Ecumenical Councils- meetings of the Orthodox (priests and other persons) as representatives of the entire Orthodox (the totality), convened to resolve pressing issues in the region and.
This means that the conciliar resolutions were formulated and approved by the fathers not according to the rule of a democratic majority, but in strict accordance with the Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, according to the Providence of God, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
As the Church developed and spread, Councils were convened in various parts of the ecumene. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the reasons for the Councils were more or less private issues that did not require the representation of the entire Church and were resolved by the efforts of the pastors of the Local Churches. Such Councils were called Local.
Questions that implied the need for a general church discussion were studied with the participation of representatives of the entire Church. The Councils convened in these circumstances, representing the fullness of the Church, acting in accordance with God's law and the norms of church administration, secured the status of Ecumenical. There were seven such Councils in all.
How did the Ecumenical Councils differ from each other?
The Ecumenical Councils were attended by the heads of the local Churches or their official representatives, as well as the episcopate representing their dioceses. The dogmatic and canonical decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are recognized as binding on the entire Church. For the Council to acquire the status of "Ecumenical", reception is necessary, that is, the test of time, and the adoption of its decisions by all local Churches. It happened that, under severe pressure from the emperor or an influential bishop, the participants in the Councils made decisions that contradicted the gospel truth and Church Tradition; over time, such Councils were rejected by the Church.
First Ecumenical Council took place under the emperor, in 325, in Nicaea.
It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of Arius, an Alexandrian priest who blasphemed the Son of God. Arius taught that the Son was created and that there was a time when He was not; consubstantial Son with the Father, he categorically denied.
The Council proclaimed the dogma that the Son is God, consubstantial with the Father. At the Council, seven members of the Creed and twenty canons were adopted.
Second Ecumenical Council, convened under the emperor Theodosius the Great, took place in Constantinople, in 381.
The reason was the spread of the heresy of Bishop Macedonian, who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
At this Council, the Creed was corrected and supplemented, including a member containing the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit. The Fathers of the Council drew up seven canons, one of which is forbidden to make any changes to the Creed.
Third Ecumenical Council took place in Ephesus in 431, during the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Lesser.
It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, who falsely taught about Christ as a man united with the Son of God by a gracious bond. In fact, he argued that there are two Persons in Christ. In addition, he called the Mother of God the Mother of God, denying Her Motherhood.
The council confirmed that Christ is the True Son of God, and Mary is the Mother of God, and adopted eight canonical rules.
Fourth Ecumenical Council took place under the emperor Marcian, in Chalcedon, in 451.
The Fathers then gathered against the heretics: the primate of the Alexandrian Church, Dioscorus, and Archimandrite Eutyches, who claimed that as a result of the incarnation of the Son, two natures, divine and human, merged into one in His hypostasis.
The Council issued a definition that Christ is the Perfect God and together the Perfect Man, One Person, comprising two natures, united inseparably, immutably, inseparably and inseparably. In addition, thirty canonical rules were formulated.
Fifth Ecumenical Council took place in Constantinople, in 553, under Emperor Justinian I.
It confirmed the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, condemned ism and some writings of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. At the same time, Theodore of Mopsuestsky, the teacher of Nestorius, was condemned.
Sixth Ecumenical Council was in the city of Constantinople in 680, during the reign of Emperor Constantine Pogonat.
His task was to refute the heresy of the Monothelites, who insisted that in Christ there are not two wills, but one. By that time, several Eastern Patriarchs and the Roman Pope Honorius had managed to disseminate this terrible heresy.
The Council confirmed the ancient teaching of the Church that Christ has two wills in Himself - as God and as Man. At the same time, His will, according to human nature, agrees with the Divine in everything.
The cathedral, which took place in Constantinople eleven years later, called Trulla, is called the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council. He adopted one hundred and two canonical rules.
Seventh Ecumenical Council took place in Nicaea in 787, under the Empress Irene. It refuted the iconoclastic heresy. The Fathers of the Council drew up twenty-two canons.
Is the Eighth Ecumenical Council possible?
1) The opinion that is widespread today about the completion of the era of Ecumenical Councils has no dogmatic grounds. The activity of Councils, including Ecumenical Councils, is one of the forms of church self-government and self-organization.
Let us note that the Ecumenical Councils were convened as the need arose to make important decisions concerning the life of the entire Church.
Meanwhile, it will exist “until the end of the age” (), and nowhere is it reported that throughout this entire period the Universal Church will not encounter difficulties that arise again and again, requiring the representation of all Local Churches to solve them. Since the right to carry out its activities on the principles of catholicity was granted to the Church by God, and no one, as we know, has taken away this right from it, there is no reason to believe that the Seventh Ecumenical Council should a priori be called the last.
2) In the tradition of the Greek Churches, since Byzantine times, it has been widely believed that there were eight Ecumenical Councils, the last of which is considered the Cathedral of 879 under St. . The Eighth Ecumenical Council was called, for example, St. (PG 149, col. 679), St. (Thessalonian) (PG 155, col. 97), later St. Dositheus of Jerusalem (in his tomos of 1705) and others. That is, according to a number of saints, the eighth ecumenical council is not only possible, but already was. (Priest )
3) Usually the idea of the impossibility of holding the Eighth Ecumenical Council is associated with two “main” reasons:
a) With an indication of the Book of Proverbs of Solomon about the seven pillars of the Church: “Wisdom built herself a house, hewed out seven pillars of it, slaughtered a sacrifice, mixed her wine and prepared a table for herself; she sent her servants to proclaim from the heights of the city: “He who is foolish, turn here!”. And she said to the foolish one: “Go, eat my bread and drink the wine that I have dissolved; leave foolishness, and live, and walk in the way of reason ”” ().
Considering that there were seven Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Church, this prophecy can, of course, with reservations, be correlated with the Councils. Meanwhile, in strict comprehension, the seven pillars do not mean the seven Ecumenical Councils, but the seven Sacraments of the Church. Otherwise, we would have to admit that until the time of the end of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it did not have a stable foundation, that it was a lame Church: at first it lacked seven, then six, then five, four, three, two pillars. Finally, it was only in the eighth century that it was firmly established. And this despite the fact that it was the early Church that was glorified by the host of holy confessors, martyrs, teachers...
b) With the fact of falling away from the Ecumenical Orthodoxy of Roman Catholicism.
As soon as the Ecumenical Church split into Western and Eastern, the supporters of this idea argue, then the convening of a Council representing the One and True Church, alas, is impossible.
In reality, by God's designation, the Universal Church has never been subject to division in two. Indeed, according to the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, if a kingdom or a house is divided in itself, “that kingdom cannot stand” (), “that house” (). The Church of God stood, stands and will stand, “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (). Therefore, it has never been divided, and will not be divided.
In relation to its unity, the Church is often called the Body of Christ (see:). Christ does not have two bodies, but one: “One bread, and we many are one body” (). In this regard, we cannot recognize the Western Church either as one with us, or as a separate, but equal Sister Church.
The rupture of canonical unity between the Eastern and Western Churches is, in essence, not a division, but a falling away and splitting off of the Roman Catholics from Ecumenical Orthodoxy. The separation of any part of Christians from the One and True Mother Church does not make it any less One, nor less True, and is not an obstacle to convening new Councils.
Second Ecumenical Council
The assurance that a second ecumenical council was convened against the Macedonians has not sufficient grounds. According to the stereotyped belief, it is customary to think that ecumenical councils were convened without fail on the occasion of heresies, and in the absence of any specific heresy in this case, this council is associated with the Macedonian heresy. The meeting of the second ecumenical council was conditioned partly by some dogmatic questions (concerning the Arians), but mainly by practical questions, namely: a) the question of replacing the see of Constantinople and b) clarifying the matter of the see of Antioch.
The Council of Constantinople took place in May-June 381. It was an Eastern Council in its composition. Meletios of Antioch presided. Timothy of Alexandria arrived later. Acholius of Thessaloniki, in order to prove his belonging to the Western system of churches, went to the council in Rome (which was somewhat earlier than Constantinople) and appeared in Constantinople only before the end of the meetings.
Of the cases that were subject to consideration by the council, the following are issued: a) the question of replacing the See of Constantinople,
b) the Antioch affairs; and c) the attitude towards Arianism.
The first two questions are actually intertwined into one.
a) Under the experienced leadership of Meletios, the affairs of the council at first went very peacefully. The question of recognizing Gregory as Bishop of Constantinople, as was to be expected, passed (p. 109) without any objections. Concerning Maximus the Cynic, the council ruled that just as Maximus was not a bishop (the next his ordinatio was recognized as invalida), so all those ordained by him did not have hierarchical degrees.
These two decisions in the future led to inter-church disputes. aa) When the edict on the convening of the Council of Constantinople was issued, Damas strongly recommends Acholia - to make sure that at this council the see of Constantinople is replaced by an irreproachable person and not to allow anyone from another see to move to it.
bb) Soon after, in a new epistle to Acholias, Damas speaks of Maximus in the blackest colors, as a person who can in no way be considered a legitimate Bishop of Constantinople. But at the Roman cathedral, the view of Maximus completely changed: they saw in his consecration only the drawback that it was not performed in the church; but this incorrectness was excused by difficult times (persecution from the Arians), Maximus was recognized as the legitimate Bishop of Constantinople, and a petition was sent to Theodosius to confirm Maximus in this rank.
However, the whirlwind in the Constantinople case did not rise from the west, but from the east: the Antioch case arose.
b) During the council, St. Meletius and at the council the question of his successor was immediately raised.
To clarify this story, it is important to know in what position Meletius and Peacock stood to each other in 381.
aa) Socrates (Socr. h. e. V, 5, and after him Soz. h. e. VII, 3) states that an agreement was made between the Meletians and the Paulinians in Antioch that after the death of one of the bishops, the survivor will be recognized bishop of all Orthodox in Antioch; that from 6 presbyters from both sides, who had a chance of being elected to the bishopric, an oath was taken not to accept the episcopal dignity, but to give the chair to the survivor; that among those who took this oath was the (Meletian) presbyter Flavian.
bb) But, undoubtedly, both Socrates and Sozomen are historians not without a Romanizing (in the papistic sense) tendency. And we really know that the Italian bishops (the Council of Aquileia 380, Quamlibet; the Italian Council - Amvro (p. 110) siev 381. Sanctum) wished that either an agreement be held between Peacock and Meletius, or, in extreme cases, a chair after the death of one was given to the survivor - and with a petition for this they turned to Theodosius. But the Italian Fathers do not say at all clearly that such an agreement has already taken place between the parties themselves.
c) Theodoret of Cyrus (Theodoret. h. e. V, 3) - an undoubtedly Meletian historian; but he had the opportunity to know the affairs of Antioch the best way. He relates that when (after Feb. 27, 380) the magister militum Sapor arrived in Antioch, so that by imperial decree, having taken away the churches from the Arians, to hand them over to an Orthodox bishop, he met with difficulty: in Antioch, three bishops, undoubtedly not Arians, considered themselves Orthodox: Meletius, Peacock and Apollinarian Vitaly. But presbyter Flavian, with the questions proposed to Pavlin and Vitaly, made extremely doubtful in the opinion of Sapor their right to honor - to be considered Orthodox. And Meletios proposed to Peacock to govern the flock together, so that the survivor would become the only bishop later. But Peacock did not agree to this, and Sapor handed over Meletios to the church.
gg) It must be admitted that Theodoret is right, not Socrates. Gregory the Theologian, in his speech at the council, says nothing about such an agreement, and afterward he does not reproach either the fathers for violating the obligation, or Flavian for perjury. No such reproach is heard from the Western side either. This silence is weighty.
So, there are no formal obstacles to the replacement of the chair after the death of St. Meletios did not exist as a new bishop. But St. Gregory the Theologian, as an idealist who saw everywhere not real people with their weaknesses and shortcomings, but Christians striving for perfection, made a rather uncomfortable proposal: he spoke in the spirit of love and peace, arguing that peacefulness should reign in everything, and offered to recognize Peacock the true Bishop of Antioch. The proposal was such that most of the fathers of the council were dissatisfied and did not even want to hear about it: this would mean yielding to the west, (p. 111) while the light and faith of Christ come from the east; it would mean insulting the memory of St. Meletius, casting a shadow of suspicion on his ecclesiastical position.
Gregory the Theologian proceeded from a lofty beginning; but the Eastern Fathers also had reason to stand for their point of view. aa) The inclinations of Rome were really power-hungry. bb) The attitude of Damasus towards Basil V. was least of all able to acquire the heartfelt affection of the Eastern by the Westerners. c) Peacock, apparently, was a far from nice person, and in relation to Meletius behaved with arrogance, treating him like an Arian. gg) In general, the westerners, who fell to the east, had the weakness to behave with proconsular importance in relation to the east. Eg. Jerome, who owes much of his importance to the fact that he was a student of Eastern theologians, however, allowed himself to speak of a time when there were only two Orthodox people in the whole East: Peacock and Epiphanius (Cypriot). - So, both points that the Easterners defended: the dignity of the Eastern Church in the face of the Western, and the dignity of the Meletians, as Orthodox bishops, had the right to protection and needed it.
But with his "non-Meletian" mode of action on the question of Antioch, St. Gregory pushed away the sympathy of the East. Meanwhile, the Egyptians and Macedonians arrived and protested the transfer of Gregory, Bishop of Sasim, to the see of Constantinople, referring to can. Nicaen. 15, Antioch. 21. They were so frank that they confidentially expressed to Gregory that they personally had absolutely nothing against him and they did not even have their own candidate for the See of Constantinople; but they raise this question in order to make trouble for the East. Of these latter, many no longer supported St. Gregory.
Seeing that things had taken such a turn, Gregory told the fathers that if difficulties arise for the church world because of him, then he is ready to be the second Jonah: let them throw him into the sea. He is glad to retire to rest, which his disordered health also requires (in fact, on May 31 he had already drawn up his spiritual testament). This request for dismissal was finally accepted by the emperor and the council, and St. Gregory, in a touching word, saying goodbye to the fathers of the cathedral and the flock, left Constantinople with (p. 112) a bright consciousness that he sacrificed everything for the world of the church, but also with sadness, because many of the flock sincerely loved him and he himself became attached to it with all my heart. Gregory saw the following reasons for his unsettled relationship with the Constantinople see:
a) for some, he seemed inconvenient as the bishop of the capital because he did not have a noble tone and aristocratic habits; b) others were unhappy with him because they found him too soft: he did not take advantage of the change external circumstances and "the jealousy of the autocrat" in order to repay the Arians with evil for the evil that they suffered from them, in the era of their rule, the Orthodox in the east; finally, c) to some “double-glorious” bishops (??? ?????????), who wavered between one and the other faith, he was unpleasant as an unceasing preacher of the truth that the Holy Spirit is God. These were obviously the remnants of the adherents of the "golden mean", who even now would like to stir up the sweet source of the Nicene faith with the salty admixture of their teachings.
The successor of St. Meletius was elected presbyter Flavian. Nectarios, a Cilician senator, was ordained to the See of Constantinople. He was still just announced. Sozomen (V??, 8) says that Nectarios was included in the list of candidates at the request of Diodorus of Tarsus, to whom he called before leaving for Tarsus. The venerable appearance of Nectarios made the most favorable impression on Diodorus, who at that moment was preoccupied with the question of candidates. Nectarios was listed last on the list of candidates, but the emperor, who perhaps knew him as a senator, settled on him. The bishops did not willingly agree to the election of the catechumen. And Nectarios, still in the white clothes of the newly baptized, was proclaimed the appointed Bishop of Constantinople. However, he was close for a long time to Vasily V., who knew him from the better side like a Christian.
c) All other acts of this council are a secret, for no acts have been preserved, with the exception of an accompanying letter to Emperor Theodosius on the approval of canonical decrees. The dogmatic activity of the council is exhausted by decrees against existing heresies.
The Council of Constantinople decided (Proverbs 1): not to renounce (?? ??????????) the faith of the 318 fathers who came together in Nicea in Bithynia. - it must remain in full force (?????? ??????? ??????), - and anathematize every heresy, and in particular (?) Eunomians or Anomians, (?) Arians or Eudoxians , (?) Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, (?) Sabellian-Marcellian and (?) Photinian with (?) Apollinarians.
It is usually imagined that the ecumenical second council had its own special purpose - to condemn the Macedonian-Doukhobors: from the council's own canon it is clear that he has in mind a Macedonian only along with other heretics. The relationship of the council to the Macedonians was expressed as follows. The Dukhobors were invited to the council, and 36 bishops appeared with Eleusis of Cyzicus at their head. It was an old fighter against the Arians, one of the outstanding forces of the Basilians in Seleucia in 359. The fathers of the council, reminding the semi-Arians of their deputation to Liberius, suggested that they accept the Nicene faith; but they flatly declared that they would rather go into pure Arianism than accept????????? and they were released from Constantinople. It was the "golden mean" party frozen in its transitional form.
A monument to the positive dogmatic activity of the second ecumenical council is the Niceo-Tsaregrad symbol of faith, used in worship both among us and among Roman Catholics.
The question of its origin has lately received an almost negative response in the West.
I. Previous scholars (Neander, Gieseler) asserted that our symbol is a new edition of the text of the Nicene symbol, produced at the Council of Constantinople itself (by Gregory of Nyssa on behalf of the council).
1) But, - they object (Harnack), - “there are 178 words in the symbol of Constantinople, and only 33 of them are common with Nicene; in the text, compared with the Nicene, 4 omissions, 5 stylistic changes and 10 additions were made. Therefore, it is as much new edition how much and new text.
2) The text of the Constantinopolitan symbol existed before 381.
a) Leaving aside its similarity (significant, but not complete) with the symbol of the Jerusalem church (the text of which (p. 114) is being restored with some difficulty, from the inscriptions and the text of catechumensal teachings delivered in 348 by the presbyter (with the 350 bishop) Jerusalem Cyril.
b) It is impossible not to recognize not the similarity already, but the identity of our symbol with the first symbol, which in the autumn of 373 St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Bp. Constantius) recommended (Ancoratus, p. 118) to the Suedric presbyters in Pamphylia for use at baptism, as a faith betrayed by the OT apostles, [taught] in the church [in] holy city(?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ????? = having church use in Jerusalem?) [given] from all together by St. bishops over 310 in number (= Council of Nicaea). This is the faith of the so-called "Cypriot-Asia Minor" (I. V. Cheltsov) or "Syrian" (Caspari), of Jerusalem origin according to Epiphanius.
Since against the authenticity of Ancoratus c. 118 there are objections (Franzelin, Vincenzi), but there is no refutation yet, then there can be no doubt that our symbol is a slight reduction of this Jerusalem-Cypriot-Asia Minor faith. - Thus, the symbol could not be drawn up at the Council of Constantinople, since it existed earlier.
II Based on the work of English scientists (Lumby, Swainson, Swete, especially Hort), Harnack suggests the following:
a) The Second Ecumenical Council did not issue our symbol, but simply confirmed the Nicene symbol (can. 1).
b) Our symbol is the baptismal symbol of the Jerusalem church, rounded after 363 to the form in which Epiphanius gives it in 373.
c) Cyril of Jerusalem, in order to prove his Orthodoxy, read this symbol at the Council of Constantinople, which is why this symbol is included in the (not preserved to us) acts of the council.
d) Ok. 440, this symbol of Jerusalem, as taken from the acts of the council, began to be called "the faith of 150 fathers" and to refer to it in a polemic against the Monophysites.
Remarks. ad a) On the basis of the few monuments of the Second Ecumenical Council that have survived to us, it cannot be proved that it issued precisely our symbol; but only.
ad b) Possibility turning into some probability (cf. I 2 ab).
ad c) A simple possibility. It is only known that the cathedral recognized St. Cyril as a legitimate bishop.
ad d) For the first time, the text of our symbol is read in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon on October 10, 451 and (October 17) is recognized by all (including the learned Theodoret of Cyrus) for the faith of 150 fathers. This shows clearly that there were quite solid grounds for calling our symbol the faith of the 150 Fathers, that it was at least recognized by the Council of Constantinople as the cathedral's own monument. On the other hand, Nestorius cites our symbol as the faith of the Nicene Fathers, St. Epiphanius his symbol - the same way. This shows that after the Council of Nicaea, local churches, without leaving their baptismal symbols, began to supplement them with the characteristic expressions of the Nicene symbol, and these composite texts in common usage also bore the name of the “Nicene faith”. There is nothing unbelievable that the Council of Constantinople also approved, as the "Nicene faith", one or another type of symbol ad libitum, depending on the use in one or another church.
Thus, everything that is negative in the new theory (II) in relation to our symbol is devoid of a solid foundation.
III There is still a third theory of the origin of our symbol, striking in the breadth of its negation. Our symbol appeared for the first time near Damascus in the 7th century. (the first clear indication is from Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem in the 8th century); and where it occurs earlier, it is inserted by the hand of a later interpolator. The creator of this theory is Professor Vincenzi (p. 116) (Vincenzi), an extreme Roman Catholic. The question may not be about the plausibility of this colossal falsification of historical documents, but only about why the Catholic needed this theory. There is no Filioque in our symbol: inde irae. No matter how great the powers of the pope, but still one feels awkward that in the West they changed the text of the symbol drawn up by the ecumenical council. Vincenzi's theory eliminates this unpleasant feeling.
When deciding on the Nikeo-Tsaregrad symbol, one should generally keep to the middle. The main purpose of the second ecumenical council is to establish the Nicene faith, but this does not necessarily imply the text of the Nicene symbol. The Nicene symbol was composed as ?????? against heretics, and it was inconvenient to introduce it into church use at baptism: there was, for example, no teaching about the church and about the future life. But due to the demand of circumstances, there was a need to enlighten the converted pagans in the truths of Christianity, precisely in the spirit of the faith of the Council of Nicaea. In this case, it was necessary either to supplement the Nicene symbol with new dogmas, or to take the symbol that was used before the Council of Nicaea and supplement it with elements of the Nicene symbol. It is quite natural that Epiphanius of Cyprus gave the baptismal symbol to the Jerusalem church; but since such expressions are inserted in it: “?? ??? ?????? ??? ??????" and "?????????", he became known as the symbol of the Nicene Fathers. But it also reflected the influence of the Council of Alexandria in 362. This influence is evident from the fact that here the concept of the Holy Spirit is clarified, directed against heresies that were revealed precisely around this time. But this explanation is only suggestive. It was necessary to clarify the dogma of the Holy Spirit gradually, as Basil the Great did, ascending from the less obscure to the more sublime. So, instead of the expression about the Holy Spirit: "who spoke in the prophets", in the symbol transmitted by Epiphanius, it was said: "who spoke in the prophets, descended into the Jordan, preached through the apostles and manifested himself in the saints." Obviously, on this issue in Constantinople, the matter did not pass without storms. Gregory the Theologian demanded the recognition that the Spirit is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These provisions were not in the Nicene symbol, and Gregory in his poems pointed to this dark (p. 117) side of the council, complaining that [bishops] with the admixture of their salty sophistication muddied the sweetness of true teaching, and argued that the Spirit is God. Thus, it was decided to supplement the Nicene symbol with the symbol transmitted by Epiphanius in 373.
On July 9, 381, the Council presented Theodosius with a report on its deeds; On July 19, the emperor approved the conciliar resolutions.
The decisions of the council produced a strong excitement in the West. One Italian council that met in June-July [September-October, See V. Samuilov, History of Arianism in the Latin West. SPb. 1890, *28–*30] in 381, under the chairmanship of Ambrose of Milan, was (in the message of the Sanctum to Emperor Theodosius) the spokesman for Western dissatisfaction with the canonical decisions of the Council of Constantinople, a) the Fathers of Constantinople, knowing that in Rome Maximus was recognized as the legitimate Bishop of Constantinople, declared his consecration invalid, and ordained for Constantinople Nectarios, with whom, according to rumors that reached the West, even some of those who consecrated him broke off communication. b) The Fathers of Constantinople, knowing that the Westerners always had communion with Peacock rather than Meletius and expressed the desire that at least with the death of one of them (p. 118) an end be put to the division of the Church of Antioch, allowed the appointment of a successor to Meletius. Therefore, the Italian council demanded the convening of an ecumenical council in Rome to consider this Constantinople-Antioch affair.
But the emperor responded so firmly to this demand that in the letter to Fidei, the Italian fathers, in their defense, explain that in their demand there were no power-hungry pretensions offensive to the Easterners.
In 382, two councils were held again, one in Constantinople, the other in Rome. The Fathers of Constantinople did not want to go to Rome and sent only three delegates there to the council with a message in which it was stated that the Council of Constantinople of 382 recognized the consecrations of Nectarios and Flavian as completely canonical. If for the Westerners it was possible to sacrifice Maxim, then in the case of Peacock the Council of Rome could, of course, decide only one decision: Peacock himself personally (together with Epiphanius of Cyprus) was present at the Council of Rome, the Western fathers recognized him as the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch.
When in Rome they decided to sacrifice Maximus is unknown; but the dispute over Flavian continued for a long time. In 389, Peacock died, consecrating presbyter Evagrius, who was once on friendly terms with Basil V., as his sole successor before his death. In 392, Evagrius also died, and Flavian achieved that the Paulinians could not appoint a successor to Evagrius. However, even without their own bishop, the Paulinians persisted in schism.
On September 29, 394, a council was held in Constantinople, at which, under the chairmanship of Nectarios, Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch were present. This was a clear proof of the ecclesiastical unity of the eastern bishops. (Theophilus, at least, did not shy away from communicating with Flavian). But in the west they continued not to recognize Flavian as a legitimate bishop (in 391 he was summoned to appear at the cathedral court in the west, in Capua); despite this, Flavian acted with the consciousness of his legitimate episcopal right, which was not contested by the emperor either.
Only in 398, thanks to the mediation of St. Chrysostom (p. 119) of Constantinople and Theophilus of Alexandria, the Roman bishop decided to enter into communion with Flavian (and the Egyptian bishops finally reconciled with him). But the reunification of the Paulinians in Antioch with the church took place (and was celebrated with magnificent triumph) only in 415 under Bishop Alexander.
From what has been said, it is clear that from our Orthodox Eastern point of view, there can only be a schism of the Paulinians, and not of the Meletians. The speeches about the "Meletian schism in Antioch" have appeared in our textbooks as an unreasoned borrowing from the (romanizing) stories of Socrates and Sozomen, which Western historians naturally follow. The church from which three ecumenical saints emerged - Basil V., Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, and which formed the second ecumenical council from its bishops, cannot be considered a schismatic church. But this Antiochian division is a weighty historical memento against all those who believe that the breadth of Orthodox life can always and everywhere be reduced to a narrow straight line.
The Council of Nicaea rises high above the usual level of dogmatic understanding of its age. The doctrine of the pre-eternal birth of the consubstantial Son of God from the essence of the Father kills not only Arianism, but also the obsolete subordinationism of former church writers, which differs from it in the main points. The ground for a deep assimilation of the Nicene doctrine was not yet fully prepared, and for many Christians brought up on the then existing [theory], the process of internal self-purification was an absolute necessity. The penetrating gaze of the leaders of Orthodoxy in 325 comprehended the entire content of the Arian doctrine, dialectically extracted from it the consequences lurking in it, which historically came to light only 30 years later. Such a deep understanding of Arianism - which knew how to behave modestly - was beyond the power of many, and therefore Arianism had a history after the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene symbol was met with hostility by a few, indifferently by many. The former acted, the mass of the latter, with their indifference in defending the Nicene doctrine, strengthened the actions of the former.
At first they left dogmatists alone and took up the dogmatists. A clever intrigue eliminated one after another the fighters (p. 120) for the Nicene faith. This process, suspended by the death of Emperor Constantine, was boldly started again under Constantius, and was carried out so successfully that in 339 Athanasius V. had to flee for the second time, and the Council of Antioch in 341 could transfer the struggle to the soil of symbols. Here it became clear, it is true, that the consensus dogmaticus of the bishops of the East was far from complete (2 Antiochian formula represents a very serious deviation from the historical path of development of Arianism), but the leaders of the minority showed remarkable courage in their actions. However, the stagnant west became across their path, and his intervention, for the Arians and the Eastern, on the basis of the cathedrals, ended with the fact that they could be saved from Serdica (343) only by flight, on the basis of symbols - by concession to the Nicene faith; which one does it represent? ??????? ??????????? 344, on the basis of the historical struggle against persons - the solemn entry of Athanasius V. on October 21, 346 into Alexandria. It turned out that the Nicene faith could not be overcome without first conquering the Latin West, because the Eastern Asiatic Church is not yet the entire Catholic Church. What was done in the east, in an abbreviated order, after 350-353, the Arians repeat in the west. The struggle against individuals is being conducted with considerable success, the struggle on the basis of dogma - without glory for the Westerners, who seemed so strong until the enemy was close. Meanwhile, they did not forget the east, and on February 8, 356, Athanasius fled for the third time from the church, surrounded by the soldiers of Constantius.
In view of such successes, the leaders of Arianism considered it timely to trumpet the world in August 357 about their victory. But this Sirmian manifesto proved to be the first dominant in the funeral march to Arianism. In this resonant chord, the doctrine of Arius en face showed its bestial image, and those who until then had indifferently followed the Arians or with the Arians were afraid of him. The Arian coalition split into its poorly glued pieces, and in Ancyra and Seleucia, such an undoubted light of Orthodoxy appeared from under the alluvial ashes that Athanasius saw it from his Thebaid refuge and greeted his brothers in the Arian camp. A struggle began, all the more terrible for the Arians, since it was an internal strife in their camp, and the multiplication of enemies was immediately the loss (p. 121) of allies. Masterful intrigue, rising to the idea of two councils divided into four, parried the disastrous blow for Arianism in 359, but still was only a palliative means. The West recoiled completely from the businessmen Arimin and Nike; in the east they crushed the ranks of their opponents, but had to, in order to hold the ground under them, reinforce themselves with the remnants of the Omyusians. A political union has come out, sewn on a living thread. The hazy spot of Arianism solidified irresistibly in the form of independent church bodies.
The death of Constantius untied the hands of the Orthodox. Valens' policy did not save anything. It was a dose of a beaver stream that continued the agony of Arianism, although these embraces of a dying man were still very terrible. And under the leadership of the great Basil, who decided to be weak with the weak, in a relatively short time, everything that was Omiusian completed the process of its internal clarification, and from the eastern ?????????? came out quite a slender force Orthodox Church in the east. Semi-Arian Macedonianism was its historical outcast, also hardened completely by the time when the Orthodox Eastern Church of Basil and Meletios announced itself as an ecumenical council in Orthodox Constantinople. The 150 Fathers did not have a definite dogmatic opponent before them. The Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism, the Council of Constantinople anathematized every heresy. The Anomii, the Macedonians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, even the Apollinarians, stand on the same level before the cathedral, like something lived. The council only ratified the result of the struggle, already completed by 381; naturally, therefore, if, in the form of its symbol, 150 authorized a text already previously composed.
Of course, Arianism did not immediately disappear from the face of the earth in 381. One accidental circumstance made Arianism the national religion of the German peoples. This supported the importance of the Arians in the very east. The Byzantine emperors in their natural subjects did not want soldiers, but first of all taxpayers, and the ranks of their troops were replenished very often with Gothic mercenaries, and the brave Germans more than once occupied the highest military posts. Willy-nilly, the government had to be somewhat accommodating towards the church in which so many brave, honored Byzantine generals knelt (p. 122). That is why the Arians exocionites (???????????, that is, those who gathered for worship ??? ??????, “behind the pillars” that marked the city limits of Constantinople) enjoyed tolerance even at such times, when other heretics were persecuted. The Gothic condotieri sometimes asked, and sometimes very menacingly demanded, churches for the Arians in Constantinople, and even Justinian, who persecuted all sorts of heretics, did not dare to pay cleanly with the exocionites of Constantinople.
In 578, a hired Gothic squad, before their performance in the Persian campaign, demanded from Emperor Tiberius a church in Constantinople for their wives and children who had to stay in the capital. The emperor did not dare to flatly refuse this rati and tried to hush up the matter by delays. But the crowd of Constantinople suspected the sovereign himself of inclination towards Arian wickedness, and at the very first appearance of Tiberius in the church they burst out in chorus: “?????????? ???? ??? ????????!" (let's smash the bones of the Arians). The emperor realized that the matter was bad, and ordered to raise the persecution against the Arians, from which other heretics, and in particular the Monophysites, got it; they brought this incident into their mournful chronicle (John of Ephesus). This seems to be the last time the Arians claim their existence in Constantinople.
1962-1965 - Catholic cathedral, as a result of which Catholicism officially moved to modernist and ecumenical positions. Prepared by the modernist opposition within Catholicism in con. 50s 20th century Convened on the initiative of the “Red Pope” John XXIII on October 11, 1962. Ended under Pope Paul VI on December 8, 1965.
According to John XXIII, the purpose of BB. - the development of the Catholic faith, the renewal (aggiornamento) of the Christian life, the adaptation of church discipline to the needs and customs of our time. The result must be a Church open to the world.
In VV. more than 2 thousand members took part. In addition to the direct employees of John XXIII, a very important role in the manipulation of the cathedral was played by the so-called. periti (experts).
Central figures VV. became cardinals Augustine Bea, Josef Frings and L.-J. Sunens, as well as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, M.-D. Shenu. The cathedral was attended by: Cardinal Franz Koenig, Bud. Cardinal Jean Danielou, bd. Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, Karol Wojtyla (future Pope John Paul II), Josef Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI), Hans Küng, E. Schillebeeks, head of the Ukrainian Uniates Joseph Slipy, Uniate “archimandrites” Emmanuel Lann and Eleuferio Fortino and others .
The “color” of Orthodox and Protestant modernism was present at the cathedral:, Met. Aemilian (Timiadis), Fr. Nikolai Afanasiev, Pavel Evdokimov, representatives of the Tese community “brother” Roger and Max Turian, Lucas Vischer, Edmund Schlink, etc. It is interesting that o.A. Schmemann denied that he was an official observer from the American Archdiocese, and was present at the council, ostensibly in private, as a special guest.
The Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Greek Church refused to send a delegation to the BB.
The possibility of the presence of observers from the Russian Orthodox Church was discussed in March 1959 at a meeting of Met. Nicholas (Yarushevich) with the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church G.G. Karpov. It was decided not to exclude the possibility of sending representatives. In a conversation with the same G.G. Karpov at the beginning. April 1959 Patriarch Alexy I spoke extremely negatively about the very idea of delegating representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Catholic Council.
The French cardinal Lienar suggested that each member of the cathedral in the rank of bishop draw up his own list. He was supported by the German Cardinal Frings. After consultations in the composition of the commissions VV. completely different persons were included, mostly modernists from Eastern and Northern Europe. Cardinals Alfrink from Holland and Sunens from Belgium are designated as leaders of the cathedral. Behind the scenes, the pope supported the modernists.
The draft document De fontibus Revelatione (On the Sources of Revelation) was considered November 14-21. Initially, it expounded the doctrine that Divine revelation proceeds from two sources of equal holiness and significance: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. The project was severely criticized by liberal theologians who defended their concept that Tradition has no Divine origin. Beah noted that the project hinders ecumenical dialogue with Protestants. The past voting on the project showed its rejection by the majority of the participants in the BB, but the collected votes were not enough to completely reject it. On November 21, John XXIII supported the modernists, announcing that a simple majority was enough to reject this project, and the document was sent for revision.
After the death of John XXIII and the election of a new Pope Paul VI BB. continued the work, to which the laity were now involved. The plenary sessions of the cathedral become open to observers and the press.
Paul VI indicated four main goals of the VV.:
- define more fully the nature of the Church and the role of bishops;
- renew the Church;
- to restore the unity of all Christians, to apologize for the role of Catholicism in the resulting divisions;
start a dialogue with the modern world.
During this period, the most memorable event of VV .: a violent clash between Cardinal Frings and Cardinal Ottaviani, who defended the conservative position of the curia, occurred. It should be noted that Frings' adviser was Josef Ratzinger.
The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and the decree Inter Mirifica were adopted.
The Sacrosanctum Concilium initiated a disruptive reform of Catholic worship with one main goal: greater participation of the laity in the liturgy.
The discussion touched upon the role of the laity in the Church, when modernists insisted on the broad independence of the laity, their missionary work (apostle), and even on "complicity" in the priestly service. The conservatives insisted on preserving the principle of unconditional subordination of the laity to the hierarchy in church matters.
At the third stage - September 14 to November 21, 1964– the main documents of BB were adopted: Unitatis Redintegratio, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Lumen Gentium.
Lumen Gentium states:
The only Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic… remains in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many principles of sanctification and truth are found outside of her composition, which, being gifts , characteristic of the Church of Christ, encourage catholic unity (Ed. to us. - Ed.).
VV. proclaimed that people who, through no fault of their own, did not hear the preaching of the gospel could gain eternal salvation. There is also a kind of Catholic “catholicity” here: a council of bishops cannot act without the consent of the pope, but the pope himself is not obliged to act in accordance with the council, he is always free to exercise his power.
The proposal of Cardinal Sunens on the admissibility of women as lay observers was implemented, and 16 Catholic women were present at the 3rd session.
At the end of the session, Paul VI announced a change in the order of the fast before Communion - the obligatory fast was reduced to one hour.
Between sessions - 27 Jan. 1965 - A decree amending the rite of Mass was published. On March 7, Paul VI celebrated the first mass according to the "new" rite: facing the people, on Italian(with the exception of the Eucharistic canon).
A "Synod of Bishops" is being created - a powerless consultative body under the pope.
The most controversial document of VV. was the declaration of religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae, which was voted in 1997, and against - 224 members of the cathedral.
The declaration of Nostra Aetate, which removed the blame for the Crucifixion of the Savior from the Jews and condemned anti-Semitism, also caused fierce controversy.
Nostra aetate proclaims that the Catholic Church rejects nothing true and holy that is in non-Christian religions. According to Augustine Bea, who prepared Nostra Aetate, although the declaration refers to all non-Christians, the relationship of Catholicism with the Jews was the main issue that the BB sought to resolve. During the preparation of the document, Beah consulted with leading representatives of the Jewish community through the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Naum Goldman. By "Jews", according to Beah, all the descendants of Abraham are meant, with whom God made a Covenant, and, according to Beah in the council document, this covenant remains unchanged with the Jews who rejected Christ. That's why Jews should not be portrayed as outcast or cursed by God. The common spiritual heritage of Christians and Jews is so great that the holy council strives to maintain this mutual understanding and respect, which arises both as a result of bibliological and theological research, and fraternal dialogue..
Last day of the Second Vatican Council: Paul VI and Met. Iliupol Meliton proclaim mutual lifting of anathemas of 1054
On the last day of V.V. the text of the joint declaration of Paul VI and the mutual “removal” of the anathemas of 1054 was made public. Bea read Paul VI's message Ambulate in dilectione on the lifting of excommunication from Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople Cirularius. In turn, the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Met. Iliupol and Firsky Meliton, the tomos of Patriarch Athenagoras was announced on the removal of the anathema from Cardinal Humbert and other papal legates.
Pope John XXIII proposed a convenient, albeit pseudological, scheme that proposes to identify the truths of faith not with their verbal expression, but with the understanding and experience of these truths by believers. Accordingly, if Orthodoxy and traditional Catholicism are based on the inseparability of word and thought, then modern ecumenical Catholics propose to distinguish form and content in human speech in a schizophrenic way. This technique is also used by “Orthodox” ecumenists, although it does not play such a decisive role.
Ecumenical Catholics recognize (see constitution Lumen Gentium) that there has been a division in the Church and that everywhere outside the borders of the Church a partial and incomplete Truth can be found. At the same time, Catholicism claims that the Catholic Church is the fullness of grace and perfect unity and has never been split. The goal of Catholic ecumenism becomes the search for b about more complete, although it is confessed that in Catholicism there is everything necessary for salvation.
All those who believe in Christ and those baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity are in communion with the Church, teaches Catholic ecumenism, although their communication is imperfect. Communion with the Church is seen by the Vatican even among those denominations that do not have baptism (“The Salvation Army”, Quakers, etc.). Of course, the decisions of VV. do not and cannot explain about this is for communication and how it is possible.
"spirit" VV.
After the end of V.V. the concept of “the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” has entered Catholic and ecumenical usage in general, to which both Catholics and those who sympathize with them swear allegiance.
After VV. to be "Catholic" means to believe what you want and to understand the truths of the faith as you want. Catholicism is a "culture" and not a strict confession with certain regulations and requirements.
Until VV. The Church was perceived as having been founded by Christ and containing a definite doctrine and faithful to immutable ordinances. Afterwards, the Church is a community that travels through time and adapts to circumstances and epochs.
Until VV. Catholicism considered itself the only Church. After - as one of the manifestations of the Church, all of which are imperfect.
The coup committed by VV. is extremely close to the “Orthodox” modernists, who during the 20th century. carried out the same revolution in the Orthodox Church, however, without any council.
More on the topic
Sources
Vatican II Council // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 7. SS. 268-303
The Supreme Realist // Time. Friday, Jul. 06, 1962
On the stay in Moscow of Monseigneur I. Willebrands // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy. 1962. No. 10. SS. 43-44
The Cardinal's Setback // Time. Friday, Nov. 23, 1962
Definitions of the Holy Synod 1962.10.10: on the preparation by the Roman Catholic Church of the Second Vatican Council // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1962. No. 11. SS. 9-10
Jung-lglesias M. Augustin Bea, Cardinal de I'unite. Paris, 1963
archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Les Orthodoxes et le Concile Vatican II // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1963. No. 41. SS. 16-21
II Vatican Council (plans and results). M.: Thought, 1968
Martin, Malachi. Three Popes and the Cardinal, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York, 1972
Isambert, Fran?ois-Andr?. Du Syllabus? Vatican II, ou les avatars de l'intransigeanisme. A propos de deux ouvrages d'Emile Poulat // Revue de sociologie fran?aise. 1978. V. 19. No. 4. PP. 603-612
Schmidt, Stephan. Augustin Bea, Cardinal der Einheit. K?lln, 1989
Biographical dictionary of Christian theologians. Greenwood Press, 2000
New Catholic encyclopedia: jubilee volume. Gale Group, Catholic University of America, 2001
Vereb, Jerome-Michael. The Ecumenical Endeavor of Cardinal Bea. Rome: Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2003
Documents of the II Vatican Council. M., 2004
about. Shpiller, Vsevolod. father Vsevolod - Henry de Vissheru. August 30, 1965 // Pages of life in surviving letters. M.: Reglant, 2004. S. 235
Gross, Michael B. The war against Catholicism: liberalism and the anti-Catholic imagination in the nineteenth-century. germany. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004
A Dictionary of Jewish–Christian Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2005
Abstracts of Karl Rahner's unserialized essays. Marquette University Press, 2009
Tavard, George H. Vatican II and the Ecumenical Way. Marquette University Press, 2006
Vatican II: renewal within tradition. Oxford University Press, 2008
Horn, Gerd-Rainer. Western European liberation theology: the first wave, 1924–1959. Oxford University Press, 2008
Second Ecumenical Council took place in 381 and completed the victory of Orthodoxy, won in 325 on.
In the difficult years that have elapsed since the adoption of the Nicene Creed, the Arian heresy has given new sprouts. Macedonian, under the guise of fighting the heresy of the Sabellians, who taught about the merging of the hypostasis of the Father and the Son, began to use the word "like in essence" in relation to the Son to the Father. This wording was also dangerous because Macedonius presented himself as a fighter against the Arians, who used the term "like the Father." In addition, the Macedonians - semi-Arians, inclined, depending on the situation and benefits, either to Orthodoxy or to Arianism, blasphemed the Holy Spirit, claiming that He does not have unity with the Father and the Son. The second heretic, Aetius, introduced the concept of "other-substance" and said that the Father has a completely different being than the Son. His disciple Eunomius taught about the hierarchical subordination of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Son. He rebaptized everyone who came to him into the "death of Christ", rejecting Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, commanded by the Savior Himself.
The third heresy was born from the teachings of Valens and Ursacius at the Council of Arimon. They tried to deceive the Orthodox bishops by declaring that the Son of God is from God and is like God the Father, and is not a creation, as the Arians teach. But under the pretext that the word "being" is not found in Holy Scripture, heretics suggested not to use the term "consubstantial" in relation to the Son to the Father. In addition to these three main heresies, there were many other false teachings. The heretic Apollinaris said: "The flesh of the Savior, taken from Heaven from the bosom of the Father, did not have a human soul and mind; the absence of a soul filled the Word of God; the Deity remained dead for three days."
To denounce the heresiarchs, the holy Tsar Theodosius the Great (379-395) convened an Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, which was attended by 150 bishops. The confession of faith confirmed at the Council of Rome, which Saint Pope Damasus had sent to Bishop Peacock of Antioch, was submitted for consideration by the holy fathers. Having read the scroll, the holy fathers, rejecting the false teaching of Macedonia, unanimously affirmed the apostolic teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a ministering being, but the Life-Giving Lord, proceeding from the Father, worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son. To refute other heresies: Eunomians, Arians and Semi-Arians, the holy fathers confirmed the Nicene Creed of the Orthodox Faith.
The Symbol adopted by the First Ecumenical Council did not mention the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit, for there was no Doukhobor heresy at that time. Therefore, the Holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council added to the Nicene Creed the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th terms, i.e., they finally formulated and approved the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed, which is now professed by the entire Orthodox Church.
The Second Ecumenical Council also established the forms of ecclesiastical judgment, determined to accept into communion through the Sacrament of Confirmation repentant heretics who were baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity, and those who were baptized by a single immersion to receive as pagans.
(Comm. 25 and 30 January) at the Council, he gave in his speech the following statement of the Orthodox faith: “The Beginningless Beginning and Existing with the Beginning are One God. But beginninglessness or unbornness is not the nature of the Beginningless. but what it is: it is a position, and not a negation of what exists.And the Beginning, by the fact that it is a beginning is not separated from the Beginningless, for for Him to be a beginning does not constitute nature, nor for the first to be without beginning; because this only refers to nature. and is not nature itself. And the Being with the Beginning and the Beginning is none other than the same as They. The name of the Beginningless is the Father, the Beginning is the Son, the One that exists together with the Beginning is the Holy Spirit, and the essence in Three is one - God, but the unity is the Father, from whom and to whom they are raised, not merging, but coexisting with Him, and not separated from Himself by time, or desire, or power.
Rules of the Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople
Rule 1
The holy fathers, gathered in Constantinople, determined: let the creed of the three hundred and ten fathers who were at the council in Nicaea, in Bithynia, not be canceled, but let it remain immutable; and let every heresy be anathematized, namely: the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apolinarians.
(II Ecum. 7; Trul. 1, 75; Gangra. 21; Laod. 7, 8; Carth. 2; Basil Vel. 1).
We have given this rule, adhering to the text of the Athenian Syntagma. This text is identical with the text of Beverage, while in others, especially the latest printed editions, this text is somewhat different. Thus, in both Russian Synodal editions (1843 and 1862), in the Bruns edition (1839) and in the Pitra edition after the heresy of the Eunomians, the heresies of the Anomeans and Arians are mentioned, and in these same editions, after the words about the Nicene symbol, the text says: “and let every heresy be anathematized, and namely: the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomeans, Arians or Eudoxians, semi-Arians ...” We will now see that this addition does not in the least change the general meaning of the rule.
With this canon, the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople supplement their creed, set forth by them at the council, and anathematize all heresies, especially those mentioned in the canon.
In the first place, the heresy of the Eunomians is anathematized. Until the middle of the 4th century, when considering the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, exceptional attention was paid to the relationship of the second Person of the Holy Trinity to the first Person. The question of the relation of the third Person to the first and second, the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, was not put forward. The Arians did not deal with this issue in their teaching, so that the Council of Nicaea had no particular reason to say more about the Holy Spirit in its symbol than: But with the passage of time, Arianism, standing on a negative point of view in the doctrine of the Son, could not evade the question of the Holy Spirit either. Denying the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, it was necessary to touch upon the question of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. The thought of some being mediating between God and the world could still have in itself at least some shadow of possibility, as was taught about the Son; but to determine the place of the Holy Spirit among the Persons of the Holy Trinity, denying His deity, it was impossible otherwise than 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, about 360, who proclaimed that the Holy Spirit is in order and by nature the third, that He was created by the will of the Father and with the participation of the Son and should be honored in the third place, as the very first and greatest among those who were 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 in himself. From this Eunomius the Eunomian heretics got their name.
The Eunomians in this rule are identified with the Eudoxians, who accepted and professed the false teaching of Eunomius. They got their name from Eudoxius, who lived in the first half of the 4th century and was, first of all, a bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. When he was bishop of Constantinople, he appointed Eunomius Bishop of Cyzicus. The teaching of the Eudoxians was similar to that of the Eunomians. Concerning the Son they taught that He was not even like the Father, so in this respect even the Arians went further. They rebaptized those who passed into their society through a single immersion (Ap. 50) and taught that the Orthodox teaching about future punishment and eternal torment does not make sense. Eunomians are also called anomeans, since they denied consubstantial, teaching that the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity are in their essence in no way similar to the first Person.
Further, the semi-Arians are anathematized, whom this rule identifies with the Doukhobors, who served as a pretext for convening this ecumenical council. The head of this heresy was Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople. He taught that the Holy Spirit is inferior to 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 Dukhobors (otherwise the Macedonians) spread their teaching so widely that there were thirty-six Dukhobor bishops at this Ecumenical Council. Due to the fact that the semi-Arians taught about the Holy Spirit in exactly 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 not only of the Holy Spirit, but also of 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 Doukhobors together with the Semi-Arians and when the latter, at least for a short time, abandoned their doctrine of like the Son to the Father.
The canon then mentions the Sabellian heresy. Defending the deity of the Son of God against the theory of subordinationism and desiring 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, Son and Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of the Sabellians, constitute one hypostasis without any difference between the persons of the Holy .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 (from 218 to 223) he was excommunicated for the first time, and then was excommunicated at several councils of the 4th century. Among the Western Fathers, the Sabellians are also called Patripassians (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 not different from the Son, had to suffer on the cross, as and Son.
The Patripassians appeared in the last years of the 2nd century, when Praseus began to preach his antitrinitarian doctrine in Rome. The essence of the teachings of Praxeas, according to Tertullian, is as follows: Christ the Savior is God the Father Himself (ipse Deus Pater), the Lord Almighty Himself. In itself, in its essence, this God is a Spirit, invisible, immortal, unlimited, who is not subject to space, time, suffering, death, or in general to any conditions or changes to which a person is subject. In Christ the Savior this God personally assumed a body, so that both are one and the same hypostasis; God the Father was born of Mary, lived with people, suffered, was crucified on the cross, died and was buried. "Patrem crucifixit," says the same Tertullian of Praxeas, expressing his displeasure against these heretics. The second main representative of the Patripassian antitrinitarians was Noitus, who also preached in Rome in the first half of the 3rd century. Hippolytus and Epiphanius are the first among church writers to talk about Noita, after them Augustine, Theodoret and others. Noita's teaching is basically the same as Praxeus's, only Noita developed it more and gave it a more complete form.
A further representative of the Patripassian antitrinitarians was Sabellius, who transformed the teachings of Praxeas and Noitas and gave it a new, more perfect and scientific character. Sabellians are also mentioned in the 7th canon of the same council, and their baptism is considered invalid and therefore, when entering the Orthodox Church, they must be accepted as pagans.
By this canon, the Marcellians are also anathematized, having received their origin from Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, who lived about the middle of the sixth century. Markell 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, Asteria Markell wrote a long work, preserved in the passages cited by Eusebius of Caesarea in his work, Contra Marcellum. In this work of his, Marcellus rebels not only against Asterius, but also against Peacock, Bishop of Antioch, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Origen, Narcissus, and even against Eusebius of Caesarea himself. But, refuting the Arian and semi-Arian doctrine of Christ, Marcellus was too carried away by polemics with his opponents and fell into Sabellianism, moreover, he logically approached the teaching of Paul of Samosata ... Eusebius of Caesarea, in his essay on "church theology", directed exclusively against Markell, expounded the teaching in the most detailed way the Marcellian heresy. The same doctrine is expounded by Eusebius in two books directed against Marcellus. In addition to the well-known Sabellian doctrine of Christ, which, with few exceptions, was shared by Marcellianism, Markell, through the logical development of the principles he laid down about the Son, reached the denial of 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 was indeed the teaching of the Marcellians, besides Eusebius, Athanasius in his book De synodis, Cyril of Jerusalem in the catechumen of De secundo Christi adventu, Hilary, Basil the Great, Socrates, Theodoret and many others testify to this. We purposely list all the mentioned Church Fathers and Doctors 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 justified at the Council of Rome in 341 and that his teaching was recognized as Orthodox at the Council of Serdiki, but chiefly on the protection afforded to Marcellus by Pope Julius. 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 are at one with, so that the question of Markell's heresy has already been completely settled, and the solidity and justice of the verdict pronounced against the Marcellians by the Second Ecumenical Holy Council has also been fully proved. . Beveregius expresses the idea that, undoubtedly, as a result of a persistent heresy, the words Ού τής βασιλείας ούκ έσται τέλος were introduced into the Nicene symbol by the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople - and there will be no end to His kingdom, which is not in the edition of the Nicene symbol. We fully share this thought of Beveregius, which he confirms with the following argument: “the words mentioned,” he says in his notes to this rule, “as set forth by the Council of Nicaea, 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) and approved along with the rest of the 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 expounded at the Council of Nicaea, saying: “We do not think and have never 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 his kingdom shall have no end" had already been entered into the Nicene symbol at that time, Marcellus, who denied the eternity of Christ's kingdom, could not have declared his recognition of this symbol, and therefore these words were added by this council, according to the decision expressed against the heresy of the Marcellians, which appeared in the time between the Council of Nicaea and this Council of Constantinople.
Further, the cathedral anathematizes Photinian. Fotin was a student of Markell. He was born in Ancyra and, having served for a long time as a deacon, he finally became the bishop of Srem. His teaching differed only in a small way from that of Paul of Samosata. He did not recognize the Holy Trinity; He called God the Creator of all the Spirit, and about the Son he taught that He is only the Word, through which God expresses His will in the performance of His deeds; in other words, that He is some kind of mechanical tool that God needs in creation. He taught about Christ that He was a simple man who served as an instrument in the fulfillment of the will of God on earth, that He is not like, and all the less consubstantial with God, therefore, that He is not eternal, but received his origin from Mary. One western council in 345 anathematized Photin, and two years later another western council confirmed the anathema pronounced against Photin.
In the end, the council anathematized the Apollinarians. Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicea in Syria about the middle of the 4th century. Fathers and teachers of the church mention him as a deep scientist. To Christology, he applied the principles of trichotomy, which he learned from the psychology of Plato, on the basis of which he proved that just as a person consists of three factors - body, soul and spirit, so the God-man consists of a body, soul and logos. This latter replaces the human spirit in the God-Man. By such reasoning, Apollinaris came to a clear exposition of the union in Christ of human and Divine nature, moreover, in such a way that they are not in Christ one next to the other, but are united in Him. If, he said, the spirit of man is to be recognized in Christ, then freedom must also be recognized for him, and consequently change (mutabilitas), and this would call into question the faith in our redemption. But Apollinaris, thinking in this way, forgot that by this he denies God-manhood and comes to the complete denial of humanity in the Redeemer. The falsity of the Christological teaching of Apollinaris was proven and refuted by many church fathers, and especially by Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius, who clearly proved the full Divinity, and also, which was especially against Apollinaris, the full humanity of Christ, who, therefore, has a human soul, quite such the same as other people. In 362, at a council in Alexandria called by Athanasius, Apollinaris' teaching on the humanity of Christ was condemned. Similarly, at the councils of 374, 376 and 380, convened in Rome under Pope Damasus, the teachings of Apollinaris were condemned and all who shared his teachings were cast out; finally, the teaching itself was anathematized by the council. However, as we will see later, when considering the 7th canon of this council, the baptism of the Apollinarians was recognized as valid, and they were accepted into the church only through chrismation after they presented a written renunciation of their teaching, “These heretics,” says Zonara, “do not cross, as relative to St. they do not differ in baptism, but they perform it, like the Orthodox.
All the heresies mentioned are anathematized. Άνάθεμα - the same as άνάθημα in the Greek classics, comes from the word άνατίθημι and denotes a gift dedicated to the gods and placed in the temple. In this sense, this word is also used by the writers of the Christian Church. Evangelist Luke, speaking of the Jerusalem temple, writes that it was decorated with expensive stones and deposits (άναθήμασι). Eusebius describes the temple 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 consecrated to God: “she is the bride of Christ and consecrated to God (καί άνάθημα τώ Θεώ) as a sacred vessel.” eternal death. So, in the 1st epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul writes: "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be damned"(16:22); in the same message: "deliver such to Satan for the destruction of the flesh"(5:5). In the epistle to the Romans: “I prayed for I myself would be excommunicated from Christ according to my brothers”(9:3); and in his letter to the Galatians he writes: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, announces to you more than an evangelism to you. let it be anathema"(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 discourse 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 an anathema (excommunication)? Listen to what he himself says (Paul): whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be damned, anathema, that is, let him be excommunicated from everyone and become a stranger to everyone. Just as no one dares to touch simply with his hands or approach a gift that is dedicated to God, so (the apostle) called by this name, in the opposite sense, the excommunicated from the church, cutting him off from everyone and moving him as far away as possible, commanding everyone to withdraw with great fear and run away from such a person. Anathema, in the sense of the mentioned places of ap. Paul, has two meanings: firstly, the final removal (exsecratio, separatio, abalienatio), and secondly, eternal death (aeternum exitium). Balsamon, in his interpretation of Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople of 879, says: "Anathema is a distance from God." Theophylact says the same thing: "anathema is removal, excommunication." This includes the words ap. Paul: "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema". To these words of the Apostle Theodoret remarks: "anathema, that is, let him be excommunicated from the common body of the church who is not bound by ardent love to Christ the Lord." And Balsamon, in the preface to the Gangra Council, says: “What is an anathema, if not that such should be delivered over to the devil, that such there is no more salvation and that he is completely alien to Christ.” Athanasius the Great interprets the mentioned words of the apostle as follows: “Excommunicate him from the church and from the faithful, and let every unbeliever be removed from the people.” Canon 29 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 interpreting the aforementioned canon of the Council of Constantinople, Balsamon says: “Let such an anathema be; let him be excommunicated from God, and let him surrender to the devil as an anathema.” From this came the form of expression 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, his relatives according to the flesh. Chrysostom interprets this message of St. Paul in the sense of eternal death 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 it not be, because he did it out of love for Christ), but from blessedness and glory, I would agree to this, on the condition that my Lord was not subjected to blasphemy ... I would gladly lose the kingdom and that ineffable glory and suffer all 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 a book or words about the priesthood, Chrysostom speaks of St. Paul: “after such feats, after countless crowns, he would like to descend into hell and be given over to eternal torment (είς γέενναν άπελθεΐν χαί αίωνίψ παραδοθήναι κολάσει), if only ... they were saved and converted to Christ. After that, it is now clear to us what an anathema is. In the rules, we will have to meet with this word, and we will always understand by it the final excommunication from the church, the consequence of which is eternal death.
Rule 2
Let not regional bishops extend their authority to churches outside their own region, and let them not confuse churches: but, according to the rules, let the Bishop of Alexandria govern the churches only in Egypt; let the bishops of the east rule only in the east, with the preservation of the advantages of the Church of Antioch, recognized by the rules of Nicene; also the bishops of the region of Asia, let them rule only in Asia; the bishops of Pontus have in their charge the affairs of only the Pontic regions, the Thracian ones, but of Thrace. Without being invited, let not bishops go outside their area for ordination or any other ecclesiastical order. While maintaining the above rule about church areas, it is obvious that the affairs of each area will be well established by the council of the same area, as determined in Nicaea. But the Churches of God, among foreign peoples, must be ruled, according to the custom of the fathers that has been observed until now.
(Ap. 34, 37; I Ecumenical 4, 5, 6, 7; II Ecumenical 3; III Ecumenical 8; IV Ecumenical 17, 19, 28; Trul. 8, 25. 36, 38, 39; VII Ecumenical 3, 6; Antioch 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23; Laod 40; Carth 11, 13, 18, 26, 34, 73, 76, 95, 98, 120; Serdic 3; Double 14).
In the first place, the rule mentions διοίκησις (dioecesis, diocese), and then έπαρχία (provincia, diocese). By the former, the rule means a larger ecclesiastical area, and by the latter, a smaller one. Both of them exactly corresponded 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 regions, that is, from several dioceses, while έπαρχία - the 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 limits. This is the meaning of the rule when it speaks of a diocese and a diocese.
Some difficulty seems to be interpreted by the words that the rule begins - τούς ύπέρ διοίκησιν έπισκόπους ταίς άπερορίος We adhered to the Athenian text, which is the main one in our work. Our translation is consistent with translations of all critical editions of the rules in the West. Beveregius translated as follows: Episcopi ultra dioecesin in ecclesias extra suos terminos ne accedant. This place is translated in exactly the same way by Veul and Justel, and by Hefele. In the collection of Dionysius the Lesser, it is translated differently. The word ύπέρ is translated by him as 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 do not at all agree 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 redaction, and secondly, because, as in the translation of Dionysius, so, therefore, , and in the edition of Cardinal Pitra the translator's error is quite obvious. According to the wording of Dionysius, there is a contradiction between the first words of the rule and what is said in it later, while with the wording that we follow, the contradiction cannot take place. Based on the text of the canon itself and on Zonara's interpretation of it, we can assert that the fathers of the council, in issuing this canon, did not apply the mentioned words only to certain higher bishops, but to all bishops without distinction. The next passage in the canon, “Let no bishops, unless invited, go outside their own province for ordination or any other ecclesiastical order” proves this best for us.
This canon, in its essence, is nothing more than a repetition of the 6th and partly the 5th canons 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 be the reason for the issuance of this rule, then the main reason, in any case, was different. Shortly before the Council, Meletios of Antioch appeared in Constantinople and here, by the way, consecrated Gregory of Nazianzus as bishop to the See of Constantinople. Shortly thereafter, Peter of Alexandria sent several bishops to Constantinople to install Maximus, the Cynic philosopher, in the same see. In civil-political terms, these three places: Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople were in three different dioceses. Antioch, where Meletios was from, was in the East, Alexandria, from where the bishops were sent by Peter, was in Egypt, and Constantinople, where the ordinations mentioned took place, was in the Thracian diocese. Since this caused great disturbances 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 decree by law that, in relation to the boundaries, the church administration should be guided by political division, for which this rule was issued, which establishes the boundaries of church regions are 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 primates were not allowed to extend their power beyond the borders of their diocese, so it was strictly prescribed for the primates of individual ecclesiastical 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 dioceses, which in turn consisted of several provinces. 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 administration of the Bishop of Alexandria, so also other regions should be under the control of their first bishops, of whom not one should cross the borders of his own. area for the sake of ordination or anything else concerning church government, but each should only be in charge of the affairs of his area. This restriction of power within their own area for the first bishops served as a measure for other lower bishops in their area, and as it was forbidden for the first to extend their power beyond the established boundaries, so it was not allowed for the second. The first bishops of the diocese, or higher metropolitans, or, as they were called after the subjection of Thrace, Pontus and Asia to the throne of Constantinople, patriarchs, extended their power within certain limits to their diocese, that is, to the primates of the provinces, or, as they are called in the rule, on the primates of the dioceses or, in other words, metropolitans; these metropolitans extended power again within the boundaries of their diocese to the bishops who were in it. Bishops, however, enjoyed the same rights within the boundaries of a smaller area subject to them. Thus, the rule establishes the boundaries of power for both the higher metropolitans (later patriarchs), and metropolitans, and bishops. Recognizing the seniority (πρεσβεία) of the higher metropolitans, the council does not concentrate in their person unconditional power over each metropolitan or bishop of their region, but recognizes their supreme supervision in their diocese, primacy among all other bishops of the diocese and the right to preside over diocese 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 bishops under the chairmanship of their metropolitan. In issuing this prescription, the Council of Constantinople fully follows the definition of the Nicene Council.
As for the churches that are 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, outside the borders of the Roman Empire, were too few in number to constitute a separate diocese, and therefore the council, without determining anything new about them, leaves their administration as before, namely, that they be subject to individual diocese or diocesan bishops, as was, for example, Abyssinia subject to the bishop of Alexandria, or to be ruled independently, independently of one or another bishop.
Based on the words of Socrates describing this council - "they (the fathers of the Council of Constantinople) established the patriarchs" - and taking into account the time when Socrates wrote, one might assume, as some suggest, 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 confirmed by considering the original written monuments that have come down to us from the time of the cathedral. There is no doubt that the fathers of the Council of Constantinople laid the foundation for the establishment of the patriarchate, which later came into being, but the very act of establishment cannot be attributed to them. With the above words, Socrates does not intend to designate the establishment of patriarchs, but he wants to point to those bishops whom the 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 given over to bishops who confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as one Godhead, of equal power and glory, and who do not think anything impious, but are in one mind with Nectarios, Bishop of Constantinople , with Timothy of Alexandria in Egypt, with Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Teres 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 Melitinsky and Gregory of Nyssa in the diocese of Pontus, and finally with Terentius of Scythia and Martyrius Markianopolsky in Misia and Scythia. All who are not of one mind with the aforementioned 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 of patriarchs, Socrates undoubtedly meant the mentioned bishops as extraordinary commissioners, whose task was to strengthen the faith in certain ecclesiastical areas. If Socrates really meant the patriarchs, who, as such, appeared later in the ecclesiastical government, then, when listing the bishops mentioned, he, in any case, would have to name them one for each diocese, while he mentions them several in one and the same place; so, for example, in the Pontic diocese he mentions Elladius and Gregory, in the Asian diocese Amphilochius and Optima, which clearly shows that his words did not designate real patriarchs, but special representatives, representatives of pure Orthodoxy. In this sense, one should understand the words of Socrates: "they established the patriarchs." Consequently, the beginning of the "establishment of the patriarchs" was laid, as we have already said, by the 6th and 7th canons of the Council of Nicaea, and then by this canon of the Council of Constantinople; but the real formal establishment of the patriarchate belongs to a later time, as will be said in its place.
Rule 3
Yes, the Bishop of Constantinople has the advantage of honor over the Bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.
(VI Ecum. 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 the 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 the primacy of honor, because he governs the episcopacy 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 already at a later time. In the 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 the Decree of Gratian. Barony's attempt was unsuccessful, and the authenticity of the 3rd canon of the II Ecumenical Council was recognized by the best Western scientists.
What was the reason for the publication of this rule, can be seen from his own closing words. “The city of Byzantium,” says Balsamon, in interpreting this canon, “did not have archiepiscopal honor, but its bishop was ordained in former times by the metropolitan of Heraclius. We know from history that Byzantium, although it had previously had independent control, was subsequently conquered by the Roman emperor Severus and subjected 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 (Tsaregrad), 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 a 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 above the rest of the 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 the bishops, after the bishop of Ancient Rome, such a primacy of honor (πρεσβεία τής τιμής, prioris honoris partes) approximately what the fathers of the Council of Nicaea recognized for the bishop of Jerusalem. The meaning of this canon is best seen by comparing it with canon 2 of the same council. In this canon, 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 πρεσβεία in general, i.e., they recognize that he can occupy the first place over others at general meetings, but at the same time do not give him any power over the rest. Since all the rights of a metropolitan are reduced either to the primacy of τής έξουσίας, or to the primacy of τής τιμής, the Council Fathers recognize this last primacy for the Bishop of Constantinople; they could not admit more to him after the promulgation of the previous rule. Based on the words of Socrates, who considers Nektarios of Constantinople the main champion of the faith in Thrace, and referring to a similar place in Theodoret, it must be assumed that not only honor, without any authority, was recognized by the rule for the Bishop of Constantinople. He could not have the primacy of power over other bishops, without the recognition of this power by the council, but he had this power in his area, which, undoubtedly, Thrace was considered. In addition to Socrates and Theodoret, we are also witnessed to the power within certain limits of the Bishop of Constantinople and his right to appoint bishops, as for example. Eunomius - Bishop of Cyzicus, Euphronius - Bishop of Bithynia, etc. “They are very mistaken,” says Valesius in his notes on the history of Socrates, “those who believe that during the Second Ecumenical Council the bishop of Constantinople did not have his own diocese.” Consequently, the Bishop of Constantinople had, within the boundaries of his region, power equal to that of all the metropolitans, while the primacy of honor belonged to him over all the bishops, after that of Rome. To some extent, this canon laid the foundation for that patriarchal authority, which only later, at the Council of Chalcedon, was received by the bishop of Constantinople. In this sense, this rule was understood by all subsequent bishops of Constantinople and - what is especially important - John Chrysostom, the successor of Nektarios. Based on the same rule and for the same reasons, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon subsequently recognized the power that should have belonged to him according to his position in the Bishop of Constantinople. It is noteworthy that the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, in issuing this canon, do not speak of any sacred or ecclesiastical privileges of the see of Constantinople, for example, of apostolic succession, or anything like that, but only of the external state importance of the place occupied by Bishop of Constantinople, “because it is the city of the new Rome” and nothing more, as a result of which the fathers of the cathedral put his cathedra above other oldest and apostolic ones, such as, for example, the sees of Antioch and Alexandria. Therefore, in the very honor recognized for the Bishop of Constantinople, they have in mind an exclusively hierarchical order and external value hierarch. The Fathers of the Council obviously mean the same thing when they speak of the primacy of the Roman bishop and recognize that he has this primacy over other bishops, not for any special reason, but only because his chair 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 an external ecclesiastical structure, according to which they applied the political division of the Roman Empire to church division. On this issue we shall have to speak in detail in the interpretation of the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and the 36th Canon of the Council of Trullo.
Rule 4
About Maximus Cynicus, and about the outrage he committed in Constantinople: Maximus was, or is, a bishop below, placed by him below to any degree of clergy: both what he did for him and what he did, everything is insignificant.
Details about Maxim and the disturbances he caused in the church are found in the biography of Gregory of Nazianzus, in the verses of Gregory the Theologian himself about his life and in the history of the church of Sozomen. Maximus was born in Alexandria to 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 persuade at the beginning to his side Basil the Great himself, praising him in one of his letters. Extremely crafty and basely ambitious, he pretended to be a strict zealot of Orthodoxy and even a confessor of the faith. Jerome mentions one work of Maximus - De fide adversus Arianos liber, which he handed over in Milan to the emperor Gratian. Having managed by cunning to win the favor of the Bishop of Alexandria Peter, he obtained a letter from him, in which the latter recommends him to the faithful of Constantinople, where he soon goes. In Constantinople, Maximus finds Gregory of Nazianzus, whom he charms so much with his words and behavior that he receives him into his house, invites him to a meal, baptizes him, gradually introduces him into his clergy, and gives him after himself the first place in the Constantinopolitan church. However, this did not satisfy the ambition of Maximus, who plotted 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 in the place occupied by Gregory. In Alexandria, his request was answered and two bishops were immediately sent. As soon as the Egyptian bishops appeared in Constantinople with powers from Peter of Alexandria, the ordination of Maximus should have taken place immediately, and, undoubtedly, it would have happened if the faithful, having learned about this and, having 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, he 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 on this occasion, “from this atrocity he did not could be of no use," since no one wanted and could recognize him as a bishop, except for a few 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 as there too he began to revolt the people and form a party against Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, and also to ordain indiscriminately, he was expelled by a decree of the prefect. Against this Maximus, the Council of Constantinople issued this canon, 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 authority to perform them. “When it was subsequently discovered that Maximus, in addition, was also a follower of the Apollinarian heresy, he was anathematized,” adds Balsamon in his interpretations of this rule. Consequently, as Beveregius also says in his remarks on this canon, there were two reasons why the Council of Constantinople issued this prescription regarding Maximus. Firstly, the fact that Maximus used 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 by us, and the scholiast Armenopulus, who says: “This Maximus, the cynical philosopher, baptized by Gregory the Theologian, was ordained by some to be bishop of Constantinople with the help of money. Another reason is that he was not installed by the bishops of the same region, but by foreign bishops who came from Egypt. Both offenses were a violation of two rules (4 and 6) of the Council of Nicaea: the first orders all regional bishops to participate indirectly or directly in the appointment of a bishop, while in this case they not only did not participate in it, but were even against it; and the second prescribes to consider invalid any ordination performed without the knowledge of the subject metropolitan. As for Maximus, not only was he not appointed metropolitan of Heraclius, to whom the Bishop of Constantinople was then subordinate, but the named metropolitan did not even express his consent to this. Because of this, the ordination of Maximus was to be 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 irreproachable. Having received ordination from the Egyptian bishops in Constantinople, Maximus immediately informed the bishops of Italy about his ordination in writing, sending them a letter from Peter of Alexandria confirming his unity with the Alexandrian church. The Italian bishops, who at that time had gathered at the council in Aquileia, after reading the letter of Maximus, accepted him into their communion all the more willingly because they were unkind to Gregory because of his fame and considered it allegedly illegal to place him on the see of Constantinople. In addition, after the eruption of the Council of Maximus by the fathers and the election of Nectarios in his place, the fathers of the Western Council, having received a 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 Nectarios and about Maximus. “A convenient opportunity,” Petrus de Marca remarks about this, “on which the western bishops, with Damasus at the head, greedily (avide) attacked, in order to extend their power to the See of Constantinople as well.”
Damasus seems to have condemned at the outset the election of Maximus, at least from the two letters he sent to Ascholias, Bishop of Thessalonica; but later, when it seemed to him that this case 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, at that time, they acted 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 gathered a council and approved the election of Nectarius, after which the emperor sent his ambassadors to Rome in order to inform there is the decision of the council, which they would deign to take note of. The consequence of this was that Damasus and the Italian bishops, albeit against their will, were forced to renounce their intentions and recognize the decision of the council.
Rule 5
Concerning the scroll of the West: we also accept those who exist in Antioch, confessing the same 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 Westerners" (τόμος τών δοτικών, volumen occidentalium, tomus occidentalium) was understood in different ways: some, namely the Greek medieval commentators, argue that "scroll" means confession of the faith of the Serdik Council of 343, while the latest scientists prove that under this should be understood as the message of the Council of Rome 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 completely unjustified by modern data. Zonara, who was the first to express such an opinion in his interpretation of this rule, says this: “The Emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, having converted to Arianism, sought to destroy the First Ecumenical Council. Dad ancient rome reported this to Constant, brother of Constantius. In a letter Constant threatened war with his brother if he did not cease to shake 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 Serdik, who set out in writing a definition confirming the Nicene Creed and the excommunication of all those who otherwise believe. This written statement of the Council of Serdica is called by the Second Ecumenical Council the “Roll of the Westerners” because only the Western Bishops signed it, while the 70 Eastern Bishops (Arians) declared that they did not want to participate in the Council until St. Paul came out of it. The Confessor and Athanasius the Great". Balsamon says the same. The scholiast of the collection of Armenopoulos says the following about this rule: “When Constantius converted to Arianism, a council of 341 bishops was convened by the Roman bishop in Serdica, at which this scroll (hic tomus sive scriptum) was compiled, approved by Constans, the brother of Constantius” . One cannot agree with such a statement, firstly, because this “scroll of the Westerners” should, in any case, speak about the state of the Antiochian church, and secondly, should have dealt in detail with the division of the faithful in Antioch, namely the Meletian schism. Meanwhile, in the definitions of the Council of Serdik there is not, and could not be, any mention of anything like that, for the simple reason that this council was convened no more, no less than seventy-four years before the appearance of the Meletian schism. At the same time, the fathers of this council, apparently, had in mind some recent council, and by no means the one of Serdik, which was convened 38 years before. Consequently, it is not at all the definitions of the Council of Serdik that should be meant by the "scroll of the Westerners", but some other manuscript. Peter de Marca, Valesius, Beveregius, Cev, Hefele and archim. John is of nearly the same opinion on this. In accordance with them, and we state 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 Godhead, and, on the other hand, to anathematize Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, the main defender of Arianism in the west. Having stated its confession of faith, the council sent a message to the eastern bishops in Antioch, informing them of the conclusion of the council and asking them to give their opinion on it. Nine years later, a large council was convened in Antioch, which was attended by 146 Orthodox bishops, who gathered with a twofold purpose: firstly, to destroy the schism that had appeared among the Orthodox, and secondly, to find means for the speedy achievement of victory over Arianism by the church. Especially in order to achieve the latter, the assembled bishops first of all dismantled, then, having thoroughly familiarized themselves, signed the epistle of the Roman Council of 369, adding a few more dogmatic interpretations to those that were already in the epistle. Then the Council (Antioch) sent to Rome, as an addition to its written report, a copy of the same Epistle of the Council of Rome (369), signed and with its statement regarding the belief in consubstantial. Shortly thereafter, the western bishops wrote to the eastern bishops about the new strife among the Orthodox, and in the letter reminded them of their first epistle (tomus), in which they announced that they recognized both sides as Orthodox in Antioch. The Eastern Fathers, gathered at the Council of Constantinople and prompted, among other things, to speak about the Antiochenes and because they feared that the then strife between the two bishops there, Meletios and Peacock, would not cause harm to Orthodoxy, declared, as if in response to the statement of the Western, made in their first epistle about the Antiochians, that they also recognize the Christians in Antioch as Orthodox. Consequently, this scroll of the Westerners, 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 this is the epistle of the Council of Rome of 369, adopted 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 quite clearly stated, could be formulated in this way: “As for the scroll, τόμος, received by us from the westerners and compiled at the Council of Rome in 369 and accepted and signed at the council of the eastern bishops in Antioch in the year 378, we declare that we recognize as Orthodox in Antioch those who profess the one Divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In the collection of rules of John Scholasticus, the following is added to this rule: "The bishops who expressed this recognition are: Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria and the rest of the 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 issued after the end of the Second Ecumenical Council and that, therefore, it is not genuine.
Rule 6
Inasmuch as many, wishing to confuse and overthrow the ecclesiastical deanery, with hostility and slanderous invent a certain guilt on the ruling Orthodox bishops of the churches, it is with some other intention, as only in order to darken the good glory of the priests, and cause confusion among the peaceful people: for this sake the saint the council of the bishops who gathered in Constaitivopolis decided: not without investigation, allow accusers, below, allow everyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the church, but not forbid everyone. But if someone brings some personal complaint against the bishop, that is, a private complaint, somehow, in a claim to property, or in some other injustice suffered from him: in case of such accusations, do not take into consideration, neither the face of the accuser, nor his faith. It is fitting in every possible way for the conscience of the bishop to be free, and for the one who declares himself offended to find justice, no matter what faith he may be. But if the guilt brought against the bishop is ecclesiastical, then it is fitting 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 after that we have been anathematized; besides this, and those who, although pretending to profess our faith soundly, but who have separated themselves, and are gathering assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops. Also, if some of those belonging to the church, for some fault, were previously condemned and expelled, or excommunicated from the clergy, or from the ranks of the laity: and let them not be allowed to accuse the bishop until they clear themselves of the accusation to which they themselves fell. Similarly, from those who themselves have previously been denounced, denunciations against the bishop, or against others from the clergy, may not be acceptable until they undoubtedly show their innocence against the accusations raised against them. But if some, who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from the communion of the Church, nor convicted, or previously accused of any crimes, will say that they have something to convey to the bishop on church matters: to such, the holy council commands, first of all, present your accusations to everyone to the bishops of the region, and before them to confirm with arguments your denunciations against the bishop, who was subjected to an answer. But if the bishops of the united dioceses, more than hoped, will not be able to restore order, according to the accusations raised 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 placing themselves under pain of the same punishment as the accused, otherwise, in the course of the proceedings, they turned out to be slandering the accused bishop. But if anyone, having despised, on preliminary inquiry, the decreed decision, dares either to bother the royal ear, or the courts of worldly rulers, or the ecumenical council of anxiety, to insult the honor of all the bishops of the region: let him by no means be acceptable with his complaint, as if he had offended the rules and violating church order.
(Ap. 34, 37, 74, 75; IV Ecum. 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; Dvukr. 13; Theophilus Alex. 9).
From the 74th and 75th Apostolic Canons, we saw what the ecclesiastical judgment of the clergy was and on whom depended in the first centuries of the life of the church, and at the same time we saw who could file complaints against the clergy. In this canon, both the prescriptions of the mentioned Apostolic Canons and others that speak of the same subject and were published at different councils convened before the Second Ecumenical Council are renewed and supplemented.
The reason for issuing this rule is clearly seen from the first words of the rule itself. In order to eliminate in the future such phenomena, which are mentioned at the beginning of the canon, the holy fathers together found it necessary to issue this canon. In it they speak, firstly, of the difference between private and ecclesiastical complaints, secondly, of persons who may file certain complaints against bishops, and finally of the competent courts.
Complaints of a private nature are understood to mean those which do not concern the Church and with which the Church has nothing to do, such as, for example, complaints against a bishop for an injustice committed, for taking away property or for causing injury, etc.; complaints of an ecclesiastical nature are understood to mean those that entail excommunication or defrocking, such as blasphemy, simony, etc. society has its own rights, which are secured for it by precise civil laws: “with such accusations, do not take into consideration, neither the face of the accuser, nor his faith. It is fitting in every possible way for the conscience of the bishop to be free, and for the one who declares himself offended to find justice, no matter what faith he may be, ”says the rule. As for complaints of an ecclesiastical nature, the canon commands that the strictest attention be paid to persons who are accusers, and categorically forbids bringing such complaints to: a) heretics, b) schismatics, c) organizers of illegal gatherings, d) expelled clerics, e) laity excommunicated and (e) on trial and not yet acquitted.
In their Canon, the Fathers use the common name of heretics not only for those who teach falsely about the faith, but also for schismatics and those who arrange meetings against the bishop. In his epistle to Amphilochius of Iconium, Basil the Great accurately distinguishes heretics from schismatics and from those who form unlawful assemblies. As Basil the Great says, αϊρεσις happens when someone preaches something that is completely contrary to the Orthodox faith, and is completely alienated from the church, — σχίσμα happens when someone thinks, though otherwise, about individual church subjects and issues, but there is a possibility come to an agreement - παρασυναγωγή happens in those cases when a recalcitrant 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 named by the same name, with the mentioned words of Basil the Great, “who strictly distinguishes schismatics from heretics, one could deduce some contradiction, which Balsamon, in interpreting this rule, tries to justify as follows: “When Do you hear,” he says, “that this rule calls heretics also those who pretend to profess our faith in purity, but who have separated and organize meetings against our canonically appointed bishops, do not think that by this you contradict 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 quite 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 superfluous, as Beveregius rightly observes, 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 arrange illegal meetings, because the rule separately mentions both one and the other, and the third. But the Fathers here do not understand heretics in the usual narrow sense of the word, but in a broader one, so that this concept includes only recognized heretics, but also schismatics and those who arrange illegal meetings. Therefore, the thought of the fathers could be expressed as follows: “we forbid all heretics to bring complaints against bishops, 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 converted into schism, as well as illegally organizing 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 which, when they arise, still adhere to Orthodoxy, but then little by little depart from it and adopt one or another heresy, from which they never again separate. This explanation is confirmed, for example, in the interpretations of the blessed Jerome on the letter of the Apostle Paul to Titus and in Augustine. Thus, it is quite clear in this rule, along with heretics, schismatics are also designated as having no right to bring complaints against Orthodox bishops in cases of church complaints, because, by their nature, they can no longer help but accuse those bishops of all kinds of fictitious crimes, from whom completely separated. Because of this, even 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, this canon forbids filing complaints against bishops. This rule has been followed by all Christian churches since ancient times. This is evidenced by the rules of the Councils of Antioch, Serdik and Carthage (Carth. 128, 129; Antioch. 14; Serdik. Z, 4, 5). Athanasius the Great, in his apology to the emperor Constantius, denies any significance of the complaints filed against him by the Arians. Augustine speaks in exactly the same way about the complaints of heretics against the Orthodox. Imbued with the thought of preserving the dignity of the Orthodox, Justinian issues a law forbidding heretics not only to be accusers of the Orthodox, but also to be witnesses against them. The same law was later included in the Vasiliki (Royal Books) and reached the point that, of the heretics, the Manicheans could not be witnesses in any case. In the Nomocanon, in titles XIV, we find a detailed account of all the legal prescriptions concerning this matter.
In addition to the above, the canon forbids deposed clerics, excommunicated laymen, and those under trial to bring complaints against bishops. Such a prohibition is quite understandable, because all such, being under a lawful court, as accused, have no right to testify, much less to file complaints themselves. Such persons were also forbidden to file complaints according to ancient rules, 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 cases by civil laws. To all others, adds the rule that "neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor convicted, or previously accused of any crimes," are allowed freely, if they have 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, if, in the course of the proceedings, they turn out to be slandering the accused bishop." This condition was required by both ecclesiastical and civil laws. In the Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, as well as in the Nomocanon in XIV titles, special sections are devoted to this issue. In the first we find the XVI title under the title: De episcopis, qui accusantur et de iis qui ad accusandum debent, aut non debent admitti. In the second we meet a separate chapter under the title: Τίνες, καί παρά τίσι κατηγορούσιν έπισκόπων. In Justinian's code, 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 is it legally allowed to file a complaint against the bishop. Regarding the very conduct of the trial, the fathers of the council renew and supplement the previous canons: 74th Apostolic, 5th right. I Council of Nicaea, the 14th, 15th, 20th Council of Antioch, and others. belongs to the metropolitan. By επαρχία in the canons is meant, as already mentioned several times, a well-known ecclesiastical region with several bishops dependent on one chief bishop, usually called the metropolitan. Επαρχία gives us the concept of a 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, to the metropolitan council, where it is decided. If this council cannot give its opinion on the complaint, then the matter should be transferred to the council of bishops τής διοικήσεως, i.e., to the council composed of all the bishops and metropolitans of a large church region or patriarchate, where the chairmanship belongs by right to the patriarch . Διοίκησις corresponds, as we have seen from the interpretation of the Nicene Canons and the 2nd Canon of this council, to the concept of the present patriarchy, as a result of which the diocesan council also 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, Heraclius, Thracian, Thessalonica and others, about seventy-eight others, with their subordinate bishops, together form one διοίκησις, headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and all gathered together they form a diocesan (patriarchal) council. At this diocesan council, as the rule prescribes, the final decision of every complaint filed against the bishop must be decided. There was nowhere else to appeal against the verdict of this council, except in extraordinary cases, when the issue, due to its special importance, was decided by an ecumenical council.
The fathers of the council end this canon with a categorical prohibition to accept as accusers against bishops those persons who, neglecting this decree, decide to turn to secular power. To such, the Fathers of the Council remind in the main precept of the 12th canon of the Council of Antioch. At that time, many clergy and laity, bypassing the church court, addressed their complaints on church matters directly to civil authority and, condemned by the church court, tried to achieve from the civil authorities the annulment of the church sentence. As a result, many disorders and injustices arose in the church administration, and the church court lost its power. Condemned according to the law by their ecclesiastical authority, by deceit or in some other way, they managed to win over the civil authorities, which, especially during the reign of the non-Orthodox emperors Constantius, Julian and Valens, canceled the sentences not only of individual bishops, but even of entire councils, and the guilty acquitted, and the innocent were subjected to undeserved punishment. The canon specifies that in a great council of bishops every case should be concluded without further appeal; the one who neglected this legitimate authority of the church and decided to appeal to the civil authorities himself becomes guilty and loses all the rights that he used to use, as "offending the rules and violating church decorum." The intervention of the civil authorities in the affairs of the Church has always been condemned by the rules in the most decisive way. Among innumerable examples, let us take the act of John Chrysostom and Athanasius the Great, who, having been condemned by many councils, did not want to take their chairs a second time, although they were restored by royal power, until they were completely justified by cathedrals, large and important in comparison. with those who condemned them. The principle of the inappropriate interference of 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 upon themselves the decision of church affairs. Even non-Orthodox civil authorities, at least in later centuries, avoided interfering in such matters, leaving them to the ecclesiastical authority and recognizing its full competence in such cases. This injunction of the Second Ecumenical Council, forbidding the transfer of church affairs to civil authority, was solemnly repeated at the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
Rule 7
Those who join Orthodoxy, and to some of those who are saved from heretics, are acceptable, according to the following rank and custom. Arian, Macedonian, Savvatian, and Navatian, who call themselves pure and better, the fourteen-days, or tetradites, and apolinarists, when they give manuscripts and curse every heresy that does not philosophize, as God’s holy catholic and apostolic church philosophizes, is acceptable, imprinting, that is, , anointing with holy chrism first the forehead, then the eyes, and the nostrils, and the mouth, and the ears, and sealing them with the verb: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Eunomianus, by a single immersion of those who are baptized, and of the Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and of the Sabellians, who hold the opinion of son-fatherhood, and of other intolerant creators, and of all other heretics (for there are many here, especially those who come out of the Galatian country), all who of them wish to be joined be to Orthodoxy, acceptable, like pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second day they are catechumens, then on the third day we conjure them, with a threefold breath in the face and in the ears: and so we announce them, and make them stay in the church, and listen to the scriptures, and then we already baptize them.
(Ap. 46, 47, 68; I Ecum. 8, 19; Trul. 95; Laod. 7, 8; Carth. 57; Basil Vel. 1, 5, 47).
The great multitude of heretics in the 4th century urged the church fathers to unceasing legislative activity. At every step, the desire of the fathers to eradicate heresies and persuade heretics to go over to the Orthodox Church was manifested. This desire, among other things, explains the comparative indulgence of the fathers in the matter of accepting heretics into the church, a condescension that could not otherwise be justified, if we take into account the special severity of certain heresies. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, listing in their canon the most important heresies that still existed at that time, establish the rank according to which various heretics should be received by the Orthodox Church. However, in this case they do not issue any new special prescriptions, but confirm the 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, not the same. 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 negate them, while others destroyed them completely. 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 there was not even a trace of correctness left in it. As a result of this difference, some were not baptized a second time during their conversion to Orthodoxy, but they were only chrismated, of course, after a solemn renunciation of heresy, while others had to be baptized again, like pagans or Jews. The fathers of the cathedral rank among the first: Arian, Macedonian, Savvatian, Novatian, 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 spoken of Arian, Macedonian, Novatian, and Apollinarian, and of the second, of Eunomian and Sabellian. Heresies were also mentioned, which, as the Council says, arose in Galatia, because by them are meant the heresies of Marcellus and Photinian. Here we will dwell on the other three heresies mentioned by the fathers, namely, the Savvatians, Tetradites and Montanists.
The Savvatians got their name from their founder, Savvatius, who was a follower of the Novatian doctrine, about which there was enough said in the interpretation of the 8th canon of the Council of Nicaea. Savvaty, who converted from Jews to Christianity, was ordained a presbyter by the Novatian bishop Markian. 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. At the same time, two of his friends, Feoktist and Macarius, began to act with him. In a short time he so extended his influence and caused such confusion in the Novatian community that a Novatian Council was convened in Bithynia about the year 380 on this occasion, at which he was condemned and deposed. “It would be better to lay my hand on a thorny thorn bush than on Savvatiy at the time when I consecrated him as a presbyter,” Markian says about Savvatiy in the history of Socrates. Zonara says the following about the Savvatians: “the head of the Savvatians was a certain Savvaty, who was a presbyter in the heresy of Novatus, but he had something more than the teacher of heresy himself, whom he surpassed in malice; he celebrated with the Jews."
The four-ten days or tetradites (τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατιται ήτοι τετραδίται, quartadecimani sive tetraditae) taught that Passover should be celebrated on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it falls, and on this day they fasted. Balsamon, in interpreting this rule, says: “Fourteen days or tetradites are 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. They are also called tetradites, 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 the celebration of Pascha in the interpretation of the 7th Apostolic canon, and we will speak again in the interpretation of the 1st canon of the Council of Antioch, where the definition of the First Council of Nicaea is set out regarding this. But this definition could not lead to a general unity - and we meet many sects that stubbornly continued to adhere to the ancient custom in the question of the time of celebrating Easter. Church historians mention the Ebionites, and the Tetradites, and the Savvatians, and the Avdians, and many others, known under the general name of the four ten days. Even before this, some councils were forced to issue special canons regarding them, such as: Antioch (1st par.), Laodicea (7th par.), and others. , what four-ten days they understand in their rule, meanwhile at the time of 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 to learn what we do not know from the fathers, and mentions many fourteen diaries of that time, different in their teaching. As far as faith is concerned, they are Orthodox, says Epiphanius, but 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; cf. Deut. 27:26]. From everything Epiphanius said about the 40 days in his work Contra quartadecimanos, we can conclude the following about them at the moment of the Second Ecumenical Council: “They celebrate Pascha for only one day, contrary to the Orthodox, who celebrate the whole week, and on this day they fast and take communion. Some of them, who live in Cappadocia, always celebrate Easter on March 25, no matter what day of the week it falls, adhering to Acta Pilati in this, which says that Jesus Christ died on March 25. Such were the four-ten 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 freely conclude that these were precisely those four-ten days mentioned by Epiphanius, and whom he recognizes by faith as Orthodox.
The Montanists trace their origins to Montanus, who began to preach his doctrine in Phrygia about the middle of the second century. In ancient sources, the Montanists, according to the place from which they originated, are called Phrygians or Catathrygians. In Theodoret, they are also called by the Pepusians, after the place of Pepuza, which they call Jerusalem and especially inhabited by them. The insufficient data that have survived to us do not allow us to accurately characterize the personality of Montanus, and even less always mentioned with him two prophetesses - Maximilla and Priscilla, who were his constant companions and helped him in his preaching. The latest criticism considers Montana's companions an abstraction of that rigoristic trend that is associated in church history with the name Montana. However, the question of the personality of Montanus, as well as whether his companions belonged to the realm of myth or whether they existed in reality, is indifferent to us; suffice it to state that Montanism existed as a special trend 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, of which Montanus was a passive instrument, the prediction of the soon-coming bliss and the 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 at that time. 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. The Orthodox teaching of the Montanists at the beginning of their appearance is also evidenced by Epiphanius, who assures that they teach about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, just like the Orthodox. But with the passage of time, the doctrine of the Montanists about the Holy Trinity began to lose its purity and be condemned by the Church Fathers. The excessive exaltation of the person of Montanus in the teaching of the later Montanists, and especially their vagueness in the way they presented the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, led some 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. especially condemned in Montanism is the identification of the Holy Spirit with Montanus. Basil the Great rebelled against them in the most decisive way in his letter to Amphilochius: “The baptism of the Pepusians (Montanists) cannot be justified by anything, and I am surprised that the Great Dionysius, who is so knowledgeable in the rules, did not notice this. The Pepusians are obvious heretics, since they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, arrogantly and shamelessly giving the title of Comforter to Montana and Priscilla. For deifying a person, they are subject to condemnation, and for offending 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 irrelevance here is obvious and clear to everyone who has at least a little reason. About half of the 4th century, we already see all the Montanists infected with Sabellianism, so that the Council of Laodicea was forced to issue the following rule against them: diligently announce and baptize the bishops and presbyters of the church” (8 Prov.). Finally, he sent his rules against them and the second Ecumenical Council.
Of all the heretics mentioned, the rule allows for the admission to the church without baptism of Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Savvatians and Tetradites. The first, i.e., 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 distorted. It was enough that their baptism was recognized as correct, because according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, it is and was that every 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 Novatians, Savvatians and Tetradites, in the literal sense, were not heretics, but schismatics: they were separated from the Orthodox only by some special views, and the dogmas had the same. If the fathers of the council did not find it necessary to prescribe a second baptism for the former, how much less could they prescribe it for the latter. All the above-mentioned heretics, at the request of the rule, could be accepted into the church subject to two conditions: firstly, a written renunciation of heresy and, secondly, the anointing of them.
As we have seen, the Council of Nicaea also demanded such a written renunciation upon entering the church from the Novatians: “First of all, it is necessary for them to confess in writing, that they will adhere and follow the decrees of the catholic and apostolic churches” (8 par.). From the history of Socrates, we see that Liberius of Rome demanded a written declaration from the followers of Macedonia, by which they certified that they adhered to Orthodoxy: “After their declaration, Liberius called them to write down their confession. Then they gave him a letter in which the words of the Nicene faith were written. Sozomen mentions the written charter of Valens and Ursacius, in which they anathematize the Arian heresy and certify their faith in consubstantial ones. Basil the Great, in his letter to the Jews, 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 any heresy.” The Fathers of the Second Universe require the same written statements. Synod from the aforementioned heretics, if they would like to be accepted into the church. Upon presentation of such a written renunciation, the rule prescribes that they be anointed and after that they are accepted into church communion. The prescription regarding the chrismation of some heretics upon their entry into the Orthodox Church was issued as early as the Council of Laodicea (7 Ave). The custom, according to which, during the performance of 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. Simeon of Thessalonica explains to us the meaning of chrismation in this case: “then the bishop anoints him with divine chrism, which is not a simple oil, but is composed of many fragrant parts, symbolically representing the abundance of power and the variety of gifts of the Spirit, and at the same time as the incense of His shrine. Miro is taught as a seal and a sign of Christ. How Christ Himself calls Himself the anointed one precisely because He bodily 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 anoint me(61:1), so they too, having received grace from him through chrism, are called Christians and become Christ (anointed) of the Lord... While anointing him, the bishop says: is a sign of Christ, because the anointing itself is in the form of a cross, and at the same time the gift of the Holy Spirit is received. In the West, when heretics were received into the church, they were not anointed with holy ointment, considering in this case the laying on of hands sufficient. This connivance of the West is explained by the view that every baptism was considered correct, no matter who performed it - a view that was the cause of many strife between Eastern and Western bishops. Among other things, the rules of the concilii Arausiaci testify to the condescension of the Westerners. The same is recommended by the cathedrals of Arelatsky (Arles) and Epaonsky. We find the same in the letter of Siricius of Rome. What is not clear is how Siricius can refer to the Second Ecumenical Council, when this Council speaks categorically and in the most detailed way precisely about chrismation. Leo of Rome speaks in the same sense. About this difference between the East and the West, considering that, when accepting heretics, his laying on of hands corresponds to the chrismation of the Eastern Church, we also read in Gregory of Rome.
Having issued such a decree regarding the admission into the church of Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Savvatians and Tetradites, the fathers of the council issue a completely different prescription regarding the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians and those heretics who are from Galatia, namely the Marcellians and Photinians. They demand that the mentioned heretics and others like them be first denounced and then rebaptized. Before indicating what rite was performed during the reception of 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 is important point 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 that it was the only guardian 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 directly deprived of the opportunity to be mediators in the salvation of people. The baptism of heretics is not baptism; not only does it not purify, but, on the contrary, it defiles, just as heresy itself defiles, into which a person enters through such a false baptism. Because of this, all those baptized by heretics should be considered as if not baptized 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 third century adhered to this view with all rigor. Clement of Alexandria calls the baptism of heretics unfit, and that such a view was important for the entire Egyptian church is proved, among other things, by Dionysius of Alexandria in the story of his predecessor Heraclius, who did not baptize only those heretics who were formerly Orthodox, then turned into heresy and subsequently again returned to Orthodoxy. Tertullian recognizes only one baptism and one church, completely denying the significance of heretical baptism: "firstly," he says, "because they are outside the church, and secondly, because they do not recognize either that God or that Christ, whom the Orthodox recognize. » . Cyprian mentions this council, presided over by Agrippina, convened at the beginning of the 3rd century in Carthage and unanimously declared 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 is evident from the words of Firmilian, who claims that no one will remember whether it ever had a beginning: "they always recognized only one church and one baptism, which can only be performed by this church" . Similarly, the Apostolic Constitutions 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, heretics, although baptized outside the church, were looked upon only as falling away from Christianity, and they were accepted into the church simply by the laying on of hands, like any other sinners. When the Novatians, following a completely unfounded view of the holiness of their church, decided to re-baptize newly converted Orthodox, in Rome they began to defend their practice even more zealously. This led to the error 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, eighteen in number, they turned to Cyprian, who was then with his bishops at the council at Carthage, 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 Mauritanian Bishop Quintus. The second council of the same year, at which seventy-one bishops gathered, confirmed the previous decision and sent his message to the Roman bishop Stephen, who was then at odds with the eastern bishops on this issue. At several councils in 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. Stefan, who by all means sought to win over the bishops of Asia Minor, went so far as to even threaten them with excommunication from church communion. The arguments of Dionysius of Alexandria also remained unsuccessful, who, as can be seen from his letters to Eusebius, was also against the reality of heretical baptism, but who wanted to move further away from the struggle and establish peace between the parties; “He could not stop the struggle, arbitrarily and recklessly provoked by the pride and passion of the Bishop of Rome,” one modern scholar remarks on this subject. The opposition of the Eastern bishops against Rome reached its height when Stephen, who declared himself episcopus episcoporum, wished to force all the bishops to submit to his authority. The persecution under the emperor Valerian in 257 put an end to this struggle, the victim of which fell the great Cyprian.
The strife between East and West re-emerged over the question of the baptism of the Donatists, who, from the Novatian view of the sanctity 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 decided at the Council of Carthage in 348 (al 345), and here a certain pliability was already revealed in comparison with the teachings of Cyprian, and it was established by the 1st canon that a second baptism should not be considered necessary for every heretic without distinction. From the closing words of the chairman of the council, Bishop Grat, 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 excessive extremes. For the peace and unity of the church, it was necessary to find the middle of these two directions, which was done. The Nicene Council was the first to show reasonable indulgence in this case by issuing its famous 8th canon. Socrates and Sozomen testify that the example of the Council of Nicaea met with the sympathy of the whole church, subsequently becoming a general rule for it. The best proof of this is the canon of the Second Council of Constantinople, which was later, with minor additions, renewed at the Trulla Council.
Therefore, guided in the question of baptism performed in a non-Orthodox society, by the general prescriptions of councils and fathers, the principle of the Orthodox Church can be outlined as follows: baptism, as an institution of Jesus Christ, can be performed only in His church and, therefore, only in the church can it be correct and saving; but if other Christian societies that are outside the Orthodox Church have a conscious intention to bring the newly baptized into the Church of Christ, that is, they have the intention to impart divine grace to him through baptism 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 the 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 received with faith, there it should act grace, and there the help of Christ will not fail to appear. Any society that distorts the doctrine of God and does not recognize the trinity of holy Persons in the Godhead cannot perform correct baptism, and baptism performed in it is not baptism, because such a society stands outside Christianity. By virtue of this, the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid and salvific the baptism of any Christian community that is 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 proceed with the interpretation of this rule. - At the request of the Fathers of the Council, the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, Marcellians and Photinians, upon transition to the Orthodox Church, must first be proclaimed, and then baptism must be performed on them. The baptism of all the heretics mentioned could by no means be recognized as true. The Eunomians not only denied the equality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, but they also 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, given to us by the Lord and the Apostles, and came up with a new doctrine that it is not necessary to immerse the newly baptized three times, but only once in the death of Christ.” In Canon 50 we have already seen the condemnation of those who baptize in this way. Of what the baptism of the Montanists was, we have already spoken in the interpretation of this canon; the incorrectness of the baptism of the Montanists is quite obvious. The Sabellians, as a rule, hold the opinion of son-patrony (iopatorism, υίοπατορίαν). The expression Υίοπάτωρ is 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 Canon 1 of this Council. With such an understanding of the persons of the Holy Trinity, the Sabellians could not, of course, baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and consequently, their baptism, as not properly performed, could not be considered valid. In the same way, the baptism of Marcellians and Photinians could not be considered valid. They have also already been spoken of in the interpretation of the 1st canon of this council. In accordance with their antitrinitarian 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. Concerning 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 community 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 as catechumens and gradually began to preach to them the teachings of the Orthodox Church. In the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 49) we find a detailed exposition of the order in which the Orthodox teaching was taught to the catechumens. Then a spell was performed over them, by means of which the unclean spirit was expelled from them, which had kept them bound to a false doctrine until then. Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem and others testify that this rite was universal before baptism. After that, they had to remain for some time among the catechumens, listening to the Holy Scriptures and by examples of strict abstinence showing their firm determination to renounce the false teaching and approach the church. Gregory, Cyril, Justin, and Tertullian attest that this was a common requirement for every adult preparing for baptism. In this regard, Socrates gives us a very significant example when he tells of a deceitful Jew who wanted to be baptized without being tempted. Thus prepared, they were finally baptized.
In this rule, the novatians are called άριστεροί - leftists. It does not appear from the acts of this council 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 by the name of "left", thus reminding of 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. The same is said by Armenopoulos in his De sectis. As already said, we would rather accept the redaction where the word άριστοι is used, as in the Book of Rules, because such a redaction is justified by the whole history of the Novatians, but, according to the established plan of our work, we could not afford to deviate from the main thing for us the text of the rules of the Athens edition.
In Aristinus we also find the eighth (8) canon of this council. It reads: "Eunomians baptized by one immersion, Sabellians and Phrygi should be received in the same way as the Hellenes." It is obvious that this rule is only a fragment of the 7th rule according to the edition of the Athenian Syntagma, and therefore it is completely superfluous to talk about it separately.
Page generated in 0.09 seconds!
