saving the baptism of any Christian community located outside its fence, be it heretical or schismatic, if this baptism is performed truly in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Let us now continue the interpretation of this rule. - At the request of the fathers of the council, Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, Marcellians and Photinians, when converting to the Orthodox Church, must first be catechized, and then baptism must be performed on them. The baptism of all the heretics mentioned could in no way be recognized as true. The Eunomians not only denied the equality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, but did not want to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and those baptized in this way were re-baptized; they baptized only through one immersion and, moreover, into the death of Christ, thereby distorting the most mysterious meaning of baptism. In Theodoret we find the following about them: “they distorted the ancient rule regarding baptism, handed down to us by the Lord and the Apostles, and came up with a new teaching that it is not necessary to immerse the newly baptized three times, but only once into the death of Christ.” In the 50th Apostolic Canon we have already seen the condemnation to which those who baptize in this way are exposed. We have already spoken about what the baptism of the Montanists was like in the interpretation of this rule; the incorrectness of the baptism of the Montanists is quite obvious. The Sabellians, as a rule, hold an opinion about son-patronage (ipatorship, υίοπατορίαν). The expression Υίοπάτωρ was used by Sabellius to indicate that the Father and the Son are not personally separate, but constitute one Person with two names. We have already mentioned the Sabellians in the 1st rule of this council. With this understanding of the persons of the Holy Trinity, the Sabellians could not, of course, baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and therefore, their baptism, as not performed properly, could not be considered valid. In the same way, the baptism of the Marcellians and Photinians could not be considered valid. They have also already been discussed in the interpretation of the 1st rule of this council. In accordance with their anti-Trinitarian teaching, they could not perform baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, as a result of which it could not be valid for the Orthodox. Regarding all the heretics mentioned, the rule says that they must be accepted as Hellenes, therefore “on the first day we make them Christians” (ποιούμεν άυτούς χριστιανούς). This must be understood in the closest sense of the word, namely, that they can only be introduced into the society of Orthodox believers and that the path to the church is opened to them through prayer and blessing. In this sense, the catechumens were also called Christians. On the second day they were accepted among the catechumens and gradually began to preach to them the teachings of the Orthodox Church. In the Apostolic Decrees (VII, 49) we find a detailed statement of the order in which Orthodox teaching was taught to the catechumens. Then a spell was performed on them, through which the unclean spirit, which until then had kept them tied to the false teaching, was expelled from them. Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem and others testify that this rite was universal before baptism. After that, they had to remain among the catechumens for some time, listening to the Holy Scriptures and showing their firm determination to renounce false teaching and join the church by examples of strict abstinence. Gregory, Cyril, Justin and Tertullian testify that this was a general requirement of every adult preparing for baptism. In this regard, Socrates gives us a very significant example when he talks about a Jewish deceiver who wanted to receive baptism without being tempted. Having prepared in this way, they were finally baptized.

In this rule, the Novatians are called άριστεροί - leftists. From the acts of this council it is not clear that the Novatians called themselves by this name. Their usual name was άριστοι (best), καθαροί (pure) and καθαρώτεροι (purest), and only the Orthodox designated them with the name “left,” thereby recalling one feature of their life. According to Balsamon's interpretation, they call themselves άριστεροί because they abhor the left hand and do not allow themselves to take anything with it. Armenopulus says the same thing in his work De sectis. As was already said earlier, we would have accepted more readily the edition where the word άριστοι was used, as in the Book of Rules, because such an edition is justified by the entire history of the Novatians, but, according to the established plan of our work, we could not afford to deviate from what was fundamental for us text of the rules of the Athens edition.

In Aristin we also find the eighth (8) rule of this council. It reads: “Eunomians, baptized by one immersion, Sabellians and Phrygians should be received in the same way as Hellenes.” Obviously, this rule is only an excerpt from the 7th rule as amended by the Athenian Syntagma, and therefore it is completely unnecessary to talk about it in particular.

The page was generated in 0.08 seconds!

Similar articles: